David Schafer: Follow Divine Direction, and Love the Truth (1 Thess. 2:17, 18)

Davies and Allison, Matthew, volume 1, introduction, dates the Gospel around 80–95 CE rather than approximately 41 CE.

The assertion imports an organizational early dating of Matthew into the narrative as established history. Second Thessalonians does not quote the wheat-and-weeds parable or demonstrate knowledge of the written Gospel. Similar themes cannot establish either literary dependence or a ten-year circulation period.

Matthew supplies no composition date. Its generally accepted use of Mark and its historical setting underpin the usual later dating. Scholars who consider Second Thessalonians pseudonymous place it later than Paul's lifetime, but that alternative likewise does not establish the speaker's specific ten-year chronology.

2 Thessalonians ch. 2 v. 2 names possible channels of the alarming claim, not an argument based on First Thessalonians' word frequency.

The speaker supplies an unverified causal bridge between the two letters. His qualification about a possibly misattributed letter is appropriately tentative, but the preceding account of speculators' reasoning is not documented. Attributing the episode to a new tactic of Satan is an additional theological interpretation.

The passage mentions a spirit, spoken message, or letter supposedly from the authors as possible sources of alarm. It does not identify the people responsible or explain their reasoning. Standard critical editions read 'day of the Lord'; the NWT renders this 'day of Jehovah,' although the Greek text does not contain the divine name here.

2 Thessalonians ch. 2 vv. 6–7 leaves the restrainer unnamed and does not explicitly identify the apostles.

The speaker presents a particular organizational interpretation as the passage's established meaning. Apostolic teaching could plausibly be conceived as a restraint, but neither the identity nor the proposed mechanism is specified in the text.

The author assumes the original audience knows what restrains the lawless figure, without telling later readers explicitly. Proposed referents include Roman political power, an angelic agent, divine action, and the preaching mission. The refusal to love the truth in v. 10 describes those being deceived; it does not explicitly identify the restrainer.

Acts ch. 16 v. 10 introduces 'we' without naming Luke or narrating a meeting.

The speaker presents a traditional inference as an explicit biographical event. Even accepting that 'we' indicates a participant, identifying that participant as Luke and locating an initial meeting here require additional assumptions.

Acts is internally anonymous. Its first 'we' passage begins when the travelers prepare to leave Troas. That establishes a narrative change of voice, not the narrator's name or the circumstances in which he joined.

Acts ch. 17 v. 14 places Timothy in Berea; 1 Thessalonians ch. 3 vv. 1–2 describes his subsequent dispatch to Thessalonica.

The pastoral purpose is well supported, but the compressed itinerary is misleading. The speaker turns a subsequent mission into part of an apparently coordinated arrangement made when Paul left Macedonia.

Acts says Silas and Timothy remained in Berea when Paul was sent away. First Thessalonians says Paul and his associates decided to remain in Athens and sent Timothy to strengthen the Thessalonians. Timothy subsequently returned with a report.

The speaker presents a reconstructed chronology as a precise narrative setting. The approximate year is reasonable, but the season should be identified as an inference rather than a directly documented fact.

Acts supplies an itinerary but no calendar date for the Macedonian crossing. Gallio's independently attested tenure helps anchor Paul's subsequent Corinthian period, from which dates for earlier travel are reconstructed.

The speaker moves directly from the narrator's explanation to an established supernatural cause. This is faithful devotional use of Acts, but historical analysis cannot establish that Jesus caused the obstruction.

Acts distinguishes being forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak in Asia from the 'Spirit of Jesus' not allowing entry into Bithynia. Standard translations and the NWT retain that latter expression. The passage does not explain what observable event constituted either prohibition.

The distinction is between accurately reporting Acts and establishing its theological conclusion. The NWT wording 'proving by references' can sound like a formal demonstration; other translations use expressions such as 'explaining and proving' or 'explaining and demonstrating.' None supplies independent validation of the messianic interpretation.

Acts says Paul argued that the Messiah had to suffer and rise, but does not identify the passages used in this particular synagogue address. The suffering servant and psalmic passages employed elsewhere in early Christianity have literary and historical contexts that do not explicitly identify Jesus.

2 Timothy ch. 4 v. 10 gives Thessalonica as Demas's destination, not his origin.

The speaker's questions about who appears in an imagined scene are illustrative, but the subsequent assertion about their origins is factual. Going to Thessalonica does not establish that Demas originally came from it or belonged to Paul's first group of converts there.

Demas appears as a coworker in Philemon and Colossians. Second Timothy says that he departed for Thessalonica. By contrast, Acts explicitly identifies Aristarchus and Secundus as Thessalonians.

The qualification 'very likely' is appropriate. Historically, 'earliest surviving letter' is more defensible than 'first letter': the surviving collection cannot establish when Paul first began writing. Divine inspiration is a separate confessional judgment.

The letter explicitly connects its immediate circumstances with Timothy's recent return. Corinthian provenance comes from correlating its contents with Acts rather than from an explicit statement in the letter itself.

This is a valid narrow word-frequency observation, not necessarily a count of every discussion of Christ's return. The NWT's 'presence' also should not be treated as lexical proof of the distinctive Witness doctrine of an extended invisible presence.

Parousia can mean presence or arrival; standard translations frequently use 'coming' in these eschatological passages. Other Pauline occurrences concern human visitors or, in 2 Thessalonians ch. 2 v. 9, the lawless one's coming, and therefore do not belong in this Christ-specific count.

Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, introduction: Hebrews is anonymous and its attribution to Paul is rejected.

The devotional treats the organizational attribution of fourteen letters to Paul as settled. That attribution is not established by the letters themselves and differs sharply from mainstream scholarship. The separate frequency comparison does not require Hebrews to be Pauline.

Thirteen New Testament letters name Paul; Hebrews does not. Its style, argumentation, and account of receiving the message through earlier hearers distinguish it from Paul's characteristic claims. Ancient Christians themselves disagreed over its authorship.