Was Paul Anti-Semitic? Revisiting 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16

By Michael A. Rydelnik

[Michael A. Rydelnik is Professor of Jewish Studies, Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Illinois.]

A few years ago Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ incited fears that the movie would awaken largely dormant Christian anti-Semitism. In fact when the movie premiered, a number of newspapers and a national newsmagazine ran a photograph of a sign in front of a church that partially quoted 1 Thessalonians 2:14–15: “The Jews . . . killed the Lord Jesus.”

These verses have long been considered a thorny passage for Jewish-Christian relations because they seem to blame the Jewish people uniquely for the death of Jesus. The Christ-killer accusation, historically a frequent basis for anti-Semitism, is known as the “deicide charge.” It alleges that all Jews are guilty of killing Jesus, and 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16 is cited as a basis for Christian anti-Semitism.

Paul wrote, “For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God but hostile to all men, hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to the utmost.”

Best evaluated 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16 and concluded that it “shows Paul holding an unacceptable anti-Semitic position.”[1] The problem with this passage is that it seems to contradict Paul’s loving attitude toward the Jewish people found in Romans 9–11. More specifically, as noted above, verse 15 seems to uphold the deicide charge, in apparent contradiction to the historical record of the Gospels[2] and Acts 4:27–28. This article examines and evaluates several attempts to deal with these difficulties and then proposes a solution.

Traditional Interpretation

The traditional view of these words is that they are Paul’s blanket condemnation of the unbelieving Jewish nation as a whole. Denney writes, “It is vehement condemnation, by a man in a thorough sympathy with the mind and spirit of God, of the principles on which the Jews as a nation had acted at every period of their history.”[3] Morris attempts to harmonize this with Romans 9–11 by saying these words express Paul’s anguish for his nation, though his sorrow is not mitigated by any hope.[4]

With regard to the phrase “the Jews who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets” and its apparent contradiction to Acts 4:27–28 and the historical accounts of the Gospels, Hiebert expresses the traditional view. “It is interesting to note that in this epistle, written about twenty years after the crucifixion of Jesus, Paul places the guilt for His death squarely upon the Jews. He was well aware that the execution was carried out by the Romans, that Pontius Pilate and Herod Antipas shared responsibility for that monumental miscarriage of justice (1 Cor. 2:8), but he saw clearly that the Jews were chiefly responsible, using Pilate as their tool to bring about the death of the one they hated.”[5]

To summarize, the traditional interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16 says that these verses contain a blanket condemnation of the Jews as a nation. They are not in contradiction with Romans 9–11 because they reflect a cry of anguish (without any hope) as well as a shout of anger. They teach that the Jews as a nation are chiefly responsible for the death of Jesus, and for this reason Paul was not contradicting Acts 4:27–28 and the historical record. In essence this view holds that Paul was condemning the guiltiest group.

The traditional interpretation falls short for several reasons. First, in Romans Paul did not express any harsh condemnation of the Jews. Instead he expressed great sorrow and love for them (Rom. 9:1–3; 10:1). Second, no note of anguish is in 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16. Moreover, in Romans he did express great hope for the future salvation of Israel (Rom. 11:12, 25–27). Third, although Caiaphas had greater guilt in the crucifixion than Pilate (John 19:11), no New Testament passage says that the Jews as a nation were more guilty. In his address to the Pisidian Jews Paul did not condemn the whole nation for this misdeed. Instead he blamed the leaders and their Jerusalem supporters (Acts 13:27–28).

Two Alternative Interpretations

Recognizing that the traditional view fails to account for all the New Testament data, other approaches have been proposed.

A Non-Pauline Interpolation

The difficulty in this passage caused Bauer to doubt the authenticity of the entire letter.[6] Viewing this approach as too radical, other critical scholars offer the view that only this section is non-Pauline.[7] By placing the pen in the hand of a later interpolater, it is thought that the alleged anti-Semitism of the passage is easily handled.[8]

Pearson offers several arguments against Pauline authorship of the passage. First, he cites the seemingly abrupt nature of the passage in relation to the argument of the epistle.[9] Second, he says the verses commend the example of the Judean church, whereas it was Paul’s habit to commend the imitation of himself (1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1; Phil. 3:17) and through him the imitation of Christ (1 Cor. 11:1; 1 Thess. 1:6), never the imitation of a church.[10] Third, he argues that the passage leans heavily on Matthew 23:31–36,[11] which was written later than the epistle. Fourth, he maintains that the mention of wrath (1 Thess. 2:16) refers to A.D. 70, when Jerusalem was destroyed, and so this paragraph, he argues, would postdate the rest of the epistle.[12] Pearson also cites the theological conflict with Romans 9–11 and the attribution of guilt for killing Christ as arguments favoring a deutero-Pauline interpolation.[13]

Several responses may be given to these objections.[14] First, as to the abrupt style, Best remarks that “v. 17 admittedly does not fit well after v. 16 but it fits no better after v. 12.”[15] Furthermore it is not uncharacteristic for Paul to be diverted from his main subject into a brief polemic (e.g., Phil. 3:1–6). Second, it is wrong to say Paul never commended a church as an example to other believers, for in 1 Thessalonians 1:7 he cited the Thessalonians themselves as an example to all the churches in Macedonia and Achaia.[16] Third, dependence on Matthew 23:31–36 need not negate Pauline authorship. Some scholars posit an early date for Matthew (ca. A.D. 44),[17] and if this is accepted, it is feasible that Paul could have been aware of it. Or if the date for Matthew was later, it is possible that Paul could have been aware of the same source Matthew used. Fourth, the wrath spoken of in 1 Thessalonians 2:16 need not argue against Pauline authenticity. Paul may have had the coming judgment in view, using the aorist verb ἔφθασεν proleptically.[18] As to the apparent contradiction with the rest of the Pauline writings, this assumes that no other satisfactory solution can be found. If there is a suitable harmonization, then this objection is removed. Also there is absolutely no textual evidence suggesting that these verses were interpolated.[19] Thus there is no compelling reason to take 2:14–16 as a deutero-Pauline interpolation.

An Early Outburst

Another proposal is to see 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16 as an emotional outburst by Paul before he formulated his well-developed theology in Romans 9–11.[20]

Three arguments are given in support of this view. First, it is suggested that Paul was using some traditionally formulated materials that contained an anti-Jewish bias. Later on, when Paul thought through the matter, he rejected these ideas.[21] Second, Best has suggested that an unknown outrage from an unknown Jewish source prompted Paul to vary from the outlook that characterizes his later writings.[22] Third, Baum has explained Paul’s words as an outburst cast in the mold of Hebrew prophets, castigating their own people in love. Baum sees this passage not as “an irreformable theological pronouncement, but rather as a violent outburst of the anger and indignation which was the privilege of Jewish property.”[23]

The following answers may be given against this view. First, the proposal that Paul used some traditionally formulated materials and then after several years of consideration, he determined that his words in 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16 were mistaken, and so he wrote Romans 9–11 to correct them, takes a weak and perhaps contradictory view of the doctrine of inspiration. Second, the same can be said for the explanation derived from positing an intemperate reaction to an unknown expression of Jewish outrage. Is Paul’s inscripturated outburst any less inerrant than Romans 9–11? Third, as to Paul’s words being like those of Jewish prophets, it must be remembered that Hebrew prophets addressed their diatribes to their own nation but that Paul was writing to Gentiles. Thus it is safe to say that 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16 is not an early emotional outburst that Paul later corrected or softened.

A Proposed View

A more plausible view is to see this passage in a narrow sense, condemning the Jewish leaders and their followers but not the Jewish people in general.[24] Several facts support this view. First, the persecution spoken of in 2:14 was intraracial. Paul commended the Thessalonians because they were able to endure persecution at the hands of their “countrymen” even as the Jewish churches did at the hands of other Jews. The word συμφυλέτης, a hapax legomenon, is an ethnic term meaning “of the same tribe or race.”[25] Thus Paul was saying that unsaved Gentiles were persecuting Gentile Christians, and unsaved Jews were persecuting Jewish Christians. Therefore Paul was not referring to all Jews since the passage includes some Jews (believers in Judea, v. 14) who did not take part in these sinful acts.

Second, the sins Paul said the Jews committed are limited in the Gospels to the Jewish leaders. The Gospels make it clear that the Jewish leaders, not the entire Jewish nation, plotted Jesus’ death (John 11:47–53), accused him before Pilate (Luke 23:2) and Herod (v. 10), and incited the crowd (Matt. 27:20; Mark 15:11).

Third, the parable of the vinegrowers (Matt. 21:33–46; Mark 12:1–12; Luke 20:9–19) and the condemnation of the Pharisees (Matt. 23:29–36) demonstrate that Paul was speaking of the Jewish leaders.[26] The same pattern occurs in each of these passages. In the parable the owner of the vineyard sent slave after slave, each of whom the vinegrowers murdered. Then the son was sent and he too was murdered. After Jesus told the parable, the chief priests and Pharisees knew that He was speaking of them as the ones who opposed Him (Matt. 21:45–46; Mark 12:12; Luke 20:19).

Jesus called the Pharisees the sons of the prophets’ murderers (Matt. 23:31), and He said that they would persecute those whom He would send (v. 34). As a result the full measure of their guilt would be evident (vv. 32, 35) and Jerusalem would be destroyed (v. 38).

The same pattern is found in 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16. The Jews who persecuted the Judean churches also murdered the prophets and the Messiah and persecuted His messengers. In doing this they filled up the full measure of their guilt, resulting in judgment. Since Jesus Himself specifically applied these things to the leaders of Israel, it is safe to say that Paul was following the same pattern.

This view resolves the apparent contradiction with other Scriptures that mention responsibility for Jesus’ death. Paul was not indicting all Jews; he was indicting only the leaders and their henchmen.

Someone may object that while Paul did not accuse all Jews, he did limit responsibility for Jesus’ death to the Jews. However, this is an argument from silence. Paul was not writing about human responsibility for Christ’s death but rather about persecution of the Thessalonian believers. He was writing to encourage them in their suffering. He did so by pointing out that since “persecution had not brought the work of God to an end in the place of its origin and the home of its fiercest enemies, it would avail as little in Thessalonica.”[27] Paul chose to speak of the Jewish leaders because they served as an illustration, not because they were solely responsible.

Thus the seeming contradiction between Paul’s position in 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16 and the rest of Scripture regarding human responsibility for the death of the Messiah is solved by limiting Paul’s meaning of “the Jews” in that passage to the Jewish leaders.

Another problem is Paul’s unusual word order in verse 15. He separated the nouns κύριον (“Lord”) and ᾿Ιησοῦν (“Jesus”) by the participle ἀποκτεινάντων (“killed”), thereby emphasizing the word κύριον. Hiebert interprets this stress as an indictment of the Jews for the murder of God. “It was none less than the exalted Lord whom the Jews killed. . . . His death at their hands was no common murder.”[28]

Blinzler clearly answers the charge of deicide. “Much has been spoken of deicide. It should be noted that the New Testament makes no such reproach either to the Sanhedrin or to the procurator. Since the enemies of Jesus lacked any deep insight into the mystery of His being, their act was not actually the crime of deicide.”[29] Thus it seems best to view Paul’s stress on the word κύριον not as a condemnation of the Jews for deicide, but rather a statement of the nobility of Christ and the undeserved nature of His death.

The problem of harmonizing this passage with Romans 9–11 still remains. The alleged contradiction stems from the fact that 1 Thessalonians 2:16 seems to teach an unending judgment on Israel, whereas Paul expressed glorious hope for Israel in Romans 11:26–27. What did he mean by the clause ἔφθασεν δὲ ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς ἡ ὀργὴ εἰς τέλος?[30]

There are five possible meanings to this sentence. First, the aorist ἔφθασεν may be taken as a constative and the phrase εἰς τέλος may mean “forever.” This would teach the permanent rejection of Israel.[31] But this is not correct since the very opposite is clearly taught in Romans 11:25–29.

A second possibility is to take ἔφθασεν constatively and translate the words εἰς τέλος as “uttermost.” This would describe the intensity of the wrath and refer to the partial judicial blindness of Israel.[32] However, the blindness of Israel is not unique. All “natural” people, that is, those who have not trusted in Jesus, are spiritually blind (cf. 1 Cor. 2:14). It is incorrect to view the blindness of Israel as a special or unique judicial blindness. Instead theirs is the normal spiritual blindness that results from unbelief.[33]

A third suggestion is that the aorist ἔφθασεν is constative and that εἰς τέλος means “finally.” Together they refer to some tragedy that occurred a short time before Paul wrote (e.g., Claudius’s expulsion of Jews from Rome in A.D. 49, the famine in A.D. 46 or 47, the insurrection of Theudas, or some unknown tragedy).[34] However, it seems that something more tragic is in view here.

Fourth, it is possible to see the aorist ἔφθασεν proleptically and εἰς τέλος as “in the end,” thereby referring to eschatological judgment.[35] However, Paul emphasized eschatological blessing, not judgment for Israel (Rom. 11:12, 26).

Fifth, it is possible to take the aorist ἔφθασεν proleptically and the words εἰς τέλος as “finally.” The clause would then be translated “wrath will finally come on them” (cf. NIV), with the words referring prophetically to the destruction of Jerusalem, which was to happen in A.D. 70.[36] This is parallel to Matthew 23, in which Jesus concluded His condemnation of the Pharisees with a reference to Jerusalem’s then-future destruction. Moreover, since the leaders’ rejection of Jesus caused the judgment (cf. Luke 19:41–44), it seems likely that Paul would have referred to the same idea after discussing the leaders’ involvement in Jesus’ death. This view easily harmonizes with Romans 9–11, having a specific judgment in view. When God’s wrath fell in A.D. 70, the specific judgment for the nation’s rejection of the Messiah through her leaders was completed.[37] Nothing in Romans 9–11 is in contradiction to this.

Thus the statement in 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16 is a limited condemnation. Paul was speaking of a specific group, the Jewish leaders, whose rejection of Jesus as Messiah resulted in a specific judgment, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

Conclusion

In the past this passage has led many people to hate Jews. Yet evangelicals today have generally abandoned the anti-Semitism of the past and also have become some of the strongest supporters of the modern state of Israel. Despite this welcome change, some Christians have continued to maintain persistent negative attitudes toward Jewish people. Too often this is related to their perception that the Jewish people stand uniquely guilty of the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Understanding that the phrase “the Jews” in 1 Thessalonians 2:14 refers to the Jewish leaders and not the entire Jewish nation can help halt these negative perceptions of the Jewish people and the idea that the New Testament is inherently anti-Semitic.

Notes

1. Ernest Best, A Commentary on the 1st and 2nd Epistles to the Thessalonians, Harper’s New Testament Commentaries (New York: Harper and Row), 122.
2. Matthew 27:25 (“And all the people said, ‘His blood shall be on us and on our children’ ”) has frequently been cited to show that the Gospels also blamed the Jewish people for the death of Jesus. However, this misreads the point of the passage and the overall historical record. See Michael A. Rydelnik, “His Blood Be upon Us,” Mishkan 6/7 (1987): 1-9.
3. James Denney, The Epistles to the Thessalonians, vol. 6 of An Exposition of the Bible (Hartford, CT: Scranton, 1903), 330.
4. Leon Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 92.
5. D. Edmond Hiebert, The Thessalonian Epistles (Chicago: Moody, 1971), 115. William Hendriksen uses this verse to condemn Jewish people for Jesus’ death, not only first-century Jews but all Jews since then who have not believed (Israel in Prophecy, 6th ed. [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979], 9).
6. F. C. Bauer, Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ, trans. A. Menzies, 2nd ed. (London: William and Norgate, 1875), 87–88.
7. For example Birger A. Pearson, “1 Thessalonians 2:13–16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation,” Harvard Theological Review 64 (1971): 79-94; and Hendrikus Boers, “The Form Critical Study of Paul’s Letters: 1 Thessalonians as ‘A Case Study,’ ” New Testament Studies 22 (1976): 40-58. James Moffatt regarded only 2:16c as a later insertion (“The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians,” in The Expositior’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1900–1910; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 4:29. Surprisingly F. F. Bruce leans toward this view. “Unless he changed his mind radically on this subject in the interval of seven years between the writing of I Thessalonians and of Romans, it is difficult to make him responsible for the viewpoint expressed here” (1 and 2 Thessalonians, Word Biblical Commentary [Waco, TX: Word, 1982], 48–49).
8. James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue (New York: Atheneum, 1977), 52; and Clark Williamson, Has God Rejected His People? (Nashville: Abingdon, 1982), 63.
9. Pearson, “1 Thessalonians 2:13–16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation,” 89–91.
10. Ibid., 87-88.
11. Ibid., 92.
12. Ibid., 82-83.
13. Ibid., 85-86.
14. For an article that critiques this view see J. Coppens, “Une Diatribe Antique dans 1 Thessalonians 2:13–16, ” Ephemeridum Theologia Lovaniensium Leuven 51 (May 1976): 90-95. Best also defends the integrity of this paragraph (A Commentary on the 1st and 2nd Epistles to the Thessalonians, 123).
15. Best, A Commentary on the 1st and 2nd Epistles to the Thessalonians, 123.
16. Coppens, “Une Diatribe Antique dans 1 Thessalonians 2:13–16, ” 92.
17. David Alan Black has summarized Bernard Orchard’s arguments for giving Matthew priority and dating it before A.D. 44 (Why Four Gospels? [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001], 234). For a good discussion in support of an early date see R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 599–608. For the most cogent arguments regarding the priority of Matthew over Luke and Mark see William R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1981), 233–83.
18. James Everett Frame, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1912), 114.
19. W. D. Davies, “Paul and the People of Israel,” New Testament Studies 24 (1977): 6.
20. Ibid., 8; Williamson, Has God Rejected His People? 63; Coppens, “Une Diatribe Antique dans 1 Thessalonians 2:13–16, ” 94; Best, A Commentary on the 1st and 2nd Epistles to the Thessalonians, 122; and Gregory Baum, Is the New Testament Anti-Semitic? rev. ed. (Glen Rock, NJ: Paulist, 1965), 293. Most recently this view has been defended by Donald Hagner, “Paul’s Quarrel with Judaism,” in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity, ed. Craig A. Evans and Donald A. Hagner (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 130–36.
21. Davies, “Paul and the People of Israel,” 8; and Best, A Commentary on the 1st and 2nd Epistles to the Thessalonians, 122.
22. Best, A Commentary on the 1st and 2nd Epistles to the Thessalonians, 122.
23. Baum, Is the New Testament Anti-Semitic? 293.
24. I. Howard Marshall follows Marxsen in holding this view (1 and 2 Thessalonians, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983], 82–83). This is similar to John’s frequent use of the term “the Jews” as a reference to the Jewish leaders (John 1:19, 24; 7:13; 9:22; 18:14). See Urban C. von Wahlde, “The Johannine ‘Jews’; A Critical Survey,” New Testament Studies 28 (January 1982): 33-60. For a brief but helpful explanation see F. F. Bruce, “Are the Gospels Anti-Semitic?” Eternity, November 1973, 16–18.
25. H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, 7th ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 765. Most commentators recognize that this means that the Thessalonian persecutors were Gentiles. However, the Jewish persecution in Thessalonica (Acts 17:5) leads some commentators to include Jews along with Gentiles in Paul’s reference to the Thessalonians’ “countrymen” (Best, A Commentary on the 1st and 2nd Epistles to the Thessalonians, 114; Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 89; Hiebert, The Thessalonian Epistles, 113; and Moffatt, “The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians” 29). This is unfortunate since the word συμφυλέτης is limited to people groups. Thus the συμφυλέτης of the Thessalonians were Gentiles and those of the Judeans were Jews. Perhaps Paul could refer to the Thessalonian persecutors this way because the Jews had already ceased their instigation. Those who correctly recognize the ethnic meaning of this word include Frame, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, 110; Pearson, “1 Thessalonians 2:13–16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation,” 886; A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1931), 4:21; and Charles Ryrie, First & Second Thessalonians (Chicago: Moody, 1959), 41.
26. J. B. Orchard, “Thessalonians and the Synoptic Gospels” Biblica 19 (1938): 19-42.
27. C. F. Hogg and W. E. Vine, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians (London: Pickering and Inglis, 1914), 74.
28. Hiebert, The Thessalonian Epistles, 115.
29. J. Blinzler, The Trial of Jesus, trans. Isabel and Florence McHugh, 2nd ed. (Westminster, MD: Newman, 1959), 293.
30. The New American Standard Bible translates this, “but wrath has come upon them to the utmost,” and the New International Version renders it, “The wrath of God has come upon them at last.”
31. Best, A Commentary on the 1st and 2nd Epistles to the Thessalonians, 21.
32. William Hendriksen, Exposition of First and Second Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1955), 73.
33. Amado Lozano, “The Present Out Working of the Abrahamic Covenant as Evidenced through the Concept of the Remnant” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1982, 46–47).
34. Best, A Commentary on the 1st and 2nd Epistles to the Thessalonians, 120.
35. F. F. Bruce, “1 and 2 Thessalonians,” in The New Bible Commentary: Revised, ed. Donald Guthrie, J. A. Motyer, A. M. Stibbs, and D. J. Wiseman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 1157; Morris, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 92; and Best, A Commentary on the 1st and 2nd Epistles to the Thessalonians, 120.
36. Orchard, “Thessalonians and the Synoptic Gospels,” 19–42.
37. It might be offensive to some Jewish people to understand the Roman destruction of Jerusalem as judgment for rejecting Jesus. Recognizing it as such is not done with glee or recrimination. When God chastens His chosen people, it is exceedingly sorrowful in His eyes and in the eyes of those who love Him. Furthermore even the Rabbis, in Shabbat. 119b and Yoma 9b, viewed this catastrophe to be a judgment for national sins (although, of course, they did not include the rejection of Jesus as one of those sins).