7. Conclusion (3:16–18)
7. Conclusion (3:16–18)
16. As in the first epistle, Paul reminds his readers that what he has been telling them to do cannot be achieved in merely human strength (see 1 Thess. 5:23). The emphatic autos de with which the verse opens turns their thoughts away from their own efforts to the Lord … himself. Paul usually speaks of ‘the God of peace’ (see comment on 1 Thess. 5:23), but he generally means Christ when he says ‘the Lord’. On the whole it is likely that he means Christ by the Lord of peace (cf. Eph. 2:14), though, as we have seen in other places, he does not sharply differentiate between God and Christ.
Peace (see comment on 1 Thess. 1:1) is a comprehensive term for the prosperity of the whole man; Paul seeks nothing less for his friends. Its supernatural origin is indicated by its association with the Lord. True peace in the deepest sense comes only as God’s free gift; man can never work it up by his own effort. At all times (as RSV, NEB, etc.) is no improvement on ‘always’ (AV) as a translation of dia pantos (being rather the rendering of pantote). The idea is that of a peace that remains constant and unbroken no matter what the trials; ‘continually’ (Moffatt, NASB) is the sense of it. It is accompanied by in every way (en panti tropō), which does refer to changing circumstances (LB ‘no matter what happens’). The peace for which Paul prays will be there continually and it will not vary, however much outward circumstances and conditions may alter.
The Lord be with all of you is not a different prayer altogether. The peace the Christian enjoys has no existence in its own right; it is possible only because of the presence of the Lord. It is because we know that the Lord is with us and that he will never forsake those whose trust is in him (cf. Heb. 13:5) that our peace remains unbroken (John 14:27). The peace of the Christian is the presence of the Lord.
There may well be significance in the all. Paul prays for every one of them, the dissident brothers as well as the loyal and obedient.
17. As he comes to the end of the letter, Paul takes the pen himself to add a personal greeting. His custom appears to have been to dictate a letter to an amanuensis who wrote it down (cf. Rom. 16:22); then at some point near the end Paul took the pen and added a few words in his own distinctive handwriting. The point at which he did this varied. In Galatians he wrote several verses (Gal. 6:11), and he may have himself written the whole of a short letter such as that to Philemon (Phlm. 19). But usually it would seem to be very near the end, and he sometimes draws attention to the fact (1 Cor. 16:21; Col. 4:18). The fact that he says nothing about it in other letters does not mean that he did not do it, only that he did not emphasize it. Deissmann has a facsimile of a letter dated AD 50 from a certain Mystarion, in which the body of the letter is in one hand and the final greeting and date in another, clearly that of Mystarion himself (LAE, pp. 170ff.). There is nothing to draw attention to it; if we had only a copy we would not know. Paul is saying that this is his practice.
The distinguishing mark is the sign by which the letter can be recognized as genuine. The term is cognate with a verb used for signing a letter, and whether it is this that is in mind or not, the authentication is meant. Paul adds, This is how I write (this is his handwriting; which would be a help to them in situations such as that behind 2:2). In all my letters shows that Paul wrote other letters that have not been preserved.
It may be that there is special significance in thus calling attention to the genuineness of this letter. It does not mean that this is the first letter to the Thessalonians, as some suggest. It would be natural to write in this way in a second letter if some doubt had arisen as to how they could be sure that a letter really did come from Paul. From 2:2 it is plain that some distinguishing mark was needed.
18. The conclusion to this letter is identical with that to the first epistle, except that Paul adds the word all. We have already noticed his tender concern for the disorderly. Right to the end this concern is operative, and he uses a farewell that includes them with the others.