Man is but a breath of wind,
His days are like a shadow that passes away.
Part the heavens, O Lord, and come down,
Touch the mountains and they shall smoke …
Happy that people who have the Lord for their God.
“Struck down but not destroyed” by what happened in Philippi (cf. 1 Thess. 2:2), the missionaries Paul, Silas, and Timothy (Luke, who probably accompanied them earlier, may have stayed behind) made their way along the Via Egnatia, through the Amphipolis and Appolonia, to Thessalonica. The city stood on or near the site of an earlier settlement, Therma, which took its name from the nearby hot springs. The two may once have existed side by side, for Pliny the Elder speaks of both Thessalonica and Therma; but in time Therma disappeared or was absorbed into the other.
Thessalonica was founded by Cassander and named after his wife, the daughter of Philip II of Macedon and the half-sister of Alexander the Great. When the last of the Macedonian kings fell to the Romans, Thessalonica became the capital of one of the four republics into which the country was then divided (167 B.C.). Twenty years later (148 B.C.), when the republics were then amalgamated into one Roman province, it became the provincial capital.
Although made the seat of the Roman government of the province, because it sided with the eventual victors of the battle of Philippi (42 B.C.), Thessalonica was granted the status of a “free city,” governing itself on Greek rather than on Roman lines by its own magistrates, the politarchs as Luke correctly names them in Acts, and assembly, the dēmos of Acts 17:5.
The city prospered. Its fine harbor, fertile hinterland, and position astride vital trade routes ensured its prosperity. As Melitus observed long ago: “So long as nature does not change, Thessalonica will remain wealthy and fortunate.”[1] To this day it is a flourishing center, and in Paul’s day it was one of the great seaports of southeastern Europe, with an estimated population of about 200,000. Its Jewish population appears to have been correspondingly large, as one would expect. There was much that would draw a trading people to this city. Thus, when the early Christian missionaries arrived, they found a synagogue.
Paul and his colleagues followed their usual practice of visiting first the synagogue (Acts 17:2), and they met with good success: “Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women” (Acts 17:4). The fact that the best results came from the Gentiles associated with the synagogue rather than from the Jews themselves, as seems to have been commonly the case, demands some explanation. Who were these “God-fearing Greeks”?
“Wherever the Jews went in the Gentile world, their presence gave rise to two conflicting tendencies. On the one hand, the Jew possessed the knowledge of the one true God; and amidst the universal corruption, idolatry, and superstition of the ancient world, this saving knowledge exercised a powerful attraction.”[2] On the other hand, this knowledge was enshrined in a law that in many respects proved much less attractive. Consequently, among those who were drawn to Judaism there were varying degrees of commitment. Some went the whole way, submitting to instruction, circumcision and baptism, leading on to sacrifice in the temple, although in practice this latter requirement may have been waived where travel to Jerusalem was not easy. These were the “proselytes,” the “converts to Judaism” of Acts 2:10 and 6:5, among whom women outnumbered men because of the requirement of circumcision. Others, while not prepared to go so far, nevertheless worshipped and studied in the synagogues. These were the “God-fearers” or “worshipers of God” as they were also called (phoboumenoi, Acts 10:2, 22; 13:16, 26; sebomenoi, Acts 13:43; 16:14; 17:4, 17; 18:7).
Two distinct groups could be found in the synagogues of the Diaspora (and sometimes in practice three, for the proselytes were not always accepted by those who were Jewish by descent). Of these two groups the Christian mission discovered the God-fearers to be the more responsive. They were, indeed, the key to the rapid and successful planting of the church throughout the Mediterranean world. Described on one occasion as a “providentially prepared bridgehead into the Gentile world,” they were an informed audience, familiar with the Scriptures and the messianic hope of the Jews. But at the same time they were profoundly aware that they themselves were excluded from that hope as long as they remained as simply God-fearers. These God-fearers
always remained second-class citizens. Proselytes were buried in the Jewish cemeteries in Jerusalem and Rome and elsewhere, … but not “god-fearers.” From an official point of view, despite their visits to synagogue worship and their partial observance of the law, the “god-fearers” continued to be regarded as Gentiles, unless they went over to Judaism completely through circumcision and … baptism.[3]
It is hardly surprising, then, that when they were told that “the messianic hope had come alive in Jesus, that in him the old distinction between Jew and Gentile had been abolished, that the fullest blessings of God’s saving grace were as readily available to Gentiles as to Jews,” many of the God-fearers embraced the Good News.[4] They seemingly formed the nucleus of many of the early Christian congregations (along with a scattering of Jews and proselytes), and through them the gospel reached the Gentile world beyond the walls of the synagogue.
But if the Diaspora synagogues provided the Christian missionaries with a prepared and responsive audience, they often became the source of their most bitter opposition. The synagogue in Thessalonica was no exception. “On three Sabbath days, [Paul] reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead” (Acts 17:2f.; see disc. on 1 Thess. 5:10). But that was all the time they would give him. We assume that Paul and the others then withdrew and established a separate congregation, but Luke tells us nothing of this in Acts. By telling us only the story of the missionaries’ relationship with the synagogue, he gives the impression that they were in Thessalonica for only those three Sabbath days. Paul’s letters, however, show that they were there for a much longer period—long enough for a church to be established with its own leaders (1 Thess. 5:12) and for outlying areas to be reached with the gospel (1 Thess. 1:7); long enough for the “traditions” to be passed on (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6), evidently with systematic and sometimes repeated teaching (see disc. on 2 Thess. 2:5); long enough for the church in Philippi to send Paul gifts more than once (Phil. 4:16; for the expression “again and again,” see disc. on 1 Thess. 2:18); and long enough to warrant the missionaries’ working “night and day” rather than being a burden on their converts and, at the same time, setting their converts a good example (1 Thess. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:8).
A. J. Malherbe suggests that they worked from Jason’s house. He draws attention to the insula, a type of apartment house commonly found in first-century cities that “would contain a row of shops on the ground floor, facing the street, and provide living accommodations for the owners and their families over the shop or in the rear.” They would also have “living quarters for visitors, employees, and servants or slaves.”[5] Jason, who “welcomed” Paul and his companions (Acts 17:7), was apparently well-to-do and perhaps the proprietor of such an insula. If so, it would have provided lodgings for the missionaries, a place where they could work, and a base for their preaching and teaching.
In time, however (and we assume that it was a matter more of months than of weeks),[6] the mission, as far as Paul and his colleagues were concerned, came to an end—not of their own volition, but as the result of Jewish opposition. The Jews, resenting perhaps the loss of influential God-fearers such as Jason and the “prominent women,” determined to rid the city of the Christian missionaries and to destroy the Christian church. They formulated a plan to bring the missionaries before the assembly on a charge of sedition. To give some grounds for this charge, they “rounded up some bad characters from the marketplace” and organized them into staging a riot (Acts 17:5; cf. 14:4f., 19; 17:13; 1 Thess. 2:14–16). No charge was better calculated than this to achieve their end, for it put the city at risk of losing its status as a free city. With the stage thus set for the successful prosecution of the missionaries, the rioters “rushed to Jason’s house in search of Paul and Silas in order to bring them out to the dēmos” (Acts 17:5, not “crowd” as in NIV). But their plan went awry, for the two could not be found, and without them they could lay no charge (Timothy does not seem to have rated attention).
Frustrated, the rioters resorted to dragging “Jason and some of the other brothers before the politarchs,” accusing them of offering hospitality to the seditionists. Because of the noise of the melee, the charge had to be shouted. Paul and Silas were accused of having “caused trouble all over the world, … defying Caesar’s decrees.” Unless Paul’s preaching was misconstrued as a prediction of a change of ruler, it is difficult to find any justification for the charge. Imperial decrees expressly forbid forecasts like “saying that there is another king” (Acts 17:7). The same charge is leveled against Jesus (cf. Luke 23:2; John 19:12, 15) and is as ill-founded now as it was in his case. But to the Jews, “Christ” meant “king,” and since this was the title by which the emperor was called in the lands to the east of Rome, they could maliciously accuse the Christians of proclaiming a rival to Claudius. That Christians so often called Jesus “Lord” further colored their accusation, for the emperors were also called by that title (see note on 1 Thess. 1:1).
These charges disturbed both “the crowd and the city officials.” Serious charges like these had to be treated as such. But after investigating the charges, the politarchs did not find the evidence as compelling as the accusers hoped (cf. Acts 17:9, they “let them go”), although they did penalize the Christians. “They made Jason and the others post bond” to ensure, as we suppose, that they kept the peace. This meant that the missionaries could no longer preach in public, and this explains their sudden departure. In 1 Thessalonians 2:15, 18 Paul reflects on this turn of events, which he unhesitatingly attributes to Satan himself. Paul might not have taken his dismissal so tamely had Jason and the others not been involved. As it was, he and Silas could only accept what happened.
The departure of the missionaries did not end the harassment of the Christians. The Thessalonian church was subjected to persecution that seemed to Paul as severe as that endured earlier by the Jewish Christians at his own hands (1 Thess. 2:14; 3:1–5; 2 Thess. 1:6). Nor did his departure lessen the calumnies of the Jews against him in particular, so that we find him defending himself against numerous charges in his first letter to the church (see below on The Writing of 1 Thessalonians).
Under cover of darkness, perhaps fearing further violence should they be seen, the missionaries were sent by “the brothers” to Berea, some forty-five miles southwest of Thessalonica (see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:4 for “brothers”). After a promising start to the work there, Paul was forced by the arrival of Jews from Thessalonica to move on, leaving Silas and Timothy behind to continue the work (Acts 17:10–14). Paul was accompanied by some Berean “brothers” to the coast (perhaps to Dion) and thence, either by road or by sea to Athens (Acts 17:15). Here, as we learn from 1 Thessalonians 3:1f., he was rejoined by Timothy whom he then sent back to “strengthen and encourage” the Thessalonians. Silas did not catch up with Paul, as far as we know, until he and Timothy, the latter returning a second time from Thessalonica, rejoined him in Corinth.
The Writing of 1 Thessalonians
The news that Timothy brought concerning the Thessalonians was, on the whole, good, and 1 Thessalonians was written in response to that news. There is no mistaking the note of relief that sounds throughout the letter (see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:2–10). Several times Paul had wanted to return himself, but he had been unable (1 Thess. 2:17f.); now he was overjoyed to hear that they were prospering, despite what had happened to him when he was there, and despite what the Thessalonians themselves had endured. We may be able to piece together Timothy’s report to Paul: (1) The Thessalonian Christians’ example inspired faith. Their witness to Christ had become “a model to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia (Greece)” (1 Thess. 1:6–10). (2) Some in Thessalonica, probably Jews, were misrepresenting Paul, accusing him, as it would seem from his defense, of cowardice and of being interested only in making money out of his converts. This was an easy accusation to make, since at that time itinerant preachers who lived off their gullible hearers were commonplace.[7] But Paul insists his motives are pure and reminds his readers how he and his colleagues conducted themselves. The very strength of his defense, however, may suggest that some of the Thessalonian Christians were in danger of believing what his accusers were saying (1 Thess. 2:1–12, 17f.).
Timothy perhaps reported another danger, (3) that of the Thessalonians’ slipping back into heathen ways. That would explain Paul’s stress in this letter on maintaining the Christian standard of holiness (1 Thess. 4:1–8; 5:22–24). (4) Clearly there was some anxiety within the church about members who had died. Would they share in the blessings of Christ’s return, or had death robbed them of their reward? Paul sets the survivors’ minds at rest. He assures them that, whether dead or alive at Christ’s return, no believer in Christ is disadvantaged (1 Thess. 4:13–5:11). (5) Perhaps related to their expectation of Christ’s return, but perhaps keyed to social factors that had nothing to do with it, some in the church were not simply out of work but were unwilling to work and had become a burden on others for their support. Paul gently rebukes them (the rebuke is much stronger in the second epistle) and asks the church to “warn those who are idle” (1 Thess. 5:14; cf. 4:11). (6) There seems also to have been some lack of respect for the church leaders, brought about perhaps by the leaders’ lack of diplomacy in dealing with the ones not willing to work (1 Thess. 5:12f.). And (7) there may have been a tendency on the part of some members to treat the gift of prophecy, or perhaps all spiritual gifts, with contempt (1 Thess. 5:19–22).
We have adopted what is the simplest and, we think, the most likely scenario of the circumstances behind Paul’s writing this letter. However, another scenario has been proposed that sees most of the matters set out above as symptoms of an incipient Gnosticism. W. Lütgert, for example, claims that an early Jewish Christian Gnosticism was evident, not only in Thessalonica, but in the churches in Philippi, Corinth, and those represented in the Pastoral Epistles.[8] These gnostics, he says, believed that the eschatological kingdom of God had fully come—they espoused what might be called a “realized eschatology” (see disc. and note on 1 Thess. 2:12), in which the gift of the Spirit and their own ecstatic experiences evidenced that the Parousia (the return of Christ) had already occurred (see disc. on 1 Thess. 2:19). Far from being regarded as an objective event, the resurrection was viewed as spiritual, taking place only in the lives of believers. Religious enthusiasm took precedence with these gnostics, he says, over the need to earn a living.
Walter Schmithals draws on Lütgert’s thesis and contends that gnostic missionaries opposed Paul both here in Thessalonica and elsewhere; moreover, they charged Paul (1) with speaking without the power of the Spirit (cf. 1 Thess. 1:2–2:2) and (2) with deception and error (cf. 1 Thess. 2:3). Paul’s exhortations to the Thessalonians to shun immorality and to respect their leaders must be seen against the background of gnostic permissiveness and their challenge to authority. Robert Jewett also owes something to Lütgert,[9] but he rejects the idea that the group in Thessalonica was of the same kind as those who troubled Paul elsewhere. They lacked, he claims, certain features of Gnosticism (e.g., the identification of knowledge with the Spirit and a docetic Christ) and should be placed only on the fringe of that movement. He agrees, however, with Lütgert, Schmithals, and others in supposing that this Thessalonian “fringe” had turned eschatology into a present spiritual experience and had abandoned the Christian ethics of work and sex.
Central to such theories is the proposition that the Thessalonians believed that the kingdom had come. But when we examine what Paul himself says, especially in 2 Thessalonians 2:1–12, while there is no disputing that the idea of realized eschatology was in the air (e.g., v. 2), it is equally evident that it was not the viewpoint of Paul’s readers. The problem for them was what to make of such a notion in the light of their own firmly held belief that something was still to come (a “future eschatology” assumed, for example, in the teaching of 1 Thess. 4:13–18; see further the disc. on 2 Thess. 2:1–12). As for “those who are idle,” to see in them evidence of a gnostic incursion into the church is to overlook the fact the missionaries had already encountered the problem when they were in Thessalonica and had warned against it (see disc. on 2 Thess. 3:6, 10). Similarly, the exhortations to sexual morality and the plea that the Thessalonians should hold their leaders “in the highest regard” are best seen not as evidence of Gnosticism but as evidence of the immaturity of the Thessalonian church.
The Authenticity of 1 Thessalonians
Few people would question that Paul wrote this letter. The external evidence is solid. It was accepted as Scripture by Marcion (ca. A.D. 140) and by the Muratorian Fragment, which dates a little later than Marcion in the second half of the second century. The letter is not quoted until Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 180), but the similarity of language between it and some earlier writings suggest that it was in circulation by the first half of that century.[10]
The address names Paul as sender (together with Silas and Timothy, but see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:1 and 3:1). But more significantly, its language and ideas are those of the apostle (see, e.g., disc. on 3:10; 4:1–12, 13, 16; 5:12, 15, 24). His association with the others agrees with the evidence of Acts that they were his colleagues at this time, assuming that the letter was written from Corinth during the so-called second missionary journey. Some see contradictions in the details of Acts and 1 Thessalonians as touching the movements of the people concerned, and on that basis, they question the letter’s authenticity. But it must always be understood that, while Acts is a remarkably accurate account of what it chooses to tell us, it does not choose to tell us everything. It should not surprise us, then, to find evidence in the letter of movements not recorded in Acts. We have already suggested a satisfactory reconstruction of events which shows Acts and 1 Thessalonians to be complementary, not contradictory. Any grounds in these details for doubting that Paul wrote the letter are imaginary.
The contents point to an early date. Evidence of a developed church structure is absent. “Those who work hard among you” are mentioned (1 Thess. 5:12), but these leaders have no titles and there is no evidence of a hierarchy within their number (cf., e.g., Phil. 1:1). Moral and practical dilemmas faced the church rather than theoretical difficulty, which might have been the case in a later day. Further, the major doctrinal concern of the letter—what would be the fate of believers who had died before the return of Christ—could have been a problem only in the earliest days of the church. The question raised by the Thessalonians would soon have been answered (as it is in this letter) and the problem laid to rest.
The letter has every appearance then of belonging to the time when Paul himself was still active. That being the case, it is hard to imagine how anyone other than Paul could have written it. Surely no one could have passed off a forgery while he was there to disown it. He shows in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 how intolerant he is of such an attempt; in addition he is careful to ensure his own letters are unmistakably his (see disc. on 2 Thess. 3:17).
The Date of 1 and 2 Thessalonians
Luke’s account of Paul’s time in Corinth (Acts 18:1–17) gives us a rare peg on which to hang Pauline chronology. He mentions that the apostle’s presence there coincided with Gallio’s appointment as the proconsul of Achaia. Proconsular governors normally took office on 1 July and held office for only one year. The year in which Gallio governed Achaia can be determined by an inscription at Delphi, which records the emperor’s reply to an inquiry from Gallio. This is dated after the twenty-sixth acclamation of Claudius as Imperator. These acclamations occurred at frequent but irregular intervals and by themselves do not establish a precise date. But other inscriptions found elsewhere enable scholars to set fairly narrow parameters for the date of the Delphi inscription. Two of these inscriptions (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum 3.476, 1977) show that the twenty-second and the twenty-fourth acclamations belong to the eleventh year of Claudius’ reign (25 January A.D. 51 to 24 January 52). A third, found on a monumental arch of an aqueduct in Rome, dedicated on 1 August A.D. 52, shows that by this time Claudius had received his twenty-seventh acclamation. On this basis, Gallio’s term of office most likely extended from July A.D. 51 to June 52. That same year, therefore, also saw Paul in Corinth.
Of course, Paul stayed in Corinth for more than one year (Acts 18:11), and we do not know whether Gallio’s term of office was early or late in relation to Paul’s time in the city. Neither can we determine when, during the year that Gallio visited, Paul was brought before him. The circumstances suggest, however, that Paul had been in Corinth long enough to have made the impact that prompted the Jewish action against him. This might put Paul’s arrival in the city as A.D. 50 or early in A.D. 51. The impression given by Acts is that, soon after Paul’s arrival, Silas and Timothy rejoined him; further, it appears that shortly after that—“Timothy has just now come to us from you”—he wrote 1 Thessalonians, say A.D. 51 (see disc. on 1 Thess. 3:6).
Before long, Paul received further news of the church in Thessalonica. It was still encouraging news. They were still holding firm despite renewed persecution, and, as far as his own standing was concerned, he no longer needed to defend himself to them; at least, no such defense is offered in the second epistle. But they still needed help concerning some matters. This prompted Paul to write 2 Thessalonians, probably only a matter of weeks or at the most a few months after the first letter, and near enough to the same year, A.D. 51.
The Writing of 2 Thessalonians
Specifically, there are two matters that Paul deals with in the second epistle. The first is doctrinal. Evidently a report was circulating in the church that “the day of the Lord had already come.” Paul responds to this in 2:1–12 by explaining that certain events must precede the Parousia, two in particular: “the rebellion” and the appearance of “the man of lawlessness.” Since neither of these had taken place, any report to the contrary was plainly false. The second matter is of a more practical nature and something addressed in the earlier letter: namely, the problem of “those who are idle.” Apparently the gentle reproof of 1 Thessalonians produced no effect. A much harder line was required, so Paul lays down the principle that “if a man will not work, he shall not eat” (2 Thess. 3:6–15).
The Authenticity of 2 Thessalonians
Although Paul is named as the author, just as he is in 1 Thessalonians, and in association as before with Silas and Timothy, scholars are less likely to agree that 2 Thessalonians came from Paul’s hand.[11]
Those doubting that Paul wrote it claim that the eschatology of 2 Thessalonians differs from that of 1 Thessalonians to the point of contradiction. In the first letter, Paul regards Jesus’ coming as imminent; in the second that sense of imminence is absent, and instead the emphasis is on what will precede the Parousia. This is a fair observation. But it is a difference of emphasis only, not evidence of a contradictory eschatology. Each letter addresses a particular issue, and until the question was raised of when the coming would be—the question addressed in 2 Thessalonians—there was no call for Paul to discuss it in the earlier letter, where the quite different issue was being addressed of what the fate of the dead would be.
Furthermore, it is asserted that the language of the first letter implies that its readers were Gentiles: “You turned to God from idols …” (1:9; see above on The Founding of the Church), whereas 2 Thessalonians, with its numerous allusions to the OT, implies that they were Jews (see esp. 2 Thess. 1:5–10; 2:1–12).[12] But the fact that 2 Thessalonians draws so much on the OT may say more about its author than the readers, while the fact that the OT is more in evidence here than in the first letter is because of its subject matter. Its theme is the day of the Lord, concerning which the OT says much (see disc. on 2 Thess. 1:3–12 for the author’s possible use of an earlier source for many of the OT allusions).
Moreover, the two letters are said to be different in tone, the first warm and friendly, the second formal and cold. But this is too sweeping a generalization. Much of the warmth of the first is generated by Paul’s self-defense, which he no longer needed to make, as it seems, in the second. Take these passages out and the difference in tone between the two letters would be imperceptible.[13] Conversely, the alleged coldness of the second letter rests on only a few passages in which a more formal tone is adopted, as in 1:3, “We ought always to thank God …” (cf. 1 Thess. 1:2, “We always thank God …”) and in which the author asserts his authority. “We command …” (3:4, 6, 10, 12; but cf. 1 Thess. 4:11). But alongside these expressions are others, such as his calling his readers “brothers” (1:3; 2:1, 13, 15; 3:1, 6, 13, 15; see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:4) and his enthusiastic references to their progress (e.g., “your faith is growing more and more,” 1:3); these reflect a warmth of affection no less than that in 1 Thessalonians (see disc. on 2 Thess. 1:3–12 for the possible influence of liturgical language on the alleged formality of the epistle).
This mixture of affection and authority is typically Pauline. Moreover, the likeness of 2 Thessalonians to Paul’s other letters does not end here; it is also reflected in its ideas and language. Pauline words, phrases, and constructions abound (see, e.g., disc. on 2 Thess. 1:2; 2:1, 17; 3:5). In this matter of language and thought, the likeness of 2 Thessalonians to 1 Thessalonians is especially noticeable. This similarity, however, is something of a two-edged sword. It has been enlisted as an argument against the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians on the grounds that a man of Paul’s ability, in writing to the same church within a short space of time, would not have repeated himself to the extent that he does but would have found other forms of expression. But the similarity argues even more forcibly for a common authorship of the two letters than it does against Paul’s authorship of the second. Surely no forger would have imitated Paul so successfully. As Leon Morris observes, “the imitator (if there was one) must have thought with the very mind of Paul.”[14] In defense of the traditional authorship, William Neil accounts for the similarity between the two letters by suggesting that Paul had read through “the customary draft copy of his first letter before writing the second” and that its language and ideas were, therefore, still fresh in his mind.[15] This is not an unlikely scenario, since it may have been a misunderstanding of what he had written in 1 Thessalonians that he was correcting in 2 Thessalonians. (On the other hand, the problem addressed in the second letter may have been due to another letter which was not his; see below and the disc. on 2 Thess. 2:2).
Besides all this, the external evidence for Paul’s authorship of the second letter is strong. Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin, and the Didache, all in the first half of the second century, appear to have known it. Both the Marcionite canon and the Muratorian Fragment include 1 Thessalonians, and it is quoted by Irenaeus and later writers as Pauline (e.g., Ireneaus, Against Heresies 26.4).
The idea is sometimes canvassed that 2 Thessalonians was written before 1 Thessalonians. According to this view, the shorter letter is filled out and enriched by the other. Advocates of this theory find support for their view in the recurring phrase, “now about” in 1 Thessalonians 4:9, 13; 5:1. The same phrase recurs in 1 Corinthians, marking Paul’s answers to the Corinthians’ questions. From this, the inference is drawn that Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians first; it precipitated a number of questions to which Paul responded with 1 Thessalonians. But the comparison with 1 Corinthians will not stand, for the context confirms that Paul is not answering the Thessalonians’ questions but is using this formula to introduce a discussion of what they already knew.
That 2 Thessalonians is the earlier letter is argued also on other grounds. Paul’s statement in 1 Thessalonians 5:1 that he had no need to write to them “about times and dates” makes the best sense, it is argued, if he had already written 2 Thessalonians 2:1–12. Again, at the end of 2 Thessalonians, Paul draws attention to his signature. That he should do so seems more appropriate in his first than his second letter. Also in the letter that is called the first, he refers to the leadership of the church, to a persecution that the church had already suffered (cf. 2 Thess. 1:4 where the church is still suffering), and to the death of some of its members. All of this, it is said, demands a longer span of time between the founding of the church and the writing of 1 Thessalonians than the traditional date and order of the letters allow. Finally, there is a problem within the church that Paul refers to in 2 Thessalonians 3:11 as though learning of it for the first time (“We hear that some among you are idle …”). In 1 Thessalonians 5:14, however, he speaks of the same problem as a matter of common knowledge and as something that the church must take in hand.
Taking these arguments in order, (1) there is no need to postulate 2 Thessalonians 2:1–12 as the background to the “times and dates” of the other letter. On any showing, Paul’s ministry in Thessalonica included preaching about the Parousia; this sufficiently accounts for the reference of 1 Thessalonians 5:1. (2) The reference to his signature in 2 Thessalonians 3:17 may be better explained by the possibility that in 2:2 he is responding to a spurious letter that was circulating in his name (see above on The Writing of 2 Thessalonians and the disc. on 2 Thess. 2:2). For their future reference, should the question of authenticity ever come up again, they should know that his letters could be clearly identified. This is “the distinguishing mark in all my letters,” he explains. “This is how I write.” (3) Our reconstruction of the events of Paul’s ministry in Thessalonica, and of what followed until the missionaries were reunited in Corinth, allows ample time for the situation reflected in 1 Thessalonians to have developed (see above on The Founding of the Church). (4) As for the references to persecution, “despite the aorist epathēte in 1 Thessalonians 2:14, it is not clear,” says Bruce, “that the afflictions of 1 Thessalonians belong to the (recent) past in contrast to the present afflictions of 2 Thessalonians.”[16] Perhaps the most that can be said about these references in both the epistles is that they point to what was an ongoing fact of life for this church. (5) Finally, with regard to the problem of idleness, when Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 3:11 that he and his colleagues had heard of the matter, this does not necessarily mean that they had heard of it only then or only once. The reference may be to a later report which confirmed what Timothy had already told them (such a report may also have mentioned the Thessalonians’ mistaken ideas about the Parousia; see disc. on 2 Thess. 2:1–12).
In short, none of the arguments for reversing the traditional order of the two letters is convincing, while there are solid reasons for retaining that order. Paul’s explanation in 1 Thessalonians 2:17–3:5 of his state of mind—his “intense longing” to see the Thessalonians—and of the measures that he had taken because of it presupposes that this was his first letter. The same holds true for the note of relief now that he has an encouraging report of the church. If indeed 2 Thessalonians is more formal in tone than the other (see above on The Authenticity of 2 Thessalonians), this might reflect a more settled state of mind now that he knew how matters stood. It might also reflect that he was having to deal with a recalcitrant group who had disregarded his earlier warnings. The problem with the idle is, in fact, only one of several areas in which a progression can be seen from 1 Thessalonians to 2 Thessalonians. Another is in the references to persecution. The church had already suffered, as we have seen, in 1 Thessalonians, but there is reason to think that part of Paul’s purpose in writing was to encourage the church in the face of what inevitably lay ahead: “You know quite well,” he wrote, “that we were destined for (trials)” (1 Thess. 3:3). And by the time he wrote 2 Thessalonians, the inevitable had happened, and the church was suffering persecution again. A third area in which a progression can be traced is in the teaching about the Parousia. In 1 Thessalonians 4:17, Paul gives what seems to be a new piece of instruction (as far as this church is concerned) about believers being “caught up … to meet the Lord in the air.” But this teaching appears to be presupposed in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 in the reference to “our being gathered to him,” thus Paul is building in the second letter on the instruction given in the first. We conclude, then, that Paul wrote the two letters and that he wrote them in their canonical order.
When the dust of these questions settles, what really matters is what these letters say to Christians today. Some of the issues in the letters may not be those we face, but even so, we can learn from how they are discussed. Paul had no doubt about his authority. He believed himself to be a man “approved by God,” appointed by Christ (1 Thess. 2:4, 6) and called “to proclaim … the whole will of God” (Acts 20:27). On that basis he said “anything that would be helpful” (Acts 20:20), whether what he said was a “comfortable” or an “uncomfortable” word in the ear of his hearers. His only criteria were the helpfulness of the word and the wholeness of the ministry of the word; they certainly did not include the comfort of his hearers. He would put a “flea in their ear” if need be (see disc. on 1 Thess. 2:4). But his proclamation of “the whole will of God” was tempered always with love. He was like a “mother caring for her little children” or a father “encouraging, comforting, and urging” them on (1 Thess. 2:7, 11f.). In discussing often difficult issues, Paul was both gentle and authoritative, faithful to God’s word, but “fatherly” (in the best sense) in applying it (see, e.g., disc. on 2 Thess. 3:15).
These letters still speak to us today. Some of the issues may not be those that we face, but, for the most part, their teaching is timeless and often timely for today’s church. These letters were addressed to a small church in a large and overwhelmingly pagan society, a church under constant pressure to conform to the norms of that society. Many today can identify with the Thessalonians in this situation and can learn from Paul’s sustained call to holiness that overcoming the pressure to conform demands consecration, not complacency.
But, then it might be asked, Why be holy? The answer to that question and, at the same time, the best incentive to live consecrated lives, is the truth that Jesus will return. Nowhere is that truth more vividly declared than in the Thessalonian letters. “With this in mind,” says Paul speaking of that return, “we pray … that … Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thess. 1:11f.). In this, he sums up what the letters say to Christians today: Be ready, be holy; to which we can only add our own Amen.