2 Thessalonians 2:13–3:5

Original Meaning

A Request for Prayer (3:1–2)

HAVING CONCLUDED HIS prayer for the Thessalonians, Paul proceeds in 3:1–2 to ask for their prayers on his behalf (cf. 1 Thess. 5:25). The first of two closely linked requests has to do with the “message of the Lord.” As in 1 Thessalonians 1:8, where the identical phrase occurs, it is essentially synonymous with the “gospel of Christ” (1 Thess. 3:2; 2 Thess. 1:8). The word translated “spread rapidly” (trecho; lit., “run”) echoes a scriptural image (Ps. 147:15, “his word runs swiftly”) that would also have been meaningful to a Hellenistic audience (cf. the athletic imagery of running a race, used by Paul in 1 Cor. 9:24). The basic idea is one of advance or progress. The gospel is “honored” (better “glorified,” as NRSV, NASB; cf. Acts 13:48) when it is not merely proclaimed, but accepted or acknowledged for what “it actually is, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13), as the Thessalonians themselves had done (1:6).

Whereas Paul’s first request is on behalf of the message (3:1), the second one is for the messengers who proclaim it (3:2): that Paul and his companions “may be delivered from wicked and evil people” (NIV^ILE). The verb “deliver” is the same as in Matthew 6:13, the Lord’s Prayer (cf. Rom. 15:31; 1 Thess. 1:10). The two adjectives (atopos, “wicked”; cf. Acts 25:5; 28:6; poneros, “evil”; cf. 1 Thess. 5:22) are roughly synonymous and convey the idea of morally perverse people who maliciously obstruct the gospel, like the people in Thessalonica who had instigated a riot in order to hinder the preaching of the gospel (Acts 17:5). Paul is speaking in general terms; it seems unlikely that he has any specific group in mind.12

The last phrase of 3:2—“for not everyone has faith” (i.e., “not everyone believes”)—explains the hostility encountered by the missionaries, which in turn obstructs the progress of the gospel message.13 It also sets up 3:3 by offering a point of contrast (the maliciousness of the opponents versus the protection and care of the Lord).

Bridging Contexts

ONE OF THE first challenges of interpreting 2 Thessalonians 2–3 is deciding how to divide the chapters. While I have chosen to separate them into three segments (2:1–12; 2:13–3:5; 3:6–18), some interpreters (e.g., Stott) follow the chapter break and work with two segments (2:1–17; 3:1–18). The advantage in doing so is that it makes it easier to emphasize the way Paul’s description of the saved in 2:13–15 stands in contrast to the fate of those perishing in 2:10–12,18 and the way 3:1–5 sets up 3:6–15. On the other hand, separating 2:13–18 from 3:1–5 obscures the common themes (reassurance and perseverance) that link these two parts of the letter. More significantly, separating the two units obscures the way in which Paul emphasizes these two common themes and stresses holding fast to the apostolic teachings as the solution to both the external threat he addresses in 2:1–12 and the internal problem he deals with in 3:6–15.

As observed above, this section displays a wide variety of forms: thanksgiving (2:13–14), exhortation and encouragement (2:15), prayer (2:16–17; 3:5), prayer request (3:1–2), and expressions of confidence (3:3–4). The thanksgiving involves both praise and acknowledgment of God as the one ultimately responsible for our salvation; the theocentric prayers remind us of God’s priority over everything else and provide a means of bringing our vision and desires into line with God’s will. Moreover, the prayers and thanksgiving here reflect a key element observed in the other prayers and thanksgivings in the letters: They are primarily (and sometimes exclusively) other-oriented (see the comments on 1 Thess. 3:9–13). As in 1 Thessalonians 5:25, Paul’s request to the Thessalonians for prayer is an implicit acknowledgment of their fundamental equality before God, irrespective of their differing levels of spiritual maturity. The confident affirmation that “the Lord is faithful” (cf. 1 Thess. 5:24; 2 Thess. 1:6) has an axiomatic quality: It expresses a truth so basic and foundational that it requires no proof, but is simply taken for granted by Paul.

In addition to the wide variety of forms, the passage also touches on a wide range of topics. There is little new here, as Paul is for the most part reaffirming or reemphasizing points he has already made, whether in person or in the first letter (for the parallels elsewhere in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, see comments in the Original Meaning, above). (1) To take one example, in many respects 2:13–14 (which touch on God’s love, choice, and calling, salvation and sanctification, the work of the Spirit, and the glory of the Lord Jesus19) are a condensation of 1 Thessalonians 1:4–8 and 2:12–13. Here, as there, Paul grounds his advice about present problems in their past experience. He also implies that one way of dealing with apprehension about the future (e.g., the revelation of the “man of lawlessness”) is to remember what God has done in the past.

(2) To take another example, there is the tension between divine activity and human responsibility (see 2:13, 15; 3:3–4; cf. 1:11; see also 1 Thess. 3:12; 4:10; see the Bridging Contexts section of 1 Thess. 3:9–13). If the Pauline order is always divine action (grace) followed by human response (faith), it is no less true that he consistently calls those to whom he writes to take responsibility for how they live. For Paul, these are not competing but complementary concepts.

A Trinitarian implication. With respect to 2:13, Gordon Fee points out two significant theological implications. He notes that 2:13 is a “semi-creedal” statement about salvation, which views it “as the combined activity of the triune God.” The Father chooses, the Son (i.e., “the Lord”) loves, and the Spirit sanctifies. “Granted, this is not Trinitarian in a later sense, but the later outworking is the direct result of such texts” as this one, which attributes to each member of the Trinity a distinct role in the work of salvation.20 Here we have the biblical material out of which the full doctrine was later constructed.

Salvation as sanctification. Fee also highlights the significance of the fact that in 2:13 Paul describes the Thessalonians’ conversion in terms of “sanctification” (i.e., “holiness”). This means that

“sanctification” in Paul, as 1 Cor 1:30 and 6:11 also make plain, is not a second work of grace, nor does it refer primarily to something that takes place in the believer after conversion—although that, too, is surely expected. Rather, their conversion itself may be described in terms of “sanctification,” both in its sense of their being now set apart for God’s purposes and in its more ethical sense of their walking in God’s ways, so as to reflect his character. As in 1 Thes 4:8, for Paul this is the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer…. There is for him no genuine conversion that does not include the sanctifying work of the Spirit.21

“Set apart for God’s purposes” and “walking in God’s ways”: not a bad description of salvation or of what it means to be God’s people in the world today.

The importance of “tradition.” In 2:15 Paul touches on an important point that runs throughout the second letter: the importance of holding firmly to the “traditions” (paradoseis; NIV “teachings”; cf. 1 Cor. 11:2) taught by the apostles (cf. 1 Cor. 4:17; Col. 2:7). Paul uses the same word in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 with respect to the disorderly, who were not living according to the “teaching” that they “received” (the same word as in 1 Thess. 4:1; cf. 1 Cor. 15:1) from the apostles. In 2 Thessalonians 3:14 the apostle emphasizes obedience to “our instruction” (logos), and in 2:5 he refers to “the things” he had told them. In 1 Thessalonians 4:2, he mentioned the “instructions” (parangelias, lit., “commandments”; the related verb parangello occurs in 2 Thess. 3:4, 6, 10, 12; also 1 Thess. 4:11) that the apostles “gave” to the Thessalonians.

Regardless of the terminology used, it is clear that all these passages have in view the same thing: authoritative apostolic tradition. In the Original Meaning section above, I noted three main types of tradition in the Pauline letters: gospel tradition, focused on the central gospel message; church tradition, which guides congregational conduct; and ethical tradition, focused on proper Christian living. Whatever form they took, these traditions were, as far as Paul was concerned, both authoritative and normative for the Thessalonian congregation. This is because the ultimate source of these traditions was not human but divine (cf., e.g., 1 Thess. 4:2, 15; also 1 Cor. 11:23). This means, to put it in terms of 1 Thessalonians 2:13, that these traditions are not human words but God’s word. For this reason, anyone who rejects apostolic tradition rejects not a human teaching or authority but God himself (4:8).

Paul and his companions communicated these authoritative traditions to the Thessalonians either “by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). Today our only access to this apostolic tradition is through what the apostles wrote, specifically, the letters of Paul and others that have become part of the canon of Scripture. Thus, whenever Paul speaks of holding firmly, obeying, receiving, or being taught apostolic tradition, we need to think in terms of apostolic Scripture. For us today, Scripture is authoritative and normative in the same way that apostolic tradition was for the Thessalonians.

Contemporary Significance

AS IS EVIDENT from the Bridging Contexts section, there are a number of topics or issues in this passage that one could focus on with respect to contemporary application. In most cases, circumstances (such as whether 2 Thessalonians is being treated after or independently of 1 Thessalonians) will determine the selection of topics for application. I would like to focus on three themes or topics, each of which occupies a significant place in this section of the letter: assurance, perseverance, and the importance of Scripture as a safeguard against deception and false or misleading information.22

Assurance. In light of 2:2, it appears that some of the Thessalonians were unsettled by the possibility that the “day of the Lord” might have already arrived. In view of Paul’s hair-raising description of the events that would precede or accompany the coming of that Day—including the satanic deception, rebellion, and destruction—it seems likely that at least a few of these believers may have become unsettled at the prospect of what was yet to arrive. It is hardly surprising that all this talk and speculation about judgment and deception probably filled some of them with concern and anxiety.

In the face of these circumstances, Paul makes it a point to reassure the Thessalonians (he had already done so in similar terms in 1 Thess. 5:1–11; see Contemporary Significance section there). Precisely because they are loved by the Lord, because God has both chosen and called them, and because they have been saved through the work of the Spirit, they can be confident that they will share in the glory of the Lord himself (2 Thess. 2:13–14). Moreover, as Paul reminds them, “the Lord is faithful” and will therefore “strengthen and protect” them from the evil one and his associates (3:3). In other words, Paul is genuinely optimistic about the future of the Thessalonian believers because it rests securely in the care of the triune God.23

Perseverance. Paul then makes his own application of this point: Assurance should result in perseverance. Calvin saw the connection clearly: In writing of 2:15–17 (cf. 3:3–4), he observes that Paul

correctly draws this word of encouragement from his previous statement [2:13–14], because our determination and power to persevere rest on our assurance of divine grace alone. But when God calls us to salvation and stretches out His hand to us, when Christ offers Himself to us for our enjoyment by the teaching of the Gospel, and when the Spirit is given to us as a seal and pledge of eternal life, we are not to grow despondent, even though the heavens should fall…. The calling of God should defend us against all occasions for stumbling in such a way that not even the total destruction of the world should shake, much less destroy, our constancy.24

In short, assurance of God’s faithfulness ought to prompt a response of faithfulness on our part.

It is important to observe the understanding of Christianity that underlies what Paul says here about perseverance. For Paul, Christianity is not a quick-fix treatment or a short-term solution for what ails us; it is, as someone has said, “a long walk in the same direction.” The writer of Hebrews expressed much the same idea when he encouraged his readers to “run with perseverance the race marked out for us” (Heb. 12:1), for “we have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first” (Heb. 3:14). Both Paul and Hebrews in turn reflect the teaching of Jesus, who on more than one occasion reminded his disciples that “the one who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt. 10:22; 24:13; Mark 13:13 NRSV).

This is not at all to say that perseverance is an easy matter. As my colleague Dan Taylor has observed,

faith can be simultaneously incredibly strong and painfully fragile. Doctrines of eternal security notwithstanding, the choice to discontinue the whole experiment of seeking God is always present—as is the choice to begin, or to begin once more. These choices are sometimes made consciously, often by default. We tire of the struggle of faith as an athlete tires in a contest or a soldier grows weary in battle.25

Paul’s prayer in 2:16–17 is an implicit acknowledgment that we do grow weary in the struggle, that we do tire in the face of obstacles. But precisely in such circumstances, “perseverance means carrying on in the face of obstacles, continuing in what one is doing despite unfavorable circumstances” (such as the persecution the Thessalonians were experiencing). “The marathoner perseveres despite a protesting body, the sculptor perseveres despite the unyielding stone, the husband and wife persevere despite the strains of marriage.”26 God’s people persist in their commitment to their Lord despite the challenges and temptations to abandon what at times must seem like an absurdity.

What keeps us going in the face of continuing struggles, trials, difficulties, doubts? Why do we persist? Because, as Paul has made clear earlier in the letter (2:8), in the end, Jesus wins. The one who has been faithful in the past will prove to be faithful in the future, and this gives us courage and hope to remain faithful in the present. Reassured by what God has done and strengthened by what the Holy Spirit is now doing (2:13; cf. 1 Thess. 1:6; 4:8), we persevere in hope, looking to the time when faith will become sight, to the time when the Lord Jesus will be revealed in all his splendor and glory.

Scripture as a safeguard. One reason the Thessalonians had become so “unsettled” (2:2) regarding the future was that they had allowed themselves to be misled by unreliable information. Instead of sticking to what Paul and his companions had actually said or written, they gave credence to information of uncertain origin and indeterminate reliability. Small wonder, then, that they became “unsettled” or “alarmed” about the future.

Paul’s response was to encourage the Thessalonians to hold firmly to the teachings they have received from the apostles themselves, and nothing more. Whether in 1 Thessalonians 3:4; 4:1–2; 5:1–2; or 2 Thessalonians 2:5, 15; 3:6 (cf. also 1 Thess. 4:18; 5:11; 2 Thess. 3:14) his point was consistent: They should live in light of what they have been taught. The apostolic teaching provided the answers to their questions and concerns, if only they would cling tightly to it and think about its implications. The best safeguard against misinformation—or, for that matter, the coming satanic deception—was the truth they had received from the apostles.

Here, I suggest, is an important word for us today: Hold tightly to the teachings we have received from the apostles. For us, this means holding tightly to Scripture. In our day and age, we find ourselves awash in false or deceptive information and teachings. Nothing, it seems, is so outrageous that it cannot find an outlet, in print, on the airwaves, or on the Internet (e.g., a recent book consisting of a long narrative interview with a man claiming to have been the apostle Paul in an earlier life, promoted via billboards and public seminars at $25.00 a pop). In such circumstances, it is more critical than ever that we hold tightly to Scripture, and Scripture alone, as our safeguard against being misled or deceived.

To be sure, in theory, we do this pretty well. Nearly all churches, “liberal” as well as “conservative,” affirm the centrality, importance, and authority of Scripture. That is, we have official creeds, theological position papers, or statements of faith that say all the right things about Scripture. But if that is the situation in theory, it is something else in practice. Far too many churches and individual believers, “conservative” as well as “liberal,” talk the talk but do not walk the walk with regard to Scripture. Instead of holding tightly to Scripture, we read it selectively, twist it, ignore it, supplement it, or supplant it; we find sophisticated ways to reject its relevance while appearing to follow it. In short, far too often we do everything but hold tightly to Scripture. It should come as no surprise, in such circumstances, that we find ourselves misled or deceived with respect to the truth.

What are some ways we fail to hold tightly to Scripture? Whenever, for example, we:

• take verses out of context and give them meanings the author never intended (e.g., 1 Cor. 3:16–17, a solemn warning to the Corinthians against destroying the church, is frequently applied to discussions of personal holiness or questions about suicide, two topics that have nothing to do with Paul’s concern at that point in the letter).

• claim to believe in the Bible but persist in holding to unbiblical beliefs even when they clearly contradict Scripture (e.g., the person who claims to hold to Scripture as the final authority but who continues to believe in reincarnation, even after studying Heb. 9:27, “people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” [NIV^ILE]).

• give more weight or attention to what popular teachers or novelists teach than to what Scripture does (e.g., a surprising number of my students get far more of their beliefs about evil and the demonic from popular Christian novels than from Scripture).

• uncritically accept alleged prophecies, “words of knowledge,” or other charismatic “revelations” and fail to test them against Scripture (see the Contemporary Significance discussion of 1 Thess. 5:20–21).

• emphasize one part or teaching of Scripture to the exclusion of others (e.g., focusing on Jesus’ teachings on love and acceptance to the neglect of what he says about sin, repentance, and holy living).

• create a new concept or term, allegedly on the basis of Scripture, and use that as a basis to set aside or overturn other portions of Scripture (e.g., one denominational task force coined a concept they called “justice-love” and used that to argue that the biblical standards of sexual morality should be set aside because they were not consistent with “justice-love”).

• believe what we want to believe rather than what Scripture teaches (e.g., as one person said to me, “I believe in the Rapture of believers before the Tribulation because I don’t want to have to think about going through all that hassle”). In this respect, it is certainly not difficult to find in our day numerous examples of what Paul warned Timothy about: “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths” (2 Tim. 4:3–4 NIV^ILE).

• suggest that Scripture is not relevant to contemporary issues because circumstances were so much simpler in biblical cultures (e.g., by claiming that Scripture has so little to say about an issue that it cannot be called upon to resolve the contemporary church’s debates about that issue or to address itself to the modern complexity of that issue).

This list of examples is seriously incomplete and undeveloped, but gives, I hope, some idea of the many ways we fail to hold tightly to Scripture. One consequence of our failure is that we, like the Thessalonians, are far too often “easily unsettled or alarmed” (2 Thess. 2:2); we are too easily “blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming” (Eph. 4:14 NIV^ILE). As J. I. Packer puts it, “Western Christianity has become superficial and shallow: we do not give ourselves time to soak ourselves in Scripture, and stunted spiritual development, which includes an undervaluing of the Bible, is the unhappy result.”27

We need to hold tightly to Scripture. As Packer observes, “other things being equal, it is the Christians who eat up the Scriptures on a regular basis who are likely to achieve most for our Lord Jesus Christ in the future, just as it was Bible-fed Christians who achieved most for him in the past.” Packer explains what he means by “eat up” with a prayer from the old Anglican Prayer Book:

Blessed Lord, who hast caused all holy scriptures to be written for our learning; Grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that by patience, and comfort of thy holy Word, we may embrace, and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, which thou hast given us in our Saviour Jesus Christ.28

“Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest” the Scriptures: Note the active engagement with Scripture conveyed by these terms! Reading the Scriptures carefully, learning and memorizing them, prayerfully meditating and reflecting on them, applying them personally and corporately—these are activities associated with holding tightly to Scripture. And as we hold tightly to Scripture, we will be able to “stand firm,” as Paul commands us, in the face of the challenges and difficulties that confront us, even as others become alarmed, unsettled, or even deceived.

Original Meaning

Expressions of Confidence (3:3–4)

IN 3:3 PAUL quickly returns to his primary concern in this section: the encouragement of the community. A double wordplay with 3:2 facilitates Paul’s transition: People who are poneros (“evil”) lack pistis (“faith”), but (3:3) the Lord is pistos (“faithful”; cf. 1 Thess. 5:24) and will continue to “strengthen” (see 2 Thess. 2:17; also 1 Thess. 3:13) and “protect” (cf. Ps. 121:7; John 17:12; Jude 24) his followers from tou ponerou (a phrase that can be translated as “evil” or “the evil one”). As in Matthew 6:13 (the Lord’s Prayer), where the same problem is found, this phrase should probably be rendered “the evil one” (NIV, NRSV, NASB).14 It thus not only reminds the Thessalonians of what Paul had already said in 2 Thessalonians 2:8 about the ultimate triumph of Jesus, but also reinforces the link between their opponents and opposition to God (cf. 1:4–10).

Together 3:3–4 closely parallels the pattern of 2:13–15: reassurance of God’s love and concern for the community (2:13–14; 3:3) is followed by an exhortation to obedience and perseverance (2:15; 3:4). “Put somewhat differently, v. 3 assures the readers that the Lord is working in their presence while v. 4 indirectly requires obedience in response to what the Lord is doing.”15 Moreover, by praising the Thessalonians for what they have been doing (cf. 1 Thess. 4:1, 10; 5:11; 2 Thess. 1:3) and expressing his “confidence in the Lord” (cf. Gal. 5:10) that they “will continue to do the things we command,” Paul is preparing the way for the instructions he is about to give in 3:6–15 (note esp. the triple repetition of “command” in 3:6, 10, 12).16