dusting off a pseudo-historical letter 309
or the Christian simpletons, who mainly are deceived by charlatans such
as Peregrinus. By indicating that the laodiceans are not being deceived,
but need to be on their guard, Ps.-Paul has praised the recipients while
simultaneously hinting that to embrace these other teachers would dis-
prove that praise.41 the tacit nature of this argument certainly would have
added persuasive force to the letter while further suggesting that (due to
their superiority over those who are deluded by such people) there would
be no anticipated disagreement (starr’s fifth aspect of paraenesis).
this two-fold exhortation at the center of the paraenesis—of persua-
sion and dissuasion—encapsulates the entire point of the letter: to enjoin
the laodicean Christians to continue to hold fast to what they had already
received from Ps.-Paul and to guard against those who would deter them
from that course, for such teachers neither teach the true gospel nor do
they have pure motives. the entire letter has discursively developed this
theme throughout and has now hit a cumulative climax here in the parae-
nesis section.42 Indeed, we could justly read laodiceans along the same
lines that Malherbe reads 1 thessalonians; i.e., as a paraenetic letter with
the earlier parts of the letter establishing the basis for the explicit moral
exhortation that concludes the letter.43
41 young Chul Whang, “Pauline letter Paraenesis,” in Porter and adams (eds.), Paul and
the Ancient Letter Form, 262–63, identifies one aspect of Pauline paraenesis as “an exhorta-
tion of interpersonal relationship” (i.e., a concern for maintaining the healthy social con-
dition of a given community, especially when that community is faced with a threat of
divisiveness, such as with Philippians). such interpersonal relational concern is certainly
at the heart of the paraenesis in laodiceans. Indeed, for Ps.-Paul, the goal of the exhor-
tation is to simultaneously reinforce the interpersonal relationship that he has with the
recipients while undermining similar interpersonal relations that could emerge between
the laodicean Christians and other teachers.
42 Contra Magee’s “exalted apostle,” 125, who claims that there are only “vague and
relatively mild statements about opponents of the gospel in v. 4... and v. 13... there is
little evidence that ‘Paul’ is mounting an energetic advance of his teachings in the face of
sustained opposition or teetering loyalties. therefore, there is no need for ‘Paul’ to assert
his authority in a forceful way as was the case in gal 1:1.” Magee overlooks the importance
of the charlatan theme due to several methodological mistakes: (1) he conflates galatians
with laodiceans, as if laodiceans only makes sense if it followed the rhetorical situation of
galatians; (2) he does not recognize that laodiceans’ reference to false teachers or opposi-
tion needs to be read in the context of the broader hortatory rhetoric of the letter; and
(3) Magee comes to such mistaken conclusions largely due to the presupposition underly-
ing the “dismissal” approach to laodiceans (i.e., that the letter is simply a random collec-
tion of Pauline phrases that are not worth studying). My analysis has demonstrated that
laodiceans is far more refined in its rhetorical treatment of false teachers.
43 abraham J. Malherbe, “exhortation”; Malherbe, “‘gentle as a nurse’: the Cynic Back-
ground to 1 thessalonians 2,” NovT 12 (1970): 203–17.