CHAPTER IX

I AND 2 THESSALONIANS

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE

TO THE THESSALONIANS

WHO wrote it. There is ample external evidence

to prove that this epistle was acknowledged to be a genuine writing of St. Paul in the second quarter of the second century, while expressions apparently borrowed from it are to be found in writings of a much earlier date.

The few critics who have called its genuineness in question have done so on internal grounds, alleging against it both its likeness and its unlikeness to the other epistles of Paul. But its unlikeness is satisfactorily accounted for by the comparatively early date of its composition, and the very exceptional nature of the occasion on which it was written; while its likeness is largely due to the habit of repetition which is a marked characteristic of the apostle, and to the germination of ideas more fully developed in his subsequent writings. Moreover, the resemblance between this and other writings of St. Paul is often so subtle and minute-depending on the play of personal feeling,1 or on peculiarities of style,—as to preclude the idea of forgery.

1 Cf. ii. 18, iii. 6-10, and Rom. i. 13, 2 Cor. i. 16, xiii. 1.

Eg. a cursory sequence of thought (i. 2-8); the combination of seeming contraries (i. 6, cf. 2 Cor. viii. 1, Col. i. 11-12); verbal contrasts (ii. 17; iv. 7, cf. 1 Cor. v. 3, 2 Cor. v. 1, 2). The force of these arguments cannot be fully understood without a knowledge of the original (Jowett, vol. i. pp. 19-25).

The language of the epistle with reference to the second coming of Christ is also at variance with the supposition of forgery. It seems to imply an expectation on the part of the apostle that he would live to see that event (iv. 15-17). But such an expectation was not likely to be introduced by a forger when it had already been falsified by the apostle's death,— -as it must have been, long before forgery could have been successfully attempted. In this connection we may also note the apparent discrepancy between Acts xviii. 5 and 1 Thess. i. 3, into which a forger depending for his information on the Book of Acts would not have been likely to fall, and which can only be accounted for by supposing a journey of Timothy (from Athens or Beroa to Thessalonica) left unrecorded in the Book of Acts. There is a

similar discrepancy between chapter i. 9, which speaks of the converts as having "turned from their idols," and Acts xvii. 4, which would lead us to suppose that the Church of Thessalonica was largely Jewish.1 In ii. 17-18 there is a reference to the apostle's disappointment in not being able to carry out his intention of revisiting his converts, but such an intention is nowhere mentioned in the Book of Acts. All the three variations may be regarded as a proof that the epistle was written independently of the Acts, and that their general harmony is due to their common fidelity to facts.

To whom written.-" Unto the Church of the Thessalonians." Thessalonica was then, as it is still (under the name of Saloniki), an important mercantile emporium, with a considerable proportion of Jewish inhabitants sharing in its general prosperity. It is now the second city of European Turkey; in the time of the apostle it was the capital of Macedonia. It lay in the neighbourhood of Mount Olympus, the fabled home of the gods, and was a place of exile for Cicero, who

1 The difficulty may be met by adopting a reading of Acts xvii. 4 that is found in some MSS., namely, "of the devout (proselytes) and the Greeks a great multitude," or by supposing that the apostle preached to the Gentiles after the three Sabbathdays mentioned in Acts xvii. 2.

tells how he gazed up at the sacred summit, but saw nothing but snow and ice.

The Church of Thessalonica was planted by St. Paul in the course of his second missionary tour in 52 A.D. (Acts xvii. 1-11), after his memorable visit to Philippi. His stay in the city seems to have been short, owing to a rising of the mob, stirred up against him by the Jews; but it was long enough for the Philippians to send " once and again" unto his need (Phil. iv. 16). Previously he had been earning his own bread (ii. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 7-8)-doubtless in the exercise of his calling as a tentmaker (Acts xviii. 3), as "one of the staple manufactures of the city was and is goats'-hair cloth. The sound that follows the ear as one walks through the streets of Saloniki to-day is the wheezing and straining vibration of the loom and the pendulum-like click of the regular and ceaseless shuttle." Paul paid a second visit to the place shortly before his last journey to Jerusalem. The Church was mainly Gentile in its composition, as we may infer not only from i. 9 but also from the fact that the epistles addressed to it do not contain a single quotation from the Old Testament.

Thessalonica played a great part in the history of Christendom, as a bulwark against the Turks, whence it was known as the Orthodox city. Its modern population (about 90,000) consists chiefly of Mohammedans and Jews, and includes but a small number of Christians.

Where and when written.-The epistle itself supplies us with an answer. From iii. 6-8 we learn that it was written on the return of Timothy, whom Paul had sent (apparently from Athens) to revisit the Thessalonian Church (iii. 1-2). But Acts xviii. 5 informs us that Silas and Timothy rejoined the apostle during his stay of a year and a half at Corinth. We conclude

therefore that the epistle was written from that city,not long after the apostle's arrival, as we may infer from ii. 17. This would be about 53 A.D., probably early in that year.

Its Character and Contents.-This epistle is an

outpouring of the apostle's feelings towards a Church whose hearty reception of the Gospel was to him a matter of constant gratitude to God (i. 2-6), from which he had been reluctantly separated (ii. 17; iii. 1, 2), whose reputation had already spread far and wide (i. 7-10), and of whose patience and constancy he had received a gratify. ing report from Timothy (iii. 6-9). It contains also a vindication of his own character from the aspersions of the Jews, who seem to have put a bad construction on his sudden departure from the city. In refutation of these calumnies Paul appeals to the experience his converts had of his life and conduct while he was with them, and to the salutary effects of his preaching (ii.) He prays that God would grant him a fulfilment of the desire, which he feels intensely, to revisit them for the perfecting of their faith, and that meanwhile their spiritual life may be developed and strengthened (iii. 10-13). With this view he exhorts them (iv.) to the cultivation of certain virtues-purity (vv. 1-8), brotherly love (vv. 9-10), industry (vv. 11-12)—which they were in danger of neglecting.

The characteristic feature of this epistle, however, as of that which follows, is the prominence it gives to Christ's Second Coming. This had been a main theme of Paul's preaching when he was in Thessalonica (i. 10; ii. 12; cf. Acts xvii. 7), and it had so taken possession of his hearers that the bereavements they had suffered by the death of relatives since the apostle left them, were chiefly mourned because they thought the departed friends would have no share in the glory of the Saviour's Advent. The comfort which Paul administers (iv. 1318) when he assures his converts that their fears in this matter are groundless, gives one the idea that he expected Christ to come in his own lifetime. In this respect the language of this epistle differs widely from the allusions to his approaching death in his later epistles (2 Cor. v. 1; Phil. i. 21-24; 2 Tim. iv. 6). That the apostle should have been left to his own impressions in this matter is in striking harmony with our Lord's

statement, "But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only" (Matt. xxiv. 36, cf. Acts i. 7). That it would come suddenly and called for constant watchfulness was a truth often dwelt upon by Christ, which the apostle could safely enforce, as he does in this epistle (v. I-II).

"THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS

Who wrote it. We have the same external evidence for the genuineness of the second epistle as of the first. Internally it bears evidence of being a sequel to the other, being written, like it, in the name of Paul and Silas and Timothy (i. 1), and containing a direct allusion to the previous epistle (ii. 15). As might have been expected, it contains fewer and more distant allusions to the apostle's sojourn in Thessalonica.

The prophetic passage in chapter ii. 1-12 has been a stumbling-block to many critics, who have imagined it to bear the stamp of a later period. In reality, however, it is quite consistent with the teaching of the first epistle, which nowhere implies that the coming of Christ was to be immediate, although it was to be sudden and was apparently to take place in the apostle's lifetime. Predictions of a similar kind had been uttered by our Lord Himself (Matt. xxiv.), and were also to be found in the books of Daniel and Ezekiel.

To whom written.-See page 53.

Where and when written.-Like the first epistle, it is written in the name of Paul, Silas, and Timothy. The three were together at Corinth, and apparently, so far as the Book of Acts informs us, nowhere else. This leads to the inference that this epistle, like the first, was written from that city-probably a few months later. In the interval the excitement and disorder consequent upon the expectation of Christ's coming, in the midst of