A. Summary Exhortations (5:12-22)
A. SUMMARY EXHORTATIONS (5:12-22)
Although the imperatives in this series are for the most part very brief, so that they may be styled “staccato,” they do not thereby lack order or substance in terms of the actual situation in Thessalonica. Indeed, it is not easy to decide whether (or how many of) these exhortations are simply part of the more formal conclusion to the letter or whether they are very intentionally speaking into their present situation. For example, much briefer hortatory moments like these precede the final greetings in several of Paul’s letters.627 Nonetheless, they are noticeably absent — completely so — from his next letter to this church.628 Furthermore, some of this material, especially verse 14, reflects matters in the letter itself. Very likely, therefore, even though some of this material may be more general in scope, much of it is also related to the actual situation in Thessalonica. In any case, the entire section has been set up by the concluding exhortation in verse 11: “encourage one another and build one another up” — which is what Paul himself now sets out to do for them.
A general structural pattern is discernible. Verses 12-13, with the verb “we ask you,” basically give instructions on attitudes toward leaders, while verses 14-22, picking up the verb “urge” from verse 11, are a fourfold series of imperatives having to do for the most part with their life together as a believing community. The first two series (vv. 14 and 15) deal with relationships within the community; here, with the imperatives all sitting in their normal first position, Paul basically summarizes the preceding section of the letter (4:1-5:11), where he has “supplied what is lacking” (3:10). The last two series (vv. 16-18 and 19-22) then deal with the community at worship, and here the imperatives all stand in final position. Verses 16-18 encourage them to continue with basic Christian piety, which also reflects Paul’s Jewish roots; and verses 19-22 bring up an entirely new concern, having to do with Christian prophecy. The whole then concludes with a prayer for their sanctification (vv. 23-24)
As noted, at issue for some interpreters is the question of how much of this besides verse 14 reflects specific matters in the Thessalonian community, and how much is related more to pastoral care in general. The most common approach to this question is a minimalist one, where a comparison is made with Romans 12, so that all of this is seen to represent “general parenesis.” Others take a maximalist view, that all of it responds to issues in the church; thus verses 12-13 are seen as over against “a criticism of Pauline leadership,” while verses 19-22 respond to “conflict over ecstatic manifestations.”629
The perspective from which this commentary is written is something of a middling one. Thus, given the apparently more general nature of verses 16-18, which reappear in a different form over a decade later at the end of Philippians,630 one should exercise due caution here in finding them as responding to specific “issues.” Nonetheless, since verse 14 is so specifically tailored to the present situation, and since 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2 is probably related to the issue of “prophecy” in verses 19-22, it is very likely that this passage and verses 12-13 are case specific as well. But how much one can recreate the situations involved is much less certain, and one should probably use discretionary caution in any attempt to recreate the historical setting as such.
1. Attitudes toward Their Leaders (5:12-13)
12 Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, to acknowledge those who work hard among you, who care for you in the Lord and who admonish you. 13 Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other.
This first set of imperatives catches us a bit by surprise; but perhaps it should not. The surprise factor is not that the believing community had leaders — we should assume that to be so — but that Paul should address the community at all in this way. Nothing in what has preceded prepares one for this moment; leaders are neither called upon regarding the preceding matters, nor is there a hint that they are present at all. But this set of admonitions suggests that these leaders are finally responsible to see that the preceding correctives and admonitions are carried out. Or at least one might well assume that such is the nature of this request.
Furthermore, nothing in the content of the request indicates that this is a problem area in the church — unless one wishes to read some kind of issue into the final imperative, “live in peace with each other.” But perhaps more to the point is the fact that this matter is not raised again in the letter that was written soon after this one (our 2 Thessalonians), where Paul does return to some of the other matters raised in this letter. Not only so, but the request comes to them as just that, a request, and not as an outright imperative, which in itself is striking when one reads this in the context of the long series of imperatives that begin with the final one in this paragraph (“live at peace with each other”). Thus the two verbs that control the long sentence of our verses 12-13a) — eidenai (= “recognize, acknowledge”) and heigeisthai (“esteem”) — are a long way from the kinds of imperatives that call for obedience or submission to their leadership.
Indeed, in this regard the most striking feature of this request is the lack of identifying nouns. That is, those mentioned here are not specified by a noun that could also function as a title (overseer, elder, deacon, etc.). What we get rather is a series of three nominal participles that identify them by their activities. Paul’s request comes by way of two infinitives; he wants the believing community to “acknowledge” and “esteem” those who work hard among them. Since this is his primary concern, the identity of these leaders, the issue of a much later time in the church, is not given at all but is simply assumed.
Finally, it is probably wrong for one to think that the three participles suggest three different kinds of leaders, each with his or her own responsibility, one of one kind, another of a second kind, and so on. Almost certainly these three participles are simply representative of the tasks that leaders are assumed to fulfill; and they are to be “acknowledged” for their leadership as such, not specifically for carrying out these various responsibilities. That is, these participles identify them for their “labors,” not for their positions.
12 With the “maid-of-all-work” connective particle de, here properly translated “now” (= “now to move on to the next issue[s]”), and yet another vocative, “brothers and sisters” (number 12), Paul turns toward several matters that are at the same time intended to bring the letter to its conclusion. The request (“we ask you”) is that they “know”631 those who have responsibility for them in the Lord. As in English, the verb “know” in Greek has a considerable range of meaning. Here Paul most likely intended the nuance indicated by the TNIV’s “acknowledge.” That is, the believers are to “know” them in the sense that they recognize or acknowledge their activities of leadership among them. Most likely it is simply Paul’s way of affirming the leadership of those responsible for carrying out the various instructions in this letter, since the one real corrective involved has to do with the unruly-idle — the first thing up in what follows.
Of special interest for those of us who read these words at a much later time in history are the three participles that describe what these leaders do. The fact that one definite article functions for all three participles indicates that Paul is not referring to three different kinds of leaders, but to the variety of tasks that befall their leaders. And while the first and third of the participles are relatively straightforward (“who work hard among you”; “who admonish you”), that is much less so with the middle one, which the TNIV renders “care for you,” but where most other English translations (including the NIV) have something like “who are over you in the Lord” (“who have charge of/over you”; NRSV/NASB). Both of these options, it should be noted, are legitimate renderings of the participle proïstamenous in terms of the possible meanings of the word; and both can be argued for in terms of the present context. So the only real issue is which sense Paul most likely had in mind in dictating this word; and our best help at this point is to be found in two places: Paul’s usage elsewhere and its placement in the present clause.
But we begin where Paul does, with the phrase “those who work hard among you.” Although this is the only occurrence in these two letters, this first verb is one of the most frequent words in Paul to describe “ministry.”632 The cognate noun in fact occurred earlier in this letter when Paul described the “work” of himself, Silas, and Timothy as “our labor” (2:9; 3:5); it is also the word that he uses in later letters regularly to refer to his apostolic “labors,” such as in 1 Corinthians 15:10 (“I labored more than all the others”) and Galatians 4:11 (“lest I have labored in vain among you”).633 But he also uses it of others, such as Stephanas in 1 Corinthians 16:16, and in Romans 16 of various friends who are involved in such “labor in the Lord.”634 This verb thus puts emphasis on the “labor, toil, grow weary” aspect of ministry, with no hint in most of these passages as to what this “labor” might specifically entail. Here, then, in its first occurrence in Paul’s letters, those who are recognized and esteemed as leaders are characterized first as “working hard” at it.
Several considerations suggest that the TNIV has it right in translating the second participle as “[those] who care for you in the Lord,”635 and thus improving on the NIV’s “who are over you in the Lord.” The first matter is the contextual one itself, in that the participles on either side of this one refer to activities of these persons, not to their status or position. Thus most English translations have the anomaly of a “positional” participle’s being surrounded by two that describe quite diverse “activities.” But three other considerations lead one to the rendering in the TNIV.
First, the only unambiguous usage of this verb in the Pauline corpus is found in Titus 3:8 and 14, where it means something like “busy oneself (with something).” Thus in 3:14, for example, most English translations have a rendering like “devote themselves to good works” (NRSV; cf. NIV, NAB).
Second, its occurrence earlier in Romans 12:8 is in a sentence very much like the present one, where it appears between participles having to do with “giving” and “showing mercy,” and, as with the present instance, it has been rather universally translated as having to do with “leadership” in some way. But the context in Romans 12, as here, seems to demand a meaning that has to do with “caring for” others. That is, “giving,” “caring for,” and “showing mercy” make far more sense contextually than do the “giving,” “ruling” (as KJV), and “showing mercy” found in most English translations,636 where such a rendering seems contextually to make less sense than does the alternative rendering in the TNIV footnote (“to provide for others”).
Third, besides its occurrences in Titus 3 noted above, the verb proïstēmi occurs four times in 1 Timothy (3:3, 5, 12; 5:27). Here the evidence appears to be mixed. In its first occurrences in 3:3 and 5, it refers to a father’s responsibility to his own household. But even though “leadership” is assumed by presupposition, the emphasis in these two appearances is on his “managing” his household with godly care, as the substituted synonym “take care of ” in 3:5 indicates. The other two uses are ambiguous enough that either sense of the verb would work equally well. Thus in 3:12, the TNIV has “he must manage his children and household well.” But this could just as easily have been rendered, “he must care for his children and household well,” since the emphasis is not on his “governing” the household but on his “caring for” it in every way, including “managing” its affairs.637
So here also the word noticeably occurs not first, which one might have expected had Paul intended “who are over you in the Lord,” but between two others that describe these leaders’ “work.” If the emphasis were in fact on their role of being “over the others” as such, one would then expect it to have appeared first in the list, with the other two participles describing their tasks. Thus one may rightly argue that the evidence here leans substantially toward describing their task, not their position.
Finally, besides their leaders’ “working hard among” and having the responsibility of “caring for” the believing community, Paul expects this “work” and “care” sometimes to take the form of “admonishing”638 them, as the need may arise. With this word he is now anticipating the one obvious corrective that begins the brief series of imperatives in verse 14, “admonish [TNIV, ‘warn’] those who are idle and disruptive.” Indeed, this word is the sure indication that the present instruction serves as the necessary introduction to the tasks these leaders must carry out, or help others so to do, in the community as a whole. Thus the believers are to “acknowledge” those who have primary responsibility for following through on the admonitions that follow in verses 14 and 15. Paul’s concern is that the believing community as a whole “acknowledge” or “recognize” their leaders for their “labor” among them.
13 The believers in turn are to comply with these admonitions as they “hold them [their leaders] in the highest regard in love because of their work.” Here is where the leaders get their “strokes,” as it were. And Paul’s word order carries its own weight. First, those who labor among them are to be held “in the highest regard,” which does not mean, as often has happened in later times in the church, to “exalt” them in some way. The leaders are protected from any form of people’s “fawning” over them by the modifier “in love,” which eliminates the option of thinking more highly of their leaders than they Christianly ought to. This operative phrase, “in love,” means to care for them as fellow believers, in this case as “brothers” in the Lord. No room for titles or fawning here; love eliminates such ingratiating behavior. And the reason they are to hold them in such high regard is not because of their position, but “because of their work.” After all, they will also be the ones who must take the lead in trying to help the disruptive-idle in verse 14 to carry their own weight by working for a living. Thus the primary word in the final phrase in this sentence is an across-the-board synonym with the “work hard” that describes their activities.639
It is also of considerable further interest that this earliest mention of church leadership in the New Testament comes by way of instruction to the community as a whole. What we learn about them, of course, is precious little, since we have only these participles that indicate their activities, not their “roles” or the “structures” within which they work. That they were leaders is certain; that they led the community in a variety of ways one may rightly assume; but their actual “positions” or “roles” are simply not known. What these admonitions to the community as a whole do indicate is that in the early Pauline churches their leaders were within the circle as it were, not outside of it in some way (as, e.g., “clergy”), and certainly not above it.640 Indeed, these admonitions exist most likely because these were the realities (that “leaders” were within the circle). In such a case, where the ground is basically equal, those being led need an occasional reminder that they are to “acknowledge” or “recognize” their leaders for such “labor” among them.
Paul immediately follows this admonition with a second one, “Live in peace with each other,” which at first sight may seem unrelated. Indeed, at issue for us at this distance is whether we should read anything at all into this final clause. Is it simply a kind of general word to the believers in Thessalonica, or is it case specific, suggesting a moderate form of correction? This admonition is such a common feature in Paul’s later letters641 that one should perhaps not make too much of it here, especially since the wish of shalom was also a common feature of Jewish greetings. Granting that, however, one should note further that this is not in fact a wish of peace, but an imperative that calls them to “live in peace with each other.” Nonetheless, one should probably show restraint in suggesting that this single imperative points to some kind of tension among them, attached as it is at the end of a request that they “acknowledge” those who labor among them. At the same time this may well serve as Paul’s way of passing on the mantle of leadership to those who “work hard” among them.
This earliest notation in the New Testament regarding church leadership is tantalizing for its brevity, and can likewise be frustrating because it assumes so much about which later believers would like more information. But perhaps even that can be a means of instruction. Paul’s way of speaking about them by way of participles, rather than nouns, puts all the emphasis on their activities, not positions. Thus we learn a bit about what they do, but almost nothing about who they are or the “positions” they hold. This is especially trying for those of us who live in a culture that loves titles as a way of distinguishing people who are “important”! By turning such verbs into nouns one begins to focus more on position than person or function. Paul’s concern is consistently on character and activity, not on “role.” But since we can scarcely turn the clock back in the contemporary church, all of those who are in church leadership might use this passage as a valid “checklist” for personal inventory with regard to how one cares for those one is given the privilege to lead.
2. Imperatival Summation of the Letter (5:14-15)
14 And we urge you, brothers and sisters, warn those who are idle and disruptive, encourage the disheartened, help the weak, be patient with everyone. 15 Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always strive to do what is good for each other and for everyone else.
This second set of imperatives holds very few surprises, if any at all. Paul simply puts in staccato form the basic concerns of the letter, a kind of summation of all that has preceded. Given what has immediately preceded, one could argue that these imperatives are now addressed to the leaders themselves,642 which would be supported by two items in particular. First, the several imperatives that follow these (vv. 16-22) are especially matters where one would expect the leadership to take the lead; and second, these first five are the only ones in the entire group of fourteen (or fifteen), where the imperative stands in the normal first position. But even though one might naturally expect the leaders to take the initiative to follow through on these matters, Paul nonetheless does not address them directly. From his perspective these concerns belong to the entire community. Furthermore, one may assume that those who appear here as the direct objects (grammatically speaking) of all these imperatives (the disruptive-idle, disheartened, and the like) are also present when the letter is being read aloud in the community. Thus they should rightly expect their leaders to follow through regarding the admonitions.
14 That Paul is addressing the entire believing community is supported first by the fact that he begins with yet another familial vocative, “brothers and sisters” (number 13). To this point in the letter, as well as in its final occurrence in verse 25, this vocative has been consistently addressed to the community as a whole (see on 1:4 above). Thus, even though leaders will be expected to take the lead, these concerns are in fact, as always in Paul, matters in which the whole community is to be engaged.
The first item (“warn those who are idle and disruptive”) picks up the concern from 4:11-12.643 The verb in this case is the same one translated “admonish” in verse 12 above. The object of the verb, the ataktoi (TNIV, the “idle and disruptive”) has had an interesting bit of translational history, especially in light of the fact that the KJV had correctly rendered it “the unruly.”644 Indeed, the translation “idlers” (NIV, NRSV, NAB, REB), even though it correctly points to an aspect of those who are in view here, does not in fact have a lexical leg to stand on.645 The word ataktos meant literally to be “out of line”; at the same time it always carried a pejorative sense of being disruptive in some way. At some point in the history of English translation it was apparently assumed that the believers who were not working (refusing to work?) in Thessalonica were “out of line” in the sense of being “idle”; so they became “the idlers” instead of “the unruly,” even though there is not a single piece of literary evidence to support such an understanding. Given the rest of the evidence of these two letters, they were most likely “out of line” not simply by not working, but also by their depending on others to take care of them; and in this sense, then, they were also being disruptive of the “shalom” that should otherwise exist within the community.
The second admonition is directed toward “the disheartened,” which the KJV had the misfortune to render as “comfort the feebleminded.” It is doubtful whether even in 1611 the word “feebleminded” pointed to people who had been so thoroughly overcome by present circumstances as to feel themselves unable (or simply unwilling) to continue (on in their service) within the beleaguered Christian community. In any case, such people seem to be in Paul’s purview when he urges the rest to “encourage”646 them. It is quite possible, since the preceding imperative takes us back to those addressed in 4:9-12, that this one may very well pick up the issue of 4:13-18. In such a case they would probably have become disheartened because they had incorrect expectations about the “soon” coming of the Lord.647 But it is equally possible that Paul is simply referring to those who have become disheartened by the constant barrage of opposition from their fellow townsfolk. In either, or any, case there are some within the believing community who needed encouragement, cheering up, as it were.
The third admonition, “help the weak,” is the one that might make us a bit more hesitant about the immediately preceding one as being case-specific in terms of what is said elsewhere in the letter. From our distance one simply cannot know whether the “weak” are those who are physically so,648 and thus need “care” of a different kind, or whether they are “weak” with regard to their “faith.”649 And nothing else in what has preceded really helps us here. But whoever they are, they need the support, or help, of the rest of the believing community. “Weakness,” it should be noted, has very often been held in disdain by others, who think of themselves as the “strong”; however, Paul has here captured one of the marks of truly Christian faith, as it has been exhibited in full by our Lord himself in his earthly life.650
Paul concludes this present series of staccato exhortations by urging that they “be patient with everyone.” This is also the one that seems to give a basis for seeing the preceding three as case specific, and thus as offering a general summarizing admonition regarding their attitudes toward those addressed in the first three. Thus, even though we cannot know with certainty how all-inclusive Paul’s “everyone” was intended to be, it at least included “everyone” within the believing community,651 and especially those mentioned in the preceding three imperatives. At the same time it is the imperative that gives a measure of credence to the possibility that all four of these directives are aimed at the leadership rather than the community as a whole. But there is nothing said here that requires such a view; and Paul seems rather to be continuing his concern that the community as a whole take responsibility for all of these matters.
It should (especially) be noted that the verb in this case is not Paul’s usual one when the concept of “patience” as such is involved. In contrast to his more usual hypomonē, which is regularly translated “patience” in English, the present word apparently originated as a way of describing those who were “long-tempered” vis-à-vis the “short-tempered.” Thus, in contrast to hypomonē, this verb (makrothymeite) carries the sense of “suffering long” with regard to someone else. It is therefore the appropriate word to use regarding human relationships, while hypomonē moves in the direction of enduring difficult situations. That is, in human relationships more is needed than simply “being patient” with others, and Paul’s word here implies that “something more,” namely that they are to be “forbearing” toward, and thus “suffering long” with regard to, others in the believing community. Furthermore, this distinction between the two words regularly rendered as “patient/ patience” in English is consistent in Paul’s own usage. “Patience” (hypomonē) is needed in trying situations; “forbearance [long suffering]” is what is required in interpersonal relationships — “with everyone.”
15 With a final imperative Paul moves from specific concerns that apparently have been reported to him by Timothy, to a more general, and thus concluding, admonition in which he dips into the well-known Jesus tradition found in our Gospels in Matthew 5:38-42. In his teaching Jesus insisted that there be no “eye for an eye,” but that his disciples “resist evil” by doing good. This is the tradition that Paul is apparently picking up and putting into his own words here. Thus, with two corresponding clauses he insists first (with perfect chiasm in his own sentence, and thus “literally”), “See that652 no one wrong for wrong to anyone pays back.”653 The fact that such “repayment” is to be left in God’s hands is not explicit here, but is certainly implied.
The real difficulty most of God’s people have with this admonition is that God may not give such people what they deserve, but may show them the same kind of mercy that he showed to themselves! But Paul saw clearly that in a world where God’s people are implicated in the same fallenness as all others, even the best of them do not see clearly the end from the beginning; and retaliation is simply not a part of becoming followers of the Crucified One. Thus he begins this final admonition with the prohibition of not “pay[ing] back wrong for wrong.”
The second imperative then offers the truly Christian form of “paying back”: “but always strive to do what is good654 for each other and for everyone else.” Here Paul’s own word order catches his emphases. In contrast to paying back wrong for wrong, “always the good pursue,” he insists. It must be “always,” rather than “hit or miss”; it must be “what is good,” rather than “wrong for wrong”; and it must be “pursued,” rather than done occasionally and at one’s convenience.655 The more striking moment comes at the end; “doing good” rather than retaliating has to do first of all with fellow believers, people within one’s own community of faith. But here Paul urges that they extend “doing good” beyond the community of faith as such, and “strive to do what is good for everyone else” as well.656 Thus whether they would prefer to think so or not, this would include the very people who are doing their best to make life miserable for people like themselves, who have chosen to follow Christ.
It is easy for the typical “American” reader of this letter to read past these staccato imperatives, since they pose special problems for people who have been raised on the “gospel” according to Ben Franklin, that “God helps those who help themselves.” Instead of “helping” the weak, one should admonish them to “get with it” and “carry their own weight.” But the God of Scripture is fortunately not a “typical American”; rather, he has revealed himself, both in the Old Testament and especially in the Incarnation, as the “God of the humble,” the God who pleads the cause of the poor and indigent. Thus at this point Paul, by the Spirit, has placed himself in the long line of biblical authors who “plead the cause of the needy.” Since these come by way of imperative, they should probably be taken much more seriously than many are wont to do.
3. Exhortation to Continue Basic Christian Piety (5:16-18)
16 Rejoice always, 17 pray continually, 18 give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.
With the preceding community-related emphases in hand, Paul turns his attention next to how the community is to live its corporate life in the face of their present difficulties. Again, we encounter sets of “staccato imperatives,” but now with the verbs themselves second, a most unusual word order for an imperative even in Greek. In this first set the verbs are preceded by nearly synonymous adverbs, in the next set by nouns or pronouns.657 In both cases we are once again not quite prepared for what we get, which probably says something about the distance factor between ourselves and these early Gentile believers. Nonetheless, anyone who has spent very much time in the leters of Paul will quickly recognize how thoroughly Pauline these admonitions are.
In light of the preceding verse 14 and verses 19-22 that follow, this present set of imperatives is best understood within the context of the gathered community at worship, the context in which the letter itself would be read.658 That is, these are not aimed primarily toward how individual believers live out their faith in Thessalonica — although neither is that excluded — but with how these believers as a gathered community are to respond in the midst of their present difficulties. In addition, this first set focuses altogether on vocalized worship that is directed toward God, while the next set focuses on vocalized worship directed toward the building up of the believing community.
Indeed, the set of imperatives that immediately follows (vv. 19-22) comes as something of a surprise, in the sense that nothing in the letter itself or in the immediate context quite prepares us for what is there said. But one element of the surprise, its place in the immediate context, is alleviated somewhat if one recalls that for Paul the activities of rejoicing and prayer presuppose the activity of the Holy Spirit in the community.659 Indeed, in some ways what Paul says in 1:6 prepares us for this understanding; there he recalls their experience of conversion as accompanied by both great affliction and the joy of the Holy Spirit.660 The point is that Paul, in a thoroughgoing way, understood joy, prayer, and praise (thanksgiving) as both the result and the evidence of the Spirit’s presence. Thus in Galatians 5:22, the second item on Paul’s list of the “fruit” of the Spirit is joy, and in Romans 14:17 the joy of the Spirit is evidence of the presence of the kingdom of God. Similarly, 1 Corinthians 14:15; Romans 8:26-27, and Ephesians 6:18 all verify that for Paul prayer was especially an activity of the Spirit.
16 It is of some interest that the admonition “always rejoice” precedes the imperatives “continually pray” and “in all circumstances give thanks.” This most likely reflects Paul’s own piety as it has been conditioned by the Psalter. Thus, it is especially important in the context of the more saccharine Christianity of a later time to note that Paul’s emphasis here is not so much on the experience of joy,661 but on the active expression of it. They are to “rejoice always,” which, as Philippians 4:4 bears out, means not simply to express joy in general, but specifically to “rejoice in the Lord.” This is not a sugar-coated call for putting on a happy face in the midst of difficulties. Here is a church that is undergoing severe hardship because of its faith in Christ. God’s will for such a community, both as individuals and as they gather for worship, is that as a matter of first importance they continue to exalt Christ by rejoicing, with him as the focus.
17-18a In this context they should also “continually pray,”662 constantly offering their petitions to God. Continual prayer is the ongoing reminder that God’s children are always and wholly dependent on their heavenly Father for all things. It is also in this context that they are “in all circumstances” to “give thanks” — including those of their present lot. It is especially important to note that the modifier in this case does not say “for all things,” but “in all circumstances.” It is neither reasonable nor biblical piety to imagine that God wishes his children to be thankful for all things that befall them, good or ill. Rather, a thankful heart should simply be a way of life for those whom God has redeemed through Christ.
18b The “this” in Paul’s concluding clause, “for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you,” is almost certainly intended to modify all three of the imperatives, not simply the giving of thanks in all circumstances.663 Paul, after all, did not write in numbered verses! The three imperatives are intentionally similar in structure, all three beginning with a synonymous term for urging ongoing activity on their part: “always, continually, at all times.”664 Thus, all of “this” is a way of adhering to what God wills for his children.
One should note at the end that Paul himself is as good as his word. See especially 3:9-10, where he had already in this letter combined prayer, joy, and thanksgiving. He will do the same again in the much later letter to Philippi (Phil 1:3-4), where he mentions joy and thanksgiving as inherent to his praying — and the latter in the context of a trying imprisonment. Thus, what we find being urged on the Thessalonian believers is something that has already long marked the life of the apostle himself, and will continue to do so right to the end.
4. About Christian Prophecy (5:19-22)
On first reading this set of imperatives seems to appear abruptly in the letter, with very little that has preceded it preparing the reader for them. Nonetheless, since it is a factor in the first major item addressed in 2 Thessalonians (2:1-2), here we also discover how little we really know about these earliest Christian communities in the Greco-Roman world. Along with 1 Corinthians 12-14 and Romans 12:6, it should indicate to us how thoroughgoing such phenomena were in the earliest communities. It is therefore possible, but by no means certain, that this final set of imperatives was saved for last because “prophecies” might lie behind some of the preceding difficulties, especially the issue raised in 5:1-10.
This series of imperatives is the earliest record in the New Testament of the basically charismatic667 nature of these early communities. They are surprising mostly because nothing else in the letter has quite prepared us for them and because they seem to be so much more case specific than the immediately preceding, more general, exhortations in verses 15 and 16-18.668 Not only so, but they are the only ones in the entire series of exhortations (from v. 12) which are expressed as prohibitions (vv. 19-20), and for which their positive counterparts (vv. 21-22) are qualifications. That leads one to make several contextual and structural observations before looking at each of the imperatives individually.
First, on the basis of the case-specific nature of verses 12-15 and the apparent pickup of this concern in 2 Thessalonians 2:2, this set of imperatives is probably best understood as speaking to a specific issue in the church in Thessalonica.669 If this is the case, then it also raises the issue of the historical context into which they are spoken. Because this instruction is so condensed and because related material in these two letters so sparse, how is one to understand the specific historical setting of the concern here expressed?670 The mention of “Spirit” (probably in the form of prophecy) as a possible source of the misguided teaching in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 (q.v.) opens the possibility that correction is more necessary than first meets the eye.
Even so, the question still remains, what situation is Paul addressing? Some structural observations are thus in order. As with the preceding set of three (vv. 16-18), these five imperatives are intended to be read together. They are given in two parts (vv. 19-20; 21-22): the first is a form of parallelism in which the second member specifies the first; the second set, which is in contrast to the first, specifies what they are to do instead, this time in a set of three, the first giving the general rule, which the final two spell out more specifically. Thus:
The Spirit do not quench;
Prophecies do not despise;
but
Test all things:
Hold fast to the good;
Avoid every evil form.
A basic exegetical issue is whether the emphasis lies on the first two imperatives (are some within the community less than delighted with such phenomena in the assembly?), or on the final three (do the first two set up the final three so that in correcting abuses they will not overcorrect?). It is also possible, of course, that since many of his Gentile converts were already well acquainted with “ecstasy” from their pagan past,671 Paul is simply trying to offer some guidelines for perfectly valid — and normal — Spirit manifestations within their own gatherings for worship.672
Some have argued673 that the problem in Thessalonica resulted from some disenchantment with these phenomena, in the form either of too much “ecstasy” (usually glossolalia, as in Corinth) or of misguided “ecstasy” (either by the unruly-idle, who are using prophecy to justify their behavior, or by some whose mistaken predictions about the day of the Lord have brought prophecy into disrepute). This is arguably supported by the grammar of the prohibitions themselves.674
But it seems more likely that Paul is here offering something preventative — perhaps related to their former experience with “ecstasy” of a more uncontrolled sort. The evidence from 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2, at least, might suggest that Timothy has already informed Paul of some tendencies in worship that needed “adjustment” — but not elimination. Thus, some months later (2 Thess 2:2), even though Paul apparently does not know the precise source of the misrepresentation of his teaching, he does know that “the Spirit” (= “a prophetic utterance”) is one of the possibilities. That is probably why in the same letter (2:15; cf. 2:5) he urges them to stay close to what has already been taught them during his first (and founding) visit and in our present letter.
In any case, in this our earliest encounter with the ministry of the Spirit in an early Christian community, instead of urging the Thessalonians to “fan into flame” or “earnestly desire” the Spirit and his manifestations among them, as in some later letters,675 Paul urges them not to quench the Spirit in this regard. But by “not quenching” or “not despising” neither is he suggesting that anything goes in the name of the Spirit. They are to “test all things,” holding fast the good and avoiding every evil form, but testing is not to lead to quenching the Spirit or the Spirit’s gifts.
19 Paul begins this series in the most general way,676 “Do not quench the Spirit.”677 Were this not followed by verse 20, one could justifiably understand this as a more general word that included both ethical life and charismatic manifestations. But the next clause and the structure of the whole indicate that Paul already has something more specific in mind here.
Although the metaphorical use of the verb “quench”678 goes beyond the common literal sense of “putting out [a fire],” the frequent collocation of the Spirit with fire679 is the probable reason for the metaphor here.680 Nonetheless, the emphasis lies not on the “fire” dimension of the metaphor, but on the stifling of the Spirit in their midst;681 and just as in 2 Thessalonians 2:2, Paul’s reference to “the Spirit” here most likely points to “charismatic manifestations.” 682 Despite the fact that the ministries of the Spirit can be abused in the Christian community, Paul’s own deep appreciation for the central role of the Spirit in individual and corporate life will not allow for correcting abuse by commanding disuse.683 Rather, the antidote for abuse is proper use. Hence he begins these exhortations with the general caution, “Do not put out the Spirit’s ‘fire.’”
20 This next imperative spells out in a specific way the general caution of verse 19. “By not ‘quenching’ the Spirit,” he goes on, “I mean in particular, ‘Do not despise prophetic utterances.’ ” This is the earliest mention of “prophecy” (or “prophetic utterance”) in the New Testament. Although not a frequent term in the Pauline corpus, it occurs in this earliest and in one of the latest of the letters (1 Timothy) as well as in 1 Corinthians and Romans.684 The presupposition of the present passage as well as the argument of 1 Corinthians and the matter-of-fact mention of it in Romans 12:6 strongly suggest that this was a normal expression of the Spirit’s activity in the early Christian communities.
But what “prophecy” may have actually entailed is quite another matter. The combined evidence in Paul, especially his later discussion in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14, suggests at the least the following understanding. First, even though prophecy was an especially widespread phenomenon in the religions of antiquity,685 Paul’s understanding — as well as that of the other New Testament writers — was thoroughly conditioned by his own history in Judaism. The prophet was one who under inspiration of the Spirit spoke to God’s people (e.g., Mic 3:8). The “inspired utterance” came by revelation and announced judgment (usually) or salvation. Often the word spoken had a futuristic element, so in that sense they also came to be seen as “predictors”; but that was only one element, and not necessarily the crucial one.
Second, with the outpouring of the Spirit at the end of the age, the early believers understood the prophecy of Joel 2:28-30 to have been fulfilled, so that “prophecy” not only became a renewed phenomenon but was also potentially available to all, since all now had received the Spirit in fullness. Thus even though some people were eventually called “prophets” (1 Cor 12:28-29), probably because they were the frequent speakers of “prophecies,” the implication of 1 Corinthians 14 is that it was a gift widely available — at least potentially — to all.
Third, although the prophetic tradition of the Old Testament undoubtedly lay behind Paul’s understanding, at no point does he assume the prophet to be speaking anything other than an ad hoc word. This is especially evidenced by verses 21 and 22 in the present passage. Thus, there is never any sense in which a prophetic word was to be raised to the level of “inspired text.”
Since these kinds of utterances were probably a means of their hearing from God, perhaps in the form of his giving direction and encouragement to a persecuted community, and because such utterances are from the Holy Spirit, they must not be “despised.”686 But also because such utterances come through merely human vessels, they must be tested, which is the point that he now moves on to make. Whether any of this refers to previous moments in the letter — for example, regarding the day of the Lord in 5:2 — is moot;687 but the possibility of such lies with what Paul says later in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 (q.v.).
21a The adversative “but” which begins this sentence sets the whole matter in perspective. Even though they must not quench the Spirit by showing contempt for prophetic utterances, neither must they simply accept every utterance of this kind as from the Spirit. Rather, they must “test688 all things.”689 In all likelihood this is an earlier form of what in 1 Corinthians 12:10 and 14:29 Paul calls “discerning,” or “weighing,” the “spirits,” meaning in the first instance the “testing” of prophecies. And this in turn is the early Christian version of “testing the prophets” found in Deuteronomy 18:21-22.
All of that seems easy enough; the difficulty for us at this distance lies with determining how such prophecies were to be tested. That is, how does Paul understand such testing to take place, and by what criteria? For the most part we are standing on the outside looking in, since nowhere in Paul are criteria specifically offered. Nonetheless, two passages give us some clues.
First, in the discussion of 2 Thessalonians 2:2, it is suggested that 2 Thessalonians 2:15 may help. In a context where some of them have been badly shaken by a misrepresentation of his teaching about the day of the Lord, Paul exhorts them to “stand fast and to hold firm the traditions that you were taught, whether through word [= his original preaching of the gospel and the teaching that followed their coming to faith] or through letter [= in this case our 1 Thessalonians].” If this be so, then the first test is the apostolic proclamation of/teaching about Christ. This is a test that has to do with the theological or doctrinal content of the utterance.
Second, in 1 Corinthians 14:3 Paul specifically says that the one who prophesies speaks edification, encouragement (or exhortation), and comfort. This is the test of purpose, as well as content, and has to do with its helpfulness to the believing community.690
The imperatives that follow offer help in yet another direction, but without specification: that somehow, presumably by the content, they should be able to discern the “good” from the “evil.”
21b-22 Paul now concludes this brief set of imperatives about prophecies in their assembly by indicating what their twofold response to the testing should be. On the one hand, they are to “hold fast to what is good”; on the other hand, they are to “keep away from every evil form.” The first of these is easy enough. According to Paul in a later passage (1 Cor 14:1-19), the reason for earnestly desiring prophecy in the community is that it “edifies” and is therefore an expression of love; in 14:20-25 it is also a sign for them that God is truly in their midst (because of its effect on unbelievers). The present criterion, therefore, is but another way of saying what recurs elsewhere in Pauline instructions on these matters, that the aim of all such activity is the “common good” (1 Cor 12:7), the building up of others.
Our difficulty with the present instruction lies with the final clause (lit. “abstain691 from every evil form”). Since this comes as the final imperative in the series that began in verse 12, and since the verb is used earlier (4:3) in a context of “avoiding evil” in the ethical sense, this clause can easily get separated from its context and become a form of general instruction for the Christian community. Just as they are to “abstain from sexual immorality,” so now he commands finally that they “abstain from every form of evil.” And so it has been understood by several generations of Bible readers who were raised on the KJV,692 which had the misfortune not only of having numbered the “verses,” but also eventually of publishing as their standard edition a Bible in which every verse became its own paragraph.693
But here is a case where both Pauline usage and context should be decisive. Pauline usage, of course, is not the final criterion, but it is suggestive. The present order of pas (“every”) + noun + adjective occurs elsewhere in Paul’s letters in Ephesians 1:3 and 4:29, and especially with the expression “every good work,” which occurs frequently in Paul’s letters.694 Its opposite, “every evil work” (pantos ergou ponērou), occurs in 2 Timothy 4:18. On the other side, there is no instance where this order occurs and the adjective is to be understood as a substantive, which makes the absence of the article with ponērou the more telling here (cf. 2 Thess 3:3), whose presence would have made certain that Paul intended a noun. This in itself strongly suggests that “every evil form” is what he meant by this expression. But so also does the context itself.
Furthermore, Paul seems very likely to be here echoing the Septuagint of Job 1:8, where God says of Job that, as an upright man, he “is a man blameless, true, godly, abstaining from every evil deed.”695 Therefore, despite some difficulties with the language,696 Paul almost certainly intended that they “avoid” or “keep distant from” every expression of “prophecy” that is not “good,” but rather is an “evil kind.” For the most part the difficulties with the language can be accounted for. The choice of the verb “keep away” (apechesthe) is best explained by Paul’s use of “hold fast” (katechete) in the preceding clause as its natural rhyming antonym. The use of “every” then further explains the differences in the way the objects are expressed.697 Thus the primary difficulty for scholars and translators has been the word order, where Paul has placed the two modifying adjectives on either side of the noun “form,” so that “every evil form” is in the order of “every form that is evil.”
What is more difficult to explain is the choice of the noun eidous (“form”) rather than simply “what is evil,” as in the preceding clause (“what is good”). The word eidous in this sense occurs only here in Paul, and means something close to “kind.”698 Thus, they are to “shun every kind that is evil.” The best explanation here would seem to be an older one, that in Paul’s view “good” is singular, whereas “evil” takes many forms. In any case, the context, and the verbal plays between the two final clauses, seems to demand that this final clause also refers to prophetic utterances.
It is also highly unlikely that Paul would actually allow that such “kinds” are truly of the Spirit. What he is urging, rather, is the testing of all “inspired” utterances, so that the Thessalonian believers may distinguish “the good” (= those from the Spirit) from every kind that when tested is found wanting, and therefore not of the Spirit. While we cannot be certain as to how Paul would have understood the latter, in terms of either source or content, possibly he would look upon the misrepresentation of his own teaching about the day of the Lord in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 as “an evil kind” of utterance which they must shun.
It should perhaps be noted in conclusion that the first mention of prophecy in the New Testament includes the imperative that all such prophecies (and by implication all other such “Spirit utterances” in the community) are to be tested. The awe with which many recent charismatics hold prophecy and “prophets,” which in effect causes them almost never to be “tested,” stands in basic contradiction to this Pauline injunction.
In sum, Paul in this passage is both encouraging and offering a proper response to spontaneous prophetic words in the gathered community in Thessalonica. Because some were apparently prophesying in ways that were less than helpful, Paul urges that all such speech be “tested” so that the good might truly edify God’s people.
It is of some interest that all of these staccato imperatives have found their rightful place in the life and/or instruction of the later church except for this final group having to do with prophetic speech in the gathered church. And on this latter concern, the contemporary church tends to be of two minds, both of which seem to be without adequate hermeneutical grounds on which to stand. On the one hand, what is without hermeneutical basis for those who are open to such ministries of the Spirit is for people to stand in such apparent “awe” of the possibility that the Spirit is speaking as to disregard altogether the imperative to “test all things.” Thus, in the interest of “not quenching” the Spirit, too much that when properly “tested” would prove to be not of the Spirit is allowed to be given community approbation because it was not “weighed” in terms of the guidelines offered in 1 Corinthians 14:3 (strengthening, encouragement, comfort). On the other hand, even though the prohibition of Spirit-inspired prophetic speech is understandable in terms of the history and makeup of the church of our day, it is hardly justifiable on hermeneutical grounds alone. One can understand such prohibition, of course, in contexts where such a spontaneous word might cause near heart failure for many. But the attempt to justify it on any other grounds — as appears to be so often the case — seems to be based on an altogether faulty hermeneutic. In any case, it seems to put one into a hermeneutical conundrum to consider the first triplet (vv. 16-18) as proper for all times and places, but to consider this final material (vv. 19-22) as belonging only to the Pauline churches — since Paul himself offers the means for keeping such speech within proper bounds.