The first place where 'I' occurs is ii. 18—διότι ἠθελήσαμεν ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ἐγὼ μὲν Παῦλος καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ δίς καὶ ἐνέκοψεν ἡμᾶς ὁ Σατανᾶς. The transition to the singular here is very marked; ἐγὼ is emphatic, and the emphasis is fortified by the addition of the name Παῦλος. To explain the transition and the emphasis, we must consider the context. It runs as follows:

"But we, brethren, being deprived (or orphaned—ἀπορφανισθέντες) of you: for a short season (πρὸς καιρὸν ὥρας), in presence not in heart (or affection) endeavoured the more exceedingly to see your face with great desire, because, we wanted to come to you ἐγὼ μὲν Παῦλος once and again, and Satan hindered us."

The punctuation in the R. V. seems to me somewhat too heavy here. To place a colon after 'desire' is to disconnect διότι ἠθελήσαμεν κ.τ.λ. from what has gone before, whereas this sentence gives the reason for the strong desire (ἐν πολλῇ ἐπιθυμίᾳ). Moreover, a semicolon after 'once and again ' leads to a misunderstanding of the following words ' and Satan hindered us,' which must be closely connected with the statement' we wanted to come to you.' Their great desire had been to return to Thessalonica, but Satan had hindered them. The very hindrance had intensified the desire, so that we might translate: "We, brethren, endeavoured the more exceedingly to see your face with great desire (or longing) because, though we wanted to come to you ἐγὼ μὲν Παῦλος once and again, Satan hindered us from so doing."

I take it that the insurmountable obstacle, which is here ascribed to Satan, was the refusal of the politarchs of Thessalonica to allow Paul and Silas entrance into the city, from which they had been expelled in consequence of the opposition of the Jews, which had resulted in a riot (Acts xvii. 5-10). But a discussion of this point is not necessary here. Our chief concern is with the words—ἐγὼ μὲν Παῦλος. Why does St. Paul here specially refer to himself with such emphasis, instead of being content with the 'we' which he has just used? It would seem either that he has something to say of himself which he cannot say of his associates, or that he has some special reason for emphasising his own wish to return to Thessalonica.

The particle μὲν may be used here absolutely, in the sense of 'indeed' or it may imply an adversative δέ. Lightfoot explains it in the second of these two ways, and interprets the words as meaning: I Paul desired it more than once, whatever may be the feelings of Silvanus and Timothy. "The suppressed clause with δέ might have run οἱ δὲ ἄλλοι περὶ ἑαυτῶσαν λεγέτωσαν." In this case St. Paul differentiates himself from his colleagues in that his wish to revisit Thessalonica had been repeated, theirs not. The words καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ δὶς are thus very closely linked with ἐγὼ μὲν Παῦλος. They have all wanted to go, but for himself alone he can speak in saying that the desire had been recurrent.

This explanation is, of course, grammatically possible, and it would account for the transition from the plural to the singular. It does not, however, seem to me satisfactory, for, according to it, the words would imply that the eagerness of his two associates was not equal to that of the Apostle himself. A better sense and one which accords with the general tone of the Epistle is obtained if μὲν be not taken to imply an adversative δέ. The Apostle need not here be making a statement applicable only to himself as distinguished from his colleagues, but he may be emphasising that to be true of himself personally which was true also of them. In this case the point of the parenthetical ἐγὼ μὲν Παῦλος may well lie in this, that St. Paul wished to lay stress on the fact that he wanted to visit the Thessalonians personally and not by deputy. It did not satisfy him to send to learn about them, and he would have his converts know that it was from no want of personal interest in them that he had not come himself to revisit them. In the next chapter he goes on to speak of the sending of Timothy to them, and there seems to be an undercurrent of apology in this part of the Epistle that he did not go himself. Whether or not insinuations had been made that he did not really care for his converts but left them to endure persecution, we cannot of course decide. But the Apostle, whose sensitiveness is unconsciously portrayed in his writings, seems to have been jealous of his honour in the matter.

Thus I take the parenthesis ἐγὼ μὲν Παῦλος to mean, 'Yes, I Paul in person,' and I do not think that the words καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ δὶς belong specially to the parenthesis, but I should understand the sentence to mean: because we wished to come to you—yes, I Paul in person—once and again, and Satan hindered us.

I said just now that there appears to be an undercurrent of apology in this section of the Epistle, and I find such in the two verses which immediately follow those which we have been considering. It seems as if the Apostle were afraid that the Thessalonian Christians would fancy that he did not think enough of them, and he goes on:" For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of glorying—Are not even ye?—before our Lord Jesus at His coming? Yes, ye (emphatic) are our glory and our joy."

And when he goes on as he does in the next few verses (iii. 1 ff.) to speak of the sending of Timothy to Thessalonica, he exalts him very highly in calling him a συνεργὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, an expression which he nowhere else applies to him—an expression moreover which has been watered down into διάκονος τοῦ θεοῦ by copyists, or the τοῦ θεοῦ has been omitted, leaving Timothy only a fellow-worker of Paul and Silas. Why does the Apostle thus exalt Timothy in the eyes of the Thessalonians? May it not well be that he would have them understand that he had done his very best for them under the circumstances? He and Silvanus had made a sacrifice in sending Timothy from them—this is implied in the words, "We thought it good to be left behind in Athens alone"—and as they could not come themselves they had sent one whom they call their brother and" God's fellow-worker in the gospel of Christ." He was no mean substitute, one who could be thus described as συνεργὸς τοῦ θεοῦ.

All this seems to me to confirm the view which I take that the Apostle is offering a kind of apology for not coming himself to Thessalonica. He had wanted to come, yes to come in person, but that had been impossible.

The Apostle's personal care and anxiety about his Thessalonian converts is emphasised once again in this same passage a few verses on. After speaking of the mission of Timothy (which the use of we implies to have been the act of Silvanus as well as himself), and its purpose, he adds in verse 5:"For this cause I too (κἀγώ)—I too on my own account—when I could no longer bear it, sent to know your faith, lest by any means the tempter had tempted you, and our labour should prove to be in vain."

It has been suggested that this was a second mission sent from Athens subsequently to that of Timothy. But it seems wholly unnecessary to understand the passage thus. Timothy had been sent to establish (στηρίξαι) the Thessalonian Christians and to comfort them for the furtherance of their faith (iii. 2); but there was a further reason why he was sent. On his own personal account the Apostle says he had sent him, to relieve the tension of his anxious mind, for he wanted to know whether his labour had been in vain. I take it that the διὰ τοῦτο of verse 5 is prospective, not retrospective like διὸ of verse 1. The ἐγὼ which follows and is fortified by καὶ (διὰ τοῦτο κἀγὼ μηκέτι στέγων ἔπεμψα κ.τ.λ.) is very emphatic. For this reason I because of my own personal anxiety sent, namely, that I might gain the assurance that I had not laboured to no purpose. Here again, then, the Apostle by his use of the first person singular impresses upon the Thessalonians his personal interest in and care for them.

We will now briefly consider the use of the singular in 2 Thessalonians ii. 5. Here, after speaking of the ἆποστασία and the revelation of "the man of lawlessness" which were to precede the Parousia, the Apostle parenthetically adds:" Remember ye not that while I was still with you I told you these things" " The 'I' is not emphatic here, but by his use of the singular St. Paul shows that the responsibility for the teaching was his own. Not but what he speaks in 1 Thessalonians i. 5 of "our gospel," so associating Silvanus and Timothy with himself in the ministry of the gospel. But it would appear that the particular teaching referred to in the passage under consideration from the second Epistle was specially the Apostle's own. This it would be if, as I believe, and as I have argued elsewhere,² it is St. Paul's interpretation of the signs of the times.

I have now given what seems to me the explanation of the transition from the plural to the singular first personal pronoun in 1 Thess. ii. 18, iii. 5, and 2 Thess. ii. 5. There remain the two other places where the same thing occurs. These are at the end of the first and second Epistles, and we may with advantage consider them together. The first Epistle ends thus: "I adjure you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the brethren. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you." And the second Epistle concludes with these words: "The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand, which is the (or a) token (σημεῖον) in every· Epistle; so I write. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all."

We gather from these last words of the second Epistle that St. Paul concluded the letter with something written by his own hand, and that it was his habit so to do. There is, therefore, no difficulty in explaining the use of the first person singular in these two places, which form the conclusion of the two Epistles. St. Paul is writing with his own hand, and there is therefore nothing more natural than that he should use the singular 'I' in so doing. " I adjure you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the brethren." "The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand, etc." While, then, the Apostle is pleased to associate his fellow-workers with himself in the Epistle generally, he must in conclusion give what has been written the imprimatur of his personal approval and authority. We can never forget when we read St, Paul's Epistles that while he may, in appropriate parts of them, be content to speak as if he were only a partner in their composition by using the plural 'we,' yet the Epistles are really his. But I can see no reason for thinking that he ever says 'we' when he means 'I.'