Paul and "the Jews" in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16

In 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, Paul wrote what appears to be the most virulent anti-Semitic expression of the New Testament. This text is so extreme, not to mention inconsistent with some of Paul’s other letters, that scholars have questioned whether it is original to the letter, not perhaps an interpolation by a later editor, yet the evidence points to the verses’ authenticity. Here is the ESV translation of the text:

For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, ¹⁵ who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind ¹⁶ by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them at last!

What follows is a concise response from my postsupersessionist perspective. I’ve listed some key references at the end.

Firstly, there are good reasons to narrow the target of Paul’s attack to a small sub-group of the Jewish people at the time:

• The word that the New Testament uses for “Jew” can equally be translated as “Judean.” Use of people in the Diaspora, “Jew” is an appropriate translation, but when the setting is Jerusalem, “Judean” is generally better, differentiating Jews of Judea from Jews of the Diaspora. (At least the ESV translators inserted a footnote after verse 14 make mention of some ambiguity around the meaning of “the Jews”: “The Greek word Ioudaioi can refer to Jewish religious leaders and others under their influence, who opposed the Christian faith in that time.”)
• This comma between verses 14 and 15 is so critical that much research has been done on it. Why? Because by its inclusion, the text implies that all the Jews (at least of that era) were guilty of murdering Jesus and the prophets, but without the comma, the “who” restricts that guilt to specific Jews—those who committed such acts themselves.
• The comma simply cannot be justified, since it’s clear that Paul did not intend to condemn all the Jewish people. (Note that the punctuation was only inserted several centuries later.) 1 Thessalonians 2:14 shows that Paul is referring to the Judean Jews in particular; he is concerned about the churches in Judea. Moreover, Paul often used articular participles to restrict the application of a general term (here, “the Jews”) to a subset of that group. In all six times Paul used participles with the definite article from the start of the letter up to 2:15, he was denoting a sub-group of the broader group by that name. It’s good, therefore, to note that the NIV omits the comma, unlike most English translations.
• Tōn apokteinantōn (in v15), typically translated as “who killed” could reasonably be translated “those who killed.” Examples of such use of the definite article are easy to find, e.g. in Romans 1:32, hoi prassontes: “those who do.”
• Not only that, but Acts 21 tells us that myriads of Jews in Jerusalem were believers, so he didn't mean all Judean Jews.
• Some scholars have made a plausible case that “the prophets” referred to those of Jesus’ followers who had already been martyred. While, in no way would that alleviate the gravity of the offence, it would clearly restrict the blame to a minority group of Ioudaioi within the general population of Ioudaioi.

For all these reasons, the phrase is better translated to indicate a particular group of guilty individuals rather than the entire Jewish population:

“from those [particular] Judean Jews who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets”.

Aside from that vital information, there are other mitigating factors to consider:

• Paul was writing as a Jew who practised a messianic form of Judaism. He had not converted to another religion. This much is clear from the New Testament, as confirmed by modern scholarship.
• Paul wasn’t standing apart from the Jewish people, pointing fingers at them, but he was standing as a representative of one Jewish sect critiquing others. It was very common to do so then even as it is today. There are many examples in Jewish and non-Jewish writings of the period in which members of a society make scathing attacks on other members, yet without meaning to attack all the people.
• Paul’s main purpose was to comfort and encourage the Thessalonian believers, not to vilify the Jews. He wanted to remind the Thessalonian believers who were being persecuted by their own people that the churches in Judea knew what that felt like. In fact, Judean believers had had it worse. God’s faithful people tend to get persecuted by their own people. Paul himself had suffered at the hands of his kinsmen. But we know from his other writings that Paul loved the Jewish people dearly – and so does the LORD.  The Thessalonian church was not alone in being persecuted by their countrymen.
• His forceful comments were a common rhetoric device. Both Jewish and non-Jewish writers of the time also used it. His critique is similar to that of the prophets and other Jewish writers of the time, like the Qumran community, who did not write off the people of Israel but sought their repentance, lashing out at those among them who hindered God's eschatological work. Likewise, Paul saw Judean opponents of the gospel as blocking God's purpose of saving the nations.
• On Jesus’ similar words about Jerusalemites, “who kill the prophets”: these were a lament, not a curse, and ended with confirmation that its people will repent and that Jesus will return to them.
• Ultimately, the wrath of God (v16) comes (aorist tense) on those particular Jews. The temporal sense of the verb is uncertain. Perhaps Paul thought the downturn of fortunes of Judean Jews in the late forties signalled the soon return of Messiah. Or perhaps he was expecting a worse outcome for them in the future. In any case, we should not be surprised that, inasmuch as the guilty are judged, those not guilty (the majority of the Jewish people) of the particular offence Paul mentioned are not judged for it.
• Finally, the purpose of Paul in mentioning the judgement of those particular Jews who were guilty of killing Jesus and the prophets was simply to encourage the believers in Thessalonica: their own persecutors would face God’s wrath. Paul wasn’t developing some doctrine of anti-Semitism.

All told, the evidence in this very superficial study is more than adequate to challenge the tradition Christian reading of 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16. What’s the problem with this text? Paul is not the problem. His writing is not the problem. Rather, it is the translation of his text, its reading, and application by Christians that is the problem! And the evidence for this gets stronger the more closely one studies the literature. (See the readings listed below; I didn't use them all but found Brown very useful.)

Recommended Reading

Bockmuehl, Markus N A. “1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 and the Church in Jerusalem.” Tyndale Bulletin 52, no. 1 (2001): 1–31.

Brown, Dave. “Documentary Study of 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16,” n.d. https://www.academia.edu/9256736/Documentary_Study_of_1_Thessalonians_2_14-16.

Dickieson, Brenton DG. “Antisemitism and the Judaistic Paul: A Study of I Thessalonians 2:14-16 in Light of Paul’s Social and Rhetorical Contexts and the Contemporary Question of Antisemitism,” n.d. http://place.asburyseminary.edu/trendissertations/4126.

Gilliard, Frank D. “Paul and the Killing of the Prophets in 1 Thess. 2:15.” Novum Testamentum 36, no. 3 (1994): 259.

Gilliard, Frank D. “The Problem of the Antisemitic Comma Between 1 Thessalonians 2.14 and 15.” New Testament Studies 35, no. 04 (1989):481–502.

Lowe, Malcolm F. “Who Were the ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΙ?” Novum Testamentum 18, no. 2 (1976): 101–30.

Book review: Searching Her Own Mystery

What is the basis for current dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church (and Christians in general) and the Jewish people? What theological points of contact exist between them? Is there connection merely historical, or is there a "living link" still in our age? Do they have a shared destiny? How should Christian doctrines of Christology and ecclesiology be shaped by a correct biblical perspective on genealogical Israel (the Jewish people)? What about the identity of Jesus as the priest, prophet and king of Israel: Does it mysteriously bind the church to the people of Israel?

Mark Kinzer addresses these questions (and more) in his new book, Searching Her Own Mystery (2015, Cascade Books). He examines key Catholic sacraments in the light of a twofold (bilateral) ecclesiology to produce a fresh and surprising, postsupersessionist perspective that finds Israel at the centre (with Christ in the centre of Israel). And there is also a surprising connection between Jewish kedushah (holiness) and Christian sacraments! Kinzer reviews five aspects of kedushah (relating to people, time, space, Word, and deeds) that serve as sacramental signs through the ministry of Jesus. Finally, the author concludes that, with Jesus continually present among his own (Jewish) people, as well as among people from all nations who believe in him, there must be some significant overlap, even "mutual-indwelling," between the two peoples of God. It is here that Messianic Jews play a particularly significant role as the living witness of the bond between these peoples.

For a more detailed synopsis of the book, see my review here: https://www.academia.edu/17417887/Searching_Her_Own_Mystery_by_Mark_S._Kinzer_.

Unity with distinction in Acts 15

The rulings of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 for Gentile believers were just four minimal rules that would allow table fellowship of believing ("Messianic") Jews with Gentile believers (Christians). Their eating together was an important sign of their unity in Christ without any discrimination against either party, yet without nullifying the Law of Moses. The Gentiles didn't convert to Judaism, and the Jews didn't abandon their Law. They continued to live as Torah-observant Jews, eating and worshiping side-by-side with Gentile believers. Now we are touching on what has been called unity with distinction, or what Mark Kinzer refers to as bilateral ecclesiology. (See my review of Kinzer's book, Postmissionary Messianic Judaism.) So there is still discrimination between (that is, "differentiation of", not "discrimination against") Jews and Gentiles - which starts in Genesis and continues to Revelation. Otherwise there was no need for the Jerusalem Council to make a ruling; they could have just said, "The Gentile believers are free from the Law just as we have been freed from the Law." But they didn't.

For a careful study of Acts 15, and Peter's mention that God made "no distinction" between Gentiles and Jews (Acts 15:9) in particular, see my paper, "Does Acts 15:9 refute intra-ecclesial Jew-Gentile distinction?"

Macina on the Messianic Reign

Over the past few year I have started to revisit various theories regarding the end times, especially from the perspective of some leading Messianic Jews. Last week I discovered a profound paper on belief in the Messianic era (the reign of Messiah on this earth) in both Jewish and Christian (especially Catholic) teaching: is it a "common legacy" or a "millenial heresy"? The author, Menahem Macina, has published scores of papers, mostly in French, and mostly relating in some way to the Jewish people.

The paper that caught my attention was "The Belief in a Messianic Reign on earth: common legacy for Jews and Christians alike, or millenarian heresy?" I won't summarise it here, except to say that it presents a tactful challenge to Christians who reject the notion of a literal future reign of Christ from the throne of David in Jerusalem for a very long period ("a thousand years" in biblical language). In particular, Macina calls for the Roman Catholic Church, in this post-Vatican II period, to reconsider millennial doctrine, arguing that both Jewish tradition and very early (second century) Church Fathers supported it. The oldest case in which this is clearly portrayed in Christian literature is found in the writings of Irenaeus, Against Heresies, who insisted that the teaching of a millennial reign was faithfully passed down by the presbyters from the apostles and even Christ himself.

I no longer see the study of the age to come as an optional component of Christian or Messianic faith; the heart of the gospel is the coming of God's Kingdom, and the fullness of that kingdom is something that lies in the future, something that I long to see - God's righteousness established and maintained throughout the earth. For me, Macina's paper makes that vision clearer and more certain. It's definitely worth a read.

Richard Harvey: "But I'm Jewish"

I recently met a leading Messianic Jewish scholar in England, Richard Harvey. Richard is a senior researcher at Jews for Jesus and an associate lecturer at All Nations Christian College. He also recently started a blog promoting awareness of Messianic Jewish history. He was very kind to help me with my travels, encourage me with my research, and to give me a couple of booklets which he authored, one of which is titled: But I'm Jewish! A Jew for Jesus tells his story.

This is an autobiographical work - Richard's story about his life until the time of publication in 1996. Richard and his wife, Monica, are Jews who each came to the understanding that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel. For Richard, this mystery was gradually revealed in the early 1970's, and he has lived to testify to it since then, continuing in the face of much rejection and even abuse. The book is a wonderful, short read, sketching Richard's Jewish upbringing and educational background as well as the first two decades of his life as a follower of Jesus. It's available for free in electronic format here.  

My thesis online

My thesis is available on the Academia.edu website (see https://sats-za.academia.edu/DavidWoods), but I understand some folk don't want to create an Academia profile, so I've made a copy here that is free and easy to access.

Title: Jews and Gentiles in the Ecclesia: Evaluating the theory of intra-ecclesial Jew-Gentile distinction

Download options:

1. Whole thesis
2. Abstract only
3. Conclusion only

Counting the omer

In Leviticus 23:15-16, HaShem commanded the Israelites to count fifty days from Pesach (Passover) to reach the feast of Shavuot (“Weeks”). That’s seven full weeks—49 days—between the two feasts, with the fiftieth day being Shavuot. This is how the feast has also become known as Pentecost (Acts 2:1), the Greek word for “fiftieth.” And in Exodus 23:16, it is referred to as the Feast of the Harvest, indicating the time of the late spring grain harvest. Thus it is the last of the spring feasts.

In the days of the tabernacle or (at other times) the temple, the Israelite priests would wave a sheaf (omer)—a tied bundle of harvested cereal including both stalks and heads of grain—each day before the LORD in the Holy Place. This is called s’firat ha-omer (counting the sheaves). So, instead of referring to the practice as “counting the days”, we talk about “counting the omer.” Since the Second Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, Jewish tradition developed so that the days are counted as follows:

1. Proclaim the blessing: “Blessed are you, LORD our God, king of the universe, who has sanctified us by his commandments and commanded us concerning the counting of the omer.”
2. Declare the count: “Today is forty one days, which is five weeks and one day, of the omer.”
3. Pray for the temple, the “Holy House,” to be rebuilt: “May the Merciful One restore unto us the service of the Bet Hamikdash to its place, speedily in our days; Amen, Selah.”
4. Read Psalm 67.
5. Pray for purification and sanctification in preparation for Shavuot.

Why didn’t HaShem simply specify the date on the Hebrew calendar, 6 Sivan, on which to celebrate Shavuot? Counting the omer links Shavuot explicitly to Pesach. Counting each day is like adding a link to a chain, so that Shavuot is, in a sense, the ultimate fulfilment of Pesach. When we think of the fulfilment(s) of these feasts, we can see that they originally took place in the same year, when the Passover Exodus brought the Israelites out of Egypt to the foot of Mount Sinai where the Torah was given 50 days later. We also see a fulfilment take place in the same year, as described in the New Testament: Jesus became the Passover Lamb 50 days before the Spirit was given (putting the G-d's Torah on the hearts of the house of Israel, c.f. Jeremiah 31:33; Hebrews 10:16). This gives reason to suspect that, just as the spring feasts were fulfilled in the same year, so the fall (autumn) feasts will also find fulfilment in the same year, starting with Yeshua’s return at the sound of the great trumpet (or shofar) on Rosh Hashanah (the Feast of Trumpets) followed shortly after by Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), and culminating in Sukkot (the Feast of Tabernacles).

With this in mind, the reading of Psalm 67 every day whilst counting the omer seems to have a special significance since it speaks of HaShem’s salvation reaching every nation. In fact, it uses three different words for “people” or “nation”: l'om, am, and goy. It is not sufficient for HaShem to be the G-d of Israel alone; he is indeed the G-d of every nation!

Rachel's redemption

Rachel (רָחֵל) is the Hebrew word for ewe. Biblical Rachel appears for the first time in Genesis 29 with a flock of sheep. She was a gorgeous shepherdess who captured the heart of Jacob in an instant and remained his love for life, even long after she died, and she became a matriarch of Israel.

Though Rachel was barren for much of her life, she ultimately bore two sons from whom three of Israel’s twelve tribes descended. Hers is story of trauma and tragedy, but redemption follows. She was made to keep silent whilst her elder sister was married off in her place. She did not receive any inheritance from her father, who spent her share on himself. Perhaps in reaction, she stole from him and consequently fell victim of her husband’s curse which cost her her life.

So where is her redemption? Rachel died upon giving birth to her second son, whom she named “son of my sorrow,” and she was buried on the roadside. What’s worse is that hundreds of years later, the prophet Jeremiah portrayed her weeping in her tomb for her descendants who were slaughtered by ruthless invaders – God’s agents to punish their wickedness. (Matthew quoted Jeremiah in the second chapter his gospel.)

Rachel’s redemption is found in the story of Israel. Her first son, Joseph, became a saviour to his family through his promotion to “prime minister” of Egypt. From his high position, he was able (and gracious enough) to rescue his family from famine. Rachel’s second son, Benjamin, was the ancestor of Mordecai, and thus probably also Esther. It was this pair, Mordecai and Esther, who saved the Jewish people from annihilation in the Persian Empire in the fifth century BCE.

As for Jeremiah’s prophecy, it doesn’t end with Rachel weeping, but with [the LORD] promising reward, return from exile, hope for the future of her offspring. And this redemption is not too late to help Rachel so long after her death because though she died, she lives yet – for her God is God of the living, not the dead (Matthew 22:32).

Surprises in Esther

Jews around the world celebrate Purim every year at this time, a festival founded on the story told in the book of Esther. It’s an awesome record of God’s deliverance of his people, yet his name is not mentioned in the book nor is there any explicit reference to him. In the Hebrew Bible, only Song of Songs and Esther don’t mention God's name directly. Esther doesn't directly mention God at all. This is a bit of a mystery for us. Was the omission of references to God a rhetorical device intended to elicit a particular response from the readers? Was it to demonstrate that God is always at work behind the scenes? Was the author at risk of persecution or having his work destroyed if he mentioned the God of Israel? We don’t know the answer for certain, but we can see that he wrote very deliberately. For instance, the narrative has a symmetric structure, with a sleepless night for the king (Achashverosh/Ahaseurus/Xerxes) in the middle leading to a turnaround for the Judeans; danger mounts progressively through the first half of the book, but deliverance unfolds in the second.
Similarly, the author of Esther uses ironies and even ‘coincidences’ (implicitly God-ordained). He also seems to love presenting the historical elements in pairs, e.g. two queens, two fasts, two occasions where Zeresh speaks to Haman, two royal edicts, and so on.

Incidentally, Ruth and Esther are the only two books of the Bible named after women.

Symmetry

From danger (first half) to deliverance (second half), the text can be summarised symmetrically, as follows:

Prologue

Ahasuerus’ first decree, spelling death for the Jews

Haman's anger toward Mordecai

Ahasuerus gets no sleep

Modecai is exalted over Haman

Ahasuerus second decree, spelling deliverance for the Jews

Epilogue

Two-by-two

Many of these points have been borrowed from the NIV Study Bible:

• The 3 pairs of key banquets in a symmetric structure
• Two lists of the king's servants (1:10,14)
• Two reports of Esther concealing her Jewish identity (2:10,20)
• Two gatherings of the women (2:8,19)
• Two houses for the women (2:12-14)
• Two fasts (4:3,16)
• Two times when Haman speaks to his wife and friends (5:14, 6:13)
• Haman's wife, Zeresh, speaks twice:
  • the first time her advice is bad but Haman takes it: hang Mordecai (5:14)
  • the second time gives a good warning (don't try to destroy the Jews, 6:13), but Haman ignores it
• Two unannounced appearances of Esther before the king at the risk of her life (5:2, 8:3)
• Two investitures for Mordecai with royal garments and a crown (6:7-11, 8:15)
• Two coverings of Haman's face (6:12, 7:8)
• Two passages referring to Haman's 10 sons (5:11, 9:6-14)
• Possibly two appearances of Harbona (1:10, 7:9) – if these refer to the same person (Hebrew spelling differs)
• Two royal edicts (3:12-14, 8:1-13)
• Two references to the king's subsiding anger (2:1, 7:10)
• Two references to the irrevocability of Persian laws (1:19, 8:8)
• Two days for the Jews to take vengeance (9:5-15)
• Two letters to institute the commemoration of Purim (9:22-28, 9:29-31)
• Twice the king gives over his ring to an official (firstly to Haman, then to Mordecai; 3:10, 8:2)
• Twice Esther spoke to Hathach and sent him to Mordecai (4:5, 4:10)

Ironies and ‘coincidences’

• Vashti refused to appear before Ahasuerus, so he forbad her from seeing him ever again
• Haman hated the Jews, but was working under Esther and alongside Mordecai
• The king agreed to Haman's plot not knowing that it would kill his own wife and his prime minister, Mordecai
• Haman's suggestion to the king on how to commend and reward himself led to his own humiliation: having to do it for his enemy Mordecai
• Haman was accused of trying to attack or molest Esther, when he was actually pleading with her for his life
• Haman's body was hanged out on the gallows he made for Mordecai
• Like Saul, Esther was a Benjamite; Haman was an Agagite and thus an Amalekite. Samuel sent Saul to finish off Agag because of God's promise to destroy the Amalekites, but Saul didn't and Samuel had to do it himself. Now Esther and the Jews finally wiped out the Amalekites - Haman and his tribe
• Right before Haman was to charge Mordecai before Ahasuerus, Ahasuerus had a sleepless night and got his attendants to read to him; they read the story of how Mordecai had saved his life
• The irony of Haman taking his wife's bad advice but ignoring her wise warning

Contrasts and turn-arounds

• Vashti refused to appear before the king; Esther appeared unannounced before the king
• Exiled orphan becomes queen of a vast empire
• The victims become the victors; the oppressors are wiped out
• In Haman’s anger toward one Jew, Mordecai, he decided to kill all the Jews. In the end, Haman and all his kin, the descendants of the Amalek, were killed
• Instead of Haman getting everything of Mordecai, Mordecai ends up with Haman's whole estate

The Name of the LORD

Now for an even bigger surprise. The name of the LORD is encoded four times in the text of Esther. Twice in the text it is encoded forwards when a Jew is speaking, and twice backwards when a Gentile is speaking. It is twice the first letter of each of four successive words, and twice the last letter of each of four successive words, once by the Queen, once about the Queen, once by Haman, once about Haman.

Verse	Speaker	Topic: honour/dishonour	Reading	Letter position
Est 1:20	Gentile	About the Queen (Vashti), dishonours her (Est 1:19-20)	Backwards	First
Est 5:4	Jew	Esther speaking, supposedly honours Haman	Forwards	First
Est 5:13	Gentile	Haman speaking, dishonouring Mordecai after boasting in Est 5:12	Backwards	Last
Est 7:7	Jew	About Haman humbling himself	Forwards	Last

A random outcome? I don’t think so. Acrostics are not uncommon in the Hebrew Bible; authors used them deliberately for various purposes, including memorisation. Remember that there were no punctuation marks or even spaces between words (!) in the original Hebrew, so the readers were keenly aware of the first and last letters of each word. Also, the pairing revealed in the table above is in keeping with the writer’s use of pairs.

Look for God’s Name in the text below, according to the reading direction and letter of each word indicated in the table above.

Text	Esther
ונשׁמע פתגם המלך אשׁר־יעשׂה בכל־מלכותו כי רבה היא וכל־הנשׁים יתנו יקר לבעליהן למגדול ועד־קטן	1:20
ותאמר אסתר אם־על־המלך טוב יבוא המלך והמן היום אל־המשׁתה אשׁר־עשׂיתי לו	5:4
וכל־זה איננו שׁוה לי בכל־עת אשׁר אני ראה את־מרדכי היהודי יושׁב בשׁער המלך	5:13
והמלך קם בחמתו ממשׁתה היין אל־גנת הביתן והמן עמד לבקשׁ על־נפשׁו מאסתר המלכה כי ראה כי־כלתה אליו הרעה מאת המלך	7:7

Esther’s inclusion in the canon may have been controversial, but it was no mistake!

A type of Messiah

Finally, parallels may be drawn between Esther and Messiah. Esther left her home with her godly father and dwelt among a common people. She was used and profaned by the position she was called to. Esther did not want to ‘drink the cup’ before her but when the crucial moment came, she chose to lay down her life if need be (4:16, even as Isaac accepted that he was to be the sacrifice). In so doing, Esther proved herself, gained the favour of the king, and interceded with him for her people, pleading for their deliverance. In the end, the Jews and all who joined them (9:27), will forever rejoice in God’s salvation through Esther, the ‘shadow’ of the coming Messiah.

Here we have a female image of Messiah, a true saviour, and we are reminded that male and female together were created in God’s image. Indeed, only after Eve’s creation did the LORD call creation ‘very good’. Esther had a beautiful figure and was good looking (2:7)—she was the most beautiful woman from north Africa to Pakistan. Now that’s something to think about!