THE AUTHENTICITY OF PAULINE AUTHORSHIP FOR THE FIRST AND SECOND EPISTLES TO THE CHURCH AT THESSALONICA

THE AUTHENTICITY OF PAULINE AUTHORSHIP FOR THE FIRST AND SECOND EPISTLES TO THE CHURCH AT THESSALONICA

By: Daniel McMillin

On Paul’s second missionary journey in A.D. 49, Paul, Silas, and Timothy traveled to the city of Thessalonica and founded the Church. In the city of Thessalonica, the Church encountered a number of issues that Paul would address in two letters.

In the first letter to the Thessalonians, “Paul wrote to the Thessalonians to console them in their persecution (1 Thess. 2:4-3:5), to rejoice with them in victory over adversity (1 Thess. 3:6-10), and to rebuke a certain moral laxity in them (1 Thess. 4:1-8) …Paul’s most prominent purpose must have been to correct mistaken ideas concerning Christ’s second coming.”[1] In the second letter, Paul wrote to the Thessalonians to clarify what he had previously written concerning the return of Christ in order to refute the erroneous words of false teachers that misused his previous statements.

This discussion will answer the question of who wrote the letter to the Thessalonians? Was it a Pauline epistle or a non-Pauline epistle? The purpose of this study is to provide assurance that Paul wrote the two letters to the Thessalonians and provide evidence that will strengthen the readers’ conviction of the authenticity of the text and authorship of the book.

I.               Question of Paul’s Content

How could Paul jump from one topic to the next? Some claim that Paul could not write a letter that goes from one theme to the next. That Paul could not possibly cover so many topics that are disconnected from one another since Paul was a more organized author in his other epistles. To those who hold this view, they find it difficult to reconcile Paul covering a number of topics within this document. However, a letter has the ability to accomplish many purposes that address the author’s purpose for his/her audience. A letter is something that allows the writer to construct an argument precisely and is capable of covering a multitude of ideas and issues that the author desires to achieve. “It is a communique that would take weeks to deliver by hand, weeks to digest, and weeks to receive a reply if and when one was sent. Therefore, an apostle writing from Corinth to Thessalonica did not have the luxury of writing on one theme only; he had to touch on all the topics that lay at hand.”[2] 

II.            Question of Theology and Doctrine

Why are both letters to the Thessalonians untheological in content and lack doctrinal matters? The Tubingen and Dutch schools claim that this book is unauthentic for not being a book that is solely written to discuss doctrinal matters. It is, in their view, a less doctrinal epistle than other writings of Paul and therefore could not possibly be the apostle Paul since that would be against his style and purpose of writing. Why do all books written by an inspired apostle have to be equally doctrinal in character? These letters are not doctrinally insignificant. They are not lacking in addressing such matters; in fact, the main drive of both books that Paul addresses is the study of the end times or the last things, otherwise known as eschatology. “Paul’s epistles arose out of certain concrete situations. These situations naturally differed.”[3] Different places require different letters for different circumstances.

It has also been claimed to not tackle certain theological issues that Paul would normally write. For example, “it fails to attack legalism –justification by the works of the law.”[4] Was Paul only capable of expressing one idea? Why must he write a letter to the Thessalonians about justification or provide a rebuttal to legalism if it was not necessary? The Thessalonians were saved and understood the doctrine of justification. They were struggling with what happens after we die, not what must I do to be saved.

The leading critic that holds this view is F.C. Baur, who denies Paul’s authorship because 1 Thessalonians lacks doctrinal emphasis. In his opinion, it lacks originality and contains an uncharacteristic outburst against Jews that is antisemitic in 2 Thessalonians 2:14-16). Geisler noted three things to refute this view. First, “It does have doctrinal emphasis (eschatology) in every chapter (1:10; 2:19; 3:13; 4:16; 5:23).”[5] Second, “a book does not have to have new truths to be authentic.”[6] Finally, in his letter to the Galatians, Paul criticizes the Judaizers (Gal. 3:1, 17; 5:2; 6:12). What is ironic is that Baur accepts Galatians as a book that is an authentic Pauline epistle and yet claims in 1 Thessalonians it is uncharacteristic to criticize the Judaizers. His arguments conflict with one another and lose sight of the context of Paul’s letter.

III.         Question of Interpolation

How could Paul make such antisemitic comments within the confinement of this epistle? The first letter to the Thessalonians is undoubtedly Pauline. It is widely accepted Paul is the author. The majority of scholars argue that this letter is genuinely Pauline in origin. Wannamaker says that “no contemporary scholars of repute seem to doubt the authentic Pauline character for the letter.”[7] However, there are some, yet very few, scholars who doubt the authenticity of Paul’s apostolic authorship in this epistle. Suspension for Paul’s penmanship in his first letter begins with 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16. The theory that is held concerning the case for “interpolation” is that after the death of Paul, someone inserted an anti-Jewish message in the manuscripts early into the transmission process that it seems to be original with Paul. Michael W. Holmes said:

“Arguments offered in support of this view include: (1) the condemnation of “the Jews” expressed here is said to contradict Paul’s hopeful attitude in Romans 11 regarding the salvation of the Jewish people; (2) the reference in verse 16 to a past judgment of the Jews is said to be a reference to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in A.D. 70, well after the traditional date for this letter; (3) verses 15-16 contain traditional anti-Semitic language that was current after A.D. 70 and which could not have been written by Paul; (4) in terms of form, verse 13 introduces a second thanksgiving section, whereas all other Pauline letters have only a single thanksgiving section; (5) persecution of Christians by Jews (v. 14) is said to be unattested at the time Paul wrote the letter.”[8]

To answer these claims, Holmes writes (1) Paul speaks to those involved in anti-Christian persecution; (2) Paul refers to a minority of Jewish people; (3) the language of his statements are parallel to the teachings of Christ; (4) arguments based on the form are inconclusive; (5) the account of Stephen’s death in Acts 7 refutes this final theory.

Holmes addresses two obstacles that the interpolation theory faces: “(1) No persuasive explanation has been offered to explain why someone at some later time would insert this passage into this letter at this place. (2) Every known copy of 1 Thessalonians contains the passage in question. While this absence of textual disturbance does not prove that the passage is authentic, sinneth does create a significant presumption in its favor. In sum, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the passage stands as part of the letter.”[9] 

“These verses have generated considerable controversy in critical scholarship because of what they have been taken to indicate about the relationship between Christians and Jews.”[10] The claim that is made concerning this text is that these remarks found within this section are antisemitic and offensive to Jews, that certain linguistic peculiarities arise in view of Romans 11:25-27, and therefore, must not be written by Paul but by a scribe who inserted this supposed anti-Jew text within the letter to the Thessalonians. The text has been interpreted to mean that Paul is condemning the Jewish nation as a whole for the crucifixion of Jesus.

The real object of condemnation in these verses is not pointed towards the Jewish people as a whole but to certain Jews that that instigated the death of Christ. The text does not condemn all Jews but those that would crucify Jesus. Those that misinterpret this passage neglect the context and miss the point that Paul is making. “After discussing his previous contract with the readers (1 Thess. 2:1-2), Paul then reflects on their recent circumstances (1 Thess. 2:13-16) to explain the basis for his desire to revisit Thessalonica (1 Thess. 2:17-20).”[11]  “Why should it be impossible for an inspired author, on the one hand, to reveal a terrible reality (namely, the outpouring of God’s wrath upon a disobedient people), and yet, on the other hand, in a very touching manner, to express his own genuine sorrow and pain of heart with respect to this reality which concerned his kith and kin?”[12] 

IV.         Question of Forgery for the Second Letter

Who wrote the 2nd letter to the Thessalonians? Was it a forgery? The overall question is, was the letter written by Paul or an unknown writer? The origin of this “attack upon Pauline authorship arose early in the 19th century. This attack was based upon supposed internal evidence focused in general on two lines of thought.”[13] They argue that (a) the man of lawlessness, based upon the Nero Redivivus Myth, shows the epistle to be written sometime after Paul’s death, that it is post-Pauline since the emperor was still alive, and that (b) the eschatology of 2 Thessalonians is in disagreement with 1 Thessalonians.

“The balance of scholarly opinion tends toward the view that the letter is a fake.”[14] Additionally, in some circles, it is now taken as a given that it is post-Pauline or even anti-Pauline.”[15] These scholars that hold this view argue that this letter is pseudonymous. Pseudepigrapha has been defined as falsely attributed works that claim to be the author but are not the authentic penman and is often attributed to a prominent author. The theory is that the author of 2 Thessalonians is unknown and wrote many years after Paul’s death between five to fifty years.

One of the strongest arguments for this theory is that since the second letter is close in style to the first, it has caused some scholars to conclude that it must be a forgery. “The style of the letter looks close enough to 1 Thessalonians that it makes some think it is a poor imitation of the real letter.”[16] Admittedly, “the writer follows the structure or outline of 1 Thessalonians so closely that clearly, he was using it as a model.”[17]  But of course, that is the case! There should be no reason for it not being similar in style to that of the first since it is written by the same author to the same audience concerning the same issue. “The similarity must not be overstated. It is reasonable to suppose that Paul would tie in that which he states in his second letter with that which he had written previously.”[18] Similarities should not disprove Pauline authorship; it should reinforce it.

Weatherly notes that “elaborate arguments for compilation are entirely conjectural and have found little support.”[19] There is little to no evidence to back their claim and very few to support their case. Morris writes, “it scarcely seems to be the kind of letter that would be forged. Why would anyone produce a letter like this? What would he aim to achieve thereby?”[20] He’s right; what motives would there be for forgery? The answer is quite clear; there is no room to reason that this was a forgery but that it is genuinely Pauline. The evidence points to Paul as the authentic author. The letter claims to have been written by Paul, and the evidence supports this through the Pauline nature of similar language and theology.

To refute this theory of a post-Pauline letter, Holmes provides three reasons how this theory could not be accepted. “Apart from the inconclusiveness of the arguments against 2 Thessalonians, there is the inability of any forgery hypothesis proposed to date to suggest a historically credible situation or circumstance which can explain (1) why a forged letter might have been written, (2) its relationship to 1 Thessalonians, and (3) how it came to be accepted as part of the Pauline corpus.”[21]  

V.            Question of the Author’s Purpose for a Second Letter

One of the most challenging questions for the bible student is, why would Paul write two letters to the same audience so soon? “The objection is that such an outstanding man as Paul would not find it necessary to repeat himself. He would, if he had to say the same thing, say it in different words so that a deliberate imitation is a better explanation.”[22] If Paul was an inspired writer and an apostle, could he not get it right the first time? Was the first letter not good enough? Those that attempt to reason this question begin to think the ideas in the second letter are not the ideas of Paul.

Following the death of Jesus, there was a state of high expectation that the return of Christ and the final judgment would come soon. Paul writes that they should not so soon accept things being taught concerning the second coming of Christ without questioning what they may hear or read. In Paul’s second epistle to the Thessalonians, it seems as though it was being circulated that the day of the Lord had already come. Paul writes in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2:

“Paul was concerned that the Christians at Thessalonica not be quickly shaken or disturbed because of some unfounded, false teaching on the subject. He wanted them to keep their heads in the minds of fanatical notions instead of being easily unsettled.”[23] There were three sources of these false teachings, through a “spirit,” “message,” and “letter.”

The spirit was probably a false prophet, noted earlier in 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22. “The false prophets probably said that they had a revelation affirming the false doctrine that they desired to propagate.”[24] The message was probably the mode of the doctrine being orally taught throughout the area by means of public sermons or private conversations that would dishearten the Christians of the community that the Son of God had already returned.  The letter was probably a written document that was being circulated that created confusion among the Thessalonians. “It appears more likely that some of the false teachers claimed to have received a private letter, which, according to them, was from Paul. Paul denied that he had anything to do with this doctrine.”[25]  

Because there was confusion concerning the first letter and there was a conflicting message to the eschatology of Paul, the apostle was moved to pen the second letter to correct the claims that Christ had already come. “Wrong teaching was being associated with Paul’s name, and he seizes the opportunity in the second epistle to deny it.”[26] Paul would clarify his first epistle and add to their knowledge of his previous writings by providing more details of the signs of Christ’s second coming.

VI.         Question of Tone

Why does Paul seem so distant in the 1st letter and more formal in the 2nd letter? To some readers, it is difficult to understand why Paul seems different in the first and second letters to the Thessalonians when it is the same audience, around the same time, and the same topic from the previous letter. They argue, “1 Thessalonians is warm, friendly, and personal, while 2 Thessalonians is cool, distant, and formal.”[27] This is a great question to ask, and it has a quite simple answer. Once we look into the mind of Paul and put ourselves into the view of the first century and see the situation at hand, we recognize that Paul is writing for a different reason in the second letter than he did for the first. Yes, it is about the same topic but with different circumstances in place. Before, Paul was comforting the Thessalonians of Christ’s return, and now he is clarifying his previous statements. Of course, his tone would have changed; there are different purposes in place for both letters. “Some misinformation regarding the day of the Lord has been attributed to Paul himself, and that he has to deal with one situation for a second time and now at length.”[28] 

VII.       Question of Linguistic Style

Why does Paul’s writing style change or differ in the 2nd letter and thus deviate from his 1st letter? Why is the structure and vocabulary of the 2nd letter similar to the 1st letter and different from other Pauline epistles? The argument is made that the two letters different. The context changes. There is a certain purpose for each epistle based on the current circumstances. Differences in an argument do not determine inauthenticity.

On the other hand, this letter has been claimed to be too close to the first letter that it must be a forgery. An unknown author copied Pauline characteristics and claims to be Paul in name alone. The question needs to be asked since all Pauline letters differ from one another to some degree; how does one ascertain when that difference is too different?[29] Their argument is that the two epistles are too similar to one another and too different from Paul’s other writings to be an authentic Pauline epistle. However, Morris writes that “all the hallmarks of a genuine Pauline writing on the grounds that it is similar to another Pauline writing.”[30] Paul’s other writings are in harmony with the Thessalonian epistles; the only solution is that they are Pauline. They are similar because they are from the same author, and they are not different from his other writings in style, vocabulary, theology, etc. They do not contradict by complement one another.

Holmes writes that “if 2 Thessalonians is authentic, we are dealing with two documents written by the same author only a short time apart. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to see how or on what basis one might determine that one is too close to the other to be authentic.”[31] The combination of likeness and difference does not disprove authorship, “such a man as Paul was quite capable of both.”[32] The question needs to be asked, is the letter too Pauline or not Pauline enough?

VIII.    Question of Theology (Eschatology)

Why would he treat the 2nd coming as something imminent in the 1st letter and something far off in the future in the 2nd letter? Why would Paul change his views on the second coming of Christ? The main drive of both letters to the Thessalonians was Paul’s clarification of certain features concerning the Second Coming of Christ. This was the basic theological purpose for writing. But did Paul contradict and change what he wrote in the first letter? When one looks at the text concerning these eschatological teachings in 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and 2 Thessalonians 2 they will recognize clear differences between the letters. The supposed difference in eschatology has led some to conclude that 2 Thessalonians is pseudonymous; that is, it is written under the name of Paul but is not Paul. It seems as though “in the First Epistle the coming of the Lord is thought of as about to take place very soon and very suddenly. But in the Second, it will be preceded by signs.”[33]  

In 1 Thessalonians 5:2, Paul writes that the second coming of Christ will come like a “thief in the night” that will take all by surprise. However, in 2 Thessalonians, we read that the day of the Lord cannot be at hand, the Apostasy and the Man of Lawlessness are not on the scene, and therefore the day has not yet arrived. Will we know the day, or will it be a surprise; which is it? Can it not be both? Can we not have both signs of the second coming and not know when the day will arrive? To answer the confusion, Earl Edwards writes that “differing conditions existing at Thessalonica call for different emphases, but there is no detail of the picture of the Parousia in 1 Thessalonians that contradicts what is said about it in 2 Thessalonians.”[34] There is a balance in Paul’s theology. “The gospel tradition itself teaches both the suddenness of the Parousia and the coming of apocalyptic signs before the end.”[35] The second coming can both be a mystery as to the exact time when the day has come and be the exact thing with details revealed to us that we may know when the day has finally arrived. “Paul’s reason for setting out the signs which must precede the coming of Christ is not to give a literal picture of events but merely to answer the readers’ immediate misunderstanding.”[36] 

Conclusion

“Paul’s authorship of 1 Thessalonians is supported by the claim, companions, character, chronology, and contents of the book.”[37] The author’s claim: “Paul” (1 Thess. 1:1; 2:18). The author’s companions: “Silas”/ “Silvanus” and “Timothy” (1 Thess. 1:1; 3:2, 6) are two known companions of the apostle Paul (Acts 15:40; 16:1-3, 19; 17:4, 10, 14; 18:5). “In this salutation Silas and Timothy are untied with Paul because they had aided Paul in founding the church at Thessalonica.”[38] The writer’s use of the first-person plural pronouns (“we,” “us”) throughout both the first and second letters to the Thessalonians makes it clear of the writer's involvement, Paul and his counterparts, Silas and Timothy. Their names are included by Paul to say that “what he is saying also speaks for Silas and Timothy and that he wants his audience to know that he is not alone in his concern for and exhortations of his converts.”[39] Character: fatherly compassion (1 Thess. 2:11). Style: Similar usage of prepositions (1 Thess. 1:5), use of personal pronouns, rhetorical questions (1 Thess. 2:19; 3:9), presence of interjections (1 Thess. 4:10), abundance of disjunctive conjunctions, tendency to use imperatives, and his common absence of a conjunction between parts of a sentence (1 Thess. 2:11; 5:14-22).

About 146 words are common to 1 and 2 Thessalonians and 88% of the words in both 1 and 2 Thessalonians are Pauline. The parallels between the first and second letter in the language and style of writing indicate the close proximity these letters were written because these ideas remain in the mind of Paul. A list of parallels between both letters:

“All of Paul’s letters follow the normal Greek pattern of stating at the beginning the name of the sender (s), the name of the person (s) to whom the letter is addressed, and a greeting.”[40] Pauline form: “The mention of the writer’s name (often: and office), the designation of those to whom the letter is addressed (sometimes with brief description), the salutation, the thanksgiving or doxology, consultation, instruction, etc.), the concluding saltation (not always present; when present not always equally circumstantial) and benediction.”[41] There is similar language and ideas (1 Thess. 1:2 -Rom. 1:8; 1 Thess. 4:1 -Eph. 6:10; Phil. 4:8). The epistles of Paul share a similar form of the Hellenistic style of letters. As Eugene Boring notes, “Paul’s Letters manifest an identifiable form and structure that is more or less consistent through all his letters, a form that consists of Paul’s own transformations of the conventional Hellenistic letter, with features adopted from Greek rhetoric and Jewish epistolography.”[42] The letters consist of an introduction, body, and conclusion.

            Finally, the strongest argument for Pauline authorship is his signature that the apostle Paul wrote with his “own hand” and “is a distinguishing mark in every letter” because this is the way he writes. “Many of Paul’s letters were written through a scribe or secretary to whom the apostle dictated the letter (Rom. 16:22). However, it seems that some letters, which were not really his, had been presented as “from” Paul (2 Thess. 2:2). Therefore, it became necessary for him to personally write a few words at the end in his own hand, so they would have a distinguishing mark in order to discern letters that were truly his.”[43]  “Paul had obviously now taken pen in hand and signed off personally.”[44] There is no room to argue that this letter was a forgery, it is an authentic Pauline letter written with his own hand. The signature is thereby meant to confirm the document’s authenticity, that this letter is genuine, it originates by the one who signed it, that being, the apostle Paul. “They were to look for this ‘mark’ in every letter henceforth (compare Gal. 6:11; 1 Cor. 16:21; Col. 4:18). He wrote verses 17 and 18 in order to give them a good look at his style of handwriting. From that point on, they were to accept only those epistles where this handwriting appeared as being his.”[45] 

We can be assured that Paul wrote both 1 and 2 Thessalonians because (1) It claims to be an authentic Pauline letter. (2) Nothing in the language, style, or theology requires a different conclusion if proper weights are given to the situational character of all the Pauline letters. (3) No one has been able to offer a historically credible explanation of the letter’s origin if it is a forgery.[46] We are only left with one option; Paul wrote the first and second letter to the Thessalonians.

Bibliography:

1.     Boring, M. Eugene “An Introduction to the New Testament: History, Literature, Theology” Knox Press. Louisville, KY. Print 2012

2.     Brown, Raymond E. “An Introduction to the New Testament” Yale University Press. New Haven. Print 2016

3.     Bruce, F.F. “Word Biblical Commentary: 1 and 2 Thessalonians” Zondervan. Grand Rapids, MI Print 2015

4.     Boring, M. Eugene “1 and 2 Thessalonians” The New Testament Library. John Knox Press. Louisville, KY. Print 2015

5.     Calvin, John “Crossway Classic Commentaries: 1 and 2 Thessalonians” Crossway Books. Wheaton, IL. Print 1999

6.     Carson, D. A. & Moo, Douglas J. “An Introduction to the New Testament” Zondervan. Grand Rapids, MI. Print 2005

7.     Edwards, Earl D. “Truth for Today Commentary: An Exegesis & Application of the Holy Scriptures –1 & 2 Thessalonians” Resource Publication. Searcy AR. Print 2008

8.     Ellingworth, Paul & Nida, Eugene A. “A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letters to the Thessalonians” United Bible Societies. New York, NY. Print 1976

9.     Fee, Gordon D. “The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians” Grand Rapids, MI. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Print 2009

10.  Freed, Edwin D. “The New Testament: A Critical Introduction” Wadsworth Publishing Company. Belmont, CA. Print 1986

11.  Geisler, Norman L. “A Popular Survey of the New Testament” Baker Books. Grand Rapids, MI. Print 2007

12.  Green, Gene L. “The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Letters to the Thessalonians” Eerdmans Publishing Company. Grand Rapids, MI. 2002

13.  Gupta, Nijay K. “Critical Introductions to the New Testament” Zondervan Academic. Grand Rapids, MI. Print 2019

14.  Guthrie, Donald “New Testament Introduction” IVP Academic. Downers Grove, IL. Print 1961

15.  Hendriksen, William “New Testament Commentary: Exposition of 1 and 2 Thessalonians” Baker Book House. Grand Rapids, MI. Print 1955

16.  Holladay, Carl R. “A Critical Introduction to the New Testament: Interpreting the Message and Meaning of Jesus Christ” Baylor University Press. Waco, TX. Print 2017

17.  Holmes, Michael W. “The NIV Application Commentary: 1 and 2 Thessalonians” Zondervan. Grand Rapids, MI. Print 1998

18.  Krentz, E. “1 Thessalonians: Rhetorical Flourishes and Formal Constraints”

19.  McGarvey, J.W. & Pendleton, Phillip Y. “Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans” Gospel Light Publishing Company. Delight, AK

20.  Metzger, Bruce M. “New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis” Oxford University Press. Oxford. Print 1981

21.  Morris, Leon “The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians” Eerdmans Publishing Company. Grand Rapids, MI. Print 1991

22.  Robertson, A. T. “An introduction to the textual criticism of the New Testament: 1 and 2 Thessalonians” Zondervan Academic. Grand Rapids, MI. Print 2019

23.  Shogren, Gary Steven “Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: 1 and 2 Thessalonians” Zondervan. Grand Rapids, MI. Print 2012

24.  Tenney, Merrill C. “The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible” Regency Reference Library. Grand Rapids, MI. 1975

25.  Thomas, Robert L. “The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: 1 and 2 Thessalonians” Zondervan. Grand Rapids, MI. Print 1978

26.  Wanamaker, Charles A. “The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text” Eerdmans Publishing Company. Grand Rapids, MI. Print 1990

27.  Weatherly, Jon A. “The College Press NIV Commentary: 1 & 2 Thessalonians” College Press Publishing Company. Joplin, MO. Print 1996

28.  Witherington III, Ben “1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary” Eerdmans Publishing Company. Grand Rapids, MI. Print 2006

END NOTES

[1] Earl D. Edwards, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, TFT (Searcy, AR: Resource Publication, 2008), 10.

[2] Gary Steven Shogren, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, ZECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2012), 27.

[3]  William Hendriksen, Exposition of 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1955), 18.

[4]  C. M. Horne, "Thessalonians, First Epistle" in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 5. Ed. Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids, MI: Regency Reference Library, 1975), 722.

[5] Norman L. Geisler, A Popular Survey of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007), 201.

[6] Geisler, A Popular Survey of the New Testament, 201.

[7]  Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text ( Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans,1990), 17.

[8]  Michael W. Holmes,1 and 2 Thessalonians, NIVAC (Zondervan. Grand Rapids, MI. 1998), 24.

[9] Holmes, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 25.

[10]  Jon A. Weatherly, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, CPNIVC (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company, 1996), 78.

[11] Weatherly, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 79.

[12] Hendriksen, Exposition of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 19.

[13] C.M. Horne, "Thessalonians, Second Epistle" in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 5. Ed. Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids, MI: Regency Reference Library, 1975), 725.

[14] Holmes, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 25.

[15] Shogren, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 28.

[16] Shogren, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 28.

[17] Edwin D. Freed, The New Testament: A Critical Introduction (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1986), 333.

[18] Horne, "Thessalonians, Second Epistle," 726.

[19] Weatherly, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 19.

[20] Leon Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, NICNT ( Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans,1991), 16.

[21]  Holmes, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 27.

[22] Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 18.

[23] Edwards, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 276.

[24] Edwards, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 276.

[25] Edwards, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 277.

[26] Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction ( Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1961), 602.

[27] Holmes, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 26.

[28] Gordon D. Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2009), 238.

[29] Holmes, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 26.

[30] Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 18.

[31] Holmes, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 26.

[32] Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 20.

[33] Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 20.

[34] Edwards, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 240.

[35] Shogren, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 29.

[36] Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 602.

[37] Geisler, A Popular Survey of the New Testament, 200.

[38] J. W. McGarvey & Phillip Y. Pendleton, Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans (Delight, AK: Gospel Light Publishing Company), 3.

[39] Ben Witherington III, 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary ( Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006), 10.

[40]  Paul Ellingworth & Eugene A. Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letters to the Thessalonians ( New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1976), 1.

[41] Hendriksen, Exposition of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 20.

[42] M. Eugene Boring, 1 and 2 Thessalonians ( Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2015), 34.

[43] Edwards, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 339.

[44] Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, 342.

[45] Edwards, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 339.

[46] Holmes, 1 and 2 Thessalonians.