Read the Book - 5th Pass (Background from content) (03/20/22)

Who wrote it?	Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy are identified.  Paul is indicated as the primary author, although the others are included in much of the first half of the letter.
Who was it written to or for?	The Thessalonian church is clearly indicated as the recipient of this epistle.
Why was it written?	There does not appear to be any particular error being addressed here.  The letter comes more as an encouragement to those facing trials due to their faith.  There are notes of opposition being faced by that church, and possibly even deadly opposition, given the treatment of concerns regarding the dead in Christ.  This seems to be the primary concern on Paul’s mind.  Overall, though, the epistle reads as one of encouragement and general pleasure with the steady growth of that church.
When was it written?	This is a bit trickier.  Paul mentions sending Timothy while he was in Athens, yet he also speaks of the church as having spread into Achaia already.  Then, too, there is the ominous note regarding Judea which, if we take it to be the siege of Trajan, would date this late indeed.  Acts 17 covers the planting of the Macedonian church very briefly, noting a somewhat muted response to his message, and Jewish opposition arising.  It turned into a mob scene, with their host, Jason, hauled before the magistrate under charges of sedition.  This planting comes between Philippi and Berea.  From that chapter, it seems Timothy and Silas remained behind in Berea while Paul was escorted to Athens.  By the time they returned to him he was in Corinth (Ac 18), which would cover the Achaia reference.  Silvanus, if I recall, is another form of Silas, so it seems that these three, who were familiar to the church of Thessalonica join in sending this message.  As to timeline, this would be some time into his first time in Corinth, which would suggest this letter is written around 51 AD.  That, however, leaves question as to what exactly Paul has in view with his mention of judgment on Judea.
What was happening in the world at that time?	Assuming our date is correct, this is a period in which Claudius, then emperor of Rome, adopted Nero as his heir, and Domitian, who would take the throne of Caesar in 81 AD, was born.  Nero is not yet emperor, but we have seen the expulsion of the Jews from Rome, as witnessed by the presence of Aquila and Priscilla in Corinth when Paul arrives there.  The Roman Empire is still at its height of power, having extended into Britain.
What was happening to God's people at that time?	All in all, it seems a relatively calm period for the growing Church.  There is opposition, but primarily from the Jews.  Rome is ever a consideration, but not an immediate threat to the faith.  We are still very early in the expansion of the Church.  Corinth, as noted, is just getting started, and those churches in Macedonia are still relatively recent additions.  Even the churches in Asia Minor would yet be fairly young, though they seem to face far more in terms of competing religions and false doctrines.
What was happening to the author at that time?	While he does not say so directly, it appears Paul is in Corinth at this point, a season of significant ministry success for him, coming after the disappointment of Athens.  He mentions Athens as his location when Timothy is sent back up to Thessalonica, and it reads as if Timothy had been sent from that place, but Acts suggests he had remained in Macedonia when Paul went on to Athens, only rejoining the Apostle in Corinth.  Prior to the return of Timothy and Silas, Paul has been heavily occupied, earning his living as a tentmaker, alongside Aquila and Priscilla, while also laboring to spread the Gospel.  There is a note of relief in the coverage of this period in Acts, as Paul is able to turn his attention fully to ministry with the return of Timothy and Silas.  Whether that is because they bear contributions from the Macedonian churches or because they are able to gain employment and support Paul thusly is not said.  But, as concerns Paul, he has passed through a difficult and discouraging period and come into a period of significant fruitfulness.

Read some Background - 6th Pass (Add some authors)

Harper's: (03/20/22)

This is among the earliest of Paul’s extent letters.  From the content of the letter, it would seem perhaps Timothy had come briefly to Athens but been sent back to Thessalonica, though this is not confirmed by Acts.  It would seem to be the reunion with Timothy and Silas, and the news they bore of the Macedonian church, which leads to Paul writing, suggesting the letter was written rather shortly after their return.  Thessalonica was the capital of Roman Macedonia, a free city with its own magistrates.  Acts 17 covers a three-week period of activity in the synagogue there, but notes a significant response to the Gospel amongst the Gentiles of the area, and indeed, that they are the main body of the local church.  It may be that Paul spent several months there before proceeding onward, but eventually hatred and persecution from the local Jews caused him to move on to Berea, and later to Athens.  Paul apparently returned to the region around 56 AD, on his journey to Jerusalem.  As concerns that church in Thessalonica, we know a few members by name:  Jason, Aristarchus, Secundus, and Gaius.  If there are problems being addressed, it is primarily that of Christ’s return, as well as the usual issue of societal pressures toward immorality.

Read some Background - 6th Pass (Add some authors)

H-G Key: (03/20/22)

Paul and company left Thessalonica in 50 AD, having planted a church there in what was the capitol of Macedonia.  This was the first time we see Paul’s ministry gaining significant (and prominent) following.  As such, it truly was something of a ‘triumphant crown’ on his efforts.  His sudden departure, however, left the church exposed to persecution, and not that well prepared to face it.  He was quick to send Timothy back to see to their situation, and his generally good report came to Paul in Corinth.  That said, there were issues.  They seem to have had some ethical issues in regard to sexual relations, and also some eschatological concerns.  This is seen both in the concern as to what happens if Christians die before Christ’s return, and as to the timing of that return.  Paul addresses these concerns with assurance that no Christian would miss Christ’s coming, be they dead or alive.

Read some Background - 6th Pass (Add some authors)

Calvin: (03/20/22)

Calvin dedicates this text to his early teacher in Latin, one Maturinus Corderius of the college of Lausanne.  The bulk of the epistle consists of exhortations, particularly in light of the persecutions they were facing.  He had sent Timothy to strengthen them for this conflict, who had now returned with news of their condition, confirming their steadfast faith and patient endurance; both which Paul encourages the more.  This covers the first three chapters of our letter.  The fourth turns to more general instruction as to holiness of life.  He touches on matters of death and resurrection, which certainly suggests that some had been teaching false views on the matter in hopes of unsettling their faith.  Paul’s instruction on this is brief but to the point.  Moving into chapter 5, there is a distinct prohibition on inquiring as to the times.  The call is to remain ever watchful.  There follow more general exhortations and then the conclusion.

Read some Background - 6th Pass (Add some authors)

Matthew Henry: (03/20/22)

This was the main metropolis of Macedonia.  It was still a significant commercial center at the time Matthew Henry was writing [and would appear to be so yet today].  Paul had planned to minister in Asia, but was diverted to Macedonia by God, travelling from Troas to Samothracia, to Neapolis, and Philippi before coming to this place.  Philippi had been a good success, but ended with imprisonment and ‘hard usage’.  He departed there, going through Amphipolis and Apollonia, to arrive in Thessalonica, where he planted a church with a mostly Gentile composition, although there were some Jews who believed as well.  But the unbelieving Jews raised riot, and Paul and Silas had to flee for safety, sent by night to Berea, and Paul taken farther, to Athens.  He left instructions for Timothy and Silas to join him soonest, but when they did, he sent Timothy back up to Thessalonica to discover how they fared and to further establish their faith.  It seems there was yet another trip, Timothy having again caught up with Paul in Athens, although this time, it was to the churches in Macedonia more generally.  Paul went on to Corinth, where eventually Silas and Timothy joined him.  That would set the time of this letter’s writing as about 51 AD.  It is primarily a thankful letter, reflecting the news he had of their established faith and encouraging continuance in same.

Read some Background - 6th Pass (Add some authors)

Adam Clarke: (03/21/22)

Thessalonica is a seaport on the Thermaic Gulf, once capital of Macedonia.  Prior to King Philip of Macedon conquering the Thessalia there, and then enlarging the city, it had been known as Thermae.  The new name meant “Victory of Thessalia”.  This is according to Stephanus Bizantinus.  Other historians attribute the name as deriving from that of Philip’s daughter.  The Turks took the city in 1431, and at the time Clarke writes, it was still a major city with ties to the silk trade, and a merchant class composed of Jews and Greek Christians.  The church there was planted around 51 AD, and has never ceased to be present [Again, from Clarke’s perspective, but seems to bear out still].  Paul’s visit would have been in 52 or 53 AD, and though largely rejected by the Jewish community there, he was well received among the Greeks – likely drawing from a population of proselytes or Greeks of Jewish descent.  Even those of distinction in the city were embracing Christian faith (Ac 17:4 – Some were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with many God-fearing Greeks and a number of leading women.)  The Jews, learning that the Gentiles were to enjoy the same privileges as they, but without the obligations of circumcision and Mosaic Law, persecuted those who proclaimed this Gospel.  Here, they used ‘the beasts of the people’ to stir up an uproar, stormed Jason’s house, wherein the apostles were staying, and dragged Jason and other leaders out before the city rulers, declaring charges of treason against them.  The apostles escaped to Berea, and Paul, under advice, departed to Athens, as the Jews from Thessalonica came to Berea to stir up trouble once more.  This demonstrates Paul’s obedience to Christ, his Master.  His stay in Athens was brief and he moved on to Corinth, where Timothy and Silas were, although it would seem Timothy had returned to Paul previous to that point, given he was sent back into Macedonia (Ac 17:15 – They escorted Paul as far as Athens, receiving command from him to have Silas and Timothy return to him as soon as possible.)  Timothy, it seems, was sent right back after reporting on their situation.  The two rejoined Paul in Corinth with news of the steadfastness of this church, to whom Paul then wrote this letter, and shortly thereafter, the second extent letter.  These letters provide encouragement as well as some corrections as concerned the day of judgment.  It seems the church there was primarily Gentile in composition, given the persecutions that arose from the Jewish population.  They were drawn from local Jewish proselytes and other devout Greeks, as well as converts from paganism.  Yes, there were some converts among the Jews, but it is clear the bulk of that church consisted of Greeks.  As such, the letter does not make many allusions to Jews or Jewish custom.  This is likely the first letter Paul wrote to any of the churches, demonstrating the Spirit of love which filled him.  The church to which he writes is upright and faithful, not needing rebuke.  They had working faith, working love, and solid hope, even while bearing afflictions.  The letter does not demonstrate any sort of subdivisions in Paul’s thoughts as he writes, but flows as a contiguous whole.

Read some Background - 6th Pass (Add some authors)

Barnes' Notes: (03/21/22)

This was a sea-port of Macedonia, on the gulf of Thessalonica, favorably located for commerce and having a fine harbor.  It was to the southwest of Philippi and Amphipolis, northeast of Berea.  Macedonia was an independent country prior to being subdued by Rome, that conquest coming of an alliance formed by Philip II with Carthage during the second Punic war.  When, after that time, Philip laid siege to Athens, Athens called Rome for aid, and Rome came.  Philip remained, but with no navy, and a much reduced army.  He was succeeded by Perseus, who fought the Romans unsuccessfully, being defeated by Paulus Emilins.  This did not sit well with the Macedonians, who rebelled under Andriscus, only to be overcome by Quintus Caecilius, at which point Macedonia became a Roman province.  This would be around 148 BC.  It had four districts, with Thessalonica the capital of the second, wherein was the Roman governor.  The city was formerly known as Therme, its name changed by Cassander to honor his wife, Philip’s daughter according to Strabo.  Others say Philip named it in commemoration of his victory there.  The city remained important under Roman rule, a prize used to encourage effort in Rome’s armies.  The population was a mix of Greek, Roman, and Jew.  Many gods were worshiped, Jupiter being chief among them.  It had amphitheater and circus.  While little is known of their moral fiber, there is cause to think a certain dissolution pertained, modesty being little esteemed.  Lucian records that the city was often chosen as the scene for wanton fantasies in the writings of various satirists.  In Barnes’ time, the city had some 70,000 inhabitants under Turkish rule.  The whole was enclosed within a white-washed and painted wall, forming a six-mile long semi-circle against the sea.  Just how far back these walls date is an open question, but they show signs of multiple periods of construction.  For all this outward show, the city itself is rather wretched.  Yet it was a flourishing commercial center with many exports.  Paul and Silas brought the gospel to this city after release from prison in Philippi.  Though they passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia on the way, it seems they chose not to stop there, perhaps because Thessalonica was a more important place or because of the significant Jewish population to be found there.  As was his custom, Paul began by speaking in the synagogue, doing so for three Sabbaths, on which occasions he sought to convince them of the necessity of Messiah being put to death so as to rise from death in accordance with prophecy; this being fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth.  A few believed, but more believers were drawn from amongst the ’devout Greeks’, as well as from among women of rank.  We don’t know how long Paul and Silas remained there, other than this minimum period of three weeks.  It does seem they remained on, given their residence in Jason’s home, and the large attendance who came to hear them minister there.  Paul’s own testimony as to his time among them certainly seems to suggest a longer period.  (1Th 2:9 – We worked night and day so as not to burden you while we proclaimed to you the gospel of God.  2Th 3:8 – We did not eat anyone’s bread without paying for it.  We labored, working night and day, so that we would not be a burden to any of you.)  Further, his stay was sufficiently long to have received supply from the church in Philippi multiple times (Php 4:16 – Even in Thessalonica you sent a gift more than once to supply my needs.)  Paul and Silas were forced to depart by a mob gathered by the Jews, which led to Jason and others being charged with treason before the magistrates.  The danger was sufficient to lead the local church to advise Paul and Silas to depart, which they did, going to Berea.  There, they had favorable reception, but Jews from Thessalonica came to stir up trouble again, so Paul was escorted to Athens, leaving Timothy and Silas behind in Berea.  Timothy had been in company with Paul and Luke both in Thessalonica and Philippi, though he is not mentioned specifically as being in Berea.  In Athens, Paul ministered briefly, while awaiting Timothy and Silas, delivering his memorable speech on Mars’ hill, but we have no record of them actually coming to him there.  Yet, it appears Timothy, at least, did come, and was then sent back to Thessalonica.  Meanwhile, Paul proceeded to Corinth, where Timothy and Silas joined him later (Ac 18:5 – When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul was able to devote himself entirely to ministry, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ.)  There are subscriptions added to the letter in some editions, which would seem to indicate the letter was written from Athens, but these have little evidence of authenticity.  The internal evidence of the letter suggests the letter was written elsewhere.  His stay in Athens was brief, and the letter speaks of Timothy’s return with news, which would place Paul in Corinth.  It is clear Paul had sought to come back to them himself, but been hindered.  His brief stay in Athens would not have offered sufficient time for such efforts, and given that Timothy and Silas were in company with Paul as he wrote, it’s clear that Corinth is where he was.  That puts the timing of the letter around 52 AD, during the reign of Claudius, being the first epistle written by Paul.  The second letter would have been written later that same year.  Grotius suggests that the order in which these letters were sent is actually reversed in our numbering, but there is no real evidence to back that suggestion.  Paul writes to a church composed of some few Jews, many Greeks who had been proselytes to Jewish religion, and others who had been pagan, and females of standing who may or may not have been among those proselytes.  This shows a belief that crossed class lines as well as racial.  “They forgot all their former differences in the cordiality with which they had embraced the gospel.”  What led to these letters?  They acknowledge the cordial embrace of the gospel there, and welcoming of Paul’s instruction.  They had Paul’s strong affection and interest, a fatherly sort of affection.  They were evangelistic.  They came to faith amidst strife and opposition, both by the local Jews and by their own countrymen, even suffering losses among their membership.  This first epistle is written in part to console them for their losses.  Thus, the discussion of resurrection, and also the discussion of the day of the Lord.  It seems they thought that day was near future, leading to some misunderstanding as concerned the advent of Christ.  From the second epistle, it would seem certain forged letters had come their way, leading to deepening misunderstanding on this subject, which Paul corrects in that letter.  There would seem to have been misunderstanding as to the matter of resurrection as well, which made the death of their fellow worshipers a matter of concern and uneasiness.  Paul undertakes to correct these misunderstandings in this first epistle.  It may be that there were some stirring up dissatisfaction with Paul, claiming he was an imposter with a fraudulent message and purpose.  Paul counters such thinking with reminders of his time among them, events they themselves had witnessed and been part of.  These points form much of chapter 2 in this first letter.  As with all churches established in formerly pagan regions, there was the ever-present danger of return to former practices.  And, as ever, there was the risk of insubordination ‘under pretense of edifying others’.  Both letters show warm affection for a church from which Paul had too soon been driven away.  There is tender regard, and encouragement to original ardor.  There is caution against dangers, and commending of fidelity.  There are things said in regard to the resurrection which are not found anywhere else in Scripture, including notice of the great apostasy and the ‘man of sin’ [these coming from the second epistle].

Read some Background - 6th Pass (Add some authors)

Fausset: (03/22/22)

Testimony to the authenticity of this letter is plentiful amongst the early church fathers.  Paul went to Thessalonica after release from imprisonment in Philippi, founding the church there together with Silas and Timothy.  Most of the Jews rejected his message, but some believed, and many Greeks did.  That church faced trials from Jew and Macedonian alike.  A longer stay in Thessalonica is implied in that he received aid from Philippi multiple times while there, as well as gaining converts amongst the Gentiles.  Jason’s home seems to have been his chief base of operations after the rejection of the Jews.  His love for them shows in this epistle.  His labor amongst them had as well, and he labored with support from the believers in Philippi.  (Php 4:15-16 – You know that at the first preaching of the gospel, after I left Macedonia, no church shared with me in giving and receiving other than you.  For even in Thessalonica you sent a gift more than once for my needs.)  Paul and Silas fled by night to Berea, but the church they left behind had their ministers established, and soon proved to be missionaries themselves.  This characteristic of the new church had already become known to those in the regions of Achaia to which Paul had travelled.  He had been caused to flee Berea for Athens when Jews from Thessalonica came and began stirring up trouble.  It seems Timothy had arrived there at some point, and he and Silas remained behind.  Paul longed to go back to Thessalonica from Athens, but was prevented.  He would have liked to have Timothy’s help so long as he was there, but that, too, does not turn out to be the case.  It seems he did come to Athens, though Silas did not, but Paul determined to send him back to Thessalonica and continue on alone for that period.  The three are finally reunited in Corinth.  Timothy came with good news as to their faith, though there were some issues, particularly in being overly focused on the coming kingdom, to the neglect of present duties.  Those who had lost loved ones had doubts about whether those who had died would share in that kingdom, and some had become quarrelsome.  Others, it seems, relapsed into pagan ways, becoming insubordinate towards their ministers and prophets.  Paul gently corrects all these defects even as he praises their graces in this letter.  He writes from Corinth shortly after Timothy and Silas arrive, placing this in the autumn of 52 AD or early in 53.  This would not be that long after the conversion of the Thessalonians, and Paul could speak of having been separated from them for a short season.  That sets this as the first of Paul’s epistles, written as coming from himself together with Silas and Timothy, and throughout the letter, with minimal exception, the address comes from ‘we’, not ‘I’.  It is a calm and uncontroversial letter, and as such, less intense than others of his letters, and less inclined to sharp changes of topic.  We see his vehement, impassioned side in later letters that had to deal with fundamental doctrinal error.  See, for example, the second group of epistles, written some five years later  This would include the letters to Corinth, Rome, and Galatia.  The prison letters are of similar passion.  And his pastoral letters suit to direct the church’s leaders as to how to correct those errors that came later.  In this epistle, his primary opposition is from the Jews.  “The gospel preached in the epistles to the Thessalonians is that of Christ’s coming kingdom rather than the cross; for the former best met the Messianic hopes which won Jewish believers to the Christian faith.”  This was a healthy church, and so the style of this epistle is much like that of Philippians, though that epistle was written some ten years later.  One may observe, for example, the shared feature of lacking apostolic reference in the greeting.  The repeated prayer suggests two divisions to the epistle.  Lack of Old Testament references in the epistle suggests a lack of Jewish believers in the church.

Read some Background - 6th Pass (Add some authors)

ISBE: (03/22/22)

This epistle is particularly valuable as a window into the nature of the earliest gospel preaching.  Harnack dates its writing as early as 48 AD, others have it around 53 AD.  That it was written somewhere within the range of these two dates seems certain.  This would have the letter something less than a quarter-century after Jesus’ ascension, putting a dent in the theory that the Gospel presentation of Jesus reflected legends from the late first century.  It is clear both from the nature of his conversion and from the reaction of the other Apostles to his doctrines that his gospel traces back ‘into the very presence of the most intimate friends of Jesus’, not as relaying His words while among them, but in a true conception and presentation of Christ in relation to the Father, the Church, and humanity more generally, all “rooted in Christ’s own self-revelation.”  From Acts 17 we learn of the founding of this church, coming after Paul left Philippi.  He had begun with three Sabbaths spent reasoning with the Jews in the synagogue, by which reasoning some were persuaded, but mostly Greek proselytes and a few well-to-do women.  This upset the Jews, as it caused them a certain loss of prestige, so they stirred up a mob.  This caused trouble for Jason and others who had welcomed Paul, and led to Paul departing for their sake.  This account is well-supported by the testimony of the epistle itself.  His calls for harmony and inclusion reflect the diverse nature of that body, which could easily lead to divisions and for negligent treatment of the poorer members by the more well off.  While Luke doesn’t mention Paul working as a tent-maker in Thessalonica, he does note it at later stops on the mission journey, so we have correspondence there as well.  There is also correspondence in Paul’s description of his work among them with Luke’s description of Paul’s ministry in Ephesus.  This mutual witness to historicity between the epistle and Acts serves also to demonstrate a like connection to the Gospels.  These epistles are somewhat like medical prescriptions.  They relate to the immediate circumstance of the recipients, and as such, we can infer much about the recipients from what is prescribed.  In general, this church is in a very good state, particularly given how recently it had been established – a matter of but a few months!  So devoted were they that their faith was known throughout Macedonia.  This showed particularly in cordiality expressed to all who passed through Thessalonica, which would have been many, given its status and location.  But they were not without issues.  Some were speaking against Paul, it seems, perhaps the unbelieving husbands of those wealthy ladies who had joined the church.  Thus, he reminds them of his labor to support himself when with them.  He was no preacher for profit.  Perhaps Greece had a particular issue with having many such preachers and philosophers seeking to live off the unwary.  His absence from them was also becoming an issue that raised doubts.  Perhaps he didn’t really care about them.  Perhaps he was but a flatterer, others surmised.  What is clear is that the church was threatened by ‘the chronic heathen vice of unchastity’.  And some were so intoxicated by the gospel that they were neglecting their own labors.  Those who had lost friends and loved ones became concerned that those who had passed on would not gain the glory of the second coming.  This but shows the immaturity of their view of Christ at that juncture.  Add the potential cliquishness of such a diverse population, and the need for Paul’s advice comes clear.  The letter is most easily presented as having two main divisions; the first covering Paul’s relations with the church, and the second containing exhortations.  The letter is not deep on doctrine, and there is not much focus on the central matter of the cross of Christ.  The main doctrinal concern is to do with death and the second coming of Christ.  While other doctrines are not expressly explored, they clearly form the base for Paul’s ministry and message to this church.  This in no way suggests Paul had not as yet come to embrace the message of the cross so fully.  His own reflections on ministry in Corinth (which would have been contemporary with the writing of this epistle) make it clear that the cross was his message.  The epistle gives evidence that Paul had in fact seen Jesus in life as well as in resurrection, causing him to ascribe to Jesus divine honor, as one with God the Father.  He expects Christ’s return in glory to be the determination of every man’s destiny, the ‘final goal of history’.  All of this serves to confirm that the Jesus we meet in the Gospels is exactly as extraordinary as He appears to be in those texts.  Paul shows himself quite tactful in this letter, even when delivering warnings.  He displays affection for the Thessalonians, and constantly expresses recognition of their good qualities.  He urges continuance in what is good, and eschewing of what is bad.  And all of this is couched in loving affection.

Read some Background - 6th Pass (Add some authors)

McClintock and Strong: (03/22/22-03/23/22)

This is the first of Paul’s epistles, chronologically, and the second letter to this church is second chronologically.  There is no evidence of doubt as to the letter’s authenticity, and plentiful allusions to its content in the writings of the early fathers.  While those allusions are less than clear quotations of the text, we might remember that the epistle is relatively simple in subject matter, and doesn’t touch much on matters of doctrinal questions.  That said, the internal evidence of authenticity is overwhelming.  One notes, for example, the delicacy of Paul’s dealings with his readers here, and of his affection for them.  The language of anticipation in regard to the Lord’s return also comes naturally from what we see of Paul in other writings.  There were later arguments raised against the letter, but they have long since been controverted.  One chief objection arises over mention of the wrath overtaking the Jews, seen as reference to the destruction of Jerusalem.  But this should instead be read with consideration of the apocalyptic portion of 2Thessalonians.  Other arguments raised are more specious.  Paul’s mission journey had begun around 47 AD.  Along the course of that journey, he had established the Thessalonian church and proceeded on to Berea, Athens, and then Corinth, returning thence to Jerusalem after a brief stop in Ephesus.  As to his companions, their whereabouts is less certain.  But they were clearly with him when he wrote this letter, which would seem to settle the location of writing as Corinth.  That puts the date of writing somewhere in the range of 48-51 AD.  By that time, he had already come and gone from Athens, had made two attempts to revisit Thessalonica, which failed, and had sent Timothy back instead, from which trip Timothy had returned.  News of their conversion and faith had already had opportunity to spread not only in Macedonia, but in Achaia as well, all of which implies some time had passed.  The church had been established long enough, at least, to have leadership and questions.  Some of the converts had apparently died, and the body had weathered persecutions of which Paul had warned them.  Irregularities had crept in.  This could certainly have occurred even in but a few months’ time.  It seems the letter was written almost as soon as Timothy had returned, and the second letter was also written from Corinth some time later.  That letter addresses fresh difficulties, so some time must have passed between the two writings as well.  All of this suggests a date of 49 AD for the writing of this letter.  Some manuscripts include a subscript assigning Athens as the place of writing, but these are pretty clearly spurious.  It would be odd to mention news in Achaia, for example, before actually traveling there.  Not to mention, time would need to have passed, far more time than would have passed before Paul was in Athens.  The news received from Timothy, the notice of several attempts to return, etc. all argue for Corinth and a later date.  Pushing the date later still is not needed.  Both Thessalonica and Corinth were major ports on major trade routes.  News would travel quickly enough.  This may well be the earliest Christian text, let alone the earliest of Paul’s letters.  They show us the church in its infancy, still full of devotion and longing for deliverance, eager for Christ’s return.  Given the five year gap between these letters and those to Rome, Corinth, and Galatia, and the longer period before the prison epistles, it is valuable to observe the differences that show between these groupings.  These early letters are simpler, less exuberant.  The greetings are brief and simple, as are the closing benedictions.  All is stated more briefly, neatly, and with less intensity than we find in later epistles.  There is less defensiveness, as Paul is not so much under direct attack.  The primary opposition to his message is still coming from the Jews.  The passing of five years sees a shift of opposition to that coming from certain Judaizing Christians.  There, the concern is false teachers disturbing the church.  Here, it is unbelievers opposing the church.  This new danger was approaching but not yet the main concern.  The doctrinal content is also quite distinct.  Those more typically connected with Paul are certainly implicit in what he teaches here, but not as explicitly set forth as they would be in later letters.  We don’t see the contrast of faith and works, for example, nor any focus on justification.  But those matters were pursued largely as a result of the rising opposition of those Judaizing Christians, so no surprise that we don’t see them explored here.  Here, there is a greater focus on eschatology, on the coming of Christ.  This would be a matter close-coupled with the resurrection of Christ, and as such, a natural focal point for the early church, and a natural starting point from which to present the Gospel doctrines.  Here was true satisfaction for the Messianic hopes of converted Jews.  Here was consolation for an infant church under persecution, and freshly weaned from worldliness.  Here was reminder of the righteous Judge who would not overlook sin, necessitating that repentance to which the Gospel calls us.  Nothing here, however, necessitates the view that Paul expected an imminent return.  As now, so then:  The event is certain; the timing is not.  It is ever at hand in our expectations.  Correlation between Acts and this letter demonstrate its authenticity.  There are divergences, but such as would naturally distinguish the comments of one directly involved from an account collected from testimony.  We learn by comparing the two accounts.  We discover the reason for the particular opposition that arose in Thessalonica, which suggests Paul was teaching in regard to the kingdom of Christ as he does in this letter.  He had taught of the last days, when Christ’s kingdom would be ushered in (2Th 2:5 – While I was still with you, I was telling you these things.)  This message had been twisted so as to suggest a rivalry with Rome.  His focus in the letter is upon a congregation of Gentiles drawn from idolatry, whereas Luke notes Jews and proselytes in the composition of that church.  Coverage of Berea shows a similar composition to that church, and it may be that the women of whom Luke takes note were largely from the more idolatrous portion of society.  It may seem that the source of opposition differs between Acts and 1Thessalonians, but that needn’t be the case.  The Jews may have instigated, but it required the participation of the heathen mobs to put their plans to action.  As to the length of his stay, Acts only notes the three consecutive Sabbaths spent speaking to the Jews at synagogue, and this letter does not speak to time.  But it does suggest a longer period, something that Acts does not directly contradict.  Indeed, it could be argued that the success of his preaching, which Acts relates, confirms this longer period.  As to the movements of Silas and Timothy, these two sources must be harmonized.  In Acts we see Paul going to Athens with Silas and Timothy remaining in Berea, where he sends for them to rejoin him, but then nothing more is said of them until the three reunite in Corinth, whence those two come from Macedonia.  In this letter we learn of Paul’s concerns while yet in Athens, and possibly those of Silas as well, which led to Timothy being sent back to Thessalonica.  Timothy had gone and returned, though whether his return was to Athens or Corinth is a question left unanswered.  But both men were with Paul when he wrote this letter.  How to resolve?  One option is that Timothy’s dispatch to Thessalonica was from Berea, with Silas left in Berea.  The two would then have reunited as Timothy made his way back, but delays meant that they traveled to Corinth rather than Athens to rejoin Paul.  This will require a ‘royal’ reading of the text, though, when Paul says that ‘we’ consented and sent Timothy.  Another possibility is that both men had returned to Paul in Athens, and Timothy was dispatched from there.  Silas, in this supposition, was later sent elsewhere, likely in Macedonia and perhaps to Philippi, for we know he was involved in collecting contributions from them at about this point in the course of events.  (2Co 11:9 – When I was with you and had needs, I did not burden you with them.  Brothers from Macedonia fully supplied those needs, so that in everything I kept myself from being a burden to you, and so I will continue doing.  Php 4:14-16 – You have done well to share with me in my affliction.  You know that after I left Macedonia in the first preaching of the gospel, none shared with me but you alone.  Even in Thessalonica you sent support more than once.)  These two travelled together to rejoin Paul in Corinth.  This second harmonization may make more assumptions, but has the advantage of according with Paul’s ‘we’ here.  Many suppose that Timothy at least must have met Paul in Athens at least briefly.  A few suggest he was sent from Corinth.  The author appears to favor the idea that both men had rejoined Paul in Athens before being sent off on other assignments.  Now:  What was happening in Thessalonica such that this letter was written?  There were Paul’s attempts to visit which had not come to fruition.  Timothy’s report, it seems, included not only the favorable news of their progress and affection for Paul, but also certain concerns as to their development.  Intensity of faith centered a bit too much on the Lord’s return had given rise to evil consequences of idleness as well as of unwarranted concern over the deaths of fellow believers, fearing they would miss out on the glories of Christ’s kingdom, being dead.  These issues Paul addresses.  He also encourages them in light of persecutions they were facing.  There is a hint, at least, that ‘an unhealthy state of feeling’ was arising in regard to spiritual gifts, and they, like the Corinthians, needed to recognize the superior value of prophecy over against other spiritual gifts.  Add to this the danger of relapse, but nothing in this requires us to suppose Thessalonica somehow worse than other Greek cities.  All in all, though, the condition of that church is shown quite satisfactory, as is also the case with the church in Philippi.  “At all times, and amid every change of circumstance, it is to his Macedonian churches that the apostle turns for sympathy and support.”  Between this epistle and Philippians ten years have passed, and yet these two letters are quite similar in tone: Paul speaking from affection moreso than authority as he greets his readers; both beginning with hearty commendations; both displaying warm affection.  The overall design of the epistle is to comfort those under trial, encouraging ‘patient and consistent profession of Christianity’.  It is more practical than doctrinal in content.  It being more an expression of personal affection than addressing of urgent need, it does not have that central thought to it that some of Paul’s other letters do.  It doesn’t follow some unifying purpose or argument.  It does, however, lend itself to division into two parts, the first relational, and the second practical.  The two divisions each end with prayer.

Read some Background - 7th Pass (Resolve background info) (03/23/22-03/27/22)

Thessalonica (03/24/22)

I am not yet at a place where I would wish to claim to write with any great knowledge as concerns this place, either in the present or at the time.  But there are things we can glean in regard to Thessalonica and the church that was planted there.  To begin with, there is the history and geography of the city.  It was a seaport, and situated on a major trade route, such that, rather like Corinth and Ephesus, it was a natural spot from which to disseminate the Gospel, as all manner of peoples passed through.  It was also the capital of Macedonia, which was, at that juncture, a Roman province, but one with its own magistrates, and these were situated in the city.  It was, for its time, rather a metropolis.

As to the planting of the church, that would seem to have come sometime between, let us say, 48 and 51 AD.  Reports vary in the commentaries as to the precise year, but we can observe that this is approximately 20 years, perhaps as few as 15, after the death and resurrection of Christ.  As concerns the various commentaries I tend to consult, there is consistent testimony to the continued, lively presence of that church, or at least of its descendants.  Indeed, even when under the rule of Turkey, still the church continued, such that it was noted that the merchants of the city tended to be either Jews or Christians.  I have to say that the slight testimony of results seen when I searched for appropriate pictures of the place would seem to bear out that even now the church is alive and well in this place.  That is testimony both to them and to God, although, given some of the matters addressed here and in the other epistle to Thessalonica, I think we should have to say it is primarily to God.  But then, isn’t it ever?

Concerning the makeup of the church, we learn from Acts 17 somewhat of its composition.  There were a few Jews, although it seems so few that they really don’t enter into Paul’s thinking as he writes.  There were many Greeks, however, who had been proselytes to the Jewish religion when Paul came, who had become converts to Christian faith.  There were well-to-do members, particularly women, it seems.  These may have been among those proselytes or they may have been of a more pagan nature prior to conversion.  Honestly, even if they were proselytes, there’s a strong likelihood that they were pagans prior to that, so even then, those old, idolatrous ways would be in the background.  But there were also many drawn out of idolatrous practices more directly, and not necessarily to be accounted well to do.  Indeed, some descriptions of the city suggest that in spite of its impressive fortifications and beautiful walls, the average dwelling within was little more than a hovel.

All this is to say that this was a very diverse body of believers.  You had rich and poor, Jew and Gentile.  More than likely, you had slaves and slave-owners as well, although this is not noted in any way.  But then, such a thing would be almost unnoteworthy to the culture of the time.  It’s just the way things were, nothing deserving of comment.  Now, this diverse makeup of the church is a wonderful thing, but not without its inherent challenges.  We would find the same thing today, and often do. Where there is such a wide range of economic situation, it could easily lead to divisions, or to negligent treatment of the poor by the wealthy.  We see that in Corinth, as we see so many troubles.  But here, it does not appear to have been an issue, at least not as yet.  Still, Paul shows the wisdom of the Holy Spirit indwelling in that he stirs them to be all the more purposeful in maintaining a true brotherly love for one another.  What Barnes writes in regard to them would be a welcome description for any church.  “They forgot all their former differences in the cordiality with which they had embraced the gospel.”  Can we say as much of our own churches?  If not, I dare say we do well not only to hear Paul’s admonition in this text, but to take action upon it.

The conversion of these upper-class sorts, particularly those drawn away from the synagogue, goes far toward explaining the vehemence of Jewish opposition that arose.  Some attribute it more to the idea that these Gentiles could share in the same divine privileges as they without having to deal with the strict code of Mosaic Law, and without undergoing the painful process of circumcision.  But it’s at least as likely that their anger was stirred by envy and wounded pride.  After all, with the departure of these wealthy adherents went a certain part of their prestige and influence.  As they likely made up a large part of the merchant class even then, this disruption to their social fabric represented a potential disruption to business as well.  They had known the advantage of familiarity and shared religious experience, which could serve to make business relationships smoother, and now, that was being dismantled.  It doesn’t seem unreasonable to suppose that may have fed into the anger they felt against Paul and his party, an anger so intense that they stooped to hiring ruffians from amongst the local population to do their dirty work against Paul, against Jason and those who had had the audacity to follow Christ.

In the end, though, it is Paul’s own testimony which most fully displays the powerful work of the Gospel not only in Thessalonica, but throughout the region.  While we don’t hear much in regard to Berea, other than that they welcomed the message of the Gospel when it came, and perhaps, given mention of how they searched the Scriptures to confirm Paul’s preaching, we might conclude a better response among the Jewish population there, we do have his many mentions of the churches in that region, and they are universally positive.  It’s there in this letter.  How pleased he is with their rather immediate response!  They are living their faith.  They are demonstrating their love for each other and for all who believe.  They are already, after these few short months, acting the evangelist and spreading this Gospel far and wide.  Indeed, by the time Paul reaches Corinth, news of their faith has preceded him, perhaps paving the way for his significant success in that city.

Of course, being these were both port cities, news traveling fast between the two would be perfectly natural.  One suspects that Paul, or God in His divine guidance of Paul, had taken this into account, ensuring that the focus of his ministry was upon those places which would best serve to disseminate the message.  Ephesus, Thessalonica, Corinth, each of these were major ports, well-suited to bring the message to visitors from every region, and thereby, to see the message spread to every region.  Add Philippi and Rome, major cities of import, and the reach is incredible.  This is not in any way to minimize the value of those churches in Asia Minor, for they, too, were along paths of trade.  But here, there is a dynamism that it would not seem would have applied to places like Colossae, for example.

Coming back to Paul’s testimony, I was struck by this point made by McClintock and Strong.  “At all times, and amid every change of circumstance, it is to his Macedonian churches that the apostle turns for sympathy and support.”  Again I would have to say, this is a testimony that should be welcome by any church.  Would you not wish that it could be said of your congregation that so sound and active was your faith that the leaders of your denomination would find it natural to turn to you when they needed sympathy and support?  We, I think, tend rather to wish they might turn to us for counsel, but that’s a matter of pride.  This is a matter of faith.  This is the impact of lively but humble devotion to Christ.  These were churches that quite simply looked to the Gospel and shaped themselves upon its message.  I don’t say pride was no issue for them, for I’m sure it was.  Pride is ever an issue.  But as concerns their consistent efforts on behalf of the ministry, no.  This was simply an expression of who God had remade them to be.  So may it be with us in our turn.  May we not be busy making a name for ourselves, and instead be busy making known the name and the power and the glory of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Travels (03/25/22)

One of the challenges in harmonizing this letter with the account in Acts is sorting out who went where.  There are a few certainties.  We know, for example, that both Timothy and Silas are present with Paul when he writes, and we know that Timothy, at least, had been back to Thessalonica prior to that point.  But the account in Acts is pretty minimal.  We see, for example, that Silas was present with Paul in Philippi previously.  Timothy isn’t really mentioned, but given he was in Thessalonica, it seems reasonable to suppose he was there as well.  But from Luke’s account, it’s basically a journey of Paul and Silas that is being considered.

Then, too, we get the impression that Luke was also with them in Philippi, as that visit comes in one of those ‘we’ sections of the text (Ac 16:8-37).  But by the end of that chapter, with Paul’s departure from Philippi, he’s back to ‘they’.  Does that mean he stayed behind?  We don’t really know.  It is suggested that this was his home city and he did, in fact remain.  Does his absence from the open and close of this letter mean he wasn’t with them at the time?  Perhaps.  Or perhaps it’s just that these being earlier letters and more brief, the greetings aren’t so expansive as we find in, say Romans or 1 Corinthians.

By the same token, Timothy is not mentioned as being with Paul in Berea.  Barnes, at least, does suppose Luke is there in Thessalonica as well, although on what basis is unclear.  Perhaps this view comes of his awareness of Jason by name.  But then, given the testimony Paul pays to this church in our letter, I should think Jason may have been known rather widely.  At any rate, where these companions of Paul’s have been between Thessalonica and their reunion is something that must, in the end, resort to supposition.

We know Paul and Silas fled Thessalonica for Berea.  Maybe Timothy went as well, and maybe Luke did, too.  Or maybe Luke remained in Philippi and Timothy in Thessalonica.  We just don’t know.  What we do know is that they who had come to Thessalonica remained long enough to have not only produced such converts as constituted the church there, but also to have appointed ministers and elders in that church.  And the church was sufficiently well established that here, when Paul writes to them, news of their evangelistic efforts had already spread to Corinth, which we may take as representing the region of Achaia for our purposes.

However, we have a few bits of confusion.  For one, there is a similar, very brief switch from we to I in the course of this epistle.  We are writing, we three, and we (which we?) decided it was best for Timothy to return to Thessalonica while we (again, which we?) remained in Athens.  And Paul is so distinct in saying that he himself, he specifically, had tried to journey back to them not once, but twice, only to be thwarted by the devil.

So much about this seems just slightly odd.  It seems odd that the devil should thwart God’s agent.  But that’s easily enough resolved by observing that he can only do so in the degree that it serves God’s purposes that he does.  So, while Satan may have been the more immediate agent in shifting Paul’s plans from his desired course, we can rest assured that God was as much involved in this redirection as he had been at Troas.

There is that looming question of we.  How does it apply in the accounts of Acts?  Luke, after all, says very little in regard to himself in that account, because he, after all, is not the story, nor even a primary actor in the story.  Here, what little is said is said by way of explaining Paul’s absence and expressing his affection.  Neither of these is really a travelog or a journal kept of their travels.  At base, we must accept that it really doesn’t matter a great deal exactly what was happening in the gaps.  If it were, no doubt, the Spirit would have ensured those gaps were filled.

So, what do we know?  Timothy was sent.  From whence is unclear, but Athens seems the logical place.  If he was sent from Berea, it would have been with such immediacy as to risk Timothy’s life, not that this would necessarily have dissuaded either Paul or Timothy from their course.  But the anxiousness Paul expresses in regard to their situation suggests more time, and more time suggests he is in Athens.  If he went there alone, then how does he get word back to Timothy to go to Thessalonica?  If he didn’t go alone, how is he left alone when Timothy is sent?  And again, what does ‘we’ mean in that setting?

We know Timothy went.  We know he came back.  And from Luke’s accounting, we know his return, together with Silas, transpired after Paul had moved on from Athens to Corinth.  For we have Paul’s own notice of that, how when they had come to him there, he was able to devote himself fully to ministry, no longer needing to support himself.

Personally, I am inclined to accept that Timothy, at least, had in fact come to Athens.  I suspect that, this being the case, Silas likely did as well.  I would further propose that both men had come from Berea.  I could venture that Luke remained with Paul as he went to Athens and then to Corinth, but that would have to be purest supposition, wouldn’t it?  In point of fact, he only shows up twice in Paul’s letters, in Colossians and in 2Timothy, both of which are much later in his ministry.  Isn’t that something?  For one whose name is so large in Christianity, and who wrote so much of what we have as the record of the New Testament, he really doesn’t show up much, does he?  But then, we could say much the same for Matthew and several other of the Apostles.

If you’re looking for conclusions as to this matter of who was where when, I’m afraid I shall be as unable to supply answers than those before me.  I can only guess, and further guessing than I’ve already done would be pointless.  Arguably, even the time I’ve spent on it here is pretty pointless.  I shall move on.

Timeline (03/25/22)

The time for Paul’s writing of this letter is also something of a question, although not a great one.  The period is pretty closely defined, as being somewhere in the range of 48-52 AD.  Good enough.  The one question that arises out of this is what exactly Paul has in view when he speaks of judgment coming on Judea.  After all, the natural reference point that comes to mind is the destruction of Jerusalem, but that would still be some 20 years hence, given this date of writing.  McClintock & Strong urge that we view this in light of 2Thessalonians 2, with its apocalyptic aspect. 

A quick read of that chapter does not leave me particularly convinced that this explains things here.  There is reference to an apostasy to come, but such an apostasy would require first a belief, would it not?  There is note of the deception of those who perish because they did not receive saving knowledge and love of the truth (2Th 2:9-12).  I suppose we could say that this future event being so certain, Paul could speak of it in our letter as being effectively done already.  But that takes us back into supposition once more.

Certainly, given the events that took place in Thessalonica and Berea, Paul could speak to the judgment that must come upon those who had so vehemently opposed what God was doing.  But in what way that had already come to pass, we don’t know.  It could be that he is speaking to something more local to Thessalonica.  After all, it was primarily the Jews of that city that had been an issue for him, although we could add those of Philippi as well.  But those of Philippi had, so far as we know, kept their opposition in Philippi.  The Thessalonian Jews were more evangelistic in their determination to destroy this new faith.  Had something happened in Thessalonica that led to this comment?  Unclear.  But it seems a reasonable alternative, given that Jerusalem’s destruction is clearly not in view.  I could also add that Paul’s treatment of the Jewish question in Romans offers no suggestion that he found them as a whole to be hopelessly lost, even those in Jerusalem.  It seems doubtful that his views softened between the two letters.

Okay, that question aside, what do we have?  We have a letter written very early into the expansion of the church.  Indeed, most of our references insist this is the earliest of Paul’s letters that we have, and one goes so far as to suggest it may well be the earliest Christian writing that we have.  I’m not sure I would go that far.  One suspects at least one of the Gospels might have been about already, if not necessarily in final form.  But I don’t see it as a point necessary to pursue further.

What’s interesting is that we are so near the beginning.  Consider.  The dating of this letter leaves us only about 20 years after the death of Christ, which is not so very long, is it?  And given the effort needed to see the Gospel spread from Jerusalem, northward into Lebanon, and on into the regions that became Turkey, the churches in Macedonia were fresher still.  Thessalonica’s community of faith, specifically, could not have been more than a few months old.  Maybe give it as much as a year, counting Paul’s time with them.  And already, they are facing persecutions.  No real surprise there.  But already, they are becoming missionaries in their own right.  Now, whether that meant they were sending out from their own church to plant further churches I don’t think we can say.  It could just be that their congenial welcome and support of such believers as came through the city, and their expressive faith when meeting unbelievers, had become well-known in short order.  Hey.  They’re a port city.  People come and go, and that, by ship.  News will travel relatively quickly, especially between ports.

Still, that their faith was so well known, even in Corinth when Paul arrives, is testimony to well-established faith.  There may be errors that need addressing, but faith is sound.  Surely the same may be said of us in our turn, that we have our errors in need of correction.  Yet, it is devoutly to be hoped that our faith is sound.  I am certainly convinced that this holds in my case, and that, at least, is not an error in need of correction. 

In Athens, I would note, one was near enough a port as well, but given its proximity to Corinth, and Corinth being mor critical to trade crossing from the Aegean into the Ionian Sea, one suspects they saw more traffic.  This to say that in Athens, Paul would not have been quite so privy to news from the north.  Then, too, he never really established a foothold there, so who would have brought news to him?  Here in Corinth, however, word had come.  So he wasn’t entirely deprived of relief in regards to affairs in Thessalonica prior to Timothy’s return.  But Timothy having returned, he had means to send word back.

One last note on timeline comes from Harper’s introduction to this letter.  They observe that Paul did in fact return to Thessalonica eventually, somewhere around 56 AD, as he made his way towards Jerusalem.  I think we have difficulty realizing the time and effort such journeys required.  We are too used to the speed of travel as we know it in our time.  Had Paul been able to sail directly from Corinth to say, Caesarea, it mightn’t take too long to get between the two.  But then, that would depend on wind and weather, as we see when he makes the trip from Caesarea to Rome.  Even that would be measured in weeks and days.  But to go from Corinth, north into Macedonia, sail back down to Ephesus, and again to Israel from there, I should think we’re talking more like months.  Perhaps not.

But the sum is that we have pretty good cause to keep this letter’s writing earlier rather than later.  I am comfortable holding with the idea of 51 AD, but I wouldn’t hold it too tightly.

Ministry Progress (03/26/22)

I have noted already that this is deemed the first of Paul’s letters chronologically, and as such, is early in the development of the Church generally, and very early in the development of the churches in Macedonia.  It could be argued that Thessalonica was Paul’s first big success.  Philippi had gone well, but ended hard.  Thessalonica had hardly had a pleasant ending, but he and his fellow travelers had at least been able to get out of town without further imprisonment.  And the news he has heard of this second Macedonian church is good news indeed.  Both Timothy’s report, and that carried to Corinth by other means indicate a thriving, lively church.  Philippi, I will note, also showed such signs.  Why exactly, Zhodiates chooses to count this the first significant gain for Paul’s ministry is unclear.  I should have to think it’s primarily because converts were coming from among those of prominence in the city, as well as from among the poorer elements.

What an encouragement this must have been to Paul, coming as it does, after the rather fruitless efforts to minister in Athens.  While that occasioned one of his finer rhetorical moments (and I would note that our having record of it does suggest just a bit more that Luke was with him at the time to hear it), we do not read of any positive response there, and it seems the lack of reception led to him shortening his stay as he did.  So here he is in Corinth, an opportune place, being the port city that it is, both to spread the gospel and to receive news from those churches he had planted along the way.  Here was access to what amounted to the high-speed communications of the day, as he could send messengers off by sea, rather than by long and difficult overland journey.

As concerns the progress of prior ministry continuing in his absence, as I say, the news is quite positive.  He knew the success of his plant in Philippi, for as he notes, they had been supporting him when he ministered in Thessalonica.  If memory serves, there was something of a rivalry between these two cities given their status.  Philippi was a declared the first city of “Macedonia Prima”, as Rome named the region.  It was a colony rather than a district, enjoying citizenship.  Thessalonica, on the other hand, was capitol of a Roman district, another chief city, but still under Roman magistrates.  Each had their pride and prestige, but on different footings.  Each now had their church, and it is a testimony to the gospel at work that where the church begins, such rivalries as pertained appear to have ended.

So it was also in the Thessalonian church itself.  Well to do were come together with common folk, and no doubt, with slaves as well, slavery being pretty ubiquitous at the time.  Here were Jews and Greeks come together, although it does appear to be a primarily Gentile congregation.  Here, even with that in view, were those who had been proselytes to Jewish religion alongside those who had stuck with the idolatries of Greek or Roman religions, and perhaps of other, less known forms.  And they were, by all reports, functioning in harmony one with another, differences set aside as they lived out regenerate lives defined by working faith, working love, and solid hope; hope that persisted even in the face of afflictions. 

What a wonderful testimony!  It wasn’t just that they had believed, but they had believed with working faith, faith excited to spread this good news they had received, and to see others regenerated as had been themselves.  They had not only experienced God’s love for them, but they demonstrated it to one and all.  They didn’t just come berating with a message.  They came with true friendship and fellowship, true hospitality and aid, where aid was needed.  They didn’t just hope in the wishful way of the average person around us.  Their hope was as solid as the Rock, Christ Jesus.  It wasn’t maybe hope.  It was certain hope.

All of this is not to say that here we see a church in perfection, such as has never again appeared in the history of the Church.  No.  They had their issues, as do we all.  Paul does not leave these to fester, but addresses them with a tenderness that is most notable.  It strikes me almost as an unwillingness to air dirty laundry, as we used to say.  The corrections come not with admonitions for their error, but rather with the encouragement to bolster and amplify all that is going right, which is much.  It comes more as warnings of what might come of becoming lax in their present graces, rather than as correction for graces squandered.  Compare these corrections, for example, with those that Corinth would come to need from him, and the difference is stunning.  I don’t think we can write this up solely to the passage of time between those two letters.  I think it really does speak to the significant difference in how those two churches grew.  And again, if I compare the admittedly minimal evidence of present photographic records, that difference was telling in the long run.  I recall looking for pictures of Corinth that I could use on the website for that study, and there was scant evidence for the city remaining in any form, let alone a church.  But looking for pictures of Thessalonica, ministry pictures come up again and again.  Now, that may just be one particularly media-savvy church, but one is still rather infinitely more than zero, isn’t it?  A triumphant crown indeed, upon Paul’s ministry if the church of the present day has remained faithful to the Gospel given once for all to the saints, that gospel he first set before them almost two thousand years ago.

I would hope and pray that our own church might know such a testimony in regard to its faith, love, and hope.  But I would have to admit that in my case, that is more the wishful hope than the confident hope I would have it to be.  Blame it on the New England setting, or the older congregation, or the influence of dwelling in a relatively affluent society.  But then, I think you could probably take most of those excuses and apply them to the church in Thessalonica as well, so they’re not particularly good excuses, are they?  They had affluence, and what came of it?  Evangelism.  They had serious opposition, rather than what amounts to apathy in society as we generally encounter it.  Yes, there is a strong likelihood that opposition around here may heat up, but to date, no.  It’s just disregard, really.  We don’t, in general, face employment issues over our faith.  We aren’t excluded from society for it, only pressured to keep it to ourselves.  And the sad part is that by and large, we do.  We ought to be seriously chastened by Paul’s testimony to his own response.  “After we had already suffered and been mistreated in Philippi, as you know, we had the boldness in our God to speak to you the gospel of God amid much opposition” (1Th 2:2).  And us?  We have trouble mustering up the courage to speak of our faith even to friends or coworkers, lest we be rejected.  Far be it from us to make a public noise in regard to Christ.  This, I dare say, needs to change.  It needs to change in the Church, and it needs to change in me personally.  That’s hardly a new thought, but something about this letter lends it a bit more urgency in my thinking.  I pray it might also lend a bit more urgency to my actions.

Subject Matter (03/26/22-03/27/22)

As noted, this letter is primarily encouraging in nature.  It does much to reinforce the good Paul sees in this church, and nothing in the way of directly admonishing error in need of immediate correction.  There are warnings, but of a gentler sort, more notices of things to beware of rather than things to address before it’s too late.  The encouragement is clearly needed in that this church, young though it is, is facing significant trials.  We already knew of the opposition stirred up by the local Jewish population, and we may have intimated that in the mob scene they managed to create, Gentiles of the rougher sort had been employed.  But the letter speaks of opposition arising from their own countrymen (1Th 2:14), and I don’t think this is just pointing to those who had come to pull Jason and company from his house.  That was something of a one-off event, and what Paul seems to allude to here is ongoing.  And yet, they persist in faith, and not only in faith, but in hospitable and evangelistic faith.  Glory to God!

But they were not without danger, and here, Paul turns attention to internal matters that naturally arise from the composition of the church.  Many of these issues are matters familiar to most any church.  For none of us were drawn from church to be in church.  Some few of us, yes, were born into Christian families, and knew the church as part of life from our earliest days, but I think it is far more common that, whatever the upbringing, we came in from outside, as it were.  And coming in, we brought our past with us.  Paul speaks of it as the old man, and it is ever the old man of sin.  We didn’t come into this family with particular gifts and graces that render us indispensable to the life of the Church.  Far from it!  No, we came in with ingrained sinful habits, with a whole worldview corrupted by sin’s influences, and with wrongful lusts inflamed by every means society can find to inflame them.

And these things don’t die easy.  As with Thessalonica, so with us:  If we are not on guard against them, these old ways will seek to return.  We may not think of them as pagan practices, but what else are they, really?  What are we seeing in society around us but pagan practices, up to and including infant sacrifices on the altar of convenience?  And we wonder at the troubles plaguing our land!  There’s nothing to wonder.  God will not be mocked.  Nor will he suffer sin to go unpunished.  Once upon a time, the church would have been fearless in proclaiming that truth, but we’ve settled into a comfortable Christ, and we’d be perfectly happy, I fear, to let the world rot so long as they leave us alone in our comfort zone.  But where we grow comfortable and complacent, there is risk, not only of discovering ourselves falsely confident in our security, but also sliding back into old ways.  After all, if we become comfortable with leaving the world around us to its dark course, we will likewise find it less in our interest to rebuke those among us who pursue a similar course.  This, I think, becomes even more the case as we see attendance dropping.  We don’t want to scare of potential members by the vehemence of our views, do we?  We want to be welcoming, huggable Christians.  And so, I fear, we present a gospel watered down.  We may continue to preach sound sermons from the pulpit, but what do our lives preach once we’re out the door?  That is the question.

What is our risk of returning to former practices?  I think it high.  We live, after all, relatively isolated lives, and as such, can present the desired image for the duration of our brief encounters with one another.  But what are we in private?   What are we in our viewing habits, in our lifestyle at home?  Few if any know well enough to be able to come alongside and strengthen our devotion when it flags.  Add to this, as Barnes does, the risk of insubordination.  I think this is particularly an issue in our society, for we are inclined towards self-reliance and self-determination.  We have enough of a problem accepting the laws of civil governance.  We may not be given to grandiose crimes, but few of us go a day without breaking some law, and giving it very little thought.  It’s almost a game, isn’t it?  We see how quickly we can travel, and practice our skills at spotting speed traps before they spot us.  Maybe we shave a light, or roll through a stop-sign.  Or maybe that’s just a Massachusetts thing, I don’t know.  We’re always looking for loopholes, seeking to see what we can get away with.

Well, there’s those former practices after all.  And they come into church with us, and we start playing the same game with those who have charge over the local assembly of God.  Who are they, after all, to be telling me what I should believe or how I should act?  Who are they to deny me communion, should I fall under their discipline?  What do they know?  I mean, I knew them before they assumed leadership, and I’m probably more qualified anyway.  Such are the thoughts that run through our heads.  Why did they decide that?  Can’t they see that it should be this?  You call this Spirit-filled leadership?  Something should be done!

Well, yes.  Something should be done.  You should pray for forgiveness, and that God might further His work on your heart that such thinking would flee from you.  You should pray, as well, when the time comes to select those whom God would have to govern His church.  One could reasonably argue that if the leadership is faulty, the fault lies with you, who did not pray as you ought when the time was there for prayer. 

It’s not so very different from how we complain of our civil government, is it?  And the solution is alike a matter of prayer for God’s will and purpose before the vote.  And again I observe that the very fact that we think along these lines in the church is one more evidence of old ways following us in the door.  It matters not what ‘pretense of edifying others’ we may seek to project.  Whispering campaigns are not the Way of righteousness.  They are the return of the old man, and they bear his stench.

As to the focus of such doctrine as we find in this letter, it certainly centers more on Christ’s return, the coming of His kingdom, than it does upon the cross.  Fausset’s article suggests this reflects the nature of the gospel he preached while in Thessalonica, but I’m not sure that’s a fair conclusion to draw.  It was certainly part of his message, as it must be.  It is, after all, a clear part of the plan and purpose of God in redemptive history.  But, as the ISBE observes, Paul’s focus in this letter does not in any way require us to suppose he had not as yet fully embraced the message of the cross.  That focus on Christ, and Him crucified which defined Paul’s ministry in Corinth does come across as happening in response to the minimal response he received in Athens.  But what was his message in Athens?  It did take on something of a philosophical flavor, perhaps in attempt to attune his presentation to the people he hoped to reach.  (Ac 17:22-32).  He presents God as creator, and he points to the day of Christ’s return to judge the living and the dead, and he touches on the resurrection of Christ.  There is that note that mention of resurrection had some of his listeners sneering.  But there cannot be mention of the resurrection without notice of the death from which He was raised.  There cannot be mention of hope in the face of coming judgment without an understanding of the reason for His death, and the powerful significance of His resurrection.

All of this is to say that the two foci, the cross on the one hand, and the kingdom on the other, go hand in hand.  The coming kingdom can be nothing but dreadfully bad news apart from the message of the cross.  The message of the cross is nothing much more than another tale like any other Greek mythology or any other mystery religion, unless there is more to it than one man returning from the dead.  If the hope imparted by this Jesus is for this life only, as he will later observe, we are to be pitied above all others (1Co 15:19).  And observe the subject that is in view as he makes this assertion.  There’s a whole chapter focused entirely on matters of resurrection and the coming kingdom of Christ.  And this, in the letter to those among whom he determined to preach only Christ, and Him crucified.  Of course!  Preaching Him crucified is pointless if He’s left in the grave.  Preaching Him risen from that grave is but reviewing a magic show except it supplies our salvation.  And salvation, for all that, is a pretty pointless thing, except the grave is not the end.

So, it is no wonder that these believers in Thessalonica had heard news of the coming kingdom, of how this Jesus who died and rose again and ascended on high would be coming back to claim His kingdom among all men.  And it’s not any particular wonder, given how close they were yet to the event of His ascension, that they had come to the conclusion that His return would be equally soon.  After all, He had already been gone twenty years and more.  How long could He wait?

We have this issue, don’t we?  We tend to think of God in our own close-bound and finite terms.  Even knowing He dwells outside of time, still we want to think of Him operating on a schedule like our own.  So, we pray for things and expect fairly instant response.  We hear news of His future plans, and we want the future now.  We have so brief a life, and we hope to see this event before we are gone.  But that, too, is a product of finite thinking, even when we have been told of our infinite future.  We’re still worried about what will transpire before we are gone, but to be gone is to be present!  To live is Christ, yes, but to die is gain (Php 1:21).  If we don’t feel ourselves torn, as Paul did, between the necessity of remaining here to complete the work set before us, and departing to be with Christ, I’m not sure we’ve yet heard the gospel.  If we are clinging to this life for any other reason than that we may be about God’s business, then I have to ask why?  What is there in this life that is so desirous?  Oh, I know.  We could list off those few relationships that sustain us day to day, or the hobbies and entertainments that occupy our happier moments.  But they don’t really sustain after all, do they?  Even those joys come with attendant trials and disappointments.  And the world?  Yish.  Honestly, while I still keep brief tab on what’s happening, I am generally far happier the less I focus on such things.  Is this healthy?  In some regards, yes.  For it is coming to that place where Paul was in writing to Philippi. 

So, then, a focus on the coming kingdom is quite natural, and Paul’s use of it in preaching is quite natural.  Fausset suggest this made a sensible starting point for preaching to the Jews, because it presented the kingdom, the focus of their Messianic hopes, and thus constituted a springboard from which to work through the challenge of a crucified Christ, a Messiah who had already come, who had died, but had risen again.  Perhaps this is the case.  But then, the congregation he is writing to here is, near as we can tell, primarily Gentile.  No, I think we’re safe to say that he preached the cross and the kingdom alike.  It’s just that the church there had locked onto the message of the kingdom, the hope of heaven. 

Indeed, they had locked onto it so fully that it had led to some distortions in their beliefs, and some unnecessary uncertainties in their present.  We see that in the close of chapter 4, and the start of chapter 5.  There is concern for those who have died among them.  Whether this was simply aging out, or the sad result of those persecutions Paul mentioned earlier we are not told.  But some had apparently died in that congregation, and with the limited time Paul had had in which to teach them, their eschatology was incomplete.  They feared that dying before His return meant loss for the dead.  They still, it seems, saw the grave as the conclusion, a point beyond which lay nothing.  This needed correcting, and Paul does so.  There is also that urgency, already visible in this concern for remaining alive until Christ’s return, which led to unsatisfied curiosity as to the exact time of His return.  This, too, Paul addresses, although perhaps not as successfully as he would have hoped. 

It becomes a much more critical matter in his second epistle to this church, but already you can see signs of what happened when this idea of imminent return became too much the focus.  There are hints of it here.  There is the urging to get back to work, look to your own affairs, and be occupied so as to have no need to depend on others for anything.  There is the encouraging of being supportive of one another.  And there is the direct admonition to knock off the unwarranted querying after God’s schedule.  He didn’t tell His Apostles date certain.  Even Jesus, the Son, was not told date certain, so far as His human nature was concerned.  Did Jesus in His Godhood know?  It would seem as though He must have known, for God is God, after all.  It’s not as though Son is part of God, and Father another part, and the two so separate as to be required together so as to make up all that is God.  Each is God in full, and yet each is a distinct Person.  Yes, we can add the Holy Spirit in here, and indeed we must, but the point is already made with two Persons in view.  What we are talking about, though, is not a matter of essence.  It’s a matter of information. 

Did Jesus, walking the earth, know the exact hour of His death?  Did He know it from the outset?  After all, He was God from the outset, and from before the outset.  If we were to travel back to that pre-Creation counsel of God in three Persons, would we have heard them discussing the details of schedule?  Would we have heard the Father laying out times and dates for these things to happen?  I don’t know.  Did Son and Spirit know the details of how Creation would unfold in those first days before first the Father spoke of what work would be done in each day?  I don’t know.  We do know that there was covenanted purpose between the Persons of the Godhead as concerns the purpose and course of redemptive history.  I think we could safely say that Jesus the Son, even in this council before the beginning, knew that there would come the time (in whatever sense time applies to One outside of time) when He would take humanity upon Himself, lay aside His Godly prerogatives, and come live and die as a Man among men.  But I don’t know as we could say He knew exactly, to the day just when it was He would take up life on earth, nor the day in which He would lay down that life.  That He would, He knew.  When it would happen, it seems, may have been something slowly revealed.  It’s clear that by the time of the Passion week, he knew the time had come, and took steps to ensure events would unfold on schedule.

Is it so hard, then, to accept that a similar uncertainty applies, even to the Son, as concerns the timing of His return?  That He will come is certain.  When that shall happen is not.  It may very well be that even for the King seated on His throne beside the Father, this remains the case.  Again, it’s hard to discern just how all of this applies to One outside of time.  But however various prognosticators may seek to bend and twist the words of Scripture, it’s pretty plain, even in this epistle, that whether or not He knows the schedule, we will not.  It will come like a thief in the night (1Th 5:2).  When he says that day will not overtake us like a thief (1Th 5:4), it is not because prophets have been told the date, so we can be prepared.  No.  It is because we have disciplined ourselves to be always prepared.  We are always prepared because, again, we know He will come and we don’t know when.  Like those virgins waiting for the bridegroom’s arrival, the time is not known, but the task is:  Be ready.  When the call comes, be ready.

Knowing that the darkness thickens around us naturally leads to an increased hunger for Christ’s return, and the consequent peace of eternity spent fully separated from sin and persecution and hurt.  But we daren’t allow our hunger and expectation for that time to give rise to idleness on our part.  We daren’t become so singularly focused on the kingdom to come that we fail to attend to the purpose of life in the present.  It is not purposeless, this existence, far from it!  We have been left in the world by our King, though we are not truly of it any longer.  This is not just to be annoying.  It’s not just to test our commitment.  It’s done in order that we might do our part in magnifying the glory of our Lord and increasing the population of His kingdom.  We do so, as did the Thessalonians here, by living evangelistically, by proclaiming the Gospel given once for all to the saints, and by living lives demonstrative of the great change He has wrought in us.  We do so by preaching the cross and the kingdom both; by observing the horrendous problem of sin, and its deadly consequence for the sinner, and then proffering the one, the only solution for that deadly problem.  Here is Christ, and Him crucified.  For you.  That you who were born dead might live.  Let this message be the intensity of our faith, and may God indeed be magnified!