er to the Caesar and everything he stood for. Even though he called himself savior, they proclaimed another. Even though his victories were called ‘good news’, they announced another set of even better news, namely the Gospel. As much as the Caesar was said to usher in ‘peace and security”–which was all over the coinage of the day, Paul says in 1 Thess 5:3 that only Jesus can bring such. As much as the Caesars like to be called god, or lord, Paul and the apostles proclaimed Jesus as Lord. Clearly they were not following the common ground textbook that suggested that finding bridges was the way. It looked more like they were exploding false bridges, than building them.
A King with a kingdom
Clearly Paul came not only talking about a kingdom (1 Thess 2:12), but also a King, namely Jesus. He did not communicate to the Jews and Greeks that somehow by virtue of being religious human beings they were somehow already in the kingdom, but he called for a radical disjunction of their former lives. Thus he recognizes in 1 Thessalonians: 9-10 that they had:
…turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.
This turning clearly is the language of conversion. It is the language of turning from something to something. It implies that their former worship was idolatrous, and could only be completed in the Son, Jesus. The eager anticipation for the arrival of the Son flew in the face of the waiting for the arrival of the Emperor and could well be said to be seditious language. For this reason Paul says that his Thessalonian readers are suffering for “the kingdom of God”(2 Th 1:5). This brings us back to the opening question:
Did Paul fail to find ‘common ground’ at Thessalonica?
The answer to this question reveals the presupposition of the inquirer.
- If one looks for Paul’s appreciation of all the religiosity of the Jews and Greeks one could say Paul failed.
- If one looks for Paul’s use of their, non-Old Testament, religious texts to buttress his arguments one could say Paul failed.
- If one objects to authoritative proclamation due to the fact that it might be found to be offensive to the ears of other religionists, then one could say Paul failed.
- If one determines success by keeping peace at all costs in a community by being culturally sensitive at all costs, then again causing an uproar and getting ousted from the city this would indicate Paul failed.
Perhaps the answer was that Paul failed to find common ground with his audience: but not so fast. I would like to suggest that the fact that Paul was in union with Christ, gave him common ground with his Master and that is what was important. The indicators of this union were as follows:
- Paul followed the footsteps of Jesus: “as was his custom” even if it led to suffering.
- A willingness to patiently and thoroughly open the Scriptures to the person of Jesus.
- A knowledge that it was not his techniques, his incarnational witness, nor his bridge-building ability that brought the message home. He knew that God had appointed people to eternal life, and it was his job to open his mouth. Thus later in Corinth he would be comforted by the words of the Lord (Acts 18:9-10) that “”Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent, for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people.”
- A willingness to be labeled a subversive and one who challenged the majority religion of the day, namely the worship of Caesar and all that went with it, as well as Graeco-Roman polytheism. As well, his willingness to challenge Jewish religion was the cause of the mob disturbance in Thessalonica.
As much as the example of Paul the Apostle will be used in some conferences to try to tell the audience that he was the model bridge builder; that he showed that he valued the texts of other religions; that he had an incarnational ministry by being all things to all people; along with affirming that they should “remain where they are”