306 philip l. tite
what the laodiceans have already accepted, Ps.-Paul uses a clear escha-
tological promise in v. 10c (et erit vobis vita in aeternum), which serves
as the interpretive framework of the motivation clause at v. 16c (et erit
vobis pax). By evoking eschatology as a motivating element in the parae-
nesis, Ps.-Paul again draws the reader’s attention back to the implications
attached to not being deceived by false teachers—both for the laodiceans
(v. 3) and for the success of the Pauline mission (vv. 5, 7).37
It is striking that these motivational statements in the paraenetic sec-
tion reinforce the thanksgiving; i.e., the recipients are already holding fast
and doing what they should be doing. thus, there is no rebuke underly-
ing this letter. rather, the motivation clauses tap into the call to remem-
brance with the end goal of encouraging the laodiceans to continue along
the path that they are on. furthermore, by evoking an eschatological
framework, Ps.-Paul discursively establishes and thus assumes the shared
worldview that the apostle and the recipients hold to.38 thus, in good
paraenetic fashion, disagreement to this view is not expected.
this “sandwich”-like structure of the paraenesis places interpretive
emphasis upon the central unit (v. 13). Whereas the outer units parallel
each other in order to enjoin the recipients to appropriately respond to
the letter, the central unit clearly establishes the persuasion/dissuasion
point of the entire letter. In this central unit we find two imperatives:
“rejoice” (gaudete) and “be wary” (praecavete). these imperatives are
Semeia 50 (1990): 41–77, see especially 59, 60–61; abraham Malherbe, Moral Exhortation,
A Greco-Roman Sourcebook (leC 4; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986); Martin, Metaphor,
93–98; Walter t. Wilson, Love Without Pretense: Romans 12.9–21 and Hellenistic-Jewish Wis-
dom Literature (Wunt 46; tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991); heironymus Cruz, Christological
Motives and Motivated Actions in Pauline Paraenesis (european university studies 23; frank-
furt: Peter lang, 1990); and lauri thurén, Argument and Theology in 1 Peter: The Origins of
Christian Paraenesis (Jsntsup 114; sheffield: sheffield academic Press, 1995). Cf. seneca,
Epistle 94.
37 With regard to Pauline paraenesis in 1 Corinthians, david W. kuck, Judgment and
Community Conflict: Paul’s Use of Apocalyptic Judgment Language in 1 Corinthians 3:5–4:5
(novtsup 66; leiden: Brill, 1992), 229, cf. 234–35 observes: “... in Jewish texts [prior to
100 C.e.] that refer to a belief in future judgment it [paraenesis] functions for the most
part to define one group against another in the face of conflict, crisis, or threat which
affects the whole group.” similarly, in regard the paraenetic function of eschatology in 1
thessalonians, see Charles a. Wanamaker, “apocalyptic discourse, Paranaesis and Identity
Maintenance in 1 thessalonians,” Neotestimentica 36.1–2 (2000): 131–45.
38 rhetorically, this is an important qualification (which I raised in Valentinian Ethics,
297). By narratively, or discursively, setting forth a shared worldview, paraenesis does not
simply hold to a shared worldview, but even more importantly presents its worldview as an
assumed shared worldview in order to generate mutual identity for the sake of mobilizing
or facilitating the appropriate response as desired by the letter writer. thus, by assuming
a shared worldview, our author utilizes these two motivational clauses to tacitly persuade
the recipients.