What do you think?
Rate this book
Tyndale New Testament Commentaries #13
1 and 2 Thessalonians: An Introduction and Commentary (Volume 13)
"No other writings of Paul provide a greater insight into his missionary methods and message as 1 and 2 Thessalonians," says Leon Morris. "Here we see Paul the missionary at Paul the pastor, faithfully proclaiming the gospel of God, concerned for the welfare of his converts, scolding them, praising them, guiding them exhorting them, teaching them; thrilled with their progress, disappointed in their slowness . . . Especially important is the teaching of these Epistles on eschatology." The original, unrevised text of this volume has been completely retypeset and printed in a larger, more attractive format with the new cover design for the series. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries have long been a trusted resource for Bible study. Written by some of the world's most distinguished evangelical scholars, these twenty volumes offer clear, reliable, and relevant explanations of every book in the New Testament. These Tyndale volumes are designed to help readers understand what the Bible actually says and what it means. The introduction to each volume gives a concise but thorough description of the authorship, date, and historical background of the biblical book under consideration. The commentary itself examines the text section by section, drawing out its main themes. It also comments on individual verses and deals with problems of interpretation. The aim throughout is to get at the true meaning of the Bible and to make its message plain to readers today.
148 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1957
31 people are currently reading
180 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
July 28, 2025
I have been reading this during my daily devotional time as I have sought to study ahead in 1 & 2 Thessalonians, since we are preaching through it at church.
I would give this commentary a 3.5. Morris mostly dives into grammatical details which is helpful on the one hand, and makes for some choppy reading on the other. With most of the focus on the language, this commentary tends to be light on theology and application. And yet Morris remains a faithful voice worthy of listening to as he seems to faithfully expound God's word.
"The reason for the Christian certainty is what God has done in Christ's death and resurrection." (90)
I would give this commentary a 3.5. Morris mostly dives into grammatical details which is helpful on the one hand, and makes for some choppy reading on the other. With most of the focus on the language, this commentary tends to be light on theology and application. And yet Morris remains a faithful voice worthy of listening to as he seems to faithfully expound God's word.
"The reason for the Christian certainty is what God has done in Christ's death and resurrection." (90)
did-not-finish
September 20, 2022I'm finally admitting I'm giving up on this commentary. I normally get a lot out of Tyndale commentaries, but this one was dull, confusing at times, and lacked much insight.
February 5, 2023
This contribution to the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series is useful for helping the average reader understand the significance of the underlying Greek to assist with a proper exegesis of the text. While it has some theological reflections, which coming from Leon Morris are usually good, you will need to supplement this commentary with a more doctrinally focused one to better understand Paul's teaching.
In particular, Dr Morris's treatment of the man of sin/lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2 is most unsatisfactory. Both John Stott's Bible Speaks Today commentary on the Thessalonian epistles and Greg Beale's monograph on the temple do a great job of highlighting why the man of sin has to be an ecclesiastical figure. Still, Dr Morris's commentary is very useful for the lay reader and those preparing to lead Bible studies.
In particular, Dr Morris's treatment of the man of sin/lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2 is most unsatisfactory. Both John Stott's Bible Speaks Today commentary on the Thessalonian epistles and Greg Beale's monograph on the temple do a great job of highlighting why the man of sin has to be an ecclesiastical figure. Still, Dr Morris's commentary is very useful for the lay reader and those preparing to lead Bible studies.
November 2, 2020
This is a nice concise commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians. If you want to go deep, this is probably not the book as it is quite short. But if you need to know just the basics, this is a great resource by a respected scholar of a previous generation.
December 23, 2013
Paul’s letters to the Thessalonian church are among some of his earliest correspondence. While brief, there is much to learn in these inspired pages and Morris does a fine job of summarizing the main ideas of the text in succinct and poignant fashion. Morris’ brevity should not be confused with superficiality, however, as he manages to trek deeply into the Thessalonian letters and draw out both the implications and applications present in the pages of Scripture.
June 23, 2025
AN INSIGHTFUL AND LEVELHEADED ANALYSIS OF THESE TWO BOOKS
Leon Lamb Morris (1914-2006) was an Australian New Testament scholar, who was ordained to the Anglican ministry, served as Warden of Tyndale House, Cambridge (1960-64); Principal of Ridley College in Melbourne (1964-1979), and was a Visiting Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
He writes in the Introduction to this 1959 book about the authenticity of I Thessalonians, “This letter claims to be from Paul (1:1, 2:18), and it is Pauline both in language and in ideas… The letter must be early for various reasons… It is difficult to think of anyone writing after Paul’s death putting forth in Paul’s name a statement that might be understood as meaning that the Parousia would take place during the Apostle’s lifetime (I Thess 4:15)… it is impossible to think of anyone but Paul putting it out in early times. How could it possibly gain a circulation while the Apostle was still engaged in vigorous work, travelling among the churches and well able to denounce it?
"Yet we must bear in mind that the possibility of forgery seems to be implied by II Thess 2:2, and the explanation of the autograph in II Thess 3:17. Moreover, the letter is as well attested as we could reasonably ask. It is not the kind of letter which would be quoted often. This explains its absence from the few sub-apostolic writings that have come down to us.” (Pg. 27)
With II Thessalonians, he says, “there are good reasons for thinking of II Thessalonians as authentic. It has early attestation… It claims to have been written by Paul, and the language and theology are Pauline. It is difficult to think of a suitable motive for a forger… It is difficult to think of a reason for making the letter resemble I Thessalonians so closely… In recent times, however, attention has been focused on certain matters which raise doubts…. Sometime II Thessalonians repeats I Thessalonians not only in general ideas, but also in the actual words that are employed. The objection is that such an outstanding man as Paul would not find it necessary to repeat himself… [But] If Paul wrote II Thessalonians not so very long after I Thessalonians it would not be surprising if sometimes words and phrases are repeated…
"The eschatology of II Thessalonians is said to be different … in the First Epistle the coming of the Lord is thought of as about to take place very soon and very suddenly. But in the Second Epistle it will be preceded by signs, like the great rebellion and the appearance of the Man of Lawlessness. But… it is a commonplace in apocalyptic literature that the Lord’s coming is to be sudden, and yet that it will be preceded by signs… Many matters were certainly left ungrasped by the Thessalonians. It is entirely natural that eager new converts should have fastened their attention on such an outstanding figure as the Man of Lawlessness without appreciating the fact that some of their number would die before the great day. Indeed they well have not given this matter any thought at all before the decease of some of their number forced it on their notice.” (Pg. 31-32)
Of the “Satan hindered us” reference in I Thess 2:18, he comments, “The verb used here means literally ‘to cut into.’ … A number of suggestions have been put forward as to the particular mode Satan’s activities took. But we are completely in the dark in this matter, and all the attempts are simply guess work. There is no means of knowing just what Paul had in mind. Clearly the Thessalonians were expected to catch the allusion, but we lack the detailed knowledge of the circumstances.” (Pg. 95)
He observes about I Thess 4:11, “there were some who were so excited by all the wonderful things in the Christian faith that they were not bothering to earn their living… It is most likely that this arose out of second-advent speculations. They had learned very well that the Lord would be returning in mighty power, and evidently they felt it would be very soon. Accordingly there was no point in continuing in some steady job. It was much more realistic, they evidently thought, to be about the business of proclaiming the near end of the world. If they had need of this world’s goods in the meantime, why, there were others, Christian brethren, who could be relied upon to come to their rescue.
"This kind of thing can be done from a sense of serious purpose. But, human nature being what it is, it can easily degenerate into downright laziness and idleness. Men can be so taken up with the spectacular, with excitements over the near approach of the Lord, that they pass over the important things of everyday life.” (Pg. 132)
He deals with the famous “Rapture” passage of 4:17: “The verb he uses of being ‘caught up’ is one which means… ‘to seize, carry off by force.’ There is often the notion of a sudden swoop, and usually that of a force which cannot be resisted. The applicability of such a verb to the snatching away (the ‘rapture’) of the saints is obvious. Some have seen in this a secret action which suddenly removes the saints from the world preparatory to the great tribulation (Rev 7:14).
"To this two things must be said. The one, that this is the only place in the New Testament which speaks unambiguously of the rapture… Therefore we must not be unduly dogmatic about it. Had we an abundance of detail recorded we could say a great deal. But we have no more than a few simple facts, and we must not read our pet theories into them. The other is that it is very hard to fit this into a secret rapture. In v. 16 Paul speaks of the Lord descending ‘with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God.’ It may be that from this he intends us to understand that the rapture will take place secretly, and that no one except the saints themselves will know what is going on. But one would hardly gather this from his words. It is difficult to see how he could more plainly describe something that is open and public. I do not doubt that, if He so wished, God would make the voice of the archangel, the shout, and the trumpet call to be inaudible to unbelievers. But I do greatly doubt whether this is what Paul is saying.” (Pg. 145)
Of interest are his thoughts on the “that which restraineth” passage in II Thess 2:6-7: “’That which restraineth’ is the neuter participle of a verb whose masculine participle is found in the next verse,’ where it is rendered ‘one that restraineth.’ … Some person or thing at the moment the Epistle was written was holding something fast, or exercising away, or restraining…Better than any of these speculations seems to be that which favors the principle of order which restrains the working of evil. This might be referred to in the abstract as neuter, or it might be personified… It might be ... the system of law in the Roman Empire... when law is taken out of the way that the Lawless One will rule. But this, too, is speculation. The plain fact is that Paul and his readers knew what he was talking about, as we do not. We have not the means at our disposal to recover this part of this meaning. It is best that we frankly acknowledge our ignorance.” (Pg. 225-227) He adds, “While it would be easy to think of the Spirit as restraining the forces of evil it is impossible to envisage Him as being ‘taken out of the way.’ Such an idea does not appear in Scripture.” (Pg. 229)
Like Morris’s commentary on the fourth gospel, this volume is of great and ongoing value, to anyone studying these Epistles.
Leon Lamb Morris (1914-2006) was an Australian New Testament scholar, who was ordained to the Anglican ministry, served as Warden of Tyndale House, Cambridge (1960-64); Principal of Ridley College in Melbourne (1964-1979), and was a Visiting Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
He writes in the Introduction to this 1959 book about the authenticity of I Thessalonians, “This letter claims to be from Paul (1:1, 2:18), and it is Pauline both in language and in ideas… The letter must be early for various reasons… It is difficult to think of anyone writing after Paul’s death putting forth in Paul’s name a statement that might be understood as meaning that the Parousia would take place during the Apostle’s lifetime (I Thess 4:15)… it is impossible to think of anyone but Paul putting it out in early times. How could it possibly gain a circulation while the Apostle was still engaged in vigorous work, travelling among the churches and well able to denounce it?
"Yet we must bear in mind that the possibility of forgery seems to be implied by II Thess 2:2, and the explanation of the autograph in II Thess 3:17. Moreover, the letter is as well attested as we could reasonably ask. It is not the kind of letter which would be quoted often. This explains its absence from the few sub-apostolic writings that have come down to us.” (Pg. 27)
With II Thessalonians, he says, “there are good reasons for thinking of II Thessalonians as authentic. It has early attestation… It claims to have been written by Paul, and the language and theology are Pauline. It is difficult to think of a suitable motive for a forger… It is difficult to think of a reason for making the letter resemble I Thessalonians so closely… In recent times, however, attention has been focused on certain matters which raise doubts…. Sometime II Thessalonians repeats I Thessalonians not only in general ideas, but also in the actual words that are employed. The objection is that such an outstanding man as Paul would not find it necessary to repeat himself… [But] If Paul wrote II Thessalonians not so very long after I Thessalonians it would not be surprising if sometimes words and phrases are repeated…
"The eschatology of II Thessalonians is said to be different … in the First Epistle the coming of the Lord is thought of as about to take place very soon and very suddenly. But in the Second Epistle it will be preceded by signs, like the great rebellion and the appearance of the Man of Lawlessness. But… it is a commonplace in apocalyptic literature that the Lord’s coming is to be sudden, and yet that it will be preceded by signs… Many matters were certainly left ungrasped by the Thessalonians. It is entirely natural that eager new converts should have fastened their attention on such an outstanding figure as the Man of Lawlessness without appreciating the fact that some of their number would die before the great day. Indeed they well have not given this matter any thought at all before the decease of some of their number forced it on their notice.” (Pg. 31-32)
Of the “Satan hindered us” reference in I Thess 2:18, he comments, “The verb used here means literally ‘to cut into.’ … A number of suggestions have been put forward as to the particular mode Satan’s activities took. But we are completely in the dark in this matter, and all the attempts are simply guess work. There is no means of knowing just what Paul had in mind. Clearly the Thessalonians were expected to catch the allusion, but we lack the detailed knowledge of the circumstances.” (Pg. 95)
He observes about I Thess 4:11, “there were some who were so excited by all the wonderful things in the Christian faith that they were not bothering to earn their living… It is most likely that this arose out of second-advent speculations. They had learned very well that the Lord would be returning in mighty power, and evidently they felt it would be very soon. Accordingly there was no point in continuing in some steady job. It was much more realistic, they evidently thought, to be about the business of proclaiming the near end of the world. If they had need of this world’s goods in the meantime, why, there were others, Christian brethren, who could be relied upon to come to their rescue.
"This kind of thing can be done from a sense of serious purpose. But, human nature being what it is, it can easily degenerate into downright laziness and idleness. Men can be so taken up with the spectacular, with excitements over the near approach of the Lord, that they pass over the important things of everyday life.” (Pg. 132)
He deals with the famous “Rapture” passage of 4:17: “The verb he uses of being ‘caught up’ is one which means… ‘to seize, carry off by force.’ There is often the notion of a sudden swoop, and usually that of a force which cannot be resisted. The applicability of such a verb to the snatching away (the ‘rapture’) of the saints is obvious. Some have seen in this a secret action which suddenly removes the saints from the world preparatory to the great tribulation (Rev 7:14).
"To this two things must be said. The one, that this is the only place in the New Testament which speaks unambiguously of the rapture… Therefore we must not be unduly dogmatic about it. Had we an abundance of detail recorded we could say a great deal. But we have no more than a few simple facts, and we must not read our pet theories into them. The other is that it is very hard to fit this into a secret rapture. In v. 16 Paul speaks of the Lord descending ‘with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God.’ It may be that from this he intends us to understand that the rapture will take place secretly, and that no one except the saints themselves will know what is going on. But one would hardly gather this from his words. It is difficult to see how he could more plainly describe something that is open and public. I do not doubt that, if He so wished, God would make the voice of the archangel, the shout, and the trumpet call to be inaudible to unbelievers. But I do greatly doubt whether this is what Paul is saying.” (Pg. 145)
Of interest are his thoughts on the “that which restraineth” passage in II Thess 2:6-7: “’That which restraineth’ is the neuter participle of a verb whose masculine participle is found in the next verse,’ where it is rendered ‘one that restraineth.’ … Some person or thing at the moment the Epistle was written was holding something fast, or exercising away, or restraining…Better than any of these speculations seems to be that which favors the principle of order which restrains the working of evil. This might be referred to in the abstract as neuter, or it might be personified… It might be ... the system of law in the Roman Empire... when law is taken out of the way that the Lawless One will rule. But this, too, is speculation. The plain fact is that Paul and his readers knew what he was talking about, as we do not. We have not the means at our disposal to recover this part of this meaning. It is best that we frankly acknowledge our ignorance.” (Pg. 225-227) He adds, “While it would be easy to think of the Spirit as restraining the forces of evil it is impossible to envisage Him as being ‘taken out of the way.’ Such an idea does not appear in Scripture.” (Pg. 229)
Like Morris’s commentary on the fourth gospel, this volume is of great and ongoing value, to anyone studying these Epistles.
September 30, 2024
The Tyndale commentaries have quickly become a go-to for me because of the convenient balance of detail and conciseness. They don't generally waste words, but quickly make enough notes to highlight important details for interpretating and appreciating the passage.
This commentary follows that pattern and gives a sound help to studying the letters to the Thessalonians. However, I wasn't as satisfied with this one as others in the series.
At times, I felt Morris adding too many unnecessary details about words and grammar that made the commentary drag. On reflection, I wonder if this is simply because the language of the Thessalonians is often more straight forward than other books of the NT, such that exegetical notes are less needed?
A greater grievance I had was with Morris' handling of Paul's eschatology, a major theme in these letters. As a pre-millenial, pre-tribulational dispensationalist, I obviously have a biased point of view. But I was keen to hear how Morris would handle these passages and curious to see if he could persuade me to agree with him. Unfortunately, I was left quite disappointed. Morris is far too dismissive in these critical passages and seems content to say we cannot know what Paul was teaching. While Morris also makes a few rhetorical comments that are presumably aimed at dispensationalism, he does not seriously engage with that interpretation, and I'm left wondering how familiar with it he is.
As always when giving criticism, the fault may well be with the reader and his understanding rather than the author and their message.
This commentary follows that pattern and gives a sound help to studying the letters to the Thessalonians. However, I wasn't as satisfied with this one as others in the series.
At times, I felt Morris adding too many unnecessary details about words and grammar that made the commentary drag. On reflection, I wonder if this is simply because the language of the Thessalonians is often more straight forward than other books of the NT, such that exegetical notes are less needed?
A greater grievance I had was with Morris' handling of Paul's eschatology, a major theme in these letters. As a pre-millenial, pre-tribulational dispensationalist, I obviously have a biased point of view. But I was keen to hear how Morris would handle these passages and curious to see if he could persuade me to agree with him. Unfortunately, I was left quite disappointed. Morris is far too dismissive in these critical passages and seems content to say we cannot know what Paul was teaching. While Morris also makes a few rhetorical comments that are presumably aimed at dispensationalism, he does not seriously engage with that interpretation, and I'm left wondering how familiar with it he is.
As always when giving criticism, the fault may well be with the reader and his understanding rather than the author and their message.
February 18, 2021
My theme though out the New Testament Tyndale commentaries has been that they are consistently solid. A few writers like France, Bruce and Wright are brilliant, but most are fine Christian academics whose works are worth reading if owned but not seeking out.
This volume continues this theme with helpful if brief introductions to both books and commentary that helps the reader understand the text. The Greek words are explained in simple enough to terms to be understood and the main theme of the text is maintained. In short a solid read for an interested layman but nothing memorable.
This volume continues this theme with helpful if brief introductions to both books and commentary that helps the reader understand the text. The Greek words are explained in simple enough to terms to be understood and the main theme of the text is maintained. In short a solid read for an interested layman but nothing memorable.
June 1, 2025
Morris is a steady commentator and provides a few helpful insights from his exegesis of the Greek text and the historical/cultural background. However, the first edition of this commentary is dated. With the KJV as the focus of this edition, Morris has to spend a lot of time addressing translation shortfalls.
September 21, 2020
This is a solid commentary. Leon Morris is always clear and succinct, drawing out the important elements of the text without getting bogged down in unnecessary details or arguments. And Thessalonians is such an encouraging book!
April 26, 2023
A good commentary until Morris steers straight into premillennialism in 2 Thessalonians 2.
Want to read
October 27, 2024very good
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews