When Paul writes εἰρήνη καὶ ἀσφάλεια (1 Thess 5:3), does he allude to the self-proclaimed benefits of Roman rule? That this phrase represents “a common mantra of Rome’s narrative that proclaimed its promised blessings to the faithful” is a widespread interpretation approaching the level of an axiom (Winn 2024; cf. Wright 2013, Weima 2012).
Of course, some are only half-convinced. Seyoon Kim states “at most Paul points to the total inadequacy of the much-celebrated pax Romana” (Kim 2008, 66). Douglas Moo concedes “the phrase may more relevantly echo… the famous pax Romana,” yet “Paul’s focus, however, is on how believers should respond” (Moo 2021, 100). Peter Oakes suggests, “Christianity does conflict with Rome… However, Paul does not seem to be wishing, as such, for Rome’s overthrow. He is not writing anti-Roman polemic” (Oakes 2005, 318, 321).
Nevertheless, this intuitive tendency to resist an anti-imperial understanding of “peace and security” has hitherto lacked sufficient evidential support, which this paper aims to provide in two ways.
First, this paper weighs in on a now classic exchange of articles between Jeffrey A. D. Weima and Joel R. White. Both scholars agree that εἰρήνη, were it alone, would support the traditional understanding that Paul channels the biblical critique of the false prophets who promised “peace, peace” in the face of looming judgment (see now Gupta 2016: e.g., Jer 6:16; Ezek 13:10; cf. Mic 3:5). Weima and White maintain that the addition of ἀσφάλεια complicates the traditional interpretation, leading readers to other contexts (in Weima’s case, the imperial context) to understand the phrase. Yet, presenting ἀσφάλεια as the decisive term is problematic, for in a crucial literary witness, not only does εἰρήνη καὶ ἀσφάλεια occur in a non-Roman context, more importantly it appears synonymously with another phrase, σωτηρία καὶ ἀσφαλεία (Plutarch, Ant. 40.4; 43:2). The synonymity of the two phrases is further evidenced in that both reduce to genitive constructions, used almost interchangeably (Josephus, Ant. 17.3; 18.169; Bell. 4.596). Thus, as a thought experiment, later readers can imagine Paul choosing between two phrases, each of which contain ἀσφαλεία, in which case the decisive term becomes εἰρήνη. Per the logic of Weima and White, this choice in wording points to the significance of his Jewish context.
Secondly, when the importance of his Jewish context for understanding the phrase is grasped, it comes as a surprise that (despite the wealth of literature Empire Criticism has generated) almost no Pauline critic interacts with the contribution of Qumran scholar Menahem Kister (2019). Kister shows that the Dead Sea Scrolls represent in Hebrew not only the phrase “peace and security” but the entire logion of which it is a part in First Thessalonians 5:3a (cf. 4Q386 1 ii 7–10). Building upon Kister’s study, this paper understands “peace and security” in its historical and literary context as a general critique of human, worldly confidence, participating in a high-level contrast between true and false boasting in the letter. If, as some suggest, Jesus’s teaching influences First Thessalonians 5:1–11 (Wenham 1995; Kim 2002), then perhaps Paul derives the Jewish logion containing the phrase “peace and security” from that body of tradition.
Consequently, while First Thessalonians 5:3 certainly presents a challenge to those who vested their hopes in the Roman Empire (as it would to any form of worldly presumption), scholars should no longer appeal to “peace and security” as a prooftext for Paul’s anti-imperial posture.