Skip to main content

2 Thessalonians 1

I have a small gap in my reading/study/writing schedule, so I've decided to slot 2 Thessalonians in. I'm planning to cover the whole book in three posts, hopefully all before the end of the year.

You can read the text here.

Paul [1] opens his second letter to the Thessalonians with a wish of grace before going into his customary thanksgiving section. He has much to be thankful for. The Thessalonians are growing, especially in their love for one another and their faith/faithfulness/fidelity.[2] Standing firm in their commitment was not easy given the persecution they faced. They are a church in need of encouragement, so Paul affirms them, essentially calling their witness exemplary.

Next, Paul goes on to offer further encouragement, here offering hope for a beleaguered church in the final judgment. There are a couple of points of emphasis.[3] First is that the judgment of God is just, or in keeping with people's deeds. Those who persecuted the Thessalonians would receive appropriate condemnation from Jesus on the last day because of their opposition to him.[4] Second we need to remember that this reminder is given by Paul to help them to stand firm in their faithfulness. Steadfastness through persecution prepares them for salvation and gives them an opportunity to demonstrate costly loyalty to God. In exchange, God will avenge them on the last day, and they just needed to stay on course.

This section concludes with Paul moving into a description of his constant prayer for the Thessalonians. He wants them to remain faithful to the end so that they are rewarded by God for their fidelity,[5] and to that end he prays for God to continue to bestow the grace needed to sustain them. What does God get out of this arrangement? Glory, as the Thessalonians honor him with their lives.



--------------------------------
[1] I feel reasonably confident that Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians. See, e.g., the extended discussion in Malherbe.

[2] I think it's hard to know what exact nuance is intended here, but I typically prefer fidelity (a concept which encompasses faith and faithfulness) unless there is a clear reason to limit the scope to on or the other. In vs. 3, Fee and Gaventa leans towards 'faithfulness' while Malherbe opts for 'faith.' Given the inclusio formed by vs. 11 I prefer either faithfulness or fidelity. I lean towards the latter especially given the emphasis on steadfastness in the following verse and the rest of the chapter.

[3] I think the challenge for any Pauline interpreter is to stick to his points of emphasis and try not to develop his thought beyond that.

[4] Fee makes clear that the emphasis is not on God as avenger as it is on the judged getting their due. As for the nature of the judgment to say much more than it is catastrophic and a complete separation from God is reading too much into the text. It could fit either annihilation or eternal conscious punishment depending on what one brings to the text or emphasizes within it. I would issue similar warnings about those who completely generalize vs. 8. The goal of this text is too specific to warrant a broad generalization here. In intense passages rhetorical overplays to make a point are common.

[5] Judgment according to works is at play again here.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

More Calvinist than Calvin?

I'm working on a paper on the topic of divine sovereignty and human freedom. Occasionally on this topic (or the subtopic of election) you will hear people through out the barb at strong Calvinists that they're 'being more Calvinist than Calvin.' After having read Calvin carefully on the issue I don't think that there's any validity to that charge. I don't see a material difference here between Calvin and say John Piper. Here are several quotes from the Institutes to prove my point. 'All events are governed by God's secret plan.' I.xvi.2 'Governing heaven and earth by his providence, he also so regulates all things that nothing takes place without his deliberation.' I.xvi.3 'Nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by him.' I.xvi.3 Calvin explicitly rejects a limited providence, 'one that by a general motion revolves and drives the system of the universe, with its several parts, but which does not specifc

Galatians 2:11-14: The circumcision group

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (TNIV) There's an important issue that we need to wrestle with in this passage, and it's the question of whether or not the people from James and the circumcision group are the same group. I am not inclined to think that they are. The ensuing discussion is drawn from Longenecker's commentary pp 73-5

Dating Galatians and Harmonization with Acts

We've gotten to the point where how we date Galatians and where we fit it into the narrative of Acts will affect our interpretation in a significant manner. The first question that we have to address is, which visit to Jerusalem is Paul recounting in Galatians 2:1-10 ? Is it the famine relief visit of Acts 11:27-30 or the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 ? First, I think it's worthwhile to point out that it's not all that obvious. Scholars are divided on this issue (even Evangelical scholars). In favor of the theory of Galatians 2:1-10 referring to the Acts 11 visit are the following: This visit clearly is prompted by a revelation by the Holy Spirit. The Acts 15 gathering seems to be a public gathering, where the one described in Galatians is private. Paul never alludes to a letter sent to the diaspora churches which could have definitively won the case for him. The issue of food laws was already decided by James. Why would men coming from him in Galatians 2:11-14 be advocat