This epistle, despite its small size, drew the attention and interest of many of the fathers of the early church, like St. Justin the martyr, St. Erinaos, St. Clement of Alexandria,, and the scholar Tertullian1; on account of the obvious prophecy by St. Paul the apostle about the great apostasy or (falling away) through the appearance of the “man of sin” or the “son of perdition”, who represents an embodiment of Satan, opposing the spiritual kingdom of the Lord Christ at the end of ages. This epistle preoccupied many of the scholars and critics of the Holy Book; Some of them dismissed its authenticity; Others its reference to the apostle Paul; And still others, although accepting its authenticity, and its reference to the apostle Paul, yet they believe that it precedes the other one; namely, it is his first and not his second epistle to the Thessalonians. Many scholars came forward to rebut those critics, and to confirm the soundness of the traditional thought of the church confirming its authenticity, its reference to the apostle Paul, and that it is his second and not his first epistle to the Thessalonians. Its authenticity: The early church has for long been consistent on looking at this epistle as an integral part of the word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that its holiness is undisputable. Many of the fathers of the church in the second century A.D. quoted it in their works, like St. Augustine, St. Barnabas, St. Justin the martyr, and St. Polycarbus; The ‘Dedakia’2 some texts of which go back to the first century A.D., quoted from it; Was mentioned by name in the writings of St. Erinaos, St. Clement of Alexandria, and the scholar Tertullian, of the second century A.D.; Was mentioned in the law 1 من رجال القرن الثاني المیلادي. 2 ا رجع للمؤلف: قانون الإیمان للرسل والدیداكیة. 4 of Mercion1; Was referred to among the epistles of the apostle Paul in the ‘Mortarian List’2; And was found included in the old Latin and Syrian versions. Its author: No doubt was raised during the early centuries concerning the authorship of this epistle. It carried in itself strong evidences that the apostle Paul is its author: On one aspect, it referred to the author in more than one location (1: 1; 3: 17). On another aspect, It bore the stamp of the apostle, as far as its overall form is concerned: The apostle Paul used to begin most of his epistles by mentioning his name, those to whom it is addressed, the apostolic blessing, thanksgiving to God for every success or growth he sees in them, to support and encourage them; Then he enters into the main topic, which deals with faith, doctrine, and behavior aspects; And finally he ends it with practical commandments, and a conclusive word. … Beside the fact that this overall form is utterly and strongly obvious in this epistle. It also demonstrates the features of the personality of this great apostle: his delicacy, his flaming zeal toward the salvation of mankind, his care to pray for the sake of others, and to seek their prayers for his own sake…. All that obviously proclaim that this epistle is the product of the unique flaming mind of the apostle Paul. Beside these evidences, there are other outer testimonies, proclaimed by the fathers of the early church who, from the beginning. quoted it as an authentic book; and considered it as the living word of God. The scholar Origen and Josabius testified that it has been widely known all over the world in their days. 1 مرقیون: هرطوقي، حرم عام 144 م، كان لأتباعه دور خطیر في إفساد الإیمان. یدور فكره نحو رفض العهد القدیم تمامًا. ففي نظره أن الله الخالق هو نفسه إله الناموس لا علاقة له بیسوع المسیح الذي جاء لیعلن عن الله المحب، الكائن العظم. 2 أقدم قائمة عن الأسفار القانونیة، ترجع إلى القرن الثاني المیلادي. سُمیت كذلك لأن أول من نشرها هو العالم الإیطالي مورتاري عام 1740 م، نقلاً عن مخطوطة كانت في مكتبة البروسیوسي بمیلان، لكنها كانت أصلاً في .Bobbio الدیر الایرلندي الكبیر في بوبیو 5 The main objections against it: The scholars, defending the authenticity of this epistle, and its reference to the apostle Paul, noticed that the objections of its critics are so weak and not strong enough, to stand before the traditional thought of the church. … We can summarize those main objections in the following points1: (1) The main and essential objection on which the critics depend, is the eschatological differences between the two epistles2. In the first epistle to the Thessalonians (4: 12; 5: 11), in an attempt to prepare the minds of believers to spiritual watching and strife, in anticipation to when we, who are alive will be caught up together with those who are asleep, to encounter the Lord coming on the clouds, to be forever with him; The apostle hints that the day of the Lord is at hand, that it will come unexpectedly as a thief in the night, and as labor pains upon a pregnant woman,… Whereas in the second epistle to the same congregation, he confirms that that day will not come unless preceded by an obvious sign, when the apostasy (the rebellion) occurs, and “the man of sin, the son of perdition”, is revealed, who opposes and exalts himself above God in His church, and shows himself that he is God (2 Thessalonians 2: 1-4). Looking deeply in these two epistles, we shall find no difference in thought, but only difference in the circumstance that prevailed around each of them, that led the apostle to include a certain aspect of the eschatological thought and not the other. What came in the two epistles are actually not two opposing thoughts, but rather two integral aspects of the same faith thought. الذي غیر أ ریه بعد Mayerhof, Schrader, De wette عام 1804 هذه الرسالة متبعًا في Schmidt 1هاجم وقام كثیر من الباحثین ،Tubingen كما هاجمتها مدرسة توبنجن Baur, Kerm ذلك، وتجدد الهجوم بواسطة Wiess, Hofmann, Sabatier, Reuss, Zahan, یدافعون عنها من جهة قانونیتها ونسبتها للرسول بولس منهم Julicher, Farrar, Godet, Baljon, Moffat, Hadorn, Appel, FeinBehan, Michaelis, Knox, ا رجع في هذا: Bake, Goodspeed L. Berkhof: New Testament Introductio., 1915, p229. Donald Guthrie: New Testament Intr., 1975, p226. 2 G. Masson: Les Epitres aux Thessaloiciens, 1975, p 10, 11. 6 To explain this, we may say that, in his first epistle to the Thessalonians, intending to encourage them to lead a life of watching and strife without murmur, but with a perpetual thanksgiving amid the tribulation, the apostle concentrated on the element of suddenness of the coming of the ultimate day of the Lord, in order to enflame the longing of those who spiritually strive, to work with joy and sure hope; … And at the same time to warn those slothful and confused, lest they might fall and be deprived of the blessing and joy of the everlasting encounter with the Groom of their souls, coming to them. Whereas in the second epistle, addressed to the same congregation, the apostle writes with a new and an additional goal; namely, the necessity of walking with wisdom and prudence in this world; … As, whether, out of misunderstanding the first epistle, or because they probable have got another epistle wrongly referred to the apostle, those believers, assuming that the ultimate coming of the Lord is at hand, some of them sold their possessions, and others stopped their daily activities, in anticipation of the day of the Lord, that will come any day; something that caused a great state of confusion and chaos in the whole church. … That is why the apostle hastened to write to them this second epistle, to warn against those actions against faith; and to confirm that the day of the Lord will not come before certain obvious and public signs precede them; namely, the appearance of “the man of sin, the son of perdition”. Therefore the elements in both epistles are not two contradictory thoughts, but represent one integral thought, which appears very obviously in a long talk by the Lord Christ Himself about the signs that will precede His ultimate coming, including the appearance of the antichrist; referring at the same time to the element of suddenness, and to our anticipation of the times and seasons (Mark 13; Matthew 24; Luke 7; Acts i). (2) Some scholars attempted to refer what came in the second epistle about the ultimate coming of the Lord, and the appearance of the man of sin, to a 7 later era than that of the apostle Paul; claiming that the second epistle to the Thessalonians is not written by him; and that its real author has quoted that thought from the book of revelation written by St. John the evangelist…. The man of sin, according to some of them, referred to the re-appearance of the tyrant emperor Nero, about whom it was claimed that he did not die, but hid somewhere in the East, where he prepares himself to appear anew to resume his opposition against the church and her faith in the Lord Christ. … Others claimed that the man of sin was Vasepsian, … And still others claimed that he represents the era of Trajan. Such objection could not be well received; as what is similar to this thought of the man of sin, goes even as far back as the prophet Daniel (Daniel 11), and was obviously known in the Jewish documents preceding Christianity1; and as clearly proclaimed by the Lord Christ Himself, in the gospel according to St. Mark (Chapter 13). On another aspect, the apostle Paul, in his preaching the gospel, faced a continuous opposition, and even in his days many apostates from faith appeared; That, by his fiery heart, and his spiritual insight, was inspired by the Holy Spirit, that a movement of apostasy, much more violent and bitter than that through which the church was passing in his days, will directly precede the ultimate coming of the Lord Christ; in which Satan will be embodied in the person of the son of perdition, opposing the Person of Christ, until the measure of evil is consummated. (3) Some critics see differences between the two epistles, when both of them were written within short time, and the sender and the addressees are the same. ‘Davidson’, made such a big deal of those differences, that ‘Salmon’ described his allegations; as ‘childish criticism!’; as though a child wants to hear a story again in the same way and the same words2. Beside those two objections, Some critics claim that, while the first epistle is characterized by abundant and warm feelings of the apostle toward the Thessalonians, the second epistle, on the 1 Schurer; Geschichte de Judischen Volkes in Zeitalter Jesu Christi, Vol 2, p621 f. 2 Salmon: Historical Introd to the Books of the N. T., 19889, P 398. 8 other hand is almost formal and firm. In the first epistle he says: “We give thanks to God always for you all” (1 Thessalonians 1: 2); while in the second one he says: “We are bound to give thanks to God always for you” (2 Thessalonians 1: 3; 2: 13); … “We command you”… and “Those who are such, we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ…” (2 Thessalonians 3: 6, 13). But we can refer this change in the way of speech to a change in its goal. … The apostle wrote the first epistle, like a father writing to encourage his children in a time of tribulation, demonstrating his compassionate fatherhood and revealing his partaking of their sufferings. Whereas in the second one, although he is writing to the same congregation, yet he commands and exhorts them because of their erroneous behavior and their slothful abstaining from their daily work. … We, actually cannot ask the apostle to write all his epistles with the same tune, which he changes according to the difference in issues and the circumstances prevailing at the time. The second difference on which the critics concentrated, was, according to a suggestion by A Harnack, that the first epistle was addressed more to the believers of Gentile origin; Whereas the second one was addressed more to those who have great knowledge of the Old Testament. Such a theory of a divided church in the same province, into a church of the Gentiles and one of the converted Jews, is totally unacceptable, especially that the apostle Paul, a great believer in the unity of the church, demands in his first epistle “I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren” (1 Thessalonians 5: 27); with no discernment between those of Jewish origin and those of Gentile origin. Quoting the Old Testament, does not Imply that it is addressed to those of Jewish origin; as the gospels, written to those of Gentile origin, like that according to St. Mark, include several quotations from the Old Testament. (4) If some critics have gone too far in their allegations that there are differences between the two epistles, as an evidence of their objection to the second epistle; On another aspect, some were of the opinion that the great similarity, particularly in the opening 9 preface, which is almost the same in both of them, is rather an evidence that raises doubt in the authenticity of the second epistle; saying that there is no need for the apostle to write another epistle to the same congregation, within such a short interval of time, and with such a closely similar issues. This objection is very weak; as the two epistle carry both what are similar and what are different ; The similarity is when the apostle intends to confirm a certain issue; while the difference is when he writes about something new that happened after writing the first epistle. Going through those objections, we are more convinced of the authenticity of this epistle, of its true reference to the apostle Paul; … And that there is no point in the attempts by certain scholars to suggest its reference to an unknown author, or to that it is written by St. Timothy and St. Silas, and only signed by the apostle Paul (see 2 Thessalonians 3: 17); … Or that it is an epistle specially addressed to the church of Jewish origin. As these solutions stir up many problems, the majority of scholars were committed to the true thought of the church. The Order of writing of the two epistles: Some scholars1, contrary to the true church tradition, claim that the epistle in our hands precedes the other one; introducing the following evidences, which were rejected by the majority of scholars on account of their weakness and lack of conviction: (1) Some claim that the order in which these two epistle came in the book, was not according to their date of sending, but according to their respective size. This view is however unacceptable, especially that they came in this same order in the law of Mercion, which does not care for the size of the holy books. (2) Some believe that the first epistle contains nothing difficult to understand, that would warrant sending another epistle to interpret. Yet this view is also unacceptable, on account of the fact that, because the talk of the apostle in the first epistle (1 Thessalonians 4: 13; 5: 11), concerning the ultimate coming of the .Laurent, Vander Vies, Ewald, Grotius 1 منهم 10 Lord Christ, has been misunderstood; he hastened to write to them about the signs that precede His coming (2 Thessalonians 2: 1-11), to consummate what came in the first epistle, and to correct the misunderstanding thereof. (3) Some scholars believe that the first epistle talked about the conquest of the Thessalonians (1 Thessalonians 1: 6-8); as though the crisis has already come to an end; While the second one talks about the anguish which still prevails and even expected in the future. Yet this evidence is unacceptable as well; As the talk of the apostle about a conquest and victory, does not imply the end of anguish, but is rather to encourage and support them to consummate their strife, and to exhort them to receive the suffering with more thanksgiving. Gaining conquest does not mean the end of the spiritual war nor imply the cessation of anguish; as the conquest will always be followed by another, and another, all the time. (4) Some scholars believe that the apostle in the first epistle seems to be quite aware of the inner circumstances of the church of the Thessalonians; saying: “Concerning brotherly love, you have no need that I should write to you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another, … and indeed you do so” (1 Thessalonians 4: 9-10); While, in the second epistle he writes, as though he needs to know how they are doing; saying: “We have confidence in the Lord concerning you, both that you do and will do the things we command you” (2 Thessalonians 3: 4-5). … How could he write that he knows the works of their love; then he writes that he has confidence in the Lord, that they do and will do the things he commands them?! In response of this objection we say that, because the apostle wrote his first epistle to encourage and support them amid their anguish, he demonstrated their good side, confirming that their spiritual tendency, which he knows for sure, would make them grow more and more; Whereas in the second one, he wrote to enquire and to make sure that they are walking along the sound path, after such misunderstanding of the issue of the ultimate coming of the Lord. 11 (5) Some object that in the first epistle He wrote to them, saying: “Concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need that I should write to you” (1 Thessalonians 5:1); Then, in the second one, he revealed the appearance of the man of sin (2 Thessalonians 2: 3). According to them, it would be more logic to write in the first one about the man of sin; and when they come to ask about the time and season of his appearance, in order to fix the time of the ultimate coming of the Lord, he would then tell them that they have no need to know the times and season. In response to this objection, we say that the apostle Paul while preaching to them, talked about the anticipated coming of the Lord. Then after leaving them, a serious debate stirred up about the time of the Lord’s coming, and the appearance of His everlasting kingdom -- a natural debate that has even come in the minds of the disciples of the Lord (Matthew 24: 3); and still comes in the minds of Christians, east and west, up to this very day; caused by man’s anticipation of the future events, and his inner longing for knowledge. … And as the Lord Christ did with His disciples, the apostle Paul also did with the Thessalonians; He first exhorted them, that instead of being preoccupied by the need to know the times and seasons, they should watch and get prepared for the coming of the Lord; … Then, having misunderstood his talk, he wrote to them about the appearance of the man of sin, not in an attempt to fix the time and season, but rather to correct their misunderstanding. (6) Some scholars noticed that the apostle Paul in his first epistle to the Thessalonians, started some topics by the word “But” (4: 9; 5: 1); which implies that he continues on something about which he wrote before; and that this is not the first epistle, but has to be preceded by another one. … But other scholars say that this does not mean a commitment by the apostle to send an epistle preceding that one; but refers to that he might have already dealt with those topics before, even orally, while preaching to them; Or to that he is presenting his own view in the Lord, after some other minister might have already done. 12 (7) His conclusive remark: “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the mark in every letter of mine; It is the way I write” (2 Thessalonians 3: 17); should be written in his first epistle; Therefore, this epistle is not the second one, but the first. That could be rebutted by saying that this remark was written by the apostle following the confusion between the authentic and the false epistle wrongly referred to him. (8) As it came in the first epistle that he sent Timothy to them (1 Thessalonians 3: 2); some believe that this refers to that this epistle was written after sending Timothy who carried the second epistle with him; that proves that this second epistle is in fact the first one. This could be rebutted by saying that the apostle did not send Timothy as a courier of messages, but as a “fellow laborer in the gospel of Christ, to establish (you) and encourage (you) concerning (your) faith”. And on another aspect, if it was Timothy who carried the epistle in our hands, he would have been referred to as such in the epistle. The scholars did not stop at responding to the objections of those claiming that it is the first and not the second epistle of the apostle Paul to the Thessalonians; but they referred to the following positive aspects to confirm the authentic thought of the church concerning the order of the two epistle: 1- That the problems that came in the first epistle, came in the second one, more deeper, or as consummation to them. 2- That in the second epistle, the apostle obviously refers to the fact that he has sent them a previous one (2: 2; 3: 17); most probably the first epistle While, in the first epistle, he did not refer to one before it. 3- If the epistle in our hands is the first one, How would he exhort and warn in it, then to send another one carrying personal warm feelings?! The way usually followed by the apostle Paul is to start by giving love and warm emotions, to prepare the listener or reader to accept the exhortation and warning that would follow! The goal of sending the second epistle: 13 1- As we already said, the main goal of sending this epistle was to correct the wrong concepts into which some believers have fallen, concerning the ultimate coming of the Lord. Assuming that His coming is at hand, they hastened to get slothful in their daily life, and to walk without order. That is why he wrote to confirm to them that the coming of the Lord has to be preceded by the appearance of the son of perdition, that will cause a great apostasy (2 Thessalonians 2: 3). 2- It so seems that, because a certain message wrongly referred to him, carried to them some wrong concepts concerning the ultimate coming of the Lord, he hastened to send to them this epistle, signed by him (3: 17), to correct the misunderstanding 3- As the church was still under tribulation, he wrote to them in a fatherly way, to encourage them to endure the sufferings, and to demonstrate to them how to walk as is befitting of the children of God. The date of its writing: It so seems that it was written and sent from Corinth, few months after the first one, in about the year 72 A.D., when St. Timothy and St. Silas were still with him (1: 1). Divisions of the second epistle: We can divide this epistle into three main divisions: In the first chapter he talks in an ‘Eucharistic way’ (thanksgiving to God); In the second chapter, he talks in a ‘Revelation way’; and in the third chapter in a practical way. 1- Boasting of them Chapter 3 2- The man of sin Chapter 2 3- Practical commandments Chapter 3
Welcome