2 Thessalonians 2:2

to the end that ye be not quickly shaken from your mind [Shaken is a figurative expression taken from waves agitated by a storm. The minds of the Thessalonians having been instructed by Paul, and having a thorough apprehension of the entire subject, ought not to have been so readily, and with such small reason, confused-- Ephesians 4:14], nor yet be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by epistle as from us, as that [as teaching that] the day of the Lord is just at hand [Paul here enumerates the three forces which had produced the fanatical unrest at Thessalonica. The first was probably the cause of this unrest, and the second and third were more likely used to excuse or justify it. Some highly wrought souls, laboring under morbid excitement, had delivered exhortations or discourses which were professedly inspired. While these men ought not to have been despised without due consideration, neither ought they to have been believed without being thoroughly tested (1 Thessalonians 5:20-21; 1 John 4:1). The Thessalonians, however, despite the apostle's warning, had imprudently accepted both the prophet and the prophecy, and had permitted, and perhaps aided and encouraged, the justification of the prophecy. The prophecy was justified by "words," by which we may understand misapplications or misquotations either of the apostle's own teaching while he was with them, or of the words of Christ orally communicated by him to them, as, for instance, the sayings at Matthew 16:28; Matthew 24:34. It was also justified by a misuse of certain phrases in Paul's first Epistle, as for instance the passages cited in our introduction, Commentators almost universally contend that by the phrase "epistle as from us" Paul means a spurious or forged epistle which had been palmed off upon the church as if it had come from him. In support of this notion it is urged that if Paul had referred to his first Epistle he would not have disowned it, but would have explained it. But to this it may be answered that Paul does explain his first Epistle by thus tersely and emphatically disowning the misconstruction placed upon it. Against the idea of forgery, four points may be considered: 1. Ought any of the church at Thessalonica to be lightly accused of such a fraud? 2. Was there any sufficient inducement for their committing such a fraud? 3. Was such an event likely to be made the subject of fraud? 4. Would Paul have passed over such a sacrilegious outrage without a syllable of rebuke, while in verse 5 he even rebukes their forgetfulness, and in 2 Thessalonians 3:14 he orders the excommunication of any man who fails to give heed to his Epistle? Had there been a forgery we would reasonably have expected some such language as that of Galatians 1:6-12. Moreover, had there been a forgery Paul could not have repudiated it without explanation, else his repudiation might have been shrewdly used by the forgers to cast discredit upon his first Epistle. Paul taught that the day of the Lord was at hand (Romans 13:12; Philippians 4:5), as did other of the apostles (1 Peter 4:7; Revelation 1:3), John using a very strong expression (John 2:18); but the phrase "just at hand" is stronger still; it denotes an imminence nothing short of the actual appearing of the Lord the next instant--an imminence answering to the fanaticism of the Thessalonians, and one which Paul had not taught. In teaching us to be always prepared for the Lord's coming, the Scripture nowhere justifies or excuses us in letting the thoughts of his coming absorb our mind, or the expectation of his coming interfere with the most trivial duty];