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

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Doctor Who: Rose Tyler - Traitor?

The end of season four was very, very controversial. When I first saw it, I felt cheated. I was angry. The more I think about it, the more I think I see what Russell Davies was doing. He is too good of a writer and the show is too carefully crafted for him to screw up Rose's character and the end of a four season storyline. So while the ending isn't strictly part of our series, it is tangentially related, and I've agonized over that scene in Bad Wolf Bay so much that I have to write about it. :)

To briefly set things up, near the end of the final episode of season four, there is a meta-crisis, that results in a part human. part Time Lord Doctor being generated. He has all of the Doctor's memories, and thinks and acts like the Doctor. However, importantly, he only has one heart and cannot regenerate. He only has one life to live. The meta-crisis Doctor brought full resolution to the battle fought against the Daleks, and in the process, wiped them out. Thus, the real Doc…