2nd Thessalonians

1:1 As this letter is supposed to have been written not long after Paul's previous epistle, it's not surprising that the introduction is the same, again focusing on grace and peace.  It will be interesting to detect and extrapolate from any other perceived shifts in Paul's approach . . .

1:5 One wonders, then, about those who do not suffer quite so much.  Are they unworthy of the kingdom?

1:6 I get the impression that Paul is mentioning something to which I don't have access.  Otherwise, this is a bit of a leap in logic. Never mind the question of how just it is to repay suffering for suffering, something against which the congregation has no doubt been cautioned.  I just mean wher is the rhetorical link with what he's discussing?

1:7,8 Whoa, there, nelly.  This is a departure from his earlier message in the extreme.  I don't recall Paul getting this worked up and brimstoney very often.  No doubt a rhetorical appeal to the Thessalonians' baser human urge for vengeance.

2:3 It would be easy to take this as a prophecy, but it is not altogether clear that Paul means "the lawless one" to be The Lawless One, some sort of archetypal embodiment of rebellion.  He could just as easily have been referring to lawless people in general.

2:4 Okay, now it's clear.  So when does this happen, exactly? Was Paul ever dissapointed that he didn't see anything resembling the fulfillment of his urgent message?

2:6 They may know, but we certainly have no clue. 

2:11,12 I have serious problems both with Paul's logic and with his theology.  By Paul's reasoning, God has purposefully deluded some so that whose who are deluded can be comdemned.  This makes no kind of sense.  It's the "so" that really throws a spanner in it.  Why is this divinely induced delusion a precondition? 

3:6 No doubt a targeted messsage.  I wonder how the intended target felt?  Whether they were ashamed of their laziness, or angered at being singled out.

3:17 Now this is the thing that I find most troubling about this letter.  Why on Earth would Paul see fit to draw attention to his handwriting here, and not in 1 Thessalonians? His opening is standard, and changes little across the course of all his letters.  Why should this closing be so different?  Unless somebody had something to prove. 

Which brings us to the authenticity of this book.  While widely regarded as authentically authored by Paul, there are some who notice the dramatic differences between it and his earlier letter.  I tend to agree with this; 1st Thess. was solicitous, warm and upbuilding in the extreme.  This letter seems violently angry by comparison.  Paul was human, and subject to flights of emotion, no doubt, but these letters just do not feel like they were writeen by the same person.  And would Paul ever be guilty of such sloppy logic as found in 2:12?  Lastly, what about that closing? 

For that matter, do we really care whether the Paul or some associate wrote this letter (possibly going so far as to forge his handwriting)? For those who take this to be the literal inspired word of God, such a question would be of monumental importance and, of course, would never even be supposed.