and, as these epistles show (cf. I., v. 12 f., II., ii. 6 f.), he knew better than to leave his young societies with nothing more than the vague memory of pious preaching. The local organisation was, as yet, primitive, but evidently it was sufficient to maintain itself and carry on the business of the church, when the guiding hand of the mission- ary was removed (c/. Clem. Rom. xlii.), though the authority of the leaders still required upon occasion the support and endorsement of the apostles (see on v. 12).
84. The Character and Setting of the Second Epistle.—In the second and shorter epistle, after congratulating the local Christians especially on their patient faith (i. 1-4), Paul explains that the trials and troubles which called this virtue into exer- cise were but the prelude to a final relief and vindication at the ἀπο- κάλυψις τοῦ κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ (4-12). As the ardent expectation of this had, however, produced a morbid excitement in some quarters, he sets him- self (ii. 1-12) to weed out such mistakes and mischiefs by reminding the church of his previous warning that the end could not come until the μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας attained its climax in a supernatural and personal embodiment of evil, which would vainly challenge the authority and provoke the interposition of the Lord. He then con- cludes (ii, 13-17) with an expression of confidence in them, an appeal for loyalty to his teaching, and a brief prayer on their behalf. Asking their prayers, in return, for himself, he renews his expression of con- fidence and interest (1. 1-5); whereupon, with a word upon the maintenance of discipline and industry, the epistle ends (iii. 6-18).
Assuming both epistles to have come from Paul,! we may unhesi- tatingly place 2 Thess. after 1 Thess. The evidence for the opposite order, advocated by Grotius in his Annotationes (ii. 715 f., based on an antiquated chronology), Ewald (f¥ahrb. fiir bibl. Wiss. 1861, 249 f., Sendschreiben des Paulus, 19 f.), Laurent (Studien η. Kriti- ken, 1864, pp. 497 f., N.T. Studien, 49 Ε.), and J. 5. Chamberlain (The Epp. of Paul the Apostle, 1907, 5 £.), breaks down upon examina- tion. It is unnatural to find a reference to II. iti. 6-16 in I. iv. 10-11; besides, as Bornemann points out (p. 495), if 2 Thess. is held to betray all the characteristics of a first letter (Ewald), what about II. 11. 15? There is no reason why such a criterion of genuineness
1 Qn the hypothesis that both are post-Pauline, Baur (Paulus, Eng. tr., ii. 336 f. and van der Vies (de beiden brieven aan de Th., 1865, pp. 128-164) argue for the priority of 2 Dhess., the latter separating the two by the fall of Jerusalem ; van Manen (Onderzoek naar de Echtheid van P. tweeden Brief an die Thess., 1865, pp. 11-25) refutes both critics. The arguments for the canonical order are best stated by von Hofmann (365), Liinemann (16ο f.), and Bornemann (492 f.) in their editions.