Paul speaks of Jesus’s kingdom and glory (2:12).
That Jesus, Paul’s rival “emperor,”[2563] was indeed known to be executed by a Roman governor on the charge of laesa maiestas (lèse-majesté)[2564] made the matter even worse.[2565] This charge could be construed as broadly as needed;[2566] under the earlier, paranoid emperor Tiberius,[2567] it applied even to beating a slave near a statue of Augustus or being honored in one’s hometown on a day once dedicated to Augustus (Suet. Tib. 58). Romans could have construed even Jesus’s preaching of God’s imminent reign (Luke 4:43; 9:27; 10:9, 11) as seditious,[2568] if extracted from a purely religious context. Speaking in support of one viewed as a traitor could be construed as treason (e.g., Philost. Hrk. 48.8),[2569] and so it was natural that alleged crimes of Christians were connected with Jesus’s execution (Min. Fel. Oct. 9.4–5). James Harrison, in a recent monograph, abundantly parallels Paul’s language in the Thessalonian correspondence with imperial language;[2570] whether or not Paul intended all such language as a reference to another ruler, his language could easily have been construed as such by those with reasons to do so.
The accusation that Paul proclaims another king represents a (probably deliberate) misunderstanding of Paul’s message, somewhat like philosophers’ (nondeliberate) view of him as preaching “Anastasis” as a deity alongside Jesus (Acts 17:18). Luke may employ the Christians’ opponents as a literary foil, emphasizing their denseness to highlight the rational superiority of the Christian message.[2571] After all, Jesus was charged with forbidding payment of taxes to Caesar as well as claiming to be king (Luke 23:2), even though Jesus had advocated paying taxes and appropriate loyalty to Caesar (20:22–25). That is, Jesus’s opponents charged him with the crime to which they had tried to make him confess, despite his refusal to confess to it![2572] From Luke’s first volume, especially Luke 23, Luke’s audience is privy to information Paul’s accusers lacked: Jesus was executed as king of the Jews to appease a mob (23:23), but Rome’s agents recognized his innocence (23:4, 14–15, 22, 47).
At the same time, the misunderstanding or distortion by the missionaries’ accusers may serve Luke’s literary purposes on a higher level. Luke may intend some irony here that would be lost on the accusers in the story world (and about which he could not afford to be explicit): though Paul’s message is no threat to Roman order, he does announce a king whom God has enthroned (Acts 2:33–35); who will reign forever (Luke 1:33; Acts 1:6); and whose birth is set in deliberate contrast to the majesty of the emperor Augustus in Luke 2:1–14, a passage that also mentions Caesar’s “decree” and “all the world” (2:1).[2573] Paul must later fend off the charge that he has offended against Caesar (Acts 25:8).
As a free city and the seat of the governor (who might well hear about these charges), Thessalonica would not be willing to risk its favored status by allowing talk of another king.[2574] Thessalonica was fully committed to not only the honor but the worship of the emperor, like most other prominent cities of the East. Its coins included both Julius and Augustus Caesar as gods.[2575] Thessalonica had had its own temple for the cult of the emperor since the time of Augustus.[2576] Archaeologists have found a statue of Augustus and part of another imperial statue in the western part of the city, suggesting that the imperial temple was in this area.[2577] Although Rome supported various client kingdoms,[2578] the ideology of imperial propaganda mythologically emphasized the emperor’s, hence Rome’s, cosmic authority.[2579]
It is possible that some Thessalonians may have understood even some traditional local cults in ways that would keep the local elite, ever sensitive on Rome’s behalf, attentive. In older times, Thessalonians expected the return of the mystery god Cabirus to help the poor; if representatives of the current order were anxious to prevent any revival of such notions, they could have also heard the Christian message about the return of Jesus suspiciously.[2580] It is possible that even the cult of Serapis and Isis at some point was connected with the veneration of the emperor.[2581]
(4) Caesar’s “Decrees” (17:7)
Technically, maiestas was a matter of public law, not “decrees of Caesar” as stated by Paul’s accusers here.[2582] But a number of imperial decrees could be relevant, and local magistrates’ loyalty oath to the emperor would compel them to enforce such edicts.[2583] Two Caesars,[2584] both Augustus (Dio Cass. 56.25.5–6) and Tiberius (Suet. Tib. 36; Dio Cass. 57.15.8), had decades earlier issued decrees against predictions of new rulers or otherwise implying a current emperor’s demise.[2585] Another possible element in the allusion is laws prohibiting voluntary associations’ political functions.[2586]
Riesner thinks that news of Claudius’s edict expelling Jews from Rome (see comment on Acts 18:2) reached Thessalonica just before or during Paul’s stay in Thessalonica or just after Paul’s departure, making Gentile Thessalonians unwilling to be associated with Judaism.[2587] Paul’s abandonment of his westward journey on the Via Egnatia, heading southward into Greece, would also make sense of such news (especially if he heard of it after reaching Illyricum farther west, Rom 15:19).
It is just as likely, however, that this edict was already known among at least some in Thessalonica and that it informs the suspicion of rabble-rousers that is revealed in this account. If Roman Jews were expelled over debates about the Christ (a possible reading of the events; see comment on Acts 18:2), the charges offered against the missionaries are precisely the right ones to be offered by Jews who wish to head off trouble in their own communities.[2588] By Luke’s day, the exact timing of Caesar’s decree might be forgotten (though cf. Acts 18:2), but it makes excellent sense of the events that Luke reports. Even if Paul knew of the decree already during his time in Philippi, and hence may have abandoned any plan to go on to Rome, he had to proceed west before he could go south into Greece by land.
Charges of subversion would stir hearers’ basic loyalties to the state. Though not everyone in the empire would value Rome so highly (even in a privileged, “free” Macedonian city), Romans, at least, ideally valued country even above family.[2589] More threateningly, such charges were dangerous for Thessalonica even as a free city; if a city knowingly harbored enemies of Roman stability, the city could be censured and lose imperial benefactions.[2590] Thessalonica had to be careful; the Thessalonians had lost their administrative seat under Tiberius and regained it only through Claudius’s intervention in 44 C.E., probably about five years before the events depicted in this passage.[2591]
The purpose of such stirring charges was not to generate objectivity; indeed, rhetorical handbooks advocated beginning with personal character attacks, including against the opponent’s friends and witnesses (see comment on Acts 24:5–6). “No rules of evidence guarded against this,” Winter notes, “and defendants were subjected to muckraking and fabrication.”[2592] It is not clear, however, that the politarchs believed the accusers (see comment on Acts 17:9).
(5) Released with a Pledge (17:9)
Although Luke focuses his narrative on Paul, there can be no question that the Thessalonian church was also persecuted;[2593] Jason’s public embarrassment provides only a hint. Persecution, associated with the populace (1 Thess 2:14), occurred even at the church’s founding (1:6). The mention of some deaths in the relatively short interval between Paul’s departure and his letter (4:13) could imply that some martyrdoms occurred; the charges in Acts 17 were sufficient to have produced “even a bloody persecution.”[2594] But that Jason may be known to Luke’s audience (17:5) and that he is treated so lightly in this verse suggest either that persecution was not fatal or that Luke suppressed something in his emphasis on Christians’ positive relationship with the government. Christians fell sick and died in Corinth (1 Cor 11:30) without the help of persecution.[2595]
As their host, Jason can be held responsible for his guests’ local behavior, and this responsibility would compel him to post bond on their behalf.[2596] For a pious Jew, hosting an important teacher would be an honor (b. Ber. 63b). But just as patrons and clients, or anyone bound by the permanent ties of guest friendship,[2597] owed mutual obligations of loyalty, the last thing a good guest would wish was to bring trouble on the host unnecessarily (cf. comment on Acts 19:31). Cicero, for instance, flees farther while in exile so as not to bring suspicion against his host (Cic. Att. 3.4). Not only for his own sake but for Jason’s, Paul must leave town (Acts 17:9–10).
The punishment, however, is quite light for the weighty charge of maiestas—unless the politarchs in fact regarded the charges as false.[2598] Demagogues had long used mobs to achieve their ends in Greek democracies, and the politarchs would have some experience in dealing with such tactics.[2599] By receiving a pledge from Jason to guarantee no further trouble from him or his associates, the politarchs achieve two ends: first, they respond to the mob’s demands concretely enough to quell the immediate unrest, and second, they can keep out of Thessalonica any presence that would cause the unrest to recur.[2600] Probably the security relates only to concern for the behavior of Paul and Silas, not to Jason himself.[2601]
Most scholars claim that the phrase λαβόντες τὸ ἱκανόν reflects the Latin construction satis accipere, a Roman legal phrase (appearing here in the Old Latin and Vulgate) that means taking or receiving security or bail.[2602] Although the grammatical construction may be Latin, the practice was both Greek and Roman.[2603] One could deposit money to guarantee one’s own[2604] or another’s[2605] appearance in court. Giving a pledge that will be forfeited if one fails to appear was a more lenient treatment (for those with funds) than imprisonment until trial (Livy 3.13.5–6; 25.4.8–11). If the idea here is that Jason guarantees the missionaries’ presence in court, he loses his money, probably (assuming he and his colleagues who were arrested are among the “brothers” of Acts 17:10) willingly.[2606] But the point may be simply that Jason was legally liable for Paul’s behavior and that subsequent trouble would forfeit the money and bring Jason to court again.[2607] A fine constituted “a relatively lenient penalty” in Roman justice[2608] and could be consistent with the view that the authorities treated the Christian gatherings merely as unauthorized associations with political interests.[2609] That is, it might be advisable to ban such meetings, but harsh punishments, such as executing leaders, would be unnecessary.
When Paul speaks of Satan hindering his return to Thessalonica (1 Thess 2:18), he may have in mind the politarchs’ decision, reported by Luke, that made his return difficult, as many scholars suggest.[2610] This would explain why Timothy could go there freely but Paul, though not detained in Corinth, could not do so (1 Thess 3:1–2).[2611] The missionaries’ strategy, though uncomfortable for themselves, may have been the only way for this small band to deal with the opposition. Since laws in Greek cities applied only to their own territory, Paul and his companions would keep moving; when their opponents pursue them, the opponents would have to reinitiate their hostilities afresh (Acts 17:13; cf. 13:50–51; 14:20).[2612]
The decree would be binding. Once a decision was made, a politarch who tried to introduce measures contradicting decrees that the citizen body had already passed could be fined.[2613] Some hostility clearly continued in Thessalonica (1 Thess 1:6); this might have even included a small number of martyrs, perhaps explaining how they imitated what Judean believers had suffered[2614] and how some died so quickly (4:13).[2615] But as suggested above, if the deaths were due to martyrdom, it seems strange that Paul does not state this explicitly (though this objection is not a strong argument from silence).