Abstract
The commentary has separate introductions to the two letters, which is appropriate since Boring argues that 2 Thessalonians was not written by Paul; therefore, the two letters not only have different authors but also different historical settings. In the introduction to 1 Thessalonians, Boring argues that it is not only the earliest extant letter of Paul but the first apostolic letter Paul ever wrote. However, it does not represent the apostle’s early thought, as has sometimes been argued, since all of Paul’s letters come from the last seven or eight years of what was at least a twenty-four year ministry. Boring’s introduction to this letter emphasizes the importance of Paul’s break with the Antioch church in shaping the contours of his ministry. This letter, therefore, should not be viewed in the context of a “second missionary journey”; it was written near the beginning of Paul’s independent mission, at a time when he viewed himself as representing Christ rather than any church or mission center.
Boring maintains that, in conjunction with his new independent mission, Paul also creates a new genre of letter, the apostolic letter, distinguished from other Hellenistic letters by its longer length, plural authorship, address to communities (rather than individuals), the incorporation of tradition and liturgical forms, and the author’s prophetic self-understanding. By attending to Hellenistic epistolary forms in the introduction and throughout the commentary, Boring illustrates how Paul’s compliance with, and deviation from, conventional forms can provide real insight into his theology and rhetorical aims.
Boring’s commentary provides an original translation of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, with extensive footnotes on grammatical and textual issues. As he indicates in the preface, the translation is intended for study, not for reading aloud, and follows the structure of the Greek even when phrases are “unwieldy or inelegant” in English (p. xii). Overall this was a very helpful approach, as the translation captures the flavor of the language, getting the reader as close as possible to the Greek text. At times, however, I did wish that Boring had broken up some of the longest Greek sentences into shorter ones for the sake of readability in English. Nevertheless, I appreciated how he brought out aspects of the Greek text not often seen in English translations. For example, his translation of 1 Thess 1:3 captures a variety of uses of the Greek genitive case: “your work generated by faith, your labor that grows out of love, and your steadfast endurance empowered by hope” (p. 57).
Boring also excels at illuminating what the original recipients of 1 Thessalonians would likely have known and how they would likely have understood the letter. Indeed, he suggests that we shift our perspective from looking over Paul’s shoulder as he writes the letter to looking over the Thessalonians’ shoulders as they read/hear it (p. 14). For example, our understanding of Paul’s apocalyptic language may shift when we consider how the Thessalonians would have understood the nature of air, clouds, and the sky. Or, bearing in mind the lack of instant artificial light in the ancient world may sharpen our understanding of Paul’s light/dark and day/night imagery. And as we evaluate ethical aspects of the letter, we profit from remembering that the Thessalonians previously would not have understood religion and ethics as related to one another.
Boring understands 2 Thessalonians as the first commentary ever written on 1 Thessalonians. This letter, he argues, can only be understood with reference to 1 Thessalonians, but it should also be interpreted as a document of Scripture with its own message for its own time and place. For Boring, the time and place are those of the churches of the Pauline tradition in the second or third generation. Boring’s introduction to 2 Thessalonians provides a helpful summary of the reasons why most scholars think that Paul did not write it. In addition to rehearsing the traditional arguments, Boring also makes a particularly important observation in the introduction: if the author is fictive, so is the audience. While the majority of scholars agree that Paul did not write the letter, many still interpret it in the context of Thessalonica. Boring argues that if the letter was written decades later than 1 Thessalonians, it was not written with the same audience in mind. It is addressed to the Thessalonians because it is imitating 1 Thessalonians, but it was received by the broader network of churches in the Pauline tradition. As such it addresses broader concerns in the life of the church at a later time, rather than particular issues relevant to life in Thessalonica.
Boring’s attention to historical context continues in his helpful excursus on persecution in the second and third generations of the church and helps us understand how the letter’s first readers would have received and understood it. This kind of approach can also help in our own modern context when we find the contents of the letter difficult to accept. For example, we may be uncomfortable with the author’s call for God to inflict suffering on the enemies of the church (2 Thess 1:6–10). Boring places this call in its historical context, arguing that we can acknowledge and understand the “human cries” of those who were suffering without taking them as a model for our own thought or behavior (p. 255).
In the apocalyptic section of 2 Thessalonians, to whom or to what exactly does “the lawless one,” the “restrainer,” and other such imagery refer? This has been the subject of much discussion and speculation, but Boring takes a different approach, looking for the message the author sought to convey rather than trying to identify and explain the imagery. Looking for the message is a more fruitful approach, according to Boring, because we simply do not know to what these images refer. In fact, he argues that the original readers probably did not know either, and that even “the author himself may not have had particular referents in mind” (p. 272). The core of the author’s message, according to Boring, is simply that the return of Christ was not imminent. At a deeper level, “the issue is not merely apocalyptic timetables, but rather the significance of present life with its decisions and responsibilities” (p. 264).
Another interesting aspect of Boring’s commentary on 2 Thessalonians is his treatment of the warning against “idlers.” Interpreters have traditionally understood this passage as referring to those who had stopped working in anticipation of Jesus’s imminent return. Boring rightly points out, however, that the text itself does not connect this passage to any apocalyptic scenario. He argues that this passage refers to full-time ministers who were paid for their ministry. The author opposes this development, arguing instead for Paul’s example of supporting himself with his own work while preaching the gospel. This text, then, reflects a broader debate in the second and third generations of the church about what kind of leadership the church needs.
As noted at the outset of this review, one of the strengths of this commentary is its sustained focus on interpreting these letters in their context. One of the contexts in which Scripture is interpreted is the community of the church. Boring points out that this has always been the case, even from the first time 1 Thessalonians was read to the Thessalonian church. Community members who had converted after Paul left town would have had to be instructed in Paul’s life, vocabulary, and theology in order to understand his letter. As Boring notes, “from the beginning, Scripture requires a Christian community and tradition in order to be understood” (p. 47). We need that community too, and Boring’s commentary is an excellent addition to the resources that the church will have in hand in its collective engagement with Scripture.