INTRODUCTION to I and II Thessalonians

Expostion of Thessalonians, the Pastorals, and Hebrews

NEW

TESTAMENT

COMMENTARY

Exposition of First Thessalonians

William Hendriksen

and

Simon J. Kistemaker

BAKERBOOKS

A DIVISION OF BAKER BOOK HOUSE CO GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN 49516

Originally published in separate volumes:

Published by Baker Books

a division of Baker Book House Company

P.O Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516–6287

12 volume set, first available 2002

ISBN 0–8010-2606–7

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—for example, electronic, photocopy, recording—without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews.

ISBN 0–8010–2079–4

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture references in

Hebrews

are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®.

NIV

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

The letters in book-abbreviations are followed by periods. Those in periodical-abbreviations omit the periods and are in italics. Thus one can see at a glance whether the abbreviation refers to a book or to a periodical.

A. Book Abbreviations

A.R.V. American Standard Revised Version

A.V. Authorized Version (King James)

B.D.B. Brown-Driver-Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon to the Old Testament

Gram.N.T. A. T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research

H.B.A. Hurlbut, Bible Atlas (most recent edition)

I.S.B.E. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

L.N.T. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

M.M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan (edition Grand Rapids, 1952)

N.N. Novum Testamentum Graece, edited by D. Eberhard Nestle and D. Erwin Nestle (most recent edition)

N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary

R.S.V. Revised Standard Version

W.D.B. Westminster Dictionary of the Bible

W.H.A.B. Westminster Historical Atlas to the Bible

B. Periodical Abbreviations

BTr The Bible Translator

EQ Evangelical Quarterly

ExT Expository Times

Int Interpretation

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

RB Revue biblique

RHPR Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses

Please Note

In order to differentiate between the second person singular and the second person plural, without reverting to the archaic “thou” and “ye” except where it is proper to do so, we have indicated the former as follows: “you”; and the latter as follows: “you.”

1 THESSALONIANS

INTRODUCTION to I and II Thessalonians

I. REASONS FOR STUDYING THESE EPISTLES

We are about to study certain epistles written by a man who, with the aid of his associates, “turned the world upside down.” Interest in Paul never lags.¹

This interest is varied. Some focus their attention particularly upon Paul the theologian. They ask such questions as, Was Paul the constructor of a doctrinal system or was he a disciple of Jesus? What were his views with respect to various doctrinal themes? Should the Church of the present day allow itself to be guided by these views or should it regard them as being without normative value?

Others, again, sketch a portrait of Paul the man. Their main interest may be called psychological. These ask, How can we account for his seemingly boundless energy? Was he normal or abnormal? Can his experience on the way to Damascus be explained psychologically or did something of a supernatural character occur? Was he fearless or fearful? Was he cold or sympathetic?

Finally, there are also those for whom Paul is, above all, the missionary. In this group there are some who stress the idea that Paul is the missionary whom we should copy. They argue that however great his advantages may have been, they cannot have been so great as to rob his example of all value for the present day and age. They conclude that Paul’s methods should be our methods. If he believed in the indigenous (self-supporting, self-propagating, self-governing) church, so should we. Others, however, while going along with this view to a considerable extent, are not so sure that Paul’s principles and methods are applicable today without extensive modification. They call attention to the greatness of this missionary, his extraordinary charismatic gifts and qualifications. They also emphasize the fact that times and circumstances have changed, and consequently, that often that which was the right thing to do for Paul is the wrong thing to do for us.

Thus we have the theological, the personal or psychological, and the missionary interest in Paul (to say nothing about the various ways in which these interests blend and combine).

Now it is a fact that these three lines converge beautifully in the two epistles to the Thessalonians. To begin with the theological or doctrinal interest: to be sure, there are epistles that are more consistently doctrinal, yet nowhere do we find so much source-material for the doctrine of the last things (“eschatology”) as in these eight chapters. It is a well-known fact that in I Thessalonians every chapter ends with a reference to the second coming. See 1:10; 2:19, 20; 3:11–13; 4:13–18; 5:23, 24. Also II Thessalonians abounds in eschatological material; see especially 1:7–10 and 2:1–12. For information on such subjects as “the rapture” (in whatever sense one conceives of it), the time of Christ’s return, the great apostasy or “falling away,” “the man of sin,” “the one who (or: that which) restrains,” “the mystery of lawlessness,” and “the manifestation of his (Christ’s) coming” — we naturally turn first of all to I and/or II Thessalonians.

Again, though it is certainly true that other passages in Paul’s epistles and in Acts may be regarded as windows which afford a look into the heart of the great apostle, none are more revealing in this respect than I Thess. 2:1–12; 3:1–10; 5:12–24; and II Thess. 3:7–10. Here truly is a portrait of Paul the man. In these two epistles he stands out “in all the charm of his rich and varied personality” (George Milligan, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians, London, 1908, p. xliii).

And as to Paul the missionary, his “strategy” — proclaiming the message in the great centers, making use of the synagogue, basing his argumentation upon the prophecies of the Old Testament, etc. — is as clearly evident at Thessalonica as anywhere else. In fact, special studies devoted to this subject refer again and again not only to Acts 17:1–19, which contains a brief report of the work at Thessalonica, but also to I Thess. 1:8–10, which tells us something about the contents and amazing success of Paul’s missionary message. Cf. also Phil. 4:16.

I and II Thessalonians may be regarded therefore as an important source for the subsequent formulation of doctrine, as an indispensable guide for the study of the man Paul, and as an important chapter in a handbook for missionaries. What is offered in these two short epistles is all this

and more

. It is above all a part of God’s infallible special revelation, which comes

to every believer

with absolute, divine authority, and shows him what he should believe and how he should live.

II. THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH

The evangelization of Europe began in earnest when Paul set his foot on what is today the long and narrow stretch of N.E. Greece. Here was Philippi, situated about ten miles inland from the Aegean Sea. It was “a city of Macedonia, the first of the district, a (Roman) colony” (Acts 16:12).

To this city came Paul, Silas — the companion whom he had chosen for this journey (Acts 15:40) —, Timothy as assistant (Acts 16:3), and Luke the beloved physician (Acts 16:10). In Philippi a church was established which Paul afterward called “my joy and crown” (Phil. 4:1). Here Lydia was converted, and she and her household were baptized (Acts 16:14, 15). The masters of a girl who had a spirit of divination became angry when Paul expelled the demon. They reasoned that “the hope of their gain” was gone. As a result Paul and Silas were imprisoned and beaten with rods. About midnight God sent an earthquake which opened the prison-doors. The jailer was converted and “was baptized, together with all his, immediately” (Acts 16:16–34). After an honorable release from prison, Paul and Silas “entered into the house of Lydia: and when they had seen the brothers, they encouraged them and departed,” leaving the town (Acts 16:40). Luke stayed behind, as is clear from the fact that in relating further events he no longer says “we” (as in Acts 16:16) but “they” (Acts 17:1). From the fact that Timothy’s name is not mentioned again until Acts 17:14 is reached some infer that he also remained for a while in Philippi, and that he did not rejoin the other two (Paul and Silas) until they, having labored for a while in Thessalonica, had reached Berea. Others, however, believe that Timothy too had traveled from Philippi to Thessalonica (either in the company of the others or a little later). They are of the opinion that this may be safely inferred from the fact that his name, together with that of Paul and Silas, is included in the salutation of both of the epistles (I Thess. 1:1; II Thess. 1:1). This view, as I see it, deserves the preference. It is not so strange that the youthful (cf. I Tim. 4:12) assistant Timothy is not always mentioned along with the others. Even today the newspapers in reporting that the president made a trip to California usually omit the names of most of the members of his entourage. But that does not mean that they were absent.

From Philippi a person could travel on one of the most famous of Roman military roads, the Egnatian Way. When completed it extended all the way from Byzantium (=Constantinople=Istanbul) on the Bosporus to Dyrrhachium situated straight west on the Adriatic (in what is now Albania). Thus it formed the connecting link with Rome. It was of sturdy construction, well kept, relatively safe, and marked by milestones (as Strabo informs us). The missionaries took this road, first to Amphipolis, called thus because the river Strymon flowed around it, and then to Apollonia. They continued on to Thessalonica. Altogether the distance of actual travel from Philippi to Thessalonica was about a hundred miles, comparable to that from: Detroit to Lansing (Mich.); Detroit to London (Ont.); Grand Rapids to Flint (Mich.); Atlanta to Columbus (Ga.); Los Angeles to San Diego (Cal.); London to Bristol (England); or Amsterdam to the Belgian border near Eindhoven (The Netherlands).

Of all the cities and towns on this great highway, Thessalonica, situated on what is now called the Gulf of Salonica, and built in the form of an amphitheater on the slopes at the head of the bay, was the largest and most influential. The road ran through the heart of the city, just as a remnant of it does even today. In Thessalonica it is still called by the ancient name, The Egnatian.

The city had been founded in 315 b.c. by Cassander, on or near the site of ancient Therma. This Cassander had been an officer under Alexander the Great. Having killed the latter’s mother Olympias because she opposed him, and having crushed her army, Cassander subsequently for political reasons married Alexander’s half-sister. Her name was Thessalonica. Convenient to bear in mind is the following:

Paul wrote a letter to the church at Philippi. That place was founded (about 358 b.c.) by Philip II of Macedon. The apostle also wrote two letters to the church at Thessalonica. This city was named in honor of Philip’s daughter Thessalonica.

When the Romans, having conquered Macedonia, divided it into four parts, Thessalonica was made the capital of one of these. Later — about 146 b.c. — it became the capital of the entire province of Macedonia. In the struggle between Pompey and Caesar, Thessalonica became one of the former’s chief bases, but soon afterward — 42 b.c. — it sided with Anthony and Octavian. The loyalty of the city was not left unnoticed. The great emperor Augustus rewarded it by making Thessalonica a free city. Thus it obtained a considerable measure of “home rule,” self-government in internal affairs. It chose its own magistrates, who were called “politarchs.”

Although most of the Thessalonians were Greeks, sothat the culture of the city was basically Hellenic, yet there were also some Romans and many Orientals. It is hardly necessary to add that the commerce of the city also attracted many a Jew. The presence of these Jews and their missionary activity exerted a measure of influence upon pagan religion, causing some of the Gentiles to attend the synagogue and to become “God-fearers.”

Under the Romans the city enjoyed great prosperity. In the days of the Byzantine Empire it ranked second only to Byzantium.

In the history of the Church there is especially one event which made Thessalonica famous. a.d. 390 the emperor Theodosius the Great caused the massacre of no less than seven thousand of its citizens on account of a riot which had occurred there. He ordered them to be put to death regardless of rank, sex, or degree of guilt. It was then that the great bishop Ambrose, wishing to vindicate the rights of the moral law — and incidentally the rights of the Church over against the State — refused him communion. It was only after the emperor had submitted to public penance, had begged for pardon, and had made certain definite promises, that absolution was finally granted.

The city figures prominently in the history of the Crusades. It came under more or less stable Ottoman rule in the year 1430. The Turks had held it before but had lost it again. From 1430 until 1912 they kept it. In 1912 it was reconquered by the Greeks. During World War I the Allies began their Salonica (as the city got to be called) Campaigns here, and during World War II it suffered considerable damage. Having always been a center of trade, the city attracted many Jews.

Today Salonica is next to the largest city in Greece, having a population of about a quarter of a million. It is the heart of a district which produces textiles, leather goods, machine tools, and cigarettes. It is connected by rail with Athens. In fact, owing to its strategic location, it is a center of road, rail, sea, and air-transportation. It trades in such commodities as tobacco, livestock, wheat, cotton, silk, and vegetables. Its university was opened in the year 1926. Among the famous churches which one can find here today are Hagia Sophia, St. George, and Demetrius. One of its most famous ancient relics is the triumphal arch of Emperor Constantine.

Paul’s activity in Thessalonica was twofold: a. he earned his living by working with his hands for his daily bread (I Thess. 2:9; II Thess. 5:8), and b. he preached the Gospel (Acts 17:2; I Thess. 1:5; 2:2, 8, 11, 12; 4:1, 2). He did the former in order that he might not burden anyone and in order that it might be clear to everyone that he was not to be classified with traveling philosophers whose aims and interests were often selfish.

Paul remained in Thessalonica at least three weeks. The three week figure is mentioned in Acts 17:2, but it should be noted that it probably merely indicates the duration of his teaching in the synagogue. If it be borne in mind that a church of considerable size was established here (implied in I Thess. 5:12), that many of the citizens of Thessalonica turned from the worship of idols to serve the living God (I Thess. 1:9), that this spiritual awakening was so far-reaching that its report spread in every direction, and especially that during the “campaign” in this city Paul twice received a bounty from the church at Philippi (Phil. 4:16), the conclusion lies ready at hand that the total period of time which the missionaries spent in founding the new church was somewhat longer than three weeks.²

The preaching (teaching and exhortation) began in the synagogue. That was in line with Paul’s custom. As already suggested, it was probably continued elsewhere. According to some “the house of Jason” was used for this subsequent preaching-activity. Others, however, are of the opinion that this house served as lodging-place for the missionaries and as Paul’s workshop (cf. in this connection Acts 18:2, 3).

The inspired sources do not give us a complete and detailed survey of the contents of Paul’s message at Thessalonica. A few important matters are mentioned however. Thus we learned that he taught that the Messianic prophecies had attained their fulfilment in Jesus, he being the Christ; that he suffered, died, was raised from the dead, and will come again, all this according to the Scriptures; that by his work he delivered from the wrath to come all those who trust in him; that idol-worship is evil; and that believers, having been called into his glorious kingdom, should live a life of sanctification so as to please the God who saved them, and should be orderly in their daily conduct in the midst of a wicked world (“If any man will not work neither let him eat”). See Acts 17:3; I Thess. 1:9, 10; 2:12; 4:1–3; II Thess. 3:10.

On one point — namely, the Lord’s return and the events that will precede it — Paul had given somewhat detailed instruction while he was with the Thessalonians (II Thess. 2:1–5). It is not improbable that the teaching on other doctrinal themes had been just as thorough.

The circumstances under which all this evangelistic activity was carried on were partly discouraging, partly encouraging. Paul had “suffered” and had been “shamefully treated” in Philippi (I Thess. 2:2). Hence, it took courage to enter a new field after such experiences. On the other hand this labor was not in vain. Moreover, as already remarked, there was encouragement from Philippi.

Paul’s heart was in his message. He preached “straight from the shoulder.” There never was any attempt at flattery. Nevertheless, the truth was spoken in the spirit of tender affection and gentleness. Thus with the warmth of inner conviction, deeply persuaded of the supreme importance of his message, the great missionary, dealing with each man as a father with his children, taught, exhorted, and encouraged. See I Thess. 1:1–5; 2:4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11.

And the Holy Spirit applied the message to the hearts of several of the hearers (I Thess. 1:5). Many were converted. They accepted the message as being the word not of men but of God (I Thess. 2:13). From that moment on they sought, with the help of the Spirit, to please God (I Thess. 4:1). Love ruled the brotherhood (I Thess. 4:9, 10). A church was established. Its membership was filled with contagious enthusiasm. In every heart there was a song, on every lip a testimony.

It is clear both from the book of Acts and from the epistles that most of the converts were from the Gentiles: “some” Jews and “a great multitude” of Greek proselytes (who were in the habit of attending the Synagogue) were persuaded, as were also many of the city’s women, those of the upper class, wives of leaders (Acts 17:4). Many pagan idol-worshippers, having listened to the Gospel as proclaimed by Paul and his associates, experienced a fundamental change, a transformation of mind and heart (I Thess. 1:9; cf. 2:14 and Acts 20:4).

Paul never forgot the extraordinary response which his message had received in Thessalonica. When a little while later he writes a letter to this church, he makes mention of the joyful and enthusiastic manner in which the word had been taken to heart (I Thess. 1:6), and of the fact that this congregation had become an example to all believers in Macedonia and Achaia (I Thess. 1:7). He even adds that whenever people talk about him they describe him as the man through whose preaching a mighty spiritual change had been brought about in Thessalonica. The great missionary feels very happy about this, for it makes his work easier. Wherever he goes the fame of his message has preceded him. Indeed, the new converts have not kept quiet. See I Thess. 1:6–10.

It is not at all surprising that Paul’s “success” made the Jews who were not converted very jealous and angry. With the help of certain street-loafers they hurried to the house of Jason where they expected to find the proclaimers of the new message. Failing to find them there, they dragged Jason and some other converts off to the “politarchs” (city-magistrates³) and shouted, “These fellows, who have turned the world upside down have come here also, and Jason has welcomed them. And they are all acting contrary to the decrees of the emperor, saying that there is another king, Jesus” (Acts 17:6, 7). The people and the politarchs were disturbed when they heard this, and “when they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go” (Acts 17:8, 9).

The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. The Jews here were “more noble” than those of Thessalonica, and eagerly welcomed the message, making a daily study of the Scriptures to see whether what Paul proclaimed were true. But when everything was going splendidly, the Jews at Thessalonica, hearing about the success which the missionaries were having, came to Berea in order to stir up a riot against them. The result was that, while Silas and Timothy were left behind in Berea in order to give spiritual support to the infant church, Paul himself, escorted by some of the brothers, made his way to the coast. Those who conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens. As they were leaving, he told them to ask Silas and Timothy to come to him as soon as possible (Acts 17:10–15).

There followed an interesting ministry at Athens. Read about it in Acts 17:16–34. However, the response here was not nearly as favorable as at Berea. Meanwhile Paul was anxiously awaiting the arrival of Silas and Timothy with tidings from Macedonia. From I Thess. 3:1, 2 it may be safely inferred that Timothy left Berea and found Paul while the latter was still in Athens. It is probable (though not certain) that also Silas rejoined Paul at Athens. One fact, however, is clear: Paul was deeply concerned about the recently won converts whom he had left behind in Thessalonica. Twice (once while at Berea and once while at Athens?) he made a plan to revisit them, but by a method which is not indicated, Satan prevented him from carrying out these plans (I Thess. 2:17, 18). Meanwhile his anxiety persisted. Finally, when he could stand it no longer, he (or he and Silas) decided to be left at Athens alone, and sent Timothy to strengthen and encourage the brothers at Thessalonica (see comments on I Thess. 3:1, 2). If Silas spent any time with Paul at Athens, he must have returned to Macedonia soon (perhaps to Philippi), for it is clear that both he and Timothy “came down from Macedonia” to Corinth after Paul had begun his labors in that city (Acts 18:1, 5; cf. I Thess. 3:6).

III. PAUL’S PURPOSE IN WRITING

A. I Thessalonians

Corinth was the commercial and political metropolis of Greece. Its name was a synonym for licentiousness. For a while the great missionary labored alone here. He struck up an acquaintance with Aquilla and Priscilla, driven from Rome by the edict of Emperor Claudius (who ruled from a.d. 41–54), and stayed with them because he was of the same trade, a tentmaker. He first preached in the synagogue, but afterward in the house of a Gentile who lived next to it.

It seems probable that while Paul was alone at Corinth — i.e., before Silas and Timothy had returned from Macedonia — he received some very disquieting news from the churches at Galatia. He heard that the Judaizers had been at work and had succeeded all too well in their attempt to destroy the edifice which he had reared with so much suffering and patience. Accordingly, the apostle wrote his Epistle to the Galatians.

Meanwhile the young church of Thessalonica was also on his mind. He feared lest, as a result of his very brief stay and sudden departure, of his inability to return personally, and of the scoffing and ridicule which the Macedonian church-members would have to endure from their relatives and neighbors, the temptation to drift back into paganism or Judaism might prove to be overpowering (I Thess. 3:5). To be sure, some of the Jews had accepted the Gospel, but how would they fare at the hands of those Jews — by far the majority — who had not accepted it? The answer to this question was not difficult to surmise. Paul knew all about the assault upon the house of Jason. Moreover, in addition to the hostile Jews there were the Judaizers who, according to the latest reports, were doing such damage in Galatia. Were they going to enter and ruin Macedonia also? Again, a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women had been converted; but what about the proselytes who had not been converted, and especially … what about the husbands of the converted women? The very thought of what these husbands might do to their wives in attempting to force them to give up their faith in Christ was disconcerting. True, in the little while which Paul had spent in Thessalonica multitudes of pagans had renounced their idolatry and accepted the new religion; but was this faith firmly-rooted and genuine? Would it be able to endure persecution from the side of the wicked rabble, the same rabble which always stood ready to be bribed into deeds of violence? The Thessalonian believers (only a few of whom are mentioned by name: Jason, Aristarchus, Secundus, Acts 17:5–9; 20:4) were still so immature, so deficient in religious knowledge and experience! Also, on the whole they were poor (II Cor. 8:2, 3). Would Timothy, who at this very moment was working among them, be able to cope with the situation which he found? Would he come back safely, and if so, what news would he bring? In this connection, it is interesting to note that a very similar concern was going to fill the heart of Paul on his third missionary journey. Then conditions at Corinth — the very church where Paul was now laboring — would fill his mind with distress, and then the helper whose return was anxiously awaited would be Titus instead of Timothy. Read about it in II Cor. 2:12, 13; 7:5–15. Truly, in addition to dangers from without — and these were many! — there was that which oppressed the apostle daily, namely, “anxiety for all the churches” (II Cor. 11:28).

Great was Paul’s relief when Timothy returned (Silas also came back from Macedonia, Acts 18:5). The report which he brought from the church at Thessalonica was so encouraging that the heart of the great missionary was filled with joy and thanksgiving. “Now I (really) live,” said Paul, as Timothy brought him the wonderful news of the undiminished faith and love of the infant church (cf. I Thess. 3:8). Not only did the arrival of Silas and Timothy and the information which they conveyed add zest to his preaching (Acts 18:5), but he also decided to express his feeling of gratitude in a letter to the Thessalonians. This was to be a letter of encouragement, the tenor of which would be “You’re doing fine, continue to do so more and more (cf. I Thess. 4:1). Do not let persecutions get you down. These are necessary; also, they are to be expected, just as I told you when I was still with you (cf. I Thess. 3:2–4).”

Mingled with the good news which predominated in the report which Timothy brought there was some bad news. Base opponents, filled with prejudice and hatred, were casting insinuations at the character and ministry of Paul (I Thess. 2:3–10), and were trying thus to undermine his influence and destroy the comfort which his message had brought. And comfort was badly needed, comfort blended with further instruction. This was true especially with respect to one important matter. Some members of the church had “fallen asleep.” Would they share in the glory of Christ’s return? See I Thess. 4:13 ff. Moreover, if this return was imminent, why work any longer? Why toil for the things which were soon to perish? (cf. I Thess. 4:11).

It is clear that Paul was filled with deep concern and warm affection for this church, so recently established. He writes his letter in order:

a. to meet head-on the whispering campaign with reference to his “personality” and motives (see chapters 1 and 2),

b. to express his joy and gratitude because of the good news which Timothy had brought (see chapter 3),

c. to shed further light upon the question which had arisen with respect to those who had fallen asleep (see 4:13–18) and the related question of the manner of Christ’s return (see 5:1–11), and

d. to give exactly such directions as could be expected from a missionary who is writing to men who have just recently been drawn out of the kingdom of darkness (idolatry, immorality, etc.) into the kingdom of light (see 4:1–12; 5:12–28). Thus he stresses the fact that the new faith demands a complete break with the immoral conduct which characterizes heathendom (I Thess. 4:1–8), and he emphasizes the need of proper respect for the offices, of love and peace among all the brothers, of readiness to help those in distress, and of orderly conduct in the sight of the world (I Thess. 5:12–14).⁴

B. II Thessalonians

We can imagine with what joy I Thessalonians was read by the members of the newly-established congregation. Yet, it soon became apparent that a second letter was necessary. Tidings reached Paul — by means of the very men who had delivered the first letter to its destination and had now returned? — that believers in Thessalonica, while experiencing spiritual growth, were still being persecuted, in fact more than ever. Also with respect to the second coming of Christ, on which the apostle had written such comforting words, there was still some confusion: some were thinking that the Lord’s sudden coming, of which Paul had written (I Thess. 5:3), implied his immediate coming. There was need not only of further instruction on this point but also of an admonition that the church adhere to the teaching which it had received previously. In this connection it seems that someone claimed to have (or to have heard about) a letter, coming or purporting to come from Paul; and this too had had its damaging effect. The notion that the Lord was most certainly going to return “any day now” may have encouraged disorderly conduct (cf. I Thess. 4:11, 12) to continue and increase. This matter had to be dealt with. There was also the question, “What must be done with those who do not obey the instructions which they receive? Just how must the church deal with these disobedient ones?” And finally Paul himself (and those with him in Corinth), experiencing many difficulties, felt the need of asking for the prayers of the Thessalonians.

Accordingly, Paul’s purpose in writing II Thessalonians is as follows:

a. To express his gratitude for the spiritual growth (increase in faith and love) which believers in Thessalonica are experiencing even in the midst of persecution, and to encourage them with the assurance that at Christ’s second coming their enemies would be punished and they themselves would be glorified (see chapter 1),

b. To calm those who had become excited and confused with respect to the second coming, and to inform them that certain events must take place before that second coming occurs (see 2:1–12),

c. In this connection, to exhort all to keep clinging to the traditions which they had been taught whether by word or epistle, to warn against imaginary or spurious letters that distort the truth regarding the second coming, to admonish the disorderly (who seem to have given up their occupations because of fanaticism with respect to the second coming), and to give directions with respect to those who do not obey the instructions which they have received (see 2:13–4:18; cf. 2:2).

Interspersed with these thoughts are passages in which the believers at Thessalonica are asked to remember Paul and his associates in prayer, and in which they are committed to God’s loving care, that their hearts might be established, and that they might receive good hope through grace, peace at all times in all ways, the love of God, and the patience of Christ.

From this brief purpose-summary it is evident that this is clearly a

Second Coming

epistle.

IV. THE TIME AND THE PLACE

Of late an attempt has been made to invent an entirely new chronology of the life of Paul.⁵ But in view of the fact that this attempt is based on the opinion that the book of Acts is not entirely reliable, it is not necessary to enlarge on it (see, however, the note). Turning, then, to Acts and to the two epistles now under study, we find a very noticeable parallel. This parallel indicates, without a shadow of a doubt, that I and II Thessalonians were written while Paul was on his second missionary journey. The probable place of writing is Corinth.

We base this conclusion on the following considerations:

(1) According to Acts 16:11–40 the apostle on his second missionary journey worked in Philippi. From there he went to Thessalonica and Berea, and from there to Athens (Acts 17). From Athens he proceeded to Corinth (18:1). For a while he was at Athens alone, but when he reaches Corinth, Silas and Timothy arrive from Macedonia (18:1, 5). The order of places is therefore: Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Corinth. Now this corresponds with what is found in I Thessalonians. Here too we meet a Paul who had been in Philippi (I Thess. 2:2), and who from there went to Thessalonica, and from there (via Berea, which is not mentioned here) to Athens (I Thess. 3:1). When, in addition, we read that Timothy had now arrived (I Thess. 3:6), the natural inference is that this refers to the same arrival of which Acts speaks, and that Paul, accordingly, is now in Corinth.

(2) From the salutations (I Thess. 1:1; II Thess. 1:1) it appears that Silas (also Timothy) was with Paul when he wrote the epistles to the Thessalonians. And according to the book of Acts, Silas accompanied Paul on his second missionary journey (after Acts 18:5 Luke does not refer to him again), not on his first, nor on his third. Although this is not positive proof, nevertheless it definitely points in the direction of the conclusion that I and II Thessalonians were written on Paul’s second missionary journey.

Is it possible to fix the date even more precisely? In this connection mention is often made of the fact that in the year 1909 near Delphi a gray limestone inscription was found which perpetuates a letter of the emperor Claudius to the citizens of Delphi, and contains the name of Gallio and an important date. This date clearly indicates that Gallio, before whose tribunal Paul was brought while in Corinth (Acts 18:12–17) was proconsul for either a one-year or a two-year term sometime during the period a.d. 51–53⁶ From the fact that Paul had been in Corinth alone before he wrote I Thessalonians, and that when he wrote it Silas and Timothy had joined him, it is clear that we cannot place this epistle at the very beginning of the period 51–53. From the fact that a sufficient period must have intervened before I Thessalonians could be followed by II Thessalonians, it is also clear that the first letter cannot be placed at the end of that period. If, therefore, we accept a date for the two epistles “about the year a.d. 52” (or simply “sometime during the period 51–53”), we cannot be far from the truth.

In the aforegoing we have been assuming that the order in which Paul’s two epistles to the Thessalonians follow each other in our Bibles is the correct one, that is, that what we now call I Thessalonians was actually written before what we now call II Thessalonians. A careful and unbiased perusal of the two letters seems to establish the correctness of this view. Reasons:

(1) Although I Thessalonians contains many references to the fact that Paul has had personal contact with the church in question, a contact the memory of which is still very vivid (cf. 1:5; 2:1–16; 3:4) and which must have been very recent, this letter does not contain a single reference to an earlier letter. But II Thessalonians does contain a clear and definite reference to an earlier letter, for Paul says: “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (II Thess. 2:15).

(2) In I Thess. 1:6; 2:13 Paul indicates that the Thessalonians have accepted the Gospel by a true and living faith. In II Thess. 1:3 he expresses his gratitude with reference to the fact that this faith is growing. Similarly, in the first letter (3:12; 4:10) he exhorts believers to increase in love for one another, and in the second (1:3) he rejoices over the fact that this gradual increase in love has become a fact.

(3) In I Thess. 4:17 the apostle predicts the “rapture” (the being caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air); in II Thess. 2:1 he clearly assumes that the readers have received previous instruction with reference to this subject.

(4) From I Thess. 1:6; 2:14; 3:3 it is evident that from the very beginning believers in Thessalonica suffered persecution. From II Thess. 1:4, 6 it is evident that this grievous trial of their faith has not subsided. If there has been any change at all, it would seem that it has been for the worse.

(5) The first letter contains several injunctions (4:1–12, 5:12–28). In the second some of these injunctions are more sharply expressed (particularly the one with respect to idle and disorderly persons), and the church is given explicit direction how to deal with the disobedient (3:6–15).

(6) In the first letter the sudden and unexpected character of Christ’s second coming is set forth (cf. 4:13–18; 5:1–11; note especially the phrase “as a thief in the night”). In the second it is clearly pointed out that this sudden coming does not imply an immediate coming (2:1–12).

(7) In the second letter Paul warns against imaginary or purported, and possibly even against spurious letters (2:2), and in appending the greeting he writes, “This is the mark in every letter of mine” (3:17), which is easier to understand if this were a second than if it were a first letter.

For these reasons we cling to the priority of I Thessalonians. II Thessalonians, as has been shown (see points 1–7 above), presupposes that those addressed are acquainted with I Thessalonians. This also shows that the view according to which I Thessalonians was directed to the “Gentile” community, and II Thessalonians to the “Jewish” community in Thessalonica is uncalled for. Both epistles are directed to the same group of readers, namely, “the church of the Thessalonians” (I Thess. 1:1; II Thess. 1:1)

V. AUTHORSHIP

A. Of I Thessalonians

The authenticity of I Thessalonians is today accepted on nearly every side. Nevertheless, there have always been those who disagree with this well-nigh unanimous opinion, and who consider this epistle to be, either as a whole or in part, the work of a forger.⁸

Their arguments may be summarized as follows:

(1) This epistle is far less doctrinal than those which are known to have been written by Paul. It is rather insignificant in contents.

But why must all the writings of the great apostle be equally doctrinal in character? Paul’s epistles arose out of certain concrete situations. These situations naturally differed. In one church it was clarification of doctrine that was needed most; in another admonition, exhortation, rebuke, or at times consolation was called for. Besides, it is not true that I Thessalonians is doctrinal insignificant. It sheds needed light on the doctrine of the Second Coming.

(2) This epistle does not attack the idea that justification is by the works of the law.

But was Paul a man with one, and only one, idea? The situation in Thessalonica was not the same as that in Galatia!

(3) It is impossible that within a period of a few months the Thessalonian converts could have exerted an influence for good as intensive and extensive as that which is pictured in I Thess. 1:7, 8; 4:10.

Our answer is: Why not? In fact, it so happens that exactly this bit of information which is furnished by the letter is confirmed by that which is supplied by the narrative in Acts (17:6). Even the enemies of Paul and of his companions considered the work of the missionaries to be so effective in character that they spoke of “the men who have turned the world upside down.” When the Holy Spirit operates in the hearts and lives of consecrated ministers and of converts filled with the enthusiasm of a real, inner conviction, things actually begin to happen!

(4) The “strong language” which in I Thess. 2:14–16 is used with reference to the Jews could not have been employed by one who in his genuine epistle to the Romans states, “I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for the sake of my brothers.”

But why should it be impossible for an inspired author, on the one hand to reveal a terrible reality (namely, the outpouring of God’s wrath upon a disobedient people), and yet, on the other hand, in a very touching manner, to express his own genuine sorrow and pain of heart with respect to this reality which concerned his kith and kin? Besides what is taught in I Thess. 2:14–16 does not differ materially from that which is taught in Rom. 9:22; 10:21; and 11:22, 25.

(5) This epistle is too Pauline! It contains too many passages that resemble those in Paul’s genuine epistles (especially I and II Corinthians). Hence, it is clear that a forger is at work.

But this type of reasoning is the very opposite of that which was followed in arguments (1) and (2) above. There I Thessalonians was rejected because it was too un-Pauline. Here it is attacked because it is too Pauline! The two arguments cancel each other. Besides, it is not immediately clear why Paul cannot have been the author of an epistle which contains Pauline passages!

On the positive side, there is first of all the evidence supplied by the epistle itself. This definitely points to Paul as the author (though two others join him in sending greetings and in confirming whatever he writes). Note the following:

(1) The epistle presents itself as a letter from Paul (1:1; 2:18).

(2) Those who are represented as being with the author as he sends this letter are known (from the book of Acts) to have been with Paul on his second missionary journey.

They are Silvanus (i.e., Silas) and Timothy (1:1; 3:2, 6); cf. Acts 15:40; 16:1–3, 19; 17:4, 10, 14; 18:5.

(3) The letter has the typical Pauline form; that is, it has the epistolary structure which characterizes Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, and Galatians, the writings which are ascribed to Paul even by most of those who reject the authenticity of I Thessalonians.

This letter-plan is as follows (with minor variations): the mention of the writer’s name (often: and office), the designation of those to whom the letter is addressed (sometimes with brief description), the salutation, the thanksgiving or doxology, the body of the letter (argumentation, admonition, exhortation, consolation, instruction, etc.), the concluding salutation (not always present; when present not always equally circumstantial) and benediction.

(4) The vocabulary is definitely that of Paul.

More than 4/5 of the words used in I Thessalonians are found also in the four so-called major Pauline epistles (Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, and Galatians). If we include the prison-epistles (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon) among those that must be regarded as being genuinely Pauline, we find that almost 9/10 of the words employed by the author of I Thessalonians occur also in these eight letters (the four major and the four prison epistles). And if the pastoral epistles (I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus) are also added, the percentage becomes even a little higher.⁹

(5) Not only the single words point to Paul as author but so do also many of the characteristic phrases, phrases that are elsewhere found only in Paul.

a. Phrases¹⁰ found in I Thessalonians (not in II Thessalonians); elsewhere only in the epistles of Paul:

1:2 in our prayers;	Rom. 1:10
1:3; 3:11, 13 our God and Father	Gal. 1:4
1:5, 6; 2:2, 17 in much (ἐν πολλῇ)	Rom. 9:22
2:4, 15 pleasing God	Rom. 8:8
2:5, 10 God is (my) witness	Rom. 1:9
2:12; 5:24 who is calling you	Gal. 5:8
2:12 in order that you should live lives worthy of God	Col. 1:10
2:18 once and again	Phil. 4:16
3:2 God’s fellow-worker	I Cor. 3:9 (pl.)
3:2 the Gospel of Christ	Rom. 15:19
3:5 in vain (εἰς κενόν)	II Cor. 6:1
3:8 you stand firm in the Lord	Phil. 4:1
4:1 in the Lord Jesus	Rom. 14:14
4:11 working with your hands	I Cor. 4:12
4:1 we do not want you to remain ignorant	Rom. 1:13
4:15, 17 we who are alive	II Cor. 4:11
4:17 be with the Lord	Phil. 1:23
5:9 through our Lord Jesus Christ	Rom. 5:1
5:10 live together with him	II Cor. 13:4
5:18 in everything (ἐν παντί)	I Cor. 1:5
5:24 who is calling you	Gal. 5:8
5:26 holy kiss	Rom. 16:16

b. Phrases found in I Thessalonians and II Thessalonians; elsewhere only in the epistles of Paul:

*I Thess.*	*II Thess.*
1:5	2:14	our Gospel	II Cor. 4:3
2:9	3:8	in order that not
		(πρός τὸ μή w. inf.)	II Cor. 3:13
2:9	3:8	labor and toil	II Cor. 11:27
4:1	3:1	for the rest, brothers	II Cor. 13:11
5:6	2:15	So then (ἄρα οὖν)	Rom. 5:18

Besides these there are several phrases which, though found here and there outside of Paul, occur chiefly in those epistles which are generally ascribed to the apostle. It is certainly true that there are also many phrases which may be called unique (occurring in I Thessalonians and/or II Thessalonians but nowhere else in the New Testament or nowhere else in Paul’s epistles). The difference in subject-matter as well as the natural tendency of almost any author (and particularly of a versatile writer like Paul) to vary his expressions when he writes letters to different people under wholly different circumstances cause us to expect this. The very considerable number of phrases which are either exclusively or chiefly Pauline certainly points in the direction of Paul as the author.

(6) The epistle clearly reflects the character of Paul.

Here, as elsewhere in the epistles commonly ascribed to Paul, we are brought face to face with a man who is so very deeply interested in those whom he addresses that he is ever thanking God for them and making mention of them in his prayers (1:2 ff; cf. Rom. 1:8, 9); is anxious to see them (2:17, 18; cf. Rom. 1:11; Phil. 2:24), and when he is unable to do so, sends one of his associates (3:2; cf. Phil. 2:19–23). He takes delight in showering praise upon the readers whenever this is possible, and in imparting encouragement (1:3, 6–10; cf. II Cor. 8:7; Phil. 4:15–17). In this connection note close resemblance between 2:19, 20 and Phil. 4:1. Nevertheless, this praise never ends in man. The writer is always quick to ascribe whatever is good in the believer to the sovereign grace of God, viewing it as an evidence of the believer’s election and of the presence of the Holy Spirit in his heart (1:4, 5; cf. Rom. 8:28–30; 8:23; Gal. 5:22–25; Phil. 1:6). He does not hesitate to defend his motives in preaching the Gospel, whenever these motives are attacked, and in doing so he likes to review his manner of entrance among the people who now constitute the church (2:1–12; cf. I Cor. 2:1–5; 3:1, 2). He shows great tact in admonishing (4:9, 10; cf. Philemon 8–22), but is never afraid to assert his authority (5:27; cf. I Cor. 16:1). He takes up, one by one, subjects of special interest to the readers, matters on which they need (or have requested) further instruction (4:13; 5:1, 12; cf. I Cor. 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1).

The more one studies this intensely personal side of the epistle, the more one also becomes convinced that only one man could have written it, namely, Paul!

(7) There is nothing in this epistle which is not in complete harmony with the doctrine proclaimed in Paul’s major epistles (to say nothing about the prison epistles and the pastoral epistles):

Although, barring the exception already noted (see p. 4), this epistle is not pre-eminently doctrinal, nevertheless it everywhere presupposes the Pauline emphasis on important doctrinal points. Thus, the writer of I Thessalonians teaches us that by nature man is headed straight for the revelation of God’s wrath (1:10; 5:9; cf. Rom. 1:18; 2:8; 9:22); he is under the rule of darkness (5:5; cf. Rom. 2:19; 13:12; II Cor. 6:14). But out of this fallen mass God, of sovereign mercy, has elected some (1:4; cf. Rom. 9:11; 11:5, 7). This election has as its purpose the believers’ sanctification, his assurance, and his final, complete salvation, to God’s glory (1:3–5; 3:13; 4:3, 7; 5:23; cf. Rom. 6:1, 22; 11:36; I Cor. 1:30; 10:31). It was the Lord Jesus Christ who died for believers (5:10; cf. Gal. 2:20), that they might live with and for him. While the believer is in this life, he is being tempted by Satan, who tries to lead him astray (3:5; cf. Rom. 16:20; I Cor. 7:5; II Cor. 2:11; 12:7). But God preserves him until the day of the glorious manifestation of the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven, when forever the believer will be with Christ (1:10; 2:19; 3:13; 3:17; 5:23; cf. Rom. 8:18, 19; I Cor. 15:50–58; 16:22).

The testimony of the early church is in harmony with the conclusion which has been derived from the epistle itself. Thus Eusebius, having made a thorough investigation of the literature at his command, states:

“But clearly evident and plain (πρόδηλοι καὶ σαφεῖς) are the fourteen (letters) of Paul; yet it is not right to ignore that some dispute the (letter) to the Hebrews” (Ecclesiastical History III. iii. 4, 5). Obviously Eusebius, writing at the beginning of the fourth century, had never heard of anyone who doubted the authenticity of I and II Thessalonians.

Before him Origen (fl. 210–250) again and again refers to (and quotes from) these epistles and definitely ascribes them to Paul. He is especially fond of quoting from II Thess. 2.

From Origen we can go back still farther, to his teacher, Clement of Alexandria (fl. 190–200). He too is well acquainted with the epistles to the Thessalonians, and ascribes them to Paul. The following are some of the references to (or quotations from) I Thessalonians in the works of Clement:

I Thess.
2:4	The Stromata (Miscellanies) VII. xii
2:5–7	The Stromata I. i
2:6, 7	The Instructor (Educator, Pedagogue) I. v
4:3–8	The Stromata IV. xii
4:9	The Instructor I. vi
4:17	The Stromata VI. xiii
5:5–8	The Instructor II. ix
5:6–8	The Stromata IV. xxii
5:13–15; 19–22	The Instructor III. xii

About this same time Tertullian, writing Against Marcion, and definitely mentioning Paul by name and “all his apostolic writings” (V. i) not only quotes I Thess. 2:15 (V, xv) but also implies that Marcion and other heretics, about the middle of the second century, considered I Thessalonians to be an authentic epistle of the apostle to the Gentiles, a fact which can be gathered also from other sources. Tertullian refers to (and quotes from) I and II Thessalonians (especially II Thess. 2) again and again.

Clement’s contemporary was Ireneus. Because of his many travels and intimate acquaintance with almost the entire church of his day, what Ireneus says about the authorship of I and II Thessalonians must be considered of great significance. His voice in a matter as important as this may be considered the voice of the church. Now in his work Against Heresies (V. vi. 1) he not only quotes I Thess. 5:23 but also clearly assigns it to Paul. He also refers to (and quotes) other passages from both epistles to the Thessalonians.

The Muratorian Fragment, an incomplete list of New Testament books, written in poor Latin and deriving its name from Cardinal L. A. Muratori (1672–1750) who discovered it in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, may be assigned to the period 180–200. It contains the following:

“Now the epistles of Paul, what they are, whence or for what reason they were sent, they themselves make clear to him who will understand. First of all he wrote at length to the Corinthians to prohibit the schism of heresy, then to the Galatians against circumcision, and to the Romans on the order of the Scriptures, intimating also that Christ is the chief matter in them — each of which it is necessary for us to discuss, seeing that the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name in the following order: to the Corinthians (first), to the Ephesians (second), to the Philippians (third), to the Colossians (fourth), to the Galatians (fifth), to the Thessalonians (sixth), to the Romans (seventh). But … he writes twice for the sake of correction to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians.…” Both I and II Thessalonians are also contained in the Old Latin and Old Syriac versions.

It is true that before the time of the witnesses which have thus far been mentioned there are no quotations that are either definitely said to have been derived from Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians or can be derived from these letters with certainty. This, of course, is not surprising. The writings which can be confidently ascribed to that early period are very few. Moreover, the letters to the Thessalonians are small and (with the exception noted; see p. 4) contain little doctrinal material. They were probably not as well known as, for example, Romans or I Corinthians.

It is possible, nevertheless, that certain expressions in I and II Thessalonians find an echo in the literature of the sub-apostolic age. This can be neither proved nor disproved. Cf. the following:

I Thess. 1:6	Ignatius, To The Ephesians X. iii
“You became imitators of us and of the Lord.”	“Let us be eager to imitate the Lord.”
I Thess. 2:4	Ignatius, To The Romans II. i
“not as pleasing men but God who proves our hearts.”	“I would not have you be men-pleasers but God-pleasers.”
I Thess. 4:9	Barnabas, Epistle of, XXI. vi (cf. IV. ix)
“You yourselves are taught of God.”	“Be taught of God” (God-instructed).
I Thess. 4:16	The Teaching (Didache) of the Twelve Apostles XVI. vi
“For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first.”	“And then shall appear the signs of the truth. First the sign spread out in heaven, then the sign of the sound of the trumpet, and thirdly the resurrection of the dead.”
I Thess. 5:13	The Shepherd III. ix. 10
“Be at peace among yourselves.”	“at peace among themselves.”
I Thess. 5:17	Ignatius, To The Ephesians X. i
“Pray without ceasing.”	“Pray without ceasing.”

This evidence does not constitute absolute proof for the position that at the end of the first and beginning of the second century a.d. Paul’s letters to the church at Thessalonica were being quoted in writings that have come down to us. The expression “taught of God” (I Thess. 4:9; cf. Barnabas XXI. vi) was a very common one, which may have been derived from the Old Testament as well as from Paul. The following passages immediately occur to the mind: Is. 54:13; 60:2, 3; Jer. 31:33, 34; Joel 2:28; Mic. 4:2; Zeph. 3:9; and Mal. 1:11. Jesus quotes it (see John 6:45) as an expression that is “written in the prophets.” Similarly, the passage about the signs (I Thess. 4:16; cf. The Teaching XVI. vi) may possibly go back to a saying of Jesus which is also reported by Matthew (24:30, 31). The passage about being at peace (I Thess. 5:13, cf. The Shepherd III. ix. 10) may have been derived from the saying of the Lord reported by Mark (9:50). On the other hand, if in each instance quoted we have before us the genuine text of Ignatius, it would seem that his use of I Thessalonians may be considered as probable (though not certain).

The important point is this: nowhere in early literature (not even in the writings of the heretics!) is any doubt cast on the Pauline authorship of I Thessalonians! Whenever the epistle is ascribed to anyone, it is always ascribed to the apostle Paul (thus Origen, Tertullian, Clement, Ireneus, etc.). And this external testimony, as has been pointed out, is in perfect agreement with the internal, the evidence supplied by the epistle itself. The only reasonable conclusion is that Paul was, indeed, the author.

B. Of II Thessalonians

The arguments of those who reject, either as a whole¹¹ or in part,¹² the Pauline authorship of II Thessalonians are, with individual variations, as follows:

(1) II Thess. 2:1–12 is an apocalyptic passage. It fixes the attention on Christ’s future glory when he shall vanquish his enemies. This representation is in sharp contrast with Paul’s emphasis on the necessity of growth in faith, hope, and love, here and now.

This wholly subjective argument has already been answered. See footnote 8. The passage (2:1–12) is entirely natural, as recent studies in apocalyptic literature have shown. To reject it because it is apocalyptic is arbitrary.

(2) If Paul wrote I Thess. 4:13–18; 5:1–11, he cannot also have written II Thess. 2:1–12; for while the first views Christ’s coming as imminent, the second regards it as non-imminent.

The fact is that the first epistle represents Christ’s second coming as sudden, the second as non-imminent (preceded by certain events). These two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Certain signs will precede Christ’s return. Yet when it occurs, it will take people by surprise. This representation, moreover, is in line with such passages as Dan. 11:1–12:3; Matt. 24:1–44; and Luke 17:20–37.

(3) The passage 2:1–12 refers to Nero (the man of sin), reportedly dead but here represented as actually hiding and about to return (according to others, as really dead but about to arise), and to Vespasian (the restrainer); or (according to still others) it refers to the days of Trajan and to the advancing tide of gnosticism. This shows that Paul (who was no longer alive during the reigns of Vespasian and of Trajan) cannot have written it.

Nothing in the context supports this interpretation. See on 2:1–12.

(4) The rigorous predestinarianism of 2:11, 12, 13 is un-Pauline.

But why could not he who wrote Rom. 8:28, 39; 9:10–24; Eph. 1:4, 11; 2:10 also have written II Thess. 2:11, 12, 13? In justice to those who urge argument (4) it must be admitted, however, that they would also scrap the predestinarian passages from Romans and Ephesians, viewing also them as being un-Pauline. The objection to this procedure is that the doctrine of predestination harmonizes with the entire course of reasoning in Paul’s epistles. Wherever it is not definitely stated, it is presupposed. It is, in a sense, the keystone of the theology of the man who taught that “of him and through him and unto him are all things” (Rom. 11:36). To be consistent, the critics should also reject that passage and many others with it. What, if anything, would be left? (And is not also the Gospel of John, which records the teaching of Jesus, predestination from start to finish?¹³) There is, however, nothing rigorous with reference to this predestinarianism. Ample provision is always made for the factor of human responsibility. For the rest, see on 2:11, 12, 13.

(5) To a very large extent II Thessalonians is a repetition of I Thessalonians. Clearly, a forger is at work!

Actual comparison — let anyone check this! — shows that the new material in II Thessalonians (new as compared with the first letter) comprises about two-thirds of the letter. That there should be a certain amount of overlapping is exactly what one can reasonably expect when it is considered that the same author writes to the same church during the same period of time (only a few months intervening between the two letters) and under the same circumstances (by and large).

(6) II Thessalonians differs in too many respects from the genuine Pauline epistles to be regarded as a product of Paul’s “pen:” Specifically, it is much “cooler” (less friendly, more “official”) and also much more “Jewish” in coloring than I Thessalonians.

It was especially Wrede who, in Die Echtheit des zweiten Thessalonicherbriefs, enlarged on this. But to some extent arguments (5) and (6) cancel each other. For the rest, the close relationship between the two letters has been shown. See pp. 16, 17; and see what is said about the resemblance between II Thessalonians and other Pauline epistles (pp. 21, 28).

(7) The salutation (3:17) looks suspicious. It is clearly a deliberate attempt by a forger to make the letter look authentic.

The answer to this is that in view of the item of information which 2:2 conveys — see on that passage — the autographic conclusion of 3:17 is altogether natural.

The same internal evidence that has been adduced to prove the authenticity of I Thessalonians establishes that of II Thessalonians. See pp. 22, 23. Hence, in view of what has been said in connection with the first letter a brief statement will suffice:

This second epistle (as well as the first) represents itself as having been written by Paul (1:1; 3:17), with whom are associated the men who are known to have accompanied him on his second journey (1:1). Here too the usual Pauline epistolary form is present, with interesting variation in detail. The vocabulary is definitely Pauline, the percentage of words which the second letter has in common with other epistles that are ascribed generally to Paul being even slightly higher than the percentage of words common to the first letter and the other epistles.

To the list of phrases which II Thessalonians has in common with other Pauline epistles and which are also found in I Thessalonians (see p. 21) may now be added those which are found in the second letter and in others generally ascribed to Paul but not in I Thessalonians.

Note the following:

II Thess.
1:1 God our Father	Rom. 1:7
1:8 obey the Gospel	Rom. 10:16
1:10 was believed in (ἐπιστεύθη with impersonal subject)	Rom. 10:10
2:2 as that (or: as if ὡς ὁτι)	II Cor. 5:19
2:3 let no one (μή τις with aor. subjunctive)	I Cor. 16:11
2:7 forward position of the word only (μόνον)	Gal. 2:10
2:10 those that are perishing	I Cor. 1:18
2:17 comfort your hearts		Col. 2:2
3:4 have confidence in the Lord		Phil. 2:24
3:13 be not weary in well-doing	Gal. 6:9
3:14 our word	II Cor. 1:13
3:17 the greeting of Paul, with my own hand	I Cor. 16:21

Here, just as in the first letter, the personal character of Paul is reflected. (For the passages in the other epistles of Paul which reflect these same traits see p. 22.) In II Thessalonians we are face to face with a person who is deeply interested in his readers (1:3, 11, 12) and displays warm affection for them. He shares (has fellowship with) their experiences, and is fond of commending whatever is good in them (1:4; 3:4). Nevertheless, he ascribes their virtues to the proper source: God and his sovereign election (2:13). He shows great tact in admonishing them (3:4, 6–15), and takes up matters of special interest to them (2:1–12; 3:6–15). His tender fatherly concern for the readers is evident also in this, that when he describes the day of the revelation of God’s wrath, he immediately adds that this wrath is only for the enemies of the church (“to repay with affliction them that afflict you”), and that believers (among whom he also counts the readers) will receive nothing but glory when Christ returns (1:3–10; 2:8–14).

The kind of character which is displayed in this letter points unmistakably to Paul. Nevertheless, at this point we must be careful. Some of the traits revealed in these two letters and in those by the same author occur also in the writings of other apostles. It is therefore not so much the fact that they do occur here as the manner in which they are expressed (the specific style) that points to Paul as the author. This is often overlooked. Take, as an example, the sense of fellowship (with the readers) of which we spoke. The apostle makes mention of the fact that the saints at Thessalonica have become imitators of Paul (and of his companions, yea of the Lord himself!) in their afflictions (I Thess. 1:6); and that they will again be associated with Paul in the blessed rest which awaits them “at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven” (II Thess. 1:7). However, this amiable way of addressing the readers in order to gain their full confidence and to make them feel that the writer is standing on common ground with them is just as Johannine as it is Pauline, as the beautiful expression in Rev. 1:9 shows.¹⁴ It is the mark of the Christian, not just the mark of Paul! But the manner of expressing it differs: Paul’s you with (and of) us becomes John’s I with you. Paul tells the readers that they have become imitators (a noun not found anywhere in John’s writings). John states that he has become a fellow-partaker. (Paul in a similar context also uses this term but with characteristic difference, Phil. 1:7: “you are fellow-partakers with me.” Same term, but different context: Rom. 11:17; I Cor. 9:23.) Similarly, when Paul commends the virtues of the readers, he is simply doing what according to the book of Revelation, the great Church-Visitor also does (Rev. 2:2, 3, 13, 19, etc.). But here again the manner of expression is entirely different. The solemn and oft-recurring phrase, “I know thy works, etc.” characterizes the book of Revelation, not Paul.

As to external evidence, for the testimony of Eusebius, Origen, Tertullian, and the Muratorian Fragment, in favor of Pauline authorship see pp. 23, 24.

Clement of Alexandria (fl. 190–200) in Stromata V. iii quotes II Thess. 3:1, 2. Ireneus, his contemporary, quotes from this epistle again and again:

II Thess.	Against Heresies
1:6–8	IV. xxxiii. 11
1:6–10	IV. xxvii. 4
2:4	III. vi. 5
2:8	III. vii. 2 (cf. V. xxv. 3)
2:11	IV. xxix. 1

He, moreover, makes it very clear that “the apostle” whose passages he quotes is Paul. See IV. xxiv. 1; xxxiii. 11. Though some see possible references to II Thessalonians in The Epistle of Vienne and Lyons (as quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History V. i) or in Ignatius, The Teaching (Didache), or Barnabas, such conclusions appear to be rather far-fetched. A mere phrase or a very common saying proves nothing. We seem to be on somewhat firmer ground in finding a reference to II Thess. 2:3 in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho (Cx; cf. XXXII): “the man of apostasy who speaks strange things against the Most High.” See the entire context in the Thessalonian passage. Clearest of all is a reference in (the Latin version of) Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians (XI. iii), cf. II Thess. 1:4: “he glories about you in all the churches,” and another reference immediately following (hence, Polycarp, Philippians XI. iv), cf. II Thess. 3:15: “and yet count them not as enemies.” Not only does Polycarp quote from II Thessalonians, but he does so in a context in which he definitely mentions “the blessed Paul.” Polycarp was very fond of “the blessed and glorious Paul” (see his Philippians III. ii).

What has been presented in support of the Pauline authorship of II Thessalonians may be summarized as follows:

(1) II Thessalonians was known in the early Church, the testimony going back from Eusebius and Origen all the way to Polycarp (about 135 a.d.).

(2) Whenever the letter was ascribed to anyone, it was ascribed to the apostle Paul. Ireneus, whose testimony being of a representative character, is especially valuable, nowhere casts any doubt on the position that the great apostle to the Gentiles was the writer of II Thessalonians.

(3) The internal evidence is in complete agreement with the external.

VI. GENERAL CONTENTS

A. Of I Thessalonians

Many Bible-books, including several epistles, have definite themes. They cover a specific, well-defined subject. A little study reveals the nature of this central theme.¹⁵ This, however, is not true with respect to every Bible-book. It is not true either with respect to every communication written today. Letters differ. You have heard that a friend has suffered a grievous loss. So you write him in order to comfort him. Your letter throughout dwells on that one theme, for you are aware of the fact that right now it would not be wise to bother him with many other matters. But a year later when time and reflection on God’s promises have performed their work of mercy and when circumstances have returned to normal again (as far as this is possible), you write another letter. This is a message filled with news, advice, questions, etc. You communicate with your friend about various matters. Now it certainly would be arbitrary for anyone who subsequently examines this your second letter to try to crowd all your thoughts under one central theme (unless you make that theme so very broad in scope and so indefinite that it is a caption rather than a definite, specific, material theme). Now if attempts to deal thus arbitrarily with uninspired documents are wrong, it is even more wrong to treat Paul’s divinely inspired epistles in that manner. What results is a merely imagined unity. Often, as a consequence of trying to get everything under one central theme, this or that very important matter is omitted completely from the theme and/or from the Outline under it.¹⁶

It stands to reason that, in view of the various purposes which the apostle (and his associates) has in mind in writing this letter (see the section on Purpose, above), he comments on various subjects. Hence, in this case a rather general and comprehensive caption will have to take the place of a definite, unified, material theme. The caption and subjoined division which I have chosen match what has been said about Paul’s purpose in writing this letter (see p. 12).

Paul¹⁷ Writes To The Thessalonians

chapters 1 and 2 or 1:1–3:5	Reminding Them, in connection with his Thanksgiving for Them, How the Gospel Had Come to Thessalonica, as a Genuine Work of God and Not as a Product of Human Deception;¹⁸
chapter 3 or 3:6–13	Informing Them How He Rejoices over Timothy’s Report of Their Continued Spiritual Progress Even in the Midst of Persecution;
4:13–5:11	Instructing Them How Christ Will Come Again, namely, with impartiality toward all believers, sothat survivors will have no advantage over those who have fallen asleep; and with suddenness, sothat people will be taken by surprise; and accordingly:
4:1–12 and 5:12–28	Exhorting Them How They Should Conduct Themselves, living sanctified lives with respect to all classes and at all times.¹⁹

Thus, in general, there are four divisions (Thanksgiving and Defence, Expression of Joy, Instruction, and Exhortation), but these divisions are not rigid or clearcut (see on 4:1). Thoughts already expressed in one section recur in the next. Besides, the fourth division — Exhortation — comprises both 4:1–12 and 5:12–28. Hence, the four divisions really become five:

Thanksgiving and Defence

Expression of Joy

Exhortation

Instruction

Exhortation.²⁰

B. Of II Thessalonians

This epistle is considerably shorter than the first. Its material is more definitely organized around one central theme, even though the theme is not introduced immediately, as in a formal essay on a definite topic, but rises to the surface gradually. Thus, in the first chapter it becomes clearly evident when we reach verse 5, and stays with us for six entire verses (verses 5 through 10). Though it seems to subside somewhat in the last two verses (11 and 12), it is still presupposed, for the prayer contained in that little closing paragraph is uttered “with a view to” the realization of the expectations mentioned in verses 5–10. The theme mentioned in this chapter is “The Revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven” (verse 7).

That this theme is continued in chapter 2 requires no argument, for this chapter is immediately introduced by the words, “Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering (to meet) him.”

Not every interpreter is ready to grant that the thought of this second coming also underlies chapter 3. Some deny any connection between disorderliness, treated in that chapter, and ideas with reference to the return of the Lord. Yet, a comparison of several passages in both epistles would seem to indicate that there is this connection. It is true, of course, that I Thessalonians is not II Thessalonians, and that the circumstances underlying the second epistle are not exactly the same as those presupposed or described in the first. The evil had become aggravated when the second letter was written. Nevertheless, it is hard to imagine that the disorderly persons mentioned in the first letter were such for an entirely different reason than those characterized similarly in the second (cf. I Thess. 5:14 with II Thess. 3:6). If then we may assume that in general the same evils prevailed and for the same reason, we get the following picture (combining references in both epistles):

The Thessalonians were shaken from their normal state of mind (II Thess. 2:1, 2), were not calm (I Thess. 4:11), because of their erroneous views regarding Christ’s return. This is plainly stated as the reason in II Thess. 2:2. They thought that the day of the Lord had arrived already. It was this disturbed condition which caused them to leave their daily occupations and to become disorderly (I Thess. 4:11; cf. 5:14; then II Thess. 3:6), even to the extent of depending on others for physical sustenance (II Thess. 3:7, 8).

If this position be correct, then also chapter 3 presupposes the same theme as that which controls chapters 1 and 2. Hence, the following theme and outline are suggested:

The Revelation of the Lord Jesus from Heaven

chapter 1	has a twofold purpose
chapter 2 (or 2:1–12)	will be preceded by the falling away and by the revelation of the lawless one
chapter 3 (or 2:13–3:17)	is a firmly anchored hope whose contemplation should result not in disorderliness but in calm assurance, stedfast endurance, and strength-imparting peace.

As indicated on pp. 14, 15, also in this case there are important interspersions.

Thus, among the important works either newly published or appearing as reprints during the single decade 1940–1950 were the following:

R. M. Hawkins, The Recovery of the Historical Paul, Nashville, 1943.

C. W. Quimby, Paul for Everyone, New York, 1944.

John Knox, Chapters in a Life of Paul, New York and Nashville, 1946.

E. J. Goodspeed, Paul, Philadelphia, Toronto, 1947.

R. Machen, The Origin of Paul’s Religion, reprinted Grand Rapids, 1947.

F. Postma, Paulus, Pretoria, 1949.

W. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen, reprinted Grand Rapids, 1949.

W. Ramsay, The Cities of St. Paul, reprinted Grand Rapids, 1949.

W. J. Conybeare and J. S. Howson, The Life and Epistles of St. Paul, reprinted Grand Rapids, 1949.

A. Barnes, Scenes and Incidents in the Life of the Apostle Paul, reprinted Grand Rapids, 1950.

² Thus also L. Berkhof, New Testament Introduction, Grand Rapids, 1915, pp. 222, 223; F. W. Grosheide, Handelingen (in Korte Verklaring), Kampen, second edition 1950, p. 55; George Milligan, op. cit., p. xxviii; but not R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, Columbus, Ohio, 1944, p. 693.

³ The word “politarch” (Acts 17:6, 8) was at one time considered an error on the part of Luke. However, the discovery of seventeen inscriptions at Salonica containing this very term has proved that Luke was right and that the critics were wrong. See J. P. Free, Archaeology and Bible History, Wheaton, Ill., third printing 1952, p. 321.

⁴

The question with reference to the purpose of I Thessalonians has recently been revised with respect to one particular point, namely, whether the apostle in this epistle is trying to give an answer to a letter from Thessalonica which Timothy presumably had brought with him. One can find something on this topic in the older commentaries, but see especially the recent discussion by Chalmer E. Faw, “On The Writing of First Thessalonians,” JBL 71 (December 1952), 217–225. Faw presents strong (yet, as I see it, not wholly convincing) arguments for the position that there was such a letter from Thessalonica, and that the apostle, in addition to expressing his reaction to an oral report which Timothy had brought him, takes up the various items mentioned in this letter, shedding light on matters with respect to which the church at Thessalonica (particularly its leaders) desired further instruction. Faw’s arguments may be summarized as follows:

a. Expressions such as these: “Now concerning love of the brothers” (I Thess. 4:9), “now concerning (notice, however, word-transposition in the original) those that have fallen asleep” (4:13), “now concerning the times and the seasons” (5:1) reveal a pattern which in Paul’s epistles has its parallel only in I Corinthians (“Now concerning virgins,” “now concerning the things sacrificed to idols,” “now concerning spiritual gifts,” “now concerning the collection for the saints” — see I Cor. 7:25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1), and which in that epistle is introduced by the phrase, “Now concerning the matters about which you wrote” (I Cor. 7:1). Hence, if this literary pattern (of introducing several items in a series by using the phrase now concerning, with similar variants in both I Thessalonians and I Corinthians) when used in I Corinthians indicates that the apostle is giving a seriatim answer to a letter, why should we not reach the same conclusion with respect to its use in I Thessalonians?

b. The abrupt manner in which some of these matters are introduced (here in I Thessalonians) confirms the position that Paul has before him the letter from the Thessalonians, on which he is commenting item by item.

c. The fact that Paul seems to be reluctant to write on certain subjects (see I Thess. 4:9; 5:1) but does so anyway, though hesitantly, points in the same direction.

Though, as I see it, Faw’s article is well written and conveys much valuable information, and though his theory — that here in I Thessalonians Paul is answering a letter — may be true, this article and this theory have failed to convince me that this is the only possible conclusion, and this for the following reasons:

a. The solitary parallel of I Corinthians is too flimsy a ground for such a conclusion. After all, as Faw’s article clearly shows, the New Testament contains other instances of the use of the phrase now concerning, instances in which it clearly does not introduce a reflection on an item in a letter (Mark 12:26; 13:32; John 16:11; Acts 21:25).

b. In one respect I Corinthians is not a parallel, for there (I Cor. 7:1) Paul specifically informs us that he is taking up the matters about which they had written. In I Thessalonians he makes no mention of any letter which the Thessalonians had written! It is even possible that they did not deem it necessary to write such a letter, seeing that Timothy could be trusted to give a full oral report.

c. Faw’s second and third arguments do not prove that Paul had before him a letter from the Thessalonians. A memorandum carefully prepared by Timothy himself or even a systematic oral report fills all the requirements. As to the third argument it should not be immediately assumed that the manner in which Paul phrases I Thess. 4:9 and 5:1 indicates real reluctance on his part. Another explanation is also possible. See comments on these verses.

Anyone who is interested in this subject should read (in addition to Faw’s article of recent date) what the following have to say respecting it:

Bacon, B. W., An Introduction to the New Testament, New York, 1900, p. 73.

Barnett, Albert E., The New Testament, Its Making and Meaning, New York, 1946, p. 37.

Frame, James E., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians (in The International Critical Commentary), New York, 1912, pp. 9, 157, 178.

Harris, J. Rendel, “A Study in Letter Writing,” The Expositor Series 5, Vol. 8 (September, 1898), 161–180.

Lenski, R. C. H., op. cit., pp. 318, 319.

Moffatt, James, An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, New York, 1917, p. 67.

Plummer, Alfred, A Commentary on St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Thessalonians, London, 1916, p. xviii.

Smith, David, The Life and Letters of St. Paul, New York, 1920, pp. 152–166.

Van Leeuwen, J. A. C., Paulus’ Zendbrieven aan Efeze, Colosse, Filemon, en Thessalonika (in Kommentaar op het Nieuwe Testament), Amsterdam, 1926, pp. 359, 360.

⁵ I refer to the attempt by John Knox; see his Chapters In A Life Of Paul, New York and Nashville, 1946. Here the reliability of Acts is attacked (e.g., p. 35). The author has apparently joined the list of those who regard Luke as a more or less biased writer, who overemphasized the role of Jerusalem in the early history of the church. (Essentially the position of these authors has been refuted adequately by J. G. Machen, The Origin of Paul’s Religion, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1947 reprint.) Especially important from the point of view of chronology is Knox’s opinion that the letters of Paul reveal not the slightest awareness on his part that he was engaged in great journeys (p. 40). Naturally, if the three missionary journeys described in the book of Acts are not allowed to stand, the entire chronology changes. To see the difference between the old and the new (Knox’s) chronology one should consult Contemporary Thinking About Paul, edited by Thomas S. Kepler, cf. the tables on pp. 158, 159 with the one on p. 169. But is it true that Paul’s epistles fail to indicate any consciousness that he was engaged in great journeys? I do not see how this can be maintained, especially in view of the following passages: Rom. 1:15; 15:24, 28; I Cor. 16:5; II Cor. 1:15, 16, 23; 2:12, 13; 7:5–15; 9:2; 10:16; 12:14; 13:1; Phil. 4:15, 16.

⁶ See: Millar Burrows, What Mean These Stones, New Haven, 1941, p. 86.

⁷

Lyle O. Bristol in an article, “Paul’s Thessalonian Correspondence,” ExT 55 (1944), 223, regards the priority of II Thessalonians probable because: a. it is shorter than I Thessalonians; b. when I Thessalonians was written some members of the Thessalonian church had already died; and c. the organization which it presupposed in I Thess. 5:12, 13 implies a longer time-interval than is possible if I Thessalonians was written first.

But none of these reasons is strong enough to prove anything. Why the first of two letters should necessarily be the shorter one is not clear. It is not at all surprising that in an interval of a few months, with a fierce persecution taking place in Thessalonica, some deaths had occurred. Finally, there had been ample time to organize the church, either during Paul’s own ministry or subsequently (for example, after Timothy’s arrival in the city; in that case Titus 1:15 would supply an interesting parallel). Paul was a great organizer (Acts 14:23).

Another article is that by Edward Thompson, “The Sequence of the Two Epistles to the Thessalonians,” ExT 56 (1945), 306, 307. This writer defends the priority of I Thessalonians. Among other things he points out that nothing in ancient tradition supports the priority of II Thessalonians, that the more Jewish character of II Thessalonians (discussion of Jewish apocalyptic) does not imply the priority of that epistle, and that it is not true that Paul’s allusion to his autograph (II Thess. 3:17) proves that II Thessalonians was written first, for a similar allusion is found in I Cor. 16:21 though a previous letter had been written to the church at Corinth (see I Cor. 5:9).

For the view of A. Harnack and Kirsopp C. Lake (II Thessalonians was directed to a Jewish community, I Thessalonians to a Gentile community) see the latter’s chapter in Contemporary Thinking About Paul (edited by Thomas S. Kepler), New York, Nashville (no date), pp. 234–238.

⁸

For the arguments against the authenticity see especially F. C. Baur, Paulus, Stuttgart, 1845, pp. 480 ff. (For an even earlier criticism see Schrader, Der Apostel Paulus, V, 1836, pp. 23 ff.) Baur’s criticism was the most serious and effective. He convinced some: Noack, Volkmar, Holsten, etc. Cf. also Vander Vies, De Beide Brieven aan de Thessalonicenzen, 1865, pp. 128–164. But Baur’s denial of the Pauline authorship of I Thessalonians is vitiated by the Hegelian bias upon which it rests. For Baur the question whether an epistle is characterized by the anti-Judaistic line of argumentation seems to settle everything. Thus, all of Paul’s thinking and writing is forced into one groove. This is manifestly unfair.

In recent literature a somewhat similar subjectivism is at times apparent. An author starts from the presupposition that whatever is apocalyptic is un-Pauline, and that Paul taught salvation by means of identification through faith with a dying and rising Christ. As a result, certain passages and even entire paragraphs of I Thessalonians are rejected: 1:10; 2:14–16; 4:13–18; 5:1–10; and, for similar reasons the following sections of II Thessalonians are regarded as not genuine: 1:5–10; 2:1–17. Cf. R. M. Hawkins, The Recovery of the Historical Paul, Nashville, Tenn., 1943; see especially pp. 234, 241, 292.

However, Paul was a Hebrew of the Hebrews. Now, Hebrew thought has always been characterized by the presence of eschatological and apocalyptic ideas. Paul must have been acquainted with the book of Daniel and with many similar trends of thought in other Old Testament writings (to limit ourselves to canonical scriptures). Moreover, there are similar ideas in the teachings of Jesus (Matt. 24, 25; Mark 13; Luke 21). The total absence of such ideas from Paul’s epistles would have been surprising.

⁹ In order to reach these percentages I carefully jotted down for myself on cards and in alphabetical order every word found in I Thessalonians (and I did the same for II Thessalonians), and, using Moulton and Geden’s Concordance to the Greek Testament, I checked the use of these words in Paul’s major, prison, and pastoral epistles. It was on that basis that I drew my conclusions. As these conclusions agree, in the main, with those drawn by J. E. Frame, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians (in The International Critical Commentary) a reference to the pages of that work should suffice (pp. 28–32).

¹⁰ These phrases (in Greek) are found also in Frame (op. cit., pp. 32–34), but he omits the references to the major epistles. I have given a reference also in such cases (for a complete list Moulton and Geden’s Concordance should be used). Furthermore, I have given the English equivalents, and have re-arranged the phrases according to their chapter and verse sequence.

¹¹ See especially Kern, “Ueber II Thess. 2:1–12, Nebst Andeutungen über den Ursprung des zweiten Briefes an die Thessalonicher,” Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie (1839 Zweites Heft), 145–214. Cf. also the conclusion reached by Mayerhof, Baur, Weizsäcker, Wrede. The argumentation varies.

¹² One of the most recent is R. M. Hawkins, The Recovery of the Historical Paul, Nashville, Tenn., 1943, pp. 262–269, 292. Earlier interpolation theories (according to which II Thessalonians is partly genuine, partly spurious) were held by J. E. C. Schmidt (1801), who subsequently rejected the entire epistle as un-Pauline, Paul Schmidt (1881), and several others. Some regard 2:1–12 as spurious; others view it as the only genuine part of the letter.

¹³ See New Testament Commentary (hereafter referred to as N.T.C.), John’s Gospel, Vol. I, p. 46.

¹⁴ See my More Than Conquerors (Interpretation of the book of Revelation), Grand Rapids, Mich., seventh edition 1954, p. 69.

¹⁵ As I have shown in Bible Survey, Grand Rapids, Mich., third edition (fourth printing), 1953, pp. 36, 37.

¹⁶ It is for that reason that I cannot agree with the theme and the outline that has been suggested by Edward P. Blair in his article “The First Epistle to the Thessalonians,” Int Vol. II, Number 2 (April, 1948), 209–217. Where, either in the theme which he suggests or in the outline (see p. 216 of that article), is anything said about the important section on Christ’s second coming? Will anyone who looks at the theme or at the outline as given by Blair know that a considerable portion of Paul’s letter deals with a specific problem that had arisen with respect to the Lord’s Return? — For the rest, I gladly admit that the article itself is splendid in many ways, and on several points contains exactly the advice which everyone who proceeds to study a Bible-book should heed. Because of its excellence it deserves careful study!

¹⁷ Or more fully: Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy write, etc. But Paul, at any rate, is mainly responsible.

¹⁸ This is the Apostle’s Thanksgiving and his Defence by means of Reminiscence.

¹⁹ I realize that this broad caption and subjoined division is too lengthy for memorization, particularly if one is trying to commit to memory the themes or captions or brief outlines of all the Bible-books. Hence, for such practical purposes I have suggested a shorter caption and division; see my Bible Survey, pp. 340, 341; cf. p. 37.

²⁰ Approximately this fivefold division is also given in my Bible Survey, pp. 340, 341, where three of these five are grouped together under one larger division, and two under the other.

↑ Back to top