2 Thessalonians

 

§1 Address and Greeting (2 Thess. 1:1–2)

1:1–2 / The wording resembles the first letter’s address (see comment there) except for the addition of “our” in the phrase, in God our Father. This clarifies that God is being presented, not as the Father of Jesus but as the Father of his people and, specifically, of the church of the Thessalonians. The greeting also parallels the first letter’s (again, see the comment there), but it is expanded by the addition of from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, which becomes Paul’s regular form of greeting in later letters (cf. Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2; Phil. 1:2; Col. 1:2 and for variants, cf. 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Titus 1:4; Philem. 3). It makes explicit what is implicit in the simpler form: God (as author) and the Lord Jesus (as agent) are together the source of our salvation, which is entirely of grace (“the extravagant goodness of God,” see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:1) and which results in our peace. God himself (Father and Son) puts us at peace with himself. For the implication of Jesus’ divine status in his being linked by the one preposition with God the Father as both the “place” (en) in which the church has its rest and the source (apo) from which come grace and peace, see the discussion on 1 Thessalonians 1:1. For the titles Lord and Christ, see the note on 1 Thessalonians 1:1.

 

§2 Thanksgiving and Prayer (2 Thess. 1:3–12)

This section divides into three subdivisions marked in NIV by the paragraphs. The subdivisions, however, are not as obvious in the Greek as in NIV. In the Greek, verses 1 to 10 form a single (complex) sentence. Nevertheless, this sentence exhibits a definite movement in the thought from thanksgiving to encouragement. Some have suggested that, compared with the earlier letter, this epistle’s thanksgiving reflects a certain coolness (vv. 3–4). Such a charge, however, must be offset by the affectionate address of verse 3 (“brothers”) and the boast in verse 4 about the Thessalonians’ perseverance and faith. What appears to be aloofness might be better explained in terms of the formality of the language, perhaps influenced by liturgical language (see R. D. Aus, JBL 92 [1973], pp. 432–38). In verses 5 to 10, Paul encourages his readers by reference to “the day” (of Jesus’ return). These verses, and more specifically verses 7 to 10, reveal a poetic structure such that A. S. Way, The Letters of St. Paul (London: Macmillan, 1921), describes them as the “Hymn of the Second Coming.” This might be Paul’s own composition or an earlier work, either Christian or Jewish, on which he draws. Either way, the hymn owes much to the language and style of the Septuagint (LXX). The remaining verses in this section (vv. 11–12) constitute not so much a prayer as a report of prayer, although the difference is more stylistic than real. Effectively these verses are Paul’s prayer for his readers.

1:3 / It is possible that the Thessalonians had demurred at the praise heaped upon them in the earlier letter. They would not have been the first to find it difficult to accept a compliment, and this may account for Paul’s words, we ought always to thank God (but see above for a possible liturgical influence). The word ought (opheilō) expresses the idea of a personal obligation, “we owe it,” to which he adds the phrase, and rightly so. Thanksgiving is fitting because it is warranted—“we owe it because it is appropriate.” Christian leaders are not always as quick to acknowledge the pluses in the lives of their people. The thanksgiving is, of course, to God, for God made them what they were. It is to God for them. The present tense of the infinitive “to thank” suggests an ongoing activity that is reinforced by the adverb “always” (pantote).

Paul’s two reasons (hoti) for this thanksgiving each refer to two of the three traditional Christian graces (see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:3). Only the word “hope” is omitted; nonetheless, the theme of the Parousia, which lies at the center of the Christian hope, pervades the letter, while the “endurance inspired by hope,” mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 1:3, is the subject of the next verse. Thus the thought of hope, if not the actual word, belongs to this thanksgiving. Paul offers thanksgiving for their faith, because your faith is growing more and more. Faith can be understood either subjectively as trust, or objectively as the body of teaching, “the faith” (see disc. on 1 Thess. 3:2). In 1 Thessalonians 3:10, Paul spoke of their deficiency of faith in the latter sense—in some areas they needed further instruction—and he may be speaking of faith in that sense again—they were now better instructed. But the two meanings merge. A better grasp of the faith leads (or should lead) to a greater trust in the one with whom the faith is concerned. The verb (hyperauxanō), a “classical compound” (Bruce), is striking and occurs only here in the NT. It means “to increase beyond measure.” The hyperbole reflects Paul’s delight in their progress.

Second, the thanksgiving is for their love. We ought always to thank God, he says, because the love every one of you has for each other is increasing. Again this picks up something from the earlier letter. In 1 Thessalonians 3:12, Paul prayed that their love might “increase (pleonazō, the same verb as in this verse) and overflow for each other and for everyone else.” He could now give thanks because that prayer had been answered. These references to the satisfactory outcome of earlier matters of concern and prayer are compelling evidence that both letters were addressed to the same people and written in their present sequence (see Introduction on The Authenticity of 2 Thessalonians and The Sequence of the Letters). In speaking of their love, Paul puts the matter most emphatically: literally, “the love of each one of you all” (stronger, e.g., than “each one of you,” 1 Thess. 2:11). Clearly from this, love in particular stood out as a characteristic of this church, even though some of its members’ conduct left something to be desired (see disc. on 3:11f.). Both verbs in this verse are in the present tense, indicating that their faith and love were still growing.

1:4 / As a result (hōste) of their growth, Paul and the others could boast about the Thessalonians among God’s other churches, here presumably the churches of Achaia (see note). “We ourselves boast,” he says, giving unusual emphasis to the pronoun and thus, perhaps, making the point that although their habit was not to boast of their converts (in 1 Thess. 1:9 it is others who boast about them), in this case they could not keep silent about the men and women who were their “glory and joy” (1 Thess. 2:20). The compound verb enkauchaomai, more forceful perhaps than the simple verb which Paul commonly employs, is unique to this passage in the NT. “We ourselves glory in” might better capture the sense. The grounds of that glorying were stated earlier: the Thessalonians’ increasing faith and love. But Paul restates those grounds with a difference. He speaks now of their perseverance (hypomonēs, see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:3) and faith, which in this context undoubtedly means trust. This hints at the circumstances in which they had trusted God and persevered; namely, in all the persecutions and trials they were enduring. The present tense (anechesthe) compared with the aorist (epathēte) of 1 Thessalonians 2:14 indicates that persecution was a recurring problem for this church (see Introduction on The Sequence of the Letters). The more general word “trials” (thlipsis; see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:6) means “pressures” and can refer to any of the pressures to which we as human beings are subject in this “present evil age” (Gal. 1:4). “Persecutions” is more specific. The noun derives from a verb meaning “to put to flight,” “to pursue,” and refers in particular to trials that come to us as Christians (cf. Matt. 13:21; Mark 4:17; 10:30; Acts 8:1; 13:50; Rom. 8:35; 2 Cor. 12:10; 2 Tim. 3:11).

1:5 / From thanksgiving, Paul turns to encouragement. In introducing this theme, he appears (in the Gk.; see BDF §480 [6] for the syntax concerned) to set the word endeigma, a “token” or “proof” (found only here in the NT; but cf. Rom. 3:25f.; 2 Cor. 8:24; Phil. 1:28 for the similar endeixis), in apposition to “the persecutions and trials.” This identifies the latter as evidence that God’s judgment is right, perhaps in the sense that their suffering proved the genuineness of their faith, i.e., God had indeed adjudged them his own (cf. 1 Thess. 2:14; 3:3f.). Had it not been genuine they would not have been suffering as they were. But it may be, as Morris suggests, that the evidence lay not so much in their suffering as in the way the Thessalonians bore it—their “perseverance and faith” (v. 4; see Morris, Themes, p. 18). At all events, the final proof of the rightness of God’s judgment would be furnished, as we see in the next verse, in his vindication of the sufferers and wreaking vengeance on their oppressors (cf. Phil. 1:28 for similar teaching). That theme of vindication is anticipated in v. 5, where the Greek appears to express the purpose of the judgment in the Thessalonians’ being counted worthy of the kingdom of God (eis to with the infinitive; see disc. on 1 Thess. 2:12; NIV takes the Gk. construction as expressing result—outcome rather than the intention; see disc. on 1 Thess. 2:16). Suffering is not instigated by God (cf. James 1:13), but he turns it to his purpose (cf. Rom. 8:28). As for that purpose, it should be noted that the verb kataxioō (only here, Luke 20:35, and Acts 5:41 in the NT) means “to deem” or “to count worthy,” not “to make worthy” (cf. the other great Pauline word, dikaioō, not “to make just” but “to deem just”). It is not God’s purpose that, by suffering, we should be made worthy to enter his kingdom, but that, having entered by grace, we should be counted worthy to be there (cf. Matt. 5:10). This is just another way of saying that suffering is part of the package of being a Christian (see disc. on 1 Thess. 3:3). Paul puts the same thought into different words at the end of the verse when he speaks of suffering “on behalf of” (hyper with the gen. in the causal sense “for the sake of”; for other uses see disc. on 2:1 and 1 Thess. 5:10) the kingdom of God. In this context, the kingdom means the final phase of God’s rule, which will be inaugurated at the coming of Christ (see disc. and note on 1 Thess. 2:12).

1:6–7 / The statements of verse 5 are based upon the general principle expressed in verse 6 that God is just. In the Greek this is a conditional clause, “if to pay back (antapodidomi, see disc. on 1 Thess. 3:9) … and to give relief … is just with God.” But this is simply a literary form (“a rhetorical understatement,” Morris; cf. Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 8:5), and there is no question that God’s justice is concerned with condemnation and vindication, with the giving of relief, and with retribution in kind to the troublemakers. Some are uncomfortable with this proposition. They can accept that God is love but not that he is just and will condemn. And yet God’s justice as much as his love saves us; only as we refuse his salvation do we see the other side of the coin. As in the parable, if we will not have him as king, we will have him as judge (cf. Luke 19:27 and see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:10). Trouble translates the Greek word rendered “trials” in verse 4 (thlipsis, see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:6), suggesting that there is an element of quid pro quo in God’s justice, people getting what they deserve. But, if this is true of his condemnation, it is not true of his salvation, for in salvation he gives far more than we deserve. But that is not Paul’s point. Paul mentions only the negative benefit of relief to you who are troubled (for the verb thlibō, here as a participle, see disc. on 1 Thess. 3:4). The noun anesis is often used by Paul as the antithesis of thlipsis—relief from trouble (cf. 2 Cor. 2:13; 7:5; 8:13). He and his colleagues looked forward to sharing this respite with the Thessalonians—and to us as well. “When we are thinking of the great apostle as bringing consolation and encouragement to his persecuted friends, it is easy to think of him as living in a different atmosphere. We tend to forget that he shared the same world as that inhabited by the Thessalonians; he, too, was afflicted (2 Cor. 11:23–29)” (Morris, Themes, p. 53). Relief will come when the Lord Jesus is revealed—the word is apokalypsis, literally, “in the revelation,” and implies that Jesus is already crowned with glory as Lord (Acts 2:36 and see note on 1:1). But it awaits his return (parousia, see disc. on 1 Thess. 2:19) for his glory to be revealed. The phrase is qualified in three ways: (1) he will be revealed from heaven, signifying his divinity (cf. 1 Thess. 1:10; 4:16); (2) with his powerful angels, literally, “angels of power,” but according to the semitic idiom the genitive may be understood as adjectival, characterizing them in the manner indicated (cf. 2:9f.; and see 1 Thess. 5:5 for the similar construction, “sons of”; for “mighty angels,” cf. Ps. 103:20). But the focus of this passage is on Jesus. It may be better, therefore, to understand the power as his, and the angels as those attendants appropriate to his position and power (cf. JB, “the angels of his power,” and see disc. on 1 Thess. 3:13 for the angels’ attending him); and (3) in blazing fire (cf. Rev. 1:13–16; for the association of fire with theophanies, see Exod. 3:2; 19:18; Lev. 9:24; Ps. 18:8; Ezek. 1:13, 27; and for its association with divine judgment, see Isa. 66:15f.; Dan. 7:9f., Matt. 3:11f.).

1:8 / From the revelation of Jesus, Paul turns to a description of what God will do, echoing the note of judgment sounded in the earlier verses (see also disc. on 1 Thess. 4:6). He will punish, says Paul. In the Greek this is not a separate statement but a description, going back to verse 7, of the Lord Jesus as “giving vengeance (upon).” His punishment is directed to those earlier referred to as “those who trouble you” and here as those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. In repeating the Greek definite article with the second participle, Paul may have in view two distinct groups of people. If this is the case, we should suppose that the Gentiles are “those who do not know God” and the Jews are “those who do not obey the gospel.” The fact that in the OT “those who do not know God” are the Gentiles adds weight to this interpretation (Ps. 9:17; 79:6 and see disc. on 1 Thess. 4:5). But most commentators reject it as reading too much into the passage, preferring to take the “and” (kai) as epexegetical and the second participle as a particular case of the first (as indeed is the earlier phrase, “those who trouble you”; the style reflects the parallelism of OT poetry). Not to know God is culpable ignorance. It is also a fatal ignorance, for life in the ultimate sense, eternal life, lies only in knowing God (John 17:3)—knowing, not in the sense of possessing information about him, but of being in a personal relationship with him. This life and the way to it are set forward in the gospel of our Lord Jesus (the gospel of which he is the content; see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:5 and, for title Lord, the note on 1 Thess. 1:1). In nothing, then, are these people more culpable than in not obeying the gospel (cf. Rom. 10:16, lit. “not all obeyed the gospel”). Paul is referring not to people who never experienced the opportunity of hearing, but to those who had the opportunity and did not respond. Later, in Romans, he casts the net wider and condemns even those who had not heard. They could have seen something of God in his creation, he argues, but they “did not think it worthwhile to retain (lit. ‘did not approve to have’) the knowledge of God” (Rom. 1:28). The point remains: some respond to God’s revelation and others do not. The latter must bear the consequences of their own choice.

1:9 / They will be punished, literally, “pay the penalty.” Penalty represents the Greek dikē, from the same root as dikaios, “just.” Theirs is a just punishment; they get the penalty they deserve. The verb, “to pay,” (tinō) only occurs here in the NT. In the Greek this verse, together with verse 10, forms a relative clause, adding a further description to those referred to in verse 8. Strictly, the introductory pronoun is the relative of quality: “who are of such a kind as to,” underlining the fitness of these people to be punished in this way. We cannot be certain, however, that Paul used the pronoun in the strict sense. In apposition with “penalty,” giving content to their punishment, is the phrase, everlasting destruction (olethron aiōnion, “destruction of the age,” i.e., destruction in relation to the age to come; cf. 4 Macc. 10:15). This is the counterpart of God’s gift of eternal life (zōē aiōnios, life in relation to the age to come; cf. Rom. 2:7; 5:21; 6:22f.; Gal. 6:8). There is a sense of finality about both the gift and the punishment. Neither will be revoked (cf. 1 Thess. 5:3). As to what “destruction of the age” means, we are not told except in negative terms that it is from the presence (prosōpon, “face”) of the Lord and from the majesty (doxa, “glory”) of his power. The Lord is Jesus, as the next verse makes plain, whereas in the OT passages echoed here, it is God who is the Lord (cf. Isa. 2:10, 19, 21, and see disc. and note on 1 Thess. 1:1 for the divine status of Jesus). As eternal life lies in knowing God and of necessity Jesus Christ through whom alone he can be known (Matt. 11:27), so eternal destruction lies in being “separate from Christ … and (therefore in being) without God” (Eph. 2:12; cf. Rom. 6:23). It would seem that separation, not annihilation, is intended by this destruction (olethros, see disc. on 1 Thess. 5:3). It is destruction in the sense of deprivation “away from” (apo) the face of the Lord, depicted in NIV as being shut out from his presence. The two expressions, “the face of the Lord” and “his glory” mean much the same, for glory signifies what may be seen of Christ. In this connection, having in mind perhaps how oppressed the church was in Thessalonica and how impotent it must have seemed in the face of its oppressors, Paul singles out what may be seen of Christ, namely, his power. In effect, he is declaring as Elisha did in similar circumstances that, contrary to appearances, “those who are with us are more than those who are with them” (2 Kings 6:16). But this thought, if it is present at all, is only incidental to his main thought concerning the ruin that awaits those who “do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.”

1:10 / Their “wages” will be “paid” on the day he comes (cf. Rom. 6:23 and see disc. on 1 Thess. 2:12 and note). The temporal conjunction in the Greek “whenever he comes” is indefinite, but the indefiniteness lies not in the event but only in the time of the event. He will come, but we do not know when (see disc. on 1 Thess. 5:2). “The day” (lit. “that day”) is “the day of the Lord” (cf. 2:2; Isa. 2:11, 17, a passage echoed in v. 9 above; 1 Thess. 5:2). The implications of his coming are far-reaching, including, as we have seen, the punishment of those who do not know God. But now Paul focuses on what it will mean for Jesus himself. Jesus will come to be glorified in his holy people. The verb is a compound, endoxazō, “to be glorified in” (only here and in 1:12 in the NT), and the preposition is repeated in the phrase, “in (en) his holy people.” This unusual expression in this precise form occurs only here in the NT. Its effect is to bring home what an important, though essentially passive, role the people of God play in the scheme of things, for they are “God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:10). In God’s design, “nobodies” become “somebodies.” What they are will be made known in that day to all, including “the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms (Eph. 3:10), and what they are will redound in that day to the glory of their creator (cf. Gal. 1:24; 1 John 3:2). For the presence of the hagioi, “the holy ones,” at the Parousia, see the discussion on 1 Thessalonians 3:13. In another context, they could be understood to be angels, but the parallelism of the following phrase, to be marveled at among all those who have believed, illumines that they are the saints or at least include the saints. Moreover, the preposition employed in the second half of the verse is the same as that in the first half, repeating the thought that Christ will be glorified “in” them, not “by” as NIV implies with its “among” (it would be an unusual use of en if Paul had meant “by” them; in that case we should have expected hypo). The sense is, then, that Christ will be “marveled at (by others, unspecified, because of what they see) in those who have believed.” The use of the aorist participle looks back to the decisive moment when these men and women first put their trust in Christ and became a new creation (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17). And notice the word “all.” No believer is excluded from this role. It is the privilege of all of God’s people to be the ground of the glory of Christ.

An explanation follows (hoti) that, in the Greek, stands awkwardly with the rest of the verse, unless we understand some such ellipsis as NIV has supplied: This includes you, i.e., among all those who have believed, because you believed our testimony to you (cf., our gospel, 2:14; our preaching, 1 Cor. 15:14; and see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:5).

1:11 / With this in mind, literally, “to this end” (eis ho), namely, the Coming and its outcome in the lives of believers, we constantly pray for you. This assurance of prayer for the Thessalonians is the other side of the missionaries’ confidence that at the Coming the Thessalonians would prove to be the crown in which they would glory in the presence of the Lord (1 Thess. 2:19). As often, the conjunction hina introduces both the content and the purpose of the twofold prayer (cf. 1 Thess. 4:1; for a similar effect with the infinitive, see 1 Thess. 2:12): First, that our God may count you worthy of his calling. The only assessment of our lives that matters in the end is God’s, and it will rest on what we have made of our lives (or on what we have allowed him to make of them; see disc. on 1 Thess. 5:23). “Calling” (klēsis) generally refers to the initial act whereby God calls us to himself, but the question raised by this petition is, What sort of Christians have we now become? Have we “become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13)? Have we, in terms of Paul’s metaphor, built upon the foundation which is Christ (1 Cor. 3:11)? The fundamental question for Christians is: “Since everything will be destroyed …, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives,” says Peter, answering his own question, “as you look forward to the day” (2 Pet. 3:11f.). Paul agrees, hence this prayer for his readers. Most of the calls to holiness in the NT are made in the light of the coming judgment. For Christians this will not be a matter of life or death (they have already been acquitted on the capital charge—justified), but it will entail an assessment of how they have done and will have a bearing on their future glory (see disc. on 1 Thess. 2:4 for the judgment of those who believe, and on 1 Thess. 3:13 and 5:23 for the Parousia as an incentive to holiness; see further Williams, Promise, pp. 93–96). This prayer exhorts the Thessalonians to live lives worthy of their calling (cf. Eph. 4:1).

Second, Paul prays that by God’s power, he may fulfill every good purpose … and every act prompted by your faith. Nothing in the Greek corresponds to of yours as found in NIV. It is possible then, that the good purpose is not the Thessalonians’, but God’s, as in Philippians 2:13. But NIV is probably correct in its interpretation. The expression is literally, “good pleasure of goodness.” Morris notes that the noun “goodness” (agathosynē) is never used of God elsewhere in the NT, and Milligan adds that it would be more natural to have the article before “good pleasure” (eudokia), if Paul were referring to God’s purpose. But even allowing that “every good purpose” is the Thessalonians’, clearly the inspiration is God’s, and so Paul looks to God to complete their good intentions along with “every act prompted by (their) faith” (lit. “a work of faith”; see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:3 and, for faith, on 1 Thess. 3:2).

1:12 / The section ends with a partial return to the thought of verse 10. The missionaries’ prayer of the previous verse is to the end (hopos), says Paul, that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you. The name signifies the person; the purpose of their prayer, then, is that the Lord Jesus himself may be glorified by the holy and godly lives of his people. The difference between this and verse 10 is that, where the latter refers to the Parousia, this concerns (typically of the NT) the present. Even now, despite the restriction of a mortal body and a hostile environment (cf. Rom. 8:22f.; 1 John 3:2), enough should be seen of Christ in us to redound to his glory and, in a secondary sense, to our own: and you in him (—should be, but is it?). Paul intends, however, not to emphasize our glorification as such, but rather to disclose what is ours in Christ (cf. John 17:10, 21–23). The final phrase leaves no doubt where Paul’s emphasis lies. Even if in a reflected sense we have a glory, there is no room for self-satisfaction, for all that we have is according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ. The NIV marginal reading, “Our God and Lord, Jesus Christ,” is possible in terms of the Greek, where the one definite article governs both “God” and “Lord,” but it is unlikely in terms of Paul’s style. The one article should be seen rather as drawing the two persons of the Godhead together in the grace that has saved us (see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:1 and 5:28, and for the titles Lord and Christ, the note on 1 Thess. 1:1).

Additional Notes §2

1:4 / God’s churches: This phrase in 1 Thessalonians 2:14 concerned the churches of Judea that sprang up after the scattering of the members of the original church in Jerusalem. Primarily, the Jerusalem church is meant by “the church of God” in Paul’s references to his persecution of the church in 1 Corinthians 15:9; Galatians 1:13; cf. Philippians 3:6. But now other “churches of God” existed, especially, from Paul’s point of view, “the churches of the Gentiles” (Rom. 16:4). Thus, for example, the believers in Corinth constituted “the church of God in Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1; cf. 1 Cor. 10:32; 11:22). The sum of such local churches constitutes “the churches of God” in the broadest sense, an entity that might also be referred to in the singular as simply “the church” (cf. Acts 9:31 where the daughter churches of Jerusalem are spoken of collectively as “the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria”; see also Eph. 1:22; 3:10, 21; 5:23ff.). The genitive in the phrase, the churches of God, marks their special nature. Just as they are “in God” (1 Thess. 1:1), so they belong to God. They are not merely assemblies of like-minded people, but are people “who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory” (Eph. 1:14). Moreover, the assemblies as such belong to God. That is, there is both an individual and a corporate relationship with him.

 

§3 The Man of Lawlessness (2 Thess. 2:1–12)

We come now to the heart of the letter, where Paul attempts to put right some wrong ideas about the Parousia (see Introduction). How Paul learned about the problem we are not told. In 3:11 he speaks of having heard a report that some in the church were idle. If this report were more recent than the one brought by Timothy, it might have included the issues dealt with in this section (see Introduction on The Sequence of the Letters). This is one of the most difficult passages of the NT to interpret, largely because it presupposes Paul’s oral teaching (cf. v. 5 “don’t you remember,” v. 6 “you know”), which gave his Thessalonian readers the key to unlock its meaning. That key now being lost, his later readers must approach the passage with caution. Augustine’s comment in The City of God is apposite:

Since Paul said that they knew, he was unwilling to say this openly. And thus we, who do not know what they knew, desire and yet are unable even with effort to get at what the apostle meant, especially as the things which he adds makes his meaning obscure … I frankly confess I do not know what he means (20.19).

As in 1:5–10, we see that the author owes a debt to the language and style of the OT, especially in verses 3–4 and 8–12. This may be Paul himself or an earlier source. Bruce sees these verses as “part of the common stock of primitive Christian eschatology,” while he regards the intervening and more prosaic verses 5–7 to be possibly Paul’s own “contribution to the account of the rise and fall of Antichrist” (p. 163).

2:1 / The section begins with a plea couched in terms identical with those of 1 Thessalonians 5:12 and not unlike those of 4:1: We ask you, brothers.… In this instance, the plea is concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him. The word translated concerning (hyper) usually means, “on behalf of,” and if something of that usual meaning is retained here (and hyper is not simply the equivalent of peri), the sense may be, “on behalf of” or “in the interest of the truth concerning.…” The two nouns, coming (parousia, see disc. on 1 Thess. 2:19) and being gathered (episynagogē), are governed by the one article and are thus depicted as the one (complex) event. The gathering is that spoken of in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. Therefore, those who use this verse to make a distinction between the time of the so-called Rapture of the saints and the Parousia, do so in defiance of the syntax (see note on 1 Thess. 3:13). A single event comprises the return of Jesus (visibly, in glory, cf. 1:10) and the Rapture of the saints. The use of the full, formal title, our Lord Jesus Christ (see note on 1 Thess. 1:1), underlines the solemnity of the occasion.

2:2 / The construction eis to with the infinitive expresses both the content and the purpose of the plea (cf. 1 Thess. 2:12 and for the similar use of hina, 1 Thess. 4:1; 2 Thess. 1:11). They should not become easily unsettled or alarmed. Unsettled renders the Greek word saleuō which often describes the action of wind and wave, a restless tossing as of a ship, wind-blown and wave-tossed in a storm (for the same image differently expressed, see Eph. 4:14). The aorist tense of the infinitive conveys the idea of a sudden shock to which is added the qualifying phrase (not apparent in NIV), “from the mind” (apo tou noos), where “mind” indicates the mental balance of those concerned. Our expression, “to blow the mind,” is akin to Paul’s, who did not want the Thessalonians’ minds blown “quickly,” in the sense of hastily (NIV easily). J. B. Phillips’ translation puts it this way: “Don’t be thrown off your balance,” which is apt, since balance is one thing that is needed in any discussion of the Parousia. Nor did Paul want them to be alarmed (throeō). Here the infinitive changes to the present tense to suggest a continuing state of agitation (cf. its similar use in an eschatological context in Mark 13:7).

Three things might unsettle or alarm the Thessalonians: some prophecy, report or letter. Some prophecy is literally, “through Spirit,” meaning a revelation from the Spirit of God to which the prophet gives utterance. Paul himself encouraged prophecy in this church (1 Thess. 5:19f.), and “the Lord’s own word” of 1 Thessalonians 4:15 may have been just such an utterance. But care had to be exercised. “Test everything” advised Paul (1 Thess. 5:21f.), especially, as in this case, where the prophecy related to the future. This sound advice applied no less to the report (logos), the non-prophetic utterance which might be a word of wisdom (as in 1 Cor. 12:8), or a word of authority (as in 2:15), or simply a report as we would understand it. As for the letter, the qualifying phrase (which could attach to all three nouns but is best taken with this alone) shows some uncertainty on Paul’s part as to what exactly he was up against. The literal Greek, “as through us” (NIV, supposed to have come from us), is sufficiently vague that it could refer either to a genuine letter of Paul or to a forgery purporting to be from him. If to a genuine letter, it presumably means 1 Thessalonians, and the problem in that case becomes one of misunderstanding something Paul said, perhaps his warning about the unexpectedness of the day of the Lord (1 Thess. 5:1–11; for this term, see disc. and note on 1 Thess. 2:12; and for the title Lord, see the note on 1 Thess. 1:1). “Sudden” (see disc. on 1 Thess. 5:3) may somehow have become “soon” and soon “now,” and so rumors spread that it had already come (enestēken, the perfect of enistēmi, is commonly employed to mean, “to be present as distinct from future”; cf. Rom. 8:38; 1 Cor. 3:22; 7:26; Gal. 1:4; Heb. 9:9, and see Moulton-Milligan). The combination in the Greek of the two conjunctions hōs and hoti, where either would have served on its own, “may here impart a subjective flavor to the clause thus introduced” (Bruce); as we would say, “… that the day of the Lord has allegedly come,” the writer wishing to dissociate himself from the report. Clearly, the Lord had not returned visibly in the manner anticipated in 1 Thessalonians 4:16f., but his coming comprised a complex of events, and it is not beyond imagination that some in Thessalonica should think that the Day had begun (see note).

2:3–4 / Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way sums up what has been said in the previous verses. Having made this plea, Paul intends to give an explanation, but, since all that he actually wrote is the conjunction for (hoti), the rest of the clause must be understood as indicated by the brackets in NIV: [that day will not come]. The missing clause forms the apodosis of a conditional sentence of which the protasis is until, ean mē, “if not,” “except,” the rebellion occurs (v. 3) to which the Greek adds “first,” i.e., first the rebellion comes and then the day of the Lord. The definite article marks the rebellion as something known to Paul’s readers, no doubt from his teaching when he was with them. Without the benefit of that teaching, we can only guess at what the rebellion might be. The word apostasia, rebellion, is frequently used in a political sense in LXX (e.g., Josh. 22:22; 2 Chron. 29:19; Jer. 2:19; cf. also Josephus, Life 43); but in Acts 21:21, the only other occurrence of the word in the NT, it indicates rebellion of a different sort: apostasy from God. In the light of verse 4, this is certainly Paul’s meaning here, but the apostasy may have a political expression, so that the other meaning should not be ruled out altogether (since the “governing authorities” are divinely appointed, Rom. 13:1, there is no clear distinction between rebellion and apostasy). At all events, in common with other NT writers and like Jesus himself (Matt. 24:10–13), Paul envisages a final upsurge of evil before the end of the age, heralding the onset of the end. Some have understood the apostasia as a falling away within the church, but the word expresses not so much apathy as deliberate opposition, and it is better to see this as a reference to events outside the church which, however, will profoundly affect the church. The rebellion will be the church’s “great tribulation” (Rev. 7:14).

Associated with it will be the man of lawlessness (anomia). The texts vary between this phrase and “the man of sin” (hamartia), but the meaning is the same. Sin is essentially lawlessness with regard to God (cf. 1 John 3:4). The phrase the man of lawlessness, with the genitive used adjectivally in the semitic manner (see disc. on 1:7), characterizes him in terms of his opposition to God (see further disc. on 2:4). E. Nestle, ExpT 16 (1904–5), pp. 472–73, notes that the name translates the OT phrase, “man of Belial.” Who or what he is, we cannot say. He might be an individual or a group, a government or an institution. He is called the Beast in Revelation 13, but he is more commonly referred to as the Antichrist. He is not Satan, for he is distinguished from him in verse 9, but he is his instrument imbued with the spirit of Satan. Paul describes him as being revealed, apokalyptō. This suggests that he exists beforehand (cf. 1:7 for the revelation of Christ) but perhaps only in the sense that he will be the final manifestation of a principle that has always been operative and was active when Paul was writing: namely, that of rebellion against God (see 2:7, cf. 1 John 2:18).

The man of lawlessness is further characterized as “the son of destruction” (for the semitic idiom see disc. on 1 Thess. 5:5), NIV the man doomed to destruction (the same phrase is used of Judas Iscariot in John 17:12), and “the one opposing (God) and exalting himself.” In the Greek, this phrase comprises two participles, each in the present tense expressing what is characteristic to him. The first, antikeimenos, is used in LXX 1 Kings 11:23 to render the Hebrew satan, “adversary.” This may be compared with 1 Timothy 5:14 where ho antikeimenos is the ultimate adversary, Satan himself. The description of the man of lawlessness in these terms shows with whose spirit he will be imbued (cf. 2:9). He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God, the sense being “over every so-called god,” and over everything that is worshiped, where the Greek, sebasma, is a comprehensive term denoting any object of worship (Acts 17:23). In short, the man of lawlessness will attempt to usurp the place of every claimant upon us, including the true God and his legitimate claims. This usurpation results (Greek, hōste) in the man of lawlessness’ self-exaltation. He is described in the language of the OT as setting himself up in God’s temple, not literally, but in a figure. But this is not a figure of the church, which is sometimes called the temple (cf. 1 Cor. 3:16; Eph. 2:21). He also is proclaiming himself (apodeiknymi can have this sense) to be God (v. 4; cf. Isa. 14:13f.; Ezek. 28:2; Dan. 7:25; 8:9–12; 11:36–39). Temple is naos, denoting the Holy of Holies, the inner sanctum of the temple in Jerusalem (in contrast with hieron, which embraced the whole temple precinct) in which it was believed that God dwelled (cf. 1 Sam. 4:4; Ps. 80:1; 99:1). The man of lawlessness will attempt to put himself in the place of God and to usurp the prerogatives of the true God. Earlier Jesus had drawn on the same OT passages to describe the desecration of the temple that would pre-figure the End (see Mark 13:14 where the masculine participle suggests that a person is meant; cf. also Matt. 24:15). In this connection, the unsuccessful attempt of the emperor Gaius (Caligula) in A.D. 40 to have his statue erected in the temple comes to mind as it must have to Paul’s as he wrote. But Jesus’ reference was to that “desecration” which would be the temple’s destruction and which in fact took place under Titus in A.D. 70. It is noteworthy, however, that for him, as for Paul in describing the End itself, the temple as the symbol of God’s presence was thought of also (symbolically) as the locus of the Antichrist’s opposition to God.

2:5 / At this point Paul calls up memories of his earlier teaching to flesh out the bare bones of these verses. Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? Notice his use of the first person. As in 1 Thessalonians 5:27, this may suggest a more personal note as he recollects his own role as distinct from that of his companions. The imperfect tense, elegon, implies that he had often told the Thessalonians about the matters to which he now refers (reinforcing the view that he was in Thessalonica for much longer than the three Sabbath days of Acts 17; see Introduction on The Founding of the Church).

2:6–7 / Still speaking of the man of lawlessness, Paul adds, and now you know what is holding him back. NIV is an improvement on RSV which says, “and you know what is restraining him now,” suggesting that the adverb, now, qualifies the participle, “restraining.” That is highly unlikely given the position of the words. But it remains uncertain how we should understand the now. Is it logical, marking the next step in the discussion (as e.g., Acts 3:17)? Or is it strictly temporal, giving the sense, “as concerning the present”? The latter is the more likely.

With the words, you know what is holding him back, we are reminded that they did know and that we do not. We can only guess at Paul’s meaning. What is holding him back translates the neuter participle of the verb katechō, meaning (1) “to hold fast” (cf., e.g., 1 Thess. 5:21), (2) “to hold back” (cf. Philem. 13), or (3) “to hold sway” (if intransitive). NIV adopts the second sense, the consensus view. With the participle being neuter, Paul appears to be saying that some thing is restraining the man of lawlessness. But we find that in the next verse the participle changes to masculine, so that in verse 7, he appears to be saying that the restraint is embodied in a person: the one who now holds (him) back. Who this is remains one of the most difficult questions of the entire Pauline corpus.

Some think that God—and more specifically, the Holy Spirit—is in view (see D. Farrow, “Showdown: The Message of Second Thessalonians 2:1–12 and the Riddle of the ‘Restrainer,’ ” Crux 25 [1, 1989], pp. 23–6). In Greek, spirit is neuter (pneuma), but in Scripture the Holy Spirit is often spoken of as a person, and this might account, they say, for the change in the participle from the neuter to the masculine. But it is difficult to see in what sense the Holy Spirit would be taken out of the way. Some advocates of this interpretation say that this would be the case in the Rapture, but we have already seen that there is nothing to commend the theory of a rapture prior to the coming of the Lord (see disc. on 2:1 and note on 1 Thess. 3:13). Oscar Cullmann saw a reference to Paul’s missionary preaching in this passage. According to Cullmann the apostle believed that “before the End the gospel must first be preached to all nations” (Mark 13:10) and that he (Paul) was largely responsible for preaching it. Until he had fulfilled that responsibility, the End would not come. Paul’s mission, therefore, was the restraining principle and he himself “the one who now holds back” the man of lawlessness (Christ and Time [London: SCM, 1951], p. 164). Not many have accepted his interpretation; nothing in the letter suggests that Paul saw himself and his mission in those terms.

One widely held view is that the principle was the Roman Empire and the person was the emperor. This view fits well with Pauline theology. In Romans 13:3f., Paul states that the emperor (“the one in authority”) is “God’s servant to do you good.” God appointed him to preserve law and order. The antithesis of this is the lawlessness of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 in which the human authority (the man of lawlessness) “sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God” instead of functioning as the servant of God (Paul was writing in the relatively good years of Claudius’ reign, A.D. 41–54). But the empire and the emperors have long since gone and, as far as we can tell, still the man of lawlessness has not come. It may be better then to understand what is holding him back as the principle of law and order, of which Roman rule was but one instance and of which there have been many others (cf., e.g., Gal. 3:19, 24), and “the one who restrains him” as the human authority that in any particular place and time embodies that principle: when Paul was writing, the Emperor Claudius; in our day, the president or the prime minister and his or her administration.

Whoever or whatever is holding back the man of lawlessness, this restraint is that he may be revealed at the proper time. The construction eis to, in this instance, is sometimes translated “until.” But its usual sense of purpose should be retained as in NIV (see disc. on 1 Thess. 2:12). The purpose is God’s, to which both the man of lawlessness and the restraining power are subject. The proper time is literally “his own (the man of lawlessness’) time,” in the sense that it is the time set by God for him to be revealed. Meanwhile (and this is given as an explanation of the statement of v. 7, for, gar), the secret power (mystērion, “mystery”) of lawlessness is already at work. In the NT, “mystery” most often refers to the revealed purpose of God—what we could not find out for ourselves, a “mystery” in that sense, but what God has chosen to make known—and to the fulfilment of that purpose in Christ (cf. Mark 4:11; Rom. 11:25; 16:25; 1 Cor. 15:51; Eph. 1:9; 3:3f.; Col. 1:26; 2:2 and such phrases as “the mystery of the faith,” 1 Tim. 3:9, and “the mystery of godliness,” 1 Tim. 3:16). Thus “the mystery of lawlessness” may be what God has revealed of the matter, with a hint that even lawlessness comes within the ambit of his purpose. At all events, while we await the revelation of the man of lawlessness, the spirit of opposition to God which he will embody is already at work in the world (1 John 2:18), but it is restrained until such time as the restrainer is taken out of the way.

2:8 / And then the lawless one will be revealed. This is the third time that Paul has spoken in these terms (cf. vv. 3, 6). The expression the lawless one (ho anomos) now replaces “the man of lawlessness,” but the same person is meant. Paul gives no details beyond what is said (2:4) concerning his activities or concerning how long he will be active. From the revelation of the lawless one, Paul moves at once to speak about his destruction; he does this not in a separate statement, but as a further description of him, as though he is characteristically the one whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow (for the title Lord, see note on 1 Thess. 1:1). The sovereignty of God is again to the fore in this verse, while its language is largely dependent on LXX Isaiah 11:4. The verb rendered overthrow (anaireō) is a particularly strong one, “annihilate,” and the qualifying phrase, with the breath of his mouth, only here in the NT, underlines the ease of his annihilation—the Lord Jesus will utterly destroy him. As Luther poses it in A Mighty Fortress Is Our God, “A word shall quickly slay him.” Parallel with this and forming with it one clause descriptive of the lawless one is the statement that the Lord will destroy him by the splendor of his coming (see disc. on 1 Thess. 2:19 for parousia). Taken in isolation, destroy might be regarded as an over-translation of the verb katartizō. “To render inoperative” is more the sense, and the suggestion has been made that Paul was now backing off from the first statement. The lawless one would not be annihilated but made powerless. The difficulty lies in knowing how precisely Paul was using these words, but the parallelism with anaireō is probably decisive in accepting destroy. So the splendor of his (Jesus’) coming marks the end of the lawless one and of the evil that he represents. It cannot stand in the presence of the Lord. Two words are employed in this phrase, epiphaneia and parousia. When used alone, each signifies his coming, but in combination they are best expressed as in NIV. Epiphaneia often carries with it the idea of splendor (used of Jesus’ second coming in 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13 and of his first in 2 Tim. 1:10).

2:9 / In the Greek, a second relative clause continues the description of the lawless one with a reference again to his revelation, but now in terms of his parousia. As Jesus has a parousia, so does he. The same word is used and, indeed, the whole description of his coming is something of a parody of Christ’s, reminding us of his warning that “false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs (sēmeia) and miracles (terata) to deceive the elect—if that were possible” (Mark 13:22; cf. also 2:5f.). The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan (cf. Rev. 13:2). Energia, translated work, denotes “operative power” as distinct from dynamis, “potential power.” In the man of lawlessness, the power of Satan will be seen at work, displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs (sēmeia) and wonders (terata). NIV reads dynamei as a plural, miracles, in line with signs and wonders, but the word is singular with the adjective “all” attached to it. “With all power” would be a better translation. We cannot be certain whether all three nouns (power, signs, and wonders) are qualified by the adjectival genitive, “of falsehood,” pseudous (see disc. on 1:7). Pseudous follows the third noun, but NIV may be correct in applying it to all three. The distinction in number between the first (singular) and the other two (plural), which sets them apart to some extent, might suggest, however, that pseudous should be restricted to signs and wonders, i.e., the work of Satan will be seen in the lawless one “with all power and with counterfeit signs and wonders.” The same three nouns—miracles, signs, and wonders—are used both of the work of Jesus in Acts 2:22, showing him to be “a man accredited by God,” and of the work of his followers (cf. Acts 2:43; Gal. 3:5; Heb. 2:4). Similarly, the signs and wonders of the man of lawlessness mark him as the agent of “the father of lies” (John 8:44; for Satan’s activity see disc. on 1 Thess. 2:18).

2:10 / Continuing this thought, Paul adds that Satan’s work will also be seen in every sort of evil that deceives (lit. “every deceit of evil,” another adjectival genitive in which adikia is a most comprehensive term indicating evil of every kind; for the construction see disc. on 1:7). Earlier, Jesus had spoken of false Christs and false prophets attempting to deceive the elect, but here it is not the elect who are led astray but those who are perishing, whose unbelief already makes them Satan’s pawns. The present (passive) participle, tois apollymenois (as in 1 Cor. 1:18; 2 Cor. 2:15; 4:3), is particularly vivid. They are in the process of perishing (cf. 1:8f.).

They perish, Paul explains, switching attention from the deceiver to the deceived, because (anth’ hōn, a form used elsewhere in the NT only by Luke [Luke 1:20; 12:3; 19:44; Acts 12:23]) they refused to love the truth and so be saved, literally, “did not receive the love of the truth” (a most unusual expression; there is nothing like it elsewhere in the Greek Bible). The truth is the truth of the gospel (cf. 2:12f. and see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:8) with its focus on the person and work of Christ (“I am … the truth,” John 14:6). Thus to love the truth is a way of expressing one’s attitude to him. Being saved insofar as we are concerned is a matter of relating to the Savior. These people had the opportunity of doing so. The verb dechomai means to receive what is offered (and, indeed, to receive it gladly; see disc. on 1 Thess. 2:13). But they let the opportunity go by and gave him no welcome.

2:11–12 / For this reason looks back to the previous verse. Because they refuse to love the truth, those who are perishing consign themselves and are consigned to their fate. Certain spiritual laws of cause and effect come into play (cf. Rom. 6:23), and yet it would be wrong to think of this as something impersonal. Of those whose choice was other than the truth, three times in the opening chapter of Romans Paul declares that “God gave them over” to what they had chosen (Rom. 1:24, 26, 28 and see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:10 and 5:9 for the wrath of God). So here, God sends them a powerful delusion (lit. “a working of delusion,” energeion planēs; see disc. on 2:9). But such a statement presents us with a difficulty. Can it be true of God that he deludes? In discussing a passage like this, we must recognize that the biblical writers were far less concerned with secondary causes than we are. Such was their belief in the sovereignty of God that they attributed to him directly, rather than to their actual source, a range of activities which, being true to his nature, he could not have done. But being God he could turn them to his purpose (e.g., the lying spirits in the mouths of false prophets, 1 Kings 22:23; Ezek. 14:9; cf. esp. 1 Chron. 21:1 with 2 Sam. 24:1 where the same action is attributed to Satan as to God). God does not delude. Much less does he do so, so that they will believe the lie (see disc. on 1 Thess. 2:12 for eis with the infinitive expressing purpose). Notice the definite article, “the lie”—the denial of the truth. Such denial is the work of Satan who blinds “the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:4). But God is sovereign and even this serves his purpose (hina) to condemn all who have not believed the truth (cf. 2:10, 13 and see disc. on 2 Thess. 1:8) but have delighted in wickedness. The juxtaposition of ideas in this description is significant. Not to believe the truth (the construction with the dative, used nowhere else by Paul except in quotations, means “to give credence to,” “to express as true”), to say nothing of loving the one in whom that truth is embodied (see disc. on 2:10), has moral consequences (cf. Rom. 2:8; 1 Cor. 13:6). The verb eudokeō means “to give consent to,” “to delight in.” Those who do not believe, delight in adikia, every kind of evil.

Additional Notes §3

2:2 / Saying that the day of the Lord has already come: As explained above, common usage supports NIV’s rendering of enestēken, has already come (cf. RV “is now present,” RSV “has come,” NEB “is already here”), but because of the difficulty that it creates (i.e., in what sense could the Thessalonians have thought that it was present?) a number of versions have shied away from the common usage and have opted instead for the idea of imminence: cf., “the day of Christ is at hand” (AV); “the day of the Lord is just at hand” (ASV). R. D. Aus, for example, in ZNW 67 (1976), pp. 252–68, accepts this interpretation of the word, suggesting that the severity of the persecution that they were suffering may have led the Thessalonians to think that these days were the eschatological “birth pains” and that the End was near (cf. Mark 13:8; also Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.7, for a similar belief for the same reason at a later date). But Paul makes no mention of persecution as a possible cause of their being unsettled or alarmed.

Following NIV and other versions in taking enestēken to mean has already come, some suggest that the Thessalonians, or at least a group within the Thessalonian church, had concluded (under the influence of new teachers) that the kingdom of God in its final form had fully come (realized eschatology). See, e.g., E. von Dobschütz, Die Thessalonicher—Briefe (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1909), pp. 179–82, and more recently, C. L. Mearns, “Early Eschatological Development in Paul: The Evidence of 1 and 2 Thessalonians,” NTS 27 (1980–81), pp. 147–48. As von Dobschütz formulated his thesis, he rejected the possibility that this group had reinterpreted the events of the Parousia in a gnostic sense similar to the false teachers in the Pastoral Epistles who claimed that the resurrection was past (p. 267, cf. 2 Tim. 2:18). But what he rejected became the basis of the work of W. Lütgert, who claimed that an early Jewish Christian form of Gnosticism was present in a number of Pauline churches including the church at Thessalonica (Die Vollkommenen im Philipperbrief und die Enthusiasten in Thessalonich [Gütersloh: C. Bertelsman, 1909], pp. 547–654). Schmithals and Robert Jewett, “Enthusiastic Radicalism and the Thessalonian Correspondence,” SBL Seminar Papers 1 (1972), pp. 181–232, both are to a greater or lesser degree influenced by Lütgert and accept his, and indeed von Dobschütz’s, view that Paul was responding to a group within the church who espoused a realized eschatology (see Introduction on The Writing of 1 Thessalonians). But when we look at what Paul himself says, while there is no disputing that the idea of a realized eschatology was in the air, as far as his readers were concerned that was not the problem. The problem for them was what to make of such an idea in the light of their own firmly held belief in a future eschatology, i.e., that there was something still to come (reflected, e.g., in the presuppositions of the teaching in 1 Thess. 4:13–18). The only firm data that we have to work with are the letters themselves, and Bruce suggests (p. 166) that all we can draw from the letters is that

Paul and his colleagues, who knew more about their converts’ problems than the exegete of today can know, judged that it would help them to be told something about the sequence of events leading up to the Day of the Lord. They had been taught about the actual events, but they needed to have them set in their chronological relationship.

 

§4 Stand Firm (2 Thess. 2:13–17)

With relief, Paul turns from discussing the delusion of those who are perishing to give thanks again for those who are being saved. The structure of this thanksgiving is almost identical with that of the introductory thanksgiving of this and other letters. So much so, indeed, that some suggest that this could be the remnant of another epistle that has been incorporated into this (see Schmithals, pp. 193f.). Nothing can be proven, of course, and it is better therefore to regard these verses as simply resuming the earlier thanksgiving (1:3f.) in much the same way as 1 Thessalonians 2:13 takes up again the introductory thanksgiving of that letter. In the closing verses of this section (vv. 16–17), thanksgiving turns to petition (another so-called wish-prayer, see disc. on 1 Thess. 3:11–13), with Paul praying that God, Father and Son, would encourage and strengthen the Thessalonians.

2:13 / To begin with, the wording is almost identical with 1:3 (see comment on that verse), expressing the obligation that the missionaries felt always to thank God for the Thessalonians. The use of the emphatic pronoun (not in 1:3) and the placing of the verb in a more emphatic position than in 1:3 may be a way of underlining just how strongly this obligation was felt. Again the Thessalonians are affectionately addressed as brothers (cf. 1:3 and see disc. on 1:3–12 and on 1 Thess. 1:4) and described as loved by the Lord. Since the Father is twice referred to in this verse as God, the Lord is probably Jesus (see note on 1 Thess. 1:1), in which case all three persons of the Trinity are mentioned in this verse (as in Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 12:4–6; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4–6; 1 Pet. 1:2; Jude 20f. and possibly Acts 20:28). The perfect participle loved is the same as in 1 Thessalonians 1:4 and again carries the assurance that the love once shown them in Christ—the love which was the mainspring of their salvation—continues to enfold them, come what may—even the lawless one!

They give thanks because from the beginning God chose you. This is the only instance in the NT of the use of the simple verb haireō (in the middle voice) of God’s choice. It is used, however, in the OT (LXX Deut. 26:18), and, in any case, the idea, whether expressed by compounds of this verb (Gal. 1:4; cf. Deut. 7:6f.; 10:15) or by other means (e.g., 1 Thess. 1:4; Eph. 1:4), is a familiar one linked always with the idea of grace. For his choice is made not on the basis of human merit but according to God’s own purposes. A textual problem arises with the phrase, from the beginning. NIV accepts the well-attested reading ap’ archēs, which expresses the idea found elsewhere, for example in Ephesians 1:4, that God “chose us in (Christ) before the creation of the world” (cf. Matt. 19:4; 1 John 2:13). But the alternative reading, aparchēn, “first-fruits,” is as well if not better attested (see NIV marg. “God chose you as his firstfruits”). On this reading, the most likely meaning would be that Paul saw the Thessalonians as only the beginning—an intimation—of a harvest which was yet to be gathered. Two phrases follow which further qualify this statement. The first expresses his objective: God chose you “for salvation” (eis sōtērian). This term embraces the whole work of God in Christ on our behalf: past, present, and future (see disc. on 1 Thess. 5:8f.). The second states the means of that salvation (understanding en as instrumental, NIV through) but only with reference to its application to the believer (see disc. on 2:14 for its publication). No mention is made here of Christ’s work (see disc. on 1 Thess. 5:10) but only of the Spirit’s work in the hearts of men and women. God chose you—made you his choice—through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth (lit. “by faith in truth,” pistei alētheinas; see disc. on 1 Thess. 3:2). Some exegetes see in this a reference to the human spirit—“through the sanctification of the whole person, body and spirit.” It is far more likely, however, that Paul is speaking of the work of God’s Spirit. The thought expressed in hagiasmos is primarily of believers being set apart for God, made “saints,” hagioi, in the NT sense of that word, rather of their being sanctified in the ethical sense, made worthy of their status (see disc. on 1 Thess. 4:3, 4, 7). Belief in the truth is in the truth of the gospel (see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:8), as in verses 10 and 12, and in direct contrast with the people described in those verses who do not believe. This verse summarizes the process by which we become Christians. There is the sovereign, gracious choice of God; there is the Spirit’s action which makes effective to us the work of Christ; and there is our response of faith in welcoming that work and clearing the way for God’s Spirit to act upon us.

2:14 / In verse 13 Paul spoke of God’s purpose—“he chose you.” In this verse he speaks of the execution of that purpose—he called you, where the aorist tense looks back to the time when the missionaries first visited Thessalonica and the call of God was heard in what they said (cf. 1 Thess. 4:7 for another aorist of this verb and 1 Thess. 2:12, 5:24 for the present tense). To this refers to the matter of the previous verse, which can be summed up as salvation “by grace … through faith” (Eph. 2:8). The means of that salvation (dia with the gen.), in terms of making it known to those for whom it was intended, was through our gospel, i.e., the gospel given to Paul and his companions to preach. It was, of course, “the gospel of our Lord Jesus” as far as its content was concerned, and in terms of its origin, the gospel of God (see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:5). Earlier, God’s objective in making his choice was “for salvation” (2:13). Here that same goal is in terms of “obtaining” the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ (eis peripoiēsin doxēs; see disc. on 1 Thess. 5:9 and note for “obtaining” and 1 Thess. 2:12 for glory; for the titles Lord and Christ see note on 1 Thess. 1:1). In part, that glory was manifested (John 1:14, cf. also 2 Cor. 4:4, 6), but its complete unveiling awaits Christ’s return (2 Thess. 1:10). At his return, our own salvation will be complete; in Christ we are already God’s children, “but we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2).

2:15 / So then, brothers, repeats Paul’s affectionate address (see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:4) and introduces his earnest entreaty: Since God loves you, and since he has chosen you and called you that you might be included in his purpose, and since that purpose cannot fail, stand firm and hold to the teachings. Their stand so far greatly encouraged the missionaries (1 Thess. 3:8), and Paul wanted nothing more than that they should continue to stand firm, whatever the present or the future might hold for them. One way of doing so was to hold to the teachings. We should regard the two exhortations of this verse as effectively one, expressing the end and the means to that end and reminding us of what we may have forgotten: the importance of Christian education. With so little teaching evident in our churches, little wonder that our Christian stance is so shaky. The teachings are “the traditions” (paradosis, pl. paradoseis; cf. 3:6 and see note on 1 Thess. 2:13), and the importance of this word is not only that it points to a body of Christian teaching that was passed on by one generation to another (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23; 15:3) but that this teaching is authoritative for the church and stands above the teacher (cf. 1 Thess. 5:19–22). “The prominent idea of paradosis … is that of an authority external to the teacher” (Lightfoot; see also O. Cullmann, “The Tradition,” in The Early Church, ed. A. J. B. Higgins [London: SCM Press, 1956], pp. 66–75). In this case authority concerns the divine authority behind Christian paradosis. The tradition originated in the teaching of Jesus. This is another way of expressing the truth of 1 Thessalonians 2:13 that the gospel is the word of God. The missionaries passed these teachings on to the Thessalonians by word of mouth and more recently by letter. The aorist tense of edidachthēte (the traditions that “you were taught”) suggests that, insofar as the reference is to a letter, it is 1 Thessalonians. The pronoun, hēmōn, “our,” not apparent in NIV, qualifies both word and letter. God’s word is spoken with a human voice.

2:16–17 / Thanksgiving turns to petition in these verses, and the pattern of the first epistle is repeated, with Paul bringing the main body of the letter to a close in this fashion (cf. 1 Thess. 3:11ff.). The petition is addressed to God, Father and Son, the Son being named first, our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father (cf. 2 Cor. 13:14). For the emphatic pronoun himself (autos), see the discussion on 1 Thessalonians 3:11, and for the titles of Jesus and the description of God as Father, see the notes on 1 Thessalonians 1:1. In the prayer of 1 Thessalonians 3:11, the Father is addressed before the Lord Jesus, but either way it is clear that the two were seen as one. The order in which they are named is determined solely by the context. In this instance Paul is speaking of our Lord Jesus Christ (2:14) and therefore Jesus is addressed before the Father. William Neil comments, “The only theological significance to be attached to the variations in order is that there is complete equality in the apostle’s mind between the Father and the Son. It is only through his knowledge of Christ that he has come really to know God. For him they are One” (The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1950], p. 185). The singular verbs that follow (v. 17) may reinforce this notion that the two are one, but again see the discussion on 1 Thessalonians 3:11.

The subsequent twofold description could apply to both the Father and the Son, although it reads more naturally as concerning only the Father. But, in any case, it speaks of what the Father has done for us in Christ. The description comprises two participles each in the aorist tense, sharing the one definite article. NIV translates as follows: who loved us and by his grace (see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:1 and 5:28) gave us eternal encouragement and good hope. The tense looks back to the manifestation of God’s love and grace in Christ. Especially in the cross of Christ, God’s love and grace resulted in encouragement or “comfort” (paraklēsis; see disc. on 1 Thess. 3:2; cf. Rom. 15:5; 2 Cor. 1:3), i.e., in giving us every reason for confidence before God. The adjective extends that benefit beyond this time into eternity. This leads Paul to add good hope (cf. Rom. 15:4), where the thought is of our eternal relationship with God (for hope, see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:3).

In that confidence, Paul prays: May God, Son and Father, encourage your hearts (parakaleō, the verb corresponding to the noun of the previous verse; see disc. on 1 Thess. 3:2 for the verb and 1 Thess. 2:4 for heart), and strengthen you (stērizō, see also disc. on 1 Thess. 3:2) in every good deed and word. The repetition of good from verse 16 adds a certain emphasis to the word and underscores what Paul is saying in this prayer (for good work, ergon agathon, cf. Rom. 2:7; 2 Cor. 9:8; Eph. 2:10; Phil. 1:6; Col. 1:10; 1 Tim. 2:10; 5:10; 2 Tim. 2:21; 3:17; Titus 1:16; 3:1; and for the collocation of work and word, cf. Luke 24:19; Acts 7:22). This prayer reminds us that what we are by God’s grace is what, increasingly, we should be in word and deed. And the fact that, for Paul, this is a matter of prayer, reminds us of where our help lies to this end.

Additional Notes §4

2:15 / The teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter: The eite … eite, whether … or, of this verse recalls the repeated mēte of verse 2. But because there is no reference to the Spirit here as there is in that verse, Schmithals thinks that Paul has Gnosticism in his sights. The Spirit was commonly appealed to as the source of gnostic teaching and, consequently, reference to the Spirit is avoided. Instead, Paul appeals to the teachings. Such appeal is never made, says Schmithals, to didachē or paradosis in Pauline writings “in any context other than the anti-Gnostic battlefront” (p. 209). See Introduction on The Writing of 1 Thessalonians and note on 2 Thessalonians 2:2 for our rejection of the thesis that Gnosticism had infiltrated the church in Thessalonica.

 

§5 Request for Prayer (2 Thess. 3:1–5)

As in 1 Thessalonians 5:25, Paul closes the letter by asking for prayer for himself and his colleagues (having just prayed for the Thessalonians, 2:16f.). The two passages show a similar structure, with the same verb, the same vocative brothers, and the same prepositional phrase for us (peri hēmōn). In this case, however, unlike 1 Thessalonians 5:25, their particular needs are stated. But the focus of the passage soon shifts from the human weakness expressed in Paul’s “standing in the need of prayer” to divine strength, and from their own needs to the needs of others. Surely, this marks true followers of Christ; like their Lord, they are so sure of God and so free from preoccupation with their own wants, that their energies flow naturally towards others and their needs—especially God’s people. Verse 5 takes the form of a wish-prayer (see disc. on 1 Thess. 3:6–13).

3:1–2 / Finally (to loipon, see disc. on 1 Thess. 4:1) signals the nearness of the end of the letter, although this does not prevent Paul from touching on other matters. It means only that he has dealt with what he regards as the most important matter of the letter (see disc. on 1 Thess. 5:25 for both the tense of the verb, proseuchomai, “to pray,” and the address, brothers). He requests prayer first that the message of the Lord may spread rapidly and be honored. The message is literally “the word” and signifies the gospel of which God is the author—the Lord of this reference (see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:5 and 8, and note on 1 Thess. 1:1). Paul characteristically requests prayer for the progress of the gospel (cf. Eph. 6:19f.; Col. 4:3f.), expressed here in terms of its “running” (so the Greek, trechō). The idea goes back to Psalm 147:15 where God’s word “runs swiftly” (cf. Ps. 19:4f.), but the metaphor would have appealed to Paul as one who often drew on the images of the Greek games to make his point (cf. 1 Cor. 9:24; Gal. 2:2; Phil. 2:16 for reference to himself as running). The notion that the word almost has a life of its own such that it could “run” through the world is reminiscent of Acts 18:5, where Paul is said to have been “seized by the word” (so the Greek). It implies a certain independence of the message; in another sense, however, it is dependent on the messenger to be heard (see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:8 for the gospel “sounding out” like a trumpet call). Perhaps the games are still in mind, with reference now to the spectators and their appreciation of a race well run, when he states as the second objective of this prayer that the message should be honored (doxazō). In effect, this is a prayer for the people involved with the word, for in large measure, it will be honored only as it is reflected in the lives of those who preach it and hear it (cf. Acts 13:48). It was so honored by the Thessalonians, although it is not clear from the Greek, which lacks a verb (NIV has supplied was), whether Paul’s reference is to the past—to the time when the missionaries first preached the message in Thessalonica, as NIV implies—or to the present. The absence of the verb may be deliberate to allow for both (but cf. 2:5 and 1 Thess. 1:5ff.; 2:1, 13 where he does look back to the Thessalonians’ reception of the gospel when they were there).

Paul’s second prayer request is for himself and his colleagues that we may be delivered from wicked and evil men. For the verb rhyomai, see the discussion on 1 Thessalonians 1:10 and for a similar reference to the dangers that he faced, cf. Romans 15:31. He was writing from Corinth (as we suppose; see Introduction on The Authenticity of 1 Thessalonians) where, clearly, he was facing many difficulties of which Acts tells us little. But what little it does tell may be taken as typical. This would suggest that Paul’s greatest danger was from the Jews (cf. Acts 18:12f.). His use of the definite article suggests that he had in mind a particular group of people such as the Jews. He wanted deliverance from the wicked and evil men. Moreover, the tense of the verb (aorist) may point to a particular need for deliverance, such as the one referred to in Acts. The word translated wicked (atopos) means literally “out of place,” hence “improper,” and then the sense that we have here. This passage is the only place in the NT where it is used of people. Elsewhere it describes things (Luke 23:41; Acts 25:5; 28:6). The second adjective, ponēros, describes those who not simply acquiesce in evil, but actively pursue it. If the reference is to the Jews, it is not, of course, to the Jews per se, but to them as those who oppose the gospel, hindering it in running its course into all the world. This thought leads to the general observation that not everyone has faith—the Jews (if the earlier reference was to them) are not on their own in opposing the gospel. It is not clear in what sense faith should be understood, whether subjectively as trust, or objectively as the body of teaching (see disc. on 1 Thess. 3:2). The use of the definite article (in the Greek but not evident in NIV) would suggest the latter, but the idea of trust fits more easily with the next verse—“not everyone trusts the Lord, but the Lord is trustworthy.” In any case, it is only a fine line between faith and the faith. The general sense is plain enough: not everyone accepts the Christian position.

3:3 / From commenting on human unbelief, Paul turns to exalt God’s faithfulness—we understand the Lord of this passage to be God the Father (see note on 1 Thess. 1:1). Like the related noun, pistis, the last word of the previous sentence in the Greek text, pistos, the first word of this sentence, has more than one meaning. It is faithful, either in the active sense of “believing,” “trusting,” or in the passive sense of “trustworthy,” “dependable.” Clearly, the latter sense is intended here: God can be relied upon. He will not let his people down. As Paul thinks of God’s faithfulness, he also thinks of the needs of the Thessalonians—Paul’s heart was ever that of a pastor. God, he says, will strengthen and protect you from the evil one. In the Greek, this is not simply a statement as in the English translation, but a relative clause whose antecedent is the Lord. That is to say, it describes God. He is characteristically the one who will strengthen … and protect (for stērizō, “to strengthen,” cf. 2:17; 1 Thess. 3:13). The second half of this description is an assurance that God does not leave us to fend for ourselves but is there to protect us. The thought is akin to the petition of the Lord’s Prayer, “deliver us from the evil one” (Matt. 6:13). Like that petition, it is unclear whether “the evil” (Gk. tou ponerou) is personal (masc.) or impersonal (neut.). The evil one is a common name for Satan in the NT (cf. Matt. 13:19, 38; Eph. 6:16; 1 John 2:13f.; 5:18f.), and this reading would give an effective antithesis to the Lord. On that basis we accept the NIV rendering as the most likely, noting the implication that the Evil One stands behind the activities of “the wicked and evil men” of verse 2 and recalling Paul’s earlier reference to “the secret power of lawlessness (which) is already at work” (2:7; see disc. and note on 1 Thess. 2:18). The prayer is for deliverance from that satanic power.

3:4 / Paul’s confidence in God gives him confidence in the Thessalonians, that they were doing and would continue to do the things that they had been taught (cf. 1 Thess. 4:11; 5:11). A key phrase is in the Lord, whether understood as qualifying the verb, we have confidence, or the phrase “in you” (eph’ hymas, not apparent in NIV). Either way it amounts to the same thing: namely, that the maintenance of the good work begun in them (cf. 1:3; 1 Thess. 1:6–8; 2:13f.; 4:9f.) depended on God’s faithfulness, specifically as expressed in the previous verse. Again we understand the Lord of this verse and the next to be the Father (see note on 1 Thess. 1:1). The things we command includes earlier teaching whether by word or by letter (cf. 1 Thess. 4:1 and see disc. on 1 Thess. 4:11 for parangellō, “to command”). This teaching remains valid (note the present tense). Some of it as touching community life is found in the verses that follow.

3:5 / The verb kateuthynō was used in an earlier prayer (also in the aorist optative) in the sense, “to make straight” (see disc. on 1 Thess. 3:11). Here it carries the sense, “to direct.” But in each case the thought is of the removal of obstacles which hinder the desired end. This prayer is that the Lord would direct their hearts into God’s love and Christ’s perseverance. The heart is a comprehensive term for the inner self (see disc. on 1 Thess. 2:4; for Christ see note on 1 Thess. 1:1). Paul is praying, therefore, that their whole being might be concentrated on the love and perseverance of which he speaks. The genitive God’s love (the love of God) could be objective or subjective—either our love of God or God’s love for us. Pauline usage would suggest the latter, the context the former. But perhaps the question of what kind of genitive this is, is best left unresolved, for in this case the one love is dependent on the other: “We love because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19). A similar question arises with the second phrase, Christ’s perseverance. Is this a reference to his perseverance, “who … endured the cross … who endured … opposition from sinful men” (Heb. 12:2f.), or is it a characteristic that he imparts and we should display? AV understands the phrase in the second sense, with reference to the Parousia: “the patient waiting for Christ.” This accords well with the major theme of the two letters and with 1 Thessalonians 1:3 in particular which speaks of “your endurance (the same word, hypomonē) inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ” (see disc. on that passage). But it is a moot point whether Paul intended such a specific reference here, and again, it may be best to allow the genitive sufficient ambiguity to cover both of the possibilities outlined above.

 

§6 Warnings Against Idleness (2 Thess. 3:6–15)

Paul returns to the theme of idleness touched on in the earlier letter (see disc. on 1 Thess. 4:11f. and 5:14). Obviously, the problem persisted. Judging by the more peremptory tone of the warning, it appears to have worsened. The amount of space allotted to the matter measures how seriously Paul regarded it. But still his pastoral concern is uppermost. The object of the exercise is to help the erring, not to punish them or make the other members feel good. In all matters of church discipline, this distinction is of prime importance. On the form of the exhortation, see the discussion on 1 Thessalonians 4:1–12.

3:6 / The strong-sounding verb, we command you (parangellō, see disc. on 1 Thess. 4:11) affords a distinctly military ring to the whole verse. The metaphor contained in the reference to every brother who is idle of the soldier who drops out of line (ataktōs, see disc. on 1 Thess. 5:14) further enhances this tone. The command is issued, moreover, on the highest authority: in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Thess. 4:1 and 1 Cor. 5:4f. for the use of this phrase in connection with church discipline; for the titles Lord and Christ see note on 1 Thess. 1:1). But, for all the authority with which he speaks, Paul’s affection for his readers remains. He calls them brothers (see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:4), including those who are in error. The church, he says, is to keep away (stellomai, used of furling sails but here of withdrawing into oneself; cf. 2 Cor. 8:20), from every brother who is idle, literally “who walks out of line,” i.e., whose conduct is “disorderly”; (see disc. on 1 Thessalonians 2:12 for “walking” as conduct). The present tense of the participle indicates persistence in such conduct, which is not according to the teaching (paradosis; see disc. on 2:15), you received from us (paralambanō; see disc. on 1 Thess. 2:13). Some texts read, “they received,” with reference to the idlers in particular, but whether one reads you or “they” makes little difference. The church had received clear instruction by word (see disc. on 3:10) and then by letter, with regard to conduct no less than to doctrine, and the idle brother was blatantly disregarding that teaching (see further the note on this verse).

3:7 / This appeal to what had been taught is supported by a reminder of the missionaries’ own conduct among them. You yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. This is not the first time that Paul cites the example of himself and his colleagues (see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:5), but he does it now with special emphasis. The verb dei, NIV ought, signifies a compelling and often a divine necessity—something that springs from the will of God. We could hardly possess a stronger statement of the importance of Christian conduct or a more striking statement of Paul’s own confidence that he was setting an example for others to follow (the verb is mimeomai, “to mimic or imitate”; cf. 3:9; Heb. 13:7; 3 John 11). Not that he expected them to be a clone of himself; rather, there were so few Christian examples that it was necessary that they should follow the few that they had.

Paul gives three reasons (hoti) why the Thessalonians should follow the example set by the missionaries. First, we were not idle when we were with you. The verb atakteō corresponds to the adverb ataktōs of verses 6 and 11 and the adjective ataktos of 1 Thessalonians 5:14 (see disc. on that passage).

3:8–9 / Second, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. Food in this connection represents maintenance of any kind (cf. 2 Sam. 9:7), and the missionaries had received none from the Thessalonians. On the contrary—and this is the now the third reason why the Thessalonians should follow their example—we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. The Greek understands “we ate” from the previous clause, adding the qualifying participle, “working,” to give the sense, “we ate by working night and day.” This statement repeats almost precisely 1 Thessalonians 2:9 (see disc. and note on that passage), although the reason for making it is quite different. Paul is in this instance holding himself and his colleagues up as a model to be imitated; there he was defending their motives and his own in particular against the slanders of their antagonists (see also disc. on 1 Thess. 2:9 for night and day, and on that passage again and on 1 Thess. 1:3 for laboring and toiling, kopos and mochthos). The missionaries as apostles of Christ had every right to be a burden to their hosts (cf. 1 Thess. 2:6), but they had foregone that right in order to make ourselves a model (typos, “example,” cf. Phil. 3:17) for you to follow (“to mimic,” see disc. on 3:7). Exousia meant originally the freedom to do as one pleased but came to mean right in the legal sense, the right of authority. Paul discusses this right more fully in 1 Corinthians 9:13f., where he shows that it rests on dominical authority (cf. Matt. 10:5–10; see also 2 Cor. 11:12 where in a different situation, he gives another reason for foregoing the right of support).

3:10 / Not only did the missionaries model how the Thessalonians should conduct themselves in this matter of self-support, but they instructed them to the same effect and, judging by the tense of the verb (imperfect), they did so repeatedly. The sense of the Greek is: “we also (a better translation of kai than NIV’s even, meaning in addition to their example) used to command you” (parangellō, cf. 3:6 and see disc. on 1 Thess. 4:11). That command is repeated using their original words (the Greek hoti is recitative, the equivalent of quotation marks in English): “If a man (tis could be either a man or a woman, although the reference is undoubtedly to men) will not work, he shall not eat.” The present imperative, he shall not eat, expresses a general rule. Exceptions, of course, can always be made. The words have about them the ring of a proverbial saying which, if proverbial in origin, may go back to Genesis 3:19 (cf. Gen. Rab. 2.2 on Genesis 1:2). But some suppose that it was a Greek proverb. Or it may have been a maxim coined by Paul himself. At all events, the apostle sees this saying now as indicating God’s will for his people. Strikingly, however, what is condemned is not worklessness but the unwillingness to work. The verb thelō implies a deliberate choice, a conscious decision not to work (see disc. on 1 Thess. 5:14). “It is an impossible exegesis which argues (from this text) that all poverty is self-willed, a product of a welfare mentality which should be countered not with food stamps but denial of support. The implication in the letters is that these disruptive persons were perfectly capable of supporting themselves but refused to accept that responsibility, busying themselves instead by meddling in other persons’ affairs, compounding the problems they were creating” (Saunders). An implication of the rule laid down in this verse, which lay beyond Paul’s interest, is that the ability to earn one’s living is an important factor in human well-being. We should understand, then, how demoralizing unemployment is for those unable to work. For the conscious recollection of what was said when we were with you, cf. 2:5 and 1 Thessalonians 3:4.

3:11 / The reason for Paul’s remarks in verses 6 to 10 surfaces: We hear that some among you are idle. Perhaps he learned this from the same report that brought news of their mistaken ideas about the Parousia (see 2:1–12), or perhaps he is referring to the original report brought by Timothy. Nothing in the text indicates that they had just learned about it now or that they had heard of it only once. Again the Greek is literally, “walking in a disorderly manner” (cf. 3:6 and see disc. on 1 Thess. 2:12 and 5:14). What precisely this means is explained: they are not busy; they are being busybodies. This play on words in the English reflects a similar play in the Greek, where the two participles are each based on the verb ergazō, “to work.” The second is a compound found only here in the NT, periergazomai, “to waste one’s labor about a thing,” and so “to be a busybody” (cf. 1 Tim. 5:13 for the corresponding adjective, periergos, and 1 Thess. 4:11; 1 Pet. 4:15 for similar warnings against this trait).

3:12 / Paul’s response was to command and urge the idlers to settle down and earn the bread they eat—literally, that “they should eat their own bread,” perhaps with some emphasis on “their own,” since they were in the habit of eating other people’s, “working with quietness” (cf. 1 Thess. 4:11). Such quietness is the antithesis of being a busybody. Paul comes down heavily on the idlers, but even so, his pastoral concern for them is still evident. To spare their feelings, perhaps, he does not address them directly but indirectly as such people. Again, he softens the militaristic tone of we command (see on 1 Thess. 4:11) by the addition of parakaloumen, we urge, which has as much to do with encouragement as with admonition (see disc. on 1 Thess. 3:2). Finally, he adds the qualifying phrase, in the Lord Jesus Christ. In verse 6 the longer form is used, “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,” but in the name of becomes an assertion of authority. Without it, the phrase is better understood as a reminder of where they stand and of Paul’s continuing relationship with them because of it and despite their shortcomings. They were still his brothers in the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. 3:15; see note on 1 Thess. 1:1 for the titles Lord and Christ).

3:13 / The admonition of this verse addresses all of the brothers (see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:4). As for you—the emphatic you marking the change of reference from a particular group to the whole church—never tire of doing what is right (cf. Gal. 6:9, and for other exhortations to perseverance, 1 Cor. 15:20, 58; 16:13; Phil. 1:27f.; 2:15f.; 4:1; 1 Thess. 3:5, 13; 5:23). Paul may have had in mind specifically the attitude of the church as a whole to the idlers. The latter’s conduct may have been the cause of irritation. But irritation was no less a fault than its cause. The shortcomings of one person or group are no excuse for the failure of another. As Christians we are called to do what is right (Matt. 5:48). If Paul did have in mind a specific situation, his language gives nothing away. The prohibition never tire, in the aorist subjunctive, makes no suggestion as the present imperative would, that they had tired. The verb kalopoieō, “to do good,” is unique to this passage in the NT. The compound with kalos rather than with agathos might suggest the sense, “to be seen to do what is right”—kalos is evident goodness. But the distinction between it and agathos should not be pressed. The present participle expresses what should be habitual to Christians.

3:14–15 / As in Romans 16:17 and 1 Corinthians 16:22, the letter ends with a warning: If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. The verb “to obey,” hypakouō, derives from the verb “to hear” (akouō) and means “to act on what is heard,” in this instance, our instruction, logos, “word.” The only instruction calling for obedience in this letter (the Greek is literally, “the letter,” but at the end of an epistle it was common to refer to the letter in this way) is that they should “stand firm and hold to the teachings” (2:15) and, in particular, as 3:6–16 makes clear, the teaching concerning idleness. The verb semeioō, “to take note,” has much the same sense as skopeō in Romans 16:17, “to keep an eye on” (NIV “watch out for”). It is another word peculiar to this letter in the NT. Anyone marked out as not heeding this particular teaching was to be disciplined by excluding him from the fellowship of the church: Do not associate with him (synanamignymi, lit. “to mix up [ana] together [syn]”). In 1 Corinthians 5:9, 11, the only other place in the NT where this verb is used, Paul lays it down that the church should not eat with the offender concerned. Here he may not have intended quite such a rigorous discipline. His purpose was to shame the offender into settling down and becoming a more useful member of the Christian community (v. 12). To that end, he is careful to add: Do not regard him as an enemy (see disc. on 1 Thess. 5:13 for hēgeomai, “to regard”), but warn him as a brother (for noutheteō, “to admonish,” see disc. on 1 Thess. 5:12). The well-being of the offender was, for Paul, of first importance. Discipline is not to be punitive, but educative, with rehabilitation as its objective.

Additional Notes §6

3:6 / Keep away from every brother who is idle: In the parenesis of 1 Thessalonians Paul exhorts his readers to a social responsibility (1 Thess. 4:11f.). This theme reappears in 5:14 where the idle are warned not to be idle. Both passages are explained by 2 Thessalonians 3:6–13, where Paul deals at much greater length with the same, worsening problem (G. S. Holland, The Tradition That You Received From Us: 2 Thessalonians in the Pauline Tradition [Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1988], pp. 82f., argues that the problem of the disorderly in 2 Thessalonians is a new one concerning a group setting themselves up as spiritual authorities. There is little to commend this suggestion). Most scholars find the idleness to be rooted in an eschatological excitement stemming from the Thessalonians’ belief in the imminence of the Parousia (see, e.g., von Dobschütz, Die Thessalonicher—Briefe, pp. 179–82; B. Rigaux, Saint Paul Les Epîtres aux Thessaloniciens [Paris: J. Gabalda, 1956], pp. 519–21; Best, pp. 176–78; Bruce, pp. 90f., 204–9; Morris, Themes, p. 74; for the suggestion that it was a symptom of Gnosticism, see Introduction on The Writing of 1 Thessalonians). Soon those who had left off working became impoverished and a problem for the church and possibly for non-believers. Von Dobschütz, on the basis of the classical meaning of the terms that Paul uses (“to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business,” 1 Thess. 4:11) claims that this group was warning not only believers about Christ’s return but non-believers in public places (p. 182). J. Frame adds that the idle demanded that the leaders instruct other members to support them, but this demand was tacitly rejected (1 Thess. 5:12f., 19f.). This led the idle to interfere in the management of church affairs (The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912], pp. 159–63). Some also concluded that the idle were responsible for the deception that the day of the Lord had already come (2 Thess. 2:2; cf. C. H. Giblin, The Threat to Faith [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967], p. 147; W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament [Nashville: Abingdon, 1975], p. 268).

The traditional view that belief in the imminence of the Parousia caused this behavior has been modified by some in favor of the view that its cause lay in the belief that the kingdom of God in the final sense had fully come (realized eschatology). We have already considered and rejected this view (see note on 2 Thess. 2:2, and Introduction on The Writing of 1 Thessalonians).

More recently an attempt was made to find a sociological reason for the Thessalonians’ idleness. Some scholars suggested that it should be understood against the background of the disdain of the Greeks and Romans for manual labor (cf. W. Bienert, Die Arbeit nach der Lehre der Bibel: Eine Grundlegung Evangelischer Socialethik [Stuttgart: Evangelisches Verlagswerk, 1954], pp. 270–72; John Seventer, Paul and Seneca [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961], p. 213); others that it should be understood in terms of the practice of certain philosophical schools. The Epicureans, for example, were wont to live off others, unmoved by society’s disapproval (see Abraham Malherbe, Social Aspects of Early Christianity [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983], pp. 24–27; idem, “Gentle as a Nurse: The Cynic Background to 1 Thess. 2,” NovT 12 [1970], pp. 203–17; idem, “Exhortation in First Thessalonians,” NovT 25 [1983], pp. 238–56, for the claim that Paul used and modified Stoic language [Dio Chrysostom’s criticism of the so-called wandering philosophical preachers] and parenetic topoi from philosophic tradition). R. Russell, “The Idle in 2 Thess. 3:6–12: An Eschatological or a Social Problem,” NTS 34 (1988), pp. 105–19, contributes important insights to this discussion. “Because Paul associated the problem of disorderliness with manual workers, it is more likely,” Russell argues, “that the reason and model lies within the situation of the urban poor of the Hellenistic city. In the average Hellenistic city … the opportunities for employment were limited, and with the scarcity of work idleness was more widespread and wages even lower—many of the urban poor knew nothing but poverty” (p. 112; cf. A. H. M. Jones, The Greek City [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940], pp. 268–69; Mikhail Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1941], vol. 2, pp. 1126–27; C. Lee, “Social Unrest and Primitive Christianity,” The Catacombs and the Colosseum, ed. S. Benko, J. O’Rourke [Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1971], p. 129). On occasion, however, the poor developed a relationship with a benefactor from whom they would receive support in exchange for the obligation to reciprocate with an expression of gratitude, and something of this sort may have lain behind the situation that Paul was addressing. Russell continues:

Paul’s converts included the urban poor, and some may have … formed a client relationship and obligation to a benefactor. Once brought into the circle of Christian love, they could have appeared to outsiders to be idle beggars who exploited the generosity of the Christian community without any sense of reciprocal response to their new benefactors. If Pauline churches are composed primarily of believers from a lower social position with a minority from higher social levels in positions of leadership, then the idleness is more likely expressed by believers who are manual laborers from a lower social class. Paul urges these idle poor, caught up as beneficiaries of Christian love, to work, being self-sufficient and constructive in their relationship with others (p. 113).

 

§7 Final Greetings (2 Thess. 3:16–18)

The letter ends with two short wish-prayers (see disc. on 1 Thess. 3:6–13) that the peace of the Lord of peace might be with them and that the Lord himself might be with them also. In effect, Paul signs the letter by drawing attention to his own hand in the final verses (see Introduction on The Sequence of the Letters) and closes with a benediction of grace, as he does in one form or another in all of his letters.

3:16 / For the emphatic pronoun, himself (standing first in the Greek sentence), see the discussion on 1 Thessalonians 3:11. For peace, signifying well-being in the widest sense, see discussion on 1 Thessalonians 1:1, and for the Lord of peace, see discussion on 1 Thessalonians 5:23. While the earlier discussion suggests that the pronoun may reflect a liturgical formula, Morris observes that its effect as the letter draws to a close is to direct the readers’ attention away from themselves back to the Lord. Once again we face the difficulty of identifying whether the Father or the Son is intended by Lord (see disc. and note on 1:1). The reference is probably to Jesus, whereas before Paul spoke of “the God of peace,” a reference to the Father. Again we are reminded that for Paul the two are One (see disc. on 1 Thess. 2:12; 3:11). Paul prays that the Lord might give them an enduring peace—peace at all times, dia pantos, “through all,” the word for times being understood, and in every circumstance, en panti tropō. The second prayer, the Lord be with all of you, may again reflect a liturgical formula, in this case the blessing at the end of a service (cf. Rom. 15:33; Phil. 4:9 where the “God of peace” is the subject; 2 Tim. 4:22; cf. also Matt. 28:20). The answer to this prayer is the answer also to the first, for the Lord (Jesus) is our peace, putting us at peace with each other (to the extent that we allow his influence, his Spirit, to come to bear on our lives) and reconciling us to God through the cross (cf. Eph. 2:14; Col. 1:20; also Mark 9:50).

3:17 / It was unusual for a letter writer in the ancient world to sign his or her name at the end, as is our practice. It was enough that the writer’s name should appear in the address (cf. 1:1; 1 Thess. 1:1). On the other hand, it was not unusual for the author to add a few lines at the end if an amanuensis had written the bulk of the letter at his or her dictation. Paul adopts this practice here, claiming in fact that this was the distinguishing mark in all (of his) letters. Elsewhere he draws attention to it explicitly in 1 Corinthians 16:21; Galatians 6:11; Colossians 4:18 and Philemon 19. In this instance, it may have been prompted by the possibility that a spurious letter was circulating in his name, causing the problem with which he had to deal in 2:1–12 (see disc. on 2:2).

3:18 / The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Apart from the addition of all, this grace is identical with that of the first letter (5:28), and it is completely identical in Greek with Romans 16:24, which however is not found in the best texts of that letter (for grace, see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:1 and 5:28; and for the titles of Jesus, see note on 1 Thess. 1:1). The all is perhaps deliberately added to include the idlers. To the end, Paul is practicing what he preached to the others (3:15), demonstrating that he regards these people not as enemies but as his brothers, sharing with him in the grace of God in Christ.