D. Narrative Part 2: Paul’S Conduct In Thessalonica (2:1-12)
D. NARRATIVE PART 2: PAUL’S CONDUCT IN THESSALONICA (2:1-12)
Because of the unfortunate addition of chapter breaks and verse numbers in our Bibles,154 one is given the impression that something new begins here, a position that has been abetted by scholarship in the final three decades of the preceding century. But in fact several features of this passage indicate that Paul is simply picking up and elaborating the concern expressed earlier at the end of verse 5 (“just as you know how we lived among/toward you for your sakes”). First, the passage begins with an explanatory “for,”155 which connects this material to what has just been written. Second, there are three significant linguistic ties to the immediately preceding sentence (vv. 9-10), which began, “for they themselves (autoi gar) report what kind of entrance/visit (eisodon156) we had with you (pros hymōn).” This one begins, “for you yourselves (autoi gar) know our entrance/visit (eisodon) with you (pros hymōn).” Without the chapter break this would be clear to all. Third, one can hardly miss the repeated “as you know” that pervades the passage (vv. 1, 2, 5, 11), as well as the companion expressions, “you remember” in verse 9 and “you are witnesses” in verse 10. With these reminders Paul repeatedly urges the Thessalonian believers to recall the way things actually were when he and his companions came to them and lived among them. This phenomenon, unique to the Pauline corpus, also carries on the concerns that began in verse 5.
This means, therefore, that 1:5-10 serves as an introduction to the narrative that begins in earnest here. What is at stake is Paul’s preaching (1:5) and the Thessalonians’ becoming believers (v. 6) — of some renown, it turns out (vv. 7-8). He then concludes (vv. 9-10) by describing the results of “his visit” to them in terms of its effects on the Thessalonians. Paul now picks up the narrative about “his visit” in terms of the nature of his own preaching — including his conduct while among them — and by doing so, he thus elaborates both parts of 1:5 (the Thessalonians’ experienced conversion, plus Paul’s conduct). The present passage thus contrasts Paul and his companions with the kinds of itinerant philosophers and purveyors of “new religions” that some outsiders have apparently accused Paul himself of being like.
Except for the break at verse 10, our comments will follow the paragraphing of the TNIV, which recognizes by way of content the two basic parts of the narrative. First, in verses 1-6 everything has to do with Paul’s and his companions’ ministry as it is set out in sharp contrast to the well-known hypocrisy of other kinds of itinerants — purveyors of religion or philosophy with a view toward ingratiating themselves with their hearers. The transition takes place in verse 7a, where the apostle reminds the Thessalonians of what he and his companions were truly like — as innocent as “babes” among them. Second, in verses 7b-12 and with a sudden and remarkable change of images, Paul reminds the Thessalonians of what he, Silas, and Timothy had also been like among them, first (vv. 7b-8) caring for them as a nursing mother would her own child, and second (vv. 9-12) caring for them as a concerned father.
At the same time the passage is capable of a second kind of packaging, signaled by a series of explanatory “for’s” (vv. 1-2, 3-4, 5-8, 9-12).157 Verses 1-2 introduce the present defense by reminding the Thessalonians that, despite the public abuse that he and Silas had suffered in Philippi, they nonetheless were emboldened by God to preach the gospel in Thessalonica. Verses 3-4 explain how that boldness had divine approval, so that it could not possibly have sprung from “error or guile.” Verses 5-8 then further elaborate on this in two ways: first, by applying the more general statement of verses 3- 4 directly to his “coming” to them, and second, by reminding them that even though he could have exercised apostolic authority, his conduct rather was one of “innocence” (v. 7b) — similar to a nursing mother’s attentive care for her children (v. 8). In verses 9-12, with yet another change of metaphor (to “father and children”), Paul concludes this part of the narrative by contrasting his actual ministry and conduct among them with that described negatively in verses 3-6.
All of this makes perfectly good sense of the narrative if our proposed reconstruction of the historical situation approximates reality somewhat closely. That is, with the return of Timothy (3:6) Paul has learned that a part of the Thessalonians’ present suffering (both past and ongoing) at the hands of their (pagan) fellow citizens had included a considerable smear campaign against Paul — as just another religious charlatan, who curried their favor and then left hurriedly under suspect circumstances. By way of reminder, then, this is Paul’s “defense” against the barrage of scurrilous innuendos of their (and thus his) enemies in Thessalonica.
In the process Paul calls on God as a witness (vv. 4, 5, 10) and reminds them of what they themselves know (vv. 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 11). At the heart of it all is a series of negatives (vv. 3-6), as though Paul were responding to charges, which are countered by reminders as to what Paul and his companions were really about — the gospel (vv. 2, 4, 8, 9), which came from the God who had called the Thessalonians into his own kingdom and glory (v. 12). It is difficult to imagine how one can understand much of this apart from the report of Timothy: that some people in Thessalonica are making life miserable for the believers, a part of whose focus is on Paul, as the leader in promulgating this new religion. The accusation apparently was threefold: (a) what Paul teaches is full of error; (b) he himself is less than honest (full of guile, flattery, impure motives); (c) the reason for which is greed. Paul then responds to these matters in reverse order: (c) in verse 8, he and his companions toiled with their own hands so as not to burden you; (b) in verses 10-11, their conduct was holy and righteous; (a) in verse 13, their gospel is the very word of God.
Finally, one should note the thoroughly theocentric character of the entire passage. Christ is mentioned but once (v. 7, “Christ’s apostles”), while God is mentioned by name nine times. The only other place in the Pauline corpus where something like this occurs is in the long narrative of human fallenness in Romans 1:18-3:20, where as here Christ is mentioned but one time in passing (2:16).158 The reason for this in the present instance is not difficult to find. At stake here is not first of all the message per se, but the messenger; and whatever else, Paul understands his calling and apostleship to be the work of God the Father in his life. Hence the entire passage is all about something God has done; and Paul is ready to remind the Thessalonians of the same.
1. What Paul Was NOT like among the Thessalonians (2:1-7b)
1 [For]159 you know, brothers and sisters, that our visit to you was not without results. 2 We had previously suffered and been insulted in Philippi, as you know, but with the help of our God we dared to tell you his gospel in the face of strong opposition. 3 For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you. 4 On the contrary, we speak as those approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel. We are not trying to please people but God, who tests our hearts. 5 [For] you know we never used flattery, nor did we put on a mask to cover up greed — God is our witness. 6 We were not looking for praise from any human being, not from you or anyone else, 7 even160 though as apostles of Christ we could have asserted our prerogatives. But we were like young children161 among you.
This paragraph begins with a word of reminder (see the repeated “you know,” vv. 1, 3, 5) about Paul’s and his companions’ “entry” among them. The reminder in this case has to do with both whence and how they came to Thessalonica: that after having been abused and insulted in Philippi, they nonetheless took courage to share the gospel with the Thessalonians, even though that too was accompanied by struggle. The heart of this first section is dominated by two sets of “not/but” contrasts (vv. 3-4 and 5-7), in which each of the “not” parts of the contrast is expressed as a triplet, and where the “but” that follows expresses its radical opposite. On the “not” side Paul picks up language of what apparently was a common topos (form of speech) used by the Greek philosophers, in which they compared the true philosopher (oneself) with those who flatter others for gain or to get a following. This phenomenon in turn helps to explain the difficult — and rapid — change of images in verses 7 and 8.
Here, then, is the heart of this section, pared down to it barest elements:
Our appeal was not based on error nor on impure motives nor on trickery; but as those approved by God we speak not as people-pleasers but before GodFor we did not use flattery nor wear masks to cover greed nor seek praise from human beings, but we were “innocents” [like babes] among you
Paul’s language for the “not” side of these contrasts has much in common with a recognized form of “defense” used by some of the Cynic philosophers, in which the “defense” is a formal matter only, not a matter of reality. It has thus become popular to read Paul in light of these philosophers, suggesting that in his “borrowing” from such a topos, he is not really “defending” himself, but is simply setting forth his ministry in similar fashion in an exemplary manner, as a model for the Thessalonians to follow.162 But this view seems to draw the wrong conclusion from Paul’s use of this language.163 If the philosophers were not in a real battle, Paul definitely was, for in this case the life of the believing community in Thessalonica is at stake. Thus we will better understand Paul if we see him as indeed using language from the philosophers; but as with so much else, he is here adapting it to express his concerns in a very real historical situation, where some from the pagan population were using Paul’s “escaping town” so quickly as fodder against the believing community. Hence the emphasis throughout is simultaneously on the truthfulness of the message and the integrity of the messenger. In this case these two concerns are inextricably intertwined.
1 The explanatory “for” at the beginning of this sentence indicates that it has close ties with what has preceded, which is further substantiated by Paul’s picking up the word “visit” (eisodon)164 from 1:9. There he was concerned primarily with the results of his “visit” in terms of the Thessalonians’ “turning from idols to serve the living and true God,” with emphasis on how well known this was throughout the Grecian provinces. Here he is concerned to remind them similarly about the nature of his own dimension of that “visit,” that it was “not without results.”165 In so doing he returns to what he had said in 1:5 (“even as you know how we lived among you for your sake”), thus beginning a long apologetic regarding what manner of men the three of them had been during their stay in Thessalonica.
At the same time, Paul repeats the vocative “brothers and sisters” first used in 1:4 above (q.v.), which will be picked up again even more significantly in verse 9 in the present narrative. The reason for noting it again here is that it comes at the beginning of a long “defense” of the ministry of the apostolic trio when they first visited Thessalonica, throughout which Paul will use a series of family metaphors that is unique to the entire Pauline corpus.
The sentence begins with an emphatic “you yourselves166 know,” picking up the “as you know” from verse 5 and launching a series of no fewer than six such reminders in verses 1-12.167 Such an emphatic positioning of himself with regard to his founding visit seems especially to play the lie to the suggestion that this passage functions as a piece of epideictic rhetoric. Paul is simply urging them to recall the way things were at the beginning for their own sakes — and at the same time to counteract apparent slanders against himself which are being used as part of the campaign against these new believers. So just as Paul “knows their election” (v. 4), so the Thessalonian believers “know” that the apostle’s “visit” had good results — they themselves.
Thus he begins this apologia by reminding them again that his coming to them was “not in vain” (literally, not empty or void). This is the first of several such moments in Paul’s letters where this language occurs, often with the verb “laboring” or “running” in vain,168 in which instances he is almost certainly echoing language from the Septuagint of Isaiah 65:23.169 If so, and there is every good reason to think so,170 then Paul has from the beginning thought of his missionary activity in terms of this eschatological “promise” from God. His point with this litotes, of course, is to remind them of their own life-changing response to “God’s good news” (v. 11).
2 What Paul now sets in contrast to his visit being “not in vain” is, first, how he and his companions came to them (having “previously suffered and been insulted in Philippi”). Here we have a piece of evidence that independently corroborates the basic elements of the account in Acts 16, but without details. At the same time, our knowledge of Luke’s narrative gives us some insight into Paul’s own use of “suffering” language, since in this case it meant for a Roman citizen to have been treated outrageously in Philippi by his having been flogged and imprisoned without trial.
Thus, repeating the “even as you know,” Paul reminds them that when he and his companions arrived in Thessalonica, it was under the less-than-auspicious circumstance of having been “invited” to leave a Roman colony at the eastern end of the Macedonian plain. Now they had come to Thessalonica, another city that had been especially favored by the first Romam emperor, and news of their “misadventure” in Philippi was sure to have followed them. Indeed, it is very likely that Paul himself had so informed them. In any case, news of his and Silas’s previous suffering, including having been treated in an insolent, spiteful manner171 in Philippi, had become known to those who were to make up the Thessalonian community of faith.
But Paul was a follower of the crucified One and was not about to let mistreatment in one place keep him from telling people about Christ in another. So the main clause in his now long sentence puts it all into perspective, by way of reminder. Despite what had happened in Philippi, Paul and his companions “dared”172 — with the help of “our” God — to speak173 about “God’s gospel” to you.
The striking, and unnecessary, repetition of “God” in this sentence needs to be noted. First, the emphasis is on God’s being “our God,” not meaning that we possess him, but that we are his servants and thus his messengers, as one in an earlier time would identify himself as “the king’s messenger.” Because we are God’s messengers, Paul reminds them, we took boldness in his name to “speak” forth God’s “good news” to you, where Paul’s way of putting it here emphasizes not the nature of the presentation but of the veracity of its content.
Second, the gospel which was mentioned in 1:5 as “our gospel,” meaning the gospel we have been commissioned to proclaim, is throughout the present narrative called “God’s gospel” (vv. 2, 8, 9), meaning the good news that has its origins in the living and true God.174 Later in the narrative (3:2) Paul will call it by its more common designation “the gospel of Christ,” which in that case is an objective genitive, meaning “the gospel that is all about Christ, and what he has done.” But throughout the present section (2:1- 12) the emphasis is on the fact that Paul and his companions were genuine representatives for “the living and true God”175 to whom the Thessalonians had turned in rejecting their lifeless idols (1:9-10).
Finally, as though reluctant to let go of the thread with which the clause began, Paul reminds the Thessalonians once more at the end that he (and Silas, at least) did this preaching “in the face of strong opposition.”176 The metaphor lying behind this word suggests a great struggle on the part of Paul and his companions177 in their preaching Christ in Thessalonica. He most likely returns to this theme in this way because of what the Thessalonians themselves are now experiencing from the same people. Thus Paul’s ultimate point with this opening sentence seems to be: Whatever your opponents might be saying about us, you know better from your personal experience of us in your midst, as you also know from your own experience of the gospel (1:5-6).
3 With a second explanatory “for,” and picking up on the preceding final phrase (“in the context of a great struggle”), Paul sets out to remind the Thessalonians of what his “appeal”178 was not like, in both form and content, with emphasis on its character. The reminder is expressed with a nominal sentence,179 whose emphasis, expressed negatively, is on its source, its motive, and its manner.
First, and using language common to the philosophers,180 Paul presents his ministry as not having its source in “error” or mere “delusion.”181 Expressed positively, the emphasis lies on the truthfulness of the gospel, language Paul uses elsewhere when defending the gospel against his detractors. 182 Whatever else, the gospel is God’s good news and therefore cannot have its source in error.
Second, his preaching was not based on “impure motives.” In all of its other occurrences in Paul’s letters this word refers to “sexual uncleanness,”183 and it is so understood here by some commentators,184 thus suggesting that the apostolic band was to be distinguished from the sensuality associated with some pagan religions. But three things seem to militate against that sense in this case: (a) it is not used with sexual overtones by the philosophers, whom Paul seems to be echoing here;185
(b) such an understanding does not fit well between “error” and “trickery”; and (c) when Paul elaborates on these motives in what immediately follows, sexual immorality is not part of the picture. But if “impure motive” is what Paul is referring to, at issue still is “Of what kind?” which is best understood in light of the charge of “greed” in verses 5 and 6. That is, Paul’s proclamation of Christ as savior did not have lying behind it a hidden factor of “greed,” hoping to make money off those who, out of gratitude, had responded positively to Paul’s preaching — a failure that has had far too many living examples in the history of the church, especially in late-twentieth, early-twenty-first-century North America.
Third, Paul’s preaching was not a concealed attempt to “trick you” into believing. With this phrase Paul entertains a new idea, referring to the “manner” of his preaching rather than his “motive.” According to the philosophers, “trickery” was a common feature of those whose motives were “impure.” 186 Significantly, this is the feature that will be refuted in particular in verses 5-7. Most likely this charge would have been made in light of the miraculous events that accompanied Paul’s preaching, referred to in 1:5. But in Paul’s case there was a huge difference; the “miraculous” events happened to the Thessalonians themselves, not in some extraordinary phenomena external to them. This also accounts for the “you know” that begins in 1:5 and carries through this present section in such a thoroughgoing way. Their own experience of the Holy Spirit’s power serves as Paul’s primary evidence against these various charges.
4 Given the nature of the charges in the “not” part of this sentence, the “but” clause comes as something of a surprise. That is, given the heavy emphasis on the alleged lack of truth and sincerity found in the charges, one might have expected some direct evidence to the contrary. But what Paul does rather is to turn his case over to God. So with a comparative (“just as . . . so also”) clause, he sets forth his ministry in terms of God’s approval of it, and thus not in need of human approval. The key word, “testing” (so as to “approve” something), occurs at the beginning and end of the clause, and in each case “God” is the (grammatical) subject.187 That Paul and his companions have been “tested” by God so as to be “approved by God” is first of all evidenced by their being “entrusted with the gospel.” And “just as” this is the case, “thus we speak.”
The content of their speaking takes the form of another “not/but” contrast. The negation in this case is what takes the clause back to where the sentence began, to the three negatives that have just preceded. Since they have been “tested and thus approved by God,” Paul therefore contends that his and his companions’ public speech was not uttered “as trying to please people.” Although the verb itself (“to please”) occurs only in the first half of this clause (the “not” side), it is assumed in the immediately following reference to God, but with a slightly nuanced meaning. That is, on the negative side there is something wrong in the very doing of it (“trying to please people”), where the implication is that of “fawning” over someone to gain their approval (cf. Gal 1:10).188 But “pleasing God,” meaning to live in such a way as to bring pleasure to God, is always the proper goal for the believer. Thus in 4:1 Paul urges the Thessalonians to live in a way that “pleases” God, while in 2:15 some are condemned for activity that was not pleasing to God.
Why Paul can express such confidence in his pleasing God turns out to be something that cannot be seen by others, and carries more significance for that very reason. We know, Paul contends, that our “speech” is pleasing to God because, and now using language from Jeremiah 11:20, God is the one who alone “tests our hearts.”189 For Paul this is the ultimate examination, because the all-seeing, all-knowing God has put Paul and his companions to the test, as it were, and have done so in the place that counts — their hearts — and they therefore have God’s approval. Such a statement, of course, would fall on deaf ears in his detractors, the Thessalonian believers’ enemies, but it is not intended for the detractors but for the believers themselves. And thus, without saying as much, the clear implication is that the Thessalonians themselves serve as the primary evidence that Paul and his companions have been “approved by God.”
5 With a third explanatory “for”190 Paul now takes the more general statements about his ministry in verses 3 and 4 and applies them specifically to the Thessalonian situation, calling on both the Thessalonians and God as witnesses. Together with the negatives in verses 6 and 7a, these two serve as the second threefold negation regarding Paul’s ministry, in terms of what it was not like. At the same time these first two (v. 5) serve as a doublet. Thus regarding form, the second phrase repeats the first, except for the verb and the adverb “once” (or “at any time”191), which serve for both clauses. Moreover, both phrases are followed by a parenthetical verification of their trustworthiness. Thus, put more “literally” than the TNIV, Paul says:
At no time were we ever [present among you]192 with a word of flattery, as you yourselves know, nor with a cover-up of greed, as God is our witness.
Both of the phrases aim at a similar pretext that was common among the itinerant charlatans. “Flattery”193 has to do with the speaker’s fawning on his hearers, “buttering them up” as it were, in order to gain a hearing. This is the only New Testament occurrence of the Greek word used here, but it was well known in Greek antiquity. Indeed, according to Dio Chrysostom, it was one of the primary means of an itinerant’s personal gain.194 But all the time such flattery was simply “a mask to cover up greed.” This is the element that will be addressed again in verse 9, where Paul reminds the Thessalonian believers that instead of this kind of cozying up to people in order to milk them of their money, he and his companions “worked night and day in order not to be a burden to anyone while we preached the gospel of God to you.” Indeed, it is arguable that flattery is always a cover-up for some ulterior motive; in this case the accusation has been that Paul was using these believers in order to get personal gain from them.
Finally, we should note how well the two parenthetical phrases (“as you yourselves know/as God is our witness”) fit the situation. “Flattery” can be easily detected by the vigilant; but only the God who alone can test hearts knows whether greed is the real motive.
6-7a With yet another negative (“nor”), but with a slight change in grammar, Paul adds a third disclaimer to the verb in verse 5. Not only were neither flattery nor greed to be associated with his and his companions’ ministry in Thessalonica, but neither were they “seeking praise195 from any human being.” That is, they were not trying to gain human adulation in any shape or form. In a slightly different way, this repeats the phrase “not as people-pleasers” from verse 4. Thus the denials have moved from greed, to the equally dangerous “seeking praise and honor” from others. Adulation, after all, has its own way of beguiling the person receiving it, so much so that one soon begins to “seek” it. So sensitive is Paul to this commonplace failing that he adds the double negation: neither from you, nor from others. Who the “others” might refer to in this phrase cannot be known, but very likely it refers to fellow believers in other settings, be it Philippi or Jerusalem.
Even though Paul’s present sentence has not ended, with this final “neither/nor” his long disclaimers that began in verse 3 come to an abrupt end. He does this with a final participial clause, which can only be concessive in relationship to the main verb “lived” in verse 5 — “even though,” he points out, “as Christ’s apostles196 we could have asserted our prerogatives.” At least that seems to be a fair representation in English of Paul’s difficult Greek clause, which reads (literally): “although as Christ’s apostles we could have been ‘with weight.’” As with the colloquial English idiom “throw one’s weight around,” Paul and Silas could have made a point of their apostolic authority. But they chose not to do so, precisely so that they could not be wrongly accused of coming among the Thessalonians in the manner negated in the preceding two sentences. Thus, in this somewhat oblique way, Paul finally asserts his apostolic authority197 — something he did not include even in the salutation — only to make the point that he did not use it.
It should also be noted that this is the first appearance of the word “apostle” in the New Testament, and while it may be moot as to whether it also includes Timothy in this case,198 there can be little question that the plural intentionally includes Silas. The evidence from Paul’s letters is that he knew nothing about “the Twelve Apostles” as a title on its own. Elsewhere he refers to “the Twelve” as being included, but not exclusively so, among those designated as “apostles” (1 Cor 15:5, 7-8). Thus he mentions the appearance of Christ to “the Twelve” (v. 5, an obvious title, since in fact they were only eleven), and then goes on to speak of an appearance “to James [and] then to all the apostles” (v. 7), in which the grammar seems intentionally to include James. In verse 8 he then includes himself as an “apostle” who had been “untimely born,” but whose apostleship was legitimized by the fact that “I saw the [risen] Lord” (9:1).
Although in some other places Paul also uses the word “apostle” in its nontechnical sense (2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25), his own apparent criteria for apostleship as a technical term are twofold: having seen the risen Lord, and having been “commissioned” by him (1 Cor 9:1). The net result is that Paul uses the designation to refer to several people other than the Twelve and himself.199 But here he seems clearly to intend to refer to his own (and perhaps Silas’s with him) apostolic authority, which he deliberately chose not to use, either when with them or now in this letter.
7b With that point having been made (they were apostles who refused to “throw their weight around”), Paul now concludes his sentence with imagery that is so unexpected that it has had no end of being tampered with, first by some fifth-century scribes and then by modern scholars, so that Paul’s own sentence and wording have been reworked to make it more accommodating to later, including modern, tastes. The issue is primarily a textual one, whether Paul wrote ēpioi (“gentle”) or nēpioi (“infants”). The textually preferred reading (“infants”) has generally been dismissed as too jarring a metaphor for the context. But one wonders how this is so, since it is followed immediately by an equally astounding — and abrupt — metaphor, “nursing mother.”
On the one hand, since the latter is (apparently) generally deemed to be less jarring, scholars have had little trouble with moving from the metaphor to its intent, that Paul and his companions showed the same kind of loving care toward the Thessalonians that a nursing mother does to her child. Nonetheless, it is in fact a remarkable analogy, unlike anything else in the Pauline corpus, and one wonders why scholars have not been jarred by it, especially since Paul himself is quite ready in verse 11 to change to the more comfortable “father/child” analogy. On the other hand, the “nursing mother” metaphor makes perfectly good sense contextually, since Paul has just used the “infants” metaphor, whose point in context emphasizes the total innocence of the itinerant missionaries with regard to all that has been suggested about them.200 But not all see it this way, and since the textual matter requires a considerable discussion in its own right, we note first the grammatical differences this textual choice involves.
If Paul in fact wrote “gentle,” as most English translations and commentators prefer,201 then the first part of verse 7 must conclude with the preceding clause, “even though as Christ’s apostles, we could have asserted our prerogatives,” and the new sentence then begins with a “but.” Although there is no difficulty with beginning a sentence with “but,” the problem in this case is that it creates an anomaly in the present argumentation. Our verse 5 is the third in a series of sentences (long sentences, to be sure) which have a “not/ but” contrast as their primary feature. In the first instance (vv. 1-2) the “not” clause is very brief (“[our coming] was not empty”). In the second instance (vv. 3-4) Paul begins with three “not” phrases, followed by its logical “but” contrast, which takes the form of a “just as/so” comparison. Similarly, in this third sentence (vv. 5-7a), he begins again with a threefold “neither/nor” and concludes with a striking “but” contrast. Thus Paul’s three sentences are structured as follows:
1. Vv. 1-2 You know our visit — not empty was it, but we were emboldened by God to speak to you.
2. Vv. 3-4 For our appeal was not based on error, nor on impure motives, nor with guile, but as those approved by God, thus we speak.
3. Vv. 5-7b For we came not with flattery, nor with a mask of greed, nor by seeking human praise, but we became “infants/little children” in your midst.
This is then followed by another (typical) Pauline sentence that begins with a “as/thus(so)” contrast and concludes with another “not only/but also” clause. Thus:
4. Vv. 7c-8 As a nursing mother cares for her children so with deep longing we gladly shared with you not only God’s gospel but also our very lives because you had become so beloved to us
Apart from the unusual, but explicable, combination of hōs ean . . . houtōs (“as though . . . so”), everything about this arrangement, it must be noted, is thoroughly Pauline. What has therefore caused so many scholars to abandon these clear structures for the secondary reading in verse 7b is the apparently abrupt nature of the metaphor “babes/young children” in that clause. But in doing so, they must also burden Paul with a new sentence that has three consecutive ungrammatical clauses (at least ungrammatical for Paul): one (vv. 6- 7a) that has no conclusion;202 a second (v. 7b) that starts with a “but” and then concludes by breaking up Paul’s “as if/thus” clause by dropping the “thus” clause, while turning Paul’s “as though” into a simple comparative “as”; and a third clause (v. 8) that begins with a “thus,” which must now become an (ungrammatical for Paul) intensive adverb (“so much”) rather than the natural correlative (“thus”) to the preceding “just as.” Thus they end up with a structural and syntactical arrangement to Paul’s sentences that looks like this (cf. NRSV, NASB, NIV, ESV):
6 Nor did we seek praise from mortals, neither from you nor from others,7 even though, as apostles of Christ, we might have made our weight felt. But we were gentle among you,8 like a nurse tenderly caring for her own children. So deeply do we care for you that we were willing etc.
The difficulty with this arrangement is that the three italicized words are now taken out of Paul’s sequence (but. . . . Just as . . . so), and each is forced to have an unusual meaning. Thus the translators of the NRSV, and the others that go this route, have several grammatical difficulties to overcome. First, Paul’s “but” (alla) is made to begin a sentence and to stand in contrast to the immediately preceding metaphor (“our weight felt,” which was turned into “made demands on you”), rather than to stand in contrast to the threefold negatives in verses 5 and 6. Second, his “as if ” (hōs ean) is turned into a “like,” a meaning for this compound found nowhere else in Greek literature, let alone the New Testament;203 and, third, his correlative “so” (houtōs) is turned into an intensive adverb (“so greatly”), which is another grammatical anomaly in the New Testament.204
However, since Paul’s grammar makes perfectly good sense if the reading in the United Bible Societies/Nestle-Aland Greek text is considered as original, this suggests that the real issue with this passage is the resolution of the textual issue pointed out in note 8 above. And while it is true that a good contextual case can be made for “gentle,” there are in fact no purely textual arguments that favor this reading. Indeed, the following textual considerations altogether favor “infants/young children”205 as the Pauline original.206
1. The most common text-critical “reason” for choosing “gentle” suggests that nēpioi (“infants”) is the result of common dittography, wherein a scribe (or scribes) repeated the final nu of the immediately preceding verb.207 In fact, however, this is no textual argument at all, but is rather an explanation as to how nēpioi might have arisen if one makes the prior assumption that ēpioi (“gentle”) is the original reading. In such a case, however, the textual choice is made on the prior grounds of what Paul is most likely to have written in context, not on textual grounds per se. After all, if one begins with the opposite prior assumption, that nēpioi is original, then one can just as easily argue that ēpioi came about as the result of haplography, since omissions of letters in such cases occur just as frequently as dittography and there is no scribal predilection toward one or the other. The point is that the possibility of dittography or haplography is open-ended. Either may have happened, and each can be easily explained; but neither of these is an argument for one reading or the other as original.The result is that those (the decided majority) who favor “gentle” do so altogether on internal grounds and are quite dismissive of the textual evidence itself. Thus Malherbe (145) puts it plainly: “The majority of interpreters and translations have read ēpioi . . . primarily on the grounds that nēpioi would be too incongruous” (italics mine). In other words, since everything hinges on not being able to “make sense” of the noun, one settles for the adjective. But that is scarcely the way to resolve textual questions, especially when very good reasons can be shown to account for the reading that on every account is the textually superior one.The textual question, therefore, must be answered on other grounds. And at this point the issues are two — whether the interchange was accidental or intentional — and both of these favor “infants.” That is, (a) if the add/omit nu were accidental, then one should surely opt for nēpioi on the basis of its superior attestation (see next paragraph); (b) likewise if the add/omit were intentional, then one should also opt for nēpioi on the twin grounds that the “more difficult” reading is to be preferred as the original and that that reading which best explains the origin of the other is most likely the original. A few more words about each of these matters.
2. The external evidence is decisively in favor of nēpioi, being supported by the earliest evidence in the West (all the Old Latin) and in the East (P65), as well as by the predominance of what is most often considered the best evidence (in this case, all but Codex A of the Egyptian witnesses). One would seem to need especially strong transcriptional arguments to overrule this combination of evidence. In fact, the evidence for ēpioi is so much weaker than for nēpioi that under ordinary circumstances no living scholar would accept the former reading as original, which is what makes the note in the NRSV so misleading: “Other ancient authorities read infants.” That note levels the ground on a textual decision that is decidedly not level, not even close.What is seldom noted, however, is a further significant historical factor: Since all the known early evidence — empire-wide — attests nēpioi, those who favor ēpioi need to offer good historical reasons as to how the (accidental) corruption of adding the nu happened so early (and so often) so that it came to be the only text known for several centuries, while the “original” reading escaped all the known early evidence only to emerge much later in the monolithic, but patently secondary, evidence of the Byzantine tradition. This is not thereby to deny that such could have happened; but one wonders why only the “accident” is universally known in the first four Christian centuries.209 On this matter, I want to “plead the cause of history, and in the name of history to plead the cause of the documents.”210
3. The same holds true with regard to the issues of transcriptional probabilities (having to do with scribal proclivities). It turns out, in fact, that the only thing that favors ēpioi is internal evidence, predicated on what scholars deem Paul most likely to have written.211 But the arguments raised in favor of ēpioi and against nēpioi on transcriptional grounds actually favor nēpioi only. That is, it was to alleviate the very difficulty that present-day scholars have with nēpioi, as malapropos to the argument, that some (not very early) scribes changed it to read ēpioi. This is further corroborated by the fact that several manuscripts have been “corrected” in this case, and that the direction of correction in every case but one (the tenth-c. Codex 326) is away from nēpioi in favor of ēpioi. Such “corrections” are obviously intentional, suggesting that most of the later corruptions to this text also moved intentionally in this direction (thus it is altogether unlikely to be the result of pure accident). What this means, then, is that all the evidence that is purely transcriptional favors the reading “infants.”
4. When one turns from the transcriptional issue to the question of Pauline usage, here again the evidence favors “infants.” It should be noted that ēpioi is found elsewhere in the New Testament only in 2 Timothy 2:24,212 whereas nēpioi occurs as a somewhat frequent metaphor in Paul. This latter fact has sometimes been used to condemn “infants” here, on the grounds that this metaphor is always pejorative in Paul. But such a comment is purely prejudicial, and fails to come to terms with Paul’s own fluid use of metaphors. After all, in 1 Corinthians alone he uses it pejoratively in 3:1-2, in a neutral sense in 13:11, and positively in 14:20.While this may seem like an abrupt change of metaphors,214 it is so primarily if one thinks the “nurse” clause is syntactically related to the “infants” clause. But seen as separate sentences, they can easily be explained as in keeping with similar sudden shifts of metaphor elsewhere in Paul, where one metaphor triggers another in the apostle’s mind, and thus are related primarily by “catchword” and not by consistency in application.When we add the structural matters with which this discussion began, we may conclude with a very high degree of certainty that Paul himself wrote “infants,” and later scribes, who had the same difficulty with the metaphor as more modern interpreters, simply removed the offending letter (nu) and created a text much more to their liking.
In light of the high degree of certainty one may have regarding the Greek text behind the TNIV, this means that Paul is here making his case by using the strongest kind of metaphor to declare his and his companions’ “innocence” of the kinds of deceptions of which they apparently have been accused. When it comes to our relationship with you, Paul expostulates, even though our position as apostles gave us the right to do so, we refused to throw our weight around. Rather, in terms of attitude, we were as innocent as infants.215
With this shift of images Paul brings closure to the “not” side of this reminder of his and his companions’ ministry in Thessalonica. One can only speculate as to the reasons for all this. But for church leaders of a later time, this passage could serve as a helpful “checklist” for ongoing spiritual inventory. Although this might be true for all who profess Christ, it is especially so for those who serve Christ in more conspicuous roles. Note especially the “not’s,” which dominate the first half of this passage: error, impure motive, trickery, people-pleaser, flattery, greed, and human praise. Unfortunately these are not limited to the first century. Paul’s goal, on the other hand, is to be “approved by God” and thus a “God-pleaser.”
2. What Paul WAS like among the Thessalonians (2:7c-12)
Just as a nursing mother cares for her children, 8 so we cared for you. Because we loved you so much, we were delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God but our lives as well, because you had become216 so dear to us. 9 Surely you remember, brothers and sisters, our toil and hardship; we217 worked night and day in order not to be a burden to anyone while we preached the gospel of God to you.218 10 You are witnesses, and so is God, of how holy, righteous and blameless we were among you who believed. 11 For you know that we dealt with each of you as a father deals with his own children, 12 encouraging, comforting and urging you to live lives worthy of God, who calls219 you into his kingdom and glory.
The mention of the apostles’ conduct as being the opposite of other itinerants, so much so that they were among them as pure “innocents,” little children as it were, touches off a series of metaphors about their ministry that has tended to be very difficult for some readers to negotiate, as Paul moves from “little children” to “nursing mother” to “father.” Although this is indeed a rapid shift of metaphors, it is in fact the familial nature of these metaphors that makes sense of them as a package, where the first, “infants,” immediately triggers the second, “nursing mother,” which finally evolves into “father,” the more normal one for Paul. The present section as a whole, therefore, is held together by this series of metaphors.
At the same time, and in keeping with what has preceded, Paul’s primary reason for this “defense” of his ministry is to remind the Thessalonian believers of how utterly different reality was — when he and Silas and Timothy were present — from the vacuous charges that since then had been brought against the apostles. His ultimate concern is therefore to give expression to his genuine care for his friends, since absence from them without word of any kind has been a real burden for him, as 3:1-5 makes clear.
Thus, following the shift of metaphors in verse 8 to a nursing mother, where Paul’s concern for his friends has been given voice, the rest of the section applies, and thus brings closure to, the argument that began in verse 1. The passage therefore concludes with three final reminders. In verse 9 they are invited to remember the twofold nature of “our toil and hardship” as Paul and his companions worked among them. In verse 10 they are called upon to bear witness themselves to the apostles’ exemplary conduct while among them. Verses 11-12 then conclude the whole section by summarizing the argument as to his personal conduct while among them and thus by reminding them that the reason for his personal concern was for their own sakes: that they walk worthy of their conversion in the present and thereby be participants at the consummation.
7b-8 With a sudden change of metaphors that appears to have been triggered by the preceding “infant = innocent” comparison,220 Paul also now shifts altogether the emphasis of this long “defense.” Following the sentences that negate the charges being brought against him and his co-workers (vv. 3- 4, 5-7a), he now begins a series of positive reminders of the way things actually were when they were together in Thessalonica. The immediate concerns are all packaged in the present sentence, which also causes it to become somewhat convoluted. In contrast to the charges brought against them, the apostolic band not only did not “rip the believers off,” as it were, but rather, he affirms, “we took delight in sharing our very lives with you, as we also shared with you God’s gospel.” But that delight now finds expression with a new “family of God” metaphor, expressed in terms of caring for them just as would a “nursing mother” for her own children.
The complexity of the sentence emerges because at the end Paul chooses to repeat in plain Greek what he began by way of metaphor. Thus the sentence is “enclosed” by this repetition, which, along with its singular emphasis (italicized below), may be displayed thus:
Just as a nursing mother cares for her own children, so, in our longing for you, we were pleased to share with you not only God’s gospel, but also our very lives, because so beloved to us you had become.
It is this central reality, “our sharing our very lives with you,” that leads to the explanatory reminder in verse 9, having to do with their twofold “toil” of (a) working night and day so as not to be a burden to them, while (b) they proclaimed God’s gospel to them.
Thus Paul begins this new (comparative) sentence by likening his and his companions’ relationship to the believers in Thessalonica to that of a nursing mother.221 Again, as with the former metaphor, one must take Paul for his intent with the metaphor, and not press the details or particulars.222 At issue is a continuing reminder by way of contrast between what the opposition has been suggesting about Paul and the reality that the Thessalonians themselves know. Rather than using these new believers for their own selfish ends, the apostolic band had only the good of the believers themselves in view when they were in Thessalonica. Paul’s emphasis with the metaphor is on a nursing mother’s “own”223 children, which puts his relationship to the Thessalonians on a different plane altogether from that of the charlatans they have been accused of being. As with the immediately preceding metaphor (innocent little ones), Paul is pointing out the absurdity of the accusations against him by reminding the believers of the way things really were: infant-like in terms of motive; mother-like in terms of caring.
In the apodosis of his comparative sentence (the “thus/so” clause, v. 8), Paul begins with a participle that keeps the metaphor intact, but he then immediately spells out in plain Greek how that worked out in the reality of their earlier (on-site) relationship. It was because we had a nursing mother’s kind of deep yearning224 for you, he notes, that “we were delighted225 to share”226 God’s gospel with you. The emphasis in Paul’s sentence, however, lies finally with the “not only/but also” contrast that functions as the twofold object of the infinitive “to share.” And this is now especially in keeping with the shift in emphasis that has taken place with this sentence. In the previous paragraph the emphasis lay with the apostles’ conduct, as they “shared God’s good news with you.” Here the emphasis lies with “but our [very] lives227 as well.”228 In the end it is this personal dimension of his relationship with the Thessalonians that separates him so thoroughly from the charlatans, who cared nothing for their hearers as people.
The ultimate cause of such a yearning — in terms of the present sentence — comes at the end: “because you had become our229 beloved ones.” This final clause thus pulls together both the metaphor with which the sentence begins and the historical reality that follows. The reason the missionary trio could not have been anything like what their detractors are now saying is that the apostolic band “loved them” in the way that a nursing mother loves her own children. Such love completely disallows the kind of dissimulation on the part of Paul and his companions that the Thessalonians’ enemies are advocating.
9 Paul now follows the affirmations of the preceding sentence, and its implicit denials, with yet another sentence that begins with an explanatory “for.”230 What he elaborates in this case takes the Thessalonians back to the charges against him implied in verses 5 and 6, especially the charge of “using flattery as a mask for greed.” All he need do now is call on their memory. The main clause, which comes at the end, essentially repeats what was just said in verse 8: “We preached231 God’s gospel to you.”232 But that is preceded by the really important matter, which boils down to a thoroughgoing denial, by way of direct evidence, that he preached Christ to them for the sake of personal gain (thus countering the charge of “greed” [v. 5]). Whatever else, he was not in it for the money.
What the Thessalonian believers are now to recall are two matters: the hardship itself and the “laboring night and day.”233 Paul begins with the hardship, 234 which finds expression in the doublet, “toil and hardship.”235 The first of these is used at times as a near synonym for the regular word for “work,” where the stress is on the “toiling” dimension of such work;236 it has already been so used in the thanksgiving regarding the Thessalonians themselves. The second word237 puts all the emphasis on the exertion and hardship dimension of such labor.
When Paul elaborates on this opening sentence with a purpose clause, it turns out that in this instance he is not referring directly to his “labor in the gospel,” but to manual labor as such, which we discover in Acts 18:3 was that of tentmaker. Indeed, according to that account Paul was once again plying his trade in Corinth, at about the time the present letter would have been written. What becomes clear in the sentence is that Paul and his companions were not sustained by the largesse of those to whom they ministered, but in part by way of his (at least)238 manual labor. As it turns out, this necessity also proved to be beneficial in another way, since Paul will appeal to his “working with his own hands” as in part due to necessity, but also in part because it afforded him opportunity “to provide them with an example” (2 Thess 3:9). In a much later letter (Phil 4:13-19) we learn further that he and his companions were also sustained in Thessalonica by recurring gifts from the believers in Philippi, with whom he had entered into a friendship relationship apparently unique among his congregations.239
Although we can never know for certain, it seems altogether likely that when Paul, Silas, and Timothy came to Thessalonica, they sensed the need not to live off the largesse of these new believers. Indeed, he expresses that need in terms of concern for them: “in order not to be a burden to anyone.” 240 And while not stated as such, the whole passage (2:1-12) indicates that Paul had been led by the Spirit in that decision, since otherwise their accepting free “room and board” could have been used against them.241 Now, at the end of the present argument, Paul reminds the Thessalonians themselves of this reality — with emphasis on the toilsome nature of his everyday work that had freed him up to “proclaim God’s gospel to you.”
That Paul should do so is probably at the same time a reflection of his rabbinic training, since, according to Aboth 2:2, “Rabban Gamaliel, the Son of R. Judah the Patriarch, says: ‘Fitting is learning in Torah along with a craft, for the labor put into the two of them makes one forget sin. And all learning of Torah that is not joined with labor is destined to be null and cause sin.”242 The present passage bears witness to Paul’s own adherence to this kind of rabbinic tradition, in which he had been schooled.
10 Paul concludes this sustained apologia for his conduct while in Thessalonica with a final, very complex sentence that includes our verses 10 to 12. The nature of the appeal itself, including its convoluted expression, offers evidence that Paul is in a real “life and death” situation regarding the Thessalonians themselves and not simply using a standard “form” of philosophical talk. The sentence, which is noteworthy in part because it lacks the usual connector with which most Greek sentences begin,243 comes in two clear parts, with its only verb appearing at the end of this first clause (v. 10). And since that verb does double duty (for this first clause and the second [vv. 11-12]),244 we will look at them as two sentences, which is the way almost all English translations also handle the difficulty. In both clauses, it should be noted, Paul once again calls on the believers themselves to remember how things were, first (v. 10) with regard to his and his companions’ character in terms of their relationships with the Thessalonians, and second (vv. 11-12), shifting to paternal imagery, with regard to his conduct toward them (appealing, consoling, imploring). And all of this has the single aim of the Thessalonian believers’ walking worthy of the God who called them unto himself.
This first clause begins by continuing the “recall for yourselves” motif found throughout the passage. This time, however, he uses the language of the court. Needing two or more witnesses, Paul calls on God to join the Thessalonians in bearing such witness as to his exemplary character while in Thessalonica.245 After all, he has called on God throughout the present narrative. When in Thessalonica he took courage “in God,” whose “good news” he preached (v. 2); he was thus approved by God, who tests the hearts and whom alone Paul is aiming to please (v. 4). All of this is what is now being picked up again at the end of the narrative.
With three adverbs (which tend to work better as adjectives in English246), Paul once more puts all the emphasis on his observable behavior. The first word (hosiōs), which appears only here in the New Testament, puts the emphasis on living in a way that is pleasing to God, thus picking up on God as his witness.247 The second word (dikaiōs) puts the emphasis on living asyndeton here “has a rhetorical effect.” This may also explain in part why the NIV translators chose to start a new paragraph here. in a way that is upright before others. At this point Paul is reflecting language about personal integrity that is common to the ancient world, both Greek and Jewish. Thus Josephus speaks of Samuel as a man who “governed the nation hosiōs kai dikaiōs (in a holy and just way),”248 while much earlier Plato had referred to the value of a person’s living “out his days in dikaiōs kai hosiōs (justice and piety).”249
The third adverb (amemptōs) puts emphasis on observable behavior that is without fault, thus “blameless.”250 That the emphasis is still on observable conduct is made clear in this instance by its recurrence in this letter (3:13251 and 5:23) in contexts that refer to the behavior of the Thessalonian believers, but with orientation toward their being thus before God at the Parousia. In the present instance all the emphasis is on Paul’s and his companions’ conduct “toward252 you who believe,” meaning “in our relationship with you while present with you.” This latter phrase, “you who believe,”253 does not imply a different level of conduct toward unbelievers; rather, it is yet another moment in the passage where Paul reaffirms the Thessalonians in terms of their relationship to God. They are not simply those who “have believed,” but are in fact, as he has learned from Timothy to his great relief (3:6-8), “those who continue to believe.” But the present concern is with their memory of him when the apostolic band was there. So as at the beginning of the passage (v. 5), his appeal is to their own memory of the way things really were, despite the (apparent) barrage of misinformation to which they have been subjected by fellow townfolk in Thessalonica.
11-12 With one final “you know” Paul strikes the themes of the paragraph yet once more, but now with the double emphasis with which he began the thanksgiving in 1:4-5: his conduct in their midst, and their own conversion. But in contrast to the preceding sentence (v. 10), which emphasized his own personal behavior — and thus concluded the “apology” of the entire section — this time Paul directs all of the emphasis specifically toward them. His conduct while among them, he reassures them, was all for their sakes, especially with their eschatological salvation in view.
In thus reminding the Thessalonians of his relationship to them after their conversion, and with the immediately preceding “we were”254 continuing as the verb which controls the whole, he now at the end gives content to what he would have them here recall. Thus, he now reminds them, as he had also urged them while he was among them, to live in such a way as to realize the final eschatological goal. Thus the focus is twofold. First, he begins with the important matters upfront — with the Thessalonians themselves: “you know,” he repeats for the fourth time, “how we were toward each one of you,” which (remarkably) emphasizes the individual rather than the collective nature of his care. This is followed immediately by the comparative imagery, “as a father with his own children,”255 where the emphasis in the pronoun lies with the personal dimension of the relationship.256 Thus the pastoral care motif that was struck in verses 7 and 8 with the maternal metaphor is now changed into a paternal one. The essential difference between the two metaphors is in this case to be found in the three participles, which together describe what the ancients, both Greek and Roman, would have recognized as a father’s duty, especially in the matter of the moral training of his children.257
For understandable reasons this is imagery to which Paul will return several times in letters to churches he had founded. Thus he thinks of a given community collectively in terms of a father with his “children,” as in 1 Corinthians 4:14; 2 Corinthians 12:14, and Galatians 4:19. It is of interest that in each of these cases he is also pressing his apostolic authority on these two communities. In all other cases he uses the imagery to reflect his understanding of his relationship with Timothy,258 with whom he obviously had developed a bonding that only this imagery could adequately reflect.
As with the compounding of the three adverbs in verse 10, the three participles in this sentence get their point across collectively rather than individually. That is, there is just enough semantic overlap between and among them that the final choice of an English equivalent is a matter of taste more than precision in meaning. The first verb259 is by far the most frequent in his letters; the fact that it occurs most often in letters where he is appealing to the recipients (here, and 1 and 2 Corinthians)260 suggests that in this case it leans toward “implore” or “appeal” (as in the NEB) rather than “exhort” (RSV, NASB, ESV) or “encourage” (TNIV). The second participle261 occurs only here and in 5:14 in the entire corpus — although the two noun equivalents occur together in 1 Corinthians 14:3 as well, as the proper goal of true verbal Spirit gifting in the believing community. This latter passage, therefore, serves to verify that the point of such language is building people up, in this case by comforting them in times of difficulty,262 all of which is in keeping with the “father and his own children” imagery with which the sentence began.
The third participle (“urging”)263 is found only here and in Galatians 5:3 and Ephesians 4:17 in Paul’s letters, and only twice further in the New Testament (Acts 20:26; 26:22); it is also the word on which there is least precise agreement in the English translations.264 In the two occurrences in Acts, as well as in Galatians 5:3, it carries its basic meaning of “testifying, bearing solemn witness” to something. This basic sense of the verb suggests that something like “solemnly implore” is the most likely sense in the present context.
As already noted, it is unlikely that the Thessalonians themselves would have thought through each of these words, since the strength of the appeal lies in its compounded emphasis as to what fathers do with their children to encourage them to take the right path. Paul’s concern, however, lies less with what he does as a father than with the goal of such urging on his part, namely that they walk (= live, behave)265 in a way worthy, not of their earthly “father” but of “the eternal God, who is calling you into his own kingdom and glory.” That is, God is calling you to live under his rule now, so as to realize the fullness of that kingdom, including God’s own glory, in the future.266 And with that Paul once more strikes the eschatological note with which both the opening thanksgiving and the first part of the narrative concluded (1:3, 10), although in this instance his concern is with how they live now, in a way that is “worthy” of the God who calls them. One is not quite sure what to make of the present tense in the phrase “the God who calls you,” since Paul ordinarily uses this verb in the aorist (past) tense when referring to people’s conversion, as in 4:7 below and later in 2 Thessalonians 2:14. It probably has the same intent here, except that the present tense emphasizes the ongoing nature of that calling. In any case, it once more focuses on their present relationship with God rather than, as before, on what happened in the past when Paul was with them.267
Here is motive enough for perseverance — to live in such a way as to be “worthy of God.” This kind of language in Paul places perseverance and Christian behavior in their ultimate context. Even though Paul serves as a surrogate “father” to them, his real concern is that they learn to live in such a way that they reflect God’s own character, that they are worthy children of their heavenly Father.268 This is not perfectionism but reality, since for Paul the goal of salvation is the restoration of Eden and the reshaping of God’s people back into his own image, as that has been put on full display in the incarnation of his Son (Rom 8:29-30).269 Thus the present emphasis is not on the future as such, but on their life in the present, life under God’s present rule — with future glory as the ultimate goal of God’s calling.
Implied, but not pursued — here or elsewhere in Paul — is the awful possibility that those who fail to persevere will not attain the eschatological goal. This is neither a hidden threat nor pollyanish reassurance. It is spoken by one who knows the history of his own people well. And it is the note that will be struck again in a slightly different way at the end of next section of the narrative (2:19). It is not that Paul has doubts as to whether or not they will persevere, but that they, by the help of the Spirit, must indeed persevere so as to realize the final glory. And on this note his long apologia for his relationship to the Thessalonian believers comes to an end, although the story of their “in the meantime” relationship still needs to be given, which is what he picks up again in verse 17, after a brief word about how the Thessalonian believers have persevered to this point, despite their present suffering (vv. 13-16).
Although it lies beyond Paul’s own reasons for recalling the integrity of his ministry while in Thessalonica, this passage has propaedeutic value for all times and seasons for those responsible for leadership in the church, whether pastor, elder, deacon, or teacher (whether seminary or Sunday school). What Paul recognizes clearly — and quite in contrast to many of the religious charlatans of his day — is that the connection between the content of the gospel and the conduct of those who preach/teach/confess it must be held closely together for the former to have integrity at all. Unfortunately the Elmer Gantrys of fiction have far too often existed in the real life of the church. The present passage would serve well as a regular (monthly? daily?) checklist for all who would be teachers/preachers of the gospel, not to mention for all the rest of God’s people as well.