Paul and the Apocalyptic Triumph: An Investigation of the Usage of Jewish and Greco-Roman Imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 2015019688, 9781433130632, 9781453915974

Citation preview

1

Paul and the Apocalyptic Triumph

1

APOCALYPTICISM CROSS-DISCIPLINARY EXPLORATIONS

PEACH

Paul and the Apocalyptic Triumph

PETER LANG

An Investigation of the Usage of Jewish and Greco-Roman Imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 MICHAEL E. PEACH

1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 has long been the quintessential Pauline text on the parousia of

1

Christ. Nowhere else does Paul reveal a more vivid picture of Christ’s coming. The apostle Paul employs a number of images to describe the parousia to the Thessalonian congregation who have become anxious, grief-stricken, and despairing in the midst of the loss of their loved ones. Until recently scholars have held that Paul’s use of imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 was either Michael E. Peach provides a fresh examination of imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 arguing that Paul synthesizes both the Jewish and Greco-Roman imagery. With careful analysis, Peach traces the history of interpretation of Pauline eschatology finding patterns of thought concerning the source of inspiration of Paul’s use of imagery. Utilizing these patterns, the author further examines the meaning and function of four images employed by Paul: “a loud command,” “the sound of an archangel,” “the trumpet of God,” and “the meeting of the Lord.” Ultimately, Peach’s discoveries demonstrate that Paul synthesizes apocalyptic and Greco-Roman triumph imagery to create a dramatic mosaic of the apocalyptic triumph, the parousia of Jesus Christ.

“Michael E. Peach’s fine investigation of Paul’s use of Jewish and Greco-Roman imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 weighs the evidence with skill and care and helps us see how Paul synthesized material from various backgrounds to paint a picture of Christ’s apocalyptic triumph which could provide the Thessalonians with a hope even more profound than the challenges they faced. It will enrich the understanding of students and scholars alike.” Roy E. Ciampa, Manager of Biblical Scholarship and Integrated Training, Nida Institute, American Bible Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania “I am happy to commend Michael E. Peach’s work on 1 Thessalonians 4. This book adds to the knowledge of Paul’s letters through its painstaking analysis of the passage. The lexical work in particular gives valuable historical background to the seminal Pauline text. Readers will also benefit from the survey on Paul and apocalyptic thought provided at the beginning of the work.”

Paul and the Apocalyptic Triumph

inspired by Greco-Roman imperial categories or Jewish apocalyptic categories.

Sean M. McDonough, Professor of New Testament, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, Massachusetts

Adjunct Professor of New Testament Studies at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary. He is the author of several articles for the Lexham Bible Dictionary and the Lexham Theological Wordbook.

PEACH

Michael E. Peach (Ph.D., New Testament, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary) is

PETER LANG

www.peterlang.com

Paul and the Apocalyptic Triumph

APOCALYPTICISM CROSS-DISCIPLINARY EXPLORATIONS

Carlos A. Segovia, Isaac W. Oliver, and Anders K. Petersen General Editors Vol. 1

This book is a volume in a Peter Lang monograph series. Every volume is peer reviewed and meets the highest quality standards for content and production.

PETER LANG

New York  Bern  Frankfurt  Berlin Brussels  Vienna  Oxford  Warsaw

MICHAEL E. PEACH

Paul and the Apocalyptic Triumph An Investigation of the Usage of Jewish and Greco-Roman Imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18

PETER LANG

New York  Bern  Frankfurt  Berlin Brussels  Vienna  Oxford  Warsaw

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Peach, Michael E. Paul and the apocalyptic triumph: an investigation of the usage of Jewish and Greco-Roman imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 / Michael E. Peach. pages cm. — (Apocalypticism: cross-disciplinary explorations; Vol. 1) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Eschatology—Biblical teaching. 2. Bible. Thessalonians, 1st, IV, 13–18— Criticism, interpretation, etc. 3. Apocalyptic literature—History and criticism. I. Title. BS2725.6.E7P43 227’.8106—dc23 2015019688 ISBN 978-1-4331-3063-2 (hardcover) ISBN 978-1-4539-1597-4 (e-book) ISSN 2377-2328 (print) ISSN 2377-2336 (online)

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the “Deutsche Nationalbibliografie”; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de/.

Cover image for Apocalypticism: Cross-disciplinary Explorations series: Photo Clara Amit, Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority

© 2016 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York 29 Broadway, 18th floor, New York, NY 10006 www.peterlang.com All rights reserved. Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm, xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited.

To my soul mate, my beautiful wife, Jennifer

table of contents

Acknowledgments xi Introduction 1 A Survey of Scholars on the Background of Paul’s Imagery 1 The Need for a Fresh Study 7 Thesis and Method 7 Chapter 1.  The History of Interpretation of Pauline Eschatology 9 Introduction 9 Component #1: The History of Interpretation from Auguste Sabatier to Henry M. Shires: A Quest to Establish the Source of Inspiration for Pauline Eschatology 11 Section #1: A Developmental Scheme to Pauline Eschatology 11 Section #2: The Developmental Approach Under Siege 16 Section #3: A Psychologically Oriented Developmental Scheme to Pauline Eschatology 20 Section #4: The Wall Between Jewish and Greco-Roman Categories of Expression Comes Down 23

viii

paul and the apocalyptic triumph Component #2: 1 Thess. 4:13–18 as a Greco-Roman Formal Reception, as a Theophany, or Influenced by Jewish Apocalyptic Assumption Motifs 29 Component #3: Is the Imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 Primarily Greco-Roman or Jewish in Nature? Trends Since Plevnik 33 Trends Since Plevnik Part 1: The Background of the Imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 Is Primarily Greco-Roman in Nature 33 Trends Since Plevnik Part 2: The Background of the Imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 Is Primarily Jewish in Nature 37 Conclusion 40 Chapter 2. The Meaning and Function of the Theophanic, Apocalyptic, and Greco-Roman Imagery Located Outside the Context of 1 Thess. 4:13–18 43 Introduction 43 Definitions 44 Theophany 44 Apocalyptic 47 The Meaning and Function of Paul’s Imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 58 Conclusion 84 Chapter 3. The Meaning and Function of the Theophanic, Apocalyptic, and Greco-Roman Imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 85 Introduction 85 Paul and Thessalonica 85 1 Thess. 4:13–18 and the Parousia 87 The Context of 1 Thess. 4:13–18 87 Euphemism for Death? Or Christian Usage for a Future Resurrection? 88 The Purpose of 1 Thess. 4:13–18 89 The Reason for Hope 92 The Destination of Those Who Have Fallen Asleep 92 Word of the Lord 93



table of contents

ix

You Will Not Be Left Behind 98 Three Attendant Circumstances 99 a`rpa,zw: Don’t Get “Carried Away” 100 The Clouds: A Vehicle or Not? 102 avpa,nthsin: The Grand Welcome 103 Conclusion 104 Conclusion 105 Notes111 Bibliography 171 Index 193

acknowledgments

This monograph is a revised version of my doctoral thesis, which was accepted at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary in October 2013. Completing this project would not be possible without the faith, hope, and love of several people. Pride of place goes to my advisor, Dr. R. Michael Kuykendall who went out of his way to make sure this project from start to finish was the best it could be. His insightful comments, encouragement, and expertise were vital throughout the completion of this thesis. I am grateful to the entire team at Peter Lang Publishing, especially Dr. Isaac Oliver, Dr. Carlos A. Segovia, and Anders K. Petersen for accepting the work for publication. Dr. D. Michael Martin of Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary and Dr. Grant R. Osborne of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School provided encouragement and helpful insights and suggestions during their examination of the thesis at Golden Gate. Special thanks go out to Dr. Sean M. McDonough and Dr. Roy E. Ciampa who read an early draft of this monograph and provided helpful comments and suggestions that contributed much to this thesis. I owe a debt of gratitude to my parents, Mr. Thomas and Mrs. Carol Peach for all their encouragement, love and support, and faith in me, without which this project would have been impossible. I also want to thank my in-laws Dr. Rafael and Mrs. Ramona Hernández for their love and support.

xii

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

Most of all, I want to thank my wife Jennifer, my love, my life, my soul mate who made many sacrifices so I could follow my dream, my passion, and my calling to write this monograph. Honey, you were my inspiration, the one who made this all possible.

introduction

1 Thess. 4:13–18 is the quintessential Pauline text on the coming of the Lord. Nowhere else does the apostle Paul reveal such a vivid portrait of the parousia of Jesus Christ. Paul expresses the parousia with a plethora of imagery. The apostle employs a number of words and phrases to paint a picture of the parousia for the congregation at Thessalonica to address the building anxiety, grief, and lack of hope which the believers had begun to experience surrounding the future of their deceased loved-ones. Until recently scholars concluded that Paul’s use of imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 had its foundation either in Greco-Roman imperial categories or Jewish categories.1

A Survey of Scholars on the Background of Paul’s Imagery In 1930 Erik Peterson published an important article that proposed that the imagery of 1 Thess. 4:13–18 is rooted in Hellenistic imagery. Peterson observed that there is a great similarity between the imperial imagery in Hellenism and Paul’s use of avpa,nthsin in 1 Thess. 4:17. He maintained that avpa,nthsin is an Hellenistic technical term used to describe the event of a group of people going out of a city to meet a visiting dignitary and then escorting that

2

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

dignitary back into the city. Peterson saw clear imperial roots attached to the word.2 The imperial visitor approaches the city and all the citizens come out to welcome him. Usually there is a great parade through the city. Thus, at the parousia, the faithful leave their civitas and meet (avpa,nthsin) Christ and follow him into their earthly city. Peterson describes this event as the Einholung of the Lord.3 According to Peterson, this technical use of avpa,nthsin would not be difficult for the Thessalonians to understand, given the Greco-Roman culture in which they lived, and the imperial cult similarities to ku,rioj, in which the imperial notable’s coming (parousi,a) would be met by the people with a grand meeting of pomp and circumstance.4 However, the Hellenistic technical interpretation has not gone without its critics. Jacques Dupont proposed a different theory for the origin of the imagery of 1 Thess. 4:13–18. Dupont suggested that Paul borrowed not from Hellenism but from the theophany imagery in Exod. 19:10–18. He maintained that the theophany imagery of the clouds, the trumpet, the descent of the Lord, and the meeting in Paul’s description of Jesus’ parousia in 1 Thess. 4:16–17, is similar and influenced by the Lord’s coming down on Mount Sinai in a cloud and with a trumpet and the Israelites going out to meet Yahweh.5 More than a few agree with Dupont’s position.6 Joseph Plevnik, a major contributor to the discussion, proposed that neither Dupont’s nor Peterson’s interpretation is sufficient.7 On the one hand, Plevnik does concur with Dupont that Paul’s source of imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 is anchored in the Jewish scriptures and apocalyptic imagery and not Hellenistic imperial imagery. On the other hand, he questions Dupont’s proposal that the theophany depicted in the LXX Exod. 19:10–18 is foundational for the imagery of 1 Thess. 4:13–18.8 Rather, he proposes that the terms ke,leusma, avrca,ggeloj, and sa,lpigx (4:16), which Paul employs to illustrate the parousia are based in early Jewish apocalyptic literature and more specifically rooted in exalted-assumption imagery.9 More recently there has been a shift from the either/or approach of Peterson, Dupont, and Plevnik to a both/and approach to the origin of the imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18. In his revised dissertation, The Eschatology of First Thessalonians, David Luckensmeyer asserts that eschatology is the “hermeneutical key” to unlock Paul’s “pattern of exhortation” in 1 Thessalonians.10 Within his analysis of 1 Thess. 4:13–18, Luckensmeyer deviates from Plevnik’s view that ke,leusma (4:16) is conclusive with theophany and Day of the Lord texts. Rather, he holds the position that there are “multiple influences,” both Jewish and Hellenistic in origin, such as imperial-political and Second Temple

introduction

3

texts.11 Luckensmeyer suggests that Plevnik’s attempts “to turn the command, or ke,leusma, into a highly theologized term referring to Christ’s coming in power ignores the wider and more generic uses of the motif in antiquity.”12 Furthermore, he questions Plevnik’s proposal that a`rpazw (4:17) only invokes a motif of Jewish apocalyptic thought.13 According to Luckensmeyer, one should not assume that “Paul uses the motif in line with Jewish apocalyptic thought.”14 Influenced by the work of Abraham J. Malherbe and Gerhard Lohfink, Luckensmeyer suggests that the motif may also come from the Hellenistic consolation traditions.15 The consolation motif is further supported by Paul’s encouragement of reassurance to the Thessalonians (4:17d-18). In a relatively lengthy section, Luckensmeyer investigates the origin of the avpa,nthsin imagery. Luckensmeyer critiques both Peterson’s and Dupont’s interpretation.16 On the one hand, Dupont appropriately questions Peterson’s lack of Jewish sources. On the other hand, Dupont overplays his hand by not dealing adequately with the inherent influence of Hellenistic formal receptions that Peterson established. Luckensmeyer is quick to point out that “even if Paul has the Sinai (and the LXX tradition) solely in mind” while he crafted eivj avpa,nthsin in 1 Thess. 4:17, the similarities with Hellenistic formal receptions is unmistakable.17 In the final analysis, after working through all the relevant primary and secondary sources, he suggests that either source, both Hellenistic formal receptions and Jewish (both apocalyptic and/or theophanic contexts) in origin may have inspired Paul’s use of imagery.18 Luckensmeyer makes a significant contribution to the debate of whether Paul’s use of imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 is either Greco-Roman or Jewish in nature. He makes an important corrective to the either/or approaches of Peterson, Dupont, and Plevnik: he acknowledges the viability of a both-and approach. The origin of Paul’s use of imagery—whether Jewish or GrecoRoman—ought not be in opposition to one another as Peterson and Dupont maintain. According to Luckensmeyer, Paul makes use of both Jewish and Greco-Roman imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18. Osvaldo D. Vena asserts in a revised and expanded edition of his dissertation, The Parousia and Its Rereadings, that the New Testament teaching of the parousia was a rereading and reappropriation of Jewish eschatological texts “done from a Sitz im Leben highly influenced culturally by Hellenism, politically by the Roman domination, and religiously by Jewish apocalyptic thought.”19 Applying his thesis to Paul’s depiction of the parousia in 1 Thess. 4:13–18, he suggests that the imagery is primarily Jewish in origin, albeit he acknowledges that Paul was influenced by a Hellenistic Sitz im Leben. Vena proposes that the

4

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

doctrine of the parousia stems from Jewish eschatology. In order to know how Paul uses certain elements of Jewish eschatology, one must understand Hellenism’s influence on that eschatology, especially in how it applies culturally, politically, and religiously.20 Agreeing with Plevnik, Vena maintains that the terms ke,leusma, avrca,ggeloj, and sa,lpigx (v. 16) have their origin primarily in apocalyptic literature, early Jewish theophany texts, and Day of the Lord traditions.21 Vena also comes to the same conclusion as Plevnik, against Peterson, that Paul describes the Einholung of the faithful in 1 Thess. 4:17 and not the Einholung of Christ.22 However, Vena does admit the possibility of imperial parousia imagery being used by Paul as well. In summary, Vena argues that Paul uses a combination of traditions in his portrayal of the parousia in 1 Thess. 4:13–18: a combination of Hellenistic parousia language and assumption language found in early Jewish and apocalyptic texts.23 Vena’s position is similar to Luckensmeyer in terms of his recognition that Paul deploys both Jewish and Hellenistic imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18. However, where Luckensmeyer stresses a Hellenistic origin, Vena stresses a more Jewish influence to the origin of the imagery. Both affirm that the origin of Paul’s use of imagery—whether Jewish or Hellenistic—ought not be in opposition to one another. Rather, Paul may have used both, while he stressed one primarily at different times and in different ways. S. Sobanaraj in his revised doctoral dissertation, entitled “Diversity in Paul’s Eschatology and Its Determinants: A Study of Selected Eschatological Themes in Paul’s Letters,” moves the either/or or both/and debate in terms of the origin of Paul’s use of imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 further.24 Sobanaraj’s thesis analyzes “the problem of diversity in Paul’s eschatology and attempts to unfold the riddles that shroud the eschatological perspectives of Paul in the context of delay of the parousia.”25 In doing so, he hopes to investigate “the problem of diversity in Paul’s eschatology from the perspective of the role of the different concepts of time (linear versus cyclic time), Paul’s moderate appropriation of dualistic categories and his use of eschatological language for functional purposes that appear to have made Paul’s eschatology a complex scheme.”26 Sobanaraj suggests that Pauline eschatology at its core is complex and relies on a wide variety of images to articulate its function in the lives of the various congregations of Paul. His modus operandi has three components: historical-critical, literary critical analysis, and a “functional sociological approach.”27 Sobanaraj employs several passages to make his case.

introduction

5

Sobanaraj suggests that the images of ke,leusma, avrca,ggeloj, and sa,lpigx in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 have their origin primarily in Hellenistic categories. However, he does leave a small opening to the effect that the imageries, especially sa,lpigx, have origins in Jewish apocalyptic and/or theophany imagery.28 He also proposes that the use of sa,lpigx was employed by Paul to grab the attention of the Greeks in the congregation.29 Meanwhile, Sobanaraj understands the use of assumption imagery (a`rpazw) as fundamentally apocalyptic in nature.30 Sobanaraj investigates the work of Peterson, Dupont, and Plevnik on the term avpa,nthsij and concludes that it is primarily a Hellenistic term. Sobanaraj does not rule out the possibility that Paul was inspired by Jewish apocalyptic and theophany texts when he used the term. In the final analysis, “we cannot overlook the political connotation of the term” given the tensions of the Thessalonian situation.31 Overall, Sobanaraj’s investigation of the origin of the imagery in the context of 1 Thess. 4:13–18 proposes that Paul may have blended and mixed the Jewish and Hellenistic imagery traditions at times, while primarily applying the whole of the imagery from a Hellenistic origin. He also claims that Paul did so “without proper framework, which made his presentation vague” and ambiguous at points.32 However, Sobanaraj fails to mention that the blending and mixing of Jewish and Greco-Roman imagery may have been Paul’s actual intended framework. Sobanaraj does move the debate forward. Where Luckensmeyer implies that Paul may have both Jewish and Hellenistic categories in mind, it is Sobanaraj who leaves the door open that at times Paul may have mixed them. Where Vena suggests that Paul employs a combination of Hellenistic and Jewish imagery, albeit he stresses the Jewish influence of the imagery, it is Sobanaraj who proposes a blending of the imagery at times, while overall stressing that the imagery of 1 Thess. 4:13–18 is primarily Hellenistic in origin. Joel Duncan Black in his 2004 Master of Theology thesis, entitled “The Parousia: Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide (1 Thess. 4:13–5:11),” maintains that “traditional Jewish imagery is found alongside Hellenistic political imagery,” while at the same time he locates the ultimate origin of all the imagery in Judaism.33 Black surveys the landscape on the origin of Paul’s use of imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18. He concludes that many scholars, such as Adolf Deissmann, Erik Peterson, Jacques Dupont, Joseph Plevnik, and others create an either/or dichotomy that Paul does not intend to make. Inspired by several

6

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

articles in Troels Engberg-Pedersen’s edited collection of essays, entitled Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide, Black proposes that one ought to move beyond the dichotomy to a more both-and approach, whereby Paul “takes into account the diverse elements and traditions of his cultural context” and uses them to address the Thessalonians’ situation.34 He warns that “all elements— Jewish and Hellenistic—should not be given equal weight” in every circumstance, for Paul’s primary frame of reference was Jewish in origin.35 Black employs seven criteria from Richard B. Hays’ literary-critical approach of intertextuality in Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul to show that Paul does not “confine himself to allusions and echoes of only Jewish or Hellenistic origin.”36 Black gives credence to a both-and approach. Furthermore, he points out the error of a Deissmann, Peterson, Dupont, or Plevnik either-or approach. While they highlight that the imagery comes from only one origin, Jewish or Hellenistic, these scholars do not do justice to the other or the reason behind why Paul uses either one.37 In summary, Black suggests that “Jewish apocalyptic motifs are seen alongside Hellenistic political vocabulary,” which itself is born out of Jewish apocalyptic.38 The language was used by Paul to challenge the Roman establishment, in terms of the decrees of Caesar, to address the Caesar cult, and to comfort those who are suffering within the Thessalonica congregation.39 According to Black, Paul describes the parousia in apocalyptic language from a wide range and at times mixed imagery, to address the Thessalonian situation with the purpose to bring them hope and encourage them to pay attention to the apocalyptic battle that is being waged between God and the nations and those “who put themselves up against Him—the Roman Empire.”40 Black contributes much to the debate. He picks up where Luckensmeyer left off. Black launches a more trenchant criticism about the either-or dichotomy than Luckensmeyer. He reaffirms the necessity of a both-and position to understand the origin of Paul’s use of imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18. While Black holds that Judaism is the ultimate origin of the imagery, he acknowledges Paul’s use of Hellenistic imagery. Black also reaffirms Sobanaraj’s position that at times Paul may have combined or mixed imageries. For example, Black recognizes that both salpi,ggi and avpa,nthsij may have Jewish and Hellenistic roots. However, Black fails to describe in detail why or how each approach, whether either/or or both/and, is best or whether there is a better choice at all. That is not Black’s purpose. His purpose is to move scholarship beyond the Judaism/ Hellenistic-dichotomy-either/or-battles and into a more collegial both/and possibility. Ultimately, Black’s purpose is to highlight that Paul could have used

introduction

7

both Hellenistic and Jewish imagery at times in articulating the parousia, with the function to address a diverse congregation with a particular need.

The Need for a Fresh Study There is a need for a fresh analysis of a both-and approach in terms of the origin of Paul’s use of imagery—whether Jewish and/or Greco-Roman—in 1 Thess. 4:13–18. While Luckensmeyer, Vena, Sobanaraj, and Black all recognize the weaknesses of the either-or approach of Peterson, Dupont, and Plevnik, they all tend to move the debate two steps forward and one step back. Luckensmeyer affirms a both-and position, but ultimately reiterates a neo-Peterson view. Vena affirms a both-and approach, but in the final analysis reverts to a quasi-Plevnik/Dupont position in that the ultimate origin of Paul’s usage is Jewish in nature. Vena does concede a Hellenistic Sitz im Leben within which Paul lived and ministered that could be the foundation for what kind of imagery Paul employs. Sobanaraj agrees with Vena and Luckensmeyer in their support of a both-and approach. But Sobanaraj fails to accept a coherent framework to Paul’s possible mixture of imagery origins, leaving the door open to an ad hoc hermeneutical approach to Paul. He also proposes that the imagery of 1 Thess. 4:13–18 is mostly Hellenistic in nature. Black is the most fervent supporter of a both-and approach in the group. Furthermore, he confirms the weaknesses of the either-or approach, but fails to articulate a stance himself in the debate. Black is more concerned with the recognition of a both-and approach to Paul’s use of imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18, than to reveal the specific details on what such a position would look like. On the one hand, he does enlighten us to the fact that there is a coherent methodological framework, which Sobanaraj fails to recognize, to Paul’s use of echo and allusion: Paul does not limit the scope or diversity of his sources. On the other hand, he never reveals in great detail what those sources are. He only asserts that they most likely may be Jewish or Hellenistic, albeit in the end he holds that all the imagery has its origin in Jewish categories of expression.

Thesis and Method This study will undertake an investigation of the imagery Paul uses in 1 Thess. 4:13–18. It will not be a rehash or merely an interaction with previous

8

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

scholars, but will build upon their work and present a fresh hypothesis. The investigation will demonstrate that Paul blends the Jewish and Greco-Roman imagery. Such an amalgamation was done for three reasons: 1) to unite the congregation in the midst of persecution; 2) to reveal to them that a description of the imagery of the parousia of Christ can be illustrated by images and terms that are both Greco-Roman and Jewish; and 3) to convey eschatological hope to the diverse congregation at Thessalonica who grieve over the loss of their loved ones. Chapter one will consist of three parts. The first part of chapter one will trace the history of interpretation from Auguste Sabatier to Henry M. Shires. It will show how these scholars view the source of inspiration for Pauline eschatology in terms of whether Pauline eschatology developed from Jewish categories to Greco-Roman categories, whether it was essentially Jewish in nature, or whether there was a possible mixture of both Jewish and GrecoRoman categories. It will provide needed background and foundation for the more specific trends of the origin and source of imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 that will be covered in parts two and three. Part two of chapter one will establish the three main trends, Peterson to Plevnik, in terms of the Jewish and/ or Greco-Roman origins of the imagery of 1 Thess. 4:13–18. Part three will provide an overview of the various positions of scholars who were inspired by Peterson, Dupont, and Plevnik. Chapter two will investigate the meaning and function of four images— the loud command, voice of an archangel, the trumpet of God, and the grand meeting in the air—that Paul employs in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 as they are found outside this context. It will establish that all four of these imageries are found in theophanic contexts, apocalyptic, and Greco-Roman texts, have an amalgamation of motifs and a synthesis of function. Chapter three will analyze how Paul synthesizes the imagery within the context of 1 Thess. 4:13–18. It will reveal that Paul’s purpose was to reestablish the hope the Thessalonian community lost in the midst of the death of their loved ones.

·1· the history of interpretation of pauline eschatology

Introduction Wayne A. Meeks in his 2001 article “Judaism, Hellenism, and the Birth of Christianity” proposes an important question: “Why must it be assumed that when Judaism and Hellenism meet, it must be on a battleground?”1 Until the middle of the twentieth century, the thought was that these two worldviews and cultures, during the time of Paul the apostle, were at odds with each other and never amalgamated. It was assumed that there was a great divide between the two. Judaism was on one side. Hellenism was on the other. However, today the tide has turned. A consensus is growing and has been growing that the relationship between Judaism and Hellenism is much more hospitable.2 Scholars have found that first century Judaism was indeed influenced by Hellenism, especially in the Diaspora.3 There is no question that Paul lived and worked within this variegated community. The present chapter will trace the history of interpretation of Pauline eschatology and how it sheds light on the question of the both-and relationship between Judaism and Hellenism. More specifically, it will trace the history of how scholars of the last 125 years have viewed the source of inspiration for Paul’s eschatology in terms of whether his eschatology developed from

10

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

Jewish categories of expression to more Hellenistic ones, whether his eschatology was simply Jewish in nature, or whether there was a possible mixture of both Jewish and Hellenistic categories. Chapter one consists of three main components. The first component traces the history of interpretation from Auguste Sabatier to Henry M. Shires with regard to how these scholars view the source of inspiration for Pauline eschatology in terms of whether it developed from Jewish categories to Greco-Roman categories, was essentially Jewish in nature, or whether there was a possible mixture of both Jewish and Greco-Roman categories. This component provides needed background and foundation to the more specific trends dealing with the origin and source of imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18. Component one is broken up into four separate sections: 1) “A Developmental Scheme to Pauline Eschatology.” This section analyzes the thought of Auguste Sabatier, Otto Pfleiderer, and Ernst Teichmann. These three scholars in their own way propose that Paul’s thought progressively developed from Jewish apocalyptic categories to Greco-Roman; 2) “The Developmental Approach Under Siege.” Section two traces the thought of Richard Kabisch, Henry A. A. Kennedy, and Albert Schweitzer who all found weaknesses in the developmental approach and advocated that Jewish apocalyptic categories are central to Pauline eschatology; 3) “A Psychologically Oriented Developmental Scheme to Pauline Eschatology.” The third section analyzes the proposals of Charles H. Dodd and Wilfred L. Knox who proposed a theory that a crisis in the apostle’s mission led to a development in his eschatology; 4) “The Wall between Jewish and Hellenistic Categories of Expression to Paul’s Eschatology Comes Down.” The fourth and final section of component one covers the contributions of William D. Davies, Hans J. Schoeps, and Henry M. Shires to the destruction of this wall between Jewish and Greco-Roman categories of expression. The second component, “1 Thess. 4:13–18 as a Greco-Roman Formal Reception, as a Theophany, or Influenced by Jewish Apocalyptic Assumption Motifs,” establishes the three main trends, respectively Erik Peterson, Jacques Dupont, and Joseph Plevnik, in terms of whether the imagery in



the history of interpretation of pauline eschatology

11

1 Thess. 4:13–18 is influenced by Jewish theophany texts, Jewish apocalyptic categories, or Greco-Roman origins. The third and final component provides an overview of the various positions of scholars who were inspired by Peterson, Dupont, and Plevnik. This component is subdivided into two parts. The first part surveys the thought of Robert H. Gundry, Helmut Koester, and James R. Harrison and their conclusion that the imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 is primarily influenced by Greco-Roman backgrounds.4 The second and final part of component three surveys the thought of Albertus F. J. Klijn, Charles A. Wanamaker, and Randall E. Otto who maintain that the background of the imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 is primarily influenced by Jewish apocalyptic thought.

Component #1: The History of Interpretation from Auguste Sabatier to Henry M. Shires: A Quest to Establish the Source of Inspiration for Pauline Eschatology Section #1: A Developmental Scheme to Pauline Eschatology Scholars in the late nineteenth to early twentieth centuries followed a developmental scheme for understanding Pauline eschatology. This section briefly analyzes three such scholars—Auguste Sabatier, Otto Pfleiderer, and Ernst Teichmann. Auguste Sabatier Auguste Sabatier is the first to argue for a developmental scheme to Pauline eschatology. According to Sabatier, Paul’s thought was the outworking of his experience. Thereby, as his experience changed and developed, so did his thought.5 He is critical of both the “orthodoxy of the past” approach as well as the approach of the Tübingen School. The former assumes that Paul “received his doctrinal system from heaven complete in its dialectical organization and its exegetical demonstration.”6 The latter envisions a Paul whom, after his conversion, led a private and secluded life as a philosopher who thought his way to the doctrinal system that was central to his thought and praxis. Both approaches, in the final analysis, assume that Paul’s doctrine came packaged from the start in ribbons of development.7

12

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

Paul is no philosopher in the way the Tübingen School might like to think. For Sabatier, Paul is a missionary at heart. He is a skillful practitioner. He is a thoughtful theologian. He is a man who carefully crafts his skill and applies practical Christian solutions to seemingly difficult pagan problems. His thought is always in a state of progress and development. As his experiences change so does his theological application. His letters are not theological treatises. “They are in reality acts of Paul’s apostolic life, weapons of warfare or means of instruction, and living manifestations from time to time of the apostle’s heart and will, as well as of his genius.”8 Sabatier traces the development of Paul’s thought from the apostle’s conversion to his death. He proposes that there are three different stages to the development. Sabatier entitles the first stage, “Primitive Paulinism.” 9 It traces the apostle’s conversion in his epistle to the Galatians and the missionary discourses in Acts and Thessalonians. The first stage is characterized as an adolescent system of thought.10 The second stage of development is entitled, “Paulinism of the Great Epistles.” 11 This stage covers Galatians to the time he is imprisoned.12 It is characterized by the “virile and heroic age of his mind.”13 The third and final stage of the apostle’s development of his theology covers from his captivity to his death. It is entitled, “Paulinism of Later Days.”14 For Sabatier, Paulinism is characterized by a slow, methodical, and progressive development from a theology entrenched in Judaism to a theology which is rich with Hellenistic categories of expression. Sabatier asserts that Paul’s conversion was in fact the “negation of the Jewish principle” and the shift towards a more Gentile audience and message. The presentation of the gospel and its characteristics became more and more Hellenistic.15 The apostle’s eschatology developed from Jewish categories of expression in Thessalonians to a more progressive one in 2 Corinthians as he interacted with the Hellenistic environment.16 Sabatier expresses that the apostle shifted his eschatological categories between 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians. The message of eschatological hope in 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians has been removed for a more sober message of trial and tribulation in 2 Corinthians. By the time of 2 Corinthians a development in Paul has occurred. The events at Ephesus and the crisis it caused in his thought led him no longer to believe he would see the parousia during his lifetime.17 The crisis finally led Paul to throw off his chains of the last remnants of traditional Jewish eschatology of the Pharisees.18



the history of interpretation of pauline eschatology

13

From henceforth he is happy and contented; his mind has discovered its true bent, and he now feels that the various elements of his faith are brought into full and perfect harmony. If the earthly future is darkened, shrinking and closing up before his gaze, in the heavenly future there is revealed to his soul a new, wide, and luminous prospect. The mournful conception of Sheol vanishes from his mind; and with it the Messianic framework of the Jewish apocalypse gives way. Instead of the unconscious sleep of souls in the bosom of the earth, there emerges triumphant the Christian hope of the immediate reunion of the elect with the Saviour (2 Cor. 5:1–10). True, the struggle between the power of the Gospel and that of sin here on earth will be prolonged. Paul has no doubt that it will issue at last in the full triumph of Christ and His glorious advent; but he no longer attempts to estimate the length, or foresee the phases of this great drama. Like Jesus, and with the same filial submission, he leaves in the hands of God the Father the destiny of His kingdom. The spiritual principle of Christianity everywhere prevails. Death henceforth is completely vanquished and overcome by the Christian consciousness.19

The eschatological language of 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians reveal that Paul could only “direct [the congregations’] expectation and faith to the impending event of the coming of Jesus, and assure them that the dead will then rise first of all, and, with the living, share his triumph.”20 In 2 Cor. 5:1–10, Paul juxtaposes the death of the outer man with the new life of the inner man. The inner man’s “principle of life is the spirit of God himself, whereby the inner man is delivered from [the outer man].”21 According to Sabatier, as one approaches Ephesians and Colossians, the apostle has moved further and further away from Jewish eschatological categories of expression, for his audience has become more and more Hellenistic.22 The imminence of the parousia in Thessalonians and Corinthians has been silenced by its delay. Sabatier suggests that when one arrives at Ephesians and Colossians, Paul’s overall thought has switched from Jewish categories of expression to Hellenistic and primitive Gnostic categories of expression. Terms such as plh,rwma and aivw/nej (Eph. 1:10; 2:7), while they preserve their historical meaning, acquire a Gnostic “metaphysical significance, which they did not possess in the previous epistles.”23 These Gnostic terms give evidence for Paul’s primitive Gnostic philosophy. The Gnostic terms that Paul uses do not suggest a second century date because he uses them. Their use shows the progression, development, and advance of his thought. Thus, Sabatier believes Paul’s use of these Gnostic terms are inevitable, for that is where his thought was ultimately going as he engaged more and more with the Hellenistic Sitz im Leben.

14

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

Otto Pfleiderer Otto Pfleiderer, like Sabatier, proposed a developmental approach to Pauline eschatology. Pfleiderer, a pupil of Hermann Lüdemann, argued that the apostle’s eschatology was broken up into two divergent “branches”: Jewish and Hellenistic.24 But unlike Sabatier, who suggested that Paul abandoned Jewish categories of expression for Hellenistic ones, Pfleiderer retained the tension between the Jewish and Hellenistic branches of his eschatology. The retention of this tension between the Jewish and Hellenistic elements led to a Pauline eschatology ripe with inconsistency and antinomy. Under the Jewish vestiges were ideas such as the final day of judgment—the coming judgment (The Day of the Lord; e.g., 1 Thess. 5:2; 1 Cor. 1:8; 5:5)—wrought with the judicial concepts of performance and reward; the parousia and resurrection; the Messianic reign that begins immediately after the parousia (1 Cor. 15:24–25); the close proximity of the parousia that renders the immediate state irrelevant (1 Thess. 4:15–17; 1 Cor. 15:52); and the final destruction of the last enemy death. Under the “Christian gospel,” or more Hellenistic elements, were the completion of salvation for all and the apprehension of sonship and favor as promised by God; life in Christ by the indwelling Spirit (e.g., Rom. 8:9–11; 21, 23; 2 Cor. 5:5); the change of the earthly body into a new body that is clothed with a heavenly body and the subsequent and immediate union with Christ, thus, making the need for a Messianic reign moot (2 Cor. 5:1–10; Phil. 1:23).25 Pfleiderer’s understanding of Paul “made no attempt” to reconcile or acclimate these two sets of eschatological ideas.26 The consequence, is that it is here least of all possible to obtain a coherent representation of his views; on the contrary, we meet everywhere either with actual contradictions or at least with inconsistencies, which it is the business of our exegesis simply to note as such, and to explain genetically, instead of reconciling them according to our own arbitrary judgment.27

Paul’s eschatology consisted of two separate categories of expression, Jewish and Hellenistic, that the apostle unconsciously or consciously thought could be kept perfectly “harmlessly side-by-side” without any need to resolve the inherent inconsistency they contained.28 Fourteen years later, after acknowledging that Paul’s eschatology does consist of both Jewish and Hellenistic elements, he revisits the possibility of



the history of interpretation of pauline eschatology

15

the apostle’s eschatology being Hellenized in his later years.29 Pfleiderer argues that Paul moved away from his Jewish ways of thinking and adopted more Hellenistic ways to express his eschatology as he engaged more and more in the Hellenistic resources and environment in which he traveled. Pfleiderer affirms that Paul moved from the more Jewish eschatological concepts in 1 Thessalonians 4–5 (e.g., corporeal resurrection), to implicit Hellenistic concepts in 1 Corinthians 15, to explicit and dominant Hellenistic eschatological concepts in 2 Cor. 5:1–10 and Phil. 1:20. According to Pfleiderer, while Paul’s thought develops from Jewish categories of expression to more Hellenistic ones, the apostle never totally removed his Jewish ways of thinking, for they both received equal attention.30 He maintains that there is great duality in Paul between Jewish and Hellenistic ideas, which he uses together without ever synthesizing them. Pfleiderer was one of the first to claim that Paul used two distinct categories of expression in his eschatology. Ernst Teichmann Ernst Teichmann, influenced by Pfleiderer, wrote a monograph in opposition to Richard Kabisch’s critique of the developmental scheme in Paul, to address the apostle’s conception of resurrection and judgment.31 Teichmann reconstructs Paul’s view of the resurrection of the dead into three stages as a progression from Jewish apocalyptic thought to Hellenistic wisdom spirituality.32 In the first stage Paul affirms the resurrection of the dead, which occurs at the parousia, and consists of corpses being awakened from their Schlafähnlichen Zustande (1 Thess. 4:13–17). The content of this first stage was steeped in Jewish apocalyptic imagery. The parousia and resurrection emerged from Judaism and was a psychological necessity for Paul. The more the apostle thought of his own death and the possible immediacy of it, the more entrenched the doctrine of the parousia became.33 The difference between the first stage and the second stage (1 Corinthians 15) is the introduction of the idea of transformation, which forced the apostle into the teaching of the “body” and “spirit.”34 Where 1 Thessalonians 4 is silent concerning transformation, 1 Corinthians 15 is steeped in it.35 The true Jewish concept of the resurrection shines through the earthly body. But now in the second stage everything that belongs to the “flesh” is utterly destroyed and only the “spirit” remains.36 In the third stage (2 Cor. 5:1–10; Phil. 1:21–24), the word resurrection can only be used in a figurative sense because the basis of the selected term is

16

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

no longer covered.37 Now the possession of the Spirit will save the believers, not just the resurrection at the parousia. “Denn der Christ kann nun sofort in die völlige Gemeinschaft mit Christus gelangen, indem er vermöge seines himmlischen sw/ma an der himmlischen Welt teilhat.”38 The venue of the court as the place of happiness is no longer on earth (1 Thess. 4:17), but in heaven (2 Cor. 5:1; Phil. 1:21–24). By the time of 2 Corinthians the resurrection became unnecessary.39 Death had become an entrance into a higher life. Union with Christ became an even greater significance than the resurrection: Hellenistic mysticism had trumped the resurrection.40 Jetzt war keine Auferstehung der Toten, kein Herabsteigen des Christus mehr nötig. Denn die himmlische Welt brauchte nicht mehr auf die Erde sich herabzusenken, seitdem ein Emporsteigen des Unvergänglichen im Menschen in die Himmel möglich geworden war.41

For Teichmann this change from Jewish ideas to Hellenistic ones lived in the consciousness of Paul, but was not fully developed until his later epistles. “Die eigentümliche Mischung von Jüdischem und Hellenischem war seine tägliche Nahrung gewesen.”42 These beliefs were part of his early training. As he interacted with various groups the ideas of these groups were gradually able to break forth (e.g., Hellenistic wisdom spirituality). Sabatier, Pfleiderer, and Teichmann all saw Paul’s thought as a developmental progression from Jewish apocalyptic categories of expression to Hellenistic mysticism. This chapter will now turn to three scholars who took issue with the developmental approach.

Section #2: The Developmental Approach Under Siege Richard Kabisch, Henry A. A. Kennedy, and Albert Schweitzer found several weaknesses in the developmental approach to Paul. They advocate that Paul’s thought is entirely eschatological and influenced by Jewish apocalyptic thought. Richard Kabisch Richard Kabisch rejects the developmental approaches to Paul of those who came before him (e.g., Sabatier, Lüdemann, Pfleiderer). In 1893 Kabisch’s monograph Die Eschatologie des Paulus became the first treatise on the redemption of humanity since Lüdemann’s Die Anthropologie des Apostels Paulus. While Lüdemann and Kabisch both grapple to understand what links Paul’s thoughts together, they diverge on the question of what is the apostle’s primary



the history of interpretation of pauline eschatology

17

contextual influence. The former maintains that Paul’s idea of redemption is ultimately Hellenistic in nature, whereas the latter understands it as primarily eschatological and centered in Jewish apocalyptic concepts. For Kabisch, Paul’s doctrine of salvation is centered in the cosmic deliverance of mankind from judgment and destruction. The destruction of the world’s powers and the practical ramifications thereof are firmly established and grounded in eschatology.43 Reconciliation and justification by faith are now subservient to this eschatological notion. Eschatology, once merely a footnote to Paul’s thought, is the “das treibende Motiv des Urchristentums.”44 Kabisch argues that Paul’s life and hope is centered on the end of corruption and the gift of incorruption (1 Cor. 15:42–49). The future life is anticipated in the Spirit, which is a gift of the heavenly glory in the present.45 But where Lüdemann sees this concept as Hellenistic in nature, Kabisch insists that Paul’s doctrine of the Spirit can only be explained in light of Jewish apocalyptic thought. Kabisch is adamant that Paul preaches a death that is physical and a zukünftiges Leben that is real.46 Henry Angus Alexander Kennedy Henry Angus Alexander Kennedy maintains that eschatology is of prime importance to understand the whole of Paul’s thought. But Kennedy clarifies that this eschatology is not in any fashion to be construed in a systematic or programmatic structure.47 Agreeing with Adolf Deissmann, Kennedy does not hold the position that Paul wrote a de novissimis.48 In Pauline eschatology “we find, indeed, many distinct and momentous affirmations, many fragments of doctrines, respecting certain facts and events of the End.”49 Kennedy maintains that his eschatology is primarily Jewish in nature and carries with it little from Hellenistic influences of thought.50 According to Kennedy the developmental scheme of Pfleiderer, Teichmann, and Robert Henry Charles is “literalistic” and “pedantic” at best.51 Instead, “Paul’s eschatological conceptions have a far greater mutual congruity than some recent investigators have been willing to recognize.”52 The “very brief space of time” with which Paul wrote his letters ought to make us question the developmental approach.53 It is better to examine the possible crisis in Paul’s experience that caused him to reassess his position. It is the thought that he had this crisis between 1 and 2 Corinthians or that the terrible perils he went through at Ephesus caused this development.54 But it must be kept in mind that a person can have a multiplicity of thought (e.g., the several ways, symbols, metaphors of expressing his or her eschatology).55

18

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

James Denney makes this point more vividly: “To suppose that a great expansion of his [Paul’s] thoughts took place between the letters of Thessalonians and Corinthians, is to ignore at once the chronology, the nature of letters, and the nature of the human mind.”56 For Kennedy, Paul used “pictorial” symbols and metaphors to speak to his readers about eschatological concepts, which they might not understand otherwise.57 Paul’s expression of his eschatology was driven by the situation of the churches he addressed, and adapted for his audience without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In order for Paul to convey his eschatological concepts, “he employed the only kind of terms which would convey the lessons he sought to enforce upon his hearers.”58 While at times Kennedy’s examination of Pauline eschatology borders on an ad hoc and incoherent approach, his insight into the apostle’s use of metaphor and symbolism is definitely worth exploring. Albert Schweitzer In his 1912 monograph, Paul and His Interpreters, Albert Schweitzer surveyed the landscape of the views of Paul’s thought from F. C. Baur to his own and concluded that the apostle’s thought is “at its starting-point exclusively Jewish-eschatological.”59 According to Schweitzer, former scholars suggested that if Paul’s thought did not develop from Jewish, that is, Jewish eschatological, to Hellenistic ways of thought, then “how” would the apostle actualize the presentation to the Greeks?60 Schweitzer then launches into a trenchant critique of the developmental approach of many scholars who came before him. He vehemently argues that these developmental schemes lack firm footing, for they are mostly unfounded assertions. “One almost gets the impression that the assumption of different stages of thought was chiefly useful as a way of escaping the difficulty about the inner unity of the [Paul’s] system.”61 Schweitzer finds it hard to understand why earlier scholars, such as Sabatier, Lüdemann, and Pfleiderer, did not notice the “close affinities” of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch with that of Paul. Schweitzer critiques that they are so “obsessed with the idea that the teachings of Paul were a ‘personal creation,’ that they cannot see that his thought may have come out of the religious problems that were struggling for a solution.”62 They seem unable to notice the connection that separate statements between the so-called development from 1 Thessalonians to 2 Corinthians, may in fact have mutual relations or meanings.63 Schweitzer affirms that



the history of interpretation of pauline eschatology

19

the [main] point to examine would therefore have been precisely how the ‘Pauline theology’ grew out of the eschatology which Paul shared with primitive Christianity. Instead of that, these writers begin with the ‘doctrinal system’ and attach to that by way of appendix an account of the eschatology.64

Another difficulty with scholars who attempt to Hellenize Paul’s thought is the trap that his “views have to be more and more spiritualized in proportion as the Greek element is emphasized.”65 Schweitzer concludes his findings on his study with a warning.66 Those who maintain that Paul’s thought is a fifty-fifty split of Jewish and Hellenistic categories are in an even worse shape than those who want to neglect the latter influence on the apostle’s thought. Those who suggest that Paul began the Hellenization of Christianity have walked into a cul-de-sac in which it is impossible to turn around. For once one starts down that road he or she becomes entangled within the “jungle of antinomies” in which there is no escape.67 The solution to this problem is to “[leave] out of the question of Greek influence in every form and in every combination, and venturing on the ‘one-sidedness’ of endeavoring to understand the doctrine of the apostle of the Gentiles entirely on the basis of Jewish primitive Christianity.”68 In the preface of his 1931 magnum opus on Paul, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, Schweitzer reiterates that any combination of Jewish apocalyptic thought and Hellenistic categories of expression is unwarranted.69 Paul’s sententia is purely eschatological. He was not the Hellenizer of Christianity, but “in his eschatological mysticism of the being-in-Christ he gave it a form in which it could be Hellenized.”70 To reemphasize the point that Paul’s eschatological mysticism is in no way compatible with Hellenism, Schweitzer combats Richard Reitzenstein and Wilhelm Bousset on their approach that there is a synthesis of Jewish and Hellenistic mystery religions in Paul.71 Schweitzer is critical of Reitzenstein’s approach.72 First, he fails to acknowledge that Paul’s thought does not mention a concept of rebirth, but he does mention Jewish ideas such as predestination, which is tied with eschatology, or Hellenistic ones that do not articulate Paul’s use of “in Christ” and mystical body of Christ, that are contrary to the mystery religions that Reitzenstein proposes. Second, he makes a false assumption that “the same expressions which occur in the Hellenistic mystery-faiths, must also have received his ideas from this source,” not to mention that the literature that Reitzenstein uses actually refer to a much later date.73 Schweitzer also lambasts Bousset. Bousset asserts that Paul was directly influenced by the Kyrios cultus, which he suggests the Hellenistic churches

20

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

seemingly took over. However, Schweitzer argues that it cannot be shown that they influenced Paul, even if there is proof that the Kyrios cultus texts existed. All this proves is that “Hellenistic Greek Kyrios was the most usual designation of a divine being, and this indeed is already evidenced by the fact that the Septuagint renders the unspeakable name [Yahweh] by Kyrios.”74 Thus, Schweitzer affirms that the mysticism of the apostle Paul is fundamentally eschatological in its detail and in its entirety and is not derived from Hellenism. Schweitzer summarizes his attack on Reitzenstein, Bousset, and others (see above) who stubbornly adhere to an untenable position that Paul’s thought is fundamentally rooted in Hellenism. Since all his [Paul’s] conceptions and thought are rooted in eschatology, those who labor to explain him on the basis of Hellenism, are like a man who should bring water from a long distance in leaky watering-cans in order to water a garden lying beside a stream.75

Kabisch, Kennedy, and Schweitzer found a new way to understand Paul’s thought. They proposed that the apostle’s thought is understood entirely as eschatological in nature and influenced by Jewish apocalyptic concepts. Others found that placing too high a premium on the eschatological aspect of Paul’s thought carried several weaknesses of its own.

Section #3: A Psychologically Oriented Developmental Scheme to Pauline Eschatology Two scholars in particular in the 1930s noticed that there was a way to uphold the developmental approach to Paul’s thought. This section briefly analyzes the proposals of Charles H. Dodd and Wilfred L. Knox. Charles Harold Dodd Charles H. Dodd is the chief advocate of realized eschatology.76 George B. Caird has praised Dodd as the one “who rescued New Testament scholarship from the cul-de-sac into which Johannes Weiss and Schweitzer had directed it.”77 Dodd advocates that prior to his Damascus road experience, Paul was influenced by the eschatological concepts in 1 Enoch, 2 Baruch, and especially 4 Ezra.78 But when he became a Christian “his new beliefs were fitted into this framework.”79 The age to come had already begun with the resurrection of Christ. Dodd maintains that in 1 Thessalonians Paul believes that the parousia is imminent and that he will be alive to witness it. In 1 Corinthians Paul still



the history of interpretation of pauline eschatology

21

feels that the parousia is imminent, but there has been a change in the apostle’s emphasis. “Whereas in 1 Thessalonians it is distinctly exceptional for a Christian to die before the advent, in 1 Corinthians he has to assure his readers that not all Christians will die.”80 But by the time of 2 Corinthians Paul maintains that he will no longer be alive at the parousia. Dodd presents that while logically it makes little difference, psychologically it does. The event has gone from something Paul could hope to experience first hand to something that seemed in the distant future. While the parousia is still awaited it is awaited with little urgency, for what he hoped for is already here.81 In Philippians “the eschatological expectation has come to be subordinated to the thought of the heavenly life (the life of the new age) lived here and now.”82 Paul’s thought was neither wholly eschatological nor mystical. But his thought did go through a stage of development around the time of 2 Corinthians.83 The cause of this development, suggests Dodd, may have happened between the time of writing 1 and 2 Corinthians. Paul’s change in his eschatology, the natural order of things, and his apparent growth of universalism may account for the spiritual change Dodd implies. However, one thing is clear these changes have one common characteristic: they all involve the transcending of a certain harsh dualism—the dualism of ‘things of the Lord’ and ‘things of the world,’ of ‘this age’ and ‘the age to come,’ of the ‘elect’ and the rest of humanity. This dualism is very deeply rooted in the apocalyptic eschatology which moulded the Weltanschauung with which Paul began; but he outgrew it.84

Dodd notices a shift within Paul’s thought from a more Jewish apocalyptic eschatological framework (e.g., 1 Thessalonians 4–5), which was oriented towards the future, to a more realized and Hellenistic approach in 2 Corinthians 5. Dodd’s Paul is one who went through a crisis in his thinking that arose from a psychology and personal spiritual development.85 While Dodd is to be commended for his insight and influence into later more focused psychological approaches to Paul’s thought, his over-realized eschatological approach ignores the future aspect to the apostle’s eschatology.86 Wilfred L. Knox Wilfred L. Knox, a contemporary of Dodd’s, proposes that it was not a “crisis of conviction” that led to Paul’s development away from Jewish categories of expression to more Hellenistic ones. It was Paul’s devotion to his mission to the Gentiles that brought the change in his approach.87 As Paul’s

22

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

audience became more and more Hellenistic he adapted his message to the “conventional language of Hellenistic theology.”88 The contextualization of his thought to his present day context is central in understanding the apostle’s epistles.89 Knox asserts that it was Paul’s message to the philosophers of Athens on the Areopagus that “revealed the limitations of the apocalyptic version of Christianity which he had been content to accept from the Church of Palestine.”90 In the Areopagus speech Paul communicates his gospel in terms of Hellenistic Jewish philosophy, for that is the context within which Paul lived.91 This was a turning point for Paul. From this point onwards Paul’s message in his epistles takes on a more Hellenistic flavor. According to Knox, in 2 Corinthians 5, Paul’s devotion to his missionary call accommodated Hellenistic philosophy further to the point that 2 Cor. 5:1–10 become the focal point of Paul’s “complete revision of Pauline eschatology in a Hellenistic sense.”92 Paul made the earthen vessel, the body, the “tabernacle of the soul,” “the garment which it was anxious to cast aside, the burden from which it longed to be delivered.”93 Knox argues that “Paul was too good a Jew and too poor a Hellenist to describe the soul as being delivered from the clothing of the body so that it might ascend to heaven naked.”94 Paul’s language of “putting off” and “putting on” in reference to the old and new body or the old robe and the new robe (Gal. 3:27) may have been rendered easier by the fact that “Hellenistic theology had already conflated this idea of the robe with that of the soul as an element of the divine fire to which it returned at death except in so far as it had achieved immortality.”95 Judaism, mutatis mutandis, was ready to adopt these concepts. Furthermore, Knox maintains that in order to quench the objection arising among the Corinthians to the Jewish system of eschatology Paul substituted the final judgment for the transmutation of the soul or spirit “awaiting its completion in heaven,” but he was not ready to abandon man’s responsibility for his deeds here on earth (2 Cor. 5:10).96 Thus, Jewish apocalyptic concepts were made secondary over the more important Hellenistic views. According to Knox, Paul’s shift from Jewish apocalyptic thought to Hellenistic categories happened because of two reasons. First, Paul was writing to address the Hellenistic’s objection of his idea of bodily resurrection at the parousia and his method of substituting the immortality of the soul for the parousia and the judgment seat of Christ. Second, he was combating a growing opposition by the Jewish leaders who claimed his new religion was an abomination before God.97 Charles H. Dodd and Wilfred L. Knox found that a crisis in the



the history of interpretation of pauline eschatology

23

apostle’s convictions or the devotion to his mission led to a development in his thought between the writing of 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians.

Section #4: The Wall Between Jewish and Greco-Roman Categories of Expression Comes Down By the end of World War II the wall between Jewish and Greco-Roman categories of expression to Pauline eschatology began to come down. This section concisely analyzes three such scholars who were instrumental in this— William D. Davies, Hans J. Schoeps, and Henry M. Shires. William David Davies In his 1948 watershed monograph, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, Davies argued that while Paul’s thought was influenced by both Judaism and Hellenism, he “belonged to the main stream of first-century Judaism, and that elements in his thought, which are often labeled as Hellenistic, might well be derived from Judaism.”98 Davies interacts with several scholars to make his case. One scholar Davies takes issue with is Claude G. Montefiore. Montefiore proposes that Paul did not belong to the main stream of first century Judaism. Paul was a “Jew of the Dispersion unacquainted with the best Rabbinic Judaism of Palestine, and familiar only with Diaspora Judaism.”99 Davies identifies three assumptions that Montefiore makes in order to reach his position.100 First, certain statements in the New Testament are not historical. Davies notices that those who “emphasize the Hellenistic aspects of Paul’s thought” tend to reject the New Testament evidence.101 Furthermore, Davies identifies several scholars such as Bousset, who rejects that Paul studied under Gamaliel and lived in Damascus as an opponent of Christianity. Second, Montefiore affirms a “very pleasing” picture of the Palestinian Judaism in the first century.102 Davies points out that while the Rabbinic sources may “preserve traditions of an earlier date than the second century,” there is not a one-to-one correspondence between a second, third, or fourth century Judaism and a first century Judaism. Moreover, the pristine form of Judaism that Montefiore proposes cannot be said to carry over into the fourth century.103 In no way can one “accept the convenient identification of first-century Judaism with the normative Judaism of later centuries which Montefiore assumes.”104 Montefiore himself “pointed out that the first century was an age of transition and many cross-currents, and it is hardly credible that the advent of Christianity and the tragic experiences of the first and

24

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

second centuries A.D., did not greatly modify and influence Judaism.”105 Thus, Montefiore’s picture of a pristine and positive Palestinian Judaism of the first century is at best clouded with conjecture, for Judaism, as Davies argues, is “much more variegated than such sources would lead us to expect.”106 Third, Montefiore reasons that there is a great divide between the Judaism of Palestine and the Judaism of the Diaspora. Montefiore advocates that Palestinian Rabbinic Judaism is attractive, for it believes in a God that is “intensely personal,” while Diaspora Judaism (Hellenistic Judaism) affirmed a much less intimate God.107 Montefiore argues that Paul established his mysticism and dualism of flesh and spirit from Hellenistic Judaism. Davies censures Montefiore for overplaying the distinction he makes between the two groups.108 First, the geography and history ought to be acknowledged. The Jews assimilated much from the Greco-Roman empires and their influence over the land. Second, the number of Jews living in Palestine was decimated by war. Even the synagogues were becoming Hellenized. After A.D. 70 teaching Greek to sons was forbidden. Davies highlights that this also shows that teaching Greek to sons at some point was customary.109 Even the compiler of the Mishnah received a Greek education. Third, Palestinian Jews had contacts all over the Hellenistic world. “There was a considerable reciprocal interchange of thought between the Judaism of Palestine and that of the Diaspora.”110 Davies notices two things that stood out among the so-called divergence Montefiore maintains existed between Palestinian Judaism and Judaism of the Diaspora. First, that Palestinian Judaism is not to be viewed as a watertight compartment closed against all Hellenistic influences: there was a Greco-Jewish “atmosphere” even at Jerusalem itself, and secondly we can be certain that Judaism in the period before A.D. 70 was not as reserved and cautious as it afterwards became.111

Thus, there is no need to keep a rigid separation between the two, for there was “a great deal of apocalyptic speculation within Judaism as a whole.”112 During the time of Schweitzer most scholars pictured a giant chiasm that could not be traversed between first century Semitic/Palestinian Judaism and Hellenistic Diaspora Judaism. Schweitzer himself maintained that Palestinian categories were central to Paul’s thought, while the apostle John was greatly influenced by Hellenistic ones. However, Davies has shown that Schweitzer so overemphasized Paul’s eschatology and “isolated apocalyptic from other currents in Judaism” that his Paul was “deprived of much of his Jewish heritage, even while insisting on his Jewishness.”113 “The Judaism which Schweitzer



the history of interpretation of pauline eschatology

25

found fulfilled ‘in Christ’ was an emasculated, apocalyptic Judaism, not the varied Judaism of Pharisaism, Qumran, and other currents.”114 The distinction that Schweitzer made between apocalyptic and Pharisaism, reveals Davies, is now rejected based on two discoveries. First, these two categories may have more that is congenial than first thought. Second, the Dead Sea scrolls discovery reveals a people devoted to the law as well as adopting a vehemently eschatological hope.115 The reason for the previous dichotomy was the failure to notice how the apocalyptists were loyal to the law. “To understand Paul’s relation to Pharisaism is not to exclude him from a context of apocalyptic.”116 Moreover, Davies points out that “Rabbinic sources have been more and more revealed to reflect Hellenistic influences in both their vocabulary and ideology.”117 While there are great differences between Judaism and Hellenism, they are not without their similarities, for the lines between them, “by the first century, were very fluid.”118 For Davies, “eschatology was an essential element in his thought and not an appendix to it.”119 The parousia was fundamental to the eschatological faith of the early church. Thus, it did not require “any external factors to convince Paul that the Lord was at hand.”120 The method in which Paul presents his description of the parousia throughout is contingent upon the apocalyptic tradition of Judaism. This becomes unmistakable as one compares the eschatological details of his letters to the apocryphal and rabbinical literature.121 Davies avoids the either/or pitfalls of the developmental approach by his assertion that the age to come is the key to whether Paul’s thought on the resurrection transitioned from Jewish categories to Hellenistic ones.122 Thus, it is unwise to follow Charles’ hypothesis that “2 Cor. 5 merely makes explicit what was implicit in 1 Cor. 15 or that it is the logical development from the latter.”123 Davies also disagrees with Knox’s position that from the time of the defense of the gospel at Athens, Paul adapts his message for a highly Hellenistic world. By the time of 2 Cor. 5:1–10, Paul, argues Knox, has revised his gospel into Hellenistic terms. Davies maintains that there are four main points to Knox’s position that Paul’s gospel is inherently Hellenistic. First, Paul longs to be delivered from the burden of his earthly body. Second, the Spirit is a present possession and must be interpreted in terms of the divine inspiration of the Hellenistic soul. Third, “the Christian life in this world is as an exile.” Fourth, only the concept of judgment is considered by Knox as Jewish in nature. Davies shows that the description of the earthen vessel in

26

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

2 Cor. 4:7 and the earthly body (skh/noj) in 2 Cor. 5:1 would both be quite natural terms to a Rabbi.124 Davies’ contribution to Pauline theology is important to this study. No longer was Pauline theology seen as either a Hellenization of Christianity or purely apocalyptic. Now Paul’s thought was characterized as fundamentally Jewish. Moreover, the dividing lines between Jewish and Greco-Roman elements in Paul’s thought have been removed. For Davies, “any Hellenistic elements which may be found in his thought do not imply that he was therefore outside the main current of first century Judaism.”125 Hans Joachim Schoeps Schoeps approaches the study of Paul from a Religionsgeschichte perspective.126 Foundational to any Pauline study, warns Schoeps, is a faithful investigation into Judaism, the lifeblood of the apostle and his thought. But Schoeps is quick to point out that “it is difficult to explain away the point that Paul had no demonstrable contacts with Hellenistic paganism.”127 The fact that Paul’s theology may be at times characterized by “Hellenistic” traits “is not to be explained by direct influence.”128 These Hellenistic traits were not an “independent formative factor stemming from his youth in Tarsus, but rather the result of a process of assimilation since Hellenism had long before been penetrated by the spirit of the Jewish diaspora.”129 Schoeps encourages those attempting a study on Paul to account for the Hellenistic Judaism that was common to the diaspora during the time of the apostle. Schoeps proposes that if it is possible to establish the Judaism in which Paul resided then the apostle will be easier to understand. For Schoeps, the framework of Paul’s eschatology is fundamentally Jewish. Attempts to “derive his eschatology from Hellenism is misguided.”130 Paul views the events of the death and resurrection within the outline of Jewish expectation, “but since in his view things had developed differently from that which Jewish expectation foresaw, he had to give a full re-interpretation of the change and its meaning.”131 The central point of his eschatology is the mingling of the olam ha-zeh (“this age”) and the olam ha-ba (“the coming age”). Henry M. Shires Shires proposes that eschatology was the organizing principle and foundation behind the entirety of Paul’s thought.132 He maintains that “behind the words



the history of interpretation of pauline eschatology

27

of Paul lie certain basic conceptions and beliefs that constitute the center of his eschatology.”133 While Shires acknowledges that scholars have debated whether Jewish or Greco-Roman ideas lie at the center of Paul’s thought, he agrees with Davies that Paul was a man of the first century, a century which was “variegated and, above all, complex.”134 Pauline eschatology developed out of early Jewish apocalyptic concepts. Much of Paul’s thought was heavily dependent on Judaism and “it is in eschatology that he manifests his clearest dependence.”135 Apocalyptic images, such as the last trumpet and archangel’s call in 1 Thess. 4:16, are clear examples of this influence. Furthermore, it is within the Thessalonian correspondence that “Paul’s use of apocalyptic material is most demonstrable.”136 Shires does recognize that Paul also employs Hellenistic terminology.137 While Paul disagrees with the Hellenistic dualism of soul and body, he does write on the “opposition between the spirit and flesh which is at least reminiscent of Greek thought.”138 In support of W. David Stacey’s position, Shires asserts that Paul employs various Hellenistic terminology, language, and thought, in order to engage that culture with the gospel.139 “When Paul borrows a term or idea from Hellenistic philosophy or religion, he does so for his own purpose and does not often subscribe to the Greek understanding of it. Paul is neither an apocalyptist or an Hellenist.”140 While it must not be forgotten that Paul was a Jew who was inspired by Judaism as he wrote, he did also write in Greek and was assured that God had called him to bring and interpret the gospel message to the Hellenistic world. Paul’s writings were not systematic treatises or theological abstractions, rather they were written with a particular purpose in mind addressing a specific situation.141 Shires advocates that there is “no single system” or pattern of Paul’s eschatology. In fact, he proposes that “there is room for some growth” on this front. Different occasions demanded Paul to make different presentations and expressions of thought.142 One would not expect Paul’s thought to remain unchanged after ten to fifteen years of writing letters to churches. There is no reason to suppose that Paul’s eschatology was any more static than was his admittedly enlarging religious life. Some variations within his eschatological statements must be expected, and some of these may well represent a maturing of Paul’s mind.143

However, Shires disagrees with Charles and Dodd and their developmental scheme based on their dependence on a particular dating sequence of

28

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

Paul’s letters, which he asserts cannot be proven. Those who argue for gradual development must acknowledge that the development is limited, for there is “consistency and continuity” in Paul.144 Paul’s basic “eschatological ideas or principles” are “found throughout all his writings, early and late.”145 The Thessalonian and Corinthian correspondences and Philippians all emphasize the parousia, judgment, and the day of glory. In addressing the Thessalonians’ situation, Shires asserts that Paul drew upon “standard apocalyptic pictures and applied them to Christ.”146 He does concede that there is a “gradual shift from apocalyptic to non-apocalyptic eschatology, from some use of the traditional scenery to very little.”147 The pictorial imagery of the early letters becomes less and less pronounced in the later letters. Shires adduces, however, that the Jewish apocalyptic imagery became “less and less effective” with Paul’s growing Hellenistic audience.148 Paul employed more and more Hellenistic forms of expression in his articulation of the gospel message. Therefore, in order to argue that Paul’s eschatology underwent development, “the role of eschatology as a stable foundation for his theology must be reexamined. Moreover, it would be difficult to say much regarding Paul’s eschatology in general if it must be subdivided into many different periods of growth.”149 While Paul’s eschatological thought is inundated with Jewish concepts, imagery, and words, it is not monolithic. Paul also employs Hellenistic imagery to engage his Gentile audience. Paul borrows from Judaism and Hellenism and includes his own reflections and conclusions to best articulate his eschatology.150 But Shires proposes that Paul never expected anyone to take the imagery he uses literally. One of the most apocalyptic sections in Paul’s writings is the image he reveals concerning the parousia of Christ. “Here Paul is deliberately utilizing traditional word pictures as one way of expressing his own underlying convictions.”151 For Shires, these images are not exploited to give a blueprint of the future, but only used as vehicles for dramatic effect and stimulating the imagination.152 Paul is interested more in the principles behind the descriptions than the descriptions themselves. The imagery of descent from heaven, the loud command, the call of an archangel, and the blowing of the trumpet (1 Thess. 4:16–17) are not “important in themselves for Paul. They are used to stimulate the imagination so that the truths to which they point may become more immediately real.”153 These images, asserts Shires, ought not be demythologized, but rather re-mythologized so that readers of Paul can better understand the background of the images and make better sense of them. While Paul’s eschatological imagery may be difficult to understand for the modern mind, “his beliefs are not thereby either outmoded or



the history of interpretation of pauline eschatology

29

incomprehensible.”154 Paul’s use of imagery calls for a more careful and conscientious study and examination. Shires is important for this study for several reasons. First, he reaffirms that Paul’s eschatology is variegated in that he employs Jewish and GrecoRoman imagery throughout. Second, he reveals several weaknesses of the developmental scheme to Paul’s eschatology that many older scholars articulated. Third, he emphasizes the necessity to take Paul’s imagery seriously and with careful attention. Davies, Schoeps, and Shires found that Pauline theology can no longer be seen as either a Hellenization of Christianity or influenced purely by Jewish apocalyptic concepts, for the dividing lines between Jewish and Hellenistic elements have been removed.155 While they conclude that Paul’s thought is fundamentally Jewish, Hellenism also influences it. Paul’s eschatology is essential and foundational to his thought. Davies, Schoeps, and Shires find the developmental approach to Paul misleading. They advocate that Paul’s thought is consistent and continuous while not being rigidly static. The next section will explore three scholars who investigate the imagery Paul uses in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 in three different ways.

Component #2: 1 Thess. 4:13–18 as a Greco-Roman Formal Reception, as a Theophany, or Influenced by Jewish Apocalyptic Assumption Motifs The imagery of 1 Thess. 4:13–18 is characterized by scholars as essentially Hellenistic, influenced by Sinai theophany imagery, or as fundamentally Jewish apocalyptic in nature. Erik Peterson, Jacques Dupont, and Joseph Plevnik are trendsetters in the debate on the origin and influence of the imagery. This section overviews their individual positions. Erik Peterson Since the publication of Peterson’s 1930 article, “Die Einholung des Kyrios,” there has been an ongoing debate on whether or not the imagery Paul uses in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 is fundamentally Greco-Roman in nature or whether the imagery stems from Paul’s Jewish roots. A crux interpretum tackled by Peterson in this debate refers to Paul’s use of avpa,nthsij in 1 Thess. 4:17. Peterson interpreted the Lord’s parousia through the lens of Hellenistic and imperial imagery.156 The parousia of Christ was best defined as a grand Einholung. According

30

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

to Peterson, Paul’s description of the parousia in 1 Thess. 4:17 is as follows: “The Lord, Christ, descends from heaven … and while this occurs Christians, alive and deceased, come up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air (avh,r), the part which is related to the earth.”157 This encounter is not a causal occurrence. It is formal and only announced by a person granted authority to do so. The word avpa,nthsij is understood by the community as a technical term, which carries a legal and civic connotation, used to describe the event of a group of people going out of a city to meet and welcome a visiting dignitary (e.g., king, emperor, high official) escorting him back into the city. Peterson advocates that Paul does not specify the exact details of the Einholung because he knew that his readers understood its meaning.158 Peterson presents a Zusammenfassung of several texts from the papyri, inscriptions, and both Greek and Latin texts.159 Throughout these texts Peterson maintains that the whole series of terms for the Einholung (e.g., sunanta/n; avpanta/n; u`panta/n; avpa,nthsij; u`papa,nthsij; and u`pa,nthsij) are all synonyms used by the author in several different ways.160 Peterson points out that u`pa,nthsij is used in place of avpa,nthsij in some manuscripts of the Greek text of 1 Thess. 4:17.161 The concept of the Einholung entails that one leaves his or her place of residence and meets the dignitary outside the village and escorts him into the city.162 People from all socio-economic classes (e.g., religious, teachers, students, women, military men, and administrators) would all come out to greet the dignitary. The people would wear wreaths and white robes, and burn incense. The city was adorned with perfume, wreaths, and decorations. The pagan temples were opened. There were sacrifices to the gods in which the dignitary took part. The people carried various cult objects, images, symbols, and even crosses. There was shouting, cheering, celebration, and pronouncements of a new day dawning.163 According to Peterson, the vision of the people coming out to meet the arrival of the dignitary is similar to Paul’s use of avpa,nthsij in 1 Thess. 4:17. Christians would leave their earthly homes and come out to meet the dignitary in the air. He would be called Lord upon his arrival. His arrival would usher in the new cosmic Civitas Dei.164 Jacques Dupont Peterson’s position went uncontested for two decades. But in 1952 Dupont challenged it.165 Dupont does acknowledge that there is a Hellenistic tradition to eivj avpa,nthsin. He points out two texts from Josephus which are particularly



the history of interpretation of pauline eschatology

31

suggestive (cf. Ant. 11.325–328; Bell. Jud. 7.100–103).166 “Nous ne nierons pas la séduction de cette explication, qui paraît si simple et si cohérente.”167 Dupont points out, though, that while Peterson’s explication is entirely plausible, “elle n’est pas la seule possible.”168 The term avpa,nthsin may be a Hellenistic technical term as Peterson proposes. But does Paul use it in that way in the context of 1 Thess. 4:13–18? Dupont answers this question in the negative. He takes issue with Peterson’s failure to examine Jewish texts, especially from the LXX. “Il est clair qu’une expression aussi abondamment employée n’a pas une acception absolument précise et nettement définie.”169 Dupont proposes that there are several examples from the LXX that match perfectly with the so-called Hellenistic parousia traditions (e.g., Gen. 14:17; 2 Sam. 19:16, 19). These texts show that the Hebrews thought it was natural to come out to meet their conquering king. Dupont advocates that these forms of avpa,nthsin in the LXX are similar to the way Paul uses eivj avpa,nthsin in 1 Thess. 4:15–17. Thus, “Il n’y a pas de raison … de demander à un usage hellénistique l’explication d’une terminologie.”170 Dupont observes that Paul’s description of the parousia in 1 Thess. 4:15–17 is similar in many respects to the Sinai theophany (Exod. 19:10–18).171 It would follow that the Sinai theophany is Paul’s source of inspiration for the eschatological parousia of the Lord. The theophany imagery may have also inspired apocalyptic imagery of the end.172 Why would the coming at the end be any different from the Lord’s descent on Sinai? “Si le peuple dut sortir de l’enceinte du camp pour aller à la rencontre du Seigneur descendant sur le Sinai, il n’en sera pas autrement à la fin des temps.”173 Furthermore, why would Paul’s description of the coming of the Lord be any different from what was already established? Thus, according to Dupont, Paul had no need to think of the parousia in terms of Hellenistic traditions. Dupont also maintains that context is the key when deciphering the correct cultural influence upon an author’s meaning of the phrase eivj avpa,nthsin. Each case must be examined separately. He indicates several texts from other passages in the New Testament where eivj avpa,nthsin and its other cognates are not rendered in a Hellenistic technical sense (Matt. 8:34; 25:1, 6; John 12:13, 18; Acts 28:15).174 The literary context suggests that these passages are inherently not foreign to Judaism. The word avpa,nthsin and its cognates are too common in the biblical literature to sufficiently prove an Hellenistic inspiration. “Faut-il vraiment penser que Luc, en notant ce détail, a voulu présenter l’arrivée de Paul à Rome comme unc entrée triomphale?”175 The starting point for Dupont in a quest for the correct meaning of avpa,nthsin must begin in

32

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

the Sinai theophany narrative, which inspires the apocalyptic context of 1 Thess. 4:13–18. In conclusion, Dupont maintains that “La ‘venue’ en gloire du Seigneur Dieu sur le Sinai apparaît ainsi, dans notre passage, comme le prototype de la ‘venue’ eschatologique (parousi,a) du Seigneur Jésus.”176 Joseph Plevnik Plevnik disagrees with both Peterson and Dupont.177 Plevnik notices that Peterson focuses more on the Einholung of the faithful, rather than the arrival of the Lord. In Hellenistic parousias the people play an active role by going out in a formal reception to meet the dignitary. Plevnik highlights that the verb a`rpa,zw in 1 Thess. 4:17 is passive in voice not active.178 He also maintains that the term avpa,nthsij is “neither limited to Hellenistic parousias nor does it always suggest the bringing (in).”179 Plevnik proposes that Peterson’s concept of Einholung—whereby the people going up by clouds is similar to the people in Hellenistic parousias going out to meet the dignitary—is a stretch.180 In reference to Dupont, Plevnik proposes that the cloud motif is used differently between the Sinai theophany account and 1 Thess. 4:15–17.181 In the Sinai theophany of LXX Exod. 19:10–18 clouds were used as a covering, while in 1 Thess. 4:17 they are used as a vehicle.182 Furthermore, the Israelites go up the mountain in the Sinai account. In Thess. 4:17, the faithful are “caught up” by the clouds to heaven. Also, the terms ke,leusma and avrca,ggeloj are both missing from the Sinai account.183 In the Sinai account, Plevnik observes that the people do not escort the Lord into their camp.184 Moreover, the Ten Commandments are not given in 1 Thess. 4:16–17. According to Plevnik, while Dupont’s view has more positives than Peterson’s, his position does not go far enough. “Paul may not have been directly influenced by LXX Exod. 19:10–18, but, rather by the apocalyptic depictions of God’s endtime coming in which the Sinai depiction was utilized and adapted.”185 Ultimately, Plevnik suggests that Paul’s source of the imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 is the early Jewish scriptures and Jewish apocalyptic thought, more specifically, in terms of assumption-exaltation.186 Peterson, Dupont, and Plevnik established that the imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 can be seen through the lens of Greco-Roman formal reception, as theophany, or influenced by Jewish apocalyptic assumption motifs. The next section reveals several more recent scholars who were inspired by Peterson.



the history of interpretation of pauline eschatology

33

Component #3: Is the Imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 Primarily Greco-Roman or Jewish in Nature? Trends Since Plevnik The third and final component provides an overview of the various positions of scholars who were inspired by Peterson, Dupont, and Plevnik. This component is subdivided into two parts.

Trends Since Plevnik Part 1: The Background of the Imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 Is Primarily Greco-Roman in Nature Over the last twenty-five years there are several scholars who have been inspired by Peterson’s article and his conclusion that the background of the imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 is primarily Greco-Roman in nature. This portion succinctly analyzes three such scholars—Robert H. Gundry, Helmut Koester, and James R. Harrison. Robert H. Gundry Robert H. Gundry argues that Paul hellenizes dominical tradition in 1 Thess. 4:15–17 “by portraying Christ’s return as a festive imperial visit in which deceased as well as living Christians will participate.”187 The purpose for this hellenization is twofold. First, it clears up any confusion that the dead would not participate in the coming of Christ. Second, it consoles the Thessalonians who had lost hope. Agreeing with Ernest Best’s criticisms of Dupont’s position—that Paul borrows imagery from the theophany of Exodus 19:10–18—Gundry proposes that the word parousi,a in 1 Thess. 4:15 may be the first word Paul Hellenizes for it is never used in the context of a Messianic coming.188 While parousi,a may not always carry a special connotation of the arrival of a Hellenistic dignitary—for it is used in an ordinary fashion (coming, arrival, or presence)—the way Paul uses the term and the surrounding imagery in 1 Thess. 4:15–17 shows that parousi,a must be understood with the special connotation of the coming of an emperor, king, or dignitary into a city.189 Furthermore, “the word for Lord, ku,rioj, also means ‘emperor’. In fact, it was increasingly used for emperor in the first and second centuries. Hellenistic readers such as the Thessalonians could hardly have read such a collocation of terms without comparing Jesus’ coming to that of an emperor.”190

34

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

Gundry proposes that the lo,goj ku,rioj in 1 Thess. 4:15 is a dominical saying in which Paul tailors and embellishes the “traditional material to suit the needs of the Thessalonians.”191 He reasons that the dominical saying in John 11:25–26 is the best option for the origin of the “word of the Lord” saying in 1 Thess. 4:15–17.192 If then the word of the Lord includes only the phrases parallel to John 11:25–26, Paul does not formally quote that word in one place, but takes it up in bits and pieces throughout 1 Thess. 4:15–17, makes revisions according to his contextual needs, and adds the fanfare, which details exactly how God will bring believers with Jesus and contributes to Paul’s portrayal of an imperial visit in the Hellenistic style.193

Gundry suggests that the word avpa,nthsin is also a Pauline addition. By itself avpa,nthsin does not carry the special connotation of the Hellenistic practice of going out to meet a dignitary as he arrives into the city, for it often occurs in the ordinary sense of meeting (e.g., Matt. 25:1). But if one examines the context and the imagery Paul uses in 1 Thess. 4:15–17 it is best interpreted with its special connotation.194 The citizens of the Hellenistic city voluntarily come out to meet the visiting emperor. In common with the Hellenistic practice, the faithful will escort the Lord to earth. Though this accompaniment can only be accomplished by God, “their joining the Lord in his descent corresponds so closely to Hellenistic practice that Hellenistic readers could hardly have missed the correspondence and a Hellenistic author could hardly have failed to intend it.”195 An Excursus: Michael R. Cosby with Gundry’s Rebuttal Michael Cosby’s 1994 article, “Hellenistic Formal Receptions and Paul’s Use of APANTHSIS in 1 Thessalonians 4:17,” which originally began as a study to strengthen Peterson’s case, found that “avpa,nthsij was not a technical term and that all of the main elements of Hellenistic receptions are missing from 1 Thess. 4:15–17.”196 An investigation of the descriptions of the receptions Peterson examines show that the elements of these receptions are in fact contrary to Paul’s illustration of the parousia. “Instead of being a cipher for understanding what Paul meant, they function more as a foil—a loose pattern to play against when describing the coming of the heavenly king.”197 Cosby claims that to define avpa,nthsij as a technical term for Hellenistic formal receptions for dignitaries solely on the proportion of times used in antiquity is myopic. Many of the occurrences of avpa,nthsij are found in military contexts. Sometimes avpa,nthsij does refer to the reception of a visiting



the history of interpretation of pauline eschatology

35

dignitary, but many times it does not. Cosby conducts a search, using Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, of avpa,nthsij, avpanta,w, u`pa,nthsij, and u`panta,w. The search revealed that only a minority of the time did these words refer to the reception of a visiting dignitary.198 Word use by itself does not disclose whether or not Paul’s audience would have defined avpa,nthsij as a terminus technicus.199 Context is the key to decide whether or not these words render a technical sense. Cosby advocates that “1 Thess. 4:14–17 does not specifically mention any of the elements normally associated with receiving dignitaries.”200 The archangel’s call, the trumpet blast, and the believers being caught up “do not correspond with descriptions of Hellenistic receptions.”201 Did Paul envision all the dimensions illustrated in the Hellenistic receptions?202 Cosby says no. Peterson’s discussion of avpa,nthsij as a technical term does not account for all “the differences between Paul’s words and descriptions of receptions of dignitaries.”203 Cosby insists that avpa,nthsij was not a technical term for Hellenistic receptions because it is missing the main elements. “If he truly assumed his audience would presuppose these details, then he deliberately reversed most of the usual elements.”204 Even if one were to take avpa,nthsij as a terminus technicus, the data, affirms Cosby, does not justify the comprehensive meaning some have maintained the term connotes in Paul’s description of the Parousia.205 “Interpreting Paul’s words in light of descriptions of Hellenistic receptions is helpful, but not as Peterson and others have envisioned.”206 Gundry wrote a penetrating criticism of Cosby’s critique of Peterson’s view.207 Gundry notices several points of confusion in Cosby’s article.208 First, while Cosby mentions that the parousia is unexpected, which he says weakens the link between the Hellenistic formal receptions and Paul’s use of avpa,nthsij, he forgets to acknowledge that the believers have already been informed and know that the parousia is near (e.g., 1 Thess. 5:1; 2 Thess. 2:5; cf. Mark 13:28–29). Second, Cosby notes that the participants of the Lord’s parousia in 1 Thess. 4:15–17 do not adorn themselves with special garments as do the participants in Hellenistic formal receptions. Gundry, however, shows elsewhere in Paul that “the resurrection of Christians at the Parousia does entail the putting on of festal clothing.”209 In light of these criticisms against Cosby’s position, Gundry argues that “Paul’s description of the parousia in 1 Thess. 4:15–17 comes closer to what we know of Hellenistic formal receptions than Cosby allows.”210 He does acknowledge that Cosby is correct in his insight that avpa,nthsij by itself does not connote a technical term for Hellenistic formal receptions.

36

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

Nevertheless, Gundry is quick to remind his readers that the overall context of 1 Thess. 4:13–18, the terms employed by Paul, and “the appearance of elements of Hellenistic formal receptions also in other Pauline mentions of the parousia all combine to favor such a connotation for avpa,nthsij.”211 One of the main criticisms of Cosby’s argument is his wooden literalness to the necessity of a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of a Hellenistic royal reception and the description of the parousia in 1 Thess. 4:15– 17. Paul does not require that every element line up in order for his metaphor to have the meaning he intends. Paul’s use of avpa,nthsij in his description of the parousia is not used to declare that the parousia of the Lord is in every way equal to a Hellenistic formal reception, but rather that it is like a formal reception. It may or may not include all the necessary elements. Helmut Koester While 1 Thess. 4:15–17 uses traditional apocalyptic materials, Helmut Koester questions the assumption that parousi,a is a technical term for the eschatological coming of Jesus. “There is no evidence in pre-Christian apocalyptic literature for such technical usage.”212 Koester suggests a more likely possibility. The term parousi,a is Hellenistic in nature and describes the arrival of a king or emperor.213 According to Koester, parousi,a is a political term that Paul uses to describe the coming of the Lord for whose advent the Thessalonians must be prepared.214 If there is any question to this interpretation of parousi,a one only need look at another term Paul uses: avpa,nthsij (1 Thess. 4:17). Koester, therefore, agrees with Peterson that this term is a technical term for the formal meeting of the arrival of a king or dignitary to a city: It is the crucial term for Paul’s description of the festive reception of the Lord at his coming. The united community, those who are alive and those who have died and have been raised, will meet the Lord like a delegation of a city that goes out to meet and greet an emperor when he comes to visit.215

James R. Harrison James Harrison argues that “an exclusively Jewish apocalyptic approach to the eschatological issues of 1 Thessalonians obscures a fundamental social reality of the first century AD.”216 He proposes that “Paul combines Jewish eschatology and allusions to the imperial cult.”217 Harrison agrees with Peterson’s position that avpa,nthsij is a Hellenistic technical term for a formal Einholung of a visiting dignitary or triumphal entry of an emperor. Harrison also



the history of interpretation of pauline eschatology

37

points out one of the main weaknesses in Dupont’s position, namely, he overlooks that Paul was writing to a predominantly Gentile Christian audience at Thessalonica. Harrison does acknowledge that Paul uses Jewish apocalyptic imagery for “pedagogical and theological reasons,” but it is more than likely that the Thessalonians interpreted the imagery Paul uses in Hellenistic terms.218 After surveying Paul’s uses of several terms (ku,rioj, parousi,a, evpifa,neia, avpa,nthsij, eivrh,nh, avsfa,leia, swthri,a, and evlpi,j) in 1 Thess. 4:13–5:10, Harrison comes to the conclusion that “there is little doubt that Paul is critiquing the imperial propaganda of his day.”219 The imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18, insists Harrison, is a mixture of Jewish apocalyptic imagery and a “radical subversion of the Augustan age of grace and its terminology” not least of which is the Augustan apotheosis traditions.220 Paul uses political terms in his discussion of the parousia in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 in order to respond to the imperial propaganda of pax romana, Augustan apotheosis, and its uncompromising imperial gospel. While Gundry, Koester, and Harrison are examples of proponents of Peterson’s proposal that the imagery is Greco-Roman in nature, there are several scholars in the next section who disagree and advocate a position similar to Dupont and/or Plevnik that the imagery is fundamentally Jewish in nature.

Trends Since Plevnik Part 2: The Background of the Imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 Is Primarily Jewish in Nature There are several scholars who have been inspired by Dupont’s and Plevnik’s work that the background of the imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 is primarily Jewish in nature. This section briefly investigates three such scholars— Albertus F. J. Klijn, Charles A. Wanamaker, and Randall E. Otto. Albertus F. J. Klijn Klijn focuses his article, “1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 and its Background in Apocalyptic Literature,” not on the specific details and exegetical difficulties of 1 Thess. 4:13–18, but rather on the background of the passage as a whole. He proposes that these verses are best interpreted “against an apocalyptic background.”221 Influenced by Paul Volz’s classic work, Klijn maintains that a common problem in apocalyptic literature was that the living thought they were in a “more advantageous position” than the dead at the end of time, a

38

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

problem that extended into the first century AD.222 These difficulties between the living and the dead arise from the merging of two different ideas about the end of time, viz. that of a coming happy future for those who are living at the time, the so-called prophetic eschatology, and that of a resurrection of all men followed by a judgment, the apocalyptic idea … it appears that apocalyptic has never been able to reconcile the two ideas.223

Based on several passages in the Jewish apocalyptic literature (Dan. 12:12–13; Pss. Sol. 17:50; 18:7; Sib. Or. 3.370), Klijn argues that those who survive to the end have a special privilege.224 It is clear that they will survive and be present at the final judgment of Israel (4 Ezra 6:25; 7:27; 9:8).225 Moreover, those who survive until the end are at a clear advantage (4 Ezra 13:16–24).226 But it is also clear that in some texts both arrive at the judgment simultaneously (4 Ezra 5:41–45).227 Klijn also emphasizes the importance between the “in unum” in 4 Ezra 5:41–45 and its equivalent a[ma in 1 Thess. 4:17. This facet of synchronicity is also found in other passages (2 Bar. 30:2b; 51:13; 4 Ezra 6:20; Ps. Philo Antiquit. 19:20). “[A]t the end all people involved would partake in the events at the same time. With regard to God’s judgment there was no earlier and later. Everything would happen simultaneously.”228 Klijn concludes from his investigation that 1 Thess. 4:13–18 is entirely influenced by Jewish apocalyptic thought. Charles A. Wanamaker Wanamaker argues that 1 Thessalonians, and more specifically 1 Thess. 4:13–18, is an apocalyptic discourse. Building on the work of Wayne Meeks, Abraham Malherbe, and Duane Watson, Wanamaker proposes that the apocalyptic discourse was “employed for paraenetic purposes” to “sustain the Thessalonians’ Christian identity,” warrant “their ethical behavior,” and enhance “their adherence to their new faith in spite of their experience of social opposition.”229 Wanamaker advocates that 1 Thessalonians, with the exception of Revelation, is the most “sustained example of apocalyptic discourse in the New Testament.”230 While 1 Thessalonians does not contain all the characteristics of apocalyptic discourse (e.g., “heavenly visions,” “heavenly intermediaries,” or “ex eventu prophecy”), Wanamaker does find several characteristics, such as the imminent expectation of the end, judgment, future salvation of the elect, determinism, dualism, and eschatological hope, that reveal a “pervasive apocalyptic topoi” throughout the letter.231



the history of interpretation of pauline eschatology

39

In his commentary on the Thessalonian correspondence, Wanamaker argues that the imagery of 1 Thess. 4:13–18 is exclusively influenced by Jewish apocalyptic thought.232 “Using apocalyptic imagery Paul depicts the events of the parousia” in 1 Thess. 4:16–17 “to support his dictum in v. 15b that the living will have no advantage over the dead in attaining salvation.”233 Wanamaker maintains that the use of the “trumpet of God” in 1 Thess. 4:16 is a common image in Old Testament contexts of theophany (Exod. 19:16, 19; Isa. 27:13) and apocalyptic traditions (Pss. Sol. 11:1 4 Ezra 6:17–24). Paul’s use of clouds is also common in contexts of theophany (Exod. 16:10; 19:16) and apocalyptic traditions (Dan. 7:13).234 Furthermore, while Wanamaker acknowledges that avpa,nthsij is a Hellenistic technical expression, he proposes that the overall context and Paul’s use of apocalyptic images in 1 Thess. 4:16–17 make the apostle’s use of avpa,nthsij as an Hellenistic expression for the formal reception of an arriving dignitary unlikely. In addition, Wanamaker agrees with Plevnik that “the rest of the imagery (the clouds and being caught up to the Lord) are indicative of an assumption to heaven of the people who belong to Christ.”235 Throughout the context of 1 Thess. 4:13–18, Paul employs exclusively apocalyptic imagery to console the Thessalonians that their departed Christian loved ones would not be at a disadvantage at the parousia of the Lord. Randall E. Otto Otto finds that the imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 is steeped in Old Testament theophany motifs. The Thessalonians’ concern consists of “issues relating to their own cultural milieu,” more specifically, “they were anxious over the fate of those of their community who had died, whether they were lost to the powers of the gods and demons and were themselves to become daimones.”236 The Thessalonians were worried whether their loved ones would be with the Lord. Otto maintains that the faithful upon their death are with the Lord. They are not raptured away from the protection of the Lord. They do not wander in the ethereal regions or on earth. Moreover, they are not hindered “from ascending to the Lord at death by the powers of the cultic gods and demons.”237 Otto argues that Paul employs “apocalyptic military motifs” in 1 Thess. 4:16 to assure the Thessalonians that their loved ones are with the Lord upon death.238 The Lord descends with the “cry of command,” “the archangel’s call,” and “the sound of the trumpet of God” as conquering king. Evoking language similar to Zech. 14:1–5 and 1 QM (1:4–17), these three

40

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

images in 1 Thess. 4:16 reveal God descending with his angels and faithful to do battle against the forces of evil and to commence judgment and doom upon the sons of darkness while the men on earth shout for joy. The imagery of 1 Thess. 4:16 is also sympathetic to the theophany imagery of the Old Testament (Exod. 19:10–18; Isa. 27:13) and the holy war tradition (Josh. 6:20; Judg. 7:18; Mic. 1:3) “wherein God is viewed as the commander of the angelic hosts who come as his agents of judgment” and “[the deliverer] of the elect.”239 Otto disagrees with Plevnik’s general rapture position of the assumption of believers. He also questions the interpretation that argues for a literal rapture (cf. 1 QM).240 Otto maintains that Paul’s use of a`rpa,zw describes “the protection of his people and the victory which Christ obtains over evil in the figure of a rapture of the sons of light after the manner of 1 QM and certain other pseudepigraphal texts.”241 Furthermore, those who are left are protected and delivered amidst the tribulation by the canopy of clouds. Clouds are a symbol of “God’s judgment and deliverance regularly associated with theophanies which likewise forms the basis for all portrayals of Christ’s parousia.”242 For Otto, the “meeting in the air” is “not a literal snatching away of believers into the air, but a metaphor describing what Christ and his hosts accomplish in the day of his coming, vanquishing the gods and demons which the Thessalonians feared had jeopardized their own salvation and that of their departed loved ones.”243 The “air” is the place of eschatological climactic victory of the risen Christ over the evil spirits.244 The “meeting in the air” is the reassurance that Christ has won the victory, thereby, bringing comfort to the Thessalonians.245 Christ will descend with the departed believers to commence the final battle over the forces of evil in the air. Those who remain are preserved from the final tribulation; they are ‘caught up,’ protected and granted victory, by their conquering king, the Lord Jesus Christ. In being ‘caught up’ together with the enrobed souls of their departed fellow believers to meet the Lord ‘in the air,’ the Thessalonians are assured of being the Lord’s possession as Christ destroys the powers that threatened them and their community.246

Conclusion This chapter has established three points. First, it illustrates the history of interpretation pertaining to Pauline eschatology beginning with Auguste Sabatier and ending with Henry Shires. It was shown that late nineteenth-century



the history of interpretation of pauline eschatology

41

scholars, such as Sabatier, Pfleiderer, and Teichmann, understood the whole of Paul’s eschatology as a development from Jewish categories of expression in 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians to Greco-Roman categories of expression in 2 Corinthians and Philippians. One of the major weaknesses of this approach was its failure to notice the Jewish categories of expression in the apostle’s later letters, such as Romans, which contain several examples of this, not least in Paul’s eschatological discussion of how “all Israel” will be saved in Romans 9–11.247 This chapter revealed that Kabisch, Kennedy, and Schweitzer took issue with the developmental approach to Paul, siding for a more Jewish apocalyptic approach to Pauline eschatology. The chapter illustrated how Dodd and Knox questioned the exclusively Jewish approach to Pauline eschatology (Kabisch, Kennedy, and Schweitzer) and articulated a neo-developmental, more exclusively Greco-Roman approach to Pauline eschatology originating in the apostle’s thinking as he reflected on his Damascus road experience and his present mission. It was demonstrated that Davies, Schoeps, and Shires represent examples of scholars who maintain that the wall between Jewish and Greco-Roman categories of expression of Pauline eschatology must come down. Pauline eschatology is more dynamic than originally thought. It does not demand a Jewish or Greco-Roman reading, whether developed or not. Rather, his eschatology could have elements of both—Jewish and GrecoRoman—depending on the context of his argument. Second, the chapter established that the positions of Peterson (Hellenistic Einholung), Dupont (Theophany), and Plevnik (Jewish apocalyptic assumptions) are the three main viewpoints adopted by contemporary scholars to describe the overall origin of Paul’s imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18. Third, the chapter illustrated examples of the types of arguments proposed by contemporary scholars since Plevnik on whether the imagery Paul uses in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 is Jewish or Greco-Roman in light of the work of Peterson, Dupont, and Plevnik. This chapter has established the history of interpretation of Pauline eschatology, the influential positions of Peterson, Dupont, and Plevnik, and the recent trends since Plevnik pertaining to the question of whether the imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 is Greco-Roman or Jewish. Chapter two will investigate, define, and locate the meaning and function of the imagery Paul employs outside the context of 1 Thess. 4:13–18.

·2· the meaning and function of the theophanic , apocalyptic , and greco - roman imagery located outside the context of 1 THESS. 4:13–18

Introduction The New Oxford American Dictionary defines the word “imagery” as “visually descriptive or figurative language.”1 Imagery may be defined as the language used to evoke pictures and scenes regarding the description of a specific person, place, or thing. In her important monograph, Images of Salvation in the New Testament, Brenda B. Colijn defines “image” as “any expression of sensory experience, whether visual, auditory or otherwise.”2 Images can be literal or figurative based upon its procedure of language. “The imagery of a literary work consists of its figurative language, especially its comparative language, considered as a whole.”3 George B. Caird warns not to limit delineations of imagery to picture language. While imagery incorporates vivid cognitive pictures, there is “a great deal more that is incapable of visuali[z]ation.”4 He adds, When John tells us that the heavenly Jerusalem is a perfect cube, fifteen hundred miles in length, breadth and height, and that it is constructed of pure gold, transparent like crystal, he obviously does not expect us to visualize it, but is setting out to overwhelm the imagination. Even when a comparison calls up a simple, clearly defined mental picture, it does not follow that the intended comparison is a visual one.5

44

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

The biblical authors did use literal images (e.g., Exod. 17:6), but they were primarily interested in creating figurative images for their readers to understand better the meaning they sought to actualize. Figurative language is more useful than literal language. While literal language limits the imagination, “figurative language is more vivid and arresting than literal language” because it “captures the attention and the imagination, and by doing so, takes root in the memory.”6 Imagery redefines the world, assists in explaining the unexplainable, and reveals new ways to perceive and understand the world.7 This chapter will cover an investigation of the theophanic, apocalyptic, and Greco-Roman imperial imagery Paul uses in 1 Thess. 4:13–18. Before beginning any quest the terms “theophany” and “apocalyptic” must be defined.

Definitions Theophany A theophany is a visible manifestation, appearance, or self-disclosure of a deity to an individual(s). The term is derived from the Greek word qeofa,neia. Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones, and Roderick McKenzie maintain that the word was used in the context of the festivals at Delphi, where “the statues of Apollo and other gods were shown to the people.”8 The word is a compound word originated from the noun qeo,j and the verb fai,nw.9 There are several characteristics of a theophany in the Jewish scriptures:10 1) Theophanies were viewed as authentic. While they may have mythical and symbolic elements, they are not “hallucinatory” occurrences as Johannes Lindblom proposes.11 2) They are initiated by the divinity and only the divinity. This point is contrasted with theophany accounts of the Ancient Near East, whereby humanity attempts to initiate the divinity’s appearance (1 Kings 18:16–29). 3) They are temporary. God comes for a limited span of time, to a particular place, to accomplish his purpose. 4) In a theophany, God brings salvation and judgment (e.g., Job 40:6–14; Isa. 2:9–22). 5) When God comes in a theophany, he imparts holiness for the duration of his appearance (e.g., Exod. 3:5; Josh. 5:15; 1 Kings 8:10–11).



meaning and function of imagery outside 1 thess. 4:13–18

45

6) “When Yahweh does reveal himself, he does not only reveal himself, he also conceals himself.”12 While he reveals himself in glory, he also conceals himself with clouds. 7) As God approaches, it causes fear to those whom he reveals himself (Exod. 3:6; 1 Kings 19:13). 8) God’s appearance in a theophany produces an “der Aufruhr der Natur” (upheaval of nature; see Gen. 3:8; Exod. 19:16–19; 1 Kings 19:11–13; Pss. 18:7–9; 77:17–20).13 Wind, earthquakes, fire, lightning, and thunder can occur when God comes. However, in no uncertain terms is God in these natural phenomena. Rather, “his advance causes these natural convulsions.”14 9) In some contexts theophanies can anticipate the ultimate eschatological revelation of God, the parousia of God. 10) Theophanies have a particular literary Gattung.15 The works of Jörg Jeremias, J. Kenneth Kuntz, and Jeffrey J. Niehaus provide three of the most notable descriptions of the components of the theophany literary Gattung.16 Kuntz proposes that there are ten basic elements of any theophany text:17 1) An introduction account in the third person 2) The deity utters and addresses the name of the addressee (the mortal[s]). 3) The addressee responds. 4) The self-asseveration of the deity 5) The deity quenches the fear of addressee. 6) The deity declares his gracious presence. 7) The hieros logos addressed by the deity to the mortal(s) for the particular situation 8) An inquiry and/or protest of the addressee 9) The hieros logos continues and elements 4, 5, 6, 7, and/or 8 are repeated. 10) A conclusion of the account in the third person18 Others, such as Frank Polak, maintain that theophanies ought to be examined under the literary rubric of “theme” or theme analogy.19 Robert Alter maintains that “type-scene” is a better paradigm to analyze theophany texts than the form criticism method.20 Alter suggests that form criticism’s insistence on the quest for ascertaining regularities and patterns within a text is inflexible. The function of “type-scene” was to provide a flexible

46

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

framework by which an author could point his readers to a common motif, theme, or theological construct, without an explicit allusion to it.21 Following on the work of Alter, George Savran proposes that one of the advantages of the “type-scene” method is that it eschews a “diachronic analysis which would establish a primary text which serves as a prototype for all the other appearances of the same scene.”22 While the form critical method is helpful, suggests Savran, the “type-scene” method is more useful for it demonstrates the interrelationship of the scenes.23 The “type-scene” approaches of Alter, Nicolaas F. Schmidt, Philip J. Nel, and Savran are especially helpful for understanding possible theophanic imagery in Paul. Any theophanic imagery, theme, or motif in the text may communicate to Paul’s readers a possible “type-scene.” While it is self-evident that 1 Thess. 4:13– 18 does not consist of the classic theophany Gattung characteristics (see above), there are several similarities with the characteristics of a theophany itself in the Jewish scriptures (see above).24 1) At the Lord’s parousia, he will implicitly bring salvation and judgment. While there is no explicit judgment or salvation language mentioned in the text, the believers and the raised loved ones are said to be with the Lord forever. 2) Though there is no explicit references to the Lord’s parousia imparting holiness to the people or the ground, the text of 1 Thess. 4:13–18 is surrounded by two ethical exhortation passages (4:1–12 and 5:12–23) whereby Paul warns and encourages the Thessalonians to live lives worthy and pleasing to the Lord in anticipation of the imminent parousia. 3) One can imagine the fear of the Lord that will transpire on that day. 4) The Lord’s parousia will cause der Aufruhr der Natur. The heavens open, the Lord descends, loud sounds are ushered, trumpets are blown, the dead are raised, people are carried up in clouds, and the Lord meets the people in the air (the realm of the rulers of this age; cf. Eph. 2:2). 5) The parousia of the Lord is the epitome of any eschatological appearance of God. Thus, the term “theophanic imagery” is best defined as imagery that functions, connotes, or highlights the vivid image and picture of the appearance or self-disclosure of the Lord that ushers in an upheaval of nature, salvation



meaning and function of imagery outside 1 thess. 4:13–18

47

and/or judgment, and the impartation of holiness or new revelation to the people. Imagery is not considered “theophanic imagery” simply because it is found in theophany texts.

Apocalyptic The word “apocalyptic” comes from the Greek words avpoka,luyij and avpokalu,ptw used over forty times (noun 18x; verb 26x) in the New Testament, most famously in Rev. 1:1, and literally means “revelation” or “reveal.” The modern terms of “apocalypticism,” “apocalypse,” and “apocalyptic” are derived from the Greek term. In popular culture apocalypse is usually defined as a catastrophic event. However, in the Second Temple literature it is not an event, but a “revelation” that is recorded in written form which reveals reality about the past, present, and future in exceedingly symbolic terms. Apocalyptic Literature In the middle of the nineteenth century Friedrich Lücke established two approaches for tackling the question of “apocalyptic” that have survived to the present day.25 The first approach focused on defining the word “apocalyptic” in respect to its literary genre. The other approach analyzed the theological delineations of an apocalyptic Weltanschauung in relation to the thought of the Jew scriptures and the New Testament.26 Adolf Hilgenfeld, a proponent of the first approach, was the first to argue that “apocalyptic” was the transition point between the Jewish scriptures and the New Testament. So important is its function that Jewish apocalyptic filled the gaps of the prophets. Only apocalyptic discloses the “geschichtlichen Zusammenhang des Christenthums mit der prophetischen Weissagung des Alten Testaments vermittelt.”27 Philipp Vielhauer, influenced by Hilgenfeld, Robert H. Charles, Harold H. Rowley, and David S. Russell, established four basic characteristics of all apocalyptic literature in his “Apocalypses and Related Subjects.” 1) Pseudonymity 2) An account of the vision, in which the picture “represents the occurrences themselves directly,” or “portrays them indirectly” through symbols and images and the vision itself takes place through rapture and ecstasy experiences. 3) Surveys of history in future-form

48

paul and the apocalyptic triumph 4) Literary forms and their combinations, for example, symbolic utterances, visions, blessings, wisdom sayings, sacred sayings, farewell discourses, and paraenesis.28

Klaus Koch expanded upon Vielhauer, proposing six characteristics of apocalyptic literature of his own. 1) Discourse cycles 2) Spiritual turmoil 3) Paraenetic discourses 4) Pseudonymity 5) Mythical imagery and symbolism 6) Composite character29 A greater precision was attained in the 1970s, culminating in the Society of Biblical Literature’s Apocalypse Group’s publication of Semeia 14, Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre. The group defines “apocalypse” as a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world.30

This definition was built upon by the suggestions of David Hellholm (1982), David Aune (1986), and the Society of Biblical Literature’s Semeia 36 (1986) to incorporate the function and purpose of the genre: “… intended to interpret present, earthly circumstances in light of the supernatural world and of the future, and to influence both the understanding and the behavior of the audience by means of divine authority.”31 Since the time of Collins’ definition in Semeia 14 and the further refinements proposed in Semeia 36, scholars have categorized apocalyptic as an adjective, not as a noun. Paul Hanson further clarified apocalyptic by implementing a threefold distinction between 1) Apocalypse, a particular literary genre incorporating “the revelation of future events by God through the mediation of an angel to a human servant.” 2) Apocalyptic eschatology, a religious perspective or Weltanschauung in relation to divine providence.



meaning and function of imagery outside 1 thess. 4:13–18

49

3) Apocalypticism, “the system of concepts and symbols in which an apocalyptic movement codifies its identity and gives expression to its interpretation of reality.”32 Following Hanson’s categories, David E. Aune proposes a fourth aspect to the term apocalyptic: apocalyptic imagery. Aune suggests that apocalyptic imagery consists of “the language and conceptions of apocalyptic eschatology” which are discovered through a wide range of “ancient literary settings (emphasis his).”33 Apocalyptic language, motifs, and themes while central to apocalypses, can also occur in a variety of contexts and literary settings, which do not necessarily refer to the genre of apocalypses. Thus, one can discover apocalyptic imagery in a host of settings, for example, the letters of Paul and the discourses of Jesus.34 Christopher Rowland disagrees with Hanson’s distinctions and especially the “apocalyptic eschatology” nomenclature. He seeks to explore a way to understand apocalyptic without overemphasizing the future orientation of apocalypses. There is more to apocalyptic literature than eschatology. “Apocalyptic is as much involved in the attempt to understand things as they are now as to predict future events.”35 Furthermore, Rowland argues that it is impossible to extract a uniform apocalyptic eschatology from the “apocalyptic literature,” for what one thinks is the uniform or common features of the eschatology of apocalypses are really not so common after all. There is no foundational or sine qua non of eschatology in the apocalypses. It is appropriate to talk about “eschatologies” not eschatology in the apocalypses, for eschatology in the apocalyptic literature is ultimately a variegated phenomenon. Focusing his attention on the divine mysteries, that is, “the disclosure of the divine secrets through direct revelation” aspect of apocalypses (e.g., 2 Cor. 12:1–10), Rowland suggests that “apocalyptic eschatology” be replaced with “transcendent eschatology.”36 On the one hand, Rowland is correct that there is more to apocalyptic literature than eschatology and that the eschatology of apocalyptic literature is variegated. On the other hand, there is more to apocalyptic literature than “divine mystery motifs.” By limiting what is characterized as apocalyptic literature to “divine mystery revelations” he has circumvented his argument for a variegated approach for defining the word “apocalyptic.” His de-emphasis of the future orientation of apocalyptic literature causes him to exclude many apocalyptic works (e.g., 1 QM).37

50

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

Furthermore, by over emphasizing the rapture/assumption of Paul to heaven for the disclosure of divine revelation in 2 Cor. 12:1–10, he glosses over the other “apocalyptic” aspects of Paul’s theology. Rowland is so quick to argue that 2 Corinthians 12 and other texts fit the Jewish apocalyptic divine mystery pattern that he minimizes the more important question: What is the content of the apocalyptic “revelation” itself, and how does that content affect its readers? Moreover, if divine heavenly disclosure revelation is the essence of apocalyptic thought, how is this any different than Gnosticism? 38 Having briefly investigated the term “apocalyptic” as it relates to the genre of apocalyptic literature, there are a few items of summary. 1) The word “apocalyptic” must be defined as an adjective. 2) While apocalyptic literature is variegated there are, based on the work of Collins, Vielhauer, Koch, Hellholm, and others, essential characteristics, motifs, and themes which distinguish any apocalyptic literature from other types of literature (e.g., pseudonymity, doctrine of the two ages, symbolic imagery, and visionary narrative). 3) The term “apocalyptic eschatology,” though widespread in its usage, will be replaced with “apocalyptic thought,” “apocalyptic theology,” and so forth. Apocalyptic eschatology can be confusing. Not all apocalyptic thought is purely eschatological and not all eschatology contains apocalyptic thought. “In short, ‘apocalyptic’ is an adjective which characterizes a type of theology, not merely a type of eschatology” (emphasis author’s).39 4) Any quest to define the word “apocalyptic” ought not be limited to the question of “apocalyptic” as genre. To do so may neglect any apocalyptic thought that is presented, though not found in what we would characterize as apocalyptic literature. Apocalyptic literature and apocalyptic thought must function together in a type of hermeneutical spiral whereby both are assisting the reader to ascertain the meaning of the word “apocalyptic.”40 Thus, before fully defining what is meant by “apocalyptic” imagery, it is necessary to investigate how the word “apocalyptic” is defined as a theological concept, and more pertinent, how the imagery Paul employs in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 is apocalyptic imagery. This investigation will begin by surveying those who argue that apocalyptic thought is fundamental to Paul’s theology.



meaning and function of imagery outside 1 thess. 4:13–18

51

Apocalyptic Thought in Paul Johannes Weiss’s 1892 landmark work Die Predigt Jesu vom Reich Gottes inaugurated a paradigm shift in New Testament studies.41 Weiss ushered in a new focus on apocalyptic theology and the future aspect of the kingdom of God. In disagreement with his contemporaries—who were engrossed in a liberal Jesus—Weiss proposed that Jesus’ message was fundamentally inspired by apocalyptic thought. The kingdom of God was a future, otherworldly entity that would one day come. While Weiss published his work first, it was Albert Schweitzer who made a larger impact. Like Weiss, Schweitzer proposed that the kingdom of God was entirely a future event—“consistent eschatology.” Eschatology was the key to the whole public ministry of Jesus. Schweitzer maintained that Jesus was an eschatological apocalyptic Jewish prophet who argued for the imminent coming kingdom.42 He also argued that Paul’s way of thinking was purely eschatological and influenced by Jewish apocalyptic thought.43 Ernst Käsemann ushered in a new focus on the importance of apocalyptic thought for understanding the whole of Paul’s theology.44 Käsemann famously proclaimed apocalyptic as “the mother of all Christian theology.”45 In order to understand Paul and his apostolic mission it is important to comprehend what he meant by his apocalyptic thought.46 Käsemann redefined apocalyptic theology in terms of the lordship of Christ, the righteousness of God, and justification by faith. For Käsemann, Paul’s apocalyptic theology is future eschatology with an expectation of an imminent parousia and an imminent end of the world. Paul’s apocalyptic thought is fundamentally cosmological in nature. In the event of the death and resurrection of Christ, God has launched his assault on the powers of the old aeon and replaced it with the new aeon.47 Inspired by the work of Käsemann, J. Christiaan Beker argues that the essence of Paul’s theology is located in the apocalyptic theme of God’s coming cosmic triumph.48 Paul’s hermeneutic is comprised of a continuous dialectical interaction between “the coherent center of the gospel and its contingent interpretation.”49 Beker defines coherence as the abiding constituent of the apostle’s gospel. The contingency of his gospel is delineated as “the changing, situational part of the gospel, that is, the diversity and particularity of sociological, economical, and psychological factors that confront Paul in his churches and in his missionary work and to which he had to respond.”50 Beker submits that Paul’s interplay between the contingency interpretation of the gospel and its coherent center resembles a “military

52

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

command center” where he deploys what is necessary to meet the needs of his audience.51 The coherent center of Paul’s thought is “the apocalyptic interpretation of the Christ-event.”52 Beker proposes that Jewish apocalyptic concepts are pervasive in Paul’s thought.53 Jewish apocalyptic thought functioned as his infrastructure.54 He maintains that Paul retooled the imagery and concepts of Jewish apocalyptic thought. Beker distills apocalyptic thought down into four characteristics or motifs: 1) Dualism 2) The cosmic rule of God 3) The hope in the imminent coming of God 4) The faithfulness and vindication of God55 Beker sides with Koch over Vielhauer because he believes that Vielhauer overemphasizes the dualism and pessimism of apocalyptic thought.56 Jewish apocalyptic dualism presents an antithesis between the present and the future, between the evil forces and powers of this world and those who belong to the coming kingdom of God.57 The temporal dualism of Jewish apocalyptic thought, argues Beker, is made peripheral by Paul because the apostle vehemently expounds that the old age is over.58 “Paul’s Christian form of apocalyptic modifies this Jewish-dualistic motif by tempering it, on the one hand, and by intensifying it, on the other.”59 Beker proposes two ways in which Paul tempers the Jewish-dualistic motif of the olam ha-zeh (“this age”) and the olam ha-ba (“the coming age”). First, the history of Israel is interpreted in a typological way.60 Second, the death and resurrection of Christ marks the assault of the coming age into this present evil age (cf. Gal. 1:4). “[T]he Christ-event has considerably modified the dualistic structure of Jewish apocalyptic thought.”61 The new age is already at work in the power of the Holy Spirit, the pledge that the new age is at hand.62 The new life Christians now experience through the Spirit is a foretaste of the promised future in the new age.63 Paul tempers the dualism between this present age and the age to come “by emphasizing [the] continuity in the midst of discontinuity, a continuity that is grounded in God’s faithfulness to Israel.”64 Paul also intensifies the dualism. Now that the forces of the future are already at work in the present, a battle is presently raging between the powers of life and the powers of death. This dualistic conflict compels the church to wage war against the hostile forces that attempt to squelch it. “The church



meaning and function of imagery outside 1 thess. 4:13–18

53

signifies the dawn of the new world of God in the midst of the old age and is like a heavenly vanguard that fights against the forces of evil.”65 Paul also strengthens the motif of imminence by attaching it to the hope of God’s cosmological vindication.66 Christ’s death and resurrection heightens the motif of imminence for it already “heralds the incursion of the future into the present.”67 Ultimately, according to Beker, Paul’s theology is a theology of hope.68 It is a “theocentric theology of hope,” not a “christocentric salvation history” (Oscar Cullman).69 Paul’s theology of hope perceives the present as the commencement of the future and the future as the fulfillment of what was promised in the present.70 A Pauline theology that guts apocalyptic hope is through-and-through no longer a legitimate theology of Paul. Apocalyptic hope points to the imminent coming of Christ. Paul’s coherent gospel is found in the “apocalyptic interpretation of the Christ-event.”71 While Christ’s death is a once for all occasion, the full meaning and ramifications of the resurrection will not be actualized until the future resurrection of the dead.72 Therefore, the resurrection of Christ cannot be asserted apart from the future apocalyptic resurrection because it derives its meaning from its future referent (Rom. 1:4). In Paul the cross is embedded into the apocalyptic framework of the resurrection of Christ, so that the proleptic victory of the cross and resurrection moves toward the future public victory of God in the final resurrection.73

According to Beker, Paul’s apocalyptic thought is theocentric, cosmic in scope, and climaxes in the future imminent arrival of the triumph of God. J. Louis Martyn makes an important corrective to Beker’s position. Martyn took notice of Beker’s suppression of apocalyptic theology in Galatians. [Beker’s] account of Paul’s Apocalyptic Theology, the core of his book, is written without reference to Galatians … Is the apocalyptic theme of the gospel suppressed in that letter in which Paul says with unmistakable emphasis that the truth of the gospel is a matter of apocalypse (Ga. 1:12, 16; 2:2, 5, 14)? … Could Galatians perhaps be allowed to play its own role in showing us precisely what the nature of Paul’s apocalyptic was?74

The essence of Galatians centers on the apocalypse of Jesus Christ and his cross.75 The apocalyptic event of the cross and resurrection commences the “death of one world, and the advent of another.”76 The old world contains divisive sets of opposites, while the new world is pregnant with unity. According

54

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

to Martyn, the Christ-event has ushered in a cosmic war between the worlds, most notably between the flesh and the Spirit. The Spirit and the flesh constitute “an apocalyptic antinomy,” which is characteristic of the advent of new creation.77 This apocalyptic antinomy of the Spirit and the flesh is defined as “two opposed powers, actively at war with one another since the advent of Christ and his Spirit (emphasis his).”78 The imminent future triumph of God, that Beker and Käsemann stress, is only secondary in Martyn’s position. In Galatians, the cornerstone of Paul’s apocalyptic thought is Christ’s crucifixion, not his parousia.79 Conclusions Having investigated briefly the definitions of the word “apocalyptic” as it is employed as a genre (apocalyptic literature), and how several Pauline scholars have attempted to define “apocalyptic” thought in Paul, it can be said without a doubt that defining the word “apocalyptic” is not an easy task. Though the word may be misapplied, even in seemly contradictory modus operandi, and defined in numerous ways, the fact remains that “the word continues to be used.”80 Consequently, rather than abandoning the word altogether, it is important to heed Richard E. Sturm’s suggestion that “there must be a need for it.”81 Therefore, it is necessary to make several comments about the word, while striving to define it. First, notwithstanding the fact that the word “apocalyptic” comes from the Greek words avpoka,luyij and avpokalu,ptw and denotes “revelation” or “to reveal or unveil,” these definitions at times do not go far enough. The word “revelation” calls to mind the “unveiling” of something once hidden in the manner of pulling back a curtain, revealing what was behind it.82 However, as Martyn maintains, On the whole … the image of uncovering or unveiling is woefully inadequate as an attempt to interpret Paul’s apocalyptic [thought]. Paul’s view is focused instead on the image of a dynamic invasion (emphasis added). This invasion inaugurates the movement (emphasis his) on the apocalyptic landscape … the coming of Christ, the apocalypse of Christ, is the powerful invasion of Christ.83

Second, any attempt to define Paul’s apocalyptic theology, must keep in mind that Paul reinterpreted Jewish apocalyptic concepts and theological expressions in light of the death and resurrection of Christ. His apocalyptic thought cannot be expected to remain without transformation from the concepts and theological expressions of apocalyptic literature.84



meaning and function of imagery outside 1 thess. 4:13–18

55

Third, while there is some debate, a consensus can be made that any apocalyptic theology consists of three main concepts: 1) Eschatological duality (the two Aeons)85 2) Cosmic sovereignty of God 3) Hope in the imminent coming of God and the rectification of the world86 However, there is one concept that appears to be central: eschatological duality.87 The concept of the two aeons (the old age and the age to come) is found throughout Jewish and Christian apocalyptic thought (especially in the Pauline letters).88 Eschatological duality in Jewish apocalyptic literature held that the “old age” and the “age to come” were two discontinuous eras. The “old age” (or “this present age”) was characterized by pervasive evil, wickedness, death, and suffering. According to Jewish apocalyptic literature, at some point in the future God would invade “the present age” with a cosmic intervention to usher in the “age to come,” annihilating all evil, redeeming the righteous, and bringing judgment upon the wicked. This “age to come” was the ultimate promised hope of those who believed in God. The themes of “this age” and “the new age” are evident everywhere and are a major motif in Paul.89 Paul refers to “this age” as the “present evil age,” an age from which humankind needs to be rescued (Gal. 1:4). It is an age of great suffering (Rom. 8:18). It is an aeon of “rulers of this age,”90 “gods of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4), “the so-called wise” (1 Cor. 1:20; 3:18–19), “those holding a worldly or immoral point of view,”91 and “un-Godly forces and powers.”92 But “this age” is ultimately passing away by virtue of Christ’s invading cosmic apocalyptic event at the cross which commences the arrival of the new age.93 While Paul never explicitly employs the term “age to come,” it is implicit in such phrases as “new creation has come” (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15), “kingdom of God,”94 “hope or age of glory,”95 and the “new way” (Rom. 7:6; Gal. 3:25). The parousia of Christ96 marks the absolute end of the “present evil age,” fulfilling the work begun by the cosmic invasion of Christ at the cross. To sum up, there are three principles we ought to keep in mind when attempting any definition of Paul’s apocalyptic theology or the word “apocalyptic” for that matter. 1) The Greek words avpoka,luyij and avpokalu,ptw, literally defined as “revelation” or “reveal,” can mean more than a simple unveiling. The

56

paul and the apocalyptic triumph unveiling is an image of a dynamic invasion. That is, the apocalypse of Christ is the invasion of the coming of Christ upon the “present age.” 2) While Paul’s theology was influenced by Jewish apocalyptic concepts, it was ultimately reinterpreted in light of the death and resurrection of Christ. Thus, Paul’s apocalyptic thought will contain several differences from Jewish apocalyptic expressions conveyed in the apocalyptic literature. 3) The main motif of apocalyptic theology in Paul is “eschatological duality.” Paul’s duality consists of the invading cosmic arrival of the new age in Christ, which transforms the present evil age. Thus, whenever Paul “construes the present time as fundamentally transformed through God’s invasive act of deliverance—which is to say everywhere—we find him employing apocalyptic categories.”97

This investigation into defining apocalyptic theology in Paul is brief and in no way exhaustive. It provides a framework and boundary to employ as one defines more clearly what is meant by “apocalyptic” imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18. Moreover, the purpose of this chapter is not to employ a detailed discussion of the apocalyptic theology in Paul. Rather, the objective of this section is to define what is meant by apocalyptic imagery, for Paul uses apocalyptic imagery for a specific purpose and with a particular function. Wayne Meeks’ thesis is especially important for this study. In his 1983 landmark work, The First Urban Christians, Meeks investigates what the function is of the apocalyptic imagery that Paul uses, rather than attempting a distillation of the correct theological abstraction or definition of apocalyptic ideas in Paul.98 Apocalyptic language is employed in 1 Thessalonians to support the “solidarity and stability” of the congregation in a variety of ways: 1) It emphasizes and legitimates “boundaries” between the Thessalonians and society as a whole. 2) It enhances the “internal cohesion and solidarity,” of the congregation. 3) It provides “sanctions for normative behavior” for the Thessalonian church.99 Meeks contends that Paul’s thought is “functionally apocalyptic” in nature.100 The death and resurrection of Christ has inaugurated a new



meaning and function of imagery outside 1 thess. 4:13–18

57

order. Corresponding to this shift is a shift in allegiance from a Jewish community or pagan society to a “newly, tightly bonded, exclusive cultic community.”101 Meeks’ proposal that Paul’s thought is “functionally apocalyptic” accommodates our objective. Paul employed all his imagery, be it apocalyptic or otherwise, for a particular function. The function of the imagery of the cry of command, voice of the archangel, trumpet of God, the meeting in the air, and the parousia of Christ in 1 Thess. 4:16–17 is to respond to the problem of the death of some of the congregation’s loved ones. The imagery was not exercised in a vacuum. Moreover, what makes any of the images in 1 Thess. 4:16–17 “apocalyptic imagery” is not simply because they are found in apocalyptic literature. More importantly what makes any imagery “apocalyptic imagery” is based on its function and meaning in the context of where it occurs. The imagery of a loud command, sound of an archangel, trumpet of God, the meeting in the air, and/or the parousia of Christ, and others, cannot be solely considered apocalyptic imagery based on what they denote, for these images are used in a variety of contexts, not all being apocalyptic contexts. Rather, these images ought to be defined as apocalyptic imagery based on what they connote to a particular group, people, or context and what they connote for a particular purpose.102 The imagery illustrating the parousia of the Lord, as argued above, can only connote and be defined as “apocalyptic imagery” because the images themselves highlight the vivid image and picture of eschatological duality. The apocalyptic imagery in 1 Thess. 4:16–17 manifests the invasion into this age of the triumphal parousia of Christ that ushers in the fulfillment of the new age already at hand. The rest of this chapter will investigate the meaning and function of Paul’s theophanic, apocalyptic, and Greco-Roman imagery he employs in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 to articulate and illustrate Christ’s parousia. The next chapter will show how and to what effect the established meaning and function of the imagery used to illustrate and articulate the parousia had on the Thessalonian congregation. It will reveal why a both/and approach and the deployment of an amalgamation of apocalyptic, theophanic, and Greco-Roman imagery was the best way to reassure and convey hope to the Thessalonian congregation amidst great persecution, despair, and loss, while striving to present a vivid, visual presentation, and explanation of the unexplainable, the parousia of Christ.

58

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

The Meaning and Function of Paul’s Imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 Since this chapter has established what is meant by the terms “apocalyptic imagery” and “theophanic imagery,” one can now turn his or her attention towards understanding the meaning and function of the imagery Paul’s employs in 1 Thess. 4:13–18. Plevnik, in his book Paul and the Parousia, lays out six images that he suggests are ripe with apocalyptic motifs: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

The cry of command The archangel’s call The trumpet of God The cloud The parousia The meeting in the air

This chapter will look at four of these images, the cry of command, the archangel’s call, the trumpet of God, and the meeting in the air, and assess their meaning and function based on the contexts and motifs found in apocalyptic, theophanic, and Greco-Roman texts. It will show that a majority of these images have a variety of contexts in which they are located, an amalgamation of motifs, and a synthesis of function. Cry of Command The noun keleu,sma (“cry of command”) is an hapax legomenon in both the New Testament (1 Thess. 4:16) and LXX (Prov. 30:27). Lothar Schmid maintains “the meaning can range from a specific command, through a terse order, to an inarticulate cry.”103 In the LXX Prov. 30:27, the word is used in a military situation that implies an official issued an “order,” “decree,” or “command.” In the Second Temple literature keleu,sma is used once (Sib. Or. 8.447). Here the author pays homage to God by reflecting on his sovereignty over all the elements of creation for even they obey his command. The word keleu,sma is used twice in Philo (Abr. 116; De praem. et poen. 1.117). In the former occurrence, the word is found within a context whereby a naval commander orders his men to obey his signal. In the latter the word is used to describe when God will evn keleu,smati (“with a single command”) gather people from all over the earth (De praem. et poen. 1:117).104 In the prologue



meaning and function of imagery outside 1 thess. 4:13–18

59

of 3 Baruch, an older form of keleu,sma (keleu,ma) is used: “A narrative and revelation of Baruch, concerning those ineffable things which he saw by a keleu,mati qeou/” (3 Bar. [intr.]). The context implies that God himself issued the command to the author. The number of occurrences of keleu,sma balloons if one investigates its verbal form keleu,w. The verb keleu,w is used twenty-seven times in the LXX.105 It is used in military contexts.106 It is located in contexts where a dignitary or king gives a command or order.107 Twice it is found where a priestly command or order is given.108 It is also used in contexts where a deity issues a command.109 In the Second Temple literature there are several texts where an official issues a command.110 Other texts reveal an angel of God (T. Sol. 2:8, 9; 7:8 [archangel Azrael]; 1 En. 102:3) or heavenly bodies (T. Sol. 8:1, 11, 12) issuing a command.111 In several texts God himself ushers a command.112 At other times God orders his “commander-in-chief,” the archangel Michael to action.113 Joseph Plevnik proposes that keleu,sma is not part of the stock expressions of New Testament apocalyptic or Jewish apocalyptic day of the Lord or theophany texts. However, an “underlying motif—the motif of command call” does occur in Jewish apocalyptic day of the Lord and theophany texts.114 Plevnik launches an exploration of the command call motif in Jewish theophany and day of the Lord contexts he understands are analogous to the imagery of 1 Thess. 4:16–17. In Ps. 104:7 (LXX 103:7), he discovers a “parallelismus membrorum” between Yahweh’s thunderous sound and his rebuke (r[g).115 The word r[g occurs twenty-nine times in the Jewish scriptures.116 Of the twenty-nine occurrences, sixteen are found in theophany texts. Yahweh rebukes the sea,117 the nations,118 the insolent (Ps. 119:21), the “mighty” (Ps. 76:7), his enemies (Isa. 66:15), and Jerusalem (Isa. 51:20). The LXX translates (r[g and hr[g) most frequently as evpitima,w and evpitimh,sij, respectively. While there are times when avposkoraki,zw or avpeile,w are used as equivalents, Plevnik is quick to point out that the translations by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion use evpitima,w.119 Influenced by the work of Howard Clark Kee, he argues that in all these texts God enforces his rule over the cosmos by overpowering his enemies per his purposes, which is a common phenomenon in divine warrior motifs.120 “God is presented here as enforcing his historical and eschatological rule using His word of command as His mighty and irresistible instrument.”121 According to Plevnik, the motif of command call is also prevalent in the Jewish apocalyptic literature where God

60

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

launches his eschatological rule, destroying death, vindicating the righteous with life eternal, and obliterating his enemies by establishing peace.122 Following Kee, Plevnik expands his investigation of the command call motif to the New Testament. The verb evpitima,w is used twenty-nine times.123 All but two occurrences are found in the synoptic gospels. It occurs in contexts where Jesus rebukes/commands the wind,124 demons,125 his disciples,126 Peter (Mark 8:33), and sickness (Luke 4:39). These references, especially Jesus’ rebuke/command to the wind, demons, and sickness, reveal that his coming ushered in an eschatological and cosmological reality reinforcing God’s kingdom and rule.127 Furthermore, he suggests that the command call motif is inherent in 2 Thess. 2:8 (cf. 4 Ezra 13:10; 1 QSb 5:24–25) where Jesus is said to wipe out the evil one by a command from his mouth.128 Plevnik concludes his study of ke,leusma by declaring that the word functions in 1 Thess. 4:16 to distinguish Christ’s parousia as the eschatological event of establishing God’s kingdom.129 While Plevnik’s view of ke,leusma is intriguing, it is not the only option. Ke,leusma is also used in Greco-Roman imperial contexts. The word keleu,sma is used frequently in the Greek literature.130 The word is often used in political or military situations where the official in charge issues an “order,” “decree,” or “command.”131 The word is used as a “signal” or “command” to engage in battle.132 It is employed in contexts in which a basic “command” or “order” is issued.133 The word is found in contexts where an owner “commands” his or her animal.134 The word is also used in a context where a deity makes a “command” to an army (Appian Syrian Wars 9.58). Another common form in the Greek literature is keleu,ma.135 It is exerted in military contexts.136 The word is also used for basic orders and commands.137 More relevant for this study are the contexts in which keleu,ma is used where a deity issues a command or order.138 In Aeschylus’ Eumenides 229–244, Orestes and Hermes at Loxias’ command (keleu,masin), comes in order to await Orestes’ trial by the goddess Athena.139 In a Commentary on Aeneid of Virgil, iussa (a Latin equivalent of keleu,ma) is used twice (Verg. Aeneid 4.537).140 Here the author juxtaposes the iussa that the Trojans’ command with the iussa uttered by Jupiter.141 There are numerous occurrences of the verb keleu,w.142 The verb is used when a dignitary makes a basic command.143 Similar to the noun forms keleu,sma and keleu,ma, the verb keleu,w is found in military contexts where a military commander ushers a command to his men144 or a naval command.145 There are also several texts where a deity utters a command.146



meaning and function of imagery outside 1 thess. 4:13–18

61

While the noun ke,leusma is only used once in the New Testament, the verb form keleu,w is used twenty-five times.147 Twenty of the occurrences are found in contexts where an official of high rank gives a command to his subordinate.148 For example, in Acts 8:35 Philip commands the chariot to stop so that the eunuch can be baptized. The verb is also used in contexts where Jesus issues a command to his disciples (Matt. 8:18), to the crowds (Matt 4:19), and to a blind man (Luke 18:40). There is a wide variety of contextual meaning to ke,leusma and its other noun and verb cognates. 1) The word ke,leusma can signify the command of God to gather his people together at the parousia.149 2) It can function as a loud cry as part of an apocalyptic military term used in contexts where the divine warrior motif is evident.150 3) According to Plevnik, ke,leusma carries with it an “underlying motif— the motif of command call,” which functions as God’s command that ushers in his eschatological rule, kingdom, and authority. 4) It is used in various Greco-Roman imperial military contexts. The “cry of command” is used to unlock the entrance of the city gates as the emperor, king, or high official arrives.151 This connotation of ke,leusma carries with it a parallel motif of the great welcoming of Jesus to earth. Any or all of these various possible meanings or functions of ke,leusma may have inspired Paul’s use of the word in 1 Thess. 4:16. In order to clarify the meaning and function of ke,leusma one needs to investigate all the imagery in 1 Thess. 4:15–17. Sound of an Archangel The second audible act fwnh/| avrcagge,lou (“sound of an archangel”) also has limited usage. It is not used in the LXX. In the New Testament the noun avrca,ggeloj is used only in 1 Thess. 4:16 and Jude 9, where the archangel Michael is mentioned. Michael may be the archangel mentioned here in 1 Thess 4:16.152 In Philo, archangel connotes God’s eternal word (Conf. 146) or denotes God himself (Her. 204–205; On Dreams 157).153 The word avrca,ggeloj occurs numerous times in the Second Temple literature. There are five basic functions of an archangel in the Second Temple literature:

62

paul and the apocalyptic triumph 1) To address humans (Sib. Or. 8:460; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 1:3). In the Sibylline Oracles the archangel Gabriel reassures Mary that the baby that grows within her womb is from the Lord. 2) To escort someone to heaven.154 3) To be an interceder between God and human.155 In the T. Ab., Abraham asks the archangel Michael to plead to God for mercy on his behalf (T. Ab. 14:10). 4) Sent to assist a human(s).156 5) To administer judgment (T. Ab. 13:10–11; 4 Bar. 9:5). In T. Ab. 13:10–11, the archangel Dokiel, the righteous balance-bearer, weighs the righteous deeds and sins with the righteousness of God. Meanwhile, the archangel Rurouel holds the refining fire in his hands to purify and test the works of men through fire (cf. 1 Cor. 3:13–15).

While the word avrca,ggeloj is not used once in the LXX, a;ggeloj occurs hundreds of times in the LXX and Second Temple literature. There are two central definitions of a;ggeloj: 1) a human envoy or messenger; or 2) “a transcendent power who carries out various missions or tasks.”157 The latter has five primary characteristics:158 1) An angel can appear, call, or come to a human.159 2) An angel may go before, protect, accompany, prepare, or guide a human.160 3) Angels ascend or descend from heaven or take a human to or through heaven.161 4) An angel may convey God’s word, commands, or message to an individual or group.162 5) An angel may function as God’s instrument of judgment.163 The word a;ggeloj is used one hundred and seventy-five times in the New Testament. Angels or messengers carry out several functions: 1) Angels appear, come, or call to human(s).164 2) Angels administer to human(s) in need (especially Jesus).165 3) Angels are used by God to gather the elect or unrighteous for judgment.166 4) The son of man comes with angels.167 5) Angels descend from heaven to earth and ascend from earth to heaven.168



meaning and function of imagery outside 1 thess. 4:13–18

63

6) Angels at times may come to deliver a human from trouble.169 7) Angels are used as God’s administers of cosmic judgment.170 This survey of avrca,ggeloj and a;ggeloj in the Jewish scriptures, Second Temple literature, and New Testament has shown that these terms are part of the standard apocalyptic imagery that illustrate the coming of God. God, in many contexts, comes accompanied by his angels and/or archangels. Archangels or angels accompany the son of man (Lord) at his eschatological coming.171 Archangels and angels are God’s great messengers. They represent God’s glory, power, and majesty. Angels and archangels prompt mankind “both of the magnitude of God and of God’s creation, for the world as it presents itself to human beings is not the entire world, but is subject to the lordship and will of God.”172 The word avrca,ggeloj occurs only a few times in the Greek literature (Anth. Gr. 1.32, 33, 36). In each one of these occurrences the archangel in question is none other than the archangel Michael. While the frequency of avrca,ggeloj is minimal in the Greek literature, its distant cousin a;ggeloj is found hundreds of times. The word a;ggeloj is almost always translated as “messenger,” rather than angel—whether that messenger is a human or ethereal in nature—and functions in several different ways: 1) As a messenger who carries a message from one person to another.173 2) As a messenger in military engagements bringing messages from one general to another or from one side to another.174 3) As a messenger sent by a king to another person, place, or king.175 4) As a messenger of the gods.176 Moreover, there are several contexts in the Jewish scriptures where a;ggeloj does refer to a human messenger similar to its denotation in the Greek literature.177 For example, in Judg. 11:12–17 Jephthah sends messengers (avgge,louj) to the king of the Ammonites, then answers the messengers Jephthah sent, and Jephthah follows up the king of the Ammonites’ response by sending more messengers. In 1 Chron. 19:16–18, when it looked like the Arameans were going to be defeated by Israel, they sent messengers to Shophach the commander of the army of Hadadezer. Learning of this development, David gathers his forces and attacks the Arameans. Based on the context and usage of avrca,ggeloj and a;ggeloj in the Jewish scriptures, Second Temple literature, and the New Testament, there is little

64

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

doubt that Paul’s use of avrca,ggeloj in 1 Thess. 4:16 refers to a “supernatural being that attends upon or serves as a messenger of a superior supernatural entity,” and not a human messenger or envoy—the primary denotation in the Greek literature.178 The function of avrca,ggeloj, and more specifically a;ggeloj, noted above in the Greek literature, can also assist in ascertaining the correct function of Paul’s use of the term in 1 Thess. 4:16. In every usage of avrca,ggeloj and a;ggeloj above in the Greek literature, the messenger is always subordinate to the ultimate sender of the message. The messenger not only represents the message being sent, he is also a representative of the person in authority who mandated the message. Thus, the messenger brings with him both an authoritative message, but also the authoritative presence of the originator of the message. While avrca,ggeloj and a;ggeloj may denote and/or connote something different between the Jewish apocalyptic and biblical texts, and the Greek literature, the function of the words is similar. Paul’s usage of fwnh/| avrcagge,lou in 1 Thess. 4:16 illustrates that the one who comes accompanied and commenced by the sound of an archangel can only be one of great authority and power, that is, the Lord Jesus Christ. In order to understand the image more fully the next section of this chapter will discuss the sa,lpiggi qeou/, the final part of the threefold audible act of 1 Thess. 4:16. Trumpet of God The third audible act sa,lpiggi qeou (“trumpet of God”) in 1 Thess. 4:16 is the climax of the tripartite prepositional phrases that elucidate the descent of the Lord. The term sa,lpigx and its verbal cognate salpi,zw are found over one hundred and fifty times throughout the LXX. The word can refer to the instrument used for communication, the sound the instrument makes, or to announce something or someone with great fanfare.179 In the LXX sa,lpigx 180 Trumpets have four categories of is most frequently utilized for association: 1) Trumpets are associated with theophanies,181 day of the Lord motifs,182 and the Lord’s exultation as king.183 2) They accompany and are used to commemorate, commence, and rejoice in cultic ceremony celebrations, such as the day of the atonement (Lev. 25:9), the feast of trumpets (Lev. 23:24), new moon festival (Num. 10:10; LXX Ps. 80:4), and are used to sanctify a fast



meaning and function of imagery outside 1 thess. 4:13–18

65

(Joel 2:15). They are blown to assemble the congregation (Num. 10:3–8) and announce a new king.184 Priests blow trumpets before the ark,185 to praise the Lord after they brought the ark to the temple (2 Chron. 5:12–14), to dedicate the temple (2 Chron. 7:6), to celebrate purifying the temple (2 Chron. 29:26–28), and to celebrate the building of the temple (1 Esd. 5:59–67; Ezra 3:10). 3) Trumpets are associated in contexts of holy war.186 They are blown as the Israelites marched around the city of Jericho (Josh. 6:9, 13), and as the city walls fell to the Israelites (Josh. 6:16, 20). Trumpets are used to signal or warn of coming danger or war.187 They are employed to announce the going to war,188 the battle call to advance,189 or the signal to disengage.190 Trumpets were used to announce the arrival of a king (Judg. 3:27; 2 Chron. 23:13). 4) Trumpets are connected with the divine warrior motif where the Lord himself carries out war against his adversaries.191 In Amos 2:2, the trumpet is blown amid the war cries as the Lord promises to send fire and great tumult upon Moab, consume the fortresses of Kerioth, and destroy all her inhabitants. In Zeph. 1:14–18, a great day of the Lord will usher in the divine warrior who will bring wrath, distress, anguish, darkness, gloom, clouds, darkness, judgment, and destruction upon all the inhabitants on earth. In Zech. 9:14, the Lord will appear as a warrior blowing a trumpet and carrying a bow and arrow to march against his enemies bringing salvation for his people. The term sa,lpigx and its verbal cognate salpi,zw are also frequently found in the Second Temple literature. There are six underlying functions of a trumpet in the Second Temple literature: 1) 2) 3) 4)

They are used to announce the commencement of judgment.192 Trumpets announce the holy war or battle cry.193 Trumpets function as a sign or signal of the end-time.194 They announce end-time redemption (Gk. Apoc. Ezra 4:36). Here the trumpets sound and the dead rise from the grave uncorrupted (cf. 1 Cor. 15:52).195 5) Trumpets summon angels (Apoc. Moses 22:1; 37:1).196 6) Trumpets signal the coming or arrival of an angel (4 Bar. 3:2), a human dignitary (4 Bar. 4:2), or God himself.197

66

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

Trumpets are also used numerous times in the War Scroll (1 QM, cf. 4Q491– 493), which describes the eschatological battle of God and the sons of light against Belial and the sons of darkness.198 Trumpets are employed by the priests to summon the troops to get ready for battle and assemble in formation.199 They are blown again to signal the troops to advance against the enemy.200 Trumpets are used to signal the massacre of the enemy.201 They are employed to initiate the signal for the ambush of the enemy.202 Trumpets are blown to commence the final pursuit to finish off the enemy.203 Trumpets are also employed to inaugurate the return from battle, not in defeat, but to reengage the enemy or in victory.204 Sometimes the number of trumpets blown, the octave, or the way and length they were blown is mentioned.205 The term sa,lpigx and its verbal cognate salpi,zw are utilized hundreds of times throughout the Greek literature. Trumpets are employed in many ways, most commonly in contexts of war: 1) They are used to initiate and during cultic festival(s), such as the feast of trumpets.206 2) Trumpets are blown from heaven by God or towards heaven by people in worship, veneration, and awe.207 3) They are employed to initiate a military order.208 4) Trumpets sound the war cry to attack.209 5) Trumpets are employed to assemble the troops for battle.210 6) They signal the retreat or return to camp or warn troops of coming danger.211 7) Trumpets announce that the enemy has been conquered.212 8) They are employed to summon to someone.213 9) Trumpets are blown to signal commencement or arrival of someone.214 10) They are employed to scare and intimidate the enemy.215 The noun sa,lpigx or its verbal cognate salpi,zw occur twenty-three times in the New Testament.216 Trumpets have a variety of functions in the New Testament: 1) They have an eschatological purpose. In Matt. 24:31, Jesus warns his disciples during his eschatological discourse that when the son of man comes he will send out his angels with the sound of a trumpet to gather his elect from the four winds (cf. Isa. 27:13; Ps. Sol. 11:1).



meaning and function of imagery outside 1 thess. 4:13–18

2) 3) 4) 5)

67

In 1 Cor. 15:52, a trumpet will commence the rising of the dead to new imperishable life. In Rev. 11:15, at the sound of the seventh angel’s trumpet the kingdom of the world will become the Lord’s kingdom.217 They are issued in battle (1 Cor. 14:8).218 The sound of a trumpet brings a sense of awe and wonder to its hearer.219 The very voice or approach of God himself carries with it a cacophony of sound like a trumpet.220 Trumpets are employed by angels to initiate judgment.221

From this examination and investigation into the function and meaning of sa,lpigx and salpi,zw in the Jewish scriptures, Second Temple literature, New Testament, and Greco-Roman texts one can determine that trumpets provide, announce, or symbolize three main functions or motifs. 1) Trumpets symbolize the inauguration of an eschatological reality (e.g., the resurrection of the dead, the coming of God). 2) Trumpets announce the commencement of various military orders (e.g., to attack, sound the battle cry, scare the enemy, and assemble for battle). 3) Trumpets provide the public declaration of the arrival of a dignitary or deity. However, if there is one meaning or function of an author’s deployment of trumpets throughout all these texts and motifs that is especially important, it is the function of announcement. When a trumpet is blown, those who hear the trumpet know instinctively that what follows brings with it a sense of urgency and authority. The Lord’s coming by descent articulated in 1 Thess. 4:16–17 is accompanied by three attendant circumstances (evn keleu,smati, evn fwnh|/ avrcagge,lou, and evn sa,lpiggi qeou/). These three terms function together to indicate that the one who comes is one of power and authority. With its two predecessors, the imagery of the trumpet reinforces the motif of the parousia. The accumulation of images enhances the overall function.222 With the addition of the fourth and final image, not only will an ever-growing enhancement of the overall function be ascertained, but one will also discover the richness of the amalgamation of the imagery Paul uses.

68

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

The Meeting of the Lord In 1 Thess. 4:17 Paul employs the phrase eivj avpa,nthsin tou/ kuri,ou to describe the grand meeting of the Lord and the faithful. The pivotal word here is avpa,nthsin. In 1930 Erik Peterson published his important article arguing that avpa,nthsin is an Greco-Roman terminus technicus used to describe the event of a group of people going out of a city to meet a visiting dignitary and then escorting that dignitary back into the city. Peterson saw clear imperial roots attached to the word.223 As the imperial visitor approaches the city all the citizens come out of their civitas and welcome his arrival. This is followed by a great parade through the city. Peterson sees great similarity between this imperial image in Greco-Roman literature and Paul’s use of avpa,nthsin in 1 Thess. 4:17. At the parousia, the faithful “welcome” the Lord and accompany him joyfully to their renewed earthly city. Peterson describes this event as the Einholung of the Lord.224 The technical use of avpa,nthsin was recognized as early as the fourth century A.D. by John Chrysostom. Chrysostom supports the interpretation that the believers will go out to meet Christ in the air and escort him back to earth. For as when a king ceremoniously entered a city, certain dignitaries and city rulers, and many others who were confident toward the sovereign, would go out of the city to meet him (emphasis added); but the guilty and the condemned criminals would be guarded within, awaiting the sentence which the king would deliver. In the same way, when the Lord comes, those who are confident toward him will meet him in the midst of the air (emphasis added), but the condemned, who are conscious of having committed many sins, will wait below for their judge.225

In another one of his sermons Chrysostom again uses avpa,nthsin in the same technical sense. The Archangel there I think is he, who is set over those [angels] who are sent forth, and who shouts thus: “Make all men ready, for the judge is at hand.” And what is “at the last trumpet?” … If He [Christ] is about to descend, on what account shall we be caught up? For the sake of honor, For when a king arrives into a city, those who are in honor go out to meet him (emphasis author’s).226

Jacques Dupont proposed a different theory for the background tradition of avpa,nthsin in 1 Thess. 4:17.227 Dupont suggests that Paul borrowed from the theopany imagery in Exod. 19:10–18 and not imperial texts. Joseph Plevnik proposes a third way of interpreting Paul’s use of avpa,nthsin. While he maintains that Dupont’s proposal is better than Peterson’s, Plevnik



meaning and function of imagery outside 1 thess. 4:13–18

69

suggests that Dupont’s position does not address or explain everything.228 Furthermore, Dupont’s articulation does not account for the differences the functions of the imagery have between the two passages. Plevnik ultimately argues that avpa,nthsin is not a terminus technicus or derived from primarily early Jewish theophany texts, but rather it stems from Jewish apocalyptic texts that focus on the assumption/exaltation.229 The Function of Avpa,nthsin and Its Various Synonyms. Before one can address these three approaches he or she must define avpa,nthsin synchronically in its various contexts.230 The term avpa,nthsin and its various synonyms function in four essential ways. Function #1: Basic Meeting Between Two Individuals. They can denote that a general meeting between two individuals, dignitaries or any number of persons has occurred.231 Jewish Scriptures. In Gen. 32:1–7, after having freed himself from Laban, Jacob is ready to tackle his chief nemesis, his brother Esau, who had threatened to kill him (27:41). As he leaves Jacob is met (sunh,nthsan) by angels of God. The abruptness of their appearance indicates that he is now, has been, and will be protected by the presence of God. This meeting of angels may echo Jacob’s “dream theophany” in 28:10–12.232 Jacob sends human messengers (avgge,louj), the same word used for angels above, to his brother Esau with a message hoping to find favor in his eyes. The messengers (a;ggeloi) return to Jacob with the message that Esau is coming (e;rcetai) to meet you (eivj suna,nthsi,n) with four hundred men.233 The intentions of Esau are ambiguous at best. Jacob does give us an indication of his prima facie response and feeling to the news: “He is coming to kill me.” Joseph goes out to meet (suna,nthsi,n) his father Jacob (now Israel) who has brought his entire family to Egypt in obedience to a dream vision he received from God (Gen. 46:29). In 1 Sam. 9:14, Samuel the prophet comes out to meet (avpa,nthsin) the future king named Saul. Fourteen verses later Samuel anoints Saul king. In 1 Sam. 16:4, the elders of the city come out to meet (avpanth,sei) Samuel trembling, wondering if Samuel comes to bring peace. Samuel responds in the affirmative for he came to make sacrifices to the Lord and to anoint David king. An angel of the Lord tells Elijah to go meet (eivj suna,nthsin) the messengers (avgge,lwn) of the king of Samaria (2 Kings 1:3–7).234 In Judg. 7:24, this same construction eivj suna,nthsin plus a;ggeloj is used, albeit it is reversed

70

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

(avgge,louj plus eivj suna,nthsin). Here, Gideon sends messengers throughout all Ephraim to attack the Midianites (Judg. 7:24). In Zech. 2:3 (LXX 2:7), the angel who had been talking to Zechariah comes forward to meet him. Again, the a;ggeloj plus eivj suna,nthsin construction is employed. Similarities Between Exod. 19:10–18 and 1 Thess. 4:13–18. One of the most important texts pertaining to the first function of avpa,nthsin and its various synonyms is the Sinai theophany of Exod. 19:10–18.235 The Sinai theophany is the quintessential theophany. Niehaus maintains that the Sinai theophany is paradigmatic of all other theophanies because Sinai was the central event of the history of Israel and pivotal for Heilsgeschichte.236 For Kruntz, Sinai is the “preeminent theophanic disclosure of the God of Israel” and the theophany “par exellence.”237 George Savran calls the Sinai theophany “the most complex theophany narrative in the Bible.”238 As was argued above, Dupont proposed that the imagery found in this theophany was the main source of inspiration for Paul’s articulation of the parousia in 1 Thess. 4:16–17. 1) In Exod. 19:13, the Lord commands Moses to tell the people that when the trumpet sounds a long blast (ai` fwnai. kai. ai` sa,lpiggej) they may go up the mountain (avpe,lqh|). 2) On the third day there was a thunderous sound (fwnai.), as well as a thick cloud (nefe,lh), and the sound of a trumpet (fwnh. th/j sa,lpiggoj) so loud that the people trembled (19:16). 3) Moses brought (evxh,gagen) the people out of the camp to meet God (eivj suna,nthsin tou/ qeou/). 4) When the Lord descended (kate,bh de. Ku,rioj) upon Mount Sinai, Moses went up (avne.bh) the mountain. 239 The correspondence to 1 Thess. 4:14–17 is unmistakable: Exod. 19:16: fwnai. kai. avstrapai (“thunderous sound”)240

1 Thess. 4:16: fwnh/| avrcagge,lou (“sound of an archangel”)

Exod. 19:16: nefe,lh (“thick cloud”)

1 Thess. 4:16: evn nefe,laij (“in clouds”)

Exod. 19:16: fwnh. th/j sa,lpiggoj (“sound 1 Thess. 4:16: evn sa,lpiggi qeou/ (“trumpet of God”) of a trumpet”) Exod. 19:17: evxh,gagen Mwush/j to.n lao.n (“Moses brought the people”)

1 Thess. 4:14: o` qeo.j….a;xei su,n auvtw/| (“God….will bring with him”)



meaning and function of imagery outside 1 thess. 4:13–18

71

Exod. 19:17: eivj suna,nthsin tou/ qeou/ (“to 1 Thess. 4:17: eivj avpa,nthsin tou/ kuri,ou (“to meet the Lord”) meet God”)241 Exod. 19:20: kate,bh de. Ku,rioj (“Lord descends”)

1 Thess. 4:16: o` ku,rioj….katabh,setai (“The Lord….will descend”)

Exod. 19:20: avne,bh Mwush/j (“Moses went up”)

1 Thess. 4:17: h`mei/j….a`rpaghso,meqa (“we….will be caught up”)

While the similarities between the two texts are evident, Plevnik points out several differences:242 1) The Sinai theophany does not explain the resurrection of the believers in 1 Thess. 4:14–16. 2) It does not explain the being with the Lord forever. 3) At Sinai the Israelites voluntarily go up the mountain. In 1 Thess. 4:17 the believers are caught up. 4) The believers in 1 Thess. 4:16 hear a loud command, the sound of an archangel, and the trumpet of God. In Exod. 19:16 the Israelites hear a trumpet and a thunderous sound. The imagery between these two texts does come from different contexts and does have a different function and motif. The theophany of Exod. 19:10–18 functions to bring a new revelation of God to the people: the Law. 1 Thess. 4:13–18 was written to address the loss of hope the Thessalonians felt dealing with their confusion surrounding the death of their lost loved ones.243 Paul alludes to and echoes some of the imagery of the Sinai theophany to illustrate that the parousia of the Lord in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 is like the Sinai theophany. Paul deploys Exod. 19:10–18 as one of his inspirations for his communication of the parousia. The Sinai theophany, the coming of God (descending) in a thunderous sound, in the covering of a cloud, to meet the people and Moses so that He may give them a new revelation, is a metaphor or typology for Paul’s articulation of the parousia of the Lord in 1 Thess. 4:14–17. Second Temple Literature. In the Second Temple literature there are a couple places worth noting where the term avpa,nthsin and its various synonyms function to indicate that a general meeting between two individuals, dignitaries, or any number of persons, has occurred. Job opens the doors to his house so that the poor can come and have easy access for shelter and food (T. Job. 9:7).244 In 3 Baruch 11, an angel leads (hvgagen) Baruch to the fifth heaven to await the opening of the gate to the kingdom of heaven. The archangel and

72

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

commander-in-chief, Michael, descends (kate,rcetai) to open the gate. Then in verse six, Baruch and the angel who escorted him to the fifth heaven go out to meet (sunh,nthsen) Michael, hailing him as “commander-in-chief of all our regiment.” Greco-Roman Literature. While there are far too many references of avpa,nthsin and its various synonyms in terms of the first function of its use, a few examples are necessary to establish a common pattern. In Polybius’ Histories 20.7.5, the Boeotian magistrates, to save face, go out to meet (avpa,nthsin) king Antiochus, flattering him with friendly conversation and welcoming him into Thebes. As Antony prepares for war, he sends for Cleopatra, ordering (keleu,wn) her to meet (avpanth/sai) him in Cilicia, to find out whether she has been secretly giving money to Cassius (Plut. Ant. 25.1). In Josephus Antiquities 9.20, Yahweh appears to Elijah and commands him to go and meet (u`panth,santi) the messengers (avgge,loij) sent by the King of Ahaziah. Messengers (avgge,lwn) from King Malchus meet (u`panthsa,ntwn) Herod (14.372). All four of these examples from the Greco-Roman literature disclose a dignitary or dignitaries meeting: magistrates meet a king, Antony meets Cleopatra, Elijah meets the messengers of the king, and messengers from king Malchus meet King Herod.245 New Testament. In the New Testament avpa,nthsin and its synonyms function to describe that a general meeting has occurred. In Mark 14:12–15, on the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread, Jesus sends two of his disciples out to make preparations for the Passover. Jesus tells them to go to Jerusalem to meet (avpanth,sei) a man carrying a water jar who will show them where the preparations are to be made. Immediately after the Transfiguration narrative of Luke 9, when Jesus and three of his disciples, Peter, James and John come down (katelqo,ntwn) the mountain they are met (sunh,nthsen) by a large crowd. Function #2: Meeting with Great Pomp, Joy, and Circumstance. The word avpa,nthsin and its synonyms function in a more nuanced way than the first. Here the term reveals not just a simple meeting between two persons or people. This person is welcomed with pomp, joy, and circumstance, for this person is either a loved one coming home or a dignitary arriving at a city.246 Jewish Scriptures. In the LXX Judg. 11:34, Jephthah comes home after a great victory by Yahweh over the Ammonites, and his daughter welcomes (eivj



meaning and function of imagery outside 1 thess. 4:13–18

73

u`pa,nthsin) him with timbrels and dancing.247 Similar to the Judges passage, when David returns from killing Goliath in 1 Sam. 18:6, he is greeted by women from all over Israel who come out to meet (eivj suna,nthsin) him to celebrate the victory with great pomp and circumstance (tambourines, musical instruments, and song). King Alexander meets (avph,nthsen; 2x) Ptolemy to receive Ptolemy’s daughter in marriage which is celebrated with great pomp, the giving of silver and gold, and other magnificent gifts (1 Macc. 10:58–60). Second Temple Literature. One example of this second function of avpa,nthsin and its synonyms in the Second Temple literature is worth mentioning. In Joseph and Aseneth 5:3–6, Pentephres and his wife and whole family go out to meet (suna,nthsin) Joseph with great pomp and circumstance: Pharaoh arrives dressed in royal attire, in a white tunic, purple tunic, and a golden crown with twelve stones, riding a golden chariot, pulled by four white horses adorned with golden bridles.248 Greco-Roman Literature. There are several examples of this second function in the Greco-Roman literature. In Poly. Hist. 5.43.3, before Antiochus celebrates his nuptials, he is welcomed (eivj u`pa,nthsin) by the princess with great pomp and splendor. Following the victory of the Romans over Antiochus, many ambassadors from all over the region, including ambassadors from Rhodes and other states, arrived in Rome (21.18.3). The Roman Senate graciously received those who came. King Eumenes’ reception was limited in pomp and circumstance, both in the manner of those who came out to meet (avpa,nthsin) him and the entertainment granted to him. Function #3: Meeting in Battle. The term avpa,nthsin and its synonyms can denote the meeting of people, armies, or nations in battle both on land and at sea.249 Jewish Scriptures. They are also found in contexts of holy war in the Jewish scriptures.250 In the destruction of Ai narrative of Josh. 8:1–29 the construction eivj suna,nthsin is employed three times (8:5, 14, 22). In every occurrence, eivj suna,nthsin speaks of the men of the city of Ai coming out to meet the Israelites in battle.251 In Sam. 17:48, David runs out to meet (eivj suna,nthsin) Goliath in battle. Asa comes out to meet (eivj suna,nthsin) Zerah the Ethiopian in battle (2 Chron. 14:9). Ptolemy marches out to meet (avph,nthsen) Alexander in battle (1 Macc. 11:15).

74

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

In Judg. 6:34–35, several of the words (evsa,lpisen, avgge,louj, and eivj suna,nthsin) employed are similar to those in 1 Thess. 4:16–17 (sa,lpiggi, avrcagge,lou, and eivj avpa,nthsin). As Gideon prepares for war the Spirit of the Lord takes possession of him, a trumpet is sounded, and messengers are sent throughout all of Manasseh to come and meet him. Greco-Roman Literature. The term avpa,nthsin and its synonyms are found numerous times in the Greco-Roman literature in contexts consisting of the meeting of people, armies, or nations in battle. In the Diodorus Siculus’ Histories 11.22.2, the commanders of the Phoenician army lead their troops out to meet (avph,ntwn) the Siceliote army. Both armies simultaneously sound the call to war by blowing a trumpet (sa,lpigxin) culminating in a loud shout and battle cry (cf. Xen. Anab. 6.5.27). In 14.104.1–2, Dionysius advances to meet (sunh,nta) Heloris in battle and they meet (avpanth,saj) at daybreak with Dionysius’ men triumphing. In 17.86.5, Alexander and Mophis meet (avph,nta; 2x) in battle commenced by the trumpet (salpigktai/j) call to arms. New Testament. This third use of avpa,nthsin and its synonyms is employed only once in the New Testament. In Luke 14:31, the author employs u`panta,w in Jesus’ parable on the cost of being a disciple in order to make an analogy. The analogy juxtaposes the cost a king makes who has less men at his command to meet (u`panth/sai) an army that has double his own with that of counting the cost of being a disciple of Jesus. Function #4: The Einholung—A Grand Festive Welcome Celebration. The term avpa,nthsin and its synonyms connote one of the chief aspects of imperial triumphal entry. That is, upon the arrival of an imperial dignitary (emperor, general, senator, et al.) all the citizens come out of their civitas and welcome him into the city.252 In The Seven Books of History Against the Pagans, Paulus Orosius proposed that there were 320 triumphs between the founding of Rome and emperor Vespasian’s reign (A.D. 69–79).253 Investigations of the meaning, connotation, and function of ([qri,amboj/ qriambeu,w] / triumphus) are quite substantial.254 Hendrik S. Versnel’s classic work, Triumphus: An Inquiry into the Origin, Development, and Meaning of the Roman Triumph, is a massive study on imperial triumphs.255 Versnel proposes that the Roman triumph was adapted not from Hellenistic Dionysus honor cult processions, but from Etrurian pre-Roman sacral ceremony of New Year Festivals in which the king represented a deity during his annual renewal arrival.256



meaning and function of imagery outside 1 thess. 4:13–18

75

The triumphator arrived with great pomp and circumstance.257 He stood high on a two-wheeled chariot, the currus triumphalis, driven by four horses. The chariot was adorned with laurel-branches, a sign of honor and tribute. The triumphator was dressed in the vestis triumphalis, a tunica palmata (decorated with palm branches), and a toga picta.258 Both his tunica and toga were purple. On his head was a corona laurea, a symbol of the triumph (corona triumphalis). He carried a laurel branch in his right hand. In his left hand was an ivory scepter surmounted with an eagle. He also wore a bulla and his face was painted red.259 Versnel maintains that during the triumphal entry procession the triumphator became both the personification, epiphany, and embodiment of the god Iuppiter, and a representative of the ancient rex.260 The identification of the triumphator as the personification of Iuppiter is based on the following testimonia: 261 1) 2) 3) 4)

The triumphal garb denotes the ornatus Iovis. The triumphator’s face is painted red. He is crowned with the corona Etrusca. He carried an eagle-crowned scipio eburneus which was connected with Iuppiter. 5) He also carried the quadriga, thought to be the counterpart of Iuppiter’s “four-in-hand.” 6) The final destination of the triumphal procession was the temple of Iuppiter. As Versnel sums up, By wearing the ornatus Iovis, the corona Etrusca, the red lead, the triumphator is characterized as the representative of Iuppiter. The exclamation triumpe proves that he was looked upon as the god manifesting himself.262

However, by the time of the Roman republic, the idea of the triumphator as the personification of Iuppiter began to dissipate. Nevertheless, it did keep the origin and clarification of its background in Etruscan kingship.263 Thus, There is no doubt that the Etruscan triumph, once it had been introduced into Rome and was kept up by the republic, underwent a fundamental change of meaning … The scene of a man acting the part of a god, a deification, is incompatible with the truly Roman religion as we know it from the republican period … the Etruscan triumph was adopted by Rome, but it was given a different meaning.264

76

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

An important question which follows is: What meaning? The former motif of the triumphator functioning as an epiphany of a deity was replaced by the entry of the triumphator as the bearer of good fortune, bringing felicitas to the civitas. As the bearer of felicitas, the triumphator became known as the swth,r. While the swth,r’s action was military in nature, that is, he saved the people and the town from certain danger, his entry into the city took on a specific connotation.265 As the swth,r triumphator entered the city all the people of the civitas, now festively adorned, went out to meet and welcome him, and escort him into the city. They wore wreaths, white robes, and burned incense. They carried various cultic objects. The city is adorned with perfume, wreaths, and decorations. The temple is opened. Sacrifices are given to the gods. The citizens shout, cheer, and celebrate.266 Finally, there is a grand pronouncement that with the arrival of the swth,r a new day has dawned. Later, during the Greco-Roman period, the motifs of the triumphal entry of swth,r triumphator were retained.267 The arrival or parousi,a (Lat: adventus)268 of an dignitary or emperor with his festive welcome (avpa,nthsin and its synonyms) was seen as the arrival of a god or king. The emperor or dignitary’s parousi,a brought a period of prosperity, eivrh,nh kai. avsfa,leia.269 Insignias (e.g., hymns to the gods, coins, altar, et al.) referring to the parousi,a (Lat: adventus) of the emperor, king or swth,r and felicitas he brought to the civitas were found all over the empire. “A marble altar at Rome bears the inscription: adventui aug. feliciter/victoriis aug. feliciter.”270 Moreover, “during the reign of Augustus: Quaedam Italiae civitates diem quo primum ad se venisset, initium anni fecerunt, just as the day on which the government was assumed was annus novus, initium saeculi felicissimi.”271 While triumphator was no longer identified as the personification of Iuppiter, the ceremonial significance endured. The triumphal entry honored the gods as well as the victor.272 It was a special worship and homage to Iuppiter.273 And it was fundamentally the highest honor a Roman citizen could receive.274 All in all, Versnel beautifully sums up the essence of a triumph: The entire history of Rome has thus been marked by a ceremony which testified to the power of Rome, its mission of conquest and domination, and to the courage of its soldiers. Primarily, however, the triumph characterized the greatness of Rome as being due, on the one hand, to the excellence of the victorious general, and, on the other, to the favour of the supreme god, who, optimus maximus, ensured the continuance and the prosperity of the Roman empire. In no other Roman ceremony do god and man approach each other as closely as they do in the triumph. Not only is the triumphal procession directed towards the Capitolium, where the triumphator presents



meaning and function of imagery outside 1 thess. 4:13–18

77

a solemn offering to Iuppiter O.M., but the triumphator himself has a status which appears to raise him to the rank of the gods. Amidst the cheers of io triumphe he enters the city via the Porta Triumphalis, standing on a triumphal chariot, which is drawn by four horses. He is clothed in a purple toga and a tunica stitched with palm-motifs, together called ornatus Iovis, and in his hand he carries a scepter crowned by an eagle. His face has been red-leaded. It seems as if Iuppiter himself, incarnated in the triumphator, makes his solemn entry into Rome (emphasis added).275

Furthermore, a triumph is a process, not a fixed moment in time. It consists of four main events that occur sequentially: 1) The parousi,a of the triumphator (i.e., emperor or dignitary), the bearer of felicitas. 2) The Einholung: the grand festive welcome celebration (avpa,nthsin and its synonyms) of the triumphator outside the city by the citizens who escort him into the city.276 3) The triumphal entry procession itself into the city with all its pomp and circumstance (see above). 4) The role of those whom were “led in triumph” (i.e., those who were conquered by the triumphator).277 This monograph will primarily focus on the first three aspects. Jewish Scriptures. There are several references in the LXX that are similar to a Greco-Roman triumph. One in particular is significant to note. In Gen. 14:17, as Abram returns from his defeat of Chedorlaomer and his associates, the king of Sodom comes out to meet (eivj suna,nthsin) and welcome him.278 King Melchizedek of Salem, the priest of God Most High, comes out also to meet Abraham with bread and wine. The name Melchizedek literally meant “king of righteousness,” while the name Salem denotes “king of peace” (Heb. 7:2). “By this parallel language between his name and his city there is an association of “righteousness” and “peace” (Salem).”279 As the priest of God Most High, Melchizedek blessed Abram bestowing him with honor. In turn Abram gives tribute to God. The blessing of Abram and his sacrificial tithe are analogous with the Greco-Roman ritual procession. There are two basic aspects to the Greco-Roman ritual procession: The entry itself and the ritual sacrifice.280 Abraham’s triumphal entry in Gen. 14:17 meets both these aspects. Second Temple literature. There is one occurrence of avpa,nthsin and its synonyms in the Second Temple literature that best resembles a Greco-Roman triumph. In 3 Macc. 3:11–30, King Ptolemy IV writes a letter to all his generals

78

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

decreeing that all Jews in his kingdom be arrested. In part of the letter, Ptolemy reveals that when he went to Jerusalem to do honor to the temple (notice the irony: pure sacrilege for not even the Jews were allowed to enter the sanctuary) he expected his arrival (parousi,a) to be welcomed with all sincerity, but the Jews were insincere in their welcoming of him. Even his desire to honor the temple with exquisite offerings was stopped (3:17). Finding their hospitality folly, he returned victoriously to Egypt and was met (avpanth/santej) by all nations with goodwill (3:20). While there is great irony in this narrative, it fits quite nicely with the other Greco-Roman triumphs. 1) Ptolemy is a conquering king (a triumphator). 2) He arrives (parousi,a) at the central temple of religious rites in the area: Jerusalem. 3) He expected the citizens to come out and meet him with honor and pomp. 4) He desired to honor his god(s) in the temple. New Testament. In the New Testament there are occurrences of avpa,nthsin and its synonyms that are similar to the Greco-Roman triumph motif. John 12:12– 19, the so-called “triumphal entry” narrative, includes similarities to the Greco-Roman triumph.281 Jesus comes (e;rcetai) into Jerusalem, the triumphator over death, that is, Lazarus’ death (12:17). The people come out to meet him (eivj u`pa,nthsin) with pomp and celebration waving palm branches (12:13; cf. 1 Macc. 13:51; 2 Macc. 10:7).282 However, there are several differences.283 In a Greco-Roman triumph the triumphator arrives riding on a chariot pulled by four horses, not riding on a donkey. The triumphator is adorned with royal garments. Jesus was dressed simply. The triumphator awaits praise, honor, pomp and circumstance, and power and prestige. Jesus awaits trial and death. Greco-Roman Literature. This section will now illustrate how avpa,nthsin and its synonyms are used in various Greco-Roman contexts that describe various triumphs or triumph-like entries. While most triumph or triumph-like accounts reveal an emperor or victorious general receiving the triumph, senators and other dignitaries are given a triumph-like event. In Plutarch Cicero 43.1–6, Cicero makes an important decision. Having a change of heart due to Antony’s apparent attempt to work with the senate and need of Cicero to come (parousi,a) to finish the job, Cicero decides to go to Rome, for the threat of Antony consolidating his power has diminished. As Cicero arrives



meaning and function of imagery outside 1 thess. 4:13–18

79

he is met (avpa,nthsin) by a great crowd of people who are moved to joy at his arrival. Plutarch mentions that the festivities surrounding Cicero’s entrance at the gate of the city last almost the whole day. There are resemblances to a triumph here as well. Cicero comes to Rome at the request of Antony. The word parousi,a is employed, though in this context it is best translated as “presence.” Antony did not need Cicero to come as a triumphator. Rather he needed Cicero’s presence to finalize his affairs in the senate, albeit the choice of parousi,a is not a coincidence as one looks further into the context. Cicero is welcomed with a grand reception that lasted the whole day. Furthermore, the fact that the reception was near the gate to the city may suggest that Cicero’s arrival or parousi,a was seen by the people as a type of triumph whereby Cicero plays the part of the bringer and securer of peace (i.e., the one who will initiate and symbolize Antony’s endeavor to work with the senate). This text, while not an explicit portrayal of triumph, does show that avpa,nthsin and its synonyms do resemble and fit nicely with the second aspect of a triumph: the grand Einholung. The next few examples will demonstrate an even more commensurate parallel with the Greco-Roman triumphs. In Plutarch Numa 7.1–3, having finally given into the senate’s request to be king, Numa makes sacrifices to the gods and sets out for Rome. The senate and the people of Rome go out to meet (avph,nta) him on his way towards the city. The people were filled with joy to the point they felt they were receiving a kingdom, not a king. Sacrifices were offered in the temples. The senate voted for him to be crowned king. Numa wanted his kingship to be ratified by heaven. He went up to Tarpeian Hill in Rome with the priests to pray for him and receive an omen from the gods. After seeing the birds appear and approach from the right side of the horizon, Numa now knows that he has the gods’ blessing to be king. He puts on his royal robes as king and goes down to the people where he received another joyous welcome as “most beloved of the gods” (qeofile,staton). There are several triumph-like themes throughout this account. Numa arrives to the city and is greeted with a grand Einholung. The fact that the people’s joy was so intense that they felt they received a kingdom, not a king, shows the level of respect the people had for who arrived. Moreover, sacrifices upon an important dignitary’s arrival are synonymous with grand reception motifs. While there is no explicit mention of a formal triumph, the actions of the citizens, Numa himself adorning the kingly robes, and his descent from the Hill now as king and called “beloved of the gods” is reminiscent of the triumphator of the triumph being associated with the god of Iuppiter.

80

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

In Appian’s Civil Wars 5.130, Octavius discovers that in Sicily Lepidus was attempting to extend the power granted to him in an effort to rebel against the state of affairs. Octavius, in a bold move, consolidates his power by taking Lepidus’ legions and supplies, forcing him into exile and stripping him of his offices. Upon his arrival, the people go out (u`ph,ntwn) a long distance from the city to meet him. The people wear garlands on their heads, escort him to the temples and then to his house. After arriving at Rome, the senate votes to grant Octavius unlimited power and honor. The following day Octavius makes several speeches in the senate and to the people. The speeches themselves were then distributed to the people in a pamphlet. He proclaims peace and good will (eivrh,nhn kai. euvqumi,an) to all, claims the civil wars to be over, and cancels all unpaid debt and taxes.284 He is awarded an ovation (pomphn).285 A golden image with the garb he wore as he entered the city is erected in the forum. The golden image bore the inscription: “th..n eivrh,nhn evstasiasme,nhn evk pollou/ sunevsthse kata, te gh/n kai. qa,lassan.”286 With the exception of the event itself being described as an ovation and no account of the captors being “led in triumph,” there are unmistakable motifs that resemble a triumph: 1) A triumphator arrives victorious, the bringer of peace. 2) He is greeted with a grand Einholung. 3) There is a triumphal-like procession into the city whereby the triumphator is adorned with a special garb and rides on a chariot. The main difference between an ovation and a triumph is the scale of the pomp and circumstance. In Polybius’ Histories 16.25.1–9, the Athenian people send envoys to king Attalus to thank and urge his counsel about what dangers are in store for them having undertaken war against Philip (Livy 31.14.24). Informed of the coming (parousi,an) of the king, the people quickly vote to have a welcoming reception (avpa,nth,sewj) and general entertainment for the king. Attalus meets with the Roman ambassadors and is pleased to find that they are ready for war with Philip. The next day he is met (avph,ntwn) by the magistrates and the knights, and all the citizens. The arrival of the Roman magistrates and especially Attalus is met outside (avpa,nthsin) the city with great joy by everyone. At his entrance into the city by the gate of Dipylum, the priests and priestesses line the street on both sides. The temples are opened and sacrifices are placed on the altar.



meaning and function of imagery outside 1 thess. 4:13–18

81

They vote to give Attalus the highest honor possible and name a tribe after him and classify him as one of their eponymous heroes. There is no doubt that Polybius’ account here closely resembles a triumph. One might say it is triumph-like for several reasons. 1) A dignitary’s arrival is spoken of by the key term parousi,a and his coming brings with it honor and benevolence. 2) Any ambiguity of the special significance of this term is quieted by three employments of avpa,nthsin and its synonyms, which has been argued above that in many contexts they show unambiguous connotations of a grand welcoming Einholung (e.g., priests lining the city, temples opened, sacrifices placed on the altar, etc.). 3) There is a procession into the city that begins at the gate of Dipylum. Whether or not this is the Porta Triumphalis is of little consequence here, for the very inclusion of the name of the gate would imply a connotation and function as the Porta Triumphalis. This is one of the closest triumph-like event descriptions, without being a classic triumph. Josephus Antiquities 11.325–339 describes the arrival of Alexander into Jerusalem and Jaddua’s actions in preparation for his coming. The moment Jaddua learned of Alexander’s coming into Jerusalem he became fearful because he did not know how and in what manner to meet him (avpa,nthsei) and the Macedonians. Jaddua ordains that the people make supplication, offerings, and sacrifices to God to be delivered from what was and who was coming. God warns Jaddua in a dream that he should adorn the city, open the gates, have the citizens dress in white, and welcome (u`pa,nthsin) Alexander in the proper manner and wait for the coming (parousi,an) of king Alexander. As Alexander approaches the city Jaddua goes out to meet him (u`pa,nthsin) in procession with the priests and the people of the city. The multitude of citizens were dressed in white garments, the priests wore fine linen, the high priest was in purple and scarlet with his mitre on his head engraved with golden plate. Then all the Jews salute Alexander with one voice. The similarities to a triumph are obvious. While the references above have been triumph-like (some more so than others), there are three examples of where avpa,nthsin and its synonyms are found as part of the description of a triumph. In Plutarch Camillus 30.1–3, Camillus is awarded a triumph (evqri,ambeuse) for saving the country and restoring the city of Rome after the barbarians held

82

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

the city for seven months. Upon Camillus’ arrival all the citizens welcome (avph,ntwn) him outside the city. Later he rides in on a chariot and is met by all those who were besieged (thus the whole city). They come out to greet him weeping with joy, for the city has been saved. Priests of the gods bring sacred objects for sacrifice. The people witnessing the sacrifices believed that the gods themselves had come back to Rome. Camillus makes sacrifices to the gods, purifies the city, restores the temples, erects a new one where Marcus Caedicius heard and announced that the barbarian herds were coming. This account in Camillus explicitly contains motifs, key words, and themes that are found in texts that describe a triumph: 1) Camillus is awarded an actual triumph. 2) All the citizens welcome him outside the city: a grand Einholung. 3) As triumphator he rides into town upon a chariot in triumphal procession. 4) Sacrifices are made to the gods in his honor. 5) As the bringer of felicitas he restores the city. While the specific details are not included in Plutarch’s account, it can clearly be discerned that Camillus was awarded a full triumph.287 Appian’s Mithridatic Wars 17.114–121 describes the exploits of Pompey in the east and the many cities he founded. At the end of winter in 62 B.C. Pompey distributes rewards to his army to the sum of 16, 000 talents. He then marches to Rome, leaving his army in Brundusium. As he approaches the city he is welcomed (avph,ntwn) by consecutive processions of people who come out to greet him. First the youth, then men of all ages, even those who could barely walk, came out to welcome Pompey. Next came the senate, which were at a loss for words concerning the wonder of his exploits, for no one had vanquished such a powerful enemy and brought nations and lands under his rule as far as the Euphrates. For his valiant exploits Pompey was awarded a triumph (evqria,mbeusen) so grand all others before it paled in comparison. It lasted two successive days and many nations were presented in the procession. Seven hundred ships were brought into the harbor. A part of his triumphal procession (qria,mbou) included a two-horse carriage loaded with gold, ornaments, statues, and images and a long train of his captives dressed in their native costumes. As a part of the triumphal procession were the satraps and generals of kings Pompey defeated, numbering 324. Pompey himself entered the city



meaning and function of imagery outside 1 thess. 4:13–18

83

riding in a chariot covered in gems. Pompey was adorned with the cloak of Alexander the Great, which was a part of the possessions of the Mithridates of whom Pompey defeated. His officers, who fought valiantly for him, followed his chariot. While it was customary in a triumph (qria,ubouj) for the triumphator to sentence to death all those whom he defeated, Pompey sent all the captives home, except the kings. There is no question that this account from Appian contains the four main aspects of any triumph: 1) The arrival (parousi,a) of the triumphator. While it is not used, its formal meaning still implicitly exists in the nature of the arrival itself. 2) The grand Einholung. 3) The triumphal entry of the triumphator itself. 4) Captives of the triumphator are “led in triumph” to their death. It is clear from this text that avpa,nthsin and its synonyms are found as part of the description of a triumph. However, there is no account of any triumph that compares to the vivid detail of Josephus’ eyewitness account of Vespasian’s and Titus’ triumph of A.D. 71 in The Jewish War 7.116–162.288 Titus comes to Rome by sea accompanied by two legions. Simon and John and seven hundred of their men were carried with them to be led to their deaths in triumph (qria,mbw). Upon his arrival, all the people of the city come out a great distance from the city to welcome (u`panthseij) Titus. Titus’ father, Vespasian, also meets (u`pantw/n) Titus. This meeting was special for Titus. The citizens of the city were joyful at Titus’ appearance. In June of A.D. 71, Titus and Vespasian were awarded a triumph (qria,mbon) by the senate on account of their accomplishments (defeating the Jews and the fall of Jerusalem during the summer before). The two were crowned with laurel and purple. The senate and the principal rulers waited for them. They were seated upon an erected tribunal with cloisters and ivory chairs. The soldiers made acclamations of joy to them. Vespasian and Titus offered prayers of peace to the people. Then Vespasian went to the gate of the city called the “Gate of the Pomp,” for this was where all the triumphs (qria,mbouj) paraded through. They put on triumphal garments (qria,mbikaj evsqh,taj) and sacrificed to the gods at the gate. Then the triumph (qria,mbon) commenced. It was beyond comprehension. Josephus himself commented that the triumph throughout the city was impossible to describe.289

84

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

They finally arrived at the temple of Iuppiter Capitolinus. The prisoners of war (aivcmalw,toij) were led in triumph to their deaths. The people shouted for joy, offered sacrifices, and celebrated a great feast and festival. After the triumph festivities were complete, Vespasian built a temple of peace to commemorate their victory. There is no question that this account of Titus’ and Vespasian’s triumph from Josephus’ The Jewish War contains the four main aspects of any triumph: 1) 2) 3) 4)

The arrival of the triumphator The grand Einholung The triumphal entry of the triumphator itself Captives of the triumphator are “led in triumph” to their deaths

It is clear from this text and the other Greco-Roman texts that avpa,nthsin and its synonyms are employed as part of the description of a triumph or triumph-like event.

Conclusion The purpose of this chapter was to locate the meaning and function of the theophanic, apocalyptic, and Greco-Roman imagery as they are found outside the context of 1 Thess. 4:13–18. Theophanic imagery was defined as any imagery that functions, connotes, or highlights the vivid image and picture of the appearance or self-disclosure of the God that ushers in an upheaval of nature, salvation and/or judgment, and the impartation of holiness or new revelation to the people. What makes imagery “apocalyptic imagery” is based on its function and meaning within the context of which it is found. The imagery found in 1 Thess. 4:13–18—a loud command, the sound of an archangel, the trumpet of God, and the meeting in the air—is apocalyptic imagery because it connotes, manifests, highlights, and helps create a vivid picture or image of the dynamic unveiling invasion of the eschatological parousia of the Lord. Finally, this chapter demonstrated that all four of these imageries are employed in theophanic, apocalyptic, and Greco-Roman texts, have an amalgamation of motifs, and a synthesis of function. The final chapter will establish the situation Paul addresses at Thessalonica and the meaning and function of the imagery in the context of 1 Thess. 4:13–18.

·3· the meaning and function of the theophanic , apocalyptic , and greco - roman imagery in 1 THESS. 4:13–18

Introduction So far this monograph has established that Paul’s eschatology has both GrecoRoman and Jewish apocalyptic and theophanic elements depending on the context (see chapter one). It also demonstrated the meaning and function of the theophanic, apocalyptic, and Greco-Roman imagery outside the context of 1 Thess. 4:13–18 (see chapter two). This chapter will investigate the situation Paul addresses and the meaning and function of the imagery in the context of 1 Thess. 4:13–18.

Paul and Thessalonica The assumption is that there was a highly Gentile population in Thessalonica. Scholars have estimated that anywhere from 50,000 to 125,000 people lived in Thessalonica during the time of Paul.1 With its highly Greco-Roman influenced culture,2 pagan cultic practices, deity worship,3 and imperial cult,4 it is safe to say that Thessalonica was thoroughly inundated with Gentile culture. This would certainly give credence to Paul’s use of Greco-Roman imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18. A more difficult question to prove is whether there is any evidence of a measurable Jewish population at Thessalonica during the time

86

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

of Paul.5 Would Paul still use Jewish theophanic or apocalyptic imagery if there were no Christian Jews at Thessalonica? The question of the composition of Thessalonica, however, is not the determining factor of whether or not Paul employed the imagery he did. The determining factor is Paul himself. Even if it could be proven without a shadow of doubt that there were Gentiles and Jews living in Thessalonica at the time of Paul, the fact remains that Paul was a Jew (Gal. 1:13–15; 2 Cor. 11:22), a Pharisee (Phil. 3:5), a “Hebrew of Hebrews” (Phil. 3:5; 2 Cor. 11:22; cf. Acts 22:2), a “descendant of Abraham,” from the “tribe of Benjamin” (Rom. 11:1), and he lived and ministered in a Greco-Roman culture. Furthermore, while the account of Acts 17:1–9 does suggest that Paul was raised in Jerusalem, under the feet of Gamaliel, rather than in Tarsus, the apostle’s mastery of the Greek language and his preference for the LXX shows at the very least that the Greco-Roman culture played a role in his upbringing.6 As John M. G. Barclay points out Pharisaic education must have taken place in Jerusalem, in the school of Torah-interpretation, probably in Paul’s case in the Greek language. Here Paul acquired his extraordinarily intimate knowledge of the Scriptures, and learned the range of exegetical methods which he was later to display in his letters. Thus the evidence points to a Greek-medium Jewish education, in which the broad spectrum of Hellenism entered Paul’s mind only through the filter of his conservative Pharisaic environment.7

Based on what we know from his letters and the portrait of Paul in Acts, his whole ministry engaged with two realities: he was a Jew and he lived and worked within a Greco-Roman culture.8 Would he not think, reason, and employ images and concepts that were common to this heritage, no matter whom his audience was? Would or could he really cease to think, reason, and apply his thought, images and concepts in toto, albeit for the sake of his audience? Yes, 1 Cor. 9:20–23 does describe that Paul put on different hats as it were to bring the gospel to the various audiences he encountered. However, this does not mean that he was a chameleon in his thought. There is no reason to expect he would be unable to engage his audience with this vernacular in mind. Therefore, there is no reason to expect Paul not to employ an amalgamation of imagery in the context of 1 Thess. 4:13–18.



meaning and function of imagery in i thess. 4:13–18

87

1 Thess. 4:13–18 and the Parousia The Context of 1 Thess. 4:13–18 We want to be sure you know the truth, brothers, concerning those who are sleeping, so that you will not grieve like those who do not have hope. 14If we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15For, in accordance with this message about the Lord, we say this: that we who remain alive until the coming of the Lord will not have any salvific advantage or preference over those who have fallen asleep; 16moreover, the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a loud command, with the sound of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first, 17then we who are alive, who remain, will be carried away at the same time with them in the realm of clouds to welcome the Lord in the realm of the air. And so we will always be with the Lord. 18Therefore, comfort one another with these words.9 13

One of the first questions that need to be addressed is how do verses thirteen through eighteen of chapter four fit into the larger context of 1 Thessalonians? Paul has just received a report from Timothy (1 Thess 3:6).10 The Thessalonians were confused, upset, and in grief over the death of some of the members of the community. They lost hope. Paul writes to give them hope.11 Paul begins verse thirteen with the disclosure formula, ouv qe,lomen de. u`ma/j avgnoei/n. Paul uses this specific formula five other times in his letters.12 It is most likely an idiomatic formula employed to emphasize that what follows is important.13 It is unclear whether this phrase alone indicates whether the information that follows is new or whether it is material that needs further clarification.14 If Paul wanted to indicate to his readers that what follows has already been said or is known by his readers, why does he not use oi=da or some similar construction?15 Colin R. Nicholl correctly shows that Paul employs a clear construction in 1 Thess 4:9 and 5:1 to indicate to his readers that what follows is already practiced or known by them.16 Therefore, it does not need further clarification. These two constructions are contrasted by the formula in 1 Thess 4:13. This “strongly suggests that Paul is distinguishing between what his readers already know in 4:9 and 5:1 and what they do not yet know in 4:13.”17 This line of argumentation has led Nicholl to propose that the information detailed in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 is entirely new information.18 However, there is a difference between hearing something for the first time and fully understanding what has already been taught. It is also important

88

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

not to broaden the scope of what they did not know. The Thessalonians certainly heard about the resurrection and some of the details surrounding Jesus’ coming.19 The idea that Paul forgot to mention the bodily resurrection of believers is unlikely. It is more likely that Paul employs the formula in 4:13 to bring clarity and further emphasize what has already been taught, rather than its first communication.20 If there is any new information, it is only for the purpose of clarification. 1 Thess. 4:13 and 18 mark the beginning and end of a new section that comes after Paul’s discussion of Godly living in 1 Thess. 4:3–12, and immediately before his discussion of the imminent return of Christ and his appeal to live in light of that imminence in 1 Thess. 5:1–24.

Euphemism for Death? Or Christian Usage for a Future Resurrection? The phrase peri. tw/n koimwme,nwn reveals the content Paul wants the Thessalonians to know.21 Many scholars conclude that koimwme,nwn is an euphemism for death.22 There are several arguments proponents of this position present to make their case. 1) koima,w is used in antiquity for death.23 2) It is also used for death in Jewish and Christian literature.24 3) The passages that describe the dead as “those who sleep” with a view to a future resurrected body press the “theological” usage of the word too far.25 4) koima,w is not connected explicitly with resurrection in several passages.26 Another option is that Paul’s usage of koima,w in 4:13 is not simply an euphemism for death, but rather it connotes death with the hope of a future resurrection.27 1) koima,w is found nine times in the Pauline corpus.28 A number of these occur within a context in which there is a clear emphasis on eschatological resurrection.29 2) The close proximity to Paul’s use of evlpi,da in 4:13 may suggest an implicit link between death and eschatological hope.



meaning and function of imagery in i thess. 4:13–18

89

3) There are numerous texts in the LXX, Second Temple literature, and New Testament that sleep language clearly implies a future resurrection.30 Moreover, as Wolfhart Pannenberg observes “in the same way that one is awakened from sleep and rises, so it will happen to the dead.”31 4) The notion of sleeping with a prolepsis of future resurrection was common among the church fathers.32 In light of the above evidence, it is most likely that Paul employs koima,w in a Christian sense whereby death (“sleeping”) implies the hope of a future resurrection.33 This connotation of koima,w will be more clear as the purpose of 1 Thess. 4:13–18 is revealed.

The Purpose of 1 Thess. 4:13–18 Paul’s purpose in writing 1 Thess. 4:13–18 is found in 4:13b (note the combination of the i[na plus the subjunctive luph/sqe). The verb is used to indicate the grief and deep sorrow the Thessalonian community feels over the death of loved ones. Paul encourages them not to grieve like those others who have no hope. The difficulty lies in the interpretation of kaqw.j kai.. Is Paul’s main point here to address valid or invalid grief? Does it pertain to the mode, manner, or measure of how one is to grieve? Or is it something else? Several suggest that any grieving is anachronistic to the Christian life: Why are you grieving, Thessalonians? The pagans grieve because they have no hope, but you have hope, so grieving is unnecessary for a believer.34 But if grief is so anachronistic to the Christian life, why does Paul not rebuke the legitimacy of Christian grief elsewhere?35 Grief is a part of life. It is a perfectly normal Christian emotion.36 Funerals are filled with people who grieve because of the loss of a loved one, even though that loved one is a Christian. Hope in the reality of the future does not make grieving invalid. Hope brings comfort to those who are grieving. Paul did not address the validity of grief in 1 Thess 4:13b. He encouraged the Thessalonians to look at their grief in light of the eschatological hope of Christ’s parousia.37 There are two more questions that need to be tackled before moving to verse fourteen. Whom were “those who do not have hope” (oi` loipoi. oi` mh. e;contej evlpi,da)? Why were they grieving? The word loipoi. is used later in the letter (5:6). There it refers to all those who belong to the night, or

90

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

more specifically all those who are not followers of Jesus.38 The word loipoi. is qualified with an adjectival participle, negative adverb, and an object (oi` mh. e;contej evlpi,da). A similar qualification construct is employed in 4:5. There the adjectival participle (eivdo,ta) limits ta. e;qnh strictly to Gentiles.39 Here, the loipoi. in 4:13 is restricted to those who have no hope. Thus, there are two possibilities. The loipoi. may refer only to Gentiles,40 or both Jews and Gentiles.41 Second, why were they grieving? Or more specifically, what was the cause of their grief? There are numerous hypotheses scholars present as possible causes of the Thessalonians’ grief. A brief summary of ten positions follows.42 1) No instruction on the resurrection, whether for the lack of time or the imminence of the parousia, was given to the Thessalonians.43 2) William D. Davies proposes that Paul taught them about spiritual resurrection and physical death. He also told them that sin caused physical death (cf. 1 Cor. 11:27–34). “Was their death a sign that they would not gain the blessing of the resurrection life owing to some sin of theirs?”44 Those who died would share in the same privileges as those who are alive. Thus, it is Paul’s own preaching that caused the conflict. 3) Gnostics infiltrated the church.45 Wolfgang Harnisch suggests that the resurrection was a spiritual existence. The people were not actually grieving. Rather, Paul wanted them to understand the implications of their over-realized eschatology. That is, the dead were in a realm beyond salvation. 4) The deaths were the result of persecution. Thus, the Thessalonians began to question the parousia. “Will not those who have died be deprived of an opportunity to participate in the parousia? And isn’t that all the more tragic if those who have died did so precisely because of their faith?”46 5) The Thessalonians did not fully understand or appreciate the instructions they heard about the resurrection of the dead.47 6) Joseph Plevnik proposed that it was not about whether the dead would share in the resurrection, but that the Thessalonians would be at a disadvantage because they were not able to participate in the assumption to heaven.48 Based on the Jewish scriptures and Jewish apocalyptic texts, those who were assumed were always alive. Thus, one cannot be assumed if dead.49



meaning and function of imagery in i thess. 4:13–18

91

7) The death of some of the Thessalonians was construed as judgment upon them. They thought they missed out on eschatological salvation.50 8) The death of some in the Thessalonian congregation destroyed their parousia hope. Thus, Paul’s parousia kerygma was questioned.51 9) The Thessalonians were unable to systematize and synthesize the resurrection apocalyptic expectations and the parousia. That is, those who are alive at the parousia would be at an advantage over the dead.52 They suffered from an inability to integrate the parousia and resurrection. Hope was not necessarily the problem. Rather death among the community is incompatible with a heightened imminence of the parousia. Death meant that they were no longer a part of the eschatological community. “Grund genug, um mit Trauer erfüllt zu werden!”53 10) Albertus F. J. Klijn proposed that a question arose among the Thessalonians about an assumed inequality between the dead and those still alive at the parousia. They began to believe that those living were at a more advantageous position, which was a common motif in the Jewish apocalyptic literature.54 This uncertainty raised ambiguity about how to apply Paul’s paraenesis for these two groups.55 All ten of these reconstructions have strengths and weaknesses. Is one limited to choosing only one possibility? Could not several of these positions be possible as the reason for the Thessalonians’ grief? Thessalonica was not a monolithic community. And even if only Gentiles were a part of the community, it does not mean that all Gentiles think alike, or are affected in the same way, or believe the same thing is the cause of their grief. For example, could not some of the Thessalonians be unable to synthesize the parousia and the resurrection of the dead, while others were not certain of the timing sequence? Could others not fully appreciate the instructions they were given about the resurrection of the dead, while others thought they were being judged already because some of their loved ones died? Could some believe that those who died were at a disadvantage because they would miss out on the future blessing? Is there not one thing all these positions have in common in relation to the grief of the Thessalonians? Implicitly in one way or another they all refer to the loss of hope in eschatological salvation. Are not the resurrection of the dead and the parousia ultimately related to eschatological salvation? Could not all these reconstructions be boiled down to the following question? If the loved ones are dead, how will they receive eschatological salvation?

92

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

The Reason for Hope The ga.r in verse fourteen grounds the reason for the Thessalonians’ hope. The Thessalonians’ hope is that Jesus died (avpe,qanen) and rose (avne,sth) and will bring with him those who have died. Paul’s use of avni,sthnai instead of his usual evgei,rw (37 times) may suggest that the apostle introduces a creedal formula.56 The real difficulty surrounding this verse is the inherent discontinuity of the syntax. Specifically, what verb does the genitive phrase dia. tou/ VIhsou modify? Does it modify the participle tou.j koimhqe,ntaj, or does it modify the main verb a;xei? Those who take dia. tou/ VIhsou with the participle provide three ways to understand this rendering: 1) The genitive phrase may indicate that those who are asleep died in association or relationship with Jesus. Thus, it is synonymous with the dative evn Cristw/| (cf. 1 Cor. 15:18).57 2) It is causal and refers to their martyrdom.58 3) It is taken as causal, thus, because of Jesus they can have hope in the future.59 Furthermore, those who propose that dia. tou/ VIhsou should be taken with the participle argue that it balances out the sentence better.60 Otherwise, the main verb is surrounded by a preposition before and after it.61 However, the genitive is better taken with the main verb. First, if Paul wanted the genitive to have an “union with Christ” motif, the preposition evn would be present and not dia,. Second, the causal use of dia, is almost always with the accusative case.62 Third, Paul’s grammar is not always balanced. He can and does employ “more than one prepositional phrase to modify a principal verb.”63 Therefore, in light of the evidence, it is preferable to take the genitive dia. tou/ VIhsou as modifying the main verb (a;xei).64 The genitive functions as a genitive of agency. The whole sentence then is best rendered in the following way: “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.”

The Destination of Those Who Have Fallen Asleep Two corresponding questions remain concerning verse fourteen: What does Paul mean by a;xei? What is the terminus ad quem of those who have fallen asleep?65 The verb can function in several ways.66 The most likely meaning of



meaning and function of imagery in i thess. 4:13–18

93

the verb in 1 Thess. 4:14 is “bring” or “lead.” Answering the second question is more difficult. There are two options. First, the terminus ad quem is heaven. Plevnik describes the movement as an assumption to heaven.67 His interpretation depends on his reading of 1 Thess. 4:16–17.68 He suggests that Paul uses imagery and assumption language from the Jewish scriptures, especially Dan. 7:13–14.69 Plevnik also notices a parallel with 2 Cor. 4:14 as further evidence for his assumption interpretation. However, his interpretation contains two weaknesses. First, Plevnik’s claim that Dan. 7:13–14 can be used as a paradigm for his position is not convincing. Nowhere in Dan. 7:13–14 does the text indicate any assumption to heaven of the faithful at the son of man’s coming. Also, the focus of Dan. 7:13–14 is on the son of man coming, not the faithful going up. Second, the destination indicated in 2 Cor. 4:14 is ambiguous. What does Paul mean by parasth,sei su.n u`mi/n? No terminus ad quem is indicated. The best option is that the terminus ad quem is earth. There are two main reasons why this is the most appropriate. First, the parallel allusion to the descent of God in the Jewish scriptures is clear.70 Second, the evidence points to avpa,nthsij as a Greco-Roman term that describes the event of a group of people who go out of the city to meet a visiting dignitary and then escort the person back into the city (see chapter two).71 Jesus’ parousia-descent is parallel to LXX Zech. 14:5 (cf. 1 En. 1:9; Tob. 11:14; 12:15).72 In addition, when one fuses the imagery of Dan. 7:13–14 and Zech. 14:5, the “son of man” is identified as the Lord (Jesus Christ) who comes down from heaven to dispense final judgment.73 “The movement in Daniel’s vision is reversed; the ‘coming’ is not into the presence of God, but to the earth.”74 Thus, in light of the evidence above, there is a good prima facie case for the terminus ad quem being earth and not heaven.75 This conclusion will become more apparent in the discussion of 1 Thess. 4:15–17 presented in more detail below.

Word of the Lord The ga,r that begins verse fifteen explains and further substantiates what was said in verse fourteen. The tou/to points the readers forward to the o[ti (v.15b). Paul employs a “word of the Lord” (lo,gw| kuri,ou) to emphasize that what follows comes from the highest authority. Before addressing the function of the “word of the Lord” there are two preliminary questions that need to be addressed. First, to what does the “word of the Lord” refer? More specifically,

94

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

what is the origin or source of this word? And second, what part of 4:15–17 is attributed to it? Four theories have been proposed for the origin or source of “word of the Lord”: 1) A word of direct revelation of the exalted Lord given directly to Paul.76 Arguments in Support:77 • Old Testament use of evn lo,gw| kuri,ou (1 Kings 13:1, 2, 5, 32; 21:35; 2 Chron. 30:12; Sir. 48:3) • Paul received revelation (Gal. 1:12; 2 Cor. 12:1–10) • Paul had authority to speak the word of the Lord (1 Cor. 14:37) • 1 Cor. 15:51 may have been a product of Paul • Paul had close intimacy with Christ (Acts 16:6–9; 18:9–10; 22:17–20; 23:11; 27:23; Gal. 2:2) • Paul spoke to his congregation by a saying of the Lord (1 Cor. 7:10; 9:14; 11:23)

Arguments Against: • Paul never uses the Old Testament formula (Gal. 1:12; 2:2; 1 Cor. 14:7; 2 Cor. 12:1, 7) • Paul never uses lo,goj for his revelations or predictions • Paul’s use of lo,goj kuri,ou points to a non-prophetic use • 1 Cor. 15:52 parallel with 1 Thess. 4:16–17 is not as close as it seems (only sa,lpiggi is parallel)

2) A word of direct revelation of the exalted Lord given to Paul by a Christian prophet.78 Arguments in Support: • Old Testament use of evn lo,gw| kuri,ou (1 Kings 13:1, 2, 5, 32; 21:35; 2 Chron. 30:12; Sir. 48:3) • There were prophets among the early Christians (Acts 11:27–30; 13:1; 15:32; 1 Cor. 12:10, 28; 14:29) • Old Testament prophets gave the word of the Lord to the people (Isa. 1:11; Jer. 1:4; Ezek. 1:3; 34:1; 35:1; Hos. 1:1; Joel 1:1; Amos 5:1)

Arguments Against: • Did Christian prophets really have full authority of prophetic revelation? • Possibility that prophecy was despised by the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 5:19–20) • Paul talks about prophecy not being or should not be obeyed without question (1 Cor. 14:29; 1 Thess. 5:20–21) • Paul called on prophets to submit to his authority (1 Cor. 14:37–38)



meaning and function of imagery in i thess. 4:13–18

95

3) A saying of the earthly Jesus reflected and/or found in one of the canonical Gospels.79 Arguments in Support:80 • Christ returns (1 Thess. 4:16; Matt. 24:30) • From heaven(s) (1 Thess. 4:16; Matt. 24:30) • Accompanied by angels (1 Thess. 4:16; Matt. 24:31) • With a trumpet of God (1 Thess. 4:16; Matt. 24:31) • Believers are gathered/brought to Christ (1 Thess. 4:17; Matt. 24:31, 40–41) • In clouds (1 Thess. 4:17; Matt. 24:30)

Arguments Against: • lo,goj ku,rioj not used elsewhere to refer to the teaching of Jesus • The resurrection of dead believers and the problem of order/precedence at the parousia are not the focus of the Gospel texts

4) An unknown and unrecorded statement of Jesus in the Gospels (“an agraphon”).81 Arguments in Support: • Acts 20:35 is a definite agraphon that is not found in the Gospels • Paul may have heard other Jesus traditions during his time with the apostles (Gal. 1:18–19; 2:1–10) • He appealed to tradition (1 Cor. 7:10) • The number of Pauline hapax legomena in 1 Thess. 4:16–17a may indicate a non-Pauline saying • Mark 8:34–38; 9:1 is a valid Sitz im Leben (death, resurrection, and parousia is discussed)82 • Mark 8:38 explains oi` perileipo,menoi • It fits well with the apocalyptic imagery of Divine Warrior in 1 Thess. 4:16–17a • kuri,ou substituted for o` ui`oj tou/ avnqrw,pou

Arguments Against: • It is a last resort argument and cannot be proven (an argument from silence) • What is the Sitz im Leben of the agraphon in the Gospel traditions? • 1 Thess. 4:16–17a has a combination of traditional elements. Does it come strictly from Jesus?

Others have remained agnostic about the origin or source of the “word of the Lord”.83 As F. F. Bruce has asserted: “The exact nature and origin of this lo,goj ku,rioj has still to be left sub judice as it was by Bultmann.”84

96

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

There are several theories on the location of the “word of the Lord”: 1) Earl Richard proposes that it is found in 4:14.85 2) Many more argue that the word is located in 4:15b, while its explanation and description is found in 4:16–17a.86 3) The prevailing view is that 4:15b is an anticipatory summary, while the word of the Lord itself is found in 4:16–17a.87 Michael W. Pahl, in a relatively new hypothesis, proposes that the “word of the Lord” is not a statement of Jesus (whether reflected in the canonical Gospels or an unknown saying of Jesus) or a direct revelation of the exalted Lord (whether given to Paul himself or given to Paul through a Christian prophet). Furthermore, he maintains that the word is not located in either 4:15b or 4:16–17a. Pahl employs epistemological, linguistic, and contextual analysis to conclude that while Paul does appear to employ traditional Christian eschatological teaching in this section of his response to the Thessalonian crisis (4:16–17a), the phrase evn lo,gw| kuri,ou does not refer to this tradition, but rather refers to the proclaimed gospel message about Jesus centred on his death and resurrection which forms the theological foundation of Paul’s response (cf. 4:14).88

He proposes that the word of the Lord is also a “reference to the salvific message about Jesus [centered] on his death and resurrection.”89 Pahl submits a number of arguments to promote his position: 1) He maintains that most of the language found in 4:16–17a is not “typically Pauline” nor “found in other Pauline eschatological passages.”90 The imagery is most likely not Pauline, but rather reflects images and terms found in theophanic, apocalyptic, and Hellenistic texts.91 2) Pahl uses Michael B. Thompson’s indicators of legitimate verbal and conceptual parallels to show that there are Christian eschatological teachings in 4:16–17a originating from a variety of other eschatological texts that reveal there is a possible common “genetic connection,” with 4:16–17a.92 3) Pahl proposes that the evn of evn lo,gw| kuri,ou is locative or a dative of rule equivalent to the kata. with the accusative (“according to a/word of the Lord”) over the more favored dative of means.93 4) He takes kuri,ou as an objective genitive (“the word spoken about the Lord”) or ambiguous, rather than a subjective genitive (“the word spoken by the Lord”).94



meaning and function of imagery in i thess. 4:13–18

97

5) “There is a discernible ‘word [of x]’ pattern as synonymous with euvagge,lion in the Pauline and other Christian writings through the middle of the second century.”95 Paul’s use of lo,goj and r`h/ma refer to his salvific message.96 More specifically, when they are accompanied with a “qualifying genitive” they refer to “this salvific message about Jesus.”97 6) The contextual analysis of 1 Thessalonians bears out the proposal that the “word of the Lord” is the salvific gospel message.98 This final argument needs further evaluation because it may illuminate the function of Paul’s employment of the “word of the Lord” and highlight how Paul attempted to address their situation. Throughout much of 1 Thessalonians the gospel and its reception by the Thessalonians is central. Paul begins the letter with a typical thanksgiving prayer. He thanks God for them. He remembers their faith, love, and hope, which they demonstrated during his initial visit with them (1:3). Paul then transitions into the gospel message and their reception of it. The gospel came to them (to. euvagge,lion h`mw/n evgenh,qh) in a word (evn lo,gw|) in 1:5.99 This word is equivalent with the gospel message. It is the word (to.n lo,gon), the proclamation of the gospel that they received with the joy of the Spirit (dexa,menoi cara/j pneu,matoj a`gi,ou) in 1:6. The link between the word of the Lord (o` lo,goj tou/ kuri,ou) and the spread of the Thessalonians’ faith shows that the reception of the gospel was real (1:8). Paul emphasizes the power of their conversion, for they had turned from idols to God, thus, delivered from the coming wrath (1:9–10). Paul then reveals that even though he and the missionaries were suffering they declared to them the “gospel of God” (to. euvagge,lion tou/ qeou/) in 2:2. He and the missionaries were entrusted with the gospel (pisteuqh/nai to. euvagge,lion), which insinuates they were also entrusted to share it (2:4). The implicit sharing of the gospel of God becomes explicit in 2:8–9.100 He then implores the Thessalonians to walk in a manner worthy of the gospel he shared with them (2:12). Paul implies in 2:13 that the word of God (lo,gon qeou/) is nothing else than the gospel message. It is received. It is heard. It is accepted. And it is at work in the believers (pisteu,ousin). This word of the Lord can be nothing else than the gospel message. Throughout the first two chapters of 1 Thessalonians the “word,” “word of God,” or “word of the Lord” is commensurate with the gospel message. Should one assume that Paul switched the meaning and function of “word of the Lord”

98

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

in 4:15? Paul emphasizes, desires, and goes out of his way to help the Thessalonians to remember what was preached to them, how they heard it (by the power of the Spirit), how it affects their lives, the faith and love it cultivated in them, and the hope of eschatological salvation (1:9–10; 5:8–10) this gospel message, this word, commenced in them. Is it possible, maybe even likely, as Pahl proposes, that Paul uses the word of the Lord in 4:15 to highlight and help them recall and apply the salvific gospel message to their situation? Would this word, this gospel message, not reestablish their hope in the midst of grief? Would the word of the Lord, this salvific gospel message, not supply them with what was lacking in their faith (3:10)? In light of the contextual evidence of 1 Thessalonians, Paul employs the word of the Lord (4:15) in accordance with the death and resurrection of Jesus (cf. 4:14) to address the situation at Thessalonica. He reminds them that they possess “all the tools they need to deal with the present crisis,” because they received them during Paul’s “initial preaching and teaching.”101 Thus, there is a high probability that Pahl’s thesis that the word of the Lord refers to “the proclaimed gospel message about Jesus [centered] on the death and resurrection which forms the theological foundation of Paul’s response (cf. 4:14)” is the best option.102

You Will Not Be Left Behind 1 Thess. 4:15b begins with the first of two o[ti clauses in 15b-17. The first o[ti clause reveals a broad response to the word of the Lord: “that we who remain alive until the coming (parousi,an) of the Lord will not have any salvific advantage or preference over (fqa,swmen) those who have fallen asleep.”103 Paul employs an emphatic negative construction (ouv mh. fqa,swmen) to comfort the Thessalonians who have lost a loved one.104 There will be no salvific advantage or temporal preference for those who are alive.105 If there is any temporal preference it is for those who are dead in Christ.106 The dead and the living will participate together in the parousia, for the dead will rise first. They will experience the Lord’s climactic eschatological coming. This coming will bring salvation for both the living and the dead. The Thessalonians thought that only the living would participate in the grand Einholung and eschatological triumphal procession of the Lord. They thought that the dead would miss out on the parousia. Thus, eschatological salvation for them would not be actualized. Paul employed the rhetorical emphatic negation to reestablish the hope they lost and emphasize that not only would the dead receive eschatological salvation and participate in the parousia, but the “dead in Christ



meaning and function of imagery in i thess. 4:13–18

99

will in no way be excluded from the grand celebration that will surround the parousia of the Lord but will enjoy a place of honor.”107

Three Attendant Circumstances The second o[ti clause (4:16–17a), which describes the coming of the Lord, expands the first (4:15b). It also restates, qualifies, further explains, and applies the first.108 The Lord’s coming by descent (katabh,setai) articulated in 1 Thess. 4:16–17a is accompanied by three attendant circumstances (evn keleu,smati, evn fwnh|/ avrcagge,lou, and evn sa,lpiggi qeou/).109 In the previous chapter it was established that all three of these imageries are employed in theophanic, apocalyptic, and Greco-Roman texts, have an amalgamation of motifs, and a synthesis of function. A Loud Command There is a wide variety of contextual meaning to ke,leusma. The term signifies the command of God to gather his people together at the parousia. It refers to a loud cry as part of an apocalyptic military term used in divine warrior contexts. The word carries with it a motif of command call that function as God’s command that ushers in his eschatological rule, kingdom, and authority. In imperial military contexts the “cry of command” is used to unlock the entrance of the city gates as the emperor, king, or high official arrives. This connotation carries with it a parallel motif of the great welcoming of Jesus to earth. All these theophanic, apocalyptic, and Greco-Roman motifs and meanings can be synthesized around one purpose in the context of 1 Thess. 4:13–18: ke,leusma functions to announce the coming of the Lord. Sound of an Archangel Archangels and angels are God’s great messengers in theophanic and apocalyptic contexts. They represent God’s glory, power, and majesty. In the Greco-Roman literature there are similarities with the motifs of the theophanic and apocalyptic contexts. The messenger (like an archangel or angel) not only represents the message being sent, he is also a representative of the person in authority who mandated the message. Archangels, angels, and heralds bring with them an authoritative message, but also the authoritative presence of the origin of the message. These amalgamations of the theophanic, apocalyptic, and Greco-Roman motifs and function of fwnh/| avrcagge,lou illustrate

100

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

that the one who comes accompanied and commenced by the sound of an archangel is one of great authority and power, that is, the Lord Jesus Christ. Trumpet of God Trumpets are associated with theophanies, the apocalyptic coming of the day of the Lord, the Lord’s exaltation as king, holy war, the divine warrior motif, Greco-Roman military contexts, and are employed to announce the arrival of dignitaries, emperors, or divinities. A synthesis of the theophanic, apocalyptic, and Greco-Roman meanings, motifs, and connotations unveil that trumpets provide, announce, or symbolize three main functions: 1) They symbolize the inauguration of an eschatological reality (e.g., the resurrection of the dead, the coming of God). 2) They announce the commencement of the coming of the divine warrior and various military orders (e.g., to attack, sound the battle cry, scare the enemy, and assemble for battle). 3) They provide the public declaration of the arrival of a dignitary or deity. The synthesis of these functions reveals a theme of announcement. When a trumpet is blown, those who hear the trumpet know instinctively that what follows brings with it a sense of urgency and authority. The trumpet of God employed in 1 Thess. 4:16 announces the eschatological coming of the Lord, Jesus Christ.

a`rpa,zw: Don’t Get “Carried Away” Depending on the context the verb a`rpaghso,meqa in the New Testament can connote several things:110 1) It can connote the carrying away of someone’s property (Matt. 12:29). 2) It can have the connotation of carrying away or taking away forcefully.111 3) It can have the connotation of carrying someone away without resistance.112 This connotation also carries with it an apocalyptic meaning in Paul (2 Cor. 12:2, 4).113



meaning and function of imagery in i thess. 4:13–18

101

The types of imagery used and the overall context of 1 Thess. 4:16–17 suggest that a`rpaghso,meqa is rendered as the sudden carrying away of someone without resistance. Two important questions surround Paul’s employment of a`rpaghso,meqa. First, what is the purpose of those who are alive at the parousia being “carried away”? And second, what is the final destination of those who are a`rpa,zw (“carry away”)? The latter issue will be examined first. It was argued earlier that the final destination of Jesus with his believers is on earth (see the discussion on a;xei above). The only other times Paul uses a`rpa,zw (2 Cor. 12:2, 4) it clearly connotes an assumption to heaven motif.114 However, when one combines the word with the other imagery in 1 Thess. 4:15–17 (especially avpanthsij) the assumption motif becomes more ambiguous. To complicate things further Paul never unambiguously indicates the final destination of those who are carried away.115 The overall context of 1 Thess. 4:15–17 shows that earth is the best possibility of the final destination of those who are alive. 1) It has been demonstrated that the terminus ad quem of the dead was earth. 2) The term parousi,a has no connotation anywhere of an assumption to heaven motif in the theophanic, apocalyptic, Greco-Roman literature, or New Testament for that matter. 3) When the Lord comes he descends from heaven. It is unlikely that the Lord will descend from heaven, meet the believers in the air, make a u-turn, and then bring everyone back with him to heaven. Furthermore, “it is more likely that the direction of the saints would conform to the direction of their Lord than the converse.”116 In answer to the first question, Paul uses the assumption motif alongside other motifs (e.g., parousia of the Lord, resurrection of the dead, and the meeting of the Lord) for a particular purpose. Paul’s purpose is to comfort and reassure the Thessalonians who have lost a loved one. Paul wants to bring hope and comfort those who are grieving. Those who are alive will be carried away in clouds with the dead to share in the privilege of welcoming the coming of the Lord.

102

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

The Clouds: A Vehicle or Not? One of the difficult questions that needs to be answered is: What is the purpose of the nefe,laij (“clouds”)? Plevnik proposes that the function of the clouds is not a vehicle for the Lord’s descent, but a vehicle for those who are assumed. He argues it is common in Jewish and pagan assumption language.117 However, as Luckensmeyer points out the convergence of numerous motifs in 1 Thess. 4:15–17, including the descending Lord, resurrection of the dead in Christ … clouds and meeting the Lord in the air, an interpretation of evn nefe,laij as a vehicle of ascension only accounts for the assumption motif. Paul’s reference to clouds must surely be understood, in some sense, as evocative of all these motifs. Paul thus emphasizes the meeting of the Lord as an event beyond any single level of reality or phenomenon.118

Clouds are also associated with the Yahweh theophanies of the Jewish scriptures.119 They are also found in the New Testament descriptions of the Son of Man coming to earth.120 Paul may use evn nefe,laij not as a dative of means, as Plevnik suggests, but rather as a dative of sphere. That is, the people who are alive are carried away in the realm or sphere of clouds. It is not a coincidence that evn nefe,laij is juxtaposed with eivj ave,ra and only separated by eivj avpa,nthsin tou/ kuri,ou (“the meeting of the Lord”). There are over 125 occurrences of nefe,laij in the LXX. In all its occurrences it is found within a context having directly to do with God (e.g., God coming with clouds, God protecting someone under a canopy of clouds, God covering his glory with clouds, God’s dwelling place, etc.).121 While in almost all of the occurrences of avh,r in the LXX and New Testament, God is nowhere explicitly found in the text.122 Here in 1 Thess. 4:17 the images are flipped. That is, those who are alive at the parousia are carried away in the realm of clouds, while the Lord is in the realm of the air (avh,r). This would suggest that by juxtaposing clouds with air, Paul wanted his readers to know that the coming of Christ is more than a simple grand meeting. It is a meeting of God’s realm or sphere (the heavenly realm) coming down to join and interlock with humanity’s sphere (the earthly realm), for there is no longer any distinction needed to be made between the two realms. Therefore, Paul describes the parousia event as the grand “meeting” of the heavenly sphere and the earthly sphere into a new redeemed sphere, a new heaven and a new earth (cf. Rev. 11:15; 21:1–2, 10).123



meaning and function of imagery in i thess. 4:13–18

103

avpa,nthsin: The Grand Welcome Paul employs the phrase eivj avpa,nthsin tou/ kuri,ou to describe the grand welcome of the Lord by the faithful in 1 Thess. 4:17. It was argued extensively in the previous chapter that avpa,nthsin was employed in theophanic, apocalyptic, and GrecoRoman texts, revealing an amalgamation of motifs, and a synthesis of function. Erik Peterson found great similarity of Paul’s use of avpa,nthsin in 1 Thess 4:17 and its use in the Greco-Roman literature. At the parousia of Christ, those who are faithful to him leave their “earthly habitation” (civitas) and meet (avpa,nthsin) Christ and accompany him joyfully to their renewed earthly city. He describes this event as the Einholung (“Reception”) of the Lord.124 Jacques Dupont proposed a different theory for the background tradition of avpa,nthsin in 1 Thess. 4:17. Dupont suggested that Paul borrowed from the theophany imagery in Exod. 19:10–18.125 What if they were both right?126 As was argued in chapter two, the similarities between the Sinai theophany in Exod. 19:10–18 and 1 Thess. 4:13–18 are evident.127 But the similarities between 1 Thess. 4:13–18 and a Roman triumph are evident as well.128 The term avpa,nthsin and its synonyms connote the grand Einholung. This is the grand festive welcome celebration of the triumphator’s parousi,a outside the city by the citizens. They then escort him into the city.129 Is it possible that Paul blended these imageries for a particular purpose? Both these images were well known by Paul. He was first and foremost a Jew and employing the imagery of the Sinai theophany to the situation at Thessalonica would have been second nature to him. Furthermore, Paul lived and ministered in a Greco-Roman context and culture. There is no question he would have understood the concept of a Roman triumph, parousia, and the grand Einholung. The community at Thessalonica had lost hope. They were grieving from the death of their loved ones. Fearing that their loved ones would miss out on the eschatological salvation at the parousia of the Lord, they moved into despair.130 Paul calls the community back to the salvific gospel message, the word of the Lord (4:14) that he and the missionaries shared with them during his first visit. He then further explains, applies, and qualifies the word of the Lord with eschatological teaching on the parousia of the Lord (4:15b-17). He employs an amalgamation of imagery to help the Thessalonian community understand how this word of the Lord that was shared with them directly applies to their present situation.

104

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

Conclusion The purpose of this chapter was to locate the meaning and function of the theophanic, apocalyptic, and Greco-Roman imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18. The chapter showed that the community at Thessalonica had lost hope and were suffering over the loss of their loved ones. They were deeply afraid that their loved ones would miss out on the eschatological salvation at the parousia. Paul reminds them that with the word of the Lord (the salvific gospel message) they possess all the resources they need to deal with their present situation. He blends theophanic, apocalyptic, and Greco-Roman imagery to help the Thessalonians reestablish their hope by understanding how the gospel message applies to their present crisis.

conclusion

Throughout this monograph we have demonstrated that Paul blends the Jewish and Greco-Roman imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18. Chapter one traced the history of interpretation of Pauline eschatology finding patterns of thought pertaining to the question of the source of Paul’s use of imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18. That is, was the imagery more Greco-Roman or Jewish in origin? Was there a possibility that Paul’s eschatology contained both Jewish and Greco-Roman elements? Several conclusions were established. A survey of the history of interpretation from Auguste Sabatier to Henry Shires revealed that early on (Sabatier to Ernst Teichmann) Pauline eschatology was articulated as a development from Jewish categories of expression in 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians to Hellenistic categories of expression in 2 Corinthians and Philippians.1 The whole of the imagery employed in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 was viewed as fundamentally entrenched in Jewish apocalyptic thought, while later texts such as 2 Cor. 5:1–10 were deemed highly influenced by Hellenistic thought. At the dawn of the twentieth century, Albert Schweitzer, Richard Kabisch, and Henry Kennedy began to question the early developmental approach to Paul’s eschatology. Now not only was the imagery of 1 Thess. 4:13–18 seen

106

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

from a Jewish apocalyptic perspective, but all of Paul’s thought (especially his eschatology) was seen as heavily immersed in Judaism. Charles Dodd and Wilfred Knox challenged the interpretations of Kabisch, Kennedy, and Schweitzer and ultimately sided for a neo-developmental approach. This approach maintained that as Paul began to focus and reflect more on his Damascus experience and how it related to his mission the more his thought became Hellenistic because the priority of his audience demanded it. Thus, while the imagery of 1 Thess. 4:13–18 may have reflected a more Jewish apocalyptic motif, the more Paul engaged with the community and considered his own Damascus experience, the more Hellenistic his thought became. Chapter one also showed that William D. Davies, Hans Schoeps, and Henry Shires were instrumental in crumbling the dividing wall between previous Jewish and Hellenistic interpretations of Pauline eschatology. They demonstrated that it was possible to articulate a more nuanced and dynamic expression of Paul’s thought. No longer did Paul’s eschatology demand an either/or—Jewish or Hellenistic reading. Rather his eschatology could have elements of both depending on the context. With the work of Erik Peterson, Jacques Dupont, and Joseph Plevnik the quest to determine the origin of the imagery Paul employs in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 moved center stage. Peterson’s article in the midst of the works of Schweitzer, Dodd, and Knox took a different route and approach altogether. While for the most part the imagery was seen as firmly established in the Jewish apocalyptic thought camp, Peterson proposed that the imagery was inspired by Hellenistic formal receptions. Peterson’s position was not really challenged until the work of Dupont in the mid-1950s. However in contrast to Peterson, Dupont argued that the imagery was not inspired by Hellenistic formal receptions, but had its origin in the Sinai theophany of Exod. 19:10–18. Thus, the imagery of 1 Thess. 4:13–18 was deemed theophanic. Two camps had now become apparent in the debate. Twenty years later, Plevnik, while agreeing with Dupont more than Peterson, established a third possibility. The imagery of 1 Thess. 4:13–18 was influenced by Jewish apocalyptic assumption motifs. Now there were three camps. Chapter one finally revealed that the work of Peterson, Dupont, and Plevnik was influential in spawning multiple works on the subject. However, these works complicated the issue, for the positions of Peterson, Dupont, and Plevnik only became more entrenched with the more followers they gained. While several nuances of their positions began to surface, in some ways the old

conclusion

107

either/or arguments—is the imagery fundamentally Jewish or Hellenistic in origin—of the past continued. Proponents in all three camps began to notice that while the imagery was mostly either Jewish theophanic, apocalyptic, or Hellenistic in nature, they all witnessed that some of the imagery could have been inspired by multiple influences, albeit one influence was always highlighted over the others. It was this point that led to the questions proposed in chapter two. Could Paul have purposefully employed imagery from a multiple of influences? Could the terms and images he employs have an amalgamation of motifs and a synthesis of function? Could not the imagery be interpreted ultimately as theophanic, apocalyptic, and Greco-Roman? In chapter two, the meaning and function of four terms—a loud command, the sound of an archangel, the trumpet of God, and the grand meeting—were investigated as they occur outside contexts of 1 Thess. 4:13–18. The investigation revealed a wealth of insights. All four of these images are found within a wide variety of contexts all stemming from theophanic, apocalyptic, and Greco-Roman texts. It was concluded that the imagery is theophanic, apocalyptic, and Greco-Roman. The imagery is theophanic because it highlights the vivid image and picture of the ultimate appearance and self-disclosure of the Lord, that is, the parousia of the Lord. The imagery is apocalyptic imagery because it highlights and creates a vivid picture and image of the dynamic unveiling invasion of the eschatological parousia of the Lord. Finally, the imagery is Greco-Roman because it is found in a variety of Greco-Roman texts and motifs, most importantly in contexts of Roman triumphs. Furthermore, we established that the term avpa,nthsij and its synonyms—a linchpin in the Jewish or Hellenistic debate—are located in a variety of contexts. They are found in the Sinai theophany of Exod. 19:10–18. But they also can connote the Einholung of the triumphator, the bearer of felicitas in Roman triumph accounts. Chapter two showed that all four of these imageries are employed in theophanic, apocalyptic, and Greco-Roman texts, have an amalgamation of motifs, and a synthesis of function. These conclusions led to the main questions proposed in chapter three: What is the meaning and function of the imagery as it is found in 1 Thess. 4:13–18? What was the situation Paul addressed in 1 Thess. 4:13–18? Chapter three of this monograph revealed that Paul addressed a congregation who had lost hope and were in danger of falling into total despair over the death of their loved ones. From the immediate context and overall context of 1 Thessalonians it is likely that there was more than one situation that

108

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

led to the grief of the Thessalonians. While they had certainly heard of the resurrection and aspects of the parousia, Paul felt they needed further explanation and application of the word of the Lord—the salvific gospel message about the death and resurrection of the Lord—to address their lack of hope. The death of their loved ones caused them to question their loved ones’ (and possibly their own) eschatological salvation at the parousia of the Lord. Paul employs an amalgamation of imagery for the purpose of assisting and encouraging the Thessalonian community to understand how the word of the Lord shared directly with them previously upon his first visit applies to their present situation. Paul reminds them that they already possess in the gospel message all the tools they need to address the situation. Paul in fact bookends the entire explication and application of the word of the Lord with two words steeped in Greco-Roman motifs (parousi,a and avpa,nthsij). The former connotes the arrival of the triumphator (an emperor or dignitary) into a city bringing with him hope and felicitas. The latter and its synonyms can connote the Einholung of the triumphator, the grand festival welcome celebration where the citizens of the city meet the triumphator outside the city and escort him back into the city. The triumphal procession is followed with great pomp and circumstance. The triumph itself indicates to all that the conqueror has returned victorious for all to witness. But the latter is also employed in contexts of theophanies as well as connoting the meeting of the appearing deity. The similarities between the imagery of Exod. 19:10–18 and 1 Thess. 4:13–18 are unambiguous (see chapter two). Would not a mixing of the epitomic Greco-Roman image of triumph and the epitomic image of the Sinai theophany make perfect sense to Paul in light of the situation at Thessalonica, his own heritage as a Jew, and the Greco-Roman culture in which he lived and worked? The amalgamation of this imagery becomes even more pronounced when it is synthesized with the imagery of the loud command, the sound of an archangel, and the trumpet of God. These images have an amalgamation of motifs and a synthesis of function both in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 and outside this text. Paul blends and synthesizes theophanic, apocalyptic, and Greco-Roman triumph imagery to create a vivid picture of a theophanic-apocalyptic-triumphal event, the coming of the Lord. Paul’s use of theophanic, apocalyptic, and Greco-Roman imagery functions to assist the Thessalonian community understand why and how the distinct changes to their sudden and acute Weltanschauung occurred and the appropriate response in praxis: You already have all you need in the gospel message

conclusion

109

to address your current situation. When the imagery of 1 Thess. 4:13–18 is synthesized and blended it creates a beautiful picture, a vivid mosaic of reality. For how does one explain the unexplainable? Like a stained glass window, each color is beautiful in and of itself. But when the light of the sun shines through the true and full image in all its glory appears. The coming of the Lord revealed in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 is ultimately an apocalyptic triumph. This amalgamation and synthesis of imagery displays the cosmic apocalyptic triumphal arrival of Christ, answers the groans of all creation (Rom. 8:19–23), vindicates those who are his followers (the resurrection of the dead), and heralds the arrival of the New Heaven and New Earth (Rev. 21:1–2). The hope of the Thessalonians and ultimately ours as well lies in the promise that at the parousia Christ is coming and with his coming brings eschatological salvation and the joining and reconciliation of heaven and earth. This is enough to provide us all with a reason for hope in the midst of any situation.

notes

Introduction 1. The term “Hellenistic” will be employed only when used by a particular author. The term “Greco-Roman” is preferred. 2. Erik Peterson, “Die Einholung des Kyrios,” Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie 7 (1930): 682–702. 3. Ibid., 698. 4. Ibid., 682–702. See also Ernest Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (London: A & C Black, 1972), 199–200; Gene L. Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians, Pillar New Testament Commentary, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 223–228; Robert Gundry, “The Hellenization of Dominical Tradition and Christianization of Jewish Tradition in the Eschatology of 1–2 Thessalonians,” New Testament Studies 33 (1987): 161–169, and “Brief Note on ‘Hellenistic Formal Receptions and Paul’s Use of APANTHSIS in 1 Thessalonians 4:17’,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 6 (1996): 39–41; I. Howard, Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, New Century Bible Commentary, ed. Matthew Black (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 131; Ben Witherington, Jesus, Paul and the End of the World: A Comparative Study in New Testament Eschatology (Exeter, England: Paternoster Press, 1992), 163–164, and The Problem with Evangelical Theology: Testing the Exegetical Foundations of Calvinism, Dispensationalism, and Wesleyanism (Waco, TX: Baylor

112

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

University Press, 2005), 119–123; N. T. Wright, “Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire,” in Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation, ed. R. A. Horsley (Harrisburg: Trinity, 2000), 160–183; Todd D. Still, “Eschatology in the Thessalonian Letters,” Review and Expositor 96 (1999): 198; Poul Nepper-Christensen, “Das verborgene Herrnwort: Eine Untersuchung über 1 Thess 4:13–18,” Studia theologica 19 (1965): 136–154; Traugott Holtz, Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher, Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 13, ed. Josef Blank, Rudolf Schnackenburg, Eduard Schweizer, and Ulrich Wilckens (Zurich: Benziger, 1986), 203; Helmut Koester, “From Paul’s Eschatology to the Apocalyptic Schemata of 2 Thessalonians,” in The Thessalonian Correspondence, ed. Raymond F. Collins, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1990), 447, and “Imperial Ideology and Paul’s Eschatology in 1 Thessalonians,” in Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Eschatology, ed. R. A. Horsley (Harrisburg: Trinity, 1997), 160; Leon Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 144–146; James E. Frame, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Thessalonians (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912), 176–177; Helmut Merklein, “Der Theologe als Prophet: Zur Funktion prophetischen Redens im theologischen Diskurs des Paulus,” New Testament Studies 38 (1992): 402–429, 412; Colin R. Nicholl, From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica: Situating 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series, ed. Richard Bauckham 126 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 44; F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Ralph Martin, vol. 45 (Dallas: Word Books, 1982), 102–103; K. P. Donfried, “The Imperial Cults and Political Conflict in 1 Thessalonians,” in Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Eschatology, ed. R. A. Horsley (Harrisburg: Trinity, 1997), 217. The technical use of avpa,nthsin was also recognized as early as the fourth century A.D. by John Chrysostom (On the Ascension, of Our Lord Jesus Christ, section 50.450.57). 5. Jacques Dupont, SUN CRISTWI: L’union avec le Christ suivant Saint Paul (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1952), 64–73. 6. George Milligan, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians (New York: Macmillan, 1952), 58–62, 145–148; Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. John Richard De Witt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 535–536; Hans-Alwin Wilcke, Das Problem eines messianischen Zwischenreichs bei Paulus, Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testament 51, ed. Walther Eichrodt and Oscar Cullmann (Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1967), 141–147; Peter Siber, Mit Christus Leben: Eine Studie zur paulinischen Auferstehungshoffnung, Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testament 61, ed. Oscar Cullmann and H. J. Stoebe (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1971), 31; Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary, ed. I. Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 174. 7. See his unpublished dissertation, “The Parousia of the Lord according to the Letters of Paul: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation” (Würzburg, 1971). Plevnik substantially revised his dissertation in Paul and the Parousia: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997).

notes

113

8. Plevnik, Paul and the Parousia, 89–90. 9. Joseph Plevnik, “The Parousia as Implication of Christ’s Resurrection,” in Word and Spirit: Essays in Honor of David Michael Stanley on His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Joseph Plevnik (Willowdale, Ontario: Regis College Press, 1975), 233–277; “The Taking Up of the Faithful and the Resurrection of the Dead in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 46.2 (April 1984): 274–283; Paul and the Parousia, 298–329; “1 Thessalonians 4:17: The Bringing in of the Lord or the Bringing in of the Faithful?” Biblica 80.4 (1999): 537–546. Plevnik also suggests that the verb a`rpaghso,meqa in the context of evn nefe,laij eivj avpa,nthsin tou/ kuri,ou is steeped in assumption imagery of Jewish and pagan origin. 10. David Luckensmeyer, The Eschatology of First Thessalonians, Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 71, eds. Max Küchler, Peter Lampe, Gerd Theissen, and Jürgen Zangenberg (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 2. “The modern term ‘eschatology’ is understood as a broad topos in Paul which must be situated in terms of its heritage from Jewish eschatology including prophetic and apocalyptic eschatological traditions, and early Christian eschatology formulated out of the kerygmata of the earliest Christian movements … “eschatology” is used in 1 Thessalonians as an umbrella term to describe motifs which often but not always refer to the eschaton, and which serve a similar function [emphasis his]” (Ibid.). 11. Ibid., 239–240. 12. Ibid., 271. 13. Ibid., 256. 14. Ibid. 15. Luckensmeyer, 257. See also Abraham J. Malherbe, “Exhortation in 1 Thessalonians,” in Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), 64–66, and The Letters to the Thessalonians, Anchor Bible, ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman, vol. 32b (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 275–276; Gerhard Lohfink, Die Himmelfahrt Jesu: Untersuchungen zu den Himmelfahrts- und Erhöhunngstexten bei Lukas, Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 26 (Munich: Kösel, 1971), 49. 16. Luckensmeyer, 260–265. 17. Ibid., 265. 18. Ibid., 272. 19. Osvaldo D. Vena, The Parousia and Its Rereadings: The Development of the Eschatological Consciousness in the Writings of the New Testament, Studies in Biblical Literature 27, ed. Hemchand Gossai (New York: Peter Lang, 2001), 4. 20. Ibid., 3. 21. Ibid., 120. 22. Ibid., 164. 23. Ibid., 161. Vena disagrees with Plevnik’s view that there is no influence of Hellenism on Paul’s picture of the parousia in 1 Thess. 4:13–18. He also suggests that the function of this combination of imagery was to create a sense of simpatico between the culturally diverse group at Thessalonica. 24. S. Sobanaraj’s dissertation is revised in Diversity in Paul’s Eschatology: Paul’s View on the Parousia and Bodily Resurrection (Delhi: Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2007).

114 2 5. 26. 27. 28. 29.

30. 31. 32. 33.

34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

Ibid., xiii, 3. Ibid., xiv. Ibid., 6. Ibid., 148. Sobanaraj is vague in his rhetoric on whether the imagery in verse sixteen is Hellenistic and/or Jewish in their origin. Ibid. Sobanaraj also suggests that the Greeks of the congregation at Thessalonica would have been impressed by Paul’s use of the term since they would have been aware of imperial parousias. See also Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, 275. Ibid., 149. Ibid., 152. Ibid. Joel Duncan Black, “The Parousia: Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide (1 Thess. 4:13– 5:11),” Th.M. Thesis (Wycliffe College and the University of Toronto, 2004), ii, 1; Troels Engberg-Pedersen, ed., Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001). Black, 6. Ibid. Ibid., 8–11; Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989). Black, 28–29. Ibid., 31, 47. Ibid., 53–59. Ibid., 61–62. Black argues that there is both Hellenistic and Jewish overtones to Paul’s use of parousi,a in 1 Thessalonians. He suggests that parousi,a is sometimes used in a way that would suggest that its origin lies within Jewish literature (e.g., 1 Thess. 3:13), while at times it is used in a way that would suggest its origin lies within Hellenistic literature (e.g., 1 Thess. 2:19). He also acknowledges that there may be Jewish and Hellenistic overtones to avpa,nthsij.

The History of Interpretation of Pauline Eschatology 1. Wayne A. Meeks, “Judaism, Hellenism, and the Birth of Christianity,” in Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide, ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 17–27, 17. For more on this topic see the collection of essays in Troels Engberg-Pedersen, ed., Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001). The “battleground” approach was most famously made by Ferdinand C. Baur, “Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des petrinischen und paulinischen Christenthums in der ältesten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom,” Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie 4 (1831): 61–206. 2. William D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology, 4th ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980 [1948]); Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During The Early Hellenistic Period, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1991 [1974]); E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian

notes

3.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

13. 14.

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

115

Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977); Steve Mason, Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins: Methods and Categories (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2009), esp. 141–184; Shaye J. D. Cohen, Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999); From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, 3rd ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014 [1987]); Seth Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001). J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora, 2nd ed. (New York: Crossroad, 2000, [1983]); John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE) (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1996), esp. 82–103; Erich S. Gruen, Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans (Cambridge: Hardvard University Press, 2002). A brief excursus on the proposal of Michael R. Cosby and Gundry’s rebuttal is also a part of this survey. Auguste Sabatier, The Apostle Paul: A Sketch of the Development of His Doctrine, trans. A. M. Hellier (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1891), ix. Ibid., ix–x. Ibid., x. Ibid., xi. Ibid., 12. Ibid. Ibid. The Great Epistles, according to Sabatier, are Galatians, the Corinthian Correspondence, and Romans. Sabatier defends the position that Paul was awaiting his execution in Rome. For Sabatier Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians were the last epistles written by the apostle. Thus, the apostle did not write the Pastoral Epistles and there is no release and second imprisonment for Paul. Sabatier, 12. Ibid. The final stage covers Paul’s epistles to Philemon, to the Colossians, to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians, the parallel record in Acts 20–28, especially the discourse at Miletus. Ibid., 124. Ibid., 164. Sabatier understands Paul’s methodology as fundamentally ad hoc. Ibid., 180. Ibid., 180–181. Ibid., 182–183. Ibid., 183. Ibid., 184. Death equals death of the earthly body, but a spiritual body awaits us. “So far, therefore, from fearing death, we should rather desire it” (ibid.). Ibid., 214–217. Ibid., 236. Sabatier also suggests that Paul’s gospel transitioned from a salvation message in his early epistles to a redemption which became equal with the “eternal thought of God” and his “universal principle” (ibid., 235).

116

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

24. Otto Pfleiderer, Paulinism: A Contribution to the History of Primitive Christian Theology, trans. Edward Peters, 2 vols. (London: Williams and Norgate, 1877), 1:18; Hermann Lüdemann, Die Anthropologie des Apostels Paulus und ihre Stellung innerhalb seiner Heilslehre: nach den vier Hauptbriefen (Kiel: Universitïats-Buchhandlung, 1872). See also Ben F. Meyer's discussion of Pfleiderer in his article “Did Paul’s View of the Resurrection of the Dead Undergo Development?” Theological Studies 47 (1986): 363–387. 25. Pfleiderer, 259–271 26. Ibid., 259. 27. Ibid. 28. Ibid., 264. 29. Otto Pfleiderer, Primitive Christianity: Its Writings and Teachings in Their Historical Connections, trans. William Montgomery, 4 vols. (New York: Williams & Norgate, 1906). 30. See Albert Schweitzer’s discussion of this specific point in his Paul and His Interpreters: A Critical History, trans. William Montgomery (London: A. & C. Black, 1912), 66–72. 31. Ernst Teichmann, Die paulinischen Vorstellungen von Auferstehung und Gericht und ihre Beziehung zur jüdischen Apokalyptik (Freiburg im Breisgau: Paul Siebeck, 1896); Richard Kabisch, Die Eschatologie des Paulus in ihren Zusammenhängen mit dem Gesamtbegriff des Paulinismus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1893). 32. See also Meyer’s discussion, 367–368. Robert H. Charles (Eschatology: A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, Judaism and Christianity [New York: Schocken Books, 1963 (1899)], 437–463) proposes a four-stage process of development of Paul’s eschatology: 1) 1 and 2 Thessalonians; 2) 1 Corinthians: This period is similar to 1 and 2 Thessalonians in most respects, except for the omission of the Antichrist; 3) 2 Corinthians and Romans: Here Charles suggests that there was a conscious change in Paul as to the proximity of the resurrection; and 4) Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians: This is the final stage of Paul’s developmental process. It is characterized by the apostle’s emphasis on the cosmic magnitude of Christ. 33. Teichmann, 33–34. 34. Ibid., 51–52. 35. For Teichmann, transformation is equal to the annihiliation of the flesh and the adoption of a new body. 36. Teichmann, 53. 37. Ibid., 66. 38. Ibid. “For the Christian can now immediately come into the full communion with Christ by virtue of his heavenly ‘body’ that shares in the heavenly world.” Unless otherwise noted all translations are my own. 39. Ibid., 67. 40. Ibid., 68. 41. Ibid., 74. “Now no resurrection or the descent of Christ was needed, for the heavenly world did not need to descend to the earth itself, since a rise of the immortal in man in the sky has become possible.” Teichmann maintains that there was no longer any need for the parousia when one can go to him in heaven (ibid.). 42. Ibid. “The strange mixture of Jewish and Hellenistic ideas was his daily food.” 43. Kabisch, 328. 44. Ibid., 1, 317. “The driving force of early Christianity.”

notes

117

45. Ibid., 71–73. 46. Ibid., 71, 75–76, 93, 103, 109–110. 47. Henry Angus Alexander Kennedy, St. Paul’s Conceptions of the Last Things (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1904), 21. 48. Ibid. “What is called the ‘Eschatology’ of Paul has little that is ‘Eschatological’ about it … Paul did not write de novissimis” (cf. Deissmann, Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1898, Sp. 14; cited also by Kennedy, 21, n.2). 49. Ibid., 28. 50. Ibid., 57. 51. Ibid., 263. “Pfleiderer greatly exaggerates the lack of cohesion in Paul” (ibid., 23; cf. Pfleiderer, 259–271). 52. Kennedy, 24. 53. Ibid. 54. Ibid., 25. The question on the state of the person who has entered into after death is the crisis to which Kennedy refers. 55. Ibid. 56. James Denney, The Death of Christ: Its Place and Interpretation in the New Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1902), 115 (cf. Kennedy, 24, n.2). 57. Kennedy, 97. 58. Ibid. 59. Schweitzer, Paul and His Interpreters, ix. 60. Ibid., x. 61. Ibid., 32. 62. Ibid., 52. 63. Ibid., 52–53. 64. Ibid., 54. 65. Ibid., 77. Schweitzer lays out several reasons scholars provide for how and why Paul’s thought was Hellenized and a detailed critique of the reasons (87–99): 1) Paul was born and grew up in Tarsus, the so-called Athens of Asia Minor. Critique: One cannot tell what a child would or would not have learned growing up there. It just as easily could be that members of the diaspora remained exclusive and/or separated themselves from Greek culture. In addition, one could know Greek without necessarily digesting all its ideas and conceptions; 2) his dependence on the Wisdom of Solomon or Philo (e.g., Romans 9-> Wisdom of Solomon 12–15; 2 Corinthians 5 -> Wisdom of Solomon 9:15). As a member of the diaspora, of course he would have known about a work as important as the Wisdom of Solomon or the works of Philo or be acquainted with other Hellenistic works. “The important point is that he does not use the ideas which are here offered to him,” e.g., the logos, spirit and wisdom ethics, of these works “do not interest him” (91–92); 3) “the pessimism of the Apostle is Greek, because it recalls the view of the world which we find in the writings of Seneca and Epictetus” (95). Critique: No one has proven that Paul knew the works of Seneca and Epictetus. And even if Paul is deemed pessimistic at times, it does not necessarily mean he learned or adopted Greek forms of pessimism; 4) the anthropology and psychology of the apostle are claimed to be Greek. Critique: Paul’s view of man is of ordinary observation and self-evident. “The special features of his view which go beyond

118

6 6. 67. 68. 69. 70.

71.

72. 73. 74. 75. 76.

77. 78.

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

this are to be explained from eschatology and not from Greek thought” (97); and 5) Paul’s system contains Platonic elements. Critique: “What this philosophy has in common with Paul is the general desire for deliverance from corporeity. When it is more closely considered, however, characteristic differences appear” (97). In summary, for Schweitzer Paul’s thought and Greek thought are from different planets. If Paul meant to explicate Greek thought into his own, he failed miserably. See Schweitzer’s summary of this point in 239–241. Ibid., 240. Ibid. Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, trans. William Montgomery (New York: Macmillan, 1931), xxiv. Ibid., xxv. According to Schweitzer, as the eschatological hope was fading Ignatius and others renewed the faith in Hellenistic terms, “substituting a Hellenistic rationale” for the eschatological one (ibid.). Paul’s mysticism was “historico-cosmic,” not mythical. “Mythical mysticism is orientated towards the remote beginnings of the world, historico-cosmic mysticism towards the times of the end” (ibid., 23). Schweitzer maintains that for Paul there are three doctrines of redemption: 1) eschatological -> salvation by virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, and then his parousia; 2) juridical -> righteousness by faith, atonement through Christ; and 3) mystical -> Being-in-Christ. Furthermore, “Hellenistic and Pauline mysticism” belong in “different worlds.” (ibid., 16). Hellenistic focuses on deification, while Paul focuses on the “fellowship with the divine being” “in Christ.” (ibid.). The Hellenistic literature does not contain statements to the effect of “with Christ” or “in Christ.” Pauline thought contains a “predestinarian necessity” not found in Hellenism in which “some share in the fate of this world, while others, through Christ, becomes participants of the future glory.” This “combination” of predestination and mysticism is utterly “foreign” to Hellenistic mysticism (ibid.). See Richard Reitzenstein, Hellenistic Mystery-Religions: Their Basic Ideas and Significance, trans. John E. Steely (Pittsburgh, PA: Pickwick Press, 1978); Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ From the Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus, trans. John E. Steely (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1970). Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, 27–33. Ibid., 27–28. Ibid., 31. Ibid., 140. See especially Charles H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments: Three Lectures with an Appendix on Eschatology and History (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980), 85–86. George B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 252. Dodd suggests that the “apocalyptists despaired of the present world-order (‘This Age’), as being under the dominion of diabolic powers, and looked for a new order (‘The Age to Come’), in which the sovereignty of God would be effectively manifested in a radical renewal of the whole universe. His enemies would be destroyed, the righteous dead would be raised to share in His triumph, and the elect still living would be transfigured into

notes

7 9. 80. 81. 82.

83.

8 4. 85.

86.

87. 88. 89. 90. 91.

119

bodies of glory, to inhabit the new heavens and new earth. All this would come about by a catastrophic divine intervention, marked by the appearance of God’s viceregerent, the Elect One, sometimes called the Son of Man (or the Man), who would rule the new world in everlasting righteousness” (“The Mind of Paul: II” (1934), in New Testament Studies [New York: Scribner, 1953], 109). John A. T. Robinson argues that the expectation of the second coming did not come from Judaism or the Old Testament. Rather, it came from the Jesus traditions of the first century (see his Jesus and His Coming [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1957], 24). Dodd, “The Mind of Paul: II,” 109. Ibid., 110. Ibid., 111. Ibid., 112. According to Dodd, Ephesians has no passages which are imminent. “[I]f the Advent is expected within a few years or months—or indeed at any moment—then the present life, with all its blessings and obligations, is strictly provisional, and the mind is set wholly upon glories to come. But if the Advent is deferred to an indefinite future, then the present gains significance.” (ibid., 112–113). Ibid., 113. Dodd proposes that Paul may have gone through a spiritual crisis or a second conversion in the mood and temper of his letters around this time (see Dodd, “The Mind of Paul: I” [1933], 81). Dodd, “Mind of Paul: II (1934),” 126. John A. T. Robinson also notices a real transition in Paul’s thought, but he maintains that it is not as radical a break as Dodd suggests. The overall development is “misconceived if understood, as if often is, as the abandonment of an eschatological way of thinking for a non-eschatological or ‘mystical’ outlook. The change is rather as a shift from an apocalyptic to a non-apocalyptic form of eschatology” (Robinson, Jesus and His Coming, 160–161, n.1). Robinson takes issue with Dodd’s nomenclature. He argues that the term “realized eschatology” is vague at best. A better term would be “proleptic eschatology” or better yet “inaugurated eschatology.” What Jesus declared was in the “process of being set in motion; and, with the coming of the Passion, the great ‘henceforth’ could at last be pronounced. What, later, the Church proclaimed was, not that all was inaugurated (emphasis his), but that while some elements in it were now fulfilled, other still lay purely in the future” (Jesus and His Coming, 101–102). Robinson proposes that Paul transitions from mythological language in 1 Thessalonians (e.g., Christians being caught up to Christ in the air [1 Thess. 4:17]) to a more mature vision in Ephesians (e.g., growing up into him in all things [Eph. 4:15]). Wilfred L. Knox, St. Paul and the Church of the Gentiles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939), 1–26. Ibid., ix. Ibid. Ibid., 1. Ibid., 26. Knox (St. Paul and the Church of the Gentiles, 25) maintains that Paul’s speech did little to convert the philosophers of Athens. While there was connection of Jew and Gentile in the church and their description of the hope of parousia in language that they

120

92. 93. 94.

95. 96. 97. 98.

99.

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

both could understand, outside the church it was a different story. Apocalyptic hope only flourished within Judaism outside of the church. In the Greco-Roman world there was little regard for it. Furthermore, “the commonplaces by which Judaism sought to represent itself as the divine revelation of the truths at which philosophy had guessed, his appeal to the guidebook curiosity of altars to ‘Unknown Gods’ and the commonplace-book quotation from Aratus were scarcely likely to impress an audience of such a character, still less to convert it to a belief that the world-process could be brought to an end by a divine assize, or to a system centered not on a semi-divine who had been translated to the heavens in the dim remoteness of antiquity but to a man who had risen from the dead within the last few years. The Areopagus only laughed; Paul was faced with the necessity of reconstructing the Gospel, if he was to appeal to the intellect of the Gentile world” (Knox, St. Paul and the Church of the Gentiles, 25–26). Knox’s assertion that the humiliation of Paul at the Areopagus caused a shift in his message fails to acknowledge other aspects of the Acts account of his speech. According to Acts 17:20, the philosophers of Athens were “astonished” or “surprised” by the ideas of Paul’s message. But the verb xeni,zw in its other uses in the New Testament is found in contexts of hospitality (e.g., Acts 10:6, 18, 23, 32; 21:16; 28:7; Heb. 13:2; 1 Pet. 4:4). Thus, xeni,zw could imply that the men of Athens were showing hospitality by inviting Paul to a meeting of the Areopagus (Acts 17:22) to explain these “strange” matters. The fact that some of them “mock” (cleua,zw; [Acts 17:32]) Paul would not be out of place in the Hellenistic world. N. T. Wright has established that the resurrection of the dead was considered laughable by the Hellenistic world (see especially The Resurrection of the Son of God [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003], 32–84). The reaction Paul receives from some in the crowd would be expected. Knox fails to mention that some did indeed inquire more about Paul’s message (Acts 17:32) and some in fact believed and followed Paul (Acts 17:34). Knox may have established an example of where Paul adapts and “reconstructs” the style and language of his message to his audience. But it was not because Paul’s gospel returned void. Rather, Paul’s language took on a different form because of the situation, culture, and Weltanschauung of the philosophers at the Areopagus. Knox, St. Paul and the Church of the Gentiles, 128. See also Meyer (“Paul’s View of Resurrection,” 371) who makes a similar point in reference to Knox’s position. Knox, 136–137. Ibid., 137. “The Jews had an intense dislike of nakedness, which made it seem improper for a man even to pray in private until he had clothed himself” (ibid.; cf. Mishnah, Berakhoth 3.5). Ibid., 139. Ibid., 141–142. Ibid., 142–145. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 1. See also W. David Stacey, The Pauline View of Man: In Relation to Its Judaic and Hellenistic Background (London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd., 1956), 25–39. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 1. Montefiore characterizes diaspora Judaism as “colder, less intimate, less happy because it was poorer and more pessimistic” (see Claude G. Mon-

notes

121

tefiore, Judaism and St. Paul: Two Essays [New York: E. P. Dutton & Company, 1915], 93; cf. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 1). 100. See Davies (Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 2–5) for his detailed criticism of Montefiore’s assumptions. 101. Ibid., 2. 102. Ibid., 3. 103. Ibid., 3. 104. Ibid., 4. 105. Ibid. 106. Ibid. 107. Ibid. 108. See Davies (Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 5–8) for a more detailed criticism of Montefiore on this point. 109. Ibid., 6. 110. Ibid., 8. Philo, derived from the Timaeus, and Stoicism were influences on Rabbinic Judaism. 111. Ibid. 112. Ibid., 9. 113. Ibid., xiv. 114. Ibid. 115. Ibid., xi. 116. Ibid., xxvi. 117. Ibid., viii. 118. Ibid., x. 119. Ibid., 285. 120. Ibid., 286. 121. Ibid., 286–287. 122. Ibid., 298. 123. Ibid., 310. 124. Ibid., 311–313. According to Davies (313), in 2 Corinthians 3 Paul is “thinking of the Christian dispensation as a new Exodus and since in chapter 4 he has been dealing with the frailty and transitory nature of his life in the body of flesh, he would naturally be led to think of the latter in terms of the sukkâh which was essentially a temporary dwelling in which the Jew dwelt for seven days at the Feast of Tabernacles, a dwelling designed to recall ‘the time which our forefathers spent in the wilderness and of the life they led in tents and booths.’ The Christian, so it might have occurred to Paul, would have to live in a booth before reaching the Promised Land.” 125. Ibid., 320. See also Archibald M. Hunter, Interpreting Paul’s Gospel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954), 17, 18. 126. Hans J. Schoeps, Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History, trans. Harold Knight (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961). 127. Ibid., 22. See also, Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 93: “It cannot be over-emphasized that while his direct contacts with Hellenistic paganism would be few, his relations with Hellenistic Judaism would be peculiarly close throughout his life.”

122

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

128. Schoeps, 23. 129. Ibid. 130. Ibid., 88. 131. Ibid. 132. Henry M. Shires, The Eschatology of Paul in the Light of Modern Scholarship (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966), 36. 133. Ibid., 21. 134. Ibid., 23. See William D. Davies, Christian Origins and Judaism (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), 145. See also Stacey, The Pauline View of Man, 38–39. 135. Shires, The Eschatology of Paul, 24. 136. Ibid., 25: “Apocalyptic arises from the attempt to systematize the predictive aspect of Old Testament prophecy and to interpret it by means of mythology. It thus has elements in common with the Old Testament and sharp departures from it.” See also Hunter, Interpreting Paul’s Gospel, 50. 137. Shires does point out that many of the Hellenistic ideas and terms were absorbed by Judaism (ibid., 27); See also Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 1, 16; Schoeps, Paul, 23, 47; Stacey, The Pauline View of Man, 25–39. 138. Shires, The Eschatology of Paul, 27. 139. Ibid.; cf. Stacey, The Pauline View of Man, 38: “Though Paul, as a Jew, resisted the thought of the Gentile world, the atmosphere he could not resist, and some of the language and thought of Hellenism penetrated his mind. Some Greek terms he borrowed deliberately to provide points of contact with his hearers.” 140. Shires, The Eschatology of Paul, 28. 141. Ibid., 34. See also Hunter, Interpreting Paul’s Gospel, 53. 142. Ibid., 38. See also William Robb Baird, “Pauline Eschatology in Hermeneutical Perspective,” New Testament Studies 17.3 (1971): 314–327, 325. Baird (ibid.) argues that the “fact that Paul employs a variety of eschatological expressions ranging from apocalyptic to cosmic in Romans … indicates that variety is a distinctive feature of Paul’s understanding of eschatology.” 143. Ibid. 144. Ibid., 40. For a discussion on the weaknesses of the developmental approach to Paul’s eschatology see Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (Phillipsburg, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1930), 172–205; Baird, “Pauline Eschatology in Hermeneutical Perspective,” 316–317. 145. Shires, The Eschatology of Paul, 41. See also Hunter, Interpreting Paul’s Gospel, 53. 146. Ibid., 67. 147. Ibid., 41. 148. Ibid. 149. Ibid., 37. 150. Shires, The Eschatology of Paul (215) suggests that there are certain “elements of Christian doctrine in which he had been instructed and the facts of his own experience alike had to be interpreted so that others, and especially the Gentiles, might believe too; and to that end he drew upon his Jewish background, in which eschatology played a major role. Yet Jewish doctrines were not sufficient to explain all that had happened in Jesus Christ.” See

notes

123

also Stacey, The Pauline View of Man, 39: “Our thesis is that Paul usually expressed his new faith in Jewish terms, and, when these proved inadequate, he turned to Greek terms. The language used is that which happens to convey most clearly the new idea.” 151. Shires, The Eschatology of Paul, 218. 152. Ibid. 153. Ibid., 35. Hunter (Interpreting Paul’s Gospel, 53) suggests that these three images are “painted in the conventional colors of Jewish apocalyptic.” 154. Shires, The Eschatology of Paul, 220. 155. See also especially Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism and the other scholars mentioned above in n. 2. 156. Erik Peterson, “Die Einholung des Kyrios,” Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie 7 (1930): 682–702. See also, Erik Peterson, s.v. “avpa,nthsij,” in The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 1:380–381; Teichmann, 22, 35; Lucien Cerfaux, Christ in the Theology of St. Paul, trans. Geoffrey Webb and Adrian Walker (New York: Herder and Herder, 1959), 32–44. 157. Ibid., 682. 158. Ibid., 682–683. 159. Ibid., 683–692. P. Berol, II, 362, 7; The Decree of Attalos from Pergamon; The Epheben Inscription from Attica (c. 100/99); Res Gestae Divi Augusti; Decree of Cyzicum; The Inscription from Marathon about Herod Atticus; Polybius 5.26.8; 5.43.3; 5.63.7; 10.5.6; 16.25.3; Diodorus Siculus 17.59.3; 33.28a; Dionysius Halicarnasus Ant. Rom. 2.60; 9.58; Josephus J. W. 7.68–71; 7.100–103; Ant. 11.327; Plutarch Pomp. 40; Cic. 43; Herodian 8.7; Dio Cassius 63.4; 74.1; 77.22; Philostratus Vit. Apol. 5.27; Eusebius Vita Constantini 1.39; Gregory Nazianzen In Laudem S. Athanasii 29; Alexander Romans Historia Alexandri Magni; Marcus Diaconus Vit. Porph. 58; Acts of the Council of Ephesus; Constantinus Porphyrogensis De Cerimoniis 1.96; Titus Livy 31.14; Cicero Ep. Ad Atticum 8.16.2; Ammianus Marcellinus 22.9; and Pliny the Younger. See also Joseph Plevnik, “1 Thessalonians 4:17: The Bringing in of the Lord or the Bringing in of the Faithful?” Biblica 80.4 (1999): 540, for a similar list of the texts which Peterson discusses. 160. Peterson, “Die Einholung des Kyrios,” 693. See also Jacques Dupont, SUN CRISTOU: L’union avec le Christ suivant Saint Paul (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1952), 67–68; Plevnik, “1 Thessalonians 4:17,” 540. 161. Peterson, “Die Einholung des Kyrios,” 693. According to the NA28, the manuscripts that have u`pa,nthsij are D*, F, G. This interchangeable usage would give credence to Peterson’s position of avpa,nthsij and its various forms as termini technici. See also, Luckensmeyer, 261, who makes a similar point. 162. Ibid., 694. 163. Ibid., 694–697. 164. Those that came before Peterson are Teichmann, 22, 35; James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of the New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906), 14; Kurt Deissner, Auferstehungshoffnung und Pneumagedanke bei Paulus (Leipzig: G. Pätz’sche Buchdruckerei Lippert & Co., 1912), 15–16; James E. Frame, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the

124

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

Epistles of St. Paul to Thessalonians, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), 176–177. Frame, however, argues that the saints return to heaven after meeting the Lord in the air. 165. Jacques Dupont, SUN CRISTWI: L’union avec le Christ suivant Saint Paul (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1952), 39–113, especially 64–73. 166. The former relates to Alexander’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem following his capture of Gaza. The latter refers to Titus’ arrival into Antioch in A.D. 71 after having captured Jerusalem. 167. Dupont, SUN CRISTWI, 67. “We will not deny the seduction of this explication, which seems so simple and coherent.” 168. Ibid. “it is not the only one.” 169. Ibid., 68. “Clearly, a term so widely used cannot absolutely be clearly defined.” 170. Ibid. “There is no reason to demand an Hellenistic usage of the term.” Plevnik, “1 Thessalonians 4:17,” points out, however, that the Einholung is not found in the Sinai text. 171. Ibid., 68–69. The trumpet in particular, suggests Dupont, is part of the traditional Jewish apocalyptic imagery (e.g., Ps. 46:6; Zech. 9:14; Isa. 27:13; Joel 2:1; 1 Cor. 15:52; Matt. 24:31; 4 Ezra 6:23; Ps. Sol. 11:1). 172. Ibid., 69. Dupont points out that the coming of the end was usually seen as an eschatological theophany, not on Mount Sinai, but on Mount Zion. 173. Ibid. “If the people had to leave the camp to meet the Lord as he descended on Sinai, it will not be any different at the end of time.” 174. Ibid., 70–71. 175. Ibid., 70. “Do we really think that Luke, noting this detail, wanted to present the arrival of Paul in Rome as a triumphal entry?” Dupont forgets to mention that just because a word is common does not mean it has lost its possible technical sense. Commonality may indicate a technical sense in most contexts. Luke may have used avpa,nthsin in Acts 28:15 to indicate to his readers that just as Jesus came to Jerusalem and was met with a crowd on the way to his death, so Paul likewise. Paul was “welcomed” (avpa,nthsin) by believers, some from far distances (e.g., Forum of Appius and the Three Taverns, both some 40–50 miles from Rome), upon his arrival to Rome, not knowing whether he would live or die. It is not merely a simple meeting between friends as Plevnik (Paul and the Parousia, 90) argues. 176. Dupont, SUN CRISTWI, 73. “The coming in glory of the Lord God on Sinai appears and, in our passage, as the prototype of the coming eschatological ‘parousia’ of the Lord Jesus.” 177. See especially Joseph Plevnik, Paul and the Parousia: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997), 4–10, 89–90 and “1 Thessalonians 4:17,” 537–546. 178. Plevnik, “1 Thessalonians 4:17: The Bringing in of the Lord or the Bringing in of the Faithful?” 541. The passive form Paul uses is a`rpaghso,meqa. 179. Ibid., 543. 180. Ibid. 181. Ibid., 542, 543. See also Ernest Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (London: A & C Black, 1972), 199. 182. Plevnik, Paul and the Parousia, 10. 183. Ibid., 90.

notes

125

1 84. In the Sinai account Moses brings out the people to meet the Lord (Exod. 19:17). 185. Plevnik, Paul and the Parousia, 10. 186. Plevnik’s position is heavily indebted to the work of Gerhard Lohfink (Die Himmelfahrt Jesu: Untersuchungen zu den Himmelfahrts- und Erhöhunngstexten bei Lukas, Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 26 [Munich: Kösel, 1971], 32–78). Lohfink argues that there are four types of translation or assumption (Entrückung) in the Old Testament: 1) journey to heaven; 2) assumption of the soul after death; 3) the whole person is assumed; and 4) “ascension” as the conclusion of an appearance. Lohfink ultimately argues that only the third type resembles assumptions and ascensions in the New Testament. See Plevnik, “The Taking Up of the Faithful,” 278–280, for a detailed evaluation of Lohfink’s argument. 187. Robert H. Gundry, “The Hellenization of Dominical Tradition and Christianization of Jewish Tradition in the Eschatology of 1–2 Thessalonians,” New Testament Studies 33 (1987): 161–178, 172; Raymond F. Collins, The Birth of the New Testament: The Origin and Development of the First Christian Generation (New York: Crossroad, 1993), 166. Collins notes that the motifs Paul uses in 1 Thess. 4:15–17 are Jewish apocalyptic in nature, but the apostle—conscious of his audience—recasts the images in a Hellenistic fashion, so that they would make sense. Collins does agree with Gundry’s thesis that Paul Hellenized the Jewish tradition in 1 Thess. 4:15–17, but he is wary of Gundry’s over-thetop precision to identify Paul’s dependence on the dominical tradition of John 11:25–26 (283, n. 97). 188. Ibid., 162. Best (The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 199) provides five criticisms of Dupont’s position: 1) in the Sinai theophany account, clouds are used to cover the Lord, while Paul uses them as a vehicle for the believers; 2) Paul uses the word avpa,nthsin (Exod. 19:17 LXX has suna,thsin); 3) there is no assumption in the Exodus text as there is in Paul; 4) nowhere does Paul indicate the giving of the Ten Commandments; and 5) “clouds and trumpets are common apocalyptic images.” 189. Gundry, “The Hellenization of Dominical Tradition,” 162. 190. Ibid., 162–163. Gundry also notes Paul’s use of evlpi,j, cara,, ste,fanoj kauch,sewj in 1 Thess. 2:19–20 and avpa,nthsin in 4:17 as further support. He also highlights Paul’s use of parousi,a with ku,rioj in 1 Thess. 3:13. In 3:13 the phrase pa,ntwn tw/n a`gi,wn auvtou/ alludes to a similar phrase (pa,ntej oi` a[gioi met vauvtou/) in LXX Zech. 14:5. “The accompaniment of ‘all his holy ones’—probably an angelic army—adds dignity to the imperial visit” (Gundry, “The Hellenization of Dominical Tradition,” 163). In Hellenistic parousias, emperors are accompanied by soldiers. 191. Ibid., 164. Gundry offers four reasons for why “the word of the Lord” is a dominical saying (over the view that Paul was quoting a Christian prophet) in 1 Thess. 4:15: 1) Paul often uses “Lord” over “Jesus”; 2) the word lo,goj rarely appears among the terms used in other New Testament “passages for special revelations to Christian prophets”; 3) the increasing uncertainty of whether these prophecies were transferred to Jesus as Lord; and 4) Paul is quick to acknowledge when his word is from him over Jesus (e.g., Paul’s statements on marriage and divorce [1 Cor. 7:10, 12]). 192. Ibid., 164–165. See also Poul Nepper-Christensen, “Das verborgene Herrnwort: Eine Untersuchung über 1 Thess 4:13–18” Studia theologica 19 (1965): 136–154. Gundry

126

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

suggests that the original form of the saying may look as follows: “The one who has died will rise, and the one who is alive will never die” (o` avpoqa,nwn avnasth,setai( kai. o` zw/n ouv mh. avpoqa,nh| eivj to.n aivw/na). But this is at best speculation. 193. Ibid., 165. 194. Ibid. Gundry advocates that a pre-Johannine tradition may be behind Paul’s use of avpa,nthsin. In John 12:13 and 18, at Jesus’ triumphal entry, the words u`pa,nthsin and u`ph,nthsen (variants of avpa,nthsin) are employed to describe the crowd going out to meet Jesus. Moreover, “John is the only evangelist to write of their going out to meet Jesus” (166). 195. Ibid., 166–167. 196. Michael R. Cosby, “Hellenistic Formal Receptions and Paul’s Use of APANTHSIS in 1 Thessalonians 4:17,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 4 (1994): 15. 197. Ibid., 31. 198. Ibid., 20. 199. Ibid., 21. Cosby does acknowledge that the word parousi,a was used in a technical sense by Paul for the second coming of Christ in many contexts (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thess. 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23). It was also used for the arrivals of individuals (e.g., 1 Cor. 16:16; 2 Cor. 7:6, 7; 10:10; Phil. 1:26; 2:12). 200. Ibid., 22. Paul, however, may not have mentioned them because he knew the Thessalonians were already familiar with the specific elements of the royal receptions having most likely witnessed some of them first hand. 201. Ibid., 22–23. For example, Cosby cites Papyrus Petrie 2.45, col. 2, line 22-col. 3, line 2; Orientis Graeci Inscr.; Herodian 8.7.2–3. 202. Ibid., 28. For example, the wearing of wreaths and festive clothing, the procedure of bringing cult objects to the dignitary, providing the dignitary with sacrifices, the receptions being led by city officials with the announcement of decrees, the loud and enthusiastic nature of the reception by the people, the distance some would travel to attend these receptions, or the decoration of the city (23–28). Does Paul, however, really have to envision everything for the metaphor to have the meaning he intends or for the word itself to be a technical term? 203. Ibid., 29. 204. Ibid. 205. Cosby (Ibid., 29–31) gives six reasons why avpa,nthsij does not have this comprehensive meaning: 1) the second coming was unexpected. The believers at Thessalonica did not prepare for the Lord’s arrival by decorating the city. Rather, they prepared by performing good works (1 Thess. 5:5–11); 2) the participants did not wear special garments or wreaths in advance of the Einholung. Rather, they were snatched away; 3) they did not announce the Lord’s coming with heralds. Trumpets are not used in most descriptions of the Einholung. They are used in Jewish and Christian tradition to announce judgment, resurrect the dead, and gather the elect; 4) donations and taxes are not given to purchase items to honor the arriving Lord; 5) “in 1 Thessalonians, wrathful judgment of the wicked is a major part of the Parousia (1:10; 5:3, 9; cf. 5:13–23), and this dominant element is missing from the descriptions of Hellenistic receptions” (30); and 6) there is no mention in Paul of any customary sacrificial offerings after the reception.

notes

127

206. Ibid., 31. 207. Robert H. Gundry, “Brief Note on ‘Hellenistic Formal Receptions and Paul’s Use of APANTHSIS in 1 Thessalonians 4:17,’” Bulletin for Biblical Research 6 (1996): 39–41. 208. See Gundry (“Brief Note,” 40–41) for a more detailed overview of the weaknesses of Cosby’s article. Early on in his article, Gundry (39) highlights a circle of contradiction in Cosby’s argument. Cosby asserts that 1 Thess. 4:14–17 does not explicitly mention any elements associated with Hellenistic formal receptions (cf. Cosby, “Hellenistic Formal Receptions,” 22). Later, he acknowledges that Hellenistic formal receptions were a part of the cultural milieu that Paul ministered (31). Then Cosby (15) states that most of the elements are opposite of the description of the parousia in 1 Thess. 4:14–17. But on the other hand he notes that there is much diversity in how the receptions were conducted (31, n. 45). 209. Gundry, “Brief Note,” 40; cf. 1 Cor. 15:53–54a; 2 Cor. 5:2–4. 1 Thess. 2:19 speaks of Paul wearing a laurel wreath at the parousia. 210. Ibid., 41. 211. Ibid.; cf. Gundry, “The Hellenization of Dominical Tradition,” 161–169. 212. Helmut Koester, “From Paul’s Eschatology to the Apocalyptic Schemata of 2 Thessalonians,” in The Thessalonian Correspondence, ed. Raymond F. Collins, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1990), 446. Traugott Holtz (Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher, Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, edited by Josef Blank, Rudolf Schnackenburg, Eduard Schweizer, and Ulrich Wilckens 13 [Zurich: Benziger, 1986], 119) describes the quandary accurately: “eine vorchristliche jüdische Verwendung von parousi,a im technischen Sinne ist kaum (wenn überhaupt) nachzuweisen”; Translation: “a pre-Christian Jewish use of parousi,a in the technical sense has little if any evidence.” 213. See also Béda Rigaux (Saint Paul: Les Épitres aux Thessaloniciens [Paris: Gabalda, 1956], 196–201) for his discussion on parousi,a as a Hellenistic technical term. Rigaux finds that this definition of parousi,a was widespread throughout the region. These Hellenistic parousias (e.g., the parousia of Demetrius, Poliorcetes, Ptolemy Philometor and Cleopatra, and Germanicus) were accompanied by ceremonial speeches, presents, horses and chariots, and improvements to the roads. It would inaugurate a new era. The arriving emperor or king would take possession of the capital or provincial town. 214. Koester, “From Paul’s Eschatology,” 446. 215. Ibid,. 447. Koester (447–448) maintains that there is no reason to interpret a`rpaghso,meqa and the context of 1 Thess. 4:16–17 as the “rapture” of believers into heaven. Furthermore, Paul’s use of evn nefe,laij in 1 Thess. 4:17 is mythological in nature and serves to describe the Einholung of the Lord in cosmic dimensions. 216. James R. Harrison, Paul and the Imperial Authorities at Thessalonica and Rome: A Study in the Conflict of Ideology, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, ed. Jörg Frey 273 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 52. Chapter two of Harrison’s monograph is a revised edition of Harrison’s earlier article (“Paul and the Imperial Gospel at Thessaloniki.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25.1 (2002): 71–96). 217. Ibid., 50. Harrison (56) maintains that the Hellenistic term parousi,a is found within several Jewish apocalyptic texts from the second temple period (e.g., T. Ab. 13:4, 6;

128

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

T. Levi 14:15; T. Jud. 22:2). One of the reasons Paul may have mixed Jewish apocalyptic with Hellenistic terms, asserts Harrison, was to summon “his Gentile converts back to the Jewish roots of their faith which had found its eschatological fulfillment in the house of David and not in the house of Caesars” (69). 218. Ibid., 60, n. 57. Harrison proposes an important question: Does it follow then that the Thessalonians would have read 1 Thess. 4:13–5:10 as a critique against imperial propaganda? This question will be addressed below. 219. Harrison, Paul and the Imperial Authorities at Thessalonica and Rome, 62. This view has become popular of late. See Edgar Krentz, “Roman Hellenism and Paul’s Gospel,” The Bible Today 26.6 (1988): 328–337; Karl Donfried, “The Imperial Cults and Political Conflict in 1 Thessalonians,” in Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Eschatology, ed. R. A. Horsley (Harrisburg: Trinity, 1997), 215–223; Helmut Koester, “Imperial Ideology and Paul’s Eschatology in 1 Thessalonians,” in Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Eschatology, ed. R. A. Horsley (Harrisburg: Trinity, 1997), 158–166; Yeo Khiok-Khng, “A Political Reading of Paul’s Eschatology in I and II Thessalonians,” Asia Journal of Theology 12 (1998): 77–88; N. T. Wright, “Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire,” in Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation, ed. R. A. Horsley (Harrisburg: Trinity, 2000), 160–183; James R. Harrison, “Paul and the Imperial Gospel at Thessaloniki,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25.1 (2002): 71–96; Abraham Smith, “‘Unmasking the Powers’: Toward a Postcolonial Analysis of 1 Thessalonians,” in Paul and the Roman Imperial Order, ed. R. A. Horsley (Harrisburg: Trinity, 2004), 47–66; John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, In Search of Paul: How Jesus’ Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 2004), 124–177. Peter Oakes (“Re-mapping the Universe: Paul and the Emperor in 1 Thessalonians and Philippians,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27.3 [2005]: 301–322) and Seyoon Kim (Christ and Caesar: The Gospel and the Roman Empire in the Writings of Paul and Luke [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008], 30) both disagree with Harrison’s view. While Oakes and Kim both acknowledge that avpa,nthsij and parousi,a are Greco-Roman terms, they oppose Harrison’s view that the terms are used by Paul as a subversion or polemic against Rome. See also John M. G. Barclay, “Why the Roman Empire Was Insignificant to Paul,” in Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 275 ([Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2011], 363–388) for a critique of Harrison’s position (Barclay is specifically critiquing the works of N.T. Wright, but the overall criticism is the same). See also Richard A. Horsley, Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society (Harrisburg: Trinity, 1997), Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl (Harrisburg: Trinity, 2000) and Paul and the Roman Imperial Order (Harrisburg: Trinity, 2004); Neil Elliott, Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle, The Bible & Liberation Series, eds. Norman K. Gottwald and Richard A. Horsley (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1994) and “Paul and the Politics of Empire: Problems and Prospects,” in Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation, ed. R. A. Horsley (Harrisburg: Trinity, 2000), 17–39 for more on Paul’s reaction to the imperial cult.

notes

129

For evidence of the imperial cult at Thessalonica see Charles Edson, “Cults of Thessalonica,” Harvard Theological Review 41 (1948): 153–204; Edwin A. Judge, “The Decrees of Caesar at Thessalonica,” Reformed Theological Review 30 (1971): 1–7; Holland Hendrix, “Thessalonicans Honor Romans,” Th.D. Thesis, Harvard Divinity School, 1984 and “Archaeology and Eschatology at Thessalonica,” in Future of Early Christianity, ed. Birger A. Pearson and A. Thomas Kraabel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 107–118; Karl Donfried, “The Cults of Thessalonica and the Thessalonian Correspondence,” in Paul, Thessalonica, and Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 21–48 (cf. “The Cults of Thessalonica and the Thessalonian Correspondence,” New Testament Studies 31.3 (1985): 336–357); Pheme Perkins, “1 Thessalonians and Hellenistic Religious Practices,” in To Touch the Text: Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, eds. Maurya P. Horgan and Paul J. Kobelski (New York : Crossroad, 1989), 325–334; Mark David Roberts, “Images of Paul and the Thessalonians,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1992. For evidence of the imperial cult in Asia Minor see especially Simon R. F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984) and Colin Miller, “The Imperial Cult in the Pauline Cities of Asia Minor and Greece,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 72.2 (2010): 314–332. 220. Ibid., 66. See Harrison (63–68) for a detailed examination of the apotheosis traditions. 221. Albertus F. J. Klijn, “1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 and Its Background in Apocalyptic Literature,” in Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C. K. Barrett, ed. M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson (London: SPCK, 1982), 67. Klijn (68) proposes that a “questioning of the resurrection of the dead does not form the background of this passage.” Furthermore, Klijn suggests that the true problem discussed in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 has to do with parenesis not doctrine. Paul is consoling the Thessalonians who have lost a loved one, not articulating some doctrine. 222. Ibid., 68–69. See Paul Volz, Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter: Nach den Quellen der rabbinischen, apokalyptischen und apokryphen Literatur (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1934), 232–235. See also Lucien Cerfaux, Christ in the Theology of St. Paul, trans. Geoffrey Webb and Adrian Walker (New York: Herder and Herder, 1959), 38–39; Joel Delobel, “The Fate of the Dead According to 1 Thess. 4 and 1 Cor 15,” in The Thessalonian Correspondence, ed. Raymond F. Collins, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1990), 340–347. 223. Ibid., 69. 224. Ibid., 69–70. 225. Ibid., 70. 226. Ibid. 227. Ibid., 71. 228. Ibid., 72. 229. Charles A. Wanamaker, “Apocalyptic Discourse, Paraenesis and Identity Maintenance in 1 Thessalonians,” Neotestamentica: Journal of the New Testament Society of South Africa 36 (2002): 131–145, 132; cf. Abraham J. Malherbe, “Exhortation in 1 Thessalonians,” in Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), 49–66; Wayne Meeks, “Social Functions of Apocalyptic Language in Pauline Christianity,” in Apocalypticism

130

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

in the Mediterranean World and the Near East, ed. D. Hellholm (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1983), 687–705; Duane F. Watson, “Paul’s Appropriation of Apocalyptic Discourse: The Rhetorical Strategy of 1 Thessalonians,” in Vision and Persuasion, ed. Greg Carey and L. Gregory Bloomquist (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 1999), 61–80. 230. Ibid., 136. 231. Ibid., 134. 232. See especially Charles Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary, ed. I. Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 172–176. 233. Ibid., 172. 234. Ibid., 173–174. 235. Ibid., 175. Wanamaker also supports Plevnik’s position that the faithful are assumed to heaven with no clear evidence they that will return to earth. 236. Randall E. Otto, “The Meeting in the Air (1 Thess 4:17),” Horizons in Biblical Theology 19.2 (1997): 192–212, 196. Otto states that the Cabirus cult was prevalent in Thessalonica (194–195). See also Edson, 153–204; Judge, 1–7 and Donfried, “Cults of Thessalonica and the Thessalonian Correspondence.” Otto (196–197) proposes that the problem facing the Thessalonians is more likely the fact that “they were perplexed by issues relating to their own religious and cultural milieu” over three other popular theories: 1) Paul did not give instructions about the resurrection; 2) the Thessalonians did not fully understand the doctrine of the resurrection; and 3) that Gnostic teachers had infiltrated the church. 237. Ibid., 200. 238. Ibid. 239. Ibid. 240. Ibid., 202. 241. Ibid., 203. 242. Ibid. Otto (203–204) maintains that avpa,nthsij is derived from Hellenistic customs and is “well suited to Paul’s interest here, for he envisions the ultimate war whereby the conquering Christ vanquishes the powers of darkness that have upset the assurance of his elect people. Those who have agonized over the fate of their departed fellow believers and over their own end are assured of their protection and the victory of Christ. They who have awaited the consummation will behold the victory of their conquering king.” 243. Ibid., 205–206. 244. The ave,ra in Greek thought was the abode of the gods, the daimones. The ave,ra was an important concept in Jewish apocalyptic thought. Otto (204–205) elaborates, “[I]t was considered to be the domain of evil spirits (Eph. 2:2; 6:12) and the lower regions of the heavens were viewed as the place of great struggle between the hosts of Satan and of God (Rev. 12:7–12; Mart. Isa. 7:9). The souls of both the righteous and the unrighteous were thought to reside in these lower regions of the heavens, be it in Paradise or Sheol, awaiting the final judgment (2 Enoch 3–20).” 245. Ibid., 206. More recently Candida R. Moss and Joel S. Baden (“1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 in Rabbinic Perspective,”New Testament Studies 58 (2012): 199–212) have argued that the passage is best interpreted in light of rabbinic traditions that describe the faithful escaping “judgment and destruction in Sheol by flying and being borne aloft by clouds.”

notes

131

246. Otto, 206. 247. I tend to agree with N. T. Wright’s interpretation of Romans 9–11 (see Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God: Volume 4 [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013], 1156–1258).

The Meaning and Function of the Theophanic, Apocalyptic, and Greco-Roman Imagery Located Outside the Context of 1 Thess. 4:13–18 1. New Oxford American Dictionary, 3rd ed., s.v. “imagery.” 2. Brenda B. Colijn, Images of Salvation in the New Testament (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2010), 14. 3. Ibid., 15. See also George B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 149. 4. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible, 149. 5. Ibid. 6. Colijn, 19. Colijn proposes that there are four basic reasons why images are so useful. One in particular is worth mentioning in full: “Images make abstract ideas easier to understand by expressing them in concrete terms. In their concreteness, figurative expression are often more concise than literal expressions, because they capture the essence of their subject without the need for long explanations. Figurative language is especially useful for describing realities (such as metaphysical concepts) that elude or exceed the capacity of ordinary speech” (ibid.). 7. See Paul Ricoeur, The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-Disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language, trans. Robert Czerny, with Kathleen McLaughlin and John Costello (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977), 5–7; cf. Colijn, 18. 8. Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones, and Roderick McKenzie eds., A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 792. 9. See Jeffrey J. Niehaus, God at Sinai: Covenant and Theophany in the Bible and Ancient Near East, Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology, ed. Willem VanGemeren, and Tremper Longman III (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 17. William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Walter Bauer (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000], 1047) reveal five basic uses of fain,w: 1) to produce or shine light; 2) to become visible or appear; 3) to become known; 4) to be known based on one’s appearance; and 5) to make an impression. Niehaus (17–18) points out that while there is not an exact equivalent for qeofa,neia, there are two Hebrew words that are analogous to the Greek term: 1) har (“to see”) and 2) harn (“to appear”). See also J. Kenneth Kuntz, The Self-Revelation of God (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1967), 30 n. 15. Some suggest that a distinction needs to be made between theophany and epiphany (see N. F. Schmidt and Philip J. Nel, “Theophany as Type-Scene in the Hebrew Bible,” Journal for Semitics 11.2 (2002): 256–281, 259–260; Claus Westermann, Praise and Lament in the Psalms, trans. Keith R. Crim and Richard N. Soulen (Atlanta: John Knox Press,

132

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

1981), 97–101, and Elements of Old Testament Theology, trans. Douglas W. Stott (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), 25–26). But overemphasizing the differences leads to a too narrow delineation. For our purposes no distinction will be made between theophany and epiphany unless otherwise noted. 10. These characteristics of theophany are adapted from Niehaus, God at Sinai, 20–30, and Kuntz, The Self-Revelation of God, 31–45. 11. See Johannes Lindblom, “Theophanies in Holy Places in Hebrew Religion,” Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961): 91–106, 106. 12. Niehaus, God at Sinai, 26. 13. Jörg Jeremias, Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten and Neuen Testament 10, ed. Günther Bornkamm and Gerhard von Rad (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965), 7–72. 14. Niehaus, God at Sinai, 27. 15. No theophany text contains every literary element of the Gattung. See below for a list of the elements of the Gattung. 16. See Jeremias, Theophanie, 7–72; Kuntz, The Self-Revelation of God, 52–71; Niehaus, God at Sinai, 30–42. Jeremias proposes that the Sitz im Leben of the theophany Gattung originated in the early “Victory Celebrations” of Israel. He finds the Song of Deborah account of Judg. 5:4–5 as the earliest of these “Victory Celebrations” (Theophanie, 7). Jeremias suggests there are two fundamental components to any theophany Gattung: 1) “das Kommen Jahwes,” the Ursache, and 2) “der Aufruhr der Natur,” the Wirkung (ibid., 93–101, 137). Kuntz maintains that the Sitz im Leben of the theophany Gattung originated in the Jersusalem cult during the period of monarchy (Self-Revelation of God, 215–231). Niehaus proposes that the Gattung of Old Testament theophany texts are parallel and may have been inspired by Ancient Near Eastern theophany texts (see God at Sinai). Others have found parallels with Ancient Near Eastern theophany texts. See especially Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973); William W. Hallo and J. J. A. van Dijk, The Exaltation of Inanna, Yale Near Eastern Researches 3 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968); Thomas W. Mann, Divine Presence and Guidance in Israelite Traditions (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977). Cross suggests that Old Testament theophany texts contain several parallels with Ancient Near Eastern divine warrior motifs. Cross found two patterns or genres that characterize these texts: 1) march of the divine warrior into battle, and 2) coming of the divine warrior from victory in battle to the mount of his temple. Among these patterns he noticed an “archaic mythic pattern” for theophanies. This pattern consists of four elements: 1) divine warrior goes to battle against chaos (Yamm, Leviathan, and Môt); 2) upheaval of nature when the warrior unleashes his wrath; 3) divine warrior comes to establish his kingdom on his mountain; and 4) divine warrior makes his voice heard and nature responds again with upheaval (see Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 155–156, 162–163). 17. These elements have been adapted from Kuntz (Self-Revelation of God, 59–71) and Niehaus (God at Sinai, 30–42).

notes

133

18. Kuntz (58–60) suggests that Gen. 26:23–25 presents the theophany Gattung in its purest and clearest form. Niehaus (33–34) maintains that Gen. 3:8–24 illustrates the basic Gattung best. 19. Frank Polak, “Theophany and Mediator: The Unfolding of a Theme in the Book of Exodus,” in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction-Reception-Interpretation, ed. Marc Vervenne, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 126 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 113–149, 116. Polak (Ibid.) provides six elements he claims are common to all theophany texts: 1) setting of the theophany and its addressor and addressee; 2) direct contact with the deity; 3) verbal and visual perception; 4) theophany’s affect on nature; 5) aim and purposes(s) of the theophany; and 6) what elements (or relics) remain after the theophany is over. 20. Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 47–62. 21. Ibid., 58, 62. 22. George W. Savran, Encountering the Divine: Theophany in Biblical Narrative, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 420, ed. Claudia V. Camp and Andrew Mein (New York: T. & T. Clark International, 2005), 13. Savran (Ibid.) employs five motifs that are common to theophany narratives: 1) setting of the scene; 2) appearance and speech of the deity (Yahweh); 3) human response to the presence of the deity; 4) expression of uncertainty or anxiety; and 5) externalization of the experience. 23. Ibid. Savran locates the Sinai theophany (Exod. 19:1–20:18) in the “type-scene” theophany group (27–29). Schmidt and Nel, influenced by the work of Alter, suggested five similar elements to a type-scene of theophany: 1) background of the theophany; 2) manifestation of the deity; 3) dialogue between the deity and human(s); 4) intrigue: the specific part of the plot that reveals the particular events during the deity manifestation; and 5) conclusion by the narrator (“Theophany as Type-Scene,” 265). 24. Differences: 1) the span of time a theophany occurs in the Jewish scripture is temporary. While the parousia itself ushers in the new age, thus, the believers will be with the Lord forever; 2) in the theophanies of the Jewish scriptures the Lord is concealed from his people in clouds. The description of the parousia in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 contains no explicit reference of any concealment on the Lord’s part. In fact, at the parousia, the Lord will make sure his arrival is unconcealed and evident to all; and 3) 1 Thess. 4:13–18 does not contain a literary theophany Gattung. 25. Friedrich Lücke, Versuch einer vollständigen Einleitung in die Offenbarung des Johannes: oder allgemeine Untersuchungen über die apokalyptische Litteratur überhaupt und die Apokalypse des Johannes insbesondere (Bonn: Weber, 1832). His work focused primarily on two apocalypses, Daniel and Revelation. The others (e.g., 4 Ezra and 1 Enoch) he argued were subordinate. 26. See also Richard E. Sturm, “Defining the Word ‘Apocalyptic’: A Problem in Biblical Criticism,” in Apocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in Honor of J. Louis Martyn, ed. Joel Marcus and Marion L. Soards, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 24, ed. David Hill (Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1989), 17–48. Sturm’s article is separated into two sections: 1) apocalyptic as genre, and 2) apocalyptic as theological concept. The format of the discussion that follows is based on Sturm’s article.

134

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

27. Adolf Hilgenfeld, Die jüdische Apokalyptik in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung: Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte des Christentums (Jena: Friedrich Mauke, 1854), 2: “the historical context of Christianity with the prophetic prophecy of the Old Testament.” For further discussion on apocalyptic as genre and its relationship with prophecy see also Robert Henry Charles, Religious Development Between the Old and the New Testaments (New York: Henry Holt, 1914), 18–36; Harold Henry Rowley, The Relevance of Apocalyptic: A Study of Jewish and Christian Apocalypses from Daniel to the Revelation (Greenwood, SC: Attic Press, Inc., 1980; reprint from the 1963 New and Revised Edition), 13–54; David Syme Russell, The Method & Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1964), 73–103. Charles proposes the prophecy and apocalyptic are “essentially one,” but apocalyptic expands the scope of prophecy in four ways: 1) faith in a future life; 2) “expectation of a new heaven and new earth;” 3) “catastrophic end of the present world;” and 4) temporal aspect is expanded in apocalyptic (Charles, Religious Development, 18–23). Rowley suggests that generally speaking “the prophets foretold the future that should arise out of the present, while the apocalyptists foretold the future that should break into the present” (Rowley, Relevance of Apocalyptic, 38). Having proposed that apocalyptic developed from the prophecy in the Jewish scriptures, Russell lays out four essential characteristics of any work of apocalyptic literature: They are 1) “esoteric in character”; 2) “literary in form”; 3) “symbolic in language”; and 4) “pseudonymous in authorship” (Russell, Method & Message, 104–139. 28. Philipp Vielhauer and Georg Strecker, “Apocalypses and Related Subjects,” in Edgar Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, rev. ed., vol. 2, ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1992), 542–568. 29. Klaus Koch, The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic: A Polemical Work on a Neglected Area of Biblical Studies and Its Damaging Effects on Theology and Philosophy, trans. Margaret Kohl, Studies in Biblical Theology 22.2, ed. James Barr (Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1970), 24–28. 30. John J. Collins, ed., Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre, Semeia 14 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1979), 9; see (28) for a more detailed list of characteristics. Collins also distinguishes between two types of apocalypses: 1) otherworldly journeys and 2) “historical” apocalypses (The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 6–7. 31. Adela Yarbro Collins, ed., Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre Social Setting, Semeia 36 (Decatur, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1986), 7. See David Hellholm, “The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John,” in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 21, ed. Kent H. Richards (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), 157–198; David E. Aune, “The Apocalypse of John and the Problem of Genre,” in Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre Social Setting, Semeia 36, ed. Adela Yarbro Collins (Decatur, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1986), 65–96. 32. Paul D. Hanson, “Appendix: An Overview of Early Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism,” in The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 427–444. This article was formerly published as “Apocalypse (Genre)” and “Apocalypticism,” in Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume I (New York: Abingdon, 1976). Hanson proposes that

notes

135

apocalyptic eschatology rose out of pre-exilic and exilic prophecy (see The Dawn of Apocalyptic, 1–31). Gerhard von Rad maintains that because “knowledge is the nerve center of apocalyptic literature,” its origin is Wisdom. Von Rad maintains that the prophets and apocalyptic literature’s view of history is incompatible, while the latter is bereft of theology and “pessimistic in the extreme” (see Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology Volume 2: The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions, trans. D. M. G. Stalker [New York: Harper & Row, 1965], 303–306). For von Rad, a chasm separates prophetic literature from that of apocalyptic literature (ibid., 306). “Apocalyptic literature differs from prophecy, for prophecy attributed all catastrophic events to the direct intervention of Jahweh in history” (ibid., 305). T. Francis Glasson disagrees with Collins and Hanson. He argues that the word “apocalyptic” cannot be defined and should not be. Glasson maintains that any attempts to define apocalyptic should be put in a drawer: “Apocalyptic has no agreed and recognizable meaning…[it] is a useless word which no one can define and which produces nothing but confusion and acres of verbiage” (“What is Apocalyptic?” New Testament Studies 27 (1980): 98–105, 105). 33. David Edward Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, Library of Early Christianity 8, ed. Wayne A. Meeks (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1987), 227. 34. Ibid., 231. 35. Christopher Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1982), 2. 36. Ibid., 20, 23–48. Rowland (70–72) summarizes his approach to defining “apocalyp tic” in seven points. His points have been narrowed down to the five most important: 1) any definition of “apocalyptic” must be open-minded to all the aspects of the literature; 2) if there is any sine qua non of apocalyptic it is the revelation of the divine mysteries and disclosure of heavenly truths; 3) thus, only works that discuss the revelation of mysteries can be characterized as “apocalyptic literature”; 4) eschatology cannot and should not be the key to understanding apocalyptic literature, for there are non-eschatological elements in the apocalyptic literature; and 5) the apocalyptic eschatology and the modes by which the divine revelation is disclosed is also variegated. Agreeing with much of Rowland’s conclusion, R. Barry Matlock proposes that the entire concept of apocalyptic eschatology be discarded (see his insightful, sustained, and detailed critique in Unveiling the Apocalyptic Paul: Paul’s Interpreters and the Rhetoric of Criticism, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 127, ed. Richard Bauckham [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996], 247–316). Matlock suggests that “if the eschatology of the apocalypses is so widespread, so varied, and so typical of the times, and if so-called ‘apocalyptic eschatology’ is so little expressive of the breadth of the apocalypses and so scarcely representative of these texts or of this period, just what good is the concept ‘apocalyptic eschatology’?” (emphasis his) (ibid., 284). Matlock has shed light on some of the methodological concerns with defining “apocalyptic.” However, the main weakness of Matlock’s fine monograph is his lack of presenting an alternative reading or definition of “apocalyptic” or an “unveiling of the apocalyptic Paul” (the title of his monograph).

136

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

37. Sturm, 36. 38. See also Ibid. 39. Leander E. Keck, “Paul and Apocalyptic Theology,” Interpretation 38 (1984): 229–241, 233. 40. For further detailed discussion on the concept and term “hermeneutical spiral” see Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, rev. ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2006). 41. Johannes Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu vom Reich Gottes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892); English Translation = Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God, trans., ed., and with an introduction by Richard Hyde Hiers and David Larrimore Holland (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971). 42. Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede, trans. William Montgomery (New York: Macmillan, 1910). 43. Albert Schweitzer, Paul and His Interpreters: A Critical History, trans. William Montgomery (London: A. & C. Black, 1912), and The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, trans. William Montgomery (New York: Macmillan, 1931). For more on Schweitzer see chapter one above. 44. Several others have stressed the importance of apocalyptic thought for Paul, see J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980) and Paul’s Apocalyptic Gospel: The Coming Triumph of God (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982); Jörg Baumgarten, Paulus und die Apokalyptik: Die Auslegung apoclyptischer Uberlieferungen in den echten Paulusbriefen, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Neuen Testament 44, ed. Günther Bornkamm and Gerhard von Rad (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1975); Keck, “Paul and Apocalyptic Theology,” 229–241; J. Louis Martyn, “Apocalyptic Antinomies in the Letter to the Galatians,” New Testament Studies 31 (1985): 410–424; Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997); and Galatians, Anchor Bible, ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman, vol. 33a (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997); Beverly R. Gaventa, Our Mother Saint Paul (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007); Marion L. Soards, The Apostle Paul: An Introduction to His Writings and Teaching (New York: Paulist Press, 1987); Martinus C. de Boer, The Defeat of Death: Apocalyptic Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 22, ed. David Hill (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988); “Paul and Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology,” in Apocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in Honor of J. Louis Martyn, ed. Joel Marcus and Marion L. Soards, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 24, ed. David Hill (Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1989), 169–190; “Paul and Apocalyptic Eschatology,” in The Continuum History of Apocalypticism, ed. Bernard McGinn, John J. Collins, and Stephen Stein (New York: Continuum International, 2003), 345–383; and Galatians: A Commentary, The New Testament Library, ed. C. Clifton Black, M. Eugene Boring, and John T. Carroll (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 31–36, 79–82; Alexandra R. Brown, The Cross and Human Transformation: Paul’s Apocalyptic Word in 1 Corinthians (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995); and “Paul and the Parousia,” in John T. Carroll with Alexandra R. Brown, Claudia J. Setzer, and Jeffrey S. Siker, The Return of Jesus in Early Christianity (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000),

notes

45.

4 6. 47.

48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53.

54. 55.

137

47–76; Douglas A. Campbell, The Quest for Paul’s Gospel: A Suggested Strategy, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 274, ed. Mark Goodacre (New York: T. & T. Clark International, 2005); and The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). Ernst Käsemann, “The Beginnings of Christian Theology,” in New Testament Questions of Today, trans. William J. Montague (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), 102 and “On the Subject of Primitive Christian Apocalyptic,” in New Testament Questions of Today, translated by William J. Montague (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), 137. Käsemann, “On the Subject of Primitive Christian Apocalyptic,” 131. Ibid., 135–136. While Käsemann focused more on the cosmological and future aspect of Paul’s apocalyptic theology, his teacher, Rudolf Bultmann focused more on the anthropological and present aspect of Paul’s apocalyptic theology (See “Ist die Apokalyptik die Mutter der christlichen Theologie?” in Apophoreta: Festschrift für Ernst Haenchen, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 30, ed. W. Eltester [Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1964], 64–67). Bultmann argued that the apocalyptic motifs Paul used were “mythological” and should be discarded and interpreted in existential terms. For him the purpose of myth “is not to give an objective world picture…rather, [it] is how we human beings understand ourselves in our world. Thus, myth does not want to be interpreted in cosmological terms but in anthropological terms—or, better, in existentialist terms” (Rudolf Bultmann, “New Testament and Mythology (1941),” New Testament & Mythology and Other Basic Writings, selected, ed., and trans. Schubert M. Ogden [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984], 9). Jörg Baumgarten’s position on Paul’s apocalyptic thought overall resembles Bultmann. Baumgarten proposes that Paul posits not a de-mythologization of his apocalyptic, but an Entapokalyptisierung (“de-apocalypticization”) and Entkosmolosierung (“de-cosmologization”). He also maintains that Paul’s apocalyptic ideas are fundamentally futuristic (ala Käsemann), but (ala Bultmann) deems the cosmological aspect of Paul’s apocalyptic theology as incompatible with anthropology (Baumgarten, Paulus und die Apokalyptik, 234–244). See de Boer (“Paul and Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology,” 169–190) for a more detailed discussion of the debate between the “anthropological” and “cosmological” reading of Paul and the “cosmological” and “forensic” reading of apocalyptic eschatology. Beker, Paul the Apostle. Ibid., 11. J. Christiaan Beker, The Triumph of God: The Essence of Paul’s Thought, trans. Loren T. Stuckenbruck (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 15–16. Beker, Paul the Apostle, 18. Ibid., 135. William Morgan proposes that “while conceptions from other sources…have to be taken in account, they are superimposed on an apocalyptic groundwork” (The Religion and Theology of Paul [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1917], 6). Beker maintains that “it does not mean that Paul used Jewish apocalyptic as a literary genre or employed Jewish apocalypses as a literary source” (Triumph of God, 19). Ibid., 21–36. The fourth characteristic he added later in response to criticism from his colleagues.

138

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

56. Vielhauer proposes four basic characteristics of apocalyptic thought: 1) the doctrine of the two ages; 2) pessimism in this world, but hope for the future otherworldly world; 3) universalism and individualism; and 4) a deterministic worldview and an imminent expectation of the kingdom of God (see “Apocalypses and Related Subjects,” 542–554). Koch, again, expands upon and revises Vielhauer’s list of characteristics: 1) “An urgent expectation of the impending overthrow of all earthly conditions in the immediate future”; 2) the end will include ubiquitous catastrophe; 3) determinism: time will be separated into established segments; 4) events both past and future will be explained by an army of angels and demons; 5) “Beyond the catastrophe a new salvation arises, paradisal in character” for a chosen remnant; 6) “The transition from disaster to final redemption is expected to take place by means of an act issuing from the throne of God” actualizing the visibility of the kingdom of God on earth; 7) “A mediator with royal functions” assures final redemption; and 8) “The catchword glory is used wherever the final state of affairs is set apart from the present and whenever a final amalgamation of the earthly and heavenly spheres is prophesied” (see The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic, 28–33). 57. Beker, Triumph of God, 27. See also the apocalyptic dualism of the “sons of light” vs. the “sons of darkness” in 1 QM. However, agreeing with Koch, Beker (Paul the Apostle, 136) maintains that there are indeed “components of continuity,” not least in the present aspect of the kingdom of God. Koch (31) makes the important point that “[i]t is all too easily overlooked that the kingdom of God, or the future aeon, is undoubtedly thought of as being already present.” Therefore, there is no reason for holding the “conviction of a complete discontinuity between this evil world and that other good one.” 58. Beker, Paul the Apostle, 146. 59. Beker, Triumph of God, 28. 60. “The era of ‘the old covenant’ had its own temporary ‘glory’ (2 Cor. 3:7–11); the exodus story takes on eschatological significance for Christians (1 Cor. 10:1–13); the privileges of Israel are real and abiding (Romans 9–11) and play an essential role in the history of salvation” (ibid.). 61. Ibid. 62. Ibid. 63. Ibid., 28–29. 64. Ibid. 65. Ibid., 29. 66. Ibid., 31. 67. Ibid., 33. 68. See also Jürgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian Eschatology, trans, James W. Leitch (New York: Harper & Row, 1967); Joseph Edward Fison, The Christian Hope: The Presence and the Parousia (London: Longmans, Green & Company, 1954). 69. See Oscar Cullmann, Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History, trans. Floyd V. Filson (London: S. C. M. Press, 1962), and Salvation in History, trans. Sidney G. Sowers (London: SCM Press, 1967) for his articulation of Christocentric salvation-history. 70. Beker, Triumph of God, xiii.

notes 71. 72. 73. 74.

7 5. 76.

7 7. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83.

139

Beker, Paul the Apostle, 18. Ibid., 166. Ibid., 167, 180. J. Louis Martyn, “Review of Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought,” Word & World 2.2 (1982): 194–198, 196. This is also cited in the preface of the first paperback edition of Beker’s Paul the Apostle (xix, 1984). Here Beker recognizes his failure to notice the importance of Galatians in understanding Paul’s apocalyptic thought. Martyn, “Apocalyptic Antinomies in Galatians,” 421. Ibid., 414. Martyn characterizes Paul’s apocalyptic as essentially cosmological dualism. His student Martinus C. de Boer also stresses the dualistic aspect of Paul’s apocalyptic. He proposes that there are two distinct patterns to the dualism of the two ages in Jewish apocalyptic thought. Cosmological and Forensic. In the cosmological pattern the cosmos has come under the power and dominion of evil usurping God’s sovereign rights to his creation. God knowing he has the power to defeat the dominion of evil invades the cosmos overthrowing the demonic and diabolical powers and setting the world to rights. In the forensic pattern, the cosmological idea of evil is absent. Here free will takes center stage whereby mankind has the power to reject the laws of the creator God thereby receiving the punishment of death. Thus, final judgment is not a cosmic war drama, but the ultimate courtroom of God, whereby man is either condemned to death or pronounced righteous by virtue of obedience to the law and receive a reward of eternal life (see “Paul and Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology,” 169–185; “Paul and Apocalyptic Eschatology,” 168–169; and Galatians, 31–35). Ibid., 417; cf. Martyn, Galatians, 101. Martyn, Galatians, 101. Martyn, “Apocalyptic Antinomies in Galatians,” 420. Sturm, “Defining the Word,” 17. Ibid. Martyn, Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul, 282. Ibid., 282–283. Bruce Longenecker makes a similar statement: “Eschatological eruption is not for Paul about the introduction of a new religious configuration on to the scene of world history. Instead, it is about God’s triumph over competing suprahuman forces, about God’s invasion into the order of this world (emphasis added) in order to set things aright in a new sphere of existence where God’s reputation as the cosmic sovereign is vindicated” (The Triumph of Abraham’s God: The Transformation of Identity in Galatians [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998], 3). While I agree with Martyn on the image of invasion, he pushes the corollary of the “invasion” image too far (see J. Louis Martyn, “Events in Galatia: Modified Covenant Nomism versus God’s Invasion of the Cosmos in the Singular Gospel: A Response to J. D. G. Dunn and B. R. Gaventa,” in Pauline Theology, vol. 1: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon, ed. J. M. Bassler [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991, 160– 179]). This language of “invasion,” as we are defining it does not mean that the apocalypse of Christ creates a complete and radical (emphasis mine) discontinuity with Judaism or the history of Israel. Christ’s dynamic invasion upon the present evil age (Gal. 1:4) leads “not to a rejection of Israel’s sacred history but to a retrospective hermeneutical transformation” of Israel’s history in light of what God has done through Christ and the sending of the Spirit.

140

8 4. 85. 86.

87.

88.

89.

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

“[T]his requires a dramatic rereading of Israel’s story, but what is required is precisely a rereading, not a repudiation” (emphasis his) (see Richard B. Hays, “Apocalyptic Poiēsis in Galatians: Paternity, Passion, and Participation,” in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter, eds. Mark W. Elliott, Scott J. Hafemann, N. T. Wright, and John Frederick [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014, 200–219], 204). For similar views in line with Hays, see Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God: Volume 4 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013); Longenecker, “Salvation History in Galatians and the Making of a Pauline Discourse,” Journal for the Study of Paul and his Letters 2.2 (2012): 65–87; Jason Maston, “The Nature of Salvation History in Galatians,” Journal for the Study of Paul and his Letters 2.2 (2012): 89–103; Todd D. Still “‘Once upon a Time’: Galatians as an Apocalyptic Story,” Journal for the Study of Paul and his Letters 2.2 (2012): 133–141. Keck, “Paul and Apocalyptic Theology,” 231. “Eschatological duality” is taken from N. T. Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 252–256. These concepts are adapted from Beker. Beker is correct that the “faithfulness and vindication of God” should be included. However, many do not include this, thus, it was left out. Also, while Beker is on the right track with identifying the essential concepts of Paul’s apocalyptic thought, he could have strengthened his argument by starting with Paul, rather than with Vielhauer and Koch. A critique or engagement with why he chose Koch over Vielhauer is also needed. But a formal critique is beyond the scope of this monograph. Beker’s discussion on the two caveats of Pauline dualism (the “weakening” and “strengthening”) compared to the Jewish apocalyptic literature concept of dualism is most helpful here (see above). John J. Collins, “Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Ancient World, in The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, 40–55), 46–47, has pointed out that the “judgment of the dead, followed by reward or punishment” is at the heart of both “historical” and “otherworldly” apocalypses. Dan. 2:44; 7:2–8 (cf. Dan. 7:13–14); 12:1–4; 1 En. 71:15; 91:16; 4 Ezra 4:26–27; 5:55–56; 6:1–6; 7:50, 112–113; 8:1; 14:10; 2 Bar. 31:5; 44:8–15, (esp. 11–12); 83:4–9; Matt. 12:32; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; Rom. 5:2, 21; 7:4–6; 8:18–25; 12:2; 1 Cor. 1:20; 2:6–8, 10; 3:18– 19; 5:10; 7:31; 10:11; 2 Cor. 4:4; 5:16–17; Gal. 1:4; 3:23–29; 4:3; 6:15; Eph. 1:21; 2:2; Col. 2:17; 3:1–6; 1 Thess. 1:9–10; 2:12; 1 Tim. 6:17; Titus 2:12–13. In terms of how we understand the “dualism” of apocalyptic thought in Paul, I propose that one use the term “duality” when describing apocalyptic theology in Paul. “Duality” is a less pejorative term than dualism (see N. Thomas Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God: Volume 1 [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992], 252–256). In commenting on the disapproval of the use of “dualism,” Wright suggests that “several of the things which are asserted to be ‘dualistic’ are perfectly normal features of most if not all biblical theology” (Ibid., 253). At the same time, Wright does caution against over emphasizing the theme of eschatological duality in Paul (see Paul In Fresh Perspective [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005], 41–58). By stating that a major motif of Paul’s theology contains duality, it is not saying that his theology is defined by two equal parties fighting it out with the outcome in question.

notes

9 0. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97.

98.

99.

141

Rather, neither the outcome nor God’s sovereignty over “the present evil age” is ever in doubt. Moreover, while Paul maintains the eschatological duality of the two aeons, he modifies the duality in light of the Christ-event stressing the Already/Not Yet reality of the dawn of the “age to come.” For more on the motif of duality as a central characteristic of Paul’s apocalyptic thought see the works of Martyn, Beker, de Boer, Keck, Soards, and others. 1 Cor. 2:6–8; 15:24–28; Eph. 1:21; 2:2; 1 Tim. 6:17. Rom. 12:2; 1 Cor. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:16; 1 Thess. 1:9; Col. 3:2. Rom. 5:12, 21; 1 Cor. 15:26, 56; Gal. 4:3, 8; Eph. 6:12; Col. 2:8, 20. 1 Cor. 1:17–18; 7:31; Col. 2:15–17. Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 4:20; 6:9; 15:20–28, [esp. 24], 50; Gal. 5:12; 1 Thess. 2:12. Rom. 5:2, 21; 8:18–25; 2 Cor. 4:17; Col. 3:4; Titus 2:13. 1 Thess. 2:19; 3:13; 4:14–17; 5:2–11, 23; 2 Thess. 1:7; 2:1; 1 Cor. 15:23–28; Phil. 3:20. Richard B. Hays, “‘The Righteous One’ as Eschatological Deliverer: A Case Study in Paul’s Apocalyptic Hermeneutics,” in Apocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in Honor of J. Louis Martyn, ed. Joel Marcus and Marion L. Soards, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 24, ed. David Hill (Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1989), 191–216, 191. Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983), 171–192. Meeks was inspired the work of John G. Gager (see John G. Gager, “Functional Diversity in Paul’s Use of End-Time Language,” Journal of Biblical Literature 89 (1970): 325–337, and Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity, Prentice-Hall Studies in Religion Series 2 (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1975). Gager wanted to focus on the function of how apocalyptic language was used, not its content or meaning: “We can no longer assume that the ‘apocalyptic’ or end time perspective provides the sole point of departure for interpreting Paul’s letters … [Paul] argues differently in different situations, adapting his language to meet specific occasions” (“Functional Diversity,” 337). Meeks prefers the term “apocalyptic language” over Gager’s “end-time language” (see Meeks, “Social Functions of Apocalyptic Language,” 688). Meeks argues that dualism is the fundamental characteristic of apocalyptic thought. He proposes that there are three major dualities: 1) the cosmic duality of heaven and earth; 2) the temporal duality of the present age and the age to come; and 3) social duality: the sons of light and the sons of darkness, the righteous and the unrighteous, the elect and the world (see “Social Functions of Apocalyptic Language,” 689). Leander E. Keck suggests a fourth duality, epistemological duality (Keck, “Paul and Apocalyptic Theology,” 234, n. 17). For more on epistemological duality, see also J. Louis Martyn, “Epistemology at the Turn of the Ages,” in Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1997), 89–110. Meeks, “Social Functions of Apocalyptic Language,” 700. “Paul is not offering any general theodicy, any general ‘solution’ to the problem of death. It is not the problem of dead as a universal phenomenon that is addressed here, but just the power of death to shatter the unique bonds of intimate new community. By using the apocalyptic scenario of the return (parousi,a) of Jesus, Paul declares that the community of Christians crosses even the boundary of death” (ibid., 693).

142

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

100. Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 180. 101. Ibid., 190. 102. The now famous dictum of James Barr, the meaning of a word comes from its context, applies to the word “apocalyptic” as well (see Semantics of Biblical Language [Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2004, 1961], 113). 103. Lothar Schmid, s.v. “keleusma,” in The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 3:657. 104. A similar concept is also found in John 5:25–29 where all the dead will hear the voice of the son of God and attain resurrection or judgment (see also Frederick F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 45, ed. Ralph Martin (Dallas: Word Books, 1982), 100; Ernest Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (London: A & C Black, 1972), 196; Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary, ed. I. Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 173; David Luckensmeyer, The Eschatology of First Thessalonians, Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 71, ed. Max Küchler, Peter Lampe, Gerd Theissen, and Jürgen Zangenberg (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 240; Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930), 137–139. In Matt. 24:31 the son of man sends out his angels with the sound of a loud trumpet to gather the elect (see Abraham J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, Anchor Bible, vol. 32b, ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 274. 105. 1 Esd. 9:53; Jth. 2:15; 12:1; Tob. 8:18; 1 Macc. 11:23; 2 Macc. 1:20 (3x); 2:1 (2x); 5:12; 7:5; 9:7; 13:12; 14:27 (3x); 15:4; 3 Macc. 5:2 (2x); 6:30; 4 Macc. 8:2 (2x); 9:11; 10:17; Sus. 32 (2x). 106. Jth. 2:15; 1 Macc. 11:23; 2 Macc. 5:12; 9:7; 13:12; 14:41; 4 Macc. 9:11. 107. Jth. 12:1; Tob. 8:18; 2 Macc. 1:20; 7:5; 14:27, 31; 3 Macc. 5:2; 6:30; 4 Macc. 8:2; 10:17; Sus. 32. 108. 1 Esd. 9:53; 2 Macc. 1:20. 109. Jth. 2:15; 2 Macc. 15:4. In Philo God is seen as the one who commands (Leg. 2.79; On Abr. 138; Moses 79). 110. Gk. Apoc. Ezra 4:11, 24; T. Jos. 13:1, 4, 9; 14:2; 17:5; T. Job 9:6, 8; 15:5; 39:8; T. of Abr. B 10:7; T. Sol. 1:8; 4:11; 5:1, 6, 12; 6:1, 9; 7:1; 8:1; 20:3; 22:9, 18; 3 Macc. 5:2, 16; 6:30; 4 Macc. 8:2, 12; 9:11; 10:17; Let. of Aris. 26, 27, 28, 33, 56, 91, 158, 159, 160, 162, 168, 174, 179, 181, 182, 183, 184, 226, 228, 278, 311, 317, 319. In several texts from T. Sol. Solomon ushers commands to demons (10:1, 10; 11:1; 13:1; 14:1; 15:1, 15; 16:1, 7). In other texts he commands spirits 17:1; 18:1, 41. 111. The word stoicei/a (heavenly bodies/elements) is also found in Wisd. Sol. 7:17; 19:18; 4 Macc. 12:13; Jos. Ant. 3.7.7. The meaning of stoicei/a in the New Testament (Gal. 4:3, 9; Col. 2:8, 20; Heb. 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:10, 12) is much debated. There are two basic meanings: 1) the four essential elements of the cosmos, and 2) heavenly bodies, powers, or deities. 112. 1 En. 9:4; Sib. Or. 1:65, 152, 192; 3:163, 298, 491; 11:36; T. Abr. A 16:3; T. Abr. B. 11:9; Jub. 10:7. 113. T. Abr. A. 7:11, 12; 8:2, 37; 9:8; 10:6, 9, 11, 12; 15:9, 15; T. Abr. B 4:7, 11.

notes

143

114. Joseph Plevnik, “The Parousia as Implication of Christ’s Resurrection,” in Word and Spirit: Essays in Honor of David Michael Stanley on His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Joseph Plevnik (Willowdale, ON: Regis College Press, 1975), 234–235. The following discussion is heavily indebted to him (see ibid., 234–246 and Paul and the Parousia: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation [Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997], 45–50). 115. Plevnik, “The Parousia as Implication of Christ’s Resurrection,” 235. 116. Fifteen times the noun form (hr[g) is used (2 Sam. 22:16; Isa. 30:17 (2x); 50:2; 51:20; 66:15; Pss. 18:16; 76:7; 80:17; 104:7; Job. 26:11; Prov. 13:1, 8; 17:10; Eccles. 7:5). Fourteen times the verb form (r[g) is used (Gen. 37:10; Isa. 17:13; 54:9; Jer. 29:27; Nah. 1:4; Zech. 3:2; Mal. 2:3; 3:11; Pss. 9:6; 68:31; 106:9; 119:21; Ruth 2:16). 117. 2 Sam. 22:16; Job 26:11; Pss. 18:16; 68:31; 104:7; 106:9; Isa. 17:13; 50:2; 54:9. 118. Pss. 9:6; 80:17. 119. Isa. 17:13; 50:2; 54:9; 66:15. Plevnik, “The Parousia as Implication of Christ’s Resurrection,” 236 and Paul and the Parousia, 47. 120. Deut. 33:2–5; 26–29; Pss. 68:12, 31, 34; 2 Sam. 22:16. Plevnik, “The Parousia as Implication of Christ’s Resurrection,” 237–238 and Paul and the Parousia, 47; cf. Howard Clark Kee, “The Terminology of Mark’s Exorcism Stories,” New Testament Studies 14 (1967– 1968): 223–246, 236. 121. Plevnik, “The Parousia as Implication of Christ’s Resurrection,” 238. 122. 1 En. 61:6–7; 62:2; 102:1; 4 Ezra 12:32; 13:1–4; 2 Bar. 21:19–25; Pss. Sol. 2:26; 17:23–27. Plevnik, “The Parousia as Implication of Christ’s Resurrection,” 238–242. 123. Matt. 8:26; 12:16; 16:22; 17:18; 19:13; 20:31; Mark 1:25; 3:12; 4:39; 8:30, 32, 33; 9:25; 10:13, 48; Luke 4:35, 39, 41; 8:24; 9:21, 42, 55; 17:3; 18:15, 39; 19:39; 23:40; 2 Tim. 4:2; Jude 9. 124. Matt. 8:26; Mark 4:39; Luke 8:24. 125. Matt. 17:18; Mark 1:25; 9:25; Luke 4:35, 41; 9:42. 126. Mark 12:16; Luke 9:21, 55. 127. Plevnik, “The Parousia as Implication of Christ’s Resurrection,” 244. 128. Ibid., 245. 129. Ibid., 245–246 and Paul and the Parousia, 50. 130. Josephus Ant. 17.140, 199; Euripides Cyclops 624; Hecuba 923; Heracleidae 765; Herodutus 4.141; 7.16; Plato Phaedrus 253d; Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War 2.92.1; Xenophon On Hunting 6.20; Appian Punic Wars 10.68; 12.81 (twice); 13.90, 91; Syrian Wars 9.58; Lucian Verae Historie 40; Diodorus Siculus 3.15.5; Dionysius Roman Antiquities of Halicarnassus 2.14.4; Aristides Aelius Orationes 29.374; Cassius Dio Cocceianus Historiae Romanae 69.6.2; 72.5.3; Eusebius of Caesarea Historia Ecclesiastica 10.5.12; Julian the Emperor Hymn to the Mother of the Gods Oration 5.160d. 131. Herodotus 7.16; Josephus Ant. 17.140; Appian Punic Wars 10.68; 12.81 (twice); 13.90– 91; Dionysius Roman Antiquities of Halicarnassus 2.14.4; Plutarch Mor. 32c; Euripides Heracleidae 765. In Euripides Heracleidae 765, a chorus is spoken by Iolaus who rebukes his city’s (Mycenae) cowardly behavior in agreeing with the city of Argos’ command to hand over the strangers. Iolaus calls on Zeus (Iolaus calls Zeus his ally) to help him and the city of Mycenae to have the strength to stand up to the city of Argos. 132. Herodotus 4, 141; Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War 2.92.1.

144

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

133. Euripides Cyclops 624; Hecuba 923; Lucian Verae Historie 40; Diodorus Siculus 3.15.5; Aristides Aeliusi Orationes 29.374; Cassius Dio Locceianus Historiae Romanae 69.6.2; 72.5.3; Julian the Emperor Hymn to the Mother of the Gods Oration 5.160d; Eusebius of Caesarea Historia Ecclesiastica 10.5.12. 134. Plato Phaedrus 253d; Xenophon On Hunting 6.20. 135. Aesch. Pers. 395–397; Eumenides 235; Libation Bearers 751; Ath. Deipn. 3.33; 3.87a; Verg. Aeneid 4.537; Jos. Ant. 17.199; Eur. Andromache 1031; Cassius Dio Cocceianus Hist. Rom. 50.32.1. The word keleu,ma is an older form of keleu,sma (see Schmid, 656). 136. Cassius Dio Cocceianus Hist. Rom. 50.32.1; Aesch. Pers. 397. In Aesch. Pers. 397 keleu,ma is used alongside sa,lpigx. Here the trumpet initiates the military commander to order (keleu,ma) his men to attack. 137. Ath. The Deipnosophists 3.33; 3.87a; Jos. Ant. 17.199. 138. Aesch. Eum. 235; Lib. 751; Verg. Aeneid 4.537; Eur. Andromache 1031. 139. Loxias (an epithet of Apollos) was a spokesman or herald for Zeus. 140. There is also a notation in the text in which the author states that other Greek texts use keleu,ma or the verb form keleu,ein as analogous to iussa. 141. Jupiter was the Roman equivalent to the Greek Zeus, both king of the gods. 142. Aesch. Eum. 178; 674; Suppliant Woman 849; 882; Aristoph. Ach. 1073; Birds 550; Eccles. 1157; Dem. Phil. 4.16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 29; On the Navy 14.17, 18, 19, 21, 41; On the Accession of Alexander 17.14; On the Crown 18.178; Eur. Andr. 545; Cyclops 477; Herodutus Hist. 1.98.2; 1.127.2; 1.157.2; 1.159.4; 1.189.3; 2.29.7; 2.1241; 3.19.2; 3.53.6; 3.138.3; 3.155.6; 4.81.5; 4.97.1; 5.33.4; 6.48.1; 6.81.1; 6.84.2; 6.139.2–3; 7.59.2; Hesiod Works & Days 536; 623; Homer Iliad 14.62; 19.192; 23.404; Jos. Ant. 2.274; 6.37, 131; 11.218; 12.30; 13.52; 16.165; Vit. 240; Plat. Sym. 214e; Xen. Anab. 1.4.14; 7.2.30 Hell. 1.7.21; Appian Civil Wars 2.4.31; Diony. of Halicar. Antiquities of Rome 5.10.7; Aeschin. Ag. Tim. 1.23; Andoc. On the Peace 3.27; Apollod. Epit. E.3.2; 1.5.3; Plut. Pomp. 5.9.1; Ant. 18.2; 20.2; 22.3; 25.1, 2; 29.3; 34.3; 39.3; 47.2; 48.3; 56.1; 67.2; 67. 5–6; 77.1; Apoph. 2.2.10; Arist. 14.2; 17.5; Artax. 12.2; Brut. 21.3; 30.5; Caesar 32.2; 38.2; Cam. 29.1; Cic. 16.2; Cimon 16.6; Agis et Cleomenes 2.23.3; Demetrius 21.3; 44.1; 49.1. 143. Aristoph. Eccles. 1157; Dem. On the Accession of Alexander 17.14; Eur. Andr. 545; Hel. 1417; Supp. 302; Hesiod Works & Days 536; Homer Iliad 19.192; 23.404; Jos. Ant. 11.218; 12.30; 13.52; 16.165; Plat. Sym. 214e; Diony. of Halicar. Antiq. of Rom. 5.10.7; Plut. Ant. 20.2; 22.3; 29.3; 34.3; 77.1; Artax. 12.2; Brutus 21.3; Herodutus Hist. 1.98.2; 4.81.5; 6.81.1; 6.139.2–3. 144. Dem. Phil. 4.16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 29; On the Crown 18.178; Homer Iliad 14.62; Jos. Vit. 240; Xen. Anab. 1.4.14; 7.2.30; Appian Civil Wars 2.4.31; Andoc. On the Peace 3.27; Plut. Pomp. 7.59.2; Ant. 39.3; 47.2; 56.1; 67.5; Aristides 17.5; Brutus 30.5; Caesar 32.2; Camillus 29.1; Cicero 16.2; Agis et Cleomenes 2.23.3; Demetrius 44.1; Herodutus Hist. 1.189.3; 3.155.6; 4.97.1; 6.48.1. 145. Aesch. Suppliant Woman 882; Dem. On the Navy 14.17, 18, 19, 21, 41; Hesiod Works & Days 623; Plut. Caesar 38.2; Demetrius 21.3. 146. Aesch. Eum. 178; 674; Herodutus Hist. 1.159.4; 2.29.7; Jos. Ant. 2.274; 6.37, 131; Xen. Hell. 1.721; Apollod. Epit. E.3.2; 1.5.3; Plut. Apoph. 2.2.10.

notes

145

147. Matt. 8:18; 14:9, 19, 28; 18:25; 27:58, 64; Luke 18:40; Acts 4:15; 5:34; 8:38; 12:19; 16:22; 21:33, 34; 22:24, 30; 23:3, 10, 35; 25:6, 17, 21, 23; 27:43. 148. Occurrences of a command given by Herod (Matt. 14:9; Acts 12:19), by Pilate (Matt. 27:58), by a Pharisee official (Matt. 27:64; Acts 5:34), by a high ranking official (Acts 4:12; 16:18; 21:33–34; 22:24, 30; 23:3, 10, 35; 25:6, 12, 21, 23), or by a centurion (Acts 27:43). 149. John 5:25–29; Matt. 24:31; cf. Philo De praem. et poen. 1:117. 150. Deut. 33:2–5; 26–29; Ps. 68:12, 31, 34; 2 Sam. 22:16. See Earl J. Richard, First and Second Thessalonians, Sacra Pagina 11, ed. Daniel J. Harrington (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995), 229; Tremper Longman III and Daniel G. Reid, God Is a Warrior, Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology, ed. Willem VanGemeren and Tremper Longman III (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 171–175. 151. See Robert Gundry, “The Hellenization of Dominical Tradition and Christianization of Jewish Tradition in the Eschatology of 1–2 Thessalonians,” New Testament Studies 33 (1987): 161–178, 163; Ben Witherington, Jesus, Paul and the End of the World: A Comparative Study in New Testament Eschatology (Exeter, England: Paternoster Press, 1992), 158. Witherington also notices a similarity between the imperial entrance motif and the entrance liturgy of Ps. 24:7–10 (ibid.). 152. Jude 9; Rev. 12:7; 1 En. 20:5; Dan 12:1. Jewish tradition reveals that there were seven known archangels: Uriel, Raphael, Raguel, Michael, Sariel, Gabriel, and Remiel (1 En. 20:1–7; Tob. 12:15 mentions there were seven archangels, but does not give their names; cf. Rev. 8:2; 4 Ezra 4:36 mentions Jeremiel, mostly identified with Remiel [see Bruce, 100] as one of the seven archangels). Michael is characterized as “one of the chief princes” (ei-j tw/n avrco,ntwn; Dan. 10:13 [cf. 12:1]). See also Bruce, 100; Wanamaker, 174; Malherbe, 274. 153. It is also used in other Greek texts (Anth. Gr. 1.32, 33, 36; all referring to the archangel Michael). 154. 3 Bar. 10:1; T. Ab. 4:4–6; 10:1. 155. Apoc. Sedr. 14:1; T. Ab. 14:10; 20:10; T. Sol. 1:6. 156. T. Ab. 1:4, 6; 16:6–10; T. Ab. B 2:2; 4:9; Apoc. Mos. 13:2. In the Testament of Abraham 16:6–10, Abraham awaits the arrival of the archangel Michael to assist him, but to his surprise Death in the form of an archangel comes instead. 157. See William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker and Walter Bauer, s.v. “a;ggeloj,” A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 8. 158. See below for a discussion on the first definition of a;ggeloj. 159. Gen. 16:7–11; 19:1; 21:17; 22:11, 15; 31:11; Exod. 3:2; 4:24; Judg. 6:11,12, 14, 16; 13:3, 9, 13–21; 1 Kings 19:7; 22:13; 2 Kings 1:3, 15; Zech. 1:9, 14; 2:3 [LXX 2:7]; Tob. 12:22; 3 Bar. 1:3, 6, 8; 4:15; T. Levi 2:6, 9; 4 Bar. 4:1–4. 160. Gen. 24:7, 40; Exod. 14:19; 23:20, 23; 32:34; Num. 22:22, 24, 26; Tob. 5:17, 22; Ps. 91:11 [LXX 90:11]; Dan. 6:23; Mal. 3:1; Apoc. Ezra 2:13; Apoc. Mos. 7:2; Apoc. Sedr. 7:13. 161. Gen. 28:12; Dan. 3:49; 1 En. 18:14; 100:4–5; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 5:21; Apoc. Sedr. 2:5; 3 Bar. 3:1; 11:1–2. 162. Judg. 2:1, 4; 1 Chron. 21:18; 1 Kings 13:18.

146

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

163. Gen. 18:16; 2 Sam. 24:16 [twice], 17; 2 Kings 19:35; 1 Chron. 21:12; Ps. 35:5–6 [LXX 34:5–5]; Prov. 16:14; Sir. 48:21; 1 En. 100:4–5; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 4:22; T. Abr. 12:12–14; 13:1, 9–13. Angels can also carry out God’s forensic judgment or sentence upon the righteous or unrighteous (see 1 En. 53:3–5; 54:1–6; 56:1–5; 60:1–2; 62:11; 63:1; 102:3; cf. Plevnik, Paul and the Parousia, 53). At times angel(s) are described as the messenger(s) of the divine warrior or the Lord of hosts sent out to destroy God’s enemies (Judg. 5:4–5; 6:11, 12; 2 Kings 19:35; 1 Chron. 21:12, 15 [three times]; 2 Chron. 32:21; Ps. 78:59 [LXX Ps. 77:49]; 1 Macc. 7:41; 4 Macc. 4:10; Zech. 1:17; Mal. 2:7. See also Deut. 33:3–4; Ps. 68:18 and especially Zech. 14:5. While the latter two texts do not explicitly use the word a;ggeloj, the context implicitly shows that the host or “holy ones” that come with the Lord are indeed angels (see The Divine Warrior in Early Israel. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press, 2006 [1973]; cf. Plevnik, Paul and the Parousia, 51–52). The LXX Zech 14:5: h[xei ku,rioj o` qeo,j mou kai. pa,ntej oi` a[gioi met vauvtou/. 1 Thess. 3:13: evn th|/ parousi,a| tou/ kuri,ou h`mw/n Ivhsou/ meta. pa,ntwn tw/n a`gi,wn auvtou/. The parallels are evident: ku,rioj-kur,iou; pa,ntej-pa,ntwn; a[gioi-a`gi,wn; and auvtou/- auvtou/ (see 2 Thess. 1:7 which is parallel to both). There is great similarity between the divine warrior motif of Zech. 14:3–5, where God comes with his angels to fight against the nations and the cosmic dualism of the War Scroll’s account of God unleashing his attack of the sons of light against the sons of darkness (1 QM 1:4–17; 12:1–8; 14:10–15; 1 QM 16:1–18:1; see also Randall E. Otto, “The Meeting in the Air (1 Thess 4:17),” Horizons in Biblical Theology 19.2 (1997): 192–212, 200). In 1 QM 1:14 God brings down his angels to commence battle with the sons of darkness. Later in the scroll God musters thousands of angels at his command to battle against and carry out his judgments against the sons of darkness (1 QM 12:4–5; cf. Deut. 33:2–3). The angels are seen as the hero’s (God’s) valiant warriors. In 1 QM 17:5–7 the archangel Michael is sent by God to defeat the kingdom of wickedness. 164. Matt. 1:20; 2:13, 19; Luke 1:11–13, 18–19, 26, 30; 22:43; Acts 10:3, 7. 165. Matt. 4:11; Matt. 28:5; Luke 1:30; 2:9, 10, 13; 22:43. 166. Matt. 13:39, 41, 49; 24:31; Mark 13:27. 167. Matt. 16:27; 25:31; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26. 168. Matt. 28:2; Luke 2:15; John 1:51. 169. Luke 9:52; Acts 5:19; 12:7–11. 170. Rev. 8:5–8, 10, 12; 9:1, 13, 14; 10:7; 11:15; 14:10, 15–15:1, 7–8; 16:1–12, 17; 17:1. 171. Matt. 16:27; 24:30–31; Mark 8:38; Mark 13:26–27; Luke 9:26; 1 Thess. 3:13; 4:16; Jude 14. George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. Vanderkam have pointed out that there are similarities to these texts, more specifically Mark 13:26–27, in 1 En. 38:2. They maintain that “[t]he Parables do not describe how the epiphany of the Righteous and Chosen One is connected with the manifestation of the congregation of the righteous, but the imagery suggests a scenario similar to Mark 13:26–27—where the Son of Man appears and sends his angels to gather ‘his chosen ones’—and 1 Thess. 4:16–17, which probably knows the same tradition” (see 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 37–82, Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible, ed. Klaus Baltzer [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012], 98).

notes

147

172. I. Broer, s.v. “avggeloj,” in The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Horst Robert Balz and Gerhard Schneider (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 1:15. 173. Aesch. Ag. Clesiphan 3.95; Aesch. Ag. 2.280; Herodutus Hist. 3.65.2; 4.102.1; 4.151.2. 174. Arist. Acharn. 1073; Dem. Ag. Nea. 59.100; Herodutus Hist. 1.157.3; 4.83.1; 7.172.1–2; 7.232.1; Jos. Ant. 5.243; Plut. Aris. 14.2; Soph. Ajax 290; Xeno. Cyro. 2.4.1. 175. Diod. Sic. 9.2.6; 11.5.4; 14.25.2; Herodutus Hist. 1.36.2; 1.69.1; 1.81.1; Jos. Ant. 6.74; 7.144; 14.451. 176. Aesch. Prom. 940, 968; Eur. Electra 462; Iph. Aulis 1302; Thuc. Pel. 4.30.4; Plut. Thes. 22.1. The messenger of a god was usually a god himself. The god of Hermes, the son of Zeus, was Zeus’ chief sacral messenger (see Hom. Il. 1.333; 2.94; Hymn 2 to Dem. 407; Hymn 29 to Hes. 9; Hymn 4 to Hermes 4.3) and “stood under special protection of the gods” (see W. Grundmann, s.v. “avggeloj,” in The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich [Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1964], 1:74). 177. See also Gen. 32:4, 6; Num. 20:14; Josh. 7:22; Judg. 6:35; 7:24; 9:31; 11:12–14, 17, 19; 1 Sam. 6:21; 16:19; 19:14, 20, 21; 23:27; 2 Sam. 2:5; 3:12, 14; 11:22–23, 25; 2 Kings 9:18; 10:8; 2 Chron. 18:12; Prov. 25:13; Hag. 1:13; Isa. 37:9, 14. 178. Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, vol. 1, 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 143. The supernatural essence of this messenger is made clearer by the fact that it is 1) God’s trumpet that is blown, not a human messenger’s, and 2) the Lord who descends and not a human. 179. See William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker and Walter Bauer, “sa,lpigx, salpi,zw,” A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 911. 180. The following discussion in this footnote is indebted to Gerhard Friedrich, s.v. “sa,lpigx,” The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 7:76–78. Other common Hebrew equivalents of sa,lpigx are 1) hr@x5xj8. This trumpet was narrower than the ram’s horn type of trumpet (rp2Wv). It was thicker than a flute (see Jos. Ant. 3.291, for a more detailed description). It created a piercing sound and was mostly used by the priests. 2) ,r^q^. This trumpet is an animal horn (see Dan. 3:5, 7, 10, 15). Only in Josh. 6:5 does it refer to a wind instrument. 3) lb4Wy. As a horn it only occurs in Exod. 19:13 and is parallel with rp2WVh1 lWq in Exod. 19:19. 4) he25wrT5. This Hebrew word does not denote a musical instrument, but rather refers to the sound or noise made by a horn (Num. 10:5; Josh. 6:5; 1 Sam. 4:5). “When LXX uses sa,lpigx for it, sa,lpigx bears the Greek sense of “sound of the trumpet” or “signal” (see Ibid., 78). (5) e1WqT. This word can refer to either a wind instrument (Ezek. 7:14) or the act of blowing a wind instrument (Num. 10:7). 181. Exod. 19:13, 16, 19; 20:18. 182. Isa. 27:13; Joel 2:1; Zeph. 1:16; Ps. Sol. 11:1. In Isa. 27:13 God also uses a trumpet to gather the elect. 183. LXX Ps. 46:6; 97:6; 150:3. 184. 1 Kings 1:34, 39; 2 Kings 9:13.

148

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

1 85. Josh. 6:8–13; 2 Sam. 6:15; 1 Chron. 13:8; 15:24, 28; 16:6. 186. Num. 10:9; 31:6; Josh. 6:4; Judg. 6:34; 1 Sam. 13:3; 2 Chron. 13:12, 14; Job 39:24–25; Ezek. 7:14; Ps. Sol. 8:1. For further discussion of holy war in the Old Testament, see Gerhard von Rad, Holy War in Ancient Israel, ed. M. J. Dawn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991). For a detailed critique of von Rad’s position see Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961), 258–267. 187. Neh. 4:18; Amos 3:6; Hos. 5:8; Ezek. 33:3–6; Jer. 4:5; 6:1, 17. 188. 1 Macc. 3:54; 4:40; 5:31, 33; 6:33. 189. Judg. 7:18–20, 22; 1 Macc. 7:45; 9:12; 16:8; 2 Macc. 15:25. 190. 2 Sam. 2:28; 18:16; 1 Macc. 4:13. 191. Amos 2:2; Zeph. 1:16; Zech. 9:14. 192. Sib. Or. 4.174; 7.116; 8.117; Apoc. Zeph. 9:1; 10:1; 11:6; 12:1; T. Ab. 12:10. In the Testament of Abraham 12:10, the scene is one of final judgment. Here, one angel holds a balance in his hand, while another angel holds a trumpet in his hand, which contains an all-consuming fire used to judge sinners (cf. 1 Cor. 3:13–15). For more on trumpets and their symbolic significance of judgment in the Second Temple literature (see Markus N. A. Bockmuehl, “‘The Trumpet Shall Sound’: Shofar Symbolism and Its Reception in Early Christianity,” in Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel, ed. W. Horbury, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 48, ed. Mark Goodacre [Sheffield: Journal for the Study of Old Testament Press, 1991], 206–207). 193. Sib. Or. 5.253; Ps. Sol. 8:1. 194. Sib. Or. 8.239; 4 Ezra 6:23. 195. This scene is one of general resurrection. Charlesworth points out that Gk. Apoc. Ezra is most likely dependent on 1 Cor. 15:52. See also Isa. 27:13; Zech. 9:14; Mt. 24:31; Did. 16:6 for further parallels to Gk. Apoc. Ezra 4:36 (see Charlesworth, vol. 1, 575). 196. In the Apoc. Mos. 22:1, the archangel Michael is the one who blows the trumpet. 197. Apoc. Mos. 22:3; Apoc. Ab. 31:1; cf. Ps. Sol. 11:1. In Apoc. Ab. 31:1 the trumpet signal from the air announces the coming of the chosen one or Messiah. In 4 Bar. 3:2 a trumpet heralds the descent of an angel upon the walls of the city of Jerusalem. In 4 Bar. 4:2, a trumpet signals the arrival of the coming of the king of the Chaldeans to take the city. In the Apoc. Mos. 22:3 the archangel Michael announces the coming of God into Paradise. 198. The instructions given by God to Moses for how Israelites should gather together, leave camp, and go into battle in Num. 10:1–10 were inspirational and central to Qumran’s description of the eschatological battle between the sons of light and the sons of darkness and the function of trumpets in this battle (see Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The Sabbath Trumpets in 4Q493M’,” Revue de Qumran 12.4 (1987): 555–559). For a more detailed discussion on the use of trumpets in the War Scroll and the different Hebrew words employed for trumpet see Friedrich, 82; Bockmuehl, 208–210; Yigael Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness, trans. Batya and Chaim Rabin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962), 87–113; Philip R. Davies, 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran: Its Structure and History, Biblica et Orientalia 32 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1977), 29–32, 75–76.

notes

149

199. 1QM 3:1, 7; 7:13, 15; 8:3; 9:3. de Vaux proposes that there is a link between the function of trumpets in the War Scroll and Greco-Roman texts in terms of announcing the gathering and assembling of the troops. According to de Vaux, these texts in the War Scroll (1QM 3:1, 7) “could be taken straight from a Roman military text-book” (Ancient Israel, 267). See below for several Greek texts that are ripe with the motif of gathering the troops for battle. 200. 1QM 3:1, 6; 8:5–8; 16:3, 5; 17:10–11. 201. 1QM 3:1, 8; 7:13; 8:8–9; 9:2–3; 16:7, 9; 17:12–13; cf. 4Q493.6. 202. 1QM 3:1, 8. 203. 1QM 3:2, 9; 9:6–7. 204. 1QM 3:10–11; 7:14; 8:3, 14; 16:14; cf. 4Q493.9. 205. A sustained blast (1QM 8:5), a soft and sustained blast (1QM 8:7, 14), a shrill staccato blast of six trumpets (1QM 8:8–9; 16:6–9; 18:4–5), a terrifying blast (1QM 8:10), a continuous cacophony (1QM 8:12–13), and trumpets blown from afar to warn those charging not to touch the slain lest be defiled with unclean blood (1QM 9:8–9). The increase of the number of trumpets use is “due to their being used at the peak of the battle when the tumult and noise are at their greatest” (Yadin, 90). 206. Philo Dec. 186, 188, 193. 207. Philo Dec. 44 (The sound of God’s coming brings a trump-phonic cacophony); 189; Jos. Antiq. Jud. 7.80; Hom. Il. 21.388; Strabo Geography 3.3.7. 208. Philo Dec. 190, 192; Aristophanes Frogs 1043; Diod. Sic. 14.52.5; Eur. Rhesus 144; Thucy. Pelop. War 6.32.1; Appian Wars in Spain 9.52; Punic Wars 4.21; 7.43; Civil Wars 2.11.78; Plut. Ant. 18.2; Caius Grach. 3.4; Dion 29.1; Diod. S. Hist. 2.38.6; 20.96.7. 209. Aesch. Eum. 568; Pers. 395; Seven Against Thebes 394; Bacchyl. Dith. 18.4; Diod. Sic. 11.22.2; 13.55.6; 14.114.4; 15.55.3; Eur. Her. 831; Phoen. 1100; Jos. Ant. 8.283; Soph. Elect. 711; Xen. Ana. 1.2.17; 3.4.4; 6.5.27; 7.4.16; On the Calvary Commander 3.12; Appian Hann. 3.15; Plut. Cimon 16.6; Lysander 11.2; Aratus 22.3; Sulla 29.4; Tim. 27.6; Alex. 25.2; Pyrrhus 22.5; Arrian Anab. 1.14.7; Diod. S. Hist. 20.51.2; 20.86.2, 4. 210. Andocides On the Mysteries 1.45; Arist. Achar. 1001. 211. Diod. Sic. 15.34.2; Jos. Ant. 7.17; Xen. Anab. 4.4.22; Plut. Aratus 21.5; Diod. S. Hist. 18.32.2; 18.71.1; 19.30.10; 19.97.2. 212. Jos. Ant. 12.410. 213. Soph. Ajax 291; Polybius Hist. 4.13.1; Plut. Tiberius et Gaius 2.3.4. 214. Appian Mace. Affairs 1.4; Diod. S. Hist. 18.34.1 (Ptolemy and his troops make their arrival known by trumpet blasts). 215. Plut. Marcellus 18.4; Diod. S. Hist. 5.30.3. 216. Eleven times the noun (sa,lpigx) is used. Twelve times the verb (salpi,zw) is used. 217. In Rev. 11:15 there is a clear motif of heaven coming down to earth. The kingdom of the world becomes (evge,nonto) the kingdom of the Lord (literally the kingdom of the world becomes the Lord’s). The verb gi,nomai between the two kingdoms carries with it a transformational idea: the joining of heaven and earth. No longer are there two realms, but one. Heaven coming down to earth is an eschatological reality. See also, Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 441.

150

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

218. Paul presents a vivid illustration paralleling the function of a trumpet in battle, with that of the correct implementation of the gifts and manifestations of the Spirit. “Just as the trumpet’s call to arms must be clear and unmistakable, so the manifestation of charismatic gifts in the church must not dull or diminish the clarity of the gospel proclamation” (see Bockmuehl, “The Trumpet Shall Sound,” 216). 219. Matt. 6:2; Heb. 12:19 (cf. Exod. 19:16). 220. Rev. 1:10; 4:1. 221. Rev. 8:2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13; 9:1, 13; 10:7. When the seventh angel blows his horn, judgment will be at its completion. 222. Plevnik, Paul and the Parousia, 87. 223. Erik Peterson, “Die Einholung des Kyrios,” Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie 7 (1930): 682–702. See chapter one above for a more detailed discussion of Peterson. 224. Ibid., 698. 225. On the Ascension, of Our Lord Jesus Christ, section 50.450.57. Translation was taken from Michael R. Cosby, “Hellenistic Formal Receptions and Paul’s Use of APANTHSIS in 1 Thessalonians 4:17,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 4 (1994): 15–34, 21. 226. Homilies on Thessalonians, Homily 8 (trans. from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Vol. 13, Saint Chrysostom [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983 reprint]). 227. Jacques Dupont, SUN CRISTWI: L’union avec le Christ suivant Saint Paul (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1952). See chapter one above for a more detailed discussion of Dupont’s position. 228. Joseph Plevnik, Paul and the Parousia: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation, Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997, 10. “It does not explain any better than the Hellenistic parousi,a the raising of the dead, the insistence that the dead are raised first, the taking up by the cloud, and life with the Lord forever” (ibid.). 229. The key term for Plevnik in 1 Thess. 4:16–17 is a`rpaghso,meqa. 230. The LXX, Josephus, Philo, Second Temple, New Testament, and the Greco-Roman literature were employed. The interchangeable synonyms of avpa,nthsin were also surveyed (avpa,ntaw; suna,nthsin; suna,ntaw; u`pa,nthsin; and u`pa,ntaw). While the investigation of previous terms (e.g., keleu,sma, avrca,ggeloj, and sa,lpiggi), have been broken down separately into their use in the LXX, Second Temple literature, Greco-Roman literature, and the New Testament, it was better to combine the employment of avpa,nthsin and its synonyms based upon the fact that they have the same five denotations, mutatis mutandis, throughout. 231. avpa,nthsin: LXX: Judg. 4:18; 1 Sam. 13:10; 15:12; 16:4; 21:2; 25:32, 34; 2 Sam. 19:26; 1 Chron. 12:18; 19:5; 2 Chron. 15:2; 19:2 Sir. 19:29; 2 Macc. 14:30; Jer. 28:31 (English: Jer. 51:31); 48:6 (41:6). Second Temple literature (STL): T. of Job 9:7; Aristeas 1.91. Greek literature: Too numerous to count (e.g., Jos. Ant. 7.276; Poly. Hist. 1.26.5; 11.27.3; 16.25.3; 20.7.5). avpa,ntaw: LXX: Gen. 28:11; 33:8; Judg. 8:21; 1 Sam. 25:20; Esdr. A 9:4; 1 Macc. 5:25; 10:56, 58; 11:22, 68. STL: 1 En. 98:9; 102:5; Apoc. Mos. 31:4; 32:4; T. Abr. 2:2; Greek literature: Diod. Sic. 17.4.9; Jos. Ant. 2.184; 6.243, 301; 7.11, 263; 11.148, 326; 12.138, 369; Appian Mith. 1.2; Poly. Hist. 11.26.5; 11.27.3; 20.7.5; 21.18.3; 28.17.4; Plut. Ant. 1.4; 11.1; 25.1; Ages. 17.1; Aratus 43.2; Brut. 24.3; 28.4; Caius Marius 40.3. New Testament (NT): Mark 14:13; Luke 17:12. suna,nthsin: LXX: Gen. 19:1; 24:17, 65;

notes

151

30:16; 32:7; 33:4; 46:29; Exod. 4:14, 27; 5:20; 18:7; 19:17; Num. 22:34; 23:3; 1 Kgs. 18:7, 16; 2 Kgs. 1:3, 6, 7; 1 Sam. 25:20; Ps. 58:5; 151:6; Prov. 7:15; Zech. 2:7; 1 Macc. 10:59; Isa. 7:3. STL: Jos. & Asen. 19:1; 3 Macc. 5:2; Mart. of Isa. 1:4. Greek literature: Eur. Ion. 535; Philo Worse 30, 126; Migr. 79; On Dreams 1.17. suna,ntaw: LXX: Gen. 32:2, 18; 46:28; Exod. 5:20; 7:15; Num. 23:16; 35:19; Deut. 23:5; 2 Sam. 2:13; 18:9; 1 Macc. 11:63; Esdras B 23:2; the following describe the meeting of abstract concepts (Ps. 84:11; Prov. 9:18; 12:23; 20:30; 22:2; Eccles. 9:11; Job 5:14; 30:26; Isa. 14:9; 21:14; Isa. 64:4). STL: 3 Bar. 11:6; T. Abr. A 8:10 (2x). Greek literature: Philo Alleg. Interp. 3.81; Confusion 29; On Dreams 2.277, 300; Aristoph Ach. 1189; Plut. 41; Diogens Laertius Lives of Eminent Philosophers 4.1.3; Plut. Pomp. 33.1. NT: Luke 22:10. u`pa,nthsin: Greek literature: Jos. Ant. 5.264; Appianus Civil Wars 4.2.6. u`pa,ntaw: LXX: The following describe the meeting of abstract concepts (Wis. Sol. 6:16; Sir. 12:17; 15:2). STL: Jos. Asen. 26:8; His. Rech. 3:3; 16:1. Greek literature: Philo On the Cherubim 3; Worse 127; Jos. Ant. 1.327; 2.279; 4.108; 5.257; 264; 6.101; 8.335, 375; 9.20, 88, 115; 12.170; 12.335; 14.341, 361, 372; Life 49, 411; Xeno. Cyrop. 4.2.17; 6.3.15; Appian The Civil Wars 1.7.61; 3.6.41. NT: Matt. 8:28; 28:9; Mark 5:2; Luke 8:27; John 4:51; 11:20, 30; 12:18; 16:16. 232. Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:26, The New American Commentary, vol. 1B (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 547. 233. A similar construction eivj avpa,nthsin is found in 1 Thess. 4:17. The word e;rcomai is also used in coming of God passages in the LXX (Ps. 95:13; Isa. 30:27; 40:10; 66:18). See Edward Adams, “The ‘Coming of God’ Tradition and Its Influence on New Testament Parousia Texts,” in Biblical Traditions in Transmission, ed. Michael A. Knibb (Boston: Brill, 2006), 3. 234. This same construction eivj suna,nthsin plus a;ggeloj, is used also in verses 5–6. 235. See above for a definition of theophany. 236. Niehaus, God at Sinai, 16. 237. Kuntz, Self-Revelation of God, 72. See also Donald E. Gowan, Theology in Exodus: Biblical Theology in the Form of a Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 28. Kuntz maintains that “on the basis of its vivid presentation … numerous allusions to it within the Old Testament, and the influence it has exerted upon subsequent theophanic descriptions, the Sinaitic theophany was understandably respected by Israel as an act of unique and unsurpassed revelation” (Ibid.). 238. Savran, Encountering the Divine, 39. 239. See Dupont, SUN CRISTWI, 67–69. 240. The phrase fwnai. kai. avstrapai is best interpreted as a hendiadys “thunderous sound.” 241. Dupont acknowledges that suna,nthsin and avpa,nthsin are synonyms (see sun cristwi, 67–68). 242. For further differences see Plevnik, Paul and the Parousia, 10. 243. In the Sinai theophany God comes in space-time, while in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 the Lord (Christ) comes in an apocalyptic theophany to transform space-and-time. See also Jürgen Moltmann, The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 13. 244. “From all regions people began coming to me (Job) for a meeting. The four doors of my house stood open. And I gave a standing order to my house servants that these doors

152

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

should stand open (translation by Charlesworth; emphasis added)” (Charlesworth, 843.9d). 245. Meeting the messengers of a king, emperor, or ruler was equal to meeting the king himself, for messengers were representatives of the king. 246. avpa,nthsin: LXX: Judg. 11:34; 19:3; 1 Sam. 6:13; 9:14; 30:21; 2 Sam. 6:20. Greek literature: Plut. Ant. 35.3; Arat. 43.2; Pomp. 26.1 (Pompey is welcomed joyfully by the people and the senate with a grand army: 500 ships, 120,000 men, and 5000 cavalry). Diod. Sic. 18.59.3; Poly. Hist. 5.43.3; 21.18.3. NT: Matt. 25:6; Acts 28:15. avpa,ntaw: LXX: 1 Sam. 10:5; 1 Macc. 10:60; 11:60. Greek literature: Jos. Ant. 13.101, 105; Appian The Civil Wars 3.2.11; Poly. Hist. 15.5.7; 21.18.3; 24.5.6; Plut. Dem. 30.3; Ant. 1.4; 11.1; 13.1; Aratus 43.2; Fab. Max. 18.4; Galba 15.4; Diod. Sic. 18.8.5. suna,nthsin: LXX: 1 Sam. 18:6; 1 Macc. 9:39. STL: Jos. Asen. 5:3; 15:10; suna,ntaw: LXX: Exod. 4:27; 1 Macc. 11:6. Greek literature: Apollodorus 2.4.11; Poly. Hist. 10.4.8; Diod. Sic. 3.65.1. NT: In Acts 10:25, as Peter arrives in Caesarea at the home of Cornelius, Cornelius meets him and falls to his feet worshipping him. u`pa,ntaw: LXX: Tobit 7:1. Greek literature: Hyperides in Defense of Euxenippus 4.22; Jos. Ant. 7.179; 14.445; 20.65; Jos. War of the Jews 2.325; 3.29–30; Xeno. Cyrop. 3.3.2; Appian The Civil Wars 3.13.92. 247. This is a classic passage that depicts an example of the holy war motif in the Jewish scriptures. For advocates of the holy war motif, see above. 248. Charlesworth, 208: “This is the proper thing to do when receiving an honored guest” (ibid.; cf. Acts 10:24). 249. avpa,nthsin: LXX: Judg. 11:30; 15:14; 20:25, 31; 1 Sam. 4:1; 1 Chron. 14:8; 2 Chron 20:17; 28:9; Gr. Ezra 1:23; 1 Macc. 12:25. Greek literature: Diod. Sic. 11.4.1 (naval battle); 17.13.2. Plut. Pyrrhus 16.1; Poly. Hist. 3.95.4 (naval battle). avpa,ntaw: LXX: 1 Sam. 22:17, 18; 2 Sam. 1:15; 1 Kgs. 2:32, 34; 1 Macc. 11:15. Greek literature: Diod. Sic. 11.22.2; 11.26.5; 11.30.2; 11.31.1; 11.80.3; 12.27.5 (naval); 12.74.1; 13.51.5; 13.87.1; 14.12.6; 14.83.1; 14.87.2; 15.54.6; 16.4.4; 17.86.5; Herod. Hist. 6.84.2; Jos. Ant. 2.251; 5.204; 6.26; 7.283; 8.292–293; 10.110; 11.313; 12.287; 12.290; 12.314; 13.159; 13.174; 13.203; 13.337; 14.102; Jos. Wars of the Jews 3.260; 6.61; Thucy. The Peloponnesian War 3.95.3; 5.58.2; 7.1.3; 7.2.2; 7.22.2 (naval); Appian The Civil Wars 1.7.58; 1.13.111; 4.11.85 (naval); Poly. Hist. 1.25.2 (naval); 1.76.1; 2.25.3; 3.47.9; 3.95.4; 7.17.8; 7.18.2; 8.3.5 (naval); 10.37.6, 8; 28.19.7 (naval); 29.4.4; Plut. Per. 26.1 (naval); Them. 7.1; Agis 21.2; Cam. 41.4; Cleom. 4.4; Eum. 15.6; Galba 10.3; Luc. 8.5; 35.2; Otho 13.4; Pelopidas 13.2; 32.1; Pomp. 19.5; 34.5; Pyrrhus 16.1; Diod. Sic. 2.6.3; 4.10.5; 4.58.4; 18.23.3; 19.35.3; 19.36.2; 19.73.1; Diony. of Halicar. Rom. Antiq. 5.14.1. suna,nthsin: LXX: Num. 20:18, 20; 21:33; Deut. 1:44; 2:32; 3:1; 29:6; Josh. 8:22; Judg. 7:24; 1 Sam. 17:48; 2 Chron. 35:20; Jdt. 2:6; 1 Macc. 3:11; 5:59; 7:31; 9:11; 10:2; 16:5. STL: 4 Bar. 8:9. suna,ntaw: LXX: Jdt. 1:6; 1 Macc. 4:29; 5:25; 7:39; 10:74. Greek literature: Diod. Sic. 14.101.1; 17.13.4; Poly. Hist. 2.68.4 (naval); 2.68.4; 3.93.9; 4.61.2; 4.67.8; 8.16.2. u`pa,ntaw: Greek literature: Diod. Sic. 15.67.3; Jos. Ant. 5.300; 7.127; 9.117; 12.221, 351, 411; 13.154, 338, 391; 14.84, 299, 453; Wars of the Jews 1.41, 162, 177, 261; 2.74, 263, 318; 4.650; Life 57; Xeno. Anab. 4.3.34; Cyrop. 1.4.22; Appian Illyrian Wars 4.20; 5.26; Mith. Wars 5.32; Punic Wars 15.104; The Civil Wars 1.6.46; 4.14.111; 4.15.115; 5.4.31, 33, 35; 5.5.41; 5.11.104 (naval); Poly. Hist. 2.34.7; Plut. Arat. 34.4. NT: Luke 14:31.

notes

153

250. Josh. 11:20; Judg. 6:34–35; 15:14; 2 Sam. 5:23; 2 Chron. 14:9; 20:17; 28:9. In these contexts it is the Lord who delivers Israel from her enemies. 251. The first occurrence of eivj suna,nthsin is used in the context of Joshua giving the instructions he received from the Lord (Josh. 8:1–2) to the Israelites to ambush the people of Ai. The second occurrence of eivj suna,nthsin is employed in the context of the ambush itself (cf. 2 Sam. 5:23; 1 Macc. 9:39 [Jonathan and his men ambush a wedding, avenging the death of his brother]). Here, the Israelites lure the men of Ai out of the city, only then did the Israelites attack and destroy the city. The third occurrence of eivj suna,nthsin is applied in the context of the destruction of the men of Ai, for they had nowhere to flee after being surrounded. 252. avpa,nthsin: Greek literature: Plut. Cicero 33.5; 43.4; Dion. 13.1; Poly. Hist. 5.26.8; 16.25.6; 30.1.4. avpanth.n: LXX: 2 Sam. 19:16, 19. avpa,ntaw: STL: 3 Macc. 3.20; Ps. Sol. 8:16. This text recounts how Pompey was welcomed with great joy by the leaders of the country. The resistance to his approach was cleared, the gates to the city (Jerusalem) were opened, and the walls were decorated. Charlesworth notes, however, that the whole account of Psalms of Solomon 8 is a parody upon the messianic announcement of Isa. 40:3 (659). “This psalm contains specific historical references to the capture of Jerusalem and the Temple by Pompey. Because of their sins, the Jews were drugged by God and offered no resistance to the Roman army until they reached the Temple. After the siege, some citizens were massacred and others taken as war prisoners to Rome. This psalm contains historical reflections (vss. 1–22) up to the point when the gentile armies take control of Jerusalem (which may be the time of composition) and then abruptly changes to a hymn of supplication for aid from God (vss. 23–34)” (658). The title of Psalms of Solomon 8 has spawned two theories. It may refer to Pompey’s victory over Jerusalem or to an eschatological victory of God over his enemies. Greek literature: Diod. Sic. 13.62.6; 13.68.2; Jos. Ant. 13.101; Plut. Alcibiades 32.4; Appian Mith. Wars 17.116–117; Punic Wars 16.109; Poly. Hist. 5.26.8–9; 16.25.5; Plut. Dem. 17.4; Cam. 30.2; Cicero 33.5; 43.4; Marc. 4.3; Philo. 21.4; Pomp. 13.4; 57.2; Sert. 3.5; Num. 7.2; Diony. of Halicar. Rom. Antiq. 8.19.4; 10.21.8. suna,nthsin: LXX: Gen. 14:17; 1 Macc. 10:86. suna,ntaw: Greek literature: Diod. Sic. 18.28.1. NT: Acts 10:25; Heb. 7:1. u`pa,nthsin: Greek literature: Jos. Ant. 11.327, 329; Bell. 7.100, 119. NT: Matt. 8:34; John 12:13. u`pa,ntaw: STL: T. Abr. 2:2; 16:8. Greek literature: Jos. Ant. 6.193; Bell. 3.459; 7.119; Appian The Civil Wars 5.13.150. 253. Hist. 7.9.8. Latin text: “Vespasianus et Titus imperatores magnificum agentes de Iudaeis triumphum urbem ingressi sunt. pulchrum et ignotum antea cunctis mortalibus inter trecentos uiginti triumphos, qui a conditione urbis usque in id tempus acti erant, hoc spectaculum fuit, patrem et filium uno triumphali curru uectos gloriosissimam ab his, qui Patrem et Filium offenderant, uictoriam reportasse.” Translation: “Vespasian and Titus, the emperors, celebrating a magnificent triumph over the Jews, entered the city. This was the spectacle, beautiful and unknown to all mortals before, between the 320 triumphs that occurred from the founding of the city to that time, father and son in one triumphal chariot, bringing victory over those who offended the Father and Son.”

154

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

254. For a detailed etymological study on qri,amboj/qriambeu,w see Hendrik S. Versnel, Triumphus: An Inquiry Into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970), 11–55. 255. The literature on Roman triumph is voluminous. A few good sources to begin with on all aspects of the Roman triumph include Robert Payne, The Roman Triumph (London: Robert Hale Ltd., 1962); Versnel, Triumphus; Larry J. Kreitzer, Striking New Images: Roman Imperial Coinage and the New Testament World, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 134, ed. Stanley E. Porter, et al. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 126–144; Mary Beard, The Roman Triumph (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007). 256. Versnel, 7, 47, 89–91, 231–235, 284, 293, 396–397, 7, 47, 89–91, 231–235, 284, 293, 396–397. 257. The following description is adapted from Versnel, 56–57. 258. Appian Lib. 66 describes Scipio’s toga picta as formed from golden stars. 259. Versnel, 57. “The triumphal ornatus was also worn by the magistrates leading the ludi Romani and other games” (ibid.). 260. Versnel, 48, 57, 82–93, 154, 196. It was unacceptable, however, to the Romans for humans to be seen as representatives of the divine. This is one of the reasons why the ornatius Iovis was returned after the ceremony (see ibid., 74, 90). The classical Latin spelling of Jupiter will be kept. 261. Ibid., 58–61. Some of the principal testimonia texts are Liv. 5.23.5; 10.7.10; Servius ad. Verg. Ecl. 6.22; 10.27; Plin. Nat. Hist. 33.111; Isidorus Orig. 18.2.6; Plut. Cam. 7. 262. Versnel, 92. 263. Ibid. 264. Ibid., 305. 265. Ibid., 385–386. 266. Ibid., 386. 267. For further discussion on these motifs see Versnel, 388–397. 268. The literature on the term parousi,a (Lat: adventus) is voluminous, thus a detailed discussion of the term is unnecessary. A few good places to start are the works of Albrecht Oepke, s.v. “parousi,a,” in The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 5:858–871; Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World, trans. L. R. M. Strachan (New York: George H. Doran, 1927), 368–373; Béda Rigaux, Saint Paul: Les Épitres aux Thessaloniciens (Paris: Gabalda, 1956), 195–280. While there are several references of parousi,a in the apocalyptic literature (e.g., T. Abr. 2:5; 13:4, 6; T. Levi 14:15; T. Jud. 22:2), the consensus among scholars is that parousi,a refers to the ceremonial and royal arrival of a dignitary or emperor. 269. Taken from 1 Thess. 5:2. 270. Versnel, 387; cf. Cicero de imp. Gn. Pomp. 13. “Coming growth. Successful/Victories. Successful.”

notes

155

271. Versnel, 387; cf. the commencement of Vespasian’s reign; Plin. Nat. Hist. 33.41. “Some of the Italian cities made the day on which he first visited them the beginning of their year … New Year, the beginning of the age of happiness.” 272. Versnel, 1; cf. Liv. 45.39.10. 273. Ibid., 2; cf. Tactius Hist. 4.58.6. 274. Ibid.; cf. Liv. 30.15.12. 275. Versnel, 1. 276. The Einholung can occur simultaneously with the triumph or prior to it (e.g., the arriving dignitary is welcomed by the people and days later the dignitary is honored by a triumph). It is unwise to push an unyielding distinction between the welcoming of the dignitary and his triumph (see Paul Brooks Duff, “The March of the Divine Warrior and the Advent of the Greco-Roman King: Mark’s Account of Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem,” Journal of Biblical Literature 111.1 (1992): 55–71, 58–64, esp. 64). 277. The verb form of qri,amboj (qriambeu,w) functions and connotes those who are led to their death as part of the triumphal procession (see Scott J. Hafemann, Suffering and the Spirit: An Exegetical Study of 2 Cor. 2:14–3:3 Within the Context of the Corinthian Correspondence, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 19, ed. Martin Hengel and Otfried Hofius [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986], 18–39). Hafemann correctly maintains that when the verb is used with a prepositional phrase to designate its object, or with a direct object only, it “always refers to the one having been conquered and subsequently led in the procession, and never to the one having conquered, or to those who shared in his victory (emphasis his)” (ibid., 33). “To be the object of qriambeu,ein, could thus mean…to be led in one’s death in the ceremony of the triumphal procession as a display of the victor’s glory and, by implication, of the benevolence of the deity in granting this victory” (ibid.). For a recent proposal suggesting a more positive connotation to Paul’s use of qriambeu,w in 2 Cor. 2:14, see Roger David Aus, Imagery of Triumph and Rebellion in 2 Corinthians 2:14–17 and Elsewhere in the Epistle: An Example of the Combination of Greco-Roman and Judaic Traditions in the Apostle Paul, Studies in Judaism, ed. Jacob Neusner and Bard College (New York: University Press of America, 2005), 40–46. Aus proposes that Paul was a part of the triumphal entry of Jesus. Paul in a sense was a fellow soldier of the general Jesus’ triumphal entry. 278. Dupont (68) references Gen. 14:17 as part and parcel with Greco-Roman ceremonial processions. 279. Mathews, 148. These characteristics are found throughout the Old Testament (cf. Ps. 85:10; Isa. 9:7; 32:17; 48:18; 60:17). 280. See Duff, 61. 281. See also Matt. 25:1, 6; Acts 28:15. Matt. 25:6 is situated in the middle of Jesus’ parable on the ten virgins. A cry rings out heralding the arrival of the bridegroom. The virgins wake up and some trim their lamps in preparation to welcome him (eivj avpa,nthsin). Acts 28:15 describe how men came from a far distance (e.g., Forum of Appius and Three Taverns) to welcome (eivj avpa,nthsin) Paul. Paul in turn gives thanks and praise to God. Several scholars have also noted the similarities between these New Testament texts (Matt. 25:1, 6; John 12:13; Acts 28:15) and Greco-Roman triumphal entries (see Colin R. Nicholl, From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica: Situating 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Society

156

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 126, ed. Richard Bauckham [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004], 44; Gary S. Shogren, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Clinton E. Arnold [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012], 189; Ben Witherington, 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006], 138–139; Frederick F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Ralph Martin, vol. 45 [Dallas: Word Books, 1982], 102–103; Gene L. Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians, Pillar New Testament Commentary, ed. D. A. Carson [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002], 226; D. Michael Martin, 1, 2 Thessalonians, New American Commentary, ed. David S. Dockery, vol. 33 [Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1995], 153). 282. Don A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 432. 283. The fact that Jesus is purposefully turning the Greco-Roman triumphal entry on its head may account for the differences. 284. A similar expression is found in 1 Thess. 5:3 (eivrh,nhn kai. avsfa,leia). 285. This procession was less in splendor and pomp than a triumph because a triumph was only granted for victories over foreign enemies. Octavius was only victorious over another Roman general. An ovation concludes with a sacrifice of a sheep (ovis), from which the term ovation is derived. 286. “Peace, From Much Discord, He Brought Together On Land and Sea.” 287. These two accounts in Plutarch (Numa and Camillus) are also precursors for the practice and tradition of apotheosis that became more widespread later during the Roman Empire during the reign of Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus, Claudius, Vespasian, and Titus. For more on the tradition of apotheosis see chapter two, “The Apotheosis of the Roman Emperor, 69–99,” of Kreitzer, Striking New Images. See especially footnote two on pages 69–70 for a good beginning list of works on the subject. 288. Beard, 93. Beard suggests that if not an eyewitness at the very least he was depicting his account based on contemporary accounts at the time. 289. 17.132. See 17.132–152 for his detailed description of the triumphal entry.

The Meaning and Function of the Theophanic, Apocalyptic, and Greco-Roman Imagery in 1 Thess. 4:13–18 1. For a list of estimated ranges of population at Thessalonica during the first century A.D. see Craig Steven de Vos, Church and Community Conflicts: The Relationships of the Thessalonian, Corinthian, and Philippian Churches with Their Wider Civic Communities, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 168, ed. Mark Allan Powell (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 129; Mikael Tellbe, Paul Between Synagogue and State: Christians, Jews and Civic Authorities in 1 Thessalonians, Romans, and Philippians, Coniectanea Biblica New Testament Series 34, ed. Birger Olsson and Kari Syreeni (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International, 2001), 88; Rainer Riesner, Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy,

notes

2.

3.

4.

5.

157

Theology, trans. Doug Stott (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 341; Judith L. Hill, “Establishing the Church in Thessalonica,” Ph.D. Thesis, Duke University, 1990, 46–48. For an extensive discussion on the Greco-Roman influence at Thessalonica see Holland Hendrix, “Thessalonica,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman, vol. 6 (New York: Doubleday, 1992); Jeffrey A. D. Weima, 1–2 Thessalonians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, eds. Robert W. Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 1–23. The worship of pagan cults and deities (especially the Cabirus cult) was widespread at Thessalonica. See Karl Donfried, “The Cults of Thessalonica and the Thessalonian Correspondence,” in Paul, Thessalonica, and Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002); Charles Edson, “Cults of Thessalonica (Macedonia III),” Harvard Theological Review 41 (1948): 153–204; Christoph vom Brocke, Thessaloniki—Stadt des Kassander und Gemeinde des Paulus: Eine frühe christliche Gemeinde in ihrer heidnischen Umwelt, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 125 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001); Bengt Hemberg, Die Kabiren (Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksells, 1950). See Holland Hendrix, “Thessalonicans Honor Romans,” Th.D. Thesis, Harvard Divinity School, 1984; “Beyond ‘Imperial Cult’ and ‘Cults of Magistrates,’” in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Series, ed. K. H. Richards, Society of Biblical Literature 1986 Seminar Papers 25, ed. K. H. Richards (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 301–308; “Archaeology and Eschatology at Thessalonica,” in Future of Early Christianity, ed. Birger A. Pearson and A. Thomas Kraabel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 107–118; James R. Harrison, Paul and the Imperial Authorities at Thessalonica and Rome: A Study in the Conflict of Ideology, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 273, ed. Jörg Frey (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). Augustus was frequently honored in Thessalonica with games and celebrations (e.g., his victory at Actium), and his image was imprinted on various coins (see Hendrix, “Thessalonicans Honor Romans,” 198). During the last third of the first century B.C., a series of coins were minted in honor of Julius Caesar. On the front side of the coin, one would find the laureate head of Julius Caesar with the legend QEOS. And on the reverse side, one could behold the bare head of Octavian with the inscription QESSALONIKEWN (ibid., 170). Furthermore, Hendrix (170–171) highlights that “although the title ‘son of god’ (qeou/ ui`o,j) does not appear with Octavian/Augustus on any of the coins, the juxtaposition of the Divine Julius with his son may reflect Thessalonican awareness of the Imperator’s status as divi filius and is indicative perhaps of local importance attached to it.” This period also marked the establishment of a provincial temple to Caesar Augustus which was administered by the imperial “priest and ago[nothete of Im]perator Caesar Augustus son [of God]” (ierew,j kai. avgwn[oqe,tou/ Auv]tokra,toroj Kai,sa[roj Qeou/] ui`ou/ Sebasto[u/), a priest of “Roma a[nd Roman] benefactors” ( `Rw,mhj de. k[ai. `Rwmai,wn] euvergetw/n) (see Inscriptiones Graecae 10.2.1.31; Hendrix, “Thessalonicans Honor Romans,” 133; Tellbe, 83). Furthermore, north/northeast of the Serapeion in Thessalonica fragments of a statue of Augustus were found (see Hendrix, “Archaeology and Eschatology at Thessalonica,” 116–117). For possible evidence of a Jewish population at Thessalonica see the account in Acts 17:1–9; Jos. Ant. 14.115; Tellbe, Paul Between Synagogue and State; Judith L. Hill, “Estab-

158

6.

7. 8.

9.

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

lishing the Church in Thessalonica,”; the Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum evidence (CIJ 1.693; 1.693a; 1.693b, 1.693c; 1.693d); and other inscriptional evidence (IG 10.2.1.772; SEG 44:556), albeit the CIJ and other inscriptional evidence is dated to after the time of Paul. Thessalonica was the largest city in the province of Macedonia. It was a city of 50,000– 125,000 people during the first century A.D. Thus, it is unlikely that there were no Jews at Thessalonica. Also, the remains of a late first to early second century A.D. synagogue were found at Stobi, an inland city approximately 140 kilometers northwest from Thessalonica. It is not inconceivable that a Jewish colony was also at Thessalonica around the time the Stobi colony was formed (see Hill, “Establishing,” 53, 55–56). See also Robert Jewett, The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 119–120; Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983), 46. Meeks (ibid.) also suggests that “the Egyptians were among the earliest arrivals; probably the Jews were not far behind.” It is possible that there was a Jewish presence at Thessalonica before Stobi since Thessalonica is on the Via Egnatia and Stobi is not. It is also likely that many Jews arrived in Thessalonica after the edict of Claudius in A.D. 49, for Thessalonica was a strategic commercial and trade route and on the Via Egnatia (see Apostolos E. Vacalopoulos, History of Thessaloniki, trans. T. F. Carney [Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1963]). Moreover, while it is only conjecture, it is feasible that many Jews stayed at Thessalonica on their way east from Rome after the edict. It is the assumption of this monograph that there was a small Jewish presence at Thessalonica during the time of Paul, albeit one will never be able to fully prove this assertion because not every part of the city has been excavated and some parts will never be able to be excavated since they lie underneath of the modern city of Thessaloniki. Martin Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991), 37–39. Furthermore, according to Acts, Paul was also a Roman citizen (22:28). The narrative also suggests that his citizenship allowed him to escape several terrible predicaments (16:37–39; 22:23–29; 25:10–12). N.T. Wright, Paul in Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 5 correctly points out that “Paul, to the surprise of some both then and now, was a Roman citizen, and if we take even a moderate view of the historicity of Acts he seems to have made good occasional use of the privilege.” John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE) (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1996), 383–384. See also Wright, Paul in Fresh Perspective, 3–20; Mark Harding, and Alanna Nobbs, eds., All Things to All Cultures: Paul among Jews, Greeks, and Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013). My own translation. The phrases “we want to be sure you know the truth” (used to bring out the force of the emphatic) and “For, in accordance with this message about the Lord” is indebted to Michael W. Pahl’s translation (see Michael W. Pahl, Discerning the ‘Word of the Lord’: The ‘Word of the Lord’ in 1 Thessalonians 4:15, Library of New Testament Studies 389, ed. Mark Goodacre [New York: T. & T. Clark, 2009], 169).

notes

159

10. While the details of this report are unclear, one can postulate that the situation of 1 Thess. 4:13–18 was a topic of interest. 11. Evlpi,j is used four times in 1 Thessalonians (1:3; 2:19; 4:13; 5:8). It is found with avga,ph and pi,stij in 1:3 and 5:8. The triadic formulation “faith, hope, and love” forms an inclusio (1:3; 5:8). But when Timothy reports to Paul (3:6) he only mentions their faith and love. It is apparent that the Thessalonians lack hope. The purpose of the first letter to the Thessalonians is to address and reestablish the lack of hope at Thessalonica (3:10). See also Karl P. Donfried, “The Theology of 1 Thessalonians,” in The Theology of the Shorter Pauline Letters, Karl P. Donfried and I. H. Marshall, 1–79, New Testament Theology, ed. James D. G. Dunn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 20. 12. Rom. 1:13; 11:25; 1 Cor. 10:1; 12:1; 2 Cor. 1:8. 13. See also, F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Ralph Martin, vol. 45 (Dallas: Word Books, 1982), 95; Earl J. Richard, First and Second Thessalonians, Sacra Pagina 11, ed. Daniel J. Harrington (Minneapolis: Liturgical Press, 1995), 224; Weima, 307; Ben Witherington, 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 131; David Luckensmeyer, The Eschatology of First Thessalonians, Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 71, eds. Max Küchler, Peter Lampe, Gerd Theissen, and Jürgen Zangenberg (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 212; Béda Rigaux, Saint Paul: Les Épitres aux Thessaloniciens (Paris: Gabalda, 1956), 526–527; Shogren, 180. The formula is equivalent to saying, “I want you to know this” or “it is important that you know this” (see Phil. 1:12; Col. 2:1). The verb bou,lomai is analogous with qe,lw. 14. Paul’s usage in the negative (Rom. 1:13; 11:25; 1 Cor. 10:1; 12:1; 2 Cor. 1:8) and positive of these two analogous words give further evidence to the difficulty of narrowing down whether the information which follows is new or old information that needs clarification (see esp. Abraham J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, Anchor Bible, ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman, vol. 32b [New York: Doubleday, 2000], 262). 15. For example, 1 Thess. 1:4, 5; 2:1, 2, 5, 11; 3:3, 4; 4:2, 4, 5; 5:2, 12. 16. ouv crei,an e;cete gra,fein u`mi/n and ouv crei,an e;cete u`mi/n gra,fesqai respectively. 17. Colin R. Nicholl, From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica: Situating 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 126, ed. Richard Bauckham (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 21. 18. Several propose that this implies that Paul never fully formally taught about the bodily resurrection of the dead to the Thessalonians (see Ibid., 35–38; Gerd Lüdemann, “The Hope of the Early Paul: From the Foundation-Preaching at Thessalonika to I Cor 15:51–57,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 7.3 (Fall 1980): 195–201, 195–196 and Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology, trans. F. Stanley Jones (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 232–233; Donfried, “Cults,” 40; James E. Frame, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul to Thessalonians, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), 166; Franz Laub, Eschatologische Verkündigung und Lebensgestaltung nach Paulus: Eine Untersuchung zum Wirken des Apostels beim Aufbau der Gemeinde in Thessalonike, Münchener Universitäts-Schriften Katholisch-Theologische Fakultät 10, ed. Otto Kuss (Regensburg, Germany: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1973), 128–131; Jürgen Becker, Auferstehung der Toten im Urchristentum, Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 82, ed. Herbert Haag,

160

1 9. 20.

21.

22.

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

Rudolf Kilian, and Wilhelm Pesch (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1976), 46; Willi Marxsen, “Auslegung von 1 Thess 4:13–18,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 66 (1969): 22–37, 27–32. Becker and Marxsen both maintain that since the problem of death in relation to the parousia and bodily resurrection never came up Paul never taught on the resurrection of the dead to the Thessalonians. 1 Thess. 1:9–10; 2:13; 3:13; 5:2. See also Luckensmeyer, 212–213; Ernest Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (London: A & C Black, 1972), 181–182; Weima, 308; Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, 262; Gene L. Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians, Pillar New Testament Commentary, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 216; Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary, ed. I. Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 165; P. H. R. van Houwelingen, “The Great Reunion: the Meaning and Significance of the ‘Word of the Lord’ in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18,” Calvin Theological Journal 42.2 (2007): 308–324, 309; Peter Siber, Mit Christus Leben: Eine Studie zur paulinischen Auferstehungshoffnung, Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testamentes 61, eds. Oscar Cullmann and H. J. Stoebe (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1971), 15 n.8; Hans-Alwin Wilcke, Das Problem eines messianischen Zwischenreichs bei Paulus, Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 51, ed. Walther Eichrodt and Oscar Cullmann (Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1967), 112–113; Wolfgang Harnisch, Eschatologische Existenz: Ein exegetischer Beitrag zum Sachanliegen von 1 Thessalonicher 4:13–5:11, Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 110, ed. Ernst Käsemann (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), 22–24. Harnisch maintains that Paul did preach on the resurrection of the believers. However, the main problem Paul addressed was the gnostischen Agitation (see also Walter Schmithals and John E. Steely, Paul and the Gnostics [Nashville: Abingdon, 1972], 160–167). Some of the manuscripts (D, F, G, Y, 1881) have the perfect tense form (kekoimhme,nwn) instead of the present. Bruce Metzger (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament Fourth Revised Edition, 2nd ed. [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994], 565) maintains that the perfect form is the usual expression (Matt. 27:52; 1 Cor. 15:20). The Nestle-Aland text is to be preferred because of the better external evidence (a, A, B 0278, 33, 81, 1739). The internal evidence is also stronger for the Nestle-Aland reading. It is more likely that it was changed into koimwme,nwn, than the opposite (Ibid.). See Rigaux, 529–532; Paul Hoffmann, Die Toten in Christus: Eine religionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Untersuchung zur Paulinischen Eschatologie, Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen 2, ed. Max Meinertz (Munster: Aschendorf, 1966), 186–206; Best, 185; Green, 217; Weima, 309; Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, 263; Shogren, 180; Frame, 167; D. Michael Martin, 1, 2 Thessalonians, New American Commentary, ed. David S. Dockery, vol. 33 (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1995), 143; W. Howard Burkeen, “The Parousia of Christ in the Thessalonian Correspondence,” (PhD diss., University of Aberdeen, 1979), 236 n.156. Best suggests that the term—while not its intention—could be adapted to the concept of the intermediate state (cf. Henry Angus Alexander Kennedy, St. Paul’s Conceptions of the Last Things (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1904), 268–269; Wanamaker, 167).

notes

23.

24.

2 5. 26.

27.

2 8. 29. 30. 31. 32.

33.

161

Richard (225) proposes that Paul uses terminology that was common to the Thessalonians themselves. Bruce (98) maintains that martyrdom was behind their death (cf. Donfried, “Cults,” 41–43). Donfried adapts, enhances, and proposes a more elaborate argument than Bruce. But if martyrdom was the reason behind the death of the Thessalonians one would expect Paul to mention it. For example see Sophocles El. 509; Homer Il. 11.241; Aelian Miscellaneous Stories 2.35; Cicero On Old Age 81; Catullus 5.4–6. Cicero writes: “Atqui dormientium animi maxime declarant divinitatem suam; multa enim, cum remissi et liberi sunt, futura prospiciunt.” Translation: “And yet when the body sleeps the soul most clearly manifests the divine nature, for when it is released, it is free to look forward to the future.” Catullus writes: “soles occidere et redire possunt: nobis cum semel occidit brevis lux, nox est perpetua una dormiena.” Translation: “Suns set and rise again: but when our brief light has fallen, night is one perpetual sleep(ing).” The Latin equivalent of koima,w in the context of these two references is dormioire. Gen. 47:30; Deut. 31:16; Judg. 5:27; 1 Kings 2:10; 11:43; 22:40; Ps. 13:3 [LXX]; Ps. 40:9 [LXX]; Isa. 43:17; Jer. 51:39–40; Ezek. 31:18; 2 Macc. 12:45; Jub. 23:1–3; 36:18; 45:15; 2 Bar. 11:4; Acts 7:60; 13:36; 1 Cor. 7:39; 11:30; 15:6, 18, 51. For example, Dan. 12:2; 4 Ezra 7:32; Matt. 27:52; 1 Cor. 15:20, 51. Acts 7.60; 1 Cor. 7:39; 11:30 and 15:6, 18. John 11:11–12 is more ambiguous for the author employs evxupni,sw (lit. “awaken”) a hapax legomenon in the New Testament for Lazarus’ resurrection. See Gordon D. Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 167–168; Richard N. Longenecker, “The Nature of Paul’s Early Eschatology,” New Testament Studies 31.1 (1985): 93; Gregory K. Beale, 1–2 Thessalonians, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, ed. Grant R. Osborne (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 130–133; Nicholl, 22–23; Witherington, 131; Houwelingen, 310; George Milligan, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians (New York: Macmillan, 1952), 55; Jörg Baumgarten, Paulus und die Apokalyptik: Die Auslegung apoclyptischer Uberlieferungen in den echten Paulusbriefen, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Neuen Testament 44, ed. Günther Bornkamm and Gerhard von Rad (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1975), 115. 1 Cor. 7:39; 11:30; 15:6, 18, 20, 51; 1 Thess. 4:13, 14, 15. 1 Cor. 15:20, 51; 1 Thess. 4:14, 15. Dan. 12:2–3 (cf. Isa. 26:19; 1 Thess. 5:10); 2 Macc. 12:44–45; 1 En. 91:10; 92:3; 100:5; 2 Bar. 21:24; 30:1–2; 4 Ezra 7:32; T. Issa. 7:9; T. Jud. 26:4. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus-God and Man (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977), 74. Cyprian Treatise 12.3.58; Ambrose On the Decease of Satyrus 1.9; Ambrosiaster Commentarius 3.226; Chrysostom Homily 7; Theodore of Mopsuestia Commentarii 2.27–28. For further discussion, including citations from the Medieval, Reformation, and Post-Reformation eras, see Anthony C. Thiselton, 1 & 2 Thessalonians Through the Centuries, Blackwell Bible Commentaries, ed. John Sawyer, Christopher Rowland, Judith Kovacs, and David M. Gunn (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 115–145. However, this in no way, shape, or form is advocating a notion or theory of “soul sleep.” As Jeffrey Weima (309) makes clear, “there is no justification for finding in 1 Thess. 4:13 any

162

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

support for the notion of ‘soul sleep’ that in the time immediately following death the soul of a person ‘sleeps,’ or exists in an unconscious state, unaware of its surroundings, until it is awakened at Christ’s return, when the resurrection of the body takes place.” 34. Frame, 167; Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians, 168; Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, 264; Witherington, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 132; Hoffmann, 210–212. Malherbe suggests that Paul puts an “absolute prohibition” to any grieving. Hoffmann maintains that kaqw.j kai. is used paraenetically. Paul’s argument boils down to an ad hominem argument: “You are different than the pagans, so grieving is anachronistic” (paraphrase). There is no evidence that Paul is addressing pessimism here among the Thessalonians in terms of the afterlife (see Bartholomäus Henneken, Verkündigung und Prophetie im Ersten Thessalonicherbrief: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des Wortes Gottes, Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 29, eds. Herbert Haag, Rudolf Kilian, and Wilhelm Pesch [Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969], 75–77). Some pagans were pessimistic, but others did have hope in the afterlife. But this does not mean that the pagans had hope in a bodily resurrection. N. T. Wright has clearly shown that the belief of a bodily resurrection for the dead was unthinkable for the pagans (see The Resurrection of the Son of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God: Volume 3 [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003], 32–84). 35. Phil. 2:27; 1 Cor. 12:26; 2 Cor. 7:8–11. 36. Nicholl, From Hope to Despair, 23–24; Luckensmeyer, 215; Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, 168–169; Henneken, 76–77; I. Howard Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, New Century Bible Commentary, ed. Matthew Black (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 119– 120; Joseph Plevnik, Paul and the Parousia: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997), 71. Green (218) suggests that Paul prohibits grief that becomes overwhelming for it shows to others that a lack of hope may be present (cf. Richard, 234). 37. Some have argued that Paul did not primarily address present grief, but rather proactively addresses inevitable grief, because others would at some point die (see Harnisch, 24; John Philip Mason, “Paul’s Understanding of Resurrection in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18,” Ph.D. diss. [Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1989], 124). This line of argumentation seems to miss the point of what Paul addressed. Why would Paul vehemently address an issue of potential future grief? If Paul’s purpose was to bring hope to the congregation, would not presenting a potential future grief cause the Thessalonians much unneeded additional grief? This may even cause the Thessalonians to enter a state of despair. 38. See also Luckensmeyer, 216. 39. See also Ibid.; Malherbe, Letters to the Thessalonians, 264–265. 40. See Nicholl, 23; Bruce, 96; Randall E. Otto, “The Meeting in the Air (1 Thess 4:17),” Horizons in Biblical Theology 19.2 (1997): 192–212, 194; Witherington, 132 n.24. Witherington refers to a similar construction in Eph. 2:12 that he suggests is the key for holding the Gentile only reading of loipoi. 41. See also Best, 185; Traugott Holtz, Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher, Evange lisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 13, ed. Josef Blank, Rudolf Schnackenburg, Eduard Schweizer, and Ulrich Wilckens [Zurich: Benziger, 1986], 189; Luckensmeyer, 216–218; Laub, 124 n.105 [cf. Wilcke, 116–117)]; Malherbe, Letters to the Thessalonians, 265; Becker, Auferstehung der Toten im Urchristentum, 47. It would be obvi-

notes

42. 43.

44. 45. 46.

47. 48.

49.

50. 51. 52.

5 3. 54.

163

ous to Paul that Gentiles have no hope, thus no reason to separate into a third category of only Jews. For other surveys of the positions see especially Luckensmeyer, 192–211; Weima, 310– 313; Malherbe, 283–284; Green 213–215. See those listed under footnote 18. See also P. Nepper-Christensen, “Das verborgene Herrnwort: Eine Untersuchung über 1 Thess 4:13–18,” Studia Theologica 19 (1965): 136–154; Robert Gundry, “The Hellenization of Dominical Tradition and Christianization of Jewish Tradition in the Eschatology of 1–2 Thessalonians,” New Testament Studies 33 (1987): 161–178, 167. Gundry suggests that no resurrection was taught or the imminence of his return was so over-emphasized that being alive at the coming covered over what little instruction of the future resurrection Paul gave them. Holtz (191–192) suggests that the Thessalonians had difficulty accepting the resurrection. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 291. Schmithals, 160–164; Harnisch, 19–51. Raymond F. Collins, The Birth of the New Testament: The Origin and Development of the First Christian Generation (New York: Crossroad, 1993), 162. See also Donfried, “Cults,” 38–46. Marshall, 120–122; Green, 213–215; Shogren, 34–36; Seyoon Kim, “The Jesus Tradition in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11,” New Testament Studies 48 (2002): 225–242. Joseph Plevnik, “The Taking Up of the Faithful and the Resurrection of the Dead in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 46.2 (April 1984): 274–283; Bruce C. Johanson, To All the Brethren: A Text-Linguistic and Rhetorical Approach to 1 Thessalonians, Coniectanea Biblica New Testament Series 16 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1987), 124–125. Gerhard Lohfink, Die Himmelfahrt Jesu: Untersuchungen zu den Himmelfahrts- und Erhöhunngstexten bei Lukas, Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 26 (Munich: Kösel, 1971), 73–74. Leon Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 136. Niels Hyldahl, “Auferstehung Christi, Auferstehung der Toten (1 Thess. 4:13–18),” in Paulinische Literatur und Theologie (Århus: Forlaget Aros, 1980), 122–123, 129. Ulrich Luz, Das Geschichtsverständnis des Paulus, Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie 49, ed. E. Wolf (Munich: Chr Kaiser, 1968), 319–322, 347; Helmut Merklein, “Der Theologe als Prophet: Zur Funktion prophetischen Redens im theologischen Diskurs des Paulus,” New Testament Studies 38 (1992): 402–429, 409; Wilcke, 109–150, esp. 119–124; Siber, 20–22; Weima, 312; Malherbe, Letters to the Thessalonians, 261, 284. Merklein, 409. Translation: “Reason enough to be filled with grief!” There were two different ideas about the end time: 1) the anticipation of a blessed future (special privilege) for those who are alive (prophetic eschatology), and 2) the resurrection of all, followed by judgment (apocalyptic thought). Special privilege texts include Dan. 12:12–13; Ps. Sol. 17:50; 18:7; Sib. Or. 3:370. Those who are alive will be present at the final justification of Israel (4 Ezra 6:25; 7:27; 9:8). Survivors are seen favorably (4 Ezra 13:16–24). Judgment occurs at the same time (4 Ezra 5:41–45; 70–71; 6:20; 2 Bar. 30:2; 51:3; L.A.B. 19:12). See Albertus F. J. Klijn, “1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 and Its Back-

164

55. 56.

57.

58.

59. 60. 6 1. 62. 63. 64.

6 5. 66. 67.

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

ground in Apocalyptic Literature,” in Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C. K. Barrett, ed. M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson (London: SPCK, 1982), 69–71. Ibid., 67–68. See Luckensmeyer, 221; Wanamaker, 168; Best, 187; Richard, 225; Shogren, 182; Green, 219; Weima, 317. More cautious is Marshall, 122. Pace Malherbe, Letters to the Thessalonians, 265; Nicholl, 27; Holtz, 190. Holtz maintains it was Paul’s own formulation. Bruce, 97; Wanamaker, 169; Beale, 134; James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 300; Beverly R. Gaventa, First and Second Thessalonians, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, eds. James Luther Mays and Paul J. Achtemeier (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1998), 64; Shogren, 182; Plevnik, Paul and Parousia, 69; Dupont, 42 n.2; Frame, 170; Witherington, 133; Lars Hartman, Prophecy Interpreted: The Formation of Some Jewish Apocalyptic Texts and of the Eschatological Discourse Mark 13 Par., trans. Neil Tomkinson with assistance by Jean Gray, Coniectanea Biblica New Testament Series 1 (Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup, 1966), 181. Charles F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963, 57, argues that the genitive phrase is an attendant circumstance. This would simplify the construction and would imply that the Thessalonian Christians died in union with Christ (see also Green, 221). This rendering maintains that “through Christ” is equivalent to “in Christ.” Nepper-Christensen, 138. Donfried (51) believes that the cause of some of the Thessalonians’ was martyrdom as well, albeit he maintains that the phrase is best rendered as an attendant circumstance. Rigaux, 535–537. Martin highlights the apparent balance: “those who died ‘through Jesus,’ God will bring back with Jesus” (146). See Bruce, 97. See Wallace, 369; Nicholl, 28. Luckensmeyer, 223. See also Wilcke, 127; Nicholl, 28 (cf. Rom. 1:8; 2:16; 5:1, 11, 21; 2 Cor. 3:4; 1 Thess. 1:5; 3:7). See also Best, 189; Malherbe, 266; Nicholl, 28; Fee, 170–171; J. Delobel, “The Fate of the Dead According to 1 Thess. 4 and 1 Cor 15,” in The Thessalonian Correspondence, ed. Raymond F. Collins, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1990), 340–341; Kim, 226; Siber, 27. Hoffmann, 213–216; Holtz, 193; Luz, 326; Wilcke, 127; Houwelingen, 226; Luckensmeyer, 223; Lüdemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, 239. Luckensmeyer and Lüdemann both emphasize a causal nuance. For a further detailed discussion see Nicholl, 28–32. 1) “Bring” or “lead.” 2) “Lead away” or “arrest.” 3) “Lead” or “encourage” in a spiritual sense. 4) “Observe” or “spend.” 5) “To move away” or “go.” See BDAG, 16–17. See Joseph Plevnik, “The Taking Up of the Faithful and the Resurrection of the Dead in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 46.2 (1984): 274–283; Plevnik, Paul and the Parousia, 73–80. See also R. L. Thomas, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 11, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 276–279; Harnisch, 43–44; Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians, 170; Frame, 170–171;

notes

68.

6 9. 70.

7 1. 72. 7 3. 74. 75.

76.

165

Paul Ellingworth, “Which Way Are We Going? A Verb of Movement, Especially in 1 Thess 4:14b,” The Bible Translator 25 (1974): 426–431; Johanson, 121–122. With caution Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, 181–182. A key word for Plevnik’s argument is a`rpaghso,meqa. He suggests that the imagery Paul employs in 4:16–17 is centered in Jewish apocalyptic texts that pertain to assumption and exaltation motifs. For more on Plevnik’s argument, see above, chapter one, and chapter two. See also Hartman, 186–187. Exod. 19:16–20; Num. 11:25; 12:5; Pss. 18:9–10; 24:7–10; Isa. 64:1; Joel 2:1–2; Mic. 1:3; Zeph. 1:14–16, especially the allusion to LXX Zech. 14:5. Malherbe (The Letters to the Thessalonians, 266) has shown that there may also be a theme in the Jewish scriptures of God gathering his people along with his coming (e.g., Isa. 11:12; 43:5; Jer. 31:10 [LXX 38:10]; Ezek. 11:17; Zech. 12:3). This would also fit with the interpretation of 1 Thess. 4:14. Witherington (1 and 2 Thessalonians 138, 141) has pointed out that Ps. 24:7–10 and Mic. 1:3 suggest that Jesus’ descent will also be to earth. For more discussion on the allusion to LXX Zech. 14:5 see Nicholl, 30–32; Gundry, “The Hellenization of Dominical Tradition,” 163; Edward Adams, “The ‘Coming of God’ Tradition and Its Influence on New Testament Parousia Texts,” in Biblical Traditions in Transmission, ed. Michael A. Knibb (Boston: Brill, 2006), 12–13. Craig Evans has suggested that the early Jewish rabbis and Church Fathers’ interpreted Ps. 47:6 (LXX Ps. 46:6) in terms of Christ’s ascension, only to then “descend” to earth in 1 Thess. 4:14–17 (see C. A. Evans, “Ascending and Descending with a Shout: Psalm 47:6 and 1 Thessalonians 4:16,” in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 83 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993], 238–253). More will be said of this below. kai. h[xei ku,rioj o` qeo,j mou kai. pa,ntej oi` a[gioi metV auvtou. For more on the imagery of Zech. 14:5 see chapter two and below. Cf. Matt. 24:30–31; Mark 8:38. Adams, 9 (cf. Witherington, 137). See also Weima, 320; Witherington, 137–141; Shogren, 190; Seth Turner, “The Interim, Earthly Messianic Kingdom in Paul,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25.3 (2003): 323–342, 331; Nicholl, From Hope to Despair, 28–32, 43–45; Dupont, 64–73; Green, 228. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 303 (cf. Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997 (1975)], 230); Chrysostom Homilies on 1 Thessalonians, 8; Theodoret, Interpretation of Thessalonians 4, 82:648; Victor Paul Furnish, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2007), 104–105; Henneken, 73–98; Merklein, 402–429; Malherbe, Letters to the Thessalonians, 268–269; Donfried, Theology, 39–41; Milligan, 58; Shogren, 183–184; Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, trans. William Montgomery (New York: Macmillan, 1931), 172–174; Plevnik, Paul and the Parousia, 81; Fee (174) sees no reason to be dogmatic about choosing one of the three options: “Paul’s point is simple: the risen Lord, Jesus himself, is the source of what follows.” C. M. Tuckett is skeptical whether or not the content of evn lo,gw| kuri,ou could have come from any prophetic saying

166

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82. 83.

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

whether by the Gospel tradition or an agraphon (see C. M. Tuckett, “Synoptic Traditions in 1 Thessalonians?” in The Thessalonian Correspondence, ed. Raymond F. Collins, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1990), 182. The arguments for and against each of these positions are taken and synthesized from several sources. See especially Nicholl, A Study of 1 Thess. 4:15–17, 70–124; Pahl, 6–34; Malherbe, Letters to the Thessalonians, 267–269; Marshall, 125–127; Best, 189–194. Best, 189–193; David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 253–256; Harnisch, 39–45; Luz, 326– 331; Baumgarten, 94; Siber, 41–42; Hoffmann, 219; Raymond F. Collins, “Tradition, Redaction, and Exhortation in 1 Th 4,13–5,11,” in Apocalypse johannique et l’apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament (Gembloux, Belguim: Éditions J Duculot, 1980), 330–332. Most believe the “word of the Lord” comes from the eschatological teaching in the Synoptic Gospels (e.g., Matt. 24:29–31, 40–41). See Weima, 321–322; Beale, 135–137; Green, 221–222; Marshall, 125–126; Witherington, 135–136; David Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 303–326; Hartman, 178–205; Wanamaker, 171–172; Hyldahl, 119–135. Hartman argues that the “word of the Lord” refers to a tradition common to 1 Thess. 4:15–16 and Mark 13. He proposes that Mark 13 originated from a midrash of Dan. 7:13 and 12:2–3. Hartman is essentially followed, mutatis mutandis, by Hyldahl and Wanamaker. Hyldahl suggests that Matt. 24:30–31 is parallel with 1 Thess. 4:16–17. Rigaux (535–539) argues that the saying is more likely from the general eschatological teaching of Jesus whether or not a text can be determined as the most likely possibility. Gundry (164–166) and Nepper-Christensen (136–154) propose that the content of evn lo,gw| kuri,ou comes from John 11: 25–26 and not the Synoptics. J. Ramsey Michaels argues that Matt. 20:16 is the foundation of the “word of the Lord” (“Everything That Rises Must Converge: Paul’s Word from the Lord,” in To Tell the Mystery: Essays on New Testament Eschatology in Honor of Robert H. Gundry, ed. T. F. Schmidt and M. Silva, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplemental Series 100, ed. Mark Goodacre [Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1994], 182–195). List adapted from Witherington, 136. Arguments from only the eschatological teaching in the Synoptic Gospels are given since this is the most common argument from the third hypothesis. See Joachim Jeremias, Unknown Sayings of Jesus (New York: Macmillan, 1957), 80–83; Morris, 140–141; Frame, 171–171; Wilcke, 131–132; Holtz, 183–184; Nicholl, From Hope to Despair, 40. Nicholl has also argued for the agraphon position extensively in his Th.M. thesis (see Colin R. Nicholl, A Study of 1 Thess. 4:15–17 with Special Attention to the “Logoj Kuriou.” Th.M. Thesis [Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1996, esp. 110–123]). The following arguments for Mark 8:34–38; 9:1 being a valid Sitz im Leben are taken from Nicholl, A Study of 1 Thess. 4:15–17, 117–121. Rudolf K. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. Kendrick Grobel, 2 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951, 1955), I: 188–189; Bruce, 99; Martin, 147. Bultmann

notes

84. 85.

86.

87.

88. 89. 90. 91.

92.

93.

94.

167

maintains that “the tradition of the Jerusalem Church is at least in substance behind the ‘word of the Lord’ on the parousia and resurrection in 1 Thess. 4:15–17, though it is not certain whether Paul is here quoting a traditionally transmitted saying or whether he is appealing to a revelation accorded to him by the exalted Lord.” Bruce, 99. Richard, 240 (cf. Houwelingen, 315). Richard suggests that the tou/to ga.r (4:15) refers back to 4:14 and not to what follows. He further maintains that it is not a literal saying of the Lord, but rather describes “Paul’s way of speaking: ‘as a message from the Lord.’” (Ibid.) Merklein, 410–415; Holtz, 185; Wilcke, 132–133; Milligan, 58; Frame, 171–172; John Gillman, “Signals of Transformation in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47 (1985): 263–281, 272–275; Gundry, “Hellenization,” 165. Nicholl, A Study of 1 Thess. 4:15–17, 42–69 and From Hope to Despair, 32–33; Weima, 320; Jeremias, 80–83; Nepper-Christensen, 141; Best, 193–194; Luz, 327–330; Marshall, 126; Kim, “Jesus Tradition,” 226–227; Tuckett, 178–179; Aune, Prophecy, 253–256; Hartman, 188–189; Harnisch, 39–46; Ben Witherington, Jesus, Paul and the End of the World: A Comparative Study in New Testament Eschatology (Exeter, England: Paternoster Press, 1992), 175–177; Siber, 35–38; Rigaux, Thessaloniciens, 539. Pahl, 169. Ibid., 5. Ibid., 15. See Nicholl, A Study of 1 Thess. 4:13–18, 52–66 for a thorough evaluation of the statistics on what is from Paul and what is not. Pahl, 15. However, Pahl does not provide any discussion on how or why these images are Hellenistic, theophanic or apocalyptic. Moreover, there is no discussion on what the function of these images is or which images are Hellenistic, theophanic, or apocalyptic (the very question we are attempting to answer in this monograph). Furthermore, I have characterized the imagery that Paul employs as theophanic, apocalyptic, and Greco-Roman totally independent of Pahl. Ibid., 17, 32. The eschatological texts Pahl proposes 4:16–17a stemmed from are the following: Dan. 7:13–14 [cf. 12:1–2; 4 Ezra 13:16–20; 2 Bar. 30:1–5]; Matt. 24:30–31; 1 Cor. 15:51–52; Rev. 14:14–16 [cf. Rev. 19:11–16]; Didache 16:6–8. He is unsure of the “precise nature” of the connection or the exact reconstruction (32). There are several indicators that Thompson provides that Pahl indicates are key to the identification of parallel passages: 1) the presence of “tradition indicators” (e.g., introductory formula or change in style); 2) the existence of verbal, conceptual, or formal agreement between texts; and 3) the historical probability of personal, traditional, or textual links between the texts and their authors (Ibid., 17; cf. Michael B. Thompson, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12:1–15:13 [Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1991], 28–36). Pahl, 109–110 (cf. Wallace, 157–158, 372). “The locative idea of sphere or standard may indicate that a direct citation is not to be expected, but could suggest instead that the authors’ subsequent statement is in accordance with—within the conceptual bounds of— an already known lo,goj which is not directly cited in what follows” (Ibid., 110). Ibid., 110 (cf. Malherbe, Letters to the Thessalonians, 117; cf. 1 Thess. 1:8).

168

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

95. Ibid., 137. Pahl (128, n.133, 137) cites the following verses to illustrate this pattern is synonymous with euvagge,lion: Matt. 13:19–23; 15:6; Mark 2:2; 4:14–17, 18–20, 33; 7:13; Luke 5:1; 8:11–13, 15, 21; 11:28; Heb. 4:12; 6:5; 13:7; 1 Pet. 1:23, 25; 2:8; 3:1; Jas. 1:18, 21; Rev. 1:9; 6:9; 20:4. The numerous occurrences in Acts alone are impressive: Acts 2:41; 4:4, 29, 31; 6:2, 4, 7; 8:4, 14, 25; 10:36, 44; 11:1, 19; 12:24; 13:5, 7, 15, 26, 44, 46, 48, 49; 14:3, 25; 15:7, 35, 36; 16:6, 32; 17:11, 13; 18:5, 11; 19:10, 20; 20:32. 96. Ibid., 126–127. See 126, n.124 for an extensive list of the numerous texts in the Pauline corpus that refer to this motif. 97. Ibid., 127 (cf. 1 Cor. 14:36; 2 Cor. 2:17; 4:2; 1 Thess. 1:8; 2:13; 2 Thess. 3:1; Eph. 6:17; Col. 1:25). 98. Ibid., 140–155, 163–164. 99. Notice the link between the “gospel” and word. The word was not just the word, but the word (the Gospel) brought and spoken to the Thessalonians by the Holy Spirit. 100. to. euvagge,lion tou/ qeou/) 101. Pahl, 153. Pahl’s proposal that there is a link between the “word [of x]” pattern and euvagge,lion further substantiates his overall argument. 102. Ibid., 169. While Pahl’s thesis may be the most likely option, one must be careful not to be so bold to say, as Pahl does, that it should be the default option (Ibid., 139). 103. Translation mine (see above). The literature on the term parousi,a is voluminous (see Luckensmeyer, 190 n.54, for an extensive list of the literature on the subject as it pertains to its use in the Pauline corpus). Thus, another detailed discussion is not needed. But a few comments are in order. The term has two basic meanings: 1) to be present (presence); 2) the advent or coming of someone (the term also has a technical sense [i.e., the coming of Christ], see BDAG, 780–781). The term is used several times in the Second Temple literature (Jdth. 10:18; 2 Macc. 8:12; 15:21; Apoc. Sed. 1:1; T. Levi. 8:15; T. Judah 22:2; T. Abr. 12:5; 13:4, 6; 1 En. 38:2; 49:4; 2 En. 32:1; 3 Macc. 3:17; Theodotus 3:1; cf. especially Osvaldo D. Vena, The Parousia and Its Rereadings: The Development of the Eschatological Consciousness in the Writings of the New Testament, Studies in Biblical Literature 27, ed. Hemchand Gossai [New York: Peter Lang, 2001], 33–104). However, the overwhelming occurrences of the term are found in the Greco-Roman literature, where it is most likely a terminus technicus for the presence or arrival of an emperor or dignitary (see Raymond F. Collins, “From Parousi,a to vEpifa,neia: The Transformation of a Pauline Motif,” in Unity and Diversity in the Gospels and Paul: Essays in Honor of Frank J. Matera, ed. Christopher W. Skinner and Kelly R. Iverson. Society of Biblical Literature, Early Christianity and Its Literature 7, ed. Gail R. O’Day [Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012], 273–299; see also n. 268 in chapter two for further literature). The term parousi,a is used fourteen times in the Pauline corpus. It is used seven times in the Thessalonian correspondence (1 Thess. 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thess. 2:1, 8, 9). Five times it is used for the arrival/coming of Christ (1 Thess. 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thess. 2:1; cf. 1 Cor. 15:23). The other two times it refers to the coming of the “lawless one” (2 Thess. 2:8, 9). It refers to Paul’s coming (Phil. 1:26; 2:12), Stephanas’ coming (1 Cor. 16:17), and Titus’ (2 Cor. 7:6–7). The numerous occurrences of parousi,a in the Greco-Roman literature, connoting a technical term for the triumphal arrival/coming of an emperor or dignitary into a city, tips the scales for this author that the term has this same connotation in

notes

169

1 Thess. 4:15 (see chapter two for more on the function of parousi,a in the context of Roman triumph). At first glance h`mei/j implies that Paul includes himself with those who will be alive at the Lord’s coming (cf. 1 Cor. 15:52). Later in his ministry he states that he will not be alive at the parousia (2 Cor. 1:8; 4:14; 5:1, 8; Phil. 1:21–24). This difference has led to three different views: 1) Paul expected the end to come during his lifetime (see Schweitzer, 52); 2) his view developed over time (Bruce, 99; J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980], 178); and 3) others propose that Jesus could come at any time (Malherbe, 270–271; Martin, 148; Witherington, End of the World, 23–35; cf. 1 Thess. 5:1–4). 104. The verb appears in the New Testament six other times. Each time the verb connotes a meaning of “to arrive” or “to come” (Matt. 12:28; Luke 11:20; Rom. 9:31; 2 Cor. 10:14; Phil. 3:16; 1 Thess. 2:16). Only here in 4:15 does the verb connote a meaning of “precede.” 105. For more on these views see Best, 195; Malherbe, 261, 272–273, 284; Wanamaker, 172; Klijn, 69–71; Plevnik, “Taking Up,” 274–283. 106. The prw/ton-e;peita construction is temporal in nature. It emphasizes that the dead Christians will rise first, share in the parousia, and inherit eschatological salvation just like the living. 107. Green, 223. 108. Pahl, 151. 109. The verb katabai,nw is also used several times in the Jewish scriptures for the descent of the Lord (Exod. 19:11, 18, 20; 34:5; Num. 11:25; 12:5; Isa. 31:4; Mic. 1:3 [cf. 1 En. 25:3] and in the New Testament for the descent of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2, 10). 110. See William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker and Walter Bauer, “a`rpa,zw,” in A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 134, and Werner Foerster, s.v. “a`rpa,zw,” in the The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1964), 1:472, for a further discussion of the different meanings. 111. John 6:15; 10:28, 29; Acts 23:10; Jude 23. Outside the Jewish scriptures and the New Testament, see 1 Clem. 34:11 (God snatches sinful man away for judgment); Barn. 10:4; Herm. Vis. II.i.4. 112. Acts 8:39; 2 Cor. 12:2, 4; Rev. 12:5. 113. While there are approximately forty occurrences of a`rpa,zw in the LXX, none of them are found in contexts where someone is “carried away” to heaven. The word a`rpa,zw does appear in this sense in the apocalyptic literature (e.g., Apoc. Mos. 37 [cf. 1 En. 39:3; 52:1; 4 Ezra 6:26; 14:9]; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 5:7). 114. See Plevnik, “Taking Up,” 274–283 (cf. Lohfink, 37–49) for further discussion of the assumption motif of the parousia and a`rpa,zw. 115. Paul only indicates that they will be with the Lord. 116. Nicholl, From Hope to Despair, 44. 117. Joseph Plevnik, “1 Thessalonians 4:17: The Bringing in of the Lord or the Bringing in of the Faithful?” Biblica 80 (1999): 537–546, 544–546. See also Wanamaker, 175. 118. Luckensmeyer, 259.

170

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

1 19. Exod. 16:10; 19:16–19; Num. 11:25. 120. Matt. 24:30, 64 [cf. Dan. 7:13–14]; Mark 13:26; Rev. 1:7; 14:14–16. 121. For coming with clouds, see Exod. 19:9, 13, 16; 34:4; Num. 12:5; Isa. 19:1; Jer. 4:13; Dan. 7:13; Joel 2:2; Zeph. 1:15. For the protection with clouds, see Exod. 13:21; 40:36, 37, 38; Num. 9:18; Jos. 24:7; Ps. 104:39; Ezek. 30:18; 38:9. For covering of his glory, see Exod. 24:15, 16, 18; 33:9, 10; 40:34, 35; Lev. 16:2; Ps. 17:12; Isa. 4:5; Lam. 3:44; Ezek. 1:28. For his dwelling place, see Sir. 24:4; 35:16, 17; Zech. 2:17; Isa. 14:14; 18:4; Ezek. 31:10. See also Gregory K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 192, 396, 609, 628. 122. The avh,r was seen as the realm of the “prince of this world” (Eph. 2:2; cf. Bruce, 103; Frame 176; Gundry 176 n.37). 123. See Houwelingen, 323–324; Gillman, 278; Green, 226. See N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God: Volume 4 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013), 1492–1494, on the theme of reconciliation or joining of heaven and earth. 124. Erik Peterson, “Die Einholung des Kyrios,” Zeitschrif für systematische Theologie 7 (1930): 682–702, 698. 125. Jacques Dupont, SUN CRISTWI: L’union avec le Christ suivant Saint Paul (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1952), 64–73. 126. Rigaux, Saint Paul: Les Épitres aux Thessaloniciens, 234, 547–548. Béda Rigaux opens the possibility that Paul was influenced by both the Sinai theophany imagery and the GrecoRoman triumphal entry imagery. See also N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (New York: Harper One, 2008), 132–133. 127. See chart on 70–71. 128. Paul uses Roman triumph imagery also in 2 Cor. 2:14 and Col. 2:15. 129. Other texts in the LXX and Second Temple literature have similar connotations with the Roman triumph motif (cf. Gen. 14:17; 3 Macc. 3:17–20; see also chapter two of this monograph). 130. It is also possible that the entire community at Thessalonica began to worry about their own eschatological salvation for they too would one day die.

Conclusion 1. The term “Hellenistic” here and below will be employed only when this nomenclature is used by a particular author. Instead, “imperial” or “Greco-Roman” is preferred.

bibliography

Adams, Edward. “The ‘Coming of God’ Tradition and Its Influence on New Testament Parousia Texts.” In Biblical Traditions in Transmission, ed. Michael A. Knibb, 1–19. Boston: Brill, 2006. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981. Ascough, Richard. S. “The Thessalonian Christian Community as a Professional Voluntary Association.” Journal of Biblical Literature 119.2 (2000): 311–328. ———. Paul’s Macedonian Associations: The Social Context of Philippians and 1 Thessalonians. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, ed. Jörg Frey, Martin Hengel, Otfried Hofius 2.161. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. ———. “A Question of Death: Paul’s Community-Building Language in 1Thessalonians 4:13– 18.” Journal of Biblical Literature 123 (2004): 509–530. Aune, David E. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. ———. “The Apocalypse of John and the Problem of Genre.” In Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre Social Setting. Semeia 36, ed. Adela Yarbro Collins, 65–96. Decatur, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1986. ———. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Library of Early Christianity 8, ed. Wayne A. Meeks. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1987. Aus, Roger David. Imagery of Triumph and Rebellion in 2 Corinthians 2:14–17 and Elsewhere in the Epistle: An Example of the Combination of Greco-Roman and Judaic Traditions in the Apostle Paul. Studies in Judaism, ed. Jacob Neusner and Bard College. New York: University Press of America, 2005.

172

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

Baird, William. “Pauline Eschatology in Hermeneutical Perspective.” New Testament Studies 7.3 (1971): 314–327. Balz, Horst Robert and Gerhard Schneider, eds. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Barclay, John M. G. “Thessalonica and Corinth: Social Contrasts in Pauline Christianity.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 47 (1992): 47–74. ———. “Conflict in Thessalonica.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55 (1993): 512–530. ———. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE). Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1996. ———. “Why the Roman Empire Was Insignificant to Paul.” In Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 275, 363–388. Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Barr, James. Semantics of Biblical Language. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2004, 1961. Bassler, Jouette M. Navigating Paul: An Introduction to Key Theological Concepts. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007. Baur, Ferdinand C. “Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des petrinischen und paulinischen Christenthums in der ältesten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom.” Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie 4 (1831): 61–206. Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000. Baumgarten, Jörg. Paulus und die Apokalyptik: Die Auslegung apoclyptischer Uberlieferungen in den echten Paulusbriefen. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Neuen Testament 44, ed. Günther Bornkamm and Gerhard von Rad. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1975. Baumgarten, Joseph M. “The Sabbath Trumpets in 4Q493M’.” Revue de Qumran 12.4 (1987): 555–559. Beale, Gregory K. 1–2 Thessalonians. IVP New Testament Commentary Series, ed. Grant R. Osborne. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003. ———. A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011. Beard, Mary. The Roman Triumph. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007. Becker, Jürgen. “Erwägungen zur apokalyptischen Tradition in der paulinische Theologie.” Evangelische Theologie 30 (1970): 593–609. ———. Auferstehung der Toten im Urchristentum. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 82, ed. Herbert Haag, Rudolf Kilian, and Wilhelm Pesch. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1976. Beker, J. Christiaan. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980. ———. Paul’s Apocalyptic Gospel: The Coming Triumph of God. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982. ———. “The Method of Recasting Pauline Theology: The Coherence-Contingency Scheme As Interpretive Model.” In Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Series, ed. K. H. Richards, 596–602. Society of Biblical Literature 1986 Seminar Papers 25, ed. K. H. Richards. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986.

bibliography

173

———. “Paul the Theologian: Major Motifs in Pauline Theology.” Interpretation 43.4 (1989): 352–365. ———. The Triumph of God: The Essence of Paul’s Thought. Translated by Loren T. Stuckenbruck. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. Best, Ernest. The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. London: A and C Black, 1972. Black, Joel Duncan. The Parousia: Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide (1 Thess. 4:13–5:11). Th.M. Thesis, Wycliffe College and the University of Toronto, 2004. Bloch, Joshua. On the Apocalyptic in Judaism. The Jewish Quarterly Review Monograph Series 2, ed. Abraham A Neuman and Solomon Zeitlin. Philadelphia: The Jewish Quarterly Review, 1952. Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew. The New American Commentary, ed. David S. Dockery. vol. 22. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1992. Bockmuehl, Markus N. A. “‘The Trumpet Shall Sound’: Shofar Symbolism and Its Reception in Early Christianity.” In Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel, ed. W. Horbury, 199–255. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 48, ed. Mark Goodacre. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of Old Testament Press, 1991. Bousset, Wilhelm. Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Judentum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1892. ———. Kyrios Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus. Translated by John E. Steely. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1970. Branick, Vincent P. “Apocalyptic Paul.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47.4 (1985): 664–675. Brocke, Christoph vom. Thessaloniki—Stadt des Kassander und Gemeinde des Paulus: Eine frühe christliche Gemeinde in ihrer heidnischen Umwelt. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 125. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Broer, I. s.v. “avggeloj.” In The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Horst Robert Balz and Gerhard Schneider. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Brown, Alexandra R. The Cross and Human Transformation: Paul’s Apocalyptic Word in 1 Corinthians. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995. ———. “Paul and the Parousia.” In The Return of Jesus in Early Christianity, ed. John T. Carroll with Alexandra R. Brown, Claudia J. Setzer, and Jeffrey S. Siker, 47–76. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000. Brown, Colin. “The Parousia and Eschatology in the New Testament.” In New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown 2: 901–935. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 1978. Bruce, Frederick F. 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Ralph Martin, vol. 45. Dallas: Word Books, 1982. Bryan, Christopher. Render to Caesar: Jesus, the Early Church, and the Roman Superpower. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Buck, C. H. and G. Taylor. Saint Paul: A Study of the Development of His Thought. New York: Scribner, 1969. Bultmann, Rudolf K. Theology of the New Testament. Translated by Kendrick Grobel, 2 vols. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951, 1955.

174

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

———. “Ist die Apokalyptik die Mutter der christlichen Theologie?” In Apophoreta: Festschrift für Ernst Haenchen, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 30, ed. W. Eltester, 64–69. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1964. ———. “New Testament and Mythology (1941).” New Testament & Mythology and Other Basic Writings. Translated by Schubert M. Ogden. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. Burkeen, W. Howard. “The Parousia of Christ in the Thessalonian Correspondence.” PhD diss., University of Aberdeen, 1979. Caird, George B. The Language and Imagery of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Campbell, Douglas A. The Quest for Paul’s Gospel: A Suggested Strategy. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 274, ed. Mark Goodacre. New York: T. & T. Clark International, 2005. ———. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Cerfaux, Lucien. Christ in the Theology of St. Paul. Translated by Geoffrey Webb and Adrian Walker. New York: Herder and Herder, 1959. ———. The Christian in the Theology of St. Paul. Translated by Liliam Soiron. London: G. Chapman, 1967. Chapa, J. “Consolatory Patterns? 1 Thess. 4: 13–18; 5:11.” In The Thessalonian Correspondence, ed. Raymond F. Collins, 220–228. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium. Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1990. Charles, Robert Henry. Religious Development Between the Old and the New Testaments. New York: Henry Holt, 1914. ———. Eschatology: A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, Judaism and Christianity. New York: Schocken Books, 1963. Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985. ———. “Ancient Apocalyptic Thought and the New Testament.” Biblical Theology: Problems and Perspectives. In Honor of J. Christiaan Beker, eds. Steven J. Kraftchick, Charles D. Myers, Jr., and Ben C. Ollenburger, 222–232. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995. Cohen, Shaye J. D. Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. ———. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, 3rd ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014 [1987]. Colijn, Brenda B. Images of Salvation in the New Testament. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2010. Collins, Adela Yarbro. Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Christian Apocalypticism. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996. Collins, Adela Yarbro, ed. Early Christian Apocalypticism: Genre Social Setting. Semeia 36. Decatur, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1986. Collins, John Joseph. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

bibliography

175

———. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora, 2nd ed. New York: Crossroad, 2000, [1983]. ———. “Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Ancient World.” In Oxford Handbook of Eschatology, ed. Jerry L. Wallis, 40–55. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Collins, John Joseph, ed. Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre. Semeia 14. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1979. Collins, Raymond F. “Tradition, Redaction, and Exhortation in 1 Th 4,13–5,11.” In Apocalypse johannique et l’apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament, 325–343. Gembloux, Belguim: Éditions J Duculot, 1980. ———. Studies on the First Letter to the Thessalonians. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 66. Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1984. ———. The Thessalonian Correspondence. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium. Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1990. ———. The Birth of the New Testament: The Origin and Development of the First Christian Generation. New York: Crossroad, 1993. ———. The Power of Images in Paul. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2008. ———. “From Parousi,a to Epifa,neia: The Transformation of a Pauline Motif.” In Unity and Diversity in the Gospels and Paul: Essays in Honor of Frank J. Matera, 273–299, ed. Christopher W. Skinner and Kelly R. Iverson. Society of Biblical Literature. Early Christianity and Its Literature 7, ed. Gail R. O’Day. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Cosby, Michael R. “Hellenistic Formal Receptions and Paul’s Use of APANTHSIS in 1 Thessalonians 4:17.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 4 (1994): 15–34. Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973. ———. The Divine Warrior in Early Israel. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press, 2006 [1973]. Crossan, John Dominic, and Jonathan L. Reed. In Search of Paul: How Jesus’ Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 2004. Cullmann, Oscar. Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History. Translated by Floyd V. Filson. London: S. C. M. Press, 1962. ———. Salvation in History. Translated by Sidney G Sowers. London: SCM Press, 1967. Dahl, Nils A. “Eschatology and History in Light of the Qumran Texts.” In The Crucified Messiah and Other Essays, 129–145. Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1977. Davies, Philip R. 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran: Its Structure and History. Biblica et Orientalia 32. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1977. Davies, William D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology, 4th ed. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980 [1948]. ———. Christian Origins and Judaism. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962. Deissmann, Adolf. Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World. Translated by Lionel R. M. Strachan. New York: George H. Doran, 1927. Deissner, Kurt. Auferstehungshoffnung und Pneumagedanke bei Paulus. Leipzig: G. Pätz’sche Buchdruckerei Lippert and Co., 1912.

176

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

Delobel, Joel. “The Fate of the Dead According to 1 Thess. 4 and 1 Cor 15.” In The Thessalonian Correspondence, ed. Raymond F. Collins, 340–347. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium. Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1990. Denney, James. The Death of Christ: Its Place and Interpretation in the New Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1902. de Boer, Martinus C. The Defeat of Death: Apocalyptic Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 22, ed. David Hill. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988. ———. “Paul and Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology.” In Apocalyptic and the New Testament:Essays in Honor of J. Louis Martyn, ed. Joel Marcus and Marion L. Soards, 169–190. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 24, ed. David Hill. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1989. ———. “Paul and Apocalyptic Eschatology.” In The Continuum History of Apocalypticism, ed. Bernard McGinn, John J. Collins, and Stephen Stein, 166–194. New York: Continuum International, 2003. ———. Galatians: A Commentary. The New Testament Library, ed. C. Clifton Black, M. Eugene Boring, and John T. Carroll. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011. de Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. New York: McGraw-Hill,1961. de Vos, Craig Steven. Church and Community Conflicts: The Relationships of the Thessalonian, Corinthian, and Philippian Churches with Their Wider Civic Communities. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 168, ed. Mark Allan Powell. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Dodd, Charles H. “The Mind of Paul: I.” (1933). In New Testament Studies. New York: Scribner, 1953. ———. “The Mind of Paul: II.” (1934). In New Testament Studies. New York: Scribner, 1953. ———. The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments: Three Lectures with An Appendix on Eschatology and History. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980. Donfried, Karl P. “The Theology of 1 Thessalonians.” In The Theology of the Shorter Pauline Letters, K. P. Donfried and I. H. Marshall, 1–79. New Testament Theology, ed. James D. G. Dunn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. ———.“The Imperial Cults and Political Conflict in 1 Thessalonians.” In Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Eschatology, ed. Richard A. Horsley, 215–223. Harrisburg: Trinity, 1997. ———. “The Cults of Thessalonica and the Thessalonian Correspondence.” In Paul, Thessalonica, and Early Christianity, 21–48. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. ———. “1 Thessalonians, Acts and the Early Paul.” In Paul, Thessalonica, and Early Christianity, 69–98. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. ———. “The Theology of 1 Thessalonians as a Reflection of Its Purpose.” In Paul, Thessalonica, and Early Christianity, 119–138. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Donfried, Karl P. and J. Beutler, eds. The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Duff, Nancy J. “The Significance of Pauline Apocalyptic for Theological Ethics.” In Apocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in Honor of J. Louis Martyn, ed. Joel Marcus and Marion L. Soards, 279–296. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement

bibliography

177

Series 24, ed. David Hill. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1989. Duff, Paul Brooks. “The March of the Divine Warrior and the Advent of the Greco-Roman King: Mark’s Account of Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem.” Journal of Biblical Literature 111.1 (1992): 55–71. Dunn, James D. G. Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997 [1975]. ———. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Dupont, Jacques. SUN CRISTWI: L’union avec le Christ suivant Saint Paul. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1952. Edson, Charles. “Cults of Thessalonica (Macedonia III).” Harvard Theological Review 41 (1948): 153–204. Ellingworth, Paul. “Which Way Are We Going? A Verb of Movement, Especially in 1 Thess 4:14b.” The Bible Translator 25 (1974): 426–431. Elliott, Neil. Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle. The Bible and Liberation Series, ed. Norman K. Gottwald and Richard A. Horsley. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1994. ———. “Paul and the Politics of Empire: Problems and Prospects.” In Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation, ed. R. A. Horsley, 17–39. Harrisburg: Trinity, 2000. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels, ed. Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. Evans, Craig A. “Ascending and Descending with a Shout: Psalm 47:6 and 1 Thessalonians 4:16.” In Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, ed. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders, 238–253. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplemental Series 83, ed. Mark Goodacre. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Fee, Gordon D. Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007. ———. The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians. New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Fison, Joseph Edward. The Christian Hope: The Presence and the Parousia. London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1954. Frame, James E. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul to Thessalonians. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912. Friedrich, Gerhard. s.v. “sa,lpigx.” In The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964. Furnish, Victor Paul. 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2007. Gager, John G. “Functional Diversity in Paul’s Use of End-Time Language.” Journal of Biblical Literature 89 (1970): 325–337. ———. Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity. Prentice-Hall Studies in Religion Series 2. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1975.

178

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

Garrow, Alan. “The Eschatological Tradition Behind 1 Thessalonians: Didache 16.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32.2 (2009): 191–215. Gaventa, Beverly R. First and Second Thessalonians. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, eds. James Luther Mays and Paul J. Achtemeier. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1998. ———. Our Mother Saint Paul. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007. Giblin, Charles H. In Hope of God’s Glory: Pauline Theological Perspectives. New York: Herder and Herder, 1970. Gillman, John. “Signals of Transformation in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47 (1985): 263–281. Glasson, T. Francis. The Second Advent: The Origin of the New Testament Doctrine. London: Epworth, 1945. ———. “What is Apocalyptic?” New Testament Studies 27 (1980): 98–105. ———. “Theophany and Parousia.” New Testament Studies 34 (1988): 259–270. Gowan, Donald E. Theology in Exodus: Biblical Theology in the Form of a Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994. Green, Gene L. The Letters to the Thessalonians. Pillar New Testament Commentary, ed. D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Gruen, Erich S. Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002. Gundry, Robert. “The Hellenization of Dominical Tradition and Christianization of Jewish Tradition in the Eschatology of 1–2 Thessalonians.” New Testament Studies 33 (1987): 161–178. ———. “Brief Note on ‘Hellenistic Formal Receptions and Paul’s Use of APANTHSIS in 1 Thessalonians 4:17’.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 6 (1996): 39–41. Guy, Harold A. The New Testament Doctrine of the “Last Things”: A Study of Eschatology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1948. Hafemann, Scott J. Suffering and the Spirit: An Exegetical Study of 2 Cor. 2:14–3:3 Within the Context of the Corinthian Correspondence. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 19, ed. Martin Hengel and Otfried Hofius Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. Hallo, William W., and J. J. A. van Dijk, The Exaltation of Inanna, Yale Near Eastern Researches 3. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968. Hamilton, Neill Quinn. The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in Paul. Scottish Journal of Theology Occasional Papers 6. London: Oliver and Boyd, 1957. Hanson, Paul D. The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Harding, Mark and Alanna Nobbs, eds. All Things to All Cultures: Paul among Jews, Greeks, and Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Harnisch, Wolfgang. Eschatologische Existenz: Ein exegetischer Beitrag zum Sachanliegen von 1 Thessalonicher 4:13–5:11. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 110, ed. Ernst Käsemann. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1973. Harrison, James R. “Paul and the Imperial Gospel at Thessaloniki.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25.1 (2002): 71–96.

bibliography

179

———. Paul and the Imperial Authorities at Thessalonica and Rome: A Study in the Conflict of Ideology. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 273, ed. Jörg Frey. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Hartman, Lars. Prophecy Interpreted: The Formation of Some Jewish Apocalyptic Texts and of the Eschatological Discourse Mark 13 Par. Translated by Neil Tomkinson and Jean Gray. Coniectanea Biblica New Testament Series 1. Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup, 1966. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. ———. “‘The Righteous One’ as Eschatological Deliverer: A Case Study in Paul’s Apocalyptic Hermeneutics.” In Apocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in Honor of J. Louis Martyn, ed. Joel Marcus and Marion L. Soards. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 24, ed. David Hill, 191–216. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1989. ———. “Apocalyptic Poiēsis in Galatians: Paternity, Passion, and Participation.” In Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter, eds. Mark W. Elliott, Scott J. Hafemann, N. T. Wright, and John Frederick, 200–219. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014. Heil, John P. “Those Now ‘Asleep’ (Not Dead) Must Be ‘Awakened’ for the Day of the Lord in 1 Thessalonians 5:9–10.” New Testament Studies 46 (2000): 464–471. Hellholm, David. “The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John.” In Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 21, ed. Kent H. Richards, 157–198. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982. Hemberg, Bengt. Die Kabiren. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksells, 1950. Hendrix, Holland. “Thessalonicans Honor Romans.” Th.D. Thesis, Harvard Divinity School, 1984. ———. “Beyond ‘Imperial Cult’ and ‘Cults of Magistrates.’” In Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Series, ed. K. H. Richards, 301–308. Society of Biblical Literature 1986 Seminar Papers 25, ed. K. H. Richards. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. ———. “Archaeology and Eschatology at Thessalonica.” In Future of Early Christianity, ed. Birger A. Pearson and A. Thomas Kraabel, 107–118. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. ———. “Thessalonica.” In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman, vol. 6, 523– 527. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Hengel, Martin. The “Hellenization” of Judaea in the First Century After Christ. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989. ———. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During The Early Hellenistic Period. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1991 [1974]. ———. The Pre-Christian Paul. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991. Henneken, Bartholomäus. Verkündigung und Prophetie im Ersten Thessalonicherbrief: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie des Wortes Gottes. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 29, ed. Herbert Haag, Rudolf Kilian, and Wilhelm Pesch. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969. Herzog, Frederick, ed. The Future of Hope: Theology as Eschatology. New York: Herder and Herder, 1970.

180

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

Hester, James D. “Apocalyptic Discourse in 1 Thessalonians.” In The Intertexture of Apocalyptic Discourse in the New Testament, ed. Duane F. Watson, 137–163. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 14, ed. Christopher R. Matthews. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002. Hilgenfeld, Adolf. Die jüdische Apokalyptik in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung: Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte des Christentums. Jena: Friedrich Mauke, 1854. Hill, Judith L. “Establishing the Church in Thessalonica.” Ph.D. Thesis, Duke University, 1990. Hoffmann, Paul. Die Toten in Christus: Eine Religionsgeschichtliche und Exegetische Untersuchung zur Paulinischen Eschatologie. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen 2, ed. Max Meinertz. Munster: Aschendorf, 1966. Holleman, Joost. Resurrection and Parousia: A Traditio-Historical Study of Paul’s Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 84, ed. C. K. Barrett. New York: E. J. Brill, 1996. Holman, Charles L. Till Jesus Comes: Origins of Christian Apocalyptic Expectation. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996. Holtz, Traugott. “Traditionen im 1 Thessalonicherbrief.” In Die Mitte des Neuen Testaments, ed. Ulrich Luz and Hans Weder, 55–78. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1983. ———. Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher. Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentarzum Neuen Testament 13, ed. Josef Blank, Rudolf Schnackenburg, Eduard Schweizer, and Ulrich Wilckens. Zurich: Benziger, 1986. Horsley, Richard A., ed. Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997. ———. Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000. ———. Paul and the Roman Imperial Order. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2004. Houwelingen, P. H. R. van. “The Great Reunion: the Meaning and Significance of the ‘Word of the Lord’ in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18.” Calvin Theological Journal 42.2 (2007): 308–324. Hunter, Archibald M. Interpreting Paul’s Gospel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954. Hyldahl, Niels. “Auferstehung Christi, Auferstehung der Toten (1 Thess. 4:13–18).” In Paulinische Literatur und Theologie, 119–135. Århus: Forlaget Aros, 1980. Jeremias, Joachim. Unknown Sayings of Jesus. New York: Macmillan, 1957. Jeremias, Jörg. Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten and Neuen Testament 10, ed. Günther Bornkamm and Gerhard von Rad. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965. Jewett, Robert. The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. Johanson, Bruce C. To All the Brethren: A Text-Linguistic and Rhetorical Approach to 1 Thessalonians. Coniectanea Biblica New Testament Series 16. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International, 1987. Judge, Edwin A. “The Decrees of Caesar at Thessalonica.” Reformed Theological Review 30 (1971): 1–7. Kabisch, Richard. Die Eschatologie des Paulus in ihren Zusammenhängen mit dem Gesamtbegriff des Paulinismus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1893.

bibliography

181

Käsemann, Ernst. “The Beginnings of Christian Theology.” In New Testament Questions of Today. Translated by W. J. Montague. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969. ———. “On the Subject of Primitive Christian Apocalyptic.” In New Testament Questions of Today. Translated by W. J. Montague. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969. ———. Perspectives on Paul. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971. Keck, Leander E. “Paul and Apocalyptic Theology.” Interpretation 38 (1984): 229–241. Kee, Howard Clark. “The Terminology of Mark’s Exorcism Stories.” New Testament Studies 14 (1967–1968): 223–246. Kennedy, Henry Angus Alexander. St. Paul’s Conceptions of the Last Things. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1904. Khiok-Khng, Yeo. “A Political Reading of Paul’s Eschatology in I and II Thessalonians.” Asia Journal of Theology 12 (1998): 77–88. Kim, Seyoon. “The Jesus Tradition in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11.” New Testament Studies 48 (2002): 225–242. ———. Christ and Caesar: The Gospel and the Roman Empire in the Writings of Paul and Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Kittel, Gerhard, ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964. Klijn, Albertus F. J. “1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 and Its Background in Apocalyptic Literature.” In Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C. K. Barrett, ed. M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson, 67–73. London: SPCK, 1982. Knox, Wilfred L. St. Paul and the Church of the Gentiles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939. Koch, Klaus. The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic: A Polemical Work on a Neglected Area of Biblical Studies and Its Damaging Effects on Theology and Philosophy. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Studies in Biblical Theology 22.2, ed. James Barr. Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1970. Koester, Helmut. “From Paul’s Eschatology to the Apocalyptic Schemata of 2 Thessalonians.” In The Thessalonian Correspondence, ed. Raymond F. Collins, 441–458. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium. Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1990. ———. “Imperial Ideology and Paul’s Eschatology in 1 Thessalonians.” In Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Eschatology, ed. R. A. Horsley, 158–166. Harrisburg: Trinity, 1997. ———. “First Thessalonians: An Experiment in Christian Writing.” In Paul & His World: Interpreting the New Testament in Its Context, ed. Helmut Koester, 15–23. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. ———. “Archaeology and Paul in Thessalonike.” In Paul & His World: Interpreting the New Testament in Its Context, ed. Helmut Koester, 38–54. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. Kreitzer, Larry J. Jesus and God in Paul’s Eschatology. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 19, ed. Mark Goodacre. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1987. ———. Striking New Images: Roman Imperial Coinage and the New Testament World. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 134, ed. Stanley E. Porter. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.

182

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

Krentz, Edgar. “Roman Hellenism and Paul’s Gospel.” The Bible Today 26.6 (1988): 328–337. Kuck, David W. Judgment and Community Conflict: Paul’s Use of Apocalyptic Judgment Language in 1 Corinthians 3:5–4:5. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 66, ed. C. K. Barrett. New York: E. J. Brill, 1992. Kuntz, J. Kenneth. The Self-Revelation of God. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1967. Lampe, Geoffrey W. H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. Laub, Franz. Eschatologische Verkündigung und Lebensgestaltung nach Paulus: Eine Untersuchung zum Wirken des Apostels beim Aufbau der Gemeinde in Thessalonike. Münchener Universitäts-Schriften Katholisch-Theologische Fakultät 10, ed. Otto Kuss. Regensburg, Germany: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1973. Légasse, Simon. Les Épîtres de Paul aux Thessaloniciens. Paris: Cerf, 1999. Levinskaya, Irina A. The Book of Acts in Its Diaspora Setting. The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting 5, ed. Bruce W. Winter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Liddell, Henry, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones, and Roderick McKenzie eds. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Lightfoot, Joseph Barber. Notes on the Epistles of Paul: 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians 1–7, Romans 1–7, Ephesians 1:1–14. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957. Lincoln, Andrew T. Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to His Eschatology. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 43, ed. Richard Bauckham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Lindblom, Johannes. “Theophanies in Holy Places in Hebrew Religion.” Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961): 91–106. Lohfink, Gerhard. Die Himmelfahrt Jesu: Untersuchungen zu den Himmelfahrts- und Erhöhunngstexten bei Lukas. Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 26. Munich: Kösel, 1971. Löhr, Gebhard. “1 Thess 4:15–17: Das ‘Herrenwort’.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 71.3–4 (1980): 269–273. Longenecker, Bruce W. The Triumph of Abraham’s God: The Transformation of Identity in Galatians. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998. ———. “Salvation History in Galatians and the Making of a Pauline Discourse.” Journal for the Study of Paul and his Letters 2.2 (2012): 65–87. Longenecker, Richard N. “The Nature of Paul’s Early Eschatology.” New Testament Studies 31 (1985): 85–95. ———. “Is There Development in Paul’s Resurrection Thought?” In Life in the Face of Death: the Resurrection Message of the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker, 171–202. McMaster New Testament Studies, ed. Richard N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Longman, Tremper III, and Daniel G. Reid. God Is a Warrior. Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology, ed. Willem VanGemeren and Tremper Longman III. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, vol. 1, 2nd ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996.

bibliography

183

Luckensmeyer, David. The Eschatology of First Thessalonians. Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 71, ed. Max Küchler, Peter Lampe, Gerd Theissen, and Jürgen Zangenberg. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2009. Lücke, Friedrich. Versuch einer vollständigen Einleitung in die Offenbarung des Johannes: oder Allgemeine Untersuchungen über die apokalyptische Litteratur überhaupt und die Apokalypse des Johannes insbesondere. Bonn: Weber, 1832. Lüdemann, Gerd. “The Hope of the Early Paul: From the Foundation-Preaching at Thessalonika to I Cor 15:51–57.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 7.3 (1980): 195–201. ———. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology. Translated by F. Stanley Jones Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. ———. The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1994. Lüdemann, Hermann. Die Anthropologie des Apostels Paulus und ihre Stellung innerhalb seiner Heilslehre: nach den vier Hauptbriefen. Kiel: Universitïats-Buchhandlung, 1872. Luke, Trevor S. “The Parousia of Paul at Iconium.” Religion & Theology 15 (2008): 225–251. Luz, Ulrich. Das Geschichtsverständnis des Paulus. Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie 49, ed. E. Wolf. Munich: Chr Kaiser, 1968. Luzarraga, Jesús. Las tradiciones de la nube en la Biblia y en el Judaismo primitivo. Analecta Biblica 54. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1973. Malherbe, Abraham J. Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral Care. Philadelphia, Fortress, 1987. ———. “Exhortation in 1 Thessalonians.” In Paul and the Popular Philosophers, 49–66. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989. ———. “Paul: Hellenistic Philosopher or Christian Pastor?” In Paul and the Popular Philosophers, 67–78. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989. ———. The Letters to the Thessalonians. Anchor Bible, ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman, vol. 32b. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Mann, Thomas W. Divine Presence and Guidance in Israelite Traditions. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977. Marshall, I. Howard. The Book of Acts: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, ed. Leon Morris. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. ———. 1 and 2 Thessalonians. New Century Bible Commentary, ed. Matthew Black. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Martin, D. Michael. 1, 2 Thessalonians. New American Commentary, ed. David S. Dockery, vol. 33. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1995. Martyn, J. Louis. “Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought.” Word & World 2.2 (1982): 194–198. ———. “Apocalyptic Antinomies in the Letter to the Galatians.” New Testament Studies 31 (1985): 410–424. ———. “Events in Galatia: Modified Covenant Nomism versus God’s Invasion of the Cosmos in the Singular Gospel: A Response to J. D. G. Dunn and B. R. Gaventa.” In Pauline Theology, vol. 1: Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon, ed. J. M. Bassler, 160–179. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.

184

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

———. “Epistemology at the Turn of the Ages.” In Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul, 89–110. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1997. ———. Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1997. ———. Galatians, Anchor Bible, ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman, vol. 33a. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997. Marxsen, Willi. “Auslegung von 1 Thess 4:13–18.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 66 (1969): 22–37. Mason, John Philip. “Paul’s Understanding of Resurrection in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18.” Ph.D. Dissertation. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1989. Mason, Steve. Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins: Methods and Categories. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2009. Maston, Jason. “The Nature of Salvation History in Galatians.” Journal for the Study of Paul and his Letters 2.2 (2012): 89–103. Mathews, Kenneth A. Genesis 1:1–11:26. The New American Commentary. Vol. 1A. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1996. ——— . Genesis 11:27–50:26. The New American Commentary. Vol. 1B. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2005. Matlock, R. Barry. Unveiling the Apocalyptic Paul: Paul’s Interpreters and the Rhetoric of Criticism, ed. Stanley E. Porter. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 127, ed. Richard Bauckham. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Mearns, C. L. “Early Eschatological Development in Paul: The Evidence of I and II Thessalonians.” New Testament Studies 27 (1981): 137–157. Meeks, Wayne A. “Social Functions of Apocalyptic Language in Pauline Christianity.” In Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East, ed. D. Hellholm, 687–705. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1983. ———. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983. ———. “Judaism, Hellenism, and the Birth of Christianity.” In Paul Beyond the Judaism/ Hellenism Divide, ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen, 17–27. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. Merklein, Helmut. “Der Theologe als Prophet: Zur Funktion prophetischen Redens im theologischen Diskurs des Paulus.” New Testament Studies 38 (1992): 402–429. Meyer, Ben F. “Did Paul’s View of the Resurrection of the Dead Undergo Development?” Theological Studies 47 (1986): 363–387. Michaels, J. Ramsey. “Everything that Rises Must Converge: Paul’s Word from the Lord.” In To Tell the Mystery: Essays on New Testament Eschatology in Honor of Robert H. Gundry, ed. T. F. Schmidt and M. Silva, 182–195. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplemental Series 100, ed. Mark Goodacre. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1994. Miller, Colin. “The Imperial Cult in the Pauline Cities of Asia Minor and Greece.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 72.2 (2010): 314–332. Milligan, George. Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians. New York: Macmillan, 1952.

bibliography

185

Minear, Paul Sevier. Christian Hope and the Second Coming. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954. Moltmann, Jürgen. Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian Eschatology. Translated by James W. Leitch. New York: Harper and Row, 1967. ———. The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. Montefiore, Claude G. Judaism and St. Paul: Two Essays. New York: E. P. Dutton & Company, 1915. Moore, Arthur L. The Parousia in the New Testament. Novum Testamentum Supplements 13, ed. C. K. Barrett. Leiden: Brill, 1966. ———. 1 and 2 Thessalonians. The Century Bible Series. Camden, NJ: Nelson, 1969. Morgan, William. The Religion and Theology of Paul. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1917. Morris, Leon. The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Moss, Candida R. and Joel S. Baden. “1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 in Rabbinic Perspective.” New Testament Studies 58 (2012): 199–212. Moule, Charles F. D. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. ———. The Origin of Christology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Moulton, James Hope. A Grammar of the New Testament Greek. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906. Mowinckel, Sigmund. He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism. Translated by G. W. Anderson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005 (1956). Myers, Charles D., Jr. “The Persistence of Apocalyptic Thought in New Testament Theology.” Biblical Theology: Problems and Perspectives. In Honor of J. Christiaan Beker, ed. Steven J. Kraftchick, Charles D. Myers, Jr., and Ben C. Ollenburger, 209–221. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995. Nebe, Gottfried. “Hoffnung” bei Paulus: Elpis und ihre Synonyme im Zusammenhang Der Eschatologie. Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 16, ed. Christoph Burchard, Gert Jeremias, Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, and Hartmut Stegemann. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1983. Nepper-Christensen, Poul. “Das verborgene Herrnwort: Eine Untersuchung über 1 Thess 4:13– 18.” Studia theologica 19 (1965): 136–154. Nicholl, Colin R. “A Study of 1 Thess. 4:15–17 with Special Attention to the ‘Logoj Kuriou.’” Th.M. Thesis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1996. ———. From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica: Situating 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 126, ed. Richard Bauckham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Nickelsburg, George W. E., and James C. VanderKam. 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 37–82. Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible, ed. Klaus Baltzer Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012. Niehaus, Jeffrey J. God at Sinai: Covenant and Theophany in the Bible and Ancient Near East. Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology, ed. Willem VanGemeren and Tremper Longman III. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

186

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

Oakes, Peter. “Re-mapping the Universe: Paul and the Emperor in 1 Thessalonians and Philippians.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27.3 (2005): 301–322. Oepke, Albrecht. s.v. “parousi,a.” In The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964. Osborne, Grant R. Revelation. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. ———. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Rev. ed. Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2006. Otto, Randall E. Coming in the Clouds: An Evangelical Case for the Invisibility of Christ at His Second Coming. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1994. ———.“The Meeting in the Air (1 Thess 4:17).” Horizons in Biblical Theology 19.2 (1997): 192–212. Paddison, Angus. Theological Hermeneutics and 1 Thessalonians. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 133, ed. John Court. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Pahl, Michael W. Discerning the ‘Word of the Lord’: The ‘Word of the Lord’ in 1 Thessalonians 4:15. Library of New Testament Studies 389, ed. Mark Goodacre. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2009. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Jesus-God and Man. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977. Pate, C. Marvin. The End of the Age Has Come: The Theology of Paul. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. Payne, Robert. The Roman Triumph. London: Robert Hale Ltd., 1962. Perkins, Pheme. “1 Thessalonians and Hellenistic Religious Practices.” In To Touch the Text: Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, ed. Maurya P. Horgan and Paul J. Kobelski, 325–334. New York: Crossroad, 1989. Peterson, Erik. “Die Einholung des Kyrios.” Zeitschrif für systematische Theologie 7 (1930): 682– 702. ———. s.v. “avpa,nthsij.” In The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964. Pfleiderer, Otto. Paulinism: A Contribution to the History of Primitive Christian Theology. Translated by Edward Peters. 2 Vols. London: Williams and Norgate, 1877. ———. Primitive Christianity: Its Writings and Teachings in Their Historical Connections. Translated by William Montgomery. 4 Vols. New York: Williams and Norgate, 1906. Pitts, Andrew W. “Unity and Diversity in Pauline Eschatology.” In Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman, ed. Stanley E. Porter, 65–91. Pauline Studies 5, ed. Stanley E. Porter. Lieden: Brill, 2008. Plevnik, Joseph. “The Parousia as Implication of Christ’s Resurrection.” In Word and Spirit: Essays in Honor of David Michael Stanley on His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Joseph Plevnik, 199– 277. Willowdale, ON: Regis College Press, 1975. ———. “The Taking Up of the Faithful and the Resurrection of the Dead in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 46.2 (1984): 274–283.

bibliography

187

———. “Pauline Presuppositions.” In The Thessalonian Correspondence, ed. Raymond F. Collins, 50–61. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium. Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1990. ———. Paul and the Parousia: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997. ———. “1 Thessalonians 4:17: The Bringing in of the Lord or the Bringing in of the Faithful?” Biblica 80.4 (1999): 537–546. ———. “The Destination of the Apostle and of the Faithful: Second Corinthians 4:13b-14 and First Thessalonians 4:14.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62 (2000): 83–95. Polak, Frank. “Theophany and Mediator: The Unfolding of a Theme in the Book of Exodus.” In Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction-Reception-Interpretation, ed. Marc Vervenne, 113–147. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 126. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. Price, Simon R. F. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Reitzenstein, Richard. Hellenistic Mystery-Religions: Their Basic Ideas and Significance. Translated by John E. Steely. Pittsburgh: PA, Pickwick Press, 1978. Richard, Earl J. “Early Pauline Thought: An Analysis of 1 Thessalonians.” In Pauline Theology, Volume 1: 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon, ed. J. M. Bassler, 39–52. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. ———. First and Second Thessalonians. Sacra Pagina 11, ed. Daniel J. Harrington. Minneapolis: Liturgical Press, 1995. Ricoeur, Paul. The Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneutics, ed. Don Ihde. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1974. ———. The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-Disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language. Translated by Robert Czerny, with Kathleen McLaughlin and John Costello. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977. Ridderbos, Herman. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Translated by John Richard De Witt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Riesner, Rainer. Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology. Translated by Doug Stott. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Rigaux, Béda. L’Antéchrist et l’opposition au Royaume messianique dans l’Ancien et le Nouveau Testament. Universitas Catholica Lovaniensis Dissertions II, 24, ed. J. Duculot. Gembloux: 1932. ———. Saint Paul: Les Épitres aux Thessaloniciens. Paris: Gabalda, 1956. ———. The Letters of St. Paul: Modern Studies. Translated by Stephen Yonick. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1968. Robinson, John Arthur Thomas. Jesus and His Coming. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979. Rowland, Christopher. The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity. New York: Crossroad, 1982.

188

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

Rowley, Harold Henry. The Relevance of Apocalyptic: A Study of Jewish and Christian Apocalypses from Daniel to the Revelation. Greenwood, SC: Attic Press, Inc., 1980 (reprint from the 1963 New and Revised Edition). Russell, David Syme. The Method & Message of Jewish Apocalyptic. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964. ———. Divine Disclosure: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. Sabatier, Auguste. The Apostle Paul: A Sketch of the Development of His Doctrine. Translated by A. M. Hellier. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1891. Sailhamer, John. The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition, and Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2009. Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977. Sandmel, Samuel. “Parallelomania.” Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962): 1–13. Savran, George W. Encountering the Divine: Theophany in Biblical Narrative. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 420, ed. Claudia V. Camp and Andrew Mein. New York: T. & T. Clark International, 2005. Schade, Hans-Heinrich. Apokalyptische Christologie bei Paulus: Studien zum Zusammenhang von Christologie und Eschatologie in den Paulusbriefen. Göttinger Theologische Arbeiten 18, ed. Georg Strecker. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1984. Schmidt, N. F. and Philip J. Nel. “Theophany as Type-Scene in the Hebrew Bible.” Journal for Semitics 11.2 (2002): 256–281. Schmithals, Walter and John E. Steely. Paul and the Gnostics. Nashville: Abingdon, 1972. Schnelle, Udo. Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology. Translated by M. Eugene Boring. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Schoeps, Hans J. Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History. Translated by Harold Knight. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961. Schwartz, Seth. Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede. Translated by William Montgomery. New York: Macmillan, 1910. ———. Paul and His Interpreters: A Critical History. Translated by William Montgomery. London: A. and C. Black, 1912. ———. The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. Translated by William Montgomery. New York: Macmillan, 1931. Scott, J. Julius, Jr. “Paul and Late-Jewish Eschatology-A Case Study, 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 and 2 Thessalonians 2:1–12.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 15.3 (1972): 133–143. Shires, Henry M. The Eschatology of Paul in the Light of Modern Scholarship. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966. Shogren, Gary S. 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Clinton E. Arnold. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012.

bibliography

189

Siber, Peter. Mit Christus Leben: Eine Studie zur paulinischen Auferstehungshoffnung. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testamentes 61, ed. Oscar Cullmann and H. J. Stoebe. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1971. Smith, Abraham. “‘Unmasking the Powers’: Toward a Postcolonial Analysis of 1 Thessalonians.” In Paul and the Roman Imperial Order, ed. Richard A. Horsley, 47–66. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2004. Soards, Marion L. The Apostle Paul: An Introduction to His Writings and Teaching. New York: Paulist Press, 1987. Sobanaraj, S. Diversity in Paul’s Eschatology: Paul’s View on the Parousia and Bodily Resurrection. Delhi: Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2007. Stacey, W. David. The Pauline View of Man: In Relation to Its Judaic and Hellenistic Background. London: Macmillan, 1956. Steele, E. S. “The Use of Jewish Scriptures in 1 Thessalonians.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 14 (1984): 12–17. Still, Todd D. “Eschatology in the Thessalonian Letters.” Review and Expositor 96 (1999): 195–209. ———. Conflict at Thessalonica: A Pauline Church and Its Neighbors. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 183, ed. Mark Goodacre. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. ———. “‘Once upon a Time’: Galatians as an Apocalyptic Story.” Journal for the Study of Paul and his Letters 2.2 (2012): 133–141. Strelan, Rick. Strange Acts: Studies in the Cultural World of the Acts of the Apostles. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 126, ed. James D. G. Dunn and Carl R. Holladay. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. Sturm, Richard E. “Defining the Word ‘Apocalyptic’: A Problem in Biblical Criticism.” In Apocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in Honor of J. Louis Martyn, ed. Joel Marcus and Marion L. Soards, 17–48. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 24, ed. David Hill. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1989. Teichmann, Ernst. Die paulinischen Vorstellungen von Auferstehung und Gericht und ihre Beziehung zur jüdischen Apokalyptik. Freiburg im Breisgau: Paul Siebeck, 1896. Tellbe, Mikael. Paul Between Synagogue and State: Christians, Jews and Civic Authorities in 1 Thessalonians, Romans, and Philippians. Coniectanea Biblica New Testament Series 34, ed. Birger Olsson and Kari Syreeni. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International, 2001. Thiselton, Anthony C. 1 & 2 Thessalonians Through the Centuries. Blackwell Bible Commentaries, ed. John Sawyer, Christopher Rowland, Judith Kovacs, and David M. Gunn. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. ———. Life After Death: A New Approach to the Last Things. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Thomas, Robert L. 1 and 2 Thessalonians. In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 11, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978. Thompson, Michael B. Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12:1– 15:13. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1991. Trebilco, Paul R. Jewish Communities in Asia Minor. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 69, ed. Graham N. Stanton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

190

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

Tuckett, Christopher M. “Synoptic Traditions in 1 Thessalonians?” In The Thessalonian Correspondence, ed. Raymond F. Collins, 160–182. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium. Louvain, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1990. Turner, Seth. “The Interim, Earthly Messianic Kingdom in Paul.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25.3 (2003): 323–342. Vacalopoulos, Apostolos E. History of Thessaloniki. Translated by T. F. Carney. Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1963. Vena, Osvaldo D. The Parousia and Its Rereadings: The Development of the Eschatological Consciousness in the Writings of the New Testament. Studies in Biblical Literature 27, ed. Hemchand Gossai. New York: Peter Lang, 2001. Vermes, Geza. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. New York: Penguin Books, 1997. Versnel, Hendrik S. Triumphus: An Inquiry Into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970. Vielhauer, Philipp and Georg Strecker. “Apocalypses and Related Subjects.” In Edgar Hennecke. New Testament Apocrypha. Rev. ed. Vol. 2, ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher, 542–568. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1992. Volz, Paul Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter: Nach den Quellen der rabbinischen, apokalyptischen und apokryphen Literatur. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1934. von Rad, Gerhard. Holy War in Ancient Israel. Translated and edited by Marva J. Dawn from the third edition of Der Heilige Krieg im alten Israel, 1958. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. ———. Old Testament Theology, Volume 1: The Theology of Israel’s Historical Traditions. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962. ———. Old Testament Theology, Volume 2: The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. New York: Harper and Row, 1965. Vos, Geerhardus. The Pauline Eschatology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Walvoord, John F. Blessed Hope and the Tribulation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976. Wanamaker, Charles A. “Apocalypticism at Thessalonica.” Neotestamentica: Journal of the New Testament Society of South Africa 21 (1987): 1–10. ———. The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary, ed. I. Howard Marshall. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. ———. “Apocalyptic Discourse, Paraenesis and Identity Maintenance in 1 Thessalonians.” Neotestamentica: Journal of the New Testament Society of South Africa 36 (2002): 131–145. Watson, Duane F. “Paul’s Appropriation of Apocalyptic Discourse: The Rhetorical Strategy of 1 Thessalonians.” In Vision and Persuasion, ed. Greg Carey and L. Gregory Bloomquist, 61–80. St. Louis: Chalice Press, 1999. Weima, Jeffrey A. D. 1–2 Thessalonians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, eds. Robert W. Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014. Weiss, Johannes. Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God. Translated, edited, and introduced by Richard Hyde Hiers and David Larrimore Holland. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.

bibliography

191

Wengst, Klaus. Pax Romana and the Peace of Jesus Christ. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987. Wenham, David. Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Westermann, Claus. Praise and Lament in the Psalms. Translated by Keith R. Crim and Richard N. Soulen. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981. ———. Elements of Old Testament Theology. Translated by Douglas W. Stott. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982. Wilcke, Hans-Alwin. Das Problem eines messianischen Zwischenreichs bei Paulus. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 51, ed. Walther Eichrodt and Oscar Cullmann. Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1967. Williams, David J. Paul’s Metaphors: Their Context and Character. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999. Witherington, Ben. Jesus, Paul and the End of the World: A Comparative Study in New Testament Eschatology. Exeter, England: Paternoster Press, 1992. ———. The Problem with Evangelical Theology: Testing the Exegetical Foundations of Calvinism, Dispensationalism, and Wesleyanism. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2005. ———. 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God: Volume 1. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. ———. “Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire.” In Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation, ed. R. A. Horsley, 160–183. Harrisburg: Trinity, 2000. ———. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God: Volume 3. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. ———. Paul in Fresh Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. ———. Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. New York: Harper One, 2008. ———. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God: Volume 4. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013. Yadin, Yigael. The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness. Translated by Batya and Chaim Rabin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962. Yoder Neufeld, Thomas R. ‘Put on the Armour of God’: The Divine Warrior from Isaiah to Ephesians. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplemental Series 140, ed. Stanley E. Porter. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.

index

A Adams, Edward, 151, 165, 171 Alter, Robert, 45–46, 133, 171 Ascough, Richard S., 171 Aune, David E., 48–49, 134–135, 166–167, 171 Aus, Roger David, 155, 171

B Baden, Joel S., 130, 185 Baird, William, 122, 172 Balz, Horst Robert, 147, 172, 173 Barclay, John M. G., 86, 115, 128, 158 Barr, James, 134, 142, 172 Bassler, Jouette M., 139, 172, 183, 187 Baur, Ferdinand C., 18, 114, 172 Bauer, Walter, 131, 145, 147, 169, 172 Baumgarten, Jörg, 136–137, 161, 166, 172 Baumgarten, Joseph M., 148, 172

Beale, Gregory K., 161, 164, 166, 170, 172 Beard, Mary, 154, 156, 172 Becker, Jürgen, 159–160, 162, 172 Beker, J. Christiaan, 51–54, 136–141, 169, 172–174, 185 Best, Ernest, 33, 111, 124–125, 142, 160, 162, 164, 166–167, 169, 173 Beutler, J., 176 Black, Joel Duncan, 5–7, 114, 173 Bloch, Joshua, 173 Blomberg, Craig L., 173 Bockmuehl, Markus N.A., 148, 150, 173 Bousset, Wilhelm, 19–20, 23, 118, 173 Branick, Vincent P., 173 Brocke, Christoph vom, 157, 173 Broer, I., 147, 173 Brown, Alexandra R., 136, 173 Brown, Colin, 173 Bruce, F. F., 95, 112, 139, 142, 145, 156, 159, 161–162, 164, 166–167, 169–170, 173 Bryan, Christopher, 173

194

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

Buck, C. H., 173 Bultmann, Rudolf K., 95, 137, 166, 173–174 Burkeen, W. Howard, 160, 174

C Caird, George B., 118, 131, 174 Campbell, Douglas A., 137, 174 Carson, D. A., 111, 156, 160, 174, 178 Cerfaux, Lucien, 123, 129, 174 Chapa, J., 174 Charles, Robert H., 17, 25, 27, 47, 116, 134, 174 Charlesworth, James H., 148, 152–153, 174 Cohen, Shaye J. D., 115, 174 Colijn, Brenda B., 43, 131, 174 Collins, Adela Yarbro, 134, 171, 174 Collins, John Joseph, 48, 50, 115, 134–136, 140, 174–176 Collins, Raymond F., 112, 125, 127, 129, 163–164, 166, 168, 174–176, 181, 187, 190 Cosby, Michael R., 34–36, 115, 126–127, 150, 175 Cross, Frank Moore, 132, 175 Crossan, John Dominic, 128, 175 Cullmann, Oscar, 112, 138, 160, 175, 189, 191

D Dahl, Nils A., 175 Davies, Philip R., 148, 175 Davies, William D., 10, 23–27, 29, 41, 90, 106, 114, 120–122, 163, 175 Deissmann, Adolf, 5–6, 17, 117, 154, 175 Deissner, Kurt, 123, 175 Delobel, Joel, 129, 164, 176 Denney, James, 18, 117, 176 de Boer, Martinus C., 136–137, 139, 141, 176 de Vaux, Roland, 148–149, 176

de Vos, Craig Steven, 156, 176 Dodd, Charles H., 10, 20–22, 27, 41, 106, 118–119, 176 Donfried, Karl P., 112, 128–130, 157, 159, 161, 163–165, 176 Duff, Nancy J., 176 Duff, Paul Brooks, 155, 177 Dunn, James D. G., 139, 159, 164–165, 177, 183, 189 Dupont, Jacques, 2–3, 5–8, 10–11, 29–33, 37, 41, 68–70, 103, 106, 112, 123–125, 150–151, 155, 164–165, 170, 177

E Edson, Charles, 129–130, 157, 177 Ellingworth, Paul, 165, 177 Elliott, Neil, 128, 177 Engberg-Pedersen, Troels, 6, 114, 177, 184 Evans, Craig A., 165, 177

F Fee, Gordon D., 112, 161–165, 177, 185 Fison, Joseph Edward, 138, 177 Frame, James E., 112, 123, 159–160, 162, 164, 166–167, 170, 177 Friedrich, Gerhard, 123, 142, 147–148, 154, 169, 177, 186 Furnish, Victor Paul, 165, 177

G Gager, John G., 141, 177 Garrow, Alan, 178 Gaventa, Beverly R., 136, 139, 164, 178, 183 Giblin, Charles H., 178 Gillman, John, 167, 170, 178 Glasson, T. Francis, 135, 178



index 195

Gowan, Donald E., 151, 178 Green, Gene L., 111, 156, 160, 162–166, 169–170, 178 Gruen, Erich S., 115, 178 Gundry, Robert, 11, 33–37, 111, 115, 125– 127, 145, 163, 165–167, 170, 178, 184 Guy, Harold A., 178

H Hafemann, Scott J., 140, 155, 178–179 Hallo, William W., 132, 178 Hamilton, Neill Quinn, 178 Hanson, Paul D., 48–49, 134–135, 178 Harding, Mark, 158, 178 Harnisch, Wolfgang, 90, 160, 162–164, 166–167, 178 Harrison, James R., 11, 33, 36–37, 127–129, 157, 178–179 Hartman, Lars, 164–167, 179 Hays, Richard B., 6, 114, 140–141, 179 Heil, John P., 179 Hellholm, David, 48, 50, 130, 134, 179, 184 Hemberg, Bengt, 157, 179 Hendrix, Holland, 129, 157, 179 Hengel, Martin, 114, 123, 155, 158, 171, 179 Henneken, Bartholomäus, 162, 165, 179 Herzog, Frederick, 179 Hester, James D., 180 Hilgenfeld, Adolf, 47, 134, 180 Hill, Judith L., 157–158, 180 Hoffmann, Paul, 160, 162, 164, 166, 180 Holleman, Joost, 180 Holman, Charles L., 180 Holtz, Traugott, 112, 127, 162–164, 166–167, 180 Horsley, Richard A., 112, 128, 176–177, 180–181, 189, 191 Houwelingen, P. H. R. van, 160–161, 164, 167, 170, 180 Hunter, Archibald M., 121–123, 180 Hyldahl, Niels, 163, 166, 180

J Jeremias, Joachim, 166–167, 180 Jeremias, Jörg, 45, 132, 180 Jewett, Robert, 158, 180 Johanson, Bruce C., 163, 165, 180 Jones, Henry Stuart, 44, 131, 182 Judge, Edwin A., 129–130, 180

K Kabisch, Richard, 10, 15–17, 20, 41, 105–106, 116, 180 Käsemann, Ernst, 51, 54, 137, 160, 178, 181 Keck, Leander E., 136, 140–141, 181 Kee, Howard Clark, 59–60, 143, 181 Kennedy, Henry Angus Alexander, 10, 16–18, 20, 41, 105–106, 117, 160, 181 Khiok-Khng, Yeo, 128, 181 Kim, Seyoon, 128, 163–164, 167, 181 Kittel, Gerhard, 123, 142, 147, 154, 169, 177, 181, 186 Klijn, Albertus F. J., 11, 37–38, 91, 129, 163, 169, 181 Knox, Wilfred L., 10, 20–22, 25, 41, 106, 119–120, 181 Koch, Klaus, 48, 50, 52, 134, 138, 140, 181 Koester, Helmut, 11, 33, 36–37, 112, 127–128, 181 Kreitzer, Larry J., 154, 156, 181 Krentz, Edgar, 128, 182 Kuck, David W., 182 Kuntz, J. Kenneth, 45, 131–133, 151, 182

L Lampe, Geoffrey, 182 Laub, Franz, 159, 162, 182 Légasse, Simon, 182 Levinskaya, Irina A., 182 Liddell, Henry George, 44, 131, 182 Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, 182

196

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

Lincoln, Andrew T., 182 Lindblom, Johannes, 44, 132, 182 Lohfink, Gerhard, 3, 113, 125, 163, 169, 182 Longenecker, Bruce W., 139–140, 182 Longenecker, Richard N., 161, 182 Longman, Tremper III, 131, 145, 182, 185 Louw, Johannes P., 147, 182 Luckensmeyer, David, 2–7, 102, 113, 123, 142, 159–160, 162–164, 168–169, 183 Lücke, Friedrich, 47, 133, 183 Lüdemann, Gerd, 159, 164, 183 Lüdemann, Hermann, 14, 16–18, 116, 183 Luke, Trevor S., 183 Luz, Ulrich, 163–164, 166–167, 180, 183 Luzarraga, Jesús, 183

M Malherbe, Abraham J., 3, 38, 113–114, 129, 142, 145, 159–160, 162–167, 169, 183 Mann, Thomas W., 183 Marshall, I. Howard, 111–112, 130, 142, 159–160, 162–164, 166–167, 176, 183, 190 Martin, D. Michael, xi, 156, 160, 164, 166, 169, 183 Martyn, J. Louis, 53–54, 133, 136, 139, 141, 176, 179, 183–184, 189 Marxsen, Willi, 160, 184 Mason, John Philip, 162, 184 Mason, Steve, 115, 184 Maston, Jason, 140, 184 Mathews, Kenneth A., 151, 155, 184 Matlock, R. Barry, 135, 184 McKenzie, Roderick, 44, 131, 182 Mearns, C. L., 184 Meeks, Wayne A., 9, 38, 56–57, 114, 129, 135, 141–142, 158, 171, 184 Merklein, Helmut, 112, 163, 165, 167, 184 Meyer, Ben F., 116, 120, 184 Michaels, J. Ramsey, 166, 184 Miller, Colin, 129, 184 Milligan, George, 112, 161, 165, 167, 184

Minear, Paul Sevier, 185 Moltmann, Jürgen, 138, 151, 185 Montefiore, Claude G., 23–24, 120–121, 185 Moore, Arthur L., 185 Morgan, William, 137, 185 Morris, Leon, 112, 163, 166, 183, 185 Moss, Candida R., 130, 185 Moule, Charles F. D., 164, 185 Moulton, James Hope, 123, 185 Mowinckel, Sigmund, 185 Myers, Charles D., Jr., 174, 185

N Nebe, Gottfried, 185 Nel, Philip J., 46, 131, 133, 188 Nepper-Christensen, Poul, 112, 125, 163–164, 166–167, 185 Nicholl, Colin R., 87, 112, 155, 159, 161–162, 164–167, 169, 185 Nickelsburg, George W. E., 146, 185 Nida, Eugene Albert, 147, 182 Niehaus, Jeffrey J., 45, 70, 131–132, 151, 185 Nobbs, Alanna, 158, 178

O Oakes, Peter, 128, 186 Oepke, Albrecht, 154, 186 Osborne, Grant R., xi, 136, 149, 161, 172, 186 Otto, Randall E., 11, 37, 39–40, 130–131, 146, 162, 186

P Paddison, Angus, 186 Pahl, Michael W., 96, 98, 158, 166–169, 186



index 197

Pannenberg, Wolfhart, 89, 161, 186 Pate, C. Marvin, 186 Payne, Robert, 154, 186 Perkins, Pheme, 129, 186 Peterson, Erik, 1–8, 10–11, 29–37, 41, 68, 103, 106, 111, 123, 150, 170, 186 Pfleiderer, Otto, 10–11, 14–18, 41, 116–117, 186 Pitts, Andrew W., 186 Plevnik, Joseph, viii, 2–8, 10–11, 29, 32–33, 37, 39–41, 58–61, 68–69, 71, 90, 93, 102, 106, 112–113, 123–125, 130, 143, 146, 150–151, 162–165, 169, 186–187 Polak, Frank, 45, 133, 187 Price, Simon R. F., 129, 187

R Reed, Jonathan L., 128, 175 Reid, Daniel G., 145, 182 Reitzenstein, Richard, 19–20, 118, 187 Richard, Earl J., 96, 145, 159, 161–162, 164, 167, 187 Ricoeur, Paul, 131, 187 Ridderbos, Herman, 112, 187 Riesner, Rainer, 156, 187 Rigaux, Béda, 127, 154, 159–160, 164, 166–167, 170, 187 Robinson, John Arthur Thomas, 119, 187 Rowland, Christopher, 49–50, 135, 161, 187, 189 Rowley, Harold Henry, 47, 134, 188 Russell, David Syme, 47, 134, 188

S Sabatier, Auguste, vii, 8, 10–14, 16, 18, 40–41, 105, 115, 188 Sailhamer, John, 188 Sanders, E. P., 114, 188 Sandmel, Samuel, 188 Savran, George W., 46, 70, 133, 151, 188

Schade, Hans-Heinrich, 188 Schmidt, N. F., 46, 131, 133, 188 Schmithals, Walter, 160, 163, 188 Schneider, Gerhard, 147, 172–173 Schnelle, Udo, 188 Schoeps, Hans J., 10, 23, 26, 29, 41, 106, 121–122, 188 Schwartz, Seth, 115, 188 Schweitzer, Albert, 10, 16, 18–20, 24–25, 41, 51, 105–106, 116–118, 136, 165, 169, 188 Scott, J. Julius, Jr., 188 Scott, Robert, 44, 131, 182 Shires, Henry M., vii, 8, 10–11, 23, 26–29, 40–41, 105–106, 122–123, 188 Shogren, Gary S., 156, 159–160, 163–165, 188 Siber, Peter, 112, 160, 163–164, 166–167, 189 Smith, Abraham, 128, 189 Soards, Marion L., 133, 136, 141, 176, 179, 189 Sobanaraj, S., 4–7, 113–114, 189 Stacey, W. David, 27, 120, 122–123, 189 Steele, E. S., 189 Steely, John E., 160, 163, 188 Still, Todd D., 112, 140, 189 Strecker, Georg, 134, 188, 190 Strelan, Rick, 189 Sturm, Richard E., 54, 133, 136, 139, 189

T Taylor, G., 173 Teichmann, Ernst, 10–11, 15–17, 41, 105, 116, 123, 189 Tellbe, Mikael, 156–157, 189 Thiselton, Anthony C., 161, 189 Thomas, Robert L., 164, 189 Thompson, Michael B., 96, 167, 189 Trebilco, Paul R., 189 Tuckett, Christopher M., 165–167, 190 Turner, Seth, 165, 190

198

paul and the apocalyptic triumph

V

Y

Vacalopoulos, Apostles E., 158, 190 VanderKam, James C., 146, 185 van Dijk, J. J. A., 132, 178 Vena, Osvaldo D., 3–5, 7, 113, 168, 190 Vermes, Geza, 190 Versnel, Hendrik S., 74–76, 154–155, 190 Vielhauer, Philipp, 47–48, 50, 52, 134, 138, 140, 190 Volz, Paul, 37, 129, 190 von Rad, Gerhard, 132, 135–136, 148, 161, 172, 180, 190 Vos, Geerhardus, 122, 142, 190

Yadin, Yigael, 148–149, 191 Yoder Neufeld, Thomas R., 191

W Wallace, Daniel B., 164, 167, 190 Walvoord, John F., 190 Wanamaker, Charles A., 11, 37–39, 112, 129–130, 142, 145, 160, 162, 164, 166, 169, 190 Watson, Duane F., 38, 130, 180, 190 Weima, Jeffrey A. D., 157, 159–161, 163–167, 190 Weiss, Johannes, 20, 51, 136, 190 Wengt, Klaus, 191 Wenham, David, 166, 191 Westermann, Claus, 131, 191 Wilcke, Hans-Alwin, 112, 160, 162, 164, 166–167, 191 Williams, David J., 191 Witherington, Ben, 111, 145, 156, 159, 161–162, 164–167, 169, 191 Wright, N. T., 112, 120, 128, 131, 140, 158, 162, 170, 179, 191

APOCALYPTICISM CROSS-DISCIPLINARY EXPLORATIONS Carlos A. Segovia, Isaac W. Oliver, and Anders K. Petersen General Editors Apocalypticism: Cross-disciplinary Explorations brings together innovative volumes exploring the production and dissemination of apocalyptic ideas in ancient, medieval, and modern times as well as their intellectual and social settings. The series invites proposals from all academic disciplines relevant to the study of apocalypticism in all its complexity and inherent ambiguity, with an emphasis on its role as an utopian counterpoint to the miseries of the present world, as an indirect albeit sophisticated means of social control, and as a countercultural and eventually subversive phenomenon in times of crisis. It publishes monographs, collected works, and text editions in English, German, and French dealing with the grammars of the apocalyptic imagination, the connections between prophecy and apocalypticism, the semiotics of apocalyptic and millennial rhetoric, the instrumentality of apocalyptic discourse, the decoding of apocalyptic scare tactics, the sociology of apocalyptic groups, and the evolution of mainstream and marginal symbols, images, motifs and concepts relative to the end times and the doomsday through literature, religion, culture, and politics. For additional information about this series or for the submission of manuscripts, please contact: Peter Lang Publishing Acquisitions Department 29 Broadway, 18th floor New York, NY 10006 To order other books in this series, please contact our Customer Service Department: 800-770-LANG (within the U.S.) 212-647-7706 (outside the U.S.) 212-647-7707 FAX Or browse online by series at: www.peterlang.com