| |
Easton's Bible Dictionary
The second epistle to the Thessalonians was probably
also written from Corinth, and not many months after the first.
The occasion of the writing of this epistle was the arrival of tidings that the
tenor of the first epistle had been misunderstood, especially with reference to
the second advent of Christ. The Thessalonians had embraced the idea that Paul
had taught that "the day of Christ was at hand", that Christ's coming was just
about to happen. This error is corrected ( 2 Thessalonians 2:1 - 12 ), and the
apostle prophetically announces what first must take place. "The apostasy" was
first to arise. Various explanations of this expression have been given, but that
which is most satisfactory refers it to the Church of Rome.
Hitchcock's Dictionary of Bible Names
(no entry)
Smith's Bible Dictionary
appears to have been written from Corinth not very long
after the first, for Silvanus and Timotheus were still with St. Paul. ( 2 Thessalonians
1:1 ) In the former letter we saw chiefly the outpouring of strong personal affection,
occasioned by the renewal of the apostles intercourse with the Thessalonians,
and the doctrinal and hortatory portions are there subordinate. In the Second
Epistle, on the other hand, his leading motive seems to have been the desire of
correcting errors in the church of Thessalonica. We notice two points especially
which call for his rebuke:
First, it seems that the anxious expectation of the Lords
advent. Instead of subsiding, had gained ground since the writing of the First
Epistle.
Second, the apostle had also a personal ground of complaint. His authority was
not denied by any, but it was tampered with, and an unauthorized use was made
of his name. |
It will be seen that the teaching of the Second
Epistle is corrective of or rather supplemental to that of the first, and therefore
presupposes it. This epistle, in the range of subject as well as in style and
general character closely resembles the first; and the remarks made on that epistle
apply for the most part equally well to this. The structure is somewhat similar
the main body of the epistle being divided into two parts in the same way, and
each part closing with a prayer. ch. ( 2 Corinthians 2:16 , 2:17 ; 3:16 ) The
epistle ends with a special direction and benediction. ch. ( 2 Corinthians 3:17
, 3:18 ) The external evidence in favor of the Second Epistle is somewhat more
definite than that which can be brought in favor of the first. The internal character
of the epistle too, as in the former case, bears the strongest testimony to its
Pauline origin. Its genuineness, in fact, was never questioned until the beginning
of the present century.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
I. IMPORTANCE OF STUDYING 1 THESSALONIANS AND 2 THESSALONIANS TOGETHER
Those who hold to the Pauline authorship of the Epistle unite in ascribing it
to a time but little subsequent to the writing of the First Letter. It is simply
a second prescription for the same case, made after discovering that some certain
stubborn symptoms had not yielded to the first treatment. 2 Thessalonians should
be studied in connection with 1 Thessalonians because it is only from an understanding
of the First Epistle and the situation that it revealed that one can fully grasp
the significance of the Second. And more than that, the solution of the problem
as to whether Paul wrote the Second Letter is likewise largely dependent on our
knowledge of the First. It would, for instance, be much harder to believe that
Paul had written 2 Thessalonians if we did not know that before writing it he
had used the tender and tactful methods of treatment which we find in the First
Letter. It is as though one should enter a sick rook where the physician is resorting
to some rather strong measures with a patient. One is better prepared to judge
the wisdom of the treatment if he knows the history of the case, and discovers
that gentler methods have already been tried by the physician without success.
II. AUTHENTICITY
1. Arguments against the Pauline Authorship:
The different treatment of the subject of the second coming of Christ, the different
emotional tone, and the different relationships between Paul and the church presupposed
in the First and Second Epistles have been among the causes which have led to
repeated questionings of the Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians. Scholars argue,
in the first place, that the doctrine concerning the coming of Christ which we
find in the Second Letter is not only differently phrased but is contradictory
to that in the First. We get the impression from the First Letter that the Day
of the Lord is at hand. It will come as a thief in the night (1 Thessalonians
5:2), and one of the main parts of Christian duty is to expect (1 Thessalonians
1:9 , 10). In the Second Letter, however, he writer urges strongly against any
influence that will deceive them into believing that the Day of the Lord is at
hand, because it will not be "except the falling away come first, and the man
of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, he that opposeth and exalteth himself
against all that is called God or that is worshiped" (2 Thessalonians 2:1 - 4).
Again very plainly also, say the critics, a different relation exists between
the writer and the church at Thessalonica. In the First Letter he coaxes; in the
Second Letter he commands (1 Thessalonians 4:1 , 2 , 9 - 12 ; 5:1 - 11 ; 2 Thessalonians
2:1 - 4 ; 3:6 , 12 - 14). Moreover, the whole emotional tone of the Second Letter
is different from that of the First. The First Epistle is a veritable geyser of
joyous, grateful affection and tenderness. The Second Letter, while it also contains
expressions of the warmest affection and appreciation, is quite plainly not written
under the same pressure of tender emotion. Here, say the critics, is a lower plane
of inspiration. Here are Paul's words and phrases and plain imitations of Paul's
manner, but here most emphatically is not the flood tide of Paul's inspiration.
Moreover, the lurid vision of the battle between the man of sin and the returning
Messiah in the Second Letter is different in form and coloring from anything which
we find elsewhere in Paul. These, and other considerations have led many to assume
that the letter was written by a hand other than that of the Apostle to the Gentiles.
2. Arguments for the Pauline Authorship:
The Hypothesis, however, that Paul was not the author of the Epistle, while it
obviates certain difficulties, raises many more. Into a statement of these difficulties
we will not go here, but refer the reader to a brief and scholarly putting of
them in Peake's Critical Introduction to the New Testament, 12-16 (New York, Scribners,
1910).
There is accordingly today a manifest tendency among all scholars, including those
in the more radical camps, to return to the traditional position concerning the
authorship. The following are some of the positive arguments for the authenticity:
As for the opposing views of the coming of Christ in the two Epistles, it is to
be noted that precisely the same superficial contradiction occurs in our Lord's
own teaching on this same subject (Matthew 24:6 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ; Luke 12:35
, 40). Jesus exhorts His disciples to watch, for in such an hour as they think
not the Son of man cometh, and yet at the same time and in the same connection
warns them that when they see certain signs they should not be troubled, for the
end is not yet. Paul, brooding over the subject after writing the First Letter,
might easily have come strongly to see the obverse side of the shield. The apostle
built his theology upon the tradition which had come from Jesus as interpreted
by its practical effects upon his converts, and his mind was quick to counteract
any danger due to overemphasis or wrong inferences. He was not nearly as eager
for a consistently stated doctrine as he was for a doctrine that made for spiritual
life and efficiency. During the fierce persecutions at the beginning of the movement
in Thessalonica, the comfort of the thought of the swift coming of Christ was
in need of emphasis but as soon as the doctrine was used as an excuse for unhealthful
religious excitement the minds of the disciples must be focused on more prosaic
and less exciting aspects of reality.
That Paul assumes a commanding and peremptory attitude in the Second Letter which
we do not find so plainly asserted in the First is readily admitted. Why should
not the First Letter have had its intended effect upon the Thessalonian church
as a whole? And if Paul received word that his gracious and tactful message had
carried with it the conviction of the dominant elements of the church, but that
certain groups had continued to be fanatical and disorderly, we can easily see
how, with the main current of the church behind him, he would have dared to use
more drastic methods with the offending members.
It is also readily admitted that the Second Letter is not so delightful and heart-warming
as the First. It was plainly not written in a mood of such high emotional elevation.
But the question may be raised as to whether the coaxing, caressing tone of the
First Epistle would have been appropriate in handling the lazy and fanatical elements
of the church after it had persisted in disregarding his tender and kindly admonitions.
Jesus' stern words to the Pharisees in Matthew 23 are not so inspiring as John
14, but they were the words and the only words that were needed at the time. "Let
not your heart be troubled" would not be inspired if delivered to hypocrites.
Furthermore, we are not called upon to assume that Paul at all times lived in
the same mood of emotional exaltation. Indeed his Epistles abound with assertions
that this was not the case (2 Corinthians 1:8 ; 1 Thessalonians 3:9), and it is
unreasonable to expect him always to write in the same key. It must be added,
however, that the suggestion that the Second Epistle is stern may easily be overdone.
If 1 Thessalonians were not before us, it would be the tenderness of Paul's treatment
of the church which would most impress us.
Harnack has recently added the weight of his authority to the argument for the
Pauline authorship of the letter. He thinks that there were two distinct societies
in Thessalonica, the one perhaps meeting in the Jewish quarter and composed chiefly
of Jewish Christians, and the other composed of Greeks meeting in some other part
of the city. In addition to the probability that this would be true, which arises
from the very diverse social classes out of which the church was formed (Acts
17:4), and the size of the city, he points to the adjuration in the First Letter
(1 Thessalonians 5:27) that this Epistle be read unto all the brethren, as a proof
that there was a coterie in the church that met separately and that might easily
have been neglected by the rest, just as the Greeks in Jerusalem were neglected
in the daily ministration (Acts 6:1). He thinks that the Second Letter was probably
directed to the Jewish element of the Church.
It is to be noted also that Professor Moffatt (Introduction to the Literature
of the New Testament, 76), who calls in question the authenticity of nearly all
of the books of the New Testament that any reputable scholars now attack, finds
no sufficient reason to question the Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians. |
III. THE MAN OF SIN
1. Primary Reference:
The question as to whom or what Paul refers to in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 - 12, when
he speaks of the man of sin, whose revelation is to precede the final manifestation
of Christ, has divided scholars during all the Christian centuries. (For a good
discussion of the history of the interpretation of this difficult section, see
Findlay, "I and II Thessalonians," Cambridge Bible, 170-80.) The reason why each
age has had its fresh interpretation identifying the man of sin with the blasphemous
powers of evil then most active is the fact that the prophecy has never yet found
its complete accomplishment. The man of sin has never been fully revealed, and
Christ has never finally destroyed him.
But Paul says that the mystery of iniquity already works (2 Thessalonians 2:7),
and he tells the church that the restraining influence which for the time being
held it in check is something that "ye know" (2 Thessalonians 2:6). Plainly, then,
the evil power and that which held it in check were things quite familiar both
to Paul and to his readers. We must therefore give the prophecy a lst-century
reference. The alternative probably lies between making the mystery of iniquity
the disposition of the Roman emperor to give himself out as an incarnation of
deity and force all men to worship him, a tendency which was then being held in
check by Claudius, but which soon broke out under Caligula (see Peake's Introduction
above cited); or, on the other hand, making the mystery of iniquity to be some
peculiar manifestation of diabolism which was to break out from the persecuting
Jewish world, and which was then held in check by the restraining power of the
Roman government.
In favor of making a blasphemous Roman emperor the man of sin, may be urged the
fact that it was this demand of the emperor for worship which brought matters
to a crisis in the Roman world and turned the terrific enginery of the Roman empire
against Christianity. And it may be argued that it is hardly likely that the temporary
protection which Paul received from the Roman government prevented him from seeing
that its spirit was such that it must ultimately be ranged against Christianity.
One may note also, in arguing for the Roman reference of the man of sin, the figurative
and enigmatic way in which Paul refers to the opposing power, a restraint that
would be rendered necessary for reasons of prudence (compare Mark 13:14, and also
the cryptograms used by the author of the Book of Revelation in referring to Rome).
Paul has none of this reserve in referring to the persecuting Jewish world who
"please not God, and are contrary to all men" (1 Thessalonians 2:15). And in view
of the fact that the Jews were in disfavor in the Roman empire, as is proved by
then recently issued decree of Claudius commanding all Jews to depart from Rome
(Acts 18:2), and by the fact that to proclaim a man a Jew helped at that time
to lash a mob into fury against him (Acts 16:20 ; 19:34), it would seem hardly
likely that Paul would expect the subtle and attractive deception that was to
delude the World to come from Jerusalem; and particularly would this seem unlikely
in view of the fact that Paul seems to be familiar with our Lord's prophecy of
the swift destruction of Jerusalem, as is shown by his assertion in 1 Thessalonians
2:16, that wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
On the other hand, however, to make the man of sin a person or an influence coming
from Judaism is supported by the fact that he is to sit in the temple of God,
setting himself forth to be God (1 Thessalonians 2:4), and by the fact that the
natural punishment for the rejection of their Messiah was that the Jews should
be led to accept a false Messiah. Having opposed Him who came in the Father's
name, they were doomed to accept one who came in his own name. Again, and far
more important than this, is the fact that during nearly the whole of Paul's life
it was the Roman empire that protected him, and the unbelieving Jews that formed
the malicious, cunning and powerful opposition to his work and to the well-being
and peace of his churches, and he could very well have felt that the final incarnation
of evil was to come from the source which had crucified the Christ and which had
thus far been chiefly instrumental in opposing the gospel. Moreover, this expectation
that a mysterious power of evil should arise out of the Jewish world seems to
be in harmony with the rest of the New Testament (Matthew 24:5 , 23 , 24 ; Revelation
11:3 , 1 , 8). It is the second alternative, therefore, that is, with misgivings,
chosen by the present writer.
It may be objected that this cannot be the true Interpretation, as it was not
fulfilled, but, on the contrary, it was Rome that became the gospel's most formidable
foe. But this type of objection, if accepted as valid, practically puts a stop
to all attempts at a historical interpretation of prophecy. It would force us
to deny that the prophecies of the Old Testament, which are usually taken as referring
to Christ, referred to Him at all, because plainly they were not literally fulfilled
in the time and manner that the prophets expected them to be fulfilled. It would
almost force us to deny that John the Baptist referred to Christ when he heralded
the coming of the one who would burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire, because
as the Gospels tell us Jesus did not fulfill this prophecy in the way John expected
(Luke 7:19).
See MAN OF SIN.
2. Permanent Value of the Teaching concerning the Man of Sin:
Although Paul's prediction concerning the man of sin was not literally fulfilled,
nevertheless his teaching has a permanent significance. It is always true in every
battle for good that the Son of man does not come until the falling away comes
and the man of sin is revealed. First, there is the fresh tide of enthusiasm and
the promise of swift victory for the kingdom of heaven, but soon there is the
reaction and the renascence of opposition in new and overwhelming power. The battle
is to the death. And then above the smoke of the battle men see the sign of the
coming of the Son of man with power and great glory; the conviction floods them
that after all what Christ stands for is at the center of the universe and must
prevail, and men begin to recognize Christ's principles as though they were natural
law. This action and reaction followed by final victory takes place in practically
all religious and reforming movements which involve the social reconstruction
of society according to the principles of the Kingdom. It is exceedingly important
that men should be delivered from shallow optimism. And this Epistle makes its
contribution to that good end. |
IV. PAUL'S EXHORTATION TO QUIET INDUSTRY
The exhortation that the brethren should work with quietness and earn their own
bread (2 Thessalonians 3:12) is full of interest to those who are studying the
psychological development of the early Christians under the influence of the great
mental stimulus that came to them from the gospel. Some were so excited by the
new dignity that had come to them as members of the Christian society, and by
the new hopes that had been inspired in their minds, that they considered themselves
above the base necessity of manual labor. This is not an infrequent phenomenon
among new converts to Christianity in heathen lands. Paul would have none of it.
Fortunately he could point to his own example. He not only labored among them
to earn his own livelihood, but he worked until muscles ached and body rebelled
(2 Thesssalonians 3:8).
Paul saw that the gospel was to be propagated chiefly by its splendid effects
on the lives of all classes of society, and he realized that almost the first
duty of the church was to be respected, and so he not only exhorts the individual
members to independence, but he lays down the principle that no economic parasite
is to be tolerated in the church. "If any man will not work, neither let him eat"
(2 Thessalonians 3:10). This forms an important complement to the teaching of
Jesus (Matthew 5:42): "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow
of thee turn not thou away."
LITERATURE
Bishop Alexander, the Speaker's Commentary (published in America under the title,
The Bible Comm., and bound with most excellent commentaries on all of the Pauline
Epistles), New York, Scribners; Milligan, The Epistles to the Thessalonians (the
Greek text with Introduction and notes), London, Macmillan; Moffatt, The Expositor's
Greek Test. (bound with commentaries by various authors on the Pastoral Epistles,
Philemon, Hebrews and James), New York, Dodd, Mead and Co.; Frame, ICC, New York,
Scribners; Stevens, An American Commentary on the New Testament, Philadelphia,
American Baptist Publication Society; Adeney, The New Century Bible, "1 and 2
Thessalonians" and "Galatians," New York, Henry Frowde; Findlay, "The Epistles
to the Thessalonians," Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, New York, Putnams;
James Denney, "The Epistles to the Thessalonians," Expositor's Bible, New York,
Doran; the two latter are especially recommended as inexpensive, popular and yet
scholarly commentaries. The Cambridge Bible is a verse-by-verse commentary, and
Professor Denney on "Thess" in Expositor's Bible is one of the most vital and
vigorous pieces of homiletical exposition known to the present writer.
Rollin Hough Walker
Tags:
apostle paul, bible commentary, bible reference, bible study, book of 2 thessalonians, second epistle to the thessalonians, faith, man of sin, new testament, silvanus, thanks, timothy
Comments:
|
 |
|
