Jeffrey Weima’s 1-2 Thessalonians BECNT Commentary (Gupta)

WeimaOver the past few years, I have collected about two dozen commentaries on 1-2 Thessalonians for my research. Some of them are good, some are mediocre. A few are truly excellent – for example, Howard Marshall’s NCB volume is a classic. Also, F.F. Bruce’s work never gets old for me. Still, many commentaries come and go and few leave a lasting impression on scholarship.

Well, the case is quite different with Jeffrey Weima’s 2014 BECNT commentary on 1-2 Thessalonians (Baker). This is the most thoroughly-researched, soundly-argued evangelical academic commentary to date, and it will serve students and pastors well for a very long time. Weima has spent a lifetime researching these letters and there is hardly a soul in the world (perhaps Karl Donfried is a rare exception!) who knows these letters and the history of their study better.

I have been impressed time and time again with Weima’s careful argumentation and his attention to details: linguistic, exegetical, historical, etc. Here are some areas where I think Weima shines:

1 Thess 2:1-12 as defensive/apologetic – Weima offers a strong defense for this somewhat traditional view (against, e.g. Malherbe).

1 Thess 2:7a – Weima makes a good case for reading nepioi as original (infants)

1 Thess 4:4 – Weima argues soundly that skeuos (vessel) does not mean wife. He prefers the “sexual organ” interpretation, which I am amenable to, but I personally prefer “body.”

2 Thess 2 – few scholars really understand rhetorically why Paul raises the whole issue of the Man of Lawlessness. Weima has a great read on how Paul is crafting an argument and comforting/exhorting his readers.

2 Thess 3 -the ataktoi as rebellious-idlers.

The one area where I don’t think Weima has made a strong case is in his appeal to “peace and security” as a Roman slogan, or representing Roman protection ideology. Whether or not Paul’s phrase fits a Roman slogan, this kind of reference to Roman securitas does not fit the context of 1 Thess 5. But Weima is in the majority of scholars on this issue (and I am “the odd man out,” so to speak), so he is running on a well-trodden path.

If I were collecting commentaries on the New Testament (e.g,. as a pastor), Weima’s would be at the top of my list for 1-2 Thessalonians. There is no question about it. As I complete my 1-2 Thessalonians commentary, Weima’s work has been an important teacher, companion, and dialogue partner.


6 thoughts on “Jeffrey Weima’s 1-2 Thessalonians BECNT Commentary (Gupta)

  1. Admin you should build link pyramid in order to rank in google. This method is very effective after piguin and panda updates. It’s hard task i know, sometimes it’s better to outsource it, i know the right solution for you, just type in google – Burol’s Tips Outsource The Work

  2. One major advantage of the WBC is the bibliography that appears before each pericope or section, but Bruce’s commentary is old enough to be a bit outdated and does not account for the excellent research that has appeared in the last couple of decades.

    That was your opinion some time ago, just wondering what your view is on Wanamaker now that you done some good reading ?

      1. Sorry Nijay,
        I meant Wanamaker. I have read your reviews on Bruce, Marshall and
        Weima and I wanted to get your opinion on Wanamaker. Probably, even Malherbe.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s