We note, first of all, that the dominant social metaphor that Paul employs to address his recipients is thoroughly familial,736 here in 4.13–18 but also in the rest of the letter: in the Lord, the Thessalonian believers are ἀδελφοί to one another and to him
732 Barclay, “Death,” 221–222, referring to the classic study of Arnold van Gennep, The Rites of
Passage, trans. Monika Vizedom and Gabrielle L. Caffee (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), notes that all mourners are in a “liminal state,” but the Thessalonian Christians now suffered a “double liminality.”
733 Barclay, “Death,” 222, offers the intriguing suggestion that it may be that for the Thessalonians the
normal mourning processes were disrupted by the social tensions that their faith had engendered. He does not elaborate further at this juncture; but one can well imagine a situation where the embattled believers find it difficult to grieve for their brethren as they might wish to (perhaps because they face continued mockery from others who attribute these deaths to the anger of the gods against the impiety of the Christians; on this see Barclay, “Conflict,” 516; “Death,” 219; and earlier in this chapter of my study at the end of section 4.3.3.b), or where any distinctively Christian funerary proceedings become the target of additional derision or vitriol.
734 Barton, “Eschatology,” 587.
735 This is however not to say that the Thessalonians were discouraged to the point that their sense of
hope had become “disengaged from their faith,” pace Donfried, “Theology,” 27.
(4.13; for other occurences see n.622 earlier in this study). Paul uses also the imagery of loving parental nurture to describe the nature of his relationship with the Thessalonians (2.7, 11). In the consolatory material here, as in his letter generally, a distinctive form of sociality is clearly presupposed: one that is characterized by the mutual affection,
devotion, and care that characterize, and indeed enhance, the best familial relationships. That this type of sociality is important, even crucial, for the proper ordering and functioning of the Thessalonian church is seen in how Paul repeatedly draws the
believers’ attention to the life in common which they inhabit and of which they are to be fully engaged stakeholders. This common life includes such aspects as the
Thessalonians’ shared experiences of suffering (2.14; 3.7–8) as well as of hope (5.8); a decided emphasis on corporate holiness, which includes being careful not to wrong each other (4.1–8); a proactive and vigorous φιλαδελφία (4.9–10); and the keeping of ethical instructions that foster social cohesiveness (5.12–15) and strengthen their corporate witness to outsiders (4.11–12). Even everyday rituals could acquire new layers of meaning in Paul’s conception of an ideal Christian community. The giving of a kiss as part of a greeting was widespread practice in the ancient Near East, but the behest Paul issues at 5.26 regarding the exchanging of a kiss greeting is far from being a merely perfunctory concluding exhortation, because this kiss is to be a “holy kiss” (φίληµα
ἅγιον).737 It is perhaps no coincidence that Paul draws his letter to the Thessalonians to a close with a call to what is in effect a powerful somatic-symbolic enactment of the unique spiritual oneness and social solidarity to which they are to aspire.
However, for our purposes, the aspect of the Thessalonians’ sociality that concerns us most has to do with their practice of consolation. Paul’s exhortation to “comfort one another” (4.18) on this occasion of immense grief places the responsibility for a ministry of consolation not on any single individual or group of people, but
squarely within the believing community as a whole.738 He reinforces this in no uncertain terms by repeating and further fleshing out the exhortation at 5.11 (“comfort one another and build up each other”) and commends the Thessalonians for already doing this; thus it is clear that in the church at Thessalonica, consolation—and
737 For a useful study of the Pauline “holy kiss,” and also the ancient kiss greeting generally, see the
discussion and further references in Jeffrey A. D. Weima, Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings, JSNTSup 101 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 112–114; Jeffrey A. D. Weima, “Sincerely, Paul: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings,” in Paul and the Ancient Letter Form, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Sean A. Adams (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 330–332.
specifically, consolation that is grounded in Christian teachings about life beyond death—is to be a shared responsibility.
I venture to suggest three possible reasons as to why this is so. First, since the believers’ grief is due to ignorance on their part concerning the fate of the faithful dead (4.13), it is precisely the studied, corporately reinforced articulation and re-articulation of the theological realities underlying Christian consolation—for as we have seen earlier, the phrase ἐν τοῖς λόγοις τούτοις within Paul’s consolatory instructions (4.18) relates to his antecendent arguments (4.14–17)—which provide the best corrective to the problem of inordinate grief.
Second, given Paul’s painstaking efforts to highlight to the Thessalonians the exceptional sociality that is to mark and shape their common life, it stands to reason that he should locate the responsibility of consolation within the ambit of this sociality, providing as it does further concrete opportunities to demonstrate brotherly love and upbuild social solidarity. The type of community that Paul seems to want to develop within the Thessalonian church is one that is characterized by unity, mutuality, interdependence, and a loving concern for one another—and all this to a superlative degree. Indeed, the bonds of relationship among the believers are to be so close that they approximate those that one might find in ideal family relationships; thus, for example, Paul applauds their exemplary φιλαδελφία, yet expresses a desire to see this love for the brethren intensify further (4.10; cf. 3.12). It seems reasonable to imagine that in Paul’s mind one way this would happen is if they were more intentional about their responsibility to bring encouragement and consolation to one another especially in difficult times, like grief; indeed, as we shall later see, such an attitude builds each other up (5.11).
There is a third possible reason why Paul sees consolation as a shared
responsibilty within the church. It is intriguing that for him consolation has its basis in a specific theological construal of a future, glorious sociality in which living believers are united with (σύν) deceased believers and both groups united with (σύν) their Lord for eternity (4.17; cf. 4.14; 5.10). It seems most fitting that the ministry of consolation— which, after all, announces and celebrates the eschatological warrant for such a perfected sociality—should be embedded within an earthly sociality that serves as a harbinger of that heavenly one.
We turn now to the closely related question of the relationship between
the fate of living believers at the return of Christ, rather than the fate of deceased
believers (4.13–18). That the Thessalonian believers are anxious about the timing of this event and its consequences is indicated by the way Paul treats the subject and carefully reassures them of their eschatological destiny. It is particularly noteworthy that he brings his argument to a close by returning to the theme of being with the Lord, which was already so prominent (see 4.13, 17): ἵνα εἴτε γρηγορῶµεν εἴτε καθεύδωµεν ἅµα σὺν
αὐτῷ ζήσωµεν (5.10). Not only will all believers, deceased or living, be found in the
company of Christ at his parousia, but they “will live” with him—the ἐσόµεθα of 4.17 being modified to ζήσωµεν to underscore the certainty of eternal life as the existential reality in which eschatological salvation consists.
Paul concludes the section with the injunction Διὸ παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους καὶ
οἰκοδοµεῖτε εἷς τὸν ἕνα, καθὼς καὶ ποιεῖτε (5.11), in which the παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους of
4.18 is repeated verbatim. Appended to it is a second command, οἰκοδοµεῖτε εἷς τὸν ἕνα, which speaks unequivocally of the believers’ obligation to build each other up: the verb
οἰκοδοµέω is always figuratively in Paul’s letters to connote some aspect of spiritual
edification,739 while the elliptical phrase εἷς τὸν ἕνα (literally, “one on one”) seems to stress here the personal and intimate nature of such a mutual ministry.740 He does not specify the precise teachings that form the basis for this individual, reciprocal
upbuilding, but the flow of his argument shows that at the very least he has in view both the immediately preceding discussion (5.1–10) and the subsequent exhortations that conclude the letter (5.12–22). The inferential conjuction διό with which he introduces the double commands of 5.10 links them to the preceding material in 5.1–10 (the διό thus functions similarly to the particle ὥστε in 4.18, in relation to 4.13–17), while the call to mutual edification has also a transitional function in the way it sets the stage for the explicit exhortations that follow, especially regarding attitudes and behaviour towards church leaders and fellow members of the Christian community (5.12–15).741
Yet one may with some justification argue that Paul in 5.11 has in mind a more expansive picture of mutual encouragement than he has earlier at 4.18. Certainly, as we
739 BDAG 696: “strengthen, build up, make more able”; likewise, its cognate noun is almost always
used figuratively of “spiritual strengthening” and thus connotes “edifying, edification, building up” (BDAG 696–697). Paul uses the verb especially in 1 Corinthians (8.1, 10; 10.23; 14.4 [2x], 17).
740 So Weima, Thessalonians, 372–373; Malherbe, Thessalonians, 300–301, 307–308; Witherington,
Thessalonians, 153–154; Richard, Thessalonians, 257; who all argue that as in 2.11 (“how we dealt with each one of you”) Paul is stressing here in 5.11 the individualistic nature of this ministry. In other words, Paul had claimed in 2.11 that he had treated his converts as individuals; now, he expects them, as individuals, to build up other individuals just as he has done.
have seen, with its parallel syntax the παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους in 5.11 picks up the note of comfort that is advocated in 4.18. However, it is noteworthy that here in 5.11 the ἐν τοῖς
λόγοις τούτοις of 4.18 is omitted, and that the παρακαλεῖτε is now instead deliberately
juxtaposed with οἰκοδοµεῖτε—which thereby interprets it and nuances its import. For Paul, then, exhortation has to do with mutual spiritual edification. Yet since it is in consequence of being the eschatological community that the Thessalonians are to edify and upbuild one another, the διό παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους, with its concomitant
οἰκοδοµεῖτε, must relate not only to 5.1–10 but to the entire section, 4.13–5.10.742 As such, the consolation of 4.18 is an integral aspect of the broader ministry of mutual edification that Paul speaks of and calls the believers to in 5.11.
This emphasis on mutuality is all the more striking when we compare Paul’s thinking to the type of sociality that his Stoic contemporaries like Epictetus were advocating. At first blush, the two frameworks seem broadly comparable: Epictetus affirms the social nature of humankind, and also teaches that one should fulfil one’s duties to others.743 However, any apparent similarities very quickly vanish, because absent entirely from Epictetus’ scheme is any notion of the corporate mutuality that is so central to Paul’s programme. For Epictetus, as for the Stoics generally, happiness emerges through the deliberate limiting of one’s desires to those things that are located within the sphere of one’s volitional autonomy, and which are therefore reasonable to possess.744 As such, a proper relationship consists only in what one can do for someone else; one is never dependent on that other person for anything, least of all one’s own happiness and well being. Long explains it well:
The correct performance of one’s social roles … is both outwardly and inwardly oriented. It is outward in what it requires by way of sensitivity to the dignity and claims of other persons, but what it is about other persons that should concern us
is not how they treat us … but only how we dispose ourselves in relation to them.
The relevant relationship is entirely one-sided: us in relation to them, not them in relation to us. That is because, as Epictetus views the basis of proper relationships, they should be entirely translated, like everything we deal with, into the domain of our volition and integrity.745
Thus, while the fulfilment of one’s duties to others is integral to Epictetus’ thought, one’s first responsility is to maintain the integrity of one’s own volition—the result of which is properly dutiful behaviour that reveals a remarkably high level of relational self-sufficiency. Paul’s emphasis on unity, mutual love, and reciprocity in the
742 On this see Malherbe, Thessalonians, 300.
743 Epictetus, Diatr. 3.2.4. See also the discussion in section 2.5.1.c above. 744 Long, Epictetus, 191; see also section 2.2.1 above.
carrying out of responsibilties such as the ministry of consolation and the upbuilding of one another, takes the Thessalonian church in a completely different direction. There is no trace of Stoic self-sufficiency in Paul’s scheme; instead, what he promotes within the Thessalonians is a purposeful interdependence that is expressed through mutual
ministry among them. Each person is to assume thoughtful responsibility for the spiritual nurture and upbuilding of others within the community of faith. In fact, we may go so far as to suggest that there is a sense in which Paul is saying that each member of the church needs the faithful, attentive ministry of other members, so that together they can more fully become the community that God has called them to be. As we have seen, this ministry, as Paul construes it, is both deeply individual and warmly reciprocal in nature; and in good paraenetic style he concludes this section by
complimenting the Thessalonian for already demonstrating it in their relationships with each other (καθὼς καὶ ποιεῖτε, 5.11). The believers are apparently already actively engaged in ministry to one another—ministry that is to include the bringing of consolation and comfort to the bereaved among them.