The Parousia of the Lord in 1 Thessalonians 4.13–18 as an <i>Adventus</i>

In 1930 Erik Peterson put forth the argument that in 1 Thess. 4.13–18 Paul depicts the Parousia of Jesus as an adventus . That is, just as citizens and other inhabitants of ancient cities, in an elaborate ceremony, would go to meet a visiting king, emperor, or other notable outside the city walls and then return, escorting the visitor into their city, so Paul envisioned the return of Jesus. While Peterson’s evidence and arguments have often been followed in Continental scholarship, English-speaking scholarship has often been troubled by the absence of any description of the return to the earth. In this essay, it will be argued that Peterson was correct. Paul did not need to state explicitly what his first-century readers would have assumed. This is shown by the cultural importance of the adventus in antiquity, by the technical terminology Paul used, by the weakness of the arguments for only a Jewish ‘background’ for 1 Thess. 4.13–18, and by his language of descent from heaven.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal for the Study of the New Testament
Published
2025-10-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064x251367474
Primary Topic
Biblical Studies and Interpretation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Parousia of the Lord in 1 Thessalonians 4.13–18 as an Adventus

Darrell D. Hannah
Journal for the Study of the New Testament
Biblical Studies and Interpretation
article

The Parousia of the Lord in 1 Thessalonians 4.13–18 as an Adventus

Darrell D. Hannah
article en

Abstract

In 1930 Erik Peterson put forth the argument that in 1 Thess. 4.13–18 Paul depicts the Parousia of Jesus as an adventus . That is, just as citizens and other inhabitants of ancient cities, in an elaborate ceremony, would go to meet a visiting king, emperor, or other notable outside the city walls and then return, escorting the visitor into their city, so Paul envisioned the return of Jesus. While Peterson’s evidence and arguments have often been followed in Continental scholarship, English-speaking scholarship has often been troubled by the absence of any description of the return to the earth. In this essay, it will be argued that Peterson was correct. Paul did not need to state explicitly what his first-century readers would have assumed. This is shown by the cultural importance of the adventus in antiquity, by the technical terminology Paul used, by the weakness of the arguments for only a Jewish ‘background’ for 1 Thess. 4.13–18, and by his language of descent from heaven.

Journal for the Study of the New TestamentVol. 48(2)
All Saints Hospital (ZA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 76%
Biblical Studies and Interpretation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.