Salutation, 1-2

1:1 From Paul and Silvanus and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 1:2 Grace and peace to you from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!

Thanksgiving, 3-4

1:3 We ought to thank God always for you, brothers and sisters, and rightly so, because your faith flourishes more and more and the love of each one of you all for one another is ever greater. 1:4 As a result we ourselves boast about you in the churches of God for your perseverance and faith in all the persecutions and afflictions you are enduring.

Morris points out that Paul had used similarly complimentary language in the first epistle, and suggests that in subsequent communication they may have disclaimed such praise.  But Paul insists that it is well-deserved.

It’s useful to notice the prayers of Paul because what he prays for in the beginning he talks about in the letter.  Maybe you have had this experience when you were at college and went home for the Christmas holiday. You are sitting down for dinner and your mum says, “Let’s pray. Lord, thanks for bringing Mary back this Christmas. I hope we have a wonderful time. I hope she studies really hard during this time and does well in her College work and is able to enter the career of her choice.” From that prayer you know that there will be conversations on those subjects! This is true of Paul, too.

We ought always to thank God for you…we boast – Stott asks how we should respond to fellow-Christians who are doing well in some aspect of their discipleship:

‘Some people resort to congratulations: ‘Well done! I think you’re marvellous. I’m proud of you.’ Others are uncomfortable with this and see its incongruity. It borders on flattery, promotes pride and robs God of his glory. So, although they may thank God privately in their prayers, they say nothing to the person concerned. They replace flattery with silence, which leaves him or her discouraged. Is there a third way, which affirms people without spoiling them? There is. Paul exemplifies it here. He not only thanks God for the Thessalonians; he also tells them that he is doing so: ‘we ought always to thank God for you … we boast about you’. If we follow his example, we will avoid both congratulation (which corrupts) and silence (which discourages). Instead, we can affirm and encourage people in the most Christian of all ways: ‘I thank God for you, brother or sister. I thank him for the gifts he has given you, for his grace in your life, for what I see in you of the love and gentleness of Christ’. This way affirms without flattering, and encourages without puffing up.’

Your faith is growing more and more – Stott urges us to consider the possibility, and the necessity, of growth in faith:

‘This idea of spiritual growth is foreign to many people, not least in the areas of faith and love. We tend to speak of faith in static terms as something we either have or have not. ‘I wish I had your faith’, we say, like ‘I wish I had your complexion’, as if it were a genetic endowment. Or we complain ‘I’ve lost my faith’ like ‘I’ve lost my spectacles’, as if it were a commodity. But faith is a relationship of trust in God, and like all relationships is a living, dynamic, growing thing. There are degrees of faith, as Jesus implied when he said ‘You of little faith’ and ‘I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith’ (Mt 8:26, 10). It is similar with love. We assume rather helplessly that we either love somebody or we do not, and that we can do nothing about it. But love also, like faith, is a living relationship, whose growth we can take steps to nurture.’

Faith – Although pistis could mean ‘fidelity’ here (note the link with ‘perseverance’), Morris says that the word ‘nearly always’ means ‘faith’ in the NT; and this is its meaning in the preceding verse and there seem ‘no reasons’ to assign a different meaning here.

Encouragement in Persecution, 5-12

1:5 This is evidence of God’s righteous judgment, to make you worthy of the kingdom of God, for which in fact you are suffering.

How can ‘persecutions and trials’ (v4) provide evidence ‘that God’s judgement is right’?  Morris says that it is not the circumstances themselves, but the Thessalonians’ attitude towards them that is decisive: ‘Such constancy and faith could come only from the action of God within them, and if God has so inspired them this is clear evidence that he does not intend them to come short of the final attainment of the kingdom.’

Counted worthy – Not ‘made worthy’, but ‘declared worthy’.  This phrase is reminiscent, then, of Paul’s doctrine of justification = to count as just.  Morris remarks:

‘By his choice of this word the apostle is excluding human merit even in a section where he is drawing attention to a noteworthy piece of endurance, and is emphasising that attainment to the kingdom is not the result of human endeavour at all, but of the grace of God.’

Beale (IVPNTC) explains the relationship between justification and good works:

‘You must pay money to obtain entry to a professional football game. In order to enter the stadium, however, you must present a ticket at the gate. Is it the money that provides access to the game or the ticket? Both! But are the money and the ticket equal “causes” that get you in? Ultimately, the money paid is what really gets you in, but you must have the ticket as evidence that you really paid the price for the game. Likewise, true Christians are those on behalf of whom Christ has paid the penalty of sin, but they must have the badge of good works as evidence that Christ paid their purchase price in order to be considered worthy of passing through final judgment and entering the kingdom. Therefore, both faith in Christ’s work and human good works are absolutely necessary for being considered worthy of salvation, but the former is the ultimate cause of the latter. At the last judgment people will not be able to say that they have benefited from Christ’s redemptive work only because they have believed; they will have to show evidence of their belief through their good works (Mt 7:21).’

1:6 For it is right for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 1:7 and to you who are being afflicted to give rest together with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels.

It is right for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you –

and…to give rest – Not an unworthy motive.  As Morris comments:

‘It is a matter of history that those who are passing through suffering for the Lord’s sake do not, as a rule, despise the prospect of final blessedness. This is not the whole of the gospel, but it is an authentic part of it and we are not wise to overlook it.’

Hendriksen identifies two aspects of God’s righteousness:

‘On the one hand, it is retributive: God repays (gives in return; see on 1 Thess 3:9) with afflictions those who afflict believers. On the other hand, it is remunerative: he grants those who are being afflicted rest (ἄνεσιν, from ἄνεσις, literally let-up), gracious relief (2 Cor 2:13; 7:5; 8:13) from all the hardships they have borne on account of their valiant battle for the truth.’

When the Lord Jesus is revealed – lit. ‘the revelation (apocalypse = unveiling) of the Lord Jesus.’ The return of Christ is thus viewed in 1 Cor 1:7; 1 Pet 1:7; cf. Lk 17:30.

1:8 With flaming fire he will mete out punishment on those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

He will punish – A divine prerogative, here applied to the Lord Jesus.

Those who do not know God are those who have neglect such light as they have been given (cf. 1 Thess 4:5).

Those who…do not obey – This description probably does not refer to a different group of people (Jews, perhaps, compared with Gentiles), but rather fills out and exemplifies the first one.

Hendriksen agrees that the second clause is explanatory of the first:

‘In view of the fact that in the entire context the blind heathen who have never come into contact with the message of salvation are never alluded to, and that those who in their wilful disobedience persecute God’s children are definitely in the apostle’s mind (see verses 4, 6, 9), we accept the latter alternative.’

The same commentator continues:

‘Not ignorance of the gospel but disobedience was the sin of the persecutors. It is true that the wicked are here described as “those who do not know God.” They do not know him as their own God. They do not call on his name. They hate him; hence, they also hate his gospel (the gospel which proclaims him, and which he proclaims).’

So who are these people?  Some think that they are simply those who persecute Christians.  But Moo regards this as ‘most unlikely’, because Paul has move from a pronouncement of judgement upon such persecutors to a general description of God’s judgement:

‘As Chrysostom pointed out long ago, the people are condemned not because they persecuted the Thessalonians but because they refused to acknowledge God.’  (Morgan, Christopher W. Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment)

As firmly as we believe in the doctrine of election to eternal life, so we believe the parallel truth of human responsibility.  They are punished, not because they are not elect, but because they do not obey.

1:9 They will undergo the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his strength,

Penalty – the expression occurs only here.  They will pay the penalty they deserve.

Eternal destruction – ‘Eternal = aoinios, ‘pertaining to the age to come’.  ‘Destruction = lethros, used only here and in 1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Thess. 5:3; 1 Tim. 6:9.  The other main word translated ‘destruction’ is apollymi/apōleia.

According to Brookins:

‘The adjective “eternal” could indicate either duration (“forever and ever”) or finality (“once and for all”). ‘

Green:

‘The apostle by no means implies that those who have rejected God will be annihilated eternally, a notion that appears to take the edge off the severity of divine judgment. Rather, the punishment will endure and will not end.’

Shogren notes the argument of some, viz. that the Jews (and therefore Jewish Christians) did not have a word for ‘everlasting’, and so that cannot be the meaning here.  Shogren suggests that there are two fallacies here: (a) that because language does not have a specific word for something, that something must itself be unknown to them; and (b) that the meanings of words should not be tied too much to their etymology (in this case, aoinios – ‘pertaining to the age to come’),

For Shogren, the use of aoinios in the NT almost always indicates eternal/everlasting.  He cites 2 Thess 2:16; Heb 5:9; 1 Pet 5:10; 2 Pet 1:11 as examples.  However, these examples relate to some aspect of the blessedness of the redeemed, and noone is suggesting that this is not everlasting.  The point to be proved from Scripture is that aoinios, when applied to those outside of Christ and his salvation, refers to the everlasting nature of their destruction (they are destroyed and experience the torment of that destruction for ever and ever, rather than to the everlasting effects of their destruction – they are destroyed, never to live again).

For Beale, the phrase:

‘The actual phrase everlasting destruction (olethros aiōnios) occurs only one other time in biblically related Jewish literature and refers not to annihilation but to unending suffering in the afterlife (4 Macc 10:15). This “eternal destruction” is defined by the context not as annihilation but as unending suffering of a persecutor of saints, which is virtually equated with his “eternal torture by fire” (4 Macc 9:9) and “indestructible torments” (4 Macc 10:11) that would “cling” to him “for all time” (4 Macc 12:12; cf. 12:18; 13:15). In short, 4 Maccabees is the most relevant (and contemporary) parallel for 2 Thessalonians because: (1) the afterlife is the focus; (2) the same phrase is used; and (3) those being punished have also persecuted saints. The parallel points toward Paul’s use of the same phrase to indicate an everlasting punishment, not a literal annihilation of a person’s existence that lasts forever.’

Best judges that Paul is ‘almost certainly not’ referring to ‘ultimate or everlasting annihilation’.  He offers the following reasons:

(i) The following phrase suggests that Paul sees the punishment of persecutors as consisting in separation from the Lord; for this to mean anything they would have to continue to exist.

(ii) In many other parts of the N.T. this separation is regarded as one of suffering continuous punishment (Mt. 18.8f; 25.41; Jude 7) and nowhere is annihilation implied.

(iii) Equivalent expressions to our phrase are found in 1 QS 2.15; 5.13, and in these passages the wicked are not considered to be annihilated (cf. 2.7, 8, 17; 4.12-14), and in Ps. Sol. 2.35; 15.12f (cf. 3.11), where again 2.34f; 15.10 do not suggest annihilation (cf. also 4 Macc. 10.15A).

Harris (Navigating Tough Texts, Vol 2) comments:

‘This term “destruction” (olethros) does not here refer to the act of destroying (as in 1 Cor 5:5) but to the state of ruin (as also in 1 Thess 5:3). Clearly it is not annihilation, for it is described as being “eternal” (aiōnios). Originally, this adjective meant “belonging to the age [aiōn] to come.” But when it describes God (e.g., Rom 16:26), the sense is “without beginning or end”; when used of past time (e.g., Rom 16:25), “long ago”; of other entities, such as olethros here, it means “eternal” in the sense of “with a beginning but without an end”—that is, “destined to last forever,” “of unending duration.”’

Gupta, on the other hand, drawing on C.S. Lewis:

‘I am persuaded by the direction that C. S. Lewis goes, where the language of eternality is less about duration than it is about finality—their verdict is complete, it cannot be undone or overturned. So, Lewis writes, “That the lost soul is eternally fixed in its diabolical attitude we cannot doubt: but whether this eternal fixity implies endless duration—or duration at all—we cannot say.” I believe Lewis’ eschatological agnosticism is wise. The little bits and pieces of references to hell do not build a complete picture: “We know much more about heaven than hell, for heaven is the home of humanity and therefore contains all that is implied in a glorified human life: but hell was not made for men. It is in no sense parallel to heaven: it is ‘the darkness outside,’ the outer rim where being fades away into nonentity.’

Away from the presence of the Lord – So translated (with minor variations) by NET, NIV, ESV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, GNB.  The alternative translation is, ‘destruction that comes from the Lord’ – so AV, ASV, and ESV footnote.

The phrase closely follows the LXX text of Isa 2:10b (also vv. 19b, 21b).

‘The Lord’ is Christ, as the next verse makes clear.

The expression could, then be either spacial or causal: it could refer to either the location or the source of the destruction.

To consider each of these in turn:

(a) Spacial: the punishment in question consists in separation from the Lord.

This is the view of many commentators (Barnes, JFB, Hendriksen, Morris, Stott, Bruce, Shogren, Fee, Williams, Beale, Holmes, Witherington, Evans, Gupta, Hoehner, Thurston, Wanamaker), who note that the idea of separation from God frequently occurs in Scripture, Gen. 3:23; Matt. 25:41; Luke 16:26; Rev. 21:27; 22:15.

Martin (NAC) agrees, noting:

‘It is ironic that those who would reject God receive as punishment God’s rejection. It implies that the so-called freedom from God’s influence that the rebellious desire is not freedom but condemnation. It is a hellish banishment from the true and only source of goodness and blessing.’

Beale, similarly:

‘The punishment “fits the crime,” in that those who refuse to know God (2 Thess 1:8) and want to be separate from him in this life will be punished by being separated from God in the next life.’

And Witherington:

‘Those who want to ignore and be separated from God in this life will continue to be so in the next, and those who long to obey God and to be in his presence in this life will do so forever in the next (4:17). In each case the outcome is appropriate and fits the response in this lifetime.’

Holmes:

‘Paul’s definition of “destruction” (cf. 1 Thess. 5:3) here is precisely the opposite of his definition elsewhere of salvation as being with the Lord always (1 Thess. 4:17) and sharing in God’s glory (Rom. 8:17–18, 30; 2 Cor. 4:17; Phil. 3:21).’

JFB:

‘Cast out from the presence of the Lord is the sting of eternal death; the law of evil left to its unrestricted working, without one counteracting influence of the presence of God, the Source of all light and holiness (Isa. 66:24; Mark 9:44).’

According to Harris, there is a twofold deprivation:

‘In its essence, the devastating destruction is permanent banishment (cf. Matt 7:23; Luke 13:27) from the presence of the One who is the ultimate source of everything that is positive and rewarding and pleasant (cf. Matt 8:12; 22:13; 25:30); and it also involves permanent exclusion (cf. Luke 16:26) from the overwhelming delight of witnessing the majesty and endless power of the Creator.’

(b) Source: the punishment in question has the Lord as its originator

Peter Bolt regards the understanding previously noted as ‘almost certainly misguided’ (The Cross from a Distance: Atonement in Mark’s Gospel).

Paul Marston (Hellfire and Destruction: What Does the Bible Really Say About Hell?) remarks that the Greek phrase occurs only once elsewhere in the NT –

Acts 3:20 (NET) — “…so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and so that he may send the Messiah appointed for you—that is, Jesus.”

Marston comments:

‘The times of refreshing are clearly not because they will be separated from the presence of the Lord, but will be the effect of his presence. The clear implication is that the “presence of the Lord” will bring refreshing to the repentant in Acts but will bring destruction to those in Thessalonians who are persecuting the Christians. It makes no sense to translate the identical phrase differently.’

Gene Green:

‘The idea that 1:9 conveys is not merely that the disobedient will be excluded from the Lord’s presence but that from this presence the everlasting destruction comes forth.’

Brookins offers a variant of this interpretation:

‘In both the OT and NT, theophanic encounters, or “face-to-face” encounters with the Lord, are depicted as highly dangerous, even fatal. Isaiah exclaims his own destruction when he stands before the Lord’s throne (Isa. 6:5). In Exodus it is said that no one could see the “face” of the “Lord” and live (33:20). Clearly alluding to this text, in 2 Corinthians Paul solemnly states that no one could gaze at the “face” of Moses because of the “glory” that he derived from face-to-face encounters with the Lord (3:7). Later in 2 Thessalonians, Paul predicts that Jesus will “destroy” the man of lawlessness with the breath of his mouth (2 Thess. 2:8). Finally, the scene that Paul sets here is quite inconsistent with a spatial interpretation: Paul visualizes Jesus descending from heaven with mighty angels in a flame of fire to “give vengeance”—a very unfitting description if destruction implies “separation.” Rather, this surely implies an encounter. The causal meaning, then, should be preferred: it is destruction at the sight of the Lord and the glory of his might (1:9).’ (Emphasis original)

Among the older writers, the contributor to Matthew Henry’s Commentary adopts this view:

‘This destruction shall come from the presence of the Lord, that is, immediately from God himself. Here God punishes sinners by creatures, by instruments; but then he will take the work into his own hands. It will be destruction from the Almighty, more terrible than the consuming fire which consumed Nadab and Abihu, which came from before the Lord.’

Matthew Poole allows for, but does not insist upon, this interpretation:

‘From the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; the preposition from in the first expression noting separation, in the second noting efficiency. Others conceive efficiency to be meant in both, their destruction proceeding from the face of Christ frowning on them, frowning them into hell, (which smiling upon others, will bring their salvation,) as well as from his glorious power manifested against them to destroy them, Rom. 9:22. And yet others interpret the preposition in both places to note separation, both from the face of Christ, which the saints shall behold and rejoice in for ever, and from his glorious power; which will work in some for their complete salvation in the day of his appearing, as it had done before in their first conversion, and sanctification.’

Fudge (The Fire That Consumes) discusses both interpretations, concluding that either is consistent with his doctrine of annihilationism.

In his 1983 commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians, I Howard Marshall had interpreted 2 Thess 1:9 as teaching everlasting torment of the wicked:

‘In favour of everlasting punishment it can be argued: (1). Jesus believed in it, and Paul will have shared his outlook (Matt. 5:29–30; 12:32; 18:8–9; 25:41, 46; Lk. 16:23–25); (2). Jewish teaching of the time accepted the fact of eternal punishment (1QS 2:15; 5.13; Pss. Sol. 2:35; 15:11; 4 Macc. 10:15); (3). In the present context the reference to separation from the Lord is of little significance if those punished are not conscious of their separation.’

But Marshall had something of a change of mind.  In his 2007 work ‘Aspects of the Atonement‘ he writes, in a footnote to p33, that he would now be

‘more inclined to argue that this does not mean eternal, conscious punishment but rather final, irreversible destruction than I was when I listed these possibilities in [the] earlier publication.’

The glory of his strength – ‘The Thessalonians were feeling the power of human oppressors, but Paul reminds them that there is One mightier.’ (Morris)

‘These solemn words make clear the utter finality of the lot of the wicked. As Denney says, “If there is any truth in Scripture at all, this is true—that those who stubbornly refuse to submit to the gospel, and to love and obey Jesus Christ, incur at the Last Advent an infinite and irreparable loss. They pass into a night on which no morning dawns.”‘ (Morris)

1:10 when he comes to be glorified among his saints and admired on that day among all who have believed—and you did in fact believe our testimony.

Glorified in his holy people – This may mean, (a) ‘glorified in the midst of his people’; or (b) that the Lord’s glory will be shared by his people (cf. 1 Jn 3:2).

Those who have believed – either (a) those whose former faith has now been transformed into sight; or (b) those who took the initial step of faith (i.e. became believers).

1:11 And in this regard we pray for you always, that our God will make you worthy of his calling and fulfill by his power your every desire for goodness and every work of faith, 1:12 that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Name = person.

Our God and the Lord Jesus Christ – The two titles might be synonymous, although most commentators consider that the reference is to Father and the Son.  Even if the latter is the correct interpretation, it is significant that Christ is  mentioned in the same breath as God.