[1] Cf. Pearson, Birger, ‘1 Thessalonians 2. 13–16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation’, HTR 64 (1971) 79–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Boers, Hendrickus, ‘The Form Critical Study of Paul's Letters: 1 Thessalonians as a Case Study’, NTS 22 (1976) 140–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Koester, Helmut, History and Literature of Early Christianity (2 vols., Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982) 2. 112–14Google Scholar. The Pauline character of the passage has been argued by Okeke, G. E., ‘1 Thessalonians 2.13–16: The Fate of the Unbelieving Jews’, NTS 27 (1980) 127–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and particularly well by Dorfried, Karl, ‘Paul and Judaism: 1 Thessalonians 2.13–16 as a Test Case’, Int 38 (1984) 242–53.Google Scholar

[2] Cf. Perrin, Norman, The New Testament: an Introduction (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974) 119–20Google Scholar, who says 2 Thessalonians is an example of deutero-Pauline Christianity from the seventies or eighties. More satisfying, however, is the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians, cf. Kümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1975) 262–8Google Scholar, who dates 1 and 2 Thess as written from Corinth around 50–51 A.D. and as the earliest letters written by Paul.

[3] Cf. Boers, Hendrikus, ‘The Form Critical Study of Paul's Letters’, 140–58.Google Scholar For the argument from letter style that 1 Thess 2. 13–16 is Pauline see White, John, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter (Ph.D. dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 1970) 116–18.Google ScholarCf. Schmithals, Walter, Paul and the Gnostics (New York: Abingdon Press, 1972) 176–81, 193–4, 212–13Google Scholar, who divides the Thessalonian correspondence into four separate letters: (2 Thess 1. 1–12; 3. 6–16) (1 Thess 1. 1–11; 4. 3–5. 28) (2 Thess 2. 13–14; 2. 1–12; 2. 15–3. 5; 3. 17–18) (1 Thess 2. 13–4. 2).

[4] The eschatological debate is concerned with supposed development, gnostic backgrounds, and precisely what Paul means; cf. Lüdemann, Gerd, ‘The Hope of Early Paul: From the Foundation-preaching at Thessalonika to 1 Cor 15.51–57’, Perspectives in Religious Studies 7 (1980) 195–202;Google ScholarMearns, C. L., ‘Early Eschatological Development in Paul: The Evidence of 1 and 2 Thessalonians’, NTS 27 (1981) 137–57;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPlevnik, Joseph, ‘1 Thess. 5, 1–11: Its Authenticity, Intention and Message’, Biblica 60 (1979) 71–90;Google ScholarAus, R. D., ‘God's Plan and God's Power: Isaiah 66 and the Restraining Factors of 2 Thess. 2:6–7’, JBL 96 (1977) 537–53.Google Scholar

[5] The question here is whether his ‘opponents’ are outside or inside the church; or whether the ‘apology’ is general, not directed against any situation. Cf. Schmithals, W., Paul and The Gnostics 142–51;Google ScholarMalherbe, A. J., ‘Gentle as a Nurse: The Stoic Background to I Thess. II’, NovT 12 (1970) 203–17.Google Scholar

[6] Debated here is the background – whether Jewish or Hellenistic – and if the paraenesis is general or situational. Cf. Malherbe, Abraham, ‘Exhortation in First Thessalonians’, NovT 25 (1983) 238–56;Google ScholarCollins, R. F., ‘The Unity of Paul's Paraenesis’, NTS 29 (1983) 420–8;CrossRefGoogle ScholarFaw, C. E., ‘On the Writing of First Thessalonians’, JBL 71 (1952) 217–32.Google Scholar

[7] Cf. Lütgert, W., Die Vollkommenen im Philipperbrief und Die Enthusiasten in Thessaoonanh (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsman, 1909) 72, who terms the eschatological view traditional at the turn of the century.Google Scholar

[8] Cf. Holmberg, B., Paul and Power (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1978) 205.Google Scholar

[9] Cf. Theissen, Gerd, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982);Google ScholarMeeks, Wayne, The First Urban Christians (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983);Google ScholarHock, Ronald, The Social Context of Paul's Ministry (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980);Google ScholarMalherbe, Abraham, Social Aspects of Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983).Google Scholar

[10] 2 Thess 3. 6–13 is a commentary on 1 Thess 4. 11–12 and 5. 14 and repeats vocabulary from the earlier passages: άτάκτως… παράοσιν (3. 6, cf. 1 Thess 4. 11, 5. 14); ήτακτήσαμεν (3. 7, cf. 1 Thess 5. 14); (παρηγγέλλομεν, cv 3. 10, of 1 Thess 4. 11); ατάκτως (3. 11, of 1 Thess 5. 14); ήσυχιας ργαζόμενοι (3. 12, cf. 1 Thess 4. 11).

[11] Nearly all exegetes have taken this view, cf. Dobschütz, E. von, Die Thessalonicher-Briefe (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1909) 179–82;Google ScholarRigaux, B., Saint Paul Les Epîtres aux Thessaloniciens (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1956) 519–21;Google ScholarBest, Ernest, A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1972) 176–8;Google ScholarBruce, F. F., 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Waco: Word Publishers, 1982) 90–1, 204–9.Google Scholar

[12] Dobschütz, E. von, Die Thessalonicher-Briefe 182.Google Scholar

[13] Frame, J., The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians 159–63.Google Scholar Frame rejects the thesis of Dobschütz that the idle took their eschatological speculations into the market-place, because the Thessalonians were working-class people and not philosophers, who often retired from public life to pursue studies.

[14] Cf. Giblin, C., The Threat to Faith 147;Google ScholarKümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament, 268.Google ScholarCf. Ellis, E. E., Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 20–1, who claims that the idle are the recipients of 2 Thessalonians and are a group of Christian co-workers whom Paul urges to gain support after his example.Google Scholar

[15] Dobschütz, E. von, Die Thessalonicher-Briefe 182–3;Google ScholarBruce, F. F., 1 and 2 Thessalonians 92.Google Scholar

[16] Bruce, F. F., 1 and 2 Thessalonians 91.Google Scholar

[17] Cf. Lütgert, Wilhelm, ‘Die Vollkommenen im Philipperbrief und die Enthusiasten in Thessalonich’, BFChTh 13 (1909) 547–654;Google ScholarSchmithals, Walter, Paul and the Gnostics (New York: Abingdon, 1972) 123–218;Google ScholarFoerster, W., ‘Εύσέβια in den Pastoral-briefen’, NTS 5 (1958–1959) 213–18;CrossRefGoogle ScholarDeBoer, W. P., The Imitation of Paul (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1962) 126–39;Google ScholarJewett, Robert, ‘Enthusiastic Radicalism and the Thessalonian Correspondence’, SBL Seminar Papers 1 (1972) 181–232;Google ScholarMearns, C. L., ‘Early Eschatological Development in Paul: The Evidence of I and II Thessalonians’, 147–8;Google ScholarHarnisch, W., Eschatologische Existenz. Ein exegetischer Beitrag zum Sachanliegen von 1 Thessalonicher 4, 15–5, 11 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1973) 22–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarAgrell, Goran, Work, Toil and Sustenance 122, accepts this conclusion for 2 Thess 3. 6–15 as well as the deuteropauline character of 2 Thessalonians.Google Scholar

[18] Dobschütz, E. von, Die Thessalonicher-Briefe 267.Google Scholar

[19] Lütgert, W., ‘Die Vollkommenen im Philipperbrief and die Enthusiasten in Thessalonich’, 547–654.Google Scholar

[20] Schmithals, W., Paul and the Gnostics 159–60.Google Scholar

[21] Jewett, Robert, ‘Enthusiastic Radicalism and the Thessalonian Correspondence’ 207.Google Scholar Jewett rejects Schmithals' view that Paul faced the same gnostic threat in his churches and the post-Pauline character of 2 Thessalonians.

[22] Bienert, W., Die Arbeit nach der Lehre der Bibel: Eine Grundlegung evangelischer Socialethik (Stuttgart: Evangelisches Verlagswerk, 1954) 270–2;Google ScholarSevenster, John, Paul and Seneca (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961) 213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarCf. Marshall, I. H., Thessalonians 223, who says that the motive does not lie merely in heightened expectation of the end, but ‘in a general attitude to manual labor which was current in the Hellenistic civilization of the time’.Google Scholar

[23] Malherbe, Abraham, Social Aspects of Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983) 24–7.Google Scholar Cf. idem, ‘Gentle as a Nurse: The Cynic Background to I Thess. ii’, NovT 12 (1970) 203–17;Google Scholaridem, ‘Exhortation in First Thessalonians’, NovT 25 (1983) 238–56Google Scholar, for the claim that Paul used and modified Stoic language (Dio Chrysostom's criticism of the so-called wandering philosophic preachers) and parenetic topoi from philosophic tradition.

[24] Hock, Ronald, The Social Context of Paul's Ministry (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980) 42–7.Google Scholar For the view that Paul's parenetis is general and not a response to an actual situation see Bradley, David, ‘The Topoi as a Form in the Pauline Paraenesis’, JBL 72 (1953) 238–46.Google ScholarCf. Kaye, B. N., ‘Eschatology and Ethics in 1 and 2 Thessalonians’, NovT 17 (1975) 57, who suggests the disorderliness had local and social roots, but he does not develop the thesis.Google Scholar

[25] Cf. Forkman, Goran, The Limits of the Religious Community (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1972) 135, who says the withdrawal was from fellowship at meals.Google ScholarBest, Ernest, Thessalonians 336, claims the church discipline consisted of refusal to share food.Google Scholar

[26] Cf. Marshall, I. H., Thessalonians 221–2, who says: ‘“to eat bread” is a Hebraism which means “to take food” (Gen 3. 19) and can be used more generally of receiving maintenance from somebody’.Google Scholar

[27] Cf. Spicq, C., ‘Les Thessaloniciens inquiets étaient-ils des paresseux?’ Studia Theology 10 (1957) 13.Google Scholar

[28] Cf. Milligan, George, Thessalonians 153Google Scholar, who says that whereas ἄτακτος and its cognates can mean actual wrong-doing, they more likely refer to ‘a certain remissness in the conduct of life’ or ‘idleness’; Best, Ernest, Thessalonians 334;Google ScholarFrame, James, οί τακτοι (1 Thess. 5:14)’, Essays in Modern Theology and Related Subjects (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1911) 191–206.Google Scholar Frame says that because οί τακτοι refers only to μργαζόμενοι it should be translated ‘the loafers’. (It would be translated, ‘the disorderly’ only if it referred to μσυχάζοντες, πράσσοντεςτρων as well as μήργαζόμενοι.) He claims that ‘lack of tranquillity’ (μσυχάζοντες) led to idleness and that ργός and ἅτακτος are largely equivalent.

[29] Cf. Delling, Gerhard, τακτος, TDNT 3 (1972) 47–8;Google ScholarAgrell, Goran, Work, Toil and Sustenance 117–18;Google ScholarForkman, Goran, The Limits of the Religious Community 134–5;Google ScholarSpicq, C., ‘Les Thessaloniciens inquiets ètaient-ils des paresseux?’ 11.Google Scholar The early church was concerned that believers express conduct that reflected acceptable, orderly ethical norms among the pagans, cf. Greeven, Heinrich, ‘εσχήμων’, TDNT 2 (1964) 770–2;Google ScholarCrouch, James, The Origin and Intention of the Colossian Haustafel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972) 146–51;Google ScholarSchnackenburg, Rudolf, The Moral Teaching of the New Testament (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969) 300–6.Google Scholar

[30] While they meddle in areas beyond their responsibilities (cf. Sir 3. 33; Philo, In Facc. 5), the text does not affirm that their opinions or statements were of a religious nature (cf. 1 Tim 5. 13), but some of them, at least, could have been. Cf. Dio Chrysostom, Orat. 31.3.

[31] Cf. Spicq, C., ‘Les Thessaloniciens inquiets étaient-ils des paresseux?’ 10–11.Google ScholarFor the assocation of the ‘fainthearted’ with the problems of 4. 13–5.Google Scholar 11 and the ‘weak’ with 4. 3–8 see Frame, James, Thessalonians 198;Google ScholarMarshall, I. H., Thessalonians 151.Google ScholarCf. Black, David, ‘The Weak in Thessalonica: A Study in Pauline Lexicography’, JETS 25 (1982) 307–22Google Scholar, who identifies the ‘fainthearted’ with 4. 13–18 and the weak with 5. 1–11 (weary of waiting for the end and the danger of spiritual sleep).

[32] Cf. Marshall, I. H., Thessalonians 226, who points out that the theme of the idle includes 3.Google Scholar 13 and continues through 3. 15. It should be noticed that those who are weary have a very wide address – the whole congregation (άςελφοι) – not to just the leaders, contra Frame, James, Thessalonians 159–63.Google Scholar

[33] While the Pauline traditions (2 Thess 2. 15) involved teachings on eschatology (1 Thess 3. 4; 5. 2; 2 Thess 2. 5), they also included the topics of work (2 Thess 3. 10) and sanctification (1 Thess 4. 2–3). Cf. Agrell, Goran, Work, Toil and Sustenance 122Google Scholar, who erroneously claims that the disorderly and eschatological excitement are related because both are part of the tradition. Is there any real reason to conclude that the mere inclusion of Paul's teaching on work in the ‘traditions’ means there is an eschatological reason for the idleness? Although Rigaux claims that the definite article (‘the tradition’ in 3. 6) suggests not a particular but a whole set of commands customarily given new converts (cf. Rigaux, B., Thessalonians 705), it more likely should be limited to material on work reflected in 3.6–12.Google Scholar

[34] Deissmann, Adolf, Light from the Ancient East (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1908) 314, said it was a workshop maxim that ‘forbade a lazy apprentice to sit down to dinner’.Google Scholar

[35] Cf. Frame, James, Thessalonians 304–5.Google Scholar

[36] Cf. Eph 4. 28 and Didache 12. 2–3 which reads: ‘and if he (travelling Christian) wishes to settle among you and has a craft, let him work for his bread. But if he has no craft provide for him according to your understanding, so that no man shall live among you in idleness (άργός) because he is a Christian.’ Cf. Hock, Ronald, The Social Context of Paul's Ministry 42–7;Google ScholarMeeks, Wayne, The First Urban Christians 64, who take 1 Thess 4. 11–12 as general paraenesis not spoken to an actual situation because they treat 2 Thess 3. 6–12 and the whole epistle as post-Pauline.Google Scholar

[37] Best, Ernest, Thessalonians 175.Google Scholar

[38] Cf. DeBoer, W. P., The Imitation of Paul 133–5.Google Scholar

[39] For gnostics as the opponents, cf. Lütgert, W., ‘Die Vollkommenen im Philipperbrief und die Enthusiasten in Thessalonich’ 547–654;Google ScholarSchmithals, W., Paul and the Gnostics 142–51.Google ScholarCf. Jewett, Robert, ‘Enthusiastic Radicalism and the Thessalonian Correspondence’ 214, for the view that the radical enthusiasts are on the fringe of gnosticism. All these scholars point to similarities between Pauline apologies in 2 Corinthians and the Thessalonian epistles.Google Scholar

[40] Cf. Malherbe, A. J., ‘Gentle as a Nurse’ 203–17Google Scholar, who finds parallels in Dio Chrysostom and concludes that both were merely describing their work by answering traditional criticisms made against Cynic philosophers and by drawing on descriptions of the true philosopher.

[41] For the view that these criticisms came from a group that was Jewish or included Jews, cf. Milligan, George, Thessalonians xxxi;Google ScholarFrame, James, Thessalonians 90;Google ScholarMorris, Leon, Thessalonians 50;Google ScholarWhiteley, D. E. H., Thessalonians 40;Google ScholarBest, Ernest, Thessalonians 16–17.Google Scholar While Acts 17. 5 suggests the Jews were responsible for initial persecution, 1 Thess 2. 14 points to Gentile responsibility for the continuing persecution.

[42] Cf. Giblin, Charles, The Threat to Faith 145.Google Scholar The rural mission methods of Jesus and the Jewish Christian missionaries (1 Cor 9. 5) were modified by Paul in his Hellenistic urban policies, cf. Theissen, Gerd, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977) 8–16;Google Scholaridem, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982) 27–68.Google Scholar While Paul works to support himself (particularly when he sought to do missionary activity in a city – reflecting the model of the artisan-philosopher, cf. Acts 18. 2–3, cf. Hock, Ronald, The Social Context of Paul's Ministry 26–49)Google Scholar, he did accept hospitality for a short period of time (Acts 20. 6; 21. 4, 7; 28. 14) and sought (Rom 15. 24; 1 Cor 16. 6, 11; 2 Cor 1. 16) and received support (Acts 15. 3; 20. 28; 21. 5; Phil 4. 15–18) from other believers.

[43] Cf. Agrell, Goran, Work, Toil and Sustenance 100.Google Scholar

[44] Cf. Milligan, George, Thessalonians 54;Google ScholarMalherbe, Abraham, Social Aspects of Early Christianity 24–5;Google ScholarMacMullen, Ramsay, Enemies of the Roman Order (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966) 46–94;CrossRefGoogle ScholarFestugière, André-Jean, Personal Religion Among the Greeks (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1954) 53–67.Google Scholar

[45] Cf. Dobschütz, E. von, Die Thessalonicher-Briefe 179–80.Google Scholar

[46] Cf. Frame, James, Thessalonians 161;Google ScholarMarshall, I. H., Thessalonians 116. The disorderliness was a church problem, yet to a degree the lack of order affected outsiders (cf. 1 Thess 4. 12).Google Scholar

[47] Cf. Bruce, F.F., Thessalonians 207–8.Google Scholar

[48] Cf. Laub, Franz, Eschatologische Verkündigung 145–6.Google Scholar

[49] Cf. Marshall, I. H., Thessalonians 117.Google Scholar

[50] Cf. Dorfried, Karl, ‘The Cults of Thessalonica and the Thessalonian Correspondence’, NTS 31 (1985) 341–2.Google Scholar

[51] Judge, E. A., The Social Pattern of Christian Groups in the First Century (London: Tyndale Press, 1960).Google Scholar Cf. idem, ‘The Social Identity of the First Christian: A Question of Method in Religious History’, Journal of Religious History 11 (1980) 202Google Scholar, who describes the importance of a social history for early Christianity when he says: ‘The dislocation of New Testament studies from the social and intellectual history of its times represents an acute case of the problem of method which besets religious history in general.’

[52] For a survey see: Smith, J. Z., ‘The Social Description of Early Christianity’, Religious Studies Review 1 (1975) 19–24Google Scholar and more recently Gager, J. G., ‘Shall We Marry Our Enemies? Sociology and the New Testament’, Int 37 (1982) 256–65.Google Scholar

[53] Deissmann, Adolf, Light From the Ancient East 144, 403.Google ScholarCf. Jones, A. H. M., ‘The Social Background of the Struggle Between Paganism and Christianity’, The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century (ed. Momigliano, A.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963) 17–37;Google ScholarNock, A. D., Conversion: The Old and The New in Religion from Alexander The Great to Augustine of Hippo (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933) 187–211;Google ScholarDodds, E. R., Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety (Cambridge: University Press, 1965) 120–1;CrossRefGoogle ScholarGager, John, Kingdom and Community (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1975) 96, 106–8.Google Scholar Often cited is Celsus, a second century critic of Christianity, who said the early Christians were uneducated illiterates who gathered in the wooldresser's, cobbler's or washerwoman's shops (C. Cels. 3.55).

[54] Cf. Judge, E. A., The Social Pattern of Christian Groups 60;Google ScholarTheissen, Gerd, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity 69–110;Google ScholarMalherbe, Abraham, Social Aspects of Early Christians 29–31;Google ScholarMeeks, Wayne, The First Urban Christians 51–3;Google ScholarHengel, Martin, Property and Riches in the Early Church (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974) 36–9;Google ScholarWuellner, W. H., ‘The Sociological Implications of I Corinthians 1, 26–28 Reconsidered’, SE 6 (1973) 666–72.Google Scholar

[55] Cf. Dodds, E. R., Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety 120–1;Google ScholarDeissmann, Adolf, Light From the Ancient East 313;Google Scholar who refers to the artisan class within the church. Cf. Gager, John, Kingdom and Community 96Google Scholar, who refers to Christianity as a movement among ‘disprivileged groups’, but also says Christian circles included as well the educated who were part of the higher social hierarchy of towns and cities (cf. idem, ‘Shall we Marry Our Enemies?’ 262).

[56] Cf. Meeks, Wayne, The First Urban Christians 51–73;Google ScholarTheissen, Gerd, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity 27–120;Google ScholarWeaver, P. R. C., ‘Social Mobility in the Early Roman Empire: The Evidence of the Imperial Freedmen and Slaves’, Studies in Ancient Society (ed. Finley, M. I.; London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974) 121–40;Google ScholarDuff, A. M., Freedmen in the Early Roman Empire (Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons, 1958) 50–68, 97–108;Google ScholarCountryman, L. William, The Rich Christians in the Church of the Early Empire (New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1980) 33, 89–90.Google Scholar

[57] Russell, Ronald, ‘The Poor in the Gospel of Luke: An Interaction with Texts and Opinions’, CBQ (forthcoming);Google ScholarPilgrim, Walter, Good News to the Poor. Wealth and Poverty in Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1981) 85–176.Google Scholar

[58] Judge, E. A., ‘The Social Identity of the First Christians’ 210.Google ScholarCf. Yamauchi, Edwin, ‘Sociology, Scripture and the Supernatural’, JETS 27 (1984) 169–92.Google Scholar

[59] Cf. Malherbe, Abraham, Social Aspects of Early Christianity 20.Google ScholarCf. Meeks, Wayne, The First Urban Christians 5–6, whose study makes use eclectically of sociological theory in a suggestive but not a generative way.Google Scholar

[60] The ‘decrees of Caesar’, which the Christians were accused of violating, may refer to imperial edicts against Jewish messianic agitation or to those against predicting a change of ruler, cf. Judge, E. A., ‘The Decrees of Caesar at Thessalonica’, RTR 30 (1971) 1–7;Google ScholarBruce, F. F., Thessalonians xxiii–xxiv.Google Scholar While it is often thought to be nearly impossible to inter-relate Acts with content in Pauline epistles, the basic historicity of Acts is being recognized in more quarters, cf. Hengel, Martin, Acts and The History of Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979) 61.Google Scholar

[61] Cf. Haenchen, Ernst, The Acts of The Apostles (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971) 507Google Scholar, who cautions that Lucan tendency is to mention conversions from the upper classes.

[62] Cf. Theissen, Gerd, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity 73, who says: ‘statements about holding office, about ‘houses’, about assistance rendered to the congregation, and about travel can serve as criteria for elevated social status’.Google Scholar

[63] Cf. Bienert, W., Die Arbeit nach der Lehre der Bibel 270–2;Google ScholarSevenster, J., Paul and Seneca 213.Google Scholar

[64] Cf. Mosse, Claude, The Ancient World of Work (London: Chatto & Windus, 1969) 25–30;Google ScholarFinley, M. I., The Ancient Economy (London: Chatto & Windus, 1973) 35–61;Google ScholarHock, Ronald, The Social Context of Paul's Ministry 42–9;Google ScholarMalherbe, Abraham, Social Aspects of Early Christianity 24–6.Google Scholar

[65] Cf. Duff, A. M., Freedmen in the Early Roman Empire 105–6;Google ScholarMaxey, Mima, Occupations of the Lower Classes in Roman Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938) 1–11.Google Scholar

[66] Cf. Lee, Clarence, ‘Social Unrest and Primitive Christianity’, The Catacombs and the Colosseum (eds. Benko, Stephen, O'Rourke, John; Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1971) 129;Google ScholarStambaugh, John, ‘Social Relations in the City of the Early Principate’, SBL Seminar Papers 1980 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1980) 83.Google Scholar These people were often in a state of discouragement and passivity, but they were not involved in organized hostility.

[67] Cf. Malherbe, Abraham, Social Aspects of Early Christianity 24–7.Google Scholar

[68] Cf. Hock, Ronald, The Social Context of Paul's Ministry 42–7. He also claims the quietism (1 Thess 4. 11) recommended by Paul is political withdrawal, but the artisans were not involved in politics, only the higher social classes.Google Scholar

[69] Cf. Jones, A. H. M., The Greek City (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940) 268–9;Google ScholarRostoutsev, Mikhail, The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1941) 2. 1126–7;Google ScholarLee, C., ‘Social Unrest and Primitive Christianity’ 125.Google Scholar

[70] Cf. Hand, A. R., Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1968) 62–95;Google ScholarFinley, M. I., The Ancient Economy 40–2;Google ScholarMacMullen, Ramsay, Roman Social Relations (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974) 57–87.Google Scholar

[71] Cf. Burford, Alison, Craftsmen in Greek and Roman Society (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1972) 65.Google Scholar

[72] Cf. MacMullen, Ramsay, Roman Social Relations 76–9.Google Scholar

[73] At times the ‘poor’ included intellectuals who had been reduced to poverty or who required support. They often served as resident teachers in the households of their patrons for a salary (cf. Hock, Ronald, The Social Context of Paul's Ministry 53–5Google Scholar) – some in the Corinthian congregation may have expected Paul to function in a similar way with a salaried position in the home of an upper class member, cf. Stowers, S. K., ‘Social Status, Public Speaking and Private Teaching: the Circumstances of Paul's Preaching Activity’, NovT 26 (1984) 71.Google Scholar The reciprocal relationship between the benefactor and the beneficiary (primarily among the upper class) became a social bond of friendship in the Hellenistic Roman world. Cf. Mott, Stephen, ‘The Power of Giving and Receiving: Reciprocity in Hellenistic Benevolence’, Current Issues M Biblical and Patristic Interpretation (ed. Hawthorne, G. F.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 60–72;Google ScholarDanker, F. W., Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976) 6–17.Google Scholar

[74] Orat. 3.124–125; also see Epictetus Diss 3.26.6–7 and Plutarch De vit aere al. 830 A-B. Cf. Hock, Ronald, The Social Context of Paul's Ministry 44–5.Google Scholar

[75] Although Paul was aware of Hellenistic topoi on friendship (cf. Maiherbe, Abraham, ‘Exhortation in First Thessalonians’, NovT 25 [1983] 252Google Scholar), he promoted ‘partnership’ as a model to describe the relationship that should exist between believers, cf. Judge, E. A., ‘The Social Identity of the First Christians’ 214.Google Scholar Hellenistic friendship could encourage, on the part of the benefactor, self-interest, the desire for recognition, and controlling subordinates by placing them in his debt – each of these are contrary to the Christian ethic of love whereby the believer functions to bring about the good of others (1 Cor 8. 1; 12. 7). Paul, consequently, spoke of equality (2 Cor 8. 14) and of being ‘partners’ or ‘sharers’ in the Christian community (Rom 15. 25–27; Gal 6. 6; 2 Cor 1. 7; Phil 1. 5; 3. 10; Phhn 17) – a partnership in giving and receiving (Phil 4. 15). This relationship grew out of love, not the expectation of a gift in return (2 Cor 8. 8; Eph 4. 28), and it was realized that God would provide for any future need that might result from the sharer's act of righteousness (Phil 4. 17, 19).

[76] Paul's paraenesis is thus different from the Lucan idealization of a community of goods within the early Jerusalem church (Acts 2. 43–47; 4. 32–37) that may reflect either Jewish or Greek patterns, cf. Mealand, David, ‘Community of Goods and Utopian Allusions in Acts II-IV’, JTS 28 (1977) 96–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarCf. Neil, William, Thessalonians 89Google Scholar,, who said: ‘Paul did not want to we the failure of “Christian communism” at Jerusalem repeated in Thessalonica.’ For the view that the unemployment of the idle was due to laziness, cf. Trilling, Wolfgang, Der zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980) 144;Google Scholar this does not tell all the story. For the view that the work language was merely part of Pauline tradition and not situational, cf. Marxsen, Willi, Der zweite Thessalonicherbrief (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1982) 98–101; this is not satisfactory.Google Scholar