Commentary on the 1st letter of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians

About the first letter of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians History of the founding of the Thessalonian Church Reason for writing a message The Epistles to the Thessalonians were addressed to the “Church of Thessalonica,” located in the city of Macedonia - Thessalonica (modern Greek Σαλονίκη, in Turkish Selanik). In classical antiquity, this city was called Θέρμα or Θέρμη, which probably came from the warm springs that existed here. It received the name Θεσσαλονίχη in 315 BC, when Cassander, the son-in-law of Philip of Macedon, again built a city on the site of ancient Θερμά, giving it the name Thessalonica in honor of his wife, half-sister of Alexander the Great (Strabo, 330 and Herodotus, VIÏ121). The geographical position of the city, located in the best place of the Gulf of Thessaloniki (at that time - “Thermaean”), ensured its importance both militarily and commercially. When in 168 BC Macedonia passed into the hands of the Romans, and was divided into 4 provinces, F-ca, "celeberrima urbs", became the main city in the province "Macedonia secumda". In 146 BC, the Macedonian provinces were merged into one, and Fka essentially became the capital of all Macedonia. Under Roman rule, the city quickly grew and acquired military, strategic and especially commercial importance, due to the fact that the famous Roman road “Via Egnatia” passed through it, abutting on one side to the city of Dyrrachium on the Adriatic, and on the other to the Hebrus River in Thrace, and thus connecting the eastern provinces of the empire with its very center - Rome. The importance of F-ki's position is especially well indicated by Cicero, who himself spent some of his exile here in 58 BC. “Thessalonieenses positi in gremio imperii nostri,” as the famous Roman orator puts it (De rgo V. Consul. 2). In 49 BC F-ka took an active part in the first civil war, and served as the center of Pompey’s party, but during the second war the city went over to the side of Octavius ​​and Antony, for which, presumably, it was given the title of “free city” (Plinius, N. Η. IV:17: “Thessalonica liberae conditionis”). Thanks to ελευθερία, Thessalonica retained a purely Greek character, and was able to be governed through special rulers, who in Acts 17:6–8 are called “πολιτάρχαι”. This name is not found among classical writers, but the accuracy of the book. The act here is perfectly confirmed by one inscription on the Roman arch in F-ke at the Vardar gate (now destroyed; the inscription is kept in the British Museum in London), which, strange to say, mentions three politarchs - Sosipater, Secundus and Gaius - who bore the names of the three persons accompanying Ap. Pavel. The city had the right to decide its affairs by the people's assembly, which is again confirmed by the words of Prince. Acts, where this assembly is called “δήμος” (Acts 17:5). In 304 AD, the martyr Demetrius of Thessaloniki suffered here, who later became the patron saint of the city. In 389, the city of F-ka was the site of a terrible massacre carried out on the orders of the Emperor. Theodosius, who took revenge on the city for the murder of his official. For this bloody massacre Imp. Theodosius was denounced by St. Ambrose of Milan and had to suffer church punishment. In 904 Fka was captured by the Saracens, in 1185 it came under the rule of the Normans from Sicily, and in 1422 it fell under the protectorate of Venice. In 1430 the city was conquered by the Turks; and only in 1912 was it liberated by the united efforts of Balkan Christians. Currently, it is the second largest city on the Balkan Peninsula, unfortunately densely populated by Jews. For the Slavs, F-ka will always be remembered as the homeland of the great Apostles of the Slavs - St. brothers Cyril and Methodius. The story of the appearance of the light of Christ's teaching in Thessalonica is told in the 17th century. Acts. Here we read about how the Apostle Paul, during his second missionary journey, accompanied by Silas and, probably, Timothy, passing through Amphipolis and Apollonia, finally came to Ph-ku, where there was a synagogue. “Having suffered and been mocked” (1 Thessalonians 2:2) in Philippi, the Apostle nevertheless dared to preach the word of God in Thessalonica. Following his custom, the Apostle began by preaching among the local Jews. For three Sabbaths, he held conversations with Jews on the topic that “Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead, and that this Christ is Jesus, whom I preach to you” (Acts 17:3). The results of the preaching among the Jews were, however, not particularly brilliant; the fertile soil was represented not by the proud sons of Abraham, but by pagan proselytes. “And some of them believed and joined Paul and Silas, both of the Greeks who worship God, a great multitude, and of the noble women not a few” (Acts 17:4). Judging by this verse of the book. Acts, the majority of converts belonged to the number of “σεβόμενοι” - “pious Greeks”, who accepted the basic tenets of Judaism and attended the synagogue. But if we turn to the first message of Ap. Paul to the Thessalonians, we find that the Thessalonian church in its composition was predominantly “of the Gentiles.” This is confirmed by the following three places: 1 Thessalonians 1:9, 2:14 ff; and 1 Thessalonians 4:1–5. In the first of them Ap. Paul reminds the Thessalonians of how they "turned to God from idols" to serve the living and true God. Judging by the train of thought, this appeal was the work of Ap. Paul and Silas. But then this expression is hardly applicable both to “σεβόμενοι” and to the Jews themselves, for both were already worshipers of the One God. In the second text the words Ap. Paul to Fm regarding the suffering they suffered from their own “fellow tribesmen” they directly say that here the latter mean pagans, and not Jews, as the very opposite suggests. The third text gives moral warnings and advice regarding maintaining moral purity, which would be more understandable and appropriate to the pagans who had just been converted to Christ than to the σεβόμενοι and Jews. Thus, there appears to be a contradiction between the data in the book of Acts and the data drawn from the epistle itself. This is precisely what the Head of the Tübingen School, Baur, emphasizes (in his “Paulus”). To reconcile this contradiction, the English scholar W. M. Ramsay (in his book St. Paul The Traveler and The Roman Citizen, London, 1897) proposes to accept in Acts 17:4 a reading obtained by comparing the Alexandrian Codex (A) and the Beza Codex (D). In this reading, the conjunction και must be added to the Textus Receptus after the words των (τε) σεβόμενων (op. cit. pp. 226–7; 235–6). Then we get the following reading: “and some of them believed; and also many of the God-fearing proselytes, and a great multitude of Greeks, and also not a few of the noble women, joined Paul and Silas.” But this reading, in our opinion, eliminates only some difficulty in the text, namely the slightly unexpected combination of words των σεβόμενων Ελλήνων, in which one cannot help but see some kind of tautology. Judging by the train of thought in the book. Acts, there was no reason for the writer to place any special emphasis on the nationality of these σεβόμενων, and the Athenian σεβόμενοι are simply called σεβόμε vo ι in the same chapter of the book. Acts (Acts 17:17). But, admitting the unexpectedness of the combinations των σεβόμενων Ελλήνων, we still dare to think that the amendment of Prof. Ramsay is hardly required. We are inclined to remain with T. Receptus, and seek reconciliation in a different way, precisely on the basis of data taken from the very letters of the Apostle Paul. We must first of all admit that the Apostle Paul stayed in F-ke much more than three weeks, as this apparently follows from Art. Acts 17:2. In his letter to the Philippians, he reminds the latter that they “sent to Thessalonica once or twice... for needs” (Phil. 4:16). But we know that Philippi is a hundred miles from Thessalonica, and 3 weeks would hardly be enough to send the Apostle Paul the benefit άπαξ και δις. This means that we must assume that the Apostle stayed in Ph. for more than three weeks, and without meeting sympathy among the Jews, he turned with the preaching of the Kingdom of God directly to the pagans, among whom his “evangelization of God with many exploits” (1 Thess. 2:2) had enormous success, fully justifying the words of the first letter to Ph. in 1 Thess. 1:9 and 1 Thess. 2:14. It is very plausible to assume that the book of Acts describes only that period in the missionary activity of the Apostle in Phoenix, which was associated with the synagogue. That the Apostle remained much longer in F-ka than 3 weeks is evidenced by the fact that he considered it necessary to engage in his usual craft (σχηνοποιός τη τέχνη) so as not to be dependent and a burden to anyone, and in order to enter into closer relationships with his students and followers, and thereby strengthen the good results of the sermon ( 1 Thessalonians 2:7–12). Finally, judging by 1 Thessalonians 5:12, the F-church was somewhat organized, which also suggests that the Apostle Paul lived in F-k for more than 3 weeks. Thus, without resorting to amendments to the text of the book. Acts, we can easily reconcile the words of Ev. Luke with data from the first letter. The Apostle remained in F-ka long enough to create a church that was completely “pagan” in origin, which, of course, included a small element of proselytes converted to Christ through the synagogue. But the apostolic activity of St. Paul could not remain for long without protest from his unbelieving fellow tribesmen. The colossal success of his missionary work, the great loss in the ranks of synagogue proselytes, the direct appeal of the Apostle Paul to the pagans - all this caused a terrible explosion of Jewish fanaticism. But, always remaining faithful to their policy, the Jews did not rebel against the Apostle Paul alone, but resorted to the help of various types of dubious agitators (αγοραίοι), always capable of inciting the crowd and moving it to riots. Judging by Acts 17:5–6, their goal was to accuse the Apostle Paul before the public assembly (δήμος); the matter could have ended very badly for the evangelist of Christ. But fortunately, the Apostle Paul was not in Jason’s house, where the crowd went, and the whole matter was limited to the capture of “Jason and some brothers” and their accusation before the politarchs. The very accusation brought forward by the crowd, undoubtedly at the instigation of the Jews, is striking in its baseness and duplicity, characteristic of the latter. The evangelists were accused of being “disturbers of the world”, that “they act against the commands of Caesar, considering another king, Jesus.” All this could only come from among the Jews, who knew very well the messianic hopes of their people, and could give them an interpretation dangerous for Christians, but who, however, themselves were waiting for the king - the Messiah, who was supposed to sweep away all the enemies of the Jewish people from the face of the earth. But the accusation was subtly calculated to arouse fears among the politarchs and speed up the expulsion of the Apostle Paul from the Church. Still, indignation on the basis of politics was dangerous for the ελευθερία of the city, and therefore the political leaders immediately demanded from Jason a “certificate” (λαβόντας το ίκανόν - in all likelihood, monetary security, a guarantee) that the unrest would not happen again. At night, the Apostle Paul left the borders of the city and the accompanying By force, and probably by Timothy, he went to Berea. Here his preaching in the synagogue met with a more favorable reception and was a great success. But the Jews from F-ki, hearing about this, came to Veria and raised an indignation here too. The Apostle Paul had no choice but to leave. He, accompanied by his "brothers", moved by sea to Athens. Silas and Timothy remained in Berea, but received an order through the guides of the Apostle Paul - to come to him in Athens ώς τάχιστα. If we follow the text of the book. Acts, then we may get the impression here that Silas and Timothy came to the Apostle Paul not in Athens, but directly in Corinth (Acts 18:5). But if we turn to the first letter to Ph., we will find that Timothy and Silas returned to the Apostle in Athens (see 1 Thess. 3:1 εύδοκήσαμεν έπέμψαμεν), from here the first was sent on behalf to Ph. (1 Thess. 3: 1, 2). Further, when Timothy returned back to Corinth to the Apostle Paul to inform him about the state of the church in Ph-ke, he, according to the expression of the message, came “προς ημάς” - which probably indicates that Silas at that time was already with the Apostle Paul in Corinth, which again does not entirely agree with Acts 18:5. (Baur sees this disagreement as a strong argument against the authenticity of your message.) But, despite all this, one should think that the book. Acts and message are reconcilable to a certain extent. Here the English scientist Paley is right, who in his Horae Paulinae notes the following about the above: “the epistle reveals a fact that has not been preserved in history, but which gives everything that is said in history more meaning, probability and consistency. There is a noticeable omission here in the story; the message by reference precisely indicates the circumstance that fills this omission” (p. 474. Complete works of w. Paley. London. 1825. vol. III). That Timothy came to the Apostle Paul in Athens can hardly be doubted (1 Thess. 3:1, 2). One must think (according to ηύδοκήσαμεν in 1 Thess. 3:1) that Silas also came to the Apostle, obeying his εντολή. Their arrival in Athens is partly indicated by the expression “έχδεχομένου αυτούς” in Acts 17:16. From Athens, Timothy was sent back to Thessalonica to find out about the state of affairs there. Judging by 1 Thess. 3:1, Silas remained with the Apostle in Athens. Thus the whole difficulty lies in finding out what were the movements of the Power while Timothy went to Ph-ku and how they could arrive together at Corinth (contrary to ημάς in 1 Thessalonians 3:6). All this can be “resolved by the assumption that the Apostle Paul, after Timothy went to F-ku, considered it best for Silas to return to Macedonia, perhaps in order to visit the church in Berea. It must be remembered that while Sila was forbidden to join F-ku, the road to Veria was not closed to him. 1 From here - Silas, perhaps, went to Beria, and Timothy earlier to F-ku. Further, there is no need to assume that they returned from Macedonia together. Silas could come first, and together with the Apostle Paul could meet Timothy. In this case, the plural ημάς in 1 Thess. 3:6 will be quite understandable. But even if Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia to Corinth together, this ημάς would not be inexplicable. Silas himself could not have been in F-ka, and therefore, in his information regarding the F-church, he had to depend on Timothy as much as the Apostle Paul. Finally, Timothy could meet Silas in Berea and go with him to Corinth” (E. N. Askwith, An Introduction to the Thes. Epestles, crp. 28, London. 1902). Thus the message and the book. Acts can be reconciled to a certain extent. After spending some time in Athens, the Apostle Paul came to Corinth (Acts 18:1), where Timothy later returned from Macedonia with a detailed report on the state of the Thessalonian church. Based on last 1 to the Thessalonians, it is possible to restore with sufficient completeness the content of what Timothy reported about the affairs of Thessal. churches. It is very possible that this report of Timothy was supported by a letter from the Christians to the Apostle Paul. Apparently, the description was very favorable. The Thessalonians not only did not waver. but even “became a model for all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia” (1 Thess. 1:7). True, they were persecuted by their fellow tribesmen (1 Thessalonians 2:14), but that was not the danger; suffering was inevitable (1 Thess. 3:3, 4). Among the believers there was another danger - this was undermining the authority of the Apostle Paul through various kinds of slander and insinuation regarding the purity and sincerity of his Apostleship. Taking advantage of the absence of the Apostle himself, his enemies accused him of spreading errors for unclean motives, of pursuing selfish and vain goals, of man-pleasing and caressing, and, finally, of shameful cowardice, precisely because at a critical moment he left his flock to their fate (1 Thess. 2:3-12, 17-18). Where this type of accusation could come from is easy to guess. Their source could in no way be a pagan environment, for which the Apostle Paul was relatively little known in terms of his evangelism (1 Thess. 2:4) and rights to it; all these insinuations could only come from among Judaism, which, relying on its knowledge of the Apostle Paul, hoped through these base accusations to undermine the authority of the evangelist among his followers and thus nullify his work and make “his work in vain.” But that was not all. Although Timothy brought “good news about faith and love” (1 Thessalonians 3:6) to the F church, the pleasant picture also had its shadow sides. Those recently converted to Christianity were still unsteady in moral terms, and the licentiousness inherent in the ancient Greek world apparently found adherents among converts to Christ (1 Thessalonians 4:3–7). The internal discipline of the church was also a little lame (1 Thess. 5:12–13); there was a lack of respect "κ προϊσταμένους". There was a somewhat increased interest in the issue of the coming of the “day of the Lord”, the onset of the “parousia”, which was already beginning to affect the relatively smooth course of fraternal life with the development of “disorderly conduct” (1 Thessalonians 5:1-14). Finally, Timothy brought to the attention of the Apostle Paul one important doctrinal difficulty that arose among the Thessalonian Christians in connection with the issue of “parousia.” During the absence of the Apostle from F-ki, there were apparently cases of death among Christians, which could involuntarily raise the question of what will happen to the dead before the “day of the Lord” comes? Will they also take part in the glory and bliss of the parousia? All these messages taken together served as the reason for writing the first message to Fm. The goal of the Apostle Paul here was to eliminate criticism of himself, strengthen the faith of the “suffering” F-v, dispel their misunderstandings and give them advice and instructions to strengthen them on the path of good, so that they “walk worthy of God, who has called them into His kingdom and glory” (1 Thess. 2:12). As for the time and place of writing of the 1st Epistle to Fm, the above leads to the following conclusion. The epistle was undoubtedly written in Corinth, after the return of Timothy and Silas, and not in Athens, as we read in the Textus Receptus (έγράφη άπό Αθηνών). The very shortness of the time interval between the Apostle’s departure from Physics and his arrival in Athens does not allow us to attribute the writing of this epistle to the time of Apostle Paul’s stay in Athens. The events in the F-coy church required somewhat more time for their development than this above assumption about the place of writing allows. Moreover, if the message is attributed to the Athenian stay of the Apostle Paul, then it will be difficult to understand how the Apostle Paul could write verses 7–8 of the first chapter. Two considerations do not allow us to attribute the writing of the epistle to the time after the stay of the Apostle Paul in Corinth; firstly, that liveliness of separation that is felt throughout the epistle (1 Thess. 1:5, 2:1-20; and especially 1 Thess. 2:17), and secondly, the fact that, as far as we can judge from the book of Acts, Timothy and Silas were with the Apostle Paul only on his second Apostolic journey, and never after, so the inscription of the epistle with the names of the three evangelists of the Gospel in F-ke, and almost constant use in the epistle (ήμεής) of the first person plural. the numbers will be understandable only on the assumption that the 1st last. To Fm it was written from Corinth, where Timothy and Silas were at the beginning of the 51st year, or at the end of the 50th year. The Epistle begins with a very warm expression of the wish for peace and grace to the F church (1 Thessalonians 1:1). Then the author proceeds to express his gratitude to God for the welfare and prosperity of the church in the Church (1 Thessalonians 1:2-10) and immediately proceeds to the apology of his Apostleship among the Churches, which was subjected to slander and denigration by the enemies of the Gospel - the Jews (1 Thessalonians 2:1-12). Then the author again returns to expressing gratitude to God for the firmness of the persecuted church in Pheks, and makes a sharp attack on the unbelieving Jews (1 Thess. 2:13-16). Continuing his apology, the author of the letter describes his intentions regarding his return to F-ku, and his relations with the church through the medium of Timothy (1 Sol. 3:10). The entire section ends with a prayer for the church in Ph. (1 Thess. 3:11-13). The Apostle begins the second part with exhortations - to maintain purity and avoid fornication (1 Thessalonians 4:1–8) and adultery, to treat your neighbor lovingly (1 Thessalonians 4:9–10), and to lead a quiet life, working and acting decently before outsiders (1 Thessalonians 4:11–12). Next, the Apostle moves on to a question that apparently greatly worried the Fth community - the question of the fate of those who died before the onset of parousia (1 Thess. 4:13-18), and says that the latter will take an equal part in the glory of the “day of the Lord,” but when this last one comes is unknown, and therefore it is necessary to “keep awake and be sober” (1 Thess. 5:1-11). Finally, the Apostle gives instructions regarding respect for the leaders of the church, regarding those who are disorderly in the community, and ends the message with a number of concise, but deep in content, aphorisms of a religious and social nature (1 Thessalonians 5:12–22). The end of the epistle is occupied with prayer, blessing and greeting to all the brothers (1 Thess. 5:23-28). Doubts about the authenticity of the letter to the Thessalonians arose in the 19th century; Until this time, the message enjoyed full recognition of its undoubted authenticity, although there was little external evidence in this regard. It is very possible that echoes of the message can be indicated in St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, in his letters to the Romans, chapter 2 - 1 Thess. 2:4; Ephesians chapter 10 – 1 Thessalonians 5:17; and Hermas in his "Shepherd" (vision III, IX:10, 1 Thessalonians 5:13). We find direct evidence in favor of our message from Irenaeus of Lyons (180 A.D.) in his Adv. haeres. V:6, 1: “in prima epistola acl Thessalonicenses” (ibid V:30, 2), in Clement of Alexandria (190) in his “Pedagogue” (I ch. 5), and “Stromata” (I ch. 2), and in Tertullian (200). The epistle is found in the canon of the heretic Marcion (140) in Pescito, in the old Latin versions, and in the Muratorian canon (170) it is placed sixth among the epistles of the Apostle Paul. As for internal data in favor of our message, there is a lot of it. It is enough to quickly re-read this letter to immediately be convinced that it could in no way come out of the hands of some later anonymous person, writing under the name of the Apostle Paul. The character of the great Apostle of tongues is stamped upon the whole epistle in the most indelible manner. The language and style of the message also confirm this. “The internal data is so strong that it is absolutely enough to convince most critics. 1) If our message were forged, then it would naturally contain some references to the important teaching of the Apostle Paul about justification by faith, and the like. 2) It would hardly include such a passage as 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18, which seems to suggest that the Apostle Paul expected to be a personal witness of the second coming of Christ. 3) In addition, a forged message would hardly be able to recreate that warmth of feeling, those personal hints and that expressiveness and energy of language that mark our message as genuine... 4) Every forgery is done for a specific purpose; but no motive for forgery can be found for such an epistle as 1 Sol.” (H. W. Fulford. Thessalonians, 1911, p. 8–9). Askwith. Ε. Η. An Introduction to the Thessalonian Epistles. London. 1902. German literature regarding the monograph is listed in G. Milligan. Gloag. P. The Paulme Epistles, Edinburgh, 1876. Lake. K. The Earlier Letters of St. Paul, 1911. Shaw, R. D. The Pauline Epistles, Edinburgh, 1901. Scott, R. The Pauline Epistles Edinburgh, 1909. In Russian literature, it is necessary to point out, first of all, the work of Prof. N. N. Glubokovsky: The Gospel of St. Apostle Paul, 2 vols. 1905, 1910. Then follow: priest. F. Titov: 1st Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians, 1893, Kyiv, and his speech before defending his dissertation: “Circumstances of the origin of 1 last. Apostle Paul to Fm." Priest V. Strakhov: The second letter of the Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians. Sergiev Posad 1911. Bishop Nikanor: A publicly accessible explanation of the messages of St. Apostle Paul. From the narrative of Acts 17 it is clear that the indignation in Thessalonica was directed mainly against the Apostle Paul and Silas, and therefore Jason’s “certification” extended only to them. For Timothy, the road to Thessalonica was not closed. You might be interested in: