EISODON as “Welcome” in 1 Thessalonians 1:9: A Modest Suggestion in the Light of Historical, Lexical, and Structural Evidence

Seth BrownGRK 6000 Exegesis of 1 Thessalonians

5 December 2012

Introduction

1 Thessalonians 1:9 is a wonderful text for preaching. There are multiple elements in the

verse that deserve careful attention and application by all Christians. The stark repentance

exhibited by the Thessalonian community is highly commendable. Also, all Christians should

mimic the patient eschatological hope shown by these believers. These things deserve time and

effort and can serve ministers well as they expound the epistle.

Yet, there is a peculiar element of this text that comes to light as one consults the

commentaries. It is peculiar in the way the term ei[sodon is interpreted by various scholars.

Often, these sorts of issues surface as one peruses different English translations of the text. If

some of the translations render a term one way and another portion do not, the exegete usually

digs into the commentaries to sort things out; however, with this text one finds an odd situation.

The majority of English translations render ei[sodon as reception or welcome while the majority

of commentators argue for entry or entrance.

This leaves the exegete with a difficult issue. What does this term refer to, welcome or

entrance? Who has the best arguments? Where does the evidence lead? These are all questions

facing the exegete. The answers affect how one preaches the text. One must either call the

Christian to follow Paul’s exemplary entrance or the Thessalonian community’s exemplary

hospitality. These are two very different exhortations.

What follows is a modest suggestion that the historical background of this term, the

lexical evidence for the term ei[sodoV, and the structure of the text all coalesce to compel

translators and interpreters alike to understand ei[sodon in 1 Thessalonians 1:9 as the welcome or

1

reception of Paul and his companions by the Thessalonian community. They extended gospel-

hospitality in the midst of gospel-hostility.

Background/Context

One does not have to be a scholar of Greco-Roman history and culture to understand the

hostile environment of the first century in which the gospel was first preached.1 Paul, Silvanus,

and Timothy marched boldly into this environment with the hope of the gospel. They were met

by some who accepted them and their message, but they were also met by many who despised it.

In such an atmosphere, the hospitality of friends is a treasured commodity.

A quick read through Acts 17 shows the scope and nature of the gospel-hostility in the

city of Thessalonica. Some Jews in the city incited opposition against Paul and his companions.

Not only were the Jews in Thessalonica jealous of Paul and his companions, they also took

offense because of their religio-patriotic devotion to Caesar (see Acts 17:5,7). So offended were

these men that they rallied others in the city to cast the evangelists out.

What would cause such a harsh reaction? Harris notes the religio-political atmosphere of

the day by saying, “The imperial propaganda portrayed the principate of Augustus as the

culmination of Providence [sic] in the universal history of mankind.”2 In other words, Caesar is

lord and savior. He goes on to say, “It would be reasonable to suppose that the conception of rule

animating the imperial gospel competed for the loyalty of the Thessalonian citizens with the

2

1 For a good overview of all aspects of first-century life, see: Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd ed., (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2003).

2 James R. Harrison, Paul and the Imperial Authorities at Thessalonica and Rome, ed. Jörg Frey, (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011) 63.

same aggressiveness at Thessalonica as elsewhere in the Empire. Paul countered its influence by

proclaiming the eschatological hope of the risen and reigning heavenly Lord.”3

Paul and his companions were in a context where their proclamation of the gospel was an

offensive act of religious blasphemy and political treason. To speak this message was to make

enemies. Yet, by the same message, dear friends were made as well. Furthermore, when dangers

abound, one’s friends become exponentially precious.

That is the case in Thessalonica and that is the background for Paul’s statement in 1

Thessalonians 1:9. The message of the gospel was sounding forth to the surrounding regions

because of the changed lives of the Thessalonian community. They were so changed that people

were talking about it. A report even came back about the stark nature of their new lives.

The Text of 1 Thess. 1:94

aujtoi; ga;r peri; hJmw:n ajppaggevllousin oJpoivan ei[sodon e[scomen provV uJma:V, kai; pw:V ejpestrevyate pro;V to;n qeo;n ajpo; tw:n eijdwvlwn douleuvein qew:/ zw:nti kai; ajlhqinw:/

Translation

For, they were reporting about us the sort of welcome we received among you and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God.5

3

3 Ibid., 66.

4 The NA27 notes that some manuscripts read e[comen instead of e[scomen. This variant may be resolved by supposing a scribal omission of “s.” Both the UBS4 and Byzantine text read e[scomen with no notes.

5 It is within the realm of possibility to translate peri; hJmw:n as “to us.” However, some may take issue with that translation. Yet, Robertson argues on two fronts that such a translation in acceptable. He shows that prepositions do not overpower the noun case. They serve the noun case; thus, one should not let the implications of peri; dominate the translation. Also, Robertson goes on to show how the genitive can be used in such a way that “to us” is the best translation when he references Matt. 1:12 saying, “now the genitive does not mean ‘to,’ but that is the correct translation of the total idea.” In other words, the case of the pronoun and the context of the usage ultimately determine the correct translation. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 5th ed., (New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1931), 494,554.

Lexical Analysis

oJdovV: The term is used in the NT in both the literal and figurative senses. The literal sense occurs

most in the Gospel narratives meaning “a way, path, or road.” The figurative sense occurs all

over the NT; these meanings are discussed below. Due to the wide range of usage, one cannot

immediately conclude for or against the literal or figurative use. Interpreters must pay close

attention to the context of the term, especially when it occurs with a prepositional prefix, namely,

eis-.

To begin, Michaelis notes the figurative use when he writes, “oJdovV often has the sense

‘way and means’ to achieve or do something, ‘measure,’ ‘procedure,’ or ‘manner’ of doing

something.”6 To illustrate the point, the path itself is not the focus; rather, it is the walking that

comes into view. That is, the means by which one takes the path is denoted in the figurative

sense. This understanding was exaggerated further to refer to a persons way of life as well.

The LXX gives some biblical attestation to the figurative sense as it is “very common in

all parts of the LXX.”7 Several places in the LXX refer to kings and judges walking or not

walking ejn oJdw:/ of their fathers (cf. 1 Bas. 8:3, etc.). All these instances refer to a person’s

actions or manner of life.

To extend the previous usage of oJdovV, Michaelis notes the synonymous way in which two

phrases are used in the LXX, namely, “oJdovV euJqei:a” and “oJdovV dikaiva.”8 Here one can see

explicit, moral descriptions of personal actions with the use of oJdovV. Keep these uses of the root

term oJdovV in mind as one considers the following modification of it.

4

! 6 Wilhelm Michaelis, “oJdovV,” TDNT, vol. V, trans. Geoffrey Bromiley, ed. Gerhard Friedrich, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1967) 43.

7 Ibid., 49.

8 Ibid., 52.

ei[sodoV: The prefixes eis- and ex- make up the vast majority of modified uses of oJdovV. In

speaking of e[xodoV, Michaelis writes, “We often find it with ei[sodoV. Thus going out and coming

in denote constant fellowship in 1 Bas. 29:6; 2 Par. 16:1.”9 In both instances, there is a hostile

political situation and the terms are used for fellowship (or, the welcome or reception of others).

Once again, the figurative sense is employed.

Furthermore, ei[sodoV is never used in the literal sense in the NT. Rather, it refers to

access or the ability to enter, not the entrance itself.10 Appropriately, Michaelis employs the two

occurrences in 1 Thessalonians to illustrate his point. However, when Michaelis finally speaks of

the usage in 1 Thess. 1:9, he draws an odd conclusion. He takes the use of ouj kenh; gevgonen as

the only qualitative characteristic of the ei[sodon in 2:1. That means ei[sodon is neutral and does

not denote the “thought of success.”11 It is not clear why Michaelis insists on such a level of

conditionality. In other words, why is it that ei[sodon denotes the possibility of access but does

not denote access itself? If there is such lexical evidence, Michaelis does not provide it.

All that to say, the modern reader would not know that the Thessalonians had granted

Paul and others access into their community if it were not for the use of ouj kenh; gevgonen. Now

in an odd transition, he imports that supposed denotation (or lack thereof) back into 1:9. By

doing so, Michaelis ignores what is written in 1:9–10, namely, the description of the repentance

and patient hope of the Thessalonian believers –– success. The ei[sodon clearly denotes the

“thought of success.” There is no reason to suppose the use of ei[sodon in 1:9 only denotes the

5

9 Ibid., 104.

10 Ibid., 106.

11 Ibid.

possibility of Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy’s access (welcome) into the Thessalonian community.

It seems Michaelis may be avoiding the issue at hand. For, if ei[sodon is “neutral” then,

probably, it refers to the entrance of Paul and his companions. One can enter a city without being

welcomed into that city. However, if ei[sodon denotes some “thought of success,” then it makes

sense to understand the term as the welcome of Paul and his companions into the Thessalonian

community. In contrast, Louw and Nida reference this very text when they define ei[sodoV as

“welcome extended to a person on the occasion of a visit, with probable focus on the ready

acceptance.”12

Structure

ga;r aujtoi; peri; hJmw:n ajpaggevllousin

oJpoivan ei[sodon e[scomen pro;V uJma:V

kai; pw:V ejpestrevyate pro;V to;n qeo;n ajpo; tw:n eijdwvlwn . . .

The structure of this passage is also relevant for the issue at hand. It seems the report

being made about Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy had two parts. First, the type of welcome they

received at Thessalonica was reported. Second, the repentant response of the Thessalonians was

reported. It makes sense for the report to center on the actions of the Thessalonian believers,

because all the material prior to this verse contains Paul’s thankfulness for them and their

resounding witness.13 A sudden interjectory note of Paul’s entrance into the city would seem out

of place at this point.

6

! 12 Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, “ei[sodoV,” Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd ed., vol. 1, (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989) 454.

13 Gordon Fee departs from his commentary predecessor’s (Leon Morris) conclusions about this term in the second edition of the New International Commentary on the New Testament. Gordon D. Fee, “First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians,” NICNT, 2nd ed., (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2009) 45.

Arguments for “Entry” or “Entrance”

Now, it is beneficial to highlight strengths and weaknesses of the leading arguments for

understanding ei[sodoV as referring to Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy’s entrance into the

Thessalonian community.

Howard Marshall makes his argument based on the use of ei[sodoV in 1 Thess. 2:1. He

claims, “The word translated welcome in RSV is translated visit in 2:1, and this meaning should

also be adopted here; the stress at this point in the verse is on the conduct of the missionaries

rather than on the response of the Thessalonians.”14 He goes on to say the focus shifts to the

Thessalonians in the second part of the verse. Marshall’s appeal to 2:1 is commendable yet

somewhat arbitrary. He does not offer similarities or overlaps in the context of each passage to

show why they should be understood in the same way. Why is the stress on the missionaries

conduct and not the response of the Thessalonians?

In fact, the context of 2:1 is precisely the opposite of 1:9. For, in 2:1 Paul is describing

the experience of he and his companions in Thessalonica while in 1:9 the focus is on the

response of the Thessalonian believers. Morris and Best follow Marshall in his choice but

7

14 I. Howard Marshall, “1 and 2 Thessalonians,” New Century Bible Commentary, ed. Matthew Black, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1983) 56.

without adequate reasoning.15 Frame simply assumes “what kind of visit we paid you, and then

about you, ‘how you turned,’ etc.” He does not offer an explanation for his choice either.16

Milligan says the term is “used of the ‘act of entering’ rather than of the ‘means of

entering,’ while the indirect interrogative oJpoivan points to the nature of that entrance, how happy

and successful it was.”17 While Milligan gets closer to the meaning of the text, he does not fully

depart from understanding ei[sodon in the literal sense. He holds on to the literal rendering of

ei[sodon while accepting the Thessalonian focus of the passage. His argument actually makes the

text harder to understand. Why would Paul interject about a joyful entrance? Was he happy to see

them? While that is not a bad thought, he has no evidence to support that understanding.

Arguments for “Welcome”

The evidence mounts for translating ei[sodon as welcome as one first considers the

historical background, especially the Acts narrative, then considers the lexical and structural

evidence.

The historical background for this text shows the importance of fellow believers in the

life of Paul and his companions. Without them, Thessalonica was a very dangerous place to be.

Donfried notes,

8

! 15 Best posits two possible meanings, “act of entering” and “place of entering.” He appeals to the use in 2:1 for his support. Ernest Best, “Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians,” Harper’s New Testament Commentaries, ed. Henry Chadwick, (New York, Harper & Row, 1972) 81. Morris deals with ei[sodon in a footnote. He says the RSV rendering as welcome is “not quite right” because of the use in 2:1. Leon Morris, “First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians,” NICNT, rev. ed., ed. F. F. Bruce, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1991) 52.

16 James Everett Frame, “Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians,” ICC, vol. 38, eds. Driver, Plummer, and Briggs, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1948) 86.

17 George Milligan, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1952) 13.

In view of this situation we need to ask whether there were elements in the proclamation of Paul and his co-workers in Thessalonica which might have been perceived as so politically inflammatory as to provoke the crisis described in Acts and whether the unusually strong civic cult in the city would have created an environment particularly hostile to early Christian proclamation and language. . . . The apostle was summoning his Gentile converts back to the Jewish roots of their faith which had found its eschatological fulfillment in the house of David and not in the house of the Caesars. Thus a pivotal claim of the early first-century imperial propaganda –– that Providence would never provide a better Saviour than Augustus –– increasingly faced challenge at Thessalonica and elsewhere.”18

Donfried is correct. The claim, “Caesar is lord,” was increasingly challenged at Thessalonica by

the Christian gospel. As such, this made some people very upset. Thus, Paul and his companions

fully relied on the Thessalonian believers. If it were not for the Thessalonian community

welcoming them into their lives and homes, Paul and his companions would not only have been

in a hostile context but also alone with no protection. The importance of their hospitality was not

lost on Paul. He was immensely thankful for their efforts and sought to praise them in 1 Thess. 1

by exulting over the report that was brought back to him. That report included their risky

hospitality and stark repentance in the face of hostile surroundings.

Also, there are two points to note in the book of Acts that support the welcoming of Paul

and his companions by the Thessalonian community. The first is Acts 16:9 where Paul has a

vision of a Macedonian man inviting him over to help. Paul was being welcomed to Macedonia

before he even travelled there. Due to his vision, Paul probably expected there to be persons

ready and willing to receive them.

The second supporting point is Acts 17:6–7. Here we find the uproar among the people of

the city where they have attacked the house of Jason attempting to capture Paul and his

9

18 Karl Paul Donfried, Paul, Thessalonica, and Early Christianity, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2002) 33–34.

companions. They claimed, “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here

also and Jason has received them.” Once again, an emphasis is placed on the reception of Paul

and his companions by the Thessalonian community (namely, Jason). Not only did Jason receive

them, but the narrative seems to suggest that Jason hid them and thus protected them from the

mob. Before one even approaches the letters to the Thessalonians one would expect Paul to be

ready to thank them and praise them for their courageous hospitality.

Moving on, the lexical information shows that understanding ei[sodoV as the access Paul,

Silvanus, and Timothy enjoyed into the Thessalonian community is acceptable, despite

Michaelis’ unnecessary constraint. Furthermore, the lexical information seems to suggest that a

literal understanding of the term is not likely since it appears with that meaning nowhere else in

the NT. So, that leads the author to conclude that translating the term in context as reception or

welcome is the best rendering because it best accounts for the lexical and structural evidence. It

is worth noting that most translations follow this rendering, while most commentators argue

against it.19 The KJV, NKJV, and ASV are the only major translations that deviate from the

pattern by using entering or entry.

The commentators standing against rendering ei[sodon as reception or welcome fail to

account for the structural difference their claims make on the text as well. If they are correct,

then Paul speaks of a report with two parts, namely, his entrance into the city and the stark

repentance of the Thessalonians. In a thanksgiving passage, why would Paul interject about his

entrance? The commentators fail to account for this effect of their translation. However, if the

10

19 The author is not sure what to make of this division between the translators and the commentators of this text.

text is taken as a focus on the Thessalonian’s welcome of Paul and his companions, the structure

is logical and fits well within the passage.

Conclusion

Now that the historical, lexical, and structural evidence for this passage is put forth and

the arguments for entry/entrance and those for welcome/reception have been examined, one can

determine which interpretation best fits the passage. The issue can be summarized with a few

basic questions.

First, is ei[sodon referring to the literal entrance of Paul and his companions into the

Thessalonian community? If the answer is “yes,” what is the evidence for that conclusion? The

commentators discussed above do not provide compelling evidence for that conclusion though

most suppose it to be true. If the answer is “no,” then it must refer to Paul’s access into the

community. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that emphasis should be placed on the

Thessalonians’ response and that Paul’s access into the community is attributable to their

welcoming or receiving him.

Moreover, Ellingworth and Nida claim that Paul’s “deepest concern” was not with the

way or manner in which they entered the city nor even with the way in which they were

received, rather the effect of their gospel-transformation being reported in the surrounding areas

was of utmost importance.20

Charles Wanamaker rightly notes,

At first sight it is a little surprising that Paul should describe the report as focusing on himself and his colleagues. But the point of the statement concerns their reception by the

11

20 Paul Ellingworth and Eugene A. Nida, A Handbook on Paul’s Letters to the Thessalonians, (New York: United Bible Societies, 1976) 14.

Thessalonians. . . . The way in which the Thessalonians had received and responded to the Pauline mission under very trying circumstances had probably become a piece of missionary propaganda used to demonstrate the truth of the Christian message to others.21

Indeed, “missionary propaganda” it is. This text illustrates the pattern of exemplary

characteristics present in the Thessalonian community that should be adopted by all Christians.

Paul extols their stark repentance, their patient eschatological hope, and their risky hospitality.

For he had no need to tell others about their faith because “the news was being blazed abroad

almost spontaneously . . . ‘Have you heard what a welcome they received, what a fine band of

converts they made?’”22 It is the hope of the author that, not just two, but all three of these

characteristics can be recommended to Christians today based on a solid interpretation of

ei[sodon in 1 Thessalonians 1:9.

12

21 Charles A. Wanamaker, “Epistles to the Thessalonians,” NIGTC, eds. I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1990) 84.

22 F. F. Bruce, Paul and His Converts: Thessalonians and Corinthians, Bible Guides, no. 17, eds. William Barclay and F. F. Bruce, (New York: Abingdon Press, 1965) 27.

Bibliography

Best, Ernest. “A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians.” Harper’s New Testament Commentaries. Edited by Henry Chadwick. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1972.

Bruce, F. F. Paul and His Converts: Thessalonians and Corinthians. Bible Guides. Number 17. Edited by William Barclay and F. F. Bruce. New York: Abingdon Press, 1965.

Donfried, Karl Paul. Paul, Thessalonica, and Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2002.

Ellingworth, Paul and Eugene A. Nida. A Handbook on Paul’s Letters to the Thessalonians. New York: United Bible Societies, 1976.

Fee, Gordon. “First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians,” New International Commentary on the New Testament. Second edition. Edited by Ned B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, and Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2009.

Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Third edition. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2003.

Frame, James Everett. “Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians.” International Critical Commentary. Edited by Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer, and Charles Augustus Briggs. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1946.

Green, Gene L. “Letters to the Thessalonians.” Pillar New Testament Commentary. Edited by D. A . Carson. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2002.

Harrison, James R. Paul and the Imperial Authorities at Thessalonica and Rome: A Study in the Conflict of Ideology. Edited by Jörg Frey. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.

Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene A. Nida. “ei[sodoV.” Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. Second edition. Volume 1. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989. 454.

Marshall, I. Howard. “1 and 2 Thessalonians.” New Century Bible Commentary. Edited by Matthew Black. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1983.

Michaelis, Wilhelm. “oJdovV.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Volume V. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1967.

Milligan, George. St. Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1952.

Morris, Leon. “First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians.” New International Commentary on the New Testament. Revised edition. Edited by F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1991.

Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of Historical Research. Fifth edition. New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1931.

Wanamaker, Charles A. “Epistles to the Thessalonians.” New International Greek Testament Commentary. Edited by I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1990.