New Moon 1/4/32/120


Dear Friends

We are about to produce a commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians and also update 195b.

Next Sabbath we will try to issue the commentary and the update.

You will note here the comparisons of the Septuagint Greek (LXX) and the Masoretic Text (MT) and the vast difference in the texts regarding the genealogies of the patriarchs.

We are interested in your comments.


The church at Thessalonica was planted by Paul in association with Silas and Timothy (Acts 17:1-9). It had some Jews but the majority were Gentiles.

The port still exists as Salonika on the bay of the same name in the Aegean. It was a major port in the division of Thessalonika in Macedonia with some 200,000 inhabitants.

The epistle had been written perhaps a matter of weeks or months after the church was founded. The apostles had been brutally treated at Phillipi (Acts 16:22-24; 1Thes. 2:2) and went to the capital at Thessalonika from there.

The eager acceptance of the message as the word of God was the start of an active missionary program into all Achaia and Macedonia which was about the size of Great Britain.

Although it is placed thirteenth in the NT canon it is now generally accepted that it was the first of the writings of Paul. Although it differs from his later accepted epistles he states that the salutation in the epistle (2Thes. 3:17) is his signature writing in the epistles, as he says he wrote them himself. Noted differences in the later epistles are probably the influences of later scribes under dictation, and later problems that arose in the church.

The First Epistle was sent out from Corinth at the end of 52 or early 53 CE (cf. Bullinger).

The First Epistle was written on the order of Jesus Christ through the Spirit to be read to all the Holy Brethren (5:27).

The purpose of the epistle therefore must be contained in the message of the epistle. It must therefore be critical to the faith otherwise Christ would not have ordered its dictation and reading to the brethren.

We will examine these aspects as we deal with the purpose of the chapters.

The First Epistle is written in a laudatory note, as Timothy has just conveyed the news of their faith and love (3:6).

The major thrust of the Epistle is the coming of the Lord and the nearness of it. Christ had dealt with the issue himself in the gospels at Matthew 24:36; 25:31; 26:64 et al. Christ himself stated that it was not for them to know the times and seasons which the Father had put in His own power (Acts 12:7). Paul refers to the times and seasons in similar terms in 5:1.

In these texts we see terms emerge for the Parousia and Epiphania of Christ. There is little doubt that the text concerns the coming of Christ and was issued specifically at the direction of Christ to deal with this matter.

The real reason for the First Epistle has never been understood correctly. The problem arises from the misconceptions concerning the parousia of Christ that arise from the mistranslations of the Hebrew text in the LXX from the translation at Alexandria.

After the MT emerged as the accepted Canon in later centuries that understanding was lost. However, the great disappointment of 77 CE was not forgotten in history but the reason for the error of expectation was never understood. It is a well-known fact that the entire early church quoted from the LXX and we have the records of those quotations. This is the basis of the prophecy by Christ concerning the saying: “My Lord has delayed his coming” (Mat. 24:48; Lk. 12:45).

Why was 77 CE such a great disappointment? Why did they expect Christ in the year 77 CE? What was so special about the year 77 CE?

The answer was that when Paul wrote Thessalonians the Temple still stood and the proper jubilee system was still in place. He knew, and every Jew knew, that the jubilee was in 77 CE. The church all knew that the prophecy of 70 weeks of years was to finish in 70 CE. That was why, when James was killed in 63/4 CE, they knew that the 69 weeks of years had been completed and James, the brother of Christ, had been cut off but not for himself. So the church, which had been placed under Clophas as bishop on the death of James, was handed to Simon son of Clophas on his death, who then took the church to Pella where it remained in perfect safety until well after 70 CE.

The text in Daniel 9:25 had not been altered as it was when the English was mistranslated to misapply the text to Christ, and also the writing in 1Esdras was a known non-canonical work and was ignored by the true church, as it is to this day.

They all expected the Temple to fall and Judah to go into captivity in 70 CE in accordance with the prophecy. We all know that Judah was invaded, and the Temple was destroyed exactly as foretold, and the seventy weeks of years ended in 70 CE (see the paper The Sign of Jonah and the History of the Reconstruction of the Temple (No. 13)).

However, why would they expect the Messiah to return at 77 CE? The answer is glaringly obvious and so simple to anyone who understands the prophecies. It has been obscured by Jewish misrepresentation of the jubilees as 49-year cycles after the fall of the Temple. However, when Paul and the chief apostles were alive the Pharisees were not in control of the Temple, nor were they in control of the Temple Calendar. Also, and most importantly, we know from archaeology and history exactly when the cycles were and that they were 50-year cycles, as the Bible so clearly shows us, and not 49 years as these rabbis later were to claim. More importantly, the jubilee cycles are clearly identifiable from Scripture as the rabbis admit. For example, Rashi clearly admits that the 30th year in Ezekiel 1:1 was the 30th year of the jubilee and it was the fifth year of Jehoiachin’s captivity and therefore there is a clear link to an historical event, as are there others. These events are listed in the papers Reading the Law with Ezra and Nehemiah (No. 250) and also Distortion of God’s Calendar in Judah (No. 195b) which is being reissued to cover some other aspects.

Misrepresentation of the age of the patriarchs in the Septuagint.

When the LXX was translated the Egyptians and the Chaldeans were competing for the honour of the age of the oldest civilization. The scribes were deliberately extending the rule of the kings to extend the age of their civilizations. The two scribes in question were Manetho the Egyptian and Berossus the Chaldean. The Hebrew texts were totally at variance with the Egyptian and Chaldean Chronologies developed by these two scribes. The simple answer to the translators was to extend the Bible time frame in the Greek text by adding years to the ages of the patriarchs so that an extra 1541 years was added without changing the sense of the texts. It did not alter the narrative and removed the obvious and vehement confrontation that would have occurred between the biased academics of both the other civilizations.  The LXX simply added one hundred years to the ages of each of the following patriarchs at the birth of their sons: Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Arphaxad, Salah, Heber, Peleg, Ragau, Serug, (1100 years) and Enoch 165 years, Lamech 6 years, Cainan son of Arphaxad 135, Nahor 150 years, Terah 5 years and Methuselah -20 years, total 1541 years making thirty jubilees and 41 years.

What appeared to be a simple solution actually distorted the prophetic interpretation of the Plan of Salvation. No one could read Hebrew then except some Hebrew scholars and that was why everyone used the LXX, as it was in Greek which was the academic and trade language of the Mediterranean and the Middle East.

The end result was that the plan of the 6000 years of Satan’s rule (120 jubilees) was held to be up in 577 CE instead of 2027 CE as is the case with the MT. Thus, to the Bible student using the LXX, the Temple was to be destroyed in accordance with the prophecies as it indeed was. However, Satan’s time was to be cut short. They seem to have coupled the prophecies of Daniel and applied the time of the end as a week of years from the fall of the Temple reducing Satan’s rule by 500 years, which must have seemed a perfectly plausible solution given the terrible times in Judah from 67 to 74 CE. The Temple fell right on time as foretold by Daniel, and thus his prophecies became of great interest. The Temple fell in 70 CE (see the paper War with Rome and the Fall of the Temple (No 298)). That meant that seven years later Christ would usher in the Millennium after the wars that were to last seven years in accordance with the fall of Jericho and the other prophecies. Revelation had not yet been written and thus some of the church expected the arrival of the Christ in 25 years from the time the First Epistle was issued under the reign of Claudius. So they began the countdown forty jubilees too early. Many did not understand that they, the church, had to spend forty jubilees in the wilderness and so the advent was held to be imminent.

This error was to become the basis for a number of false declarations in later years. 577 CE was later to be used for the declaration of the Holy Roman Empire in 590 CE. A later error was to occur after 1000 CE. In all cases they were incorrect interpretations based on erroneous texts and genealogies, and the discussions around these genealogies seems to be the reason why Paul later denounced the discussions not just concerning the Aeons as was supposed from the Gnostics who came into prominence after Simon Magus and the Valentinians, but also he was speaking concerning the conflicts in the two versions of Scripture regarding the genealogies of the Patriarchs (1Tim. 1:4 and Tit. 3:9). The time frame of the LXX saw the six thousand year rule of Satan end 1400 odd years ago. The timelines are published in the appendix to the Commentary.

That is the real reason Christ intervened and ordered the epistle written to prepare them for the great disappointment that would come from the deliberately induced errors in the LXX. However, the real time frame could not be made so obvious, as it would have seemed so far off under such persecution that it would have demoralized the members of the church still young in the faith.

That is why the wording of the text is as it is.

It is evident from the First Epistle that the church expects the arrival of the Messiah and Paul speaks in that vein as we who are alive that are left (4:15). This epistle is not considered a theological treatise by the mainstream academics because they do not understand the plan of God and the structure of prophecy. Many think the Bible is an a posteriori reconstruction of the third century BCE, and a number of such “academics” make these claims. It is of theological significance precisely because it concerns the parousia or Advent of the Messiah. Its authorship by Paul cannot be realistically disputed and it is cited by the early authorities such as Irenaeus (ca. 180) and is contained in the Chester Beatty Codex ca. 200 and is included in every canonical list we have on record.

Silvanus and Timothy are referred to in the first person plural, which is used throughout the text except for the occasional lapse by Paul into the first person singular (2:18; 3:5; 5:27).

Timothy and Silvanus were important men in the church, and whilst Paul is writing the letter it should not diminish the input and importance of both these men in the Holy Spirit. Timothy was entrusted with a delicate and dangerous mission (cf. 1Thes. 3:1-6). Silvanus is generally regarded as the Silas of Acts (15:22; 18:5; cf. Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 4, p. 622).

The Holy Spirit acting through the direction of Christ is evident by the use of the three in concert for the message.

Wade Cox
Coordinator General