Gordon Fee is always interesting, especially when he's cranky and dogmatic. That holds true in this commentary. Fee takes aim at end times weather forecasters whenever he can, and in his footnotes, he'll accuse other scholars of taking of positions without any evidence. So the guy is fun to read.
Fee steadfastly maintains that Paul wrote both 1 and 2 Thessalonians, in that order. He sagely notes that Paul introduces the theme of hard work and labor and perseverance early on in 1 Thessalonians 1:4-6 because these are themes that will be amplified later on in this epistle, and as it turns out, in 2 Thessalonians as well. Fee for some reason thinks that the emphasis in 1 Thessalonians 1:10 is on the wrath that will come upon the idolaters, when to me, the emphasis is ont eh coming of Christ to rescue those who have turned from idols.
In 1 Thessalonians 2, Fee strongly and (to me, successfully), defends the translation "infants" rather than "gentle" in 1 Thessalonians 2:7, and he wards off those who accuse Paul of anti-Jewishness in 2:14-16.
In 1 Thessalonians 3:11-12, he sees Paul rewriting the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4, though this to me is uncertain. He also contends that the holy ones of 3:13 refer to angels, noting that it reflects the language of Zechariah 14:5 and is made clear by his identification of the accompanying angels in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9.
In 1 Thessalonians 4:4: Fee translates skeuos as "vessel," meaning the male sex organs. Although Fee argues strenuously and is joined by I.H Marshall, this will not command assent amongst all interpreters.
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 is hotly debated, and Fee clearly notes that this text is more about comforting believers with the news that we will be reunited with our deceased loved ones with Christ than he is in telling us where exactly this will be. Fee surprisingly says nothing about Paul's use of apantesis in verse 17, and he writes off the pretribulational perspective with a passing sentence and no dialogue with those who hold to this position. For this alone, Fee gets docked a star in my review. I did like his discussion of the holy kiss in 5:26.
In 2 Thessalonians 2, Fee is helpful, but I also wish he would have put forth more of an effort discussing the katechon in 2 Thessalonians 2:7. Furthermore, there is no discussion about the linking of the day of the Lord with the coming of Christ and our being gathered to him. Fee never says whether or not these are all part of one and the same event, nor does he try to distinguish the Day of the Lord as an event in its own right. He never discusses how the day of the Lord could come like a thief in the night in 1 Thessalonians 5 and yet be heralded by signs in advance in 2 Thessalonians 2, nor does he discuss how this might cause people to question the Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians. He simply dismisses those who question Pauline authorship with the wave of a hand.
Don't get me wrong: I affirm the Pauline authorship of both epistles. I'm just saying that I expected a more thorough commentary from Fee on this and other issues, especially since this is a series which allows for more expansive commentaries, and Fee himself is the general editor! Perhaps a hint for the short shrift is given in the introductions to these two epistles where Fee makes clear that these two epistles in his opinion are not Paul's finest moments.
Unfortunately, this commentary is not one of Gordon Fee's finest moments, either. Leon Morris' commentary on these epistles has been replaced by this one, but after reading this, I personally prefer Morris. I love Fee on 1 Corinthians and Philippians, but in this volume, although he remains zesty and provocative, he has not given us his best work.