B. The Preaching of the Gospel at Thessalonica (2:1-16)
5 because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for your sake. 6 You became imitators of us and of the Lord; in spite of severe suffering, you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit. 7 And so you became a model to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia. 8 The Lord's message rang out from you not only in Macedonia and Achaia -your faith in God has become known everywhere. Therefore we do not need to say anything about it, 9 for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, io and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead-Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.
Before dealing with the matters in which he feels the Thessalonians had failed, Paul lays a solid foundation by pointing to the areas in which they had succeeded. In this section he reminds them of what had happened when he and his associates first preached in Thessalonica. They had met with a warm response, such a warm response, indeed, that the converts had become model believers. This will leave them in no doubt about his warm approval of their general position when he later comes to deal with their shortcomings.
5 Paul proceeds to give his reasons for knowing that the Thessalonians are elect.27 In verse 5 these reasons are chiefly subjective, relating to the experience of the preachers. In verse 6 he turns to the effects in the lives of the Thessalonians, and for this he goes back to the time when he and his companions had first preached the gospel in Thessalonica. The "gospel" means the content of the preachers' message, the good news of what God has done in Christ to bring salvation.28 On occasion Paul can refer to "the gospel of God" (2:8, 9, etc.), stressing the divine origin of the message, or "the gospel of Christ" (3:2; Rom. 15:19, etc.), pointing to the centrality of what Christ has done to bring about the gospel. "Our gospel" directs attention rather to the fact that it was what the preachers had preached and that they had made it their own. Only out of his own experience of salvation through the atoning work of the Savior can the preacher deliver a message that rings true and is really his own (cf. "my gospel," Rom. 2:16).
Sometimes Paul had had the experience of being forbidden by the Spirit to preach at all in a given area (Acts 16:6-7). Sometimes he had spoken rather fearfully and haltingly (1 Cor. 2:3; though we should note that even here there was the powerful presence of the Spirit). It is a reasonable conjecture that in some of his discussions with the Jews he had felt that it was hopeless. But his experience in preaching at Thessalonica was different. There the apostle had been conscious that the power of God was at work. The preaching had not been "simply with words." Words alone are empty rhetoric, and more than that is required if people's souls are to be saved. Paul knew that the preaching at Thessalonica had been effective, and he makes three points about it.
First, the gospel "came ... with power." The verb points to some vital force in operation, and the noun completes the thought. In many places we see evidence that the gospel is power, for God is in it (cf. Rom. 1:16). It is not simply that the gospel tells of power, though this, too, is true. But when the gospel is preached, God is there and God is working. The gospel is power. Sinful people do not wish to be told how to be better. They do not even wish to be told that Christ has died for them (unless there is a work of grace in their hearts). But whenever the gospel is faithfully proclaimed, there is power. Not simply exhortation but power, and that power can break down resistance.
Now there are various kinds of power, and not all work for good. The second point, then, is that this power is associated with the Holy Spirit. This is no evil power deluding people with false promises. It is the Holy Spirit of God, leading them into the salvation that God has prepared for them. "Spirit" lacks the definite article, but "The absence of the article need not imply that the personal Holy Spirit is not in view here" (Bruce, who cites other such passages).
The third point is that the gospel came "with deep conviction" (cf. Ward, "Christian certainty"). There is no repetition of the "in" in the Greek,29 and the effect is to link "with the Holy Spirit" very closely with "with deep conviction." Assurance is not some human device whereby people persuade themselves. Rather it is the result of the activity of the Holy Spirit working in believers. Some scholars have felt that the assurance meant here is that which came to the converts when they put their trust in Christ, and this may not be out of the apostle's mind. But his primary meaning is the assurance that the Spirit gave to the preachers, for Paul is dealing with the way he and his companions came to know the election of the Thessalonians. They had the assurance in their own hearts that, as they were evangelizing, the power of God was at work. The Spirit was working a work of grace 30
Paul appeals to what the Thessalonians knew of the original mis- sion.31 Several times he recalls to their minds the manner of life of the preachers.32 This must have made a profound impression on the mixed population of the city, and it was evidence of the power the apostle has just been talking about. While many preachers in modem times will be hesitant about directing attention to their own lives, it yet remains true that no preacher can expect a hearing for his gospel unless it is bearing fruit in his own life. A feature of this letter is the way Paul keeps recalling the times when he was with his correspondents, often with a reminder of the teaching he then gave (cf. 2:1-2, 9-12; 3:4; 4:1-2, 6, 11; 5:1-2).
6 "You" is emphatic. The certainty that the Thessalonians were among the elect did not rest solely on the experiences of the preachers. There had been dramatic changes in the lives of the converts, and attention is now turned to this. The word order, imitators "of us and of the Lord," is startling, but a moment's reflection shows that this must be the historical order. The missionary must show the new way in his life as well as in his words.33 His converts will begin by imitating him and go on to imitate his Master. Paul has no hesitation in saying to the Corinthians, "Therefore I urge you to imitate me" (1 Cor. 4:16), and again, "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:1; cf. "imitators of God," Eph. 5:1)34 The great example for Christians is that of Christ. If they imitate their teachers it is in order that they may be brought to imitate him more closely thereby. This is further ex- plained:35 "in spite of severe suffering, you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit." The word for "welcomed" is that used for the reception of a guest (as in Luke 10:8, 10; Heb. 11:31), and it includes the thought of a warm welcome. The imitation of the Lord must mean imitating his bearing of affliction with joy (cf. Heb. 12:2); it cannot be said that he "welcomed the word."
From the beginning there had been opposition to the word in Thessalonica (Acts 17:5-9). It is thus relevant that the converts had welcomed it "in spite of severe suffering." The word for "suffering"36 outside the Bible usually denotes literal pressure, and that of a severe kind. The corresponding verb, for example, was used of pressing the grapes in wine-making till they burst, and thus metaphorically it came to mean very great trouble. In the New Testament the noun is generally used in the figurative sense found here. It denotes not mild discomfort, but great and sore difficulty. The Jews who stirred up a riot against Paul (Acts 17:5) and followed him to Berea (Acts 17:13) would not have left the new converts unmolested, and there was further opposition from the local pagans (1 Thess. 2:14). There is every reason for thinking that the Thessalonian Christians had been sorely tried.37
But their affliction was "with the joy given by the Holy Spirit." It is certain that the believer will experience tribulation (John 16:33), but it is equally certain that he will have an inner serenity, even a joy, that nothing in the world can give and nothing in the world can take away (John 16:22). Suffering is always unpleasant, but for those who have been saved through the suffering of their Lord it has been transformed.31 As Lightfoot says, "The degree in which the believer is allowed to participate in the sufferings of his Lord should be the measure of his joy" (he draws attention also to Phil. 1:29; 1 Pet. 4:13). Paul and Silas knew something of this joy (cf. Acts 16:25), and so did those who, in an earlier day, went out from the council "rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name" (Acts 5:41; see also 2 Cor. 7:4; 8:2, etc.). This transformation of suffering does not come about by autosuggestion or any other human device. It is specifically said to be "by the Holy Spirit." We are reminded that joy is part of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). It is a striking illustration of the way in which all of our values are transformed by the power of God's Holy Spirit when we enter into the salvation bought at the price of the blood of his Son. And it is a reminder that the Holy Spirit is at work in the process whereby sinners appropriate salvation.
7 But the imitators in their turn were imitated,39 and that widely. Paul speaks of this with satisfaction. His word for "model"40 is that from which we get our word "type." Originally it denoted the mark left by a blow (as in John 20:25, where it is translated "marks"). Then it came to be used of a figure stamped by a blow, like the design stamped on a coin. From that it came to denote any image, whether stamped or not (as in Acts 7:43), and then a pattern (Acts 7:44; Heb. 8:5). It comes to have ethical significance when it is used of a pattern of conduct, occasionally of a pattern to be avoided (1 Cor. 10:6), but more usually, as here, of an example to be followed (Titus 2:7; 1 Pet. 5:3, etc.). In the present passage the word is used in the singular. Paul is speaking of the church as a pattern community rather than of the individuals comprising it as so many individual patterns.
They are an example "to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia," which was an area comprising all of the land we know as Greece, together with the province to the north of it, a considerable area. This is the one place where Paul speaks of one church as "a model" for others; he sometimes speaks of churches imitating other churches (as this church imitated the churches of Judea, 2:14), but here only does he use the precise term "model"41 of any church. He specifically makes the point that these believers are a pattern to other believers; he is not simply contrasting them with pagans who do not know the power of God. It is easy to pass over the significance of "all the believers," for nowadays great stress is placed on good works of various kinds, especially social service, and often people regard this as the essence of Christianity. Apostolic Christianity was in no danger of confusing the root with the fruit in this way. Throughout the New Testament the characteristic mark of Christians is their faith-their dependence on Christ alone for all things. Naturally and unobtrusively Christians are called simply "believers." That is the heart of the matter, and Paul's usage makes it clear. Nothing more is needed to characterize Christians, and nothing less will do.
8 "For" (which NIV does not translate)42 introduces evidence for what Paul has just said, and the measure of his satisfaction with the progress of the Thessalonian church is the praise he now bestows on it. "From you" comes first in the Greek with emphasis; the apostle stresses the evangelistic work this church has done. He begins by speaking of them as examples to Christians in Macedonia and Achaia, Greece, and the province to the north of it.43 There is some uncertainty about the status of these regions after the Romans conquered the area in 146 B.C., but in 27 B.C. Augustus made Achaia a separate province. Tiberius combined them in A.D. 15, and Claudius separated them again in A.D. 44.44 Paul goes on to speak of the way the word of God has gone out from the Thessalonians into every place. This reflects something of the strategic situation of Thessalonica, on the great highway, the Via Egnatia, and with a harbor giving ready access to many places by sea. Paul himself would know what was going on in Achaia, while Priscilla and Aquila had just come to Corinth from Rome (Acts 18:2), doubtless bringing news of what was reported there. There is thus solid basis for what Paul is saying.
Paul says that "the Lord's message45 rang out"46 from them. Throughout this letter he comes back several times to the thought that the gospel is in very deed the word of God to us. He does not hesitate to use the strongest of terms to indicate this, and it is of the utmost importance that this part of his thought be grasped. If people think of the gospel only as another philosophy, the result of the reflection of certain admittedly profound, first-century thinkers on religious topics, they will never understand the burning zeal that sent the first Christian preachers through the world to proclaim what God had done for sinners. It is because the gospel is indeed "the Lord's message" that it can and must be presented without apology or amendment.
The one item that Paul picks out to show the change in the converts is their faith: "your faith in God47 has become known everywhere." What distinguished the early Christians from their pagan contemporaries was just this, their faith. They had come to put their trust in God, and this trust affected all that they did. Because of this Paul found it unnecessary to say anything about his mission to that city, but what he says must have been an encouragement to them in their "severe suffering" (v. 6).
9 Wherever Paul went, people kept telling (continuous present) him of their own accord what had happened there.48 In particular, they kept rehearsing "what kind of reception"49 he and his companions had had and the evidence of the conversion of the Thessalonians. It seems very probable that we have here an example of the common terminology among the early Christians for the success of a mission, for there is very little that is specifically Pauline in the expression. It is difficult, for example, to imagine that Paul would give an account in his own words of people entering into a genuine Christian experience with no mention of their being justified by faith and without any reference to the cross.50 It may fairly be said that these things are implied, but the point is that they are not expressed, and it is likely that Paul would have expressed them. But if he is taking certain terms from the accepted missionary vocabulary, then the situation is explained.
Paul makes three points. The first is "you turned to God from idols,"51 an expression that shows that most Thessalonian believers were Gentiles. Becoming a Christian involves a very definite break with non-Christian habits. Whatever the believers' previous background, there must always be a turning from idols of some sort. The act of conversion involves a change of direction of the will. This is a decisive happening, a reorientation of the whole of life. This is so in every age, but especially was it true of Christians in the Greek world of the first century A.D. There is a sense in which Greek as well as Jew prepared the way for the coming of the gospel,52 but the most characteristic thing was not the continuity, but the decisive break. As F. V. Filson reminds us: "In government, religion, business, amusement, labor, and social clubs the pagan world was built on the pattern of polytheism," whereas "the attitude of Apostolic Christianity to the polytheistic world was one of militant hostility."53 There was no attempt to find a place for Christ in the polytheistic milieu. Such an idea was preposterous. No matter how greatly their habitual practices had to be changed, the Christians of the first century saw that there could be no place for an idol alongside Christ.
But becoming a Christian is not a negative thing, as many caricatures of Christianity have supposed from apostolic times on. The second point Paul makes is that the Thessalonians turned "to serve54 the living and true God." The absence of the article with "God" does not mean that Paul left open the possibility of other gods. His adjectives give emphatic expression to his monotheism. Rather, the form without the article puts the stress on the nature rather than the person of God. The converts had come to serve One whose nature it is to be God living and true. "Living" means not only alive but active, as we see from Acts 14:15. It contrasts sharply with dead idols, "gods" who can do nothing (Pss. 96:5; 115:4-7). The living God orders all things both in heaven and on earth. God is also "true," and the word Paul uses55 conveys the idea of "genuine, real" (BAGD). Its opposite is not so much "false" as "unreal." Moffatt says that it is " `real' as opposed to false in the sense of `counterfeit' " (EGT). Paul is affirming that the converts had begun to worship a real God in contrast to the shadowy and unreal objects that had previously claimed their allegiance.
10 The third point in their conversion is that they had come "to wait for his Son from heaven."56 The word for "to wait"57 is found only here in the New Testament. Grimm-Thayer suggest that, in addition to the thought of awaiting someone expected, it includes "the added notion of patience and trust." Findlay thinks that it implies "sustained expectation" (CGT). The prominence given to the second coming is important. This subject is mentioned most frequently of all in the New Testament (there is said to be a reference to it on the average once in every thirteen verses from Matthew right through to Revelation). It appears to have been given some emphasis in the preaching to the Thessalonians. Since the stress in this verse is on the second coming, it is all the more interesting to find the Son ("his Son" here only in Thessalonians) referred to as him "whom he raised from the dead." Both before and after this phrase there are eschatological references. It is clear that the resurrection had caught the imagination of the preachers. It was natural for them to think of Jesus as the one whom the Father had raised. We might notice also that it is characteristic of the New Testament to attribute the raising of Jesus to the activity of the Father (though occasionally it is said that Jesus rose).
The chapter concludes with the reminder that the deliverance effected by Jesus is one with permanent significance. The participle translated "rescues" is a timeless present, much as though Jesus were being called "The Rescuer." Deliverance is from "the coming wrath." The idea of the wrath of God is uncongenial to many people in modern times, and there have been determined attempts to get rid of the whole idea. It is sometimes said that it has no foundation in the Old Testament, the prophets and psalmists being concerned only to point out that when people sin disaster inevitably follows. God's direct intervention is not stressed, so that a more or less impersonal process is being described. Such an attitude can be maintained only by neglecting a great number of important Old Testament passages. The prophets and the psalmists know nothing of an impersonal process of retribution. They see the hand of God everywhere, in the punishment of the wicked as well as in the rewarding of the righteous.
The same is true of the New Testament. That we sometimes come across expressions like "the wrath" (without express mention of God) should not blind us to the fact that in the thought of the New Testament writers there is no place for an impersonal agency that can act in independence of God. "All things are of God" (2 Cor. 5:18; cf. Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 8:6). In any case the wrath is explicitly linked with God (John 3:36; Rom. 1:18; 9:22; Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:6; Rev. 11:18; 14:10, 19; 19:15). There is also the singular difficulty of doing without the idea that the wrath is God's. Are we to think of God as not caring about sin? Or not caring enough to act? Or, if we are asked to think of an impersonal activity of retribution, what is the meaning of such an activity in a genuinely theistic universe? To say that God has made people and their environment in such a way that when they sin inevitable consequences follow, means that God is responsible when those consequences do follow. It is not really possible to get rid of the idea of the divine wrath without sacrificing a very great deal that is important in our understanding of the ways of God and the nature of God.
This is not to deny that wrath must be understood carefully. The wrath of God is no vindictive passion, and it does not imply lack of control, as human wrath does. But whenever we apply any term to God, even love, we must make the mental reservation: without the imperfections that characterize the human. Who can think that that puny thing which human love is at its best really gives us a picture of God's mighty love? But we do not hesitate to speak of God's love.
When Paul speaks of "the coming wrath," he brings before us the eschatological wrath. The wrath of God is not only something that is experienced here and now. It will endure to the end of all things. Indeed, it will be especially manifested in the end of all things. It is inevitable, a thought conveyed by the present participle: it is coming even now.59