1. On the topic of religion in Thessalonica see R. Jewett, The Thessalonian Correspondence, 126–33; K. P. Donfried, “The Cults of Thessalonica and the Thessalonian Correspondence,” NTS 31 (1985): 336–56.

2. The recent outbreak in A.D. 49 of riots between Jews and Christians in Rome, which led the emperor Claudius to expel the Jews (including, of course, Jewish Christians) from the capital (see Acts 18:2), may well have made the Thessalonian authorities more suspicious of and alert to the possibility of similar troubles in their own city, the more so since in both cases the instigators of the troubles were visitors from the East.

3. How long after Paul’s arrival in Thessalonica this event took place is unclear. Paul never indicates in 1 Thessalonians how long he stayed in Thessalonica prior to his expulsion. Luke mentions the incident immediately after describing how Paul preached in the synagogue “on three Sabbath days” (Acts 17:2), which could imply that it took place near the end of Paul’s first month in town. Luke, however, often “telescopes” his narrative by skipping over intervening events (compare his relatively brief and episodic account in Acts 18:1–18 of Paul’s initial visit to Corinth, which lasted eighteen months). Thus a month or two (or even three or four) may have elapsed between the two episodes narrated in 17:1–4 and 17:5–9. A stay of two to five months would correlate well with the impression given by Paul’s description in 1 Thessalonians of his activities during this time, and also with his comment that the Philippians contributed to his support during this time, perhaps (but not necessarily) more than once (Phil. 4:15–16).

4. From 1 Thessalonians it is clear that Timothy was present at this time as well. Luke’s mention of only Paul and Silas may indicate that Timothy’s responsibilities were more private and less public than those of the other two missionaries, and thus he was less well known to outsiders. If so, this would explain how Timothy was able to return to Thessalonica when Paul was unable to do so (1 Thess. 3:2).

5. Similarly E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 40; see BDF §460 (3), and cf. 2 Cor. 1:19, where “by us” means “by me and Silvanus and Timothy” [NASB]). See also J. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills (Good News Studies 41; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1995), 19–20.

6. For a discussion of his possible influence, see E. Best, Thessalonians, 23–29; E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, 2d ed. (London: Macmillan, 1947), 9–17.

7. A classic statement of the case against 2:13–16 is given by B. A. Pearson, “1 Thessalonians 2:13–16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation,” HTR 64 (1971): 79–94.

8. For a more detailed discussion of the matter see C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 29–31.

9. On this point see M. W. Holmes, “Textual Criticism,” DPL, 930 (sec. 5).

10. Prior to the early 1970s, 2 Thessalonians, though not unquestioned, was widely accepted as Pauline, and the burden of proof was on anyone who challenged the letter’s authenticity. But since the publication of an influential book in 1972 (W. Trilling, Untersuchungen zum 2. Thessalonicherbrief [Leipzig, 1972]), the consensus of scholarly opinion has clearly shifted, to the point now that in academic discussions the burden of proof is on those who think the letter is genuine. What is curious about this shift of opinion is that no genuinely new evidence has been offered to justify the now-fashionable rejection of 2 Thessalonians. This suggests that the shift in consensus is more a matter of a climate of opinion than it is of evidence and arguments.

11. For more detailed and extensive discussions of the question see I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 28–45 (who gives particular attention to the arguments of Trilling); C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 17–28; E. Best, Thessalonians, 50–58; and R. Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 3–18 (all of whom accept the authenticity of the letter). For a brief history of scholarship on the issue and an excellent summary of the arguments against authenticity, see Edgar M. Krentz, “Thessalonians, First and Second Epistles to the,” ABD, 6:518–23.

12. R. Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 12.

13. Ibid., 16.

14. On this point see I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 40–45.

15. Most recently by C. A. Wanamaker (Thessalonians, 37–45), who structures his commentary and bases his interpretation on the priority of 2 Thessalonians. For a full listing (with discussion) of the various arguments offered in favor of the suggestion, see E. Best, Thessalonians, 42–45; see also R. Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 24–30.

16. See F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, xlii–xliii, for a full discussion of this last point.

1. See further P. T. O’Brien, “Letters, Letter Forms,” DPL, 550–53; J. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1995).

2. Elsewhere Paul describes himself as either a “servant” (Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:1) and/or an “apostle” (Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1; Titus 1:1), or a “prisoner” (Philem. 1). When colleagues are named in the prescript (Timothy in 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon, and Sosthenes in 1 Corinthians), they are designated as “brother” or “servant.”

3. So Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 198; J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1988), xlvi–xlvii, 306–7; but as J. B. Lightfoot (Notes on Epistles, 7) observes, the name is too common to be certain.

4. Similarly E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 40; see BDF §460 (3); cf. 2 Cor. 1:19, where “by us” means “by me and Silvanus and Timothy” [NASB]). See also J. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer, 19–20.

5. For a discussion of his possible influence, see E. Best, Thessalonians, 23–29; E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, 2d ed. (London: Macmillan, 1947), 9–17.

6. See further J. Roloff, “ἐκκλησι,” EDNT, 1:410–15; L. Coenen, “Church, Synagogue,” NIDNTT, 1:291–307; P. T. O’Brien, “Church,” DPL, 123–31.

7. In addition, the absence of the article before “in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” creates some degree of uncertainty about what word or phrase this statement modifies. The parallel in 2:14 and the pattern of other Pauline prescripts indicate that it modifies the phrase that precedes it. Also, the use of the preposition “in” (en) rather than “from” (apo) stands against taking it with the following salutation (“grace and peace to you”).

8. Outside of 1 Thess. 1:1 and 2 Thess. 1:1, “in God” occurs only five other times, none of which match the usage here (Rom. 2:17 and 5:11, boasting in God; Eph. 3:9 and Col. 3:3, being hidden in God; 1 Thess. 2:2, courage in God), while “in Christ” occurs ca. 170 times.

9. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 7; on “in Christ” see further B. Witherington III, “Christ,” DPL, 98–99; C. F. D. Moule, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1977), 54–69.

10. So E. Best, Thessalonians, 62; E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 41–42; for the view that it indicates position, see J. E. Frame, Thessalonians, 69–70; C. F. D. Moule, Origin, 56; J. R. W. Stott, The Gospel and the End of Time, 27–28.

11. E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 43.

12. The phrase also occurs at 1 Thess. 1:3; 3:11, 13 (discussed under “Bridging Contexts”); 2 Thess. 1:1–2; 2:16.

13. As J. B. Lightfoot observes, “χάρις [grace] is the source of all real blessings, εἰρήνη [peace] their end and issue” (Notes on Epistles, 8). For “peace” see further the discussion of 5:23 below.

14. On his first journey, he followed his mentor, Barnabas, while Silas and Timothy were with him on his second trip, and Timothy and Erastus (see Acts 19:22; 2 Cor. 1:1) on the third.

15. Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding the Bible, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 78–112, esp. 105–12. Following quotations are from pp. 106 and 111; italics are in the original.

16. For an excellent discussion of grace, see Philip Yancey, What’s So Amazing about Grace? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997).

17. Gordon D. Fee, Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 143.

18. Klyne Snodgrass, Ephesians (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 224.

19. George Barna, The Frog in the Kettle (Ventura, Calif.: Regal Books, 1990), 142.

20. See further on this point Philip Yancey, “Nietzsche Was Right,” Books and Culture 4 (January/February 1998): 14–17.

21. J. R. W. Stott, The Gospel and the End of Time, 32.

1. R. Jewett, The Thessalonian Correspondence, 71–78; cf. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 72–73, 90.

2. Note, for example, how in verse 5 Paul addresses the Thessalonians directly; this is hardly part of his prayer to God! Clearly what began as a report about his thanksgiving prayer now has a different aim (praise and encouragement).

3. For the significance of the full Christological statement, “Lord Jesus Christ,” see comment on 1:1.

4. See further I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 52–53.

5. The phrase “God the Father” occurs in 1 Thess. 1:1, 3; 3:11, 13 (discussed there under “Bridging Contexts”); 2 Thess. 1:1, 2; 2:16).

6. Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1983), 87–89; C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 147–48.

7. The “not simply … but also” here indicates intensification rather than contrast, and the passage should not be read in light of 1 Corinthians 2.

8. For “signs and miracles” in the ministry of Paul, see Acts 14:3; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12; elsewhere, Acts 2:19, 22, 43; 4:30; 5:12; 6:8; 7:36, and especially Heb. 2:4. Cf. 2 Thess. 2:9, where Satan’s work is characterized by “counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders.”

9. In 1:6 the aorist participle dexamenoi can indicate either (1) “how” (“by receiving” the message) or (2) “in what circumstances” (“when you received” the message) the Thessalonians “became imitators” of the Lord. Because Jesus presumably cannot have “received the message,” the point of comparison must be that of Spirit-inspired joy in difficult circumstances (cf. Heb. 12:2). Option (2), therefore, is to be preferred.

10. J. M. G. Barclay, “Conflict in Thessalonica,” CBQ 55 (1993): 514–15; C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 81–82; E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 69, 148–49; differently A. J. Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians, 48, who sees it as only mental “distress and anguish of heart.”

11. Pers. trans. The NIV’s “reception you gave us” is misleading; the subject of the verb is Paul and his companions, not the Thessalonians, and the noun rendered “reception” is the same one translated as “visit” in 2:1.

12. A common term in the LXX for total commitment to God; cf. K. H. Rengstorff, “δοῦλος,” TDNT, 2:265–68, followed by E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 55.

13. See further G. L. Borchert, “Wrath, Destruction,” DPL, 991–93.

14. E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 60.

15. For example, “Christian pastoral care builds on the foundation of what God has already done in the life of the individual or congregation” (I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 60).

16. Klyne Snodgrass, Ephesians (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 58–59, 64, upon whom the following comments draw heavily.

17. On the topic of the Spirit, see comments on 5:19–21.

18. J. R. W. Stott, The Gospel and the End of Time, 44.

19. John Ortberg, “Do They Know Us by Our Love?” CT 41 (May 19, 1997): 25–26.

1. See further on letters of friendship Stanley K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 58–70; A. J. Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians, 68–74.

2. See Jeffrey A. D. Weima, “An Apology for the Apologetic Function of 1 Thessalonians 2.1–12,” JSNT 68 (1997): 73–99.

3. George Lyons, Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding (Atlanta: Scholars, 1985), 182–84; S. K. Stowers, Letter Writing, 25–26; also C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 60–63, 91; E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 87–89; B. R. Gaventa, Thessalonians, 5–6, 25–26. For an overview of various proposals regarding (hypothetical) opponents, see C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 53–57.

4. G. Lyons (Pauline Autobiography, 192–199), however, takes the repeated use of “for” (gar) as an indication that Paul touches on four topics or concerns in this section: (a) a boldness grounded in God (2:1–2); (b) a responsibility to God (2:3–4); (c) a giving of self inspired by God (2:5–8); and (d) a lifestyle worthy of God (2:9–12). This may well catch the missionaries’ motivations, but obscures the fact that the primary subject in this section is not God but the missionaries’ behavior.

5. For the significance of adelphoi, which includes the entire community, not just the “brothers,” see comment on 1:4.

6. Alternatively, some (e.g., E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 89–90) render it “empty,” that is, without power or content, and see a reference back to 1:5, “with power.” But “without results” reflects the usual sense of this term in Paul’s letters (cf. 3:5; also 1 Cor. 15:10, 58; 2 Cor. 6:1; Gal. 2:2; Phil. 2:16) and fits well with 1 Thess. 1:9–10, which emphasize results rather than means (cf. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 92).

7. Cf. Acts 9:28; 13:46; parresia, “boldness” or “frankness,” the related noun (cf. 28:31), was a valued characteristic of Greco-Roman orators.

8. Abraham J. Malherbe, “ ‘Gentle as a Nurse’: The Cynic Background to 1 Thess ii,” NovT 12 (1970): 206–7.

9. ”Insisting” or “requiring” is the meaning sometimes suggested for zeteo in 2:6a (e.g., C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 98), rather than “seeking” (the more common usage). The NIV’s “looking for” is nicely ambiguous.

10. Among recent translations there is considerable variation in the punctuation (and versification) of 2:6b, “As apostles of Christ we could have been a burden to you,” (a concessive participial clause, which is part of a single thought unit running from 2:5 through 2:8). The NIV takes 2:6b (which in some versions is the first part of v. 7) as the beginning of a new paragraph, and by placing a comma after “you,” links it with what follows. On the other hand, the NRSV (among others), by placing a period after the phrase, links the phrase with what proceeds it (“⁶ … others, ⁷though we might have made demands as apostles of Christ. But …”). In fact, the phrase has links to both what follows it (with respect to content) and what precedes it (with respect to grammar); thus it serves as a transition in Paul’s argument.

11. In view of the strong connection Paul makes between “seeing the Lord” and apostleship (1 Cor. 15:7), it seems likely (but not provable) that the plural “apostles” includes himself and Silas, but not Timothy (cf. I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 69–70; F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 31; for an extended discussion, see E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 109–10, who takes it as a designation of all three, as does B. R. Gaventa, Thessalonians, 26).

12. See further C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 101; F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 32.

13. Abraham J. Malherbe, “ ‘Gentle as a Nurse,’ ” 203–17. Beverly Roberts Gaventa, rejecting Malherbe’s proposal, suggests that “instead, Paul draws upon a well-known figure in the ancient world, one identified not only with the nurture of infants but also with continued affection for her charges well into adulthood,” and that Paul’s reference to himself as a nurse resembles similar references in which Moses (Num. 11:12) and the Teacher of Righteousness at Qumran (1QH 7:19–23, 25) apply to themselves nursing metaphors (“Apostles As Babes and Nurses in 1 Thessalonians 2:7,” in Faith and History: Essays in Honor of Paul W. Meyer, ed. John T. Carroll et al. [Atlanta: Scholars, 1990], 203). I am not sure that this must be a case of either/or; depending on who heard the phrase, one or the other, or perhaps both, might resonate.

14. There is a much-debated textual variant in 2:7. While a small number of manuscripts read “gentle” (epioi), a substantial majority read “infants” (nepioi). The single-letter difference between the two readings, however, is so slight in Greek (which was written in all capitals with no spaces between words: ΗΜΕΝΗΠΙΟΙ vs. ΗΜΕΝΝΗΠΙΟΙ) that either reading could be explained as a scribal slip for the other one. Thus the manuscript evidence is of little help in this instance, and a decision must be reached on other grounds. The most decisive consideration is the basic structure of 2:5–8, specifically the fundamental contrast between the negative behaviors listed in 2:5–6a and the positive behaviors listed in 2:7–8. The three negatives in 2:5–6a (no flattery, no greed, no looking for praise) have to do with means (“how”) or motive (“why”), as do the last two of the three positives in 2:7–8 (like a nurse, 2:7; because they loved them, 2:8). This strongly suggests that the first item in 2:7–8 will also deal with either means or motive, a consideration that clearly favors “gentle” (NIV, NRSV) over “infants.”

15. B. R. Gaventa, “Apostles As Babes and Nurses in Thessalonians 2:7,” 201–2; B. R. Gaventa, Thessalonians, 27–28, 31–34.

16. E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 82–83; C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 101.

17. E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 101.

18. See P. W. Barnett, “Tentmaking,” DPL, 925–26.

19. Ronald F. Hock, The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 26–49, 52–59; cf. E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 102–3.

20. C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 207, to whom the previous point is also indebted. On the topic of financial support, see J. M. Everts, “Financial Support,” DPL, 295–300.

21. F. Hauck, “ὅσιος, etc.” TDNT, 5:490.

22. So most witnesses; a smaller number read “has called,” a reading that may reflect the influence of 1:4. See further Metzger, TCGNT, 562.

23. See further L. J. Kreitzer, “Kingdom of God/Christ,” DPL, 524–26.

24. See further R. B. Gaffin, Jr., “Glory, Glorification,” DPL, 348–50.

25. B. R. Gaventa, Thessalonians, 16. See Benjamin Fiore, The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1986).

26. B. R. Gaventa, Thessalonians, 17.

27. For two classic examples of such people, see the stories told by Lucian, a second century A.D. Mike Wallace-type person, about Alexander the false prophet and Peregrinus (in the Loeb Classical Library edition of Lucian, 4:173–253; 5:1–51).

28. For an exploration of this idea see Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1983), 86–88.

29. Stephen R. Covey, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People: Restoring the Character Ethic (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989).

30. Stephen L. Carter, Integrity (New York: Basic Books, 1996), 7.

31. Richard J. Foster, Money, Sex and Power: The Challenge of the Disciplined Life (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985).

32. S. L. Carter, Integrity, 121.

33. Bill Hybels, Who You Are When No One’s Looking (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1987), 83.

34. S. L. Carter, Integrity, 143.

35. For twelve inspiring profiles of people who exemplify living fully by giving themselves to others, see Jim Langford, Happy Are They: Living the Beatitudes in America (Liguori, Mo.: Triumph Books, 1997).

1. Cf. George Lyons, Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding (Atlanta: Scholars, 1985), 189.

2. Cf. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 109.

3. For a discussion of the authenticity of 2:13–16, see the Introduction.

4. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 109.

5. While the “and for this reason” (NIV has only “and”) with which 2:13 opens could refer backward or forward, the following “because” shows that it refers forward. A number of interpretations have been offered for the “also” (a second kai in the Greek), but in view of the analogous construction in 3:5, it seems best to see it as resuming the theme of thanksgiving from 1:2 (so Peter T. O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul [Leiden: Brill, 1977], 153–54; for a summary of alternatives see C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 110).

6. ”Received” and “accepted” translate respectively paralambano and dechomai; the former is a technical term used of the reception of authoritative tradition (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23; also 15:1, 3; Gal. 1:9, 12; 1 Thess. 4:1), while the latter (also used in 1 Thess. 1:6) perhaps places more emphasis on the receiver.

7. For the significance of adelphoi in 2:14, which includes the entire community and not just the “brothers,” see comment on 1:4, above.

8. The phrase “became imitators of” (cf. 1:6) does not at all suggest that suffering is something the Thessalonians sought; rather, it was something that happened as a consequence of their accepting the gospel.

9. For a list of suggestions as to why he chose Judea, see E. Best, Thessalonians, 113; for the possible circumstances to which he refers, see F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 46, and C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 113.

10. Frank D. Gilliard, “The Problem of the Antisemitic Comma Between 1 Thessalonians 2.14 and 15,” NTS 35 (1989): 481–502; cf. C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (2d ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1959), 106–7. He argues persuasively that the following clause (an articular participial phrase, parallel in form to part of the phrase that defines the churches in 2:14a) is restrictive, not generalizing. Furthermore, from a logical perspective it is unlikely that Paul could have meant literally “all Jews,” since a substantial portion of those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah, including Paul himself, were in fact Jews (cf. Rom. 11:1).

11. W. D. Davies, “Paul and the People of Israel,” NTS 24 (1977–78): 8, notes that when Paul speaks of the Jewish people as a collective, he calls them “Hebrews” or “Israel/Israelites”); see also W. Marxsen, Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1979), 48–51; L. Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 83. It must be acknowledged, however, that this is a minority view among commentators.

12. This numeration of charges reflects the four participles in 2:15–16a. The translations vary considerably in their treatment of these participles and the repeated kai’s in 2:15–16a: “the ones kai having killed the Lord Jesus kai the prophets kai having driven us out kai not pleasing God kai, hostile to all people, hindering us….” In 2:15a, the NRSV (“who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets”) treats the first kai as if it came after “having killed” rather than before, while the NIV (“who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out”) ignores the first and translates the third as if it were a longer phrase. Preferable is either (1) “who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out” (NASB), which links closely the verbs “killed” and “drove out,” or (2) “who also killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out” (pers. trans.), which picks up the list-like character of the string of accusations. In 2:15b–16a there are competing structural patterns: While the first three clauses of vv. 15–16 are composed of a noun or pronoun phrase followed by a participle, in the fourth clause the noun phrase is followed by an adjective (“hostile”) and then a participle (“hindering”). Both the NIV (“They … are hostile to all men in their effort to keep us”) and the NRSV (“they … oppose everyone by hindering us”) emphasize the adjective, as it immediately follows the noun clause; they treat the adjective as if it were a participle parallel to the first three, and they subordinate the following participle to it. Alternatively, one may emphasize the obvious parallelism of the four participles, as does the NASB (“not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men, hindering us”). But it treats the linking conjunction kai as though it were a contrasting one (“but,” de or alla); instead, it should be translated, “they are not pleasing to God and, hostile to humanity, are hindering us …” (cf. E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 121–22).

13. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 115.

14. As E. Best, Thessalonians, 117, points out, “pleasing to God is one of Paul’s favourite expressions for true behavior (Rom. 8.8; 1 Cor. 7.32–4; Gal. 1.10; 1 Thess. 2.4, 15; 4.1; cf. 2 Cor. 5.9); he uses it even of Jesus himself (Rom. 15.3).”

15. For example, the Roman historian Tacitus charges that “among themselves there is unswerving loyalty, ready compassion, but hostility and hatred toward all others” (Annals 5.5.2). Cf. further M. Whittaker, Jews and Christians: Graeco-Roman Views (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1984), 14–130.

16. This opposition to preaching to Gentiles was not limited to Jews; not a few Christians in the early years of the Christian movement also actively criticized efforts to evangelize Gentiles (cf. Acts 11:2).

17. References in E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 122.

18. Cf. N. Turner, Syntax, 143; BDF, §402.2; if so, it is God’s purpose Paul has in view (cf. Rom. 11:7–10, 28–32).

19. Cf. 2 Chron. 36:15–17: “The LORD, the God of their fathers, sent word to them through his messengers again and again, because he had compassion on his people and on his dwelling place. But they kept mocking God’s messengers, despising his words and scoffing at his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD was aroused against his people, and there was no remedy. Therefore he brought up against them the king of the Babylonians” (NIV, modified).

20. This phrase (which occurs in nearly identical form in Testament of Levi 6:11) bristles with technical interpretive difficulties—the verb is an aorist, where one might have expected either a perfect or a present, and it can be taken at least two different ways; at least four meanings have been suggested for the last two words, eis telos (NIV “at last”)—which space limitations preclude us from discussing fully here. See E. Best, Thessalonians, 119–23; E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 122–23, 125–27; C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 116–18; I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 80–83.

21. See on this verse D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 207; R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), 155. For similar interpretations of Paul’s phrase see D. A. Hagner, “Paul’s Quarrel with Judaism,” in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity: Issues of Polemic and Faith, ed. C. A. Evans and D. A. Hagner (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 132–33; C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 117.

22. Implied in this view is the possibility of a reversal of the judgment, if those opposing the gospel cease their hostility to God and his Messiah.

23. Other important topics that arise here turn up elsewhere as well and are treated at those places: giving thanks (3:9), acceptance of the gospel as God’s Word (cf. 1:6), and persecution/suffering for the sake of the gospel (3:3–4; cf. also 1:6).

24. E. Best, Thessalonians, 122.

25. With respect to points 2 and 3, it is significant that some of the closest parallels to Paul’s comments here are found in the writings of another first-century minority Jewish movement, the Jewish community at Qumran; cf. 1QM 3.6–9; 11.10–11; 13.1–12; 1QS 2.4–17; 3.1–6; 4.9–14; CD 1.16–2.1; 5.12–17; 8.1–13.

26. See Carol J. Schlueter, Filling Up the Measure: Polemical Hyperbole in 1 Thessalonians 2.14–16 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1994); L. T. Johnson, “The New Testament’s Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic,” JBL 108 (1989): 419–41. Cf. also C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 118–19.

27. “Anti-Semitism” is a modern concept based on the notion of “race” (itself a problematic modern construction). It differs sharply from a theologically based “anti-Judaism,” which is based on an individual’s religious commitment, something capable of being changed (e.g., via conversion). That is, an individual who converted from Judaism to Christianity would no longer be seen (from a religious perspective, at any rate) as a “Jew” but as a “Christian.” Anti-Semitism, however, is rooted in a characteristic not subject to change (i.e., one’s “race”). That is, a Jew who converts from Judaism to Christianity still remains, from an anti-Semitic perspective, a Jew.

28. For a brief overview of Christian anti-Semitism, see Sidney G. Hall III, Christian Anti-Semitism and Paul’s Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 23–51. On anti-Semitism (and its opponents) among conservative Christians of the twentieth century, see David A. Rausch, Fundamentalist Evangelicals and Anti-Semitism (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1993).

29. For what implications this passage might have for Christians today who find themselves in a genuinely comparable situation (that is, that of a persecuted minority facing opposition or attack by a socially dominant group), see the discussion of 3:1–5 below.

30. See Richard Abanes, American Militias: Rebellion, Racism, and Religion (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1996), esp. 131–88.

31. As W. D. Davies observes, “when [Paul’s] letters came to be read by Gentiles who little understood Judaism, the misinterpretation of Paul became almost inevitable…. The disputes between Paul and his kinsmen … over the true interpretation of their common Jewish tradition … once removed from this setting … no longer appeared as attempts at the reinterpretation of a shared tradition but as forages in hostility…. What was a disruption among Jews came to be spelt out as the denigration and rejection of Judaism and of the people of Israel as a totality”—a tendency against which Paul himself fought (W. D. Davies, “Paul and the People of Israel,” NTS 24 [1977–78]: 22).

32. For an excellent discussion of this matter, see Richard J. Mouw, Uncommon Decency: Christian Civility in an Uncivil World (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1992).

33. I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 83.

34. As reported by The CBS Evening News, October 15, 1996. On the advocacy of violence by militia groups see Richard Abanes, American Militias: Rebellion, Racism, and Religion (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1996), 209–21.

1. See Stanley K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 58–70.

2. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 119–20, 133; cf. Abraham J. Malherbe, “Exhortation in First Thessalonians,” NovT 25 (1983): 241.

3. E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 128–29; Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (2 vols.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1988), 1:726.

4. See further D. G. Reid, “Satan, Devil,” DPL, 862–67; J. S. Wright, “Satan,” etc., NIDNTT, 3:468–77; E. Best, Thessalonians, 126–27.

5. The same verb (enkopto, cut off, block, hinder) occurs in Rom. 15:22 in a similar phrase, but there the hindrance was the (apparently greater) need first to evangelize other regions (cf. 15:19–21, 23); that is, the hindrance was from God (cf. the “divine passive” in Rom. 1:13), not Satan. We do not know how in the instance involving the Thessalonians Paul “perceived it was Satan who prevented him and not God’s Spirit guiding him into other ways…. We can only assume that as time went by he saw God’s plans being hindered here whereas elsewhere he saw them advanced” (E. Best, Thessalonians, 127).

6. I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 86; on 2 Cor. 12:7, see R. P. Martin, 2 Corinthians (WBC 40; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1986), 412–17.

7. Regarding the grammatical difficulties in the awkwardly placed phrase “Is it not you?” (which in Greek occurs in the middle of 2:19), see C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 123–24; F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 53; E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 131–32.

8. G. D. Fee, Philippians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 249, discussing Phil. 2:16; cf. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 124; W. Grundmann, “στέφανος,” TDNT, 7:630.

9. E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 134.

10. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 56.

11. The phrase “we thought it best to be left alone” is awkward: Who does the “we” represent, and if sending Timothy leaves Paul alone, where is Silas (who with Timothy rejoined Paul in Corinth, according to Acts 18:5)? The “we” may be an epistolary plural (cf. the “I sent” in 3:5), but elsewhere in the letter the plurals are genuine (F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 61). Silas may have remained in Berea while Timothy went to join Paul in Athens, from where he was sent back up to Thessalonica, with Silas then rejoining Timothy on his return trip south. Or he may, after a stay in Berea (Acts 17:14), have traveled with Timothy to Athens and then returned to Macedonia on a different errand (perhaps to Berea) while Timothy went to Thessalonica (J. B. Lightfoot, Notes on Epistles, 40). Or the thought here may simply be incomplete, with the intended meaning being something like “we decided that I should be left alone” (I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 90).

12. In 3:2 “brother” may designate Timothy as an official coworker of Paul (so E. E. Ellis, “Coworkers, Paul and His,” DPL, 183–85; C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 128; I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 90, thinks this goes beyond the evidence). More significantly, he is designated, like Paul (cf. 1 Cor. 3:9), as “God’s fellow worker” (the textual variants in the NIV footnote reflect scribal efforts to tone down this bold designation).

13. Sainesthai, a rare word (only here in the Greek Bible), whose meaning is much debated; in this context it is synonymous with saleuthenai, “be shaken,” in 2 Thess. 2:2, and here stands as the approximate antonym to “strengthen” or “firmly establish” in 1 Thess. 3:2 (cf. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 129–30).

14. The Greek word is thlipsis, a noun that the NIV variously renders as “trials” (3:3; 2 Thess. 1:4), “persecution” (1 Thess. 3:7), “suffering” (1:6), or “trouble” (2 Thess. 1:6).

15. NIV “would be persecuted,” translating thlibesthai, a verbal form of the noun thlipsis.

16. See further S. J. Hafemann, “Suffering,” DPL, 919–21; C. G. Kruse, “Afflictions, Trials, Hardships,” DPL, 18–20; C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 130–31; I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 92.

17. For the idea of useless efforts (or laboring in vain), cf. Gal. 4:11; Phil. 2:16; and for the Old Testament background see Isa. 49:4; 65:23.

18. See R. Mohrlang, “Love,” DPL, 575–78; for example, “For Paul, loving others is the single most important characteristic of the Christian life and the heart of Christian living” (576).

19. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 134.

20. The two words form a generic expression encompassing apostolic difficulties and afflictions of all sorts (cf. E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 160; C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 135). Recall that Paul recently had what may have been a disheartening experience in Athens (Acts 17:16–34) and was now working in Corinth in what were, according to what he later wrote (1 Cor. 2:2; cf. Acts 18:6–17), difficult circumstances.

21. As Best notes (Thessalonians, 141), the preposition epi “after a verb of feeling often has a causal sense;” cf. BDF, §235.2; I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 95; J. E. Frame, Thessalonians, 133; C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 135; differently (“about you”) E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 160; F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 67.

22. E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 155; cf. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 67 (“they could now breathe freely”).

23. Cf. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 136; see further (but not always persuasively) E. Best, Thessalonians, 142; I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 95–96.

24. Cf. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 136, following W. Grundmann, “στήκω,” TDNT 7:637.

25. C. F. D. Moule, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1977), 59; cf. 58–62.

26. Cf. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 136; I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 96.

27. In other words, I distinguish “trials” or “suffering” that result from opposition and hostility from “suffering” or “trials” that are due to God’s discipline of believers. For a thoughtful and sensitive discussion of this latter topic, see D. A. Carson, How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 70–81.

28. Though he wrote over a century later, the comments and observations of Celsus reveal how a conservative, well-educated upper class Roman could view the adherents of this “new superstition” (i.e., Christianity), with its nonsense about an unseen God and a crucified Savior, as a serious threat to the good order and well-being of the Roman empire. See Celsus, The True Word, as quoted by Origen, Contra Celsum.

29. Did persecution ever result in martyrdom? It has been suggested that the Thessalonians’ concern about the fate of those who died before Jesus returned (4:13–18) was a reaction to the death because of persecution of one or more of the members of the congregation. But there is no evidence to indicate that any of the Thessalonians shared the fate of Stephen (Acts 7:54–60), and the suggestion remains an unproven hypothesis.

30. According to an article distributed by the Religion News Service (as reported by the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Saturday, June 28, 1997, page B7), for example, a doctor, “a member of the South Carolina state board of education, recently said, ‘Screw the Buddhists and kill the Muslims,’ in defense of displaying the Ten Commandments in South Carolina’s public schools.”

31. For excellent, exegetically based approaches to this question, see (from the Calvinist perspective) Judith M. Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance: Staying In and Falling Away (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1990), 261–71 (summarized in J. M. Gundry Volf, “Apostasy, Falling Away, Perseverance,” DPL, 39–45), and the response to Gundry Volf (from an Arminian perspective) by I. Howard Marshall, “Election and Calling to Salvation in 1 and 2 Thessalonians,” in The Thessalonian Correspondence, ed. Raymond F. Collins (Leuven: Leuven Univ. Press, 1990), 261–62. See also I. H. Marshall, Kept by the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1975).

32. I. Howard Marshall, “Election and Calling to Salvation in 1 and 2 Thessalonians,” 262; cf. James D. G. Dunn: “Apostasy remains a real possibility for the Pauline believer for the duration of the eschatological tension” (The Theology of Paul the Apostle [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 497).

33. G. D. Fee, Philippians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 250.

34. Sidney H. T. Page, Powers of Evil: A Biblical Study of Satan and Demons (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 267.

35. For good introductory discussions of worldview questions, see James W. Sire, Chris Chrisman Goes to College—and Faces the Challenges of Relativism, Individualism, and Pluralism (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1993); Brian J. Walsh and J. Richard Middleton, The Transforming Vision: Shaping a Christian World View (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1984). For a more technical discussion of worldviews with specific reference to biblical studies, see N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 1; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 31–144; for a cross-cultural perspective see Charles H. Kraft, Christianity with Power: Your Worldview and Your Experience of the Supernatural (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Vine, 1989).

36. N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 2; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 457–58.

37. See Kim A. Lawton, “The Suffering Church,” CT 40 (July 15, 1996): 54–64; Paul Marshall with Lela Gilbert, Their Blood Cries Out: The Untold Story of Persecution Against Christians in the Modern World (Dallas: Word, 1997).

38. For an account of martyrdom around the globe in the twentieth century, see James and Marti Hefley, By Their Blood: Christian Martyrs of the Twentieth Century, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996); Nina Shea, In the Lion’s Den: A Shocking Account of Persecution and Martyrdom of Christians Today, and How We Should Respond (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997).

39. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, rev. ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1963), 101; cf. p. 98: “To endure the cross is not a tragedy; it is the suffering which is the fruit of an exclusive allegiance to Jesus Christ. When it comes, it is not an accident, but a necessity. It is not the sort of suffering which is inseparable from this mortal life, but the suffering which is an essential part of the specifically Christian life. It is not suffering per se but suffering-and-rejection, and not rejection for any cause or conviction of our own, but rejection for the sake of Christ.”

40. S. J. Hafemann, “Suffering,” DPL, 920.

41. Persecution is sometimes seen (or even romanticized) as something “good” for the church, in that it is said to purify, unify, strengthen, and grow the church (see, e.g., David H. Adeney, “The Church and Persecution,” in The Church in the Bible and the World, ed. D. A. Carson [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987], 275–302, who lists only “positive” effects of persecution). But sometimes sustained social and political repression results not in the growth of the church, but rather its disappearance from a geographical area. For a sober assessment and theological analysis of such circumstances, see Mark Galli, “Is Persecution Good for the Church?” CT 41 (May 19, 1997): 16–19.

42. Frank Thielman, Philippians (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 89.

43. Reinhold Niebuhr, Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics (New York and London: Scribner’s, 1932).

44. S. H. T. Page, Powers of Evil, 269.

45. I owe the following points to ibid., 269–70.

46. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 122.

47. S. H. T. Page, Powers of Evil, 270.

48. See further on the issues raised in the preceding paragraphs the excellent extended discussion by Klyne Snodgrass, Ephesians (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 347–61, also 109–10.

1. While most translations (including the NIV) and commentators take 3:6–10 and 3:11–13 as paragraphs, 3:9–13 are treated as a unit by E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 163–78; Peter T. O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 156–64; Gordon P. Wiles, Paul’s Intercessory Prayers (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1974), 52, 59, 64.

2. The preceding sentence follows closely C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 140.

3. With respect to the relationship between God and Jesus in 3:11 (where the plural subject precedes a singular verb), the grammar (the definite article is repeated in Greek, as is the possessive pronoun, “our”) distinguishes between the two, who nevertheless act in such concert that it is clear that Paul sees (but here does not discuss or develop) the closest connection between them (see further L. Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 1078; I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 100). The claim that “this does not imply Paul held a Trinitarian or Binitarian theology” (E. Best, Thessalonians, 147) is a serious understatement.

4. Cf. the observation by John Chrysostom: “Do you see the unrestrained madness of love which is indicated by the words? He says ‘increase’ and ‘overflow’ instead of ‘grow’ ” (adapted from J. E. Frame, Thessalonians, 138).

5. The “holy ones” who accompany Jesus could be angels (E. Best, Thessalonians, 153; I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 102–3; C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 145; E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 177), “saints” (NRSV, NASB), that is, human beings, or, more likely, both (J. B. Lightfoot, Notes on Epistles, 50; L. Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 112; cf. F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 74).

6. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 144; see further S. E. Porter, “Holiness, Sanctification,” DPL, 397–402; D. Guthrie and R. P. Martin, “God,” DPL, 363.

7. On the Lord’s Prayer see Darrell L. Bock, Luke (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 307–15; on the prayer in Ephesians see Klyne Snodgrass, Ephesians (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 183.

8. Stanley J. Grenz, Prayer: The Cry for the Kingdom (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1988), 37.

9. G. D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 70; cf. I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 97. See also D. A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981).

10. James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8 (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1988), 350 (author’s emphasis).

11. J. Knox Chamblin, Paul and the Self: Apostolic Teaching for Personal Wholeness (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 156.

12. Klyne Snodgrass, Ephesians (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 179.

13. For an illuminating example of both the problem and the possibility for healing and change, see Keith Anderson, “What You Get is What You See,” What They Don’t Always Teach You at a Christian College (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1995), 74–78.

14. For the list of passages see D. A. Carson, A Call to Spiritual Reformation: Priorities from Paul and His Prayers (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 67–74.

15. Ibid., 74–75.

16. See further on memory Daniel Taylor, The Myth of Certainty: The Reflective Christian and the Risk of Commitment (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1986), 100–107.

17. D. A. Carson, A Call to Spiritual Reformation, 87, echoing John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, 333–34.

1. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 146, 46–48.

2. The NIV substantially obscures the awkwardness of Paul’s sentence. Here is a more literal translation: “We ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus that—just as you learned from us how you ought to live so as to please God, just as you are indeed currently living—that you do so more and more” (cf. NASB).

3. Literally, “you received from us”; the NIV’s “we instructed you” reverses (and thus obscures) Paul’s emphasis on the Thessalonians’ own willing acceptance of what Paul and his companions handed on (the verb is paralambano, often used as a technical term indicating the reception of authoritative tradition; cf. 1 Cor. 15:3).

4. Cf. J. E. Frame, Thessalonians, 147.

5. In support of (1), cf. J. E. Frame, Thessalonians, 149–50; C. Maurer, “σκεῦος,” TDNT, 7:365–67; E. Best, Thessalonians, 160–63; O. Larry Yarbrough, Not Like The Gentiles: Marriage Rules in the Letters of Paul (Atlanta: Scholars, 1985). In support of (2), cf. I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 107–9; C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 152–53; E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 198; L. Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 119–21; G. D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 51–52.

6. See, for example, E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 200–202. The transitional particle that allegedly signals a new topic is in fact ambiguous in its implications, and while the vocabulary in the verse could be used of business, none of it is in any way limited to business (indeed, pragma, “matter,” in the singular hardly ever refers to business, for which the plural is customary); the vocabulary, in fact, occurs most often in more general ways. Finally, in 4:7 Paul returns to the theme of 4:3–5; it seems unlikely that he changed topics for a single verse (4:6).

7. See further S. H. Travis, “Judgment,” DPL, 516–17.

8. Literally, “into you” (eis hymas); see Ezek. 37:6, 14, for the Old Testament background; cf. 1 Cor. 6:19 (where the literal word order is, “the temple of the in-you Holy Spirit”); 2 Cor. 1:22; Gal. 4:6.

9. G. D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 52–53.

10. B. R. Gaventa, Thessalonians, 55–56.

11. Ibid., 60–61.

12. To paraphrase my colleague Keith Anderson, God values people, relationships, and sex, and the reason why sex outside of marriage is sin is because it does not value these things highly enough (Keith Anderson, What They Don’t Always Teach You at a Christian College (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1995), 103–5.

13. See further Lewis B. Smedes, Sex for Christians: The Limits and Liberties of Sexual Living, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994); Tim Stafford, Sexual Chaos: Charting a Course Through Turbulent Times (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1993).

14. J. R. W. Stott, The Gospel and the End of Time, 85.

15. One member of a group of male Christian college students captured well the positive side of this point: “The facts of life are that the woman I date today may be the wife of one of these other guys in another year or two. My relationship with them is important to me, and I want a strong and positive relationship with both of them if that happens” (Keith Anderson, What They Don’t Always Teach You at a Christian College, 108).

16. Much of this last paragraph follows Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 129.

17. For some singles, it means the exercise of more than a short-term discipline. John R. W. Stott (himself single) writes, “We too must accept this apostolic teaching, however hard it may seem, as God’s good purpose both for us and for society…. It is possible for human sexual energy to be redirected … both into affectionate relationships with friends of both sexes and into the loving service of others…. Alongside a natural loneliness, accompanied sometimes by acute pain, we can find joyful self-fulfillment in the self-giving service of God and other people.” (J. R. W. Stott, The Gospel and the End of Time, 84–85). See further Rhena Taylor, Single and Whole (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1984).

18. For a superb discussion of the Bible’s teaching about homosexuality and its ethical and practical implications for how the church should respond to people who have a homosexual orientation, see Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), 379–406.

19. My adaptation of a point made by David P. Gushee, “The Speck in Mickey’s Eye,” CT 41 (August 11, 1997): 13; in a similar vein William Bennett, in remarks to the Christian Coalition in 1994, observed that divorce, not homosexuality, was the greater threat to the survival of the family (Richard L. Berke, “From the Right, Some Words of Restraint,” New York Times, September 17, 1994, sec. 1, p. 9, as reported by Stephen L. Carter, Integrity [New York: BasicBooks, 1996], 143).

1. For the significance of adelphoi (4:10), which includes the entire community, not just the male members of the church, see comments on 1:4.

2. In terms of grammar and syntax, the infinitive “to make it your ambition” could govern the first (so F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 90), the first and second (so C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 162; E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 211), or all three of the following infinitives (i.e.,, “to lead … and to mind … and to work”). Similarly, it is unclear whether the following “just as we told you” refers to just the last infinitive or to all of 4:11. Decisions on these points reflect judgments about content and context, rather than grammatical or syntactical considerations. I have linked the first two together in view of (a) their similar meaning and (b) the correlation this creates with the two reasons given in 4:12.

3. See further E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 211–23; C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 162–64; I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 116–17; E. Best, Thessalonians, 174–78; A. J. Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians, 95–106; Bruce W. Winter, Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, and Carlisle: Paternoster, 1994), 41–60; Ronald F. Hock, The Social Context of Paul’s Mission: Tentmaking and Apostleship (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 42–49.

4. Cf. the following description (Philo, Abraham, 20) of the antithesis of the “quiet life”: the “vulgar man, who spends his days meddling, running around in public, in theaters, tribunals, councils, and assemblies, meetings and consultations of all sorts; he lets loose his tongue for unmeasured, endless, indiscriminate talk, bringing chaos and confusion into everything, mingling truth with falsehood … the private with the public, the sacred with the profane, the serious with the ridiculous, not having learned to remain quiet [hesychian] … and he pricks up his ears in an excess of bustling busyness.”

5. See further E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 220.

6. Cf. the similar analysis of B. R. Gaventa, Thessalonians, 59.

7. At first glance, 4:12b (“not be dependent on anybody”) appears to give yet a third reason. But if 4:12b has “insiders” in view (as I suggest above in the discussion of Original Meaning), then it reinforces the need to take philadelphia into account when making decisions. On the other hand, if 4:12b has “outsiders” in view, then it basically reinforces the reason given in 4:12a (“win the respect of outsiders”). In neither instance does it add a substantive third reason, so I have subsumed it under the other two (philadelphia and respect for outsiders).

8. J. R. W. Stott, The Gospel and the End of Time, 90.

9. Robert Wuthnow, God and Mammon in America (New York: Free Press, 1994), 131.

10. Tim Stafford, “Anatomy of a Giver,” CT 41:6 (May 19, 1997): 22, 24

1. Compare the analysis of Abraham Smith, who suggests that in 4:13–18 and 5:1–11 Paul discusses specific examples of “good behavior” towards outsiders in circumstances beyond one’s control (Comfort One Another: Reconstructing the Rhetoric and Audience of 1 Thessalonians [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1995], 88, 90).

2. For the specific Greek word see 2:19; 3:13; 5:23; 2 Thess. 2:1, 8; also Matt. 24:3, 27, 37, 39; 1 Cor. 15:23; James 5:7–8; 2 Peter 1:16; 3:4, 12; 1 John 2:28. A wide range of other terms and expressions are also employed in the New Testament to refer to the return of Jesus; for the Pauline vocabulary, see L. J. Kreitzer, “Eschatology,” DPL, 259–60 (section 3.4.1).

3. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 95, from whom much of this paragraph is taken.

4. For an overview of five major hypotheses, see I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 120–22 (cf. E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 231–32); for a sixth, see C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 166.

5. The Greek word Paul uses here, adelphoi (NIV “brothers”), includes the entire community, not just the male members; see comments on 1:4.

6. E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 225.

7. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 96.

8. Regarding the NIV’s “rest of men, who have no hope,” (1) the comma is misleading; Paul does not mean “all other humans, who have no hope” but “all other humans who have no hope” (in contrast to some who do have hope, false though it may be). (2) The added phrase “of men” is needlessly sexist (the Greek phrase is simply an inclusive “the rest”).

9. This sentence in the Greek begins with the word ei, “if” (omitted by NIV). But inasmuch as Paul takes it for granted that the conditional statement (ei + indicative) is factual, the NRSV’s “since” accurately reflects his logic (cf. BDF, § 372.1).

10. Paul is probably referring to an otherwise unrecorded teaching of Jesus, similar to or perhaps associated with the Synoptic Apocalypse (cf. the parallels noted at the beginning of this Original Meaning section), which apparently circulated as part of early Christian tradition. While the content of the teaching apparently predates Paul, the wording of the following verses likely reflects his own paraphrase and application of the tradition. For a discussion of various hypotheses and possibilities, see E. Best, Thessalonians, 189–94; F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 98–99; C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 170–71; Richard. Thessalonians, 239–41; I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 125–27.

11. Paul’s use of “we” (4:15, 17) implies (but does not prove) that he expected to be alive when the Parousia occurred. As time went on, he appears to have recognized that he might not survive until that event (cf. 2 Cor. 1:8–9; 4:14; Phil. 1:20–24). For discussion see B. Witherington III, Jesus, Paul and the End of the World (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1992), 24–25; F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 99; E. Best, Thessalonians, 194–96; C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 171–72; I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 127.

12. Secular ideas about the disadvantages of an “untimely death” may be part of the background here. Cf. Plutarch, Ad Apollonium, 113C: “Some may assert that there need not be mourning for every death, but only for untimely death, because of the failure of the dead to gain what are commonly held to be the advantages of life, such as marriage, education, manhood, citizenship, or public office.” There were also some Jewish traditions that suggested that when the End arrived, the living might have some advantage over the dead (cf. 4 Ezra 13:16–20).

13. The “voice” and the trumpet may be a single sound; cf. Ps. 47:5 (LXX 46:6), “God has ascended with a shout, / the Lord with the sound of a trumpet,” and Rev. 1:10; 4:1.

14. See also Dan. 7:13; Rev. 14:14.

15. Plutarch, Ad Apollonium, 111D, 117B–C (for the word); 113C (for the discussion; see footnote 12); cf. Abraham J. Malherbe, “Exhortation in First Thessalonians,” NovT 25 (1983): 255–56.

16. In this sense it is closely associated with the Greek word parousia, which in Hellenistic usage often indicated a visit by a dignitary or official.

17. The “air” (Gk. aer) was often viewed as the dwelling place of demons; that the triumphant meeting between Jesus and his followers takes place there may indicate just how complete is the victory over death and sin.

18. Cf. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 103; I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 131. But nothing in the word itself or the context demands such an interpretation, and an ascent to heaven (rather than descent to earth) remains a possibility (cf. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 175–76; E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 247–48).

19. Throughout this passage Paul takes the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus for granted. For a full discussion from both theological and apologetic perspectives, see Murray J. Harris, From Grave to Glory: Resurrection in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990); also Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 293–322.

20. For example, some readers, encountering a passage such as 2 Thess. 1:7 that speaks of Jesus coming from heaven “in blazing fire,” have taken it as a literal description.

21. The well-known New Testament scholar and theologian Rudolph Bultmann is most often associated with this latter approach. He understood Paul’s idea of Christ’s return at the end of history as judge of the living and the dead to mean that every person must have an existential encounter with Christ, which will be determinative for her or his destiny.

22. On this question of figurative or metaphorical language, see further I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 128–29; Douglas J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 173–78; and especially G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (with a Foreword by N. T. Wright; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997).

23. See further Frank Thielman, Philippians (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 84.

24. J. R. W. Stott, The Gospel and the End of Time, 105–6.

25. For an excellent discussion of these and other related issues, see Harris’s From Grave to Glory (see note 19).

26. See also the discussion of 2 Thess. 2:1–12 below. See further regarding this debate Gleason L. Archer, Paul D. Feinberg, Douglas. J. Moo, and Richard R. Reiter, Three Views on the Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribulational? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984). A clear (and to my mind, decisive) presentation of the post-tribulation position is Bob Gundry, First the Antichrist (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997).

27. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, On Death and Dying (New York: Macmillan, 1969).

28. Primarily in 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 5; for a full discussion see Murray J. Harris, From Grave to Glory, 185–231.

29. For examples, see Stephen H. Travis, Christian Hope and The Future (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1980), 93–95.

30. Quoted by Susan Bergman, “In The Shadow of the Martyrs,” CT 40:9 (August 12, 1996): 25.

31. J. R. W. Stott, The Gospel and the End of Time, 92–93.

32. D. A. Carson, How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 112.

33. J. R. W. Stott, The Gospel and the End of Time, 94.

34. Leighton Ford, Sandy: A Heart for God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1985), as quoted by J. R. W. Stott, The Gospel and the End of Time, 93.

35. See Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1996), 73–94.

36. “Because He Lives,” text by Gloria Gaither and William J. Gaither, music by William J. Gaither. Copyright 1971 by William J. Gaither.

37. Quoted in Kenneth L. Woodward and John McCormick, “The Art of Dying Well,” Newsweek, November 25, 1996, 63 (a news report about Archbishop Bernardin).

1. For the significance of adelphoi (NIV “brothers”) in 5:1 (which includes the entire community, not just the male members), see comments on 1:4.

2. Similarly I. H. Marshall: “The members were worried not only about the fate of those who had already died at the imminent parousia but also about their own position; the character of the parousia as sudden, unexpected judgment upon unbelievers filled them with anxiety regarding themselves also” (“Election and Calling to Salvation in 1 and 2 Thessalonians,” in The Thessalonian Correspondence, ed. Raymond F. Collins [Leuven: Leuven Univ. Press, 1990], 260).

3. E. Bammel, “Romans 13,” in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1984), 375–80. E. J. Richard (Thessalonians, 260) develops from a different direction a similar point.

4. See further on this term G. L. Borchert, “Wrath, Destruction,” DPL, 992–93.

5. It is an interesting question whether the verb “putting on” (NIV; cf. NRSV) signifies (1) an action simultaneous with the action of exercising self-control (in which case it indicates perhaps the means of exercising self-control), or (2) an action that precedes (already “having put on,” NASB) the exercise of self-control (in which case it indicates a reason for exercising self-control). The word order (the aorist participle follows the main verb) slightly favors (1), but on the basis of the Old Testament background of the terms used here, B. R. Gaventa (Thessalonians, 72) makes a strong case for (2).

6. See further L. Morris, “Salvation,” DPL, 58–62.

7. It is worth noting that “Paul does not suggest that the appointing of certain people to salvation means that others are appointed to wrath” (I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 140). It would be unwise to make any inferences about predestination to wrath on the basis of this text, since Paul himself does not address the topic here.

8. I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 140.

9. See further A. E. McGrath, “Cross, Theology of the,” DPL, 192–97; J. B. Green, “Death of Christ,” DPL, 201–9.

10. “Edgar Whisenant: His New Predictions” (interview by Steven Lawson), Charisma 14 (February 1989), 58–61, 89.

11. See further C. Marvin Pate and Calvin B. Haines, Jr., Doomsday Delusions: What’s Wrong with Predictions About the End of the World (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1995).

12. See C. Marvin Pate and Calvin B. Haines, Jr., Doomsday Delusions, 10–14.

13. Douglas J. Moo, 2 Peter, Jude (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 195.

1. See further I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 145–46 (who offers the most extensive list of possible parallels with Rom. 12); C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 190–91; E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 272–74.

2. For the significance of adelphoi (NIV “brothers”), which includes the entire community, not just the “brothers,” see discussion on 1:4 above.

3. Cf. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 191–93; E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 267–69; “respect” is supported by E. Best, Thessalonians, 224; I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 146–47.

4. See further E. Best, Thessalonians, 224–25 (“care for”); F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 118–19; I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 147–48 (who combines the ideas of “lead” and “care for”). C. A. Wanamaker (Thessalonians, 191–94) argues for the idea of “benefactor” or “patron”; similarly but more cautiously E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 268, 275.

5. I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 150. Some have argued that 5:14–15 are directed to the leaders referred to in 5:12–13, but this is unlikely. The entire community is addressed in 5:12–13 and 16–18, and the introductory phrase in 5:14 is nearly identical to that of 5:12 (note esp. the repetition of adelphoi, “brothers and sisters”). Had Paul intended a change of subject in 5:14, he surely would have signaled it more clearly. Cf. E. Best, Thessalonians, 229.

6. Fee (God’s Empowering Presence, 57; cf. J. E. Frame, Thessalonians, 196) suggests that the first three imperatives in 5:14 relate to earlier sections of the letter: The reference to the “idle” reprises 4:9–12, the “faint hearted” (NRSV; NIV “timid”) would be those concerned about believers who have died (4:13–18), and the “weak” would be those at whom 4:3–8 were directed. But David Black, while agreeing with Fee regarding the first two points, argues that the “weak” are those addressed in 5:1–11 (“The Weak in Thessalonica: A Study in Pauline Lexicography,” JETS 25 [1982]: 307–21). That the “weak” can plausibly be identified with passages as different as 4:3–8 and 5:1–11 demonstrates how vague the term is (similarly E. Best, Thessalonians, 231).

7. I. H. Marshall (1 and 2 Thessalonians, 151) thinks Paul means people susceptible to temptation or sin (cf. Rom. 4:19; 5:6; 8:3, 26) or overcome by difficult circumstances (1 Cor. 2:3; 2 Cor. 11:30; 12:5); Best (Thessalonians, 231) suggests those who are hesitant about or lacking insight into matters of faith and practice, such as idol food (cf. Rom. 14:1–15:6; 1 Cor. 8; 10). Richard (Thessalonians, 277) sees it as the most general of the commands in 5:14–15.

8. The NIV’s “try to be kind” misses by a considerable margin the forcefulness of Paul’s statement. For the verb, cf. Rom. 12:13; 14:19; 1 Cor. 14:1; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22.

9. 5:12–15 are clearly aimed at the community as a whole, and 5:16–18 continue without a break the pattern of plural imperatives found in the preceding verses. Moreover, the obvious context for the reading of the letter (cf. 5:27) would have been the community gathered together. Cf. J. R. W. Stott, The Gospel and the End of Time, 124.

10. G. D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 54.

11. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 124.

12. G. D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 58–59; I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 157.

13. That is, “put out the fire.” The vivid and picturesque image of fire picks up the frequent association of the Holy Spirit and fire (e.g., Acts 2:3–4). The NIV (“do not put out the Spirit’s fire”) attempts to catch this imagery, but obscures the fact that “Spirit” is the direct object of the verb.

14. G. D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 170.

15. Cf. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 202–3.

16. G. D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 60.

17. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 120.

18. J. R. W. Stott, The Gospel and the End of Time, 122.

19. E. Best, Thessalonians, 233.

20. I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 152–53.

21. J. R. W. Stott, The Gospel and the End of Time, 124.

22. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 200.

23. I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 155.

24. See, for example, John F. MacArthur, Jr., Charismatic Chaos (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992); Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Perspectives on Pentecost: Studies in New Testament Teaching on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979). See also Gaffin’s essay in Wayne A. Grudem, Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 25–64.

25. See Gordon D. Fee, Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 76–77; Craig S. Keener, Three Crucial Questions about the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 95–107. On 1 Cor. 13:8–12 see Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 260, 262–63; on Eph. 2:20, see Klyne Snodgrass, Ephesians (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 144.

26. G. D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 59.

27. C. S. Keener, Three Crucial Questions about the Holy Spirit, 171–72.

28. G. D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 61.

29. J. W. Elias, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 235.

30. L. Jesse Lemisch, ed., Benjamin Franklin: The Autobiography and Other Writings (New York: New American Library, 1961), 116–20.

31. Margaret D. Smith, “Waiting for an Answer,” The Reformed Journal 39 (October, 1989): 29.

32. Klyne Snodgrass, Ephesians (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 219.

33. J. Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, 374.

34. Paul Achtemeier, Romans (Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), 202.

35. See on this passage Darrell L. Bock, Luke (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 453–59.

36. J. W. Elias, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 235.

37. See further Wayne A. Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1988), 253–62, who offers several useful suggestions to “churches which do not use the gift of prophecy but would like to.”

38. For examples see C. S. Keener, Three Crucial Questions about the Holy Spirit, 171–75, and (from the opposite end of the spectrum on this issue) John F. MacArthur Jr., Charismatic Chaos (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992).

39. Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy, 262–63.

1. See further P. T. O’Brien, “Letters, Letter Forms,” DPL, 553; G. W. Hansen, “Rhetorical Criticism,” DPL, 822–26.

2. Cited by Calvin J. Roetzel, The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context, 3d ed. (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1991), 60.

3. See further Jeffrey A. D. Weima, Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings (Sheffield: Sheffield Univ. Press, 1994), 174–86.

4. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 207.

5. I. H. Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 145.

6. For a photograph of a papyrus letter in which the switch from the neat, precise writing of the scribe to the irregular (and nearly illegible) scrawl of the author is strikingly obvious, see Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 121.

7. E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 292; for a survey of alternative hypotheses, cf. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 135.

8. Donald H. Juel, 1 Thessalonians (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985), 250.

9. As Gordon Fee observes, “it is very likely, given the way Paul here expresses himself, that he might think of the human spirit and soul as distinct entities in some way. But how he might think of them as different is not at all clear from the rest of his letters…. Moreover, the emphasis on entirety suggests that he could easily have included ‘mind’ without for a moment deviating from his concern. That is, whatever distinctions he may have understood are quite secondary to the greater concern of completeness” (God’s Empowering Presence, 66).

10. L. Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 182.

11. For more on memory, see Daniel Taylor, The Myth of Certainty: The Reflective Christian and the Risk of Commitment (Waco, Tes.: Word, 1986), 100–107.

1. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 213.

2. Lightfoot notes that the two verbs “are carefully chosen; the former implying an internal, organic growth, as of a tree; the other a diffusive, or expansive character, as of a flood irrigating the land” (Notes on Epistles, 98).

3. The Greek word adelphoi, “brothers” (1:3) includes the entire community, not just the male members; for the significance of the term, see comments on 1 Thess. 1:4.

4. The antecedent of “all this” (NIV; “this is,” NRSV; the phrase is not in the Greek, but is implied by the construction) is ambiguous. I take it to be all the reasons mentioned after the “because” (hoti) in 1:3 (similarly J. R. W. Stott, The Gospel and the End of Time, 146). For the view that it is the Thessalonians’ perseverance and faith, see I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 172–73; F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 149; E. Best, Thessalonians, 254–56; E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 304, 316–18; for the view that the antecedent is the persecution and affliction (NIV “trials”), see C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 220–23.

5. For the idea of affliction as a consequence of following Jesus, see comments on 1 Thess. 3:4.

6. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 223; cf. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 149. For the idea of God’s dominion or “kingdom,” see comments on 1 Thess. 2:12.

7. In light of Old Testament usage, some argue that “those who do not know God” (cf. Ps. 79:6; Jer. 10:25) refers to Gentiles, and “those who do not obey the gospel” (cf. Isa. 66:4 LXX; Rom. 10:16) refers to Jews (see, e.g., I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 177–78; cf. NRSV). But this distinction cannot be maintained consistently in either the Old Testament (cf. Jer. 4:22; 9:3, 6; Hos. 5:4) or Pauline usage (cf. Rom. 11:30–32). Moreover, the passage is cast in the poetic style of Old Testament prophecy, and the two clauses are an example of synonymous parallelism. Together they identify a single group that includes both Jews and Gentiles (cf. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 151–52; C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 227).

8. Similarly F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 152; I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 179; C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 229; L. Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 204–5. The term destruction here in 1:9 is sometimes taken in the sense of annihilation. This is linguistically possible, but “as there is no evidence in Paul (or the rest of the NT for that matter) for a concept of final annihilation of the godless, the expression ‘eternal destruction’ should probably be taken in a metaphorical manner as indicating the severity of the punishment awaiting the enemies of God” (C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 229).

9. Cf. also Matt. 25:46, where the similar phrase “eternal punishment” (a different Greek word for “punishment” is used) is defined in contrast to “eternal life”; everything that eternal life is, eternal punishment is not.

10. The preposition en (“in”) can indicate (1) location (e.g., NIV “in his holy people;” cf. L. Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 206), (2) cause (e.g., “because of his holy people;” so J. E. Frame, Thessalonians, 237), (3) means (e.g., NRSV “by his holy people”), or (4) presence (“in the presence of his holy people”; so C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 231). Option 3 includes the idea of option 4 (at least implicitly) and makes good sense in the following phrase as well; it is thus the preferable choice (cf. I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 180). For the Old Testament background of the phrase cf. Ps. 88:8, and for the following phrase cf. 67:36, or possibly 88:6.

11. With respect to the phenomena accompanying the Lord’s return, see comments on 1 Thess. 4:13–18. The fire imagery emphasizes the judgmental aspects of the event; cf., for example, the words of John the Baptist (Matt. 3:10, 12), and for the Old Testament background, Isa. 66:15–16. Indeed, Isa. 66, with its themes of vindication and vengeance (e.g., 66:14, “the hand of the LORD will be made known to his servants, but his fury will be shown to his enemies”) is illuminating for the present passage.

12. For “make worthy” see I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 182; E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 310; E. Best, Thessalonians, 268–69; for “consider worthy” see C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 233; L. Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 197–98, 209.

13. Similarly G. D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 70.

14. Cf. Rom. 15:7: When believers accept one another as Christ accepted them, it is possible to catch a glimpse now of the glory that was lost as a result of sin (3:23) but which will be restored fully at the Parousia (5:2; 8:18–24).

15. For “grace” see comments on 1 Thess. 1:1; see also 5:28; 2 Thess. 1:2; 2:16; 3:18.

16. Cf. Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 265–66.

17. See further D. A. Carson, A Call to Spiritual Reformation: Priorities from Paul and His Prayers (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 39–62. Carson devotes two chapters to 2 Thess. 1:1–12, discussing what the passage reveals about “the framework of prayer” and about “worthy petitions.”

18. Paul discusses suffering in general in Rom. 8:17–30.

19. On this passage see Gordon D. Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 169–72; Frank Thielman, Philippians (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 93–94, 100–101.

20. J. R. W. Stott, The Gospel and the End of Time, 144.

21. Robert Frost, “The Road Not Taken,” Collected Poems of Robert Frost (Garden City, N.Y.: Garden City Publishing, 1942), 131.

22. J. R. W. Stott, The Gospel and the End of Time, 154; see John Piper, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist (Portland, Ore.: Multnomah, 1986).

23. For a discussion of the meaning of persecution and affliction, and of how and in what ways various circumstances today are or are not comparable with those of the Thessalonians, see the Bridging Contexts section for 1 Thess. 3:1–5.

1. Similarly G. D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 71.

2. Ibid., 71.

3. Similarly C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 240.

4. In the absence of any direct evidence, precisely what the Thessalonians believed on this point is cloaked in obscurity. For hypothetical reconstructions see C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 240; E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 343–44; F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 165.

5. The phrase hos di’ hemon (NIV “supposed to have come from us”) is awkward. It is widely taken as an indication of source (cf. RSV, NAB, NASB, KJV). But to indicate the source of something Paul uses either the preposition para (cf. 1 Thess. 2:13; 4:1; 2 Thess. 3:6) or apo, which both mean “from,” while dia, the preposition used here, indicates means or agent, as in Gal. 1:1 (Paul says his apostleship is neither “from [apo] men nor by [dia] man”). Moreover, dia also occurs before “spirit,” “report,” and “letter”; to translate the fourth occurrence in a row differently from the preceding three is awkward. This suggests that the phrase means something like “as if said by us” and ought to be associated with what follows, rather than what precedes (so, e.g., J. E. Frame, Thessalonians, 246–47; R. Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 181–86). “Paul is not saying that the letter did not come from him—it did indeed—but that what they are now believing about the Day of the Lord did not come” from Paul and his colleagues (G. D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 74).

6. The grammar of the sentence beginning in verse 3 is incomplete; the protasis or “if” clause of his conditional sentence (translated here as either “unless” [NRSV, NASB] or “until” [NIV]) ought to be followed by the apodosis or “then” clause. But the expected result clause never comes, perhaps because in the course of the extended description of the “man of lawlessness” (v. 4) Paul lost track of the structure of the sentence. One can either supply, as most English translations do in the middle of verse 3, the implied result clause (“that day will not come” NIV, NRSV), or put a dash at the end of verse 4 (where in Greek the missing clause would have likely come), and view the direct address of verse 5 (“Don’t you remember …”) as an interruption followed by a new sentence in verse 6 (cf. E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 325).

7. It is sometimes alleged that apostasia should be translated as “departure” and taken as signifying the same event as the “rapture” in 1 Thess. 4:17, but there is no linguistic basis for such a view (cf. R. H. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973], 114–18; D. E. Hiebert, Thessalonian Epistles, 306).

8. The translation “man of sin” (KJV) represents a well-attested but nonetheless secondary textual variant.

9. So most commentators; C. A. Wanamaker, however, takes it as designating “his role as an agent of destruction for Satan” (Thessalonians, 245).

10. Cf. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 167.

11. These include the king of Tyre (Ezek. 28:2); the king of Babylon (Isa. 14:3–23, esp. vv. 12–14); Antiochus Epiphanes (Dan. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11); Pompey, the Roman general who in 63 B.C. entered the Holy of Holies (Pss. Sol. 2; 17:11–14; Josephus, Antiq. 14.69–76 [14.4.4]); and the Emperor Gaius Caligula, who in A.D. 40 attempted to have his statue set up in the temple in Jerusalem, a claim to divinity that the Jews refused to recognize (Philo, Leg. 203–346; Josephus, Antiq. 18.261–309 [18.8.2–9]).

12. See further in general I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 190–92; for the Jerusalem temple, C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 247; for a rebuilt temple, R. L. Thomas, “2 Thessalonians,” 322.

13. I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 191–92; cf. F. F. Bruce: “It may be best to conclude that the Jerusalem sanctuary is meant here by Paul and his companions, but meant in a metaphorical sense. Had they said, ‘so that he takes his seat on the throne of God,’ few would have thought it necessary to think of a literal throne; it would simply have been regarded as a graphic way of saying that he plans to usurp the authority of God. This is what is meant by the language actually used here, although the sacral associations of ναός [temple] imply that he demands not only the obedience but also the worship due to God alone” (1 and 2 Thessalonians, 169).

14. For both these conclusions see E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 330–31, for a convincing discussion of the “mystery of lawlessness” phrase and an analysis of the verb “work” as a middle voice (rather than a passive, which would imply that God was the ultimate source of the power presently at work).

15. This list draws heavily upon I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 196–99, who also provides concise evaluations of the various proposals; see also C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 250–52; L. Morris, “Man of Lawlessness and Restraining Power,” DPL, 592–94; R. L. Thomas, “2 Thessalonians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. F. E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 11:324–25.

16. See, for example, with regard to (1) F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 171–72, 187–88; C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 256–57; G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 606; to (2) Lightfoot, Notes on Epistles, 114–15; L. Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 227; to (3) B. B. Warfield (cited by I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 197); to (4a) an earlier proposal discussed favorably by J. E. Frame, Thessalonians, 261–62 (who ultimately, however, remains agnostic on the point); to (4b) C. H. Giblin, The Threat to Faith: An Exegetical and Theological Re-examination of 2 Thessalonians 2 (Analecta Biblica 31; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967), slightly revised and reaffirmed in C. H. Giblin, “2 Thessalonians 2 Re-read as Pseudepigraphical: A Revised Reaffirmation of The Threat to Faith,” in The Thessalonian Correspondence, ed. R. F. Collins (Leuven: Leuven Univ. Press, 1990), 459–69; E. Best, Thessalonians, 301 (hesitantly); to (5a) G. E. Ladd, The Blessed Hope (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 95; R. D. Aus, “God’s Plan and God’s Power: Isaiah 66 and the Restraining Factors of 2 Thess. 2.6–7,” JBL 96 (1977): 537–53; others in I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 198; to (5b) R. L. Thomas, “2 Thessalonians,” 324; to (6) Oscar Cullmann, J. Munck (cited by I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 198); and to (7) I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 199–200.

17. Augustine, City of God, 20.19. Cf. L. Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 228: “The plain fact is that Paul and his readers knew what he was talking about, and we do not. We have not the means at our disposal to recover this part of his meaning. It is best that we frankly acknowledge our ignorance.”

18. Some of the differences between English translations of verse 8 (cf. NIV vs. NASB or NRSV margin) are due to minor textual variations that do not affect the main points of the verse. See further C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 257–58.

19. I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 203.

20. Ibid.; also C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 260.

21. Cf. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 167; I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 189; Bob Gundry, First the Antichrist (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 20.

22. See further Gundry, First the Antichrist, 26–28.

23. See further the entire book by Gundry, mentioned in the previous note.

24. See further George E. Ladd, The Blessed Hope: A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), esp. 137–61.

25. I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 203. Cf. Calvin’s comments: The passage speaks of “God’s righteousness punishment of those who, though called to salvation, have rejected the Gospel, and have preferred to give their mind to ungodliness and error…. None have perished but those who have deserved to, or who rather have died of their own choosing” (J. Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, 407).

26. One thing that stands out when studying the list of those who have been identified as Antichrist is how often the political, theological, or social biases or perspective of the person proposing the identification have shaped (if not determined) whom someone identified as the Satanic deceiver. In this respect, attempts to identify the Antichrist often reveal more about the one making the identification than anything else. See Robert C. Fuller, Naming The Antichrist: The History of an American Obsession (New York and Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1995). This book is a fascinating study of efforts to discern the identity of the Antichrist from colonial days to the present that highlights the persistent influence of political, social, and theological perspectives on the way people discerned the Antichrist’s presence in current events. See also the broader studies of Paul Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture (Cambridge, Mass, and London: Belknap, 1992), and Bernard McGinn, Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination with Evil (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994).

27. J. R. W. Stott, The Gospel and the End of Time, 161.

28. J. W. Elias, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 295. On date-setting, see further the first point under Contemporary Significance for 1 Thess. 5:1–11.

29. I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 205.

30. Arno C. Gaebelein, “King Feisal Is Dead,” Our Hope 40 (November 1933): 305, as quoted by David A. Rausch, Fundamentalist Evangelicals and Anti-Semitism (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1993), 134.

31. J. R. W. Stott, The Gospel and the End of Time, 172.

32. See C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters and Screwtape Proposes a Toast (New York: Time, Inc., 1961).

33. Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 95.

34. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 248–49.

35. C. S. Lewis observed that “the greatest evil is not now done in those sordid ‘dens of crime’ that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice” (C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters and Screwtape Proposes a Toast, xxv).

36. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 264.

1. The segment has been resistant to both epistolary and rhetorical analysis. R. Jewett lists three epistolary and three rhetorical analyses of 2 Thessalonians, all of which differ noticeably, especially in their treatment of this section of the letter. Both Krodel (from an epistolary perspective) and Jewett (from a rhetorical perspective) agree, however, in treating 2:13–3:5 as a separate section (Thessalonian Correspondence, 224–25).

2. For the opening phrase of 2:13 (especially the “ought”), see comments on 1:3a; for the way 2:13 resumes the opening thanksgiving of 1:3, cf. 1 Thess. 2:13 (which resumes the introductory thanksgiving of 1 Thess. 1:2).

3. For the significance of adelphoi, “brothers,” in 2:13 (also 2:15; 3:1), which includes the entire community and not just the male members, see comments on 1 Thess. 1:4.

4. Instead of “as the first fruits” (aparchen; NRSV, NAB), some significant manuscripts read “from the beginning” (ap’ arches; NIV, RSV, NASB). The first alternative is preferable; it fits the context well, while the second phrase does not reflect Pauline usage (similarly G. D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 77).

5. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 268.

6. J. D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 66–69; cf. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 268.

7. Cf. Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 168, 316; similarly I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 211; F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 196. C. A. Wanamaker, however, takes the singular verbs as referring only to God (Thessalonians, 270–71).

8. The phrase “by his grace” (lit., “in grace”) comes at the end of verse 16 (cf. NASB); consequently, there is some uncertainty whether it modifies both “loved” and “gave” (so E. Best, Thessalonians, 320; C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 271) or only “gave” (so NIV, NRSV).

9. I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 211–12.

10. E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 360.

11. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 272.

12. So F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 198; C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 275; E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 374–75; differently I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 214 (who sees here a reference to Jewish opponents of Paul in Corinth).

13. The “for” with which the last phrase of 3:2 begins may connect the phrase to the immediately preceding request for deliverance (clearly the impression left by the NIV). But in view of the overall structure of 3:1–2 (a single sentence in which Paul makes two closely related requests: “pray for us that … and … that … for”), it seems more likely that the “for” links the last phrase to the request for prayer as a whole (cf. NRSV).

14. So E. Best, Thessalonians, 327–28; F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 200; E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 370–71; the alternative view is preferred by C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 277.

15. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 277.

16. Similarly E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 371; C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 277–78. I. H. Marshall, however, taking 3:4 as a reference back to 3:1, understands verse 4 as an expression of confidence that they will not be hindered from praying on Paul’s behalf (1 and 2 Thessalonians, 217). But to label as a “command” (3:4) what was essentially only a request in 3:1 is awkward; moreover, it is difficult to see how the Thessalonians could already be doing what he had only just requested them to do.

17. Similarly F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 202; C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 278–79; E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 372, 376.

18. On the one hand, the people deceived by the “man of lawlessness” in accordance with the working of Satan (and thus who will be judged together with him) are those who have rejected the truth (2:10) and believed the lie (2:11), to the extent that they now delight in wickedness (2:12). On the other hand, the Thessalonians are loved by God and chosen for salvation (2:13), experience the sanctifying work of the Spirit in their life and believe in the truth (2:13), and are destined for glory (2:14).

19. James Denney sees in these two verses “a system of theology in miniature. The apostle’s thanksgiving covers the whole work of creation from the eternal choice of God to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ in the world to come” (as quoted by F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 192).

20. G. D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 78. Similar passages include Rom. 5:1–5; 8:3–4; 8:15–17; 1 Cor. 6:11; 2 Cor. 1:21–22; 13:14; Gal. 4:4–7; Eph. 1:13–14; 4:4–6; Titus 3:5–7.

21. Ibid., 79.

22. For topics not discussed here, see the references in the Original Meaning and Bridging Contexts sections to other parts in the commentary for guidance on applying them.

23. It is worth noting as an aside that the attitude Paul exhibits here is one of confidence, not triumphalism. Triumphalism—the belief that God is on our side—is foreign to Paul. But confidence—the conviction that God has called us to his side—runs throughout his letters.

24. J. Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, 411.

25. Daniel Taylor, The Myth of Certainty: The Reflective Christian and the Risk of Commitment (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1986), 112.

26. Ibid.

27. J. I. Packer, “Our Lifeline,” CT 40 (October 28, 1996): 25.

28. Ibid., 23, 25.

1. For the former position cf. E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 385–87, 392; I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 230; for the latter, C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 291; E. Best, Thessalonians, 345–46; L. Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 262; Jeffrey A. D. Weima, Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings (Sheffield: Sheffield Univ. Press, 1994), 187.

2. Attempts to find here a rhetorical peroratio or summary (e.g., R. Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 87, 225) are unconvincing, primarily because this section simply does not summarize the major themes of the letter (cf. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 291).

3. E.g., E. Best, Thessalonians, 331.

4. If anything, 2:13–3:5 (the somewhat awkward transitional section between 2:1–12 and 3:6–15) has the effect of separating the two issues. Even the most recent substantial attempt to connect the problem of this section with eschatological concerns acknowledges that the connection is impossible to prove (M. J. J. Menken, “Paradise Regained or Still Lost? Eschatology and Disorderly Behaviour in 2 Thessalonians,” NTS 38 [1992]: 288).

5. Cf. R. Russell, “The Idle in 2 Thess 3:6–12: An Eschatological or a Social Problem?” NTS 34 (1988): 108.

6. Cf. J. E. Frame, Thessalonians, 297; E. Best, Thessalonians, 332; F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 205.

7. Ceslas Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (3 vols.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994), 1:223–26; R. Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 104–5.

8. Similarly J. E. Frame, Thessalonians, 305.

9. It cannot be determined (because of a lack of information) whether the problematic behavior was taking place inside or/and outside the boundaries of the congregation.

10. G. Delling, “ἄτακτος,” TDNT 8:48.

11. Similarly E. J. Richard, Thessalonians, 379, 382, 388–90; C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 282, 286; B. R. Gaventa, Thessalonians, 81–82, 128–29.

12. For the significance of adelphoi, which includes the entire community and not just the male members, see comment on 1 Thess. 1:4.

13. The manuscript witnesses are sharply divided at this point between “they received” (NRSV, NAB; C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 282; I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 220; F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 203) and “you received” (NIV, NASB). The first reading—less expected in the context and thus more likely to have been changed—is probably the original one.

14. As L. Morris observes, “Paul is not speaking of those who cannot find work, nor of those who through injury or illness are not able to work, but of those who deliberately choose not to work” (The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 256).

15. On the apostolic right of support, cf. 1 Cor. 9:4–18. Paul’s decision not to exercise that right in Corinth, for both pastoral and practical reasons, closely parallels the same decision he made in Thessalonica (cf. 1 Thess. 2:9). The mention here of the right to support probably does not arise in response to someone in Thessalonica claiming a similar right to support (contra R. Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 105), but rather ties in with the authoritative tone of this entire section. Paul is asserting his authority as an apostle with considerable force and does not want anyone to think that his refusal to accept support in any way undermines that authority (as some opponents in Corinth attempted to claim; cf. 2 Cor. 12:5–12). See further J. M. Everts, “Financial Support,” DPL, 295–300.

16. A key reason given in 1 Thess. 4:12 for working—winning the respect of outsiders—receives no mention in the present discussion; cf. Bruce W. Winter, Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, and Carlisle: Paternoster, 1994), 58.

17. The NIV’s “settle down and earn the bread they eat” catches the gist of Paul’s command, but seriously obscures both the structure of his sentence and its verbal echoes of other statements in 1 and 2 Thessalonians.

18. For the significance of adelphoi, which includes the entire community and not just the male members, see comment on 1 Thess. 1:4.

19. Cf. B. W. Winter, Seek the Welfare of the City, 58 (“There may have been those benefactors who were somewhat disillusioned with other Christians because the latter had continued to exploit them to their own advantage, in spite of Paul’s specific example and teaching”).

20. Cf. I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 226; B. W. Winter, Seek the Welfare of the City, 59; J. Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, 420.

21. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 226 (on p. 222 he refers to 2 Thess. 3).

22. C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 290.

23. For a photograph of a papyrus letter in which the switch from the neat, precise writing of the scribe to the irregular scrawl of the author is strikingly obvious, see Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 121 (1st ed., p. 95).

24. I. H. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 232–33.

25. See the quote by L. Morris in footnote 14, above; similarly C. A. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 285–86: “Paul recognized that the important question was whether or not people were prepared to work for their living. His command, therefore, was not directed to those who were unable to work or who could not find work, but to those who refused to work.”

26. Klyne Snodgrass, Ephesians (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 258.

27. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 209.

28. For an excellent introduction to social class, order, and status in the Roman world, see David P. Nystrom, James (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 123–30.

29. Other passages that touch on the topic include Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 16:22; 2 Cor. 13:1–2; Gal. 6:1–5; 1 Tim. 1:18–20; 5:19–22; Titus 3:10–11. See T. E. Schmidt, “Discipline,” DPL, 214–18.

30. J. R. W. Stott, The Gospel and the End of Time, 193; Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 228, 214.

31. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 222.

32. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 4.12.10 (2:1238 in this ed.).

33. For examples of creative application of Pauline principles, see Michael E. Phillips, “Creative Church Discipline,” Leadership 7, no. 4 (1986): 46–50.

34. Miroslav Volf, Work in the Spirit: Toward a Theology of Work (New York and Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1991), 149.

35. Ibid., 149.

36. Ibid., 189.

37. Robert Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community (rev. ed.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994), 86. See further Ronald J. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger: A Biblical Study, 2d ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1984).

38. For classic descriptions of this state of affairs see Robert N. Bellah et al., Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life (Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press, 1985); Christopher Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations (New York: Warner, 1979).

39. A concern that is legitimate, but need not be paralyzing. See the guidelines offered by Karl F. Pansler, “Church Discipline and the Right of Privacy,” in Christian Ministries and the Law, ed. H. Wayne House (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 65–78.

40. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 214.

41. See further the following helpful books on this topic: Thomas C. Oden, Corrective Love: The Power of Communion Discipline (St. Louis: Concordia, 1995); John White and Ken Blue, Church Discipline That Heals: Putting Costly Love Into Action (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1985); J. Carl Laney, A Guide to Church Discipline (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1985).

42. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.12.5 (2:1233 in McNeil/Battles edition).

43. Thomas C. Oden, Corrective Love, 84, 85 (italics in original).

44. J. Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, 420.

45. See further on this passage Klyne Snodgrass, Ephesians (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 328–29, 333.