 remain in the synagogue for long, or they would have been kicked out for showing just a bit too much of Gospel freedom to those enslaved by the law. Slaves never appreciate the freedom and status of sons. Thus we read that a group of under-employed rabble were used to cause trouble in the city, ironically where the reputation of a city was always linked to its keeping peace and order.
Thus the city was thrown into confusion by the lynch mob who in contrast to Paul’s clear and authoritative use of words were said to be shouting or yelling. They gave the apostles a backhanded compliment by calling them subversives or revolutionaries, and some translations colorfully describe this as “turning the world upside down.” The book of Acts describes the fact that everywhere they went, the apostles did so, but not for the sake of rebellion against the local authorities, but as a result of obedience to King Jesus. Obviously their ministry had been public enough to warrant this kind of a charge.
2. Illegal hospitality
There is a text which shows that in order to receive the benefactions (handouts or honors) of the Emperor; various cities had to show that they would keep any kind of questioning of his authority in check. One means was to forbid the housing of any kind of revolutionaries, and this is what Jason was accused of, even though he was likely a Christian who had offered shelter to Paul and Silas, possibly even at his house church. For Jason, conviction on this charge could be punishable by death.
3. Another King, namely Jesus
Part and parcel of Paul’s proclamation had been the Kingship of Jesus [i.e. …to the King, immortal…] (1 Tim 1:17). Thus the charge leveled was that “They all act contrary to Caesar’s decrees, saying that there is another king, namely, Jesus” (v.7). Clearly what was charged was that the apostles were proclaiming another king, who was not Claudius the Emperor, but it was Jesus. As much as Paul and the apostles were law abiding citizens they did not hide the fact that their allegiances were no longer 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 Te