Joel White, «Anti-Imperial Subtexts in Paul: An Attempt at Building a Firmer Foundation», Vol. 90 (2009) 305-333
This article argues that, though it cannot be doubted that there is a subversive quality to Paul’s letters, attempts to identify subversive subtexts have failed due to their preoccupation with what is deemed inherently subversive vocabulary. A better approach to grounding Paul’s anti-imperial theology is to recognize that he affirmed the subversive late Second temple Jewish-apocalyptic, and particularly Danielic, narrative that viewed Rome as final earthly kingdom that will be destroyed by the coming of God’s kingdom.
312 Joel White
a) 1 Thess 4,13-17
We begin with Paul’s description of Christ’s coming in 1Thess
4,13-17. Already in 1923 A. Deissmann argued that Paul’s use of
parousiva in v. 15 has the same connotation as its Latin equivalent
adventus in coins where it describes the visits of kings and emperors
(29). A few years later E. Peterson’s argued that, in using ajpavnthsi" in
v. 17, Paul had in mind the Hellenistic connotations of the term,
specifically in those contexts where it was used to describe the civic
welcome accorded imperial visitors (30). Peterson’s analysis was so
influential that the word has come to be viewed as a terminus technicus
for such occasions. Harrison maintains, for instance, that “[t]he word
was reserved for the civic welcome accorded a visiting dignitary or the
triumphant entry of a new ruler into the capital of a kingdom†(31).
This interpretation of the background behind 1 Thess 4,13-17 has
often been assumed without argument (32), and post-colonial readings
take it for granted that, by alluding to it, “Paul is critiquing the imperial
propaganda of his day†(33). As attractive as this interpretation seems at
first glance, it falls prey to a basic exegetical fallacy by assuming that,
since the terms ajpavnthsi" and parousiva carry imperial connotations
in certain contexts, those connotations are operative in all other
contexts in which they occur. Perhaps sensing this, some scholars have
begun to question the longstanding and often uncritical allegiance to
the views of Deissmann and Peterson (34). After all, neither of the terms
are prominent in Roman imperial literature (35), whereas both terms
often occur in decidedly non-Imperial, even banal contexts, in the NT
(for ajpavnthsi" see Acts 28,15; for parousiva see 1 Cor 16,17; 2 Cor
7,6, Phil 1,26).
(29) Cf. A. DEISSMANN, Licht vom Osten. Das Neue Testament und die
neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt (Tübingen 1923) 314-320.
(30) Cf. E. PETERSON, “Die Einholung des Kurios (1 Thess. IV.17)â€, ZST 7
(1929-1930) 682-702.
(31) HARRISON, “Thessalonikiâ€, 85 (emphasis mine).
(32) Cf. F.F. BRUCE, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (WBC 45; Waco, TX 1982) 102-
103; C.A. WANAMAKER, The Epistles to the Thessalonians. A Commentary on the
Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI 1990) 175.
(33) HARRISON, “Thessalonikiâ€, 88.
(34) Cf. J. PLEVNIK, Paul and the Parousia (Peabody 1997) 4-10, 89-90, who
draws heavily on J. DUPONT, ZÃN CRISTWI. L’union avec le Christ suivant saint
Paul (Louvain 1952).
(35) Cf. P. OAKES, “Remapping the Universe: Paul and the Emperor in 1
Thessalonians and Philippiansâ€, JSNT 27 (2005) 317.