VULNERABLE MISSION

MISSIO DEI 4.1 (FEBRUARY 2013): 33–48
had the responsibility to manage violations of the loyalty oaths. 32 This evidence suggests
that there was in Thessalonica an ideology of the Roman empire which Paul’s message
threatened.
In fact, the Acts account tells us what that message was: there is a new emperor, one
called Jesus (Acts 17:7). A quick survey of 1 Thessalonians tells us more about this “ideological
intifada” 33 which Paul and Silas were proclaiming. First, we note that Paul remembers
the opposition to the gospel he preached (1 Thess 2:2). This antagonism was
to the subversive nature of his counter-imperial gospel. As Dieter Georgi reminds us,
the strongest correlation to Paul’s use of euangelion is the Priene inscription. Relevant text
from this inscription reads as follows:
40
Providence . . . has set in most perfect order by giving us Augustus . . . sending him as a
savior (sotēr), both for us and for our descendants, that he might end war and arrange all
things . . . and since the birthday of the god Augustus was the good tidings (euangelion) for
the world. 34
If this text represents a normative association of good tidings with the birthday of Augustus,
called a god, then we can understand why indeed there was hostility to another
gospel, one proclaiming Jesus as savior and Lord (kyrios). The Greeks had a long history
of naming their current ruler as savior, 35 while Deissmann notes that kyrios was used to
denote a Roman emperor at least from the time of Nero, though probably from Augustus
onward. 36 Further, God has called the Thessalonian believers into his own kingdom
(1 Thess 2:12). Again, such statements about another kingdom threaten the imperial
rule of Rome, who throughout history were known to crush opposition. 37 Moving to
chapter four of the letter, we have the political terms parousia and apantēsis, the former
denoting the visit of a royal official, and the latter word describing the entourage of dignified
citizens who would greet such an official. 38 This specific political terminology highlights
that Jesus is the new royalty. Finally, we come to Paul’s mockery of Rome’s “peace
and security” (1 Thess 5:3; nrSv), which Donfried calls a “frontal attack” on the early
Principate. 39 The peace and security mantra of Rome epitomizes imperial propaganda
in the face of its “permanent crisis of legitimation.” 40 According to historiographer Ernst
Bammel, “Everywhere that Rome makes an appearance, the provision of peace and se-
32 Ibid., 7.
33 Original to Mark Chmiel, this phrase is cited in Neil Elliott, Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics
of the Apostle (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006), 189.
83.
34 Dieter Georgi, Theocracy in Paul’s Praxis and Theology, trans. David Green (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991),
35 Kahl, 68, notes that this term was taken by Attalus, the Pergamene ruler, as early as 240 BC, and the title
was used of his successors in Asia Minor as well.
36 Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the
Graeco-Roman World (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 351–58.
37 Kahl, 53.
38 Donfried, 34. Georgi, 27, notes that this welcoming has already happened in one sense, in the Thessalonian
believers’ welcoming of God’s ambassador, Paul.
39 Donfried, 34.
40 Walter Wink, Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1992), cited in Elliott, Liberating Paul, 185.