1 Thessalonians 4-5: Examining Paul's Preoccupations #30daysofPaul

We have a little more theological meat to work with in today's reading, as contrasted with yesterday. Chapters 4 and 5 of 1 Thessalonians provide some really great early examples of the various preoccupations Paul will hit again and again in his later letters: sexual immorality and purity, holiness, expectation of an imminent eschatological event. It also has two passages I especially like, containing almost formulaic lists of exhortations that give some insight, I believe, into the practices and traditions of early Christianity. Let's move through these two chapters be focusing on a few passages.

4:1-8 Holiness and Sexual Ethics in a Pagan World

Paul moves from thanksgiving and prayerful joy in chapters 1-3 to a message of exhortation in chapter 4. Specifically, for the first time, we hear a couple of Paul's chief preoccupations: sexual immorality and holiness. Writing to a church situated in primarily pagan Greece, Paul feels the need to remind the Thessalonians of the sexual ethics he taught them. He does this even though he just spent three chapters praising them for how good they've been doing; this shows both how important this topic is to Paul, and how much influence pagan culture still had on the early church as it attempted to forge an identity.

Paul uses the word "control" and "abstain", warns of the "lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God." Throughout his letters, we will see Paul preach an ethic of controlled emotion and passion, an ethic that rejects the prevailing sexual openness and licentiousness of the Roman world. Paul wanted the followers of Christ to liberate themselves from worldly passions, from the chains of their unconstrained emotions, so that they might live an orderly, controlled life in which the "small, still voice" of God would be audible to them. Amid the wild Greco-Roman culture, he wanted them to stand aware of their own beings, especially as they were in relation to one another.

4:11-12 The First Formula of Reverence

I really adore both this passage, and one we will explore later. Paul instructs the church at Thessaloniki "to aspire to live quietly, to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we directed you, so that you may behave properly toward outsiders and be dependent on no one."

This passage doesn't quite have the formulaic character of 5:12-22 (more on that soon), but it does have the specificity of repeated directions of how to live life as a Christian community. I like this so much because I think passages such as this from Paul give us deep insight into how the earliest Christians lived and organized their lives. I believe we can learn much from the early church about how to live a life following Christ, and these kind of specific instructions help us do just that.

Following on the exhortation of holiness and ethical living, these instructions give the Thessalonians a reminder of the way they are to live in contrast to those around them. The triple instructions of "live quietly," "mind your own affairs," and "work with your hands," so that they might be "dependent on no one," shows that the early church was well aware of it's role as an outsider in the ancient world. Being self-sufficient allowed them to live the type of life they felt called to, without the demands of society, while still being responsive to the call to serve God's people and bring a message of liberation and love to those classified as the "least of these" in the eyes of empire.

4:13-5:11 Paul's Expectation of an Eschatological Event

The end of chapter 4 introduces another of Paul's preoccupations: the imminent coming of God's Kingdom on Earth, and exhortations to live in preparation for it.

John Dominic Crossan describes two types of eschatology common to Christianity: apocalyptic eschatology, or the belief that the coming of God's Kingdom and the remaking of the world is God's duty, that we must only be concerned with preparing our spiritual selves for it, and trying to discern it's shape; and sapiential eschatology, the belief that we must work to bring God's Kingdom here on earth, and must liberate the physical and spiritual bodies of all beings in order to experience it. As Crossan says in Who Killed Jesus?,

"Apocalyptic eschatology is world-negation stressing future and imminent divine intervention; sapiential eschatology is world-negation emphasizing present and immanent divine intervention. In apocalyptic eschatology, we are waiting for God to act. In sapiential eschatology, God is waiting for us to act."

(I really love that term: "world-negation." So cool.)

Crossan claims John the Baptist preached apocalyptic eschatology, and in response to his death, Jesus in contrast preached sapiential eschatology. So what about Paul's eschatology: apocalyptic or sapiential?

I honestly don't know Pauline theology well enough to know which camp he falls in. My preconceived biases tell me he is apocalyptic, and that the communities he left behind had to grapple with the failure of Christ to come again in their lives, leading to much of the later writings that wrongly bear Paul's name that tries to answer this problem.

But I could be entirely wrong about that. That's why I'm doing 30 days of Paul, so that I might learn these things. For the record, I subscribe strongly to sapiential eschatology; I think we have a duty to bring about God's Kingdom here on earth through our imitation of Christ's example, rather than passively waiting on God.

One final note here: in 5:3, Paul references those who say, "There is peace and security." Peace and security were an unofficial slogan of the Roman empire, printed on much of the Roman currency of the day. By dismissing those who say this, Paul is reminding the Thessalonians to not put their hope in the empire, but to remember that it too will one day fall, but the Universal Church will endure.

5:12-22 The Second Formula of Reference

The last thing I want to touch on is the second formulaic passage in 1 Thessalonians. As I mentioned above, this on is much more formulaic than that of chapter 4, and I think reflects an early form of liturgy that leaders like Paul or Silvanus may have used to remind the church of it's duties as followers of Christ. I just want you to read this passage, cherish it, take it to heart, and reflect on it as, again, one of the earliest examples of liturgy for the Christian church.There is much to be learned here, and much to emulate on our own journeys:

12 But we appeal to you, brothers and sisters, to respect those who labor among you, and have charge of you in the Lord and admonish you; 13 esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. 14 And we urge you, beloved, to admonish the idlers, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with all of them. 15 See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to all. 16 Rejoice always, 17 pray without ceasing,18 give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. 19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise the words of prophets, 21 but test everything; hold fast to what is good; 22 abstain from every form of evil.

So good.

Tomorrow: Galatians 1-2

For a PDF of the 30 Days of Paul reading plan, click here.

For more info on 30 Days of Paul, click here for my intro, or here for Cassandra Farrin's explanation.

Click Here for Cassandra Farrin's take on today's reading.

Jesus' Resurrection wasn't unique, but it was exceptional: An excerpt from "Excavating Jesus"

I want to share the following excerpt from the book I just finished, Excavating Jesus by John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan Reed. This is pulled from a larger discussion of the historical meaning of the Resurrection, and really highlights the shallow nature of much of today's Christianity.

(Note: all Italicized portions below are preserved from the original. Bolded lines are my own emphasis.)

****

It is sometimes claimed in contemporary Christian thought that only the stupendous miracles of empty tomb and risen apparition(s) can explain historically, first, how the companions of Jesus recovered their faith in him lost at the crucifixion, and, second, how others came to faith in him despite his crucifixion. There are two problems, one minor and one major, with that oversimplified understanding.

First, it was the male and not the female companions of Jesus who fled, since they were much more likely to be arrested along with Jesus. But to lose your nerve is not to lose your faith. Even Mark's story of Peter's triple denial so formulates it that he loses not his faith but, as it were, his memory. It might have been braver to stay and confess, but it was cowardice and not disbelief to deny and run.

Second, we are retrojecting our own post-Enlightenment rationalism into a pre-Enlightenment world. Imagine a contemporary debate along these lines. Nonbeliever: "All those stories about virginal conceptions, divine births, miraculous events, wondrous deeds, risen apparitions, and heavenly ascensions never did and never could have happened. They are myth at best and lie at worst." Believer: It is true that such events do not happen regularly, but they all happened to our Jesus once and for all, long ago." In that post-Enlightenment contradiction, impossibility battles with uniqueness.

Both those positions, however, are equally irrelevant for a pre-Enlightenment world, equally unusable in such a cultural milieu. In a world where anything from divine birth to divine ascension was a possible part of the transcendental landscape, impossibility was not an available argument for polemical attackers, but neither was uniqueness an available argument for apologetical defenders. In the free market of religious ideas that was the Greco-Roman world, one had to enter the spiritual free-trade area and argue for one's God or one's Son of God without using either of those post-Enlightenment moves.

For example, in the middle of the second century Justin is arguing for Jesus in his First Apology directed toward pagan readers. He never suggests uniqueness. "When we say also that the Word," he begins, "who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, an that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter." He then lists many examples and concludes by referring to divine emperors and especially Julius Caesar. "What of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce someone who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre?" Finally, however, Justin is certainly not ready to say that all such claims are equal. But notice that his criterion of discrimination is not uniqueness in event, but superiority in action. "As we promised in the preceding part of this discourse, we will now prove Him superior-or rather have proved Him to be so-for the superior is revealed by His actions" (21-22). That is an utterly appropriate pre-Enlightenment argument. Of course there have been many sons of God around, but Jesus is best of all because of certain specific arguments.

Similarly, about a quarter of a century later, when a pagan polemicist named Celsus is attacking Christianity, he uses exactly the same pre-Enlighenment type of argument. He never mentions impossibility, but counters, that Jesus has never done anything for anyone. The argument for superiority is met by one for inferiority. "After all, the old myths of the Greeks that attribute a divine birth to Perseus, Amphion, Aeacus and Minos are equally good evidence of their wondrous works on behalf of mankind-and are certainly no less lacking in plausibility that the stories of your followers. What have you done (Jesus) by word or deed that is quite so wonderful as those heroes of old?" (On the True Doctrine). Both pro-Christian apologist and anti-Christian polemicist use the same argument, but in opposite directions. Impossibility and uniqueness are not imaginable as absolute claims (maybe, of course, as hyperbolic overclaims), but superiority in action is where the debate occurs. Justin: "Jesus has done more than all those others like him." Celsus: "Jesus has done less than all those others like him."

Paul and his audience lived in a first-century pre-Enlightenment world. That precluded those two arguments of uniqueness versus impossibility that present-day believers and nonbelievers use against one another. To assert empty tomb and/or risen apparition(s) is not enough to explain anything, let alone everything in that ancient world. But that full content of Jesus' resurrection just outlined above would make for debate in that world. It was the content and implications of your miracle that mattered there. "Wow" was not enough, because there were too many "wows" around. Ancients might declare Jesus' resurrection unbelievable, but never impossible. What that audience would say to Paul is not an impolite "We do not believe you," but a polite "How nice for Jesus, but why exactly should we care about that?" Or, more bluntly, "What's in it for us?" And that is exactly when Paul would have explained willingly and in great detail, for example, the sociocosmic and religio-political difference between Julius Caesar's ascension and Jesus Christ's resurrection, and how it was time to choose one or the other.

Recall the discussion of Jewish and Christian-Jewish "resurrection" above. Those who claimed Jesus had begun the terminal movement of apocalyptic climax would have to present some public evidence of a world transformed from injustice and evil to justice and peace. It would not and could not suffice to claim one or many empty tombs and one or many risen apparitions. That might be all well and good, but where was the evidence, any evidence, of a transformed world? For that they had only their own communal lives as evidence. This is how we live with God and on this basis we seek to persuade others to do likewise. This is our new creation, our transformed world. We in God, God in us, and both together here below upon this earth. 

*****

What Crossan and Reed are saying here is so foundational to understanding the differences between the Christianity of those who lived with and experienced Jesus, and the way so many people do it today. Going on and on about a Virgin Birth, healing miracles, a bodily resurrection, is all well and good, but it isn't sufficient to compel new followers of Christ. The "wow" factor is not enough to win souls. 

Those things are but a marker of the special nature of Christ, but the thing that really brings people on board is unique way of life His followers exhibit. Whether we want to hear it or not, the draw of Christianity is not a self-apparent thing triggered by seeing a crucifix; instead, Christianity becomes a draw through us, the church, and actions we engage in, towards ourselves, towards others, and towards all Creation. We have to stand for more than the supernatural occurrences of two millenia ago; we have to follow his example and bring the Kingdom on Earth, today, now.

Diving Into History: Future Plans here on the Dirt Roads

I am moving slowly but steadily through the process of ordination in the UMC. A little over a month ago, I was voted on and approved by the Charge Conference at CHUM to be recommended for candidacy to the local District Committee on Ordained Ministry. I move next into an interview with DCOM, hopefully in the next couple weeks, whereupon they will vote whether or not to make me a certified candidate. From there, I hope to get licensed as a local pastor, go through preaching school, and hopefully become a DSA (District Superintendent Appointee) at a church while I begin seminary in the fall.

My process of discerning my call also moves forward. I've known for a while that I wanted to pastor a church, but not as a long term career. The challenge has been identifying the exact area where I live the call I feel in my life. I've long been interested in the work the Board of Church and Society within the UMC does. So that's where my focus has been.

But that is changing now. Another long time interest of mine has been classical history, especially the Roman Republic and Empire, and even more specifically, the time around the transition from Republic to Empire. It's an area of study I consider my an expert on, and though I've long had a passion for it, I never thought it would be something I could incorporate into my career.

That changed a few weeks ago when I watched, of all things, Frontline on PBS.

The episode I watched was Part 2 of a series called from "Jesus to Christ." It focused on the rise of the Christian church in the Roman Empire across three centuries. A fascinating look at the historical and archaeological findings that reveal not just the physical development of the church, but also the theological development. You can watch the full episode online here, and if you have any interest in history, I would strongly suggest doing so. (Part 1, which you can view there as well, is called "The Quest for the Historical Jesus.)

This show absolutely fascinated me. I was glued to it for two hours. And combined with a dive back into my favorite historical fiction series about the Roman Republic (Colleen McCullough's Masters of Rome series), I not rediscovered a passion, but also figured out where it fits into my future plans.

I still plan on ordination and placement at a church and getting my MDiv. But from there, I want to take the additional hours to also get a Masters in Theological Studies, then pursue a Doctorate in Classical or Greek and Roman Studies. I've already been researching programs at the University of Michigan, University of Oxford, and American University Abroad at King's College London.

I've been looking abroad because I would like to be able to study history in the place where much of it happened. What an opportunity to do research on Roman history in Rome! I have a long love of history that stretches back into my childhood. I've always loved learning about past events, and I have a great aptitude for it; I can remember names, dates and events like most people can remember the names of their immediate family. It's not only a passion of mine, it's a subject I have a gift of knowledge in, one I would be remiss not to cultivate and use towards a better world.

After my doctorate, I want to write, and teach, and most of all, connect the historical church, the church as it was formed and practiced and thought in the immediate years after Jesus, to the way we do church now. I want to bridge that divide, to help people find a purer form of Christianity, one that sheds much of the baggage of two thousand years of interpretation and distortion and politics to find a Way that mimics what the contemporaries of Jesus and Paul and Peter experienced.

So what does that mean for blogging here? Some changes, for sure. I will still write about current events, as my post about Charlie Hebdo a couple of days ago attests to. I will also try to be more vigilant about documenting my journey into ordination and beyond. But also expect to start seeing more topics on Biblical and classical history, especially as it relates to the early church and the development of early church theology. I plan on reading more Biblical scholars, as well as some history of Christianity and early church writers. Right now, I have just started Excavating Jesus by John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, so expect some musings from that as I work through it.

More immediately, I am planning and researching and drafting a series that focuses on the historical context of the books of the Bible. I hope to go through book by book, in the order in which scholars believe they were written (not the order in the Bible) and look at authorship, historical context, and the time they were written, and then to think through the implications of when and where and why they were written on the text contained in each book. It's a slightly daunting writing project, but one I'm excited to do. Expect another post in the next couple of days that more clearly outlines and introduces the series.

I hope everyone enjoys the directions I am heading. Please continue to read, to comment, and please share with anyone who might also be interested. Also, if you are on Facebook, check out the page I made for this blog. I will post links to new writing there, as well as some stuff independent of this blog, like article links and discussion pieces. "Like" my page!

Please also stick with me if posting stays erratic, and know that I have every intention of writing regularly here, but real life often intrudes. I do have two small children, and although I am newly unemployed, a lot of free time is something I still do not have. There is also the possibility that we will be relocating to Tulsa soon, if my wife gets a new job there, so that could interrupt posting. (It will also mean a new subtitle for the blog-no more rural Kansas, but instead maybe, urban Oklahoma!) We are excited about the prospect of Tulsa, especially considering that one of my top seminary choices, Phillips, is there!

All the best, and thanks for reading.

Justin