Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2006 with funding from Microsoft Corporation
httos://archive.org/details/stpaulsepistlesOOelliuoft
: ταν ee Gut F Ὧν al “a
Ae ; Ὶ 4 ' ᾿ } ἡ i
ar ork.
se
ῳῷ oe), ἃ: a ἢ: 7 ; Ἥ" Ὑ!
“ν»
ST PAUL'S EPISTLES TO THE
THESSALONIANS.
͵ eA | Ἢ Bee δ΄: | 1
ST PAUL’S EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS:
WITH A CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMM™UNTARY, AND A REVISED TRANSLATION,
BY
CHARLES J. ELLICOTT D.D.
BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL.
THE THIRD EDITION, CORRECTED.
LONDON: LONGMAN, GREEN, LONGMAN , ROBERTS & GREEN.
1866.
Meee δ χα ar) ee
7 ᾿ - ᾿ ᾿ - | ire we Υ
eee ee eee ee ee 2 ΦΝΘΝ ΣΝ
2 Ἂς = ; : Ἑ . ἢ " ma a . ' ” ; ᾿ > ' ᾿ ; ᾿ ; , - 4 _s ᾿ ᾿ a ΄ : : ; ‘ e Ε ¢ re | 5 ς δ - : “ ἄν ae : ὍΣΑ pee bd ¢ - 5 " ᾿ : ἱ Ss 5 - 3 a ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ ον Ω ἢ 2 ᾿ pa : ve 2 7 7 7 é 7 Veo eed here>: ay ms Pwr ᾿ ᾿ ay ψ. iy " ᾿
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.
VERY slight amount of change has been found necessary
during the revision of this volume for the new edition. It is however brought fully up to the standard adopted in the Third Edition of the Pastoral Epistles, especially as re- gards the Translation.
It is as well to call the reader’s attention once for all to the fact that in these two Epistles the Codex Ephraemi only contains ch. i. 2—11. 8 of the First Epistle. This has been often noticed in the critical notes, but not invariably.
GLOUCESTER, April, 1866.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
HE present edition differs but little from the first. There
will be found however traces of a regular and deliberate revision on every page. Scriptural references have been again verified; readings and interpretations have been care- fully reconsidered, and the grammatical principles on which the interpretations appear to rest tested by fresh investiga- tion. Though the result is a very small amount of change, yet the amount of time thus spent in reconsideration has not been wholly thrown away; as the Commentary is now pre- sented anew to the reader with a humble yet increased con- fidence in the general soundness of the principles on which it is based.
EXETER, December, 1861.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
HE present volume forms the fifth part of my Commen-
tary on St Paul’s Epistles, and is constructed as nearly as possible on the same plan as the portion which appeared last year, viz. that containing the Epistles to the Philippians, the Colossians, and Philemon. I particularly specify this, as I have been informed by friends on whose judgment I can rely that the last portion of my labours is an improvement on those which preceded it.
If I may venture to assume that this is really the case, I cannot help feeling that it is to be attributed not only te increased experience, but also to the cautious but somewhat freer admixture of exegesis which two of the three Epistles’ contained in the volume seemed more especially to require. This slight modification, and so to say dilution, of the critical and grammatical severity which distinguished the earlier parts of the work has been continued in the present volume, but it has been done both watchfully and cautiously, and will be really seen more in the way of slight addition than in actual change. Time and experience both seem to show that the system of interpretation that I have been enabled to pursue is substantially sound, that plain and patient accu- racy in detail does in most cases lead to hopeful results, and serves not unfrequently to guide us to far loftier and more ennobling views of the Word of Life than such an unpre- tending method might at first prepare us to expect.
The modifications then, or rather additions and expan- sions, are really slight, and may be briefly summed up under two heads; on the one hand, an attempt to elucidate more clearly the connexion of clauses and the general sequence of thought; and on the other hand, an attempt to develop more completely the dogmatical significance of passages of a more profound and more purely theological import. Neither of
vii © PREFACE ΤῸ THE FIRST EDITION.
these portions of sacred interpretation was neglected in the early parts of this Commentary, but in the present a deep- ening sense of their extreme importance has suggested this further expansion and development.
A few slight additions to other departments of the Com- mentary may be briefly noticed.
To the ancient Versions which I have been in the habit of consulting, viz. the Old Latin, the Peshito, the Gothic, the Coptic, the Philoxenian Syriac, and the two Ethiopic Versions, I did not think it would be necessary for me ever to make any addition. I have been convinced however by the able notice of the Armenian Version in Horne’s Introduction by my learned acquaintance Dr Tregelles that this venerable Version has greater claims on our attention than I had before believed. In spite of the excellent edition of Zohrab, I had shared the opinion entertained by the majority of critics that the once-called ‘Queen of the Versions’ had but slender claims to that supremacy, and had suffered so much from Latinizing recensions as to be but of doubtful authority. The charges which have been brought against the labours of King Haithom in the thirteenth century, and the readings adopted by the collator Usean in the seventeenth, tended of late years to awaken the suspicions of critical ‘scholars. It is fair however to say that the charges of Latinism do not appear to be well founded, and that this ancient Version deserves the attention of the critic and commentator; still, if I am not presumptuous in hazarding an opinion, I do seem to myself to perceive a generally Occidental tinge in its interpretations, and I have more than once verified the observation of Loebe and De Gabelentz that there are coin- cidences and accordances with the Gothic Version that seem to be not wholly accidental. My knowledge however is at present too limited to enable me to speak with confidence.
I have then deemed it my duty to make use of this Version, and to acquire such a knowledge of the language as should enable me to state faithfully its opinion in contested passages. To the student who may feel attracted towards this interesting, highly inflected, yet not very difficult lan- guage, I will venture to recommend the Grammar and Dic- tionary of Aucher’. The former is now selling at a low price, and can easily be procured. Its great defect is in the
1 Since the above was written a 1841). It hasa simple Chrestomathy much more useful and better arranged and good Glossary, but no Syntax. Grammar has come under my notice, The standard. Grammar of a larger viz. Brevis Lingue Armeniace Gram- size appears to be that of Cirbied. matica, by J. H. Petermann (Berol. [1861].
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. ΙΧ
syntax, which I cannot think very clearly or scientifically arranged; and in the Chrestomathy, which is not at. first sufficiently easy and progressive. The extracts, though cu- rious, are not well suited for a beginner, and are not intro- duced by any elementary lessons in parsing and grammatical application. A strong sense of the value of such aids re- minds me that I may not unsuitably take this opportunity of recommending the Coptic Grammar of Uhlemann. It is extremely well arranged, is brief and perspicuous, and _be- sides a good progressive Chrestomathy is furnished with a small but very useful Vocabulary.
I again venture to commend these ancient Versions to the attention of all students who have leisure, and an aptitude for the acquisition of languages. It is startling to find how little we really know of these ancient witnesses, how erro- neous are the current statements of their mere readings, how neglected their authority in interpretation. And yet we see on all sides critical editions of the sacred volume multiplying, and, in at least one instance (I regret to say that I allude to the otherwise useful editions of Dr Tischendorf), can abundantly verify the fact that Latin translations, not always trustworthy or exact, have been the main authorities from which the readings have been derived. Is it too much to demand of a critical editor, of one who is by the very nature of his work free from the many distractions of thought that are the lot of the commentator,—is it too much to demand that he should consider it a part of his duties to acquire himself such a knowledge of these languages as to be able to tell us plainly and unmistakeably what are and what are not the true readings of these early and invaluable witnesses? Nay more, it is, and it will ever be, of paramount importance that the loyal critic should use no eyes but his own. He may endeavour to procure collations from others, he may try to proceed on the principle of division of labour, but he will I firmly believe ultimately be forced to admit that this is one of those cases in which labour cannot be well divided, and in which the mechanically-made comparisons of the associated collator can never be put in the same rank with the results of the intelligent search of the professed critic. The very interest that the latter feels in what he is looking for protects him to a great degree from those inaccuracies which the mere collator can never hope entirely to escape; added to which, his exact knowledge of the variations of the reading at issue will save him as nothing else can from con- founding merely a greater inclusiveness of meaning with evi- dences of distinct textual change. To cite a single and fa-
χ PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION,
miliar instance,—how often must the critical scholar have observed that Oriental Versions are adduced on one side or other in such cases of prepositional variation as ἐν and διά, when the plain fact is that the greater inclusiveness of the Beth or Bet of the Version leaves the actual reading which the translator had before him a matter of complete uncertainty. Are then our scholars, and more especially our critics, to shrink from such a useful and even necessary duty as the study of the ancient Versions? Are a certain number of weary hours, more or less, to be set in comparison with the ability and the privilege of making clearly known to others the critical characteristics of Versions of the Book of Life that have been the blessed media of salvation to early churches and to ancient nations ?
One word, and one word only, as to my own humble, most humble efforts in this particular province. Time, toil, and patience, have done something; and though, alas, my know- ledge is still limited, yet I may at length venture to hope that in most of these Versions the student may fully rely on my statements, and that the number of those statements that may hereafter be reversed by wiser and better scholars than myself will not be very large. I am forced to say this, as I have observed in one or two reviews with which I have been favoured, that avowals of inexperience, which seemed the more suitable and becoming in proportion as the means of detecting it were in fewer hands, have been understood to imply that my citations from these ancient authorities con- fessedly could not be relied on. This however has not been and is not the case. While I sensitively shrink from drag- ging into notice the amount of my own labours, I still perceive that 1 must beware of leading the reader to pass over what may be of real use to him, and of feeling distrust where actually there may be no just ground for it. The intelligent scholar will see at a glance that to state fairly and correctly the translation of words of which the subject is familiarly known is a task which certainly does not lie be- yond the reach of ordinary patience and industry.
Among other additions the reader will I trust be benefit- ed by the still increasing attention paid to our best English divinity. I have made it my study to refer especially to sermons on all the more interesting and difficult verses, and it is unusually cheering to find that no portion of my labours has been more kindly appreciated, or has apparently been of more real service to theological students. Without drawing any unfair comparison between English and German divinity, it. does not seem one whit too much to say that if we are
PRS =
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xl
often indebted to the latter for patient and laborious exegesis, it is to the former alone that we must go if we would fain add to our mere contextual knowledge some true perceptions of the analogy of Scripture, and are really and sincerely interested in striving to comprehend all the profound and mysterious harmonies of Catholic Truth.
With regard to matters of textual criticism, the student will observe in this volume the same persistent attention to the principal differences of reading, even in the grammatical notes. My constant effort is to popularize this sort of know- ledge, to make exegesis lend it a helping hand, and insensibly to decoy the student into examining and considering for himself what human words seem to have the best claims to be regarded as the earthly instruments by which the adorable mercies of God have been made known to the children of men. These notices, it must be remembered, are merely selected, and neither are nor are intended to be enumerations of all the differences of reading; still I have good hope that no reading that deserves attention has been overlooked.
I have now only to conclude with a few notices of those works to which I am especially indebted. The list is gra- dually becoming shorter. I have been enabled to use so many more first-class authorities than when I commenced this series, that it does not seem disrespectful to omit si- lently such as can be fairly considered second-class from pages where text and notes only too often stand in an un- desirable though unavoidable disproportion.
In these Epistles, as in the Pastoral Epistles, I have lost the sagacious guidance of Dr Meyer; I have not however so much to lament the change of editor as in the Epistles
above alluded to. Though distinctly inferior to Meyer, es-
pecially in the critical and grammatical portion of his work, Dr Liinemann is still a commentator of a very high order. ἡ His exegesis is usually sound and convincing, and no one, I am sure, can beneficially study these two beautiful Epistles without having at hand the Commentary of this able editor.
The larger and more comprehensive Commentaries will be found specified in former portions of this work, but I must pause to express my hearty sense of the continued excellence of my friend Dean Alford’s Commentary. As our readers will see, we occasionally break a friendly lance, more especially in matters of detail. These gentle encounters however are not only unavoidable but even desirable. It is by all such amicable conflicts of opinion that the truth, often lying midway between those engaged in her defence, is most surely seen and recognised.
xii = = PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
Of the separate editions of these Epistles I desire to specify the very able Commentaries of Pelt and Schott. The former of these two writers has the great merit of being one of the first of later times who distinctly felt the importance of using the exegetical works of the Greek Fathers, and the latter supplies a good specimen of that patient mode of grammatical interpretation which has now obtained such general currency. Though both these works have been many years before the world, and though in many cases their opinions have been reversed by more modern expositors, they can neither of them be justly considered as superseded or antiquated.
Last of all I come to the edition of Professor Jowett. And here I would rather that our differences of opinion ap- peared in their respective places than were specifically alluded to. I feel it however a duty to speak, and it is with pain that I must record my fixed opinion that the system of interpretation pursued by Professor Jowett is as dangerous as I believe it to be maccurate and untenable. After making every possible allowance for the obvious fact that our systems of interpretation are completely and persistently antagonistic, after willingly making in my own case every correction for bias, I still feel morally convinced that the objections to Professor Jowett’s system of interpretation are such as cannot be evaded or explained away. After having thus performed a very painful duty, I trust I may be permitted to express my full recognition of the genius that pervades his writings, the ease, finish, and, alas, persuasiveness of the style, the kindly though self-conscious spirit that animates his teach- ing, and the love of truth that, however sadly and deeply wounded by paradoxes and polemics, still seems to be ever both felt and cultivated. May these good gifts be dedicated anew to the service of Divine Truth and be overruled to more happy and more chastened issues.
It now only remains for me with all humility and low- liness of heart to lay this work before the Great Father of Lights, imploring His blessing on what I may have said aright, and His mercy where my eyes have been holden, and where I have not been permitted to see clearly all the blessed lineaments of Divine Truth.
TPIAZ, MONAZ, EAEHZON.
Lonpon, August 4th, 1858.
ree ee "yey
INTRODUCTION.
HIS calm, practical, and profoundly consolatory Epistle was
written by the Apostle to his converts in the wealthy and populous city of Thessalonica not long after his first visit to Macedonia (Acts xvi. 9), when in conjunction with Silas and Timothy he laid the foundations of the Thessalonian Church (Acts xvii. 1 sq.). See notes on ch. i. 1.
The exact time of writing the Epistle appears to have been the early months of the Apostle’s year and a half stay at Corinth (Acts xviii. 11), soon after Timothy had joined him (1 Thess. iii. 6) and reported the spiritual state of their converts, into which he had been sent to enquire (ch. 111. 2), probably from Athens; see notes on ch. 111. 1. We may thus consider the close of A.D. 52, or the beginning of A.D. 53, as the probable date, and, if this be correct, must place the Epistle first on the chronological
list of the Apostle’s writings.
The arguments in favour of a later date are based either on passages which have been thought to imply that the Apostle had preached the Gospel for some time elsewhere (ch. i. 8), or on statements in the Epistle (ch. iv. 13, v. 12; see 2 Thess. lii. 17) which have been judged to be in accordance with a greater in- terval between the time of the first preaching at Thessalonica and the date of the Epistle than is usually assigned. These have all been satisfactorily answered by Davidson (/ntrod. Vol. 11. p. 435), and have met with no acceptance at the hands of recent exposi- tors or chronologers ; comp. Liinemann, Hinlettung, p. 6, Wieseler, Chronol. p. 40 sq.
The main object of the Apostle in writing this Epistle can easily be gathered from some of the leading expressions. It was designed alike to console and to admonish ;—to console, with
ΧΥΪ INTRODUCTION.
reference both to recent external trials and afflictions (ch. ii. 148q.), and still more to internal trials arising from anxieties as to the state of their departed friends (ch. iv. 13 sq.) ;—to admonish, with reference to grave moral principles (ch. iv. 1 sq.), Christian watch- fulness (ch. v. 1 sq.), and various practical duties (ch. v. 14) which had been neglected owing to the feverish expectations and anxie- ties which appear to have prevailed at Thessalonica even from the first: comp. ch. iv. 11, and see notes in loc. St Paul had heard of all these things from Timothy; and this information, combined with the Apostle’s full consciousness that there were many points both in knowledge and practice in which they were deficient (ch. iii. 10) and on which he would fain have further taught them personally (comp. ch. ii. 17 8q.), appears to have called forth this instructive and strengthening Epistle.
The authenticity and genuineness of the Epistle are placed beyond all reasonable doubt both by clear external testimonies (Ireneus, Her. v. 6. 1, Clem.-Alex. Pedag. τ. p. 109, ed. Potter, Tertullian, de Resurr. Carn. cap. 24) and by still stronger in- ternal arguments derived from the style and tone of thought. The objections that have been urged against it, like those ad- vanced against the Second Epistle (see Introd.), may justly be pronounced rash, arbitrary, and unworthy of serious consider- ation. They will be found fully answered in Davidson, Introd. Vol. 1 p. 454 84.
IPOS OESSAAONIKETS A.
Apostolic address and salutation.
ΑΥ̓ΛΟΣ καὶ Σιλουανὸς καὶ Τιμό- 1.
“" , 9 θεος TH ἐκκλησίᾳ Θεσσαλονικέων ἐν
1. Παῦλος] The absence of the official designation ἀπόστολος in the salutations of these Epp. is not due to their early date, nor to the fact that the title had not yet been assumed by St Paul (comp. Jowett), but simply to the terms of affection that subsisted between St Paul and his converts at Thessalonica, and their loving recog- nition of his office and authority ; comp. Beng. in loc., and see notes on Phil. i. 1. The reason of Chrys., followed by Theoph. and Cicum., διὰ τὸ veoxarn- χήτους εἶναι τοὺς ἄνδρας καὶ μηδέπω αὐτοῦ πεῖραν εἰληφέναι, does not seem sufficient. That it was ‘propter reve- rentiam Silvani’ (Cajet., Est.) is far from probable, for comp. 1 and 2 Cor. Et, Col. 1.35 Σιλονανός] Iden- tical with Silas mentioned in the Acts ' (comp. Acts xvi. 19 sq. with 1 Thess. ii. 1, 2, and Acts xviii. 5 with 2 Cor. i. 19), ἃ προφήτης (Acts xv. 32), one ἡγούμενος ἐν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς in the Church of Jerusalem (ver. 22), and also pro- bably a Roman citizen (Acts xvi. 37): he was sent by the Apostles and elders of that Church with St Paul and St Barnabas to Antioch, and, after first returning to Jerusalem (ver. 33), ac- companied the former on his second missionary journey (Acts xv. 40) through Asia Minor to Macedonia. There he co-operates with the Apostle
. 408.
(Acts xvii. 4) and Timothy (comp. Acts xvi. 3, xvii. 14, 1 Thess. iii. 6) in founding the Church of Thessalo- nica, and after staying behind at Bercea (Acts xvii. 14) rejoins St Paul either at Athens or Corinth, and ac- tively preaches the Gospel in the last named city (2 Cor. 1. 19). It does not seem improbable that he afterwards joined St Peter, and is identical with the Silvanus mentioned in τ Pet. v. 12; compare Bleek on Hebr. Vol. I. p. He is here placed before Timothy (so also Acts xvii. 14, 15, xviii. 5, 2 Cor. i. 19, 2 Thess i. 1), as being probably the older man, and certainly the older associate of St Paul. According to tradition, Silas was afterwards Bishop of Co- rinth, and Silvanus of Thessalonica (compare the list in Fabric. Lux Evang. p. 117); the former name however, though paroxytone, is in all probability only a contracted form of the latter; see Winer, Gr. § 16. note I, p. 93. For further and legendary notices of Silas, see Acta Sanct. July 13, Vol. mt. p. 476, and for an at- tempt to identify Silas with St Luke, see Journal of Sacr. Lit. Oct. 1850, p- 328 sq. Τιμόθεος] The name of this convert is too well known to need more than a brief notice. He was the son of a Greek
B
2 ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.
Θεῷ πατρὶ καὶ ἸΚυρίῳ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ. χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ
εἰρήνη.
father and a Jewish mother (Acts xvi. I, 2 Tim. i. 5), most probably from Lystra, and perhaps converted by St Paul on his first visit to that city (Acts xiv. 8 sq.). He accompanied the Apostle on his second missionary journey to Macedonia, remains behind
at Bercea (Acts xvii. 14), is summoned '
by St Paul when at Athens; pro- bably rejoins him there (comp. 1 Thess. iii. 1, 2, and see Neander, Planting, Vol. I. p. 195), is despatched to Thes- salonica, and returns to the Apostle at Corinth (Acts xviii. 5). After an interval, he reappears in St Paul’s third missionary journey, and is sent from Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts xix. 22) and Corinth (1 Cor. iv. 17). He was with St Paul when he wrote 2 Cor. (i. 1) and Rom. (xvi. 21), accom- panied him from Corinth to Asia (Acts xx. 4), and subsequently was with him when he wrote Phil. (i. 1), Col. (i. 1), and Philem. (ver. 1). He appears afterwards to have been left in charge of the Church at Ephesus (1 Tim. i. 3), and finally is summoned by St Paul to Rome, at the close of the Apostle’s second imprisonment. He is named by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. Ill. 4, comp. Const. Apost. vir. 46) as first bishop of Ephesus, and is said to have suffered martyrdom under Do- mtian; see Phot. Biblioth. coniv. p- 1402 (ed. Hoesch.), Acta Sanct., Jan. 24, Vol. 1. p. 562, and Menolog. Grec. Vol. τι. p. 128. It may be remarked that Silvanus and Timothy are here named with St Paul, not merely as being then with him (comp. Gal. i. 2), or as the ‘socii salutationis’ (see notes on Phil. i. 1), but also as having co-operated with him in found- ing the Church of Thessalonica.
τῇ ἐκκλ. Θεσσαλ. KTA.] ‘to the
Church of the Thessalonians in God
the Father,’ &c.; not ‘scribunt aut
mittunt hanc epistolam’ (Est.), but in the usual elliptical form of greeting (Lucian, Conviv. § 22), the xalpew (James i. 1) being involved and im- plied in the wish (χάρις κιτ.λ.) which
_ forms the second period of the saluta-
tion: see notes on 1 Tim. i. 2.
Thessalonica was a large (Lucian, Asin. § 46), wealthy, and populous city (Strabo, Geogr. vit. 7. 4, Vol. 11. Ρ. 60, ed. Kramer), at the north-east corner of the Sinus Thermaicus. It was built on the site of or near to (Pliny, Hist. Nat. Iv. to [17], ed. Sillig) the ancient Therme (Herod. vil. 121, Thucyd. I. 61) by Cassander, in honour of his wife Θεσσαλονίκη (Strabo, Geogr. vir. Fragm. 21, Vol. 1. p. 79, ed. Kram.), and under the Romans was of sufficient importance to be chosen first as the capital of the second district of Macedonia, and afterwards, when the four districts were united, of the whole province: see notes on ver. 7, and Livy, XLV. 29. It afterwards became a libera civitas (Pliny, J. c.). It retained its import- ance through the middle ages (see Conyb. and Howson, St Paul, Vol. 1. Ῥ. 345 sq., ed. 1), and even at the present day, under the name of Salo- niki, is one of the chief cities of European Turkey: see Leake, J. Greece, Vol. 111. p. 238 sq. For fur- ther notices, see the good account of Conyb. and Hows. l.c., Winer, RWB. Vol. τι. p. 608, Pauly, Real Encyel. Vol. vi. p. 1880, and especially the learned and comprehensive treatise of Tafel, de Thessal. ejusque agro, Berol. 1830. ἐν Θεῷ πατρί κ-τιλ. must be closely joined with τῇ ἐκκλ. Θεσσ., to which it stands in the rela-
I.
We thank God for your spiritual progress. The
2. | $
. ΄' ΄᾿ lal , Εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ Θεῷ πάντοτε 2
Η A Ul e “~ , | ““ , manner in which We προ, TAVTWY ὑμῶν, μνείαν ὑμῶν TOLOU=
pao and. ye heard he Gospel is now well known unto all men.
tion of a kind of tertiary predicate (Donalds. Gr. § 489), and which it serves to distinguish from the πολλαὶ ἐκκλησίαι καὶ ᾿Ιουδαϊκαὶ καὶ ᾿Ἑλληνικαὶ (Chrys.) which were in that city; ἐν Θεῷ πατρί, as De Wette suggests, dis- tinguishing it from the latter, καὶ Kup. k.T.., from the former. To connect these words with what follows (Koppe), or to understand χαίρειν λέγουσιν (Schott,—not Winer [Alf.], who ex- pressly adopts the right view) is arbi- trary and untenable, and to supply τῇ or τῇ οὔσῃ (De W., Alf., comp. Chrys., Syr.) unnecessary and even inexact, such unions without an art. being by no means uncommon in the N.T.; see exx. in Winer, Gr. ὃ 20. 2, p. 123, and for the principle of such combina- tions, notes on Eph. i. 15. Com- mentators call attention to the fact that the term ἐκκλ. occurs only in the addresses to 1 and 2 Thess., 1 and 2 Cor., and Gal., while in the supposed later Epp. Rom., Eph., Phil., Col., the more individualizing τοῖς ἁγίοις k.T.X. is adopted. The variation is
‘slightly noticeable; it does not how-
ever seem to point to gradually altered views with regard to the attributes of the Church (Jowett), but merely to the present comparative paucity of numbers (compare Chrys.), and their aggregation in a single assembly; comp. Koch, p. 56, note. On the meaning and application of the term, see Pearson, Creed, Art. 1x. Vol. 1. Ρ. 397 (ed. Burt.), Jackson, Creed, XII. 2. I sq. Χάρις ὑμῖν κι τ.λ.] Scil. εἴη, not ἔστω (Schott) ; see notes on Eph. i. 2. On the blended form of Greek and Hebrew greeting, see notes on Gal. i. 3, Eph. i. 2 The reading is somewhat doubtful: Rec.
adds ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμών καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Xp. on strong external authority [AC (appy.) KLN and DE omitting ἡμών ; most mss.; Fuld., Tol., Copt., Syr.-Phil. with asterisk), Ath. (Platt) ; Chrys. al. (Lachm. in brackets)]; the omission however is fairly supported [BFG: some mss.; Vulg., Syr., Aath., Arm.; Chrys. (comm.), Theoph., al, (Tisch.)], and on critical grounds is decidedly preferable, as the uniqueness of the form in St Paul’s Epp. would be likely to suggest interpolation ; comp. Col. i. 2.
2. Ἑἰὐχαριστοῦμεν] ‘ We give thanks ; see note on Phil. i. 3, and add 2 Thess. i. 3, ii. 13. It has been doubted whe- ther the plural is to be understood of the Apostle alone (Koch, Conyb.), as in ch. ii. 18, iii. 1 sq., or to be referred also to Silvanus and Timothy; con- trast Phil. i. 1,3. As the plural is elsewhere used in reference to the Apostle and his συνεργοί (comp. 2 Cor. i. 19, and notes on Col. i. 3), and as Silvanus and Timothy stood in a very close relation to the Church of Thessalonica, it seems most natural here to adopt the latter view; so Liinem., and Alford, who however appears inexact in claiming all the ancient commentt., as Chrys. and the Greek expositors seem clearly, though indirectly, to adopt the former view. On the late use of the verb evxapi- στεῖν in the sense of ‘gratias agere,’ see notes on Phil. i. 3, and esp. on Col. i. 12; the more correct χάριν ἔχω occurs in i Tim. i, 12, 2 Tim. i. 3, and as an alternative reading in Phi- lem. 7 (Tisch.). These thanks are returned to God (the Father, comp. Col. i. 3), ὡς αὐτὸς ἐργασάμενος τὸ πάν, Chrys.: so 2 Thess. i. 3, 2 Tim.
B2
4 ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ A.
~ “σ΄ ~ 4 3 μενοι ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν ἡμῶν, ἀδιαλείπτως μνημο-
i. 3, and, with the addition of μου,
Rom. i. 8, 1 Cor. i. 4, Phil. i. 3, Philem. 4. πάντοτε K.T.A. here obviously belongs to the finite verb (1 Cor. i. 4, 2 Thess. i. 3, comp. Eph. i. 16), not to the participle (Phil. i. 4, Col. i. 3, Philem. 4). Even if the second ὑμῶν be omitted (see below), the connexion with the par- ticiple will be almost equally unten- able, as the expression μνείαν ποιεῖσθαι περί twos, though not unclassical (Plato, Protag. p. 317 ΕἾ, is not else- where found in St Paul’s Epp.; so Syr., Aith., the Greek expositors (silet Theod.), and nearly all modern editors. On the alliteration πάντοτε περὶ πάντων, comp. notes on Phil. i. 4. περὶ πάντων ὑμῶν] ‘concern- ing you all;’ not without slight em- phasis and affectionate cumulation; the Church of Thessalonica, like that of Philippi, presented but few unfa- vourable developments. The very εὐχαριστία was tacitly commendatory (τὸ εὐχαριστεῖν K.T.N. μαρτυροῦντός ἐστιν αὐτοῖς πολλὴν προκοπήν, Chrys.), the inclusive nature of it still more expressly so. The difference be- tween the use of περὶ (1 Cor. i. 4, &c.) and ὑπὲρ (Rom. i. 8, 4:6.) in this and similar formule in the N.T. is scarcely appreciable; see notes on Eph. vi. 19. Perhaps, as a general rule, we may say that in the former the attention is more directed to the object or cir- cumstances to which the action of the verb extends, in the latter more to that action itself; see notes on Gal. i”4, and Phil. i. 7.
μνείαν ὑμῶν ποιούμ. ‘making men- tion of you;’ not a limitation of the preceding evxap. πάντοτε, but a de- finition of the circumstances under which it took place; see Rom. i. 9, Eph. i. 16, Philem. 4, and comp. Phil.
i. 3, 4, 2 Tim. i. 2. For further re- marks on the formula (not ‘making mention of or remémbering,’ Jowett, but simply the former,—as often in Aristotle, al.), see notes on Philem. 4, and for a distinction between μνήμη (γενικὴ τύπωσις ψυχῆς) and μνεία (λόγος κατ᾽ ἀνανέωσιν λεγόμενος), Am- monius, Voc. Diff. p. 95 (ed. Valck.). Mvela has the meaning ‘commemo- ratio’ only when it is joined with ποιεῖσθαι, see notes on Phil. i. 3. The reading is doubtful; Lachm. omits ὑμῶν after μνείαν with ABN!; Vulg. (Amiat.), C omits ὑμῶν (1); see crit. note on Eph. i. 16. It does not how- ever seem improbable that the pre- sence of the former ὑμών suggested a supposed emendatory omission.
ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν ἡμῶν] ‘in our prayers,’ ‘in orationibus nostris,’ Vulg., Copt. (comp. Syr., Aith.),—not merely ‘at the time I offer them,’ but, with a tinge of local reference, ‘in my per- formance of that duty ;’ see Bernhardy, Synt. V. 23 a, p. 246, and notes on Eph. i. 16. In such cases the funda- mental meaning of the prep. may just be traced in the way in which it marks the object to which the action has reference, its point, so to say, of application ; see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 40. 5.
3. ἀδιαλείπτως] ‘ unremittingly; used in the N. T. only by St Paul, ch. ii. 13, v. 17, Rom. i. 9, and in all cases in direct (ch. v. 17) or indirect connexion with prayer or thanksgiv- ing. The adverb is referred by Vulg., Syr., 4ith., Arm., and some modern expositors, to the preceding participle, but far more naturally by Chrys. and the Greek commentators to μνημονεύ- ovres, each new clause serving to en- hance and expand what had preceded ; so Lachm., Tisch., Buttm., and per-
¥. 3: | 5
~ ~ »- A , 4 ~ , “ νεύοντες ὑμῶν του εργου τῆς πιστεῶς Καὶ TOV KOTOUV τῆς
haps Copt., Vulg. (Amiat.). Alford connects it with ποιούμ. urging Rom. i. 9, but there the order is different. μνημονεύοντες ‘remembering,’ Auth., ‘memores,’ Vulg., Clarom.; partici- pial clause parallel to the preceding μνείαν ποιούμενοι, and defining not the cause (Schott) but the circum- stances and temporal concomitants of the action: the εὐχαριστία found its utterance in the prayers, and owed its persistence (πάντοτε) to the unceasing continuance of the μνήμη. The first participle has thus more of a modal, the second of a temporal tinge; οὐ μόνον φησὶν ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου μέμνημαι ὑμῶν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλοτε πάν- τοτε, Theoph. It has been doubted whether μνήμον. is here ‘commemo- rare’ (Beza), or ‘memor [esse’] (Vulg., Syr., Aith., Arm., and appy. Copt.) as in Heb. xi. 22 (but with περὶ and agen.). The context (ἔμπροσθεν Θεοῦ k.T.X.) seems to be slightly in favour of the former (De Wette), but St Paul’s use of the verb, and the case which follows it (gen. not accus.), are somewhat decidedly in favour of the latter ; see ch. ii. 9, Winer, Gr. ὃ 30. Io, p. 184, Jelf, Gr. ὃ 515, obs., and notes on 2 Tim. ii. 8. The three objects of the Apostle’s remembrance then follow in their natural order (so ch. v. 8, Col. i. 4, comp. Tit. ii. 2; aliter 1 Cor. xiii. 13), ἀγάπη being the result and exemplification of πίστις, and é\ms the link between the pre- sent and the future; comp. also r Pet. i, 21, 22, and see Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Iv. 20, Vol. 11. p. 219, and esp. Us- teri, Lehrb. τι. 1. 4, p. 238.
ὑμῶν τοῦ ἔργου Kt.A.] ‘your work of faith, ὁ. 6. ‘which characterizes, is the distinctive feature of faith ;? comp. Rom. ii. 15, and in point of sentiment Gal. v. 6, πίστις δὲ ἀγάπης ἐνεργου-
μένη. The precise meaning and con- nexion of these words has been much contested. The simplest view seems to be as follows: (1) Ὑμῶν is not immediately dependent on μνήμον. (GEcum.), as this would involve an untenable ellipse of a prep. before the succeeding words (see Herm. Viger, p- 701, Lond. 1824), but is a possess. gen. in connexion with τοῦ ἔργου, and also (as its slightly emphatic position suggests) with τοῦ κόπου and τῆς ὑπο- μονῆς: see further exx. in Winer, Gr. § 22. 7. note I, p. 140. (2) Tod ἔργου is certainly not pleonastic, but must stand in parallelism both in force and meaning (hence not ‘ veritas,’ Kypke, Obs. Vol. τι. p. 332) with the succeed- ing τοῦ κόπου (Winer, Gr. ὃ 65. 7, Ρ. 541), and has probably here not so
much a collective (Syr. {28 [opera]), as a tinge of active force, imparted both by the context and the following τοῦ κόπου ; comp, Eph. iv. 12, Knapp, Scripta Var. Arg. Vol. τι. p. 491 note, and Usteri, Lehrd. 11. 1. 4, p. 238. (3) Τῆς πίστεως is certainly not a gen. of apposition (Alf.), as it would thus lose all parallelism with the succeeding genitives, but is either (a) a gen. of the origin (Hartung, Casus, p. 17, comp. notes on Col. i. 23), ‘quod ex fide pro- ficiscitur,’ Grot., or perhaps more simply (Ὁ) a possessive genitive, τοῦ ἔργου being the prevailing feature and characteristic of the πίστις, and that by which it evinces its vitality ; comp. Chrys., ἡ πίστις διὰ τῶν ἔργων δείκνυ- ται, who however, with Theod., al., limits τὸ ἔργον to endurance in suffer- ings (τὸ ἐν κινδύνοις βέβαιον, Theod.), a very doubtful restriction.
τοῦ κόπου τῆς ἀγάπης] ‘toil of love,” ὁ. 6. (retaining the same geniti- val relation as in the preceding words)
6 ΠΡΟΣ
ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.
? , 4 “ ς “ - Φ. LA\S “ εὖ, Φ'." δι ἀγάπης καὶ τῆς ὑπομονῆς τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν
Ἴ “ ~ »+ A a 3 4 ε - σου Χριστοῦ ἔμπροσθεν του Θεοῦ και πατρος WY,
‘the toil which characterizes and evinces the vitality of love; ‘multum est per se dilectio, sed multo magis si accedunt molesti labores, id enim κό- mos,’ Grot.; see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10. _ The ἀγάπη is here not in reference to God,. or to God and one another (comp. Gicum.), but simply to the lat- ter (Col. i. 4, Heb. vi. 10); and that as evinced,—not merely in teaching (comp. De W.) or in bearing a bro- ther’s faults (Theod.) or in ministering to the sick, dc. (Alf.)—but, as the forcible κόπος sems to suggest, in mi- nistering to, labouring for, and if need be suffering for, a brother-Christian ; comp. Chrys. in loc. On the theolo- gical meaning and application of ἀγάπη (Vulg. ‘caritas’ [89 times] or ‘ dilectio’ [24 times] but never ‘amor,’ consider however August. de Civ. Dei, XIV. 7), see Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 19, Vol. 11. p. 203 sq., and comp. Barrow, Serm. XXVIiI. Vol. 11. p. 44 54. τῆς ὕπομ. τῆς ἐλπ.} ‘patience of Hope,’ t.e. as before, the patience which is not exactly the product (De W.) or the cause (Ecum.), but the distinguishing and characterizing fea- ture of your hope; ὑπομένειν δὲ προσή- κει τὸν ταύτην δεξάμενον τὴν ἐλπίδα, καὶ φέρειν γενναίως τὰ προσπίπτοντα σκυθρωπά, Theod. In the noble word ὑπομονή, there always appears in the N. T. a background of ἀνδρεία (comp. Plato, Theet. p. 177 B, where ἀνδρικῶς ὑπομεῖναι is opp. to ἀνάνδρως φεύγειν) ; it does not mark merely the endurance, the ‘sustinentia’ (Vulg., but here only), or even the ‘ patientia’ (Clarom. here, and Vulg. generally), but the ‘ perseverantia’ (see Cicero, de Invent. II. 54. 163), the brave patience with which the Christian contends against the various hindrances, persecutions
(Chrys.), and temptations (Theoph.), that befall him in his conflict with the inward and outward world; comp. Rev. ii. 3, and see notes on 2 Tim. ii. το, Trench, Synon. Part τι. § 3, and Neander, Planting, Vol. I. p. 479 (Bohn). In some cases it seems almost to occupy the place of ἐλπίς, as it stands in conjunction with πίστις and ἀγάπη in τ Tim. vi. 11, Tit. ii. 2, and with πίστις in 2 Thess. i. 4: for a full notice of other shades of meaning, comp. Barrow, Serm. ΧΙ. Vol. 11. p. 525 sq. τοῦ Κυρίου x.7.X. does not refer to the three preceding substantives (Olsh.), but merely to the immediately foregoing ἐλπίδος : our Lord was the object of that hope; His second coming was that to which it ever turned its gaze; comp. ver. 10, and see Reuss, Z'héol. Chrét. 1v. 20, Vol. 11. p. 221. For exx. of similar accumulation of genitives, esp. in St Paul’s Epp., see Winer, Gr. § 30. 3. note I, p. 172. ἔμπροσθεν K.T.A, | ‘before God and our Father,’ scil. μνημονεύοντες (Syr., Theoph. 1, Beng., Alf.), not with τοῦ ἔργου τῆς πίστεως x.T.. (Theod., Theoph. 2, Jowett), as in such a case the article could scarcely be dispensed with. *EurpooGev is joined expressly with τοῦ Θεοῦ only in this Ep. (ch. iii. 9, 13, comp. ii. 19) and in Acts x. 4 (not Rec.); but the phrase is scarcely distinguishable in meaning from the more usual ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θ., Rom. xiv. 22, Gal. i. 20, al., or the less usual ἔναντι rod Θ., Luke i. 8, Acts viii. 21 (not Rec.) : it serves to hint at the more solemn circumstances (of prayer) under which the remembrance took place, and to mark its sincerity and earnestness; it was no accidental or pretended μνεία, but one entertain- ed in His presence, and in which His
I. 4, 5. 7
εἰδότες, ἀδελφοὶ ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ Θεοῦ, τὴν ἐκλογὴν 4 ὑμῶν: ὅτι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐγενήθη εἰς ὑμᾶς 5
eyes saw no insincerity; comp. Calv.
in loc., and on the phrase generally,
Frankel, Vorstud. z. LX X. p. 159.
On the formula ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατήρ, see
notes on Gal. i. 4, and on the most suit-
able translation, notes to Z'ransl. in loc. 4. εἰδότες] ‘seeing we know,’ or
‘ ᾿ . 9
knowing as we do ; a ἢ ne γα [novimus enim] Syr.; participial clause parallel to μνημονεύοντες, and similarly dependent on εὐχαριστοῦμεν, serving to explain the reasons and motives which led to the εὐχαριστία. The finite verb has thus three participial clauses attached to it; the first serves principally to define the manner, the second the time and circumstances, the third the reason and motive of the action. These delicate uses of the Greek participle deserve particular attention; comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 56. το sq. See also Phil. i. 3, 4, 5, and notes on ver. 5. It is somewhat singular that so good a commentator as Theodoret should refer εἰδότες to the Thessalonians ; so also Grot., who connects the clause with the remote ἐγενήθητε, ver. 6. There is no trace of such a connexion in any of the an- cient Vv. except Ath.-Pol. ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ Θεοῦ) ‘beloved by God ;’ comp. 2 Thess. ii. 13; so rightly Syr., Vulg., Clarom., Copt., Ath.- Pol., and inferentially Chrys. (ὑπὲρ yap τῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀγαπητῶν τί οὐκ ἄν τις πάσχοι). To connect ὑπὸ Θεοῦ with τὴν ἐκλογήν, as Aith. (Platt), Theoph., and our own Auth., involves a dis- turbance of the natural order, and an ellipse of εἶναι that is here highly im- probable. The article is inserted be- fore Θεοῦ by ACKN; ro mss.
τὴν ἐκλογὴν ὑμῶν] ‘your election ;’ 8011, out of others not ἐκλεκτοί, with
reference to the sovereign decree of God made before the foundation of the world; see Eph. i. 4, and notes a loc. To refer this merely to the manner of their election to the Gospel (Baumg.- Crus., Jowett 2), or to any internal renewing of the Spirit (Pelt), is in a high degree forced and unsatisfactory. On the use of the terms ἐκλέξασθαι, ἐκλογή, and ἐκλεκτός, in St Paul’s Epp. see Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 14, Vol. τι. p- 132, and on the doctrine generally, the clear and in the main satisfactory statements of Ebrard, Dogmatvk, ὃ 560, 561; comp. also the very valuable remarks of Hooker, on Predest. Vol. II. p. 705 sq. (ed. Keble), especially pp. 711, 712.
n 5. ὅτι] ‘in that,’ ‘because,’ ΚΣ
Syr., ‘quia,’ Vulg. (not perfectly conclusive), and sim. Copt., Aith., Arm.: reason for this knowledge on the part of St Paul and his com- panions, ὅτε having here its causal force (Winer, Gr. § 53. 8. b, p. 395), and, with its regular objective charac- teristics (Kriiger, Sprachl. § 65. 8. 1), referring to known facts as confirma- tory of a preceding assertion. The Apostle argues they must be elect, first because (ver. 5) he and his com- panions were enabled to preach the Gospel among them with such power, and secondly (ver. 6) because they re- ceived it with such joy; ἐκ τούτου φησὶ δῆλον ὅτι ἐκλεκτοί ἐστε, ἐκ TOU τὸν Θεὸν τὸ κήρυγμα ἐν ὑμῖν δοξάσαι, Theoph. Others, as Bengel ahd Schott, give ὅτι its expository force, ‘that,’ ‘to wit that’ (see Kriiger, Sprachl. δ 61. 1. 3), and place only a comma after ὑμῶν; in which case ver. 5 be- comes an objective sentence (Donalds. Gr. ὃ 584 sq.) dependent on εἰδότες,
Fee =) ρον
8 ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.
at , ? 9 4 }
ἐν λόγῳ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν δυνάμει καὶ ἐν Πνεύματι ἁγίῳ \ 9 U “ @
καὶ ἐν πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ, καθὼς οἴδατε οἷοι ἐγενήθημεν
and more distinctly explanatory of the nature of the ἐκλογή. This is gram- matically tenable, but certainly not exegetically satisfactory, as the whole context seems to have more of a direct and argumentative, than of a depend- ent and explanatory nature.
τὸ edayy. ἡμῶν] ‘our Gospel,’ ‘the Gospel which we preached ;’ the gen. being appy. that of the mediate source or origin (Hartung, Casus, p. 23), or perhaps rather of the mediate causa eficiens ; see notes on ver. 6.
οὐκ ἐγενήθη εἰς ὑμᾶς] ‘came not unto you ;’ not ‘erga vos,’ Calv., but simply ‘ad vos,’ Vulg., Copt., the preposition not having here its ethical force (comp. Philem. 6), but simply marking the direction which was taken by the εὐαγγέλιον ; comp. Donalds. Cratyl. ὃ 170, and notes on Gal. iii. 14.
The reading is perhaps doubtful. Πρὸς ὑμᾶς is well supported, viz. by AC?D EFG; § mss.; Chrys., Theoph. (Lachm.). As however els appearsa less probable correction for πρὸς than the converse, and is supported by strong ex- ternal authority [B (perhaps C!) KLN; nearly all mss.; Chrys. (ms.), Theod., al., Griesb., Tisch.], we retain the reading of Rec. If πρὸς be adopted, the same meaning will be admissible (comp. 2 John 12, not Rec.), but will seem less probable than ‘apud’ (Clarom.; comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 10), as the general reference of the context is rather to the development of the Gospel among them than the circum- stances of its first arrival; for this meaning of γενέσθαι πρὸς (denoting continuance) in the N.T., which Alford seems to doubt, see Meyer on 1 Cor. ii. 3, and Fritz. on Mark, p. 201.
On the passive form ἐγενήθη, which occurs noticeably often in this and the
following chapter (8 times, against 17 in the rest of the N. T. of which 5 are quotations from the LXX.), but appy. does not involve any passive meaning (Alf.), see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 108, Thomas M. p. 189 (ed. Bern.), and notes on Col, iv. tt.
ἐν λόγῳ] ‘in word ;’ not merely equi- valent to λόγος (comp. Jowett), but,
-as usual, with areference to the sphere
or domain of its action; ‘non stetit intra verba,’ Grot.; compare Winer, Gr. § 48. a. 3. a, p. 345.
ἐν δυνάμει kK. τ. A.) Sin power and in the Holy Ghost ;’ ‘in the element of power and—to specify a yet higher principle (καὶ being not so much ex- planatory as slightly climactic, see notes on ver. 6)—in the influence of the Holy Ghost ;’ the preposition as before defining the sphere, and thence in- ferentially the manner, in which the preaching took place; see notes on ch. ii. 3. Δυνάμει does not appear to refer specially to ‘miraculous powers’ (Theod., Theoph., al.), but, as in the similar passage 1 Cor. ii. 4, to the reality, energy, and effective earnest- ness, with which the Apostle and his followers preached among the Thessa- lonians. Jowett defends the refer- ence of ἐν duv. to the influence pro- duced on the Thess., but is thus led into an interpr. of ἐν Πνεύμ. ἁγίῳ, ----
- ‘the inspiration of the speaker caught
by the hearers,’ which, as tending to obscure the reference to the per- sonal Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, seems in a high degree precarious and unsatisfactory. On the use of Πνεῦμα as a proper name, see notes on Gal. v. 5, and comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 19. I, p. 111.
ἐν πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ] ‘in much as- surance,’ i.e. ‘much confidence, much assured persuasion,’ on the part of the
iS 6 9
ἐν ὑμῖν δι’ ὑμᾶς: καὶ ὑμεῖς μιμηταὶ ἡμῶν ἐγενήθητε καὶ 6
preachers ; subjective, corresponding to the more objective side presented in the preceding clause: comp. Heb. x. 22, πληροφορίᾳ πίστεως, which latter subst. Alford here unnecessarily inserts in translation. Of the three explanations which Jowett proposes, (a) certainty, (6) fulness of spiritual gifts, Corn. a Lap., al., (c) effect, fulfilment, Thom. Aq. 2, the first alone seems in harmony with the context, if limited to the Apostle and his companions. To refer it to the Thessalonians (Musc., comp. Zanch. ap. Pol. Syn.), or to them and the Apostle (Vorst., Schott), seems to mar the correct sequence of thought, and to introduce notices of the state of the recipients which-come first into view in ver. 6. The word πληρο- gopia (Hesych. BeBardrns) appears to be confined to the N.T. (Col. ii. 2, Heb. vi. 11, x. 22) and the ecclesiasti- cal writers. The ἐν before πληροῴ. is omitted by BN; some mss.
καθὼς οἴδατε! ‘even as ye know; ‘appeal for confirmation to the know- ledge of the readers themselves,’ Olsh. ; ὑμεῖς φησὶ μάρτυρες πῶς ἐν ὑμῖν dve- στράφημεν, Theoph. To place a colon
or period at πολλῇ, and regard καθὼς
οἴδατε as the antecedent member of a sentence of which καὶ ὑμεῖς is the conse- quent (‘qualem me vidistis . . . tales etiam vos estis,’ Koppe), involves un- tenable meanings of οἴδατε and ἐγενή- θητε, and is well refuted by Liinemann in loc. οἷοι ἐγενήθημεν] ‘what manner of men we proved ;’ not ‘quales fuerimus,’ Vulg., nor yet quite so much as ‘facti simus,’ Alf. (who throws un- due emphasis on the passive form), but, with the more certain and natural sense, ‘came to be, proved to be;’ see notes above, and on Col. iv. 11. The ποιότης was not evinced merely in con- fronting dangers (Theod, comp. Chrys.),
but in the power and confidence with which they delivered their message.
δι ὑμᾶς] ‘on your account,’ ‘for your sake ;’ ‘propter vos,’ Vulg.; not with so specific a force as ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν (comp. Theod., who uses this latter formula in connexion with κινδύνους ὑφεστάναι), nor yet one so undefined as περὶ ὑμῶν, but with a clear and distinct reference to the cause and best interests [‘sake,’ —Sax. sac, Germ. Sache] of those to whom the Apostle preached; τῆς ἐμῆς [ἡμετέρας] σπούδης τῆς els ὑμᾶς ἡ ὑμῶν παρὰ Θεοῦ ἐκλογὴ πρόφασις γέγονεν, (icum. The ἐν ὑμῖν, it need scarcely be said, is simply ‘among you;’ dve- στράφημεν ἐν ὑμῖν, Theoph. The ἐν however is omitted by ACN; 4 mss. ; Vulg. (Amiat.).
6. καὶ ὑμεῖς κιτ.λ.1 ‘and [because] ye becameimitators of us ;’ second ground for knowing that the Thess. were éxXexrol,—the καὶ not being ascensive (comp. notes on Eph. ii. 1, Phil. iv. 12) or equivalent to ‘sic, more Hebreo’ (Grot.), but simply copulative, and the verse remaining, if not structurally, yet logically, under the vinculum of the preceding ὅτι. It thus seems best to place neither a period (Tisch., Alf.) nor a comma (Lachm., Buttm.), but a colon, after ver. 5. Here, as in ver. 5, Liinem. and Alf. lay a stress on the passive form ἐγενήθητε, This however is lexically doubtful: the Apostle is rather dwelling on the effects pro- duced among them, on what they came to be, and thus significantly adopts not the simple verb μιμεῖσθαι, but the more definitive μιμηταὶ γίνεσθαι; see 1 Cor. iv. 16, xi. 1, Eph. v. τ, Phil. iii. 17. Kal τοῦ Κυρίου] ‘and of the Lord,’ all misunderstand- ing is prevented by means of the in- sertion of τοῦ K. with the slightly climactic καί, see Hartung, Partik,
10
ΠΡῸΣ OEZZAAONIKEIS A.
τοῦ Kupiov, δεξάμενοι τὸν λόγον ἐν θλίψει πολλῇ μετὰ
7 χαρᾶς νεύματος ἁγίου,
καί, 5. 4, Vol. 1. Ρ. 145. This use of the particle, which is strictly in ac- cordance with its supposed derivation [tsht, ‘cumulare,’ comp. Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. τι. p. 320], forms the sort of connecting link between its simply copulative and simply ascensive uses, and may perhaps be termed its clé- mactic use ; comp. Fritz. on Mark i. 5, p- 11. For a brief analysis of the leading distinctions in the use of this particle, see notes on Phil. iv. 12.
The exact manner in which the Thes- salonians became imitators of their founders,—and of the Lord, is defined in the concluding words of the verse, ἐν θλίψει πολλῇ μετὰ χαρᾶς Πν. ἁγίου: joy amid suffering and affliction is the ‘tertium comparationis; comp. Acts v. 41, Heb. x. 34. δεξάμενοι τὸν λόγον] ‘having received the word ,’ temporal use of the participle (see notes on Eph. iv. 8), marking here the con- temporaneousness of the action with that of the finite verb: the predication of manner is given in the following words; comp. Rom. iv. 20. It is scarcely necessary to add that τὸν λόγον is here practically equivalent to τὸν λόγον τοῦ Kuplov (ver. 8), τοῦ Θεοῦ (2 Cor. ii. 17), or τῆς ἀληθείας (Eph. i. 13), and refers to the preaching of the Gospel, which was the λόγος κατ᾽ ἐξο- χήν; comp. Luke viii. 13, Acts xvii. 11. On the force of δέξασθαι τὸν λόγον, and its probable distinction from παραλαβεῖν τ. λόγ., see notes on ch, ii. 13. ἐν θλίψει πολλῇ] ‘in much affliction.’ The affliction of the Thessalonians dated back as early as their first reception of the Gospel (see Acts xvii. 6), and, as this Epistle incidentally shows, continued both while the Apostle was with them (ch. ii. 14), and after he had left them
4 , ε ~ , wate γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς τύπον
(ch. iii. 2, 3). χαρᾶς Πνεύματος dy.] ‘joy of the Holy Spi- rit,’ certainly not ‘letitiam de Spiritu,’ Fritz, (Nova Opuse. p. 271), still less χαρὰ πνευματική (Jowett), but ‘joy inspired by and emanating from the Spirit:’ gen. of the originating cause ; see notes on Col. i. 23. Between the two usual forms of the gen. of ‘ abla- tion’ (see Donaldson, Gr. ὃ 448, 449), viz. (a) the stronger gen. of the causa eficiens, and (c) the weaker gen. ori- ginis, which forms the point of transi- tion to the partitive genitive, it is perhaps not hypercritical in the N. T. to insert (6) a gen. of the originating cause, or, if the expression be permis- sible, the originating agent,—in which the two ideas of source and agency are blended and intermixed; consider the exx. cited in Scheuerl. Synt. § 17. I, p. 126. With the present case, which appears to fall under (b),—the Spirit being not only an external giver, but an internal source of the xapd—contrast on the one hand 2 Thess. ii. 13, ἁγιασμὸς Πνεύματος, where the verbal in -yos suggests (a), and on the other Gal. v. 22, ὁ καρπὸς τοῦ IIveiu., where, if the gen. be not possessive, the image seems to suggest the weaker (6). Such distinctions, which are not wholly without impor- tance in the N.T., are really due as much to doctrinal as to grammatical considerations ; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 30. I, p. 167 sq.
ἡ. Gore γεν. dp. τύπον] ‘so that ye became an ensample:’ spiritual progress of the Thessalonian converts; they were not only imitators of the ex- ample of their teachers, but were themselves (regarded as a collective body; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 27. 1, p. 157 note) an example to others. This
1273-8:
11
ἦν. “4 4. δὰ ' » δ °° “ $ PORN SP 49 η᾽ΔΑ of. πᾶσιν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἐν τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ καὶ ἐν TH’ Ayaia:
ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν γὰρ ἐξήχηται ὁ λόγος τοῦ Κυρίου οὐ μόνον ἐν 8
could hardly apply to those who had received the Gospel before them (οἱ προλαβόντες, Chrys., Theoph.), for, as Liinemann observes, the church of Philippi was the only one in Europe which received the Gospel before that of Thessalonica; comp. ch. ii. 2, Acts xvi. 1284. The reading is very doubt- ful; the plural τύπους (Rec.) is well supported [ACFGKLN; most mss.; Boern., Syr.-Phil.; many Ff.], but seems so much more likely to have been changed from the singular than vice versa (Schott), that on the whole τύπον, though having less external authority [BD1(D?EK and 1 ms. read τύπος); 7 mss.; Clarom., Sangerm., Vulg., Syr., Aith. (both), al., Lachm. (non marg:), Zisch.], is here to be pre- ferred. πᾶσιν τοῖς ToT. | ‘to all the believers; πιστεύουσιν not having here a pure participial force, τοῖς ἤδη πιστεύουσι, Chrys., but, as often in the N.T., coalescing with the article to form a substantive; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 45. 7, p. 316. ἐν τῇ Maxed. καὶ ἐν rq’ Ax.] ‘Mace- donia and Achaia,’ i.e. the whole of Greece; Acts xix. 21, Rom. xv. 26, comp. 2 Cor. ix. 2. Macedonia was at first (B. 0. 167) divided by the Ro- mans into four districts, but subse- quently (B.c. 142) reunited into one province comprising all the northern portion of Greece. Achaia proper was also united with Hellas and the rest of the Peloponnese (B.C. 142) in one province, and as the leading state at that time gave the name to the whole southern portion of Greece ; see Winer, RWB. Vol. τ. p. τό, and Vol. 1. p. 44. The omission of ἐν before τῇ *A- χαΐᾳ (Rec.) has against it all the uncial MSS. except KL.
8. dd ὑμῶν γάρ] ‘For from you.’
proof and amplification of the pre- ceding assertion. The preposition is here simply local (Alf.),—not ethical (‘vobis efficientibus,’ Storr; a very questionable paraphrase), nor both com- bined (Schott),—and marks the Thes- salonians as the simple terminus a quo of the ἐξηχεῖσθαι. It may be observed that appy. in all cases in the N.T. where ἀπὸ is said to be equivalent to ὑπὸ the action implied in the verb is represented as emanating from, rather
than wrought by the assumed agent;
comp. Luke vi. 18 (not Rec.), James i. 13, see Winer, Gr. § 47. b, p. 331, and notes on Gal. i. 1.
ἐξήχηται] ‘hath sounded forth,’ an dm. λεγόμ. in the N.T. (Hesychius, ἐξῆλθεν" ἐκηρύχθη), but found in the LXX. (Joel iii. 14, Ecclus. xl. 13) and occasionally in later writers, 6. g. Polyb. Hist. xxx. 4. 7, τὸ κύκνειον ἐξηχήσαντες. The word forcibly marks both the clear and the pervasive na- ture of the λόγος τοῦ Κυρίου" ws ἐπὶ σάλπιγγος λαμπρὸν ἠχούσης καὶ ἐπὶ πολὺ φθανούσης, Theoph.
ὁ λόγος τοῦ Κυρίου] ‘the word of the Lord,’ i.e. the Gospel (see above, ver. 6) as received by the Thessalonians, not ‘the report that it was received by them’ (De W.), still less ‘your bright example became itself a message from the Lord’ (Alf.),—both of which in- terpretations seem needlessly artificial. The Gospel was received by them with such eager zeal, its words were so constantly in their mouths and so wrought in their hearts, that it swelled as it were into a mighty trumpet-call that was heard of all men sounding forth from Thessalonica.
ἐν τῇ Max. kal’ Ax.] Here the omis- sion of the article and prep. before ᾿Αχαΐᾳ is not only permissible (on the
12
ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΞΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.
”~ id 4 9 Af 9 ᾿ τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ καὶ ᾿Αχαΐᾳ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ ἡ πίστις
ὑμῶν ἡ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἐξελήλυθεν, ὥστε μὴ χρείαν ἔχειν
ground that the previous more exact specification of each would preclude any misconception), but really gram- matically exact: Macedonia and A- chaia now form a whole in antithesis to the rest of the world; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ το. 4, p. 116 sq. The reading however is very doubtful: Lachm. in- serts ἐν τῇ with the strongest external testimony [CDEFGKLN; 30 mss. ; Vulg., Clarom., Syr. (both), al.], but as the insertion of the ἐν τῇ would seem so much more likely to have been a conformation to ver. 7, than its omission to have been accidental, we retain the reading of Rec., Tisch., though only with B; majority of mss.; some Vv.; Chrys., Theod., al. nA there is a lacuna (ver. 8 beginning with ἀλλ᾽ ἐν παντὶ) arising from Ho- mceoteleuton. ἀλλ᾽ ἐν παντί k.T.A. ] There is some little difficulty in the exact connexion, as ἀλλ᾽ ἐν x.T.X. seems clearly to stand in immediate antithesis to οὐ μόνον x.T.d. (opp. to Liinem., who places a colon after Kuplov), but yet stands associated with a new nominative. The most simple explanation is that of Riickert (Loc. Paul. Expl. Jen. 1844), according to which the Apostle is led by the desire of making a forcible climax into a disregard of the preceding nominative, and in fact puts a sentence in anti- thesis to οὐ pdvov—’Axaia, instead of the simple local clause ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ or ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ (Rom. i. 8) which the strict logical connexion actually required. Rec. inserts καὶ after ἀλλά, but on decidedly insufficient authority—viz. D9EKL; Vulg. (not Amiat.), and several Ff. On the dis- tinction between this latter form (‘ubi prior notio non per se sed quatenus sola est negatur’) and οὐ μόνον... ἀλλά
(‘ubi posterior notio ut gravior in locum prioris substituitur priore non plane sublato’), see the good note of Kiihner on Xen. Mem. 1. 6. 2, and correct accordingly Jelf, Gr. § 762. 1; see also Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 8.
ἡ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν] ‘which is toward God,’ ‘to God-ward,’ Auth.: more exact definition of the πίστις by means of the repeated article; comp. Tit. ii. 10, notes on Gal. iii. 26, and Winer, Gr. § 20.1, p. 119 sq. The less usual preposition πρὸς is here used with great propriety, as there is a tacit contrast to a previous faith πρὸς τὰ εἴδωλα (see ver. 9), in which latter case the deeper πίστ. εἰς (faith to and into,—surely not ‘on,’ Alf.) would seem to be theologically unsuitable. On the meaning of πίστ. πρός, see notes on Philem. 5, and on the force of πίστις and πιστεύειν with different prepp., Reuss, Zhéol. Chrét. 1v. 14, Vol. Il. p. 129, and notes on 1 Tim. i, 16. ἐξελήλυθεν] ‘is gone forth: so, with reference to a report, Matth. ix. 26, Mark i. 28, Rom. x. 18 (Ps. xix. 5); Koch compares the He- brew N¥*, Ezek. xvi. 14, ἐξῆλθε, LXX. The currency of the report was probably much promoted by the commercial intercourse between Thes- salonica and other cities, both in Greece and elsewhere; see Koch in loc., and Wieseler, Chronol. p. 42, who suggests that Aquila and Pris- cilla, who had lately come from Rome to Corinth (Acts xviii. 2), might have mentioned to the Apostle the preva- lence of the report even in that more distant city. If this be so, the justice and truth of the Apostle’s hyperbole is still more apparent; to be known in Rome was to be known everywhere : contrast Baur, Paulus, p. 484. Rec.
Ig.
13
eon a ὦ 1+ 4 ‘ ee ee
ἡμᾶς λαλεῖν TL αὐτοὶ γὰρ περὶ ἡμῶν ἀπαγγέλλουσιν g 4 “ A
ὁποίαν εἴσοδον ἔσχομεν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, Kal πῶς ἐπεστρέψατε
πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων δουλεύειν Θεῷ ζῶντι καὶ
adopts the order ἡμᾶς ἔχειν, but only with KL; most mss. λαλεῖν τι] ‘to speak anything,’ sc. about
your mioris, or as Syr. eaads
4
[de vobis]; προὔλαβεν ἡμᾶς ἡ φήμη καὶ παρ᾽ ἄλλων ἀκούομεν ἃ λέγειν ἐθέ- λομεν, Theod, On the difference be- tween λαλεῖν and λέγειν, comp. notes on Tit. ii. 1; and see Trench, Synon. Part τι. $26. The fundamental dis- tinction that λαλεῖν (Hesych. φθέγ- γεσθαι) points merely to sound and utterance, λέγειν to purport, is mainly observed in the N.T., with the excep- tion that λαλεῖν is sometimes used where λέγειν would appear more natu- ral, but never vice vers&; see esp. the good note of Liicke on John viii. 43.
9. αὐτοί] ‘ they themselves ;’ i.e. the people in Macedonia and Achaia and elsewhere ; a very intelligible ‘con- structio ad sensum;’ see Winer, Gr. § 22. 3, p. 131, and notes on Gal. ii. 2. The interpr. of Pelt, ‘sponte,’ αὐτο- μαθῶς, is here artificial and unneces- sary: αὐτοὶ stands in somewhat em- phatic antithesis to the preceding ἡμᾶς ; ‘we have no need to say anything about you, for they to whom otherwise we might have told it themselves speak of it and spread it ; οὐ παραμέ- vouow ἀκοῦσαι περὶ ὑμῶν, ἀλλὰ τοὺς παρόντας καὶ τεθεαμένους τὰ ὑμέτερα κατορθώματα οἱ μὴ παρόντες μηδὲ τε- , θεαμένοι παραλαμβάνουσιν, Chrys.
περὶ ἡμῶν] ‘about us,’ scil. the Apostle and his helpers; not ‘de me et vobis simul,’ Zanch. (compare Liinem.,—-. well answered by Alf.), as the studied prominence of περὶ ἡμῶν and the real point of the clause are thus completely overlooked : instead of our telling
about our own success, they do it for us; ἃ γὰρ αὐτοὺς ἐχρῆν παρ᾽ ἡμῶν ἀκούειν, ταῦτα αὐτοὶ προλαβόντες λέ- γουσι, Chrys. ὁποίαν K.T.A. | ‘what manner of entering in we had unto you:’ fuller explanation of the preceding περὶ ἡμῶν. The reference of the qualitative ὁποίαν to the dangers and sufferings undergone by St Paul and his followers in their first preach- ing at Thessalonica (Chrys., Theoph., (cum.) is rightly rejected by most modern commentators: the ποιότης is rather evinced in the power and confi- dence with which they preached, and serves to illustrate verse 5.
Eicodos has here no ethical meaning, ‘indolem nostram’ (Aith.-Pol. ; comp. Olsh.), but, as always in the N. T. (ch, ii. 1, Acts xiii. 24, Heb. x. τὸ, 2 Pet. i. 11), is simply local in its re- ference, ‘introitus,’ Vulg., Arm., ‘in- gressus,’ Copt., ‘quomodo venimus ad vos,’ Aith. (Platt): so too inferentially the Greek commentators, and after them most modern writers. The pre- sent éxouev (Rec.) appy. rests only on the authority of cursive mss., and is rejected by all modern editors.
πῶς ἐπεστρέψατε] ‘how ye turned,’ illustration of ver. 6. The πῶς does not necessarily involve εὐκόλως, μετὰ πολλῆς σφοδρότητος, Chrys., ‘ quanta facilitate,’ Calv., but simply points to the fact of ἐπιστροφή (Alf.), the clause being not modal but objective; comp. Donalds. Gr. § 584. In the verb ém- στρέφειν the prep. does not here seem to mark regression (comp. notes on Gal. iv. 2), but simply direction: both meanings are lexically admissible (see Rost u. Palm, Lex. 5. v. and 5. v. ἐπί, c), but the second seems to be most
14
ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ Α.
ΕῚ 7 4 ο ” Ss " 4A es ae se WP ~ . “- 10 ἀληθινῴ, καὶ ἀναμένειν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν,
εἴ ΕΣ 9 οἱ “ T “ \ eS: δ' τὰς “5 ‘ ον ηγειρεν €K τῶν νεκρῶν, ἤσουν τον βυομενον ημας απὸ
τῆς ὀργῆς τῆς ἐρχομένης.
in accordance with the context.
“πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν marks the conversion in its general rather than its specifically Christian aspects, with reference to the former heathen and Gentile condi- tion of the Thessalonians: if they had been Jews, the appropriate formula, as Olsh. well observes, would have been πρὸς τὸν Κύριον." On this and the following verse, see a sound ser- mon by Sherlock, Serm. Li. Vol. 11. p. 56 (ed. Hughes). δουλεύειν κιτιλ.} ‘to serve the living and true God ; infinitive of the purpose or in- tention, εἰς τὸ δουλεύειν x.7.d., Chrys., -——a form of the final sentence (Donalds. Gr. ὃ 606) not uncommon in St Paul's Epp.; see 1 Cor. i. 17, Eph. i. 4, Col. i. 22. On the difference between this and the infin. with wore (consecutive sentence), see notes on Col. l. c., and comp. Winer, Gr. § 44. I, p. 284, ed. 6, but more fully in § 45. 3, ed. 5. God has here the appropriate title of ζῶν (Acts xiv. 15) in contrast with the dead (Wisdom xiv. 5, 29, comp. Habak. ii. 19) and practically non- existent (1 Cor. viii. 4, see Meyer in loc.) gods of the heathen,—and that of ἀληθινὸς (John xvii. 3, 1 John v. 20, comp. 2 Chron. xv. 3) in contrast to their false semblance (Gal. iv. 8) and ματαιότης (hence pd'dy Lev. xix. 4, xxvi. 1). On the omission of the art. with Θεός, comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 19. I, p. 110.
Io. ἀναμένειν] ‘to await; second great purpose involved in the ἐπιστρο- $7: hope of the nature here described, as Liinem. observes, involves and in- cludes faith, and forms a suitable pre- paration for the allusions in the latter portion of the Epistle. If χαρὰ be said
to be the key-note of the Ep. to the Philippians (iii. 1), ἐλπὶς may truly be termed that of the present Ep. The verb ἀναμένειν, a dr. λεγόμ. in the N. T., does not here involve any re- ference to awaiting one who is to return (comp. Beng.), nor yet any specific notion of eagerness or joy (Flatt), but simply that of patience (‘ erharren,’ Winer) and confidence ; the ἀνὰ having that modified intensive force (προσμέ- νειν, Theod., see 1 Tim. i. 3; περιμέ- vew, Theoph., see Acts i. 4, which is so hard to convey without paraphrase ; see esp. Winer, de Verb. Comp, 11. p- 15, and comp. Rost ἃ. Palm, Lex. 8. v. avd, E. Ὁ. ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν belongs to ἀναμένειν, involving a slight but perfectly intelligible form of bra- chylogy, scil. ἐρχόμενον ἐκ τῶν οὐρ.; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 66. 2, p. 547.
ὃν ἤγειρεν K.T.A.] ‘whom he raised from the dead’ relative sentence placed emphatically before ᾿Ιησοῦν as involv- ing an ‘ argumentum palmarium’ (Beng.) of His sonship; see Rom. i. 4, and comp. Pearson, Creed, Art. v. Vol. I. p. 3t3 (ed. Burton). The article before νεκρῶν is omitted by Rec. with ACK; c., but is supported by pre- ponderating, external evidence [BDE FGLN; Ff.], and by the probability of a confirmation to the more usual ἐγείρειν ἐκ νεκρῶν. ᾿Ιησοῦν κιτ.λ.} ‘Jesus who delivereth us.’ The present participle has not the force of an aor. (‘ qui eripuit,’ Vulg., Arm.) or future part. (‘qui eripiet,’ Clarom., ‘qui liberabit,’ Copt.), but may serve (a) to mark the action as commenced and continuing (Vorst., Beng. ‘Chris- tus nos semel ἐλυτρώσατο, semper pvera.’), or (Ὁ) as ‘rem certo futuram’
ho PE 2.
Our coming among you was not vain; we nei- ther beguiled you. nor ‘were burdensome, but
toiled bravely, and en- ¥
15
τς Αὐτοὶ yap οἴδατε, ἀδελφοί, τὴν 11.
4 ew 4 Α eon ¢ 9 4 εἴσοδον MWY τὴν προς υμας OTL οὐ Κενῆ
couraged ag both by γεγονεν" ἀλλὰ προπαθόντες καὶ ὑβρι- 2
actions and words.
(Schott), or still more probably (c) is associated with the article in a sub- stantival character, ‘our deliverer,’ Alf. ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 45. 7, p. 316. ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς] This powerful word (ὀργή) is not merely synonymous with κόλασις or τιμωρία (Orig. Cels. Iv. p. 211; comp. Liinem.), but implies de- finitely the holy anger of God against sin,—that anger which, when deeply considered, only serves to evince His love; see esp. Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, I. 2, 2, Vol. 1. p. 265 (Clark). For ἀπὸ τῆς dépy. ABN; 17, 73, read ἐκ τ. ὀργ. ᾿ τῆς ἐρχομένης] ‘which is coming ; more specific definition of the ὀργή; εἶπε τὴν ἀνάστασιν, λέγει καὶ τὴν ἀνταπόδοσιν, ἣν ἡμέραν ὀργῆς καλεῖ, cum. The present participle has no future tinge, e.g. Ξε μελλούσης (Olsh., Koch), but marks the certainty of the coming (Bernhardy, Synt. x. 2, p- 371), and hints at the enduring principles of the moral government of God; comp. Eph. v. 5, Col. iii. 6.
CuaprerR 11. 1. Αὐτοὶ yap οἴδατε] ‘For ye yourselves know; explanatory confirmation of the first part of ch. i. 9, by an appeal to the knowledge and experience of his readers. In ch. i. 9 two distinct subjects are alluded to, (a) the power and confidence of the preachers, (b) the obedience and recep- tivity of the hearers, comp. Chrys. : the former is amplified in the present and 11 following verses, the latter in ver. 13—16, Tap is thus certainly not resumptive, nor yet explicative, but what Hartung (Partik. γάρ, § 2) terms ‘argumentativ-explicativ,’ the dpa ele- ment of the particle referring to what had preceded (‘quasi pro re naté jam
recte atque ordine hoc ita se habere dicitur,’ Klotz), the yé element add- ing an explanatory asseveration; see esp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 235. If the distinction of Hand (Tursell. Vol. II. p.° 375) be correct, ‘nam ipsi,’ Vulg., is here a’ judicious correction of ‘ipsi enim,’ Clarom.
ὅτι οὐ κενὴ yey.] ‘that it has not been empty,’ ὁ. 6. void of power and earnest- ness; ‘non inanis, sed plena virtutis,’ Beng. In this form of the objective sentence—by no means uncommon after verbs of ‘knowledge, perception, &c,’—there is an idiomatic anticipation of the object, which serves to awaken the reader’s attention to the subsequent . predications ; see esp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 61. 6. 2. For other forms of the objective sentence, see Donalds. Gr. § 592. The exact meaning of κενὴ has been somewhat differently esti- mated: it can scarcely involve any ethical reference (‘deceitful,’? Ham- mond, μῦθοι ψευδεῖς kal λῆροι, Ecum.), or any allusion to accompanying dan- gers (Theod., Theoph.), or yet to the results of. the εἴσοδος (De Wette 1), as these belong to the second part of ver. 9,—but, as γέγονεν and the leading idea in the following words (ἐπαῤῥησ. ἐν τῷ Θεῷ x.7T.d.) both suggest, to the essential character of the εἴσοδος, its fulness of power and purpose and reality ; οὐκ ἀνθρωπίνη οὐδὲ ἡ τυχοῦσα, Chrys. So rightly De Wette 2, Lii- nem., and Alf.
2. ἀλλὰ introduces the positive an- tithesis to the preceding negative ov κενὴ γέγονεν; see 1 Cor. xv. 10. Rec. reads ἀλλὰ καί, but has only the sup- port of a few mss., and Clarom. προπαθ, καὶ ὕβρισθ.] ‘having suffered
10
ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙ͂Σ A.
4 ᾿ , ς σθέντες καθὼς οἴδατε ἐν Φιλίπποις, ἐπαῤῥησιασάμεθα
ἐν τῷ Θεῴ ἡμῶν λαλῆσαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον
4 τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν πολλῷ ἀγῶνι.
previously and having been injuriously treated,’ Acts xvi. 22 sq.; ‘id quod alios a preedicando deterrere potuisset,’ Beng. It is doubtful whether the participle is here concessive (‘although we had, é&c.,’ Liinem.; see Plato, Rep. Il. p. 376 A), or simply temporal. If καὶ (Rec.) were to be admitted in the text before the part., the former mean- ing would seem more probable, as in such cases the καὶ (though not = καίπερ, De W.) serves to sharpen the anti- thesis involved in the concession (see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 56. 13. 1 sq.); as however καὶ must be rejected, the sim- ple participle seems here more natu- rally regarded as temporal ; comp. Xen. Mem. τι. 2. 5. So Auth., and appy. Syr., Copt. The verb rpordcxew is a dr. λεγόμ. in the N. T. though not uncommon elsewhere (Thucyd. 111. 67, Xen. J. c., Plato, 7. c.), and serves clearly to define the relation of time; ἀπὸ κινδύνων ἐκφυγόντες πάλιν εἰς éré- ρους κινδύνους ἐνεπέσομεν ; comp. Syr. and 0. (Platt). To this word the addition of ὑβρισθ. gives force and cir- cumstantiality. ἐπαῤῥησιασά- μεθα] ‘we were bold of speech ;’ so dis- tinctly Aith.-Pol. (but not Platt). It seems more exact to retain this pri- mary meaning; for though παῤῥησία has indisputably in-the N. T. the deri- vative meaning of confidence, boldness (see on Eph. iii. 12), still after a com- parison of Eph. vi. 20, and Acts xxvi. 26 (a speech of St Paul’s), the idea of bold speech, even though reiterated in λαλῆσαι, can scarcely be excluded. This παῤῥησία was ἐν τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν; it was in Him (not exactly ‘per Deum,’ Schott 1), as the causal sphere and ground of its existence, that the παῤ-
ἡ γὰρ παράκλησις ἡμῶν
ῥησία was felt and manifested. On the particularizing ἡμῶν, see notes on Philem. 4, and Phil. i. 3. λαλῆσαι] ‘so as to speak ; explanatory infinitive, defining still more clearly the oral nature of the boldness; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 44. 1, p. 285; so rightly De W., Meyer (on Eph. vi. 20), and Koch, who however appears (from his reference to Winer, Gr. p. 379, ed. 5) to confound this use with that of the inf. with τοῦ. Liinem., Alf., and others, far less plausibly, consider the inf. as a simple object-infin. after érappno. The ancient Vv. here give no distinct opinion, except perhaps Syr.-Phil., ‘in fiducia (?) in Deo nostro loqui, &c.,’ where the inf. seems clear- ly regarded as explanatory: so too (appy-) Chrys. τὸ evayy. τοῦ Θεοῦ] ‘the Gospel of God ;’ the Gospel which comes from Him, and of which He is the origin; gen. not of the ob- ject (Chrys. on Rom. i. 1), but of the origin or originating cause; see notes on ch. i. 6. On the various genitives associated with evayy., comp. note on Eph. i. 13, and esp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Iv. 8, Vol. 11. p. 81. ἐν πολλῷ ἀγῶνι] ‘in much conflict; not without emphasis: it was this fortitude amidst external dangers that peculiarly evinced that the εἴσοδος οὐ κενὴ γέγονεν. It does not seem necessary here to refer ἀγὼν to any internal conflict (comp. notes on Col. ii. 1), but simply, in ac- cordance with the context, to the ex- ternal dangers by which they were surrounded; so Theoph., C£cum.: Chrys. appears to unite both.
3. ἡ yap παράκλ. ἡμῶν] ‘ For our exhortation ; explanatory confirmation (comp. note on ver. 1) of ἐπαῤῥ. x.7.X.,
πα ee, ky A
ἃ Rae ΜῈΝ 2 17
‘ ὃ - ᾿ s οὐκ ἐκ πλάνης οὐδὲ ἐξ ἀκαθάρσίας οὐδὲ ἐν δόλῳ, ἀλλὰ 4
3. οὐδέ (2)] So Lachm. with ABCD!FGN; 6 mss. ; Copt. (Tisch. ed. 1). In ed. 2, 7, however, Tisch. reads οὔτε with D?EKL; nearly all mss. ; Chrys. (aliquoties), Theod. (οὔτε... οὔτε), Dam., al. (Rec., Alf.), and with some plausi- bility, as οὐδὲ might be thought a correction for οὔτε, which, though unusual, is here deemed not indefensible (comp. Schott, Alf.): still, as this defence rests mainly on a doubtful use of év,—as a recognition of the change of prepp. might have suggested a change from οὐδὲ to οὔτε nearly as probably as a non-recogni- tion of it the converse,—and lastly, as the uncial authority very distinctly preponderates in favour of οὐδέ, we revert to the reading of Tisch. (ed. 1).. So
Winer, Gr. ὃ 55. 6, p. 437, Olsh., De W., Liinem., Koch.
especially of the concluding words; of πλανῶντες οὐκ εἰς κινδύνους ἑαυτοὺς ἐκδι- δόασιν, (Εσαμη., compare Chrys. There is here, as Bengel acutely observes, an ‘ztiologia duplex,’ the present γὰρ introducing a reference to the Apostle’s regular habit, the second γὰρ (ver. 5) to that habit as specially evinced among the Thessalonians. The word παράκλησις here includes ‘totum pre- conium evangelicum’ (Beng.), and ap- proaches in meaning to διδαχή (Chrys.), or διδασκαλία (Theod.), from both of which however it is perhaps distin- guishable, as being directed more to the feelings than the understanding ; comp. notes on 1 Tim. iv. 13, and Beng. in loc. who says ᾿ παράκ. late patet: ubi desides excitat est hortatio, ubi tristitiz: medetur est solatium.’ A good dissertation on παρακαλεῖν, παρά- κλησις, and παράκλητος will be found in Knapp, Script. Var. Argum. No. Iv.; see esp. p. 134.
οὐκ ἐκ πλάνης] ‘is not of error,’ not ‘grounded on,’ Alf. 1, but ‘having its source in,’ Alf. 2, the prep. retain- ing its usual and primary force of origination from; see notes on Gal, il. 16, Winer, Gr. § 47. b, p. 329. The verb to be supplied is not ἣν (Syr., Ath.) but ἐστίν (Copt.); as the Apo- stle is here referring to his general and habitual mode of preaching; see
above. Lastly, πλάνη is not trans-
itive, ‘impostura,’ Beza, ‘seducendi studium,’ Grot. (comp. Theoph.), but, as appy. in all passages in the N.T.,
intransitive, ‘error,’ Vulg., \Za.sf
[error] Syr., the context serving to show whether it is in the more abstract sense of ‘mentis error’ (Irrthum) as in Eph, iv. 14, or as here in the more general meaning of ‘being deceived’ (Irrwahn, delusion), whether by one- self or others; comp. Theod., οὐκ ἔοικε τὰ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν προσφερόμενα τῇ μυθολο- γίᾳ τῶν ποιητῶν, ἃ πολλοῦ μὲν ψευδοῦς πολλῆς δὲ ἀκολασίας ἐμπέπλησται. ἀκαθαρσίας] ‘impurity,’ almost ‘im- pure motives; not apparently with any reference to the unclean and licentious teaching of μάγοι καὶ γόητες, Theoph. (comp. Chrys.), but, as ἐν προφάσει πλεονεξίας (ver. 5) seems to suggest, with reference to moral impurity (comp. notes on Gal. v. 19), more espe- cially as evinced in covetousness (Olsh. ) and desire of gain (Liinem., Alf.); comp. αἰσχροκερδὴς as used in ref. to Christian teachers in 1 Tim. iii. 8, Tit. i. 7, and the charges that appear to have been brought against the Apostle himself, 2 Cor. xi. 8 sq.
οὐδὲ ἐν δόλῳ] ‘nor in guile,’ ὁ, 6. ‘in any deliberate intention to deceive ;’ not so much with reference to ‘the manner in which’ (Alf.), as to the ethical sphere in which the παράκλησις
C
18
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙΣ A.
καθὼς ᾿δεδοκιμάσμεθα ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ πιστευθῆναι τὸ
° , 4 ~ 9 [ 9 ’; 8 , εὐαγγέλιον οὕτως λαλοῦμεν, οὐχ ὡς ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκοντες 5 ἀλλὰ Θεῷ τῷ δοκιμάζοντι τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν. Οὔτε γάρ
was found, and by which it was, as it were, environed; comp. 2 Cor. iv. 2, μὴ περιπατοῦντες ἐν πανουργίᾳ μηδὲ δολοῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, a some- _ what instructive parallel. The use of év, especially with abstract or non- personal substantives, is always some- what debateable in the N.T., and can only be fixed by the context; it some- times librates towards διὰ both with gen. (1 Pet. i. 5) and acc. (Matth. vi. 7), sometimes towards μετά (ver. 17, Col. ii. 7, iv. 2, see notes), sometimes, appy. very rarely, towards κατά (Heb. iv. 11),—but is commonly best referred to the imaginary sphere in which the action takes place ; see Winer, (r. ὃ 48. a, p. 345, and Rost u. Palm, Lez. s.v., where this prep. is very fully discuss- ed. On the reading of this passage, see crit. note, and on the most suitable transl. of οὐ... οὐδέ, notes to Transl. 4. καθὼς SeSoxip.] ‘according as we have been approved ;" οὐκ αὐτοχειρο- τόνητοι διδάσκαλοι καθεστήκαμεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐπιστεύ- θημεν, Theod. Καθὼς (see notes on Gal. iii. 6) has here no argumentative force (Eph. i. 3, see notes), but stands in correlation to οὕτως, marking the measure or proportion existing be- tween their approval by God to preach the Gospel and their actual perform- ance of the commission. The idea of a recognition of any worth on the part of God in the δεδοκιμασμένοι (Chrys., Theoph., Gicum.) is certainly here not necessarily involved in the word. Ao- κιμάζειν is properly (a) ‘to put to the test’ (Luke xiv. 19, Eph. v. 10, 1 Tim. ili. 10, &c.), thence by an easy grada- tion (δ) ‘to choose after testing’ (see Rom, i. 28, with infin.), which again
passes insensibly into—(c) ‘to approve of what is so tested:’ comp. Rom. xiv. 22, 1 Cor. xvi. 3, and notes on Phil. i. το. In the present case the appended notice of the subject in respect of which the δοκιμασία was exercised seems clearly to limit the meaning to (0): ἐπειδὴ ἔδοξεν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐδοκίμασε πιστεῦσαι ἡμῖν, Theod. πιστευθῆναι τὸ evayy.] ‘to have the Gospel entrusted to us,’ comp. 1 Tim. i. 11, Tit. i. 3: explanatory infinitive serving to define more nearly that to which the δοκιμασία was directed, see Winer, Gr. § 44. I, p. 285; compare Madvig, Synt. § 148. For remarks on, and exx. of the idiomatic construc- tion of the accus. re? with πιστεύομαι and similar verbs, see Winer, Gr. ὃ 32. 5, Pp. 204. οὐχ ὡς ἀνθ. dpéokovres] ‘not as busied in pleasing men ;° the present tense having here its fullest force, and marking that which they were engaged in, were seeking to do; οὐκ ἀρέσκειν θέλοντες, Theoph.; see Scheuerl. Synt. § 31. 2, p- 313, and comp. notes on Gal. i, το. The particle ws serves as usual to characterize the action, and to define the aspect in which the whole was to be regarded, ‘not as striving to please men, but (as striving to please) God, é&c.;’ comp. Bernhardy, Synt. vil. 2, Ρ. 333, and notes on Eph. v. 22.
τῷ δοκιμ. K.T.A.] ‘who proveth, trieth, our hearts ;’ Soxip. here relapsing back to its primary meaning, see above. The plural ἡμῶν can here scarcely be referred otherwise than to St Paul and his fellow-preachers at Thessalo- nica: if the sentence had been gene- ral, it would have been omitted (Rom. viii, 27); if the reference were simply
ie a aS ce,
Ih 5. ΡΣ oo ag
; A ‘ ποτε ἐν λόγῳ κολακείας ἐγενήθημεν, καθὼς οἴδατε, οὔτε ἐν
to St Paul, the plurals καρδίας and ψυχὰς (ver. 8) would seem wholly inap- propriate. The art. before Θεῴ (Ree.), though well attested [A D?EFG KLWN*], seems due to grammatical cor- rection, and is rightly rejected by7%sch.: it is inserted in brackets by Lachm.
5. Οὔτε γάρ «.t.A.] Confirmation of this general character of his and their Apostolic teaching by a special appeal to the experience of his readers ; comp. ver. 3. ἐν A. κ᾿ ἐγενήθημεν] “came we [to share] in;’ scarcely ‘were we found employed in’ (comp. Liinem.), as the more distinct passive meaning cannot safely be maintained : see notes on Eph. iii. 7; on the form, see note on ch. i. 5. The Greek commentators (Chrys., Theoph.) para- phrase it simply by ἐκολακεύσαμεν ; this however somewhat falls short of the idiomatic γίγνομαι ἐν, ‘in aliqua re versor’ (Matth. Gr. ὃ 577. 5, Vol. II. p. 1004), and fails to mark the entrance into, and existence in the given thing or condition; see notes on τ Tim. ii. 14. λόγῳ κολακείας] ‘speech of flattery,’ ‘sermone adulationis,’ Vulg., ‘verbo adulationis,’ Syr., Copt., ‘ blanditiis «--in voce,’ Aith. (Platt); λόγος having here its simple and proper meaning of ‘speech,’ ‘teaching’ (not coextensive with Heb. 2 ,---ῶὧ use apparently not found in the N. T.), and κολακείας being a gen.—not of quality (‘assentatorio,’ Beza), nor of origin (‘ex adulandi studio profecto,’ Schott), but of the substance and con- tents; comp. 2 Cor. vi. 7, Eph. i. 13, al.; and see Scheuerl. Synt. § 12. 1, p. 182, Hartung, Casus, p. 21. The word κολακεία [possibly connected with κλείειν, Pott, Htymol. Forsch. Vol. τ. p- 233, or with κόλος, kAdw, in sense of broken-spiritedness, cringing] is a dr.
λεγόμ. in the N. T., and is defined in Pseud.-Plat. Def. p. 415 E (Vol. 1x. Ρ. 272, ed. Bekk.) as ὁμιλία 7 πρὸς ἡδονὴν ἄνευ τοῦ βελτίστου: comp. Theoph. Charact. 2. It serves: here more specifically to illustrate the ἐν δόλῳ of ver. 3, and forms a natural transition to the next words, the es- sence of κολακεία being self-interest ; ὁ δὲ ὅπως ὠφέλειά τις αὑτῷ γίγνηται εἰς χρήματα καὶ ὅσα διὰ χρημάτων κόλαξ, Aristotle, Ethic. Nicom. Iv. 12 (ad fin.), comp. VIII. 9.
ἐν προφάσει πλεον.] ‘in a cloke of covetousness ;’ ‘ preetextu specioso quo tegeremus avaritiam,’ Beng. The exact meaning of these words is not per- fectly clear. Πρόφασις is not here ‘occasio,’ Vulg., Clarom., nor ‘ accu- satio, Hamm., nor even ‘species,’ Wolf, still less is otiose, Loesn. (Obs. p- 376), but has its simple and usual meaning of ‘pretextus’ (comp. Copt.;
qAX\s Syr. is somewhat indef.), while ρ an
the gen. πλεονεξίας is a gen. objecti (comp. Scheuer]. Synt. § 17. 1, p. 126) serving to define that to which the πρόφασις was applied, and which it was intended to mask and conceal; comp. Xen. Cyr. Il. 1. 25, πρόφασις μειονεξίας, and see exx. in Rostu. Palny Lez..s, Ὁ. (b),. Vol. 1% p. 1251. The Apostle and his companions used no λόγος which contained κολακεία, nor any πρόφασις which was intended to cloke their πλεονεξία. On the true meaning of πλεονεξία, see notes on Eph. iv. 19, and on its distinction from φιλαργυρία, Trench, Synon. ὃ 24.
Θεὸς μάρτυς] ‘God is witness ;’ strong confirmation of the declaration imme- diately preceding; comp. Rom. i. 9, Phil. i.8. The Greek commentators pertinently remark that in what men could judge of he appeals to his read-
C2
xh
20
ΠΡῸΣ OEZZAAONIKEI> A.
6 προφάσει πλεονεξίας, Θεὸς μάρτυς: οὔτε ζητοῦντες ἐξ ἀνθρώπων δόξαν, οὔτε ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν οὔτε ἀπὸ ἄλλων, δυνά-
7 μενοι ἐν βάρει εἶναι ὡς
ers, but in what they could not so distinctly recognise he appeals to God ; ὅπερ ἣν δῆλον, αὐτοὺς καλεῖ μάρτυρας" εἰ ἐκολακεύσαμεν ὑμεῖς οἴδατε φησίν" ὅπερ δὲ ἄδηλον ἣν, τὸ ἐν τρόπῳ πλεον- εξίας, Θεὸν καλεῖ μάρτυρα, Chrys.
6. οὔτε ζητοῦντες κιτ.λ.}] ‘neither seeking glory from men;’ continued notice on the negative side of the characteristics of his own and his companions’ ministry ; ἑξητοῦντες being dependent on the preceding ἐγενήθη- μεν, and the clause serving to illustrate οὐχ ὡς ἀνθρ. dpéox., ver. 4. Itis very difficult here to substantiate any real distinction between ἐξ and dé. The assertion of Schott and Olsh. that ἐκ refers to the immediate, ἀπὸ to the more remote origin, is true (see notes on Gal. ii. 16), but here inapplicable ; that of Liinem. and Alf.,—‘that ἐκ belongs more to the abstract ground of the δόξα, ἀπὸ to the concrete object from which it was in each case to accrue,’ — is artificial and precarious. It would really seem more probable that they .are here synonymous (Winer, Gr. ὃ 50. 2, p. 365), and that while in the first clause ἐκ might seem more idioma- tic in immediate union with ζητεῖν, the disjunctive clauses into which it is ex- panded might admit of and be lightened by the change to dé. St Paul’s love of prepositional variation has often been noticed; comp. Winer, Gr. § 50. 6, p. 372, and notes on Gal. i. τ. δυνάμενοι ἐν βάρει εἶναι] ‘though we could be of weight; concessive parti- cipial clause subordinated to the pre- ‘ceding part. ζητοῦντες: comp. Krii- ger, Sprachl. § 56. 13. 1, Donalds. Gr. § 621. The meaning of ἐν βάρει εἶναι is somewhat doubtful. Two interpre-
Χριστοῦ ἀπόστολοι"
ἀλλ᾽
tations deserve consideration: (a) ‘on- eri esse,’ Vulg., Auth. (Copt. baros, uncertain), βάρος retaining its more simple meaning, and referring to the Apostolic right of being maintained by the Churches (Theod.); comp. πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἐπιβαρῆσαι, ver. 9, 2 Thess. iii. 8, οὐ κατεβάρησα, 2 Cor. xii. 16, and ἀβαρῆ... ἐμαυτὸν ἐτήρησα, 2 Cor. xi. 9: (5) ‘in gravitate [honore]esse,’ Clarom.,
ο n n Ψ and appy. Syr. JootSad {pao {honorabiles esse; see Schaaf, Lee. 8.v.], βάρος having its derivative sense of ‘weight,’ ‘authority ;) comp. Diod. Sic. Iv. 61, τὸ βάρος τῆς πόλεως (τὴν ἰσχύν, Suid.), esp. xvi. 8 (where it is associated with ἀξίωμα), and somewhat similarly Polyb. “δι. Iv. 32. 7, XXX. 15. ©: see esp. Suidas, s.v. Of these (a) is plausible on account of ἐπιβαρ., ver. 9: as however the concessive clause is closely appended to one in which δόξα is the prevalent notion, and as the reference to ἠπιότης serves to enhance the same idea by contrast, it seems more exegetically correct, and more in harmony with the immediate context, to adopt (6); so Chrys. πολ- λῆς ἀπολαῦσαι τιμῆς, and less decidedly Theoph. and Gicum. ὡς Xp. ἀπόστολοι] ‘as Christ’s Apo- stles the possessive gen. marking with slight emphasis whose ministers they were (see notes on Eph. i. 1, Col. i. 1), and the term ἀπόστολοι receiving its more extended sense (see notes on Gal, i. 1), and including Silvanus and Timothy. De Wette, Koch, al., refer the plural solely to St Paul, but with- out sufficient reason. Though a refer- ence to the Apostle’s coadjutors must not perhaps be strongly pressed in
LTE Sgt 82
21
ἐγενήθημεν ἤπιοι ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν, ὡς ἐὰν τροφὸς θάλπη τὰ
“ 7 A 9 “ ἑαυτῆς τέκνα, οὕτως ὁμειρόμενοι ὑμῶν εὐδοκοῦμεν μετα- 8
every case where the plural occurs, yet in the present passage the plurals καρδίας (ver. 4) and ψυχὰς (ver. 8) seem distinctly to favour the wider application.
7. GAN ἐγενήθημεν] Statement, on the positive side, of the behaviour of the Apostle and his helpers, the ἀλλὰ introducing an antithesis, not merely to the last clause, but to the whole of the preceding verse: they did not seek δόξαν as διδάσκαλοι, but, what was very different (see Klotz, Devar. Vol. Il. p. 2), evinced the affection of a parent; οὐ βάρυ οὐδὲ κόμπον ἔχον ἀπε- δειξάμεθα, Chrys. ἥἤπιοι] ‘gentle: a δὶς λεγόμ. in the N. Τ'., here and 2 Tim. ii. 24. The epithet is similarly applied to a father (Hom. Od. τι. 47), to a ruler (Herod, 111. 89), to a god, Dionysus (Eur. Bac. 861), as marking ‘animi lenitatem in aliis fe- rendis’ (Tittm.), and pointing to an outward exhibition of an inward πραό- Tyns* comp. Etym. M., ἤπιος" ὁ ἐν λόγῳ πάντα ποιῶν Kal μὴ πάθει, ἐκ μεταλή- ψεως δὲ καὶ ὁ διὰ λόγου προσηνὴς καὶ πρᾶος (where however the derivation seems too much pressed), see Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 140, and notes on 2 Tim. ic The reading is doubtful: νήπιοι is most strongly supported [Lachm. with BC'D! FGN'; some mss. ; Vulg., Clarom., Copt., Auth. (both), al.], but as a repetition of the N, owing to the somewhat common use of νήπιος in St Paul’s Epp., is more probable than that of an omission, and as νήπιος mars both the sense and metaphor, we seem justified in retain- ing ἤπιος, with AC?D5EKLN?; great majority of mss.; Sah., Basm., Syr. (both). So Tisch., and the majority of recent editors. ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν] ‘in the midst of you,’ scarcely, by an
anticipation of the image, ‘sicut gal- lina pullis circumdata,’ Beng.,—but, with a hint at the absence of all as- sumption of authority, ‘as one of your- selves,’ ‘ut zequales idque cum omni- bus,’ Zanch. ; ws ἂν εἴποι τις ἐξ ὑμῶν, οὐχὶ τὴν ἄνω λαβόντες λῆξιν, Chrys.
ὡς ἐὰν τροφός K.T.A.] fas a nurse (nursing mother) doth cherish her own children ;’ the particle ὡς having here not a temporal but simply a compara- tive force (Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p.
757) © [sicut etiam] Syr., ‘tam- yolc
quam si,’ Vulg., Clarom., ‘sicut,’ Copt., Atb.,—and combining with ἐὰν and the pres. subj. in marking the habitude or perhaps rather the con- tinuance of the objectively-possible event; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 42. 3. Ὁ, p- 274, and comp. Herm. de Part. ἄν, p- 275, Green, Gr. p. 578q. ec. reads ἂν with AD*(K ?)LN ; most mss. For exx. of somewhat similar usages of τροφός, see the list collected by Loesner, Obs. p. 377, and on the meaning of θάλπειν [fostering warmth of the breast, comp. Deut. xxii. 6], see Krebs, Obs. p. 345, and notes on Eph. ν. 29. Tue tenderness conveyed in the τὰ ἑαυτῆς τέκνα should not be overlooked; τὴν φιλοστοργίαν αὑτοῦ δείκνυσιν, Theoph. The present clause must not be marked off by a colon at ὑμῶν (Liinem.), but regarded both as an illustration of the preceding words, and as the protasis to the follow- ing οὕτως ὁμειρόμενοι ὑμῶν εὐδοκοῦμεν, ver. 8.
8. ὁμειρόμενοι ὑμῶν] ‘earnestly, affectionately, desiring you,’ ‘having a fond affection for you; ἐπιθυμοῦντες, Hesych., Photius (Lex. p. 242). This form, though not found in the current lexicons (Rost u. Palm not excepted),
22
ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.
7 ry cme το δα , ἜΑ. ἀκ, δοῦναι ὑμῖν οὐ μόνον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀλλὰ καὶ ‘ ς “ 4 , ° A e oa 93 , Tas ἑαυτῶν ψυχὰς διότι ἀγαπητοὶ ἡμῖν ἐγενήθητε.
is supported by all the uncial and more than 30 cursive mss., and rightly adopted instead of iwep. (Rec.) by Lachm., Tisch, and most modern commentators. It is not compounded of ὁμοῦ and elpew (Theoph., Phot.), but is either (a) a form of the shorter Melpouae (comp. δύρομαι, ὀδόρομαι), Winer, Gr. ὃ τό. 4, p. 92, or (Ὁ) a late and perhaps coarsely-strengthened form of the more usual ἱμείρομαι, comp. Fritz. 1, on Mark, p. 792. As it seems probable that μείρομαι (Nicander, The- riaca, 402) is not an independent verb, but only an apocopated form of ἱμείρομαι ‘metri causa’ (see Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v. weipou.), it seems safer to adopt (δ), and to consider ὁμείρομαι as a corrupted and perhaps strength- ened form of the more usual verb.
ovrws...ed80K.] ‘So...had we good will; the οὕτως being connected not with the participle but with the finite verb. The verb evdox. is here not present, ‘cupimus,’ Clarom., but imperf., ‘cu- pide volebamus,’ Vulg. (comp. Copt., an-temat), the past tenses being com- monly found in the N.T. with the more Attic ed (comp. Lobeck, Phryn. Ῥ. 140, 456), not with ηὐ as B here, and a few MSS. elsewhere, see eh. iii. 1 [BN], 1 Cor. x. 5 [ABC], Col. i. 19 [ADE], al. The verb εὐδοκ. is only found in writers after the time of Alexander (see Sturz, de Dial. Maced. p- 167), and appears to be commonly used in N.T. not as a mere equivalent for doxéw (comp. Koch), but as con- veying the idea either of the ‘propensa voluntas’ (Fritz.), or of the free, un- conditioned, and gracious will (Luke xii. 32, Gal. i. 15, comp. 1 Thess. iii, 1) of the subject; comp. notes on Eph. i. 5, and esp. see Fritz. Rom. x. 1, Vol. I. p. 369sq. For a notice of
the constructions of εὐδοκ. in the N.T., see notes on Col. i. 19.
μεταδοῦναι] ‘to impart ;’ properly and specially connected with τὸ εὐαγγ.; but also by a very intelligible zeugma with ras ἑαυτῶν ψυχάς, the compound verb being in the latter case under- stood in its simple form; comp. δοῦναι τὴν ψυχήν, Mark x. 45. The use of μεταδιδόναι with a dat. and ace., though less usual than with a dat. and gen. (Jelf, Gr. § 535), is not with- out example, especially when the par- titive notion is owing to the context inadmissible; see Kriiger, Sprachl. ὃ 47. 15. ἀλλὰ Kal κ.τ.λ.] ‘but even our own souls,’ ‘nostras ani- mas,’ Clarom.,’ Vulg.; not with any Hebraistic tinge (=1Niwb2) ‘ nos- met ipsos’ (Koppe), nor even merely ‘nostras vitas,’ but perhaps with a faint reference to the deeper meaning of ψυχή, as pointing to the centre of the personality (Olshaus. Opusc. p. 154, Beck, Seelenl. § 1), our life and soul (Fell), our very existence, and all things pertaining to it. On the plu- ral, see above on ver. 4, and on the use of ἑαυτῶν with reference to the first person, Winer, Gr. § 22. 5, p. 136. The force of the strong antithesis οὐ μόνον.. ἀλλὰ καὶ is noticed in notes on ch. i. 8. διότι ἀγαπ. ἡμῖν éyev.] “because ye became very dear (beloved) to us;’ surely here with no reference to the Agent by whom they were made so (Alf.), but simply to their having become so, owing to their eager and earnest reception of the Apostolic message; see notes on ch. 1. 5. On the pronominal conjunction διότι, here used in its slightly modified sense of διὰ τοῦτο ὅτι (co quod), ‘quoniam,’ Vulg., ‘quia,’ Clarom., see Fritz. Rom. i. 19, Vol. 1. p. 58, but correct the
IT. 9.
23
μνημονεύετε γάρ, ἀδελφοί, τὸν κόπον ἡμῶν καὶ τὸν 9 μόχθον: νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας ἐργαζόμενοι πρὸς τὸ μὴ
very doubtful statement (endorsed by Koch) that διότι is there equivalent to yap or ‘nam,’ see Meyer in loc. The reading of Rec. γεγένησθε is only sup- ported by K; mss.; and may have been a correction to harmonize the clause with the supposed present εὐδοκ. 9. μνημονεύετε γάρ] ‘For ye re- member ;? confirmation of the main declaration of ver. 8, μεταδοῦναι... τὰς ἑαυτῶν ψυχάς, not of the more remote ἐγενήθημεν ἤπιοι (comp. Olsh.), still less of the subordinate causal member διότι x.7.d. (Liinem.; comp. Just., Alf.),—a doubtful reference of yap appy. suggested by limiting the term ψυχὰς unduly, and still more by find- ing no allusion in the present verse to actual dangers. This however is not necessary: the Apostle and his fol- lowers practically gave up their ‘ex- istence’ to their converts, when they spent night and day in toil rather than be a burden to any of them. is of course the indic. pres.
Μνημ. On μνη- μον. with the accus. see notes on ch. i. 3, and esp. on 2 Tim. ii. 8. Com- pare throughout this verse 2 Thess. iii. 8. τὸν κόπον ἡμῶν Kal τὸν μόχθον] ‘our toil and our travail,’ the article being repeated to give em- phasis to the enumeration and to en- hance the climax; comp. Winer, Gr. § 19. 5, p. 117. The words κόπος and μόχθος are again found connected in 2 Thess. iii. 8 and 2 Cor. xi. 27: the former perhaps marks the toil on the side of the suffering it involves (see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10), the latter, as its derivation seems to suggest [con- nected with μόγις, and perhaps allied to μέγας, see Pott, Htym. Forsch. Vol. I. p. 283], on the side of the magni- tude of the obstacles it has to over- come: the connexion of μόχθος with
ἄχθος (Koch, Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. v.) seems philologically doubtful; comp. Pott, l.c. No. 373.
νυκτὸς καὶ tp. épyat.] ‘working night and day; modal participial clause de- fining the circumstances under which the κήρυγμα was delivered. On the secondary predication of time νυκτὸς kal ἡμέρας, and on the strict gramma- tical force of the gen. as pointing to some indefinite point of the space of time expressed by the subst. (contrast 2 Thess. iii. 8, Rec., Tisch.), see notes on τ Tim. v. 5. There is perhaps some emphasis in the collocation of the whole expression, but appy. none in the fact of νυκτὸς preceding ἡμέρας (Alf.), as St Paul always adopts this order; see further on 1 Tim. l. c., and comp. Lobeck, Paralipom. p. 62 sq. The addition of γὰρ after νυκτός [ Rec. with D3EKL; mss.; Chrys. (text), Theod.], though partially defended by De W., seems to have been an inser- tion ‘nexus caus4,’ and is rightly re- jected by most modern editors. ἐργαζόμενοι has here a special refer- ence to the manual labour (Schott) of the Apostle and his associates ; comp. Acts xviii. 3. In 1 Cor. iv. 12 (comp. Eph. iv. 28) the verb is enhanced by the addition ταῖς ἰδίαις χερσίν.
πρὸς τὸ μή K.T.A.] ‘with a view to not being burdensome to any of you,’ object contemplated in the νυκτὸς καὶ ju. épyagf. On this use of πρός, comp. Winer, Gr. § 44. 6, p. 295, and on its possible distinction from els, comp. notes on 2 Thess, iii. 4. The late form ἐπιβαρεῖν (2 Cor. ii. 5, 2 Thess. iii. 8, comp. Dion. Halic. Iv. 9, VIII. 73) is nearly but not quite equivalent in meaning to καταβαρεῖν (2 Cor. xii. 16), the prep. in the former case being mainly directive (onus imponere), in
24 ΠΡΟΣ
ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.
ee a Me ΚΡ ee Rea >. en 0 alae ἐπιβαρῆσαί τινα ὑμῶν ἐκηρύξαμεν εἰς ὑμᾶς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον
10 τοῦ Θεοῦ.
« “-“ ’ 4A « A ς e ’ Ἁ υμεις μαρτυρες Kat ὁ Θεὸς ως οσιῶς Kai
, μὰ ὦ , ct « .- ’ὔ 9 δικαίως καὶ ἀμέμπτως ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἐγενήθημεν"
the latter mainly intensive; comp. ἐπιβαρύνειν, Exod. xxi. 30. The in- ference of Chrys., Theoph., that the Thessalonians were ἐν πενίᾳ is very questionable; consider Acts xvii. 4, γυναικῶν τε τῶν πρώτων οὐκ ὀλίγαι, and comp. Baumgarten, Acts, Vol. 11. p- 208 sq. (Clark). ἐκηρύξ. εἰς
a» ὑμᾶς] ‘we preached unto you,’ ans
Syr., Vulg. (Amiat.), ith. ; not ‘in vobis,’ Vulg., Clarom., Copt., the pre- position being not equivalent to ἐν, but indicative of the direction, so to say, which the κήρυγμα took; see Matth. Gr. ὃ 578. Ὁ. It is singular that Winer (Gr. ὃ 31. 5, p. 101, ed. 6) should have been induced merely by the plural following to adopt the less probable translation ‘ unter,’ especially as in ed. 5 (p. 241) he has added the more exact rendering ‘ Botschaft an die Volker gebracht;’ comp. Mark xiii. 10, Luke xxiv. 47, 1 Pet. i. 25. το. ὑμεῖς μάρτ. καὶ ὁ Θεός] ‘ Ye are witnesses, and [so is] God.’ statement in a collected form of what had pre- viously been expanded into particulars. As the summary involves what could not be adequately judged of by man, the Apostle subjoins an appeal to God ; τοῦ δὲ Θεοῦ τὴν μαρτυρίαν προστέθει- kev’ ἐπειδὴ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις δῆλα τὰ ὁρώμενα μόνα, τῷ δὲ Θεῷ καὶ τὰ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους λανθανόμενα, Theod. ὡς ὁσίως K.t.X.] ‘how holily and right- eously and blamelessly we behaved to you that believe ;’ characteristics of the be- haviour of the Apostle and his asso- ciates, the adverbs ὁσίως x.7.X. not being merely adjectival, but serving as secondary predicates (Donalds. Gr. § 436 sq.) to define the form and man-
ner of the ‘comparatum esse’ involved in ἐγενήθημεν: see Winer, Gr. ὃ 54. 2, Ρ. 341, Kriiger, Sprachl. ὃ 62. 2. 3. The adverbs are grouped together somewhat cumulatively, to express both on the positive and neyative side the complete faithfulness of the minis- try. The ordinary distinction between the two former (περὶ μὲν ἀνθρώπους τὰ προσήκοντα πράττων δίκαι᾽ ἂν πράττοι, περὶ δὲ Θεοὺς ὅσια, Plato, Gorg. p. 507 B; comp. Chariton, I. 10), urged here with some plausibility (Theoph., Alf., al.) on account of the preceding ὑμεῖς καὶ ὁ Θεός, is still always precarious in the N.T.; see notes on Eph. iv. 24, Tit. i. 8. Perhaps it is safer to say that ὁσίως and δικαίως form on the positive side a compound idea of holy purity and righteousness whether to- wards God or towards men, while ἀμέμπτως (see Phil. ii. 15, iii. 6) gives on the negative side the idea of gene- ral blamelessness in both aspects and relations. To refer ἀμέμπτως to Paul and his companions (‘respectu sui ip- sorum,’ Beng.), or to regard it as merely the negative reiteration of 6:- καίως in ref. to men (Olsh.), seems too restrictive ; comp. Luke i. 6.
ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν] ‘to you that believe ;’ objects in whose interest the behaviour was shown; dative of zn- terest, see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 48. 4. Liinem. and Alf., following Gicum. and Theoph., and swayed by the posi- tion of the words and supposed passive force of ἐγενήθ, regard ὑμῖν asa dat. judicii; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 31. 3. b, p- 245 (ed. 5,—omitted in ed. 6). This however seems very doubtful; the Apostle would scarcely have appealed to God in ref. to the judgment of the
τὰν
LI. 10,
5; τὸ: 25
, 70. e Ψ 4 ἂν οἰσὸ e ‘ , 4 καθάπερ OLOATE, WS EVA EKATTOY ὑμῶν ὡς πατὴρ τεκνὰ IT
~ al = e ~ ἑαυτοῦ παρακαλοῦντες ὑμᾶς
Thessalonians; nor would an allusion to their estimate of a former line of conduct have been so pertinent as one to their consciousness that they were the interested objects of it. The ad- dition τοῖς rior. is not otiose (Jowett), nor suggestive of different relations with unbelievers (comp. Theoph.), but enhances the appeal to the conduct displayed towards the Thess., by show- ing that their spiritual state was such as would naturally evoke it.
11. καθάπερ οἴδατε) ‘even as ye know,’ confirmatory appeal to the in- dividual experience of his hearers ; the general ὁσιότης καὶ δικαιοσύνη καὶ ἀμεμ- φία of the Apostle and his companions was verified by its strict accordance (καθάπερ) with what was observable in special cases. The genuine and ex- pressive form καθάπερ (καθὰ marking the comparison, περ the latitude of the application, ‘ambitum rei majorem vel quamvis maximum,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 722) is only used in the N.T. in St Paul’s Epp. (11 times), and in Hebrews (ch. iv. 2, v. 4 Rec.), the later καθὼς (see notes on Gal. 111. 6) being the greatly predominant form. The simple καθὰ only occurs once, Matth. xxvii. το. ὡς ἕνα ἕκαστον] ‘how as regards each one of you,’ ‘unumquemque, nemine omisso,’ Schott; the ws referring to a finite verb that has been omitted (see below), and the accus. being governed by the participles, and put prominently for- ward to mark the individualizing re- ference of the acts; BaBal, ἐν τοσούτῳ πλήθει μηδένα παραλιπεῖν, Chrys. The collective ὑμᾶς follows, as serving still more clearly to define that all were included: it is thus not so much a mere pleonastic repetition of the pro- noun (Col. ii. 13, comp. Bernhardy,
καὶ παραμυθούμενοι καὶ 12
Synt. p. 275), as a defining and sup- plementary accus. somewhat allied to the use of that case in the σχῆμα καθ᾽ ὅλον καὶ μέρος, Jelf, Gr. ὃ 584.
ὡς πατήρ] Appropriate change from the image of a nursing-mother (ver. 7) to that of a father; the reference not being here to the tenderness of the love, but to its manifestation in in- struction and education. The remark of Theoph. (suggested by Chrys.), ἄνω μὲν οὖν τροφῷ ἑαυτὸν ἀπείκασε viv δὲ πατρὶ τὴν ἀγάπην δεικνύων καὶ τὴν προστασίαν, is thus not wholly appro- priate. παρακαλ, ὑμᾶς Kal παραμυθ.] ‘exhorting you and encou- raging you; more exact specification of the behaviour previously described. The participles are certainly not di- rectly (Copt.), nor even indirectly (by an assumed omission of ἦμεν, Beza, al.) equivalent to finite verbs, but are either (a) dependent on ἐγενήθημεν supplied from the preceding clause (Liinem., Alf.), or (6) are used ἀνακο- λούθως, as modal clauses to a finite verb (-Ξ ἐγενήθ. ὑμῖν) that has been omitted, but is readily suggested by the context; ‘ ye know how we did so, so appy. Theod., ταῦτα δὲ ἐποίουν [ἐγὼ] προτρέπων k.T.X., and probably Goth., which simply retains the participles. Between (a) and (δ) the difference is practically not great; in the former case the par- ticiples form part of the primary, in the latter of the modal and secondary predication: (Ὁ) however seems pre- ferable, both from the special consi- deration that thus the secondary pre- dications of manner in ver. 10 find a parallelism in ver. 11, and from the general consideration that these parti-
?
exhorting you, &c.;
cipial anacolutha are common in St
Paul’s Epp.: comp. 2 Cor. vii. 5, aud
20 ΠΡΟΣ
OEZZAAONIKEI® A.
μαρτυρόμενοι εἰς TO περιπατεῖν ὑμᾶς ἀξίως τοῦ Θεοῦ
“ “ e ed 9 A ΄ “~ ’ ‘ τοῦ καλοῦντος ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ βασιλείαν Kat
δόξαν.
Winer, Gr. ὃ 45. 6, p. 313. The verb παραμυθ. seems here to imply not so much direct ‘ consolation’ (Jobn xi. 19, 31), Vulg., comp. Syr.
@naks <a sso [loquentes in
corde vestro], Copt., Aith., as ‘ encou- ragement,’ see ch. v. 14, yet not spe- cially to meet dangers bravely (Gicum.), but, as the context suggests,—to per- form generally their duties as Chris- tians.
12. μαρτυρόμενοι] ‘ charging,’ ‘con- juring, ‘quasi testibus adhibitis’ (comp. Eph. iv. 17),—not however = διαμαρτυρόμ. (De Wette, Liinem.), which is obviously a stronger form; see notes on 1 Tim. v.12. This sense of μαρτύρ. is abundantly confirmed by the use of the verb not only in later (Polyb. Hist. x11. 8. 6), but even in earlier writers, e.g. Thucyd. vI. 80, δεόμεθα δὲ καὶ μαρτυρόμεθα, and VIII. 53, μαρτυρομένων καὶ ἐπιθειαζόντων (Goéll.),—and is similar to though, as the context shows, not perfectly iden- tical with (Koch) its use in Gal. v. 3, Eph. iv. 17, where it approaches more nearly to μαρτυροῦμαι; see notes in loce. The reading is slightly doubtful: Rec., Lachm., read μαρτυ- pov. with D!FG ; most mss.; Theod., Theoph., al., but as the external evi- dence in favour of paprupdu. [BD? (appy.) D'E (appy.) KLN; 30 mss. ; Chrys., GEc.: A omits καὶ μαρτ., and C is deficient] is of superior weight, and as μαρτυρεῖσθαι is always used passively in the New Test., we adopt μαρτυρόμ. with Tisch. and the majority of modern critics; see Rinck, Lucubr. Crit. p. οι. εἰς τό κιτ.λ.7 ‘ that ye should walk worthy,’ Col. i. 10; de- pendent on the preceding participles,
and indicating not merely the subject (Liinem.) or direction (Alf.), but, as εἰς τὸ with the infin. nearly always indicates, the purpose of the foregoing exhortation and appeal: comp. Chrys., who paraphrases by ἵνα with the subj., and contrast Theod. who paraphrases with a simple infin. The form εἰς τὸ with the infin. is commonly used by St Paul simply to denote the purpose (comp. Winer, Gir. § 44. 6, p. 295, Meyer, on Rom. i. 20, note), and pro- bably in no instance is simply indica- tive of result (ecbatic) ; still, as perhaps in the present case, there appear to be several passages in which the purpose is so far blended with the subject of the prayer, entreaty, ἄπ. or the issues of the action, that it may not be im- proper to recognise a secondary and weakened force in ref. to purpose, analogous to that in the parallel use of wa; comp. notes on Eph. i. τῇ. The adopted instead of the aor. περιπατῆ- σαι (Rec.) by most modern editors on preponderant uncial authority [A BD! FGN; many mss.: C is deficient]. τοῦ καλοῦντος] ‘who is calling; not καλέσαντος, as in Gal. i. 6, and here in AN and 8 mss.: the calling was still continuing as relating to some- thing which in its fullest realization was future. It has been before ob- served that in the Epistles the gra- cious work of calling is always ascribed to the Father; comp. notes on (Gal. l.c., Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Iv. 15, p. 144 sq., Usteri, Lehrb. τι. 2. 3, p. 269 sq. On the ‘vocatio externa’ and ‘interna,’ see the good distinctions of Jackson, Creed, XII. 7. 1, 2. βασιλείαν καὶ δόξαν] ‘kingdom and glory; not ἃ ἕν διὰ δυοῖν for βασιλείαν
present περιπατεῖν is rightly
TE: 3. a7
Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς εὐχαριστοῦμεν 13
We thank Goa that ye i reachin ae ihe ae of Go Ye suffered from ᾿
your own people as we did from the Jews.
13. Διὰ τοῦτο] So Rec. with DEFGKL; appy. all mss.; Syr., Vulg., Clarom., Goth., Auth. (both); Chrys., Theod., Theoph., Gicum. (De W., Liinem., Wordsw.). Tisch. and Lachm. prefix καὶ with ABN; Copt., Syr.-Phil. ; Theod. (ms. B), Ambrosiaster (A/f.). The reading is thus very doubtful, as the addi- tion of δὲ (C is here deficient) must justly be considered of great weight. I do not however at present reverse the reading of ed. 1, 2, till the peculiarities of δὲ (which is of very unequal weight in different portions of the N.T.) are more fully known to us; especially as it is by no means unreasonable to sup-
pose that the καὶ was prefixed to help out the difficulty of connexion.
ἔνδοξον (Olsh.), but, as all the Vv. rightly maintain (Syr., Copt., Aith., even repeat the pronoun), two separate
substantives, the common article being
accounted for by the inserted geni- tive ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ το. 4. d, p. 116. The βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ is the kingdom of His Son, the βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (Chrys.), of which even while here on earth the true Christian is a subject, but the full privileges and blessedness of which are to be enjoyed hereafter ; comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Iv. 22, Vol. 11. p. 244 8q., and the long trea- tise of C. G. Bauer in Comment. Theol. Part II. p. 107—172. The δόξα to which He calls us is His own eternal glory, of which all the true members of the Messianic kingdom shall be partakers; comp. Rom. v. 2, and see Reuss, ὦ. 6. p. 253, Usteri, Lehrd. τι. 2. B, p. 351.
13. Διὰ τοῦτο] ‘For this cause,’ as we have displayed this zeal and earnestness, we thank God that ye received our message in an accordant spirit: see note on ver. 1. The exact reference of these words is somewhat doubtful. Schott and others refer the words to the ‘ effectum admonitionis’ implied in εἰς τὸ περιπ. x.7.d. (comp. Jowett); De W., al., to the purpose and object of the preaching which the same words seem to imply, but thus
introduce a greater or less amount of tautology which it seems impossible to explain away. It would seem then, as Liinem. correctly observes, that we can only logically refer them (a) to the specific declaration involved in the clause immediately preceding, scil. ὅτι καλεῖ ὑμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς εἰς κιτ.λ. Olsh., Lii- nem., Alf.; or (Ὁ) to the general sub- ject of the preceding verses,—the earnestness and zeal of the Apostle and his associates. Of these (a) de- serves consideration, but is open to the grave objection that thus διὰ τοῦτο is made to refer to a mere appended clause rather than, as usual, to the tenor of the whole preceding sentence. We therefore, it would seem with the Greek expositors, adopt (Ὁ); οὐκ ἔστιν εἰπεῖν ὅτι ἡμεῖς μὲν πάντα ἀμέμπτως πράττομεν ὑμεῖς δὲ ἀνάξια τῆς ἡμέτέρας ἀναστροφῆς ἐποιήσατε, Chrys.
καὶ ἡμεῖς] ‘ we also,’ not, as Alf. and Liinem., ‘ we as well as πάντες of πι- στεύοντες᾽ (ch. 1. 7),—a reference far too remote,—but ‘ we as well as you who have so much to be thankful for :’ the καὶ involving some degree of con- trast (see notes on Phil. iv. 12), and delicately marking the reciprocity of the feeling between οἱ περὶ τὸν Παῦλον and the twice repeated ὑμεῖς in the preceding verse; see esp. notes on Eph. 1,15. De W. and Koch (so also Auth.)
28
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ A.
τῷ Θεῷ ἀδιαλείπτως, ὅτι παραλαβόντες λόγον ἀκοῆς
Tap ἡμῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐδέξασθε οὐ λόγον ἀνθρώπων
refer καὶ to διὰ τοῦτο, ---ὃι connexion decidedly at variance with the usage of the particle in demonstrative clauses, but involving a less error than the counter-assertion of Liinem., that we should then expect διὰ καὶ τοῦτο : such collocations are very rare; see notes on Phil. iv. 3, and comp. Hartung, Partik. καί; 4. 3, Vol. τ. p. 143. εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ Θεῷ] ‘we give thanks to God.’ On the meaning and usages of εὐχαρ. see notes on Phil. i. 3, and esp. on Col. i. 12.
ὅτι παραλαβόντες] ‘that when ye re- ceived ;? objective sentence (Donalds. Gr. § 584 sq.) defining the matter and grounds of the εὐχαριστία. The par- ticiple is here temporal, and specifies the more external act that was either contemporaneous with, or rather im- mediately prior to the more internal ἐδέξασθε; comp. notes on Eph. iv. 8. The distinction between παραλαμβάνειν and δέχεσθαι stated by Liinem. and Koch, viz. that παραλαμβάνειν points rather to an objective (Gal. i. 12, see notes), δέχεσθαι to a subjective recep- tion (2 Cor. vill. 17), seems substan- tially correct, but must be applied with caution; see notes on Col. ii. 6. λόγον ἀκοῆς] ‘the word of hearing ;’ ὦ. 6. ‘the word which was heard,’ or ‘the word of preaching,’ ἀκοὴ being used in its passive sense which pre- vails in the N.T. (see notes on Gal. iii. 2; comp. Heb. iv. 2, and the Heb. πον Sip, Jer. xX. 22, φωνὴ ἀκοῆς, LXX.), and the gen. being that of ap- position or identity; Winer, Gr. § 59. 8, p. 470, Scheuerl. Synt. § 12. 1, p. 82, 83. The gen. ἀκοῆς is probably here subjoined to λόγος to introduce a slight contrast between the λόγος in its first state as heard by the ear and the same λόγος in its subsequent state
4
as ἐνεργούμενος in the hearts of be- lievers; comp. Rom. x. 17.
παρ᾽ ἡμῶν thus naturally belongs to παραλαβόντες (ch. iv. 1, 2 Thess. iii 6, comp. Gal. i. 12), from which it is only separated by the somewhat em- phatic object-accusative; so Vulg., Syr., Copt., Goth. (4ith. omits παρ᾽ ἡμῶν), Gcum., and a few modern com- mentators. The construction adopted by the majority of expositors, and perhaps Clarom., Syr.-Phil., ἀκοῆς παρ᾽ ἡμῶν is defensible,—but harsh and unnatural, and probably only sug- gested by the unusual but significant position of the following rod Θεοῦ. On the force of παρὰ as denoting the more immediate source, see notes on Gal. i. 12, and esp. Schulz, Abendm. p. 218 sq.
τοῦ Θεοῦ] ‘ of God,’ sc. ‘which cometh from God ;’ Θεοῦ not being a gen. ob- jecti (‘de Deo,’ Grot.), nor the pos- sessive gen. (‘belonging to,’ Alf. 1), but a gen. of the author (De Wette, ‘coming from,’ Alf. 2), or even more simply of the source from which the λόγος ἀκοῆς really and primarily came ; see notes on ch. i. 6. The unusually placed τοῦ Θεοῦ seems added correc- tively, the words being appended al- most ‘ extra structuram,’ to mark that . though the ἡμεῖς were the immediate | human eaxxee οἵ the ἀκοὴ its real pnd proper source was divine-{
οὐ λόγον ἀνθρ.] ‘not the word of men,’ z.e. which cometh from them, and of which they are the true source; see above. It is incorrect to supply ta- citly ws: the Apostle, as Liinem. ob- serves, is not stating how the Thes- salonians regarded the message, but, as the next clause still more clearly shows, what it was as a matter of fact. The importance of this clause
ΤΙ: 12.
29
ἀλχὰ καθώς ἐστιν ἀληθῶς λόγον Θεοῦ, ὃς καὶ ἐνεργεῖται
ἐν ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν. ὑμεῖς γὰρ μιμηταὶ ἐγενήθητε, 14
, “ “ “ “ “ 9 -“ 9 a ἀδελφοί, τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ τῶν οὐσῶν ἐν TH
Ἰουδαίᾳ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, ὅτι τὰ αὐτὰ ἐπάθετε καὶ
as asserting the direct Inspiration of the spoken words must not be over- looked. ὃς Kal ἐνεργεῖται] ‘which also worketh,’ ‘is operative,’ scil. the λόγος Θεοῦ (Clarom., Syr., Goth., Theoph., Gicum.), not Θεός (Vulg., Theod.),—which in St Paul’s Epp. is never found with the middle ἐνεργεῖσθαι, but always with the act.; see 1 Cor. xii. 6, 11, Gal. ii. 8, iii. 5, Eph. i. 11, al. On the constructions of évepy., see notes on Gal. ii. 8, and on the distinction between the active (‘vim exercere’) and the intensive middle (‘ex se vim suam exercere’), see notes on Gal. v. 6, Winer, Gr. § 38. 6, p. 231, and comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. ὃ 52. 8. tsq. The καὶ must not be omitted in transl. (Alf.), or as- sociated with the relative (De W., Koch), but connected with évepy., which it enhances by suggesting a further property or characteristic of the Inspired Word, and perhaps a con- trast with its inoperative nature when merely heard and not believed. On this use of cai, see notes on Eph.i. 11, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 636, and comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 69. 32. 12. ἐν ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστ.] ‘in you that be- lieve,’ not ‘in vobis qui credidistis,’ Vulg., which would require τοῖς πι- στεύσασιν, nor ‘propterea quod fidem habetis,’ Schott (comp. Olsh., Koch), which would require the omission of the article (comp. Donalds. Gr. ὃ 492), but ‘vobis qui creditis,’ Goth., Syr.- Phil., rots πιστεύουσιν adding a spi- ritual characteristic that serves indi- rectly to illustrate and verify the pre- ceding declarations of the verse.
14. ὑμεῖς γάρ] Confirmation, not of
their reception of the word (Gicum.), nor of the predication of their belief (Olsh.), but of the ἐνέργεια displayed in them by the λόγος Θεοῦ: ‘your imitation of the churches of Judea in
_your sufferings is a distinct evidence
of the ἐνέργεια of the word within you.” On the words μιμηταὶ ἐγενήθ., see notes on ch. i. 6.
τῶν οὐσῶν ἐν τῇ Lovd.] ‘which are in Judea ;’ not ‘ preesens pro preterito,’ Grot., but with a direct reference to the churches that were still existing in Judea; comp. throughout Gal. i. 22. Why the Apostle peculiarly specifies these churches has been very differently explained. The most pro- bable reason seems to be that as the Jews were at present the most active adversaries of Christianity, he specifies that locality where this opposition would be shown in its most determined aspects, and under circumstances of the greatest social trial: see Wordsw. in loc. ἐν Xp. “I.] ‘in Christ Jesus;’ ‘in union and communion with Him;’ ‘incorporated with Him who is the Head.’ Both here and in Gal. i. 22 this spiritual definition is suitably subjoined, as still more clearly separating them even in thought from the συναγωγαὶ τῶν Ἰουδαίων (icum.), which might be ἐν Θεῷ, but were far in- deed from being ἐν Χριστῷ. Forraaira Rec. reads ταῦτα with AD; most mss. ὑπὸ τῶν ἰδίων συμφυλ.] ‘ at the hands of your own countrymen; closely de- pendent on ἐπάθετε, ---ὑπὸ being used correctly with neuter verbs which in- volve a passive reference, see Winer, Gr. ὃ 47. Ὁ, p. 330: the reading ἀπὸ [D'FG; Orig. (1) in some ed.] is pro-
90
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.
a 4A “ ; “~ Γ ὑμεῖς ὑπὸ τῶν ἰδίων συμφυλετῶν, καθὼς καὶ αὐτοὶ
e Ἁ “ 9 ’ “A 4 Ἁ , 5] , 15 ὕπο τῶν Ἰουδαίων τῶν καὶ τὸν Κύριον ATOKTELVAVTWVY αἱ “~ \ A , Nr ΑΝ 3 ὃ 4 4 ησοὺν καὶ τοὺς προφήτας, καὶ μας εκ ιωξάντων, Kal
bably only due to a grammatical cor- rector. The supererogatory compound συμφυλ. (‘contribulibus,’ Vulg., ὁμοε- θνής, Hesych.) is a ἅπ. λεγόμ. in the N.T.; it is not found in earlier writers (πολίτης, δημότης, φυλέτης, ἄνευ τῆς σύν, Herodian, p. 471, ed. Lobeck), and is an instance of the noticeable tendency in later Greek to compound forms without corresponding increase of meaning: comp. συνπολίτης, Eph. ii. 19, and see Thiersch, de Pentat. τι. 1, p. 83. These συμφυλεταί, as the contrast requires, must have been Gentiles ; it is however not unreason- able to suppose that they were insti- gated by Jews (De W.); comp. Acts xvii. 5, 13. καθὼς Kal αὐτοί] ‘even as they also ;’ not a gram- matically exact, though a perfectly intelligible apodosis ; comp. Demosth. Phil, 1. p. 51, and Heindorf on Plato, Pheedo, § 79 (p. 86 A), Jelf, Gr. § 869. 2. On the repetition of καὶ in both members of the sentence, by which ‘per aliquam cogitandi celeritatem’ a double and reciprocal comparison is instituted, see Fritz. Rom. i. 13, Vol. I. p. 37, 38, and notes on Eph. v. 23. The αὐτοὶ obviously does not refer to the Apostle and his helpers [Goth., Aith.-Pol. (but not Platt), Copt.], but by a ‘constructio ad sensum’ to the persons included in the more abstract ἐκκλησιῶν [Syr., Vulg., Clarom., Arm.]; comp. Gal. i. 22, 23, and Winer, Gr. ὃ 22. 3, p. 131.
15. τῶν Kal Tov Kup. κιτ.λ.] ‘who slew both the Lord Jesus and, &c.:’ warning notice of the true character of the unbelieving Jews, suggested probably by recent experiences ; comp. Acts xvii. 5, 13, xviii. 6, The particle
’
kai is not ascensive, ‘qui ipsum Do- minum occiderunt,’ Clarom., nor con- nected with τῶν (Liinem.),—a most questionable connexion, as τῶν pro- perly considered has no relatival force, —but simply correlative to the follow- ing καί, ‘et Dominum...et prophetas’ (Vulg.; Copt. omits first καί), and in- troductory of the first of two similar and co-ordinate members; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 53. 4, p. 389, and notes on 1 Tim. iv. Io. The position of τὸν Κύριον is obviously emphatic, and serves more forcibly to evince the heinous nature of their sin. Kal τοὺς προφήτας] ‘and the prophets ;’ clearly governed by the preceding dmoxrew. (Chrys., | Theoph., Gicum.), not by the succeed- ing ἐκδιωξάντων (De W., Koch). The counter-argument that all the prophets were not killed is of little weight, as ‘mutatis mutandis’ it can be nearly as strongly urged against the connexion with ἐκδιωξάντων. The addition of this second member serves indirectly to weaken the force of the plea of ignorance (comp. Acts iii. 17): ἀλλ᾽ ἠγνόησαν αὐτὸν tows. Μάλιστα μὲν οὖν ἤδεσαν. Τί δαί; οὐχὶ καὶ τοὺς ἰδίους προφήτας ἀπέκτειναν ; Chrys.
There is here a variety of reading: ἰδίους is inserted before προῴ. by Rec. with D?D*E*KL; appy. Syr., Goth., al.; Chrys., Theod., al., but is not found in ABD'E! FGN; 7 mss. ; Vulg., Clarom., Copt., Orig. (2), Tertull. (who ascribes the insertion to Marcion) ; C is deficient. It was perhaps suggested by the preceding ἰδίων in ver. 14. It is thus rightly omitted by nearly all modern editors.
καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐκδιωξ.] ‘and drove us out ;’ ὦ. 6. not merely St Paul and his helpers,
LTS 85516,
91
“ , A “ 9 ’ > 4 y Θεῷ μὴ ἀρεσκόντων καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἐναντίων,
“ A “- A 9 κωλυόντων ἡμᾶς τοῖς ἔθνεσιν λαλῆσαι ἵνα σωθῶσιν, εἰς τό
but the Apostles generally. The force of the compound ἐκδιώκειν is somewhat doubtful: é« does not seem otiose (De W.), nor even simply intensive (Liinem.), but has appy. a semilocal reference, ‘qui persequendo ejecerunt,’ Beng., Alf.; comp. Luke xi. 49, and consider Acts xviii. 6. This meaning of ἐκδιώκειν does not seem to have been clearly recognised either by Chrys., al., or any of the best Vv., but is somewhat strongly supported by the prevailing use of the verb in the LXX.; see Deut. vi. 19, 1 Chron. viii. 13, xii. 15, Joel ii. 20, al. For ἡμᾶς Steph. 1550 (not Rec.) reads ὑμᾶς probably by an error.
Θεῷ μὴ ἀρεσκ.} ‘do not please God ;’ not ‘placere non querentium,’ Beng. nor aoristic ‘non placuerunt,’ Clarom., but, with the proper force of the tense, ‘are not pleasing,’ are pursuing a course displeasing to,—the present marking the result of a regular and continuing course of behaviour ; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 45. 1, p. 304. The μὴ here does not seem to imply so much as ‘Deo placere non curantium,’ Alf., but is simply used to mark the aspects under which their conduct caused them to be presented to the reader; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 55. 5, Ρ. 429, and esp. Gayler, de Part. Neg. cap. IX. p. 275 sq. In estimating the force of μὴ with a participle in the N.T. two things should always be borne in mind, (1) that μὴ with the participle is so decidedly the prevailing combination, that while the force of οὐ with the part. will commonly admit of being pressed, that of μὴ willnot; see Green, Gr. p. 122; (2) that it is not correct always to find in the μὴ (as Alf. here) a reference to the feelings or views of the subject connected with the partici-
ple (comp. notes on Gal. iv. 8), but that it sometimes refers to the aspect in which the facts are presented by the writer, and regarded by’ the reader ; see esp. Winer, Gr. /. c., and Herm, Viger, No. 267. πᾶσιν ἀνθρ. ἐναντίων ‘contrary to all men ;’ scil. ‘quia saluti generis humani per in- vidiam et malitiam obsistebant,’ Est. 2, and in effect Chrys. and the Greek commentators. The usual reference © of the τὸ ἐναντίον to the ‘adversus omnes alios hostile odium’ entertained by Jews, Tacit. Hist. v. 5 (Olsh., De W., Jowett), has been recently called in question by Liinem., and satisfac- torily refuted, (1) on the ground that this exclusiveness, which had originally a monotheistic reference, would hardly have received from the Apostle such unqualified censure; (2) on the gram- matical principle that the causal par- ticiple κωλυόντων does not add any new fact, but explains the meaning of what is appy. ‘ generaliter dictum’ in the preceding words; so also Schott and Alford. 16. κωλυόντων] ‘seeing they hinder ,᾽
not <a SO? [qui prohibent] Syr., comp. De W., but ake r » vy
{dum prohibent] Syr.-Phil., ‘ prohi- bentes,’ Vulg., the participle being anarthrous, and supplying the causal explanation of the foregoing asser- tion; comp. Donalds. Gir. § 492 sq. There is no idea of ‘conatus’ (De W.) involved in κωλυόντων; the present simply states what they were actually doing, as far as circumstances permit- ted them; comp. Liinem.
λαλῆσαι ἵνα σωθῶσιν] ‘to speak that they might be saved; not ‘evangelium predicare ut (‘qua,’ Erasm.) salve
92
ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙ͂Σ A.
9 ΄“ , αἱ 4 e , ’ 4 ; TO ἀναπληρῶσαι αὐτῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας παντοτε. ἔφθασεν
δὲ 4... Φ ᾿] A e 9 4 9 € ἐπ᾿ αὐτοὺς ἡ ὀργὴ εἰς τέλος.
fiant,’ Menoch. ap. Pol. Syn., but simply, ‘gentibus loqui ut serventur,’ Beza,— λαλῆσαι preserving its ordinary meaning, and appy. coalescing with iva σωθῶσιν to form an emphatic peri- phrasis of εὐαγγελίζεσθαι (Olsh.). “Iva will perhaps thus have a somewhat weakened force (see notes on Eph. i. . 17), and the final sentence will to some extent merge into the objective. On the nature of these forms of sen- tence, see Donalds. Gr. § 584 sq. and 605 sq. ‘els τὸ ἀναπληρ. κιτ.λ.7 ‘in order to fill wp (the measure of ) their sins ;’ final clause appended, not merely to κωλυόντων, but to the whole preceding verse, and marking with the full force of εἰς τὸ (see notes on ver. 12) the purpose contemplated in their course of action. This pur- pose, viewed grammatically, must be ascribed to the Jews,—whether as . conscious and wilful (σκοπῷ τοῦ ἁμαρ- τάνειν ἐποίουν, Gicum.), or as blinded and unconscious agents (De W.): con- sidered however theologically, it main- ly refers to the eternal purpose of God which unfolded itself in this wilful and at last judicial blindness on the part of His chosen people; comp. Olsh. and Liinem. in loc. The compound ἀναπλ. is not synonymous with πληροῦν, but marks the existence of a partial rather than an entire vacuum; the Jews were always blind and stubborn, but when they slew their Lord and drove forth His Apo- stles they filled up (supplebant) the measure of their iniquities; see notes on Phil. ii. 30, and Winer, de Verb. Comp. Ill. p. 11 sq.
y » πάντοτε] ‘at all times,’ «995
{omni tempore] Syr., not only in the times before Christ (ἐπὶ τῶν προφη-
τῶν), but when He came, and after He left them (ἐπὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων). - There is no exegetical necessity for assuming that πάντοτε = παντελῶς (Bretschn., Olsh.): the Jews were always in all periods of their history acting in a manner that tended to fill up thecontinually diminishing vacuum. ἔφθασεν δὲ ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς] ‘ But there is come upon them;’ contrast between their course of evil and its sequel of puniskment. It is scarcely necessary to say that δὲ is not equivalent to γάρ (‘enim,’ Vulg.), but with its usual
and proper force (+2, Syr., ‘autem,’
Clarom.) marks the antithesis between the procedure and its issue; ‘alii rei aliam adjicit, ut tamen ubivis que- dam oppositio declaretur,’ Klotz, De- var. Vol. 11. p. 362. On the meaning of the verb φθάνειν in later Greek (not ‘prevenit,’ Clarom., Vuilg. [Amiat.],
but ao [advenit] Syr., and with = Vv
els ‘pervenit,’ Vulg.), see notes on Phil. iii. 16, and Fritz. Rom. ix. 31, Vol. I. pp. 356, 357. The aorist ἔφθασεν ‘came’ (but see notes to Transl.) is certainly not equivalent either to a present (Grot.) or to a future (Schott), but marks the event as an historical fact that belongs to the past, without however further spe- cifying ‘quam late pateat id quod actum est ; see esp. Fritz. de Aor. Vi, p. 17. The perfect ἔφθακεν [Lachm. (non marg.) with BD'] was appy. an interpr. suggested by a supposed inappropriate- ness in the use of the aorist. The perf. contemplates an endurance in the present, the aorist leaves this fact unnoticed but does not exclude it.
ἡ ὀργή] ‘the anger,’ scil. τοῦ Θεοῦ,--- which is actually added in DEFG;
I endeavoured to see ε Ἂ ’ ou, but was hindered Hues δέ,
by Satan. Ye truly are our crown and glory.
Vulg., Clarom., ‘Goth. ; comp. Rom. —
v.9. The article either marks the ὀργὴ as προωρισμένη καὶ mpopnrevo- μένη (Chrys. 2, 3), or perhaps rather as ὀφειλομένη (Chrys. τ, CGicum.), or even simply ἐρχομένη ; comp. ch. i. 10. εἰς τέλος] ‘to the end,’ ‘to the utter- most; ‘usque ad finem,’ Clarom. ; in close connexion with ἔφθασεν, not with épy7,—a construction that would certainly require the insertion of the article. Eis τέλος is not used adver- bially (Jowett,—comp. Job xx. 7), whether in the sense of ‘ postremo” (Wahl, comp. Beng. ‘tandem’) or ‘ penitus’ (Homb.), but, in accordance with the ordinary construct. of φθάνειν εἰς τί, marks the issue to which the ὀργὴ had arrived: it had reached its extreme bound, and would at once pass into inflictive judgments. As the cup of the ἁμαρτία had been gradually filling, so had the measures of the divine ὀργή. It can scarcely be doubted that in these words the Apo- stle is pointing prophetically to the misery and destruction which in less than fifteen years came upon the whole Jewish nation. To regard the present clause as specifying what had already taken place (Baur, Paulus, p. 483) is wholly inconsistent with the context: see Liinem. in loc., who has well re- futed the arguments urged by Baur, l.c. against the genuineness of the Ep., derived from this and the pre- ceding verses.
17. “Hpeis δέ] ‘But we, return after the digression to the subjects and leading thought of ver. 13, the δὲ not being simply resumptive, but reintro- ducing the Apostle and his associates with contrasted reference to the Jewish persecutors just alluded to: comp. the remarks on this particle in notes on
1 7. : 9 ὦ
ἀδελφοί, ἀπορφανισθέντες 17
Gal. iii. 8. ἀπορφανισθέντες ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν] “ bereaved in our separation from you,’ ‘desolati a vobis,’ Vulg.,
Gato hod. [ὀρφανοὶ a vobis]
Syr., temporal not concessive (Theod.) use of the participle, marking an ac- tion prior to that of the finite verb; comp. Winer, Gr. § 45. 6. b, p. 315. In this expressive compound the ἀπὸ (reiterated before the pronoun) serves to mark the idea of separation (Winer, Gr. ὃ 47, Ῥ- 331), and the term ὀρφα- vos, ὀρφανίζω, the feeling of desolation and bereavement which the separation involved. The further idea παίδων πατέρας ζἑητούντων, Chrys. (Aisch. Choéph. 249), or conversely, ‘ orbati ut parentes liberis absentibus,’ Beng., is not necessarily involved in the term, as ὀρφανὸς [cognate with ‘ orbus,’ and perhaps derived from Sanscr. rabh, the radical idea of which is ‘seizing,’ ὅς. ; see Pott, Hiym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 259] is not unfrequently used with some latitude of reference; comp. Pind. Isthi. Vu. 16, ὀρφανὸν ἑτάρων, Plato, Republ. vi. p. 4950, ὀρφανὴν ξυγγενῶν, and the good collection of exx. in Rost u. Palin, Lex. s.v. Vol. 11. p. 542. The idea of separation from those we love seems however to be always in- volved in the term, when used in re- ference to persons; comp. Plato, Phedr. p. 239 E, τῶν φιλτάτων...κτη- μάτων ὀρφανόν. πρὸς καιρὸν ὧρας}7 ‘for the season of an hour,
more emphatic expression than the usual πρὸς wWpav (2 Cor. vii. 8, Gal. ii. 5, Philem. 15), or the less defined πρὸς καιρόν (Luke viii. 13, 1 Cor. vii. 5), serving to mark the shortness of the time that elapsed between the bereavement and the longing expecta- tion of return; comp, the Latin ‘hora
D
etshtt ΟΝ
94
ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.
Sie - ἃς Ν Α “ , 3 δί ἀφ UMWY προς καιρὸν WPAS προσώπῳ OV καρόιᾳ, περισ-
, 9 , ‘ , 6-3 9 a 9 σοτέρως ἐσπουδάσαμεν τὸ πρόσωπον ὑμῶν ἰδεῖν ἐν πολ-
“ A 4A ΄-“ 18 Ay ἐπιθυμίᾳ. διότι ἠθελήσαμεν ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ
momento,’ Hor. ϑαΐ, 1. 1. 7. On the use οὗ πρὸς in these temporal formule, as properly serving to mark motion toward an epoch conceived as before
the subject, see notes on Philem. 15.
(where see also on the derivation of wpa), and compare Donalds. Cratyl. § 177. προσώπῳ οὐ καρδίᾳ] ‘in face not in heart ;’ scil. τῆς αἰσθη- τῆς ὑμῶν ἐστέρημαι θέας, τῆς δὲ νοητῆς ἀπολαύω διηνεκῶς, Theod.: datives, certainly (not)of manner (Alf.), but of relation (‘of reference’), marking with the true limiting power of the case the metaphorical place to which the action is restricted; comp. 1 Cor. v. 3, Col. ii. 5, see notes on Gal. i. 22, and esp. Scheuerl. Synt. §22, p. 179 8q., where the distinctions between the local, modal, and instrumental, uses of this case are well illustrated.
περισσοτ. ἐσπουδ.1 ‘were the more abundantly zealous,’ ‘eo amplius [ma- gis] studuimus,’ Beza,—viz. because our heart was with you, and our long- ing consequently greater. The exact reference of the comparative is some- what doubtful. It is certainly not merely an intensified positive (Olsh., Just. 2, comp. Goth.) ; for though fre- quently used by St Paul (2 Cor. i. 12, Ἐ 4, Wis-33, 18... M1. 23; KU 28, Cal. i. 14, Phil. i. 14; comp. Heb. ii. 1, xiii. 19), it has appy. in every case its proper comparative force; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 35. 4, p. 217. The most plau- sible ref. is not to the mere fact of the ἀπορφανισμός (Winer, l.c.), nor to the briefness of the time as suggestive of a less obliterated remembrance (Lii- nem., comp. Alf., Jowett), still less to the comparative length of it (περισσοτ. ἢ ὡς εἰκὸς ἦν τοὺς πρὸς ὥραν ἀπολει-
φθέντας, Theoph., eomp. Chrys.), but to the fact that the separation was προσώπῳ οὐ καρδίᾳ; ‘quo magis corde presens vobiscum fui, hoc abundan- tius faciem vestram videre studui,’ Muse. The form περισσοτέρως (περισ- σότερον, Mark vii. 36, 1 Cor. xv. 10, Heb. vi. 17, vii. 15 only) is appy. rare in classical Greek, comp. however Isocr. p. 35 E. τὸ πρόσωπον ὑμῶν ἰδεῖν] ‘to see your face,’ not ‘exquisite positum’ for ὑμᾶς ἰδεῖν, with reference to the preceding προσώ- mw (Schott, Jowett), but appy. an ex- pressive Hebraistic periphrasis (MIN ΒΘ ΓΝ), marking the personal face- to-face nature of the meeting ; comp. ch. iii. 10, Col. ii. 1.
ἐν πολλῇ ἐπιθ.] ‘with great desire,’ appended clause specifying the ethi- cal sphere in which the σπουδὴ was evinced (‘in multo desiderio,’ Clarom., Copt., Goth.), or perhaps more simply the concomitant feeling (‘cum multo desiderio,’ Vulg., comp. Arm.) with which it was associated; see notes on Col. iv. 2, and comp. above on ver. 3. Ἔπιθ. is seldom in the N. T. used as here in a good sense: see Trench, Synon. Part It. ὃ 37.
18. διότι] ‘ On which account,’ scil. of our longing to come and see you. The particle διότι is here used in a sense little different from διό (comp. Lat. ‘quare’), and stands at the be- ginning of the period,—a usage in which Jowett and Lachm. appear to have felt a difficulty, as they place only a comma after ἐπιθυμίᾳ. Lachm. and Tisch. (ed. 1, 7) read διότι with ABD'FGSN; 9 mss. (Liinem., Alf.). Tisch. has here rightly returned to the reading of his first edition, as the ex-
IT. 18, 19.
30
μὲν ἸΠαῦλος καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ dis, καὶ ἐνέκοψεν ἡμᾶς ὁ : “- ’ ἈΝ eA 9 A “A ‘ aA , ; Σατανᾶς. τίς yap ἡμῶν ἐλπὶς ἢ χαρὰ ἢ στέφανος 19
ternal authority for διό (Rec., De W., Tisch. ed. 2)—viz.(D??)D?EKL; great majority of mss.; Chrys., Theod., Dam., al. (C is deficient) is not strong, and, owing to the unusual position of διότι, the temptation to correct was very great. ἠθελήσαμεν] ‘we wished,’ ‘would fain,’ not ἠβουλήθη- μεν, which would have expressed ‘ ip- fam animi propensionem’ (Tittm.) with a greater force than would be consistent with the context; comp. Philem. 13, 14. On the distinction between θέλω and βούλομαι, see notes on 1 Tim. v. 14, and Donalds. Cratyl. § 463, but in applying it in St Paul’s Epp. observe that θέλω is used 7 times to βούλομαι once. This perhaps sug- gests that we may commonly with safety press the latter, but must be cautious with regard to the former. ἐγὼ μὲν Ilatdos] ‘even I Paul,’ ‘ipse ego Paulus,’ Aith. The μὲν ‘solita- rium’ serves to enhance the distinctive use of the personal pronoun (Hartung, Partik. μέν, 3. 3, Vol. τ΄. p. 413) by faintly hinting at the others from whom for the sake of emphasis—not of contrast in conduct (κἀκεῖνοι μὲν yap ἤθελον μόνον, ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ ἐπεχείρησα, Chrys.)—he is here detaching himself ; comp. Devar. de Partic. Vol. 1. p. 122 (ed. Klotz). On the proper force of μέν (incorrectly derived by Klotz and Hartung from μήν), and its connexion with the first numeral, see Donalds. Cratyl. ὃ 154, and comp. Pott, Etym. Foisch. Vol. Τί. p. 324.
kal ἅπαξ καὶ Sls] ‘both once and twice,’ ὁ, 6. ‘not once only, but twice ;’ see Phil. iv. 16, and notes in loc. The first καὶ is not otiose (Raphel, Annot. Vol. 1. p. 522), but adds an emphasis to the enumeration ; contrast Nehem. xiii. 20, 1 Macc, iii. 30, where the
omission of the καὶ leaves the formula scarcely stronger in meaning than ‘ali- quoties.’ Kal ἐνέκοψεν κ-.τ.λ.7 ‘and Satan hindered us.’ The καὶ has not here an adversative force (‘sed,’ Vulg., De W.), but simply places in juxtaposition with the intention the actual issue (‘ et impedivit,’ Clarom., and all the other Vv.), the opposition lying really in the context. On this practically contrasting use of καί, see notes on Phil. iv. 12, and Winer, Gr. δ 53. 3, ἢ. 388. On the primary mean- ing of the verb ἐνκόπτειν (Hesych. ἐνεκοπτόμην᾽ ἐνεποδιζόμην) ‘to hinder by breaking up a road,’ see notes on Gal. v. 7. ὁ Σατανᾶς] ‘Satan,’ Heb. τοῖν, the personal evil Spirit, the ‘adversary’ κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν (ὁ ἐχθρός, Luke x. 19); comp. notes on Eph. vi. 27. To refer this term to human adversaries (De W.), or tosome inward impediment (Jowett, who most inaptly compares Acts xvi. 7), is in a high degree doubtful and pre- carious : St Paul here plainly says that the Devil was the hindrance; what peculiar agencies he used are not re- vealed. Without here entering into controversy, it seems not out of place
to remark! that the language of the ; N. T., if words mean anything, does |
ascribe a personality to the Tempter |
so distinct and unmistakeable, that a denial of it can be only compatible with a practical denial of Scripture inspiration. To the so-called charge of Manicheism, it is enough to answer that if an inspired Apostle scruples not to call this fearful Being ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου (2 Cor. iv. 4), no sober thinker can feel any difficulty in ascribing to him permissive powers and agencies of a frightful extent and multiplicity ; see Hofmann, Schriftb.
ὁ τ 5.
90
ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.
καυχήσεως 7 οὐχὶ καὶ ὑμεῖς Eumpoo Ger ᾿ τοῦ Κυρίον ἡ ἡμῶν
20 ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐ εν τῇ αὐτοῦ παρουσίᾳ: ὑμεῖς γάρ ἐστε ἡ δόξα
ἡμῶν καὶ ἡ χαρά.
Vol. 1. p. 389 sq., Ebrard, Dogmatik, § 240, Vol. 1. p. 290, and Plitt, Hvang. Glaubensl. § 31, Vol. 1. p. 245 56.
19. τίς yap ἡμῶν] Interroygative confirmation of the Apostle’s earnest desire to see his converts; ‘who is so if ye are not so?’ Olsh., ‘quid mirum si tanto tenear vestri desiderio? nam quid aliud est in hoc mundo quo mihi placeam, quo me jactem, quo fretus mihi promittam felicitatem?’ Calv. ἡμ. ἐλπὶς ἢ χαρά] ‘our hope or joy; not exactly ‘causa spei et materies le- tandi,’ Schott, but the subject and substratum of both one and the other, —the subject in whom both reside; comp. Phil. iv. 1, and 1 Tim. i. 1 (see also notes) where this form of expres- sion is used with the highest emphasis, Examples of similar uses in pagan writers are collected by Wetst. an loc. ; the most pertinent is Livy, XXVIII. 39, ‘ Scipionem...spem omnem salutemque nostram,” στέφανος καυχήσεως] ‘crown of boast- ing; comp. Prov, xvi. 31, Ezek. xvi. 12, NIN|H NILY [στέφ. καυχήσεως, Ux xy, ‘and Isaiah Lxii. 3 [στέφ. κάλ- λους, LX X]: the Thessalonians were to the Apostle as it were a chaplet of victory, of which he might justly make his boast in the day of the Lord. It is scarcely necessary to add that καυ- χήσεως not merely = δόξης λαμπρᾶς (Theoph.), but implies ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ἀγάλλο- μαι [καυχῶμαι], Chrys., the genitive being not the gen. ‘appositionis’ (Koch), nor even of the metaphorical substance (comp. Rev. xii. 1), but, as the termination in -σὶς seems to re- quire, that of the ‘remoter object ;’ see exx. in Winer, Gr. ὃ 30. 2. 8B,
*\
p-» 170. ἢ οὐχὶ Kal
ὑμεῖς] ‘or is it not also you?’ not ‘nonne,’ Vulg., but ‘aut [an] non,’ Clarom., aN οἣ Syr.-Phil., the ψ Υ͂
particle ἢ retaining its proper disjuncs tive force (see Devar. de Part. Vol. 1. p- to1, ed. Klotz), and introducing a second and negative interrogation, ex- planatory and confirmatory of what is implied in the first; comp. Winer, Gr. § 57..1, p. 451, and esp. compare the good remarks of Hand, TJ'wrsell. Vol. I. p. 349. The ascensive καὶ serves to place the Thessalonians in gentle con- trast with other converts, ‘you as well as my other converts;’ οὐ yap εἶπεν ὑμεῖς ἁπλῶς, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑμεῖς μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων, Chrys. [How accurate is this great commentator's observation of the details of language.]
ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Κυρίου x.t.r.] ‘in the presence of our Lord Jesus at His coming?’ There is some little diffi- culty in the connexion of this mem- ber with what precedes. We clearly must not assume a transposition, and connect it with τίς γὰρ--καυχήσεως (Grot.), nor again closely and exclu- sively unite it with ἢ οὐχὶ καὶ ὑμεῖς (Olsh.), but, as the context seems to require, append it to the whole fore- going double question, to which it im- parts its specifically Christian aspect. The Apostle might have paused at καὶ ὑμεῖς, and proceeded with ver. 20, but feeling that the ἐλπίς, χαρά, κ.τ.λ. needed characterizing, he subjoins the circumstances of place and time. Ἔν τῇ παρουσίᾳ obviously refers to the Lord’s second coming,—not merely and exclusively ‘to establish his Mes- sianic kingdom’ (Liinem., compare the objectionable remarks of Usteri, Zehrb,
«
14. 00, ΤΠ 1,'2: .
As we could not forbear any longer, we sent Ti-
Διὸ μηκέτι στέγοντες εὐδοκήσαμεν ITI.
mothy to reassure you a ἢ 3 ’ , δ in your affliction. > καταλειφθῆναι ἐν ᾿Αθήναις μόνοι, καὶ ἃ
p. 352), but—to judgment; comp. ch. iii, 13, iv. 15, v. 23. The addition Χριστοῦ [ Ree. with FGL; Vulg. (not Amiat.), Goth., Copt.] is rightly re- jected by Lachm., Tisch., and most modern editors.
- 20. ὑμεῖς γάρ «7.A.] 6 Yea verily ye are our glory and our joy.’ The yap does not appear here to be argu- mentative,—i.e. it does not subjoin a reason of greater universality (Alf., citing Soph. Philoct. 756, but see Buttm. in loc.), but seems rather con- firmatory and explanatory (‘ confirmat superiorem versum serid asseveratione,’ Calv.), the yé element having here the predominance; see notes on Gal. ii. 6, and Winer, Gr. ὃ 53. 8. Ὁ, p. 396. For a complete investigation of the primary meaning and principal uses of this particle, the student is espe- cially referred to Klotz, Devar. Vol.
Il, p. 231 86.
CuapTer III. τ, Διό] ‘On which account; not exactly διὰ τὸ εἶναι buds τὴν δόξαν ἡμῶν καὶ τὴν χαράν (Liinem.), which seems too restricted, but on account of the affectionate but abor- tive desire expressed in the three preceding verses; ἐπειδὴ ἡμεῖς δραμεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐκωλύθημεν ἀπεστείλαμεν Τιμόθεον, Theod. On the use of διό, see notes on Gal. iv. 31, and gram- matical reff. on Philem. 8.
"μηκέτι στέγοντες) ‘no longer able to
forbear ;? ‘no longer able to control my longing to see or at least hear about you;’ ‘cum desiderio vestri im- pares essemus,’ Just. Liinemann (ap- proved by Winer, Gr. ὃ 55. 5, p. 429) rightly objects to the assertion of Riickert that μηκέτι is here incorrectly used for οὐκέτι, as μηκέτι can be pro- perly and accurately explained as in-
volving the subjective feelings of the writer (‘being in a state that I could not,’ ‘as one that could not’); still, as has been before said (notes on ch. ii. 15), the tendency of later Greek to adopt the subjective form of negation with participles is very noticeable, and must always be borne in mind ; comp. Madvig, Synt. § 207, and see also notes and reff. on ch. ii. 15. The verb στέγειν(βαστάζειν, ὑπομένειν, Hesych. ; φέρειν, ὑπομένειν, καρτερεῖν, Chrys. on 1 Cor. ix. 12) is only used in the ΝΤ, by St Paul, twice with an accus. ob- jecti (1 Cor. ix. 12, xiii. 7, in both cases πάντα), and twice without (here and ver. 5): see however the list of exx. in Wetst. on 1 Cor. ix. 12, and those in Kypke, Annof. Vol. 11. p. 213, the most pertinent of which in ref. to this place is Philo, in Flace. § 9, Vol. π΄. p. 527 (ed. Mang.), μη- κέτι στέγειν δυνάμενοι Tas ἐνδείας.
εὐδοκήσαμεν] ‘we thought it good ;’ Auth., comp. Arm. ‘placuit nobis,’ Vulg., Clarom., ‘galeikaida uns,’Goth., not ‘enixe voluimus’ [abedarna] Atth.,
comp. Syr. [ea gl, as the idea
of a ‘libera’ (εἰλόμεθα, προεκρίναμεν, Theoph.) rather than a ‘propensa vo- luntas’ seems here more suitable to the context; see notes and reff. given on ch. ii. 8. The plural here seems clearly to refer, not to St Paul and Silas (Beng.), but to St Paul alone, the subject of the verse being in close connexion with the concluding verses of ch. ii., where (ver. 18) the Apostle expressly limits the reference to him- self. On the form εὐδ, not 706. see notes on ch. ii. 8. καταλειφθ. ἐν ᾿Αθήν. μόνοι] ‘to be left behind at Athens alone,’—alone, not without some emphasis, as its position seems to indicate; alone, and that at Athens,
98.
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.
ἐπέμψαμεν Τιμόθεον τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν καὶ συνεργὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ “Χριστοῦ εἰς τὸ στηρί-
aa A , A ~ ~ 3 Eat ὑμᾶς καὶ παρακαλέσαι ὑπὲρ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν TO
‘in urbe videlicet a Deo alienissima,’ Beng. There is some little difficulty in reconciling this passage with Acts xvii. 14.8sq. From the latter passage compared with xvii. 5, it would seem that Timothy and Silas first rejoined St Paul at Corinth, and so that the former was not with the Apostle at Athens; from the present words (κατα- λειφθῆναι, ἐπέμψαμεν, ver. 2; ἔπεμψα, ver. 5) however it seems almost cer- tain that Timothy was despatched from Athens. Omitting all untenable assumptions—such as that a second visit was paid to Athens (Schrader), or that St Luke was ignorant of the circumstances, or ‘ that only Silas was left behind’ (Jowett),— we must either suppose (a) that St Paul despatched Timothy before his own arrival at Athens (Wieseler, Chronol. p. 246 sq.), or perhaps more naturally (6) that Timothy, having been able to obey the Apostle’s order (Acts xvii. 15) more quickly than Silas, did actually come to Athens, and was at once despatched to Thessalonica. The Apostle then continued waiting for both where he was (Acts xvii. 16), but ultimately left the city, and was re- joined by them both after his arrival at Corinth; see Neander, P/anting, Vol. I. p. 195, note (Bohn).
2. συνεργὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ] ‘ fellow- worker with God,’ ‘adjutorem Dei,’ Clarom.; comp. 1 Cor. iii. 9. The σὺν does not refer to others not named, but, in accordance with the regular construction of the word in the N. T. (Rom. xvi. 3, 9, 21, Phil. ii. 25, iv. 3,
comp. 2 Cor. i. 24), to the expressed.
and associated genitive Θεοῦ; comp. Bernhardy, Synt. lI. 49, p. 171, Jelf,
of the expression.
Gr. ὃ 507. The reading is somewhat doubtful, and the variations very numerous, but all may probably be referred to the supposed difficulty Rec. reads καὶ διάκονον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ συνεργὸν ἡμῶν with Τ5Ὲ) (confusedly) KL; most mss. ; Syr. (omitting καὶ 1), Syr.-Phil. (but with asterisk to καὶ συν. ἡἧμ.), al.; Chrys, Theod. The text as it stands [Griesh., Lachm. (text), Tisch., and most modern editors] is only found in D!; Clarom., Sangerm., Am- brosiast., but is supported indirectly, (1) by AN; some mss. ; and several Vv. (Vulg., Copt., Goth., Ath.), which have διάκονον instead of cuvep- γόν (so Lachm, in marg.), (2) by FG; Aug., Boern., which have διάκ. cal συν. τοῦ Θεοῦ, and also (3) to some extent by B, which gives καὶ cuvepy. omitting τοῦ Θεοῦ.
ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ defines more precisely the sphere in whieh his co-operation was exhibited; see Rom. i. 9, 2 Cor. xX. 12. PRL ive 3.
εἰς τὸ στηρίξαι k.7.X.] ‘to establish you and to exhort in behalf of your faith that, &c.:’ purpose of Timothy’s mis- sion; in the unavoidable absence of the Apostle, he was to strengthen them, and to exhort them to be stead- fast; comp. ἐπιστηρίζειν joined with mapax. Acts xiv. 22, xv. 32, 2 Thess. ii. 17. These expressions do not seem in accordance with the timid cha- racter which Alf. (in notes in loc. and on αὶ Tam. v.23, 2 Tim. 1, 7, 8) 88: cribes to the Apostle’s faithful fellow- worker.
παρακαλέσαι] ‘to exhort,’ ‘ad...exhor- tandos,’ Vulg.; not here ‘to comfort,’ Auth., Syr.-Phil., al. (Eph. vi. 22, Col.
ἀπ Raed aed
39:
4 ‘ « " ᾽ 9. 4 ®. μηδένα σαίνεσθαι ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσιν ταύταις: αὐτοὶ yap
n» iv. 8), still less anrso 152.
As [roget vos de] Syr. (and so in
2 Cor. viii. 6, &c.), but, as the next verse seems to require, in the more usual sense of ‘encouraging’ or ‘exhorting ;’ iva παρακαλέσῃ φέρειν γενναίως Tas τών ἐναντίων ἐπιβουλάς, Theod. The se- cond ὑμᾶς which Rec. adds after mapax. with D*KL; most mss.; Syr., is rightly rejected by Lachm., Tisch., with distinctly preponderant external evidence [ABD!FGN; 15 mss.; Cla- rom., Vulg., Goth., Copt.; Chrys., Theod. ; C is deficient].
ὑπὲρ τῆς πίστεως) Not identical in meaning with περὶ τῆς πίστεως (De W.), which Rec. here adopts on weak external authority [D3E?L; mss. ], but appy. more distinctly expressive.of the benefit to, and furtherance of the faith, which was contemplated in the παράκλησις ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 47. 1, p- 343, and comp. notes on Phil, ii. 13.
3. τὸ μηδένα x.7.A.] ‘that no one,’ &ec.: objective sentence (Donalds. Gr. § 584) dependent on παρακαλέσαι, ex- plaining and specifying the subject- matter of the exhortation; comp. Winer, Gir. ὃ 44. 5, p. 294 (ed. 6), but more fully p. 375 (ed. 5). Of the dif- ferent explanations of this infinitival clause, this seems far the most simple and grammatically senable. That of Schott, according to which τὸ μηδένα k.7.X. is an accus. of ‘reference to,’ is defensible (see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 50. 6. 8, comp. notes on Phil. iv. 10), but in the case of transitive verbs like παρακαλεῖν of precarious application: that of Liinem. and Alf., according to which τὸ μηδ. is in apposition to the whole preceding sentence and de- pendent on the preceding εἰς, more
than doubtful; the regimen is remote, and the assumption that τουτέστι might have been written for τὸ (Liinem.) or that it is nearly equivalent to it (Alf.) extremely questionable, if not incon- sistent with the assumed dependence
on εἰς. The only objection to the con-
struction here advocated—that παρα- καλέσαι would thus be associated with a simple accus. rei—is of no real weight; for (1) such a construction is possible (comp. 1 Tim. vi. 2), and (2) the dependence of such explanatory or accusatival infinitives on the govern- ing verb is appy. not so definite and immediate as that of simple substan- tives; comp. Matth. Gr. § 543, obs. 2, 3, Scheuer]. Synt. § 45. 4, p. 478. The only real difficulty in these and similar constructions is correctly to define the difference between the infin. with and without the article: perhaps it amounts to no more than this that in the former case the infinitival clause is more emphatic, aggregated, and substantival, in the latter more merged in the general structure of the sentence ; see Winer, Gr. § 44.2, p. 286, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 50. 6. 3, Matth. Gr. 1. 6. obs. 2. _ The reading of Rec. τῷ μηδένα κ.τ.λ. is not either exegetically or grammatically admissible (opp. to Green, Gr. p. 277; see Winer, J. 6. p. 294), and is wholly unsupported by uncial authority. The text has the support of all MSS. except FG which give ἵνα (in the place of τό) with the infin.
σαίνεσθαι] ‘ be disturbed,’ ‘be disquiet- ed.’ This verb (a dz. λεγόμ. in the N. T.) properly signifies ‘to be fawned on’ (σαίνειν, ἐπὶ ζώων ἀλόγων, & ἐστι σείειν τὴν οὐράν, Eustath. p. 393, 9), and metaphorically ‘soothed’ (sch. Choéph. 194), but is occasionally found in later writers in the stronger sense
40
ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΊΚΕΙΣ A.
i} a 9 Seg ek ,᾿ a Vee Tee ‘ “hae Ν᾽ Ἂς 4 οἴδατε OTL εἰς τοῦτο κείμεθα: καὶ γὰρ ὅτε πρὸς ὑμᾶς > an ᾿ἥμεν προελέγομεν ὑμῖν ὅτι μέλλομεν θλίβεσθαι, καθὼς
Ἢ καὶ ἐγένετο καὶ οἴδατε.
of κινεῖσθαι, σαλεύεσθαι (Hesych.) ; comp. Diog. Laert. v1. 41 (cited by Elsner), σαινόμενοι τοῖς λεγομένοις ἐδά- κρυον καὶ ᾧμωζον. So rightly Chrys. (θορυβεῖσθαι), Theod., Zonaras, Lex. p. 1632 (κλονεῖσθαι), al., most of the
ancient Vv. (Syr. wholZ _[succi- ΨΩ n
deretur], Vulg. ‘moveatur’), and near- ly all modern commentators. Wolf, Tittmann (Synon. 1. p. 189), and appy. Jowett, retain the more usual sense ‘pellici,’ scil. ‘ad officium deseren- dum,’ but with little plausibility, and in opposition to the consent of both Ff. and Vv. The derivation, it need scarcely be said, is not from Σ ΑΝ- or ΞΑΝ- (Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. 1. p. 181), but from celw; comp. Donalds. Cratyl. ὃ 473 év tats θλίψεσιν ταύταις] ‘in these afflictions ;’ not merely those endured by the Apo- stle (comp. Cicum.), but those in which both he and his readers had recently shared, and which, though appy- over for a time (ver. 4), would be almost certain to recur. The é is certainly not instrumental, nor even temporal (Liinem.), but merely local, with ref. to the circumstances in which they were, and by which they were (so to say) environed; comp. Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 345. αὐτοὶ γὰρ οἴδατε] ‘for yourselves know;? reason for the foregoing exhortation τὸ μὴ σαίνεσθαι κ. τ. λ.: both their own experiences and the Apostle’s words (ver. 4) taught them this prac- tical lesson. εἰς τοῦτο κείμεθα] ‘we are appointed thereunto ;’ scil. τὸ θλίβεσθαι (comp. ver. 4), not τὸ ὑπομένειν θλίψεις, Koch 1, the τοῦτο referring laxly to the preceding θλίψε-
4 ~ : 4 , διὰ τοῦτο κἀγὼ μηκέτι
ow. On the meaning of κείμεθα (Vulg.
‘positi sumus,’ Syr. 40
y = x
Goth. ‘ratidai,’ but?), see notes on Phil. i. 16, and with respect to the sentiment, which is here perfectly ge- neral (περὶ πάντων λέγει τῶν πιστῶν, Chrys.), see 2 Tim. iii. 12 (notes), and comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Iv. 20, Vol. Il. p. 224 8q.
“4. καὶ γὰρ ὅτε KA.) ‘for verily when we were with you,’ ‘nam et cum,’
n
Vulg., Clarom., er 2 Syr. ; proof of the preceding assertion, γὰρ introducing the reason, καὶ throw- ing stress upon it; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 53. 8, p. 397, and notes on Phil. ii. 27, where this formula is briefly discussed. On the use of πρὸς with acc. with verbs implying rest, &c., see notes on Gal. i. 18, iv. 18.
μέλλομεν θλίβεσθαι] ‘ we were to suffer afliction;’ here not merely a peri- phrasis of the future, but an indirect statement of the fixed and appointed decree of God; comp. ver. 3. The verb μέλλω has three constructions in the N. T.; (a) with the present,—in the Gospels and the majority of pas- sages in the N. T.; (Ὁ) with the aor., Rom. viii. 18, Gal. iii. 23, Rev. 111. 2, 16, xii. 4,—a construction found also in Attic Greek (Plato, Critias, p. 108 B, Gorg. p. 525 A,.al.); (c) with a fu- ture,—only in a few passages (Acts xi. 28, xxiv. 15, xxvii. 10, in all three cases with ἔσεσθαι), though the use is the prevailing one in earlier Greek: see Winer, Gr. § 44. 7,p. 298, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 53. 8. 3 sq.
Kal οἴδατε] ‘and ye know,’ scil. from your own experiences. The first xal
Ὕλας 6.
41
: 4 Q - aA ἬΝ ’ » ς “ , στέγων ἔπεμψα εἰς TO γνῶναι τὴν TITTY ὑμῶν, μήπως
. ὡς e aT ΤῊΝ A , e ἐπείρασεν ὑμᾶς ὁ πειράζων καὶ εἰς κενὸν γένηται O
κόπος ἡμῶν.
When he came tous and reported your faith, we were greatly comforted, and are deeply thankful.
does not here seem to be correlative to the second, καὶ... καί (see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10), but appears rather to have an ascensive force, while the second is simply copulative ; οὐχ ὅτι ἔγένετοτοῦτο λέγει μόνον, GAN ὅτι πολλὰ καὶ ἄλλα προεῖπε, καὶ ἐξέβη, Chrys.
5. διὰ τοῦτο] ‘For this cause ;᾽ scil. because the foretold tribulation had now actually come upon you. In the following κἀγὼ the καὶ does not belong to the sentence (the argu- ment of Liinem. however that it would then be διὰ καὶ τοῦτο is of no weight, see notes on Phil. iv. 3) but to the pronoun, which it puts in gentle con- trast with the ὑμεῖς twice expressed in the preceding verse: as they had felt for the Apostle (more fully alluded to in ver. 6), so he on his part felt for them; comp. notes on ch. ii. 13. μηκέτι στέγων] “πὸ longer forbear- ing, able to contain;’ see notes on _ ver. I. εἰς τὸ γνῶναι] ‘with a view of know- ing; design of the ἔπεμψα, comp. ver. 2. It does not seem right to supply mentally αὐτόν (Olsh.; ‘ut cognoscerel,’ Aith.-Platt, sim. Pol.); the subject of the principal verb is naturally the subject of the infinitive.
So rightly Syr. W919 [ut cognoscer- EES
em]: the other Vy. adopt the inf,, or an equivalent (‘ad cognoscendam fidem vestram,’ Vulg., Clarom.), and are thus equally indeterminate with the original. μήπως ἐπείρασεν K.t.r.] ‘lest haply the tempter have tempted you ;’ aor. indic. specifying a fact regarded as having actually taken
-
Αρτι δὲ ἐλθόντος Τιμοθέου πρὸς 6 ἡμᾶς ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν καὶ εὐαγγελισαμένου ἡμῖν
place already: the temptation was a fact, its results however were uncer- tain (comp. Chrys.); see Winer, Gr. 8 56. 2, p. 448, and comp. notes on the very similar passage Gal. ii.2. It may be observed that Green ((7r. p. 81), Fritzsche (Fritz. Opusc. p. 176 note), and Scholef. (Hints, p. 114) re- gard μήπως as dubitative in the first
clause, and expressive of apprehen-
sion in the second, ‘an forte Satanas tentasset...ne forte labores irriti es- sent,’—but with little plausibility. The argument of Fritz. that the μήπως (metuentis) in the first clause would have required γενήσεται in the second (‘atque ita labores irriti essent fu- turi’) is certainly not valid: the future would have represented something to occur at some indefinite future time, the aor. subj. is properly used of a transient state occurring in particular cases; see Matth. Gr. § 519. 7, and comp. Madvig, Synt. § 124. 1, who correctly observes that μὴ with fut. after verbs of fearing, dc. always gives a prominence to the notion of futurity. On the substantival form ὁ πειράζων, see exx. in Winer, Gr. ὃ 45. 7, Ῥ. 316, comp. Bernhardy, Synt. VI. 22, p. 316.
εἰς κενὸν γένηται] ‘prove to be in vain; comp. Gal. ii. 2, and the exx. collected by Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 275. The primary force of the prep. is somewhat similarly obscured in the adverbial formule, εἰς κοινόν, εἰς καιρόν, K.T.A. 5 see Bernhardy, Synt. Vv. 11, p. 221. On the meaning of κόπος, see notes on ch. ii. 9.
. 6. ἤΑρτι 8% is most naturally con~
42
ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙ͂Σ A.
ὶ . Ι A 4 “ δ @P. , τὴν πίστιν Kal τὴν ἀγάπην ὑμῶν, Kal OTL ἔχετε μνείαν ~ ’ - ~ 9. -" , ἡμῶν ἀγαθὴν πάντοτε, ἐπιποθοῦντες ἡμᾶς ἰδεῖν καθάπερ.
nected with the participle (ΖΕ Π.-Ῥοὶ. distinctly), not with the remote verb παρεκλήθημεν, ver. 7 (Liinem., Koch), which has its own adjunct διὰ τοῦτο; so appy. Syr., and probably all the other Vv., but the uncertainty as to punctuation precludes their being con- fidently cited on either side. The adverb ἄρτι [dpw, connected with dp- τίως, ἁρμοῖ], which properly stands in opp. as well to immediately present (viv, Plato, Meno, p. 89 0) as to re- motely past time (πάλαι, Plato, Crito, p- 434), is often used in the N.T. and in later writers in reference to purely present time; seeesp. Lobeck, Phryn. Ρ. 18 sq. εὐαγγελισαμένου] ‘having told the good tidings of;’ comp. Luke i. το: οὐκ εἶπεν ἀπαγγεί- λαντος, ἀλλ᾽ εὐαγγελισαμένου" τοσοῦτον ἀγαθὸν ἡγεῖτο τὴν ἑκείνων βεβαίωσιν kal τὴν ἀγάπην, Chrys. The verb εὐαγγελ. is used in the N.T. both in the active (Rev. x. 7, xiv. 6, only), passive (Matt. xi. 5, Gal. i. 11, Heb. iv. 6, al.), and middle. In the last form its constructions in the N.T. are singularly varied; it is used (a) abso- lutely, Rom. xv. 20, 1 Cor. i. 17; (6) with a dat. persone, Rom. i. 15; (c) with an accus. persone, Acts xvi. 10, 1 Pet. i. 12; (d) with an accus. rei, Rom. x. 15, Gal. i. 23; (ὁ) with a double accus., persone and rei, Acts ΧΙ, 32; and lastly (f)—the most common construction—with a dat. persone and acc. rei, Luke i. 19, al. Of these (ὁ) and occasionally (c) are the forms used by the earlier writers; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 267, Thom.-Mag. Ρ. 379, ed. Bern. τὴν πίστιν καὶ τὴν dy. ὑμ.} ‘your faith and your love,’ the faith which you have, and the love which you evince to one an-
other (ver. 12); δηλοῖ ἡ μὲν πίστις τῆς εὐσεβείας τὸ βέβαιον, ἡ δὲ ἀγάπη τὴν πρακτικὴν ἀρετήν, Theod. The third Christian virtue, ἐλπίς, is not here specified (comp. 1 Tim. i. 14, 2 Tim. i, 13, al.), but obviously is included; comp. Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1. 4, Ὁ. 241, Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 22, Vol. 11. Pp. 259, 260. ὅτι ἔχετε μνείαν K.t.A.] ‘that ye have good re- membrance of us always,’ not exactly μνημονεύετε ἡμῶν μετὰ ἐπαίνων καὶ εὐ- φημίας, Theoph. (comp. Chrys.), but simply ‘that ye retain a good, ὦ. 6. as the following words more fully specify, a faithful (βεβαίαν, GEcum.) and affec- tionate remembrance of us,’ ‘ut nostra memoria bona sit in vobis,’ Copt., comp. Syr. On μνεία, see notes on ch. i, 2. The μνεία ἀγαθὴ formed the third item in the good tidings; τρία τέθεικεν ἀξιέραστα, τὴν πίστιν, τὴν ἀγάπην, καὶ τοῦ διδασκάλου τὴν μνή- μην, Theod, πάντοτε Seems here more naturally joined with the preceding verb (Syr., Aith.), as in ch. i. 2, 1 Cor. i. 4, 2 Thess. i. 3, al., than with the participle (Copt.): the μνεία was not only ἀγαθή, but ἀδιά- Aeros; see 2 Tim, i. 3. So Auth, Arm., and appy. the majority of mo- dern commentators.
ἔπιποθ. ἡμᾶς ἰδεῖν] ‘longing to 866 us.’ further expansion of the preceding words; comp. 2 Tim. i. 4. On the force of the ἐπί, here not intensive but directive, see Fritz. Rom. i. 11, Vol. I. p. 31, and notes on 2 Tim. l.c. καθάπερ Kal ἡμεῖς ὑμᾶς] ‘even as we also are longing to see you;’ τὸ yap μαθεῖν τὸν φιλοῦντα ὅτι τοῦτο oldev ὁ φιλούμενος ὅτι φιλεῖται πολλὴ παρα- μυθία καὶ παράκλησις, Chrys. On the meaning and use οὗ καθάπερ, see notes
III. 7, 8.
43
καὶ ἡμεῖς ὑμᾶς" διὰ τοῦτο παρεκλήθημεν, ἀδελφοί, ἐφ᾽ 7
a 4 , eat γι ὡῷ a τὴ “ ea ‘ δι», Wie ὑμῖν ἐπὶ πάση TH ἀνάγκῃ καὶ θλίψει ἡμῶν διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν
, ‘ ec nw “ 94 e ΕΝ , 9 Κ ’ πιστεως OTL γὺυν ζῶμεν εαν υμεῖς στήκητε εν ἰΔυριῳ. ὃ
8, στήκητε! So Rec., Lachm., and Tisch. ed. 2, with BDEN!; many mss, : Tisch. ed. 7 adopts the solecistic στήκετε with AFGKLN*; mss. ; Chrys. (ms,), which is maintained by Koch. The authority however is insufficient, as such permutations of vowels are found occasionally even in the best MSS.; comp.
Scrivener, Introd. to N.T. p. το.
on ch. ii. r1, and on the use of καὶ with comparative adverbs, notes on Eph. v. 23.
7. διὰ τοῦτο] ‘for this cause: in reference to the three preceding speci- fications, which are here grouped to- gether in one view. The resumed διὰ τοῦτο is not superfluous (comp. De W.): the length of the preceding sen- tence, and the fact that ἄρτι ἐλθόντος involved mainly the predication of time, make the occurrence of a re- capitulatory and causal formula here by no means inappropriate. παρεκλ.... ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν] ‘we were comforted over you; you were the objects which formed the substratum of our com- fort; comp. 2 Cor. vii. 7. The prep. ἐπὶ is not exactly equivalent to ‘in,’ Vulg., ‘ex,’ [fram] Goth., or even ‘propter,’ Aith.-Pol.,—still less to ‘quod attinet ad,’ Liinem.,—but with its usual and proper force points to the basis on which the παράκλησις rested, ‘fundamentum cui veluti su- perstructa est,’ Schott; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 48. c, p. 351. The reading πα- ρακεκλήμεθα, though found only in A and 3 mss., has been adopted by Koch, as according better with his connexion of ἄρτι with the finite verb. Surely this is most rash criticism. ἐπὶ πάσῃ K.T.A.] ‘in all our necessity and tribulation; certainly not ‘in quaévis angustia et afflictione,’ Schott, —a translation distinctly precluded by the presence of the article, which
here represents the ἀνάγκη καὶ θλίψις as a collective whole; comp. 2 Cor. i. 4, vii. 4. The use of ἐπὶ is here only slightly different from that above; it has appy. neither a temporal (Liinem.) nor a causal (2 Cor. i. 4, but obs. the accompanying ἐν 7. @X.), but a semi- local force (comp. 2 Cor. vii. 4, and Mey. ὧν loc.), marking that with which the παράκλησις stands in im- mediate contact and connexion ; comp. Bernhardy, Synt. v. 24. b, p. 248 8q., and notes on Phil. i. 3. In the former use the idea of ethical super- position seems mainly predominant, in this latter that of ethical contact; comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 41. 5.
It is somewhat doubtful to what
the ἀνάγκη καὶ θλίψις should be re- ferred. On the whole, the force of ἀνάγκη [connected with AT'X-, Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p- 184; ‘vim omnem notat que evitari non potest,’ Herm. Soph. Trach, 823] and the tenor of the context seem to imply not any inward distress (De W.), but rather some outward trial and trouble (Alf. compares Acts xviii. 5—10) under which the Apostle was then suffering ; see Liinem. in loc.
The order of the words is inverted in Rec. (Orly. x. ἀνάγκῃ), but only on the authority of KL; mss.; several Ff. διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν πίστεως] ‘through your faith? the medium by which this comfort was realized by the Apostle was the faith on the part of. the Thes-
44
ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.
, " : 9 Ud } , “ “9 “ 9 τίνα γὰρ εὐχαριστίαν δυνάμεθα τῷ Θεῷ ἀνταποδοῦναι A a a a oe ’ a “δ + ’ Re περὶ ὑμῶν ἐπὶ πάσῃ TH χαρᾷ ἣ χαίρομεν dv ὑμᾶς ἔμ-
salonians of which he had received tidings; αὕτη ἀσάλευτος μείνασα τὴν παράκλησιν ἡμῖν εἰργάσατο, Gicum.
8, ὅτι νῦν ζῶμεν] ‘because now we live ;’ reason for the preceding state- ment of the comfort which he re- ceived from hearing of the faith of his converts. The contrast shows that the Apostle regards the ἀνάγκη καὶ θλίψις as a kind of death, from which he is raised to the full powers of life (comp. Rom. viii. 6) by the knowledge of the firm posture of the Thess. ; τὴν yap ὑμετέραν βεβαίωσιν ζωὴν ἡμετέ- ραν ὑπολαμβάνομεν, Theod.; compare Pearson, Creed, Vol. 11. p. 319 (ed. Burt.). The conditional member, ἐὰν ὑμεῖς K.7.A., shows that viv (like the Lat. ‘nunc’) is not here used in a purely temporal (comp. Jowett), but in a logical and argumentative sense, approaching in meaning to ‘in hoc rerum statu,’ ‘rebus sic se habenti- bus; see Hartung, Partik. viv, 2. 2, Vol. ΠΡ p. 25, Jelf, Gr. § 719. 2. The true principle of the usage is well explained by Hand; ‘sepe in his duz rerum conditiones collocantur, quarum altera aut precessit, aut cogi- tatur esse posse, eique ex. adverso op- ponitur ea que vera ac presens adest et valet,’ Zursell. Vol. Iv. p. 340. ἐὰν ὑμεῖς στήκητε] ‘if ye stand ( fast) ;’ hypothetically stated, as the faith of the Thessalonians was not yet complete (comp. ver. 10); experience was yet to show whether the assump- tion was correct. On the force of ἐὰν with the subj. (‘sumo hoc, et potest omnino ita se habere, sed utrum vere futurum sit necne id nescio, verum experientia cognoscam,’ Herm.), and on its general distinction from εἰ with the indic., see notes on Gal. i. 9g,
Winer, Gr. § 41. 2, p. 260, and Herm. Viger, No. 312. On the mean- ing of this late form στήκειν, not per se ‘to stand fast’ (comp. Rom. xiv. 4), see notes on Phil. i. 27. In the N.T. it occurs only in St Paul’s Epp. and Mark iii. 31 (Zisch.), xi. 25; and in the LXX in Exod. xiv. 13 (Alez.).
ἐν Κυρίῳ] ‘in the Lord,’—in Him as the element of their true life, and the sphere of its practical manifestations ; so with στήκειν in Phil. iv. 1; see notes on Eph. iv. 17, vi. 1.
9. τίνα γάρ κιτ.λ] Confirmation of the preceding conditioned declara- tion ὅτι νῦν ζῶμεν κιτ.λ.; ‘we live, I say, for what sufficient thanks can be rendered to God for our plenitude of joy on your account” τοσαύτη, φησίν, ἡ δὶ ὑμᾶς χαρά, ὅτι οὐδὲ εὐχαριστεῖν κατ᾽ ἀξίαν εὑρίσκομεν, CGicum., comp. Theoph. For θεῷ ΓΕΘ δ read Κυ- ρίῳ, and 41 also gives Κυρίου for Θεοῦ at the end of the verse. ἀνταπο- δοῦναι] ‘render,’—properly ‘in return,’
¥ ‘retribuere,’ Vulg., Wi; aSO\ Syr. ;
εὐχαριστία is regarded as a kind of return for the mercies and blessings of God: Grot. aptly compares Psalm exvi. 12, ΠῚ DYN AD. The bi- nary compound ἀνταποδιδόναι is used by the Apostle both ‘in bonam’ and ‘in malam partem’ (2 Thess. i. 6, comp. Rom. xii. 19) in the sense of rendering back a due; the ἀντὶ mark- ing the idea of return, the ἀπὸ hinting at that of the debt previously in- curred, ‘ubi dando te exsolvis debito,’ Winer, de Verb. Comp. Iv. p. 12.
περὶ ὑμῶν] ‘concerning you, ‘for you ;’ comp. ch. i. 2 (and notes), 1 Cor. i. 4, 2 Thess. i. 3, ii. 13. The differ- ence between περὶ and ὑπὲρ (Eph. i.
Tie Byte 45
. ; 5 Θεοῦ ἡμῶν: νυκτὸς φέσι See προσθεν του €0U ἡμῶν 9ς νυκτος Και ημερας ὑπερεκ- IO
A ’ 9 δ δον σὰς ΤΑ, . : A περισσου δεόμενοι εἰς TO ἰδεῖν υμῶν TO προσῶπον Kael
Ἁ “- , e 7 καταρτίσαι τὰ ὑστερήματα τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν.
16, comp. Phil. i. 4) in such combina- tions as the present is scarcely appre- ciable; see notes on Col, iv. 3, and comp. on Phil. i. 7."
ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ χαρᾷ] ‘on accownt of, for, all the joy; ἐπὶ having here more
. of its causal and derivative sense, and
marking the ground and reason of the ἀνταπόδοσις εὐχαριστίας : comp. 1 Cor. i. 4, 2 Cor. ix. 15, Polyb. Hist, XVIII. 26. 4, see notes on Phil. i. 5, and Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 41. 6. The present use of ἐπὶ is nearly allied to the common use of the prep. with verbs denoting affections of the mind, θαυμάζειν, ἀγαλλιᾶν, x.7.d., but per- haps recedes a shade farther from the idea of ‘ethical basis,’ to which both this and all similar uses of the prep. are to be ultimately referred; see notes on ver. 7, and Winer, Gr. ὃ 48. 6, p. 351. Itis scarcely necessary to say that πᾶσα ἡ χαρὰ is not, except by inference, ‘summa letitia’ (Schott, —who however fails to observe the article), but ‘all the joy,’ Copt.,— “the joy taken in its whole extent ;’ see Winer, Gr. § 18. 4, p. Tor: the Apostle’s joy wanted nothing to make it full and complete.
ἢ χαίρομεν] ‘which we joy; attraction for ἣν χαίρομεν. (Winer, Gr. ὃ 24. T, p: 147), the construction being appy. here χαίρειν χαράν (Matth. ii. 10), not χαίρειν χαρᾷ (John iii. 29), which, though analogous, would be scarcely so natural with the simple relative. On these intensive forms, see Winer, Gr. § 32. 2, p. 201, $54. 3, Pp» 413; Lobeck, Paralipom. p. 224 sq. ἔμπροσθεν κι τ.λ.} ‘before our God; further. definition of the pure nature of the joy: it was such as could bear
the scrutiny of the eye of God, ‘illo videlicet teste atque inspectore et ut arbitror probatore,’ Just., comp. Calv. On the formula ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Θεοῦ, only used by St Paul in this Ep., see notes on ch. i. 3. The clause ob- viously belongs not to χαρᾷ (Pelt), still less to ver. 10 (Syr., but not Syr.- Phil.), but to the verb xalpouev.
10. νυκτὸς kal ἡμέρας] ‘night and day; καὶ τοῦτο τῆς χαρᾶς σημεῖον, Chrys. On this formula, see notes on ch. ii. 9, and on 1 Tim. ν. 5. ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ δεόμενοι] ‘above mea- sure praying;’ participial adjunct, not to χαίρομεν, which is only part of a subordinate clause, but to the leading thought τίνα--- ἀνταποδοῦναι (Liinem., Alf., Jowett), the participle not having so much a causal (Liinem.) as a circumstantial (‘praying as we do,’ Alf.), or perhaps rather a simply temporal reference; compare Kriiger, Sprachl. ὃ 56. το. 1. On the rare cu- mulative form ὕπερεκπ'. (ch. v. 13 [-ὥς], Eph. iii. 20, Clem.-Rom. 1 Cor. 20 [-@s]) and St Paul’s noticeable use of compounds of ὑπέρ, see notes on Eph. Lt. εἰς τὸ ἰδ. κι.τ.λ.] ‘that we may see your face; “αὖ vi- deamus,’ Vulg., Clarom.; purpose and object (iva ἰδῇ αὐτούς, Theoph.) of the prayer, with perhaps an included re- ference to the subject of it; comp. 2 Thess. ii. 2, and see notes on ch. ii. 12, and on tu. τὸ mpdc., notes on ch. ii. 17. καταρτίσαι] ‘make complete,’ ‘ut suppleamus,’ Clarom. The verb καταρτίζειν (Hesych. κατα- σκευάζειν, στερεοῦν, Zonar. ἁρμόζειν) properly signifies ‘to make dprvos’— the xara having appy. a slightly in- tensive force (see Rost ἃ. Palm, Lea.
40
ΠΡΟΣ OEZZAAONIKEI= A.
II Αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ ἡμῶν May God direct τὴν way
o you. May He make
ou abound in love, and καὶ ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς κατευθύναι : is Prergeresgo be doy
8.v. κατά, IV. 4),—thence ‘to re-ad- just and restore,’ whether in a simple (Matth. iv. 21) or an ethical sense (Gal. vi. 1), what had been previously out of order; and thence, with a some- what more derivative sense (as here), ‘to supply what is lacking or defi- cient,’ πληρῶσαι, Theod., ἀναπληρῶσαι, (Ecum. For exx. see Wetst. Vol. 1. p. 278, Elsner, Obs, Vol. 11. p. 70, and notes on Gal. l.c.
τὰ ὑστερήματα K.T.r.] ‘the lacking measures of your faith,’ ‘that in which your faith is yet deficient;’ comp. Phil. ii. 30, Col. i. 24. These defects are referred by Olsh. to their faith not on the side of its power but of its knowledge. This seems substantially true (οὐ πάσης ἀπέλαυσαν τῆς διδασκα- λίας, οὐδὲ ὅσα ἐχρῆν μαθεῖν ἔμαθον, Chrys., comp. ch. iv. 13); it does not however seem correct to exclude de- fects on the side of practice, which ch. iv. I sq. seems mainly intended to supply; see Liinem. in loc,
11. Αὐτὸς δέ κ.τ.λ.}] ‘Now may God Himself and our Father; transi- tion by the δὲ μεταβατικὸν (see notes on Gal. iii, 8) to good wishes and prayers for their progress in holiness, The αὐτὸς does not seem here to sug- gest any antithesis between God and the δεόμενοι, ver. το (De W.), but merely to enhance the power of God in respect of the κατευθύνειν τὴν ὁδόν (Liinem.), and to place in contrast the human agent with his earnest but foiled efforts (ch. ii. 18), and God who if He willed could instantly and surely accomplish all; ὡσεὶ ἔλεγεν ‘O Θεὸς ἐκκόψαι τὸν Σατανᾶν τὸν παντα- χοῦ ἡμῖν διὰ τῶν πειρασμῶν ἐμποδί- ἕοντα, ἵνα ὀρθὴν ὁδὸν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ποιησώ- μεθα, Gicum. On the meaning of the august title ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατήρ,
and the probable connexion of ἡμῶν with the latter subst. only (so also Liinem.), see notes on Gal. i. 4. It may be remarked that the copula is omitted in Syr., Copt., Auth. (both), and retained in Vylg., Clarom., Goth., Arm., Syr.-Phil., but that in these latter Vv. where it thus occurs there is no trace of the explanatory force here ascribed to it by many modern com- mentators. Kal ὁ Κύριος x.7.X. ] Union of the Son with the Father in the Apostle’s prayer. The language of some of the German expositors is here neither clear nor satisfactory: we do not say with Liinem., that Christ as sitting at the right hand of God has a part in the government of the world ‘nach paulinischer An- schauung’ (compare Usteri, Lehrb. τι. 2. 4, Ῥ. 315), still less with Koch, that the Apostle regards Christ ‘als die Weisheit und Macht Gottes,’— but assert simply and plainly that the Eternal Son is here distinguished from the Father in respect of His Person- ality, but mystically united with Him (observe the significant singular xar- evOivat) in respect of his Godhead, and as God rightly and duly address- ed in the language of direct prayer ; see esp. Athan. contr. Arian. III. 11, Waterl. Defence, Qu. xvul. Vol. 1. p. 423, Qu. XXII. p. 467.
The addition after "Inc. of Χριστός (Rec.), though supported by D°EFGK L; mss.; Vv.; Ath., and many Ff., is rightly rejected by most modern editors with ABD? (D! omits "Inc. as well); 5 mss.; Clarom., Sangerm., Vulg. (Amiat.), Ath. (Pol.,—but not Platt), al., as a conformation to the more usual formula.
κατευθύναι] ‘direct,’ optative, not in- finitive,—which, though occasionally
ὙΠ τὰ ΤΖ, 35:
47
a“ ‘eon: nr a ’ τὴν ὁδὸν ἡμῶν πρὸς ὑμᾶς. ὑμᾶς δὲ ὁ Κύριος πλεονάσαι 12
ι A , a ἢ Ud πῶς," , A 9 ’ Kal περισσεύσαι TH ἀγαπῇ εἰς ἀλλήλους Kal εἰς παντας,
a cd J 4 , e “~ 4 καθάπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς ὑμᾶς, εἰς TO στηρίξαι ὑμῶν τὰς 13
- found in older and esp. poetical writers in ref. to wishes and prayers (Apollon. de Synt, 111. 14, Bernhardy, Synt. 1x. 3, Ῥ. 357), has no place in the lan- guage of the N.T.; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 43. 5, Ῥ- 283. The singular is cer- tainly very noticeable both here and in 2 Thess. ii. 17: no reasons except those founded on the true relations of the Father and Son seem in any way to account for the enallage of number. The verb κατευθύνειν (Luke i. 79, 2 Thess, iii. 5) properly signifies ‘to make straight,’ thence (as here) ‘to
a . direct? (‘dirigat,’ Vulg., 4052. n
Syr.), the κατὰ being appy. not so much intensive (Koch) as directive, and the appended πρὸς specifying the terminus ad quem; comp. Winer, Gr. § 52. 4. 9, Pp. 383.
12. ὑμᾶς δέ] ‘But you,’—you— whatever it may please God to ap- point with respect to us and our coming: ‘altera precatio ut interea dum obstructum illi est iter se tamen absente Dominus Thessalonicenses con- firmet in sanctitate et caritate im- pleat,’ Calv. ὁ Κύριος] Not the First Person of the blessed Trinity (Alf.),—still less the Third (Basil, ap. Pearson, Creed, Vol. τι. p. 265, ed. Burt.), but, in accordance with the application of the title both in ver. ΙΓ and ver. 13, and the pre- vailing usage in St Paul’s Epp., the Second ; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 19. I, p. 113. The subject ὁ Κύριος [so BD? K LN ; Augiens.: ὁ Θεός, A ; 73: ὁ Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς, D'E' FG ; Clarom., Sangerm., al.] is omitted in Syr., Arab. (Erp.), Vulg. (Amiat.), and is rejected by Mill (Prolegom. p. cxxx.), De W.,
Koch, al., as an interpolation. The external authority for its insertion is too preponderant to be safely set aside: Lachm. and Tisch. retain it. πλεονάσαι Kal περισσεύσαι] ‘make to increase and abound,’ ‘multiplicet et abundare faciat,’ Vulg., Clarom. ; both verbs transitive, and nearly synonymous; the former referring not to mere numerical increase (τῷ ἀριθμῷ πλεονάσαι, Theod.) but to spiritual en- largement, the second to spiritual abundance, and having more of a superlative meaning; comp. Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 351. πΠλεονάξειν is not transitive elsewhere in the N.T., see however Psalm Ixxi. 21, ἐπλεό- vacas τὴν δικαιοσύνην cov, τ Mace. iv. 35, πλεονάσας τὸν γενηθέντα στρατόν; the verb περισσ. is also commonly in- trans., but see 2 Cor. iv. 15, ix. 8, and notes on Eph. i. 8.
τῇ ἀγάπῃ KT.A.] Sin your love to- ward one another and toward all,’ in- strumental or rather ablatival dative specifying that with which they were to be enlarged and to abound; see Hartung, Casus, p. 94, Scheuerl. Synt. δ. 22, p. 178, 182. This love was to be shown both in the form of brotherly love (φιλαδελφία, ch. iv. 9) and in its more extended form to all mankind whether ὁμόπιστοι (Theod.) or not; τοῦτο yap τῆς κατὰ Θεὸν ἀγάπης ἴδιον τὸ πάντας περιπλέκεσθαι, Theoph. καθάπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς ὕμ.} ‘even as we also abound toward you; comp. ver. 6; 501], πλεονάζομεν καὶ περισ- σεύομεν τῇ ἀγάπῃ [περὶ ὑμᾶς διετέθη- μεν, Theod.], the verbs which were previously transitive now relapsing in- to their usual intransitive meaning: TO μὲν ἡμέτερον ἤδη ἐστί, τὸ δὲ ὑμέ-
μα pa
48
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΣ A. ’
ΠΥ) 9" Ἂ > ἄν a . a . «δὰ ὦ “ “Ὁ καρδίας ἀμέμπτους ἐν ἁγιωσύνη ἔμπροσθεν rod Θέοῦ A A ΄“ 9 a , A “. καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν 3 “ ‘ , a ὁ a Ἰησοῦ μετὰ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων αὐτοῦ.
τερὸν ἀξιοῦμεν “γενέσθαι, Chrys. This mode of supplying the ellipsis, though open to the objection of causing two different meanings to be assigned to πλεον. and περισσ. in the same verse, seems less arbitrary than that of Syr. (comp. Copt.), al., ἀγάπην ἔχομεν, Grot. ‘swmus, more Hebreo,’ dc., and is supported by the analogy of simple verbs being supplied from com- pound verbs, affirmative from nega- tive; comp. Jelf, Gr. ὃ 895. 1. Ὁ. . On the meaning of καθάπερ, see notes on ch. ii. 11, and on the use of καί, notes on ch. iv. .5.
13. εἰς τὸ στηρίξαι] ‘in order to establish,’ ‘to the end he may stablish,’ Auth.; not the result (Baumg.-Crus.) but the end and aim of the πλεον. καὶ περισσ. TH ἀγάπῃ: ἂν yap αὐτὴ wepic- σεύῃ, στηριγμός ἐστι τῶν κεκτημένων αὐτήν, CEcum.; love being, as De W, observes, ‘the filling up of the law’ (Rom. xiii. 10) and ‘the bond of per- fectness’ (Col. iii. 14). The subject of the inf., it need scarcely be said, is not ἡμᾶς (Corn. a Lap. 1), nor ἀγά- πην (Gicum.), nor even Θεόν (a Lap. 2), but the subject of the foregoing verse, τὸν Κύριον. ἀμέμπτους ἐν ἁγιωσύνῃ] ‘so as to be unblameable in holiness ;’ proleptic use of the ad- jective; comp. 1 Cor. i. 8, Phil. iii. 21, see Winer, Gr. ὃ 66. 3, p. 550, Jelf, Gr. § 439. 2, Schaefer, Demosth. Vol. I. p. 239, and the long and elaborate note of Koch in loc. The hearts (ἐκ τῆς καρδίας ἐξέρχονται διαλογισμοὶ πο- νηροί, Chrys.) were to be blameless, and that not simply, but in a sphere and element of holiness. On the orthographically correct but late form ἁγιωσύνη (Rom. i. 4, 2 Cor. vil. 1, as
ἐξ, not ἁγιοσύνη, as B'DEFG (A has δικαιοσύνη), see Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p. 10, Buttm. Gr. ὃ 118. 11. In mean- ing it differs but little from ἁγιότης (2 Cor. i. 12 [not Rec.], Heb. xii. 10), except perhaps that it represents more the condition than the abstract quality, while ἁγιασμός, as its termination shows, points primarily to the process (2 Thess. ii. 13, 1 Pet. i. 2), and thence, with that gradual approach of the ter- mination in -yos to that in -cvvy which is so characteristic of the N.T., the state (ch. iv. 4, 1 Tim. ii. 15), frame’ of mind, or holy disposition (Water- land, on Justif. Vol. vi. p. 7), in which the action of the verb is evinced and exemplified ; see Usteri, Lehrb. 11. I. 3, p. 226, and comp. ἀγαθωσύνη, ἀγαθότης, and notes on Gal. v. 22. ἔμπροσθεν κιτιλ. does not belong ex- clusively either to ἐν ἁγιωσύνῃ (Pelt) or to ἀμέμπτους (De W.), but to both (Liinem.): their ἀμεμφία ἐν ἁγιωσ. was to be such as could bear the searching eye of God; see notes on ver. g, and on ch. i. 3.
τοῦ ©. καὶ 1. ἡμ.] See notes on ver. 11, and on Gal. i. 4. ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ K.t.A.] “αὐ the coming of our Lord Jesus; καὶ yap ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ κρινόμεθα ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Πατρός, Theoph. ; see notes on ch. ii. 19. The addition Χριστοῦ is rightly rejected by Lachm. and Tisch., with ABDEK® ; 20 mss.; Clarom., Sangerm., Vulg. (Amiat.), Aath. (Pol.,— but not Platt); Dam., Ambr.: the appearance of ᾽1η- σοῦς without Χριστὸς seems somewhat noticeably frequent in this Epistle (Ὁ times out of 16); comp. ver. 11, ch. i, 10, ii 15, 19, iv. 1, 2, 14 (bis).
μετὰ πάντων K.tA.}] ‘accompanied
ae ᾿ ΤΥ. Τὰ»
Abound ye, according to my precepts. God’s will is your sanctification, wherefore be chaste and continent.
with all His Saints; not σὺν .but μετά; they are here represented not so much as united with Him as at- tending on Him and swelling the majesty of His train; comp. notes on Eph. vi. 23, and contrast Col. iii. 4, where on the contrary the context shows that the idea is mainly that of coherence. It is very doubtful whe- ther οἱ ἅγιοι are, with Pearson (Creed, Vol. 11. p. 296), to be referred to the Holy Angels (see 2 Thess, i. 7, Matth. xvi, 27, xxv. 31, al; comp. Heb. ὩΣ ΡῚΡ Psalm Ixxxix. 6, Zech. xiv. 5, al.), or, with Hofmann (Schriftb. Vol. Il. 2, p. 595), to the Saints in their more inclusive sense (see ch. iv. 14, comp. 1 Cor. vi. 2); perhaps the addi- tion πάντες may justify us in referring the term to both; so Beng., Alf.
The ἀμὴν at the end of the verse [insert- ed by AD'EN'; mss. ; Clarom., Sang., Vulg., and by Zachm. in brackets] seems to be a liturgical addition.
. CHAPTER LV. 1. Δοιπὸν οὖν] ‘ Fur- thermore then,’ in consequence of, and in accordance with the issue prayed for in the preceding verse; the οὖν having here its collective force, and introducing an appeal to the Thessa- lonians on their side, grounded on what the Apostle had asked in prayer for them from God; they were to do their part, Olsh. On the two uses of οὖν (the collective and reflexive), see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 717, com- pared with Hartung, Partik. Vol. τι. p- 9. The transl. of Vulg., ‘ergo’ (Clarom. less correctly ‘autem’), is judiciously altered by Beza to ‘igitur ;? the former being properly used only ‘in graviore argumentatione,’ Hand, Tursell. Vol. 111. p. 187. The exact meaning of λοιπὸν has been somewhat
49
to Λοιπὸν οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ἐρωτῶμεν IV. e A \ “ ει A tes Ἴ A ὑμᾶς καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν ev Κυρίῳ ᾿Ιησοῦ
contested. By observing its use (2 Cor. xiii. rr) and thit of the more specific τὸ λοιπὸν (Eph. vi. το, Phil. iii. 1, iv. 8, 2 Thess. iii, r) in St Paul’s Epp., we see that it is neither
‘simply temporal (del μὲν καὶ eis τὸ
διηνεκές, Chrys., Theoph.), nor simply ethical (ἀποχρώντως, CEcum. 2), but rather marks the transition to the close of the Ep. and te what remains yet to be said (‘de cetero,’ Vulg.), whether much (Phil. iii. 1) or little (2 Cor. xiii. 11); τὸ els παραίνεσιν
ἐλθεῖν, CGicum. 1: comp. notes on Phil, iii. 1. The omission of
τὸ (inserted by Rec.) is here supported by all MSS. except B? [mss. ; Chrys , Theod. 7, and acquiesced in by Lachm., Tisch., and appy. all modern editors: that of οὖν [omitted by 1; 10 mss. ; Syr., Copt. ; Chrys. ], though approved by Mill (Prolegom. p. xcv) and Tisch. ed. 1, is on the contrary by no means probable. ἐρωτῶμεν] ‘we beseech ; comp. ch. v. 12, Phil. iv. 3, 2 Thess. ii. 1, where alone it is used by St Paul: a derivative and non-classi- eal use of ἐρωτᾶν, perhaps suggested by the double use of oxy (Schott), of which in the LXX it is not un- commonly a translation; see Psalm exxii. 6, ἐρωτήσατε dONw) δὴ τὰ els εἰοήνην τὴν Ἱερουσαλήμ. ᾿
παρακαλοῖμεν ἐν Kup. ᾽Ιησ.] ‘exhort you in the Lord Jesus; our παράκλη- σις is in Him alone (see Phil. ii. 1, and notes); He is the sphere and element in which alone all we say and do has its proper existence an1 efficacy: see notes on Eph. iv. 17, vi. 1. The gloss διὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, Chrys. (τὸν Χριστὸν παρα- λαμβάνει, Theoph., ‘per Christum rogat et obsecrat,’ Schott 2), involves a needless departure from the almost regular meaning of this significant
E
50 ΠΡΟΣ
ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.
oe ᾳ« - ’ ’ Φ erm be A ΄- δ᾽ “0 ἵνα καθὼς παρελάβετε παρ᾽ ἡμῶν τὸ πῶς δεῖ ὑμᾶς περιπα- τεῖν καὶ ἀρέσκειν Θεῷ, καθὼς καὶ περιπατεῖτε, ἵνα περισ-
2 σεύητε μᾶλλον. οἴδατε γὰρ τίνας παραγγελίας ἐδώκαμεν . -ὦὦ 4A a , , “ ΄σ 4 , 3 ὑμῖν διὰ τοῦ Kupiov ᾿Ιησοῦ. τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν θέλημα
formula: all the ancient Vv. retain the simple and primary meaning of the preposition. ἵνα καθώς K.7.A.] ‘that even as ye received from us,’ subject of the prayer blended with the purpose of making it, intro- duced by the partially final wa; see notes on Eph. i. 17. On the meaning of παρελάβετε, here unduly extended by Chrys., Theoph., to the teaching of examples (οὐχὶ ῥημάτων μόνον ἐστὶν ἀλλὰ καὶ πραγμάτων), see notes on ch. ii. 13. This ἵνα is omitted by Ree. with AD°E*KLN; great majority of mss.; Syr.-Phil., Aith.-Platt (appy.) ; Chrys., Theod., al. (Zisch. ed. 2): but is rightly retained by Lachm., Tisch. ed. 7. C is deficient.
τὸ πῶς δεῖ κιτ.λ.} ‘how ye ought to walk ;’ literally ‘the how, dc.,’ the τὸ giving to the whole clause a sub- stantival character, and bringing the two members into a single point of view; comp. Luke ix. 46, Rom. iv. 13, viii. 26, see Winer, Gr. § 20. 3, p- 162, ed. 5 (omitted or placed else- where in ed. 6), Fritz. on Mark, p. 372, Jelf, Gr. ὃ 457. 3, and the numerous exx. in Matth. Gr. ὃ 280.
Kal ἀρέσκειν Θεῷ] ‘and (by so doing) to please Ged.’ The καὶ does not seem to be either explanatory (Schott 2) or Hebraistic (‘vim consilii aut effectus describens,’ Storr, cited by Schott), but with its not uncommon consecu- tive force marks the ἀρέσκειν as the result of the περιπατεῖν ; comp. notes on Phil. iv. 12. The words καθὼς καὶ περιπατεῖτε are omitted by 7 τον, Tisch. ed. 2, but only on the authority of D*E*KL; most mss.; Syr., Chrys., Theod., Dam.: they are rightly in-
serted by Lachm., Tisch. ed. 7, on greatly preponderant authority. We can hardly say that the words are in- serted ‘vitiose et parum ad rem’ (Just.); the terms of the concluding exhortation seem to render an allusion to their present state, if not necessary, yet certainly natural and appropriate. For a sound sermon on this text, see Beveridge, Serm. Oxxi1I. Vol. v. Ρ. 347 584. περισσεύητε μᾶλλον] ‘ye may abound still more,’ scil. in your walking and pleasing God: the expression occurs again in ver. 10 and Phil. i. 9. The omission of a οὕτῳς corresponding to the first καθώς, and the conclusion of the sen- tence jn terms not wholly symmetrical with what had preceded, involve no real difficulty, and are characteristic of the Apostle’s style.
2. οἴδατε γάρ] ‘For ye know.’ Appeal to the memory of the Thes- salonians in confirmation of the fore- going declaration καθὼς παρελάβετε, ‘quasi dicat Accepisse vos a nobis dico,’ Est.; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 1, 2, Gal. iv. 13. τίνας Tapayy. | ‘what commands ;’ not ‘evangelii pre- dicationem,’ Pelt,—but, in accordance with the regular meaning of the word and the tenor of the context, ‘ pre- cepta,’ scil. ‘bene sancteque vivendi,’ Est., ‘vivendi regula,’ Calv.; comp. Acts v. 28, xvi. 24, 1 Tim. i. 5, 18, and see notes in locc. The emphasis, as Liinem. observes, rests on τίνας, and prepares the reader for the following τοῦτο, ver. 3. "διὰ τοῦ Kup. ᾽Ιησ.] ‘by the Lord Jesus,’ ‘ per Dominum Jesum,’ Vulg., Clarom., ‘pairh,’ Goth.; not equivalent to ἐν
IV. τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν,
Κυρίῳ (Pelt), but correctly designating the Lord as the ‘causa medians’ through which the παραγγελίαις were declared: they were not the Apostle’s own commands, but Christ’s (οὐκ ἐμὰ γάρ, φησίν, ἃ παρήγγειλα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκείνου ταῦτα, Theoph.), by whose blessed in- fluence he was moved to deliver them; comp. 2 Cor. i. 5, and see Winer, Gr. § 47. i, p. 339 note 2. The addition does not then seem designed so much to vindicate the authority of the Apo- stle (Olsh.) as to enhance the impor- _ tance of the commands ; comp. 1 Cor. Vii. 10.
3. τοῦτο yap κ.τ.λ.} ‘For this is the will of God,’—‘this that follows, this that I am about to declare to you; further explanation of the τίνας παραγγελίας, yap having here more of its explanatory (‘quippe hec,’ Schott) than its argumentative force; see notes on Gal. ii. 6. Τοῦτο is obviously not the predicate (De W.), but the subject, placed somewhat emphatically forward to echo the preceding τίνας and direct the reader’s attention to the noun in apposition that follows. Liinem. and Alf. compare Rom. ix. 8, Gal. iii. 7; but the passages are not perfectly analogous, as there the de- monsirative pronoun is retrospective, here mainly prospective; comp. notes on Gal. l.c. θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ] ‘the will of God; ‘id quod Deus vult,’ Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 33. The omission of τὸ before θέλ. [inserted by AFG, and by Lachm., in brackets} is not to be accounted for by the ‘non- distribution of the predicate θέλ. τοῦ Gcod’ (Alf.; but with 3), nor because what follows does not exhaust the:con- ception (Liinem.), but simply on the ‘principle noticed by the Greek gram- marians (Apollon. de Synt. τ. 31, Ὁ. 64, ed. Bekk.) that ‘ after verbs substantive
Hg: A 51
9 s €¢ 2 : Φ wn ἀπέχεσθαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τῆς
or nuncupative’ the article is fre- quently omitted: see Middleton, Gr. Art, Ul. 3. 2, p. 43 (ed. Rose), but observe that the rule is by no means se universal as Middl. seems to think; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 18. 7, p. 104. When the subject is a demonstrative pro- noun and the verb is omitted (Rom, ix. 8), the exceptions are naturally fewer, as the insertion of the article might often leave it uncertain whether the demonstr. pronoun was intended to be predicative or no; see Stallb. on Plato, Apol, p. 18 A, and Engelhart on Plato, Lach, ὃ τ΄ It may be noticed that the useful and common form θέλημα is appy. confined to the LXX, N.T., and late writers; comp. Lo- beck, Phryn. p. 7.
ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν] ‘your sanctifica- tion ;’ appositional member to the preceding θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, further defined both negatively and positively in the following clauses, and more specially exemplified in the subsequent appositional member τὸ μὴ ὑπερβαί- ver. 6. The late substantive ayiacuds,—which, as the defining clauses seem to show, has here some- what of a special meaning (Beng.),— is not equivalent to ἁγιωσύνη (comp. Olsh., Usteri, Lehrb. p. 226, note), but in accordance with its termination (‘action of verb proceeding from sub- ject,’ Donalds. Cratyl. § 253) still re- tains its active force, ὑμῶν being a simple gen. objecti, ‘sanctificatio ves- tri,’ i.e. ‘ut sanctitati studeatis,’ Me- noch, ap. Pol. Syn.; comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47. 7. 1 8q., and see note on ch. iii. 13.
ἀπέχεσθαι ὑμᾶς K.t.d.] ‘to wit that ye abstain from fornication ;’ explana- tory infinitive, defining on the nega- tive side the preceding term ὁ ayia-. σμός, which otherwise must have been
E2
νειν,
52 ΠΡΟΣ
ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙΣ A.
Dee eae ν᾽ ὡς ey a ane a Te a ew a 4 πορνείας, εἰδέναι ἕκαστον ὑμῶν TO ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος κτᾶσθαὶ
regarded as simply general in its sig- nification; see Kriiger, Sprachl. ὃ 57. 10. 6 sq., Winer, Gr. ὃ 44. 1, p. 284, and comp. Madvig, Synt. § 153, who however has not sufficiently illustrated this not uncommon use of the infini- ‘tive. Even Winer (Gr. ὃ 44. 2) seems to regard the inf. here as a subject-inf. in apposition to θέλημα Tod Θεοῦ (comp. too Syr., Aith.), but appy. with but little plausibility. The insertion (ch. v. 22) or omission (1 Tim. iv. 3) of ἀπὸ after the compound ἀπέχεσθαι involves no real change of meaning (compare Acts xv. 20, 29), but differs at most only thus much, —‘ut in priori formula [with ἀπό] sejunctionis cogi- tatio ad rem, in posteriore autem ad nos ipsos referatur,” Tittmann, Synon. I. p. 225. | τῆς πορνείας] ‘ Fornication ;᾽ abstract, and perhaps here with a somewhat comprehensive meaning [F reads πασι τῆς, and 31 πάσης τῆς: S4; a few mss.; Syr., Chrys., Theod., al. substitute πάσης for the art.], ‘quicquid est rerum venerearum,’ Calv., or more suitably to the present context ‘omnem illicitum concubitum’ (comp. Est.). It must be always remembered that the deadly sin of πορνεία in its usual and general sense ever formed the subject of special prohibition, as being one of those things which the Gentile world regarded as ἀδιάφορα; see Meyer on Acts xv. 20.
4. εἰδέναι ἕκαστον ὑμῶν] ‘that each one of you know how &c.; ex- planatory infinitive, parallel to ἀπέ- χεσθαι, defining on the positive side the preceding ἁγιασμός: so (as far as can be inferred from the collocation of words and form of expression), Copt., Goth., Arm., and Vulg. in spite of modern punctuation. Alford and others (comp. Clarom. ‘abstinere
...ut sciat...ut nequis’) regard the whole εἰδέναι --- διεμαρτυράμεθα as a further specification of what imme- diately precedes; this however tends to obscure the distinction between the infinitival clauses with and without the article (see below on ver. 6), and exegetically considered has nothing particularly to recommend it. For a similar comprehensive force of εἰδέναι, see Phil. iv. 12; δείκνυσι ὅτι ἀσκήσεως kel μαθήσεώς ἐστι τὸ σωφρονεῖν, Theoph. For ἕκαστον AFG read ἕκαστος, so Lachm. in marg.
τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος κτᾶσθαι] ‘to get himself his own vessel:’ so it would seem Syr., Copt. (e-chphof naf), Ar- men, (sddndal) ;—-but as in these and other languages the ideas of acquisi- tion and possession are expressed by the same word, discrimination is not easy. The meaning of the clause, and especially of the word σκεῦος, has been much debated. Setting aside all arbitrary and untenable interpreta- tions, we have two explanations of τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος ; (a) ‘ his body,’ σκεῦος τὸ σῶμά φησιν, Theoph., Gicum.; so Chrys., Theod. (who notices and re- jects the other expl.), Tertull. (de Resurr. 16), Ambrosiast., Olsh., and some modern commentators ; (b) ‘his wife,’ σκεῦος τὴν ἰδίαν ἑκάστου yauér ny ὀνομάζει, Theod.-Mops., August. con- tra Jul. 1v. 56 [x]—or more generally (De W.) his lawful ‘copartner and recipient’ in fulfilling the divine ordi- nance (Gen. i. 28), with a reference to a similar use of the Heb. 2} (see the pertinent example from Megill. Est. i. 11, ‘vas meum quo ego utor,’ cited by Schoettg. Hor. Hebr. Vol. 1. p. 727, and most commentators) and the gene- rally appropriate nature of the trope (see Sohar Levit. xxxviii. 152, cited by Schoettg.): so Aquin., Est., more
: td ee Σδο, ἵ
,
99
-' ῥα ys ‘ a. ” ‘ , . , me ev ἁγιασμῷ καὶ τιμῇ, μὴ ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας καθἄἅπερ καὶ 5
᾿ : 4 ’ ; 4 τὰ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ εἰδότα τὸν Θεόν: TO μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν καὶ 6
recently Schott, De W., and appy. the majority of modern expositors. Of these two interpretations (a) is plaus- ible, but open, as Liinem. clearly states, to four objections,—(a) the in- accurate meaning ‘ possidere’ (Vulg.) thus assigned to κτᾶσθαι; (8) the ab- sence of any adj. (2 Cor. iv. 7) or de- fining gen. (Barnab. Lpist. § 7, 11) which might warrant such a meaning being assigned to oxevos,—unsuccess- fully evaded (Olsh.) by the assump- tion that ἑαυτοῦ practically = ψυχῆς ; (y) the emphatic position of ἑαυτοῦ (comp. 1 Cor. vii. 2), which is hardly to be explained away as a mere equi- valent of a possess. pronoun; (δ) the context, which seems naturally to sug- gest, not a mere periphrasis of what had preceded, but a statement on the positive and permitted side antitheti- cal to the prohibition on the negative. These objections are so strong that we can scarcely hesitate in adopting (6), towards which both lexical usage (κτᾶσθαι γυναῖκα, Ecclus. xxxvi. 29 [24], Xen. Symp. Il. 10) and exegetical
j arguments very distinctly converge.
While πορνεία is prohibited on the negative side, chastity and holiness in re-pect of the primal ordinance are equally clearly inculcated on the posi- tive. For further details see the ela- borate notes of De W., Koch, and Liinem. in loc. ἐν ἁγιασμῷ καὶ τιμῇ] ‘in sanctification and ho- nour; ethical element in which τὸ κτᾶσθαι was to take place: the union of man and woman was to be in sanctification and honour, not, as in the case of πορνεία, in sin and shame. Here, as the associated abstr. subst. suggests, ἁγιασμῷ passes from its act. into its neutral meaning ; comp. notes on ch. iii. 13.
5. μὴ ἐν πάθει ἐπιθ.} ‘not in the lustfulness of desire; not in that sin- ful and morbid state (comp. Cicero, Tusc. Disp. Ut. 4. 10) in which éme- θυμία becomes the ruling and prevail- ing principle, and the κοίτη ceases to be ἀμίαντος (Heb. xiii. 4). On the meaning of πάθος, see Trench, Synon. Part 11. ὃ 37, and notes on Col. 111. 5. καθάπερ Kal ta ἔθνη] ‘even as the Gentiles also ;’ the καὶ having here its comparative force, and instituting a comparison between the Gentiles and the class implied in the ἕκαστον ὑμῶν ; comp. ch. iii. 6, and see notes on Eph. v. 23, where this usage is fully dis- cussed. Alford cites Xen. Anabd. I. 1. 22, ὅτι καὶ ἡμῖν ταὐτὰ δοκεῖ ἅπερ καὶ βασιλεῖ, but not with complete pertinence, as there the καὶ appears in both clauses, here only in the relative clause; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. II. p. 635. The remark of Fritz. (Rom. Vol. I. p. 114) on the presence or ab- sence of the article with ἔθνη, ‘ubi de paganis. in universum loquitur articu- lum addit, ubi de gentilium parte agit eundem omittit,’ is substantially cor- rect, but must not be over-pressed ; comp. I Cor. i. 23 (not Rec.). τὰ μὴ εἰδότα τὸν Θεόν] ‘which know not God, who as a class are so characterized, the subjective negation μὴ being rightly used as being in har- mony both with the oblique and in- finitival character of the preceding clauses, and with the fact that the Gentiles are here not historically de- scribed as ‘ignorantes Deum’ (see notes on Gal. iv. 8) but only regarded as such by the writer; see Winer, Gr. $35. 5, p. 4288sq. The article is here appropriately added to Θεόν, but this is one of the many words in the N. T. for which no precise rules can be
54 ΠΡΟΣ
ΘΕΣΣΛΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.
Ps ~ ὡς OA 4 by, Ὁ a “ ᾿Ἂ πλεονεκτεῖν ἐν τῷ πράγματι τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, διότι
laid down: see Winer, Gr. ὃ 19. 1, p- IIo.
6. τὸ μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν] ‘that no one go beyond,’ ‘that there be no going beyond,’—the subject-accus. not being ἕκαστον (Alf.), but twa (comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 55. 2. 6) supplied from the following αὐτοῦ, and sug- gested by the general character of the prohibition. The clause is thus not merely parallel to the anarthrous εἰ- δέναι (Alf.), but reverts to the preced- ing ἁγιασμός, of which it presents a specific exemplification (comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 50. 6. 3) more immediately suggested by the second part of ver. 4. First πορνεία is prohibited; then a holy use of its natural remedy affirm- atively inculcated; and lastly the heinous sin of μοιχεία, especially as regarded in its social aspects, formally denounced. So rightly Chrys. (é- ταῦθα περὶ μοιχείας φησίν. ἀνωτέρω δὲ καὶ περὶ πορνείας πάσης), and after him Theod., Theoph., Gicum., and the majority of modern commentators. To regard the verse with Calv., Grot., and recently De W., Liinem., Koch, as referring to fraud and covetousness in the general affairs of life, is (a) to in- fringe on the plain meaning of τῷ πράγματι, see below ; (8) to obscure the ref. to the key-word of the paragraph ἀκαθαρσία, ver. 7; (vy) to mar the con- textual symmetry of the verses; and (5) to introduce an exegesis so frigid and unnatural, as to make us wonder that such good names should be as- sociated with an interpretation seem- ingly so improbable. ὑπερβαίνειν Kal πλεονεκτεῖν] ‘go be- yond and over-reach,’ ‘supergrediatur neque circumveniat,’ Vulg., both words associated with the following accus.,—and both of them significant- ly and appositely chosen. Ὑπερβαίνειν
(a dr. λεγόμ. in the N.T.) with an accus, persone properly signifies a ‘passing beyond,’ thence derivatively a ‘leaving unnoticed,’ whether simply (Iseus, p. 38.6, and 43. 34) or con- temptuously (Plutarch, de Amore Prol. δ. 3; comp. Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. 337), as appy. Aith. taahaja [extulit se],— with which perhaps in the present case there may be associated a reference to a ὑπέρβασις of another in respect of the ὅροι appointed by God and by nature; see Chrys. and the Greek commentators, who however seem to have taken ὑπερβαίνειν absolutely ; comp. Raphel, Annot. Vol. I. 542. Πλεονεκτεῖν with an aecus. persone properly signifies ‘lucri caus4 fraudem facere alicui’ (2 Cor. vii. 2, xii. 17, 18), thence with a slightly more general reference ‘circumvenire aliquem’ (comp. 2 Cor. ii. rr), ‘bifaih(o),’ Goth., the idea of selfish and self-seeking fraud rather than mere wrong or in- jury (comp. Syr., Copt., Arm.) being always involved in the word; see Sui- cer, Thesaur. s.v. Vol. τι. p. 746, and comp. Meyer on 2 Cor. vii. 2.
ἐν τῷ πράγματι] ‘in the matter,’ Copt. (definitely expressing the art.), and similarly, but too strongly, Syr.
Ἰ2ὰς 3 jos [in hoc negotio],
—not exactly ἐν τῇ μίξει, Theoph., (Ecum., but more generally, in the matter of which we are now speaking (comp. 2 Cor. vii. 11), which however obviously involves reference to deeds of carnality and adultery ; see Middle- ton, Gr. Art. p. 377 (ed. Rose), Green, Gram. p. 156. To regard TO as en- clitic (Auth., Koppe) is contrary to the usage of the N.T.; and to as- sume that τῴ πράγματιΞετοῖς mpdy- μασιν (De W., comp. Winer, Gr. § 18. 8, p. 105), or that it can imply ‘the
ΤΌΣ 8.
55)
ἔκδικος Κύριος περὶ πάντων τούτων, καθὼς καὶ προεί-
ς « Α rv 9 A 9 , . Φ “ παμεν υμῖν και διεμαρτυράμεθα. οὐ γαρ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς 7
‘ “ ὁ Θεὸς ἐπὶ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ ἀλλὰ ἐν ἁγιασμῷ.
business in question’ (Liiinem.) when nothing has preceded sufficient to mark what the πρᾶγμα really is, must re- spectively on grammatical and logical grounds be pronounced wholly unten- able. τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ] “ his brother,’—not merely ‘his neighbour’ (Schott), but ‘his Christian brother,’ him whom so to wrong and defraud is doubly flagitious; ἀδελφὸν καλεῖς kal πλεονεκτεῖς, καὶ ἐν οἷς οὐ χρή, Chrys. διότι ἔκδικος Κύριος] “ because that the Lord is the avenger? οὐδὲ yap ἀτιμω- ρητὶ ταῦτα πράξομεν, Chrys.; see Eph. v. 6, Col. iii. 6, where similar prohi- bitions are accompanied by a similar warning reason. The term ἔκδικος, a δὶς λεγόμ. in the N. T. (here and Rom. xiii. 4), primarily denotes τὸν ἔξω τοῦ δικαίου ὄντα (Suid. 5. ν., Zonar. Lex. p- 651), ‘lawless,’ ‘ unjust’ (comp. Soph. Gd. Col. 917); thence in later writers it passes over to the meaning of ‘an avenger ;’ comp. Suid. 5.ν. Ἴβυ- kos (ἴδε ai ᾿Ιβύκου ἔκδικοι), Wisdom xii. 12, Ecclus. xxx. 6. On the still later use in eccl. writers to denote ‘Defensores’ or ‘Syndics’ of the church, see Suicer, Z’hesaur. 5. v. Vol. I. p. 1045, Bingham, Antig. UT. 11. 5. On διότι, comp. note and reff. on ch, ii. 8. Rec. reads 6 Kup., but the arti- cle is rightly omitted by Lachm., Tisch., with ABD'®N; al. περὶ πάντων τούτων] ‘concerning, in the matter of, all these things,—not merely cases of ὑπερβασία and πλεονεξία (Alf.), but, as the comprehensive expression seems to require, all the sins of the flesh previously mentioned; see Chrys., Theoph., Gicum., who from the inclu- sive nature of their language seem to adopt the latter view. As illustrative
τοιγαροῦν ὁ 8
of the use. οὗ ἔκδικος with περί, comp. 1 Mace, xiii. 6, ἐκδικήσω περὶ τοῦ ἔθνους μου. καθὼς καὶ προείπ. κ-.τ.λ.] ‘as also we before told you and solemnly testified ; the first καὶ being compara- tive and associated with καθώς (see on ver. 5), the second simply copulative. The πρὸ appears merely to point toa time prior to the ἐκδίκησις taking place: comp. Gal. v. 21, and notes im loc. On the stronger and more emphatic διαμαρτύρ. (not simply = μαρτύρομαι, Olsh.), see notes on 1 Tim. v. 21, and on the form εἴπαμεν [Griesb. and Scholz here -ouey, with AKL; most mss. ; Chrys., Theod.], comp. Winer, Gir. § 15, p. 78. In the N.T. the rst aor. form seems to prevail in the 2nd _per- son (Matth. xxvi. 25, 64, Mark xii. 32, Luke xx. 39, John iv. 17), the 2nd aor. forms in the other persons, but in the latter instances, esp. in the case of the 3rd pers. plural, there is much difference of reading.
7. οὐ γάρ κ-ιτ.λ.] ‘For God called us not,’ confirmation of the preceding statement διότι ἔκδικος x.7.X., derived from the object contemplated in the κλῆσις. On the act of calling, scil. εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ βασιλείαν καὶ δόξαν (ch. li. 12), as specially attributed to God the Father, see notes on Gal. i. 6. ἐπὶ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ] ‘for uncleanness ;’ ob- ject or purpose for which they were (not) called, the primary meaning of the prep. (‘nearness or approxima- tion,’ Donalds. Crat. § 172) not being wholly obliterated; see Gal. v. 13; Kriiger, Sprachl. ὃ 68. 41. 7, Jelf, Gr. δ 634. 3, Winer, Gr. ὃ 48. c, p. 351, and exx. in Raphel, Annot, Vol. 11. p. 546. ἐν ἁγιασμῷ] ‘in sanctification ; not ‘in sanctificationem,’ Vulg., but ‘in sanc-
δ
ΠΡΟΣ OEZZAAONIKEIS A.
3 12 ἢ “Ὁ Rae “ἀθετῶν οὐκ ἄνθρωπον ἀθετεῖ ἀλλὰ τὸν Θεὸν τὸν καὶ
, ι ‘ “ 9 “ {0 9 e 1d δόντα τὸ Πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ τὸ ἅγιον εἰς ὑμᾶς. , "
tificatione,’ Clarom., Vulg. (Amiat.) ; ἐν being neither equivalent to εἰς (Pisc.), -nor yet used brachylogically, scil. ὥστε εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἐν (Winer, Gr. ὃ 50. 5, p. 370), but simply marking the sphere in which Christians were called to move; see notes on Gal. i. 6, on Eph. iv. 4, and compare Green, Gr. p. 292. On ἁγιασμός, see notes on ch. iii. 13: it here retains its active meaning.
8. τοιγαροῦν] ‘ Wherefore then ;’ logical conclusion from the preceding verse. The compound particle rovyap- οὖν (only found here and Heb, xii. 1) is not simply synonymous with τοι- ydpro (Hartung, Partik. s.v. τοί, 3. 5, Vol. 1. p. 354), but while differing from the simpler τοιγὰρ ‘hac de causa igitur’ (Klotz) in imparting a more syllogistic and ratiocinative character to the sentence, differs also from τοι- γάρτοι ‘qua propter sane’ in having not an affirmative (roi) but a collective and retrospective (οὖν) force; see ‘Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 738.
ὁ ἀθετῶν] ‘the despiser,’ “ the rejecter ;’ substantival use of the present parti- ciple ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 45. 7, p. 316, and Middleton, Gr. Art. p. 159. Any definite insertions after ἀθετῶν, 6. 9. Vulg. ‘haec,’ Arm, ὑμᾶς, Beza ‘hee, scil. preecepta,’ are wholly unneces- sary. It is clear that the commands recently given must form the objects of the ἀθέτησις ; these however the Apostle does not specify, his object being to call attention not so much to what is set at naught as to the person who sets at naught, and the personal risk that he incurs. On the verb ἀθετεῖν, used in the N. T. both with persons (Mark vi. 26, Luke x. 16, John xii. 48) and things (Mark vii. 9, Gal. iii. 15, al.), comp. notes on Gal. di. 21. οὐκ ἄνθρωπον K.T.A.]
“ γογοοέοί ἢ, not man but God,’ not one whom it might be thought in some degree excusable to despise,—but τὸν Θεόν. The antithesis οὐκ... ἀλλὰ is thus not to be explained away, ‘non tam hominem...... quam Deum,’ Est., but retained with its usual and proper force, ‘non hominem......sed deum,’ Vulg. ; see esp. Winer, Gr. § 55. 8, P- 439 sq-, and notes on Eph. vi. 12. On the exact difference between this formula (‘ubi prior notio tota tollitur, et in ejus locum posterior notio sub- stituitur’), od μόνον... ἀλλά, and οὐ μόνον ο. ἀλλὰ Kal, see Kithner on Xen, Mem. I. 6. 2, comp. also notes on ch. i. 8. The omission of the article before ἄνθρωπον, ‘a man,’ ‘ any man,’—with a latent reference to the Apostle, not to τὸν πλεονεκτηθέντα (Ecum.),—and its insertion [it is however omitted by D'FG] before Θεόν (almost ‘ipsum Deum’), though not capable of being conveyed in translation, must not be overlooked. τὸν kal δόντα] ‘who also gave;’ who in addition to having called us ἐν ἁγιασμῷ has also been pleased to furnish us with the blessed means of realizing it; comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Iv. 15, Vol. 11. p- 150. The only difficulty is the reading: καὶ is omitted by Lachm. with ABD*E; 10 mss.; Clarom., San- germ., Syr., Goth., al.; Athan., Did., Chrys., Theod. (ms.), Theoph., al.,— but, as the insertion is well supported [D'FGKLN; most mss.; Augiens., Boern., Vulg., Syr.-Phil., al.; Clem., Theod., Dam., Cicum.], and far less easy to be accounted for than the omission, we retain καὶ with Rec., Tisch., Alf., and the bulk of recent editors. It is much more difficult to decide between δόντα [Rec., Lachm. in marg., Tisch., with AK LN‘; most mss. ;
SV 6.
On brotherly love I need
say nothing. I beseech ‘you to be quiet, indus-
trious, and orderly.
appy: all Vv.; Clem., Chrys., Theod. ] and διδόντα [Lachm. text, with BDE FGRS!; τὸ mss.; Ath.,. Did.]. The
latter deserves great consideration as:
having such very strong uncial autho- rity, still as the Vv. appear all to favour the aorist, and as it also cer- tainly does seem probable that the correction might have arisen from a desire to represent that the gift of the Spirit was still going on (comp. Luke xi. 13), we retain δόντα.
τὸ IIv. αὐτοῦ τὸ ἅγιον] Not without great emphasis and solemnity (comp. Eph. iv. 30),—‘ His Holy Spirit,’ the blessed Spirit which proceeds from Him (see notes on Phil. i, 19), whose attribute is holiness, and whose office especially ‘ consists in the sanctifying of the servants of God,’ Pearson, Creed, Vol. 1. p. 387 (ed. Burt.). To dilute this distinct personal expression into ‘the gift of spiritual insight, &e.’ (Olsh.), is by no means satisfactory ; see notes on Gal. iv. 6.
els ὑμᾶς] ‘unto you; not merely equi- valent to a transmissive dative, nor yet with any idea of diffusion (Alf.,— see notes on ch. ii. 9), but, with the usual and proper meaning of local direction, ‘in vos,’ Clarom., Copt. (ekhret): they were the objects to whom that blessed gift was directed ; comp. Gal. iv. 6. The reading of Rec. ἡμᾶς has but weak external support [A ; some mss.; Augiens., Vulg., Syr.- Phil., Aith. (Pol., but not Piatt); Chrys., al.], and on internal grounds is not free from some suspicion.
9. Περὶ δέ κιτ.λ.1 ‘ Now concerning &c. ; transition by means of the δὲ μεταβατικὸν to afresh exhortation. On this force of δέ, see notes on Gal. iii. 8. τῆς φιλαδελφίας] ‘brotherly love,’ love to their fellow Christians; Rom. xii.
57
᾿ Περὶ δὲ τῆς φιλαδελφίας οὐ χρείαν 9
a , > ae ae 2 b aos e a ἔχετε γράφειν ὑμῖν: αὐτοὶ γὰρ ὑμεῖς,
10, Heb. xiii. 1, 1 Pet. i. 22, 2 Pet. i. 7, comp. 1 Pet. iii. 8. This love was to be no passive virtue, but, as verse Io suggests, was to display itself in acts of liberality and benevolence towards their poorer and suffering brethren: so Theod., though perhaps a little too definitely, φιλαδελφίαν ἐν- ταῦθα τὴν τῶν χρημάτων φιλοτιμίαν ἐκάλεσεν. It is unnecessary to exclude wholly a reference to a love εἰς πάντας (Theoph.): the Christian ἀδελφοὶ were the primary objects (comp. 2 Pet. i. 7, where φιλαδελφία is distinguished from, and precedes the general ἀγάπη), but the great brotherhood of mankind was still not to be forgotten ; comp. Gal. vi. το. οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε γράφειν ὑμῖν] ‘ye have no need that I write to you;’ rhetorical turn, technically termed ‘ preteritio,’ or παράλειψις, in which what might be said is partly suppressed, to conciliate a more loving acceptance of the implied command; κατὰ παράλειψιν δὲ τὴν παραίνεσιν τί- θησι, δύο ταῦτα κατασκευάζων" ὃν μὲν ὅτι οὕτως ἀναγκαῖον τὸ πρᾶγμα ὡς μηδὲ διδασκάλου δεῖσθαι" ἕτερον δὲ μᾶλλον αὐτοὺς ἐντρέπει, διεγείρων ἵνα μὴ δεύτε- ροι ἔλθωσι τῆς ὑπολήψεως ἣν ἔχει περὶ αὐτῶν, νομίζων αὐτοὺς ἤδη κατωρθωκέ- vat, Theoph. On this rhetorical form, see notes on Philem. 19, and Wilke, N. 1. Rhetorik, p. 365. The reading is doubtful: ZLachm. adopts ἔχομεν with D'FGN* [B; Vulg. (Amiat.)
give εἴχομεν]; 6 mss. ; Vulg., Clarom.,
Goth., Syr.-Phil.; Chrys., Theoph., but though the external authority for the first person is strong, yet the probability of a correction to obviate the difficulty of construction is very great. γράφειν] ‘that I write,’ The object-inf. has here practically the sense of a passive (comp. ch. vy. 1),
58
ΠΡΟΣ OEZZAAONIKEI® A.
10 θεοδίδακτοί ἐστε εἰς τὸ ἀγαπᾶν ἀλλήλους: καὶ γὰρ
a φ 4 be] , A 9 4 A 9 Φ ποιείτε αὐτὸ εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς τοὺς ev ὅλη
τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ. παρακαλοῦμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, περισ-
but differs from it in suggesting the supplement of some accusative,—‘that I or any one should write to you;’ see Winer, Gr. § 44. 8. note 1, p. 303, Jelf, Gr. § 667. obs. 3. To deny this on the ground that the context pre- cludes an indefinite reference, and practically limits the supplied accus. to the Apostle (Liinem.), seems dis- tinetly hypercritical. αὐτοὶ γὰρ ὑμεῖς} ‘for you yourselves,’ not ‘vos ipsi sponte,’ Schott, but ‘ yourselves,’ —in sharp contrast to the subject in- volved in the infinitive; comp. 1 John ii. 20. θεοδίδακτοι] “ taught of God,’—not in marked opposition to any other form of teaching (οὐ δεῖσθε, φησί, παρὰ ἀνθρώπου μαθεῖν, Chrys., comp. Olsh.), but with the principal emphasis on the fact of their being already taught, and with only a subor- dinate emphasis on the source of the teaching. Thechief moment of thought, as Liinem. well observes, rests on the second and not on the first half of the compound verbal θεοδίδακτοι. The form itself is a ἅπαξ λεγόμ. in the N.T.; comp. however John vi. 45, διδακτοὶ Θεοῦ, and add Barnab. LFpist. δ 21, γίνεσθε δὲ θεοδίδακτοι, ἐκζητοῦντες τί ζητεῖ Κύριος ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν.
εἰς τὸ ἀγαπᾶν ἀλλήλους] “ἐο love one another,’ “αὖ diligatis invicem,’ Vulg. ; practical tendency and purpose of the διδαχή, with perhaps an included re- ference to the purport and subject of it; see notes on ch. ii. 12.
10. καὶ γάρ κ-τ.λ.] ‘for indeed ye do it,’ confirmatory explanation of the preceding clause; γὰρ introducing the historical fact on which the confir- mation rested (οἶδα ἀφ᾽ ὧν ποιεῖτε, Theoph.), καὶ enhancing the ποιεῖτε,
“the θεοδίδακτοί. ἐστε.
and putting it in gentle contrast with Thus neither the καὶ nor the γὰρ (Syr., Aith.-Pol., —but not Syr.-Phil. and Aith.-Platt) is otiose: both fully retain their proper force (Copt., Goth., Arm.), their asso- ciation being due to the early position which γὰρ regularly assumes in the sentence; see notes and reff. on Phil. ii. 27, and comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 53. 8. Ὁ, Ῥ. 307. αὐτό] ‘it,’ scil. τὸ ἀγαπᾶν ἀλλήλους (Liinem., Alf.), not τὸ THs φιλαδελφίας (Koch),—a refer- ence needlessly remote.
els πάντας τοὺς ἀδελφ.] ‘toward all the brethren ;’ direction and destination of the action; not, observe, with any marked universality, εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους, but,—els πάντας τοὺς ἀδ. τοὺς ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Μακεδ., the last definition fairly justifying the remark of Liinem. (opp. to Baur, Paulus, p. 484) that there is no reason for assuming any longer period between the conversion of the Thessalonians and the time of writing the Epistle (13 or 2 years) than is assumed in the ordinary chro- nology. The arguments of Baur, ac- cording to which this beautiful and most genuine Ep. is to be considered as a ‘matte Nachbild’ of 1 Cor., have been recently reiterated in Zeller, Theol. Jahrb. for 1855, p. 151, but it is not too much to say that they lack even plausibility. The second and definitive τοὺς (Winer, Gr. ὃ 20. 1, p- 119) is omitted by Lachm. with AD'FG ; Chrys. (ms.), but appy. right- ly retained by Tisch. with BD?D3EK LN‘; all mss.; many Ff.: δὲ! reads a5. ὑμῶν ἐν ὅλ. παρακαλοῦμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς] ‘but we exhort you; con- tinuation of the implied command in
ἐν ΠΣ ΣΑΣ ὑγρᾶς ἃ Ἡ
59
4 S a“ , A PA μ σεύειν μᾶλλον καὶ φιλοτιμεῖσθαι ἡσυχάζειν καὶ πρᾶσ- II
σειν τὰ ἴδια καὶ ἐργάζεσθαι
ver. 9 in ἃ slightly antithetical form ; not only is the duty of φιλαδελφία tacitly and delicately inculcated, and an expansion of it in the form of general ἀγάπη (ver. 9) distinctly sug- gested, but further an increase in the same is set forth as the subject of direct hortatory entreaty. On the pres. infin. after παρακαλῶ, which is here rightly used as marking the con- tinuance and permanence of the act, see Winer, ΟὟ. ὃ 44. 7, p- 297, but observe that the use of the pres. inf. or aor. inf. after commands, é&c., depends much on the habit of the writer, and on the subjective aspects under which the command was contemplated ; comp. Bernhardy, Synt. X. 9, p. 383, and the good note and distinctions of Matzner on Antiphon, p. 153 sq.
περισσ, μᾶλλον] Comp. ver. 1, Phil. i. 9.
It. καί «.t.A.] ‘and &e.; exhor- tation in close grammatical though somewhat more lax logical connexion with what immediately precedes. The close union of these appy. different subjects of exhortation has been va- riously explained. On the whole it seems most natural to suppose that their liberality involved some elements of a restless, meddling, and practically idle spirit, that exposed them to the comments of of ἔξω. It is perhaps not wholly improbable that mistaken expectations in respect of the day of the Lord had led them into a neglect of their regular duties and occupations, and was marring a liberality of which the true essence was ἐργαζόμενοι éré- pos παρέχειν, Chrys. φιλοτιμεῖσθαι ἡσυχάζειν] ‘to make it your aim to be quiet,’ ‘et operam detis ut quieti sitis,’ Vulg. (sim. Clarom.), ‘biarbaidjan anaqal,’ Goth. It is some-
ταῖς χερσὶν ὑμῶν καθὼς
what doubtful whether (a) the primary meaning of φιλοτιμ. with infin., ‘glo- riz cupiditate accensus aliquid facere’ (compare Copt., Aith.-Pol.), or (Ὁ) the secondary meaning, ‘magno studio anniti,’ ‘operam dare’ (Vulg., Clarom., Syr., Goth., Arm.), is here to be adopt- ed. As both meanings rest on good lexical authority (comp. Xen. Mem. τι. 9. 3, with con. Iv. 24, in which latter passage φιλοτιμεῖσθαί τι is asso- ciated with μελετᾶν), the context will be our safest guide. Of the three passages in which it is used in the N.T., Rom. xv. 20, 2 Cor. v. 9, and here, the first alone seems to require (a); comp. Fritz. Rom. l.c. Vol. 11. p- 277, and even Meyer, on 2 Cor. l.c., who, while affecting to retain (a), translates in accordance with (0) ‘beei- fern wir uns u.s.w.’ In all perhaps some idea of τιμὴ may be recognised, but in 2 Cor. /.c. and here that mean- ing recedes into the background; see the numerous exx. in Wetst. Vol. 11. Ῥ. 94, 95, and Kypke, Obs. Vol. τι. p. 189. To consider φιλοτ. an inde- pendent inf. (Copt., Theoph. 1; comp. Theod., Calv.) seems to be very un- satisfactory. ἡσυχάζειν marks the sedate and tranquil spirit (comp. 1 Tim. ii. 2) which stands in contrast to the excited and unquiet bustle (περιεργάζεσθαι, 2 Thess. iii. 11) that often marks ill-defined or mistaken religious expectation ; see esp. 2 Thess. l. c. which forms an instructive parallel to the present exhortations.
πράσσειν τὰ ἴδια] ‘to do your own business,’ ‘to confine yourselves to the sphere of your own proper duties.’ The correct formula according to Phryni- chus is τὰ ἐμαυτοῦ... πράττειν, or τὰ ἴδια ἐμαυτοῦ. ..πράττειν ; see exx. col-
lected by Lobeck, p. 441, and Kypke,
00
ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙ͂Σ A.
j ᾿ aa 4 . 4 12 ὑμῖν παρηγγείλαμεν, ἵνα περιπατῆτε εὐσχημόνως πρὸς
aE, 4 ‘ , ” Tovs ἔξω και μηδενὸς χβειᾶαν εχῆτε.
Do not grieve for those
13 Οὐ θέλομεν δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελ- that sleep. We shall
not anticipate them, but
at the last trump they will be raised, and we translated.
Obs. Vol. τι. p. 338. The form ἰδιο- πραγεῖν occurs in Polyb. Hist. vu. 28. 9, and later writers. ἐργάΐζ. rats χερσὶν ὑμῶν] ‘to work with our hands,’ i.e. ‘follow your earthly callings,’ which, as the words imply, were those of handicraftsmen and ar- tificers; ‘ad populum scribit, in quo plurimorum est ea que manibus fiunt opera exercere,’ Est. The numbers en- gaged in mercantile and industrial call- ings at Thessalonica are alluded to by Tafel, Hist. Thessal. p.g. The insert- ed ἰδίαις [Rec. with AD?KLN!; most mss. ; Theod., Dam.] after ταῖς is rightly struck out by Lachm., Tisch., and most modern editors, on the preponderant authority of BD! E(?)FGN*; 10 mss.; appy. all Vv.; Bas., Chrys., Theoph., and Latin Ff. καθὼς ὑμῖν παρηγγ.] ‘according as we commanded you,’ scil. when personally present with you; with reference not merely to the last, but to all the preceding clauses. The very first publication of Chris- tianity in Thessalonica seems to have been attended with some manifesta- tions of restlessness and feverish ex- pectation.
12. ἵνα περιπατ. εὐσχημόνως] ‘in order that ye may walk seemly,’ Rom. xiii. 13, ef. 1 Cor. xiv. 40; purpose of the foregoing παράκλησις, the present member referring mainly to ἡσυχάζειν kal πράσσειν τὰ ἴδια, the following to ἐργάζ. ταῖς χερσὶν ὑμῶν. The adverb εὐσχημ. (associated with κατὰ τάξιν 1 Cor. /.c.) stands in partial contrast to ἀτάκτως, 2 Thess, iii. 6 (Liinem.) ; the general idea however of that decent gravity and seemly deportment (εὐλα- βῶς" σεμνῶς, Zonar. s.v.), which should
ever be the characteristic of the true Christian, ought not to be excluded. On the use of περιπατεῖν as commonly implying the ‘agendi vivendique ra- tionem quam quis continentur et ex animo sequitur,’ see Winer, Comment. on Eph. iv. 1, p. 5. (cited by Koch), Fritz. Rom. xiii. 13, Vol. m1. p. 140 sq., Suicer, Z'hesaur. s.v. Vol. τι. p. 679, and comp. notes on Phil. iii. 18. πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω] ‘ toward them that are without ; πρὸς pointing to the social relation in which they were to stand, or the general demeanour they were to assume, toward those who were not Christians. On this use of πρός, in which the primary meaning of ethical direction is still apparent, see reff. in notes on Col. iv. 5, where the Same expression occurs. Οἱ ἔξω is the regular designation of those who were not Christians; see 1 Cor. v. 12, 13, Col. ἐ. c., and notes on 1 Tim. iii. 7. μηδενὸς χρείαν ey.] ‘have necd of no man,’ the contrast being ἐπαιτεῖν καὶ ἑτέρων δεῖσθαι, Chrys., comp. Theod. It is somewhat doubtful whether μη- devds is here to be regarded as masc. with Syr., Vulg. (appy.), Aath., and the Greek commentators, or neuter with Copt. (appy.; Goth., Clarom. uncer- tain) and several modern commenta- tors. On the whole the masc. seems most in accordance with the context; they were not by the neglect of their proper occupations to live depend- ent upon others, whether heathens or more probably fellow-Christians ; comp. Chrys., Theod. The argument of Liinem. repeated by Alf., that ‘to stand in need of no man is for man an impossibility,’ is not of much weight,
IV. 12, 13. 61
Pe ἣν a ; ᾿ ow ee Pi Ang Se, eT Hol, περὶ τῶν κοιμωμένων, ἵνα μὴ λυπῆσθε καθὼς καὶ οἱ
13. κοιμωμένων] So Lachm., Tisch. ed. 2, with ABN!; τὸ mss. In ed. 7 however Tisch. has returned to the reading of Rec. κεκοιμημένων, which has the support of DE(FG κεκοιμηνωνὴκΤ, ; most mss. C is deficient. As the present part. is not used elsewhere in this sense it is certainly to be retained here.
λυπῆσθε] So Lachm. (text), Tisch. ed. 2, with BD?EKN; most mss.; many ἘΝ: here also Zisch. ed. 7, has departed from his former reading, and with Lachm. in marg. reads λυπεῖσθε, on the authority of AD'D?FGL; many mss. The weight of evidence is hardly sufticient to justify us in adopting here the
harsh and unusual construction.
as the general statement will naturally receive its proper limitations from the context.
13. Οὐ θέλομεν κιτ.λ.] ‘Now we would not have you to be ignorant.’ transition by means of the δὲ μεταβα- τικόν (Hartung, Partik. Vol. τ. p. 165, notes on Gal. iii. 8), and the impressive οὐ θέλομεν ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν (Rom. i. 13, xi. 25, 1 Cor. x. 1, xii. 1, 2 Cor. i. 8) to a new and important subject, the state of the departed. Most modern expositors seem rightly to coincide in the opinion that in the infant Church of Thessalonica there had prevailed, appy. from the very first, a feverish anxiety about the state of those who had departed, and about the time and circumstances of the Lord’s coming. They seem especially to have feared that those of their brethren who had fallen on sleep before the expected advent of the Lord would not partici- pate in its blessings and glories (ver. 15). Thus their apprehensions did not so much relate to the resurrection generally (Chrys., Theod., Theoph.), as to the share which the departed were to have in the παρουσία τοῦ Κυ- plov; see Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. τι. 2, p- 596, comp. Wieseler, Chronol. Ῥ. 249. The reading θέλομεν has the support of all MSS.; nearly all mss.; all Vv. except Copt., Syr. (both), and most Ff., and is rightly adopted by Lachm., Tisch., and all
modern editors; Rec. gives θέλω.
περὶ τῶν κοιμωμένων] ‘concerning those that are sleeping; ὦ. 6. those that are dead, according to the significant expression found not only in Scripture (1 Kings ii. to, John xi. 11, Acts vii. 60, 1 Cor. xi. 30, al.) but in Pagan writers (Callim. Fragm. X. 1), yet here, as the following verses clearly show, to be specially restricted to the Chris- tian dead ; comp. οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ, ver. 16, and see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 1. p. 121. All special doctrinal deductions however from this general term (Weizel, Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 916 sq., comp. Reuss, T'héol. Chrét. IV. 21, Vol. τι. p.239) must be regarded as extremely precarious, especially those that favour the idea of a Wuxo- mavvuxia in the intermediate state; see esp. Bull, Serm. 11. p. 41 (Oxf. 1844), Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. vi. 4, Ρ. 360 sq., Zeller, Theol. Jahrb. for 1847, p. 390—409, and a long and careful article by West, Stud. u. Krit. for 1858, esp. p. 278, 290; comp. also Burnet, State of Departed, ch. 111. p. 49 sq. (Transl.), and notes on Phil. i. 23. Death is rightly called sleep as involving the ideas of continued exist- ence (Chrys.), repose, and ἐγρήγορσις (Theod.); comp. Theoph. on John xi. 11, and the eloquent sermon of Man- ning, Serm. xxI. Vol. I. p. 308 sq. ἵνα μὴ λυπῆσθε] ‘ that ye sorrow not:’ purpose and object of the οὐ θέλομεν
62
14 λοίποὶ οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες ἐλπίδα.
ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙΣ A.
4 Φ εἰ γὰρ πιστεύομεν ὅτι
*T my Ὁ τὰ at OY cf A 2 ra) ‘ A ησοὺυς ἀπέθανεν και AVETTH, ουτῶς καί O εος τοὺς ΚΟι-
ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν. The λύπη in this parti- cular case was called out not merely by the feeling of having lost their de- parted brethren, but by anxiety in re- gard to their participation in Christ’s advent, καθὼς καὶ of λοιποί] ‘even as the rest also,’ scil. λυποῦνται. The καθὼς [for which D'FGN* here give ds] does not introduce any com- parison between the sorrow of Chris- tians and that of of λοιποί, as if a cer- tain amount of sorrow was permissible (οὐ παντελῶς κωλύει Thy λύπην ἀλλὰ τὴν ἀμετρίαν ἐκβάλλει, Theod.), but simply contrasts with Christians those in whom λύπη might naturally find a place, of uh ἔχοντες ἐλπίδα. Christians, as the antithesis implies, were not to mourn δύ all; σὺ δὲ ὁ προσδοκῶν dvd- στασιν τίνος ἕνεκεν ὀδύρῃ; Chrys. The οἱ λοιποὶ (Eph. ii. 3) obviously includes all, whether sceptical Jews or unen- lightened heathen (Chrys.), who had no sure hope in any future resurrec- tion. On the use of καὶ with adverbs of comparison, see notes on Eph. v. 23. οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες ἐλπίδα] ‘who have no hope,’ who form a class (μή) that is so characterized ; comp. notes on ver. 5, and Winer, Gr. ὃ 55.5, p. 428 sq., but observe also that the comparative member is in a dependent clause under the vinculum of the wa. The hope here alluded to is obviously in reference to the Resurrection; τίνος ἐλπίδα; ἀναστάσεως" οἱ yap μὴ ἔχοντες ἐλπίδα ἀναστάσεως οὗτοι ὀφείλουσι πεν- θεῖν, Theoph. The true hopelessness of the old heathen world finds its sad- dest expression in Asch. Lumen. 648, ἅπαξ θανόντος οὔτις ἔστ᾽ ἀνάστασις ; see fuller details in Liinem. and Jowett, and in answer to the quotation of the latter from the O.T., the pertinent remarks of Alford in loc.
14. εἰ γὰρ πιστεύομεν] ‘For if we belveve ;? reason for the purpose ex- pressed in the preceding verse, ἵνα μὴ λυπῆσθε κιτ.λ., based on the funda- mental truth that as Christ the Head died and rose again, even so shall all the members of His body ; comp. Pear- son, Creed, Art. xi. Vol. I. p. 450 (ed. Burt.), Jackson, Creed, x1. 16. 8 sq. The εἰ here obviously involves no ele- ment of doubt, but is simply logical (‘ed particulaest plane logica,’ Herm. Viger, No. 312)and virtually assertory ; comp. Phil. i. 22, and notes on Col. iii. 1. ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἀνέστη] ‘died and rose again ; the two foundations of Chris- tian faith united in one enunciation; comp. Rom. xiv. 9 (not Rec.). It is noticeable that the Apostle here as always uses the direct term ἀπέθανεν in reference to our Lord, to obviate all possible misconception: in reference to the faithful he appropriately uses the consolatory term κοιμᾶσθαι; see esp. Theod. in loc. οὕτως κ.τ.λ.] ‘so also shall God;’ slightly inexact apodosis: the rigidly correct sequel would be οὕτως καὶ πιστεύειν δεῖ ὅτι κιτ. ὰ. (Liinem., Jowett), or some similar formula. The οὕτως is not pleonastic (Olsh.), but, as Liinem. correctly observes, marks the com- plete accordance of the lot of Chris- tians with that voluntarily assumed by their Lord, while the καὶ serves to enhance and to give force to the com- parison; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 60. 5, p. 478, and on this use of καὶ after relative or demonstrative particles, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 636. κοιμηθέντας διὰ τοῦ "Ino.] ‘those laid to sleep through Jesus ;’ certainly not equiv. to ἐν “Inc. (Auth., Jowett), but, with the usual and proper force of the prep., those who through His media-
τοὺς
τς whe ΕΣ ᾿Ξ jake? iz. Wee rate, ΠΣ ba, C&G. «1.
IV. 14, 15.
. ἢ ᾿ . a Φ ΄“΄ Ὁ 4 7 A μηθέντας διὰ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἄξει σὺν αὐτῷ.
09
aA a TOUTO yap J 5
ὑμῖν λέγομεν ev λόγῳ Κυρίου, ὅτι ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ
‘
tion are now rightly accounted as ‘sleeping.’ It must remain to the last an open question whether διὰ τοῦ Ἴησ. is to be connected (a) with the finite verb ἄξει, or (Ὁ) with the participle. Chrysostom and the Greek commenta- tors (silet Theod.) admit both, but prefer the latter; modern writers mainly adopt the former. There is confessedly a difficulty in (6) which the exx. adduced by Alf. scarcely tend to diminish; for the meaning 77 πίστει τοῦ Ἰησοῦ κοιμηθ. (Chrys.), or the more exact meaning advocated above, is but in lax parallelism with εἰρήνην ἔχειν δι’ αὐτοῦ (Rom. v. 1), καυχᾶσθαι δί αὐτοῦ (Rom. v. 11), al. Still the arguments against (a)—viz. (1) that thus ἄξει would have two participial members, (2) that the na- tural emphasis would then suggest the order διὰ τοῦ Ἴησ. τοὺς κοιμηθ., (3) that the sentence would thus be harsh (De W.) and awkward in the extreme—seem so unanswerable, that with the earlier interpreters, -Aith., and appy. (as the rigid preservation of the order seems to hint) the remaining Vv., we adopt the more simple and logical connexion κοιμηθέντας διὰ τοῦ Ἴησ. The two contrasted subjects Ἰησοῦς and κοιμηθέντας διὰ τοῦ ’inood thus stand in clear and illustrative antithesis, and the fundamental decla- ration of the sentence ἄξει σὺν αὐτῷ remains distinct and prominent, undi- luted by any addititious clause.
ἄξει σὺν aita] ‘bring with Him.’
The more natural word would have been ἐγερεῖ (comp. 2 Cor. iv. 14), but the Apostle probably uses the more significant de to mark that blessed association of departed Christians with their Lord at His παρουσία, in which the Thessalonians feared their sleeping
brethren would have no part; see above on ver. 13.
15. τοῦτο K.T-A.] ‘For this we say to you;’ confirmation, not (by an ‘ztiologia duplex’) of the foregoing wa μὴ λυπῆσθε (Koch), but of the words immediately preceding. The relation of the faithful living to the faithful dead is explained, first nega- tively in this verse, then positively in ver. 16, 17. ἐν λόγῳ Κυρίου] ‘in the word of the Lord,’ in coinci- dence with a declaration received di- rectly from Him, ‘quasi Eo ipso lo- quente,’ Beza. The prep. is here neither equivalent to xara (Zanch.) nor to διά (Auth., comp. De W.), but has appy. its usual and prevalent meaning ‘in the sphere of:’ the decla- ration was couched in the language of the Lord Himself, and gained all its force from coincidence with His words; see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 345, who however by comparing 1 Cor. ii. 7, λαλοῦμεν... ἐν μυστηρίῳ, τ Cor. xiv. 6, λαλήσω...ἐν ἀποκαλύψει, gives ἐν more of a reference to the form or nature of the revelation than seems fully in The meaning is simply ‘edico Domini man- datu,’ Fritz. Rom. Vol. II. p. 34; so LXX for M14? 1372 1 Kings xx. 35. This revelation is certainly not to be referred to Matth. xxiv. 31 (Schott 1, comp. Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2. B, p. 325) nor to any traditional ‘effatum Christi’ (Schott 2, and appy. Jowett), but was directly received by the Apostle from the Lord himself ; ἀλλὰ παρὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ μαθόντες λέγο- μεν, Chrys.; see Gal. i. 12 and notes, ii. 2, Eph. iii. 3, and comp. 2 Cor. xii. 1. With these passages before us can we say with Jowett that ‘St Paul no- where speaks of any special truths or
accordance with the context.
οὐκ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν
64 ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΆΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ A.
wT on a eae™ ἃ ja. ee K a? γε περιλειπόμενοι εἰς τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ Kupiov οὐ μὴ
ὲ ‘ ’ 16 φθάσωμεν τοὺς κοιμηθέντας, ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος ἐν
doctrines as imparted to himself’? The language of Usteri, /.c. is equally unsatisfactory ; not so that of De W. in loe. ἡμεῖς K.T.A.] Swe the living who are remaining.’ The deduction from these words that St Paul ‘himself expected to be alive,’ Alf., with Jowett, Liinem., Koch, and the majority of German commentators, must fairly be pronounced more than doubtful. Without giving any undue latitude to ἡμεῖς (οὐ περὶ ἑαυτοῦ φησίν «ἀλλὰ τοὺς πιστοὺς λέγει, Chrys.), to ζῶντες (ζῶντας τὰς ψυχὰς κοιμηθέντας δὲ τὰ σώματα λέγει, Method. de Resurr. ap. Αὔἴουμ.), or to περιλειπόμενοι (‘tempus presens loco futuri more Hebraico usurpat,’ Calv., ‘superstites,’ Bretsch.), it seems just and correct to say that περιλειπόμενοι is simply and purely present, and that St Paul is to be understood as classing himself with ‘those who are being left on earth’ (comp. Acts ii. 47), without being conceived to imply that he had any precise or definite expectations as to his own case. At the time of writing these words he was one of the ζῶντες and περιλειπόμενοι, and as such he distinguishes himself and them from the κοιμηθέντες, and naturally identi- fies himself with the class to which he then belonged. It does not seem improper to admit that in their ignorance of the day of the Lord (Mark xiii. 32) the Apostles might have imagined that He who was coming would come speedily, but it does seem overhasty to ascribe to inspired men definite expectations proved since to be unfounded, when the context calm- ly weighed and accurately interpreted supplies no certain elements for such extreme deductions; see notes on 1 Tim. vi. 14, and comp. the long
note of Wordsw. on ver. 17. On the verb περιλείπεσθαι, see note on ver. 17 (Transl.). οὐ μὴ φθάσωμεν] ‘shall not prevent,’ Auth. i.e. shall not arrive into the presence of the Lord, and share the blessings and glories of His advent, before others. The verb φθάνειν (Hesych. προήκειν, προλαμβά- νεινὺὴ has here its regular meaning of ‘preevenire,’ involving the idea of a priority in respect of time, and thence derivatively of privilege; οὕτω, φησίν, ὀξέως καὶ ταχέως καὶ ἐν ἀκαρεῖ ol rere- λευτηκότες ἅπαντες ἀναστήσονται, ὡς τοὺς ἔτι κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρὸν περι- όντας προλαβεῖν, καὶ προαπαντῆσαι τῷ σωτῆρι τῶν ὅλων, Theod. On the strengthened negation οὐ μὴ with the aor. subj., see Winer, Gr. ὃ 56.3, p- 450; and observe that the usually recog- nised distinction between these par- ticles with the fut. and with the aor. (Hermann on Soph. Gd. Col. 853) must not be pressed in the N.T. (opp. to Koch), the prevalence of οὐ μὴ with the subj. being much too decided to justity a rigorous application of the rule; see notes on Gal. iv. 30.
16. ὅτι] ‘because,’ 9 dso [prop- δι nm
terea quod] Syr., ‘quia,’ Clarom., ‘quoniam,’ Vulg., ‘unte,’ Goth., sim. ἄπ. (Platt,—Pol. omits), Arm. ; rea- son for the declaration immediately pre- ceding, derived from the circumstances of detail. To regard ὅτι as ‘that’ (Koch), and as dependent on the pre- ceding τοῦτο ὑμῖν λέγομεν (ver. 15), mars the logical evolution of the pas- sage, and is opposed to the opinion of the Greek expositors (γάρ, Theod., Theoph.) and, as is shown above, of the best ancient Versions.
αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος] ‘the Lord Himself ;’ obviously not ‘He the Lord’ (De W.),
—_ Ὑν
IVE 0 Ὁ ΤΣ δ
» . ὡς ‘ 9 , : a κελεύσματι ἐν φωνῆ ἀρχαγγέλου καὶ ἐν σάλπιγγι Θεοῦ
nor yet ‘Himself’ with ref. to His glorified body (Olsh.), but simply with ref. to His own august personal pre- sence, αὐτὸς yap πρῶτος τῶν ὅλων ὁ Κύριος ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν ἐπιφανήσεται κατιών, Theod. ἐν κελεύσματι] ‘with a shout of command,’ ‘in jussu,’ Vulg., Clarom., Goth., sim. Copt. [ouah-sahni], Syr., Arm. The word κέλευσμα (sometimes, though question- ably, κέλευμα, Lobeck on Soph. Ajax, 704, p. 323), ἃ dm. λεγόμ. in the N. T., occurs frequently in classical Greek as denoting the command or signal given by a general (admiral, or captain of rowers, Thucyd. 11. 92), the encouraging shout of the charioteer (Plato, Phedr. p. 253 D) or the hunts- man (Xen. Cyneget. VI. 20), or more technically the cry of the κελεύστης to the rowers (Eurip. Zph. 7. 1405), but in most cases has some ref. more or less distinct to the prevailing meaning of the verb: comp. Prov. xxx. 27 [xxiv. 62], στρατεύει ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς κελεύσματος εὐ- τάκτως, and Philo, de Prem. § 109, Vol. I. p. 427 (ed. Mang.), ἀνθρώπους «««ἀπωκισμένους ῥᾳδίως ἂν ἑνὶ κελεύ- σματι συναγάγοι Θεός. To whom the κέλευσμα is to be referred is some- what doubtful. The Greek expositors (Chrys.?) seem to refer it directly to Christ ; it appears however more plau- sible to refer it immediately to the ἀρχάγγελος as Christ’s minister, and to regard it as a general expression of what is afterwards more distinctly specified by the substantives which follow. The purport of the κέλευσμα it is idle to guess at: if may perhaps be ἐγείρεσθε, ἦλθεν ὁ νυμφίος (Chrys. 1), or more naturally, ἀναστῶσιν οἱ νεκροί (Chrys. 2, Theod.), or perhaps, still more probably, with a strict preserva- tion of the current use of the word, the shout of command of the Arch-
angel to the attendant angelical hosts, ἑτοίμους ποιεῖτε πάντας, πάρεστι γὰρ ὁ κριτής, Chrys. 3; comp. Matth. xiii. 41. On the use of ἐν to denote the concomitant circumstances (Arm. uses its ‘instrumental’ case), see notes on Col. ii. 7, and comp. Eph. v. 26, é&c. Though, with the Aramaic £& before us, it is not always desirable to over- press ἐν, yet in the present case it may be used as serving to hint at the κατάβασις taking place during the κέλευσμα, in the sphere of its occur- rence; comp. notes on ch. ii. 3.
ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου] “ with the voice of the Archangel ;’ more specific ex- planation of the circumstances and concomitants. To refer dpxyayy. to Christ (Olsh.) or the Holy Spirit (see in Wolf) is obviously wrong: the term is a δὶς λεγόμ. (here and Jude 9) in the N.T., and designates a leader of the angelical hosts by whom the Lord shall be attended on His second com- ing; compare Matth. xxiv. 31, xxv. 31, 2 Thess. i. 7. With regard to the oblique references of some of the German commentators to the ‘jiidis- cher nachexilischer Vorstellung’ (Liin. comp. Winer, RWB. Vol. IL. p. 329, ed. 3), it seems enough to say that the Apostle elsewhere distinctly alludes to separate orders of angels (see notes and reff. on Eph. i. 21, Col. i. 16), and that he here as distinctly speaks of a leader of such heavenly Beings: to inquire further is idle and presump- tuous. σάλπιγγι Θεοῦ] ‘the trumpet of God ;" not ‘tuba Dei, adeo- que magna,’ Beng.,—such a form of Hebraistic superl. not occurring in the N.T., but simply ‘the trumpet per- taining to God’ (gen. possess.), the
trumpet used in His service; comp.
Rev. xv. 2, and see Winer, Gr. ὃ 36. 3, p. 221. The Greek expositors ap-
¥
ι᾿
66
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ A.
’ 9 9 ᾽ a“ A e ᾿ 2 a ? καταβήσεται aT ovpavou, και Ob VeKPOt εν Χριστῷ ava-
17 στήσονται πρῶτον, ἔπειτα ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλει-
ie oe A 9 “- ς , 9. “ TOMEVOL AULA συν AVTOLS αἀρπαγησόμεθα εν νεφέλαις εἰς
propriately allude. to the use of the trumpet when God appeared on Sinai, Exod. xix. 16; comp. also Psalm xIvii. 5, Isaiah xxvii. 13, Zech. ix. 14. With the Jewish use of the trumpet to call assemblies (Numbers x. 2, xxxi. 6, Joel ii. 1) we have here nothing to do, still less with the spe- culations of later Judaism as to God’s use of a trumpet to awaken the dead (Eisenmenger, Enid. Jud. Vol. τι. p. 929; adduced by Liinem.): the Apo- stle twice in one verse definitely states that the trumpet will sound at Christ’s advent (1 Cor. xv. 52), and it infallibly will be so.
dm’ οὐρανοῦ] ‘ from heaven,’— where He now sits enthroned at the right hand of God; see esp. Acts i. 11. καὶ οἱ νεκροί K.1.A.] ‘and the dead in Christ, &c.; consequence and sequel of ἐν κελεύσματι---καταβήσεται, the καὶ having here a slightly consecutive force ; comp. notes on Phil. iv. 12. The words ἐν Χριστῷ are clearly to be joined with vexpol, as more specifically designating those about whose share in the παρουσία the Thessalonian con- verts were disquieted : the general re- surrection of all men does not here come into consideration; see Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, p. 123. Comp. West, Stud. u. Krit. for 1858, p. 283, and on the omission of the art., notes on Eph. i. 15, and Fritz. Rom. iii. 25, Vol. I. p. 195. The connexion with ἀναστήσονται (Schott) would indirectly assign an undue emphasis to ἐν Xp. (Liin.), and introduce a specification out of harmony with the context: the subject of the passage is not the means by which (2 Cor. iv. 14) or element in which the resurrection
is to take place, but the respective shares of the holy dead and holy liv- ing in the παρουσία of the Lord, con- sidered in relation to time.
πρῶτον] ‘ first;’ not with any re- ference to the πρώτη ἀνάστασις, Rev. xx. 5 (Theod., Theoph., Gicum., al.), but, as the following ἔπειτα sug- gests, only to the fact that the resur- rection of the dead in Christ shall be prior to the assumption of the living. The reading πρῶτοι is found in D'FG; Vulg., Clarom.; Cyr., Theod. (1), al., and was perhaps suggested by the supposed dogmatical ref. to the first resurrection,
17. ἔπειτα] ‘ then,’—immediately after the ἀνάστασις of of ἐν Χριστῷ; second act in the mighty drama. The particle ἔπειτα, as its derivation [ἐπ᾽ εἶτα, Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 302] and the following dua (see below) both seem to suggest, marks the second event as speedily following on the first, and, like ‘deinde’ (‘de rebus in temporis tractu continuis et proximis,’ Hand, Tursell. Vol. 11. p. 240), speci- fies not only the continuity but the proximity of the two events; comp. Erfurdt, Soph. Antig. 607. ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες of περιλειπ.} ‘we the living who are remaining,’ ‘we who are being left behind;’ see notes on ver. 15. ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς] ‘at the same time together with them,’ ‘simul... cum illis,’ Vulg., Copt. [ewson]; ὁ. 6. we shall be caught up with them at the same time that they shall be caught up, dua appy. not marking the mere local coherence, ‘all to- gether,’ Alf., but, as usual, connexion in point of time (‘res duas vel plures una vel simul aut esse aut fieri signi-
TV ay.
67
. , - ’ 3 “» RS, , , ‘4 απαντῆσιν του Κυρίου εις aepa* Kal OUTWS TWAVTOTE συν
ficat,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 95): comp. Ammon. s.v., dua μέν ἐστι
χρονικὸν ἐπίῤῥημα, ὁμοῦ δὲ τοπικόν,
and Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 156, who how- ever remarks that in Rom. iii. 12 (from the LXX) this distinction is not main- tained. See notes on ch. v. 10. ἁρπαγησόμεθα ἐν νεφέλαις] ‘shall be caught up in clouds; certainly not ‘in nubes,’ Beza, nor even ‘auf Wolken,’ DeW., Liin., but, ‘in nubibus,’ Vulg., Clarom., ὁ. 6. ‘tanquam in curru trium- phali,’ Grot.—the clouds forming the element with which they would be surrounded, and in which they would be borne up to meet their coming Lord: ἐπὶ (?) τοῦ ὀχήματος φερόμεθα τοῦ Ilarpés, καὶ γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐν νεφέλαις ὑπέλαβεν αὐτόν [Acts i. 9], καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν νεφέλαις ἁρπαγησόμεθα, Chrys. The transformation specified in 1 Cor. xv. 52, 53 (‘ compendium mortis per de- mutationem expuncte,’ Tertull. de Resurr. ch. 48, compare Delitzsch, Psychol, Vit. 5, p. 368 sq.), will neces- sarily first take place (comp. Pearson, Creed, Vol. τ. p. 357), upon which the glorified and luciform body will be caught up in the enveloping and up- On the nature of the resurrection body, compare Burnet, State of Dep. ch. vil. vii1., and the curious and learned investigations of Cudworth, Jntellect. Syst. ch. v. 3, Vol. III. p. 310 sq. (ed. Harrison).
The forms ἡρπάγην and ἁρπαγήσομαι appear to be later forms (Thom.-Mag. Ῥ. 412); but the ‘librariorum arbi- trium’ often leaves it uncertain whe- ther the first or second aor. was the original reading ; comp. Pierson, Mer. Ῥ. 168 (ed. Koch),
εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ Kup.] ‘to meet the Lord,’ as He is coming down to earth ; kal yap βασιλέως eis πόλιν εἰσελαύνον- Tos οἱ μὲν ἔντιμοι πρὸς ἀπάντησιν ἐξία-
bearing clouds.
ow, of δὲ κατάδικοι ἔνδον μένουσι τὸν κριτήν, Chrys. The expression εἰς ἀπάντησιν (Matth. xxv.1 [BCS ὑπάντ.], 6, Acts xxviii. 15) seems to have been derived from the LX X, where it com- monly answers to the Hebrew MN p2; as 1 Sam. ix. 14, al. It may be associated either as here with a de- fining gen., or with a dative (Acts xxviii. 15), the verbal subst. preserv- ing in the latter case the government of the verb from which it is derived ; see Bernhardy, Synt. UI. 10, comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 31. 3, p. 189. Some au- thorities [D'(E'?)FG] read εἰς ὑπάν- τησιν and the same [with the addition of Vulg. (not Amiat.), Clarom.; Tert., Jer., Hil.] give τῷ Χριστῷ, but with every appearance of correction in both cases. εἰς ἀέρα] ‘into the air,’ ‘in aera,’ Vulg., Clarom., ‘in luftan,’ Goth., and sim. the other Vv. except Nth. (Pol.), ‘in nube; de- pendent on dprayno. His ἀέρα is certainly not ‘in ceelum’ (Flatt), but, as the regular meaning of the word requires, ‘into the air,’—though per- haps not necessarily (comp. Wordsw.) with any precise limitation to the ter- rene atmosphere. The ἀήρ, as De W. well observes, marks the way to hea- ven, and includes the interspace be- tween earth and heaven, with greater or less latitude according to the con- text; see notes on Eph. ii. 2. To question whether the air is here re- presented as the final realm of the faithful (Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2. B, p. 338, 441) is surely monstrous: the Apostle makes here a pause, simply because his design of clearing up the anxieties which his converts entertain is accom- plished when he declares that the holy quick and holy dead shall be caught up into the air s¢multaneously to meet the Lord. The great events imme-
F2
68
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙ͂Σ A.
“ - ie ‘ “ 18 Κυρίῳ ἐσόμεθα. ὥστε παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους ἐν τοῖς
λόγοις τούτοις.
ὮἋΣ
“- ς , ° ’ 4 δ. ψ; , ρῶν, ἀδελφοί, οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε ὑμῖν ypd- 2 φεσθαι' αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἀκριβῶς οἴδατε ὅτι
diately following Christ’s descent to judgment (see Jackson, Creed, XI. 12. I, 2) and His final and eternal union with His Saints in the heavenly Jerusa- lem (Rev. xxi. xxii.) are to be collect- ed from other passages (see Alf. in loc.). καὶ οὕτως κιτ.λ.} ‘and so shall we be ever together with the Lord; so, in consequence of this ἁρπάζεσθαι,--- ἘΠ 6 subject of the ἐσόμεθα (Hesych. βιώ- gouev) being clearly both classes pre- viously mentioned. The force of the σύν, as implying not merely an accom- panying (μετά) but a coherence with, should not be left unnoticed ; see notes on Eph. vi. 23.
18. ὥστε] ‘So then,’ ‘Consequently ;" in consequence of the foregoing reve- lation. On the force of ὥστε and its connexion with the imperative mood, see notes on Phil. ii. 12. παρακαλεῖτε] ‘console ;’ not here ‘exhort,’ ‘teach,’ th. (both), but, in accordance with the preceding ἵνα μὴ λυπῆσθε (ver.13), ‘consolamini,’ Vulg.,
Clarom., Goth., ἘΞ RA Syr., and =: .¥
similarly the remaining ν.: see notes on ch. v. 11, and on Eph. iv. 1.
ἐν τοῖς λόγοις τούτοις] ‘with these words ;’ not ‘words of faith’ (Olsh.), but simply ‘these words’ (τούτοις not without emphasis),—the words in which the Apostle here delivers to them his inspired message; τοῦτο δὲ ὃ λέγει νῦν καὶ ῥητῶς ἤκουσε παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, Chrys. on ver. 15. The ἐν is here used in that species of instrumental sense in which the action, d&c., of the verb is conceived as existing in the means;
A A A , 4 “A Περὶ δὲ των χβονῶν καὶ τῶν Και-
Ye know that the da
of the Lord cometh sud- denly. Be watchful and prepared, for God has appointed us not for wrath, but for salvation.
‘solent Greeci pro Latinorum ablativo instrumenti seepe ἐν preepositionem po- nere, significaturi in e& re cujus nomini prepositio adjuncta est vim aut facul- tatem alicujus rei agende sitam esse,’ Wunder, Soph. Philoct. 60, see exx. in Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 549. Thus in the present case the παράκλησις may be conceived as contained in the divinely inspired words themselves ; comp. Jelf, Gr. § 622. 3 b.
Carter V. 1. Περὶ δέ κ.τ.λ.]
‘ But concerning the times and the seasons,’ scil. of the Lord’s coming, τῆς συντελείας, Theoph. The terms χρόνος and καιρὸς are not synonymous: the former denotes time indefinitely, the latter a definite period of time (μέρος χρόνου, ἢ μεμετρημένων ἡμερῶν σύστημα, Thom.-M. p. 489, ed. Bern.), and thence derivatively the right or fitting time; comp. Ammon. de Diff. Voc. p. 80, ὁ μὲν καιρὸς δηλοῖ ποιότητα ὐχρόνος δὲ ποσότητα, and see Titt- mann, Synon. I. p. 41, where the meaning of καιρὸς is carefully investi- gated, and Trench, Synon. Part 11. § 7. The force of the plural has been somewhat differently estimated. On the whole, it seems most natural to refer it, not to the length of the periods (Dorner, de Orat. Christ. Eschat. p- 73), but simply to the plurality either of the acts or of the moments of the time (Liinem.). There appears no reason to take καὶ here as explanatory (Koch): the two words are simply connected by the copula; comp. Acts i. 7, χρόνους ἢ καιρούς, pride m “spooks
tome
IV. 18—V. 3.
69
ἡμέρα Kupiou ws κλέπτης ἐν νυκτὶ οὕτως ἔρχεται. ὅταν 3
Eccles. iii. τ, 6 χρόνος, καὶ καιρός, Dan. li. 21, καιροὺς καὶ χρόνους, Wisdom viii. 8, καιρῶν καὶ χρόνων.
οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε] ‘ye have no need; a παράλειψις, see notes on ch. ἷν. 9. The reason why there was no need does not seem here to be due to any ἀσύμ- gopov (Hvum., compare Chrys., and Acts i. 7) in the Apostle here writing to them on the subject, but, as the next verse suggests, because they bad been accurately informed by him by word of mouth of all that it was ne- cessary for them to know. On the qualifying and explanatory object-infi- nitive, see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 55. 3, comp. ὃ 50. 6. 4, 5.
2. ἀκριβῶς] ‘accurately; only used once again by the Apostle, in Eph. v. 15. The use of this adverb, considered exegetically, is very striking. It cer- tainly seems to point to special and definite information on the subject; but whether this was derived from a written Gospel (Wordsw.) or from the oral communications of the Apostle cannot possibly be determined. The latter seems much the most probable; comp. 2 Thess. ii. 5. The derivation of dxp. is slightly doubtful; most pro- bably from ἄκρος in a locative form (dxpt), and a root BA-, Benfey, Wur- zellex. Vol. 1. p. 158. ἡμέρα Κυρίου] ‘the day of the Lord,’ scil. THs δεσποτικῆς ἐπιφανείας, Theod.; the day of our Lord’s coming to judgment (comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 21, Vol. 11. p. 243), 7 ὁ vids τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀποκαλύπτεται, Luke xvii. 30; comp. 1 Cor, i. 8, v. 5, 2 Cor. i. 14, Phil. i. 6, and for the somewhat similar 0D}! MYM, Joel i. 15, ἢ, τ, Ezek. xiii, 5, all To refer it to the destruction of Jeru- salem (Hamm.), or to include in it τὴν ἰδίαν ἑκάστου ἡμέραν (Theoph., comp. notes on Phil. i. 6), is here dis-
tinctly at variance with the context, which treats solely and entirely of the Lord’s παρουσία. The reading is hardly doubtful. Rec. gives ἡ ju. with AKL; most mss.; many Ff.; but though the ἡ might have been absorbed in the ἡ of the following ἡμέρα, the probability of insertion (as more defi- nitive) and the preponderance of un- cial authority [BDEFGN] are in favour of the omission: so Lachm., Tisch. ὡς κλέπτης ἐν νυκτί] ‘as a thief cometh in the night,’ scil. ἔρχεται; ἐν νυκτὶ not being added as a quasi-epithet to κλέπτης, but belonging to an unexpressed ἔρχεται ; see Winer, Gr. § 20. 4, p. 126, note. This solemn and regular Scripture simile (comp. Matth. xxiv. 43, Luke xii. 39, 2 Pet. iii. ro, Rev. iii. 3, xvi. 15) does not contain any reference to the dread felt with regard to the coming (Schott, compare Alf.), but simply to the τὸ αἰφνίδιον (Theod.): see esp. Rev. iii. 3, ἥξω ws κλέπτης καὶ οὐ μὴ γνῷς ποίαν ὥραν ἥξω ἐπὶ σέ, and comp. Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2. Β, p. 337. The addition ἐν νυκτὶ (comp. however Matth. xxiv. 43, ποίᾳ φυλακῇ) is peculiar to this place, and (combined with Matth. J. c. and xxv. 6) may have given rise to the ancient tradition of the early Church (noticed by Liinem.) that Christ was to come at night on Easter Eve; compare Lact. Jnst. vil. 19 (‘intem- pesta et tenebros4 nocte’), and Jerome on Matth. xxv. 6. οὕτως ἔρχεται] ‘so it comes ;’ the οὕτως being added to give force and emphasis to the comparison. The pres. ἔρχεται is not for a future (Pelt, al.), nor yet to mark the suddenness of the event (Bengel, Koch), but its fixed nature and prophetic certainty; see Winer, Gr. § 40. 2, p. 237, comp. Bernhardy, Synt. X. 2, p. 371.
70
ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΞΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙ͂Σ A.
, e λέγωσιν Kipyvy καὶ ἀσφάλεια, τότε' αἰφνίδιος αὐτοῖς Ε 7 a ἐφίσταται ὄλεθρος ὥσπερ ἡ ὠδὶν TH ἐν γαστρὶ ἐχούσῃ,
3. ὅταν λέγωσιν] ‘ When they may say; certainly not the Jews (Hamm.), nor even their persecutors generally (Chrys.), but all unbelieving and un- thinking men; comp. Matth. xxiv. 38, 39, Luke xvii. 26—30. The true be- lievers were always watching and wait- ing, knowing the uneertainty and un- expectedness of the hour of the Lord’s coming; comp. Matth. xxiv. 44, xxv. 13, Luke xii. 35-40. After ὅταν Ree, inserts yap with KL; most mss.; Vulg.; al.: Lachm. after ὅταν inserts δὲ in brackets, as it isfound in BDEN? ; Copt., Syr.-Phil.; Chrys., Theod. Though δὲ is well supported, and not uncommonly exchanged with γάρ (see notes on Gal. i. 11), still the tendency to supply expletives is so very decided (Mill, Prolegom. p. clvi.) that we are justified in reading simply ὅταν with AFGN!; 4 mss.; Clarom., Syr., Goth., Ath. (both); many Lat. Ff. So Tisch., Griesb., Scholz, De W., Liinem., Alf.
Εἰρήνη καὶ ἀσφάλεια] ‘Peace and safety,’ scil. ἐστίν,---β everywhere pre- sent; comp. Ezek. xiii. 10, λέγοντες Εἰρήνη, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν εἰρήνη. The distinction between these words is ob- vious: the first [e%pw, necto, or more probably EP-, elpw, dico; comp. Ben- fey, Wurzellex. Vol. 11. p. 7] betokens an inward repose and security; the latter [a, σ-φάλλω ; comp. Sanscr. root phal, Heb. 557}, Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 238, Donalds. Crat. § 209] a sureness and safety that is not in- terfered with or compromised by out- ward obstacles. τότε αἰφνί- διος κιτ.λ.7 ‘then with suddenness does destruction come upon them ;’ αἰφνίδιος not being a mere epithet (adjectivum attributum), ‘sudden destr.,’ Auth.,
‘ plétzliches Verderben,’ De W., but a secondary predication of manner (ad- jectivum appositum), scil. ‘repentinus eis superveniet,’ Vulg., Syr., Copt. [chen ou-exapina], al., and fully em- phatic ; see esp. Donalds. Cratyl. ὃ 303, and Miiller, Kleine Schriften, Vol. 1. p- 310; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 54. 2, p. 412, and notes on Col. ii. 3. The verb ἐφίσταται may be either simply ‘imminet,’ Beza, or tnore derivatively ‘superveniet,’ Vulg. (but not fut.), being a ‘verbum solemne de rebus hominibusve citius quam quis existi- maverit adstantibus,’ Schott; see esp. Luke xxi. 34, μήποτε... ἐπιστῇ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς αἰφνίδιος ἡ ἡμέρα (al. does not occur elsewhere in the N.T.). On ὄλεθρος, comp. notes on 1 Tim. vi. 9.
ὥσπερ ἡ ὠδίν] ‘as the birth-pang.’ The true point of the appropriate comparison (‘mwép vim eam compara- tivam quam habet ws usitato more auget atque effert,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 768) is neither the knowledge that the event is to come (Theod.), nor its nearness (De W.), but, as the context seems clearly to suggest, its suddenness and uncertainty; ‘mulier doloris materiam ...... gestat absque sensu, donec inter epulas et risus vel in medio somnio corripitur,’ Calv. The form ὠδίν, like the form δελφίν, belongs to later Greek ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 9. 2, p. 61.
τῇ ἐν γαστρὶ ἐχούσῃ! The regular formula in the N.T., Matth. i. 18, 23, xxiv. 19, Mark xiii. 17, Luke xxi. 23, Rev. xii. 2. The more usual ex- pression in earlier Greek appears to have been ἐν γαστρὶ φέρειν (Plato, Legg. Vu. p. 792 ΒΕ, comp. Hom. 77. VI. 58), or ἐγκύμων εἶναι or γίγνεσθαι, as in Plato, pin, p. 979 As al.
zx ee rm ΓΝ
V. 4.
71
n~ 9 , Ε] ’ A
καὶ ov μὴ ἐκφύγωσιν. ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀδελφοί, οὐκ ἐστὲ 4 κα t , SF: or ἐν σκότει, ἵνα ὑμᾶς ἡ ἡμέρα ὡς κλέπτης καταλάβῃ
4. ὑμᾶς ἡ ἡμέρα] So Lachm. with ADEFG; Vulg., Clarom., appy. Ath. (both); many Lat. Ff. (Tisch. ed. 1, Schott, Liinem., Koch), C is here deficient. The simpler order of Rec. ἡ ἡμέρα ὑμᾶς is retained by Tisch. ed. 2, 7, with
BKLN; appy. all mss.; Goth., al. ;
Chrys., Theod., Dam., al. (Griesb., Alf.) ;
but appy. with less probability, as the uncial authority is not decisive, and the change is just as likely to have been owing to a conformation to the more natural order, as a transposition for the sake of throwing emphasis on the ὑμᾶς.
οὐ μὴ ἐκφύγωσιν] ‘they shall in no wise escape,’ not τόν Te πόνον καὶ ὄλε- θρον, CAcum., but simply and abso- lutely; comp. Heb. ii. 3, xii. 25, Ecclus. xvi. 13. On the strengthened negation οὐ μὴ with the subjunctive, see notes and reff. on ch. iv. 15.
4. ὑμεῖς δέ] ‘But ye,’ in opposi- tion to the unthinking and unbelieving noticed in the preceding verse: ‘ occa- sione accepté ex superioribus adhor- tatur Christianos ad vigilantiam, so- brietatem, et sanctimoniam,’ Calv.
In the following words it is scarcely necessary to say that ἐστὲ cannot pos- sibly be imperatival (Flatt): both the negative and the non-occurrence of the imper. ἔστε in the N.T. utterly preclude such a translation.
ἐν σκότει] ‘in darkness,’ in the ele- ment or region of it. The σκότος here mentioned seems to have been sug- gested by the preceding ἐν νυκτί (ver. 2): it does not mark exclusively either τὸν σκοτεινὸν καὶ ἀκάθαρτον βίον. (Chrys., Theoph., Gicum.), as might seem suggested by the succeeding verse, or τὴν ἄγνοιαν (Theod.), as is partially suggested by the preceding verse, but, as the general context re- quires, botk,—‘statum ignorantiz et vitii,’ Turretin. It was a darkness not only of the mind and understand- ing (Eph. iv. 18) but of the heart and will (1 John ii. 9); see Andrewes, Serm, Xv. Vol. Ill. p. 371.
ἵνα ὑμᾶς κι τ.λ.} “ὧν order that the day should surprise you ;’ not merely a statement of result, but of the pur- pose contemplated by God in His mer- ciful dispensation implied in οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐν σκότει. See Winer, Gr. ὃ 53. 6, p. 408. It may be doubted however whether we have not here some trace of a secondary force of iva (see notes on Eph. i. 17), the eventual conclu- sion being in some degree mixed up with and obscuring the idea of finality; comp. Gal. v. 17. Considering the numerous instances of a secondary final use of iva which the writings of the N.T. (esp. those of St John, Winer, Gr. ὃ 44. 8, p. 303) distinctly supply, and a remembrance of the ultimate decline of the particle into the va of modern Greek (Corpe, Gr. p. 129), it is prudent to beware of over- pressing the final force in all cases; comp. Winer, Gr. l.c. p. 299 sq.
The ‘day’ here specified is not speci- fically the day of judgment [ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη FG ; Vulg., Clarom., Syr. ], but, as the context seems to require, the period of light (De W.), which indeed becomes practically synonymous with the day of the Lord, as bearing salva- tion (comp. Rom, xiii. 12), and bring- ing to light the hidden things of dark- ness (1 Cor. iv. 5), κατα-
λάβῃ] ‘overtake,’ ‘surprise,’ yd a ¥Y
Syr., ‘adprehendat,’ Clarom., ‘ gafa-
΄
72
ΠΡΟΣ OEZZAAONIKEIS A,
a th Pa Sap) a ik Se ig Rich's a5 ᾽ ἣν . » 5 πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς υἱοὶ φωτός ἐστε καὶ υἱοὶ ἡμέρας. οὐκ
Ἁ A A 4 > 6 ἐσμὲν νυκτὸς οὐδὲ σκότους. Apa οὖν μὴ καθεύδωμεν
7 ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποί, ἀλλὰ γρηγορώμεν καὶ νήφωμεν. οἱ
hai,’ Goth. ; the κατὰ here not intro- ducing any definite sense of hostility (comp. Koch), but, as usual, being simply intensive, and deriving its fur- ther shades of meaning from the con- text: see the good collection of exam- ples in Rost u. Palm, Lez. s.v. Vol. 1. p. 1623, The reading κλέπτας [Lachm. with AB; Copt.] has cer- tainly not sufficient critical support. 5. πάντες yap ὑμεῖς] ‘for ye all;’ confirmation of the preceding negative statement by a more specific positive declaration. The particle γάρ, which we can hardly say with Schott is ‘haud necessaria ad sententiam,’ is omitted by Rec., but on authority [K (e sil.); majority of mss.; Vulg. (Amiat.)] decidedly insufficient. viol φωτός] ‘ sons of light ;’ a Hebra- istic formula (comp. Ewald, G’r. ὃ 287) expressing with considerable emphasis and significance, not merely that they ‘belonged to the light’ (Alf.), but that they belonged to it in the intimate way that children belong to a parent, —almost οἱ τὰ τοῦ φωτὸς πράττοντες, Chrys., Theoph.: see Winer, (Gr. ὃ 34. 3. b. note 2, p. 213, Steiger on 1 Pet. i. 14, Ρ. 153, and notes on Lph. ii. 2. Somewhat analogous expressions are found in classical Greek, παῖδες σο- φῶν, παῖδες ἱερέων x.7.d., but appy. never (as here) in connexion with abstract substantives; comp. Blomf. on Aisch. Pers. 408. οὐκ ἐσμὲν νυκτός] “ We belong not to night: the genitive idiomatically spe- cifying the domain to which the sub- jects belong; comp. Acts ix: 2, and see Winer, Gr. § 30. 5, p. 176, On the various meanings in which this pos- sessive gen. is connected with εἶναι
and γίγνεσθαι, see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47. 6. 18q., Bernhardy, Synt. 111. 46, p- 165, and on the very intelligible χίασμός [φῶς, ἡμέρα...νύξ, σκότος], see Jelf, Gr. ὃ 904. 3, Madvig, Lat. Gr. 8 473. a. The reading ἐστὲ [D'FG; Syr. (not Phil.), Clarom., Goth., al.] is obviously a conformation to the preceding ἐστέ.
6. “Apa οὖν] ‘Accordingly then; exhortation following on the preceding declaration, the illative dpa being sup- ported and enhanced by the collective and retrospective οὖν; see notes on Gal. vi. 10. In Aftic Greek this com- bination is only found in the case of the interrogative dpa, comp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 181, Herm. Viger, No. 292, and Stallb. on Plato, Republ. V. p. 462 4. μὴ καθεύδωμεν] ‘let us not sleep,’ ὦ. 6. be careless and indifferent, μὴ ἀμελῶμεν τῶν καλῶν ἔργων, Theoph. ; comp. Eph. v. 14, and the very pertinent remarks of Beck, Christ. Lehrwiss. Vol. 1. p. 299 (cited by Koch), on the deepening sleep of the soul under the influence of sin; see also Beck, Seelenl. 1. 8, p. 18, ot λοιποί] ‘the rest;’ here obviously unbelievers, whether careless Jews or ignorant heathens ; comp. notes on ch. iv. 13. Lachm. omits the καὶ before οἱ λοιποὶ with ABN; 2 mss. ; Augiens., Vulg. (Amiat.), Syr.; al., but appy. in opposition to St Paul’s prevailing usage; comp. I Cor. ix. 5, Eph. ii. 3, and above, ch. iv. 13. γήφωμεν] ‘be sober ;’? comp. 1 Pet. v. 8. The νήφωμεν enhancés the preceding ypnyo- ρῶμεν ; Christians were not orily to be wakeful, but have all their senses and capacities in full exercise: ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἂν γρηγορῇ Tis μὴ νήφῃ δὲ puplois περιπε-
Υ. 5—8.
79
ὐ = ᾿ 4 , yap καθεύδοντες νυκτὸς καθεύδουσιν, καὶ of μεθυσκόμενοι
Ὰ ’ ς a δὲ ς , ϑ᾽ , 9 8 νυκτὸς μεθύουσιν: ἡμεῖς δὲ ἡμέρας ὄντες νήφωμεν, εν-
δυσάμενοι θώρακα πίστεως καὶ ἀγάπης καὶ περικεφα-
σεῖται δεινοῖς, Chrys. On the regular meaning of this verb, which appears to be always that of ‘sobriety,’ not of ‘watchfulness’ or ‘ wakefulness’ (as perhaps CEcum., ἐπίτασις éypnyoprews), see notes on 2 Zim. iv. 5, and 1 Zim. iii, 2.
7. ob yap καθεύδοντες] “ Mor they that sleep,’ ‘ sleepers,’ Winer, Gr. ὃ 45. 7, p. 316; confirmatory explanation of the preceding exhortation by a refer- ence to the prevailing habits of non- Christian life. At first sight it might seem plausible to give all the words in this verse a spiritual reference (Chrys., Theoph., Koch): as however νυκτὸς seems only to mark tbe period when the actions referred to usually took place, the literal and proper meaning is distinctly to be preferred: ‘quem- admodum in hoc versu dormire ita etiam ebrium esse dicitur proprie, tan- quam exemplum ejusmodi sentiendi agendique rationis que nonnisi homi- num sit in caligine nocturné lubenter versantium,’ Schott; so Liinem. and Alf. οἱ μεθυσκόμενοι] ‘they that are drunken.’ The distinction ad- vocated by Beng., ‘ μεθύσκομαι notat actum, μεθύω statum’ (comp. Clarom. ‘inebriantur..,ebrii sunt’), seems here more than doubtful. The transition from ‘being made drunk’ to ‘being actually drunk’ is go slight (in Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. vv. both are translated ‘berauscht seyn’), that with the pre- ceding καθεύδοντες... καθεύδουσιν before us it seems best to regard them here as simply synonymous.
8. ἡμεῖς δέ K.t.A,] ‘but let us, as we are of the day: not exactly ‘ qui diei sumus,’ Vulg., Clarom., but ‘quum simus,’ Auth, (Platt), Arm., comp.
Goth. ‘ visandans ;’ the participle not being here used predicatively, but with a slightly causal, or combined ‘tem- poral-causal’ force; see Schmalfeld, Synt. des Gr. Verb. § 207, comp. Do- nalds. Gr. ὃ 615. On the connexion of the gen. with εἰμί, see notes on ver. 5. ἐνδυσάμενοι] ‘having put on,’ tempo- ral participle defining the action con- temporaneous with or perhaps, more probably, immediately preceding. the νήφειν. The Apostle now passes into his favourite metaphor of the Christian soldier; comp. Rom. xiii. 12, 2 Cor, x. 4, and esp. Eph. vi. 11, where not only (as here) the defensive, but the offensive portions of the equipment are described. The ‘armatura’ here consists of the three great Christian virtues, Faith, Love, and Hope, the first and second forming the breast- plate (aliter Eph. vi. 14, 16), the third (similarly Eph. vi. 17, see notes) the helmet; comp. Reuss, Zhéol. Chrét. Iv. 22, Vol. IL p. 259, 260.
θώρακα πίστεως] ‘a shield of faith,’ or more probably ‘ the shield, &c.,’ the second and third substantives, as well known terms, here dispensing with the article (Winer, Gr. ὃ 19. 1, Ρ. 109), and causing the governing noun to be also anarthrous on the principle of correlation (Middl. Gr. Art. Ul. 3.6). The gen. is that of ‘apposition ;’ see notes and reff. on Eph. vi. 14. καὶ περικεφ. K.T.A. | ‘and as a helmet the hope of salvation ;" a defence that can never fail. With hope fixed on the ἐπηγγελμένη σωτηρία (Theod.) all the dangers and trials of the present seem light and endurable ; καθάπερ yap ἡ περικεφαλαία τὸ καίριον σώζει τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν, τὴν κεφαλὴν περι-
74
ΠΡΟΣ OEZZAAONIKEIS A.
9 λαίαν ἐλπίδα σωτηρίας, ὅτι οὐκ ἔθετο ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς Ἁ “ εἰς ὀργὴν ἀλλὰ εἰς περιποίησιν σωτηρίας διὰ τοῦ
, aid “ ~ “ 10 Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿]ησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῦ ἀποθανόντος ὑπὲρ
e a 4 4 ἊΝ " , “ 4 NOV Wa ETE γρηγορωμεν εἴτε καθεύδωμεν ἅμα σὺν
βάλλουσα καὶ πάντοθεν στεγάζουσα" οὕτω καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς τὸν λογισμὸν οὐκ ἀφίησι διαπεσεῖν, ἀλλ’ ὀρθὸν ἵστησιν ὥσπερ κεφαλήν, οὐδὲν τῶν ἔξωθεν εἰς αὐτὸν πεσεῖν ἐῶσα, Chrys. The gen. σωτηρίας is the gen. objecti, that to which it is directed and on which it is fixed, comp. ch. i. 3 (τοῦ Kup.), Rom. v. 2, and, if necessary, Winer, Gr. § 30. τὸ p. 167.
9. ὅτι κ-τ.λ.] ‘because, &c.;’ reason for the use of the foregoing words ἐλπίδα σωτηρίας, expressed both nega- tively (οὐκ ἔθετο x.7.X.) and positively (ἀλλὰ els περιπ. K.T.r.): οὐ πρὸς τοῦτο
ἐκάλεσεν εἰς τὸ ἀπολέσαι ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὸ
σῶσαι, Chrys. οὐκ ἔθετο ἡμᾶς κιτ.λ.7 ‘appointed us not unto anger,’ ὦ. 6. to become the subjects of it, to fall under its punitive action. The form τιθέναι (Acts xiii. 47) or θέσθαι els τί (1 Tim. i. 12) appears to have a partially Hebraistic tinge and to answer
to Div, jD), or Mv followed by ὃς comp. for example Psalm lxvi. 9, Je- rem. ix. 11, xiii. 16. On ὀργή, see notes on ch. i. ro. els περι- ποίησιν σωτηρίας] ‘unto obtaining of salvation, Ὁ... [ad
. a 7 oo nan
acquisitionem vite], sim. Vulg., Cla- rom., Copt. [tancho,—here needlessly rendered ‘ vivificatio ;?> comp. Mal. iii. 17], ‘du gafreideinai ganistais,’ Goth. ; comp. 2 Thess. ii. 14, els περιποίησιν δόξης. Neither here, Heb. x. 39, nor 2 Thess. J.c., is there any reason for departing from this simple and _pri- mary meaning of περιποίησις ; Hesych. πλεονασμός" κτῆσις, Suid. κτῆσις. Both in Eph. i. 14 (see notes) and 1 Pet. ii. g, as the context shows, the use is
wholly different, and appy. a reflection of the nbap of the O. T. (comp. Acts xx, 28): in 2 Chron. xiv. 13 (Heb. MMI), Pseud.-Plato, Def. p. 415 © (see Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v.), the meaning seems to be rather ‘ conservatio;’ but neither the one (appy. favoured by (icum., comp. Theod., ἵνα οἰκείους ἀποφήνῃ) nor the other is here either natural or suitable.
διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου κ-τ.λ.] Dependent, not on ἔθετο, but on the preceding περι- ποίησιν σωτηρίας, and specifying the medium by which the σωτηρία was to be obtained. This medium is certainly not ‘doctrinam eam quam Christus nobis attulit’ (Grot.), nor, in this passage, ‘faith in Him’ (Liinem.), but, as the next verse seems to show, His atoning death; comp. Eph. i. 7, and notes in loc.
10. τοῦ ἀποθ. ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν] ‘who died for us; specification of the bless- ed act of redeeming love by which the περιποίησις σωτηρίας has become as- sured to us; comp. ch. iv. 14. The clause, as Liinem. properly observes, is not causal (ἀποθ. would then be anarthrous, comp. Schmalfeld, Synt. §222,225 note, and Donalds. Gr. § 492), but relative and assertory; ‘ne quid de salutis certitudine dubitemus aut de satisfactione soliciti essemus, dicit Christum pro nobis mortuum esse, et pro peccatis nostris satisfecisse, ut salutem consequeremur,’ Calv.
On the meaning of ὑπὲρ in dogmatical passages,—not exclusively ‘in our stead’ (Waterl. Serm. xxxI. Vol. v. Ρ- 740), see notes and reff. on Gal. iii. 13. For ὑπέρ, BN!'; 17, here read
περί. ἵνα εἴτε κ-τ.λ.7 ‘in order
Oy 6; ΤῈ
75
ow 4 wn 4 αὐτῷ ζήσωμεν. διὸ παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους καὶ οἰκοδο- τὶ
n @ \ Φ ‘ 4 a MELTE ELS TOV EVA, καθὼς και “ποιειτε.
that whether we wake or sleep; holy purpose of the Lord’s redeeming death. There is some little doubt as to the exact meaning of the terms καθεύδειν and γρηγορεῖν. It seems clear that they cannot be understcod in a simple physical sense (comp. Fell), still less in an ethical sense, as τὸ καθεύδειν was described (ver. 6) as a state incompa- tible with Christianity. There remains then only the supposition that they are used in a metaphorical sense (comp. Psalm Ixxxviii. 6, Dan. xii. 2, al.), to which also the following ζήσωμεν seems very distinctly to guide us. The mean- ing then is. substantially the same as Rom. xiv. 8, ἐάν τε οὖν ζῶμεν ἐάν re ἀποθνήσκωμεν τοῦ Κυρίου ἐσμέν.
It is not exact to say that the sub- junctive with εἴτε... εἴτε as here is not classical (Alf.), for see Plato, Legg. x11. p- 958} (v.1.). As a general rule εἴτε is associated with the same moods as εἰ (Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 533); as however there are cases in which it is now admitted that εἰ can be asso- ciated with the subj. (‘ef cum conjunct. respectum comprehendit experientiz, expectandumque esse indicat ut fiat aut non fiat,’ Herm. de Part. dv, τι. 7, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 500 sq.), a similar latitude may rightly be as- signed to εἴτε. It seems probable here that the subj. is used in the dependent clause by way of conformity with the subj. in the principal clause; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 41. 2. 6, p. 263 (note). ἅμα σὺν αὐτῷ ζήσ.7 ‘we should together live with Him,’ not ‘together with him,’ Auth.; the (jv σὺν Χριστῷ form- ing the principal idea, while the dua (Heb. V1‘) subjoins the further no- tion of aggregation ; comp. Rom. iii. 12, and see notes on ch. iv. 17, where the previous specifications οἵ time
make the temporal meaning the more plausible. The (jowuev is both more emphatic than ἐσόμεθα (ch. iv. 17), and also serves slightly to eluci- date the metaphorical use of the pre- ceding words. ; 11. διό] ‘ Wherefore,’ ‘On which account; not exactly ‘que cum ita sint’ (Alf.), but ‘quamobrem’ (see Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p. 173, who cor- rectly assigns the former meaning to οὖν), thereby serving’to place in closer logical connexion the foregoing decla- ration and the present exhortation. On the uses of this particle by St Paul, see notes on Gal. iv. 31. παρακαλεῖτε] ‘ comfort,’
ae, oD Syr., ‘consolamini,’ Vulg.,
not ‘ exhortamini,’ Clarom.: the ana- logy of this verse to ch. iv. 17 (where the contextual argument for the pre- sent sense is very strong) appears to require a similarity of translation, more especially as the hortatory tone (ver. 6) seems now to have merged into the consolatory. The exact meaning of this word is frequently somewhat doubtful: it is used more than fifty times in St Paul’s Epp., with several
‘ console,’
varieties of meaning which can only be decided on by a careful considera- tion of the context; comp. notes on Col. ii. 2. εἷς τὸν ἕνα] ‘one the οἶον", equivalent in meaning to ἀλλή- λους ; see exx. in Kypke, Annot. Vol. II. p. 339, all of which however, except Theocr. Jdyll. xx11. 65, are from late authors. Compare οἱ καθ᾽ ἕνα, Eph. v. 33, and the somewhat analogous eis πρὸς ἕνα, Plato, Legg. 1. p. 6260, al.; see Winer, Gr. § 26. 2, p. 156. To regard εἰς as a prep., and to refer τὸν ἕνα to Christ, is in the highest degree forced and improbable; see
76
+ 9 3 ~ 4 ταν » ᾽ 12 ᾿Ερωτῶμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, εἰδέναι τοὺς κοπιῶντας ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ προΐστα-
, ε A 3 K ’ 4 θ A μενους υμῶν εν UAL Kat νουσετουν-
Liinem. in loc. The metaphorical term οἰκοδομεῖν (1 Cor. viii. 1, x. 23, al.) is derived from the idea, elsewhere both expressed and implied in St Paul’s Epp., that Christians form a ναὸς or οἰκοδομὴ Θεοῦ; see 1 Cor. iii. 9, τύ, 2 Cor. vi. 16, Eph. ii. 20, al., and comp. Andrewes, Serm. vi. Vol. 11. p. 273. καθὼς Kal ποιεῖτε] ‘even as ye also are doing,’ praise and encouragement founded on the actual state of the Thessalonian church; comp. ch. iv. 1, 1o. On the force of καὶ in compara- tive sentences of this kind, see notes on Eph. ν. 23.
12. ᾿Εἰρωτῶμεν δέ] ‘Now we beseech you;’ transition, by means of the δὲ μεταβατικόν (see notes on Gal. iii. 8), to their duties towards the rulers of the church, —a subject not improbably suggested by the words immediately preceding. In no case could the pre- cept οἰκοδομεῖτε els τὸν ἕνα be carried out with greater practical benefit to themselves and to the church at large than by showing respect to their ap- pointed spiritual teachers. On the meaning of ἐρωτᾶν, see notes on ch. ἀν: εἰδέναι] ‘to know,’ ‘to regard,’ ‘ut rationem ac respectum habeatis,’ Est.; not ‘to show (by deeds) that you know’ (Koch), but simply ‘to know,’ z.e. ‘not to be ignorant of,’ ‘ to recog- nise fully ;’ this somewhat unusual meaning of eid. being analogous to that of the Heb. YJ) (see Gesen. Lex. s.v. 8), and here approximating in meaning to ἐπιγινώσκειν, 1 Cor. xvi. 18. No instance of a similar or even analogous usage has as yet been ad- duced from classical Greek. τοὺς κοπιῶντας ἐν ὑμῖν] ‘those who
ΠΡῸΣ OEZZAAONIKEI= A.
Reverence ‘your spiri- tual rulers; be
ful and prayerful and thankful. Quench not the Spirit: and may God sanctify and preserve you.
are labouring among you,’ ‘those who are engaged in sacred and ministerial duties;’ comp. 1 Tim. v. 17, where the more specific ἐν λόγῳ is supplied. On the meaning and derivation of κόπος, κοπιάω, see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10. This general designation, as the following explanatory terms seem to suggest, is to be referred to the Pres- byters of the Church of Thessalonica (Thorndike, Prim. Gov. ch. 111. Vol. 1. p. 8, A.-C. Libr.), ἐν ὑμῖν obviously having no ethical reference, ἐν ταῖς καρδ. ὑμῶν (Flatt), still less ‘in vobis docendis’ (Zanch.), but simply imply- ing ‘in vestro coetu’ (Schott), ‘inter vos,’ Vulg.,—with mere local refer- ence to the sphere of the κόπος.
kal προϊσταμένους K.T.A.] ‘and are presiding over you in the Lord;’ fur- ther explanation and specification of the generic κοπιῶντας. The omission of the article plainly precludes any reference of the three participles to three different ministerial classes: the κοπιῶντες are simply regarded under two forms of their spiritual labour, as rulers and practical teachers, and as ‘morum magistri,’ Grot. Whether these duties were executed by the same or different persons cannot be determined; at this early period of the existence of the Church of Thess. the first supposition seems much the most probable; contrast Eph. iv. 11, 1 Tim. vi 17. The sphere of the προΐστασθαι was to be ἐν Κυρίῳ: οὐκ ἐν τοῖς κοσμικοῖς ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τοῖς κατὰ Κύριον, Theoph. καὶ νουθε- τοῦντας ὑμᾶς] ‘and admonishing you,’ ‘et monent vos,’ Vulg.; not simply
arto [docentes] Syr., but ἂν
Vit 2, τὰ, 12.
77
~ a > A e ~ Φ τας ὑμᾶς, καὶ ἡγεῖσθαι αὐτοὺς ὑπερεκπερισσῶς ἐν 13
ς , A A a4 . AS. ayaTn διὰ TO epyov αὐτῶν.
’ 9 φ a elonveveTe ἐν ἑαυτοῖς.
Πρακαλοῦμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, νουθετεῖτε τοὺς ἀτά- 14
«οο [admonentes] Syr.-Phil., . A
with reference to the ‘exhortationes et correptiones’ (Est.) which it might be their duty to administer. Ou the proper meaning of vovderety, —pri- marily ‘to correct by word’ (νουθέτησις" λόγος ἐπιτιμητικὸς ἕνεκα ἀποτροπῆς ἁμαρτίας, Zonar. Lex. p. 1406), and then derivatively by deed—see Trench, Synon. ὃ 32, and the numerous exx. collected by Kypke, Obs. Vol. I1. p. 339-
13. Kal ἡγεῖσθαι κιτ.λ.] ‘and to esteem them in love very highly.’ These words appear to admit of two trans- lations according as ἐν ἀγάπῃ is con-
nected (a) loosely with all the fore-
going words, marking the element (certainly not the cause, Schott 2, 1) in which the ἡγεῖσθαι αὐτοὺς ὑπερεκ-
περισσῶς is to be put in force,—or (6).
closely with the preceding ἡγεῖσθαι as specifying and enhancing the gene- ral duty implied in the preceding εἰδέναι, ver. 12. Both involve some lexical difficulties, as in (a) ἡγεῖσθαι must be regarded as equivalent to πλείονος ἀξιοῦν (Theod.), and in (6) ἡγεῖσθαι ἐν ἀγάπῃ must be taken as ἡγεῖσθαι αὐτοὺς ἀξίους τοῦ ἀγαπᾶσθαι (Chrys., Theoph., Gicum.),—solutions neither of them very strictly defen- sible. On the whole, the context, the appy. similar ἡγεῖσθαί τι ἐν κρίσει, Job xxxv. 2 (Schott), and perhaps the analogous ἐν ὀργῇ ἔχειν τινά, Thucyd. 1. 18 (Liinem.), seem to preponderate in favour of (6): in ver. 12 the Thess. are exhorted to respect their spiritual rulers, in the present verse also to love them. So Schott, Olsh., and Liinem. The Vv. by preserving care-
fully the order deprive us of all clue to the exact construction they adopt- ed. On the cumulative word ὑπερεκπερισσῶς, comp. ch. iii. 10, and. notes on Eph. iii. 20. The form ὑπερ- εκπερισσοῦ is here given by Rec. with ADSEKLN; appy. all mss.; many Ff. διὰ τὸ ἔργον αὐτῶν] ‘for ther work’s sake;’ on account both of the importance of the work (Heb. xiii. 17) and the earnest and laborious manner in which it was per- formed; comp. Phil. i. 22, ii. 30. elpnvevere ἐν ἑαυτοῖς] ‘Be at peace among yourselves ;᾽ comp. Mark ix. 50, Rom. xii. 18, 2 Cor. xiii. rr. On this not uncommon use of the reflexive for the reciprocal pronoun (ἀλλήλοις), see Jelf, Gr. § 654. 2, Apollon. de Synt. 1. 27, and for the general principle and limits of the permutation, Kiihner on Xen. Mem. τι. 6.20. Of the con- verse use (recipr. for refi.) there is no distinct trace found; see Bernhardy, Synt. VI. 2, p. 273. The reading av- rots [D'FGN; many mss.; Augiens., Vulg., Syr. (both), al. ; Chrys., Theod.], though distinguished by Griesbach’s highest commendatory mark (‘indicat lectionem supparem aut equalem, im- mo forsitan preferendam recepte lec- tioni’), certainly does not seem to deserve it, as it arose in all probability from the feeling that the short admo- nition was out of place between the longer ἐρωτῶμεν δέ x... (ver. 12) and παρακαλ. δέ x.7.d. (ver. 14). Under any circumstances it can scarcely bear the meaning ‘pacem habete cum eis,’ Vulg., Syr. (comp. Chrys., Theod.), as this would so much more naturally have been expressed by εἰρηνεύετε pet’ αὐτῶν, as in Rom. xii. 18.
78 ΠΡΟΣ
κτους,
15 τῶν ἀσθενῶν, μακροθυμεῖτε πρὸς πάντας.
14. ἸΠαρακαλοῦμεν δὲ ὑμ.] ‘Vow we beseech you; address, neither πρὸς τοὺς ἄρχοντας (Chrys.), nor πρὸς τοὺς διδασκάλους (Theoph., Gicum.), but, as the ἀδελφοὶ suggests, to all (Pseud.- Ambr., Justin.). The Christian bre- thren at Thessalonica were not only to be at peace with one another, but also to do their best to cause peace to be maintained by others. vovleretre τοὺς ἀτάκτους] ‘admonish the unruly; those who do not pre- serve their τάξιν, ‘inordinatos,’ Beza, ‘ungatassans,’ Goth. The term dra- κτος, somewhat Jaxly rendered by Syr.
[Xscato [offendentes], is prima-
rly δὰθ᾽ ἔμεν; as Chrys. suggests, a ‘vox militaris’ (Xen. Mem, 111. 1. 7, where it is opp. to τεταγμένος), and thence derivatively a general epithet to denote a dissolute (Plato, Legg. vit. p- 8060), ill ordered (περίεργοι καὶ mapa τὸ προσῆκον ποιοῦντες, Bekker, Anecd. p. 216), and unruly way of living: τίνες δέ εἰσιν of ἄτακτοι; πάν- τως οἱ παρὰ τὸ τῷ Θεῷ δοκοῦν πράττον- Tes’ τάξεως γάρ ἐστι τῆς στρατιωτικῆς ἁρμοδιωτέρα αὕτη ἡ τάξις τῆς ἐκκλησίας, Chrys. Here the precise reference is probably to the neglect of duties and callings into which the Thessalonians had lapsed owing to their mistaken views of the time of the Lord’s com- ing; comp. ch. iv. ro, 11, and 2 Thess. iii. 6, 11, where alone ἀτάκτως occurs. Λτακτος isa ἅπαξ Neydu., cf. ἀτακτεῖν, 2 Thess. iii. 7. On the meaning of νουθετεῖν, see notes and reff. on ver. 12. παραμυθ.] See note on ch. ii. 11.
τοὺς ὀλιγοψύχους] ‘the feeble-minded ,’ perhaps mainly (as the παραμυθ. seems to suggest) in reference to those who were unduly anxious and sorrowful about the state of the κοιμώμενοι, ch.
OEZZAAONIKEI® A.
παραμυθεῖσθε τοὺς ὀλιγοψύχους, ἀντέχεσθε
ὁρᾶτε μή
iv. 13; ὀλιγοψύχους τοὺς ἐπὶ τοῖς τε- θνεῶσιν ἀμέτρως ἀθυμοῦντας ὠνόμασεν, Theod.,— who however not injudi- ciously also includes τοὺς μὴ ἀνδρείως φέροντας τῶν ἐναντίων Tas προσβολάς, comp. Theoph. ὀλιγόψ. ὁ μὴ φέρων πειρασμόν. The word ὀλιγόψ. is a
’ dar. λεγόμ. in the N.T., and appy. of
rare occurrence elsewhere except in the LXX (Isaiah lvii. 15, Prov. xviii.
14, al.; comp. Artemid. Oneiroer. 111.
5); the more correct and usual term being μικρόψυχος, Aristot. Lthic. Ni- com. IV. 7, Isocr. Panegyr. p. 76D. ἀντέχεσθε τῶν ἀσθενῶν] ‘support the weak ;’ clearly not the weak in body (Luke x. 9, Acts iv. 9, v. 15, 1 Cor. xi. 30), but the weak in faith, τοὺς μὴ ἑδραίαν κεκτημένους πίστιν, Theod.; comp. 1 Cor. viii. 7, 10, so Chrys., Theoph., Gicum., and nearly all mo- dern commentators. In Rom. v. 6, and appy. 1 Cor. ix. 22, the reference seems to be more inclusive, as marking those who were not Christians, who had not yet received the strength im- parted by the Holy Spirit. The verb ἀντέχεσθαι (comp. Matth. vi. 24, Luke Xvi. 13, and more generically Tit. i. 9) does not so much seem to imply ‘ob- servare,’ Beng., as ὑπερείδειν, Theod., ὑποστηρίζειν, Theoph., ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι (Bekker, Anecd. p. 408), or perhaps more exactly ‘sustinere,’ Clarom. (comp. Goth., Aith.), with a more direct allusion to the primary and physical meaning of the word; comp. notes on Tit. l.c., and see Suicer, Thesaur. s.v. Vol. 1. p. 371. μακροθυμ. πρὸς πάντας] ‘be long-suf- fering to all;’ not merely to the three classes just mentioned (Theoph.), but to all, καὶ τοὺς οἰκείους Kal τοὺς ἀλλο: τρίους, Theod.; comp. ver. 15. On the term μακροθυμεῖν opp. to ὀξυθυμεῖν
V. 15, 16. 79
κ 9 4 A a. δῶ 9 A , ΘΝ. τις κακὸν ἄντίὶ κακοῦ τινὶ ἀποὐῷ, ἀλλὰ πάντοτε τὸ
, , ἀγαθὸν διώκετε εἰς ἀλλήλους Kal εἰς πάντας. πάντοτε τό
15. εἰς ἀλλήλους] So Lachm., Scholz, Tisch. (ed. 1), with ΑΘΕΕ ΟΝ; 15 mss. ; Syr., Copt., Goth., Clarom., al. (De W., Koch, Liinem., Griesb. marking it with 50), In ed. 2, 7, Tisch. inserts καὶ before εἰς with BKLN*‘; great majority of mss. ; Syr.-Phil., Vulg. (Amiat.); Chrys., Theod., al. (Rec., Alf, Wordsw.); but not on satisfactory grounds, as the external authority seems to preponderate for the omission, and the internal arguments (opp. to Alf.) would certainly seem rather in favour of its being an interpolation for the sake of
specification, than of its being omitted as unnecessary.
(Eurip. Androm. 689), which here serves to mark that gentle and for- bearing patience which is so essentially a characteristic of ἀγάπη (1 Cor. xiii. 4), seeesp. Basil, Serm. (Sym. metaphr. } xin. Vol. 111. p. 784 (ed. Bened. 1839), the good notice in Suicer, Thesaur. s.v. Vol. 11. p. 293 sq., Rothe, Theol. Ethik, § 1056sq., Vol. 11. p. 518 sq., and comp. 2 Tim. iii. ro, and notes and reff. on Eph. iv. 2. Lastly, πρὸς is not merely ‘in regard to,’ ‘ad omnes,’ Vulg., Clarom., ‘cum omni- bus,’ Copt., but more precisely and definitely, erga: comp. the Goth. ‘vipra,’ and see notes on Gal. vi. το. 15. ὁρᾶτε μή τις K.7.A.] “See that no man render evil, ὅτο. ; warning against revenge,—yet surely not in the sense that the better among them were to check its outbreaks in others (De W.), but simply that all were to abstain from it; see Liinem. én loc. The usual and correct statement that Christianity was the first system de- finitely to forbid the returning evil for evil (see Fritz. Rom. xii. 17, Vol. 1m. Ῥ. 91) is called in question by Jowett
on the ground that ‘Plato knew that |
it was not the true definition of jus- tice to do harm to one’s enemies.’ Not _ to multiply quotations, can we sustain this opinion against de Legg. 1x. p. 868 B, p. 882, al., where vengeance rather than punishment seems certainly con- templated by the legislator? Indivi-
dual instances of the recognition of this precept may be found in hea- thenism (see Pfanner, Theol. Gentil. ch. ΧΙ. ὃ 23, comp. Basil, de Legend. Gent. Libr. ὃ 5, Vol. τι. p. 251, ed. Bened.), but as a general statement the remark of Hermann seems to be perfectly correct ; ‘nec laudant Greci si quis iniquis equus est, sed virtutem esse censent equis equuim, iniquum autem iniquis esse,’ on Soph. Philoct. 679. The formula ὁρᾶν μὴ (Matth. xviii. 10, Mark i. 44) is of less frequent occurrence than βλέπειν μή (Mark xill. 5, Acts xiii. 40, 1 Cor. x. 12, al.), but is more classical and correct: for exx. of it in combination with the pres. and aor. subj., see, if necessary, the collection in Gayler, Partik. Neg. Ῥ. 316 sq. ἀποδῷ] ‘render,’ ‘usgildai,? Goth. The primary idea conveyed by ἀποδιδόναι, scil. ‘ubi quid de aliqu& copia das’ and thence ‘ubi dando te exsolvis debito’ (Winer) here naturally passes into that of ‘re- tribuere,’ the κακὸν being represented as something stored up, out of which and with which payment would be made; see Winer, de Verb. Comp. tv. p- 12, 13, where this verb is well dis- cussed. The opt. ἀποδοῖ is found in D? (appy.) FGN}, and ἀποδοίη in D1. τὸ ἀγαθὸν διώκετε] ‘follow after that which is good;’ not here what is ‘morally good’ (Liinem.), but, as the antithesis seems rather to require,
‘al 17
what is ‘beneficial,’ what proves good to him who receives it: οὐκ ἀρκεῖ τὸ μὴ ἀποδοῦναι κακὰ ἀντὶ κακῶν, ἀλλὰ χρή, φησί, καὶ ἀγαθοῖς ἀμείβεσθαι τὸν κακοποιήσαντα, Theoph., comp. Chrys. Some shade of the same meaning is perhaps apparent in Gal. vi. το, Eph. iv. 28 (see notes): here however it seems to be more decidedly brought out by the preceding κακόν. On the use of διώκειν (ἐπιτεταμένως σπουδάζειν τι, Theoph.) with abstract substan- tives or their equivalents, see notes and reff. on 2 Tim. ii. 22, and for exx. of the same use in classical Greek, see Ast, Lex. Platon. s.v. Vol. 1. p. 548 sq. The correlative term is καταλαμ- βάνειν, Phil. iii. 12, and the antithesis φεύγειν, Plato, Gorg. p. 507 B.
16. πάντοτε χαίρετε] ‘ Rejoice al- way ;’ Phil. iii. 1, iv. 4, comp. 2 Cor. vi. 10; not merely κἂν πειρασμοῖς περιπέσητε (Theoph.), —a limitation not inappropriate in reference to the recent troubles at Thessalonica, but at all times—under all circumstances and in all dispensations. To the en- quiry ‘Why should this be a duty?’ (comp. Jowett) it seems sufficient to say with Barrow, in his good sermon on this text,—‘if we scan all the doc- trines, all the institutions, all the pre- cepts, all the promises of Christianity, will not each appear pregnant with matter of joy, will not each yield great reason and strong obligation to this duty of rejoicing evermore?’ Serm. XL. Vol. 11. p. 557; see also sound and comprehensive sermons by Beve- ridge, Serm. cv. Vol. v. p. 62 84. (A.-C. Libr.), and Donne, Serm. OxxxI. Vol. v. p. 344 8α. (ed. Alf.). The true originating cause (ch. i. 6) and true sphere (Rom. xiv. 17) of this joy is the Holy Spirit, and its more immediate source is Faith ; see notes on Phil.i. 25.
ΠΡῸΣ OEZZAAONIKEI® A.
18 χαίρετε" ἀδιαλείπτως προσεύχεσθε' ἐν παντὶ εὐχαρι-
17. ἀδιαλείπτως προσεύχ.7ὔ ‘pray without ceasing; a precept naturally following on and suggested by the foregoing words ; τὴν ὁδὸν ἔδειξε τοῦ ἀεὶ χαίρειν, τὴν ἀδιάλειπτον προσευχὴν καὶ εὐχαριστίαν' ὁ γὰρ ἐθισθεὶς ὁμιλεῖν τῷ Θεῷ καὶ εὐχαριστεῖν αὐτῷ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν ὡς συμφερόντως συμβαίνουσι, πρόδηλον ὅτι χαρὰν ἕξει διηνεκῆ, Theoph. This exhortation to unceasing prayer is dis- tinctly urged by the Apostle in other passages (comp. Eph. vi. 18, Col. iv. 2), and is certainly neither to be explained away as ‘a precept capable of fulfil- ment in idea rather than in fact’ (Jowett), nor yet, with Bp. Andrewes, to be referred to appointed hours of prayer (Serm. vi. Vol. v. p. 354, A.-C. Libr.), but is to be accepted in the simple and plain meaning of the words, and obeyed, as Barrow has well shown, by cherishing a spirit of prayer, and by making devotion the real and true business of life: see Wordsw. in loc., who appositely cites Barrow, Serm. Vol. 1. p. 1078q. Surely the τὸ ὁμι- λεῖν τῷ Θεῴ (Theoph.) is one of those things which is real and actual; οὐδὲ τοῦτο τῶν ἀδυνάτων, ῥᾷδιον yap καὶ τῷ ἐσθίοντι τὸν Θεὸν ἀνυμνεῖν, καὶ τῷ βαδί- ζοντι τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ συμμαχίαν αἰτεῖν, Theod.; compare Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. 11. 2, p. 335. On the duty of constant prayer, see the sound remarks of Hammond, Pract. Catech. It. 2, p. 224 (not quite decided on this text), and on the power of it, compare the noble epilogue of Tertullian, de Orat. cap. 29.
18. ἐν παντὶ εὐχαριστεῖτε] “75 every thing give thanks; not ἐν παντὶ scil. καιρῷ, Flatt (comp. Chrys. ἀεί), still less ‘in iis que vobis bona sunt,’ Est., but ἐν παντὶ scil. χρήματι, Chrys.
on Phil. iv. 6, $0,80 (do Syr.,
a ἝΝ 4 ial vel oe ve
oe
V. 17—20.
81
crete τοῦτο yap θέλημα Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿]ησοῦ
a = ἢ Ι εἰς ὑμᾶς. τὸ ]]νεῦμα μὴ σβέννυτε: προφητείας μὴ Pr
‘in omnibus,’ Vulg., Copt.; comp. 2 Cor. ix. 8, ἐν παντὶ πάντοτε, which seems to fix the interpretation, and contrast ἐν μηδενί, Phil. i. 28. On the duty of εὐχαριστία, so often dwelt on by St Paul (comp. notes on Col. iii. 15), see Beveridge, Serm. Οὐ. Vol. Vv. p. 76 sq., and on this and on the preced- ing verses Basil’s homily de Grat. Act. Vol. 11. p. 34 (ed. Bened. 1839). τοῦτο γάρ] ‘for this,’ scil. τὸ ἐν παντὶ εὐχαρ. (Theoph., Gicum.); not with reference to it and ver. 17 (Grot.), nor to it and the two preceding verses (Alf.), for though the three precepts χαίρετε, προσεύχεσθε, εὐχαριστεῖτε--- especially the two latter—are suffi- ciently homogeneous in character to be included in the singular τοῦτο, yet the peculiar stress which the Apostle always seems to lay on evxap. (see above) renders the single reference to εὐχαριστία apparently more probable; ‘gratiz sunt in omni re agenda, quia scimus omnia nobis cooperare ad bo- num, Rom. viii. 28,’ Cocceius; see Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. τι. 2, p. 335. So also Olsh., Bisping, and Liinem., and appy. the majority of recent ex- positors. After yap Lachm. adds ἐστιν with D!E!FG; several Vv.; and Lat. Ff., but on insufficient external, and appy. opposing internal evidence. The possible doubt caused by the juxtaposition of τοῦτο and θέλημα would naturally suggest the interpola- tion of the verb subst.
ἐν Xp. Ino. εἰς ὑμᾶς] ‘in Christ Jesus toward you:’ Christ is here represented not exactly as the medium by which (Theoph., Gicum.) but as the sphere in which the θέλημα is evinced and has its manifestation; ἐν ᾧ καὶ τὰ δόξαντα ποιεῖ καὶ ἀναγεννᾷ, Athan. contr. Arian.
9
111. 61, Vol. 1. p. 610 (ed. Bened. 1698). The objects towards whom ‘ad vos’ (Clarom.)—not ‘in vobis’ (Vulg., Copt.), nor ‘in reference to whom’ (De W.)—it was so evinced, and to whom it was designed to apply, were the converts of Thessalonica. The reference of θέλημα to the ‘decretum divinum de salute generis humani per Christum reparand&’ (see Schott) is grammatically doubtful on account of the omission of the article, and by no means exegetically plausible. The θέλημα seems here suitably anarthrous, as marking εὐχαρ. as one part and portion out of many contemplated in the collective θέλημα Θεοῦ; see Lii- nem. in loc.
19. τὸ Πνεῦμα] ‘the (Holy) Spirit,’ not merely ‘vim divinam Christianis propriam’ (Noesselt; comp. Beck, Seelenl. p. 37), nor even the gifts of the Spirit as evinced in prophecy (Theod.), nor, more generally, τὴν ἐν αὐτοῖς ἀναφθεῖσαν τοῦ Πνεύματος χάριν (Athan. ad Serap. I. 4; see Chrys.), but simply the Holy Spirit, which dwells within in association with our spirit, and evinces His presence by varied spiritual gifts and manifestations; comp. I Cor. xii. 8sq., and see Waterl. Serm. XX1. Vol. v. p. 641. The sub- ject of prayer leads naturally to the mention of the Holy Inspirer of it (comp. Rom. viii. 26, Gal. iv. 6), and thence to the specification of other gifts (προφητείας, ver. 20) which ema- nate from the same blessed Source. μη σβέννυτε] ‘ quench’not,’ whether in yourselves or in others ; contrast 2 Tim. i.6. The Eternal Spirit is represented as a fire (comp. Andrewes, Serm. Vol. ΠΙ. p. 124, A.-C. Libr.) which it was regarded as possible to extinguish,—.
G
89
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙ͂Σ A.
21 ἐξουθενεῖτε' πάντα δὲ δοκιμάζετε, τὸ καλὸν κατέχετε'
not however in the present case by a βίος ἀκάθαρτος (Chrys.), but, in accord- ance with the context,—by a studied repression and disregard of its mani- festation, arising from erroneous per- ceptions and a mistaken dread of en- thusiasm; comp. Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 202 (Bohn). This is more distinctly specified in what follows. For several illustrations of the ex- pression, see exx. in Wetst., the most pertinent of which is Galen, de Theriac. I. 17, τὸ φάρμακον...τὸ ἔμφυτον πνεῦμα ῥαδίως σβέννυσιν. Plutarch, de Defect. Orac. ὃ 17, p. 419 B, ἀποσβῆναι τὸ πνεῦμα. Tisch, ed. 7 gives ἔβέν- vure on the authority of B'D' FG.
20. προφητείας] ‘prophecies,’ not merely announcements of what was to come to pass, but, in accordance with the more extended meaning of προφή- τὴς in the N. T. (see notes on Eph. iv. 11), varied declarations of the divine counsels and expositions of God’s ora- cles, immediately inspired by and emanating from the Holy Spirit; see Meyer on 1 Cor. xii. 10, and Fritz. Rom. xii. 6, Vol. 111. p. 55—59. The difference then between ordinary 6:- δαχὴ and προφητεία consisted in this, that the latter was due to the imme- diate influence of the Spirit, the former to an ἐξ οἰκείας διαλέγεσθαι, Chrys. ; see Neander, Planting, Vol. I. p. 133 (Bohn), and for a comparison between prophecy and speaking with tongues, Thorndike, Relig. Assemblies, ch. v. Vol. I. p. 182 sq. (A.-C. Libr.). ἐξουθενεῖτε] ‘despise,’ ‘set at naught ;’ a word used in the N.T. both by St Paul (Rom. xiv. 3, 10, 1 Cor. i. 28, al.) and St Luke (xviii. 9, xxiii. 11, Acts iv. 11), and found also in the LXX and later writers. On this word, and also the more orthographically correct but apparently less usual ἐξου-
ενεῖν (Mark ix. 12, Lachm.) and ἐξου-
ενοῦν (Mark ix. 12; LXX; al: Hesych. ἀποδοκιμάζειν), compare Lo- beck, Phrynichus, p. 182. The habit of despising prophecies, here expressly forbidden, most probably arose from instances of πλανῶντες and πλανώμενοι in the Church of Thessalonica, who had brought discredit on this spiritual gift. The deduction of Olsh., that up to the present time St Paul had no apprehensions of any of the fanaticism which afterwards showed itself among the Thessalonians (see 2 Thess.), seems in every way questionable ; contrast Neander, Planting, Vol. I. p. 203 sq- (Bohn). They were even now in a state of unrest and disquietude (ch. iv. 11 sq.); nay, the very exhortation before us gains all its point from the fact that the more sober thinkers had been probably led by the present state of things to undervalue and unduly reject all the less usual manifestations of the Spirit.
21. πάντα δὲ Soxip.] ‘but prove all things,’ antithetical exhortation to the foregoing: ‘instead of despising and seeking to repress spiritual gifts, let them be manifested, but be careful to prove them.’ Πάντα must thus have a restricted sense, and be limited to the χαρίσματα previously alluded to; πάντα, φησί, δοκιμάζετε τουτέστι Tas ὄντως προφητείας, Chrys. A more precise exhortation is given to the Co- rinthians (1 Cor. xiv. 29), from which, observing the similar and peculiar subject (προφητεία) here in question, we must conclude that the present precept to exercise spiritual discern- ment applied not so much to the Church at large (Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 138, Bohn) as more restrict- edly to those who had the special gift of διακρίσεις πνευμάτων, 1 Cor, xii. 10.
Ve 21, az 4 4 » nw avo WavTos εἴδους πονήρου
In 1 John iv. 1 (see Waterl. Serm. XXVII.) the exhortation is appy. more general, but the points to be tried are more elementary, and more easy to be decided on. On the meaning of the verb δοκιμάζειν, see notes on Phil. i. το, Trench, Synon. Part 11. ὃ 24; and for an ingenious but improbable expla- nation both of the word [to test as a coin] and the following verse, Hansel, Stud, u. Krit. 1836, p. 170 sq. The δὲ is omitted by Rec., and by Tisch. ed. 2, but only on the authority of ΑΝ; appy. many mss.; Syr., Copt., al.; Orig., Chrys. (often), Theod., al. On the one hand there is only the in- ternal argument that δὲ was interpo- lated to help out the connexion; on the other hand there is the strong ex- ternal support, the ‘ paradiplomatic’ argument (comp. Pref. to Gal. p. xvii, Scrivener, Introd. to Criticism of N.T. Ῥ- 376) of the AE having fallen out before the AO, and lastly the plausible internal argument that δὲ was omitted “to make this sentence equally uncon- nected with what precedes and follows. τὸ καλὸν κατέχ.7 ‘hold fast that which is good;’ precept naturally and im- mediately following on the foregoing : ‘exercise the gift of διάκρισις, and having found what is really good hold to it; τὰ ψευδῆ καὶ τὰ ἀληθῆ μετὰ Go- κιμασίας κρίνετε, καὶ τότε τὸ δόξαν ὑμῖν καλὸν τουτέστι τὰς ἀληθεῖς προφητείας κατέχετε, τουτέστι τιμᾶτε, διὰ φροντί- δος ποιεῖσθε, Theoph. On the primary meaning and derivation of καλός [xad- λός], see Donalds. Cratyl. ὃ 334; but observe that in the N. T. it seems equally co-extensive in meaning with ἀγαθός, and frequently, as here, denotes what is simply and morally good ; see notes on ἀγαθὸς on Gal. vi. το, and comp. Aristot. Rhetor. I. 9 (init.), καλὸν μὲν οὖν ἐστὶν ὃ ἂν δι’ αὑτὸ αἱρετὸν ὃν
22, 25. 89
2 3
ἐπαινετὸν 7. On this whole verse, see an excellent practical ser- mon by Waterland, Serm. xx11I. Vol. Vv. p. 655 sq.
22. ἀπὸ παντός «T.A.] ‘ abstain from every form of evil ;’ general exhor- tation appended to and suggested by, but not closely connected (De W.) with what precedes; comp. Neand. Planting, Vol. 1, p. 204, note (Bohn). In this verse there is some little diffi- culty, depending first on the meaning of εἴδους, and secondly on the con- struction of πονηροῦ. We will notice these separately. Εἰδος cannot here be ‘appearance,’ Auth., Calv. (both probably misled by Vulg. ‘spe- cie’), as this meaning is more than lexically doubtful (comp. Luke iii. 22, ix. 29, John v. 37, 2 Cor. v. 7), and, even if it could be substantiated, would here be inappropriate, since the anti- thesis seems plainly to lie not between τὸ καλὸν and any semblance of evil, ‘quod malum etiamsi non sit apparet’ (Calv., comp. Wordsw. in loc.), but what is actually and distinctly such. We therefore adopt the more technical meaning ‘species,’ ‘sort’ (Plato, Hpin. Ῥ. 9908, εἶδος καὶ γένος, Parmen. p. — 129 0, τὰ γένη τε καὶ εἴδη), which is supported by abundant lexical autho- rity (see Rost ἃ. Palm, Lex. s.v., and the numerous exx. in Wetstein in loc.), and is exegetically clear and forcible; they were to hold fast τὸ καλὸν and avoid every sort and species (μὴ τούτου ἢ ἐκείνου, ἀλλ᾽ ἁπλῶς παντός, Theoph.) of the contrary. So probably Vulg., Clarom., ‘specie,’ and more plainly
> ἀπέχεσθε. Αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ "
Syr. aD, [negotio], Copt. 26d [re], Aath. megbar [agendi ratione], Goth.,
_al., appy. the Greek Ff., and nearly
all modern commentators. It is more difficult to decide whether πονη-
G2
84
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ A.
Α “- e »“ “ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης ἁγιάσαι ὑμᾶς ὁλοτελεῖς, καὶ ὁλό-
εἴ ae \ a . eh ᾿ δ ως πὰ A KAnpov ὑμῶν TO πνεῦμα Kal ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ TO σῶμα
pov is an adjective or substantive. Most of the ancient Vv. (Syr., Vulg., Copt., Auth.) adopt the former, and so possibly the Greek commentators ; the latter however preserves more correctly the antithesis, and infringes less (comp. Syr., Copt., al.) on the technical meaning of εἶδος. So De Wette, Liinem., Koch, Alf., and the majority of modern commentators. The absence of the article (Bengel, Middl. Gr. Art. p. 378) does not con- tribute to the decision; as abstract adjectives can certainly have this con- struction, when it is not necessary to mark the wholeness or entirety of what is specified; comp. Heb. v. 14, Plato, Republ. τι. p. 3570, Tplrov...etdos ἀγα- θοῦ, and see Jelf, Gr. ὃ 451. 5.
The artificial interpretation of Hinsel (Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 180 sq.), εἶδ, πον. --κίβδηλον νόμισμα, founded on the association of this text in several patristic citations with our Lord’s tra- ditional saying γίνεσθε τραπεζῖται δόκιμοι (see Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. τι. p- 12818q.), is here adopted by Baumg.- Crus., but rightly rejected by most subsequent expositors. Even if we admit the very doubtful assumption that the simple εἶδος might gain from the context the more definite meaning εἶδος νομίσματος, the use of ἀπέχεσθε in such a form of expression would still be, as De W. observes, appy. un- precedented.
23. Αὐτὸς δέ] ‘But may He;’ He on whom all depends,—in contrast to them and the efforts they might be enabled to make; comp. ch. iii. 12, where however the emphasis is some- what different, and the contrast less definitely marked. ὁ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης] ‘the God of peace ;’ the God of whom peace is a characterizing
attribute; the gen. falling under the general category of the gen. of content (Scheuerl. Synt. ὃ 16. 3, p. 115, comp. notes on Phil. iv. 9), and the subst. εἰρήνη marking the deep inward peace and tranquillity which is God’s espe- cial gift, and which stands in closest alliance with that holiness which the preceding clauses inculcate. On this meaning of εἰρήνη, see notes on Phil. iv. 7, and on the various meanings which it may assume in this and similar collocations, see Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Iv. 18, Vol. 11. p. 201. Odoredets}] ‘wholly;’ ‘per omnia,’ Vulg.,—in your collective powers and parts; ὁλοτ. marking more emphati- cally than ὅλους that thoroughness and pervasive nature of holiness (ὅλους δι᾽ ὅλων, CXcumen., ‘secundum omnes partes,’ Cocceius) which the following words specify with further exactness: so distinctly Theoph., odor. δὲ τί ἐστί; τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι σώματι καὶ ψυχῇ" Kal ἐφεξῆς δὲ μαθήσῃ. This seems preferable to ἡ the qualitative interpretation ‘ad perfec- tum,’ Clarom., Ath. (Syr. unites both a» n~ ρ bs
giving es5o% Aa|eaSo.9), according to which ὁλοτελεῖς would be used proleptically (Syr.-Phil.; comp. reff. on ἀμέμπτους, ch. iii. 13), but in which the connexion between the sub- stance of the first and second portions of the prayer is less close and self-explana- tory. The form ὁλοτελὴς is a ἅπ. λεγόμ. in the N. T., but occurs occasionally in later Greek; comp. Plutarch, de Placitis Philos. ὃ 21, p. 909 B.
καί] ‘and’—to specify more exactly; the copula appending to the general prayer one of more special details; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 53. 3, p- 388, and comp. notes on Phil. iv. 12. ὁλόκληρον KT.A.] ‘may your spirit
ἀμέμπτως ἐν TH παρουσίᾳ
3
...be preserved entire ;’ not ‘ your whole spirit...be preserved,’ Auth., Wordsw., comp. Syr.; ὁλόκλ., as its position shows, not being an epithet but a secondary predicate; see Donalds. Cratyl. § 302, and comp. notes on Col. ii. 3. This distinction seems to be clearly maintained by all the ancient Vv. (except appy. Syr.); some, as Vulg., al., preserving the order of the Greek; others, as Atth., rendering ὁλόκλ. by an adverb placed at the end of the clause. The adj. ὁλόκληρος is a δὶς λεγόμ. in the N. T. (here and James i. 4), and serves to mark that which is ‘entire in all its parts’ (ἐν μη- devi λειπόμενοι, James /. c.), differing from τέλειος as defining rather what is complete, while the latter marks what has reached its proper end and ma- turity. In a word, the aspect of the former word is (here especially) mainly quantitative, of the latter mainly quali- tative; comp. Trench, Synon. § 22, and for exx. see the large collection of Wetst. in loc., one of the most per- tinent of which is Lucian, Macrob. § 2, els γῆρας ἀφίκεσθαι ἐν ὑγιαινούσῃ τῇ ψυχῇ καὶ ὁλοκλήρῳ τῷ σώματι. See also Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 278.
The predicate clearly belongs to all three substantives, though structurally connected with the first. ὑμῶν τὸ πνεῦμα K.T.A.] ‘your spirit and soul and body ;’ distinct enunciation of the three component parts of the nature of man: the πνεῦμα, the higher of the two united immaterial parts, being the ‘vis superior, agens, impe- rans in homine’ (Olsh.); the ψυχή, ‘vis inferior que agitur, movetur, in imperio tenetur’ (ib.), the sphere of the will and the affections, and the true centre of the personality; see Olshausen, Opusc. p. 154, Beek, Seelenl, Il. 12, 13, p. 30 8q., Schubert, Gesch.
23.
85 TOU Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ
der Seele, ὃ 48, Vol. 11. 405 sq., comp. Vitringa, Obs. Sacr. p. 549 sq.j and more especially Destiny of the Crea- ture, Serm. V., where this text is con- sidered at length, and the scriptural distinction between the πνεῦμα and ψυχὴ discussed and substantiated. It may be remarked that we frequently find instances of an apparent dichoto- my, ‘body and soul’ (Matth. vi. 25, x. 28, Luke xii. 22, 23), or ‘body and spirit’ (1 Cor. v. 3, vii. 34, ef. Rom. Vili. 10), but such passages will be found to be only accommodations to the popular division into a material and immaterial part; the Ψυχὴ in the former of the exceptional cases includ- ing also the πνεῦμα, just as in the latter case the πνεῦμα also compre- hends the ψυχή; see Olsh. J. ¢., p- 153 note, and contrast the ineffectual denial of Loesner, Obs. p. 381. To assert that enumerations like the pre- sent are rhetorical (De W.), or worse, that the Apostle probably attached ‘no distinct thought to each of these words’ (Jowett), is plainly to set aside all sound rules of scriptural exegesis. Again to admit the distinctions but refer them to Platonism (Liinem.) is equally unsatisfactory, and equally calculated to throw doubt on the truth of the teaching. If St Paul’s words do here imply the trichotomy above described (comp. Usteri, Lehrb. p. 384 sq.), then such a trichotomy is infallibly real and true. And if Plato or Philo have maintained (as appears demonstrable) substantially the same views, then God has permitted a hea- then and a Jewish philosopher to ad- vance conjectural opinions which have been since confirmed by the independ- ent teaching of an inspired Apostle.
ἀμέμπτως] ‘blamelessly;’ the adver- bial predication of quality appended to
80.
24 “Χριστοῦ τηρηθείη. ποιήσει.
25 ᾿Αδελφοί, προσεύχεσθε περὶ ἡμῶν.
. 9 4 26 ἀσπάσασθε τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς πάντας ἐν
τηρηθείη, ὁλόκληρον (see above) involv- ing that of quantity. On the meaning of ἄμεμπτος, ‘is in quo nibil desiderari potest,’ and its distinction from ἄμω- μος, see notes on ch. ii. 10, and Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 29.
ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ «.7t.4.] Time—the coming of Christ to judgment—when the preservation of the ὁλοκληρία is especially to be evinced and found to be realized: comp. notes on ch. ii. 19. On the more exact way in which this ὁλοκληρία may be ascribed to body, soul, and spirit, see Destiny of the Creature, p. 107.
24. πιστός «7.A.] ‘Faithful is He who calleth you,’ ‘qui vocat,’ Cla- rom., scil. God the Father; comp. 1 Cor. i. 9, and see notes on Gal. i. 6. The tense is neither to be pressed as implying an enduring act (Baumg.- Crus., Bisp.), nor to be regarded as identical with the aor. ‘qui vocavit,’ Vulg., Goth., but simply to be con- sidered as timeless, and as equivalent to a substantive, ‘your Caller;’ see notes on Gal. v. 8, and Winer, Gr. § 45. 7, p- 316. Πιστὸς here in ref. to God implies a faithfulness and trueness to His nature and promises (1 Cor. i. 9; πιστὸς ὁ Θ. δι᾽ οὗ ἐκλήθητε, x. 13, 2 Cor. i. 18, 2 Tim. ii. 13), and hence becomes practically synonymous with ἀληθής, Chrys., Theod.; ἐν γὰρ τῷ ποιεῖν ἃ ἐπαγγέλλεται πιστός ἐστι λα- λῶν, Athanas. contr. Arian. Il. I0, Vol. 1. p. 478 (ed. Bened.), see Reuss, Théol. Chrét. tv. 13, Vol. 11. p. 124. ὃς Kal ποιήσει] ‘who also will do,’ not exactly ‘what I wish’ (De W.), nor ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ἐκάλεσεν sc. σώσει (Ecum., Theoph.), but simply ‘ that same thing
ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.
Α « A en εἴ 4 πιστὸς ὁ καλῶν ὑμάς, OS καὶ
Pray for us. Salute the brethren, and cause this Epistle to be read be- fore the Church.
(Arm.), scil. τὸ ἀμέμπτως ὑμᾶς τηρη- θῆναι (Bisp., Liinem.), or, as the iden- tity of subject suggests, τὸ ἁγιάσαι and τὸ τηρηθῆναι,---ἰη a word, the substance of the prayer expressed in the preceding verse. In such cases there is really no ellipse of any pro- noun; ποιεῖν is merely ‘nude positum,’ receiving its more exact explanation from the context; comp. Koch in loc., and Schémann on Iseus, de Apoll. Mars $38, Ῥ. 372.
25. προσεύχεσθε περὶ ἡμῶν] ‘pray for us; comp. Eph. vi. 19, Col. iv. 3, 2 Thess. iii. 1, Heb. xiii. 18. De Wette and Alf. remark that περὶ is here less definite than ὑπέρ; but it is very doubtful whether in this and similar formule in the N. T. the differ- ence is really appreciable ; see notes on Eph. vi. 19, Fritz. Rom. i. 8, Vol. I. p. 26, and for the general distinction between the prepositions, notes on Gal. i. 4, and on Phil. i. ἡ. The prayer was doubtless intended to include re- ference both to his own personal state and to the general success of his Apo- stolic work; comp. Cocceius in loc. Whether Silvanus and Timothy are included in ἡμῶν is perhaps doubtful: Lachm. inserts in brackets καὶ before περὶ ἡμῶν, but on authority [BD'; a few mss.; Clarom., Sangerm., Syr.- Phil., Goth.] scarcely sufficient.
26. ἀσπάσασθε κ.τ.λ.] ‘Salute all the brethren ;’ concluding exhortation, apparently addressed to the Elders of the Church (consider ver. 27). In the parallel passages, Rom. xvi. 16, 1 Cor. xvi. 20, and 2 Cor. xiii. 12 (ἐν ἁγίῳ φιλ., see Fritz. Rom. l. c.), comp. I Pet. v. 14, the exhortation is ἀσπά-
‘V. 24---27. 87 φιλήματι ἁγίῳ. ἐνορκίζω ὑμᾶς τὸν Κύριον ἀναγνω- 27 σθῆναι τὴν ἐπιστολὴν πᾶσιν τοῖς | ἁγίοις | ἀδελφοῖς.
27. [ἁγίοις] ἀδελφοῖς] The reading is very doubtful. Rec., Scholz, and Tisch. ed. 7, insert ἁγίοις with AKL; most mss.; Syr. (both), Vulg., Copt., Goth., Aath. (Platt), Arm.; Chrys., Theod. (De Wette, Koch). It is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. ed. 1, 2, with BDEFGN; 6 mss.; Clarom., Ath. (Pol.); Ambrst. (Liinem., Alf.). Though the uncial authorities strongly preponderate for the omission, still the almost unanimous testimony of the Vv., and the probability that a word, here used somewhat uniquely by St Paul in adjectival connexion with ἀδελφοῖς, should be omitted as superfluous, prevent our ex- cluding it altogether from the text: comp. Heb. iii. 1. The epithet is certainly not without pertinence in reference to the adjuration and strength of language which marks the verses: all the brethren, viewed generally as Christians, were holy (comp. Numb. xvi. 3), and would especially profit by having this letter
read to them.
cache ἀλλήλους: ἐπειδὴ φιλήματι αὐτοὺς ἀσπάσασθαι οὐκ ἠδύνατο, ἀπὼν δι’ ἑτέρων αὐτοὺς ἀσπάζεται, Chrys. The Oriental custom of kissing in their greetings (Winer, RWZ. 8. ν. ‘ Kuss,’ Vol. 1. p. 688) is here enhanced with Christian characteristics: it is to be a φίλημα ἅγιον, a φίλημα ἀγάπης, τ Pet. v. 14, an ‘osculum pacis,’ Tertull. de Orat. cap. 14, a φίλημα μυστικόν, Clem.-Alex. Pedag. 111. 11, Vol. I. p. 301 (ed. Potter),—whether as given after prayer (Just. M. Apol. 1. 65; comp. Const. Apost. τι. 57, τὸ ἐν Kuplw φίλημα), or more probably as a token of brotherly love and holy affection, — no idle, meaningless, and merely pagan custom of salutation. On this custom, see more in Bingham, Antig. 111. 3. 3, Augusti, Archdol. Vol. 11. p. 718 8q., Coteler on Const. Apost. 1. c., and Fritz. Rom. xvi. 16, Vol. 11. p. 310. The prep. ἐν may here possibly mark the accompaniment (see notes on Col. iv. 2), but is more naturally taken as simply instrumental; the φίλημα being that in which, so to say, the ἀσπασμὸς was involved; see notes on ch. iv. 18.
27. ἐνορκίζω υμᾶς k.t.A.] “1 adjure you by the Lord.’ ‘This very strong
form of entreaty has been differently explained. There does not seem suf- ficient reason for concluding from ver. 12, 13, with Olsh., that there had been such differences between the Elders and the Church of Thessalonica as to sug- gest a fear that the Epistle might not be communicated to the church at large; as the language of those verses is admirably calculated both to be- speak respect for the Elders, and to conciliate the Church. That the ex- pression arose from slight distrust com- bined with a θερμὴ διάνοια towards his converts (Chrys., Theoph.) is impro- bable ; that it was a customary form with St Paul (Jowett 1) is indemon- strable; that the inspired Apostle was not master of his words or did not know their value (Jowett 2) is mon- strous. We therefore may perhaps fall back on the reason hinted by Theodoret and expanded by recent expositors,—that a deep sense of the great spiritual importance of this Ep., not merely to those who were anxious about the κοιμώμενοι (ch. iv. 13) but to all without exception, suggested the unusual adjuration ; ὅρκον προστέθεικε, πᾶσι τὴν ἐκ τῆς καταγνώσεως ὠφέλειαν
88
TIPOZ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.
28° ‘H χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ — Benediction.
Χριστοῦ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν,
πραγματεύων, Theod. The objections of Baur are briefly but satisfactorily answered by Neander, Planting, Vol. 1. p. 126 (Bohn). The verb évopx. [Rec. has the more usual ὁρκίζω with ‘D?D°FGKLN; mss.] is appy. not found elsewhere, and is even omitted in the best modern lexicons. τὸν Κύριον] Accus. of the person; comp. Mark v. 7, Acts xix. 13, and for the similar construction of ὁρκόω, see Jelf, Gr. ὃ 583. 140. On the two forms ὁρκοῦν and ὁρκίζειν, and the pre- valence of the former in Attic writers, see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 360, 361. ἀναγνωσθῆναι] ‘be read—as the con- text suggests—publicly ;’ comp. Luke iv. 16, Acts xv. 21, 2 Cor. iii. 15, Col. iv. 16. This meaning (‘palam prvle- gatur,’ Schott) is however not specially due to the prep. dvd, as dvayv. is frequently used without any accessory notion of publicity, but is reflected on the verb by the general tenor of the sentence. The aor. infin. perhaps re- fers to the single act (Alf.), but must certainly not be pressed, as this tense in the infinitive, especially after verbs of ‘hoping,’ ‘commanding,’ &c. (see notes on ch. iv. 10), is often used in reference not merely to single acts, but to what is either timeless (‘ab omni temporis definiti conditione libera et immunis’ Stallb. on Plato, Zuthyd. p. 140), or simply eventual, and dependent on the action expressed by the finite verb; see Scheuerl. Synt. ὃ 31. 2. ἢ,
p- 320 sq., Winer, Gr. § 44. 7. Ὁ, p- 296, and esp. Schmalfeld, Syntax, $173. 4, p. 346,—where the different moods of the infin. are carefully con- sidered and contrasted.
28. “H χάρις x... ] The concluding benedictions of St Paul’s Epp. are somewhat noticeably varied. Adopt- ing the best attested readings, we may observe that the shortest form is 7 χάρις μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν, Col. iv. 18, 2 Tim. iv. 22 (preceded by ὁ Κύριος I. X. μετὰ τοῦ πνεύμ. cov), and similarly ἡ x. μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν, Tit. iii. 15, [Heb. xiii. 23,] and ἡ x. μετὰ σοῦ, 1 Tim. vi. 21; the longest being the familiar benedic- tion in 2 Cor. xiii. 13. Of the rest we have first, ἡ x. τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν "I. X. μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν, as here and Rom. xvi. 20; 2 Thess. iii. 18 and Rom. xvi. 24 (a doubtful verse) give πάντων ὑμ.; 1 Cor. Xvi. 23 omits ἡμῶν and probably Xpic- τοῦ, and appends ἡ ἀγάπη μου μετὰ πάντ. tu. ἐν Χ. Ὶ. Secondly, 7 x. τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν I. X. μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν, as Philem. 25, Gal. vi. 18 (add- ing ἀδελφοί), Phil. iv. 23 (om. ἡμῶν). And lastly, 7 x. μετὰ πάντων τῶν ἀγαπώντων τὸν Kipiov ἡμῶν I. X. ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ, Eph. vi. 24. See Koch on Philem. 25, Ὁ. 135 sq. The ἀμὴν [Rec. with AD?D?EKL ; mss.] is appy. rightly omitted by Lachm. and Tisch, with BD!FG; mss.; Clarom., San- germ., Vulg. (Amiat.), al., being very probably a liturgical addition.
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΊΚΕΙΣ B.
INTRODUCTION.
7s short but important Epistle was written by the Apostle to his converts at Thessalonica a short time after his First Epistle, and apparently from the same place. If, as seems highly probable, Corinth be regarded as the place from which the First Epistle was written (see Introd. to the First Hp.), we may reason- ably suppose the present Epistle to have been written from the same city: the same companions (ch. i. 1, comp. 1 Thess. i. 1) were still with the Apostle (contrast Acts xviii. 18); similar forms and circumstances of trial appear to have been surrounding him (ch. iii. 2, compared with 1 Thess. ii. 16, Acts xviii. 6).
The exact time at which the Epistle was written cannot be determined. If the First Epistle was written soon after the arrival of Timothy from Macedonia (ch. iii. 6), and towards the commence- ment of the Apostle’s eighteenth-month stay at Corinth (Acts xviii. 11), we shall probably not be far wrong in placing the date of the Second Epistle towards the end of the first twelve months of the Apostle’s residence there (comp. ch. iii. 2 with Acts xviii. 12, and consider ver. 18, ἔτι προσμείνας ἡμέρας ἱκανάς), and thus _but a few months after that of the First Epistle. . We may then specify the autumn of A.D. 53 as an approximately correct date: see Davidson, /ntrod. Vol. 11. p. 449.
The circumstances which gave rise to the Epistle seem clearly to have been some additional information which the Apostle had received concerning the disquieted state of the minds of his con- verts. Whether this reached him through the bearer of the First Epistle, or formed the substance of a letter from the elders of the Church of Thessalonica, must remain mere conjecture. This much however seems to be certain, that some letter had been cir- culated at Thessalonica purporting to come from the Apostle (ch. ii. 2) which, combined probably with some teaching equally said to be derived from St Paul (comp. notes on ch. ii. 2), had added
92 INTRODUCTION.
greatly to the general excitement, and rendered it necessary for this Second Epistle to be written, and to be vouched for by a clear mark of genuineness (ch. iii. 17). The purport of the letter and the teaching was clearly to the effect that the day of the Lord was at hand; and it does not seem improbable that this might have been based on some expressions in the First Epistle (ch. iv. 15, 16, 17, V. 2 sq.), which had been distorted or exaggerated so as better to keep alive the feverish anxiety and unregulated enthusiasm of the converts in this busy city. We may thus perhaps, with Davidson (Introd. Vol. 11. p. 448), consider it more probable that the Second Epistle was an indirect than a direct result of the First. It was apparently not so much designed to correct innocent mis- apprehensions of the former Epistle (Paley, al.) as to remove a positively false construction which had been put—whether with a partly good or mainly bad intent we know not—both on that Epistle and on the Apostle’s general teaching.
The whole Epistle indeed is so clearly supplemental to the First (comp. also ch. ii. 15) that we may without hesitation reject the opinion of Grotius and Ewald, who reverse the order of the two Epistles.
The main object of the Epistle then was to calm excitement, and to make it perfectly plain that the Lord’s second Advent was not close at hand, nay, that a mysterious course of events pre- viously alluded to (ch. ii. 5), of which the beginning could confessedly be already recognised (ver. 7), had first to be fully developed. Corrective instruction is thus the chief subject; with this however is associated cheering consolation under afflictions (ch. i. 4 sq.), and direct exhortation to orderly conduct (ch. 111. 6), industry (ver. 8 sq.), and quietness (ver. 12).
The authenticity and genuineness are supported by early and explicit external testimonies (Ireneus c. Her. 11. 7. 2, Clem.-Alex. Strom. v. p. 655, ed. Pott., Tertullian de Reswrr. Carn. cap. 24), and have never been called in question till recently. The objec- tions however are of a most arbitrary and subjective character, and do not deserve any serious consideration. Complete answers will be found in Liinemann, Linleitung, p. 163 sq., and Davidson, Introd. Vol. 11. p. 454 sq.
ΠΡΟΣ
Apostolic address and salutation.
ἐν Θεῴ πατρὶ ἡμῶν καὶ Κυρίῳ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ.
OESSAAONTIK ETS
ΑΥ̓͂ΛΟΣ καὶ Σιλονανὸς καὶ Τιμό- T
θεος τῆ ἐκκλησίᾳ Θεσσαλονικέων
Β.
χάρις 2
€ oan ‘ Sie 38 a ᾿ eon ᾿ , υμιν και εἰρηνή avo Θεοῦ TAT POS HWY Και Κυρίου
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
2. πατρὸς ἡμῶν] The reading is doubtful.
Tisch. (ed. 2, 7) omits, and
Lachm. brackets ἡμῶν with BDE; 3 mss.; Clarom., Sangerm.; Theoph. ; Ambrst. (ed.), Pel. (Liinem., Alf.). Ο is deficient. The pronoun is retained in Rec. with AFGKLN; appy. great majority of mss.; Syr. (both), Aug., Vulg., Goth., Aith. (both), Copt., Arm.; Chrys., Theod., al. (Griesb., but marked with®),—and appy. rightly; for on the one hand the preponderance of external authority is very decided, and on the other the probability of an omission either accidentally or intentionally, owing to the ἡμῶν just preceding, is not much less than the probability of an interpolation to conform with other
Epistles.
1. Παῦλος καὶ Σιλουανὸς καὶ T.] The same form of salutation as in the First Epistle ; see notes in loc. The only difference lies in the addition of ἡμῶν to πατρί, which, contrary to what we might have expected, does not appear to have suggested any variety of reading. Fora brief account of Silvanus and Timothy, who are here, as in the First Ep., associated with the Apostle as having co-operated with him in founding the Church of Thessalonica, see notes on 1 Z'hess. i. I.
2. χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη] Regular form of salutation, uniting both the Greek xaipew and the Hebrew iby (Gen. xlili. 23, Judges vi. 23, al.) ; τὸ χάρις ὑμῖν οὕτω τίθησιν ὥσπερ ἡμεῖς τὸ χαίρειν ἐν ταῖς ἐπιγραφαῖς τῶν ἐπι-
στολών εἰώθαμεν, Theod.-Mops. p. 145 (ed. Fritz.): see more in notes on Eph. i. 2, and in the long and labori- ous note of Koch on 1 Thess. i. 1. The remark of Thom. Aquin. is not without point, “χάρις que est princi- pium omnis boni, εἰρήνη que est finale bonorum omnium;’ see also notes on (1. τ ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμι] ‘from God our Father;’ 501]. as the source from which it emanates. In 2 John 3 we find παρὰ in the same combination, but with a difference of meaning that in the present case (in ref. to God) is scarcely appreciable, and depends perhaps entirely on the usage and mode of conception of the writer. St John, for example, uses παρὰ (with gen.) and ἀπὸ in a propor-
94
ΠΡΟΣ OEZZAAONIKEI®> B.
4 ~ . ~ ~ r 3 Kvyapioreiv ὀφείλομεν TH Θεῷ “παν-- We thank God for your
faith and patience. He will recompense you
a A τ τοτε περὶ ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοί, καθὼς ἄξιόν ΟΣ ἀν
He count you worthy of
9 “ e 4 U ~ ἐστιν OTL ὑπεραυξάνει ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν, καὶ His calling.
tion rather more than 1 to 3, while St Paul uses the same prepp. in a pro- portion of 1 to nearly 10. The gene- ral distinction between these prepp. (ἀπό, emanation simply; παρά, eman. from a personal source) and the more frequently used ἐκ is well stated by Winer, Gr. § 47. b, p. 326.
καὶ Κυρίου κ.τ.λ.} Scil. καὶ ἀπὸ Κυ- ρίου κιτ.λ.; not καὶ πατρὸς Κυρίου κι τ᾿ Δ., an interpretation rendered highly improbable by the occurrence of πατὴρ without any gen.—here possibly (see crit. note); with less doubt in Gal. i. 3, 1 Tim. i. 2; and with no var. of reading in 2 Tim. i. 2, Tit. i. 4; see notes on Eph. i. 3.
3. Hvyap. ὀφείλομεν] ‘We are bound to give thanks,’ scil. St Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy. Though we must be cautious in pressing the plural in every case, yet in the present, when we re- member the relation in which Silvanus and Timothy stood to the Church of Thessalonica, it can hardly be over- looked: see notes on 1 Thess. i. 2. On this use of εὐχαριστεῖν in the sense of χάριν ἔχειν, see notes on Phil. i. 3, and for the constructions of evxap., notes on Col. i. 12. The occurrence in this connexion of so strong a word as ὀφείλειν is well worthy of note. περὶ ὑμῶν] ‘concerning you,’ with no very appreciable difference from ὑπὲρ (Eph. i. 16) in the same formula; see notes on τ Thess. i. 2, Υ. 25, and for the distinction between these preposi- tions in cases where they appear less interchangeable, see on Gal. i. 4, and on Phil. i. 7. καθὼς ἀξιόν ἐστιν) ‘as it is meet ;᾽ ποῦ on the one hand a mere parenthetical addition to the preceding edxap. ὀφείλ, (‘ut par
est,’ Beza), nor yet on the other an emphatic statement of the ‘modus eximius’ (Schott; καὶ διὰ λόγων καὶ δι᾿ ἔργων, Theoph. 2) in which such a εὐχαριστία ought. to be offered, but simply a connecting clause between the first member of the sentence and the distinctly causal statement ὅτι ὑπεραυξάνει x.7.X. which follows, and with which καθὼς ἄξιον x. τ. Δ. stands in more immediate union. Thus, as Liinem. well observes, while the ὀφεί- λομεν states the duty of the εὐχαριστία on its subjective side, καθὼς κ.τ.λ. subjoins the oljective aspects. Few probably will hesitate to prefer this simple and logical explanation to any assumption so injurious to the inspired writer as that of a tautology design- ed to supply the place of emphasis (Jowett). ὅτι will thus be not relatival, 2 [quod] Syr., but dis- tinctly causal, ‘quoniam,’ Vulg., Clarom., Aith. (both), Goth., Syr.- Phil.,—in close union with the clause immediately preceding. It may be remarked that few particles in St Paul’s Epp. cause a more decided dis- crepancy of interpretation than ὅτι. Between the merely objective (Winer, Gr. ὃ 53. 9, Ῥ- 398) and the strictly causal force (id. 8. Ὁ, p. 395) of the particle it is not only often very diffi- cult to decide, but in several passages (e.g. Rom. viii. 21) exegetical con- siderations of some moment will be found to depend on the decision.
ὑπεραυξάνει)] ‘increaseth above mea- sure;’ a ἅπ. λεγόμ. in the N. T. and not a very common word elsewhere comp. Andoc. contr. Alcib. p. 32 (ed. Steph.), τοὺς ὑπερανξανομένους. The predilection of St Paul for emphatic
I. 3, 4-
95
, ε 9 ld ae ae , e a 9 9 , πλεοναζει ἡ ἀγάπη ενὸς εκάστου πάντων ὑμῶν εἰς ἀλλή- 4
ea en b A 9 e° τὰς > ~ 9 - 3 λους, WOTE ἡμᾶς αὑτους εν UMLY ἐνκαυχάσθαι εν ταῖς εκ-
compounds οὗ ὑπὲρ has been noticed and briefly illustrated on Eph. iti. 20; see also Fritz. Rom. v. 20, Vol. 1. Ῥ. 351. It may be observed that ὑπεραυξάνει appears to be associated with πίστις as conveying more dis- tinctly the idea of organic evolution and growth (comp. Matth. xvii. 20, Luke xvii. 6), while with ἀγάπη a term is used which expresses more generally the idea of spiritual enlarge- ment, and of extension toward others ; comp. notes on 1 Thess. iii. 12.
ἑνὸς ἑκάστου K. τ΄ λ.7 ‘of every one of you all toward each other ;’ not with- out distinctive emphasis,— first, in specifying that this ἀγάπη was not merely general, but was individually manifested (ton ἣν παρὰ πάντων ἡἣ ἀγάπη εἰς πάντας, Theoph.), and secondly, in showing that it was not restricted in its exhibitions to those who loved them, but extended to all their fellow-Christians at Thessalo- nica; ὅταν μερικῶς ἀγαπῶμεν, οὐκ ἀγά- πη τοῦτο ἀλλὰ διάστασις" εἰ γὰρ διὰ τὸν Θεὸν ἀγαπᾷς πάντας ἀγάπα, Theoph. On this verse see five practical ser- mons by Manton, Works, Vol. Iv. p. 420—458 (Lond. 1698).
4. ἡμᾶς αὐτούς] ‘we ouwrselves,’— as well as others, whether among you or elsewhere, who might call attention to your Christian progress more natu- rally and appropriately than those who felt it to be humanly speaking due to their own exertions, but who in the present case could not forbear. De Wette compares 1 Thess. i. 8, but it may be doubted whether St Paul had here that passage very distinctly in his thoughts. To refer ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς to St Paul himself, in contrast to his associates included in the preceding plural verbs (Schott), seems distinctly
illogical: and to leave open the possi- bility that this may be only an instance of ‘false emphasis or awkwardness of expression’ (Jowett) can only be cha- racterized as a subterfuge at variance with all fair, sound, and reasonable exegesis. The distinction between ἡμεῖς αὐτοὶ (in which the emphasis falls on the ἡμεῖς) and αὐτοὶ ἡμεῖς (in which it falls more on the αὐτοί, comp. 1 Thess. iv. 9) is illustrated by Kriiger, Sprachl. § 51. 2. 8. The order αὐτοὺς ἡμᾶς is here actually given by BN; 7 mss. ἐν ὑμῖν ἐνκαυχᾶσθαι] ‘boast in you;’ you were the objects of it, and the sphere or rather substratum of its manifesta- tion; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 48. a. 3. a, p- 345, and see notes on Gal. i. 24. The somewhat rare form ἐνκαυχᾶσθαι is found a few times in the LXX, e.g. Psalm 111. 1, cvi. 47, al., in 600]. writers, and in Aisop, Fab. cocxLi. p- 139 (ed. Schneider). ‘The reading is not by any means certain: Ree. with DE(FG καυχήσασθαι) KL; mss. ; many Ff., reads καυχάσθαι; but the probability that the change to the simpler and more common form is due to a corrector is in this case so great that the reading of Lachm. and Tisch., supported by ABN; 17, must be con- sidered to deserve the preference. C is deficient. ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλ. τοῦ Θεοῦ] ‘in the Churches of God,’ scil. in Corinth and its neighbourhood, where the Apostle was at the time of writing this Ep.; comp. Acts xviii. 11, and see Wieseler, Chronol. p. 254 sq. The remark of Chrys., é- ταῦθα δείκνυσι καὶ πολὺν παρελθόντα χρόνον" ἣ γὰρ ὑπομονὴ ἀπὸ χρόνου φαί- νεται πολλοῦ, οὐκ ἐν δύο καὶ τρισὶν nuépars,—muust be received with reser- vation; as there seems no reason for
“
90 ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΔΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ B.
. es aA m Ὁ A “ ς a α΄ Μὰ 4 ’ κλησίαις τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑπερ τῆς ὑπομονῆς ὑμῶν καὶ πίστεως
ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς διωγμοῖς ὑμῶν καὶ ταῖς θλίψεσιν αἷς SE ὦ “" “ ὃ , " “ “ “3 A 5 ἀνέχεσθε, ἔνδειγμα τῆς δικαίας κρίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ, εἰς TO
thinking that the Epistle was written any later than the spring of 54 A. D., probably a few months earlier; comp. Liinem. Finleit. p. 160.
τῆς drop. ὑμῶν Kal πίστεως] ‘your patience and faith ;’ precise subjects of the Apostle’s boasting. There is no ὃν διὰ δυοῖν in these words, scil. ὑπομονῆς ἐν πίστει, Grot.,—ever a doubtful and precarious assumption (see Fritz. on Matth. p. 853 ff. Excurs. Iv. where this grammatical formula is well considered), nor does πίστις here imply ‘fidelis constantia confessionis ἢ Beng., ‘ Treue,’ Liinem.,—a doubtful meaning of πίστις in the N. T., es- pecially when the more usual meaning has just preceded (ver. 3) in reference to the same subjects. The Thessa-
lonians evinced faith in its proper and usual sense, in(bearing up under their tribulations, and) believing on Him while they were bearing His cross. On the meaning of ὑπομονή (here al- most taking the place of ἐλπίς, Neand. Planting, p. 479, Bohn), which in the N.T. seems ever to imply not mere ‘endurance’ but ‘brave patience,’ see notes and reff. on 1 Thess. i. 3.
πᾶσιν seems clearly to belong only to διωγμοῖς ; the article would otherwise have been omitted before @Alpeow. The distinction between the two words appears sufficiently obvious: διωγμὸς is the more special term (‘injurias complectitur quas Judi et ethnici Christianis propter doctrine Christi- ane professionem imposuerunt,’ Fritz.), θλίψις the more general and compre- hensive; see Fritz. Rom. viii. 35, Vol. I. ἢ. 221. αἷς dvé- χεσθε] ‘which ye are enduring,’ ‘ quas sustinetis,’ Vulg., Clarom.; ordinary
and regular attraction (Winer, . Gr. § 24. 1, p. 147)—for ὧν ἀνέχ., if we follow the analogy of 2 Cor. xi. 1, 2 Tim. iv. 3,—or for as ἀνέχ., if we follow the more usual structure of the verb in classical Greek. In the N.T. ἀνέχομαι is associated most commonly with persons, and but rarely with things; in both cases however it is followed by a gen., while in earlier Greek it generally, esp. with persons, takes the accus.; see Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v. Vol. I. p. 227. The present tense shows that the application is still going on, and is in no way at variance with 1 Thess. i. 6, ii. 14 (contrast Baur, Paulus, p. 488, notes), which refer to an earlier persecution that appears to have partially sub- sided before the first Epistle was writ- ten. The present allusion, as Liinem. rightly observes, is to some fresh out- break. On this verse and on the remaining verses of the chapter, see sixteen practical sermons by Manton, Works, Vol. Vv. p. 393—514 (Lond. 1608).
5. ἔνδειγμα «.7.A.] ‘(which is) a token or proof of the righteous judg- ment, &e.;’ appositional clause to the whole foregoing sentence, and practi- cally equivalent to ὅ τι ἐστιν ἔνδειγμα κτλ. ; comp. Phil. i. 28 [whence ob- serve the comparatively slight differ- ence of meaning between the two verbals], and see Fritz. Rom. xii. 1, Vol. 111. p. 16. The apposition here seems to be not accusatival (Rom. xii. 1, 1 Tim. ii. 6), but nominatival, ἔνδειγμα not referring merely to the clause that more immediately involves the verb, but to all the preceding words, τῆς ὑπομονῆς---ἀνέχεσθε: the
I. 5.
97
καταξιωθῆναι ὑμᾶς τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὑπὲρ ἧς Kat
endurance of all their persecutions and their afflictions in patience and faith formed the ἔνδειγμα τῆς δικαίας κρίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ; comp. Rom. viii. 3, and see Winer, Gr. ὃ 50. 9, Ρ. 472. The reference of ἔνδειγμα to the Thessalonians (‘ipsi Thessal. adversa sustinentes intelligi possunt esse ex- emplum justi judicii Dei,’ Est.) is grammatically plausible, but both logically and exegetically improbable and unsatisfactory: the proof of the righteous judgment of God was not to be looked for in the Thessalonians themselves, but in their acts and their patient endurance. τῆς δι- Kalas κρίσεως] ‘the just judgment,’ that will be displayed at the Lord’s second coming (comp. ver. 7), when they whe have suffered with and for the Lord will also reign with Him; To refer the δικαία κρίσις solely to present suffer- ings as perfecting and preparing the Thessalonians for future glory (Olsh.)} is to miss the whole point of the sentence: the Apostie’s argument is
comp. 2 Tim. ii. 12.
that their endurance of sufferings in faith is a token of God’s righteous judgment and of a future reward, which will display itself in rewarding the patient sufferers, as surely as it will inflict punishment on their perse- cutors; ἴστε σαφῶς τῶν κινδύνων τὰ ἄθλα, καὶ τὴν τῶν οὐρανῶν προσδέχεσθε βασιλείαν, τοῦ ἀγωνοθέτου τὴν δικαίαν ἐπιστάμενοι ψῆφον, Theod.
εἰς τὸ καταξιωθ.} ‘that ye may be counted worthy ;’? general direction of the δικαία κρίσις and object to which it tended. This infinitival clause has been associated with three different portions of the preceding sentence ; (a) with αἷς ἀνέχεσθε, scil. ‘quas afflictiones sustinetis eo fine et fructu ut...efficiamini digni regno Dei,’ Est. ;
(Ὁ) with ἔνδειγμα--- Θεοῦ, scil. ‘que perseverantia vestra judicii divini jus- tissimi olim futuri pignori inservit, quod hoe attinet ut digni judicemini,’ Schott 2; (c) with δικαίας κρίσεως, 50 as to mark either (1) the result to which it tended, Liinem., or (2) the aim which it contemplated, De Wette. Of these, while (a) causes the really important member ἔνδειγμα k.7.X. to relapse into a mere parenthesis, and (Ὁ) infringes on the almost regular taeaning of εἰς τὸ with the infin., (c) preserves the logical sequence of clauses and the usual force of εἰς τὸ with the infin. Whether however the result or the aim is here specified is somewhat doubtful. The decidedly predominant usage in St Paul’s Epp. of eis τὸ with the inf. suggests the latter (Winer, ‘Gr. § 44. 6, p. 295, Meyer on Rom. i. 20, note): as how- ever there seems some reason for recognising elsewhere in the N.T. a secondary final force of eis τό (see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 12), we may perhaps most plausibly in the present case regard the καταξιωθῆναι x. 7.2. not purely as the purpose, ‘in order to,’ Alf., but rather as the object to which it tended: the general direction and tendency of the κρίσις was that patient and holy sufferers should be accounted worthy of God’s kingdom. τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ Θεοῦ] ‘the king- dom of God;’ His future kingdom in heaven, of which the Christian here on earth is a subject, but the full privileges of which he is to enjoy hereafter; see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 12, and comp. Bauer’s treatise there alluded to, de Notione Regni Div. in N.T. in Comment. Theol. Part 11. Ῥ. 120 sq. ὑπὲρ ἧς καὶ πά- σχετε] ‘ for which ye are also suffering ;" not exactly ‘pro quo consequendlo,’
H
98
ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙΣ Β.
6 πάσχετε' εἴπερ δίκαιον παρὰ Θεῷ ἀνταποδοῦναι τοῖς 7 θλίβουσιν ὑμᾶς θλίψιν καὶ ὑμῖν τοῖς θλιβομένοις ἄνεσιν
Est., but, with a more general refer- ence, ‘in behalf of which,’ ‘for the sake of which,’—the ὑπὲρ marking the object for which (‘in commodum cujus,’ Usteri, Lehrd. τι. τ. 1, p. 116) the suffering was endured (comp. Acts v. 41, Rom. i. 5, see Winer, Gr. § 48.1, p. 343), while the καὶ with a species of consecutive force supplies a renewed hint of the connexion be- tween the suffering and the καταξιω- θῆναι x. 7.. On this force of καί, see Winer, Gr. ὃ 53. 3, p- 387, and comp. notes on 1 Thess. iv. 1. The clause thus contains no indirect assertion that sufferings established a claim to the kingdom of God (ἀπὸ τοῦ πάσχειν προπορίζεται ἣ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, Theoph.), but only confirms the idea elsewhere expressed in Scripture that they formed the avenue which led to it (οὕτως δεῖ els τὴν βασιλείαν εἰσιέναι, Chrys.), and that the connexion be- tween holy suffering and future bles- sedness was mystically close and indis- soluble ; comp. Acts xiv. 22, Rom. viii. 17. On the general aspects of suffering in the N.T., see Destiny of the Creature, p. 36—43.
6. εἴπερ δίκαιον] ‘if so be that it is righteous ;’ confirmation, in a hypo- thetical form, of the preceding decla- ration of the justice of God, derived from His dealings with their persecu- tors. The εἴπερ thus involves no doubt (οὐκ ἐπὶ ἀμφιβολίας τέθεικεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ βεβαιώσεως, Theod.), but only, with a species of rhetorical force, regards as an assumption (“ εἴπερ usurpatur de re que esse sumitur,?’ Hermann, Viger, No. 310) what is really felt to be a certain and recognised verity; τίθησι τὸ εἴπερ ws ἐπὶ τῶν ὡμολογημένων, Chrys, On the force οὗ εἴπερ, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 528, and on
its distinction from elye, comp. notes on Gal, iii. 4. The word δίκαιον evi- dently points back to the δικαία κρίσις in ver. 5, not with any antithetical allusion to the grace of God (comp. Pelt), but in simple and immediate reference to His justice as regarded under the analogies of strict human justice (εἰ γὰρ παρὰ ἀνθρώποις τοῦτο δίκαιον, πολλῷ μᾶλλον παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ, Chrys.), and as inferred from His own declarations: comp. Rom. ii. 5, Col. iii, 24, 25. παρὰ Θεῷ] ‘before God,’ ‘with God,’ ‘apud Deum,’ Vulg.
Ba $0.0 [coram Deo] Syr.; the
secondary idea of locality (‘motion connected with that of closeness,’ Donalds. Cratyl. § 177) being still faintly retained in the notion of judg- ment as at a tribunal, 6. g. Herod. 111. 160, παρὰ Δαρείῳ κριτῇ ; comp. Gal. iii. 11, and see Winer, Gr. ὃ 48. d, p- 352. On the meaning of ἀνταπο- διδόναι, see notes on τ Thess. iii. 9. τοῖς θλίβουσιν k.7.A.] ‘to those that afflict you affliction ;’ the ‘ jus talionis’ exhibited in its clearest form: the θλέ- Bovres are requited with θλέψις, the θλιβόμενοι with ἄνεσις. Theoph. sub- joins the further comparison; οὐχ ὥσπερ δὲ αἱ ἐπαγόμεναι ὑμῖν θλίψεις πρόσκαιροι, οὕτω καὶ αἱ τοῖς θλίβουσιν ὑμᾶς ἀντεπαχθησόμεναι. παρὰ Θεοῦ πρόσκαιροι ἔσονται, ἀλλ᾽ ἀτελεύτητοι" καὶ αἱ ἀνέσεις ὑμῖν τοιαῦται.
7. τοῖς θλιβομένοις] ‘who are af- jlicted ;’ passive, clearly not middle, ‘qui pressuram toleratis,’ Beng., as the antithesis would thus be marred, and the illustration of the ‘jus talionis’ rendered somewhat less distinct. ἄνεσιν μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν] ‘rest with us;’ rest in company with us who are writing to you, and who like you have been
a 6.3.7.6.
99
“ “ “ A ~ Ὁ 1]
μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν, ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει τοῦ Κυρίου ᾿Ι]ησοῦ ἀπ
“ “ 4A , οὐρανοῦ μετ᾽ ἀγγέλων δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ ἐν φλογὶ πυρός, 8
8. φλογὶ πυρός] So Lachm. (text) with BDEFG; 71; Iren. (interpr.), Maced., Theod. (comment. ὃ), Gicum., Tertull.
Syr., Goth., al. ;
(Scholz, Tisch. ed. τ, Liinem., Wordsw.).
Vulg., Clarom.,
In ed. 2, 7, Tisch. adopts πυρὶ φλογὸς
with AKLN; nearly all mss.; Syr.-Phil. (marg.); Chrys., Theod. (text), Dam.,
al. (Rec., Alf., Lachm. marg.). C is deficient.
The expression adopted is here
on the whole the better supported, but both in Exod. iii. 2 and in Acts vii. 30
there is a similar variation of reading.
exposed to suffering ; see ch. iii. 2. To give ἡμεῖς a general reference (De ὟΝ.) would not be strictly true, and would impair the encouraging and consola- tory character of the reference; ἐπάγει τὸ μεθ᾽ ἡ μῶν, ἵνα κοινωνοὺς αὐτοὺς λάβῃ καὶ τῶν ἀγώνων καὶ στεφάνων τῶν ἀποστολικῶν, (ἔσυμη. Λλνεσες is simi- larly used in antithesis to θλίβεσθαι and θλίψις in 2 Cor. vii. 5, viii. 13; it properly implies a relaxation, as of strings, and in such combinations stands in opposition to ἐπέτασις ; comp. Plato, Republ. τ, p. 3495, ἐν τῇ ἐπι- τάσει καὶ ἀνέσει τῶν χορδῶν, It here obviously refers to the final rest in the kingdom of God; and forms one of the elements of its blessedness consi- dered under simply negative aspects ; comp. Rev. xiv. 13. ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλ. κ.τ.λ.] “αἱ the revelation of the Lord Jesus ;’ predication of time when the ἀνταπόδοσις shall take place. The term ἀποκάλυψις (1 Cor. i. 7, comp. Luke xvii. 30) is here suitably used in preference to the more usual παρουσία, as perhaps hinting that though now hidden, our Lord’s coming to judge both the quick and dead will be some- thing real, certain, and manifest; viv γάρ, φησί, κρύπτεται, ἀλλὰ μὴ ἀλύετε" ἀποκαλυφθήσεται γὰρ καὶ ὡς Θεὸς καὶ δεσπότης, Theoph. ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ] Predication of place: it is from hea- ven, from the right hand of God where He is now sitting, that the Lord will come; comp. 1 Thess. iv. 16, and
Pearson, Creed, Art. vit. Vol. I. p. 346 (ed. Burton). μετ᾽ ἀγγέλων δυνάμ. αὐτοῦ] ‘accompanied with the angels of His power ;’ predication of manner; the Lord will come accom- panied with the hosts of heaven, who shall be the ministers of His will and the exponents and instruments of His power. The gloss of Theoph. and CEcum. 2, δυνάμεως ἄγγελοι, τουτέστι δυνατοί, followed by Auth., al., but found in none of the best Vv. of antiquity, is now properly rejected by ΔΡΡΥ. all medern commentators. The gen. appears simply to fall under the general head of the gen. possessivus, and serves to mark that to which the ἄγγελοι appertained, and of which they were the ministers ; comp. Bernhardy, Synt. 111. 44, p. 161, Winer, Gr. ὃ 34. 3. Ὁ, p. 211 (note). The Syr. inverts the clause, 80.
«-σιά δ]; in "ἋΣ [cum
virtute τ ΤΠ γος δεδὶ αι εϑαν sad may have suggested the equally incorrect and inverted paraphrase of Michaelis, ‘das ganze Heer seiner Engel:’ the former however is corrected in Syr.- Phil., and the latter has been pro- perly rejected by all recent expositors. On the force of μετὰ in this combina- tion, see notes on 1 Thess. iii. 13.
8. ἐν φλογὶ πυρός] ‘in a flame of jire, ὦ. ὁ. encircled by, encompassed by a flame of fire; continued predica- tion of the manner of the ἀποκάλυψις ;
m2
100
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΞΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙΣ B.
ὃ δό 9 δὶ a 4 ἰδό 60 ‘ 4 - ‘ LOOVTOS EKOLKYTLY τοῖς μὴ εἰόόσιν Θεὸν Kal τοῖς PH
e , ~ ° , “ , e “a 3 ΄Ὁ ὑπακούουσιν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ"
e A 9 οἵτινες δίκην τίσουσιν ὄλεθρον αἰώνιον ἀπὸ προσώπου
‘in libris V.T. sepenumero ignis et flamma commemoratur, ubi de pre- sentid et efficacitate Numinis divini singulari modo patefaciend4, preser- tim de judicio divino, sermo est, Exod. iii. 2 sq., Malach, iv. 1, Daniel vii. 9, 10,’ Schott. The addition thus serves not only to express the majesty of the Lord’s coming, but is noticeable as ascribing to the Son the same glorious manifestations that the Old Test. ascribes to the Father. The Syr., Aith. (Platt), and, if the punctuation can be trusted, some of the other Vv. (comp. Theoph. 1) connect this clause with διδόντος ἐκδίκ. as an instrumental clause (Jowett actually unites both interpr.), but without plausibility ; the attendant heavenly hosts and the en- circling fire seem naturally to be as- sociated as the two symbols and ac- companiments of the divine presence. διδόντος ἐκδίκ.7 ‘awarding vengeance ;’ scil. τοῦ Κυρίου Ἴησ., not in connexion with πυρός, which would not only be a halting and unduly protracted struc- ture, but would wholly mar the sym- metry of the two clauses of manner. The formula διδόναι ἐκδίκ. only occurs here in the N.T., but is ‘occasionally found elsewhere; see Ezek. xxv. 14, and comp. ἀποδοῦναι éxd. in Numb. xxxi. 3. No exx. of its occurrence have been adduced from classical Greek; ἐκδίκ. ποιήσασθαι is found in Polyb. Hist. 111. 8. τὸ: τοῖς μὴ εἰδόσιν Θεόν] ‘to those who know not God,’ who belong to a class marked by this characteristic; first of the two classes who will be the future objects of the divine wrath, ‘qui in ethnicd ignorantia de Deo versantur’ (Beng.), —in a word the Heathen. On the
peculiar force of the subjective nega- tion, see notes on 1 Thess. iv. 5, and comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 55. 5, Ρ. 4288q. τοῖς μὴ trax. K.T.A.] ‘those who obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus ;’ second class of those who afflicted the Thessalonian converts, those whose characteristic was disobedience gene- rally, and especially to the Gospel (Rom, x. 16),—in a word, the unbe- lieving Jews. It is somewhat singu- lar that a scholar usually so sound as Schott should have felt a difficulty at the division into two classes: surely the article before μὴ ὑπακ. renders such a view all but certain; see Winer, Gr. § 19. 5, p. 117, Green, Gr. p. 215. Even in seeming excep- tions to the rule (Matth. xxvii. 3 [Rec.], Luke xxii. 4 [Zisch.], al.) it may be fairly questioned whether the writer did not in these particular cases really intend the two classes to be regarded as separate, though other- wise commonly united. The reading is slightly doubtful; Rec.
‘adds, and Lachm. inserts in brackets,
Χριστοῦ with AFGN; mss.; Vulg., Clarom., Syr., Goth., al. Ο is defici- ent. Though the omission of Xp. does not characterize this Ep. as it does the first (see notes on 1 Thess. iii. 13), “Ins. alone [with BDEKL; 25 mss.; Copt., Syr.-Phil., Ath.; many Ff. 7 is on the whole the more probable reading here.
9. οὕτινες] ‘men who; reference by means of the qualitative rel. pro- noun to the two preceding classes. If we revert to the distinctions stated in the notes on Gal. iv. 24, it would seem that ὅστις is here used, not in a causal sense with ref. to the reason
᾿ I. 9, Io.
101
“ f , τὰ “ ’ »-“- . , ᾿ ar ὦ τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ, ὅταν. το
for τίσουσιν (Liinem., Alf.— who how- ever mix up two usages), but expli- catively (‘ who truly’), or even simply classifically, with ref. to the class or category to which the antecedents are referred, and to the characteristics which mark them ; see notes on Gal. ii. 4, and on Phil. ii. 20. The brief dis- tinction of Kriiger (Sprachl. § 50. 8), that ὃς has simply an objective aspect, ὅστις one qualitative and generic, will in most cases be found useful and applicable. For other and idiomatic usages, see Ellendt, Lex. Sophocl. s. v. Vol. I. p. 381 sq., and comp. Schaefer, notes on Demosth. Vol. τι. p. 531.
δίκην τίσουσιν] ‘shall pay the penalty.’ This formula does not occur elsewhere in the N.T. (comp. however δίκην ὑπέχειν, Jude 7), but is sufficiently common in both earlier and later _ Greek, and is copiously illustrated by Wetst. in loc. ὄλεθρον αἰώνιον] ‘eternal destruction ;’ accus. in apposition to the preceding δίκην: on ὄλεθρος, comp. notes on 1 Tim. vi. 9. All the sounder commentators on this text recognise in αἰώνιος a refer- ence to ‘res in perpetuum future’ (Schott), and a testimony to the eternity of future punishment that cannot easily be explained away: ποῦ τοίνυν οἱ ᾿Ωριγενισταὶ οἱ τέλος τῆς κολάσεως μυθούμενοι; αἰώνιον ταύτην ὁ Παῦλος λέγει, Theoph.; comp. Pear- son, Creed, Art. XII. p. 465 (ed, Burton). In answer to the efforts of some writers of the present day to give αἰώνιος a qualitative aspect, let it briefly be said that the earliest Greek expositors never appear to have lost sight of its quantitative aspects; ἀκρι- βέστερον ἔδειξε τῆς τιμωρίας. τὸ μέγε- θος αἰώνιον ταύτην ἀποκαλέσας, Theod. For further remarks on this subject, see notes and reff. in Destiny of the
Creature, Serm. Iv., and for a dis- cussion of the grave question of the eternity of divine punishments, Erbkam, in Stud. u. Krit. for 1838, Pp. 422 sq. The reading of Lachm. (non marg.) ὀλέθριον [with A; 2 mss.; Ephr., Chrys. (ms.)] is far too feebly supported to deserve much con- sideration. ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ Κυρ.] ‘removed from the presence of the Lord.’ These words have re- ceived three different explanations, corresponding to the three meanings, temporal, causal, and local, which may be assigned to the preposition. Of these ἀπὸ can scarcely be here (a) temporal (ἀρκεῖ παραγενέσθαι μόνον καὶ ὀφθῆναι τὸν Θεὸν καὶ πάντες ἐν κολάσει καὶ τιμωρίᾳ γίνονται, Chrys., comp. Theoph., Gicum.), as the subst. with which it is associated (not παρ- ovolas but προσώπου) seems wholly to preclude anything but a simple and quasi-physical reference. Equally doubtful is (Ὁ) the causal translation ; for though ἀπὸ may be thus associated
with neuter and even passive verbs,
as marking the personal source whence the action originates (see exx. in ‘Winer, Gr. § 47. a, p. 332, comp. Thiersch, de Pentat. 11. 15, p. 106), yet, on the other hand, such a con- nexion in the present case would in- volve the assumption that προσώπου τοῦ Kup. was a periphrasis for the personal τοῦ Κυρίου. (Acts iii, 19, cited by De W., owing to the dissimilar nature of the verbs, is no parallel), and merely equivalent to ‘ presente Domino’ (comp. Pelt),—a resolution of the words in a high degree precarious and doubtful. We therefore adopt (c) the simply Jocal translation, according to which ἀπὸ marks the idea of ‘separation from’ (Olsh., Liinem.), emkedma [‘de devant’] Aith., while
102 ΠΡΟΣ
ΘΕΣΣΛΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ B.
ἔλθη ἐνδοξασθῆναι ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ καὶ θαυμασθῆναι
9 ~ a , Ψ 9 ’ Ἁ , εν πασιν τοις πιστευσασίιν, OTL ἐπιστεύθη Το μαρτυρίον
προσώπου τοῦ Kup, retains its proper meaning, and specifies that perennial fountain of blessedness (comp. Psalm xvi. 11, Matth. xviii. 10, Rev. xxii. 4), to be separated from which will con- stitute the true essence of the fearful ‘pena damni’ (Jackson, Creed, XI. 20. 9): see further details in Schott and Liinem. in loc., by both of whom this view is well maintained. The article before Κυρίου is omitted by DEFG; 10 mss. ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης κι τ. Δ. ‘from the glory of His might;’ not ‘His mighty glory,’ Jowett,—a most doubtful paraphrase, but the glory arising from, emanating from His might (gen. originis, comp. notes on 1 Thess. i. 6), the δόξα being regarded, so to speak, as the result of the exercise of His ἰσχύς, and as that sphere and halo which environs its manifestations. The assumption of De W. that in this clause ἀπὸ has a causal force is perfectly gratuitous. 10. ὅταν ἔλθῃ] ‘when He shall have come ;’ specific statement of the time in which the preceding δίκην τίσουσιν shall be brought about and accom- plished ; τότε γὰρ τοῦ κριτοῦ τὴν δικαίαν ψῆφον θαυμάσουσιν ἅπαντες, Theod. On the force of ὅταν with the aor. subj. as referring to an objectively possible event, which is to, can, or must, take place at some single point of time distinct from the actual pre- sent, but the exact epoch of which is Jeft uncertain, see Winer, Gr. ὃ 42. 5, p- 275, and esp. Schmalfeld, Synt. § 121, where the nature of the con- struction is well discussed. The most natural and idiomatic mode of trans- lation is briefly noticed in notes to Transl. ἐνδοξασθῆναι ἐν κιτ.λ.} ‘to be glorified in (the persons of) His saints ;’ infinitive of design or
purpose,—not equivalent to ὥστε x.7.X. (Jowett), from which it is grammati- cally distinguishable as involving no reference to mode or degree; see notes on Col. i, 22, where both formule are briefly discussed. The verb itself is a δὲς λεγόμ. in the N.T. (here and ver. 12), and, except in the LXX (Exod. xiv. 4, Isaiah xlv. 25, xlix. 3, al.) and eccl. writers, is of rare occurrence. The prep. seems here very distinctly to mark—not the mere locality ‘among His saints’ (Michael.), still less the instruments or media of the glorifica- tion (ἐν διὰ ἐστί, Chrys., Beng.), but the substratum of the action, the mirror as it were (Alf.) in which and on which the δόξα was reflected and displayed ; comp. Exod. xiv. 4, Isaiah xlix. 3, and see notes on Gal. i. 24.
Lastly, the ἅγιοι do not here appear to be the Holy Angels, but, as the tacit contrasts and limitations of the context suggest, the risen and glorified company of believers ; contrast 1 Thess. iii. 13, where both πάντες, and the absence of all notice of the unholy, suggest the more inclusive refer- ence. θαυμασθῆναι K.T.A. | ‘to be wondered at in all them that believed ;’ scil. owing to the reflection of His glory and power which is dis- played in those who believed on Him while they were on earth; f obstupes- cent Christum in credentibus tam magnum et gloriosum esse,’ Cocceius. The aor. πιστεύσασιν [ Rec. πιστεύουσιν, but in opp. to all MSS.; many Vv. and Ff.] is here suitably used in con- nexion with the period referred to: at that time the belief of the faithful would belong to the past; comp. Wordsw. in loc. For exx. of this pass. use of θαυμάζω, see Kypke, Obs. Vol. IL p. 342. ὅτι ἐπιστεύθη
mes oo baw we
Es ¥I-
e “a ’ 2 eA 3 “ ¢ , > ἵν ἡμῶν ep ὑμᾶς, εν TH ἡμέρᾳ εκείνῃ.
108
Els 6 καὶ προσ- τι
? , 4 | Fe, δ“ e. ὧδ 9 , A ευχόμεθα πάντοτε περὶ ὑμῶν να υμας ἀξιώση τῆς
K.7.A.] ‘because our testimony unto you
was believed ;? parenthetical clause taking up the preceding πιστεύσασιν, and giving it a more distinct reference to those (ἐφ᾽ duds) to whom he was writing. The μαρτύριον ἡμῶν is the testimony relating to Christ (uapr. τοῦ Xp., 1 Cor. i. 6), the message of the Gospel (μαρτύριον δὲ κήρυγμα προσ- ηγόρευσε, Theod.), delivered by the Apostle and his associates (gen. origi- nis or cause efficientis, Scheuerl. Synt. § 17, see notes on 1 Thess. i. 6), the destination of which is specified in the same enunciation; comp. Col. i. 8, τὴν ὑμῶν ἀγάπην ἐν Πνεύματι, where, as here, the anarthrous prepositional member gives the whole clause a more complete unity of conception; see notes J.c., and Winer, Gr. § 30. 2, p. 123. On the prep. ἐπί, which here seems to mark the mentaldirection of the μαρτύριον (comp. Luke ix. 5), and commonly involves some idea of ‘near- ness or approximation’ (Donalds. Crat. § 172), see Winer, Gr. ὃ 49. 1, p. 3638q. ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκ. is most naturally jomed with θαυμασθῆναι κ. τ. λ., to which it is joined as a predication of time, reiterating and more precisely defining the foregoing temporal clause ὅταν ἔλθῃ x.7.X. Some of the older Vv., e.g. Syr., Zith., Goth., appear to have joined these words with what precedes, but are compelled either to regard the aor. ἐπίστ. as equivalent to
a future (Sand, Syr., but not
Syr.-Phil.) or to assign meanings to ἐν TH ἡμ. ἐκ., 5011. ‘de illo die,’ Menoch., ‘cum spe retributionis in illo die per- cipiende,’ Est., that are neither gram- matically nor exegetically defensible. The position of ἐν τῇ ty. ἐκ. is con-
fessedly somewhat unusual, but per- haps may have been designed to im- press still more on the readers the ex- act and definite epoch when all was to be realized.
11. Ets 6] ‘Whereunto,’ ‘ with ex- pectations directed to which,’ to its realization and fruition; not equiva- lent to δι᾽ 8 (Auth., Schott), nor even to ὑπὲρ ὅ (comp. De W.), but simply, with the primary force of the prep., definitive of the direction taken, as it were, by the longing prayers of the Apostle and his associates ; see Winer, Gr. § 49. a p. 354, Donalds. Cratyl. § 170, and comp. Col. i. 29, but observe that the verb with which it is there associated (κοπιῶ) gives the prep. a somewhat stronger and more definite meaning. kal προσευχόμεθα] ‘we also pray ;’ besides merely longing or merely directing your hopes, we also avail ourselves of the definite accents of prayer, the καὶ gently contrasting the mpocevx. with the infusion of con- fidence and hope involved in the pre- ceding words and especially echoed in the parenthetical member. On this use of καί, see notes on Phil. iv. 12, and on the use of περὶ with προσεύχ., see notes on 1 Thess. v. 25, and on Col, i. 3. ἵνα ὑμᾶς «.7.A.] ‘that God may count you worthy of your calling ;’ subject of the prayer blended with the purpose of making it ; ἵνα having here, as not uncommonly in this combination, its secondary and weakened force; comp. Col. iv. 3, 1 Thess. iv. 1, and notes on Eph. i. 17, and on Phil. i. 9. The verb ἀξιοῦν occurs 7 times in the N.T. (Luke vii. 7, 1 Tim. v. 17, Heb. iii. 3, al.), and regularly in the sense of ‘esteeming or counting ἄξιος᾽ (‘dignari,’ Vulg. here,
104
ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ 8.
κλήσεως ὁ Θεὸς ἡ ἡμῶν καὶ πληρώσῃ πᾶσαν κοὐ δδδ ἡ αγα-
12 θωσύνης καὶ ἔργον “πίστεως ἐν δυνάμει, ὅ όπως ἐνδοξασθῆ
Clarom.), not of making so (comp. Syr.
Dade), Copt., al.), a meaning not lexically demonstrable; compare Rost.u. Palm, Lex. s.v. The contrary is urged by Olsh., on the ground that the context shows that the call lad been already received: κλῆσις how- ever, though really the initial act (comp. 1 Thess. ii. 12), includes the Christian course which follows (Eph. iv. 1), and its issues in blessedness hereafter ; κλῆσιν οὖν ἐνταῦθα λέγει τὴν διὰ τῶν πράξεων βεβαιουμένην, ἥτις καὶ κυρίως κλῆσίς ἐστι, Theoph., see notes on Phil. iii. 14, and comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét. tv. 15, Vol. 11. p. 148.
πληρώσῃ πᾶσαν KT.r.] ‘fulfil, bring to completion, every good pleasure of goodness,’ ‘ut expleat omnem dulce- dinem honestatis, h. e. ut plenam et perfectam, qua recreemini, honestatem vobis impertiat,’ Fritz. Rom. x. 1, Vol. II. p. 372, note, The meaning of these words is not perfeetly clear. The familiar use of εὐδοκεῖν, εὐδοκία, in ref. to God (Eph. i. 5, 9, Phil. ii. 1.3), sug- gests a similar reference in the present case ((Ecum., Theoph. in part, Beng., al.); to this however there is (1) the exegetical objection that ἀγαθῳωσύνη, though occurring 4 times in St Paul’s Epp., is never applied to God, and (2) the more grave contextual objection that the second member ἔργον πίστεως, equally undefined by any pronoun, certainly refers to those whom {86 Apostle is addressing. It seems safest then to refer the present member to the Thessalonians; εὐδοκία marking the good pleasure they evinced, and the defining gen. ἀγαθωσύνης (gen. ob- jecti, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47. 7. 1,—not of apposition, Alf.) the element in which it was so manifested, or more
exactly, the object to which the action implied in the derivative subst. was especially directed ; see Scheuerl. Synt. $17. 1, p. 126. The attempt to refer the expression partly to God and partly to the Thess. (Olsh., comp. Theoph.), or to regard the operation of the believer and that of the Spirit as blended and confused (Jowett), is in a high degree precarious and unsatisfac- tory. On the meaning of εὐδοκία, see the good note of Fritz. J.c. Vol. H. p. 369 sq., and on the meaning of ἀγαθωσύνη (moral goodness) and its distinction from ἀγαθότης, notes on Gal. v. 22. ἔργον πίστεως] ‘the work of faith,’ the work which is the distinctive feature of it; ἔργον being that which marks, characterizes, and evinces the vitality of the πίστις, almost ‘the activity of faith,’ not however merely as τὴν ὑπομονὴν τῶν διωγμῶν, Theoph., but ὑπομονὴν as ex- hibited in the various circumstances of Christian life and duty. On the exact meaning and construction of these words, see notes on 1 Thess. i. 3, and comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Iv. το, Vol. τί p. 205. ἐν δυνάμει} ‘with power,’ ὁ. 6. powerfully,—specifi- cation of manner annexed to the verb πληρώσῃ, with which it is associated with a practically adverbial force; comp. Rom. i. 4, Col. i. 29, and see Bernhardy, Synt. v. 7, p. 209. The analogous use of σὺν (comp. Scheuerl. Synt. § 22. b, p. 180) is not found in the N. T.
12. ὅπως ἐνδοξ. k.7.d.] ‘in order that the name...be glorified ;’ reiteration of the purpose (not merely result, ἐνδο- ξασθήσεται, Theoph.) stated generally in verse 10, in special reference to the converts of Thessalonica. It is not easy to define the exact difference be-
Τ7 1] Bf, “2:
105
a » “ ’ « “A Ἶ “ 9 e a 4 e - 9. ' TO OVOKA TOU Κυρίου HWY LNTOV EV υμιν Και υμεις εν
9 a A 4 , “ “He “ Α Κ , at ΄“ αὐτῷ κατα τὴν χάριν του Θεοῦ MWY και υριου ἤσου
Χριστοῦ.
Be not disquieted con- cerning the Lord’s com- ing. The Man of Sin, as ye know, must first
"Eporouer, δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, ὑπὲρ!].
“ , “ , e “ 9 “ τῆς παρουσίας τοὺ Κυρίου ημωὼν Ἰησοῦ
be revealed; and then shall be destroyed by the Lord.
tween the present use of ὅπως (used comparatively rarely by St Paul; only 6 times excluding quotations), and the corresponding one of ἵνα. Speaking somewhat roughly, one may perhaps say that the relatival compound ὅπως (Donalds. Cratyl. § 196) involves some obscure reference to manner, while wa (appy. connected with the reflexive ἵ, or the pronoun of the second person, comp. Donalds. Cratyl. § 139) may retain some tinge of its primary refer- ence to locality. The real practical differences however are these, (a) that ὅπως has often more of an eventual aspect; (6) that it is used with the future and occasionally associated with év,— both which constructions are in- admissible with the jinal wa; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 629 sq.
τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Kup. is not a mere peri- phrasis for ὁ Κύριος, but specifies that character and personality as revealed to and acknowledged by men; comp., but with caution, Bretschn. Lew. s.v. 6, Ῥ. 291, and notes on Phil. ii. το. The assertion of Jowett in loc. that these words have ‘no specific meaning’ can- not be sustained, and is language in every way to be regretted.
The addition Χριστοῦ [Rec., Lachm. in brackets, with AFG; Vulg., Syr. (both); Chrys.] is rightly rejected by Tisch. with BDEKLN; Clarom., San- germ., Copt., Sahid., al.; Theod. (ms.), (Kcum., al. ἐν αὐτῷ] ‘in Him; not in reference to τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Kup. (Liinem.), but to the immediately preceding Ἰησοῦ. The exact notion of reciprocity (comp. notes.on Gal. vi.
14) would be best maintained by the former reference ; but, as Alf. correctly observes, the present expression is used far too frequently and exclusively in ref. to union in our Lord Himself to admit here of any different applica- κατὰ τὴν χάριν] ‘in accordance with the grace; the χάρις is the ‘norma’ according to which the glorification took place, and thence, by an intelligible transition, that of which it is regarded as a consequence ;
tion.
ἡ χάρις αὐτοῦ δι’ ἡμῶν πάντα κατορθοῖ, Cicum. ; comp. notes on κατὰ on Phil. ii, 3, and Tv, iii. §. τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν «7.A.] This is one of the pas- sages supposed to fall under Granville Sharpe’s rule (comp. Middl. Gr. Art. p- 56, ed. Rose), according to which Θεὸς and Κύριος would refer to the same person. It may be justly doubted however whether, owing to the pecu- liar nature of Κι ύριος (Winer, Gr. ὃ 19. I, p. 113), this can be sustained in the present case; see esp. Middleton, p. 379 8q., and comp. Green, Gr. p. 216.
CHapTerR II. 1. ᾿Ε!ρωτῶμεν δὲ ὑμ.] “Now we beseech you, transition by means of the δὲ μεταβατικὸν (see notes on Gal. iii. 8) from the Apostle’s prayers for his converts to what he claims of them, and the course of con- duct he exhorts them to follow. On the meaning of ἐρωτᾶν, see notes on 1 Thess. iv. 1. ὑπὲρ is here certainly not introductory of a for- mula of adjuration (Vulg., perhaps: AMth. [baenta,—often 80. used], Beza, al.), as such a meaning, though gram-
106
ΠΡῸΣ OEZZAAONIKEI>® B.
~ 4 eA 9 - πὰ . ’ . ‘ |
2 Χριστοῦ καὶ ἡμῶν ἐπισυναγωγῆς ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, εἰς TO μὴ , A e τὰν 9 Α “- 4A A a
ταχέως σαλευθῆναι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ νοὸς μηδὲ θροεῖσθαι,
matically tenable (Bernhardy, Synt. v. 21, p. 244,—partially, but appy. with- out full reason, objected to by Winer), is by no means exegetically probable, and is without precedent in the lan- guage of the N.T. The more natural interpretation is to regard the prep. as approximating in meaning to περί (Winer, Gr. ὃ 47. 1, p. 343; comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. ὃ 68. 28. 3), but still distinct from it, as involving some trace of the idea of benefit to or fur- therance of the παρουσία; comp. Wordsw. in loc., and see notes on Phil. ii. 13. The subject of the παρουσία had been misunderstood and misinter- preted, and its commodum therefore was what the Apostle wished to pro- mote. ἡμῶν ἐπισυν. ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν] ‘our gathering together unto Him,’ scil. in the clouds of heaven, when He comes to judge the quick and dead; see 1 Thess, iv. 17, and comp. Matth. xxiv. 31, Mark xiii. 27. The subst. émicuaywyh only occurs once again in the Ν. T. (Heb. x. 25), in ref. to Christian worship (comp. 2 Mace. ii. 7), and seems confined to later writers. The meaning assigned by Hammond, ‘the greater liberty of the Christians to assemble to the service of Christ, the greater freedom of ecclesiastical assemblies,’ is due to his reference of the present παρουσία τοῦ Κυρίου to God’s judgment on the Jews. The mutual relation of the two Epp. seems totally to preclude such a reference: if in 1 Thess. iv. 15 the words refer to the final day of doom (Hamm.), the allusion here must certainly be the same. ἔπ᾽ αὐτόν] ‘unto Him; comp. Mark v. 21, συνήχθη ὄχλος πο- Ads ἐπ’ αὐτόν ; the preposition marking the point to which the συναγωγὴ was directed, and losing its idea of super-
position in that of approximation to or juxtaposition ; comp. Donalds. Cra- tyl. § 172. The difference between περὶ and πρὸς in the present combi- nation is perhaps no more than this, that while πρὸς points rather to the direction to be taken, ἐπὶ marks more the point to be reached.
2. εἰς τὸ μή K.7.A.] ‘that ye should not be soon shaken,’ ‘ut non cito move- amini,’ Vulg., Clarom.; object and aim of the ἐρωτᾶν, with perhaps some included reference to the subject of it ; comp. 1 Thess. iii. 10, and notes on 1 Thess. ii. 12. This construction though not found elsewhere with ἐρωτᾷν is perfectly intelligible. The verb σαλεύω, as its derivation shows [σάλος, connected with AA-, and with Sanscr. form sal, Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. I. p. 61], marks an agitated and disquieted state of mind, which in the present case was due to wild spiritual anticipations ; compare Acts xvii. 13, and see exx. in Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 283. The ταχέως does not seem to refer to the period since St Paul was with them, or to the date of the First Epi- stle, but simply to the time when they might happen to hear the doctrine; the reference being rather modal (‘ precipitanter,’ De W.) than purely temporal; ‘si id crederent facili mo- mento quassaretur ipsorum fides,’ Coc- ceius. ἀπὸ τοῦ νοός] ‘from your mind,’ ‘a vestro sensu,’ Vulg.; certainly not ‘a sententi& seu doctrina,’ Est., but simply ‘statu mentis solito,’ Schott 1,—their ordinary, sober, and normal state of mind, παρατραπῆναι ἀπὸ τοῦ νοός, dv μέχρι τοῦ viv εἴχετε ὀρθῶς ἱστάμενον, Theoph.; comp. Rom. xiv. 5, and Beck, Seelen/. ὃ 18. 1, p. 51. The construction is what is usually termed pregnans, scil. ‘ ita concuti ut
ΤΡ... ἢ 107
μήτε διὰ πνεύματος μήτε διὰ λόγου μήτε Ov ἐπιστολῆς
e 9 e ~ e Φ vi Κ e e , ~ , [4 ὡς δι’ ἡμῶν, ὡς ὅτι ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἥμερα TOU Κυρίου. BY 3
demovearis,’ Schott; comp. Rom. vi. 7, ix. 3, 2 Tim, iv. 18 (els), al., and Winer, Gr. ὃ 66. 2, p. 547.
μηδὲ θροεῖσθαι}] ‘nor yet be troubled,’ stronger expression than the foregoing, introduced by the slightly ascensive μηδέ; see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 3 (Transl.). The verb @poéw [derived from OPEOMAT, and connected with
_ tpéw; comp. Donalds. Cratyl. § 272]
properly denotes ‘clamorem tumul- tuantem edere’ (Schott), and thence, by a natural transition, that terrified state (ταραχίζεσθαι, Zonaras), which is associated with and gives rise
to such outward manifestations. In
later writers μὴ θροηθῇς comes to mean little more than μὴ θαυμάσῃς, Lobeck, Phryn. p. 676. The reading of Rec. μήτε [with D?EKL; several Ff.] is rightly rejected by Zachm. and Tisch. on the preponderating external authority of ABD! (giving it also be- fore διὰ λόγου) F (giving μηδὲ thrice, but μήτε with διὰ λόγου) GN; Orig. The change from the disjunctive nega- tive was probably suggested by the following μήτε, the true relation of the negatives not having been properly understood. μήτε διὰ πνεύματος] ‘neither by spirit; scil. of prophecy; διὰ προφητείας" τινὲς yap προφητείαν ὑποκρινόμενοι ἐπλάνων τὸν λαὸν ὡς ἤδη παρόντος τοῦ Kuplov, Theoph. The second negation is here, by means of the thrice repeated μήτε, divided into three members; see exx. and illustra- tions in Winer, Gr. § 55. 6, p. 437, where the distinctive character of μηδὲ and μήτε, their meaning, and sequence, are well delineated. μήτε διὰ λόγου may be either regarded, (a) as an independent member distinguished both from what precedes and follows, or (b) may be connected more closely
with the third negative member, both being associated with ws δὴ ἡμῶν. In the former case λόγου forms a species of antithesis to πνεύματος as denoting oral teaching, less marked by super- natural or prophetic characteristics (διδασκαλίας ζώσῃ φωνῇ γενομένης, Theoph. ); in the latter the λόγου stands contrasted with ἐπιστολῆς, as marking what the Apostle had communicated. by word of mouth in contradistinction to what he had written; μὴ πιστεύειν: ...phre el πλασάμενοι ws ἐξ αὐτοῦ ypa- φεῖσαν ἐπιστολὴν προφέροιεν, μήτε εἶ ἀγράφως αὐτὸν εἰρηκέναι λέγοιεν, Theod. Of these (Ὁ) seems slightly the most. probable, especially as λόγος and ém- στολὴ are found similarly combined in. ver. 15. To extend ws δ ἡμῶν to the first clause, either partially (Jowett) or completely (Ndsselt), seems illogical; oral or written communica- tions might be ascribed to the absent. Apostle, but the πνεῦμα could only have been recognised as working in him (De W.) when he was with them ;. comp. Liinem. in loc. ὡς δὶ ἡμῶν] ‘as (coming) through us,’ repre- sented to come from us as its mediate authors; the ὡς as usual marking the. erroneous aspects under which the λόγος or ἐπιστολὴ was designed to be regarded: ‘particula ὡς substantivis. participiis totisque enuntiationibus preposita rei veritate sublataé aliquid opinione errore simulatione niti decla- rat,’ Fritz. Rom. ix. 32, Vol. I. p. 360, comp. notes on Eph. v.22. It seems impossible to understand these words otherwise, especially when cou- pled with the notice in ch. iii. 17, than as implying that not only oral but written communications, definitely as- cribed to St Paul, were, not conceived
(Jowett), but actually known by the
108
᾿
ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ Β.
; eon ’ ENS A ae δ aa , “8. 4 Tis ὑμᾶς ἐξαπατήσῃ κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον" ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθη ἡ ἀποστασία πρῶτον καὶ ἀποκαλυφθῇ ὁ ἄνθρωπος
Apostle to have been lately circulated in the Church of Thessalonica: καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἐπιστολὰς πλάττοντες ὡς παρὰ Παύλου σταλείσας ἐκύρουν ἃ ἔλεγον, Theoph., comp. Neander, Planting, Vol. I. p. 204 (Bohn). When we con- sider the extreme disquietude and anxieties that appear to have prevailed in this Church in ref. to the παρουσία τοῦ Κυρίου, there appears nothing strange in the supposition that even within less time than a year since the Apostle had last written fictitious let- ters should have obtained currency among them. To refer the ex- pression with Hammond, al., to por- tions of the First Epistle which had been misunderstood seems distinctly to infringe on the simple meaning of ὡς be” ἡμῶν. ὡς ὅτι ἐνέστ. K.T.A,] ‘as that, to the effect that, the day of the Lord is now commencing, already come ;’ subject of the pretended com- munication introduced by ws, which, as before, represents the statement not as actual, but as so represented, as the notion which was designed to be pro- pagated; see Winer, Gir. § 65. 9, p. 544, Meyer on 2 Cor. xi. 21, and exx. in Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 268. The verb. ἐνέστηκεν is somewhat stronger than épéor. (2 Tim. iv. 6), and seems to mark not only the nearness but the actual presence and commencement of the ἡμέρα τοῦ Kup.; ‘magna hoc verbo propinquitas significatur ; nam ἐνεστὼς [Rom. viii. 38, 1 Cor. iii. 22] est pre- sens,’ Beng., comp. notes on Gal. i. 4, Hammond in loc., and see the nume- rous exx. in Rost ἃ. Palm, Lez. s. v. Vol. I. Ὁ. 929. The ἡμέρα τοῦ Kup. thus approximates in meaning to παρ- ουσία τοῦ Kup., and like it includes, besides the exact epoch of the Lord’s appearance, the course of events im-
mediately preceding and connected with it; comp. Reuss, Zhéol. Chrét. Iv. 21, Vol. IL. p. 230, 243. For Κυ- plov Rec. reads Χριστοῦ with D®K; most mss.
3. μή τις κιτιλ.}] ‘Let no one de- ceive you in any way;’ not only in any of the three ways before specified (Theoph., Gicum.), but, with a more completely inclusive reference, —in any way, or by any artifice whatever ; πάντα κατὰ ταὐτὸν τὰ THs ἀπάτης ἐξέβαλεν εἴδη, Theod. On the form ἐξαπατᾶν, comp. notes on 1 Tim. ii. 14. ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ] ‘because (the day will not arrive) unless there come ;’ slight grammatical irregularity owing to the omission of any member involving a finite verb (such as οὐ γενήσεται ἣ παρουσία τοῦ Kup., Theoph., or ἡ ἡμέρα οὐκ ἐνστήσεται) which can easily be supplied by the reader; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 64. I. 7, p. 528, comp. Donalds. Gr. ὃ 583. B, note. The most natural punctuation is not a comma before ὅτι, asin Lachm., Tisch., Buttm., but a colon, as in Mill, and as suggested by Liinemann.
ἡ ἀποστασία] ‘the falling away,’ the definite religious apostasy that shall precede the coming of Antichrist, and of which it is not improbable that the Apostle had informed them by word of mouth ; see ver. 5, and comp. Green, Gram. p. 155. It is hardly necessary to say that ἀποστασία is not an abs- tract for a concrete term (αὐτὸν καλεῖ τὸν ἀντίχριστον ἀποστασίαν, Chrys. ; so Theod., Theoph., (Ecum. 1), nor again a political (Ndsselt) or politico-reli- gious (Kern) falling away, whether past or future, but simply, in accord- ance with what seems to be the regular use of the word (Acts xxi. 21, comp. 2 Chron. xxix. 19, 1 Mace. ii, 15), that
RES 4.
109
LA ¢ > Oey [2 ~ " λ Υ̓ e 9 , 4 τῆς αμαρτιίιας, Oo vlogs τῆς ATW ειἰαςζ, ὁ αντικειμένος Και 4
religious and spiritual apostasy (‘dia- bolicam apostasiam,’ Iren. adv. Her. v. 25. 1), that falling away from faith in Christ (ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ἀναχώρησιν, cum.) of which the revelation of Antichrist shall be the concluding and most ap- palling phenomenon; comp. Luke xviii. 8. The paulo-post future view, according to which the ἀποστασία re- fers to the revolt of the Jews from the Romans (Schoettg. Hor. Hebr. Vol. 1. p. 840), is thus opposed to the probable technical meaning of the . word, while that of Hammond, who mainly refers it to the lapse to Gnos- ticism, fails to exhibit its generic re- ference, and to exhaust its prophetic significance. On the form of the word, a later form for ἀπόστασις, see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 528. ἀποκαλυφθῇ] ‘be revealed,’—a very noticeable expression: as the Lord’s coming is characterized as an ἀποκά- λυψις (ch. i. 7), so is that of Anti- christ. As He is now spiritually pre- sent in His Church, to be personally revealed with more glory hereafter, even so the power of Antichrist is now secretly at work, but will hereafter be made manifest in a definite and dis- tinctive bodily personality. The καὶ has here appy. its consecutive force (see notes on 1 Thess. iv. 1); the re- velation of Antichrist was the aggra- vated issue of the ἀποστασία.
6 ἄνθρ. τῆς ἁμαρτίας] ‘the man of Sin,’ the fearful child of man (obs. the distinct term ἄνθρ.) of whom Sin is the special characteristic and attri- bute, and in whom it is as it were im- personated and incarnate; ἄνθρωπον δὲ αὐτὸν ἁμαρτίας προσηγόρευσεν, ἐπει- δὴ ἄνθρ. ἐστι τὴν φύσιν, πᾶσαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ τοῦ διαβόλου δεχόμενος τὴν ἐνέρ- γειαν, Theod. On this gen. of the ‘ predominating quality,’ which is com-
monly classed under the general head of the gen. possessivus, see Scheuerlein, Synt. § 16. 3, p. £15, Winer, Gr. § 34. 3. Ὁ, p. 211 sq. For ἁμαρτίας, BN; To mss. read ἀνομίας. ὁ υἷος τῆς ἀπωλ.] ‘the son of perdition,’ he who stands in the sort of relation to it that a son does to a father, and who falls under its power and domination, ‘cujus finis est interitus,’ Cocceius [Phil. iii. 19]; see John xvii. 12, where this awful name is given to Judas, and comp. Evang. Nicod. cap. 20, where it is applied to Satan; see Thilo, p, 708. The transitive (Pelt), or mixed trans. and intransitive meaning (ws καὶ αὐτὸς ἀπολλύμενος καὶ ἑτέροις πρό- ἕενος τούτου γινόμενος, Theod., comp. (Ecum.), seems to be phraseologically doubtful ; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 34. 3. Ὁ, p. 213, and notes on 1 Thess. V. 5.
4. ὁ ἀντικείμενος] ‘he that opposeth,’
» y ye, the adversary, OO1 tloaaXs Oo1
vi [qui adversarius est] Syr., comp. Copt., Ath. ; participial substantive defining more nearly the characteristics of An- tichrist; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 45. 7, p. 316. The adversary, though assi- milating one of the distinctive fea- tures of Satan (ae), is clearly not to be confounded with him whose agent and emissary he is (ver. 9), but, in accordance with the almost uniform tradition of the ancient Church, is Antichrist,—no mere set of principles (‘vis spiritualis evangelio contraria,’ Pelt) or succession of opponents (J ow- ett, comp. Middl. Gr. Art. p. 383, and Wordsw. in loc.), but one single per- sonal being, as truly man as He whom he impiously opposes: τίς δὲ οὗτός ἐστιν; dpa ὁ σατανᾶς ; οὐδαμῶς" ἀλλ᾽ ἄνθρωπός τις πᾶσαν αὐτοῦ δεχόμενος τὴν ἐνέργειαν, Chrys., see Wieseler, : Chronol. p. 261, Hofmann, Schriftb.
‘
110
4 ’ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα
11. 2, Vol. 1. p. 617. The patristic references will be found in the Excur- sus of Liinem. p. 204, and at length in Alford, Prolegom. on this Epistle. The object of the opposition (ἀντικείμ.), it need scarcely be said, can be none other than Christ,—He whose blessed name is involved in the more distinc- tive title (ἀντίχριστος) of the adver- sary, and to whom that son of perdi- tion, as Origen well says, is κατὰ διάμετρον ἐναντίος, contra Cels. V1. 64. The present grammatical connexion, which (see above) is as old as Syr., is rightly adopted by De W., Liinem., and most modern commentators: the absence of the art., urged by Pelt., only shows that the ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα, κιτ.λ. is not a different person from the ἀντικείμενος, but by no means specifies that both are to be united in connexion with ἐπὶ πάντα k.7.X.; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 19. 4, 5, p. 116 sq. In a case like the present the article really performs a kind of dou- ble duty; it serves to turn ἀντικ. into a subst., and also indicates that the two participles refer to the same in- dividual. καὶ ὑπεραιρόμ. K.T.A.] “and (who) exalteth himself above (and against) every one called God,’ scil. every one so called, whether ‘eum qui verissime dicitur Deus’ (Schott), or those esteemed so by the heathen; the participle being prefixed to avoid the appearance of placing on a level or including in a common designation tov Θεὸν and the so-called gods of paganism; comp. 1 Cor. viii. 5, λεγό- μενοι θεοί, Eph. ii. 11. The verb ὑὕπεραιρ. occurs (probably) twice in 2 Cor. xii. 7, and serves to mark the haughty exaltation (ὑψωθήσεται καὶ μεγαλυνθήσεται ἐπὶ πάντα θεόν, καὶ
λαλήσει ὑπέρογκα, Dan. xi. 36, Theod.),
while ἐπὶ with its general local mean-
ΠΡῸΣ OEZZAAONIKEI®> B.
λεγόμενον Θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα,
ing (‘supra,’ Vulg., ‘ufar,” Goth.) of ‘motion with a view to superposition’ (Donalds. Gr. § 483) involves the more specific and ethical one of op- position: comp. Matth. x. z1, and Winer, Gr. § 49. 1, p. 363 sq.
ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμ. Θεόν] This charac- teristic of impious exaltation is in such striking parallelism with that ascribed by Daniel to ‘the king that shall do according to his will’ (ch. xi. 36), that we can scarcely doubt that the ancient interpreters were right in referring both to the same person,—Antichrist. The former portion of the prophecy in Daniel is appy. correctly referred to Antiochus Epiphanes, but the con- cluding verses (ver. 36 sq.) seem only applicable to him of whom Antiochus was merely a type and shadow; comp. Jerome on Dan. xi. 21, and see Pri- deaux, Connection, Part 11. Book 3 (ad jin.). If this be correct, we may be justified in believing that other types of Antichrist may have ap- peared, and may yet appear before that fearful Being finally come. If , asked to name them, we shrink not from pointing to this prophecy, and saying that in whomsoever these dis- tinctive features be found—whosoever wields temporal, or temporal and spi- ritual power, in any degree similar to that in which the Man of Sin is here described as wielding it—he, be he pope or potentate, is beyond all doubt a distinct type of Antichrist. From such comparisons the wisest and most Catholic writers have not deemed it right to shrink; see Andrewes, Serm. vi. Vol. iv. p. 146 sq., and compare the reff. at the end of Wordsworth’s long and important note on this pas- sage. ἢ σέβασμα] ‘or object of worship,’ scil. of divine worship,— a further definition appended to Θεόν.
ἘΣ ἃ
111
oe “ἦν 3 Us κ π Θ a θὶ 9 ὃ , WOTE AUTOV ELS TOV VAOV TOU €OU KQAULOAL ATOVELKVYUVTa
The special interpretation of Ben- gel, founded on the connexion of σέβασμα and σεβαστός, ‘Cesaris ma- jestas et potestas Rome maxime conspicua,’ is wholly at variance with the prevailing use of the word (Acts xvii. 23, Wisdom xiv. 20, xv. 17, Bel 27 [Theod.], see Suicer, Thesaur. s.v. Vol. τι. p. 942), and still more so with the generic terms of the prophecy. ὥστε αὐτὸν... καθ. ‘so that he sitteth down :’ his arrogance rises to such an impious height as to lead to this utter- most act of unholy daring ; ‘ore minus hic consilium quam sequelam innuere videtur,’ Pelt. The verb καθίσαι is here not transitive (1 Cor. vi. 4, Eph. i. 20), but in accordance with its nearly regular usage in the N. T, in- transitive; comp. Thom.-Mag. p. 486 (ed. Bern.). The pronoun is thus not reflexive (Grot.), but is introduced and placed prominently forward to mark the individualizing arrogance (‘hic ipse, qui quevis sancta et divina contemnit,’ Schott) of this impious intruder. The interpolation after Θεοῦ of ws Θεόν, adopted by Rec. with D?EKI(FG! ἵνα Θ.) ; mss.; Syr., Syr.-Phil. with an asterisk, Ar. (Pol.); Chrys.,al., is right- ly rejected by Lachm., Tisch., with A BD'&; 10 mss.; Clarom., Sangerm., Augiens., Boern., Vulg., Goth. (Ὁ), Copt., Sah., Aith., Arm. ; Origen (3), and many Ff. C is deficient.
εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ] ‘in the temple of God’ (the ‘adytum’ itself, not the mere ἱερόν), literally ‘into,’ with the not uncommon pregnant force of the preposition in connexion with ἵζειν, καθέζεσθαι x.7.A.; comp. Winer, Gr. § 50. 4, p. 368 sq., Buttm. Mid. p. 175. The exact meaning of these words has been greatly contested. Are they (a) merely a figurative or metaphorical expression (1 Cor. iii, 17, comp. Eph.
- of the fourth century?
ii. 21) for the Church of Christ, ras πανταχοῦ ἐκκλησίας (Chrys.), according to the views of most of the interpreters Or do they refer to (Ὁ) the actual temple of God at Jerusalem (Matth. xxvi. 61), which prophecy seems to declare may be restored (Ezek, xxxvii. 26; see Todd on Antichr. p. 218), as proposed by Trenzus (Her. Vv. 30. 4), and as adopted, though with varying modes of explana- tion, by the majority of recent German commentators? If we are called on to decide absolutely, the combination (opp. to Alf.) of local terms and the possibly traditional nature of the in- terpr. of Irenzeus must decidedly sway us to (Ὁ). It may be asked however whether in so wide a prophecy we are wise in positively excluding (a). May it not be possible that a haughty judi- cial or dictatorial session in the Church of Christ may be succeeded by and culminate in a literal act of ineffable presumption’ to which the present words may more immediately though not exclusively refer? Combined or partially combined interpretations are ever to be regarded with suspicion, but in a prophecy of this profound nature they appear to have some claim on our attention. ἀποδεικνύντα K.T.A.] ‘exhibiting himself that he is God,’ not merely ‘a god,’ Copt., or even ‘tamquam sit Deus,’ Vulg. (com-
pare Syr.), but ἊΝ ooh]
[quod sit Deus] Sve -Phil. ἜΤΕΙ a studied reference to the execrable as- sumption of an unconditioned glory, dignity, and independence, which will characterize the God-opposing session of the son of perdition: so, with an effective paraphrase, Aith. ‘et dicet omnibus Ego sum Deus.’ The parti- ciple thus does not mark the ‘ cona-
119
ΠΡῸΣ ina i B.
5. ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν Beds. - Οὐ, μνημονεύετε ὅτι ἔτι ὧν πρὸς
6 ὑμᾶς. ταῦτα ἔλεγον ὑ ὑμῖν; καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε εἰς
a
tus’ (πειρώμενον ἀποδεικνύναι, Chrys.), —this must be from the nature of the case,—but the continuing nature of the act, the impious persistence of this developed outcoming of frightful and intolerable selfisness; see Mtiller on Sin, Book 1. 3. 2, Vol. 1. p. 148, comp. Book v. Vol. τι. p. 480 (Clark). For examples of this use of ἀποδεικνύναι, see Loesner, Obs. p. 384, and for the
force of the compound ἀποδ. (‘spec- ὁ
tandum aliquid proponere’), Winer, de Verb. Comp. Iv. p. τό.
5. Οὐ μνημονεύετε] ‘Remember ye not ;? emphatic, reminding them, with some degree of implied blame, of the definite oral communications which had been made to them during the Apostle’s first visit; ἰδοὺ yap καὶ παρ- ὄντος ἠκουσανῦ ταῦτα λέγοντος, καὶ πά- Aw ἐδεήθησαν ὑπομνήσεως, Chrys. πρὸς ὑμᾶς} ‘with you;’ so 1 Thess. iii. 4. On this combination of πρὸς with the acc. and verbs implying rest, see notes on Gal. i. 8, iv. 18. The ταῦτα is clearly the substance of the two preceding verses.
6. Kal viv τὸ κατέχ. οἴδ.] ‘and now what restraineth ye know.’ The difficulty of these words is twofold, (1) lexical, turning on the meaning of viv, (2) exegetical, in reference to the explanation that is to be given of τὸ κατέχον. With regard to the first, the temporal particle subsequently connected with ὁ κατέχων (ver. 7), and the preceding ἔτε (ver. 5), both seem to suggest the temporal use of viv (Wieseler, Chronol. p. 259 note) ; the order of the words however and the context are so very distinctly in favour of the logical use (Hartung, Partik, viv, 2. 2, Vol. 11 Ὁ. 25, see notes on 1 Thess. iii. 8), that on the whole that meaning is to be preferred ;
see esp. Liinem. én loc. who has appy. brought valid arguments against the temporal meaning. To investigate (2)
properly would far outstrip the limits’
of this commentary. I may however Say briefly—that after most anxious consideration I believe that a modifi- cation of the current patristic view is much the most plausible interpreta- tion. The majority of these early writers referred the restraining influ- ence to the Roman Empire, ‘ quis nisi Romanus status?’ Tertull. de Resurr. cap. 24: so Chrys., Theoph., (Ecum., Cyril of Jerus., al. In its literal meaning this cannot now be sustained without artificial and unhis- torical assumptions: if however we refer the τὸ κατέχον to what really formed the groundwork of that inter- pretation—the restraining power of well-ordered human rule, the principles of legality as opposed to those of ἀνομία---οἵ which the Roman Empire was the then embodiment and mani- festation, we shall probably not be far from the real meaning of this very mysterious expression. Of the nu- merous other views, we may notice the opinion of Theod. and Theod.- Mops., that the τὸ κατέχον is ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὅρος, as certainly being at first sight plausible ; but to this the ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται introduces: an objection that seems positively insuperable. Further information will be found in the Excursus of Pelt (who however adepts the view of Theod.), p. 185 sq., in the thoughtful note of Olsh., the discussion of Liinem. p. 204 sq., the useful summary of Alford, Prolegom. on this Epistle, and the good note of Wordsw. in loc.; comp. also Hof- mann, Schriftb. τι. 2, Vol. 11. p. 613 sq. els τὸ ἀποκαλ.7 ‘ that
\
ΤΣ Ξε; 67
118
Α 3 ~ 9 Α 9 “~ e “ nm A 4 τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ. TO Yap 7 μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας, μόνον ὁ κατέχων
he should be revealed ;’ purpose con- templated in the existence of the re- straining principle. This ἀποκάλυψις
was not to be immediate (οὐκ εἶπεν ὅτι"
ταχέως ἔσται, Chrys.), or fortuitous, but was to be deferred till the 6 éav- τοῦ καιρός, ---ἴ 8 season appointed and ordained by God. On the correct insertion of év, see notes on Eph. ii. 12.
7. τὸ γὰρ μυστήρ. κ.τ.λ.] ‘or the mystery of lawlessness ;’ confirmatory ex- planation of the preceding statement : the mystery of lawlessness is truly at work; but its full manifestation can- not take place till the removal of the restraining power. On this blending of the explanatory and argumentative forces of ydp, see notes on 1 Thess. aes The meaning of μυστή- ptov τῆς ἀνομ. is somewhat doubtful. Considered merely grammatically, the gen. does not seem to be that of the agent (Theod.), or that of apposition (Liinem., and Alf.— who however seems to mix it up with a gen. con- tinentis), but simply a gen. definitivus (comp. Madvig, Synt. § 49) or gen. of the ‘characterizing principle or qua- lity’ (Scheuerl. Synt. § τό. 3, p. 115), -——the mystery of which the character- izing feature, or, so to say, the active principle, is ἀνομία; comp. Joseph. Bell. Jud. τ. 24. τ, τὸν ᾿Αντιπάτρου βίον οὐκ ἂν ἁμάρτοι τις εἰπὼν κακίας μυστήριον. The transition from this gen. to that of ethical content is so easy and natural, that it is often diffi- cult to decide whether the gen. be- longs to that category or to that of the possess. gen.; see Scheuerl. J. 6. The genitival relation of μυστήρ. τῆς εὐσεβείας is often somewhat plausibly contrasted with the present expression (Andrewes, Serm. 111. Vol. 1. 34), but really seems to be different; see notes
on τ Tim. iii. 0. This mystery of ἀνομία is no personality, scil. Anti- christ, or any'real or assumed type of Antichrist (Νερῶνα ἐνταῦθά φησιν, Chrys.), but all that mass of uncom- bined and so to say unorganized dvo-.
_ pla, which, though at present seen
only in detail and not revealed in its true proportions, is even now (757)
aggregating and energizing, and will
hereafter (ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ) find its complete development and organiza-. tion in the person and power of Anti- christ. On the meaning of μυστήρ.;--- here placed emphatically forward as standing in tacit antithesis to ἀποκα- λυφθ. ver. 6, 8,—see notes on Eph. v. 32, and comp. Sanderson, Serm. IX. (ad Aul.), Vol. 1. p. 227 (ed. Jacobs.). ἐνεργεῖται] ‘is working,’ ‘operatur,’
Valg, QDAwASON Caps [inci-
pit efficax esse] Syr., comp. A®th.; clearly not passive, ‘efficax redditur’ (Schott), which would not only be here inappropriate but is opposed to the prevailing use of the word in the N.T.; see notes on Gal. v. 6, and on the different constructions of the word, notes on ib. ii. 8. In the middle it stands either absolutely or followed by ἐν. τῆς ἀνομίας] ‘lawlessness ;’ in appropriate and illustrative anti- thesis to the principle of order and legality involved in the probable mean- ing of τὸ κατέχον. On the meaning of ἀνομία (‘in qua cogitatur potissimum legem non servari,’ Tittm.) and its distinction from ἀδικία, see Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 48, Trench, Synon. Part 11. ὃ τό, and notes on Tit. ii. 14.
μόνον ὁ κατέχων K.7.A.] ‘only until he that now restraineth shall have been re- moved ;’ rhetorical change of the usual order; see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 61. 3,
1
114
~
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙ͂Σ B.
9 , 8 ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται καὶ τότε ἀποκαλυφθήσεται
p- 485, and comp. Gal. ii. 10, μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν, Where the emphatic words are similarly at- tached to the semi-elliptical μόνον. As however in Gal. /.c. so here it is not necessary to supply definitely any verb to complete the ellipsis (‘tantum ut qui tenet nunc teneat,’ Vulg., comp. Auth.), still less to connect μόνον with what precedes (Kypke, Obs. Vol. τι. p- 342). The μόνον belongs to ἕως, and simply states the limitation in- volved in the present working of the μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας: it is working already, but only with unconcentrated action until the obstacle be removed, and Antichrist be revealed. So rightly as to structure Chrys., ἡ ἀρχὴ ἡ ‘Pw- μαϊκὴ ὅταν ἀρθῇ ἐκ μέσου, τότε ἐκεῖνος ἥξει. The only other plausible struc- ture is the supplement of ἔστι, but the objection of Liinem., that in the pre- sent case a word of such real impor- tance could scarcely be omitted, seems reasonable and valid. The greatest difficulty however is the change of gender in the designation of the restraining principle. Perhaps the simplest view is to regard it, not as a studied designation of a single indivi- dual (e.g. St Paul, Schott, p. 249), or of a collection of such (e.g. the saints at Jerusalem, Wieseler, Chronol. Ῥ. 273, or, more plausibly, the succes- sion of Roman Emperors, Wordsw.), but merely as a realistic touch, by which what was previously expressed by the more abstract τὸ κατέχον is now represented as concrete and per- sonified ; comp. Rom. xiii. 4, where the personification is somewhat simi- larly introduced after, and elicited from, a foregoing abstract term (ἐξου- olay). ἄρτι is to be closely connected with ὁ κατέχων, and simply refers to time regarded as present to
the writer. On the derivation and meaning of the word, see notes on 1 Thess. iii. 6.
ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται] On this con- nexion οἵ ἕως with the subjunctive without év,—a construction especially characteristic of later writers, see Winer, Gr. § 41. 3, p. 266. The dis- tinction acutely drawn by Herm. (de Partic. ἄν, τι. 9, p. 109) between such formule as μίμνετε ἕως θάνω (de mori- bundo) and ἕως ἂν θάνω (de eo qui non ita propinquam sibi putaret mor- tem esse) and repeated by Klotz (Devar. Vol. 11. p. 568) cannot with safety be applied in the N. T.; nor can we with distinct probability as- cribe the omission of ἂν to any idea of design supposed to be involved in the sentence (it is actually inserted here by FG), as suggested by Green, Gram. Ρ. 64, note. We have only an in- stance of that obliteration of finer shades of distinction which charac- terizes the later and decadent Greek. The phrase ἐκ μέσου γίγνεσθαι is il- lustrated by Wetstein and Kypke (Obs. Vol. 11. p. 343): it indicates the removal of any obstacle, of anything ἐν μέσῳ ὅν (Xen. Cyrop. Vv. 2. 26, cited by Liinem.), leaving the manner of the removal wholly undefined ; comp. ἀρθῇ ἐκ μέσου ὑμῶν, τ Cor. v. 2, ἤρται ἐκ τοῦ μέσου, Isaiah lvii. 2.
8. καὶ τότε] ‘and THEN,’—then when ὁ κατέχων shall have been re- moved; the primary emphasis clearly falling on the particle of time, the secondary and subordinate on ἀποκα- λυφθήσεται. ὁ ἄνομος] ‘the lawless one ;’ identical with the fore- going ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτ., the changing designation serving appro- priately to echo the preceding term (ἀνομίαν), which defines more nearly the evil principle that the Man of Sin will
IT. 8, 9.
115
e »᾿ εἴ « , 9 _ 7 9 .- - Ft “ O ἄνομος, ὃν O Κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἀνελεῖ τῳ πνεύματι TOU
, ᾿] “ 4 a. 9 , ~ στόματος αὐτοῦ Kal καταργήσει TH ἐπιφανείᾳ τῆς παρου-
’ 5 νὰ a 9 A , ay Sa ee a σιας αὐτου" OU ECTLY ἡ “ἀαρούσια ΚΑΤ ενεργειᾶαν του 9
8, ἀνελεῖ] So Lachm., Tisch. ed.1, with ABD‘; τὸ mss.; 8].-- ἀνέλοι is the
reading of FGN4—dvddo of NI. D®EKL; mss., Ff. C is deficient.
Rec., Tisch. ed. 2, 7, read ἀναλώσει with In spite of the possibility of conformation
to Isaiah xi. 4, it seems best to retain the reading to which so great a prepon-
derance of MS. authority points.
especially develop: ‘Ezlex ille qui nullis legum vinculis coerceri vult, sed omnia jura divina et humana suo ipsius arbitrio subjicit,’ Vorst, ap. Pol. Syn. dv ὁ Κύριος K.t.d.] ‘whom the Lord Jesus shall consume with the breath of His mouth ;’ relative sentence describing, with a consolatory glance forward to the final issue, the ultimate fate of Antichrist ; kal τί μετὰ ταῦτα ; ἐγγὺς ἡ παρα- μυθία" ἐπάγει yap “Ov ὁ Κύριος κ.τ.λ., Chrys. The forcible expression τῷ πνεύμ. TOU στόμ. αὐτοῦ has received dif- ferent explanations. It has been re- ferred (a) by the Greek commentators to the words of power (φθέγξεται μόνον, Chrys. ; comp. Theod., Theod.- Mops., al.) issuing from the Lord’s lips; (Ὁ) by Athan. (ad Serap. 1. 6, p. 655), Theoph. 2, al., to the Holy Spirit; but is most simply regarded (c) as a vivid declaration of the glorious and invincible power of the coming Lord, ‘cui sufficiat halitus oris quo ἄνομος ille perdatur,’ Schott; comp. Isaiah xi. 4 (from which these words may have been derived), Wisdom xi. 20, 21, and the pertinent quotations from Rabbinical writers collected by Wetst. in loc.: on the word xarapyéw, comp. notes on Gal. v. 4. The reading is hardly doubtful: ὁ Kup. ᾽Ιησοῦς is supported by ADE1FGL28 ; 10 mss.; Syr. (both), Vulg., al. Ree. omits Ἰησοῦς with BE?KL!; most mss.; Arab. (Pol.); Orig., al. C is
deficient. ᾿ς πῇ ἐπιφανείᾳ τῆς παρ. αὐτοῦ] ‘with the manifestation of His coming ; not with a semi- theological reference to the glorious manifestation (‘inlustratione,’ Vulg., ‘brightness,’ Auth., ‘vi salutari,’ Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 343) of Christ at His second coming (comp. notes on rt Tim. vi. 14, and Tit. ii. 13, where τῆς δόξης is definitely added), but with simple reference to His visible coming (‘aspectu adventus sui,’ Clarom., Aith.) and actual local appearing ; στήσει τὴν ἀπάτην καὶ φανεὶς μόνον, Chrys., Theoph.
9. οὗ ἐστὶν ἡ παρουσία] Return to the time and subject of Antichrist’s coming, after the anticipatory allusion to his final overthrow; the οὗ resuming and re-echoing the ὃν of verse 8. The ethical present ἐστὶν marks the cer- tainty of the future event; see Winer, Gr. § 40. 2, p. 237, Bernhardy, Synt. xX. 2, p. 371. The instant repetition of παρουσία in the new connexion is remarkable. kat évépy. τοῦ Lat.] ‘according to the working of Satan ;’ not here ‘in consequence of’ (De W., comp. notes on ch. i. 12), but, in accordance with the more usual force of κατά, ‘in agreement and correspondence with’ an ἐνέργεια such as belongs to and might be looked for from Satan; comp. notes on Eph. i. 19, and Col. i. 29. The remark of Bengel is full of deep thought,—‘ut ad Deum se habet Christus, sic e con- trario ad Satanam se habet Anti-
Le
110 ΠΡΟΣ
ΘΕΣΞΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ B.
ΜΝ“ , , A , ‘ , , Σατανᾶ εν πασὴη δυνάμει καὶ σημειοις και TEpacly ψεύ-
ey , 9 , " ’ a 5] , " > 10 Oovs καὶ ἐν πασὴ ἀπατὴη ἀδικίας τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις, ἀνθ
christus.” ἐν πάσῃ δυνάμ. κιτ.λ.7 “ἐπ all power and signs and wonders of lying,’—in every form of (see notes on Eph. i. 8) power, signs, and wonders, leading to and tending to develop ψεῦδος : ἐν being no ‘nota dativi’ (Olsh.), but marking the sphere and domain of this [ἀντι παρουσία (comp. notes on 1 Thess. i. 5), and both πάσῃ (comp. Winer, Gr. § 59. 5, p. 466) and the gen. being associated with all the three substan- tives. The exact nature of the geni- tival relation is not perfectly certain: ψεύδους may be regarded as (a) a gen. of the origin, (b) of the characterizing quality or essence (see notes on ver. 7), or lastly, (c) of ‘the point of view’ (Scheuerl. Synt. ὃ 18, p. 129). Of these (a) is by no means probable ; but between (6) and (c) it is very diffi- cult to decide. Perhaps the object specified in ver. 11, and the analogy of ἀπάτη ἀδικίας (ver. 10), scil. ‘fraus quz ad improbitatem spectat’ (Schott 1, Winer, Gr. § 30. 2. B, p. 170), may here incline us to the latter; so Chrys. 2, els ψεῦδος ἄγουσι. For exx. of these more lax connexions of the gen., see Winer, Gr. l.c.
The three substantives might seem to be climactic; it was not only in an element of power (see notes on 1 Thess. i. 5), but one of signs, and further one of prodigies, that the working of Satan took place; as however we find a varied order (Acts ii. 22), and as the difference between σημεῖα (‘res inso- litas quibus Deus aliquid significet,’ Fritz.) and répara (‘que ut inusitata observari soleant,’ 7b.) exists less in the things themselves than in the mode of regarding them, we may perhaps most naturally consider the substantives as studiedly accumulated so as to give
force and expansion to the description ; compare Bornemann, Schol. in Lue. p- xxx. On the meaning of the last two words, and the derivation of τέρας [τηρέω, comp. Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. II, p. 238], see the elaborate note of Fritz. Rom. xv. 19, Vol. Ill. p. 270. The form σημεῖον appears closely con- nected with σῆμα (@nuar-), and thence with @EQ, τίθημι; see Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol. τι. p. 592.
το. καὶ ἐν wdoynk.t.Ar.] Sand in all (every kind of) deceit of iniquity ;’ generic and comprehensive term ap- pended by the collective καὶ to the foregoing list of more special details ; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 53. 3, p- 388, and notes on Phil. iv. 12. On the geni- tival relation, see above, ver. 9, and Winer, Gr. ὃ 30. 2, p. 170, and on the meaning of ἀδικία (‘de quacunque im- probitate dicitur quatenus τῷ δικαίῳ repugnat,’ Tittm.), notes on 2 Tim. ii. 19. The reading of Rec. τῆς a5. [with DEKLN?*; mss.; Hippol., Chrys., Theod.] is rejected by Lachm. and Tisch. on the higher authority of ABFGN!; mss.; Orig. (6), Cyr.- Jer. τοῖς ἀπολλυ- μένοις] ‘for those that are perishing ; dat. incommodi, belonging to the gene- ral head of the dative of interest ; see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 48. 4. The more exactly specifying τοῖς ἀπολλ. has no reference to any ‘decretum reproba- tionis’ (comp. even Pelt, ‘damnationi a Deo devoti’), but either like ἐστὶν marks the certainty of the event (‘qui certissime sunt perituri,’ Turret.), or perhaps more simply, with merely a temporal parallelism, points to those who ‘are perishing’ at the time in contemplation,—not too without re- ference to the present existence (comp. ver. 7) of such a class (1 Cor. i. 18,
ἘΣ, ατὶ
117
Ὄ cy . ’ a 9 , > ν᾽) 9 4 A ὧν THY ἀγαπὴν τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ ἐδέξαντο εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι
᾽ , ‘ A A , Fue Ate PR ae - QuTOvug. Kal διὰ TOUTO TEMTEL AUTOS ὁ Θεὸς ενεργειαν II
2 Cor. ii. 15, iv. 3), of which those here specified will be the continuance and development. The consolatory nature of the tacit limitation is not overlooked by the Greek commenta- tors; μὴ φοβηθῇς ἀγαπητέ, ἀλλ᾽ ἄκουε λέγοντος αὐτοῦ" ἐν τοῖς ἀπολλ. ἰσχύει, οἱ εἰ καὶ μὴ παρεγένετο ἐκεῖνος οὐκ ἂν ἐπείσθησαν, Chrys. Ἔν is prefixed to τοῖς ἀπολλ. by Rec. but only on the authority of DDEK LN‘; mss. ; Syr. (both) ; Orig. (1), al.
ἀνθ᾽ ὧν] ‘for that,’ ‘in requital for that’ (ri οὖν τὸ κέρδος ; Chrys.), Luke i. 20, xii. 3, xix. 44, Acts xii. 23, comp. Ley. xxiv. 20; explanatory statement of the cause of the judicial dispensa- tion of God, and of the justness and deservedness of their punishment. On this meaning of ἀνθ᾽ ὧν (‘propterea quod’), see Herm. Viger, No. 33, Winer, Gr. ὃ 47. a, p. 326, and for exx. see the list collected by Wetst. on Luke i, 20, and Raphel, Annot. Vol. 1. p. 442. τὴν ἀγάπην τῆς ἀληθ.] ‘the love of the truth ; not ‘charitatem veram,’ Anselm (cited by Corn. a Lap.), but ‘th love felt for the truth,’ ‘di- lectionem veritatis,’ Pseud.-Ambr.,— ἀληθ. not being a gen. of quality, but the simple and common gen. objecti ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 30, p. 167, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47. 7.1 sq. Ἡ ἀλήθεια is opposed to τὸ ψεῦδος (ver. 11). It seems somewhat perverse in Jowett to deny that this implies any higher de- gree of alienation from the truth than the less distinctive οὐκ ἐδέξαντο τὴν ἀλήθειαν : surely it is one thing not to receive the truth,—an unhappy state that might be referable to a mental obliquity for which some excuse might be found,—and another to receive no love of it, to be open to no desire to seek it, to be worse than indifferent
to it; ‘ubi veritas summopere amabi-
_ lis, ibi se quodammodo amor veritatis
insinuat,’ Cocceius. The prosopopeia (ἀγάπην ἀληθείας τὸν Κύριον κέκληκεν) adopted by Theod., Theoph., and (Ecum., is artificial, and unsupported by analogy. εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι αὐτούς] ‘that they might be saved; object that would have been naturally contemplated in their reception of it; and which was disregarded and nega- tived by their pursuing the contrary course; ‘non ita sibi chari fuerunt ut cogitarent de vita zterna,’ Cocceius. 11. Kal διὰ τοῦτο] ‘And for this cause ;’ almost ‘so for this cause,’ καὶ serving to mark the correspondence between the judgments and the course of conduct that had provoked them, and perhaps involving partly a conse- cutive and partly a contrasting force ; comp. note on the uses of καί, on Phil. iv. 12. πέμπει] ‘doth send; not so much an ethical (see ver. 9) as a direct present; the my- stery of iniquity is even now at work (ver. 7), and is even now calling down on itself the punishment of judicial obduracy. There is no need for ex- plaining away πέμπει (συγχωρήσει pa- νῆναι τὴν πλάνην, Theod., comp. Theod.- Mops., Theoph., Gicum.), nor is it right merely to ascribe it to a form of thought in the age of the Apostle (Jowett), nor enough to say merely that ‘whatever God permits He or- dains,’ Alf. The words are definite and significant; they point to that ‘judicial infatuation’ (Waterl. Serm. Vol. v. p. 486,—differently however in Vol. iv. p. 363) into which, in the development of His just government of the world, God causes evil and error to be unfolded, and which He brings into punitive agency in the
118 “ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΞΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙΣ B.
, 9 4 “ 9 4 ~ A 12 πλανῆς εἰς TO πιστεῦσαι αὐτοὺς TH ψεύδει, ἵνα κριθῶσιν oe e Α , na 9 ’ 9 9 9 ΓΣΣ ἅπαντες οἱ μὴ πιστεύσαντες TH ἀληθείᾳ ἀλλ᾽ εὐδυκή- σαντες [ἐν] τῇ ἀδικίᾳ.
12. [ἐν] τῇ ἀδικίᾳ] The reading is not quite certain; ἐν is given by Rec. and Tisch. ed. 2,7, with AD®EKLN*‘; most mss.; Orig. (2), Chrys., Theod., but is enclosed in brackets by Lachm., and was rejected by Zisch. ed. 1, with BD! FGN'; 7 mss.; Orig. (2), Hippol., al. C is deficient. As, though the construc- tion with the simple dat. is not found in the N.T., the omission of the pre- position may have been suggested here by a desire to preserve a parallelism of clauses, we still retain the ἐν in the text, but deem it necessary to mark the increased doubt which the authority of δὲ produces by enclosing the word in
brackets.
case of obstinate and truth-hating re- jection of His offers and calls of mercy ; comp. Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, Book v. Vol. 1. p. 471 (Clark), and see two able Sermons on this text by South, Serm. Vol. 11. p. 192—228. The read- ing of Rec. πέμψει [DSEKLN*; mss. ; Clarom., Augiens., majority of Vv., and many Ff.] is rightly rejected by most modern editors, being inferior in uncial authority to πέμπει [ABD'F GN!; 67; Vulg. (Amiat.), Orig. (3), al.], and a correction of it that would easily suggest itself.
ἐνέργειαν πλάνης} ‘an in-working of error ;’ not πλάνην évepyov, CEcum., —here a most questionable solution of the governing subst. (see Winer, Gr. § 34. 3, p. 211), but, in accordance with δυνάμει----ψεύδους, of which évépy. πλάνης is a kind of summary,—‘a working which; tends to enhance and develop πλάνη, the gen. being (as ψεύδους in verse 9) that of ‘the point of view; τὰ ἔργα ἃ ποιεῖ [’Avrixp. | els τὸ πλανῆσαι, Theoph. On the meaning of πλάνη (‘erroris,’ Vulg.), ‘see notes on 1 Thess. ii, 3, and Eph. iv. 14. els τὸ πιστεῦσαι κ.τ.λ.] ‘to the intent that they should believe the lie,’ opposed to ‘the truth’ (ver. 10), scil, the falsehood implied in the preceding words οὗ ἐστὶν .--- ἀδικίας
(Green, Gram. p. 141), not falsehood generally, as Middl. Gr. Art. p. 383 (ed. Rose); clause stating the purpose of God (‘non meram sequelam,’ Schott) in sending to them the évépy. πλάνης by His judicial act. He sends a power of a nature designed to work out the appointed issue, and to bring about a state which involves its own chastise- ment. On the force of εἰς τὸ in sen- tences similar to the present, see Meyer on Rom. i. 20.
12. ἵνα κριθῶσιν ἅπαντες] ‘ that they may all of them be judged 7 more remote purpose involved in the preced- ing words els τὸ πιστεῦσαι κιτ.Ὰλ., with which this clause seems more naturally connected than directly with the pre- ceding πέμπει. The preceding εἰς τὸ x.T.\. renders a reference to result (‘quo fiet ut,’ Schott) here distinctly untenable. It need scarcely be said that -xpi0dcw is not per se ‘might be damned,’ Auth. Chrys.), but simply ‘may be judged,’ ‘judicentur,’ Vulg., the further idea of an unfavourable judgment being supplied by the context; comp. κρῖμα in 1 Tim. iii. 6, and see notes én loc. The reading is doubtful: Zisch. reads ἅπαντες with AFGN; mss.; Orig. (2), Cyr.: Rec. and Lachm. (non marg.) adopt πάντες with BDEL; mss, ; Orig.
(wa κατακριθῶσι,
δ ὅθι
We must thank God that He hath chosen and called you. Hold what we delivered unto you; and may God stablish you.
t
119
Ἡμεῖς δὲ ὀφείλομεν εὐχαριστεῖν τῷ 13 | Θεῷ πάντοτε περὶ ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοὶ nya-
, ἃ 28 K ’ 4 cf ee. £ THMEVOL VUTO υριου, OTL εἵλατο υμας ὁ
Θ ΨΥ ἐν Νὰ A 9 ’ > a TI , \ εος AT αρχῆς εἰς σωτηριᾶν εν αγιασμῳ νευματος Και
(1), many Ff. The evidence is thus very evenly balanced. εὐδοκήσαντες [ἐν] τῇ ἀδικ.1 ‘took pleasure in unrighteousness.’ On the meaning of εὐδοκεῖν (‘re aut persona delectari,’ Fritz.), compare notes on I Thess. ii. 8, but see esp, the elaborate note of Fritz. Rom. x. 1, Vol. I. p. 369 sq.
13. Ἡμεῖς δέ] ‘ But we,’ scil. the Apostle and his companions, Silvanus and Timothy (ch. i. 1), not St Paul
alone (Jowett),—placed by means of.
the oppositive δὲ in contrast with those alluded to in the foregoing verses. ὀφείλομεν] ‘ are bound,’ Auth., ‘opor- tet,’ Copt. [sempsha]; the verb ὀφείλειν, as in ch. i. 3, expressing the duty on its subjective side, ‘das innerlich Ge- drungenfiihlen,’ Liinem. On the con- nexion of εὐχαριστεῖν with περί, and ov the meaning of the verb, see notes and reff. on 1 Thess. i, 2.
ἀδελφοί «.7.A.] Similarly, 1 Thess. i. 4, ἀδελφοὶ ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ Θεοῦ,---οχ- cept that Κυρίου here, as nearly always in St Paul’s Epp., refers to our Lord, not to God the Father. Though love, as Alf. remarks, is in this sort of col- location somewhat more usually refer- red by St Paul to the First Person of the blessed Trinity (ver. 16, Eph. ii. 4, al.), yet such references to the Second Person are by no means with- out precedent; comp. Rom. viii. 37, Eph. v. 2, 25. ὅτι εἵλατο K.T.A. | ‘that God chose you; objective sen- tence (‘ quod,’ Vulg., 9, Syr.), stating the matter and grounds, surely not ‘the reason,’ Alf. (comp. Aith., Auth.), of the εὐχαριστία; see 1 Thess. ii. 13, 1 Cor. i. 14, and on objective sen-
tences generally, or as they are some- times termed ‘expositive’ sentences, consult Schmalfeld, Synt. ὃ 163 sq., Donalds. Gr. ὃ 584 sq. The verb ai- ρεῖσθαι is a dm. Neydu. in St Paul’s Epp. in reference to the divine ἐκλογή, the term ἐκλέγεσθαι being used in I Cor. i. 27, 28, and Eph. i. 4; comp. 1 Thess. i. 4, and Reuss, Zhéol. Chrét. Iv. 14, Vol. 11. p.133 sq. Rec. reads εἵλετο with K; most mss., but the Alexandrian form εἵλατο (see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 183) is rightly adopted by Lachm., Tisch., and most modern editors, with greatly preponderating authority [ABDEFGLN; some mss. ; Theod. (ms.)]. On these forms in the N.T., see Tisch. Prolegom. p. LVI (ed. 7), and the somewhat opposing com- ments of Scrivener, Introd. to N. T. vul. 6, p. 416. ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς] ‘from the beginning,’ scil. of all things, ‘from eternity ;’ so 1 John i. 1, ii, 13, but not elsewhere in St Paul’s Epp., where the more distinctive formule mpd καταβολῆς κόσμου (Eph. i. 4), πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων (1 Cor. ii. 7), mpd χρόνων αἰωνίων (2 Tim. i. 9), and more re- strictedly, ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων (Eph. iii. g), are used to express the same or a similar idea. The reference to the beginning of the gospel-preaching (Michaelis, al.) is rightly rejected by Schott and Liinem., as requiring some explanatory supplement either imme- diately connected with ἀρχὴ (Phil. iv. 15) or obviously involved in the con- text (1 John ii. 7, 24). Finally the reading ἀπαρχὴν (Lachm., Tisch. ed. 1) has the good external support of BFG; 5 mss.; Vulg., but is in- ferior in external authority to dm’ dp-
120
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙ͂Σ B.
Υ̓ 4 - , 14 πίστει ἀληθείας, εἰς ὁ ἐκάλεσεν ὑμᾶς διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου
e “A 9 , ’ ~ ’ ¢ ~ ᾽ “ ἥμων, εἰς περιποιησιν δόξης TOU Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ
~ xijs[ which is found in DEK LN; nearly
all mss. and Vv.; Gr. and Lat. Ff. A non liquet and C is deficient. ’Ar- αρχὴν tacitly involves such a contradic- tion to actual fact (the Thessalonians were not the first believers in Maced.), that we can here scarcely hesitate in our choice, ἐν ἁγιασμῷ Πνεύματος] ‘in sanctification of the Spirit,’ scil. wrought by, and effected by the Spirit; Πνεύματος being the
τ gen. of the causa efficiens (see notes on
7
1 Thess. i. 6), and referring not to man's spirit (Schott), but to the per- sonal Holy Spirit. No argument can be founded on the omission of the article, as in the first place such omis- sions are not rare with Πνεῦμα, and secondly, it might here be due to the common principle of correlation; comp. Middl. Gr. Art. 111. 3. 7, p. 49 (ed. Rose). The prep. ἐν may be instru- mental (Chrys., Liinem., al.), but is perhaps more naturally taken in its usual sense as denoting the spiritual state in which the εἵλατο εἰς σωτηρίαν was realized; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 50. 5, Pp. 370, who in ed. 5 with less accuracy referred it to σωτηρία, The assump- tion of De W. that ἐν is here equiva- lent to e/s is well refuted by Liinem., who justly urges the obscuring effect this would have on the preceding εἰς σωτηρίαν. πίστει ἀληθείας] ‘faith in the truth ;’ ἀληθείας not being a gen. of quality (πίστεως ἀληθοῦς, Chrys.), but simply the gen. objecti, see Winer, Gr. § 30. 1, p. 167, and comp. Phil. i. 27.
14. εἰς 6] ‘whereunto,’ scil. εἰς σωτηρίαν ἐν ἁγιασμῷ x.r.r., not ‘ad electionem atque animum quo efdem digni evadimus’ (Pelt), as the his- torical ἐκάλεσεν naturally stands in connexion, not with the election
which had taken place dm’ ἀρχῆς, but with those issues contemplated by the εἵλατο which had their commence- ments in time. So rightly Theoph., els τοῦτο yap ἐκάλεσεν ὑμᾶς, φησίν" els τοῦτο, ποῖον ; εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι διὰ (1) τοῦ ἁγιασμοῦ καὶ τῆς πίστεως. After ὃ FGN; Vulg., al. add καί.
ὑμᾶς] The reading of Lachm. ἡμᾶς has the support of ABD!'; a few mss.; Clarom., Sangerm., Augiens., and,— as ὑμᾶς miyht have been a conforma- tion to the preceding buds,—is plaus- ible, but hardly sufficiently supported by external authority to be admitted with confidence.
διὰ τοῦ edayy. ἡμῶν] ‘by means of our Gospel,’ scil. ‘the Gospel we preached,’ that which involved the ἀκοὴν which is the antecedent of πίέ- otis; comp. Rom. x. 17, and Usteri, Lehrb. τι. 2, 2, p. 267. On the exact genitival relation of ἡμῶν, see notes on 1 Thess. i. 5. εἰς περιποίησιν κ, τι λ.} ‘unto the obtaining of the glory of our Lord J. C.,’ ‘in adquisi- tionem glorie,’ Vulg., Copt., compare Atth. ‘ut vivatis in gloria Domini ;’ more exact specification of the pre- ceding els σωτηρίαν (ver. 13), the term περιποίησις giving the σωτηρία the aspect of a κτῆσις (Hesych., Suid.), and that of a glory of which Christ was—not the author (Pelt), but, in accordance with the analogy of Scrip- ture—the Lord and possessor ; see John xvii. 24, comp, Rom. viii. 17. See esp. notes on 1 Thess. v. 9, where this meaning of περιπ. is briefly investi- gated. Of the two other interpreta- tions of mepir.,—(a) active, with re- ference to God, seil. ἵνα δόξαν περι- ποιήσῃ τῷ vig αὐτοῦ, CEcum.; and () passive (comp. Eph. i. 14), δόξης being resolved into an adj., scil. ‘gloriosa
ΤΤ, Ὑ5; τ. 121
Χριστοῦ. ἄρα οὗν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε, καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς 15
παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε δὲ ἐπι-
στολῆς ἡμῶν. αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς τό
possessio,’ Est. 2,—the first is gram- matically, the second contextually doubtful. In the case of (a) we must have had the usual dative of ‘interest,’ not (as here) a gen. of possession ; in the case of (Ὁ) the seeming parallelism with 1 Thess. v. 9 would be destroyed, and the glorification of our Lord would really bevome the object of the
a» καλεῖν, as Syr. expressly (OOOH?
Se na» sod jdrcen22 [ut sitis glo-
ria Domino nostro], not the future ~ reserved for the Thessalonians, on which the illative exhortation of ver. 15 (dpa οὖν) seems logically to depend; comp. Liinem. in loc.
15. ἄρα «οὖν κ-.τ.λ.] ‘Accordingly then, brethren, stand (firm); exhorta- tion following on the preceding decla- ration of the gracious purpose of God, —the illative dpa being supported by the collective οὖν; see notes on (al. vi. 10, and reff. on 1 Thess. v. 6. On the present derivative meaning of στήκετε (perstate, Beza, μὴ καταβλή- θητε, CEcum.; comp. 1 Thess. iii. 8), here suitably used in retrospective an- tithesis to σαλευθῆναι (ver. 2), see notes on τ Thess. iii. 8 and Phil. i. 27. κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις] ‘hold fast the instructions; practically synony- mous with 1 Cor xi. 2, τὰς παραδόσεις κατέχετε. These παραδόσεις (Mark vii. 3, Gal. i. 14, al.) probably related,— not as in 1 Cor. 1. 6. (see Meyer in loc.) to matters both of doctrine and discipline, but, as the more specific ἐδιδάχθητε and the general tenor of the context (comp. ver. 5) suggest, solely to the former, κανόνα διδασκα-
as, Theod. The polemical and con- troversial use of the term, hinted at even by Chrys., is brought forward by Damase. (de Imag. τ. 23, Vol. I. p. 518, Paris, 1712), and enforced by most writers of the Romanist Church (comp. Canon. Conc. Trid. Sess. Iv. p. 15, ed. Tauchn.), but distinctly without plausibility. No reference to any ἐκκλησιαστικὸν φρόνημα (Kuseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 28; comp. Mohler, Symbolik, § 38, p. 361) can fairly be elicited from the words. The Apostle, as the following clause most distinctly shows, is referring to some definite and lately-given communi- cations on doctrine which he had specially made to the Thessalonians (comp. 1 Cor. 1. ¢., καθὼς mapédwxa) by word of mouth and in his former letter. For the most ingenious modern defence of the Romanist doctrine of tradition, see Mohler, Symbolik, l. 6. p- 361—365. ds ἐδιδάχθητε! ‘which ye were taught.’ For exx. of this well-known con- struction, see Winer, Gr. § 32. 5, p. 204, and for the general theory of the connexion of the accus. with passive verbs, Schmalfeld, Syntax, § 25, p. 29 sq. εἴτε διὰ λόγου K.t.A.] ‘whether by word or by our (gen. aue- toris), not an ἐπιστολὴ ὡς 80 ἡμῶν, ver. 2. We can hardly say with Gom. (cited and approved by Pelt, comp. Schott)—‘ etre non disjungit, sed conjungit et copulat;’ it rather sub- divides the general ἐδιδάχθητε into the two special modes in which διδαχὴ is usually and regularly conveyed ; comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 8, and Meyer in loc.
16. αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Kup.] ‘but may
epistle,—émisTtorn ἡμῶν
122 ΠΡῸΣ @ESSAAONIKEIS B.
kat ὁ Θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν, ὁ ἀγαπήσας ἡμᾶς Kat δοὺς
17 παράκλησιν αἰωνίαν καὶ ἐλπίδα ἀγαθὴν ἐν χάριτι, παρα-
16. ὁ πατήρ] So Lachm. (text) with BD!FGN! (N* reads simply πατήρ) ; mss. ; Augiens., Syr.; al. Lachm. (in marg.) and Tisch. follow Rec. in reading kal π. with AD*EKL; mss.; Vulg., Clarom. al. Although judgment cannot be absolutely pronounced, yet the reading given in the text has certainly the best claim to appear there. The previous variations in the reading of the clause
are noticed below.
our Lord himself ;’ concluding prayer after exhortation, as in ch. iii. 16 (πάλιν εὐχὴ μετὰ παραίνεσιν" τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν ὄντως βοηθεῖν, Chrys.), the δὲ contrasting the succeeding prayer with the foregoing exhortation, and the αὐτὸς giving force and dignity to the mention of our Lord as compared with the preceding ἡμῶν ; comp. the similar concluding prayers in 1 Thess. iii. 11, v. 23, in both which cases how- ever the connexion is less close, and the contrasting force, both of the par- ticle and the pronoun, somewhat less emphatic. Our Lord is put first in the enumeration (2 Cor. xiii. 13), contrary to the Apostle’s usual habit of writing, either on account of the recent mention of Him in ver. 14, or from the feeling that it was by His grace alone that they could have strength to carry into practice the preceding exhortations; ‘per gratiam Christi venitur ad Patris amorem,’ Bengel on 2 Cor. l.c. This unusual order is not left unnoticed by Chrys. and the Greek expositors; τῇ τῆς τάξεως ἐναλλαγῇ τὴν ὁμοτιμίαν δεικνύει, Theod. The readings throughout the clause are somewhat doubtful. Be- sides the variation given in the criti- cal note, Lachm. differs from Tisch. in inserting ὁ before Χριστός [with A], and including it in brackets before Θεός [BD! omit]. ὁ Θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν] ‘God our Father.’ This exact form of expression, though so strongly supported here, does not ap-
pear to occur elsewhere.
ὁ ἀγαπήσας K.T.A. seems to refer only to God the Father. The union of Father and Son, esp. as shown by the subsequent singular verb, is I confess so mystically close that it is difficult to speak with complete con- fidence (Alf., but see his previous note), still the usual reference of ἀγάπη to the Father (see above) may incline us here to the more exclusive refer- ence. The arbitrary reference of the first of the two participles to Christ, and of the second to God the Father (Baumg.-Crus.), is almost obviously untenable. παράκλη- σιν αἰωνίαν] ‘eternal comfort; the best shade of meaning for παράκλησις here. αἰώνιος is used not appy. with any specially qualitative reference to an ἐλπίδα τῶν μελλόντων (Chrys., Theoph.), but mainly in a temporal sense, in contrast to the transitory and fleeting nature of earthly joys (Olsh.) : the ἐλπὶς τῶν μελλόντων is embodied in the ἐλπίδα ἀγαθήν, ‘la perspective d’un heureux avenir,’ Reuss, Zhéol. Chrét. Iv. 9, Vol. 11. p. 85; comp., though with a slightly different refer- ence, τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα, Tit. ii. 13. Αἰώνιος is used in the N. T. as an adj. of two terminations except here and Heb. ix. 12.
ἐν χάριτι] ‘in grace;’ adjunct of manner, not to both preceding par- ticiples (dya7. being more usually un- defined, Rom. viii. 37, Gal. ii. 20, al.), but to δούς (Schott, and appy. Chrys.,
Sa gabled
fe ie West:
' of the Aramaic 2,
II. 17, EEE Ὁ
128
καλέσαι ὑμῶν τὰς καρδίας καὶ στηρίξαι ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ
καὶ λόγῳ ἀγαθῷ.
Finally, pray for the advance of the Lord’s word, and for us. He will stablish you ; and may He guide your hearts.
(CEcum.), the ἐν as usual defining the sphere and element in which the love is evinced and the consolation vouchsafed. In cases like the present the line of demarcation between the above reference to ethical locality and the instrumental use (χάριτι, Chrys.) is really very shadowy. It can scarcely be doubted that such a use has arisen from the inclusive nature and it is well not to be unduly narrow in interpreta- tion; still in most of the expressions similar to the present there is a theo- logical idea,—an idea of an encompass- ing element of grace, which it seems desirable to retain; comp. notes on 5 Thess. 3;
17. παρακαλέσαι] ‘comfort ;’ opt. and sing., as in 1 Thess. iii. 11, where see notes. The Apostle does not say merely ὑμᾶς, but ὑμῶν τὰς καρδίας (comp. Col. ii. 2); it was the καρδία, the seat of their feelings and affectiuns (comp. notes on 1 Zim.i. 5, Beck, Seelenl. 111. 24, p. 92 8q.), the καρδία that was so full of hope and fear about the future, that the Apo- stle prayed might receive comfort.
ΤΟΎ This meaning (yay [consoletur ]
Syr., comp. Aith.), seems thus in the present case more suitable than ‘ex- hortetur,’ Vulg., as a translation of παρακαλέσαι; see notes on 1 Thess. vont: στηρίξαι] ‘ stablish (you) ; βεβαιώσαι, ὥστε μὴ σαλεύεσθαι μηδὲ παρακλίνεσθαι, Chrys.; comp. 1 Thess. iii. 2. The obvious supple- ment ὑμᾶς is inserted by Rec, with
To λοιπὸν προσεύχεσθε, ἀδελφοί, Hi: περὶ ἡμῶν, ἵνα ὁ λόγος τοῦ Κυρίου , A , A 4 A τρέχη καὶ δοξαζηται καθὼς καὶ προς
D°E*KL; mss., but rightly rejected by Lachm. and Tisch. with very de- cidedly preponderating uncial autho- rity. ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ κ.τ.λ.7 ‘in every good work and word ;’ both παντὶ and ἀγαθῷ being clearly con- nected with the two intervening sub- stantives. The slightly unusual order [Rec. however gives λόγ. x. &py.,—but only with FGK; mss.] has appy. caused the Greek commentators (silet Theod.) to assign the doubful meaning δόγματα to the simple word λόγῳ. This is by no means probable; the association with ἔργῳ (comp. Fritz. Rom. xv. 18, Vol. m1. p. 268), and still more the inclusive παντί, seem both decisive for the ordinary mean- ing. It is singular that Chrys. (so Theoph.) should have here taken ἐν as instrumental; clearly the ἔργον καὶ λόγος are not the means by which, but the elements in which the στηριγμὸς takes place.
Cuaprer IIT. τ, Td λοιπόν] “ Fi- nally,’ ‘as to what remains to be said ;’ similar in meaning to λοιπόν (1 Thess. iv. 1), but owing to the article slightly more specific. On the grammatical difference between this formula and the gen. τοῦ λοιποῦ, see notes on Gal. vi. 17. προσεύχεσθε... περὶ ἡμῶν] ‘pray for us; ἄνω αὐτὸς εὐξάμενος ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν νῦν αἰτεῖ εὐχὴν παρ᾽ αὐτῶν, (συμ. On the formula προσεύχομαι περί, and its practical equivalence to mpocedxo- μαι ὑπέρ, see notes on Col. i. 3. ἵνα ὁ λόγος KT.A] Subject of the
194
ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙ͂Σ B.
e ~ Δ ψῃ{ αι A ᾿] Α ~ . , 4 σι 2 υμας, και να ῥυσθῶμεν a7TO Τῶν ATOT@Y και πονήρων
prayer blended with the purpose of making it, as so often in St Paul’s Epp.; see notes on Eph.i. 17. This prayer of the Apostle, as Chrys. has well observed, was not iva μὴ κινδυνεύῃ ‘(els τοῦτο yap ἔκειτο), but that his Loftd’s word (compare 1 Thess. i. 8) might speed onward and be glorified. As ever so now his prayer did not involve one single selfish element. τρέχῃ Kal δοξάζηται)] ‘may have free course and be glorified; ‘currat et clarificetur,’ Vulg., ¢.e. may find no obstacles and hindrances (ἀκωλύτως συντρέχῃ, Theod., προκόπτῃ, Damasc.) in its onward course (comp. 2 Tim. ii. 2, οὐ δέδεται), and be manifested, felt, and acknowledged in its true power and glory by all; compare ch. i. 12, but not, as usually cited, Acts xiii. 48, —where, as De W. rightly observes, the word (δοξάζ.) has a somewhat weaker force, more nearly approach- ing to ‘laudare,’ comp. Schneider on Xen. Anab. v. 9. 32. The middle force adopted by Pelt, ‘laudem sibi paret,’ is not supported by the usage of the N. T., nor is it at all accurate to say that ἀπὸ would have been more naturally used if the verb had been passive. If any other prep. had been used, it would have been ὑπὸ (Matth. vi. 2, Luke iv. 15) or ἐν (John xvii. 10, al.) with persons : comp. δοξασ- θῇ...δι᾿’ αὐτῆς [ἀσθενείας] in John xi. 4. IIpés however is perfectly suitable, as denoting the locality reached where the glorification took place. On the use of πρὸς with verbs implying rest, d&c., see notes on Gal. i. 18.
καθὼς Kal πρὸς ὑμᾶς] ‘even as it is also with you; the καὶ gently con- trasting them with others where a similar reception had taken place, and the clause ‘tacité laude’ (Est.) remind- ing them of their previous and present
readiness to receive the Word ; comp. I Thess. i. 6 sq.
2. Kal ἵνα ῥυσθῶμεν] ‘and that we may be delivered,’ that we may by our freedom co-operate in this advance of God’s word. To find here a mere shrinking of the flesh on the part of the Apostle from the dangers that awaited him (Jowett) is to assign to the Apostle a character that never belonged to him, and which such pas- sages as Rom. xv. 31 (see ver. 32, which shows the true reason) and 2 Cor. i. 8 most certainly do not sub- stantiate. How much keener are the perceptions of the older commentators ; διπλῇ μὲν ἡ αἴτησις εἶναι δοκεῖ, μία δὲ ὅμως ἐστί τῶν γὰρ πονηρῶν ἀνθρώπων ἡττωμένων, ἀκωλύτως καὶ ὁ τοῦ κηρύγ- ματος συντρέχει λόγος, Theod. τῶν ἀτόπων KT.A.] ‘perverse and wicked men,’ or, in the more deriva- tive sense of the term dromos,—‘ ini- quis et malis hominibus,’ Clarom. ;
comp. Syr. 1daS6 leis [malo-
rum et perversorum], where ‘the order is appy. reversed. The word ἄτοπος, frequently used by Plato, and in con- nexion with καινός (Rep. II. p. 405 D), θαυμαστός (Legg. τ. p. 646 8), and ἀήθης (Tim. p. 48 D, Legg. vit. p. 797 A), properly signifies ὁ μὴ ἔχων τόπον (Suid. 5. v.), and thence deriva- tively, as the same lexicographer ob- serves, κακός, μοχθηρός (see Bekk. Anecd. p. 460, Hesych. πονηρός, αἰσχρός), with concomitant ideas of ‘mischief,’ dc., according to the con- text ; see Luke xxiii. 41, Acts xxv. 5, xxvill. 6, Philo, Leg. Alleg. m1. § 17, ἄτοπος λέγεται εἷναι ὁ φαῦλος, ἄτοπον δέ ἐστι κακὸν δύσθετον (Vol. I. p- 98, ed. Mang.), and the exx. col- lected by Kypke, Obs. Vol. τι. p. 145 8q. Who these men were
Pre.
9 , Φ Ἁ , e ἀνθρώπων" ov yap πάντων ἡ Κύριος ὃς στηρίξει ὑμᾶς καὶ
is somewhat doubtful. The most na- tural supposition is that they were perverse and fanatical Jews (not Chris- tians, on account of what follows) at Corinth, who were then opposing the word of God and the Apostle’s minis- try of it; comp. Acts xviii. 12 sq. and Wieseler, Chronol. p. 256. The remark of Tertullian seems to have always been very true in reference to the. early Church,—‘synagogas J udeorum fontes persecutionum,’ adv. Gnost. Scorp. cap. 10.
οὐ γὰρ πάντων ἡ πίστις] ‘for the faith doth not pertain to all men ;᾽ reason for the foregoing clause and the mention of those alluded to in it. The definite ἡ πίστις can here only refer to ‘faith’ in the Christian sense (τὸ πιστεῦσαι, Gicum., and perhaps Syr.
» y 1202180.607) : the expansion of
Schott, ‘fides sincera et constans,’ in contrast to false Christians (ψευδάδελ- got, Gal. ii. 4), seems inconsistent with the use of the simple unqualified sub- stantive. For exx. of this not un- common use of the possessive gen., see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47. 6. 8, and comp. Acts i. 7, Winer, Gr. § 30. 5, p. 176. Wetstein in loc. quotes the well-known proverbial saying οὐ παν- τὸς ἀνδρὸς és Κόρινθον ἐσθ᾽ ὁ πλοῦς, cited by Suidas s. vv. οὐ παντός, Vol. II. p. 1220 (ed. Bern.).
3. πιστὸς δέ κιτ.λ.] ‘But faithful is the Lord ;’ antithesis to the member immediately preceding, with a paro- nomasia, or rather play on the word, suggested by the preceding πίστις ; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 13, and see exx. in Winer, Gr. ὃ 68. 2, p. 561, where the distinction is drawn between simple paronomasia and a play on words (Wortspiel) where a fresh or slightly
4. ἢ, 125
πίστις. πιστὸς δέ ἐστιν ὁ 3 : φυλάξει ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ. changed meaning is introduced. There seems no reason for departing, either here or in ver. 4, from the usual refer- ence of ὁ Κύριος to the second person of the blessed Trinity ; comp. notes on ch. ii. 13. The reading adopted by Lachm., ὁ Θεός [AD!FG; Vulg. (not Amiat.), Armen. (marg.); Latin Ff.], seems to be a correction, and conformation to the more usual for- mula, 1 Cor. i. g, x. 13, 2 Cor. i. 18.
ὃς στηρίξει ὑμᾶς] ‘who shall stablish you,’ not perhaps without a faint ex- planatory force in the relative, ‘ being one who will, &c.;’ comp. notes on 1 Tim. ii. 4, and on Col. i. 25, 27. The form ornpice (found in B) is noticed by Winer, Gr. § 15, p. 82, and is not without analogy in Alex- andrian Greek. ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ] ‘from the Wicked One.’ Here as elsewhere in the N.T. it is extremely doubtful whether τοῦ πονη- pod refers to evil in the abstract (see Rom. xii. 9), or to the Evil One ( John v. 18, comp. Eph. vi. 16, and notes in loc.). The context alone must decide ; and this in the present case, in spite of the reference to ch. ii. 17, στηρίξαι ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ, urged by Liinem. and repeated by ΑἹἱῇ, seems ratber in favour of the mascu- line,—(1I) in consequence of the pro- bable ref. to the Lord’s prayer, where the Greek commentators (whose opinion in such points deserves full considera- tion) adopt the masc.,—and (2) from the tacit personal antithesis suggested by the preceding Κύριος. The ancient Vv., whose testimony would here have been of considerable importance, do not seem to afford us any sure indica- tions of the view they adopted. The same word, we may observe, is used by Syr. both here and in 1 John v. 18,
120
ΠΡῸΣ OEZZAAONIKEIS Β.
4 πεποίθαμεν δὲ ἐν Κυρίῳ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ὅτι ἃ παραγγέλλο- 5 Mev καὶ ποιεῖτε καὶ ποιήσετε. ὁ δὲ Κύριος κατευθύναι
where the meaning is not doubtful.
4. πεποίθαμεν δὲ ἐν Kup.] ‘ Yea we have trust in the Lord; declara- tion of the Apostle’s trust in his con- verts,—the δὲ subjoining with a faint antithesis to the simple future just preceding (‘ ei que jam significata est similis notio quodam modo opponitur,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 361) the Apostle’s present trust and convic- tions, and paving the way for the ex- hortations in ver. 6 84. ; καὶ τοῦτο els προτροπὴν αὐτῶν τέθεικεν, va μαθόντες olas ἔχει δόξας περὶ αὐτῶν τοῖς ἔργοις βεβαιώσωσι ταύτας, Theod. This πεποί- θησις was now as ever ἐν Κυρίῳ: it was not only a trust in His φιλανθρω- mia (Chrys.), but a trust in Him as the blessed sphere and element in which alone it could be truly felt and entertained: see Phil. ii. 19, and notes on Eph. iv. 17, vi. 1. ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς] ‘in regard of you; the pre- position marking the ethical direction of the πεποιθέναι ; comp. Matth. xxvii. 43, 2 Cor. ii. 3, and see Winer, Gr. § 49. 1, p. 363. It is very difficult to draw clear lines of demarcation be- tween the ethical uses of πρός, ἐπί, and εἰς, in combinations like the pre- sent. To speak somewhat generally, we may perhaps say that πρὸς with the acc. commonly indicates simple ethical motion (comp. Donalds. Crat. § 169, 171); ἐπὶ with the same case mental direction with an idea of ap- proximation (Donalds. Crat. § 172) and a more defined expression of the erga (Luke vi. 35) or contra (Matth. x. 21); εἰς direction or destination with the idea of having actually reached the object (comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 21. 5, and notes on Philem. 5), and with a wider and more inclusive notion of general behaviour however
characterized. For the distinctions be- tween els, πρός, and κατά, see notes on Tit. i. τ.
ὅτι ἃ παραγγέλλ.] ‘that the things which we command ;’ objective or ex- positive sentence (Donalds. Gr. § 584, see notes on ch. ii. 13), stating the matter of the Apostle’s confidence. The ἃ wapayyéAX.,—clearly not ‘ que precepimus,’ Pelt,—here refers most naturally to the commands which the Apostle is now in the act of giving to his converts, and links the present verse in an easy and natural way to ver. 6,
καὶ ποιεῖτε κ. troujo. belongs to the apodosis of the sentence, καὶ... καὶ presenting both ποιεῖτε and raze. si- multaneously in a single predication ; see notes on 1 Tim.iv. το. There is in this verse much variation of reading. After παραγγέλλομεν Rec. inserts ὑμῖν, but it is rightly omitted by Zachm. and T'isch. with BD'8 ; 2 mss.; Vulg., al. The insertion may have been sug- gested by ver. 6. Also Lachm. reads παραγγέλλομεν [ὑμῖν καὶ ἐποιήσατε Kal] ποιεῖτε καὶ ποιήσετε, but the reading in this extended form is supported only by B, as FG (which insert καὶ ἐποιήσ.) omit καὶ ποιήσετε. It is doubtful however whether the καὶ should be retained before ποιεῖτε as it is omitted by AD'!N!; Syr. Observe that C is deficient.
5. ὁ δὲ Kup. κιτ.λ.] ‘But may the Lord direct your hearts ; repetition of the Apostle’s prayer, introduced in the form of a gentle antithesis (δέ) to what precedes,—‘ I doubt you not, my confidence is in the Lord; may He however vouchsafe His blessed aid ;’ ἀμφοτέρων ἡμῖν χρεία καὶ προθέσεως ἀγαθῆς καὶ τῆς ἄνωθεν συνεργείας, Theod. The appearance of τοῦ Χριστοῦ
HE 4.5.6
127
e a 4 OL 9 A 9 , “ Θ A 4 : | 4 UM@V τας καρ tag εἰς τῆν αγαπην του εου και εἰς τὴν
e 4 -“ a UTOKOVHV TOU Χριστοῦ.
Avoid all disorderly brethren, and imitate us. We charge such to labour, and bid you 'mark them that dis- obey. The Lord give you peace.
in the concluding member of the verse has led Basil (de Spir. Sanct. cap. 21), Theod., Theoph., Gic., and recently Wordsw., to refer ὁ Κύριος to the Holy Spirit. This however is unne- cessary, and indeed contrary to the language of the N.T.; Κύριος appy. not being so applied even in the de- bateable passage 2 Cor. iii. 18, see Meyer in loc. On the compound κατευθύνειν (εὐθυπορεῖν, Theoph.), see notes on 1 Thess. iii. 11, and on the meaning of καρδία in such combina- tions (here the centre of the active will and its practical applications), see Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych. iv. 12, p. 202, Beck, Seelenl. 111. 24, p. 94, 95.
els τὴν Gy. τοῦ Θεοῦ] ‘into the love of God; principle to which and into which the Apostle prays that his con- verts may be guided. The only doubt is whether τοῦ Θεοῦ is a gen. subjecti, under the more specific form of a gen. auctoris, scil. ‘amor quem Deus homi- num quasi infundit animis,’ Pelt,—or simply a gen. objecti, ‘amorerga Deum,’ Beng., τὸ ἀγαπῆσαι αὐτόν, Theoph. The latter is most natural; the love of God is indeed the ‘virtutis Christi- anz fons limpidissimus,’ Schott; see Matth. xxii. 37.
τὴν trop. τοῦ Xp.] ‘the patience of Christ.’ The meaning of these words is also slightly doubtful, owing to the different aspects in which the gen. may be regarded. Analogy with what precedes would suggest (a) a gen. ob- jecti, ‘patient waiting for Christ’ (Auth., Chrys. 2, Theoph. 2), but would introduce a meaning of ὑπομ.
ΠΠαραγγέλλομεν δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, 6 ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, στέλλεσθαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀδελφοῦ
that is appy. not lexically defensible, and certainly is contrary to the usage of the N.T. Of the other meanings, (b) the gen. auctoris or cause efficientis (Pelt) is plausible, but appy. less sim- ple than the more inclusive possessive gen. (Liinem., Alf.), ‘ patience such as Christ exhibited ;’ ἵνα ὑπομένωμεν ὡς ἐκεῖνος ὑπέμεινεν, Chrys. τ, Theod. 1, comp. 1 Pet. ii. 21. On the meaning of the word ὑπομονή, see notes on 1 Thess. i. 3. The addition of the art. before ὑπομονὴν which Ree. omits has the support of all the MSS. most mss. and Greek Ff.
6. ILapayy. δὲ ὑμῖν] ‘Now we com- mand you,’ transition by means of the δὲ μεταβατικὸν (see notes on Gal. iii. 8) to the more distinctly preceptive por- tion of the Epistle. In what follows, the exhortations of the former Epistle (ch. iv. I1, 12, v. 14) are repeated and expanded with more studied distinct- ness of language, it being probable that the evils previously alluded to had advanced among some members of this Church to a still more perilous height. The words ἐν ὀνόματι κ.τ.λ. give the παραγγελία a greater force and solemnity; οὐχ ἡμεῖς ταῦτα λέγο- μεν ἀλλ᾽ ὁ Χριστός, Chrys.: see 1 Cor. v. 4, and comp. Acts iii. 6, xvi. 18. The addition ἡμῶν after Κυρίου (Rec., with AD?E*7FGKLN; mss. ; Vulg.), though strongly supported, is appy. rightly rejected by Tisch. with BD'E!; Clarom., Sangerm.; Cypr. (1), as a likely interpolation. Zachm. inserts it in brackets. στέλλεσθαι ὑμᾶς] ‘that ye withdraw yourselves;
128
ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ
Β.
ς , “ 4 4 4 4 , ATAKTWS TEMAATOVYTOS καὶ μὴῇ KATA THV παράδοσιν
7 ἣν παρελάβοσαν παρ᾽ ἡμῶν.
object-inf, stating the substance of the mapayyeAla. The verb στέλλειν {derived from a root =TA-, Pott, Hiym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 1977] properly signi- fies ‘collocare,’—thence, with a not improbable figurative reference (τὰ ἑστία, Rost ἃ. Palm, Lex. s.v. Vol. 11. Ῥ. 1529), ‘cohibere,” ‘comprimere,’ and reflexively, ‘se subtrahere,’ Vulg.,
= = 7 a» Υ͂ v Clarom, 20442 l.001) {ut sitis distantes] Syr., ‘gaskaidaip izvis,’ Goth., sim. Copt., al.; comp. Mal. ii. 5, ἀπὸ προσώπου ὀνόματός μου στέλλεσθαι αὐτόν [where the Heb. MM) seems to suggest a tinge of the still further derivative meaning ‘ pre metu se subducere ;’ Hesych. φοβεῖται, στέλλεται], Gen. viii. τ (Aquit.), and with an accus. 2 Cor. viii. 20, στελλόμε- vo. τοῦτο, rightly translated by Vulg. 4“ devitantes hoc;’ add also Gal. ii. 12, ὑπέστελλεν... ἑαυτόν, Heb. x. 38, ὑπο- στείληται. For further exx., see Elsner, Obs. Vol. τι. p. 283, Kypke, Obs. Vol. II. p. 344, Loesner, Obs. p. 387, where this verb is copiously illustrated. ἀτάκτως περιπ.] ‘walking disorderly ; comp. ἢ Thess. v. 14, τοὺς ἀτάκτους, and see note on ver. 7. On this use of the verb περιπατεῖν (περιπ. τουτέστι βιοῦντος, Chrys.), as indicating the general course of a life in its habitual and practical manifestations, see reff. on 1 Thess. iv. 12, and comp. notes on Phil. iii. 18. κατὰ τὴν παρά- δοσιν] “ according to the instruction or lesson; παράδοσις (comp. ch. ii. 15) including both the oral (comp. ver. 10, 1 Thess. iv. 11) and written instruc- tions which the Apostle had delivered to his converts. To refer this to a παράδοσιν τὴν διὰ τῶν ἔργων, as Chrys. and the Greek expositors do, is to in- fringe on what follows, where this
9 Α 4 ” ~ αὐτοὶ yap οἴδατε πῶς
mode of teaching is distinctly speci- fied. ἣν παρελάβοσαν] ‘which they received,’ scil. those inti- mated in the foregoing expression παντὸς ἀδελφοῦ, which here serves the purpose of a collective substantive. The main difficulty is the reading. Lachm. (text) adopts παρελάβετε with BFG ; 3 mss. ; Goth., Syr.-Phil., al.,— but scarcely with plausibility, as the change would have been so easily sug- gested by the seeming difficulty of con- struction in the 3rd plural. The same may be said of Rec. παρέλαβε, which however has only the authority of a few mss. and Syr. The choice then lies between παρέλαβον [Scholz, with D*D?EK LN‘; mss.; Greek Ff.] and the text παρελάβοσαν [Griesb., Tisch., Lachm. in marg., with AN!; Basil, and ἐλάβοσαν, D']. The majority of Versions support the third person plural: C is deficient. The tendency to grammatical correction coupled with the known existence (Sturz, de Dial. Alex. p. 60, Matth. Gr. ὃ 201. 5) and prevalence even to a late period (Lo- beck, Phryn. p. 349) of the form -οσαν in the 3rd plur. of the imperf. and second aor., induces us to acquiesce in the probable, though not strongly sup- ported reading παρελάβοσαν ; so Olsh., Liinem., Alf., and Wordsworth.
7. αὐτοὶ yap ot8.] ‘ For yourselves know; confirmation of the wisdom and pertinence of the foregoing exhor- tation, and more esp. of the modal clause immediately preceding, by an appeal to their own knowledge and observation. The Thessalonian con- verts knew ‘of themselves’ πῶς δεῖ x.T.\., and needed not that the Apo- stle should inform them. πῶς δεῖ μιμεῖσθαι ἡμ.} ‘how ye ought to imitate us ;’ a simple and intelligible
ἘΠῚ 8:
\ , 129
= a 9 ec a 9“ ΛΝ δεῖ μιμεῖσθαι ἡμᾶς, ὅτι οὐκ ἠἡτακτήσαμεν ἐν ὑμῖν, οὐδὲ 8 A ? 9 , , 9 ΄- ἫΝ ’ A δωρεὰν ἄρτον ἐφάγομεν παρὰ τινος, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν κόπῳ καὶ ’ A A 4 9 μόχθῳ νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν ἐργαζόμενοι πρὸς TO μή. ἐπι-
‘brachylogy.? The more natural se- quence would have been πῶς δεῖ περι- πατεῖν καὶ ἡμᾶς μιμεῖσθαι, but the more brief mode of expression is probably designedly chosen, as throwing em- phasis on the μιμεῖσθαι, and giving the whole appeal more point and force. It is somewhat doubtful whether the plural is to be referred to St Paul alone, or to the Apostle and his asso- ciates. From comparison with 1 Thess. ii. 9, where the ref. seems to be the more inclusive one, we shall most pro- bably be justified in adopting the same view in the present case.
ὅτι οὐκ ἠτακτήσ.7 ‘in that we behaved not disorderly.’ This is appy. one of those cases in which the causal sen- tence approaches somewhat nearly, — not so much to the modal (comp. AXth., kama [sicut, quemadmodum], Peile, ‘how’) as to the relative (comp. Syr.
y —aA01 ἢ)» [qui non ambulavimus])
or to the expositive sentence, with both of which it has some logical and gram- matical affinity ; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 60. 6, p. 479. It was not so much ‘be- cause’ St Paul and his associates οὐκ ἠτάκτησαν, as ‘seeing that,’ ‘in that,’ such was the case, that the Thessalo- nians came to know how (‘quali ra- tione vivendi,’ Beng.) to imitate them. In a word, the εὐταξία was not so much a cause, as a causa sine quad non of the knowledge. This use of ὅτι, which might perhaps be termed its ‘sub-causal’ or ‘secondary causal” use, deserves some attention, esp. in the N. T. The verb ἀτακτεῖν is a dm. λεγόμ. in the N.T., as is ἄτακτος (1 Thess. v. 14), while the adv. only occurs in ver. 6, 11, the
whole group being thus peculiar to these Epp. The word is here practi- cally synonymous with περιπατεῖν ἀτάκτως, ver. ΤΙ : it occurs occasionally in classical Greek, sometimes in a more restricted reference to τὰ στρα- τιωτικά, 6. gy. Demosth. Olynth. III. p. 31, τοὺς ἀτακτοῦντας (‘qui disciplinam militarem labefactant,’ Wolf), some- times, as here, with a more general reference, ¢.g. Xen. Cyrop. VIII. 1. 22; see Kypke, Obs. Vol. 1. p. 345.
8. οὐδὲ δωρεὰν ἄρτον ἐφάγ.] ‘nor ate we bread for naught.’ Δωρεὰν is an adverbial accusative implying either ‘sine just& causa,’ Gal. ii, 21 (see notes), or, as here, ‘ gratis,’ Vulg.,
> iv τι Syr.,—the true idea of λαμβά-
νειν δωρεὰν being ‘ ita accipere ut nihil referas, nullé preegress& caus& acci- piendi,’ Tittm. Synon. 11. p. 161. The formula ἄρτον φαγεῖν appears to be Hebraistic (comp. ond Sox, Gen. xliii, 25, 2 Sam. ix. ἢ, 10, al.), imply- ing really little more than the simple verb φαγεῖν (1 Cor. ix. 4), but, like all these Hebraistic turns, being full of force and expressiveness ; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 3, p. 26 sq.
ἐν κόπῳ καὶ μόχθῳ], ‘2n toil and tra- vail,’ scil. ἄρτον ἐφάγομεν ; adjunct of manner, involving a tacit opposition to the preceding δωρεάν. On the mean- ing and derivation of these words, and the apparent distinction between them, see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 9.
γύκτα καὶ ἡμ. κ-τ.λ.] ‘working during night and day ;’ participial explanation of the preceding ἐν κόπῳ καὶ μόχθῳ, more remotely dependent on the fore- going ἐφάγομεν ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 45. 6. Ὁ, p. 314. Liinem. connects the
K
130
ΠΡΟΣ OESZAAONIKEI= B.
9 βαρῆσαί τινα ὑμῶν" οὐχ ὅτι οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν, ἀλλ᾽
᾿ ἵνα ἑαυτοὺς τύπον δῶμεν ὑμῖν εἰς τὸ μιμεῖσθαι ἡμᾶς.
4 A Φ i A “ “ -“
10 καὶ γὰρ ὅτε ἦμεν πρὸς ὑμᾶς τοῦτο παρηγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν
participial clause closely with ἐν κόπῳ καὶ μόχθῳ, according to which épy. would have a more distinctly modal force. This is perfectly admissible ; the emphatic position of δωρεὰν how-
ever suggests the sharper antithesis .
which the separation of the members here seems to introduce. The read- ing νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας [Lachm. (non marg.) with BFGN; 5. mss.; Chrys. (ms.), Dam.] has very strong claims to attention. Still it may have been suggested by 1 Thess. ii. 9, ili. 10. On the phrase itself, see notes on 1 Thess. l.c., and on τ Tim. v. 5. πρὸς TO μή K.T.A] ‘with the view of not being burdensome to any of you ;’ object contemplated in the νύκτα καὶ nu. épyag. On the word émiBap., see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 9, where precisely the same words are used in reference to the same subject.
9. οὐχ ὅτι] ‘ not that,’ limitation of what precedes, to prevent the preceding declaration being misapprehended and misapplied: the Apostle reserves his ministerial right and privilege of re- ceiving if need be support from his converts; comp. 1 Cor. ix. 4 58ᾳ. On the use of this formula (‘ex dialecticis, ut ita dicam, formulis Paulo solemni- bus,’ Pelt), which is found several times in St Paul’s Epp. (2 Cor. i. 24, πὶ. Kp ῬΏΠ ail. στ. γι ΤΠ; 17), 866 Hartung, Partik. Vol. Τὶ. p. 154, comp. Herm. Viger, No. 253. ἐξουσίαν] ‘power,’ ‘right,’ scil. τοῦ μὴ. épy. (De W.), or more naturally τοῦ δωρεὰν φαγεῖν ἄρτον (Liinem.),— the latter being the principal state- ment of the preceding verse. The word ἐξουσία (‘jus, licentia, auctoritas, ali- quid faciendi,’ Schott) is used exactly
similarly in τ Cor. ix. 12.
ἑαυτούς] ‘ourselves ;’ with reference to the Apostle and his associates. On this use of ἑαυτοὺς for ἡμᾶς αὐτούς, ὑμᾶς αὐτούς, see Winer, Gr. ὃ 22. 5, p- 136, and for exx. in classical Greek, Kriiger, Sprachl. ὃ 51. 2. 15.
εἰς TO pip. ἡμᾶς] ‘that ye should, to the intent that ye, imitate us; not merely an objective member, but as usual specifying the object and pur- pose of the ἑαυτ. τύπον διδόναι ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 44. 6, p. 295.
10. Kal ydp] ‘For also,’ ‘for be- sides ; second confirmation of the wisdom and pertinence of the preced- ing warning that they ought to avoid those that were walking disorderly, — the γὰρ being co-ordinate with the preceding γὰρ in ver. 7, and the καὶ having appy. a conjunctive force, and serving to connect this argumentative clause with that in ver. 7, and thus more thoroughly to substantiate the κατὰ Thy παράδ. ἣν κιτ.λ. Liinemann, followed by Alf., makes καὶ ascensive, and refers it to τοῦτο παρηγγέλλ., as bringing out an additional element in the reminiscence. This is somewhat forced: καὶ yap has two usages in the N.T.,—one in which the conjunctive force of καὶ prevails (‘ etenim,’ Beza), the other (‘nam etiam; ‘nam et,’ Vulg.,—but not Clarom., which omits ‘et’) in which the ascensive force is predominant ; see Winer, Gr. § 53. 8, p. 397, and notes on Phil. ii. 27. The latter has been undoubtedly far too often overlooked in the N.T. (comp. Fritz. Rom. xi. 1, Vol. 11. p. 433), but is not to be obtruded in a passage like the present, where the context (contrast 1 Thess. iii. 4) and sequence
III. g—12. 131
ὅτι εἴ τις οὐ θέλει ἐργάζεσθαι μηδὲ ἐσθιέτω. ἀκούομεν τὶ
an a , A 9 γάρ τινας περιπατοῦντας ἐν ὑμῖν ἀτάκτως, μηδὲν ἐργα-
ζομένους ἀλλὰ περιεργαζομένους.
of argument seem somewhat decidedly in favour of the conjunctive use.
On the use of πρὸς with εἶναι and verbs implying rest (παρ᾽ ὑμῖν, μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν, Theoph.), comp. notes on Gal. i, 18, and see 1 Thess. iii. 4, and ch. ii. 4 (els).
τοῦτο] ‘this,—that follows ;’ the pro- noun being placed emphatically for- ward to direct attention to the suc- ceeding declaration ; comp. Winer, Gr. § 23. 5, p. 145. The partially pro- verbial statement which follows is il- lustrated by Wetstein im loc., and Schoettg. Hor. Hebr. Vol. 1. p. 850: the most pertinent quotation is Bere- schith, x1v. 12, ‘R. Hunna dixit: fecit eum servum manumissum coram se ipso, ut si non laboret non manducet.’ The exhortation is expressed in the form of a kind of ‘enthymeme’ (Whately, Logic, τι. 3. 7, p. 121), the portion to be supplied being ‘ atqui quilibet edit; ergo quilibet laborato,’ Beng. On the use of οὐ following εἰ, when the negative is closely united
with the verb, see notes on 1 Tim. iii.
5, and the exx. collected by Winer, Gr. ὃ 55. 2, p. 423 84., Gayler, de Part. Neg. ch. Vv. p. 99 sq.
11, ἀκούομεν γάρ K.7.A.] ‘For we hear that there are some walking, &c. ;’ ground for the reiteration of the Apo- stle’s previous παραγγελία. In cases like the present the predicative parti- ciple is not merely equivalent to an infinitive mood, but is idiomatically used as marking the state or action as now in existence, and coming before the observation of the writer as such; see Winer, Gr. § 45. 4, p. 308 sq.,— where there is a good collection of exx.; comp. also Schmalfeld, Synt.
τοῖς δὲ τοιούτοις τὸ
§ 217. 2, p. 437, and esp. the able tract of Weller (Bemerk. zum Gr. Synt. Meining. 1845), where the distinctions between the finite verb with ὅτι, with the infin., and with the participle, are carefully stated, and illustrated by numerous examples. ἀτάκτως] See notes on ver. 7. μηδὲν ἐργαΐ. ἀλλὰ περιεργ.]7 ‘doing no business, but being busy-bodies,’ ‘nihil operantes, sed curiose agentes,’ Vulg., Clarom.,
IM ASS ἢ. κδιῶο
ἸΔώ τ οο [et nihil quidquam ope-
rantes nisi vana] Syr.; more exact specification of the preceding περιπ. ἐν ὑμῖν ἀτάκτως by means of a forcible paronomasia which cannot but be weakened in translation ;» comp. [De- mosth.] Phil. Iv. p. 150, ἐξ ὧν ἐργάξῃ kal περιεργάζῃ, and Quintil. Jnst. Orat. VI. 3. 54, ‘non agere dixit, sed sata- gere.’ The verb mepiepy. is a ἅπαξ λεγόμ. in the N.T., and serves to mark the ἀνόνητον πολυπραγμοσύνην (Theod.), the ‘pravam curiositatem et sedulita- tem’ (Pelt), which marked the actions of those to whom the Apostle referred ; eontrast πράσσειν τὰ ἴδια in τ Thess. iv. 11, comp. περίεργοι in τ Tim. v. 13, and see the good notice of this verb in Suicer, Thesaur. s.v. Vol. 11. p. 670.
12. τοῖς δὲ τοιούτοις] ‘ Now to all such,’ the article with τοιοῦτος marking the whole class of persons that come under the same denomination, and have the same characteristics, as those previously mentioned ; so Gal. v. 21. See Kriiger, Sprachl. § 50. 4. 6, Jelf, Gr. ὃ 453. B, and Kuhbner on Xen. Mem. 1. 5. 2.
K 2
139
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ 8.
παραγγέλλομεν καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν ἐν Kupio Ἰησοῦ Χρι- στῷ ἵνα μετὰ ἡσυχίας ἐργαζόμενοι τὸν ἑαυτῶν ἄρτον
13 ἐσθίωσιν.
καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν] ‘andexhort(them),’ ὥσιλτο > Η > © [et petimus ab
iis} Syr.,—rovds τοιούτους (Schott), or more simply αὐτούς (Liinem.), being here supplied zeugmatically, as it is called, to mapaxad., which is only found with the accus. This παράκλη- σις is ἐν Kup. Ino. Xp.; it is in Him that it has its proper force and effi- cacy; see notes on 1 Thess. iv. 1, where παρακαλεῖν is enhanced by the same addition. The reading can hardly be thought doubtful: ἐν Kup. "Ince. Χριστῷ is supported by AB(D'E! ἐν K.’I. Χριστοῦ) FGN'; 4 mss. ; Vulg., Gothb., Copt., al. (Lachm., Tisch. ed. 7). The reading of Rec. διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ only rests on the authority of D®E?KLN*; most mss. ; Chrys., Theod. al. (Zsch. ed. 2). C is deficient.
μετὰ ἡσυχίας] ‘with quietness; in opposition to the busy and meddle- some course of life followed by the περιπατοῦντες ἀτάκτως and περιεργα- ζόμενοι; see 1 Thess, iv. 11. The pre- position μετὰ serves to point not to the ‘causa instrumentalis’ (Kypke, Obs. Vol. τ. p. 143), but to the conco- mitant of their working,—that which was associated with it, and character- ized their ‘modus operandi; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 47. h, p. 337. On the derivation of ἡσυχία and its probable distinction from the less common ἦρε- pla, see notes on 1 Tim. ii. 2.
τὸν ἑαυτῶν ἄρτον] ‘their own bread,’ —‘their own’ (τὸν ἐξ οἰκείων πόνων, Chrys.), not without emphasis ; they were not to seek it at the hands of others (comp. ver. 8), they were not ‘alien& vivere quadra,’ Juven. Sat.
ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀδελφοί, μὴ ἐνκακήσητε καλοποι-
v. 2. The sentiment is well illus- trated by Schoettg. and Wetst. in loc. from the Rabbinical writings, out of which the following deserves citation ; ‘quo tempore homo panem proprium edit, animo composito ac sedato est; si vero panem parentum aut libero- Tum comedit, non animo tam sedato est, ne dicam de pane peregrino,’ Aboth R. Nathan, cap. 30.
13. ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀδελφοί] ‘ But ye, bre- thren ;’ renewal of his address to those who were ‘recte animati’ (Schott), and lived orderly after the example which he had set them. Such the Apostle urges to pursue their course, and not from faintness to fall into idle, and eventually meddlesome and un- quiet habits, like those he had just been condemning. μὴ évkak. καλοστ.] ‘lose not heart in well doing.’ The exact meaning of καλοποιεῖν has been somewhat differently estimated. Several modern writers, following the hint, though not the exact interpr. (μὴ μὴν περιίδητε λιμῷ διαφθαρέντας) of Chrys., Theoph., assign to the verb the idea of ‘conferring benefits ;’ the connexion between this and the pre- ceding verse arising from the gentle contrast between the duty of living by their own labour, and the still further duty of conferring benefits on others ; see Calv. in loc. As this meaning how- ever seems to be lexically doubtful, see Lev. v. 4 (Cod. Coisl., where καλοπ. stands in antithesis to κακοποιῆσαι), and as the more generic ‘recte agere’
(comp. Syr. Cs 2 OS So\)
is perfectly in harmony with the con- text, it seems best here, as in the very similar passage Gal. vi. g, to give
LS CURE cae 8 BES
οὔντες.
133
9 , » ? e , 4 , δ΄. ὦ τς A A εἰ δέ τις οὐχ ὑπακούει τῷ λόγῳ ἡμῶν διὰ τῆς 14
A A “ 4 4 , ἐπιστολῆς, τοῦτον σημειοῦσθε Kal μὴ συναναμίγνυσθε
καλὸν its less restricted meaning. The exact definition of this καλὸν lies in the specifications of the context. On the form ἐνκακεῖν [Lachm., Tisch. with ABD'S] andthe somewhat doubt- ful ἐκκακεῖν [Rec.], see the remarks and distinctions in notes on Gal. L.c. 14. τῷ λόγῳ ἡμῶν KT.A] ‘our -word conveyed by the epistle ;’ Υ͂ ρ n glo: adc GAL [sermonibus nostris istis qui sunt in epistola]. It is doubtful whether διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς is to be joined (a) with the following verb σημειοῦσθε, or (ὁ) with the preceding subst. τῷ λόγῳ, scil. τῷ διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ἀποσταλέντι, (βουῃ. The former is adopted by Ath. (Pol.), Beng., Pelt, Winer (Gr. § 18. 9. note 3, p. 108), and others, either (a,) in the simple sense, ‘ notate in epistola,’ Auth., scil. ‘in epistola ad me script& illum suis notis depin- gite,’ Grot.,—rfs ἐπιστολῆς referring to the letter which St Paul would in that case receive from the Thess. (see Winer) ; or (ag) in the more artificial sense, ‘hdc epistola freti severius trac- tate,’ Pelt (comp. Beng.),—rfs ἐπι- στολῆς in that case referring to. the present epistle. Of these last men- tioned (az) seems clearly forced and
improbable, while (a,), though some-.
what more plausible, lies open to the contextual objection that the present order of words would tend to throw
an emphasis on διὰ τῆς ἐπιστ. which.
cannot be accounted: for, and further to the still graver exegetical objection
that a letter would seem uncalled for:
after the precept in ver. 6, where the course to be pursued by the Thessalo- nians is already stated. We retain then (0) with Syr., not improbably Vulg., Copt., Goth. [the exact order
of the Greek is preserved], Chrys. (appy.), Theoph., Gicum., and most modern expositors. The objec- tion: founded. on the- omission of the art. τῷ after ἡμῶν is not of weight, as διὰ τῆς ἐπιστ. is so- associated with τῷ λόγῳ ju. as to form with it only a single idea; see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 20. 2, p: 123. It may be observed that this is one of those cases in which the use of the art. in the N. T. seems slightly to differ:from that in the best Attic Greek. While in the latter the article is rarely omitted, except after verbal substantives (Kriiger, Sprachl. § 50. 9. 9), or where the structural connexion of the:prepositional member with what precedes is palpably close, this omission of the art. in the N. T. is so far from unusual, that its inser~ tion usually implies some degree of emphasis ; see Fritz. Rom. iii. 25, Vol. I. p. 195 (note).
σημειοῦσθε] ‘mark,’—scil. by avoid- ing his company (comp. ver. 6), as more fully specified in the words which follow. So paraphrasticall\ Syr.
x» n n (2 aN —9;0/A3 [separetur a vobis], comp. Aith.-Platt. The verb σημειοῦ- σθαι isa dm. λεγόμ. in the N.T.: it properly: implies in the active ‘signo distinguere’ (Schott), e.g. ἐπιστολὰς σφραγῖδι, Dion. Hal. Antig. iv. 57, and thence in the middle ‘sibi notare aliquid’ (Polyb. Hist. ΧΧΙΙ. 11. 12),— more correctly, according to the Atti- cists,, ἀποσημαίνεσθαι (Thomas-Mag. p. 791, Herodian, p. 420, ed. Koch), or as here, with a more intensive force,. ‘not& (censoria) notare ; the middle having what has been termedits ‘dynamic’ character, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 52. 8.4. For a large list of verbs of this class, see Schmalfeld, Synt.
184
15 αὐτῳ, ἵνα ἐντραπῇ. 16 νουθετεῖτε ὡς ἀδελφόν.
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΊΚΕΙΣ B.
καὶ μὴ ὡς ἐχθρὸν ἡγεῖσθε, ἀλλὰ 4 πε , A ae 4 αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Κύριος τῆς εἰρήνης
PY , δ΄ τῆν 4 ° Ψ ὃ A 4 9 a , e @Y υμιν τὴν εἰρήνην ta WavTos ev ταντι τρόπῳ. Oo
4 a Κύριος μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν.
§ 35) ἢ. 44 8q., and compare notes on Col. iv. τ. |
μὴ συναναμίγνυσθε] ‘keep no company with ; present, pointing to the course they were to follow. The double com- pound συναναμίγν. (Athen. Deipn. VI. 68, p. 256 A) is used in a sense little differing from the simpler and more usual συμμίγν., and probably only in accordance with the noticeable ten- dency of later Greek to accumulate prepositions in composition. The read- ing is doubtful; Lachm. omits καὶ with ABD®EN; 17; Clarom., San- germ., Goth., Copt.; Chrys. ; Tert., al.,—and reads συναναμίγνυσθαι in which he is supported as to the termi- nation by ABD!EFGN; on this last reading it is impossible to pronounce from the Manuscript evidence, on ac- count of the constant interchange of ε and a by itacism. Of the Versions Clarom., Sangerm., Copt., Goth., sup- port the infinitive, Vulg., Syr., Au- giens., the imperative.
ἵνα ἐντραπῇ ] ‘ that he be shamed,’ ‘ut confundatur,’ Vulg.; passive, —-not with a middle sense, ‘ad se ipsum quasi redire,’ Pelt (comp. Grot., ‘ut pudore tactus ad mentem meliorem redeat’),—a meaning for which there seems no sufficient reason either here or in Tit. ii. 8 (where see notes), The active occurs in 1 Cor. iv. 14.
15. Kal does not stand ‘here in- stead of ἀλλά ᾽ (Jowett ; comp. De W., ‘aber’),—a most precarious statement, —but, with its usual and proper force, subjoins to the previous exhor- tation a further one that was fully compatible with it, and in fact tended to show the real principle on which
the command was given: it was not punitive, but corrective.
ὡς ἐχθρόν] ‘as an enemy,’ ‘in the light of an enemy ;’ the ws being used (here almost pleonastically, comp. ¢l- λον γάρ σε ἡγοῦμαι, Plato, Gorg. p. 473 A) to mark the aspect in which he was not to be regarded ; comp. notes on ch. ii. 2, and on Col. iii. 23.
On νουθετεῖν, see notes and reff. on 1 Thess. v. 12.
16. αὐτὸς δέ κιτ.λ.1 ‘ But may the Lord of peace Himself; the δὲ (as in 1 Thess. v. 23) putting in slight anti- thesis the prayer with the foregoing exhortation, and the αὐτὸς enhancing the dignity of the subject ; comp. notes on ch. ii. 16, where however the anti- thesis is somewhat more distinctly marked. On the meaning of the word εἰρήνη, not merely ‘concord’ (wore μηδαμόθεν ἔχειν φιλονεικίας ἀφορμήν, Chrys.), but peace in its widest and Christian sense,—the deep tranquillity of a soul resting on God, see notes on Phil. iv. 7, and on the nature of the gen., see notes on 1 Thess. v. 23,— but observe that Κύριος can more readily be associated with the gen. as being allied to verbs that regularly govern that case; comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47. 26. 8. διὰ παντός κ,ιτ.λ.] ‘continually in every manner,’ —at all times (Matth. xviii, 10, Acts ii. 25, Rom. xi. I0, al., comp. Ast, Lex. Platon. Vol. II. p- 63) and in every possible mode of manifestation, ‘in omnibus que facitis,’ Aith.-Pol. ; ὥστε πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰρηνεύειν καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους Kal THs τῶν ἐναντίων ἐπιβουλῆς ἀπηλλάχθαι, Theod. The second mode however
eee te ἀρηῃθῇ
111. 15, 16, 17.
Autograph salutation and benediction.
135
Ὁ ἀσπασμὸς τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ Ilav- 17
“ 59 A 93 9 “ e x Aov, ὅ ἐστιν σημεῖον ἐν πάση ἐπιστολῇ" οὕτως γράφω
enters but slightly into the contem- plation of the Apostle, as there is nothing in the Ep. to make us think that τὸ εἰρηνεύειν πρὸς ἀλλήλους had been seriously endangered or violated. The reading ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ, adopted by Lachm. with A!D'!FG; 2 mss. ; Vulg., Clarom., Goth. ; Chrys. [see the note of Montfaucon], seems to have been suggested by the not uncommon occurrence of the formula (1 Cor. i. 4, 2 Cor. i. 24, 1 Tim. ἢ: 8), and perhaps partially by the foregoing allu- sion to time. The reading of the text is supported by A7BD3 EK LN ; nearly all mss.; Syr. (both), Copt., al. ; Theod., Dam., and seems in every way more suitable to the context.
17. ‘O ἀσπασμός k.t.d.] ‘The salu- tation by the hand of me Paul ; comp. I Cor. xvi. 21, and Col. iv. 18. On the quasi-appositional genitive Παύλου, see exx. in Jelf, Gr. ὃ 467. 4. These words appy. form the com- mencement of the autograph saluta- tion with which the Apostle attests the genuineness and authenticity of the Epistle (comp. notes on Gal. vi. 11), the two verses having appy. both been written by the Apostle,—not merely ver. 18 (τὸ Ἣ χάρις κ.τ.λ. ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐῤῥῶσθαί σε γράφειν εἰώθει, Theod., al.), which, as Liinem. rightly observes, could hardly be termed a direct ἀσπασμός.
6] ‘which thing; not meaning, by at- traction (see exx. in Winer, Gr. ὃ 24. 3, p. 150) to the following σημεῖον, ‘which greeting,’ but more simply and naturally referring to the preced- ing words, and to the general fact of their being written τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ Ταύλου. These autograph lines formed a σημεῖον that the Ep. was not ws δ αὐτοῦ (ch,
ii. 2), but was truly and genuinely his own inspired composition.
ἐν πάσῃ ἐπιστολῇ] ‘in every epistle ;’ appy. with reference to every future Epistle (τῇ πρὸς οὕστινας δήποτε, Theoph. 2) which the Apostle might hereafter deem it necessary so to au- thenticate, —not merely those he might have contemplated writing to Thessa- lonica (Theoph. 1, Liinem.); for con- sider 1 Cor. xvi. 21, and Col. iv. 18. If it be urged that these last men- tioned are the only Epp. in which the autograph attestation seems to have found a place, it may be reasonably answered that the πάσῃ must be un- derstood relatively of every Epistle that was sent in such a way or under such circumstances as to have needed it. All the other Epp. (except 1 Cor., Col., which have the σημεῖον, and 1 Thess., which was sent before cir- cumstances proved it to be necessary) are fairly shown both by De Wette and by Alf. zn loc. to have either been delivered by emissaries (2 Cor., Phil.), to bear such marks (Gal. vi. 11, and perhaps the doxology in Rom., Eph.), or to be of such a general character (Rom.? Eph.? and those to indi- viduals), as to have rendered a formal attestation unnecessary.
οὕτως γράφω] ‘so 7 write; scil. in such characters as ver. 17 and 18 appeared to be written with. The sup- positions that the Apostle here in- serted some words (rd’Aomdfoua ὑμᾶς, ἢ τὸ "Eppwode, 7 τι τοιοῦτον, CAcum.), or adopted a monogram (‘conjunctis scilicet apte literis 1 et A,’ according to Zeltner, de Monogr. Pauli, Altorf, 1721; see contra, Wolf zn loc.), or lastly ‘singulari et inimitabili pictura et ductu literaruin expressisse illud
136
ΠΡῸΣ OEZZAAONIKEIS B.
18 ἡ χάρις τοῦ Kupiov ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ πάντων
ὑμῶν.
[᾿Αμήν.]
18. [Api] This is omitted by Tisch. (marked by Griesb. with) with BN! ; 17. 44. 67%". 116; Fuld., Harl., Tol. ; Ambrst.,—but retained by Ree. and Lachm. As it may not improbably be a liturgical interpolation it is the safest course to insert it in brackets. See notes on Tit. iii. 15.
Gratia, &c.’ (Beng.),—seem all far too artificial to deserve serious considera- tion. The οὕτως simply and naturally points to the visible and recognisable difference between the handwriting of the transcriber and of the Apostle.
18. ἡ χάρις «.7.A.] The same form of benediction as at the end of 1 Thess. (where see notes), except that the in- clusive and significant πάντων is here
added,—‘all,?—- even those who had deserved and received the Apostle’s censure (comp. μετὰ πάντων, ver. 16) were to share in his benediction and farewell prayer ; see Pelt in loc., who however joins with it the less probable supposition, ‘ne rixe [none of which appear to have existed] disceptationes- que Thessalonicenses turbarent.’
ase ΒΡ ee ee FT UU aa me oa "5 5 Se 1 4 + - ψ- Ἂν im) peel | 8 OE ae aT ee Ost i Pic >) οἰ. ὁ ΝΣ - - ᾿ -- ΡΟ. J "> ty ᾿ “Ὺ z ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ iar ας τ Ue ΨΥ, ᾿ Ξ ΜΝ ae ΝΕ ᾿ - ν» " ΠΝ 2 ‘ ᾿ 7 7 = 7 ‘ ᾿ 3 ᾿ ᾿ τὶ πεν ee ae Sali . » ww a ᾿ ᾿ a ‘Ev oie ~~ 7 4 7 ᾿ Fe ΝΙΝ = . 7 - J 7 7 ᾿ = ᾿ Ἵ ΝΙΝ ‘ = ¢ ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ ‘ “" ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ » ᾿ a ‘ ᾿ ᾿ 7 Ns = + ᾿ 8: - ᾿ - ᾿ . 2 φῶ Ε ; i 4 ᾿ i 7 ᾿ ey ne ie ; 7 ἜΝ a ᾿ n τς . ῃ a ute ᾿ οἰ ᾿ = τ8 τὴν ᾿ ᾿ _ ᾿ Ἐ " a " ἃ } ἣν " ᾿ ih - 7 = ᾿ ie ’ ᾿ 7 7, - 7 [ : ᾿ : ᾿ ; ῃ = a τς a ᾿ ῃ yore ᾷ . : Ϊ A 7 ᾿ = 2 ᾿ ᾿ ὃ τ ᾿ = ᾿ ᾿ , > 7 > 7 ut - ᾿ Φ ᾿ ve ~ = ee 7 ᾿ y - Ξ Ἰ > As ε - 5 ᾿ 7 Ξ νυ =. - - Π - ‘ ’ ᾿ Φ τι " ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ Ἡ ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ i ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ A. . ἵν ᾿ 5 " ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ ᾿Ν ᾿ ᾿ Π ΝΙΝ ¢a) ᾿ ψ . ᾿ " ᾿ ᾿ - ᾿ ᾿ “ εν 1s ; ΕΝ = ; _ _ ᾿ By oe ᾿ on ri - = A =| = 7 oy ; τ ᾿ = ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ - = ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ 1) ᾿ > ι 7 7 7 δ 7 ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ J = ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ _ 7 = be - = ΕΝ ᾿ τὰ "»ν ᾿ ; ᾿ ae ; 7 it, τ : 1 = =! ᾿ ᾿ “ Ὁ ᾿ - μ > ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ <2 ὺν ΝΕ ; ᾿ Ξ ᾿ ᾿ γ᾽. “εν ἢ Ε μι) Π ~ ‘i -~i 5 ‘ . ᾿ Γ i " ᾿ a ᾿
NOTICE,
HE following translation has been revised in accordance with the principles laid down in former portions of this work. Experience seems satisfactorily to show that change is undesirable except where our Authorised Version is incorrect, inexact, insuffi- cient, obscure (Pref. to Galatians, p. xxv), or inconsistent with itself in renderings of the less usual words or forms of expression (Notice to Transl. of Pastoral Epistles), The last form of correction is per- haps the most difficult to adjust, as our Translators expressly state that they have not been careful to preserve throughout their work a studied uniformity of translation, and consequently any attempt to do this regularly would reverse the principles on which they acted, and tend to produce what they avoided—dulness and monotony. Still in the same Epistle, and especially in the same context, it is so obviously desirable to be consistent, that here at least changes will have to be introduced. It must however always rest with individual judgment whether the word or ex- pression in question is of such a character as to demand uniformity, — or whether it is best left to take its hue from the context. That I have always been judicious in my decisions is more than I dare hope, but still I have striven to make them with a clear recognition of the general principles that characterize the noble Version which I am presuming to revise.
That these points may be more fully considered, and that my Opinion, where seemingly capricious or precipitate, may be more completely tested, I have made a few additions to the notes in the shape of reasons for the changes adopted, and I have further
140 NOTICE.
sought to add to the common stock of principles of revision a brief record of my own experiences and my own many difficulties. Sincerely and earnestly do I trust that the revision of our Autho- rised Version may be undertaken in its own good time, and that that time is not indefinitely remote, still year after year | am made more sensibly to feel that this can only be done by a frank and modest avowal, on the part of every one who has gained any expe- rience, of the real difficulties that attend on the work,—difficulties ᾿ far more numerous than the inexact and often presumptuous criti- cism of the day is at all aware of.
I have carefully considered the Revised Translation of these Epistles published by the American Bible Union (Triibner, Lon- don, 1856), and have in a few cases profited by its suggestions, still I cannot but feel that this laborious work is at present very far from what we may imagine to be the model of a national Revision.
It may be as well to notice here that the translation of Wiclif is quoted from the New Testament published by Pickering in 1848; that Coverdale’s Testament of 1538 is cited from the Paris edition; that the edition of Cranmer employed is that of April 1540; that the Genevan Version is given from the first edition 1560; and that the citations from the Bishops’ Bible are made from the first edition 1568. For the remaining Versions, of Tyndale and Coverdale, the Rhemish and the Authorised, I
have used Bagster’s reprints.
THE
FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
AUL and Silvanus and Timothy to the church of the I. Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Je-
sus Christ.
Grace be to you and peace.
We give thanks to God always for you all, making 2 mention of you in our prayers; remembering without 3 ceasing your work of faith, and toil of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the presence of God and our Father: knowing, brethren beloved of God, your 4 election; because our Gospel came not unto you in word 5
1. Timothy] So Wict., CRaAnN., RuemM.: Timotheus, AUTH. and re- maining Vv. See notes on Col. i. 1 (Transl.). In God] So all Vv. except AUTH., GEN., which is in God, —an unnecessary and inexact addition, not adopted by AUTH. in the parallel passage 2 Thess, i. τ. And the Lord] So Wict., Cov. Test., Ruem. (our L.): and in the Lord, AUTH. and remaining Vv. The addi- tion of ‘in’ seems unnecessary, and is best reserved for those cases where it is expressed in the Greek, or where, as in I Tim. vi. g (see notes), there are contextual reasons for its introduc- tion. The mistakes caused by such insertions are well noticed by Blunt, Parish Priest, p. 56. And peace] AuTH. adds *from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
3. Toil] Similarly Wicu., traueyl:
labour, AuTH. and the remaining Vv. except GEN., diligent loue. Though ‘la- bour of love’ has from the alliteration become familiar to the ear, it seems de- sirable here to maintain the more strict translation of κόπος : see notes in loc. In the presence of |] So AutH. in ch. li. 19: m.the sight of, AUTH. and the other Vv. except WIcL., Cov. (both), RueEw., before. It is of little moment which of these translations is adopted ; but as the expression ἔμπρ. τοῦ Θεοῦ is only used by St Paul in this Epi- stle, it should be similarly translated throughout.
4. Beloved of God, your el.] So AutH. Marg., Cov. Test., RHEM., and (giving how that ye are electe) TYND., Cov., CRAN.: beloved, your election of God, AUTH., BisH., and sim. GEN. (that ye are elect of God).
5. Because] For, AutTH. and all
142
Το
1 THESSALONIANS.
only, but also in power and in the Holy Ghost and in much assurance; even as ye know what manner of men we became among you for your sake. And ye became followers of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction with joy of the Holy Ghost; so that ye became an ensample to all that believe in Macedonia and in Achaia. For from you hath sounded forth the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place your faith to God-ward is gone forth; so that we need not to speak anything. For they themselves report of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned unto God from idols to serve the living and true God; and to wait for His Son from hea- ven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who de-
livereth us from the coming wrath.
Vv. except RHEM., that. Even as} As, AvTH. and all Vv. It is almost impossible to lay down any exact rule for the translation of καθώς. Whether the lighter ‘as,’ or the more expres- sive and perhaps more literal ‘ even as’ or ‘ according as’ is to be adopted, must appy. be left wholly to the con- text and to individual judgment.
Became] Behaued oure selves, TYND., Cran.; haue ben, Cov. Test., RHEM. ; were, AUTH. and remaining Vv.
6. Followers] So AvuTH. and all Vv. Though ‘imitators’ would be more exact, it is hardly necessary to displace the present idiomatic and perfectly intelligible translation.
7. Became an ensample| Sim., are become an ens., Cov. Test.: were *en- samples, AUTH.; were an ensample, Tynp., Cov., Cran., BisH.
And in Achaia] And * Achaia, AUTH.
8. Hath sounded forth] Sounded out, AUTH., TYND., CRAN., GEN., BisH. The perfect ought always to be observed in translation, Though idiom may occasionally require the
aorist to be translated with the usual sign of the perfect, the converse is extremely rare ; comp. 2 Cor. i. 9. But] But *also, AUTH.
Is gone forth] Sim. Cov. Test. (ὦ gone out): is spread abroad, AUTH., Cov., Bisu.; spred her silfe abroade, TYND., CRAN. ; 18 proceded, RHEM.
9. Report] So RuEm.: shew, AUTH. and remaining Vv. Turned] Returned, AUTH. ed. 1611, as given in the English Hexapla.
10. From heaven] So AuTH. and all Vv. except WioL., fro heuenes. Many modern Vv. preserve both the article and the plural, but with the familiar usage of the word in the N.T. (e.g. Matth. vi. 9) before us it seems in general passages like the present both harsh and unnecessary to be thus literally precise. Who] So RHEmM.: which, AUTH.
Delivereth] So Tynp., CRAN., GEN., Bisu. : delivered, AUTH., WIcL.; hath delyuered, Cov. (both), RHEM.
Coming wrath] Wrath to come, AUTH. and all Vv. (w. to comynge, WICL.).
—— =
ΟΟΒΑΡ, I. 6—IL. 3.
148
For yourselves know, brethren, our entering in unto II. you that it hath not been vain: but after that we had suf- 2 fered before, and had been shamefully entreated, as ye know, at Philippi, we were bold of speech in our God, so as to speak unto you the Gospel of God in much conflict. For our exhortation is not of error, nor yet of unclean- 3
Carter II. 1. Know, brethren] So,
in the same order, TyND., GEN., RueEm.: brethren, know, AvuTH., Cov., Cran., BisH. There seems here no cause for departing from the order of the original. Entrance, AutH. There is no reason why the rendering adopted in ch. i. 9 should not be retained. Hath not been] Was not, AuTH. and all Vv. Vain] So WICL., REM. : in vain, AUTH. and remaining Vv.
2. But after] But “even after,
Entering]
AUTH. Had been shamefully entr.] Were shamefully entr., AUTH., TYNpD., CRAN., GEN., BisH. The
other Vv. vary the translation of the participle ; Cov. gives, but as we had suffred afore, & were, &c.: Cov. Test., but we suffred...and were...and were boldened : and RHEM., but hauing suf- fered before and been abused, &c. If the view taken in the notes be correct, it seems best to regard both participles as temporal, and to express them both by the idiomatic resolution into the English pluperfect. On the transla- tion of the aorist part. when associated with the finite verb, see notes on Phil. ii. 30 (T’ransl.). Were bold of speech] Were bold, AUTH. and the other Vv. except WICL., hadde triste ; Cov. Test., were boldened ; and RHEM., had confidence : see notes in loc.
So as to speak] To speak, AUTH. and all Vv. (for to sp., Wict.). The intro- duction of ‘so as’ seems necessary to exhibit the explanatory nature of the infinitive, and to avoid tautology.
In (3)] So Wict., Cov. Test., Cran., BisH., RHEM.: *with, AUTH., TYND., Cov., GEN. Conflict] So AuTH. in Col. ii. 1, giving contention here. There is much variation in the trans- lation here: Bisynesse, WIcL.; care- fulnesse, Cov. Test., RurM. (these three following the Vuly. sollicitu- dine) ; strivynge, TynD., Cov., CRAN., GeEN., BIsH.
3. 15] Was, AuTH. and all Vv. Error] So all Vv. except AuTH., GEN., BIsH., deceit. Nor yet...nor} Nor yet...nether, Tynp., Cov., CRAN.; nor...nor, AUTH., Cov. Test., GEN. ; nether...nether, WicL., BIsH.; not... nor, RHEM. There is some little diffi- culty in the choice of an appropriate rendering in the different cases of con- tinued negation. Perhaps the follow- ing distinctions of translation may be found generally satisfactory in appli- cation. (1) Μὴ... μηδὲ or ov...0v5é will commonly admit the translation (a) ‘not...neither,’ when the two words or clauses to which the negation is prefixed are simply parallel and co- ordinate, e.g. Matth. vii. 6; (6) ‘not ..-nor,’ when there is some sort of conuexion in thought, or accordance in meaning, in the words or clauses with which the negatives are asso- ciated, 6. g. ch. v. 5; (c) ‘not...nor yet,’ where there is less accordance, and where the latter clause has some- what of a climactic character, e.g. Phil. ii. 16, and see notes to Z’ransl. (2) Μὴ..«μηδὲ..«μηδέ, ‘not...nor...nor’ (John 1. 13), where the terms are similar or non-ascensive, or ‘not’
144
1 THESSALONIANS.
_4 ness, nor in guile: but according as we have been ap- proved of God to be put in trust with the Gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God which proveth
5 our hearts.
For neither at any time used we speech of
flattery, as ye know, nor a cloke of covetousness; God is —
6 witness: neither seeking glory of men, neither of you nor of others, though we might have used authority as Christ’s
. 7 apostles. But we were gentle in the midst of you, like as 8 a nurse cherisheth her own children; so, being affec- tionately desirous of you, we had good will to impart to
followed by ‘nor...nor yet,’ as per- haps Col. ii. 21 (but see notes), or by ‘nor yet...nor,’ as here, according as the dissimilarity or climactic force is mainly exhibited in the second or in the third term. (3) Μὴ...«μήτε... μήτε, ‘not...neither...nor ;) where the first negation, so to say, bifurcates, and is expanded into two similar clauses in- troduced each by the adjunctive μήτε; comp. AUTH. in 1 Tim. i. 7. In cases where there are three or more repeti- tions of μήτε, our Authorised Version appears to adopt in the main (3), re- peating ‘neither’ after ‘nor;’ comp. Matth. v. 34, Luke ix. 3.
4. According as] As, AUTH. and all Vv. It has been before ob- served that the introduction of ‘ac- cording’ or ‘even’ must depend on the general hue of the passage: here it seems necessary. Have been} Were, AUTH. Approved] So RHEmM.; sim. prouede, WI0L.: allowed, AUTH. and remaining Vv. Proveth| So Wict., RuHEM.: trieth, AUTH. and remaining Vv. WIoL. and RHEM. are the only Vv. which preserve the paro- nomasia in δεδοκιμάσμεθα ... δοκιμά- ἕοντι.
5. Speech of flattery] Somewhat similarly, worde of glosynge, WHOL. ; the vvord of adulation, RHEM.: flattering words, AUTH. and remain-
ing Vv.
6. Neither seeking] So Wiot., and (giving nor) Cov. Test., RHEM.: nor... sought we, AUTH., and so the remaining Vv., except that they more correctly adopt neither at the commencement of the clauses. In some cases, especially in St Paul’s Epp., it is almost impossible to givean idiomatic translation without converting the participle into a finite verb (comp. Rom. xii. 9. sq.): here however there is no such necessity. Nor] So rightly Wiou. (nether), Cov. (both), GEN., RHEM.: nor yet, AUTH., TYND., CRAN., BisH. Though] Vvhereas, RHEM.; when, AUTH. and remaining Vv. Have used authority] So AutH. Marg.: be charge to you, Wi0L. ; have bene charge- able, TyND., Cov. (both) [adding vnto you], GEN.; haue bene ἃ auctorite, CRAN., BisH.; haue been a burden to you, ἜΗΕΜ. ; have been burdensome, AuTH. (Vulg. here adds vobis.) Christ’s apostles] So Wict.: the Apo- stles of Christ, AUTH. and remaining Vv. (Cov. Test. omits the).
7. In the midst of] So Wicu. (mydil), RHEM.: among, AUTH. and remaining Vv. Like as} So Cov.: even as, AUTH.
Her own] Her, Autu. and all Vv.
8. Wehad good will to] Somewhat similarly, owre good will was to, TYND., CRAN., GEN., BISH.; we...wolde with good wyl, Cov.: we were willing to,
SES Pr
Cuap. Il. 4—12, | 145
you, not the Gospel of God only, but also our own souls,
because ye became very dear to us.
For ye remember, 9
brethren, our toil and travail: working night and day, that we might not be burdensome to any of you, preached we unto you the Gospel of God. Ye are witnesses, and 10 so is God, how holily and justly and unblameably we be- haved ourselves to you that believe; even as you know 13 how in regard of every one of you we did so, as a father toward his own children, exhorting you and encouraging you, and testifying that ye should walk worthy of God 12 who is calling you into His own kingdom and glory.
AUTH.; we...wolden, Wict., Cov. Test. ; vve would gladly, Rumm. ἘΕὐ- δοκεῖν occurs again in ch. iii. 1, 2 Thess, ii. 12, but it is not possible to preserve a uniform translation. Impart] So, as to the tense of the infin., WIcL. (bitake), Roem. (deliuer): hawe imparted, AUTH.; have dealte, TYND. and the five remaining Vv. Became] Similarly Wict., ben made ; and RHEM., are become: were, AUTH. and remaining Vv. Very dear] Similarly Cov. Test., RHEM., most deare; and WicL., most derworth: dear, AUTH. and remaining Vv.
_ 9. Toil] Labour, AutH. and the other Vv. except WIcL., traueyl (giving werynesse for μόχθον). See notes on ch. i. 3 (Z'ransl.).
Working] So Wiot., RuEM.: * for la- bouring, AUTH. Itis well to translate ἔργον, ἐργάζομαι, always by “ work.’ That we might not, &c.] Because we would not be chargeable unto, AUTH., TYND. (greveous), Cov., CRAN., GEN., Bish. ; that we schulden not greue, Wict. ; leste we shulde be chargeagle unto, Cov. Test. ; lest vve should charge, RHEM.
Preached we] We preached, Avtu. The inversion seems to give a slight force, and to keep in more immediate connexion the participle and its finite verb,
10. So ts God] So Tynp., Cov. (both), Cran.: God also, AUTH., GEN., Bisu.; God, Wict., Roem. To you] So WIcL., RHEM.: among you, AUTH. and the other Vv. except Cov. Test., wyth you.
it. Even as] As, AuTH. and all Vv. How in regard of, &c.| How we ex- horted and comforted, and charged every one of you, (as a father doeth his chil- dren,), AUTH.: CRAN. alone preserves the correct construction, though with a somewhat free translation, how that we bare soch affeccyon vnto euery one of you, as a father doth vnto chyldren, exhortynge, confortyng, and besechyng you that, &c. This also seems the more correct position for the clause ws πατὴρ K.T.r., except that it some- what interferes with the easy run of the sentence. His own] As above in ver. 7: his, AuTH. and all Vv. except CRAN., which omits the pronoun. Exhorting you] AUTH. omits you here; and does not supply it after the following word. Encouraging] AUTH. and all Vv. use the word comfort for παρακαλοῦντες here: for the constr. of AUTH. see above. Testifying] So AuTH. for μαρτύρεσθαι in Gal. v. 3; Eph. iv. 17; here it employs “charge, reading μαρτυρούμενοι.
12. Should] So Ὑτσι.: would, L
146
1 THESSALONIANS.
13 + For this cause we also thank God without ceasing, that when ye received from us the word of preaching that as of God, ye accepted not the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, which worketh also in you
14 that believe. For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus, in that ye also suffered the same things of your own country-
15 men as they too did of the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and please
16 not God, and are contrary to all men, hindering us from
AUTH. and remaining Vv.
Is calling] Hath ealled, AUTH. and the other Vv. except WICL., clepide. Into] So Wict., RHEM.: unto, AUTH. and remaining Vv. His own] His, AUTH. and all Vv.
13. Wealso thank] Also thank we, AvTH., GEN.: as καὶ belongs to ἡμεῖς it is better to adopt the order of the text ; sim. Cov. Test., RHEM. That (before when)] So GeEn.: because, AutH., BisH.; for, WicL.; because that, TyND., Cov. (both), Cravn., RHEM. From us the word of, &c.] Very similarly, of vs the worde of the preachinge of God, Cov. (both), GEN.: the word of God, which ye heard of us, AutuH.; of vs the worde of the herynge of god, Wict., RuEm. ; of vs the worde wherwith God was preached, TYND.; of vs ψ' worde (wherwith ye learned to know God), CRAN. ; the worde which ye hearde of vs concernyng God, ΒΙΒΗ. Accepted] Received, AUTH. and allother Vv. except WICL. (token, giving hadden take before). It is desirable to show by the translation that two words are used, παραλαβόντες ... ἐδέξασθε. Vulg. uses accipere in both cases. Not] Jt not as, AuTH. and all Vv., and so Vulg. Worketh] So all Vv. except AvuTH., BIsu., effectually worketh. See also AUTH. in James v. 16, The force of évep-
γεῖσθαι, ‘ex se vim suam exercere,’ cannot easily be expressed in English: ‘to work’ seems hardly sufficient on the one hand ; ‘to work effectually ’ somewhat too strong on the other. The most exact translation is perhaps ‘to evince (its) working,’ but is not in harmony with the tone of our Autho- rised Version.
14. Followers] See note on ch. i. 6 (Transl.). Are in J.] So WICL., Cov. Test., RHEm., following the Vulg.: in J. are, AUTH. and remaining Vv. In that] Similarly GeEn., because: 80 that, Cov.; for, AUTH. and remaining Vv. Suffered] Have suffered, AvurtH. and all Vv. The same] So WIcL., GEN., RHEM.: soch, Cov. Test.; like, AUTH. and remaining Vv.
As they too did] Even as they have, AUTH.
15. Killed both] Both killed, AUTH., GEN., BisH., RHEM. The prophets] *Their own Pr., AUTH. Drove us out] Haue chased vs out, AUTH. Marg.; pursuen vs, WICL.; haue persued vs, Cov. Test.; have persecuted us, AUTH. and 6 remaining Vv. Please not God] So Cov., Cov. Test. (do not pl.), Ruem.: they please not God, AuTH., Wick. (to g.); God they please not, TYND., CRAN., GEN., BisH.
16. Hindering| And hynder, CRAN., Bisu.; forbidding, AUTH., WICL.,
Cuap. II. 13—17. 147
speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved,—in order to fill up their sins alway. But the wrath is come
upon them unto the very end.
But we, brethren, having been torn from you for a 17 short time, in face, not in heart, the more abundantly en-
Cov. (both) ; and forbid, Tynp., GEN.; prohibiting, Rum. Though the transl. given by ΑΥΤΗ. is the usual one of κωλύειν and cannot be ealled incor- rect, yet that adopted in the text is here far more forcible. From speaking] To speak, AUTH.; see pre- vious note. In order to fill up] To filup, AutH. But] For, AurH. and all Vv. ( forsothe, Wict.). Vulg. here gives enim for δέ.
Is come] So AutH., and all Vv. (Cov. adds allready) except Wrct., bifore came. This certainly seems one of those cases in which our English aorist does not convey the full force of the Greek, but remands the event too absolutely to the past. While the Greek ἔφθασε states the fact, but is simply silent as to ‘quam late pateat id quod actum est’ (see notes in loc.), the English ‘came’ seems to express it, and also to imply distinctly that the event with all its issues plainly be- longs to the past. Unto the very end] Tilinto the ende, WICL. ; even to the end, RuEM.; both following the Vulg.: to the uttermost, AuTH., Cov. (vento γ΄ vitemost), GEN. (vtmoste), BIsH. (vtm.); even to the vtmost, TYND., CRAN.; vntyll the vttemost, Cov. Test. The translation adopted in the text perhaps more precisely renders φθάνειν eis τέλος than the more qualitative and appy. adverbial ‘to the uttermost ;’ see notes in loc,
17. Having been torn from you] Being taken from you, ΑὝΤΗ. ; desolate fro you, Wick. ; for as moch...as we are kept from you, TYND., Cov. (haue bene), CRAN., GEN. (were), ΒΙΒΗ.; beynge
kepte fro you, Cov. Test.; depriued you, RuEm. It is almost impossible represent in English without a para- phrase the highly expressive dop¢a- νισθέντες, which serves so forcibly to convey not only the separation and severance of the Apostle from his converts, but also his desolate and bereaved state while so separated. The present translation, adopted by Mur- doch (Transl. of Syr. N. T.), Peile, and others, seems to approach this meaning as nearly as any single word that has yet been suggested.
Face] Presence, AUTH.: πρόσωπον is translated face in the next clause.
The more abundantly endeavoured] More aboundauntly haue hiyede, Wict.: end. the more abundantly, AUTH.; en- Jorsed the more, TYND., CRAN., GEN., Bisu.; haue haisted the more, Cov.; hasted more spedely, Cov. Test.; haue hastened the more aboundantly, RuEm. Though all the Vv. except Wich. put the adverb after and not before the verb, the latter order is perhaps to be preferred, as throwing the emphasis more distinctly on the ‘more abun- dantly.” It may be observed that much caution must be used in adjust- ing the order of the words in English with regard to emphasis; for while in Greek the emphatic word seems always to have the precedence, the attentive reader will often observe that the con- trary is the case in English. In the position of the verb and adverb how- ever the two languages seem to be mainly coincident. The discrepancy between the English and the Greek position of emphasis has been far too
ΤΟ
148
1 THESSALONIANS.
18 deavoured to see your face with great desire. On which account we would fain have come unto you, even I Paul, 19 both once and again,—and Satan hindered us. For what is our hope or joy or crown of boasting? Or 7s τύ not also you in the presence of our Lord Jesus at His coming? 20 Verily ye are our glory and joy.
III.
Wherefore when we could no longer forbear, we
2 thought it good to be left behind at Athens alone; and sent Timothy, our brother and fellow-worker with God in the Gospel of Christ, to establish you, and to exhort you
3 in behalf of your faith that no man be disquieted in these
much neglected by modern revisers, many of whom seem to think that in all cases the most complete faith- fulness is attained by rigidly following the order of the original; see for ex- ample the canons laid down by Wade, Notes on the Revised Transl. of St John, p. iy.
18. On which account] * Wherefore, AUTH. Would fain] Would, ΑΥΤΗ, and all Vv. Few words cause more difficulty to the translator of the N. T. than the verb θέλω: ‘wish’ is commonly much too weak, ‘desire’ not always exact, and ‘will’ and ‘would’ often liable to be mis- taken for mere auxiliaries. In many cases the Translators of our Version appear to have availed themselves of the past tense ‘would’ as a very suit-
‘able and idiomatic translation of the present θέλω; comp. Rom. vii. 15 sq. Here however it is open to the mis- conception above alluded to. Both onee] Once, AUTH. But, AvTH. and all Vv.
19. Boasting] Rejoicing, AUTH. and theother Vv. except WictL., Cov. Test., Ruem., glorie (glorie, Vulg.).
Or is it not also you] Whether yee ben not, WICL.: are not even ye, AUTH. ; are not eué you it, GEN.: are not ye it, TynpD., Cov. (both), Cran., BISH. ; are not you, RueM. It will thus be.
And (2)]
seen that Wict. alone offers any equivalent to ἢ οὐχί (nonne, Vulg.), and that καὶ is preserved only by AUTH., Gen. It is frequently difficult to de- cide whether in interrogations intro- duced by ἢ οὐχὶ the ἢ is to be regarded as only giving a greater vividness and abruptness to the question, almost ‘What! are not, déc.,’ or as really retaining its proper disjunctive force. In the present case, and in more per- haps than are usually so regarded, the latter seems the more correct view. Lord Jesus| Lord Jesus *Christ, AUTH.
20. Verily] Similarly, yes, TyND., Cov., CRAN., GEN., Bisu.; forsothe, Wict.; for, AUTH., Cov. Test., RHEM.
CHapter III. 1. Thought it good] On the transl. of εὐδοκεῖν, see note on ch. ii. 8 (Transl.). Be left behind] Be left, AuTH.; dwelle, WIcL.; remayne, TYND. and six remaining vee
2. Timothy] Timotheus, AUTH. : see notes on Col. i. 1 (Transl.).
And fellow-worker with God] And *minister of God, and our fellow- labourer, AUTH. Exhort] So Cov. Test., RoEm. (ad...exhortandos, Vulg.): comfort, AUTH., TYND., Cov., CRAN., GEN., BISH.
In behalf of ] *Concerning, AUTH.
Cuap. II. 18---Π|. 7. ες .149
afflictions: for yourselves know that we are appointed
thereunto. For verily, when we were with you, we told 4
you before that we were to be afflicted; as also it came to pass, and ye know. For this cause, when I too could 5 no longer forbear, I sent with a view of knowing your
toil should prove in vain.
‘faith, lest haply the tempter have tempted you, and our
But now when Timothy came unto us from you, and 6 brought us the good tidings of your faith and love, and that ye have good remembrance of us always, longing to see us, as we also fo see you,—for this cause were we 7
3. Be] So Wicu., RuEm.: should be, AUTH. and remaining Vv. Disquieted] Moved, Autu. and all Vv. As the word is peculiar and a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, it is better to give it a dis- tinguishing translation. In] So all Vv. except AuTH., by; and GEN., with.
4. Were tobe afflicted] Should suffer
tribulation, AuTH. and all Vv. WICL., Cov. Test., GEN., RHEM., however give tribulacons (vs to suffre t.. WICL.). As also] So Cov. Test. (putting also after passe), RHEM.; as ὦ, WICL.: even as, AUTH. and remaining Vv.
5. I too] Sim., 1 also, RHEM.:
_AuTH. and remaining Vv. except
Wict. (which gives ὦ J poul) omit to translate καί. With a view of knowing] To know, AuTH., WICcL. (for to), Cov. Test., ΒΙΒΗ., ΒΗΒΜ.; 9° J mighte kn. of, GEN.; that Imyght have knowledge of, TyND., Cov., CRAN.
Haply| So Tynp., Cov. (both); and sim., parauenture, WIcL.; perhaps, RuEM.: by some means, AUTH., CRAN., Bisu. ; in any sorte, GEN. Have tempted] So Autu., Cov. Test., RHEM. (hath): had t., TynpD., Cov., CRAN., GEN., BisH. WICtL. gives schal tempte. Neither translation is quite exact or strictly idiomatic; the English perfect however seems here to approach more
nearly to the present use of the Greek aorist than the pluperfect, and per- haps, owing to the peculiar form of the expression in the original, may be considered as admissible in point of English. Toil] Labour, AuTH. See notes on ch. i. 3 (Zransl.). Should prove] Be, AvutH.; be made, Wict., Cov. Test., Rurzm.; had bene bestowed, TYND., Cran.; had bene, Cov., GEN., BIsH.
6. Timothy] Timotheus, AUTH.: see notes on Col. i. τ (T'ransl.). Unto us from you] So Wict, (to), Cov. Test., Ruem.: from you unto us, AUTH. and remaining Vv.,—a departure from the order in the Greek for which there does not here seem any satisfactory reason. The good tidings] Good t., AUTH. Love] So Tynp., Cov., CRAN., GEN., Bisu.: charity, AUTH., Wict., Cov. Test., Rurm. On this correction see notes on 1 Tim. i. 5 (T'ransl.). Longing] Desiring greatly, AUTH.; desirynge, Wick. and remaining Vv.: the ἐπὶ in ἐπιποθεῖν is not intensive; see notes. Cov. gives, desyringe to se vs as we also longe to 86 YOu,
7. For this cause] Therefore; AUTH. and all Vv. Were we] We were, AutH. The transposition seems to keep the sentence a little closer toge-
180
_1 THESSALONIANS.
comforted, brethren, over you in all our necessity and
8 affliction by your faith: since now we live, if ye stand
9 fast in the Lord. For what thanksgiving can we render
to God for you, for all the joy which we joy for your sakes
10 in the presence of our God; night and day praying very
exceedingly that we may see your face and supply the lacking measures of your faith ?
11 Now may God Himself and our Father and our Lord
12 Jesus Christ direct our way unto you.
But you may
the Lord make to increase and abound in your love to- wards one another and towards all men, even as we also
ther, and is frequently adopted in AUTH. Brethren] So, in this order, RHEM.: AUTH. and remaining Vv. append it to therefore. Here it seems more exact to retain the order of the Greek. Necessity and afiliction |*A fiction and distress, AUTH. There is no cause for forsaking the ordinary rendering of ἀνάγκη which is preserved by 6 Versions. AUTH. has here distress; Wich. and Cov. Test. give nede.
8. Since] For, AUTH. and the other Vv. except RuEM., because. Here the particle ὅτι seems scarcely to have so full a force as ‘because,’ and yet to be somewhat stronger than ‘for,’—which, as a general rule, it is desirable to re- serve as the translation of γάρ.
9. Thanksgiving] So Cov. Test., RuHeEM., and sim. Wick. (doinge of thankyngis): thanks, AUTH. and re- maining Vv. Render to God] So Cov. Test. (vnto), RHEM., and simi- larly Wick. (yilde to god): render to God again, AUTH. ; recompence to god agayne, TYND., Cov., CRAN., GEN., BIsu. Which] Similarly, that, Tynp., Cov. (that we haue concernynge you before oure G.), CRAN.: wherewith Autu., Cov. Test.,GEN., BIsH., RHEM, ; in whiche, WI0tL. .
In the presence of | Before, AuTH. and all Vv.; see notes on ch. i. 3 (7’ransl.).
10. Very exceedingly] Exceedingly, Aut. See ch. v. 13, Eph. iii. 20, the only places where this ernphatic com- pound ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ [-Gs] occurs. May] So Cov. Test., RuEM.: might, AUTH, Supply, &c.| Might per- fect that which is lacking in, AUTH., and sim. TyND. and Cov. (both giving fulfill), Gun. (accdplish); fuljille tho thingis that faylen of, Wicu.; to ful- Syll the thynges that are lakyng vnto, Cov. Test., Cran. (myght...which) ; repayre the wantynges of, BISH.; may accomplish those things that vvant of, RueEM. Cov. omits might (2).
11. May God] AUTH. and the other Vv. omit may, which however seems to add perspicuity to the sentence (CRAN. gives wrongly God...shall).
12. But you may the Lord make} And the Lord make you, AutH. But is rightly given by Cov. (both). Though there is perhaps some little awkward- ness in the prominence given to the pronoun, it seems required to convey to the English reader the antithesis of the original; see notes. Your] So Wict., Cov. Test., RuEM., follow- ing the Vulg. It is better to insert the pronoun in transl. though it is here omitted by AuTH. and remaining Vv. Towards one another] One towards another, AUTH. We also} So Cov. Test., BisH., RHEM.:
Cuap. III. 8—IV. 6. 151
abound towards you; to the end He may stablish your 13 hearts unblameable in holiness in the presence of God and our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints.
Furthermore then, brethren, we beseech you and ex- IV. hort you in the Lord Jesus, that as ye received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, as indeed ye are walking—that so ye would abound still more. For ye 2 know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, even your sanctifica- 3 | tion, to wit that ye abstain from Fornication,—that every 4 one of you know how to get himself his own vessel in sanctification and honour, not in lustfulness of desire, 5 even as the Gentiles also which know not God; that no 6
we, AUTH. omitting καὶ in translation. Abound (2)] Do, AUTH.
13. In the presence of | Before, AurTH. and all Vv.: see notes on ch. i. 3 (Transl). God and our Father] So Wict., Cov. Test., ΒΙΒΗ., RHEm.: God even our Father, AUTH., GEN.; God oure father, TynD., Cov., CKAN. On the best mode of translating this august formula, see notes on Gal. i. 4 (Transl.). Lord Jesus| Lord Jesus* Christ, AUTH.
Cuapter IV. 1. Furthermore] So AuTH. and the other Vv. except WIcL., hensforthwarde; and RHEM., for the rest. This translation of λοιπὸν is perhaps not exactly literal, but seems sufficiently approximate: ‘finally’ would here be hardly ap-
‘propriate, and ‘for the rest’ (RHEM.),
though literal, is both harsh and awk- ward.
Brethren, we] So Cov. Test., RHEM., and similarly WIL. (therfore br. hens. we): AUTH. and remaining VV. insert br. after you,—but not in accordance with the Greek order. In] So WIct., TynpD., Coy. (both), Gzn., RHEM.: by,
AutH., CRAN., ΒΙΒΗ. Received) Have received, AutH. and all Vv.
As indeed ye are walking] AUTH. *omits this clause. That 80] AUTH. omits *that. Still more] More and more, AUTH. and the other Vv. except WIcL., RHEM., more; and Cov. Test., which gives that ye maye be more plentyfullyer.
3. To wit that ye] Sim., that yee, Wict., Cov. Test., RHEM. (you): that ye should, AuTH., Cov., CRAN., BISH. ; and that ye shuld, TYND., GEN.—but Tyrnp. translates the preceding clause even that ye shuld be holy: GEN. as AUTH.
4. Know] Should know, Αὐτή. This clause is parallel to the preceding ‘to wit that,’ &c. Get himself ] Possess, AUTH., GEN., BisH., RHEM. ; welde [t.e. wield] Wicu.; kepe, TYND., Cov., CRAN.; vse, Cov. Test.
His own] His, AutTH. and all Vv.
5. Lustfulness of desire] Sim., pas- sioun of desire, WicL.: the passion of lust, RuEM.; the lust of concupiscence, AUTH. and remaining Vv.
Gentiles also] AUTH. omits καὶ in trans- lation.
152
1 THESSALONIANS.
man go beyond and overreach his brother in the matter: because that the Lord 7s the avenger of all these things,
7 as also we before told you and did solemnly testify.
For
God called us not for uncleanness, but in sanctification.
8 Wherefore then he that rejecteth rejecteth not man but God, who also gave His Holy Spirit unto you.
9 Now as touching brotherly love ye need not that I
write to you; for ye yourselves are taught of God to love
10 one another: for indeed ye do it towards all the brethren
that are in the whole of Macedonia. But we exhort you,
6. Overreach] So AutTH. Marg. (op- presse, or, ouerreach): deceyue, WICL.; begyle, Cov. Test.; circumuent, RHEM. (all three from Vulg., circumveniat) ; defraud, AUTH. and 5 remaining VV. The matter] So AutTH. Marg.: any matter, AUTH., GEN., BisH.; bargayn- ange, TYND., Cov. (both), CRAN.; businesse, RHEM. All these things] So Wict., Cov. Test., RHEM.: all such, ΑΥΤΗ., BrisH.; all suche thinges, TYND., Cov., CRAN., GEN. As also, &c.| As we also have forewarn- ed you, and testified, AUTH., ΒΙΒΗ. The renderings of the other Vv. are here added as they exhibit a singular variety of translation in a simple clause. As we bifore seyden to you, & haue witnesside (or prouede by autorite), Wict.; as we tolde you before tyme and testified, TYND., CRAN. (om. tyme) ; as we haue sayde & testified vnto you
afore tyme, Cov.; as we haue sayd and witnessed vnto you before, Cov. Test.; as we also haue tolde you before time and testified, GEN.; as vve haue fore- told you, and haue testified, RHEM. The slight change to ‘did testify’ is made for the sake of preserving a sort of rhythm; comp. notes on Phil. ii. 16 (Transl.).
7. Called us not] Clepide not vs, Wict.; hath not called us, AUTH. and remaining Vv. For (2)...in] To ...vnto, Cov.; vnto...into, BIsH.; inte
(bis), WicL., RHEM. ; wnto (bis), AUTH. and 4 remaining Vv. It is probably a mere accident that Cov. and Bisu. preserve a difference in rendering be- tween ἐπὶ and ἐν. Sanctification] So RueEm.: holiness, AUTH. It is well to preserve uniformity of translation with ver. 3, 4.
8. Wherefore then he] And so he, Wict.; wherfore he, Cov. Test. ; ther- fore he, Ruem. ; he therefore, AuTH. and remaining Vv. Rejecteth (bis)]So AurH. Marg.: despiseth, AUTH. and all Vv. WICcL., Cov. Test., GEN., RuEM., insert thes thingis after the first dispisith (Vulg. haec). Gave] So Wict.: hath sent, TYND., CRAN.; hath...given, AUTH. andremaining Vv. His Holy Spirit unto you] Unto *us his holy Spirit, AuTH.; his holy spirit in vs, Wict., Cov. Test., RHEM.; his holy sprete amonge you, TYND., CRAN. ; his holy sprete in to you, Cov.; you his holie Spirit, GEN.; to you his h. s., BISH.
9. Now] But, AuTH. and all Vv. except WICL. (forsothe).
10. For indeed] And in deed, AUTH.; & forsothe, Wicu.; for, Cov. Test.; ye and...verely, TYND., CRAN., GEN., Bis. ; yee and, Cov., RHEM.
That| Which, AuTH. The whole of M.] Whole M., Cov. Test.: all M., AvTH. and remaining Vv.
Exhort] Beseech, AUTH.: see ver. T.
Cuap. IV. 7--15. 153
brethren, to abound still more, and to study to be quiet, 11 and to do your own business, and to work with your hands, according as we commanded you; in order that 12 ye may walk becomingly toward them that are without,
and may have need of no man.
Now we would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, 13 concerning them that are sleeping, that ye sorrow not, even
as the rest which have no hope.
For if we believe that 14
Jesus died and rose again, even so them that are laid to sleep through Jesus will God bring with Him. For this 15 we say to you in the word of the Lord, that we which are
To abound] That yee abounde, WICcL., RueEM. (you); that ye increase, AUTH. and remaining Vv. Still more] More, Wict., RHEM.; more and more, AutH. and remaining Vv. (yet m. and m., Cov.). See ver. 2.
11. To study] That ye st., AUTH. Your hands] So Wict., Cov. Test. : your own h., AUTH. and remaining Vy; According as] As, AUTH. and all Vv.
12. In order that] That, AUTH.
and all Vv. Becomingly] Honestly, Auta. and all Vv. The translation ‘seemly’ deserves consi- deration, but is appy. open to the objection that in point of strict ety- mology such a form of the adverb is somewhat doubtful; see Trench, on Auth. Vers. ch. 11. p. 31. May have] That ye may have, AUTH. Need| Lack, AUTH. No man] So AutH. Marg.: nothing, AUTH. The clause is translated, and that no- thinge be lackynge vnto you, by TYND., Cov., CRAN., GEN., BISH. (in you).
13. Now] But, AutH., BisH.; for- sothe, Wicu.; and, RuEM. : the remain- ing five Versions omit δὲ in translation. We] *J, AUTH. That] Which, AUTH. Are sleeping] Are *asleep, AuTH., GEN.; are fallen a slepe, TYND., Cov., CRAN.; slepe, Cov. Test., BIsu., Ruem. For περὶ τῶν x. Wich. has
simply of men slepyng (or dyinge). The rest] Others, AUTH., RHEM.; other, Wict. and the six remaining Vv.
14. Them that are laid to sleep through Jesus] Them also which sleep in Jesus, AUTH.: no Version has at- tempted to express the Aorist parti-
ciple. 15. In] So all Vv. except AUTH., GEN., by. Which are living and
are remaining behind] Which are alive and remain, AUTH.; that lyuen that ben residue (or lefte), WicL.; which live and are remayninge, TYND., Cov., GEN.; that lyue, whych remayne, Cov. Test.; whych shall lyue, & shall re- mayne, CRAN.; whiche lyue, remayn- ing, BisH.; vvhich liue, vvhich are re- maining, RHEM. It is not easy to give these words a perfectly aecurate and perfectly idiomatic translation : ‘we the living, the remaining, ἀπ. would be accurate, but bald; ‘we the living who are, &c.’ somewhat harsh and appositional. We therefore may perhaps not unwisely retain the ‘and,’ and also (with AUTH.) omit the second relative in translation, as tending to overload the sentence. The slight ad- dition ‘behind’ seems suggested by the compound περιλείπεσθαι, the prep. probably marking the idea of over- plus, and thence, in the present con- text, of a continuance on earth and
154
1 THESSALONIANS.
_ living and are remaining behind unto the coming of the Lord shall in no wise prevent them that are laid to sleep: 16 because the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the Archangel, and with the trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first; 17 then we which are living and are remaining behind shall be caught up at the same time together with them in clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever 18 be with the Lord, So then comfort one another with
these words.
V. But eoncerning the times and the seasons, brethren,
2 ye have no need to be written to.
For yourselves know
perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in 3 the night. When they shall say Peace and safety; then doth destruction come suddenly upon them, as travail
survival; comp. Herod. I. 82.
Shall in no wise] Shall not, AuTH. and all Vv. Great caution is required in the translation of οὐ μὴ in the N.T., as in some cases it appears very doubt- ful whether any emphatic negation is really contemplated by the writer, and whether the formula was not due to that general tendency to strengthened negation which is often observable in later Greek. Perhaps the simplest and best rule is to be guided by the context,—which here seems to require the stronger form of translation. Prevent] If it be thought necessary to alter this now obsolete word, we may have recourse to the more modern ‘ precede:’ archaisms however as such are not altered in this Revision.
Them that are laid to sleep] Them which are asleep, AUTH.: see note on ver. 14.
16. Because] For, AUTH. and all Vv. In the following words it is per- haps doubtful whether the order of ‘the Greek, which places καταβήσεται ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ last, might not be advan- tageously retained, as indeed it is by
Wict., Rum. It tends however to throw appy. a greater stress on these words than is conveyed by the ori- ginal.
17. Are living, &c.] Are alive, and remain, AUTH.: see note on ver. 1. At the same—them] Together with them, AUTH., Wict., Cov. Test., ΒΙΒΗ.; with them also, Tynv., Cov., CRAN., GEN.; vvithal...vvith them, RuEM. On the translation of ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς, see notes in loc. In clouds] So Wict.: in the clouds, AUTH. and re- maining Vv.
18. So then] Wherefore, AUTH. and the other Vv. except WIcL., & so; and RuHEM., therfore.
CHAPTER V. 1. Concerning] Of, Avra. and all Vv. To be written to] To wryte vnto you, Cov.; that we do wryt unto you, Cov. Test. ; that vve vvrite to you, RuEm.; that I write unto you, AUTH. and remaining Vv. (WICL., to).
3. When] *For when, AUTH.
Doth destruction come suddenly] Sud- den destruction cometh, AUTH.: αἰφνί
of darkness.
are drunken in the night.
Caap. IV. 16—YV. 11. 155
‘upon a woman with child; and they shall in no ‘wise
escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that the 4 day should overtake you as a thief. For ye all are sons 5 of light, and sons of the day: we are not of the night, nor
Accordingly then let us not sleep, even as 6 do the rest; but let us watch and be sober.
For they 7
that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken
But let us, as we are of the 8
day, be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and as an helmet the hope of salvation; because 9 God did not appoint us unto wrath, but to obtain salva- tion through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, that, 10 whether we watch or sleep, we should together live with him. Wherefore comfort each other, and edify one the I1
other, even as also ye do.
dios is a ‘secondary predication of manner,’ a force preserved by no Ver-
sion. In no wise] Not, AUTH. and all Vv.; see notes on ch. iv. 15 (Transl.).
4. The day] The ilke d., Wi0u.; the same d., RHEM.; that d., AUTH. and re- maining Vv. (Cov. Test. omits one that appy- by mistake). It may be doubted whether the text is here so explicit as AUTH.; the translation however of the article by a pronoun is so hazard- ous, and so erroneous in principle, that the cases are but very few in which idiom or perspicuity can be al- lowed to prevail over the literal ren- dering: comp. 2 Thess. iii. 14.
5. Lor ye all are]* Ye are all, AUTH. Independently of the insertion of ydp, which is required by Manuscript au- thority, it seems better to give to ‘all’ a prominence corresponding to that of πάντες in the Greek. Sons
(bis)] Similarly τσ. (the sones...
sones): the children, AutTH. and re- maining Vv.; but Cov. omits the arti- cle in both cases, and RHEM. omits it in the second.
6. Accordingly then] Therefore, AurTH. and all Vv. Even as] As, AUTH. The rest] The other, Cov. Test.: others, AUTH., RHEM.; other, TYND. and 5 remaining Vv.
8. As we are] Who are, AuTH.: all
Versions insert a relative. Having put on] Putting on, AUTH.: see notes in loc. As an helmet] So Tynp.: for an helmet, AUTH., CRAN., GEN. .
9. Because] For, AuTH. and all Vv. Did not appoint] Hath not appointed, AutH. and the other Vv. except WICL. ( puttide not).
Through] So Cov. Test.: by, AUTH., Wict., ΒΙΒΗ., RuEm.; by the meanes of, TYND., Cov., CRAN., GEN.
10. Watch] So Ruem.: wake, AuTH. and remaining Vv.: see ver. 6. Together live] Live together, AUTH. and all Vv.; see notes.
11. Each other] Your selves together, AutH., TYND., Cov., CRAN., BISH.; one another, Cov, Test., GEN., RHEM. One the other] Eche other, WIcL.; every one another, CRAN., BISH.; one another, AUTH. and remaining Vv.
1 THESSALONIANS.
12 Now we beseech you, brethren, to regard them which labour among you, and preside over you in the Lord, and 13 admonish you; and to esteem them very exceedingly in love for their work’s sake.
156
14 selves.
Be at peace among your-
Moreover we exhort you, brethren, admonish the
disorderly, encourage the feeble minded, support the 15 weak, be longsuffering toward all men. See that none render evil for evil to any man; but alway follow after that which is good towards one another and towards all
I 17 men. 18
Rejoice alway; pray without ceasing; in every
19 thing give thanks, for this is the will of God in Christ
20 Jesus toward you.
Quench not the Spirit; despise not
21 prophesyings: but prove all things; hold fast that which
22 is good. Abstain from every form of evil.
a3
12. Now] So Gen.: and, AUTH., Cov. Test., BisH., Rorem.; TyYnp., Cov., CRAN., omit. Regard] Know, AvrTH. and all Vv.
Preside over] Are over, AUTH., GEN.; ben bifore to, Wi0u.; have the oversight of, TyND., Cov. (both), CRAN., BIsH. ; gouerne, RHEM.
13. Very exceedingly] Very highly, AUTH.: see notes on ch. iii. 10 (7'ransi.). Be at peace} So GEN.; and sim. WICL., Cov. Test., RHEM., omit and (follow- ing the Vulg., and giving haue p.): and be at p., AUTH. and remaining Vv.
14. Moreover] Now, AUTH.; and, Cov. Test., RueM.; forsothe, WICL. ; the five remaining Vv. omit. Admonish] So GEN., RHEM.: reproue yee (or chastise), WICL.; rebuke, Cov. Test.; warn, AvUTH., TYND., Cov., CraN., BIsH. The disorderly] Vn- quyete men, WICL.; the vnquiet, RHEM.; them that are unruly, AUTH. and 6 remaining Vv. (AUTH. Marg., disor- derly). Encourage] Com- fort, AUTH. and all Vv.: see notes on ch. ii. 11. Be longsuffering] Have continuall pacience, TYND.; be patient, AUTH. and remaining Vv.
But may the
(Wict., be yee p.).
15. None] So AuTH. and the other
Vv. except Wict., Cov. Test., no man. It may be remarked that AUTH. and the older Vv. appy. always adopt the form ‘none,’ not ‘no one.’ Alway] So Cov. Test., RHEM. (alvvaies): euermore, WICL.; ever, AUTH. and re- maining Vv. Follow after] So AuTH. in 1 Tim. vi. 11: swe, WICL. ; pursue, RuEM.; follow, AUTH. and 6 remaining Vv. Towards one an- other] Sim., towarde your selues, GEN. ; tovvards eche other, RuEM.: ‘*both among yourselves, AUTH., TYND., Cov., Cov. Test. (om. oth), CrAN., BIsH. WICcL. gives simply to gedir. See ch. iii. 12. Towards (2)] So Cov. Test., GEN., RHEM.: to, AUTH. and re- maining Vv. (WIOCL., into).
16. Alway] So Cov. (both), RoEm. (alvvaies): evermore, AUTH., GEN., WICL.; ever, TYND., CRAN., BISH.
18. Toward] So Tynp., Cov. (both), Cran., GEN., BIsH.: concerning, Autu.; in, Wict., RHEM. (so Vulg.).
21. But prove] *Prove, AUTH.
22. Every formof evil] All appear- ance of evil, AUTH., GEN., BISH.,
Σ Cuap. V. 12—28. 157
God of peace Himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept whole without blame in
the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Faithful 1s He 24
that calleth you, who also will do ὁ.
Brethren, pray for us.
Wret. ; all suspicious thinges, TYND., Cov. (both); all euell appearaunce, CRAN.
23. But] Forsothe, WIcL.; now, Gen.; and, AUTH., BISH., RHEM. ; omitted by Tynp., Cov. (both), CRAN. May the Ged of peace Himself So RuaEM. but omitting may: the same god of pees, Wiou.; the very God of peace, AUTH. and remaining Vv.
And may] That, Wict., Cov. Test., Ruem.; and I pray God, AUTH. and remaining Vv. (all but AurTH. adding that). Your spirit...whole] So Wict.: your whole spirit, AUTH. and remaining Vv.: see especially notes in loc. Κορέ] So Wict., Tynb., Cov. (both), GEN.: preserved,
Salute all the brethren with a3
an holy kiss. I adjure you by the Lord that the epistle 27 be read to all the [holy] brethren. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. 28 Ruem.; euyl spice (or lickenesse), AUTH., Cran., BisH., RHEM.
Without blame] So RuxEm.: blameless, AutH., Cov. (both), GEN., ΒΙΒΗ. ; with outen pleynte, WicL.; fautlesse, TYND. ; so that in nothyng ye maye be blamed, CRAN. In] So Wict., Cov. Test., CRAN., BisH., RHEM.: unto, AUTH., TYND., Cov., GEN.
26. Salute] So RuEm.: greet, AUTH. and remaining Vv. (WICL., grete yee wel).
27. Adjure] So Αὐτη. Marg., RuHeEM., and sim. coniure, WICL.: charge, AUTH. and 6 remaining Vv. The epistle] This Ep., AUTH. and all Vv.: see notes on 2 Thess. iii. 14 (Transl.).
28. With you] AuTH. adds *Amen.
THE
SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
ἢ poe and Silvanus and Timothy to the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus 2 Christ. Grace be to you and peace, from God our Father
and the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 Weare bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith increaseth exceedingly, and the love of every one of you all towards
4 each other aboundeth; so that we ourselves make our boast in you in the churches of God, for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and the afflictions that ye
5 endure;—which is a token of the righteous judgment of
αν, Timothy] So Wict., Ruem.: Timotheus, AUTH. and remaining Vv.: see notes on Col. i. 1 (Transl.),
2. Grace be] So ΤΎΝΡ., Cov. (both), Cran., GEN.: grace, AUTH., WICL., BisH., Rue. For ὑμῖν Tynp., Cov., GEN., give with you; the six remain- ing Vv. giving to (or wnto) you.
3. Give thanks to] So Cov. Test. (vnto), RuEM., and AurH. in 1 Thess. i. 2: do thankyngis...to, WHICL.; thank, AUTH. and 5 remaining Vv. Increaseth] So Cov. Test., RuHeEm.: waxith, WicL.; groweth, AUTH. and re- maining Vv. However Cov. Test. omits exceedingly, and WICL. gives euer (?read- ing semper cr.) before waxith. Love] So Tynp., Cov. (both), CRAN., GEN , BisH.: charity, AUTH., WICL., RHEM.; comp. notes on 1 Tim. i. 5 (Transi.).
4. Make our boast in] Similarly,
make oure boast of, Cov.; make boast of, Cov. Test. ; boast of, CRAN.: glory in, AUTH., WIcL., RHEM.; reioyce of, TYND., GEN.; reioyce in, BIsH. The afflictions] Tribulations, Autu. and the other Vv. except Cov. (both), troubles. No Version inserts the article.
5. Token] So Trnp., Cov., CRAn., GEN., ΒΙΒΗ. : manifest token, AUTH.; ensaumple, WI0L., Cov. Test., RHEM. Ye are also suffering] & yee suffren, Wict.; also you suffer, RHEM.; ye also suffer, AUTH. and remaining Vv. The change appears to have two ad- vantages, first, that it more distinctly preserves the association of καὶ and πάσχετε, and secondly, that it conveys more fully the present and continuing
—s- >.
GHap. Τ. £-—16,
159
God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye are also suffering. If so be that it is a 6 righteous thing with God to recompense to them that afflict you affliction; and to you who are afflicted rest with us, 7 at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of His power in flame of fire, rendering vengeance 8 to those who know not God, and those who obey not the
Gospel of our Lord Jesus.
Who shall suffer punishment, 9
even eternal destruction away from the face of the Lord | and from the glory of His might, when He shall come to 10
nature of the trials of the Thessalo- nians,
6. If so be that] So AuTH. in Rom. vill. 9, 17, 1 Cor. xv. 15, 2 Cor. v. 3, 1 Pet. ii. 3: seeing, AUTH.; yif ne- theles, Wicu.; verely, TYND., CRAN. ; for, Cov. (both), GEn., BisH. ; 2f yet, RuHeEM. To them that afflict you affliction] Yildynge to hem that turblen you, Wict.; tribulation, to them that vexe you, RHEM. ; tribulation to them that trouble you, AUTH. and remaining Vv. [Cov. (both), vnto]. The change seems to preserve more clearly the antithesis, and also to bring more into prominence the ‘lex talionis’ that is tacitly referred to.
7. Afflicted] Troubled, AUTH. and the other Vv. except RHEM., vexed : see previous note. At the revelation of 1 So BisH., RHEM. (both giving in) ; in the schewynge of, WI0L.; in the appearyng of, Cov. Test.: when...shall be revealed, AUTH.; when .. shall shewe him silfe, Tynp., Cov., CRAN., GEN. The angels of His power] So AutH. Marg., Cov. (both), Cran., ΒΙΒΗ., RHEM., and sim. Wick. (a. of his vertue): his mighty Angels, AuTH., TYND., GEN.
8. In flame of fire] So RueEm., and sim. WICL, and Cov. Test. (thejl.): in flaming fire, AUTH., TYND., GEN., Bisu.; with fl. f., Cov., CRAN. Rendering vengeance to] So Tynp.,
Gen., Brisa. (all giving wnto): taking vengeance on, AUTH. CRAN. gives the transl. of the text, but has a different construction, whych shall rédre v. unto. Those who (bis)] Them that...that, AUTH. - Lord Jesus] Lord Jesus *Christ, AUTH.
9. Shall suffer punishment, even]
Shall be punished with, AuTH. and the other Vv. except WicL., Cov. Test., RHEM., which follow the Vulg. poenas dabunt in interitu aeternas. Eternal] So Rum. : everlasting, AUTH. and remaining Vv. Though here the change is really unimportant, itis still perhaps best to translate this word uniformly, except where the context seems - specially and exclusively to imply simple duration. In the present case the αἰώνιος is equally qualitative and quantitative. Away from] From, AvtH. and all Vv. Face] So Wict., Cov. Test., RHEM.: presence, AUTH. and remaining Vv. Might| So ΑΥΤΗ. in Eph. vi. 10: vertue, WICL. ; power, AUTH. and remaining Vv.
10. Shall come] So AUTH. and all Vv. There is some little difficulty in the translation of ὅταν with the aor. subj. Perhaps, as a general rule, it may be said that when the exact ren- dering ‘shall have’ is inapplicable (see notes on Tit. iii. 12, Transl.), we may conveniently adopt in transla-°
100
> THESSALONIANS.
be glorified in His saints, and to be admired in all them that believed (because our testimony to you-ward was be- ΤΙ lieved) in that day. Whereunto we also pray always for you, that our God may count you worthy of your calling, and fulfil every good pleasure of goodness and the work of 12 faith with power; that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and ye in Him, according to the grace
of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ. II. Now we beseech you, brethren, touching the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto 2 Him, that ye be not quickly shaken from your sober mind, nor yet be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word nor by letter as coming through us, to the effect that the 3 day of the Lord is now come. Let no man deceive you in any way; because the day shall not come except there
tion the present (indic. or conj.) when the reference to the actual futurity of the subsequent event is less specially contemplated (comp. Matth. xxi. 40, Mark iv. 29 [Rec.], al.), and future when, as here, such a reference is more distinct and prominent.
That believed] That *believe, AUTH. To you-ward | Sim., toward you, BIsH.; that we had vnto you, TYND., CRAN. (to); vento you, Cov.: among you, AUTH.
11. Whereunto] Wherefore, AUTH. We also] So GENn.: we, TYND., Cov. ; also we, AUTH. and remaining Vv. May] So Gen.: would, AuTH., BISH.; wyll, Cov. Test., CRAN.; the four remaining Vv. omit the auxiliary. Your] This, AvuTH., Cran.; his, Wict., Cov. Test., GEN., RHEM.; the, TyND., Cov., BISH. Every good pleasure of 5.1. So Bisu. (all) : all the good pleasure of his g., AuTH., GEN., RHEM,.
12. Lord Jesus] Lord Jesus *Christ, AUTH.
CuapTeR 11. 1. Touching] By, Aur. and all Vv.: see notes in loc.
And our] So WicL.: and by our, ΑΥΤΗ., GEN., BIsH.
2. Quickly] Soon, AuTH., WICL. ; sodenly, Tynp., Cov., CRAN., GEN., BisH.; hastely, Cov. Test.; easily, REM. From your sober mind] Similarly, fro youre witte, WICL. ; from youre mynde, TyND., Cov. (both), CRAN., GEN., BisH.; from your sense, RueEM.: AvtTH. alone gives the in- correct in mind. Nor yet be] Nor be, Cov. Test., Cran., Bisu., RHEM.: nor, GEN.; or be, AUTH. ; nether be yee, WIcL. ; and be not, TYND., Cov. Coming through] From, AvutH. Although διὰ occurs four times in this verse, it is not worth while to overweight the sen- tence by translating it uniformly through. To the effect that} As that, AurH. This slight change seems to make the meaning a little more perspicuous, The Lord} *Christ, AUTH. Now come] At hand, AvutH. and the other Vv. except WICL., nyg.
3. In any way] In any mamer, WIcL.; by any means, AUTH. and
Cap. I. ρα 8.
161
come the falling away first, and the Man of Sin be re- vealed, the son of perdition; he that opposeth, and ex- 4 alteth himself against every one called God or an object of worship; insomuch that he sitteth in the temple of God, displaying himself that he is God. Remember ye 5 not that when I was yet with you I used to tell you
these things?
he may be revealed in his own time.
And now ye know what restraineth, that 6
For the mystery 7
of lawlessness is already working, yet only until he who now restraineth be taken out of the way. And then 8
Υ
remaining Vv. Because] For, AUTH. and all Vv. The day shall not come] So AuvtTH., GEN. (both giving that d.): the lorde commeth not, Tynv., Cov. (both); the Lorde shall not come, CRAN., BIsH.; no clause is supplied by WicL. or RHE. The falling away] A falling away, AvuTH., BisH.; departynge aweye (or discerncon), WicL.; a reuolt, RHEM.; a departynge, TYND., CRAN., GEN.; the dep., Cov. (both), which alone of all the Vv. rightly give the article. The Man of Sin] So Wict., RHEM.: that man of sin, AUTH., Cov., GEN., BisH.; that synfull man, Tywnpv., Cran.; the 8. man, Cov. Test.
4. He that opposeth] Who opposeth, AuTH.; that is aduersarie, WICL.; whych is the adu., Cov. Test.; which is an adv., TYND. and five remaining Vv. It will thus be seen that the Vv. rightly recognise the substantival cha- racter of ὁ ἀντικείμενος, and unite ἐπὶ πάντα K.T.r. solely with the following participle. Against] So GEN.: vpon, WI0L.; above, AUTH. and remain- ing Vv. Every one called] All that is called, AUTH. and all Vv. except WICL. (alle thing that is seyde). An object of worship] That is worshipped, AvTH. and the other Vv. except Cov., Gods seruyce. Insomuch] So Cov. Test.: so, AUTH. and remaining Vy. He sitteth| He *as God 8., AUTH.
Displaying himself] Shewing himself,
AuTH., WicL., GEN., BISH., RHEM. ;
and shew him silfe, TYND. (giving shall sitt above) ; and boasteth himselfe, Cov. ; boastynge hym self, Cov. Test., CRAN.
5. Used to tell] Told, AuTH.: no Version attempts to give the force of the imperfect.
6. Restraineth] Withholdeth, AUTH. and the other Vv. except Cov. Test., doth withholde; and RueEm., letteth. There does not seem any reason for supplying the pronoun ‘him,’ with Scholef. (Hints, p. 116, ed. 4): we seem bound to preserve the mysterious indefiniteness of the original: Cov. (both) supply. {ϊ. May be] So Cov. Test., RuEM.: be, WICL. ; might
' be, AUTH. and remaining Vv.
His own] His, AvuTH. and all Vv.
7. Lawlessness] Iniquity, AvTH. and all Vv. except WICL., wickidnesse. But TyYnpb. gives that in., and Cov., CRAN., give the in. It seems desirable here to retain this more rigidly literal translation as serving more clearly to indicate the essential character of τὸ κατέχον. Is already working] Doth already work, AutH., CRAN., GEN., ΒΙΒΗ. Yet only until, &c.] Similarly, tyll he which now onely let- teth, Cov., CRAN., BISH.; only he who now letteth, will let, until he, AUTH. ; onely that he that holdith nowe, holde, uilit, Wiou. ; which onlie loketh, vntill
M
102
2 THESSALONIANS.
shall the Lawless One be revealed, whom the Lord Je- sus shall consume with the breath of His mouth, and g shall destroy with the appearance of His coming; whose coming is after the working of Satan in all power and 10 signs and wonders of lying, and in all deceit of un- righteousness to them that are perishing; because they embraced not the love of the truth, that they might be 11 saved. And for this cause doth God send them a work- 12 ing of error that they should believe the lie; that they may all of them be judged who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
it, Tynp.; only he that holdeth, let hym holde now, tyll he, Cov. Test. ; onely he which now withholdeth, shal let til he, GEN.; only that he vvhich novv holdeth, doe hold, vntil he, RHEM. The insertion of ‘yet’ may perhaps be admitted as slightly clearing up the elliptical expression.
8. The Lawless One] That wicked, Avti., Tynp., Cov. (both), CRAN., Bisu. : the ilke wickide (man), WICL. ; the wicked man, GEN.; that vvicked one, RHEM. The Lord Jesus] The Lord, AUTH. omitting *Jesus.
Breath] Spirit, AuTH. and all Vv. Appearance] So Tynp., Cov. (both), Cran.; brightness, AUTH., ΟΝ. Bisu.; illumynynge (or schynynge), WicL.; manifestation, RuEM. The regular trans'ation of this word in AUTH. is ‘appearing’ (1 Tim. vi. 14, 2. Tim: 1: 10, ‘ivu.t,.8,. Tit. 2. 23), which is here slightly changed to avoid the juxtaposition of two parti- cipial substantives.
9. Whose] Hym whos, WICcL., RuEmM.: even him whose, AUTH. and remaining Vv. In] So WICct., Cov. Test., BisH., RoEM.: with, AUTH. and remaining Vv. Wonders of lying] So Bisu.: lying wonders, AUTH., Cov. Test., GEN.
10. And in] So Wict., TYND., Cov. Test., GEN., ΒΙΒΗ., RHEM.: and
with, AuTH., Cov., CRAN.
Deceit] So Wiot., Cov. Test.: sedue- ing, Ruem.; deceivableness, AUTH. and remaining Vv. To them] So Wict., Cov. Test. (vnto), RHEM.: in them, AUTH., BIsH.; amonge them, Tynpv., Cov., CRAN., GEN.
Are perishing] Perish, AUTH. and all Vv. Embraced] Received, AUTH.
11. Doth God send] God *shall send, AUTH. A working of error] So Wioct.: the operacion of erroure, Cov. Test., RHEM. ; strong delusion, AUTH. and remaining Vv.: see ver. 9. Though in both cases the introduction of the adjective ‘effectual’ before ‘working’ might be rendered suitable by the context, it is still, lexically considered, somewhat too strong as a purely literal rendering. It would thus seem perhaps better to strike out ‘ effectual’ in Eph. iii. 7, iv. 16, or to retain it only in italics. These are however points which itis very difficult to adjust, for if the one translation is too strong, the other certainly seems somewhat too weak: ‘energy,’ which is adopted by some translators, is appy. too modern. The lie) A lie, AUTH.
12. That they may all of them] That they* all might, AUTH.; that alle, Wict.; that all they myght, TYND., Cov., Cran.; GEN., BisH.; that all
CuHap. II. 9—17..
163
But we are bound to give thanks to God alway for 13 you, brethren beloved of the Lord, that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and faith in the truth: whereunto He called you 14 by our Gospel, unto the obtaining of the glory of our
Lord Jesus Christ.
Accordingly then, brethren, stand 15
fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught whether
by word or by our epistle.
But may our Lord Jesus 16
Christ Himself, and God our Father, which loved us, and gave us eternal comfort and good hope in grace, comfort 17 your hearts, and stablish you in every good work and word.
they maye, Cov. Test.; that al may, Ruem. The two slight changes are made to preserve the reading ἅπαντες, and the correct sequence of tenses ; comp. Latham, Lngl. Lang. ὃ 539 (ed. 4). ᾿ Judged] So RHEM.: demyde (or dampnyde), Wicu.; damn- ed, AUTH. and remaining Vv.
Had pleasure in] On the transl. of εὐδοκεῖν, see note on 1 Thess. ii. 8 (Transl.).
13. 10 God alway] Alway to God, ΑΥΤΗ.: there is here no necessity for deserting the order of the original. That} So Wict., Cov. Test., RHEM.: because, AUTH. ; for because that, TYND.,
_CrAn.; bec. that, Cov.,GEN., BISH. Chose you from the beginning] Hath from the beginning chosen you, AUTH. All Vv. except Wict. (chees) give hath chosen. fn (1)] So Wict., Cov. (both), Bisu., RHEM.: through, AUTH., TYND., CRAN., GEN. Faith in the truth] Feith of treuthe, WI0L., GEN. (the 5), Bisu. (the tr.), RHEM. (the tr.): belief of the truth, AUTH.
14. Our Lord] The Lord, ΑὐΤΗ.
15. Accordingly then] Therefore, AUTH. and the other Vv. except WICL., and 80. Traditions] So AvuTH., Wict. ltr. (or techyngis)|, RoEM. The other Vv. vary; ordinaunces, TYND., Cov. (both), CRAN., BISH. ; instructions,
GEN.: see note on ch. iii. 6 (Zransl.). Were taught] Have been taught, AUTH.: no Version preserves the correct force of the Aorist. By our] So Wict., Cov. Test., GeEn., BIsH., Ruem.: our, AutTH.; by, Tynr., Cov., CRAN., all expressing ἡμῶν with λόγου. 16. But may] Now, AUTH. God our Father] God *even our Father, ΑΥΤΗ.: see especially notes ὧν loc. ; and on the transl. of ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ ἡμῶν, notes on Gal. i. 4 (Transi.). Loved] So Wict.: hath loved, AUTH. and remaining Vv. Gave] So Wict.: hath given, AUTH. and remain- ing Vv. [Cov. (both) however omit the second hath, see previous note]. Eternal] So RHEx.: everlasting, AUTH. and remaining Vv. ; see notes on ch. i. 9 (Transl.). Comfort] Conso- lation, AuTH. The change is only made to preserve the same rendering for παράκλησιν... παρακαλέσαι, and in- deed is given by AUTH. in 2 Cor. i. va 4. In grace] So Wict., Cov. Test., ΒΙΒΗ., Ruem.: through gr., ΑΥΤΗ. and the four remaining Vv. 17. Stablish you] AUTH. retains you in ordinary type, but contrary to the best authorities; see notes. Work and word] *Word and work, AUTH. |
164 IU.
2 THESSALONIANS.
Finally pray ye for us, brethren, that the word of the
Lord may have free course and be glorified, even as %t is 2 also with you: and that we may be delivered from perverse 3 and wicked men; for i is not all that have Faith. But
faithful is the Lord, who shall stablish you and keep you
4 from the Wicked One.
Yea we have confidence in the
Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things 5 which we command. But may the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God and into the patience of
Christ.
6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not after the tradition
Cuapter III. 1. Pray ye for us,
brethren] Brethren, pray for us, AUTH. Perhaps this changed order better re- presents the prominent position of προσεύχεσθε. Free course] In the earliest copies of AUTH. ‘free’ is marked as an insertion, but it may fairly be considered as involved in τρέχῃ. Even as tt is also] Even as it is, AUTH. The change gives a juster equivalent to καθὼς καί. See however notes on 1 Thess. i. 5 (Transl.).
2. Perverse] Vncouenable (or noyous),
Wict.; importune, Cov. Test.; im- portunate, RHEM.;—representing Vulg. importunis ; disordered, BISH.; unrea- sonable, AUTH. and 4 remaining Vv. It is not all, &c.] All. men have not faith, AuTH. and the other Vv. except Wicu., ferth is not of alle men; and Cov., faith is not euery mas.
3. Faithful is the Lord] The Lord is faithful, AuTH. and the other Vv. (our Z., Roem.) except WIcL. (the 1. is trewe). Independently of the change of order agreeing better with that of the original, the paronomasia caused by the juxtaposition of πίστις and πιστὸς is more distinctly pre- ‘served, The Wicked One] Evil, Aurtu. and all Vv.; see notes zn loc.
It is of no moment whether πονηροῦ be translated ‘evil’ or ‘wicked’ but the rendering should be kept that is given in ver. 2.
4. Yea] And, Auru., GEn., BIsH., RueEM.; sothely, Wuict.; the rest, TynD., Cov. (both), Cran., omit δὲ in
translation. Command] Com- mand *you, AUTH, 5. But may] Forsothe, Wict.;
and, AuTH. and the other Vv. except Cov., which omits δὲ in translation. Patience of Christ] So AuTH. Marg., Wict., Tynp., Cov. (both), RHEm.: patient waiting for Christ, AUTH., CRAN., BIsH.; weating for of Christ, GEN.
6. The Lord] *Our Lord, Autu. Walking] So Ruem.; sim. WIct. (wandrynge): AUTH. (that walketh) and remaining Vv. insert the relative. Though the meaning is practically the same, it still seems desirable in trans- lation, when consistent with our idiom, to mark the anarthrous participle. Tradition] So AutH., Wict., RHEM.: institucion, TYND., Cov., CRAN., BISH.; ordinaunce, Cov. Test.; instruction, Gen. If any change be thought ne- cessary, the last of these translations is perhaps to be preferred.
Cuap. III. 1—1 3.
165
which they received of us. For yourselves know how ye 7° ought to follow us; in that we behaved not disorderly among you, neither ate we bread from any man for 8 naught, but with toil and travail, working night and day that we might not be burdensome to any of you: not that ο. we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample
to you that ye should follow us.
For also when we were Io
with you, this we commanded you, that if any will not
work, neither let him eat.
For we hear that there are 11
some walking among you disorderly, working at no busi-
ness, but being busy-bodies.
Now them that are such we 12
command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. But ye, 13
They received] * He received, AUTH.
7. In that] For, AuTH. and all Vv.;
see notes in loc. Behaved not] Behaved not ourselves, AUTH., TYND., Cov., CRAN., GEN., BISH. - 8. Ate we bread from any man] Did we eat any mans bread, AvuTH. It seems desirable here, with all Vv. ex- cept WICL., to invert the order of the Greek, that δωρεὰν which occupies the emphatic place in Greek may occupy the same place in the English,—that place being not uncommonly in our language the last. But with toil ...working| But wrought with labour, AvtTH.: the present transl. preserves the true connection, and avoids the incorrect rendering of ἐργαζόμενοι by the finite verb. That we...any] Similarly, lest vve should burden any, Ruem.: that we might not be charge- able to any, AUTH.; lest we shulde be c. to eny, Cov. (both); because we wolde not be c. to eny, CRAN., GEN., Bisu.; that we greueden none, WICL. ; because we wolde not be grevous to eny, TYND.
9. Not that] Not because, AuTH.; not as, WIcL.; not as though, Cov. Test., RHEM. That ye should]
For to, Wict., RuEM.; to, AUTH, and remaining Vv.
10. For also} So Cov. Test., RHEM.: for even, AUTH., GEN.; and, Cov.; for, ΤΎΝΡ., CRAN., BISH., omitting «alin translation. Will not] So Wicu. (wole not), RHEM.: would not, AUTH. and remaining Vv. Neither let him] So RuEM. ; and sim. (nether ete he) WIcL.: neither should he eat, AUTH.; that the same shuld not eate, TYND., and Coy. (both), CRAN., BisH.,— these four omitting that; that he shulde not eat, GEN.
11. Walking] Which walk, AuTH. No Version gives a participial ren- dering: see notes on ver. 6.
Working at no business] Working not at all, AuTH. This is perhaps the only way in which the paronomasia épyafouévous...meprepyafouévous can be maintained. The word ‘business’ is supplied by ΑΥΤΗ. in 1 Thess. iv. 11. Being busybodies] So CRAN.: are busy- bodies, AUTH., TyND., Cov. (both), GEN., BisH. (be b.); doinge curiously, WICL.; curiously meddling, RHEM.
12. In the Lord] *By our Lord, AUTH.
166
2 THESSALONIANS.
14 brethren, lose not heart in well doing. But if any man obey not our word by the epistle, mark this man, and keep no company with him, that he may be shamed.
15 And count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as
16 a brother.
But may the Lord of peace Himself give
you peace continually, in every way. The Lord be with
you all.
17 The salutation by the hand of me Paul, which is a
13. Lose not heart] Be not* weary, AUTH.
14. But if] So Cov.: and ζῇ, AutuH., Roem. If ‘but’ be objected to in consequence of the ‘ but’ in ver. 13, it would then seem better with Tynp., Cov. Test., CRAN., GEN., BISH., to omit δὲ in translation.
Obey not] So AuTH. and the other Vv. except WICcL., schal not obeye; and Cov. Test., doth not obey. At first sight the latter translation might seem preferable, but considered strictly, it would seem to imply that such would probably be the case (see Latham, Lng. Lang. ὃ 537, ed. 4), whereas the Greek el with the indic. ‘per se nihil signifi- cat preter conditionem’ (Klotz, Devar. Vol. If. p. 455). It may thus be best asa general rule, only to adopt the indicative in English where either (a) the context or circumstances of the case corroborate the likelihood of the assumed case, or (b) where the speaker appears to regard it as a matter of fact. The possibility of inserting after ‘if’ the words ‘ as is matter of fact,’ or ‘as seems to be matter of fact,’ will commonly facilitate decision.
The epistle] This Epistle, AutH. All the other Vv. except WICcL. (oure worde bi epistle) join διὰ τῆς ἐπεστολῆς with σημειοῦσθε, and translate τῆς by the English indefinite article. This perhaps, with 1 Thess. v. 27, might be considered as one of the few cases in
which idiom and euphony may justify us in retaining the pronominal trans- lation: as however τοῦτον occurs di- rectly after, it would involve the necessity of translating it that man, as AUTH., or hym, as WIcL. and all other Vv. Scholefield (Hints, p. 118, ed. 4) proposes ‘our epistle,’ but this is scarcely suitable after the preceding ‘our word’ where the ‘our’ is a trans- lation of ἡμῶν, as it would seem to imply that it was repeated with διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς. Mark] So Wict.: note, AUTH., GEN., RHEM.; sende vs worde of, TYND., Cov., CRAN.; shewe vs of, Cov. Test.; signifie, Bisu.
This man] That man, AutH.: hym, WIcL. and remaining Vv.
Keep no company] So AUTH. in t Cor. v. 11: comyne yee not, WicL.; do not companie, RHEM.; haue nothinge to do, Cov. (both); have no company, AUTH. and four remaining Vv.
Shamed] Ashamed, AvTH.: the slight change brings to notice the passive sense.
15. And] So WIct., TYND., Cov. Test., CRAN., RHEM.: yet, AUTH., Cov., GEN., BIsH.
16. But may] Now, AuTH., GEN., Bisu.; forsothe, WicL.; and, RHEM.; Tynv., Cov. (both), CRAN., omit δὲ in translation. Peace continually, in every way] Euerlastynge pees in al place, Wict., and Cov. Test., RHEM., giving ewery place; always, by all
Cuap. III. 14—18. 167
j sign in every epistle: so I write. The grace of our Lord 18
i means, AUTH. and remaining Vv. ; 17. By the hand of me Paul] So
Auta. in Col. iv. 18: of Paul, with
mine own hand, AUTH.; of me Paul
Jesus Christ be with you all. [Amen.]
with myne awne honde, TYND., Cov. (both), CRAN., GEN., BIsH. A sign] So WIcL. (om. a), RHEM.: the token, AUTH. and remaining Vv.
THE END.
ἌΣ ΡΨ
4
Cambridge: PRINTED BY ©. J. CLAY MA. AT THE UNIVERSITY
ἔνα ἃ ae ee ον
ΎΌΥ oa oo Coe See ἡ
wal ἢ
ἄν δώ ἰὼ
δ κ᾽ ὩῳΚ᾿. peey aa
. 2 . av ἦν .} ὁ ἐν - τ’ a ἮΝ ι > ᾿ . . i ' an 4 Ὁ . . i) ὶ ᾿ fa «αὶ 7 ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ + 4s ν Β Ν 32 Ἔ ἢ ᾿ ᾿ 4. : ; < ᾿ : P = ν᾿ i ay ΩΣ a IA 143 : br : ᾿ : " ᾿ ry ᾿Ξ - Ae a . 2 ͵ Ἢ ͵ 5 ἢ Ν ᾿ a ᾿ # ὁ ὁ δῷ s : 3 ' ἃ ᾿ : : . - »» 4 . Ἂ ‘ ἢ ; ὃ Ἷ ᾿ ΄ . ar δ ᾿ : εν “"" ; . : Ὰ ἌΝ, . . ὁ is Z ᾿ 5 ‘ ᾿ .ὦ 5 ᾿ ; ‘ . sf . ‘ Ῥ ae ᾿ 5 ᾿ ΄ ᾿ ; - εν ᾿ - ᾿ ' ἢ . ‘ ζ ᾿Ν . no < ᾿ ' Wy ‘ - e ΄ P a te ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ : zi F i : , : φ ᾿ Ξ 7 ᾿ ; " . ᾿ Β δὲ ὃ “ 7 ‘ a . . * - ΄ εν ‘ ᾿ 5 . Fa - : Ἢ ͵ - ὃ τ Φ ; ᾿ ᾿ Ε ᾿ . » ᾿ ' ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ 5 " = ᾿ ' Ss Η ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ ; * . . ᾿ Ῥ . - : Re 35 δ - ͵ ἃ Ὁ ᾿ 7 Ὁ Σὰ ; ΨΨῚ ὃ, ἃ ὥν ᾿ ‘ τ , μ 7 . δ - . 34 aos ον. ᾿ . : ΄ ᾿ ’ : ἢ ᾿ ᾿ é a 7 ᾿ . ΕἾ : ἢ δ Β μ ᾿ i δ Ἐς (ἃ = - .t ᾿ =o - : : ψ καὶ te Ἢ 7 - τ » 2a ξ sos : pat Se ῳ Η τς 3 . 34 ae - ᾿ τον - . $56 ea é "eves . wit errr ar 7 : : : ᾿ - ᾷ Ἢ " as ; ae: ᾿ a : ὃ “ ιν ὦν .- . οι ς Ἦν δὰ ᾿ ke εἰ "- 3; ἐς é 7 aoe ᾿ ᾿ ΟΝ ᾿ Ρ' i ᾿ : r ᾿ ee OS ons Py 5 yea ᾿ ᾿ a 5 4 - Fx, δὲ ᾿ <3 a0 oy wes -¢ δον ‘ τ - IIS wy aT) - og ἐπ ΤΕΣ ee ς a 2 7 ᾿ me ae ee, Ἃ ae Σ Ἐξ Ate t, ce Η ee, Sie aK Cake aes ᾿ς a 5 ᾿ : bite aa 5 oe τ Pe ΝΥ “as pbuh, εΞ Ψ eer a4 Η Mea. g Sing tte Se Ape ΠΟ pe, * αν fe? rig? ete a So ey . Ν Rt τ ck” AES 7 φε δν 24 ne ay τ : seas ἢ εἰ ΡΝ Ὡν “3 ᾿ tote a coe | ᾿ ze . . ᾿ : ‘ es eS ; Lika chant δι sda : A fey : ; ; ; Pew ale walngendl ibe tit Ebb Ay a7 tat ἐν ary ‘ ὃ * : Ὰ ie ae ea id Oe 4 oe a it ῳ ᾿ fs ᾿ he