Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians addresses a
church troubled by an overly realized eschatology. Whereas at the
time of the first letter the Thessalonians were expecting the
imminent return of Christ (1 Thess. 5:6), by the time of
the second letter some believed that Christ had already come
(2 Thess. 2:2). Because of this, some were being drawn from
their work into idleness (2 Thess. 3:6). Paul’s purpose,
then, was to correct their eschatology, restore them to their tasks,
and rebuild their confidence in Christ. He does this both by
emphasizing Jesus Christ as Lord (the letter is uniquely consistent
in the NT in applying the title “Lord” [Gk. kyrios] to
Jesus) and by describing two apocalyptic events that must happen
before the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ: the great apostasy and
the appearance of the man of lawlessness (2 Thess. 2:3).
Scholars have noted that Paul most often refers to Jesus as Lord in
hortatory and eschatological passages. Indeed, though brief,
2 Thessalonians emphasizes exhortation and eschatology.
Literary
Considerations
Authorship
and the question of pseudo-nymity. As
early as AD 110, Polycarp of Smyrna alluded to 2 Thessalonians
in his letter to the Philippians (Pol. Phil. 11:4), and both Marcion
and the Muratorian Canon refer to the epistle. It was known to
Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. In the modern era,
beginning at the end of the eighteenth century, the Pauline
authorship of the epistle was questioned, first by J. E. C.
Schmidt, then by F. C. Baur, and more fully by W. Wrede,
who dated the letter to a little before the date implied in
Polycarp’s letter.
Comparison
of 1 and 2 Thessalonians.
The case for pseudonymous authorship depends largely on a comparison
between 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians. The letters
share a number of similarities in language, style, and content,
including similarly worded salutations (1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess.
1:1–2), expressions of thanks (1 Thess. 1:2; 2:13; 3:9;
2 Thess. 1:3; 2:13), intercessory prayers (1 Thess. 3:11;
2 Thess. 2:16), references to the broad reputation of the
Thessalonian church (1 Thess. 1:1–10; 2 Thess.
1:3–4), the persecution of the Thessalonian church (1 Thess.
2:14–16; 2 Thess. 1:5–10), divine election (1 Thess.
1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13), references to a personalized antagonist
(“Satan” in 1 Thess. 2:18; “the evil one”
in 2 Thess. 3:3), the exhortation to avoid idleness (1 Thess.
4:11–12; 5:14; 2 Thess. 3:7–13), a common concern
for the parousia and its anticipation (1 Thess. 4:13–5:11;
2 Thess. 2:1–11), and a number of stylistic resemblances
(cf. 1 Thess. 3:11 with 2 Thess. 2:16; 1 Thess. 4:1
with 2 Thess. 3:1; 1 Thess. 5:23 with 2 Thess. 3:16).
In
addition to resemblances, advocates of pseudonymous authorship have
perceived some deep discontinuities between the letters. The
question, then, is to devise a theory to explain both types of
features (see below). In 1 Thessalonians the parousia is
depicted as an imminent event that could occur at any moment, “like
a thief in the night” (1 Thess. 5:2), whereas in
2 Thessalonians the basic supposition is that the end will come
not unexpectedly but only following the series of public events
described in 2 Thess. 2:3–4. The imminent tone of
1 Thessalonians can be compared to that of 1 Corinthians
(an undisputedly Pauline letter), while the attitude of
2 Thessalonians and its acceptance of an indefinite delay of the
parousia find no obvious parallel in the other letters widely
accepted as written by Paul, but have been described as best fitting
a context in the last quarter of the first century, within the milieu
of eschatological debate that gave rise to two other disputed Pauline
letters, Ephesians and Colossians. Although we should not facilely
harmonize the differences between the letters, neither should we
overstate the imminence of eschatological expectation in
1 Thessalonians, where, as in 2 Thessalonians, Paul reminds
his readers that in fact they will not be surprised by the parousia
(1 Thess. 5:4)—although, admittedly, less apocalyptic
detail is given than in 2 Thessalonians. Moreover, both letters
give ample attention to life in the period of eschatological
anticipation (2 Thess. 3:1–16), particularly to the
temptation to idleness (1 Thess. 4:11–12; 5:14; 2 Thess.
3:7–13).
In
2 Thess. 2:2 the author warns against letters circulating in
Paul’s name but falsely attributed to him. As proponents of the
pseudonymous authorship of 2 Thessalonians have pointed out,
this problem is unlikely to have arisen during the lifetime of Paul
himself, as he would have been able to discredit such letters. Also,
the handwritten signature at the end of the letter (2 Thess.
3:17 [the rest of the letter would have been dictated to a secretary,
as in Rom. 16:22]) and the special emphasis placed on it (compared to
1 Cor. 16:21; Gal. 6:11; and in a disputed Pauline letter, Col.
4:18) have been taken as indicating an attempt to deceive, or at
least as consistent with what a pseudonymous author would have deemed
necessary to pass off the letter as the work of the famous apostle.
Of course, this argument depends on the fact that Paul actually did
sign some of his genuine letters in this way, though 2 Thess.
3:17 does admittedly go beyond the other examples listed as a plea
for authenticity, even to the point of raising suspicion. On the
other hand, if falsely attributed letters were being passed around in
Paul’s lifetime, the extra emphasis on his personal mark would
be called for.
Finally,
some have described a shift in tone between the two letters, from
joyfulness to somberness. Supposing that 2 Thessalonians was
written some years after 1 Thessalonians and the death of Paul,
this has been taken as a reflection of eschatological disappointment
during the interim and a readjustment of expectations to the reality
of a longer-than-anticipated delay in the parousia. However, the
difference in tone, as well as the difference in theological emphasis
noted above, might simply reflect differences in the sets of
circumstances that occasioned the two letters, and the tone of both
letters could be construed as coming from the mind of a single
author.
Relationship
between 1 and 2 Thessalonians.
Considering similarities and differences together, the proponents of
pseudonymous authorship judge the theological, linguistic, and
stylistic differences to be substantive and real and to reflect both
a significant lapse in time and the work of two distinct authors. In
this view, the long list of resemblances indicates only that
2 Thessalonians is a rather studied imitation of
1 Thessalonians. If Paul wrote both letters, why would he have
repeated so much of his earlier letter in the second and done so
within a relatively short span of time? As alternatives to the theory
of pseudonymous authorship, several proposals have been advanced to
explain this unexpected behavior, including the notions that the
letters were addressed to two groups within the city of Thessalonica
(Jewish and Gentile); that each letter reflects the differing
authorial contributions from the three senders of both letters (Paul,
Silas, and Timothy [1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1]); that one
of the letters was addressed privately to a restricted group within
the community; that 2 Thessalonians was written not shortly
after 1 Thessalonians but rather following a second visit to
Thessalonica (see Acts 20:1–2), during which developments not
recorded in Acts would have set the stage for the distinctive
emphases of the second letter; or that reversing the chronological
priority of the letters so that 2 Thessalonians preceded
1 Thessalonians provides a scenario in which the Pauline
authorship of 2 Thessalonians can plausibly be maintained. At
present, the authorship of 2 Thessalonians remains a matter of
dispute among biblical scholars.
Theological
considerations.
Apart from the internal evidence discussed above, the theory of
pseudonymous authorship raises theological questions. How does the
possibility that Paul did not write the letter bear on the authority
of this letter as Scripture? Is the intent to deceive as to the
authorship of the letter consistent with the belief that the letter
was divinely inspired by a holy God? In terms of its history of
reception, 2 Thessalonians has the highest pedigree and, as
noted above, was alluded to as early as the first part of the second
century. The Pauline authorship of the book and its status in the
canon do not seem to have been a matter of dispute in antiquity.
Responding to critical assessments of the book’s authorship and
date in the modern era (and more broadly to assessments of other
“disputed Pauline letters”), some evangelical theologians
and biblical scholars have argued that epistolary pseudepigraphy was
not considered respectable in antiquity; that is, such a practice was
considered tantamount to forgery and an intent to deceive. The early
church would not have knowingly accepted into the canon any letter
known to have been pseudepigraphically authored and promulgated. In
light of this reconstruction of ancient attitudes, the proposal of
pseudonymity in the case of 2 Thessalonians and other supposedly
Pauline letters becomes a significant theological problem.
In
addressing this issue, it should be noted that the concept of
authorship was and is somewhat flexible. Paul did not likely write
with his own hand any of the letters in the NT, apart from adding his
signature at the end of 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and possibly
2 Thessalonians and Colossians. In each instance the degree to
which the scribe or amanuensis contributed to the wording or content
of each letter (see Rom. 16:22) is unclear. In the case of
2 Thessalonians and some other Pauline Epistles, the letter
originated from a group of three associates: Paul, Silas, and
Timothy. It is unclear to what extent Silas and Timothy should be
considered as having made an authorial contribution to the letter.
Admittedly, the theory of pseudonymous authorship of 2 Thessalonians
goes far beyond any of these cases, since, as generally articulated,
it involves dating the letter to the last quarter of the first
century, at least ten years or so after the death of Paul. In terms
of the theological problem described above, a letter authored in
Paul’s name under such circumstances represents a qualitatively
different scenario than one written by associates during his lifetime
yet ultimately knowingly authorized and sent (and signed) by the
apostle himself. Still, the range of meanings entailed in the concept
of “authorship” should lead to circumspection in
evaluating the theological implications of the theory of pseudonymous
authorship. Reducing this theory to the possible element of deception
may risk oversimplifying and even demonizing the motivations and aims
of the pseudonymous author. (See also Pseudepigraphy, Pseudonymity.)
Date.
As is obvious from the foregoing discussion of authorship, the date
of 2 Thessalonians is bound up in the question of authorship. If
Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians, it would have to have been prior to
his death in the mid-60s. First Thessalonians was likely written
around AD 50, and 2 Thessalonians may have been written shortly
thereafter, if it was written prior to Paul’s second visit to
the region of Macedonia (Acts 20:1–2), during his time in
Corinth (18:1–5) or Ephesus. A second visit to the city is not
mentioned in 2 Thessalonians, and in contrast to the evidence of
Acts 18:5 regarding the second missionary journey of Paul, we cannot
with certainty place the three authors of 2 Thessalonians (Paul,
Timothy, and Silas) together at a later date. Advocates of
pseu-don-y-mous authorship usually date the letter to the last
quarter of the first century in order to allow some time for the
supposed development in eschatological expectation between the two
letters, and probably also for the collection of Paul’s letters
in later years to provide the background for the reference in
2 Thess. 3:17 to “all my letters.” At any rate, it
should be dated prior to the composition of Polycarp’s letter
to the Philippians around AD 110.
If
pseudonymous authorship is accepted, then two passages in the letter
that refer to events after Paul’s death may bear on a more
precise dating of the composition. First, the reference to “God’s
temple” in 2 Thess. 2:4, if it refers to the temple in
Jerusalem, would suggest a date prior to AD 70, when that edifice was
destroyed. Second, some have argued that the reference to the
revelation of the “man of lawlessness” in 2 Thess.
2:3 refers to an expectation that the emperor Nero was to come back
from the dead. This would suggest a date after Nero’s death in
AD 68. Both passages can be explained in other ways: the figure of
God’s temple continued to be invoked symbolically after AD 70,
and the “man of lawlessness” is obscure enough to inspire
caution in too quickly identifying him with a historical person.
Outline
I.
Introductory Greeting and Thanksgiving (1:1–12)
A.
Greetings from Paul, Silas, and Timothy (1:1–2)
B.
Thanksgiving (1:3–10)
C.
Prayer (1:11–12)
II.
The Coming of Christ (2:1–12)
A.
Warnings against reports that Christ has come (2:1–2)
B.
The man of lawlessness and the great apostasy must come first (2:3–7)
C.
God will ensure the destruction of both through Christ (2:8–12)
III.
Exhortations (2:13–3:15)
A.
Thanksgiving and prayer (2:13–3:5)
B.
Exhortation to avoid idleness in themselves and in others (3:6–15)
IV.
Closing Prayer and Benediction (3:16–18)
