Skip to main content

1 Thessalonians 5:12-28

You can read the text here. This is the final post in my brief foray into 1 Thessalonians.

The opening verses of this closing section are a little tricky. Who is Paul talking about? Is he thinking of leaders in the church or not? Certainly nothing in the text forces it to refer to leaders. In some senses it's hard to imagine there being formal leadership in place given that Paul had to leave so quickly after founding the church in Thessalonica and that he wrote this letter soon afterward. However, that may be because we're in a different situation where there's never a church comprised solely of new Christians. That question is hard to adjudicate. One wonders how important the question really is when Paul's comments clearly cover anyone performing certain functions.

In any regard, Paul tackles the topic of mutual edification,[1] beginning by urging the Thessalonians to show appreciation for the service of those in the community who teach and care for them. Paul's location outside the community makes this exhortation easier to make. He also is concerned that no one in the community make life difficult on those trying to build up the community, so he encourages the community as a whole to engage in ministry aimed at helping the weak and disorderly[2] become productive and not destructive members of the community. And when one does act destructively, forgiveness and generosity must ensue so that no cycles of evil and unforgiveness are formed.

The community is Paul's focus throughout this passage so we should avoid an unnecessary narrowing of focus in making vv. 16-18 about personal exhortations. Paul is trying to hammer home the need for persistent prayer by and for the community that rejoices in all that God has done for them.

His last major exhortation surrounds prophecy. Clearly from passages like these, 1 Cor 14, and Acts 11 it's clear that prophecy was a common phenomenon in the early church. It is no surprise that there were abuses of it and that Paul felt the need to lay groundwork. Prophecy was a good thing and benefited the community and should not be muzzled. However, after hearing the word it is the responsibility of the community to sift the message keeping the good and discarding the bad.[3]

Paul closes with a blessing and a few final comments as is appropriate given the overall friendly tone of the letter and the previous section. In its essence, the blessing is about the spiritual wholeness of the church, which again is fitting given the previous exhortation. The end result being vindication for those who participate in the holy body when Jesus returns.[4]

Thankfully, Paul requested this letter be read to the whole congregation which must have played a role in its preservation, bringing God's grace not only to the Thessalonians, but to as as well.

----------------------------
[1] That is Malherbe's way of summarizing verses 12-15.
[2] Disorderly or disruptive would be a better translation than idle according to Malherbe, Fee, and Gaventa.
[3] Gaventa makes this point very well.
[4] Fee draws out very helpfully where the text is addressing the community as a whole and as individuals.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dating Galatians and Harmonization with Acts

We've gotten to the point where how we date Galatians and where we fit it into the narrative of Acts will affect our interpretation in a significant manner. The first question that we have to address is, which visit to Jerusalem is Paul recounting in Galatians 2:1-10 ? Is it the famine relief visit of Acts 11:27-30 or the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 ? First, I think it's worthwhile to point out that it's not all that obvious. Scholars are divided on this issue (even Evangelical scholars). In favor of the theory of Galatians 2:1-10 referring to the Acts 11 visit are the following: This visit clearly is prompted by a revelation by the Holy Spirit. The Acts 15 gathering seems to be a public gathering, where the one described in Galatians is private. Paul never alludes to a letter sent to the diaspora churches which could have definitively won the case for him. The issue of food laws was already decided by James. Why would men coming from him in Galatians 2:11-14 be advocat...

More Calvinist than Calvin?

I'm working on a paper on the topic of divine sovereignty and human freedom. Occasionally on this topic (or the subtopic of election) you will hear people through out the barb at strong Calvinists that they're 'being more Calvinist than Calvin.' After having read Calvin carefully on the issue I don't think that there's any validity to that charge. I don't see a material difference here between Calvin and say John Piper. Here are several quotes from the Institutes to prove my point. 'All events are governed by God's secret plan.' I.xvi.2 'Governing heaven and earth by his providence, he also so regulates all things that nothing takes place without his deliberation.' I.xvi.3 'Nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by him.' I.xvi.3 Calvin explicitly rejects a limited providence, 'one that by a general motion revolves and drives the system of the universe, with its several parts, but which does not specifc...

Galatians 2:11-14: The circumcision group

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (TNIV) There's an important issue that we need to wrestle with in this passage, and it's the question of whether or not the people from James and the circumcision group are the same group. I am not inclined to think that they are. The ensuing discussion is drawn from Longenecker's commentary pp 73-5...