1. Opening Formula: 1: 1-2

   As in 1 Thessalonians, the opening formula lists "Paul, Silvanus and Timothy", even though it is Paul who communicates. The only possible reference to an earlier letter is in 2:15, where the Thessalonians are told, "Hold fast to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our letter."

2. Thanksgiving: 1: 3-10, plus Prayer: 1: 11-12

   The thanksgiving praises the faith and love of the Thessalonians, as well as their constancy in the sufferings imposed upon them. When Jesus appears from heaven, he will inflict vengeance and eternal punishment on their persecutors, while they are delivered from affliction and glorified. The transition is a prayer (1:11-12) for God to make them worthy of their calling.

3. Body:
   1. 2: 1-17: Pauline indicative (instructions)

      Paul does not want the Thessalonians to be overly excited by "a spirit or a word", or by any letter allegedly from him concerning the immediacy of the "day of the Lord" (2:1-2). On the contrary, they can relax because the apocalyptic signs that are to precede the coming of that day have not yet occurred, namely the apostasy, the appearance of the ungodly or anti-God son of perdition, and the activity of Satan with alleged signs and wonders (2:3-12). However, the mystery of the ungodly is already at work, and something/someone is currently holding the ungodly back until it is revealed in due time (2:6-7).

      Paul then thanks God for choosing the Thessalonian believers from the beginning. They are to hold to the traditions they have been taught "by us", and he prays that they will be comforted (2:13-17).

   2. 3: 1-16: Pauline imperative (paraenesis and exhortations)

      Paul asks them to pray "for us...that we may escape" from evil men. The Lord will strengthen the Thessalonians and protect them from the evil one, and Paul is confident that they will do the things "that we command" (3:3-5). Then Paul states a specific command (3:6-13) because of the overheated expectations of the Lord's day. Some did not work (probably because they thought there was very little time left and the work seemed unnecessary). This is not imitating Paul who, during his stay among them, precisely to set an example, worked night and day. Therefore, "if anyone does not want to work, let him not eat" (3:10). To underline the seriousness of this commandment, another directive is given: "Notice anyone who does not obey our word in this letter and have no dealings with that person" (3:14). However, and here we see a touch of pastoral gentleness, "this person is not to be regarded as an enemy, but warned as a brother" (3:15). Just as the first part of the Body ended with a prayer for the Thessalonians in 2:16-17, so the second part in 3:16, this time a prayer for peace.

4. Concluding Formula: 3: 17-18

   Paul switches from "we" to "I" as he sends a greeting with his own hand.

From the end of the 18th century, the traditional view that Paul wrote this letter was challenged. In 20th century German scholarship, arguments against Pauline writing gradually led to the acceptance of this minority view. English-speaking scholars have tended to defend Paul's writings, but more recently several biblical scholars have joined the growing number who opt for the pseudonym.

It is not easy to evaluate the arguments. 2 Thess is about half the length of 1 Thess; and the close similarities between 1 and 2 Thess have been estimated to affect about one-third of 2 Thess. The similarity in format between the two letters is striking - in fact greater than between any other authentic letters: the same opening formulas; a double thanksgiving (which is peculiar in a Pauline letter) in 1 Thess 1:2; 2:13 and 2 Thess 1:3; 2:13; a blessing in 1 Thess 3:11-13 and 2 Thess 2:16-17 asking God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ to strengthen the hearts of the Thessalonians; also the same last verse. (Even beyond the format, 2 Thess 3:8 repeats almost word for word 2 Thess 2:9 about Paul's work and labor day and night). But why then would Paul copy himself in this almost mechanical way? Is it not the mark of another author who, in 2 Thessalonians, takes on the mantle of the Paul who wrote 1 Thessalonians?

1. Style and vocabulary arguments

   Biblical scholars argue from style and vocabulary. There are remarkable similarities in vocabulary between the two letters, as well as notable differences in 2 Thess. In 2 Thess 1:3-12, the sentences are longer and more complex than in 1 Thess, so that in this characteristic 2 Thess is close to the statistics of Ephesians and Colossians while 1 Thess is close to those of the undisputed Pauline letters. The tone of 2 Thess is more formal than that of 1 Thess. The references to Paul's life in 2 Thess are less personal; however, this fact could be explained if 2 Thess was written very soon after 1 Thess and therefore it was not necessary to reiterate what Paul had done on his first visit to Thessalonica. Moreover, "This greeting is from my own hand, Paul; it is my mark in every letter" (2 Thess 3:17) is very personal. Certainly the first clause of this sentence favors authenticity. (If 2 Thess is pseudonymous and the notion of forgery is to be avoided, the author is symbolically insisting on the authenticity of the message, not that of the pen.) On the other hand, the second clause may favor pseudonymity because "every letter" would be more intelligible after there was a tradition that Paul wrote many letters rather than just 1 Thess (which is the only letter known to have preceded 2 Thess if the latter was written early by Paul).

2. Internal indications on the time of the composition

   These indications come into the discussion because Paul died in the mid-60s. Some argue that the reference to the temple of God in 2 Thess 2:4 shows that the temple in Jerusalem was still standing, and that the work was therefore written before the year 70 and near the time of 1 Thess. The oblique suggestion of false Pauline letters (2 Thess 2:2; 3:17) favors a later rather than an earlier period, not only because it is unlikely that Paul was such a copied authority early in his missionary career, but also because we have no example of a pseudonymous Jewish work attributed to a man still living. If the "man of iniquity" in 2 Thess 2:3 symbolizes Nero coming back to life (embodying the expectation that Nero would return from the dead), then it must be remembered that this emperor committed suicide in 68; and so 2 Thess 2:3 should have been written after that date and after Paul's lifetime.

3. The proximity of 2 Thess to post-Pauline works

   This is another argument in favor of the pseudonym. For example, the atmosphere of deceitful false teachers (2:2-3.10-11) and the need to preserve previously taught traditions (2:15) resembles the atmosphere of the Pastorals (1 Tim 1:6-7; 4:1-2; Titus 1:9). The similarity between the apocalyptic of 2 Thess and that of Revelation suggests a date near the end of the first century.

The 2 Thess goal is cited as a major argument on both sides, but this issue deserves to be addressed in its own subsection.

If it was Paul who wrote this letter, we can assume that, while making it clear that those who had died would still have a share in the parousia, 1 Thessalonians had focused too much attention on this event and intensified an immediate expectation. Such expectation could have been heightened by increased persecution and affliction (1:4). Indeed, some claimed that Paul had said that the day of the Lord had already come (2 Thess 2:2) and so they had ceased all activity (3:10-11). Paul now writes a second letter to reassure the Thessalonians that there must be apocalyptic signs before the day of the Lord. Considering the thesis that Paul wrote this letter a few months after his relatively short stay in Thessalonica in the early 50s, the description of the signs leaves us wondering. Who or what is holding back the mystery of iniquity that is already at work? Moreover, can the insistence that the perceptible signs must come before the day of the Lord (2 Thess 2:3-5) be reconciled with 1 Thess 5:2, "The day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night," as constituting Paul's consistent thought expressed at the same time?

Authentic Pauline authorship does not necessarily require a very early date for 2 Thessalonians, although this calculation is more common. For example, after writing 1 Thessalonians, Paul most likely visited Thessalonica several times during his travels in Macedonia (see 1 Cor 16:5 at the end of his stay in Ephesus in the summer of '57; and 2 Cor 7:5 and Acts 20:1-6 before his final visit to Jerusalem in about year 58). These additional encounters could explain the problems of 2 Thess, if it was written after this period.

If Paul did not write 2 Thess, in some ways the interpretation becomes more complex. It could not have been written too late, for it was already known to Marcion and Polycarp before the middle of the second century. Some would see the letter as addressed to a different situation (Gnostic dangers) with no obvious connection to the Thessalonian church described in the earlier letter. Others would more plausibly see continuity with some of the themes of 1 Thess.

The majority of scholars who opt for the pseudonym would perhaps see the letter addressed to the Thessalonian church in the late 1st century, where the corrected dangers would find a better context than in the 50s (so there would have been a continuity of the church's audience, even if separated by decades). In the 90s, at least in some areas, Christians were facing severe hardships (2 Thess 1:4.6), so they began to see evil on a global scale working against believers in Christ. They turned to the Jewish apocalyptic written in similar circumstances and reused its symbols, for example Daniel's description of hostile world empires as wild animals. The book of Revelation symbolically identified an evil of satanic origin at work through the Roman Empire and the cult of emperors. Specifically, the emperor Domitian, whose distrust of religious deviations seems to have led to local harassment of Christians and who referred to himself as Lord and God, may have embodied this evil. It is possible to see 2 Thess in the same light since it mentions diabolical persecution and deception and associates Satan's activity with the coming of the godless one who exalts himself above all gods and seeks to be worshipped by sitting in God's temple (2: 3.4.9). In this approach, a writer who knew 1 Thess 5:1-2 containing Paul's warning about the times and seasons and the coming of the day of the Lord like a thief in the night decided to write a letter modeled on this text. Paul, dead for a quarter of a century, will speak again in the midst of passionate apocalyptic expectations, to give an authoritative message to hold on to (2 Thess 2:15; 3:4.6). He warns people not to be deceived by the enthusiasm of false teachers (2:3) and reminds the audience of the usual signs associated with the parousia that are still unverified. It is true that the mystery of iniquity is at work. Yet something or someone is holding back the ungodly; and when that figure comes, the Lord Jesus will kill it (2:7-8).

In examining the arguments for and against Paul's writing of 2 Thess, one cannot decide with certainty, even though certainty is claimed by some proponents of post-Pauline writing. Although the current tide of scholarship has turned against Paul's own writing, biblical studies are not helped by the certainty of the uncertain. Moreover, keeping both possibilities open encourages readers to think more insightfully about the issues involved.

1. It is difficult to list the differences in teaching and emphasis between 1 and 2 Thess and make an effort to explain them. Beyond the obvious differences in the respective eschatological teaching, there are more subtle differences. For example, in 1 Thess there is a tone of supplication and exhortation, while in Thess there is a greater appeal to authoritative teaching and tradition (paradosis: a word absent from the previous letter). In 1 Thessalonians (1:5; 2:1-9; 3:4), Paul appeals to himself as an example; the Paul of 2 Thessalonians (2:15; 3:6.14) speaks more as an apostolic authority. Do these characteristics offer an argument for dating 2 Thess to a post-Pauline period when he was revered as the founder of the churches (Eph 2:20)?

2. What is the Christology of 2 Thess and how can it be compared to that of 1 Thess. For example, notice the use of "God" in 1 Thess 1:4; 5:23.24 and the use of "the Lord [Jesus]" in almost identical phrases in 2 Thess 2:13; 3:16; 3:3. If 2 Thess was written at a later period, is the exaltation of Jesus now more advanced? Let us note, however, that the lordship of Jesus seems above all to be linked not to the resurrection but to the parousia. Is this a reappearance of an earlier Christology?

3. The identity of the man of lawlessness, son of perdition and agent of Satan, who sits in the temple of God and proclaims himself God (whose coming is associated with apostasy; 2:3-5.9-10), and the identity of the thing or person who now holds him are the subject of considerable controversy. We can only scratch the surface here; readers should consult the commentaries for arguments for and against the suggested identifications. Depending on the date assigned to 2 Thess, the man of lawlessness has often been identified with a Roman emperor claiming to be divine (Caligula, Nero, Domitian), and the one holding him back has been identified with Roman law or an agent of it who prevented the enforcement of the emperor's cult. Other suggestions for the restrainer are God who, in Jewish thought, had bound the evil angels until the last days and delayed the time of judgment, or the divine plan for the gospel to be proclaimed throughout the world. Some scholars interpret the "one who holds back" as a force/person hostile to God, i.e., a falsely inspired prophet who had deceived the Thessalonians about the day of the Lord. Much of the discussion assumes that the author clearly perceived the identity of the lawless man and the restrainer. It is not impossible, however, that the author received the imagery of tradition and, without being able to identify them, in the present situation, believed only that the lawless man had not come and that, therefore, the one holding him back must be at work.

   Today, readers should consider a more crucial question. Should believers still expect an apostasy, a man of illegality, and a force to hold him back? Throughout the history of Christianity, people have thought so, identifying various figures as the antichrist. However, as early as the NT era, we find an attempt to deal with such expectations on a more mundane level: the author of 1 John 2:18-19 considers those who have apostasized from his community as the expected antichrists. Can we accept the symbolism of 2 Thess as simply meaning that there is always opposition to the kingdom of God, and that before the final coming of that kingdom in and through Christ, there will be supreme opposition? Some have argued that 2 Thess makes eschatology irrelevant. More simply, does it make it irrelevant to seek precision about what exactly will happen, as if it were a major religious issue?