Commentary On 1 Thessalonians
The letters as we have them are not dated, and there is no statement in either that tells us which was written first. Traditionally the epistle we know as 1 Thessalonians has been held to be the older, but some scholars hold that many of our problems are solved if we simply reverse the order and think of 2 Thessalonians as having been written first.53 The point is made that 1 Thessalonians is fuller and richer in content, so that when 2 Thessalonians is held to follow it suffers by comparison, and hypotheses of copying and the like begin to appear. But if we think of 2 Thessalonians as a first letter, it is an attractive piece of work. It does not deal fully with a number of topics and thus calls for another letter that will amplify what it says and make clear points left in doubt.
A number of reasons are urged to show the priority of 2 Thessalonians. Here are some of them:
(b) There are difficulties in the church that are mentioned in 2 Thessalonians as though the writers have just heard of them, and indeed they may have appeared but recently. But in 1 Thessalonians they are mentioned as though familiar to everyone, which points to a later stage. For example, the loafers seem to be a new development in 2 Thessalonians 3:11-15, but well known in 1 Thessalonians 5:14.
(c) Such a statement as that the Thessalonians have no need to be informed about "times and dates" (1 Thess. 5:1) is very much in point if these people have already received 2 Thessalonians 2.
(d) Paul explains his signature in 2 Thessalonians (2 Thess. 3:17), but not at the end of 1 Thessalonians. Such a statement would be needed at the end of a first letter.
(e) T. W. Manson thinks that the recurrence of "Now concerning" (1 Thess. 4:9, 13; 5:1) is significant.55 This same formula is found in 1 Corinthians in the places where Paul is replying to a letter, each time referring to a point raised in the letter. The inference Manson draws is that Paul sent 2 Thessalonians. This letter, however, did not deal with all the difficulties in the minds of the readers. They accordingly wrote him back a letter, and 1 Thessalonians is his reply.
(f) Some members of the Thessalonian church had died when 1 Thessalonians was written. This is more likely if we allow a longer period.
(g) The organization revealed in the first letter (1 Thess. 5:12-13) requires a longer time interval than we have if 1 Thessalonians is first.
(i) The postponement of the Parousia (2 Thess. 2:1-12) is what leads to the problem of the place of the dead when it comes (1 Thess. 4:13), and to the implied question "When will the Parousia come?" (1 Thess. 5:1).
These arguments, however, seem very vulnerable. So far from thinking that the trials in question were over by the time 1 Thessalonians was written, most students believe that one reason for that letter was to give the believers encouragement so that they might endure the trials before them. No real reason appears to exist for thinking that the internal difficulties were new when 2 Thessalonians was written, apart from the words, "We hear that some among you are idle" (2 Thess. 3:11). This is not really a strong argument, for the expression could just as easily follow what is said in 1 Thessalonians as precede it. It is not necessary to postulate 2 Thessalonians 2 as the background to the statement about "times and dates" (1 Thess. 5:1). On any showing Paul spoke about the Parousia and attendant happenings during his preaching while he was yet in the city, and this is sufficient to explain any reference in 1 Thessalonians. The argument about the explanation of the autograph being required in a first epistle breaks down on the fact that Paul does not explain it in any other of his epistles, which are mostly first epistles. He mentions the autograph (1 Cor. 16:21; Col. 4:18), but gives no explanation of its significance. Clearly some special reason is required in 2 Thessalonians, and Paul gives it (2 Thess. 2:2). There was a letter that purported to be from Paul, so they wondered how they could know a genuine letter when they saw one. Paul tells them.
Manson's "Now concerning" is no more conclusive. There seems to be no reason why it should not refer to matters to which Timothy drew attention in his oral report or of which Paul learned in some other way. Moreover, we do not know that it was used only as a formula in replying to a letter. It certainly is not used in that way in Mark 12:26; 13:32; John 16:11; Acts 21:25.57 Its occurrence in 1 Corinthians does not prove that Paul used the expression in no other way. The deaths of some members do not call for a long period. Life is an uncertain business, and in any given group it is always possible for deaths to occur. The problem of the fate of the deceased could have arisen quite early. So with the organization. There is nothing in 1 Thessalonians that requires a lengthy period for its development. From Acts 14:23 we know that Paul appointed elders quite soon after establishing churches, and if he did that at Thessalonica that is all that is required. Moreover, there was no great interval between the two epistles, and not much could have developed in the intervening period. The argument from the shortness of 2 Thessalonians proves nothing. There is no reason why a first epistle should be shorter than a second. Moreover, 1 Thessalonians is not an elaboration of 2 Thessalonians. Where the same point is treated in both letters (for example, the loafers) the discussion is apt to be longer in 2 Thessalonians.
(a) Of the problems that occur in both letters-persecution, the second advent, and the loafers-each seems to intensify as we pass from 1 Thessalonians to 2 Thessalonians. The natural line of development seems to be in this direction and not the reverse.
(b) A letter from Paul certainly preceded 2 Thessalonians (see 2:2, 15; 3:17). If I Thessalonians followed 2 Thessalonians we must postulate another Thessalonian epistle now lost. It seems more natural to understand that 2 Thessalonians follows 1 Thessalonians, which letter incidentally does not mention any previous letter to its recipients.
(c) The general tone of 1 Thessalonians seems to be that called for by the situation we have outlined in an earlier section. If Paul experienced a feeling of exultation when his discouragement was removed by the good news from Thessalonica, then a letter like 1 Thessalonians is called for. The slightly cooler tone of 2 Thessalonians is explained by the interval of time and the fact that some of the converts had disregarded his injunctions. But if we reverse the order of the letters, how shall we explain these things?
(e) There are some indications of a continuing growth in the spiritual stature of the Thessalonians. Thus in the first letter Paul refers to the converts as having accepted the gospel (1 Thess. 1:6; 2:13), while in the second he speaks of their faith as growing (2 Thess. 1:3). In the first he prays that their love may abound and exhorts them to abound in love (1 Thess. 3:12; 4:10) and in the second he gives thanks for their love abounding (2 Thess. 1:3). This sort of thing is not decisive, but it supports other indications that 2 Thessalonians is rightly put second.
Thus sufficient reason does not seem to have been shown for rejecting the traditional order of these epistles. The evidence as we have it seems rather to indicate that the first letter in point of time was our 1 Thessalonians.