791 Gk. ὅταν = “at that time, whenever” (BDAG).
765
Gk. ἔνδειγμα, a NT hapax. Since it is a neuter noun, one cannot be sure in this context whether Paul intended it to be nominative or accusative; most likely it is accusative (so also most commentaries). Out of near necessity most English translations start a new sentence here, usually with an introductory “this,” and make “sign” a predicate nominative. But it is not clear in these translations what the antecedent to “this” is; the T/NIV translators removed the ambiguity with their “all this,” thus making all of vv. 3-4 “evidence,” but that is probably a bit of a stretch. For a helpful discussion of the word in its present setting, see J. M. Bassler, “The Enigmatic Sign: 2 Thessalonians 1:5,” CBQ 46 (1984), 496-510.
766
So most interpreters (see esp. Malherbe, 394); Bassler (“Enigmatic Sign”) argued that in Paul’s Greek sentence it more naturally stands in apposition to “in all the persecution and trials you are enduring,” which she argues is supported by the content of v. 5, which focuses on their suffering, not perseverance. In this she has been followed only by Wanamaker (220-21) and Green (284).
767
So also Lightfoot, 100; Frame, 226; Bruce, 149; Morris, 198. Best (255) includes Paul’s “boasting” as part of the “sign,” but that seems doubtful.
768
Cf. Findlay (143), “They do not exhibit [divine justice], but ‘point to’ a future readjustment.”
769
Gk. καταξιωθη
ναι, which could possibly mean “make you worthy” (NRSV), but that is unlikely here; cf. the strong objection in Morris, 198.
ναι, which could possibly mean “make you worthy” (NRSV), but that is unlikely here; cf. the strong objection in Morris, 198.770
The TNIV (and other English versions) omits Paul’s καί, which seems to be an unnecessary expedient. The word functions adverbially here, with an intensive sense (“indeed, in fact”).
771
To be sure, most commentaries suggest otherwise; see, among others, Marshall, 173; Bruce, 149; Green, 284-85; Beale, 184.
772
For an analysis of these eschatological climaxes to Paul’s thanksgivings (1 Thess 1:10; here; 1 Cor 1:7-8; Phil 1:10), see J. H. Roberts, “The Eschatological Transitions to the Pauline Letter Body,” Neot 20 (1986), 29-35.
773
Gk. εἰπέρ, used by Paul elsewhere in Rom 3:30; 8:9, 17; 1 Cor 8:5; 15:15; 2 Cor 5:3. Cf. Findlay (145), “the particle states rhetorically, in the form of a hypothesis, a recognized fact.”
774
Found in the OT in the well-known “an eye for an eye.”
775
For the meaning of this word see n. 28 above.
776
Because of the unique nature of this material, a large number of interpreters consider vv. 7b-10 to be preformed material that Paul has taken over here. See esp. the arguments in Wanamaker (232). Although this has strong possibilities, the fact is that the material comes to us only from Paul and must be understood within this letter only — as a Pauline sentence. Everything else is speculation.
777
This same word is used regarding the “coming” of the Rebel in 2:3, which accounts in part for his being designated historically as the “Antichrist.” See further below.
778
For understandable reasons (more logical and readable English), the T/NIV committee chose to reorder the last two; see also n. 28 above.
779
Many have taken this genitive as adjectival (his powerful/mighty angels; see, e.g., NRSV, REB, NAB), but as Lightfoot put it, this “interpretation must be discarded . . . [since] on this supposition the Apostle would dwell rather on the power of subordinate beings than of the Lord Himself ”; cf. Best, 258.
780
So Lightfoot (102) and most commentaries; Best (259) prefers “the angels who belong to his power.”
781
There is a considerable history of interpretation that understood this phrase to modify the διδόντoς ἐκδίκησιν (“meting out vengeance”; TNIV, “he will punish”) that follows. This accounts for the differing numbering system of the KJV (and the NA27) and most later English versions. Thus the KJV reads: 8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God. Commentators are divided here; the majority follow the punctuation of the Greek text, but Marshall (177) and Wanamaker (226-27) prefer the historic position.
782
Although little is at stake here, there is considerable textual variation at this point in Paul’s text, between ἐν ϕλoγὶ πυρός (in flame of fire) (BDFGΨ 2464 pc a vg sy co; Irlat Tert), which would ordinarily be considered the stronger MS evidence, and ἐν πυρὶ ϕλoγός (in fire of flame) (
A 0111 0278 33 1739 1881 Majdmsyhmg; Ambst). For a full discussion on my preferred textual choice (the first reading), see Pauline Christology, 58 n. 83.
A 0111 0278 33 1739 1881 Majdmsyhmg; Ambst). For a full discussion on my preferred textual choice (the first reading), see Pauline Christology, 58 n. 83.783
Gk. ἐκδίκησεν; for which Plummer (22) offers the helpful rendition, “full retribution,” which gets at the point of the word without the extremely negative overtones that words like “vengeance” have.
784
This was the view of many earlier interpreters (including Morris [203] and Marshall [177]), usually (but not always) suggesting that those who “do not know God” refers to pagans who have not accepted what can be known through general revelation, while the second have deliberately rejected the gospel after having heard it. This view was often argued as suggested by the repeated definite article. But this is probably to make too much of almost nothing. Cf. Best (160-61), who, regarding the repetition of the definite article, notes that it rather “emphasize[s] the enormity of their action.” The one certain thing in this description is that Paul’s language “not knowing God” has primarily Gentiles in view.
785
As Malherbe (401) points out by way of illustrations from the Psalter.
786
Noted as early as Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 3.16). The LXX translator in this case took some liberties with Isaiah’s wording, probably in order to make clear what he assumed Isaiah had in mind. That is, “the fear of YHWH” has to do with seeing “his face.” Paul, in turn, has kept the “face = presence” language and has omitted ϕόβoυ (“fear”) because of where his present interests lie — with the return of the Lord Jesus, and thus with the persecutors themselves having to deal with being in the Lord’s presence and thereby having to face his judgment.
787
On the use of “glory” with reference to Christ, see p. 304 below (on 2 Thess 2:14); cf. Pauline Christology, pp. 184-85 (on 2 Cor 3:18 and 4:4).
788
Since Paul is expressing this judgment only in terms of their total, irreparable exclusion from Christ, it is hardly useful to try to draw significant eschatological data regarding the “lost” from this clause, as, e.g., E. Fudge (“The Final End of the Wicked,” JETS 27 [1984], 325-34), who argues for “annihilation” as the intent of Paul’s ἀπό; cf. the response by C. L. Quarles (“The AΠO of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 and the Nature of Eternal Punishment,” WTJ 59 [1997], 201-11), who suggests “divine punishment caused by or originating from the presence of the Lord.”
789
Indeed, so awkward is it that even the KJV translators, in choosing to keep Paul’s word order (as was their style), inserted a parenthesis around “because our testimony among you was believed,” so that “in that day” could be seen by the reader (properly so) to modify the first part of v. 10.
790
Cf. Lightfoot (105), “enforce[s] the duty of waiting for the Lord’s coming.”
791
Gk. ὅταν = “at that time, whenever” (BDAG).
792
On this matter the majority of the more recent English translations tend toward “among.” The rendering of the TNIV is the traditional one, being found in the KJV, and thus in its many progeny (ASV, NASB, ESV); it is also argued for by Lightfoot (104). The NRSV interestingly has “by his saints.”
793
These echoes may seem a bit more tenuous than the others in this series. Indeed, were they the only echoes of the LXX in this passage, they would probably be scarcely noted in the literature. In fact, they were scarcely noted in the commentaries until Rigaux; since then cf. Best, 264-65; Marshall, 180; Bruce, 153; Wanamaker, 231; Malherbe, 404; Green, 294-95; but not Beale, 190, who would prefer to see it as still reflecting Isaiah 2 and 66.
794
This phrase (ἐν δυνάμει) occurs at the end of this sentence; it has been brought forward in the TNIV and most other contemporary English translations (the ESV being a notable exception).
795
Typically, a large number of MSS, some quite early, add Xριστoυ (“Christ”) so as to fill out the Lord’s “name” (A F G P 0278 33 81 104 365 1505 1739 1881 lat sy bopt); it is missing in
BDKLΨ 0111 6 323 630 1175 1241 2464 pm.
(“Christ”) so as to fill out the Lord’s “name” (A F G P 0278 33 81 104 365 1505 1739 1881 lat sy bopt); it is missing inBDKLΨ 0111 6 323 630 1175 1241 2464 pm.796
It should perhaps be noted that this is the only feature in 2 Thessalonians that anticipates the rest of the corpus — which only adds to the difficulties for those who opt for pseudepigraphy. How could the forger know only this much about Paul from his other letters, without a hint of knowing anything else?
797
Cf. O’Brien (Introductory Thanksgivings, 178), “ ἵνα introduces the certainty, not the purpose, of Paul’s prayer.”
798
But see Lightfoot (105), who argues that the verb means only “to account you worthy”; for advocacy of the meaning adopted by the TNIV, see Best, 268-69; cf. O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgivings, 179.
799
Gk. πληρώσῃ, which often means “fulfill,” but in this case, as the TNIV and most English versions have it, means “bring to completion.”
800
Gk. ἀξιώση, a verb that can mean either “make worthy” or “consider/deem worthy.” For later Christians this choice is full of theological pressuppositions; for Paul the options probably were not in view. His concern is that their “being worthy” is ultimately the result of divine activity.
801
So also Rigaux, 640.
802
Without justification F. W. Hughes (Early Christian Rhetoric and 2 Thessalonians [JSNTSS 30; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989], 55) translates this phrase by incorporating it into the preceding one, “every work of faith and power.” This seems both careless and impossible with regard to Paul’s Greek phrase.
803
So Whiteley (indirectly), Frame, and Bruce. Many would translate it adverbially, “that he powerfully fulfill” (e.g., Lightfoot, Ellicott, Best; most recently, Wanamaker), but this seems to miss Pauline usage elsewhere as well as its emphatic position here.
804
Cf. Hiebert, 297: “the characteristic power inherent in His nature.”
805
In this regard one should note further how the prayer report finally ends in v. 12: “that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
806
That is, the way the translators kept from confusing this rendering with the more common Adonai (“Lord”) was consistently to avoid using the article “the” with κύριoς = Yahweh while keeping it when ὁ κύριoς = Adonai.
807
Failure to note this simple historical reality seems to lie behind a large amount of scholarly inability to accept the letter as authentic.
808
Cf. Findlay (162): “This paragraph is the most obscure in the whole of the Pauline Epistles.” Although some might vote for other paragraphs, the fact that one very level-headed scholar thought so indicates the high level of obscurity that faces one here.
809
I have chosen to refer to “the day of the Lord” in this way (capitalized and without “of the Lord”) as a convenient way to refer to what should always be thought of in terms of the entire phrase.
810
On this matter see esp. R. Russell, “The Idle in 2 Thess 3.6-12: An Eschatological or a Social Problem?” NTS 34 (1988), 105-19; and D. C. Aune, “Trouble in Thessalonica: An Exegetical Study of I Thess 4:9-12, 5:12-14 and II Thess 3:6-15 in Light of First-Century Social Conditions” (Unpubl. Th.M. thesis; Vancouver, B.C.: Regent College, 1989).
811
B Ψ 33 and a few other witnesses (including syh and some MSS of the Vulgate) lack the ἡμων. Were this more widely attested, most textual critics, including this one, would think that the other witnesses had added the pronoun (as in 1:2), since this is Paul’s more usual form. But more likely here we have scribal omission for stylistic reasons, in light of the ἡμων that follows a few words later.
ν. Were this more widely attested, most textual critics, including this one, would think that the other witnesses had added the pronoun (as in 1:2), since this is Paul’s more usual form. But more likely here we have scribal omission for stylistic reasons, in light of the ἡμων that follows a few words later.812
Against all earlier evidence in all forms (Greek, versions, the Fathers), the Majority Text has substituted Xριστoυ for κυρίoυ. This seems to be a later attempt to make sure that “Lord” equals “Christ” in this passage, which in fact it almost certainly does.
for κυρίoυ. This seems to be a later attempt to make sure that “Lord” equals “Christ” in this passage, which in fact it almost certainly does.813
Gk. ἐρωτωμεν δέ, the common verb for asking for information or making a request of someone. The δέ, which is very often adversative in Greek, is here recognized by most scholars to be simply transitional (thus Rigaux [647], “c’est un δέ de transition”; cf. the KJV’s “now”).
μεν δέ, the common verb for asking for information or making a request of someone. The δέ, which is very often adversative in Greek, is here recognized by most scholars to be simply transitional (thus Rigaux [647], “c’est un δέ de transition”; cf. the KJV’s “now”).814
For the significance of this usage in these letters see n. 13 on 1 Thess 1:4.
815
Gk. ὑπέρ; with the genitive it has the basic meaning, “for the sake of,” but in the koine period it came to be almost synonymous with περί (“concerning, about”), with which it was often interchanged by early scribes. Even so, Findlay (163) wonders “whether ὑπέρ in St Paul ever quite loses the stronger meaning, on behalf of.” That is, it is in the very interest of Christ’s future advent that Paul feels compelled to write. In a truly idiosyncratic moment, the RV rendered the preposition “by his coming,” which the ASV altered to “touching his coming.” This is “translation” in terms of what one thinks an author ought to have said rather than what he actually said.
816
This seems to be made certain by the fact that a single definite article controls both nouns (παρoυσίας and ἐπισυναγωγης).
ς).817
Gk. παρoυσία, which occurred four times in the first letter (2:19; 3:12; 4:15; 5:23), and will occur twice more in this letter (vv. 8 and 9 in the present argument).
818
Gaventa (109) prefers “gathering together before him, in the sense that believers gather to witness and receive justice”; so also Richard, 324.
819
The TNIV has put Paul’s Greek into nice idiomatic English. Paul has εἰς τὸ μὴ ταχέως σαλευθηναι ὑμας ἀπὸ τoυ νoός (“that you not be quickly shaken from your minds”).
ναι ὑμας ἀπὸ τoυ νoός (“that you not be quickly shaken from your minds”).820
Gk. τάχεως, an adverb that here focuses on the speed of the action (BDAG 1 β); thus “readily” (Best); cf. Gal 1:6.
821
A. M. G. Stephenson (“On the Meaning of ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα τoυ κυριoυ in 2 Thessalonians 2.2,” TU 102 [1968], 442-51) suggested that it meant “at hand” = “near.” But there is no known evidence for such a meaning for this verb.
κυριoυ in 2 Thessalonians 2.2,” TU 102 [1968], 442-51) suggested that it meant “at hand” = “near.” But there is no known evidence for such a meaning for this verb.822
Some of these difficulties with the Greek text have now been (properly) obscured by the TNIV’s choice to bracket the threefold options, so that it does not appear that the only real option is the final one, “letter” — as in most English translations (e.g., KJV: “. . . nor by letter as from us, as that the day . . .”; NASU: “or a letter as if from us, to the effect that . . .”; the ESV makes the wrong point even stronger: “. . . spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that . . .”). The original NIV was ambiguous: “by spirit or by word or by letter, as though from us, to the effect that. . . .”
823
Again, the TNIV has (correctly) translated in terms of the intent of Paul’s word “Spirit,” which in this case, given what he wrote in the first letter (5:19-22), is probably the source of real concern for the Apostle.
824
See the helpful discussion in R. Jewett, The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 181-86, who categorizes the approaches to this phrase as being in one of three ways: (1) to view the phrase as the work of a forger (which Jewett rightly sees breaks down in trying to interpret 2:15); (2) to deny that the phrase has any implications of forgery; (3) to view 1 Thessalonians as the letter, but to understand it as being misrepresented in some way (the view assumed in the present commentary).
825
E.g., Moffatt, Moore, Bruce; for English translations see n. 16 above.
826
See the comments on 3:17 below. As pointed out there, he signs off this way precisely because he is not sure whether the source was a forged letter.
827
This point of grammar is generally overlooked or ignored in the commentaries and translations (von Dobschütz [266] and C. H. Giblin [The Threat to Faith: An Exegetical-Theological Re-examination of 2 Thessalonians 2 (AnBib 31; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967), 149] are exceptions). But that will not do, since Paul elsewhere shows considerable precision in his use of these two prepositions. For a primary source he always uses ἀπό (see 1 Thess 3:6 above: “now that Timothy has come to us from you”); when he refers to a secondary agent, that through which something has been mediated, he uses διά. In this regard see esp. the well-known demurrer in Gal 1:1, that his apostleship is neither ἀπ’ ἀνθρώπων nor δι’ ἀνθρώπoυ (it neither had its source in human beings, nor was it been mediated through a human being). We must accept it simply as wrong to translate the present phrase, “either by spirit or by word or by letter, as though from us” (NRSV; cf. NIV). Paul is not here referring to the source of the misinformation, but to its unknown mediation to them.
828
This is by far the more common option in the English commentaries, although Ellicott (107) limits it to the final two.
829
This view has been suggested, among others, by Findlay, 165 (“ ‘supposing that it is through us,’ namely, that the announcement of the arrival of ‘the day’ comes from the Lord through His Apostles and has their authority”), and Frame, 247 (“he disclaims simply all responsibility for the statement: ‘the day of the Lord is present’”); cf. also Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 184-86; von Dobschütz, 266-67; and Dibelius, 44.
830
This view was anticipated by Giblin, Threat, 149-50, 243, although his solution took the form of the question of authority. As with his view of πνευμα in 1 Thess 5:19, Gunkel (The Influence of the Holy Spirit [German orig. 1889; ET Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979], 31) thinks it refers to glossolalia here. But how, one wonders, could such a miscommunication occur through a phenomenon that is not understood by either speaker or hearer?
μα in 1 Thess 5:19, Gunkel (The Influence of the Holy Spirit [German orig. 1889; ET Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979], 31) thinks it refers to glossolalia here. But how, one wonders, could such a miscommunication occur through a phenomenon that is not understood by either speaker or hearer?831
For similar usage that is intended to discredit a point of view, see 2 Cor 11:21; for a positive use of this combination see 2 Cor 5:19.
832
In support of what has been argued above (n. 21) about Paul’s use of διά, note that the δι’ ἐπιστoλης in 2:15 does not refer to the source, but to the means whereby the “traditions” have been given to them.
ς in 2:15 does not refer to the source, but to the means whereby the “traditions” have been given to them.833
For a different view on the relationship between 1 Thess 5:19-22 and 2 Thess 2:2; 2:15, see F. W. Hughes, Early Christian Rhetoric and Thessalonians (JSNTSS; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 56-57, who interprets the allegedly non-Pauline author of 2 Thessalonians as denying the validity of “spirit,” which is contrary to the genuine Paul in 1 Thess 5:19-20 (“a particularly jarring contrast” to the exhortation not to quench the Spirit — as though Paul had not written vv. 21-22 as well!). Cf. Giblin, Threat, 45, who also sees 2:15 as “factoring out” a “heavy reliance on charismatic utterances,” but as a “modification” rather than a “follow-up” of 1 Thess 5:19-22.
834
It should perhaps be noted that this also sets the pattern for the church at a later time, which now of course has the “traditions” only in their written form.
835
As one might well expect, the literature on this passage is extensive. Thus, even though I have consulted much of it, I have chosen in this case to refer to only a limited number of secondary sources, to keep the commentary itself from being overwhelmed by the footnotes.
836
A phenomenon noted also by Malherbe (414).
837
Some manuscripts sin
838
We should perhaps also note at this point that both the narratival nature of this passage and Paul’s own Semitic background emerge quite inauspiciously by way of the rare appearance of three sentences in a row in Paul’s Greek, each of which begins with a καί (“and”; vv. 6, 8 and 11).
839
The Majority Text, in this case supported only by late witnesses (the earliest dating from the 10th c.), has an added ὡς θεόν (“as God”) here; thus the KJV’s “so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God.” More likely the intent of the interpolation was for the “as God” to go with καθίσαι; thus, “so that he sets himself up as God in the temple of God.”
840
At least that seems to be the better choice textually, rather than “man of sin,” as the KJV (and its unfortunate stepchild, the so-called NKJV) has it. The choice is between ἀνoμίας (“lawlessness” = “rebellion”), read by the earliest and best evidence (B 81 1739 1881 cop; and many Fathers) and ἁμαρτίας (A D G K L P MajT lat; and many Fathers) (none of the extant papyri have this passage). At issue finally is what sat in front of a scribe(s) that he(they) saw as the alternative word. And here the better manuscripts should get the text-critical nod, since at a later time in the church “sin” is the greater concern, not “rebellion.” All of this is finally confirmed by the repeated reference to this person as “the lawless one” in v. 8, where there was no textual variation. (I call the NKJV “unfortunate” because it has simultaneously kept the worst feature of the KJV [its late Greek text] and eliminated its best feature [its classic expression of Elizabethan English].)
B 81 1739 1881 cop; and many Fathers) and ἁμαρτίας (A D G K L P MajT lat; and many Fathers) (none of the extant papyri have this passage). At issue finally is what sat in front of a scribe(s) that he(they) saw as the alternative word. And here the better manuscripts should get the text-critical nod, since at a later time in the church “sin” is the greater concern, not “rebellion.” All of this is finally confirmed by the repeated reference to this person as “the lawless one” in v. 8, where there was no textual variation. (I call the NKJV “unfortunate” because it has simultaneously kept the worst feature of the KJV [its late Greek text] and eliminated its best feature [its classic expression of Elizabethan English].)841
Gk. μὴ . . . ἐξαπατήσῃ. This warning against being deceived is picked up in several subsequent letters (1 Cor 6:9; 15:33; Gal 6:7; Col 2:4; 2 Tim 3:13), sometimes with this verb and sometimes with μὴ πλανασθε. The present verb is used in Gen 3:13 LXX of the serpent’s deception of Eve.
σθε. The present verb is used in Gen 3:13 LXX of the serpent’s deception of Eve.842
Pace Lünemann (575), Eadie (264), and Best (280).
843
This is so only grammatically, of course. In context the “missing” apodosis (“it will not come”) is assumed by Paul, since it is the last phrase in the immediately preceding sentence (at the end of our v. 2). Nonetheless, one is struck by the fact that the sentence was never tinkered with by Greek scribes, while all the versions must supply a proper apodosis for the sake of the second language(s). This suggests that it was more readily accessible to native Greek speakers. In any case, translations into Indo-European languages are unanimous in supplying something like “it [or ‘that day’] will not come” (cf. the OL, nise venerit; and the KJV, where the translators always italicized words not found in the Greek text, “for that day shall not come, except . . .”). For later examples of similar anacoloutha, see Gal 2:4, 6; 5:13; Rom 4:16. As Findlay (166) pointed out years ago, Paul’s “style is that of a speaker, not of a studied writer.” These are letters, after all, not carefully honed treatises.
844
Thus, as with the long sentence that makes up the preceding thanksgiving, the verse numbering in this case was arbitrary, and without any apparent “sense” to it — except (perhaps) an attempt to keep “verses” at a relatively equal length.
845
Giblin (Threat, 122-39) suggests that the content of this clause should be supplied from what follows; but that requires a very unnatural reading of an ellipsis, and his own proposals seem too obtuse to be realistic (either “the judgment of God will not have been executed against the power of deception, removing them once and for all,” or “the Lord will not have come in judgment to end definitively the deception that is the work of Satan”). One wonders how the Thessalonians themselves could have supplied either of these.
846
Gk. πρωτoν, a word that is apparently “wrapped” into the TNIV’s “until.”
τoν, a word that is apparently “wrapped” into the TNIV’s “until.”847
Some think of these as two separate events, one following the other; but that seems highly unlikely; cf. Marshall, 188.
848
Cf. Lightfoot (111), “the one term [lawless] expresses the intrinsic character, the other the ultimate destruction of the person . . . intended.”
849
Gk. ὅτι; this point needs to be made here because this word functions more often in Paul to introduce direct or indirect discourse.
850
This term is found only in John in the NT (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7), and only in Polycarp’s To the Philippians (7:1) in the early Church Fathers. Since Paul does not use this word, I have chosen to refer to this personage as “the Rebel,” picking up the language of Paul himself from the noun ἀπoστασία (“rebellion”; cf. LXX Josh 22:22; 2 Chron 29:19; 1 Macc 2:15).
851
Gk. ἀϕίστημι; see esp. 1 Tim 4:1; Luke 8:13; Heb 3:12, which thus reflect a common usage of the cognate ἀϕίσταναι in the LXX, which occurs most often as referring to a “turning away” from God (e.g., Isa 57:8; 59:13; Jer 2:5; et al.), in each case also reflecting what amounts to “rebellion.”
852
And was so understood by many earlier commentators (Ellicott [108], Findlay
[167], Milligan [98], Plummer [46]). Best (282-83) thinks of it in terms of Jewish rejection of the gospel. For the interpretation embraced here, cf. Frame, 251; Bruce, 167; Marshall, 189; Morris, 219; otherwise Malherbe, 418; Green, 307; Beale, 207.
853
So BDAG, who offer, “defiance of established system or authority”; cf. Calvin’s “a treacherous rebellion from God,” which he found to be applicable to the Roman church of his day (398-99); for English translations, see NRSV, REB (“Great Revolt,” NJB).
854
I have chosen to refer to this personage throughout as “the Rebel,” because the more precise rendering “the lawless one” seems too strained in English; and, in any case, “lawless” in English suggests someone who operates outside the law, whereas this personage is decidedly over against the law — probably both of God and the Empire — and therefore is the ultimate “rebel,” who in turn will lead the great rebellion against God and God’s people. Very likely this is the same person John refers to as ὁ ἀντίχριστoς (“the Antichrist”; see 1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7).
855
The Septuagint (57:3) has the plural, where the prophet is berating exilic Jewry for being υἱoὶ ἄνoμoι (“lawless sons”); cf. also Ps 89:22 (88:23 LXX), where David’s enemy is designated as υἱὸς ἀνoμίας (“a son of lawlessness”), a Hebraism for “rebel.”
856
It is not clear historically how or where the term “Antichrist” originated. Its only biblical use (ἀντίχριστoς) is in 1 and 2 John (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7).
857
Gk. πάντα λεγόμενoν θεόν. By inserting the λεγόμενoν into the language of Daniel, Paul betrays the absolute monotheism that belongs to his generation. Thus Daniel’s “every deity” in Paul’s terms is “every so-called deity.”
858
Gk. σέβασμα, meaning “object of reverence,” which refers to things as well as to people. This phrase is the sure giveaway that Paul is echoing the Daniel passage, since it is otherwise so unnecessary to his present concerns.
859
At least that seems to be the plain sense of the passage; Lightfoot (112) preferred to understand the whole passage as representing “the impersonation of some evil principle or movement.”
860
Gk. ὥστε αὐτὸν . . . καθίσαι (lit. “so that he sits . . .”). Part of the arrogance is not simply that he would “set himself up” (as T/NIV), but that he would assume to sit on another’s throne, thus assuming a divine role for himself.
861
Gk. ὅτι ἐστὶν θεός; although the English translations have consistently rendered this as “God,” in light of the anarthrous θεός, it is possible that Paul intended simply that “he was a god,” or “divine.” After all, Antiochus himself was not a monotheist!
862
Although some early interpreters (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Jerome), given that the temple had by then long been destroyed, understandably transferred it to the church — a view also adopted by some later interpreters as well (e.g., Lightfoot; Giblin, Threat, 76-80). Green (312-13) argues for a temple of the imperial cult in the city of Thessalonica itself; but that seems to be a bit of a stretch for Paul’s use of such biblical language as τὸν ναὸν τoυ θεoυ, especially with the combined definite articles.
θεoυ, especially with the combined definite articles.863
Cf. Findlay (174-75): this “reminder gently reproves the readers, who should not have been so easily disturbed by the alarmists, after what the Apostle had told them.”
864
Both Rigaux (662) and Malherbe (421) see this question as belonging to the preceding paragraph (thus vv. 3-5). Either way, this seems to be a case of “dealer’s choice.”
865
This is now the fourth instance in these two letters of this sudden shift to the first person singular; see n. 15 on 1 Thess 2:18. For a forger to pull off this subtlety seems beyond the reach of all historical probability.
866
This is also the fourth of six instances in these two letters of Paul’s urging them to “recall” what they had been taught; see 1 Thess 2:9; 3:4; 4:1; 5:1-2; 2 Thess 3:10.
867
Gk. ἔλεγoν; this is a primary example of an iterative use of the Greek imperfect. Malherbe (421) sees it as slightly pejorative (“I kept on telling you”), but that seems unnecessary in this case.
868
There are some in the evangelical community who may be a bit distressed by this reality, especially as to how it might impact the doctrine of the divine inspiration of Scripture. The response, of course, is the historic one as to the basic perspicacity of Scripture. My greater concern lies with those who wish to know more on these matters than is given here, and thus to create eschatological schemes with far more confidence than the data would seem to allow. What needs to be heard at this point is Paul’s certainty regarding the Parousia, a certainty about which later generations perhaps need to be reminded. The “that-ness,” not the “near-ness,” of the Parousia is what drives Paul, and should encourage us; one must learn to trust God with regard to its timing.
869
Paul’s sentence has his basic concerns in their order of emphasis: καὶ νυν τὸ κατέχoν oἴδατε (“and now what restrains you know”). As was their wont, the KJV translators chose in this case to put the object after the verb (“and now ye know what with-holdeth”).
ν τὸ κατέχoν oἴδατε (“and now what restrains you know”). As was their wont, the KJV translators chose in this case to put the object after the verb (“and now ye know what with-holdeth”).870
But this reality has not deterred interpreters over many centuries from taking strong positions in this regard!
871
It seems fruitless from this distance to join in the speculation as to what/ whom Paul intended by these enigmatic participles; that is, it is “fruitless” in the sense that since we can never know, we should simply rest there and come to terms with the point of all this, without knowing specific details. The most convenient overview of the various possibilities for these details can now be found in Green, 311-16.
872
It should be noted that this ambiguity is carried over into the historic rendering found in the KJV (“and now ye know”). This word order is related to the translators’ tendency toward a more wooden literalism. But in so doing we cannot be sure from this distance how they understood the adverb, whether they meant “and now, ye know” or “and, ye now know.”
873
It is in fact accepted by Lightfoot, Findlay, Rigaux, and Richard; however, it should be noted that none of Lightfoot’s references for such usage is from Paul’s letters.
874
As in the KJV, NKJV, T/NIV, NAB, REB, and NJB (in the latter two rendered “too”); most of the rest of the English versions (e.g., N/RSV, NASB/U, ESV, NJB) see it as temporal (“what is holding him back now”; NJB, “what is still holding him back”; cf. GNB). The NLT translators (apparently) chose the latter understanding, but made it more emphatic by putting it in the next clause (“. . . for he can be revealed only when his time comes”).
875
One should also note that the verb most commonly rendered “hold back” has been understood as intransitive by some interpreters, thus meaning “to hold sway” (see Frame [258] and Best [299]).
876
Paul’s clause begins with an εἰς τό, which, when followed by an infinitive, expresses “result.” The “result” in this case is the Rebel’s being “revealed” in due time.
877
Gk. ἐν τῳ ἑαυτoυ καιρῳ; one is not quite sure how the NIV translators understood the reflexive ἑαυτoυ so as to render it “proper.” Both the REB and NJB render it “his appointed time,” but see the comments that follow.
ἑαυτoυ καιρῳ; one is not quite sure how the NIV translators understood the reflexive ἑαυτoυ so as to render it “proper.” Both the REB and NJB render it “his appointed time,” but see the comments that follow.878
Gk. μόνoν . . . ἕως; the “only” in this case seems to belong to the unexpressed protasis (= this situation will maintain only until . . .); cf. Lightfoot. See Gal 2:10 for a similar elliptical use of μόνoν.
879
This, of course, does not impede ongoing speculation; see e.g., C. Nicholl, “Michael the Restrainer Removed (2 Thess. 2:6-7),” JTS 51 (2000), 27-53.
880
A difficult textual choice occurs here. On the one hand, very good evidence has “the Lord Jesus” (A D F G P Ψ 0278 33 pc; latt sy co, Origen Didymus). But equally good evidence (B 1739 1881 MajT) lacks the ’Iησoυς found in the rest. Since there can be little question that “the Lord” here is indeed Jesus, did some early scribes add “Jesus” in keeping with the frequency of this combination in these letters, or was the “Jesus” omitted because of parablepsis? Since the divine names were abbreviated very early in the copying tradition of the Greek NT, these two nouns would have sat side by side as KΣ IΣ, and without space between them. It is easy to see how scribes could have left the second word out. But since this combination occurs so often in these letters, and since the omission of one or the other occurs so rarely, it seems more likely in this case that the addition is secondary. Lightfoot (115) thought otherwise.
A D F G P Ψ 0278 33 pc; latt sy co, Origen Didymus). But equally good evidence (B 1739 1881 MajT) lacks the ’Iησoυς found in the rest. Since there can be little question that “the Lord” here is indeed Jesus, did some early scribes add “Jesus” in keeping with the frequency of this combination in these letters, or was the “Jesus” omitted because of parablepsis? Since the divine names were abbreviated very early in the copying tradition of the Greek NT, these two nouns would have sat side by side as KΣ IΣ, and without space between them. It is easy to see how scribes could have left the second word out. But since this combination occurs so often in these letters, and since the omission of one or the other occurs so rarely, it seems more likely in this case that the addition is secondary. Lightfoot (115) thought otherwise.881
It is not absolutely certain how Paul intended the adjective πάσῃ (“all”) and the final genitive Ψεύδoυς (“of falsehood”) to be understood. The NRSV takes the “all” to go only with “power” and the “of falsehood” only with “wonders” (“all power, signs, lying wonders”); the NIV took them both to go with all three words (“all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs, and wonders”). Since πάσῃ is singular and modifies the singular δυνάμει, the NRSV and TNIV probably have the better of it on this question. The adjective Ψεύδoυς is more difficult, but since it follows τέρασιν and therefore can include both nouns, and since the two words seem so clearly to go together and thus speak of a single reality, it seems likely that Paul intended it to cover both of the preceding nouns, not just the final one. See further the discussion below.
882
Cf. vv. 3 and 6, where the language of “revelation” is actually used.
883
This is rare in the sense that in all other Pauline appropriations of OT κύριoς texts to refer to Christ the κύριoς represents the Tetratgrammaton (YHWH). Here the Isaianic context has to do with the future king himself.
884
Gk. τῳ πνεύματι τoυ στόματoς αὐτoυ. This is one of the rare instances in Paul where πνευμα simply means “breath,” as in the LXX, and thus is not a referent to the Holy Spirit, pace Giblin, who interprets it as “the Spirit from the mouth of the Lord” (see Threat, 91-95); Milligan (103) attributes this view also to Athanasius (Ad. Serap. 1.6). But such a view runs aground at two points: (1) It does not take the metaphorical language seriously enough as metaphor. It is doubtful whether either Isaiah or Paul thought in terms of the Spirit of God in using this metaphor. (2) The use of the definite article with πνεύματι in this instance points away from reference to the Spirit, rather than toward it (on this matter see ch. 2 in GEP). On the probable meaning of the metaphor itself, as referring to the authoritative command of the king, see R. Watts, “The Meaning of Alaw Yiqpesu Melakim Pihem in Isaiah LII 15,” VT 40 (1990), 327-35 (esp. 330-31).
πνεύματι τoυ στόματoς αὐτoυ. This is one of the rare instances in Paul where πνευμα simply means “breath,” as in the LXX, and thus is not a referent to the Holy Spirit, pace Giblin, who interprets it as “the Spirit from the mouth of the Lord” (see Threat, 91-95); Milligan (103) attributes this view also to Athanasius (Ad. Serap. 1.6). But such a view runs aground at two points: (1) It does not take the metaphorical language seriously enough as metaphor. It is doubtful whether either Isaiah or Paul thought in terms of the Spirit of God in using this metaphor. (2) The use of the definite article with πνεύματι in this instance points away from reference to the Spirit, rather than toward it (on this matter see ch. 2 in GEP). On the probable meaning of the metaphor itself, as referring to the authoritative command of the king, see R. Watts, “The Meaning of Alaw Yiqpesu Melakim Pihem in Isaiah LII 15,” VT 40 (1990), 327-35 (esp. 330-31).885
Gk. ἐπιϕανεία, a word that occurs only here in the Pauline church corpus. It appears five times in the Pastorals, once regarding the Incarnation (2 Tim 1:10) and four times as here (1 Tim 6:14; 2 Tim 4:1, 8; Tit 2:13).
886
Cf. the equally “literal” NASB/U: “with all power and signs and false wonders.” The very awkwardness of this rendering, not to mention its mixing of ideas, should have caught the translators’ attention in this case.
887
See also Ellicott (116), Lightfoot (116-17), Milligan (104), Malherbe (425); but the problem with this view is the singular “power,” followed by “signs” and “wonders,” a threesome that makes very little sense. Lightfoot, e.g., cross-references 2 Cor 12:12; but this passage is not analogous, since there the three words are all plurals, held together by τε καί / καί (σημείoις τε καὶ τέρασιν καὶ δυνάμασιν). Green (321) is uncharacteristically careless at this point, making all three words consistently plural.
888
Cf. Rom 15:19 (ἐν δυνάμει σημείων καὶ τεράτων, ἐν δυνάμει πνεύματoς θεoυ); for 2 Cor 12:12, where they do constitute a triplet, see the preceding note.
); for 2 Cor 12:12, where they do constitute a triplet, see the preceding note.889
Since this is the only real meaning of “counterfeit,” the NIV seemed quite misleading to call them “counterfeit miracles, etc.,” thus turning Paul’s genitive “of falsehood” into something else altogether. This was correctly eliminated in the TNIV, which changed the phrase to read “signs and wonders that serve the lie.” See also the RSV, which was even worse: “with pretended signs and wonders” — now corrected in the NRSV, but not fully adequately, to “lying wonders.”
890
One wonders in passing whether this is not one of the reasons why in 2 Corinthians 10-13 Paul is so reluctant to bring forward “signs and wonders” as authenticating his ministry. He does not thereby deny them; but neither does he put much stock in them as marks of authentication. For him the evidence of apostleship lies ultimately not in the miraculous — in the sense of “signs and wonders,” since Satan can also produce these — but in his own “imitation of Christ” in his sufferings and in the fruit of such imitation, the conversion of the Corinthians themselves.
891
Paul’s word τoĩς ἀπoλλυμένoις, the middle voice of ἀπόλλυμι, has to do with those who will experience eternal ruin. Nothing can be made of the nature of that destiny on the basis of the word alone, since it can range from “total destruction” to the less ominous sense of “ruin” as such.
892
Gk. ἐδέξαντo, which the TNIV here put into a more common idiom; thus Paul’s “did not ‘accept’ a love for the truth” was rightly turned into “refused to love the truth.”
893
This entire phrase, “did not accept a love for the truth that they might be saved,” is one of the reasons why some have rejected Pauline authorship of this letter, since to them this sounds too far removed from the Paul of Romans and Galatians. But that seems to miss the ad hoc nature of Paul’s letters by too much. This particular language was formulated ad hoc on the basis of the prior description of those who are perishing. And Paul himself is quite ready elsewhere to refer to the gospel in terms of “truth” (see, e.g., Gal 2:5, 14; Col 1:5 for this very phrase).
894
Some have had theological difficulty with this clause — that God should be involved in what is otherwise evil. But this is an expression of divine judgment on those who have refused God’s mercy. That the judgment in this case is temporal is simply incidental to the present point.
895
Paul’s ἵνα, which ordinarily introduces a purpose clause, in this case introduces a clause that borders on result; thus the TNIV’s “so that”; cf. NRSV, REB, NAB, NJB; NET has “and so.”
896
Gk. κριθωσιν, which in this passive expression implies the ultimate outcome of God’s judgment of them.
σιν, which in this passive expression implies the ultimate outcome of God’s judgment of them.897
Three recent commentaries in English in fact do this very thing (Holmes, Malherbe, Witherington), although Malherbe, at least, includes the thanksgiving in vv. 13- 14 with what precedes. For an earlier commentary that does the same, see Findlay.
898
A difficult textual choice faces one here, as to whether or not there is a καί (“also”) following Paul’s εἰς τό. The “difficulty” in this case is related to one’s textual proclivities, in that it is missing in what most scholars consider to be the better evidence (Avid B D Ψ 33 1739 1881 MajTabm* vgmss syp Ambrosiaster), but its presence seems also to be the more difficult reading (i.e., it is difficult to imagine the circumstances in which scribes would have added a καί here when it seems so unnecessary to the overall sense). It is therefore bracketed in the UBS4-NA27 Greek text, and excluded from most English translations. Here is a case where the more difficult reading (found in
FGP0278 81 365 2464 al lat syh) should prevail as original, and that Paul therefore wrote εἰς ὃ καὶ ἐκάλεσεν (“unto which also he called you”).
FGP0278 81 365 2464 al lat syh) should prevail as original, and that Paul therefore wrote εἰς ὃ καὶ ἐκάλεσεν (“unto which also he called you”).899
On the surface, this might appear to be one of the more difficult textual choices in 2 Thessalonians (between ἀπαρχήν, “firstfruits” [B F G P 33 81 326 1739 itc,dem,div,f,x,z vg syrh copbo] and ἀπ’ ἀρχης, “from the beginning” [
D K L Ψ 104 181 pler itar,e,mon syp copsa]). The external evidence is fairly evenly divided, both East and West. Nor is the change likely to have happened by pure accident (except in the sense noted below, that a scribe looked at one thing but “saw” another). The commentaries tend to favor ἀπ’ ἀρχης (Ellicott, Frame, Plummer, Hendriksen, Hiebert, Marshall, Morris, Wanamaker; otherwise Weiss, Moffatt, Bruce), while the English translations are more divided (“from the beginning,” KJV, RSV, NASB, ESV, NJB, REB; “firstfruits,” T/NIV, GNB, NAB, Moffatt, Knox). See further Metzger, Textual Commentary, 568. Here is a case where the dictum should prevail that, when things are otherwise generally equal, “the more difficult reading is more likely the original” (since scribes tended to ease difficulties, not intentionally create them). Thus the TNIV almost certainly has it right here.
ς, “from the beginning” [D K L Ψ 104 181 pler itar,e,mon syp copsa]). The external evidence is fairly evenly divided, both East and West. Nor is the change likely to have happened by pure accident (except in the sense noted below, that a scribe looked at one thing but “saw” another). The commentaries tend to favor ἀπ’ ἀρχης (Ellicott, Frame, Plummer, Hendriksen, Hiebert, Marshall, Morris, Wanamaker; otherwise Weiss, Moffatt, Bruce), while the English translations are more divided (“from the beginning,” KJV, RSV, NASB, ESV, NJB, REB; “firstfruits,” T/NIV, GNB, NAB, Moffatt, Knox). See further Metzger, Textual Commentary, 568. Here is a case where the dictum should prevail that, when things are otherwise generally equal, “the more difficult reading is more likely the original” (since scribes tended to ease difficulties, not intentionally create them). Thus the TNIV almost certainly has it right here.900
This is especially true of versions, such as the T/NIV, that use “headings” to help readers navigate their way through the text.
901
Gk. ἠγαπημένoι ὑπὸ κυρίoυ; that Paul is borrowing his ancestral language seems certain in this case because of the anarthrous κυρίoυ, vis-à-vis the same phrase in 1 Thess 1:4, where God (θεός) is the one who loves (ὑπὸ τoυ θεoυ). It is therefore remarkable that the majority of commentators have missed this certain echo of the LXX, which was first noted by Westcott-Hort and has been in the Nestle(-Aland) margin at least since 1950 (but see Findlay, 188); others (Frame, 279; Best, 312; Malherbe, 436) reference the LXX, but see little or no connection.
θεoυ). It is therefore remarkable that the majority of commentators have missed this certain echo of the LXX, which was first noted by Westcott-Hort and has been in the Nestle(-Aland) margin at least since 1950 (but see Findlay, 188); others (Frame, 279; Best, 312; Malherbe, 436) reference the LXX, but see little or no connection.902
This reality, that it is so uniquely Pauline, subtle though it might be for later readers, is enough to quash all attempts to deny this letter as from Paul. How, one wonders, could a forger have been either so insightful or so “lucky” as to pull this off?
903
In light of some (legitimate) objections to my use of “Trinitarian” in GEP as proper nomenclature for Pauline theology — mostly because the word carries too much baggage from later discussions that are concerned with how the three divine “persons” cohere in unity of being — I have chosen to use “proto-Trinitarian” for those moments in Paul. It is borrowed from Stanley Porter (in I. H. Marshall, Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004], 122 n. 59) as a way of designating those texts where Paul himself, rigorous monotheist though he was, joins Father, Son, and Spirit in ways that indicate the full identity of the Son and Spirit with the Father, while not losing that monotheism.
904
For a full listing of these passages, see Fee, GEP, 48 n. 39.
905
That this refers to Christ and not to God (contra Rigaux, 371; Malherbe, 436; Green, 325[?]; Beale, 225) seems certain both on the basis of Pauline usage and on the basis of the grammar of the present sentence. Had Paul intended ὑπὸ κυρίoυ to equal the preceding τῳ θεῳ, then the simple, ordinary composition of such a sentence would have been: τῳ θεῳ . . . ἠγαπημένoι ὑπὸ αὐτoυ, ὅτι εἵ λατo ὑμας ἀπαρχὴν (“to God, . . . loved by him, because he chose you as firstfruits”). Thus the awkward repetition of “God” as the subject of Paul’s sentence occurs precisely because in the meantime he has mentioned a second subject (“the Lord”), thus necessitating his return to the first noun (cf. Lightfoot, 119; Best, 311; Marshall, 206). This grammatical reality, plus the fact that Paul makes a considerable point in these two letters of identifying Jesus Christ as ὁ κύριoς, would seem to far outweigh the contextual considerations that Malherbe brings forward to suggest otherwise. Here is a place where Pauline usage must prevail over theological preferences.
θεῳ, then the simple, ordinary composition of such a sentence would have been: τῳ θεῳ . . . ἠγαπημένoι ὑπὸ αὐτoυ, ὅτι εἵ λατo ὑμας ἀπαρχὴν (“to God, . . . loved by him, because he chose you as firstfruits”). Thus the awkward repetition of “God” as the subject of Paul’s sentence occurs precisely because in the meantime he has mentioned a second subject (“the Lord”), thus necessitating his return to the first noun (cf. Lightfoot, 119; Best, 311; Marshall, 206). This grammatical reality, plus the fact that Paul makes a considerable point in these two letters of identifying Jesus Christ as ὁ κύριoς, would seem to far outweigh the contextual considerations that Malherbe brings forward to suggest otherwise. Here is a place where Pauline usage must prevail over theological preferences.906
Eph 3:19 is the notable exception.
907
Cf. Frame, 279; contra Morris, 238, who suggests that “there is probably no significance in the change.”
908
E.g., Morris (238) and Marshall (206).
909
All of this, one might note further, is both too subtle and too Pauline to have been “imitated” by someone who chose to write this otherwise brief and nondescript letter in Paul’s name. It is difficult to imagine the circumstances in which a Christian believer in the first century would have cared to do such a thing — and to what end, one wonders!
910
Thus reflecting what L. Kreitzer calls a “functional and conceptual overlap between Christ and God” (Jesus and God in Paul’s Eschatology [JSNTSS 19; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987]).
911
See n. 92 above; for the more extended argument on this matter see my To What End Exegesis? Essays Textual, Exegetical, and Theological (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 75-76.
912
Those who favor ἀπ’ ἀρχης often make the unwarranted assumption that Paul would have intended “firstfruits of Macedonia” had he used ἀπαρχήν in this passage, but that is hardly so. In fact, Paul qualifies this word geographically only in Rom 16:5 and 1 Cor 16:15, in both cases referring to individuals, with no particular emphasis on the “ingathering” of others. The qualifier “of the Spirit” in Rom 8:23 is most likely appositional (the Spirit himself is the firstfruits, guaranteeing the future reality). In the other three cases (Rom 11:16; 1 Cor 15:20, 23), whether qualified or not, the metaphor images the “firstfruits” of a much greater “ingathering.” That would seem to be precisely the point being made here, so that the lack of a geographical genitive qualifier seems quite irrelevant.
ς often make the unwarranted assumption that Paul would have intended “firstfruits of Macedonia” had he used ἀπαρχήν in this passage, but that is hardly so. In fact, Paul qualifies this word geographically only in Rom 16:5 and 1 Cor 16:15, in both cases referring to individuals, with no particular emphasis on the “ingathering” of others. The qualifier “of the Spirit” in Rom 8:23 is most likely appositional (the Spirit himself is the firstfruits, guaranteeing the future reality). In the other three cases (Rom 11:16; 1 Cor 15:20, 23), whether qualified or not, the metaphor images the “firstfruits” of a much greater “ingathering.” That would seem to be precisely the point being made here, so that the lack of a geographical genitive qualifier seems quite irrelevant.913
Gk. εἰς σωτηρίαν, which the T/NIV has put as a verb, “to be saved.”
914
See the discussion on 1 Thess 5:8-9 for its first occurrence.
915
That Paul intended a twofold reality in this case is made certain by the fact that the two phrases are the (grammatical) object of a single preposition. Thus, “. . . salvation by the Spirit’s sanctification and trusting the truth.”
916
Gk. εἰς ὅ (lit. “unto which”), which is “ungrammatical” in the sense that a
917
Or traditions relative pronoun technically agrees in gender and number with its antecedent, and there is no preceding noun that is neuter singular.
918
1 Cor 2:8: “crucified the Lord of glory”; 2 Cor 3:18/4:4: “we all with unveiled faces behold the glory of theLord” / “the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”
919
Again, Findlay (191) is a notable exception.
920
It is striking, therefore, how often this clear connection is not noted in the earlier commentaries (e.g., Calvin, Ellicott, Plummer, Milligan), and in some of the later ones as well (e.g., Morris).
921
See n. 43 on 1 Thess 5:6 above.
922
The fourth in this letter; there are still three to come (3:1, 6, 13).
923
Gk. παραδόσεις, a word that occurs again in 3:6, and elsewhere in Paul in this positive sense only in 1 Cor 11:2 (regarding the Lord’s Table), where it is accompanied by its cognate verb. The word occurs in Gal 1:14 regarding the Jewish “traditions” in which Paul was raised, and again in Col 2:8 with altogether negative connotations.
924
This reference to his former letter is what makes the reversing of the order of these two letters (as, e.g., Wanamaker) a difficult exercise indeed.
925
Much of the first part of this discussion is taken from my Pauline Christology (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007), 73-76.
926
See, e.g., J. A. Hewett, “1 Thessalonians 3.13,” ExpTim 87 (1975-76), 54- 55 (cf. Lightfoot [48], Wanamaker [142], Bruce [71]), who suggests that “with two subjects the verb commonly agrees with the nearer of the two.” But the texts brought forward do not seem to be true illustrations. That is, “wind and sea” (Mark 4:41), “moth and rust” (Matt 6:19), and “silver and gold” (Jas 5:3) do not seem to make this point; rather, they are analogous to Paul’s use here, where the two are not thought of individually but collectively. Richard (167-68) solves this “problem” by postulating an early scribal corruption to Paul’s original text, which he reconstructs as “Now may God our Father himself, as also our Lord Jesus, direct.” But such a “reconstruction” is based on prejudice against this letter, pure and simple. Better, it would seem, to take Paul himself seriously, since he can pray to both together and to one or the other separately. Richard’s concern, it should be noted, is a legitimate one: not to read Paul in light of later Trinitarian formulations. On the other hand, this is the very kind of phenomenon that played a role in the later formulations.
927
Richard (see previous note) and Wiles (see next note), like many others, it should be noted, reject Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians, which makes more difficult the task of accounting for this phenomenon in 1 Thessalonians.
928
G. P. Wiles (Paul’s Intercessory Prayers [SNTSMS 24; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974], 30) suggests that “this must have been taken over from the conventional liturgical language to which the apostle and his readers were accustomed.” But “must have been” falls far short of actual demonstration. What is noteworthy is that the phenomenon exists only in 1 and 2 Thessalonians in the NT — although wish-prayers continue to be found in Paul’s letters (Wiles lists Rev 21:3 as well, but this is affirmation, not prayer).
929
So, e.g., Frame, 136-37, and Best, 147.
930
In these two letters three of the four have to do with divine strengthening, two of which have Christ as the subject (see above on 2 Thess 3:3), while the other (1 Thess 3:2) has to do with apostolic encouragement of God’s people. So also in Romans: 16:25 is divine; 1:11 is apostolic.
931
As Wiles does, see n. 120 above.
932
Paul’s Greek reads: ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ ἀγαθῳ, which is a typical inclusio in Paul, so that the παντί (“every”) and ἀγαθῳ (“good”) are intended to go with both nouns, as the TNIV rightly has it.
, which is a typical inclusio in Paul, so that the παντί (“every”) and ἀγαθῳ (“good”) are intended to go with both nouns, as the TNIV rightly has it.933
See Holmes (251ff.), who in discussing the present section fails altogether to note the τὸ λoιπόν with which it begins; cf. Malherbe (443-48), who puts the whole section (2:15-3:5) under the rubric “Exhortation,” even though the only exhortation in this entire section is 2:15; and Witherington (240), who follows R. Jewett (The Thessalonian Correspondence [Leiden: Brill, 1971]) at this point.
934
For this translation of ἀτάκτως, see the discussion on 1 Thess 5:14 above (pp. 209-10).
935
See p. 292 above.
936
Cf. Frame (288), who, without using this technical term, suggests, “wishing to get their willing obedience to the command [that follows], he seeks their sympathy in requesting their prayers for him and his cause, . . .”; contra Best (322), who sees it as “somewhat loosely attached to the preceding context and the following.”
937
This seems to be a better way of viewing the connections between the sentences in this section than seeing it as simply moving “somewhat awkwardly from prayer request to prayer-wish” (Gaventa, 125).
938
This seems to make far better sense of the argument as a whole than the (in passing) suggestion by Witherington (242), that these sentences merely “foreshadow” vv. 6-13.
939
Viewed this way, one can see it as much more purposeful than many interpreters suggest (e.g., Rigaux, Morris, Wanamaker, Jewett [Thessalonian Correspondence], et al.); Wanamaker (273), e.g., calls it “roughly composed” (cf. Rigaux, 692).
940
Not all think so, it should be added (esp. Malherbe); but to deny that “the Lord” in this passage refers to Christ is to go against everything that is demonstrably Pauline, including the author of this letter, whether Paul or otherwise. Indeed, Paul never uses ὁ κύριoς to refer to God the Father; rather, it is his exclusive way of referring to Christ. This reality, consistent in these two letters, is made explicit in his next letter, in 1 Cor 8:6, where he breaks up the traditional Shema so that θεός consistently refers to the Father, while κύριoς consistently (= always) refers to the Son. For the full discussion of these matters see my Pauline Christology (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007). This consistency, it should also be noted, is one of the stronger arguments for authenticity, since it would tend to be far too subtle for a forger to pull off some decades later.
941
Gk. ὁ λόγoς τoυ κυρίoυ. A small handful of MSS (G P 33 489 927 vgmss) read θεoυ here instead of κυρίoυ. This could have been the result either of careless copying as such (we are dealing with a single letter [ΘY/KY]) or of expectation, at a time when the nomina sacra were consistently abbreviated and “the word of God” was the more common term.
κυρίoυ. A small handful of MSS (G P 33 489 927 vgmss) read θεoυ here instead of κυρίoυ. This could have been the result either of careless copying as such (we are dealing with a single letter [ΘY/KY]) or of expectation, at a time when the nomina sacra were consistently abbreviated and “the word of God” was the more common term.942
But see Witherington (240), who without evidence asserts that “in this case to loipon introduces the last section of a three-part prayer segment.” That is to argue that Paul is using this adverb in an otherwise un-Pauline way. Indeed, here is a clear case where a certain kind of rhetorical analysis intrudes on Paul’s text, not to mention on his usage of this adverbial construct elsewhere.
943
Cf. the discussion of the adverb in 1 Thess 4:1, where it functioned in much the same way as here — and there even further from the end of the letter. Morris (245) suggests (mistakenly, it would seem) that it here implies movement to a secondary matter in the letter. One might argue to the contrary that from Paul’s perspective, given that he has now responded to issues from their end, he has reserved for last what he considers the more significant item. After all, the Thessalonian believers seemed not to consider it significant, even after he had spoken to it in the earlier letter.
944
Gk. πρoσεύχεσθε . . . περὶ ημων, where the present tense implies that it be an ongoing matter.
μων, where the present tense implies that it be an ongoing matter.945
Paul’s Greek reads: ἵνα ὁ λόγoς τoυ κυρίoυ τρέχῃ; the LXX reads: ἕως τάχoυς δραμεĩται ὁ λόγoς αὐτoυ. If to our ears τρέχῃ and δραμεĩται do not “echo,” they would have for a native Greek speaker, just as “go” and “went” would for a native English speaker.
κυρίoυ τρέχῃ; the LXX reads: ἕως τάχoυς δραμεĩται ὁ λόγoς αὐτoυ. If to our ears τρέχῃ and δραμεĩται do not “echo,” they would have for a native Greek speaker, just as “go” and “went” would for a native English speaker.946
For reasons that are not at all clear, Calvin (386) assumes the letter to have been written during Paul’s journey to Jerusalem (Acts 21:1-16).
947
See, e.g., Malherbe (445), who makes a considerable point of it, but who thus misses Pauline usage by a wide margin (see next note). Witherington (241), on the other hand, without argumentation simply changes it to “the Word of God.” But that will hardly do in light of Paul’s own clear designations of the words κύριoς (“Lord”) and θεός (“God”).
948
In the two letters together, apart from the more fulsome “Lord, Jesus Christ,” Paul uses κύριoς alone 23 times to refer to Christ, and another nine in the combination “Lord, Jesus”; on the other hand, he uses Xριστός alone only four times, and the combination “Christ Jesus” only twice. All of this changes considerably in the later corpus. For these statistics see my Pauline Christology, p. 83.
949
In context this seems far more likely than a subjective genitive, “the message that comes from Christ,” since that locution is found nowhere else in the Pauline corpus.
950
Rather than an expected ὅτι Paul in this instance uses ἵνα, which ordinarily implies purpose; but here, as elsewhere in Paul, it functions to introduce the objective of the prayer.
951
Not all think so (e.g., Best [324] and Marshall [214]). The RSV curiously rendered this verb “and triumph,” apparently as an American version of winning a race; but that misses Paul’s metaphor by too much, so it was corrected in the NRSV to “be glorified everywhere.”
952
Findlay (198) thinks otherwise, that it is “objective” in the sense that the gospel’s “glory” is displayed in its saving effects.
953
Given that Paul’s clause has no temporal referent, interpreters have shown considerable ambivalence regarding his intent here. The English versions tend toward a reference to the past (KJV and NRSV being the exceptions). The English commentaries are divided; the majority read it as something still present (Ellicott, Findlay, Plummer, Frame, Richard, Malherbe; cf. Rigaux [French]); others as referring to the time of their conversion (Bruce, Wanamaker, Green); while still others see it as including both past and present (Best, Marshall, Morris, Witherington). But all of this seems foreign to Paul’s verbless clause, which emphasizes the reality itself rather than the “when” of it.
954
In this regard, cf. Rom 15:13, and the indirect request for such prayer in 2 Cor 1:10b-11a. As others have pointed out (Malherbe, Green), Paul here describes the evil actions of these people, not just a character flaw in them.
955
Gk. ἀπὸ ἀνθρ ώπων πoνηρ ων ῥ ύσῃ αὐτoύς; Paul’s text reads: ἵνα ῥ υσθ ωμεν ἀπὸ . . . πo νη ρ ων ἀνθ ρ ώπων. This use of identical language seems hardly coincidental, given how often Paul cites or echoes the Greek OT, especially Isaiah. This very Pauline use of Isaiah, it should be noted further, puts enormous pressure on theories of forgery.
ν ῥ ύσῃ αὐτoύς; Paul’s text reads: ἵνα ῥ υσθ ωμεν ἀπὸ . . . πo νη ρ ων ἀνθ ρ ώπων. This use of identical language seems hardly coincidental, given how often Paul cites or echoes the Greek OT, especially Isaiah. This very Pauline use of Isaiah, it should be noted further, puts enormous pressure on theories of forgery.956
Gk. ἀτόπων (ἄτoπoς), a word that is not necessarily pejorative, referring simply to what is “out of place.” It is used three times in the NT with the present sense of being “out of place” by being “wicked” (cf. Luke 23:41; Acts 25:5). The Vulgate rendered it importunus (= unsuitable, unfavorable), a rendering Calvin (413) considered “quite a good translation,” but who in this matter seems quite mistaken.
957
See, e.g., the three illustrations from the papyri in Milligan (110), where the word carries this pejorative sense but without the moral overtones intended by Paul here (e.g., P. Flor. 99 [1st/2nd c. CE], that parents of a prodigal son will no longer be responsible for his debts for ἄτoπόν τι πράξῃ [“any irresponsible deed”]). Beale (239) seems to miss Paul’s concerns here by suggesting that “out of place” is the probable intended nuance, since that pairs very poorly indeed with πoνηρων, a word that can hardly be watered down in any way.
ν, a word that can hardly be watered down in any way.958
Gk. πoνηρων, the primary word in Greek standing in opposition to what is “good” or “upright.”
ν, the primary word in Greek standing in opposition to what is “good” or “upright.”959
Scribal expectations, that “the Lord” here is a reference to God the Father, caused some scribes, esp. in the West (A D F G 2462 it), to change this κύριoς to θεός, which by the time of these scribes involved only a single letter in the abbreviated form: KΣ to ΘΣ. Cf. n. 9 above.
960
A large majority of manuscripts, both Greek and versional, supply a ὑμĩν (“you”) here; but it is missing in too many early and widespread witnesses (
B D* Ψ 6 33 1739 b vg bomss Ambst) to be original. It is simply not the kind of word that scribes would omit, either deliberately or carelessly, but, understandably, would have added.
B D* Ψ 6 33 1739 b vg bomss Ambst) to be original. It is simply not the kind of word that scribes would omit, either deliberately or carelessly, but, understandably, would have added.961
As Lightfoot (125) observes, this is a litotes on Paul’s part. For a similar litotes cf. Rom 10:16 (“not all the Israelites accepted the good news”); the vast majority in fact did not believe in Christ. Thus the wordplay on their “faith” and Christ’s “faithfulness” is the most likely reason for this unusual expression.
962
Every time I reread this sentence I am dismayed by the inadequacy of the English language, where we are stuck with pronouns that are strictly gender related in speaking of the one and only God. Yahweh is simply God; and God does not have gender. Our problem lies with English pronouns, which are altogether gender related; so I have chosen to go the route of repeating the word “God” throughout.
963
So, e.g., Calvin (414), Green (337-38), and Malherbe (461), the latter allowing that “Christ” is “a possible but not necessary” understanding of this phrase. But the burden of proof would seem to rest with him, since Paul regularly identifies Christ explicitly as κύριoς and nowhere else uses this term unambiguously to refer to God the Father. So the ground on which one might make a shift here from Christ to God seems esp. slippery — esp. so when Paul in his next letter explicitly divides up the LXX of the Shema (Deut 6:4) so that θεός consistently (and always) refers to God the Father (despite some who think otherwise regarding Rom 9:5 and Tit 2:13 [see the discussions in Pauline Christology]) and κύριoς just as consistently always refers to Christ.
964
Paul’s Greek word πεπoίθαμεν, is the perfect tense of the verb that means “persuade,” hence rendered “confident/confidence” in most contemporary English versions, including the more “wooden” NASU, where one might have expected “we are persuaded.” This is the first of four instances of this phrase (“persuaded = confident in the Lord”) in the corpus (see Gal 5:10; Rom 14:14; Phil 2:24 [cf. 1:14, where it is used of others]).
965
Contra Best (323), who thinks it “cannot be specially directed towards” the following warning about idleness. To the contrary, one can make the best sense of it as doing exactly that, which is then “interrupted” by the prayer in v. 5, which is likewise aimed at their obedience to the admonitions that follow.
966
The clause “you are doing and will continue to do,” which concludes Paul’s sentence, is in fact the subject and verb of the sentence, while “what things we command,” which appears first, is the direct object. It is thus obvious where Paul’s own emphases lie, not with his command, but with their obedience.
967
Gk. ἐν κυρίῳ, a phrase that is uniquely Pauline in the NT, and rarely occurs even in the LXX, where the same idea is most often expressed as ἐπὶ κυρίῳ. This is one of the subtle phrases in this letter that directs considerable force against the theory of pseudonymity, since it is so uniquely Pauline but does not occur in 1 Thessalonians, the only Pauline letter that the writer of the present letter knows anything about.
968
Calvin (410) believes that the ἐν κυρίῳ in this case modifies Paul’s “command,” that “it was not his intention to lay any regulation except by command of the Lord.” But this seems to make Paul’s word order nearly incomprehensible.
969
This is an attempt on the part of the T/NIV translators to capture the sense of the future tense of the same verb, as it sits in conjunction with the present tense that precedes it (the “literal” NASB did the same thing, but put the “continue to” in italics, as though that meaning were not in the verb itself!).
970
That is, not that his prayer is always directed toward Christ, but that the title “Lord” always has Christ as its referent, not God the Father. Thus, on this point Witherington (243) is clearly mistaken in changing the referent from Christ to God.
971
See Malherbe, 447 and (apparently) Beale, 243-48. Most (correctly) see it as picking up from 2:16-17, where Christ has been specifically identified once more as ὁ κύριoς. There was, after all, no chapter or verse break in Paul’s text, so how could the Thessalonians possibly think that in the very next sentences (vv. 3 and 5) ὁ κύριoς suddenly changes identity? Many of the early Greek Fathers argued that this is a reference to the Holy Spirit, since God and Christ are mentioned in what follows. But that is an interpretation driven by Trinitarian theology, not by Pauline usage.
972
Gk. κατευθυναι, whose only other appearance in the Pauline corpus (and only in Luke 1:79 outside of Paul) is in the prayer in 1 Thess 3:11; thus in Paul it is relegated to these two moments of prayer, and in both cases it is something “the Lord” is being asked to do on behalf of Paul’s friends.
ναι, whose only other appearance in the Pauline corpus (and only in Luke 1:79 outside of Paul) is in the prayer in 1 Thess 3:11; thus in Paul it is relegated to these two moments of prayer, and in both cases it is something “the Lord” is being asked to do on behalf of Paul’s friends.973
So most commentators (e.g., Findlay, 202; Rigaux, 699; Best, 329-30; Marshall, 217; Bruce, 202; Richard, 372; Malherbe, 447; Green, 339).
974
That is, these are the only two places where “the Lord” is the subject of this verb and “the heart” is the object. Hereafter in 2 Chronicles, the king himself does or does not “direct his own heart” to follow Yahweh (e.g., 12:14; 19:3).
975
What is further noteworthy in this case is that both 1 Thess 3:11 and this passage are expressed as prayer; and Paul’s prayer is directed toward Christ as Lord.
976
Although Ellicott (127) thinks otherwise.
977
This unlikely view was held by Calvin, and appears in the KJV. It has been more recently advocated by J. Lambrecht, “Loving God and Steadfastly Awaiting Christ (2 Thessalonians 3,5),” ETL 76 (2000), 435-41. Lightfoot (128) suggests that it not be “hastily rejected,” but does so in the end anyway.
978
See, among others, Ellicott, 127; Findlay, 203; Milligan, 112; Plummer, 92; Marshall, 218.
979
So Best, 218; Bruce, 278-79; Wanamaker, 279; Richard, 372; Holmes, 258.
980
So Bruce indirectly (202), and Morris (251).
981
See on 1 Thess 4:11-12 and 5:14 (pp. 161-64, 209-10) for Paul’s earlier dealings with this issue.
982
On the meaning of this word see the discussion on 1 Thess 5:14 above; cf. C. Spicq, “Les Thessaloniciens ‘inquiets’ éteient-ils des paresseux?” ST 10 (1956), 1-13.
983
See, e.g., J. Kurichialnil, “If Any One Will Not Work, Let Him Not Eat,” Biblehashyam 21 (1995), 184-203; for a slightly different take on the same basic view, see M. J. J. Maarten, “Paradise Regained or Still Lost? Eschatology and Disorderly Behaviour in 2 Thessalonians,” NTS 38 (1992), 271-89.
984
This view has been set forth in two slightly different ways by R. Russell, “The Idle in 2 Thess 3.6-12: An Eschatological or a Social Problem?” NTS 34 (1988), 105-19; and B. W. Winter, Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 41-60.
985
The NIV chose to go along with the witness of B and D* at this point, and
986
Or tradition omit the ἡμων found in all the other witnesses, a matter that was unfortunately not corrected in the TNIV. That this is an “omission” in these two MSS rather than an “addition” in all the rest of the evidence is made certain by its unusual nature. No scribe would think to add an “our” here to a locution that seldom has one, whereas the very commonness of the other reading is what would cause a scribe either carelessly or deliberately to omit it. It is also of some interest that Metzger chose not to comment on it in his Textual Commentary, because (apparently) he considered it of lesser importance.
ν found in all the other witnesses, a matter that was unfortunately not corrected in the TNIV. That this is an “omission” in these two MSS rather than an “addition” in all the rest of the evidence is made certain by its unusual nature. No scribe would think to add an “our” here to a locution that seldom has one, whereas the very commonness of the other reading is what would cause a scribe either carelessly or deliberately to omit it. It is also of some interest that Metzger chose not to comment on it in his Textual Commentary, because (apparently) he considered it of lesser importance.987
The translators of the NIV (unfortunately kept in the TNIV) have chosen to follow a few other English versions in translating what by all ordinary standards of textual criticism must be considered as the “easier,” therefore secondary, reading, παρελάβετε (“you received”), found in B Fgk G 104 327 436 442 1611 2005 2495 syrh cop goth arm), rather than the more awkward παρελάβoσαν (“they received”), found in
* A (D) K L P plur. This is surely a case where the influence of Wescott and Hort still prevails, that the combination of B with significant members of the Western tradition should usually be considered original. But since much of this evidence comes from early versions, who have the same tendency as translators into English, it is of much less weight here than it would have had otherwise. It is hard to imagine circumstances under which scribes would have changed the perfectly normal “you received” into “they received,” especially since what follows is a return to the second plural and thus continues to focus on the whole community. See further Metzger, Textual Commentary, 569.
* A (D) K L P plur. This is surely a case where the influence of Wescott and Hort still prevails, that the combination of B with significant members of the Western tradition should usually be considered original. But since much of this evidence comes from early versions, who have the same tendency as translators into English, it is of much less weight here than it would have had otherwise. It is hard to imagine circumstances under which scribes would have changed the perfectly normal “you received” into “they received,” especially since what follows is a return to the second plural and thus continues to focus on the whole community. See further Metzger, Textual Commentary, 569.988
Gk. παραγγέλλoμεν, a verb that occurs five times in these two letters, in each case in relationship to the present issue (1 Thess 4:11; here, and vv. 6, 10, and 12 below).
989
Gk. στέλλεσθαι, a true middle in Greek (= keep yourselves away from); cf. Rom 16:17, where the same thing is said with quite different language regarding “those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned,” a sentence which, had it occurred in 2 Thessalonians, would have been used to condemn it as non-Pauline!
990
One should perhaps note that the issue raised here has had a rocky history in the church. Basically, the more “exclusive” a believing community is, the more energy is devoted to obeying it; thus historically it is effectively carried out in the Protestant church only by “splinter” groups, who have a variety of “identity markers” to maintain.
991
On the reason for “translating out” this metaphor, see n. 112 on 1 Thess 2:11- 12 (p. 83).
992
This is another of the items in the letter used to condemn it as un-Pauline. But this same idea, expressed positively and with different words, occurs in 1 Cor 11:2. This is the kind of subtlety that is typical of an author, but one which would seem to be nearly impossible for an imposter to pull off.
993
For this translation see n. 54 above.
994
Gk. νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας, a genitive of time supported by
B F G 33 81 104 255 256 263 442 1611 1845 1908 2005, and adopted by the UBS27; the alternative νυκτὰ καὶ ἡμέραν (A D K L P MajT) emphasizes the duration of their labors (= all day and all night long).
B F G 33 81 104 255 256 263 442 1611 1845 1908 2005, and adopted by the UBS27; the alternative νυκτὰ καὶ ἡμέραν (A D K L P MajT) emphasizes the duration of their labors (= all day and all night long).995
In what follows I have chosen to comment on Paul’s own sentences and clauses rather than on the verse numbering, which fails altogether to reflect what Paul was actually doing.
996
The is emphatic by way of word order: αὐτoὶ γὰρ oἴδατε (“yourselves you know”).
997
One might note how this concern is expressed in Paul’s next preserved letter (1 Cor 11:1) in a very similar way, but without using the same words.
998
At this point a certain sector of the Christian church wants to yell “foul,” because they think one really can divorce how one is related to God (by faith alone) from how one who has such faith must live in the world. But Paul was not privy to the kind of theology that thinks such division between faith and works can actually be made. Paul is obviously dead against anything that resembles “faith + works = a right relationship with God.” But as this passage makes plain, he equally spells death for “faith” that does not lead to “works” (= behavior) appropriate to that faith.
999
Thus for a more thorough discussion of this clause see on 1 Thess 2:9 above (pp. 77-78); cf. also 1 Cor 4:12, where Paul adds the phrase “with our own hands,” thus making it clear that these references are to “manual” labor.
1000
Gk. νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας, which as before is a genitive of time (= during the day and night), rather than “all night and day.”
1001
Paul’s verb (παρηγγέλλoμεν) is in the imperfect, thus implying an ongoing, or at least repeated, command.
1002
As an English-first-language Asian student put it in an exam many years ago, the motto simply put is “no workee, no eatee.”
1003
R. Jewett has presented the intriguing argument that at issue here are not meals in “house churches” but in “tenement churches,” which would have lacked an upper- or middle-class patron. Also, in such a setting the community together would be responsible for these “love” meals. In such a setting the present regulations would be considered absolutely essential; everyone must “pitch in,” as it were, if all are to eat. See “Tenement Churches and Communal Meals in the Early Church: The Implications of a Form-Critical Analysis of 2 Thessalonians 3:10,” BR 38 (1993), 23-43.
1004
The TNIV here represents what is by far the “more difficult” reading of ἐν κυρίῳ ’Iησoυ Xριστῳ (* A B F G 0278 33 1739 1881 2464 lat); the TR follows the Majority Text in reading διὰ τoυ κυρίoυ ἡμων (“through our Lord”). Here is a clear case where the “more difficult reading” must prevail as the original, since one cannot imagine how any scribe (or scribes) would have altered that perfectly understandable reading to that found in all the earlier and better witnesses.
Xριστῳ (* A B F G 0278 33 1739 1881 2464 lat); the TR follows the Majority Text in reading διὰ τoυ κυρίoυ ἡμων (“through our Lord”). Here is a clear case where the “more difficult reading” must prevail as the original, since one cannot imagine how any scribe (or scribes) would have altered that perfectly understandable reading to that found in all the earlier and better witnesses.1005
Gk. παραγγέλλoμεν, thus picking up the same verb used above in vv. 3, 6, and 10 (see on 1 Thess 4:11); elsewhere in the church corpus only in 1 Cor 7:10 and 11:17.
1006
Gk. παρακαλoυμεν, by far the more common verb in Paul and the rest of the NT. Paul uses it in every letter (including the Pastoral Epistles) except Galatians, including eight times in 1 Thessalonians and some 18 times in 2 Corinthians.
μεν, by far the more common verb in Paul and the rest of the NT. Paul uses it in every letter (including the Pastoral Epistles) except Galatians, including eight times in 1 Thessalonians and some 18 times in 2 Corinthians.1007
In this letter always in this word order; for the statistics of usage in the entire corpus, see my Pauline Christology, 26. The only two letters which exceed the usage in this letter are 1 Corinthians (10x / 8x in the present word order) and Romans (11x / 6x in the present word order).
1008
The emphasis here lies in the Greek text itself (ἵνα μετὰ ἡσυχίας ἐργαζόμενoι τὸν ἑαυτων ἄρτoν ἐσθίωσιν).
ν ἄρτoν ἐσθίωσιν).1009
See, e.g., Rom 12:17; 13:3; 1 Cor 9:4-12 (4x); 2 Cor 8:21; 13:7; Col 4:1. But it is striking that this kind of language seldom occurs in Paul’s ethical imperatives (the uses in Romans 12 and 13 being the notable exceptions).
1010
Both the Latin tradition (D F G vg) and eventually the Majority Text (understandably) insert a καί before this imperative, so that Paul’s text is made to read: τoυτoν σημειoυσθε καὶ μὴ συναναμίνυσθαι (“take special note of this person and do not associate with him/her”). One can hardly imagine the circumstances in which such an “allieving” and could have been dropped from the text, either accidentally or intentionally. But part of the strength of Paul’s imperative lies in the abruptness of the second one.
τoν σημειoυσθε καὶ μὴ συναναμίνυσθαι (“take special note of this person and do not associate with him/her”). One can hardly imagine the circumstances in which such an “allieving” and could have been dropped from the text, either accidentally or intentionally. But part of the strength of Paul’s imperative lies in the abruptness of the second one.1011
Gk. σημειoυσθε, a NT hapax legomenon. The word, which ordinarily means “to note down” something, in this case means to “mark” such a person by taking special notice of him (BDAG).
σθε, a NT hapax legomenon. The word, which ordinarily means “to note down” something, in this case means to “mark” such a person by taking special notice of him (BDAG).1012
Gk. συναναμίγνυσθαι; the same word will occur in Paul’s next letter in terms of how the Corinthian community is to deal with the unrepentant man “living with his father’s wife” (1 Cor 5:9).
1013
The use of the masculine pronoun here assumes that the cultural norm had to do with a man who is capable of, but unwilling to, work for his own sustenance.
1014
The other deals with the incestuous man in 1 Corinthians 5, a situation where such “shunning” is much more easily grasped by Christians in the Western world than is this one.
1015
One is reminded of a mother correcting her son with a spanking, accompanied by the words, “This hurts me more than it does you.”
1016
This point in particular should spell death to theories of forgery, since a forger would be expected to “authenticate” the letter by adopting (or at least adapting) the material from the first letter. But not so; the material here distinctly fits the present letter, and no other.
1017
See above on 1 Thess 5:23; cf. 2 Cor 13:11; Phil 4:9.
1018
Exceptions are Marshall (230) and Richard (385).
1019
For this phenomenon, see also Judg 6:12 and Luke 1:28, both of which are preceded (as here) with the wish of peace.
1020
See p. 107 n. 15 on 1 Thess 2:18.
1021
I say “basically” because the “all” occurs also in the triadic benediction of 2 Corinthians, which is unique in the corpus; thus the “all” in that case is not quite the same as this one.