Thessalonians are wonderful letters to Christians to remind them and us that the Lord will return one day as He promised when He ascended into heaven, Acts 1:9-11. With this promise in mind, this should encourage us and motivate all Christians to live holy and godly lives until the Day of His return.
The Thessalonian epistles are unique in many aspects. The letters are inspired by God and are, therefore, ‘the word of the Lord,’ 1 Thessalonians 4:15. They are among the earliest, if not the earliest, of the New Testament epistles written by Paul.
The emphasis in the letters is profound: Christ is coming! The ascension of Jesus Christ to heaven is recorded in Acts chapter one. Upon this momentous occasion, an announcement was made: Christ is coming again!
Paul, with Silas and Timothy, came to Thessalonica from Philippi on his second missionary journey, stopping in Amphipolis and Apollonia before arriving at Thessalonica, Acts 17. He preached in the city’s synagogue, the chief synagogue of the region, for at least three weeks.
His ministry was strong, and he established a Jewish-Gentile church, although it was more heavily Gentile, 1 Thessalonians 1:9. When Paul faced great persecution at the hands of the mob, he fled to Berea, but the Thessalonians eventually forced him to leave there also, Acts 17:13-14.
The city of Thessalonica was the capital and largest city of the Roman province of Macedonia, located on the Ignatian Way, which was a major road from Rome to the eastern provinces. The city was named after the wife of Cassander, who built the city. Those in Thessalonica adored many gods, particularly Jupiter, as the father of Hercules, the alleged founder of its ancient royal family.
The city also boasted a celebrated amphitheatre, where gladiatorial shows were exhibited for the amusement of the citizens, and a circus for public games. Thessalonica’s location and use as a port made it a prominent city. In 168 B.C., it became the capital of the second district of Macedonia, and later it was made the capital and major port of the whole Roman province of Macedonia (146 B.C.).
In 42 B.C., after the battle at Philippi, Thessalonica was made a free city.
Thessalonica was the capital of one of the four Roman districts of Macedonia. The church of the Thessalonians was established, Acts 17:1-9, on Paul’s second journey, where he and his fellow workers had just left Philippi.
Travelling through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they arrived at Thessalonica, where Paul immediately located the synagogue and used their Sabbath gathering as an opportunity for evangelism.
For three weeks, he reasoned with the Jews, converting some and several prominent Gentiles, but some unbelieving Jews soon caused a disturbance, forcing him to leave. But despite all threats by God’s grace, a good, strong congregation was planted and established.
The church quickly gained a good reputation, 1 Thessalonians 1:8, and was made up mostly of Gentiles, 1 Thessalonians 1:9. Some of its members included Jason, Acts 17:9, Aristarchus, and Secundus, Acts 20:4.
Very little has been uncovered at ancient Thessalonica because Thessaloniki sits atop the remains. Excavators found a bathhouse and mint dating to the 1st century A.D. below pavement surrounding an odeum.
An inscription (30 B.C. to 143 A.D.) from the Vardar gate bears the word politarches, the word Luke used in reference to the officials of the city before whom Jason was brought by the mob, Acts 17:6. The word does not appear in any other Greek literature but does match the archaeology of the site.
The Politarch Inscription can be viewed in the British Museum in London. Discovered in 1835, this is a Greek inscription from a Roman gateway in Thessalonica. It lists officials of the town in the 2nd century A.D., beginning with six Politarchs.
In Acts 17:6-8, the author, Luke, refers to the “politarchs,” translated in the ESV as the “city authorities” of Thessalonica. Acts records Paul and Silas in Thessalonica being brought before the politarchas, ‘rulers of the city’, accused of being troublemakers.
There is no doubt as to the authors of the letters. “From Paul, Silas, and Timothy…” 1 Thessalonians 1:1 / 2 Thessalonians 1:1. Both letters are from Paul, Silas (also known as Silvanus) and Timothy. Of these three, the apostle Paul was the main author. We do not know how much of the letter Silas and Timothy wrote, but all three of them were in agreement with what the letter contained.
Paul, who was formally known as Saul of Tarsus, was a ‘persecutor of the church’, Acts 9:1-2 and became to be known as the ‘apostle to the Gentiles’, Acts 9:15. He was an educated man who is credited as being the author of half the New Testament books.
Silvanus, also known as Silas, was originally a messenger from the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, Acts 15:22 / Acts 15:27. He was recognised as a prophet who encouraged the brethren in Antioch, Acts 15:32.
He stayed in Antioch until he became Paul’s travelling companion, Acts 15:34 / Acts 15:40-41. He suffered with the apostle Paul whilst they were in prison in Philippi, Acts 16:19-25, and together with Paul established the church in Thessalonica, Acts 17:1-4.
Timothy, also known as Timotheus, was a young disciple who travelled with Paul, Acts 16:1-3, and is mentioned in many of Paul’s letters. He received two letters from Paul, 1 Timothy 1:1 / 2 Timothy 1:1. Just like Paul and Silas, he suffered being in prison, Hebrews 13:23. He has just returned from a trip to Thessalonica himself, 1 Thessalonians 3:1-2 / 1 Thessalonians 3:6.
Both Silvanus (Silas) and Timothy (at least by inference) appear in the records of Acts as Paul’s companions during his first visit to Thessalonica, Acts 17:1-9. For a short time after Paul departed from Thessalonica, the three were separated, but they were reunited in Corinth, Acts 18:5 / 2 Corinthians 1:19. Corinth thus suggests itself as the place from which the letters to the Thessalonians church were sent.
Since Paul, Silvanus and Timothy are named together as joint authors of the letters, it is, at first sight, conceivable that Silvanus and Timothy played a responsible part along with Paul in the composition.
Timothy indeed was Paul’s personal assistant and is named along with Paul in the precept of some other letters, 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, certainly because he was in Paul’s company when these were written and possibly because he served Paul as amanuensis.
Silvanus, on the other hand, occupied a more independent status in relation to Paul. He was not a convert of Paul’s (as Timothy was); he was a member of the church of Jerusalem, enjoying the confidence of the leaders of that church, being himself one of the “leading men among the brethren” there, Acts 15:22.
The a priori likelihood that such a man would be the joint author of the letters in which he is named as one of the senders, in a substantial and not a merely nominal sense, is borne out by internal evidence.
When Paul, in other letters, expresses his thanks to God for those to whom he writes, he usually does so in the first person singular “I give thanks …” even when others are associated with him in the prescript, 1 Corinthians 1:4 / Philippians 1:3 / Philemon 4.
Colossians, sent in the name of himself and Timothy to a church not personally known to him, is an exception. Colossians 1:3 begins, We always thank God…” in both the Thessalonian letters, the first-person plural is used: “We give thanks to God always …” 1 Thessalonians 1:2. “We are bound to give thanks to God always….” 2 Thessalonians 1:3.
The use of the first-person plural is maintained throughout both letters, apart from certain places where the singular suddenly appears, 1 Thessalonians 2:18 / 1 Thessalonians 3:5 / 1 Thessalonians 5:27 / 2 Thessalonians 2:5 / 2 Thessalonians 3:17. In two of these five places, the first personal pronoun is accompanied by the name “Paul”, 1 Thessalonians 2:18 / 2 Thessalonians 3:17.
All of them are best explained by the supposition that they are Paul’s personal additions, whether inserted by him orally as the letters were being dictated or appended, possibly in his own hand, when they were being read over after completion.
The inclusion of his name in the prescripts and especially his signature at the end of the second letter would provide evidence enough that the contents as a whole were approved by him, whoever was responsible for the actual composition. (F. F. Bruce Word Biblical Commentary Volume 45 1&2 Thessalonians)
1 Thessalonians claims to be from Paul, 1 Thessalonians 1:1 / 1 Thessalonians 2:18, and is Pauline both in language and in ideas. The author’s associates, Silas and Timothy, whom we know from Acts, were with Paul on his second missionary journey. The letter must be early for various reasons. The church organisation is apparently in a very early stage.
It is difficult to think of anyone writing after Paul’s death putting forth in Paul’s name a statement that might be understood as meaning that the Parousia (second coming of Christ) would take place during the Apostle’s lifetime, 1 Thessalonians 4:15.
The question of the fate of believers who died before the Parousia must have been answered fairly early in the church’s life. Yet it is impossible to think of anyone but Paul putting it out in early times.
How could it possibly gain a circulation while the Apostle was still engaged in vigorous work, travelling among the churches and well able to denounce it? (Yet we must bear in mind that the possibility of forgery seems to be implied by 2 Thessalonians 2:2, and the explanation of the autograph in 2 Thessalonians 3:17.)
Moreover, the letter is as well attested as we could reasonably ask. It is not the kind of letter which would be quoted often. This explains its absence from the sub-apostolic writings that have come down to us (though there are some similarities in language which may be more than coincidence).
But it was accepted as sacred Scripture by Marcion (c. 140 A.D.), and it is included among the canonical books in the list given in the Muratorian Fragment (a list of the books accepted as canonical some time after the middle of the second century, probably at Rome). The Epistle is definitely quoted by Irenaeus (c. 180 A.D.) and later writers.
It hardly seems the kind of letter which would be forged. Why should anyone produce a letter like this? What did he aim to do thereby? The letter reads naturally as the reaction of Paul to the situation we outlined earlier. But it seems completely out of character as a forgery foisted on the church to serve some devious purpose of the forger.
Nothing very considerable can be set over against all this. Some of the Tubingen school regarded the Epistle as unauthentic, but they stand practically alone. Their reasons for rejecting the Epistle fail to commend themselves.
Thus, we find the objection that it is not doctrinal enough, or again, that it shows too close dependence on 1 and 2 Corinthians. These two surely cancel each other out, for the former means it is not Pauline enough, and the latter that it is too Pauline! Neither carries conviction nor do others that are alleged.
No more convincing is the suggestion that the letter cannot be an authentic writing of the Apostle because there is a series of discrepancies between it and Acts. For example, 1 Thessalonians 2:7-11 gives us a picture of Paul working at his trade, and this is said to be incompatible with the statement of Acts 17:2 that he preached in the synagogue at Thessalonica on three Sabbaths.
We have already considered the circumstances of the first preaching in the city, and we have seen no necessary contradiction. Paul may have stayed in Thessalonica no longer than that Acts indicates. Or, if we feel that a longer period is required, Acts may give us the length of his synagogue preaching.
It is the same with the allegation that the two contradict each other since Acts 17:4, speaks of the converts as both Jews and Gentiles, while 1 Thessalonians 1:9 / 1 Thessalonians 2:14, refers to Gentiles only. Or that Acts 18:5 speaks of Silas and Timothy as coming to Paul at Corinth, whereas 1 Thessalonians 3:1-4 shows that Timothy was with Paul for a time in Athens.
As B. Clogg says, “Discrepancies of this nature prove little except that the authors of Acts and of 1 Thessalonians wrote independently of each other.” Neither is giving the complete story, and we must make use of both.
But to say that both must in all points tell all they know is so obviously false as to need no refutation. We conclude, then, that there is no real reason for doubting the authenticity of this epistle. (The new international commentary on the New Testament. The first and second epistles to the Thessalonians. Leon Morris).
As is the case with the First Epistle, there are good reasons for thinking of 2 Thessalonians as authentic. It has early attestations, for Polycarp, Ignatius, and Justin all seem to have known it, possibly also the writer of Didache. It is found in the Marcionite canon and in the Muratorian Fragment, and it is quoted by name by Irenaeus and later writers.
As with 1 Thessalonians, the mention of Silvanus and Timothy as associates of the author and the obviously early date of the writing favour Pauline authorship. 2 Thessalonians emerged into church history associated unequivocally with 1 Thessalonians. It claims to have been written by Paul, and the language and theology are Pauline.
It is difficult to think of a suitable motive for a forger (notice that, since 2 Thessalonians 3:17 claims to be Paul’s signature, forgery is the only alternative to authenticity. We cannot think of someone putting out in good faith a sample of Pauline teaching).
It is difficult to think of a reason for making the letter resemble 1 Thessalonians so closely. It is difficult to think of a forger entering so fully into the mind of Paul as to produce a writing so redolent of the Apostle as this one.
There is also the point that had he not written 1 Thessalonians, we would hardly call in question the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians. It is rather strange to call into question an Epistle that has all the hallmarks of a genuine Pauline writing on the grounds that it is similar to another Pauline writing.
For reasons such as these, most scholars have not hesitated to accept this writing. In recent times, however, attention has been focused on certain matters which raise doubts. While not many would go so far as to pronounce the Epistle non-Pauline, several scholars feel perplexed. The principal points are the following.
1. There is what Neil speaks of: “The problem of the letter is one of accounting for the similarity to and difference from a letter written by the same hand, to the same people, only a short while before.”
Sometimes 2 Thessalonians repeats 1 Thessalonians not only in general ideas but also in the actual words that are employed. The objection is that such an outstanding man as Paul would not find it necessary to repeat himself. He would, if he had to say the same thing, say it in different words so that deliberate imitation is the explanation.
At the same time, there are differences such as those on eschatology (The branch of theology that is concerned with the end of the world or of humankind), which we shall notice in the next section. The thought then is that the ideas are not the ideas of Paul, and they are expressed in language which is a deliberate imitation of that of the great Apostle.
In the first place, it must be re-joined to this that the general similarity to Pauline style is very close indeed. It is very difficult to envisage a forger who could imitate Paul’s language so very closely. Pauline words, phrases and constructions are everywhere. So are Pauline ideas.
If Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians not so very long after 1 Thessalonians, it would not be surprising if sometimes words and phrases were repeated, especially if, as Neil thinks possible, he read through “the customary draft copy of his first letter before writing the second.” This would be the more likely in that he had to bear in mind what was written in 1 Thessalonians because some of it had been misunderstood.
It must also be borne in mind that the extent of the resemblance is easy to exaggerate. It is natural for there to be close resemblances in such places as the opening and the close, and indeed, in the general structure of the letters. It is natural also for an author to come close to repeating himself when he is writing on the same subjects twice within a matter of weeks or even months.
But the suggested parallels do not cover more than about one-third, which is strange in a deliberate imitation. And even so, more or less identical language is used in different ways.
For example, there are marked resemblances between how Paul describes his hard manual labour in the two letters. But in the first, he does it to show love for his converts, while in the second, it is to bring out the force of his example. This kind of thing is more likely to be slavishly imitated by a forger.
There is, moreover, the point that the resemblances are to 1 Thessalonians. Why should a later imitator confine himself to this Epistle and make use of Paul’s major writings? The differences are no longer conclusive.
Thus, Paul’s comments on the Man of Sin (or Lawlessness) in the second letter are different from anything he has to say in the first. But the difference does not amount to incompatibility. It is no more than a man might add as a supplement to what he has already said on the subject. It is the same with the other differences that are brought forward.
This combination of likeness and difference is interesting, and there may be more to it than at present appears. But the point is that it does not prove the difference in authorship. Such a man as Paul was quite capable of both.
2. The eschatology of 2 Thessalonians is said to be different from that of 1 Thessalonians.
The simplest way of putting this is to say that in the First Epistle, the coming of the Lord is thought of as about to take place very soon and very suddenly. But in the Second Epistle, it will be preceded by signs, like a great rebellion and the appearance of the Man of Lawlessness.
But to state this hypothesis is virtually to refute it, for it is a commonplace in apocalyptic literature that the Lord’s coming is to be sudden, and yet that it will be preceded by signs. We find this in the Gospels and in Revelation, to name no other. It should also not be overlooked that Paul’s warning in 1 Thessalonians 5 not to be unprepared when the day comes may well imply a knowledge of premonitory signs.
A similar objection is that the people to whom 2 Thessalonians was written knew a good deal about the Parousia, for even the teaching about the Man of Lawlessness is given them only by way of reminder, and not as communicating new information, 2 Thessalonians 2:5.
Such people would hardly be in ignorance of such fundamental teaching on the subject as is given in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. But again, the objection does not get us far. In the short time that he was in Thessalonica, Paul could not give all the teaching on the second coming that he would have wished.
Many matters were certainly left ungrasped by the Thessalonians. It is entirely natural that eager new converts should have fastened their attention on such an outstanding figure as the Man of Lawlessness without appreciating the fact that some of their number would die before the great day. Indeed, they may well not have given this matter any thought at all before the decease of some of their number forced it on their notice.
Thus, some urge that this figure does not appear elsewhere in Paul and therefore we cannot accept the idea as Pauline. To say this is to refute it. We cannot dismiss an idea because Paul produced it only once. For that matter, it does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament.
Not Paul had an eager, questing mind. He is more likely to have seized on the truth concerning this being than some at least of his contemporaries. There is no real objection here.
A variant of this objection dates the origin of the idea of the Man of Lawlessness too late to put it within the time of Paul. This objection maintains that the whole idea of the Man of Lawlessness is based on the Nero redivivus myth.
After Nero’s death in 68 A.D., there appeared a number of people who claimed to be that emperor come to life once more. They were discredited, but the idea persisted that one day Nero would come back to life. Then he would put himself at the head of the forces of evil. The myth came to have a supernaturalistic tinge.
Nero was held to be demonic as well as human. Now, if the portrait of the Man of Lawlessness was drawn from the Nero redivivus myth, obviously, Paul could not have drawn it. The idea did not gain currency till after his death.
But the idea of the anti-Christ is far older than the Nero redivivus myth, as Bousset, for example, has shown. It goes back long before the time of Paul, and there is no reason for holding that 2 Thessalonians 2 is based on the late myth. Consequently, the objection falls to the ground.
Thus, we see that there are various ways of putting the objection from eschatology, but none of them is decisive. The eschatological teachings in the two epistles are not contradictory, but complementary.
1. There are some who think that a difference in authorship is indicated by the fact that, whereas 1 Thessalonians is warm and friendly in tone, 2 Thessalonians is cold and rather formal.
The difference is difficult to sustain. Frame points out that the vehement self-defence in the First Epistle accounts for a good deal of its warmth, and that if this were omitted, the differences in tone “would not be perceptible.”
Again, the coldness alleged in the tone of 2 Thessalonians is very largely due to a few expressions. Thus Paul says, “We are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren,” and adds, “even as it is meet” 2 Thessalonians 1:3. But this is probably to be understood as a protestation that his praise of them in the First Epistle was no more than was right.
Again, the objection that we meet authoritative commands, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, and elsewhere, overlooks the fact that throughout that whole section, there is an undertone of genuine brotherly warmth. Paul is very concerned to bring back into full fellowship some whose conduct had raised a barrier. But he is just as loving as he is authoritative.
Thus, while admittedly 2 Thessalonians is slightly cooler in tone than the First Epistle, it does not seem as though the difference amounts to much. Even if we were to grant all that the objectors put forward, it still would prove little. Writers are not always in the same mood, and we have no reason for thinking of Paul as an exception.
Moreover, as we saw earlier, there is good reason for thinking that when he wrote 2 Thessalonians, Paul was experiencing a joyful reaction from a time of discouragement.
It would not be surprising if a later letter failed to reproduce such a mood, especially if it revealed that some had failed to give heed to instructions given in that first letter. Moreover, we know from 2 Thessalonians 3:2 that Paul was in a somewhat difficult situation when he wrote that letter.
Thus, it does not seem as though any of the objections is compelling. There is none for which an answer does not lie ready to hand. There is, accordingly, no reason why we should not accept the positive evidence and accept this Epistle as an authentic writing of Paul. (The New International Commentary on the New Testament. The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. Leon Morris.)
The book of 2 Thessalonians is a letter from Paul, 2 Thessalonians 1:1 / 2 Thessalonians 3:17. The apostle Paul begins his letter by mentioning Silas and Timothy, 2 Thessalonians 1:1. Early sources in church history that attribute this letter to Paul include Clement of Alexandria (200 A.D.), Tertullian (200 A.D.), and Irenaeus (200 A.D.).
Paul and his friends received news from Thessalonica after that church had received the first letter. This news showed that the Thessalonians still needed someone to teach them about some subjects. They had not understood some of what was in the first letter. So, the purpose of the second letter was to make things clear to them.
Paul wrote this letter to reemphasise the coming return of Jesus Christ. Some of the people in Thessalonica had thought that Jesus had already returned; this letter was written to correct any misunderstandings.
It appears that they remained strong in the Lord despite persecution, 2 Thessalonians 1:3-4. But it is apparent from this letter that a misunderstanding about the Lord’s coming was present in the church. Some of the members were being troubled by false reports, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2, and others had stopped working, perhaps assuming that the Lord’s imminent return meant one did not need to work anymore, 2 Thessalonians 3:11-12.
To Continue To Read This Study In Its entirety, Or To Download It To Your PC, Please Click On The Icon Below