&t the end of the Epistle, there is appe1,ded the note: "The First Epistle to the Thesse.lonians was written from Athens." Though such a note is found in the most ancient manuscripts, it is evidently a mistake. 1'he Epistle could not have been written from Athens, for Silas and Timothy were not both there with the apostle; and it was not written until the return of Timothy from Thessalonice., which occurred at Corinth; nor is there any ground for the supposition that Paul and his companions, Juring his rei-idenC'e at Corinth, me.de a short excursion to Athens. The mistake appears to have arisen from a carele,s inferenoe drawn from the words, " We thought it good to be left at Athens alone " ( oh. iii. 1) ; whereas t.he reference there is evidently to a past event, and indirectly in1plies that the apostle was not at Athens when he wrote these words. These 1mbscriptiuns at the end of the Epistles have no authority; and although in general correct, yet occasionally, as in the present instance, they a.re erroneous.
I 5. THE PECULIARITIES OF THE EPiffLB. The special peculiarity of this Epistle is that it is undoubtedly the first of Paul's extant Epistles. Whether it is the first Epistle that Paul ever wrote is an entirely different question; but it is the first that has come down to us. This is a point on which almost all commentators are agreed. In all probability it is the earliest of the books of the New Testament, wit~ the possible exception of the Epistle of James. It is erroneous to affirm that this First Epistle to the Thessalonians is devoid of doctrinal statements. The supreme dignity of t!ie Lord Jesus Christ, the spiritual kingdom which he has established in this world, the deliverance from the wrath to come effected by him, the necessity of holi- ness for salvation, the reign of Christ in heaven, the resurrection of the just, the second advent of Christ, the blessedness of a future state to the righteous and the wrath which awaits the wicked, are all clearly deduced from this El'i,tle. The great plan of redemption through the sufferings of Christ was clear to the arostle from the beginning. We can hardly even affirm that there was a development in the views of the apostle- a progres~ made in spiritual knowledge and insight into the ways of God. No doubt different doctri11es are insisted on in the different Epistles; but this arose from the circumstances of the Churches to whom the apostle wrote. 'l'hus in this Epistle to the Thessalonians there is no mention of the great Pauline doctrine of justification, because in that Church there was no controver~y with the Juclaistic Christians, and therefore no neces~ity of defending the doetrine of ju~ti ficatiun against erroneous notions; whereas the errors of the Galatian Cliurch caused the apostle to dwell specially on that doctrine. So al11u at a still later period the incipient Gnostio errors were the oocasion which induced the apostle to insii;t more fully on the nature of Christ's Pen;un in the Epistles to the Colossians and F,phesie.nM Tim Fimrr El'ISTLE TO THF, 7HT~SSALONIANS. Ix
than in hiR earlier EpistlN1. Bishop Lightfoot, in his able article on the "EpiHLles lo the 'l'hessalon ianH," in Smith's ' Biblical Dictionary,' notices three 1,oints of dilference hetween these and Paul's later Epistle!!. FirRt, in lhe general style of these earlier letters there ii! greater i,implicity and less exuberance of language. SeconJly, the antagonism is different. Here the opposition comes from the unconverted Jews; afterwards Paul's oppo- nents are Judaizing Christians. Thirdly, the doctrinal teaching of the apostle does not bear quite the same aspect as in the later Epistles. Many of the distinctive doctrines of Christianity which are inseparably connected with Paul's name were not evolved and distinctly enunciated until the needs of the Church drew them ont into prominence at a later date. So far, then, it may be true that this First Epistle to the Thessalonians is not 110 doctrinal as the Epistles to the Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians. The circumstances of the Church determined the contents of the Epi11tle. The doctrine most insisted on and explained is the second advent, because erroneous views prevailed concerning it among the Thessalonians, giving rise to many disorders. Paul, in writing to the Thessalonians, lays bare his heart ; he speaks of his gentleness among them, even as a nursing mother cherisheth her children, and of his readiness to impart unto them, not the gospel of God only, but his own soul by reason of the affection which he bore to them. The Epistle which it most closely resembles is that to the Philippians. The Macedonian Churches were peculiarly attached to the apostle, and he to them ; he writes to them in the fulness of his affection ; and exhorts them, not so much with the authority of a spiritual teacher, as with the love and tenderness of parental affection, even as a father doth his children.
I 6. LITERATURE.
List of works consulted in the following Exposition : - Alexander, Bishop of Derry, " Epistles to 'l'hessalonians," in ' Speaker's Comm~nbry ,' 1881 ; Alford; H., 'The Greek Testament,' vol. iii., 3rd. edit., li::i66; Auberlen, C. A., "1 Thessalonians i., ii.," in Lange's 'Bibelwerk,' 1869; Bleek, J. F., 'Introduction to the New 'l'estament,' translation 1870; 'Lectures on the Apocalypse,' translation i875; Calvin, J., • Commentary on the Thessalonians,' translation 1851; Conybeare and Howson, 'Life and Epistles of St. Paul,' 2nd edit., 1862; Davidson, S., 'Intro- duction to the New Testament,' 1st edit., 3 vols., 1851; 'Introduction to the Study of the New Testament,• 2 vols., 1868 ; De W ette, W. M. L., ' Exege tisches Ha0tl buch : Thessalonicher,' 1864; Diedrich, J., 'Die Briefe St. Pauli,' Leipzig, 1858; Doddridge, P. 'Family Expo11itor; • Diisterdieck, F., 'Offenbarung Johannis:' dritte Auflage, 1877; Eadie, J'.lhn, • Commentary on 'l'hessalonians,' 1877; Ellicott, Bishop, ' St. P~ul's Epistles to the 'l'hessalonians,' 3rd edit., 1866; Elliott, E. B., ' Horie A pocalyptu:m,' 6th edit., 186::!; Farrar, F. W., • Articles in the Expositor,' vols. i. a11J ii., 2nd series; Gloag P. J. 'Pauline Epistles,' 1874; Hofmann, J.C. K., 'Die hcilige Schrift N. T.: '.l.'h. i.;Thes;alonicher,' 1869; 'Schriftbeweis,' 1854; Hurd, Bishop,• On the Pr~phecies,' vol. ii., 4th edit., 1776; Jowett, B., 'St. Paul's Epistles to the Thessalonians, etc., lsL eclit., 1866; 2nd edit., 1869; Kirchhofer, J., 'Qnellensarumlun~,~ ~842; Koc~, A., 'Commentar uber d. 1 'l'hessalonicher,' 1855; Lardner, N., 'Cred1b1hty of the Gospel History,' 18lu; Lee, W.," Revelatioas," in 'Speaker•~ Commentary,' 1881; Li:!Jitfuut. I. INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST 'l'HESSALONI.A.NS.