BSZ7Z5
COMMENTARY
EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS.
COMMENTARY
ON THE GREEK TEXT
7
EPISTLES OF PAUL TO THE
THE S SALOPIANS
BY THE LATE
JOHN EADIE, D.D., LL.D.,
PUOFESSOR OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE AND EXEGESIS,
UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
EDITED BY THE
REV. WILLIAM YOUNG, M.A.,
l'ARKIIEAD, GLASGOW.
WITH PREFACE BY THE REV. PROFESSOR CAIRNS, P.D.
.
\ /
own N
,£■0 no on :
MAC MILL AN AND 0.
18 7 7.
All rights reserved.
ROBERT MACLEHOSE, PRINTER,
GLASGOW.
Xlcbiratefo,
TV KIND PERMISSION,
TO
THOMAS BIGG ART, ESQ.,
OF DALEY,
BY THE AUTHOR'S WIDOW,
WITH GRATEFUL APPRECIATION OF HIS
PPvACTICAL PROOF OF AFFECTION FOR HER HUSBAND'S MEMORY,
AND DEVOTION TO THE INTEP.ESTS OF THE
UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH,
IN THE PURCHASE OF HER HUSBAND'S LIBRARY
FOR THE THEOLOGICAL HALL.
PEE FACE.
The Lectures on First and Second Thessalonians here pub-
lished were designed by their lamented author for the press ;
and they will be found to display in full measure his eminent
qualities as an expositor. There is the same extensive and
minute scholarship ; the same originality of research and
independence of judgment ; the same penetration and saga-
city in tracing the course of argument ; and the same un-
failing sympathy with the deepest thoughts and lessons of
inspiration. Independently of his own understood purpose,
these rare excellencies would have required the issue of what
is likely to be his final contribution to exegetical literature.
Nor is it without interest that a career of exposition, devoted
to so many of Paul's epistles, returns upon itself to end with
the first that bear his name.
The author's manuscript, which presents every mark of
being complete, has been most carefully transcribed ; and the
(piotations and references have been verified. Special thanks
are due to the Rev. William Young, M.A., of Parkhead Church,
Glasgow, who has kindly discharged the duties of editorship,
ami striven in every way to carry the work through the press,
in as accurate a state as possible; and cordial acknowledgments
viii PREFACE.
are also made to the Rev. Professor Dickson, of the University
of Glasgow, who has subjected the proof sheets to a final
revision.
It is not doubted that this commentary will be welcomed by
all lovers of sacred learning, and will tend to foster that exact
study of the original Scriptures, the impulse given to which is
perhaps the greatest of its author's many services to the church
of Christ.
JOHN CAIRNS.
NOTE BY THE EDITOR.
While it is certain that Dr. Eadie regarded the following work
as ready for the press, it is much to be regretted that he did
not live to give it those final touches which would have
rendered it still more perfect and complete. It will be
observed that there is no separate Introduction to the Second
Epistle, though this will be found to some extent provided for
in the Introduction to the First. In the manuscript, too, there
are some indications that Dr. Eadie contemplated adding other
two Essays to that on the " Man of Sin," — one on the " Re-
surrection," and the other on the " Second Advent." With
these exceptions, and that noted on page 9(3, the manuscript
seems in every respect complete, and carefully arranged for
publication. It is hoped that the work, though a posthumous
one, will be found to have been well worth publishing; and
that the state in which it is issued from the press will not do
dishonour to so great and so dear a name.
i) LIoslba Drive,
(Jctoln r, tSi i .
INTEODUCTION.
I. — The City of Thessalonica.
Thessalonica (Qe&a-aXoviKrj) was formerly called Therm a
(Qep/uij or Qepfxa), and the gulf on which it stood was named
Thermaicus Sinus, on account of the hot salt springs which
abounded in the vicinity. Two earlier legendary names have
been handed down, Emathia and Halia, x The origin of
the present name has been variously accounted for. According
to Strabo, 2 Therma was rebuilt by Cassander, who added to
it the population of three small towns near it, and called it
Thessalonica, after his wife, a daughter of Philip. Stephen
of Byzantium records, that Philip himself bestowed the new
appellation in honour of a victory gained by him over the
Thessalonians; 3 while in the Etymologicum Magnum* it is said
that Philip gave the name in honour of his daughter whose
mother had died in childbirth. Xerxes, according to Hero-
dotus, paused at Therma, while his fleet cruised in the gulf,
and his army lay at a short distance ; and the town is men-
tioned by this early name twice at least in Greek history. 5
But the more ancient names have long passed out of view,
1 Zonaras Hist, xii, 26 ; Steph. Byz., sub voce.
2 Strabo, viii, p. 330.
3 GfTTdXoi/S viKi'icra.9.
4 to iraiSiov 'idwKs. Ni/qj Tpltyziv khI ikoXmti Q£crcra\oviKi)v, ii yaf) h>'iti)i> too
ttulOiov Nt^acriTToXis E(CSkA.tjto.
5 Herodotus, vii, 128 ; Thucydides, i, 61 ; yEschines de Falsa Leg.
A
2 INTRODUCTION.
while Thessalonica still survives in the corrupt forms ZaAow/07,
Saloniki. The city came first into eminence during the Mace-
donian period ; and the new name, from whatever cause, may
have been imposed by Philip, his own name being found in the
neighbouring Philippi.
Thessalonica, rebuilt about B.C. 315, is first mentioned
by Polybius and Livy as a great naval station. 1 When
Macedonia was divided into four parts under Paulus
iEmilius by the edicts of Amphipolis, it was made the
capital of the second, or that part which lay between
the Axius and the Strymon ; and when, eighteen years
afterwards, those four divisions were formed into one province,
it became in course of time the metropolis. 2 At the period of
the first Roman civil war it was occupied by the party of
Pompey (Dion Cass., xli., 20), but during the second it sided
with Antony and Octavius, and was on that account made
an urbs libera (Appian, B.C., iv, 118). As a seaport on the
inner bend or basin of the Thermaic Gulf, 3 and about half-
way between the Hellespont and the Adriatic, Thessalonica
grew into great importance. It shared largely in the commerce
of the iEgean and the Levant, and in the inland traffic of the
countiy, for behind it lay the great pass that led away to the
Macedonian uplands, and it was closely connected with the
large plain watered by the Axius. It was filled, according to
Strabo, with a greater population than any other town in the
region. Lucian makes a similar statement. 4 Theodoret also
styles it 7ro\vav6pocnro$. 5 Thessalonica has passed through many
vicissitudes, but it is still the second city in European Turkey.
With its history after apostolic times we have no immediate
concern. It may, however, be noted that in the third century
it was made a Roman colony, and it was the great bulwark of
the empire during the Gothic inroads and the six Sclavonian
wars. Theodosius executed by barbarian troops a terrible
1 Polyb., xxxiii, 4, 4 ; Livy, xxxix, 27, xliv, 10.
2 Strabo, who calls it Qto-a-aXovLKtia, says of it, v vvv fxtckirrTa t&v a\\wv
tuavopii (vii, 7, 4).
3 Medio flexu litoris (Thermaici Sinus). Pliny, iv, 10. Strabo speaks of an
isthmus sis toi/ QepfjLctiov oinuwv /iu^oi/. Geog. viii, 1-3.
4 IIoAtujs tusv tv MaxtSovin -r~;s ntyi<jTi)<s Gt<Tcra\oviKiis. Asinus Aureus, 46.
5 Hist. Eccles., v, 17.
INTBODUCTION. 3
massacre of thousands of its citizens as a punishment for the
assassination of one of his genei^als ; and for this atrocity he
was obliged to do public penance at Milan under Ambrose,
who, with a sublime and faithful audacity, refused the master
of the world admission into the great Church ; and only after
eight months suspension, and a full confession in presence of
the congregation, was he readmitted into church-fellowship on
Christmas, 390 A.D. Thessalonica was three times taken — by
the Saracens in 904, by Tancred and the Normans in 1185, and
by the Turks under Amurath II, in 1430. Numerous and im-
posing monuments of its earlier greatness are still to be found
in it. The old Roman road forms at the present day the main
thoroughfare, and two of its arches may yet be seen. Frag-
ments of columns abound, the sculptures and inscriptions of
many of which indicate their varying ages, and the purposes
of their original erection. The reader will find information on
all points in Tafel (Histor. Thessalon.).
II.— The Apostle's Visit and the Introduction
of the Gospel.
In the course of his second missionary journey the Apostle,
along with Silas, and probably Timothy also, crossed over to
Europe. " Loosing from Troas," touching at Samothrace, land-
ing at Neapolis, he passed up to Philippi, where, as he says in
this epistle, he had suffered and was shamefully entreated. In
a Roman colony the majesty of the law was violated in his
person; for, though he was a Roman citizen, he had been beaten
with the lictor's rods — a punishment forbidden by the Porcian
and Valerian statutes ; and though he had not been convicted
or even tried, the flagellation had been public, which was held
to be an aggravation of the offence, and he had been also cast
into prison. The terrified duumvirs, knowing at length what
a crime they had committed, and what terrible vengeance
would be inflicted on them, besought Paul and Silas to depart
that the matter might be hushed up as speedily as possible.
The apostle and his colleague having taken farewell of Lydia,
at once left Philippi, as it presented no immediate prospect of
usefulness. He travelled south and west, alone; the Egnatian
4 INTRODUCTION.
road, thirty-three miles to Amphipolis, on the Strymonic gulf,
but did not stay there, advanced thirty miles farther to
Apollonia, and did not halt there either, but journeyed onwards
other thirty-seven miles, and arrived at Thessalonica. This
Macedonian capital had special attractions for him, as it had a
large heathen and Jewish population, and could become a centre
of missionary operations, as it was the chief station on the
Egnatian road which connected Rome with the regions to the
north of the iEorean. Cicero, who, when an exile, had found
refuge in it, and had often tarried in it on his way to and from
his Cilician province, describes it as po&ita in gremio Romawi
imperii. The Jews in it and its neighbourhood were so
numerous as to have a synagogue ; for the correct reading of
Acts is, " where was the synagogue of the Jews" (Acts xvii, 1).
Fully a third of the population is supposed to be Jewish at the
present moment; the Jewish quarter being in the south-eastern
section of the town. Allusions to the Thessalonian Jews as
being numerous, and as forming an important section of the
people, occur in several authors.
True to his heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel, the
apostle commenced to labour in the synagogue. Though his
special function was the apostolate for the Gentiles, he never
forgot his own people, but, as his manner was, " went in unto
them," and for three consecutive Sabbath days "preached to
them." He and they had common ground "when he reasoned
with them out of the Scriptures," the divine authority of which
they acknowledged equally with himself. His reasonings were
of course based on the Old Testament and had for their theme
its central doctrine — the Messiah to come. His argument took
two shapes — he "was opening," that is, he unfolded their sense,
and "alleging," that is, he propounded or advanced the truth
which the exposition had disclosed. The question at issue was
— what is the idea of the Messiah as portrayed in the Old
Testament, and has it been realized ? Show from the law and
the prophets what He was to be and then tell what Jesus was,
depict what He was to do and then picture what Jesus did, and
thus it could be proved how minutely the living poison cor-
responded to the prophetic ideal. Now there was one point of
transcendent moment in their national prophecies which the
INTRODUCTION. 5
Jewish people sadly misconceived — the suffering and death of
the promised Messiah. The cross was a stumbling-block to
them. They could not imagine that one who had been publicly
executed could be the Messiah. So foreign was such a possi-
bility to all their imaginations and hopes that they could not
entertain it ; and so certain were they that they were right, that
they refused to examine it. The bare statement was to them
its own refutation. The inspired preacher therefore took the
right course and showed them that the promised Messiah
was depicted specially and characteristically as a suffering
Messiah — "opening and alleging that Christ must needs have
suffered and risen again from the dead." So that if any one
professing to be the Christ did not encounter agony and death,
he must be an impostor ; for only one who had died and risen
again fits into prophetic fore-announcement and has a right to
be regarded as Israel's hope and God's anointed servant. The
burden of the apostle's teaching therefore was that in order to
fulfil the Scriptures, the Christ must needs have suffered and
have risen again from the dead ; it being a plain consequence
that one who had met with no suffering and hostility, but had
been caressed on his triumphal car as he rode from victory to
victory, could not be the Christ, for he did not embody in him-
self these old inspired predictions. The Christ promised was
not only to teach many things but to endure many things, was
to die while he conquered and rise from his tomb to universal
empire. A grave lay between Him and His throne ; for His
kingdom was to be won by His blood. In short, the leading
distinction of the Messiah to come was suffering and death.
The first gospel in Eden dimly alluded to it. The typical dis-
pensation had long foreshadowed it in the blood of its victims ;
the paschal lamb had pointed to the Lamb of God which
taketh away the sin of the world — " Even Christ our passover
sacrificed for us." Isaiah had described it with graphic minute-
ness; and in such a light the apostle accepted the fifty-third
chapter of his oracles — " He was wounded for our transgres-
sions and bruised for our iniquities" — "The Lord laid on Him
the iniquity of us all "— " He is brought as a lamb to the
slaughter " — " Cut off out of the land of the living " — " For the
transgressions of my people was he stricken " — " It pleased the
6 INTRODUCTION.
Lord to bruise Him" — "His soul was made an offering for sin" —
" He hath poured out His soul unto death " — " He bare the sin
of many." The Psalmist had pictured Him as the great obla-
tion for man in man's nature — "a body hast Thou prepared Me."
Daniel had portrayed Messiah the Prince, not as clothed iu
purple, but as one who " shall be cut off." The prophetic de-
lineations of His concpiest and kingdom presuppose his resur-
rection — " He rose again the third day according to the scrip-
tures." His reward was a "portion with the great and the
dividing of the spoil with the strong." The second psalm de-
picts a conspiracy of the heathen and the people, Gentile and
Jew, kings and princes, Herod and Pontius Pilate, against Jesus
at His condemnation and death ; and yet his enemies are over-
thrown, and He is installed as King upon God's holy Hill of
Zion. In being put to a death of shame and agony He
"abolished death," and the words were heard, "The Lord said
unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine
enemies thy footstool." By such a chain of passages could the
apostle out of the Scriptures open and allege that the Messiah
to come was signally fore-pictured as a Messiah to suffer and
die and rise again from the dead. An unsuffering Christ such
as the nation dreamed of — warlike as David and glorious as
Solomon — could not be the promised Christ, for He wanted one
grand and prominent feature of similitude. Having shown that
the Messiah delineated in the Old Testament was to be noted
and known for His sufferings, the apostle then argued, " that
this one is the Christ — Jesus whom I preach unto you," or " that
Jesus whom I preach unto you is this Christ." This Jesus having
suffered and risen again has fulfilled the necessary conditions of
prophecy. The life and career of Jesus are in perfect harmony
with those prophecies which went before concerning Him.
The circumstances of that death had been foretold, and they
were quite peculiar. It was not to be the national mode of
execution by stoning, but by crucifixion — hanging on a tree, a
mode unauthorized by the law of Moses ; for suspension from a
stake was only a posthumous degradation inflicted on some
criminals who had been already stoned to death. It was to be
preceded by treachery and an illegal condemnation — suborned
witnesses not even agreeing in their testimony. Despised and
INTRODUCTION. 7
rejected was He to be — "Not this man but Barabbas." Prepara-
tory to His execution He was to be stripped of His clothes
— "They part my raiment among them and cast lots upon my ves-
ture," and so it was, as the evangelist tells us. He was to die and
yet "not a bone of Him to be broken;" to be numbered with
transgressors and yet to lie in a rich man's tomb. Not only was
He to suffer openly at the hands of men, but there was to be an
inner mysterious element in His agony — " He hath put Him to
grief" — and so His mysterious complaint on the Cross was,
" My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ?" The conclu-
sion to which the apostle in this way strove to bring them was
that this Jesus is the Christ, surrounded by so great a cloud of
witnesses; for His sufferings, in their character and purpose, in
themselves and their adjuncts, were in close harmony with old
prediction ; the law and the prophets fulfilled in the agony of
His Cross and humiliation of His sepulchre: the record of
His last hours being simply prophecy read as history — Matthew
relating what David had sung, and the difference between
Isaiah and Luke being that between poetry and prose, between
the portrait and the original. The nature and purpose of that
death must have been also illustrated, as at Corinth (1 Cor.
xv, 3). Thus, in the first epistle, it is assumed that they knew
that He had died and gone down to the tomb, and thus
delivered them from the wrath to come (1-10). The creed of
believers, as he writes to the Thessalonians, is, " We believe
that Jesus died and rose again." This death was not only an
expiation, but a conquest of death and the obtainment of
eternal life — " Them which sleep in Jesus will God bring with
Him" — " Who died for us that, whether we wake or sleep, we
should live together with Him" (ver. 10). These doctrines imply,
of course, some statement of the nature of that sin and bondage
from which the Christ came to free His people, and of that free
forgiveness bestowed through faith on all believers.
As may be learned from the political charge brought against
the apostle, he had also preached in Thessalonica the kingly
power and prerogative of the Risen One — " another king, one
Jesus" — that He has sole and supreme authority over men;
that His laws are to be obeyed at all hazards ; that loyalty to
Him is to be in uniform ascendency; and that His claims on
8 INTRODUCTION.
our suit and service are before those of every other master
whatever be his human rank or position. For those who are
ransomed by His blood consecrate to Him their lives. To Him
all power is given in heaven and in earth, to Him who is Lord
of all, crowned with glory and honour. To Him every knee
shall bow, and every tongue confess. His church is His king-
dom, and He is its one Sovereign Head. His people are " called
to His kingdom and glory" as their blessed and ultimate
inheritance.
When we pass from the brief records in the Acts to the
Epistles, we may infer from many expressions in those epistles
that another doctrine, which occupied some prominence in his
preaching, was the second Advent.
The Thessalonians on being converted, not only as we are
told, turned from idols, but waited for " His Son from heaven."
On delivering a solemn charge connected with the Advent,
he adjures "by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." In
reference to some allied supplementary topics, he says, " Re-
member ye not that, while I was yet with you, I told you these
things." The second Advent was the grand epoch to which the
preacher ever pointed, and which he described as ever approach-
ing. They had been taught to wait for His Son, the Saviour
from heaven (1-10). They had been called to His kingdom
and glory (ii, 12). His converts were " His crown and joy in
the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at His coming" (ii, 19).
His prayer was and had been that they should be " perfect at
the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints" (iii, 13).
The connection of the dead believers with the second coming
had been misunderstood by some, implying that the apostle
had also touched upon it. " The Lord Himself shall descend
from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and
the trump of God." The period when the dead shall be raised,
the living changed, and the church completed in numbers and
in holiness, to be for ever with the Lord, yea, to live together
with Him, is the grand hope and the true soul of all felicity
(ver. 10). The suddenness of the second coming had also been
dwelt upon — " Yourselves know perfectly that the day of the
Lord cometh as a thief in the night;" and his final prayer is,
" that their spirit and soul and body may be preserved blame-
INTRODUCTION. 9
less unto the coining of our Lord Jesus Christ." The recurrence
of this thought so often in the first epistle, and the more full
development of it in the second, are but an echo of his preach-
ing on this momentous topic. Nay, so earnestly did he dwell
upon it, that its supposed nearness seems to have induced not
a few to forsake their ordinary habits of industry and threatened
to break up their social life. There is earnest warning against
the wrong impressions produced by his preaching on this point
in the first epistle, by unwarranted oral and written repetitions
of what was supposed to be his doctrine, as told in the second
epistle — " That ye be not soon shaken in mind or be troubled,
neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that
the day of Christ is at hand," or rather " is arrived."
Such, as may be gathered from Acts and from the two
epistles, were some of the doctrines preached by Paul at
Thessalonica, and they were all closely connected. The Messiah
predicted was to be a suffering Messiah, and such He was, but
His sufferings terminated in His decease, for He rose a^ain and
He ascended to the Throne, " because He became obedient unto
death." He reigns because He died, and from His throne He
comes again to gather all His subjects, waking or sleeping, to
Himself that they may live with Him for ever in blessed
fellowship.
It is also evident from the tenor of the epistle that the
apostle had very specially enjoined morality — abstinence from
such sexual impurities as must have been too common in a mari-
time and commercial city like Thessalonica — " Ye know what
commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus" (iv, 2).
"Abstain from every sort of evil." Brother-love had also
been inculcated by him — " As touching brotherly love ye
need not that I write unto you" (iv, 9). From whatever
cause, there was, owing to the Apostle's visit, a perceptible ten-
dency on the part of some, to leave honest industry and gad
about in listless indolence, and the Apostle had studiously
reprimanded it — "That ye study to be quiet, and to do your own
business, and to work with your own hands as we commanded
you." See Commentary under iv, 11, 12. More fully is this
injunction given in the second epistle, iii, 6-13, as in verse 10 —
" For even when we were with you, this we commanded you,
10 INTRODUCTION.
that if any would not work, neither should he eat." He had
also exhorted them to " walk worthy of God who had called
them."
And the style in which he had preached, and the general
tenor of his conduct are apparent also from the two epistles.
In the first half of the second chapter, the purity, simplicity,
fidelity, and power of his preaching, and his own earnest,
loving-, and unselfish nature are specially declared by him to
have been visible to all around him (ii, 10). Nay, he wrought
with his own hands, because he would not be chargeable
to them; and he was doing the same at Corinth, where he
composed these letters (ii, 9). He wrought night and day —
toiling by night, that he might have some leisure by day.
The handicraft which he practised was probably the weaving
of haircloth for tents. It is impossible for us to realize the
apostle as a tradesman, dressed in a humble garb, and handling
the implement of his calling, plying a shuttle or needle for
daily bread — undistinguished in appearance from the operatives
round about him, either at their work or at their meals. He
who preached the unsearchable riches of Christ holds out his
hands to accept the humble wages which his industry had
earned. He who felt that in his highest function it was a
small thing to be judged of man's judgment, must submit to
have his work inspected and approved before he is paid fur it.
The world's greatest benefactor, next to its Saviour, might be
found in a workshop — found there on deliberate purpose, a
mechanic at Thessalonica, an orator at Athens. It must have
been a very hard thing for him with so many interruptions to
earn a scanty livelihood. He confesses it ; but tells that his
friends in Philippi had not forgotten him, and he joyfully
records of them, " No church communicated with me concerning
giving and receiving, but ye only, for even in Thessalonica ye
sent once and again unto my necessity" (Phil, iv, 16). In fact,
his whole demeanour in Thessalonica is laid bare by himself
in earnest and continuous appeals to all who knew him. Thus:
" Ye know what manner of men we were among you, for your
sakes " (i, 5) ; " Yourselves, brethren, know our entrance in
unto you, that it was not in vain : for even after that we had
suffered before, and been shamefully entreated, as ye know, at
INTRODUCTION. 11
Philippi" (ii, 1, 2, 3); " Ye remember, brethren, our labour and
travail" (ii, 9); "Neither at any time used we nattering words,
as ye know, nor a cloke of covetousness" (ii, 5); "Ye know how
we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you "
(ii, 11); "Ye are witnesses . . . how holily and justly and un-
blameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe" (ii,10) ;
" We told you before that we should suffer tribulation " (iii, 4) ;
"As ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and please
God" (iv, 1) ; "Ye know what commandments we gave you by
the Lord Jesus" (iv, 2) ; "To work with your hands as we com-
manded you" (iv, 11); "Yourselves know how ye ought to
follow us : for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you "
(2 Thess. iii, 7). If he wrought with his hands for six days,
what an outflow of feeling on the seventh as he reasoned out of
the Scriptures — opened and alleged, or spoke of the life of
Christ within him, or the constraining love that lay upon him.
His nature with all its softness and sympathies poured itself out
at Thessalonica. He describes himself exhorting as a father, and
he was gentle among them as a mother nursing her own child ;
nay, he adds in the fulness of his heart, being " affectionately
desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted unto you,
not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye
became dear unto us." Yet while this affectionate fervour char-
acterized the apostle, and all this yearning for the spiritual
good of his converts filled his bosom, he was maintaining a
heavy conflict. He had come from Philippi, where he had
been scourged ; and though he had borne it patiently, he must
have felt it to be an unspeakable ignominy. The treatment
was scandalous : irpoiraQovTes kui vftpio-Qevres (ii, 2). But his
courage did not desert him, he was bold to speak the
gospel iv 7toX\m aycovi—in allusion to the dangers by which
he was still surrounded. He refers to the Jews and their
fanatical opposition to Christ and His followers. He must
have foreseen the ominous gathering of the clouds which pre-
ceded the outbreak. Yet his heart never failed him, nor was
his spirit soured by ingratitude and hostility. Though he had
come to Thessalonica after persecution and subjection to
personal outrage, he remained in it at his work though
danger was thickening around him, and though he left the
12 I NTEODUCTION .
city when the storm burst, yet on his arrival at Beroea, he
lost no time in beginning his work, but went at once into the
synagogue of the Jews. But his Jewish antagonists from
Thessalonica, disappointed of their prey, followed him, and as
their exasperation appears to have deepened into ferocity, he
was obliged to depart, his journey leading him to Athens
by sea.
The results of the apostle's preaching in Thessalonica were
varied. Not a few were converted, and the unbelieving Jews
were enraged. The historian says, "some of the Jews," that is
only a small number, "believed and consorted with Paul and
Silas," or rather were allotted or granted by divine favour to Paul
and Silas — for such is the meaning of the verb it poo-eic\r}pu>Qri<jav
(Winer, Harless, Meyer) ; " of the devout Greeks, a great multi-
tude" — that is to say, of persons who were proselytes — persons
who had forsaken polytheistic heathenism, and attached them-
selves to monotheistic Judaism. The insufficiently attested
reading /ecu 'Yj\\i)vwv would distinguish two parties — pro-
selytes and heathen Greeks. "And of the chief women" —
apparently also proselytes — " not a few "• — ladies of high social
rank, who from their position as proselytes, or anxious in-
quirers, were neither clouded with pagan darkness nor fettered
with Jewish prejudices. This was the fruit of three Sab-
baths' labours in the synagogue among Jews and proselytes of
both sexes. But the apostle speaks of the Thessalonian church
generally as turning " from idols to serve the living and true
God" — an assertion which could be made of neither of the
parties referred to. It is remarkable that in neither of the
epistles does he quote the Scriptures of the Old Testament.
The main purpose of the historian in the Acts is simply to
record the offer of the gospel to the Jews, and how many of
them rejected it and persecuted the preacher. He is silent as
to any work of the apostle among the Gentile population,
which, however, as appears from the epistle, was successful to
a very great extent. In fact, the majority of the Thessalonian
church appear to have been converted heathens. The apostle
may either have laboured among them on other days than
the Sabbath, when he went to the synagogue ; or he may have
for a brief period continued in the city and preached, after the
INTKODUCTION. 13
synagogue had been shut to him. Still his residence at
Thessalonica cannot be well extended beyond six or eight
weeks, and such is the view of Wieseler. His evangelistic
labours were abruptly terminated. The unbelieving Jews,
jealous of the influence of those wonderful strangers, and
unable to cope with them in argument — afraid too that the
synagogue might be more and more deserted — associated them-
selves with " certain lewd fellows of the baser sort." These
lewd fellows are called ayopatoi or market or Forum-loungers —
a profligate rabble found in these Greek towns, and having a
defined and well-known character, called dregs and mire by one
old author, lying and perjured by another, like the lazzaroni
of Naples to whom they have been compared. With these
strange allies forward to any mischief, the Jews raised a mob,
and set all the city on an uproar; assaulted the house of Jason,
with whom the apostle lived, and who may have been a
kinsman (Rom. xvi, 21), or may have wrought at the same
occupation. The purpose of the assault was to bring Paul and
Silas out to the people — eh tov Stj/mov, the people in its corporate
capacity — Thessalonica being a free city, with rulers who in
the Forum tried causes in the presence of the people. Dis-
appointed in not finding Paul and Silas, and resolved to
accomplish their purpose in another way, they dragged Jason
and certain brethren, who probably were at the moment in his
house, before the rulers — e-rrl tou? iroXirupx^- These rulers are
called crrpaTriyo'i at Philippi, it being a Roman colony; but here,
in an urbs libera they were called ' politarchs;' and the title is
still seen graven on one of the arches of the city along with
the names of seven who held the office — three of them having
the same names as those of Paul's Macedonian companions,
Sopater, Gaius, Secundus. The charge laid against them was
that " the men who have turned the world upside down have
come hither also," with the same purpose of revolution — that, in
short, they were rebels guilty of treason, having broken the
Julian laws, disowning the authority of the Emperor, and
setting up another king, one Jesus. No doubt this was a
misconception of the apostle's doctrine, perhaps a wilful
perversion of it: for we cannot acquiesce in Davidson's supposi-
tion, that the apostle preached a doctrine " which involved
14 INTRODUCTION.
sensuous ideas respecting the nature of Christ's kingdom, which
was to be in some sort an earthly one." 1 A clear distinct
accusation of this nature could not have been treated with
such lenience, nor is there an} r utterance of the apostle which
can justify such an insinuation.
But the mob cared nothing about a religious question, and
could not have been bribed to raise any disturbance about a
Jewish dogma. A political accusation was therefore forged.
The Jews, regarding their Messiah as a temporal sovereign,
transferred their conceptions to the Christian doctrine of
Christ's spiritual kingship, and charged the apostle with so
holding and proclaiming it. Under a similar charge was He
prosecuted Himself; the tablet on His cross bore the indict-
ment, " Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews." On hearing such
a charge involving such consequences, the people and the
politarchs were alarmed — the Jews having been at that time
banished from Rome by the Emperor Claudius as political
disturbers ; 2 and not entering into any judicial examination in
the meantime, they took security of Jason and the others, and
let them go. The licavov or bail taken from Jason could
scarcely be that the apostle should appear; for he was sent
away from the city that very night, and the money pledged in
that case would be forfeited, for faith had not been kept. The
pledge may have been, not that Jason should refuse Paul and
Silas admission into his house, but that they should at once
leave the city — Jason and his party being held bound for the
preservation of the peace. Fines may have been exacted
afterwards, for the Thessalonians had suffered like the churches
in Judrea — and one feature of that suffering was "the spoiling
of their goods." There was imminent danger of another and
fiercer outbreak, and all hope of safety and usefulness being-
extinguished, the brethren immediately on the evening of the
same day sent away Paul and Silas b}>" night into Bercea, a
town on the eastern slope of the Olympian range, and five miles
1 Davidson's Introduction, vol. I., p. 26, 1S68.
2 Suetonius. Judajos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit,
Tib. Claud., xxv. See Lauge on this. Wieseler and others identify this
expulsion with the decree De Mathemnticis Italia pellendis mentioned by
Tacitus, Annal. ii, 32.
INTRODUCTION. 15
south-west of Thessalonica. The apostles, however, had a
strong hope of returning after the popular fury had subsided.
The phrase "by night" in verse 10 implies a suspicion of
danger and ambush ; for Jewish hostility was sly as well as
vindictive, as wily in its methods as unscrupulous in its ends.
Thus ended the apostle's brief visit to Thessalonica, but it has
borne memorable fruit. The city in subsequent centuries was
greatly instrumental in converting savage hordes of Sclavonians
and Bulgarians; and, in times of warring heresies, it was called
the ' orthodox city.' The legends of Demetrius — a martyr of
the fourth century, and the patron saint of the city — have, how-
ever, superseded the fame of the apostle. The learned
Eustathius was archbishop in 1185; and Theodore Gaza, who
came to Italy after the fall of Constantinople, and contributed
to the revival of letters in western Europe, belonged to
Thessalonica.
III. — Genuineness of the Epistle.
The Church has been unanimous in holding the Pauline
authorship up till a very recent period, and the objections of
some German critics scarcely disturb the harmony. In the
patristic writings little use is made of this epistle, and the
reason is evident, for it is not distinctly doctrinal ; it does not
expose serious error ; it does not vindicate either the apostle's
office or defend the gospel which he proclaimed. It contains,
save on one point, none of those profound arguments which are
to be met with in the other epistles. It is a quiet and earnest
letter written to encourage a people recently converted by the
apostle, and exposed to such trial and persecution as might
endanger their firmness and constancy. There is, therefore,
little in it that could serve any of the polemical or practical
ends which the early church writers had in view. The
allusions in the Apostolic Fathers are few and faint. Some of
the words and phrases, however, sound like an echo of several
clauses in this epistle — though Lardner and Kirchhofer lay too
much stress on them. Thus, in the Epistle of the Roman
Clement to the Corinthians, " We ought in all things to
give thanks unto Him," compared Avith 1 Thess. v, 18,
16 INTRODUCTION.
there being some resemblance ; but the second quotation
usually given is quite indistinct, " let our whole body,
therefore, be saved in Christ Jesus," compared with 1
Thess. v, 23. The quotations from the so-called Ignatian
Epistles are as unsatisfactory. " Devote yourselves to un-
ceasing prayers " — " Pray also for other men without ceasing,"
compared with 1 Thess. v, 17 ; but the distinctive epithet
aSiaXeliTTog — o>? is wanting in the Syriac version of these
epistles. The language of Polycarp is more decided as a
reminiscence from this epistle — " making intercessions without
ceasing for all," compared with v, 17 ; " abstaining from all
iniquity," compared with v, 22.
But the allusions in succeeding writers are definite and con-
clusive. Irenaeus prefaces the quotation of v, 23, " and for
this reason, the apostle explaining himself, has set forth the
perfect and spiritual man of salvation, speaking thus in the
First Epistle to the Thessalonians." Tertullian quotes i, 9-10
with the remark, " haec tempora cum Thessalonicensibus disce; u
and, in quoting v, 1-2, says, " on that account the majesty of the
Holy Spirit . . . suggests de temporibus autem et tem-
porum spatiis, fratres, non est necessitas scribendi vobis, ipsi
enim certissime scitis, quod dies Domini quasi fur nocte ita
adveniet, quum dicent Pax, et tuta sunt omnia ; tunc illis
repentinus insistet interitus " (1 Thess. v, 1-3). Clement of
Alexandria writes, "This the blessed Paul plainly signified,
sa}ang," the citation being ii, 8. Such allusions occur often in
Origen, as when quoting ii, 14, "and Paul, in the First Epistle
to the Thessalonians, says these things." Similar allusions occur
in his treatise against Celsus. Eusebius placed the epistle
among the 6fj.oKoyoviJ.eva. It is found in the Syriac Peshito
version, in the old Latin version, and is named in the Mura-
torian fragment ad Thessalonicenses sexta. It was admitted
into Marcion's canon as the fifth of the ten Pauline Epistles.
Against the genuineness of the epistle, Baur and Schrader
threw out suspicions in 1835-3G. Baur's first attack was
in his Die Pastoral-briefe ; but in his Paulus, 1845, he
has formally argued the point, and ten years after he gave
additional reasons in the Theolog. Jahrb., p. ii, 1855. His
theory, however, has met nothing but opposition, even
INTRODUCTION. 1 7
Hilgenfeld deserts him in defence of this epistle. Baur has
been replied to by Koch, Grimm, Lange, Bleek, Reuss,
Liinemann, Hofmann. It is needless to reply to an argu-
ment which has made no converts, and which Jowett and
Davidson have so successfully exposed. A few sentences
may suffice.
Baur's first objection, that the epistle is unimportant and
devoid of doctrinal discussion, is easily mot by affirming
that the apostle did not discuss doctrines, save when they
were challenged or misunderstood ; and that, even in this
epistle, there is one doctrine which occupies a prominent
place, because the state of the Thessalonian Church required
a full statement of it. The contents of the apostle's letters
were suggested and moulded by the circumstances of the
churches which he addressed, for they were not abstract
or didactic treatises, but living communications made with
immediate reference to wants, trials, errors, dangers, or in-
quiries, in the churches to which he writes. Though the
apostle wrote for all times, he always wrote to meet some
present exigency. Profound dogma, chains of lofty reasoning
and illustrations of first principles, are not found in this epistle,
for they were uncalled for ; but it is full of those encouragements
to the believers which they needed, since, as they were recent
converts, their courage was sorely tried. It abounds also in
practical counsels for Christians living in a heathen society so
full of temptations; for it required no common caution, decision,
fortitude, and self-denial, to walk worthy of God who had called
them. Why should such an epistle be reckoned un-Pauline ?
It is surely Pauline wisdom and love to write to a church
founded by himself in terms suited to its histoiy and condition.
That his epistles vary as the state of the churches differed is
one great proof of his authorship ; and that this epistle falls, in
fulness and grandeur of material, behind those of the Romans,
Corinthians, and Galatians, is no proof whatever that it did not
come from his pen. Nor is the fact that the epistle contains
so many historical appeals and reminiscences any objection to
its Pauline authorship, since any one writing iu the apostle's
name might find such materials in the Acts of the Apostles.
The reply is, that in the epistles there are allusions not found in
18 INTRODUCTION.
Acts, sucli as Timothy's coming to the apostle at Athens (see
under iii, 2), and his labouring with his own hands for his
support. Nor would any forger venture to characterize the
Thessalonian Church as chiefly heathen, when the narrative in
Acts might lead us to infer that the members were principally
Jews and proselytes. The epistle, therefore, in its historical
element is no mere expansion of the narrative in Acts. The
apostle had recently been at Thessalonica, and the whole
circumstances of his sojourn being fresh in his remembrance, he
touches on several of them to show that they were cheering
memories, and to assure them of the affectionate interest which
he had still in them — ever in the hope not only that this
relationship would not be disturbed, but also that their earlier
spirituality and fruitfulness, their joy and patience — all the
blessed results of their conversion, might remain with them.
He appeals to their own knowledge of what they had been in
heart and life when he was among them ; and this is no aimless
thing, for it is a virtual charge not to let their first impressions
fade, but to continue steadfast, and to preserve what the
prophet calls " the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine
espousals" (Jer. ii, 2). Baur objects, too, that Paul, in
chap, ii, holds up Jewish believers as a pattern, which he never
elsewhere does. But the reader may compare Gal. i, 22-24.
Nor is the reference to the Jews (ii, 14-16) so decidedly out
of the apostle's style and manner as to wrest the authorship of
the epistle from him. The apostle does certainly stigmatize
the Jews with uncommon severity; but he is as unsparing
against the Judaists in passages where Baur at once recog-
nizes his hand. The description of the Jews is true, as the
apostle had already felt at the Pisidian Antioch, at Iconium,
at Lystra, Thessalonica, and Bercea. The apostle saw his own
people ripening for judgment, and predicted it. In the clause
" wrath has come upon them," opy/j does not, as Jowett
supposes, mean judicial blindness, but divine punishment ; and
the declaration is no narrative of a past event. See on the
places. In the Epistle to the Romans they are viewed under
another aspect, that of pride and unbelief, and there is expressed
a strong desire for their salvation. Another phrase at which
Baur stumbles, "to speak to the Gentiles that they might be
INTRODUCTION. "1 Q
saved," has virtual parallels in Acts xiv, 1 ; xvi, 6-32 ; xviii,
8-9 ; 2 Cor. xi, 7.
The language employed to describe the Thessalonian Church,
according to Baur, presupposes a longer time to have elapsed
since its formation than the history warrants. How could
they so soon be patterns to believers in Macedonia and Achaia,
the report of their conversion being carried everywhere ? How
could the apostle say, after so short an interval, that he longed
to visit them, &c. ? We will not reply that the difficulty is
lessened by assuming that the Second Epistle is really the
First, and that thus we may elongate the interval. But
there is nothing very startling in the language i, 7, 8, as
Thessalonica was a great centre of maritime and commercial
enterprise. Strangers visiting it from all parts of the country,
would, on their return, spread the report of that great novelty
which had taken place in the city, the wondrous revolution in
belief and character which so many citizens had undergone at
the bidding of two Hebrew strangers. Some six months might
suffice for this circulation of news. The apostle longed to see
them, for he had been forced to leave them abruptly, when the
Christian community had not been fully consolidated. Baur
wonders at members of the church becoming restless and
indolent at so early a period ; but the very earliness of the
period makes it all the more likely as the result of a mighty
change of creed and opinion, which seems to have bewildered
them ; not having had any long period of instruction, they had
misunderstood the doctrine of the Second Advent. The para-
graph on the relation to the Second Advent of those who died
before it, on the resurrection of the dead, the change of the
living, and the rapture of the saints, is surely not un-Pauline as
Baur contends, but is in harmony with 1 Cor. xv, 52. Nor
does the anxiety to which the apostle responds imply that a
first generation of believers must have fallen asleep. On the
other hand, though only one believer had died, or though none
had died at all, each had the certainty of coming death ; and it
was therefore a natural question among a people who had
enjoyed only a brief period of instruction, which on some
points could be only fragmentary and partial, and which, being
so foreign to all previous thoughts and associations, might not
20 INTRODUCTION.
be fully comprehended without repeated illustration and argu-
ment. Further, if there are passages in this epistle like some
in the other epistle, why should the resemblance be called
imitation ? and if a phrase without parallel occurs, why should
it be styled nn-Panline ? This hypercriticism of Baur is cpuite
unsatisfactory, as it may be thought to serve either point,
for or against any document. Unstudied resemblances are
usual proofs of unity of authorship, and diction without
parallel is usually regarded as a token of originality. More-
over, a forger writing after Paul's time would have called him
by his official title of Apostle — and how could such make the
dead apostle write, " we who are alive and remain unto the
coming of the Lord " ? Nor would any one, getting his only
materials from the Acts, have ventured to say that Timothy
was sent from Athens to Thessalonica, the statement of the
Acts being, that Timothy and Silas having been left behind at
Bercea, joined the apostle at Corinth. The two statements are
not in conflict, but a forger would not have placed them in
even apparent contradiction. See under iii, 1.
The reference to church officers 1 in v, 12 is objected to by
Schrader, because, according to 1 Tim. iii, G, no novices were to
be invested with office, whereas all ordained to pastoral work
in Thessalonica must have been in that category. There could
not, his conclnsion is, have been elders in that church when
this epistle is ordinarily supposed to have been written. The
objection may be met in various ways. It is not necessary to
apply a general injunction given by Paul toward the end of
his life, and when churches had been organized for years, to a
special case occurring at a time so much earlier. The injunc-
tion in the Epistle to Timothy may have been based on expe-
rience. It was given to a fellow-labourer connected with a
church long established, and where many matured believers
could easily be found. In Crete all must have been novices,
and no such counsel is given to Titus. The apostle did not
himself alwa}^s act on it (Acts xiv, 23). The neophyte in
general was one not trained, one as yet devoid of practical
adaptation to the work, on account of the recency of his
conversion. But in Thessalonica there had been decided and
1 Office-hearers. Davidson, page 440.
INTRODUCTION. 21
speedy spiritual advancement, nay, Jason may have been a
believer of a date prior to the apostle's arrival. If the apostle
set them apart himself, he must have had confidence in their
general character ; and if they were appointed after his depar-
ture, and before the writing of this letter, then the term novice
would scarcely apply to his first converts. A church could not
be permanently organized without an ordination of eldei's to
preserve the order essential to edification. And the elders are
named by no special title — as presbyters, overseers, or deacons
— but by the general appellation of presidents.
IV. — Time, Place, and Occasion of the Epistle.
After the abrupt departure of the apostle from Thessalonica,
he went to Bercea, and there leaving Silas and Timothy, he pro-
ceeded to Athens, his conductors being enjoined to send Timothy
and Silas to him with all speed. After a brief period, he arrived
at Corinth where he remained for a considerable time. Timothy
rejoined him at Athens, but Silas seems to have sojourned
some time longer at Bercea or elsewhere in the Macedonian pro-
vince, for the absence of Timothy left the apostle " alone " at
Athens. All the three were at Corinth when this epistle was
written, their names being in the opening salutation. After the
apostle had left Thessalonica, he yearned after his converts
— his stay with them being so brief, and their external condi-
tion, their exposure to outrage, being so trying. The apostle
made also two attempts to visit them in person ; Satan, how-
ever, prevented him as he writes to them. But at Athens he
could no longer forbear, and from that city, though he was to be
left in solitude — Silas, if there, going perhaps on some other
unrecorded mission — he despatched Timothy to visit the Thes-
salonians, to stablish and comfort them concerning their faith,
and to present such truths and hopes as should animate them
in the trying circumstances (iii, 1-5). Timothy accomplished
his mission and came back to the apostle, now at Corinth (Acts
xviii, 5), with a report which gladdened him (iii, 6) ; and the
reception of such a report was the immediate occasion of
the epistle. Some indeed, as Hug and Hemsen, suppose that
Timothy was sent by Paul from Beroea to visit the Thessalonians ;
22 INTKODUCTION.
but the supposition is distinctly opposed to the precise state-
ment in iii, 1, 2, which speaks only of the mission of Timothy
from Athens. This view is held by Theodoret, Hemming, Bul-
linger, and Aretius; and a modification of it is held by Calovius
and Bottger, viz., that the epistle was written at Athens during
a flying visit of the apostle, while his headquarters were at
Corinth. The epistle was written during the earlier period ol
the apostle's residence in Corinth, probably A.D. 52, perhaps 53,
so that it is the earliest of the extant Pauline epistles. Others,
however, contend for a later date, but on very insufficient
grounds. Wurm supposes a later visit to Athens, from the
notion that 1 Thess. iii, 1, 2, 6, is opposed to Acts xvii, 15; xviii,
5 : the argument being that, according to the epistle, Timothy
and Silas were with Paul at Athens, while, according to Acts,
they joined him at Corinth. But there is perfect harmony in
the statements. In ii, 18 the apostle limits the plural to
himself, and the following plurals must have a parallel limita-
tion. Kochler places the epistle in date near the fall of Jeru-
salem from a misunderstanding of ii, 16 ; and Winston assigns
it to A.D. 67, or a little before the apostle's death, because it is
seldom referred to in the "Apostolic Constitutions," and the
persecutions referred to in the second chapter were such as hap-
pened under Nero. See Benson's reply. Schrader dates it at the
period indicated in Acts xx, 2, but many allusions in the epistle
would be totally inapplicable to such an hypothesis. The argu-
ment of Schrader, Bottger, and others is that i, 8, implies
itinerant evangelistic labours on the part of the apostle in
regions beyond Macedonia and Achaia. But the real meaning
of the verse simply is, not that that missionary work had been
extended, but that the reports of the success of the gospel in
Thessalonica had travelled through the provinces and beyond
them. Other arguments against the common view are inci-
dentally referred to in our remarks on the genuineness of the
epistle.
Grotius, and after him Baur, Ewald, Benson, and Davidson,
invert the common order of the two epistles and assume
the shorter one as the earlier — Grotius regarding the Man
of Sin as the Emperor Caligula who attempted to have his
statue erected in the temple, and, supposing that air upxn? (-
INTRODUCTION. 23
Thess. ii, 13) refers to Jewish Christians who had come from
Palestine, Jason being one of them, holds that to this party
the epistle was written altero anno Cajani principatus. The
theory chronologically and otherwise is wholly baseless. The
arguments for a later date of the first epistle are taken from i, 8,
as to the report of their conversion being circulated everywhere ;
from the injunction to submit to their church presidents, v, 12;
and from their doubts about the connection of departed breth-
ren with the Second Advent. These arguments adduced by
Ewald and Davidson have been already referred to. It is
alleged, however, that the so-called first epistle is to some extent
a correction or fuller explanation of what had already been
written in the so-called second one. The doctrine of the Ad-
vent had been misunderstood, and it is cleared up in i Thess.
iv, 13. But the hypothesis is unnatural ; for the result of the
misapprehensions referred to might be indeed tremor, indolence,
and dissatisfaction with present things ; but there is nothing
that can suggest the second point which the apostle takes up
— the sorrow over the holy dead. Nothing is said in the so-
called second epistle which could have given rise to such anxiety
as the apostle describes and relieves.
Nor is there any real argument in the phrase — " The saluta-
tion of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every
epistle, so I write." For the words do not assert that in the
first epistle written by him he adopted a mark of authentica-
tion which was to characterize all his epistles ; but the refer-
ence is to epistles circulated in his name (2 Thess. ii, 2), and
his purpose is to guard against such fabrications. The allusion
to such forgeries does not prove that he had not written a first
epistle himself — it rather presupposes it, and that some one had
imitated it. Ewald's admission that the second epistle had
been preceded by an earlier one which is now lost is a needless
conjecture. It is quite forced to take 2 Thess. i, 4, or iii, 2, as
referring to what happened in Beroea — from which Ewald con-
jectures that he wrote the epistle.
In a word, the two epistles, regarded in the order usually
assigned them, naturally fit in to one another. The second
epistle is supplementary to the first, and the first sprang
naturallv out of the circumstances. It contains the fresh
24 INTRODUCTION.
memories of his sojourn in Thessalonica; appeals to their own
knowledge and experienee; exhorts them to be steadfast under
persecution, which, breaking out during his stay, had not yet
subsided; comforts them under bereavement; and enforces many
practical counsels. At the time of writing the second epistle
the circumstances were different. His doctrine had been mis-
understood as affirming the near approach of the Advent ; nay,
teaching had been given and letters published in his name
which he had not authorized. In 2 Thess. ii, 15, there is an
allusion to the previous letter. The exhortations to industry
in the first epistle are general: " We beseech you ;" but in the
second the charge is more precise : " We command you." The
germs of the evil may have been discerned by him during his
personal ministry among them, but the mischief had ripened,
and beinu - absent during its growth, he writes, " We hear that
there are among you some that walk disorderly." That evil
warned against in the first epistle, and borne with too, was no
longer to be tolerated ; they were to withdraw themselves from
the disorderh', and in no way to countenance them. In the
first epistle his whole counsels presuppose that they may be
accepted, but in the second he is afraid that direct disobedience
may be manifested (iii, 14). The ordinary opinion as to the
order of the two epistles has highest probability in its favour ;
the other may be plausible on some points, but rests on
assumption and conjecture.
V. — Contexts of the Epistle.
The contents of the epistle are simple, but full of interest.
The details of his preaching and mode of life are given honestly
and with the perfect assurance that the Thessalonians would
sanction all his statements, and that every appeal would at once
meet an affirmative response. The first part of the epistle is
chiefly historical in outline. He touches on his entrance to
them, and his success among them, their conversion, and its
wonderful results. Then he reminds them how pure, humble,
affectionate, and self-denying he had been among them as a
preacher of Christianity, and what persecutions in consequence
of their faith they had endured. He mentions also his own
INTRODUCTION. 25
anxiety about them, his yearnings after them, and his repeated
fruitless attempts to pay them a second visit. The mission of
Timothy in his room, and the good report with which he had
returned, increased his desire to see them, tilled him with
thankfulness for their steadfastness, and invited him to prayer
for them. Next he warns them against impurity — a promi-
nent sin of heathenism ; and exhorts them to brotherly kind-
ness and modesty. Now, he opens up the doctrine of the
Second Advent : the certainty of the resurrection of the dead
and its priority to the change which shall pass over the living,
the period, however, being uncertain, and therefore laying-
believers under solemn obligation to watchfulness and prepara-
tion. The epistle concludes with detached counsels on social
duties connected with ehurch membership, and with an earnest
prayer for them, and a desire to have an interest in their
prayers. It closes with the benediction.
\'i. — Works ox the Epistles.
The authors whose comments on the epistles are quoted or
referred to are principally the following : —
The Greek Fathers — Chrysostom, Theodore t, Joannes Dama-
seenus, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Theodore of Mopsuestia.
The Latin Writers — Jerome, Augustine. Pelagius, Ambrosi-
aster, Tertullian, Hilary, Primasius.
The Postills of Nicolas de Lyra belong to the fourteenth
century.
Coming down to the period of the Reformatio u, we have the
names of Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Beza, with those
of their followers, Hunnius, Camerarius, Hemming, Bullinger,
Hyperius, Zanchius, Victorinus, Marloratus, Bugenhagen.
Partly of the same period, and partly later, we have —
Among the Catholics — Estius, Vatablus, a-Lapide, Justiniani,
Harduin.
Among the Protestants of the Continent — Piscator, Cocceius,
Crocius, Aretius, Clericus, Fromond, Cajetan, Grotius, Wet-
stein, Tarnovius, Er. Schmidiiis, Calixtus, Calovius, Bengel,
Wolf, Schottgen, Van Til, Musculus, Vorstius, Jaspis, Heumann,
26 INTRODUCTION.
Baumgarten, Koppe, Bolten, Rosenmiiller, Michaelis, Balduin,
Storr, Bouman, Reiche.
The following are the names of English expositors — Jewell*
Cameron, Sclater, Hammond, Chandler, Whitby, Pierce, Ben-
son, Macknight, Doddridge, Barnes.
The following collectors of annotations may also be named —
Eisner, Kypke, Krebs, Loesner, Heinsius, Bos, Raphelius.
Knatchbull.
The following may be more specially noted —
Turretin (1739); Krause (1790); Tychsen (1823); Flatt
(1829); Pelt (1830); Hemsen (1830); Schrader (183G); Hug
(1817) ; Usteri (1833) ; Schott (1834) ; Bloomfield, New
Testament, vol. II, 4th ed. (1841); Olshausen (1844); de
Wette (1845); Baumgarten-Crusius (1848); Koch (1849); Peile
(1849); Conybeare and Howson (1850); Hilgenfeld (1852);
Jowett (1855); Ewald (1857); Bisping (1857); Wieseler (1859);
Wordsworth's New Testament, p. Ill (1859) ; Webster and
Wilkinson's JS r eiu Testament (1861); Hofmann (1862); Alford's
Neiv Testament, vol. Ill, 4th ed. (1865); Ellicott, 3rd ed. (1866);
Riggenbach, Langes Bibehverk (1867); Limemann (Meyer)
1867; Lilly (1867).
Note.
The Grammars referred to are those of — A. Buttmann,
P. Buttmann, Matthiae, Kuhner, Winer, Stuart, Green, Jelf,
Madvig, Scheuerlein, Kruger, Schmalfeld, Schirlitz, Donald-
son, Rost, Alt. In addition to these may be named Plartung's
Lehre von den Partikeln der griechischen Sprache, 2 vols.,
Erlangen, 1832; and Bernhardy's WissenschaftlicJce Syntax
der griechischen Sprache, Berlin, 1829.
The Lexicons referred to are those of — Hesychius, Suidas,
Suicer, Passow (Rost and Palm), Robinson, Pape, Wilke, Wahl,
Bretschneider, and Liddell and Scott.
COMMENTARY
FIRST THESSALONIANS.
20
FIRST THESSAXiONIANS.
CHAPTER T.
(Ter. 1.) IlauXo? ica) SiXouayo? kcu 'Yifj.u0eo? — " Paul, and Sil-
vanus, and Timotheus."
Silvanus, so named by the apostle here and elsewhere
(2 Thess. i, 1 ; 2 Cor. i, 19) ; and also by Peter (1 Pet. v, 12) ; is
called uniformly 2/Xa? Silas, in the Acts, as in xv, 22, 27, 34-,
40. He is first mentioned in connection with the church in
Jerusalem and the decrees of the convention, as " a chief man
among the nation" (xv, 22), and as being "a prophet" (xv, 32).
He became connected with Paul after he parted from Barnabas
at Antioch, and he left that city along with him on his second
missionary journey. Being the older man, of higher position as a
prophet, and as somewhat earlier associated with the apostle, he
is placed before Timothy, both by Luke and by Paul (Acts xvii,
14, 15; xviii, 5; 2 Thess. i, 1 ; 2 Cor. i, 19,. That Timothy
requested his name to be last, on account of his humility, is the
suggestion of Chrysostom. Silas was probably his original or
Aramaic name, and Silvanus its Hellenistic or Roman form.
The possession of a double name was common — one of them
sometimes Hellenic, or Roman, and sometimes only a con-
traction : Saul, Paul ; Apollos, Apollo ; Alexas, Alexander ;
Ktesis, Ktesias ; Nymphas, Nymphodorus. For Timothy, see
under Col. i, 1. These two names are naturally associated by
the writer of this epistle with his own, not in any way to
authenticate the letter (Piscator. Pelt\ or as if one of them had
30 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. I.
written it at the apostle's dictation (Olshausen), but because
they had laboured along with him in Thessalonica, and had
co-operated in the founding of the church. He does not
appropriate all the honours, as he had not monopolized the
labours. Neither in this, nor in the Second Epistle to the
Thessalonians, nor in that to the Philippians, does he name
himself "apostle," or "servant," probably because no one in
these churches had called his official prerogative in question.
He had been so recently among them that he needed not to
assume his distinctive title. This supposition is far more
natural than that of Chrysostom and his followers — viz., that
the official term is omitted because the Thessalonians had been
recently instructed (Siu to veoKarrix>')Tov<; etvai roug avSpas), and
had not yet had experience of him. As unlikely is the notion
of Cajetan and Pelt — in which Zwingli and Estius, so far asunder
in so many things— agree that he withheld his title from regard
to Silas we supra eum se extollere videretur (Estius). But he
specifies his apostleship in 1 Cor. i, 1, and in 2 Cor. i, 1, though
he names Sosthenes with himself in the first case and Timothy
in the second, as also in Col. i, 1. On this subject, and on the
various ways in which Paul names himself in the epistolary
addresses, see under Ephes. i, 1, and Philip, i, 1. The epistle
is addressed —
777 €KK\}]ar[a rwv QearcraXopiKecou, " to the church of the Thes-
salonians," — see Introduction. It may be noted that only in
this epistle and in the second addressed to the same church
does the apostle use this form of designation — the church of
the population; in other places he writes to the church in the
city, as 1 Cor. i, 2; 2 Cor. i, 1; Ephes. i, 1; Col. i, 2; Philip, i, 1;
Rom. i, 7, and somewhat differently in Gal. i, 2, Galatia being
a province. Compare the addresses prefixed to the letters to
the seven churches in the Apocalypse. Why the apostle so
varied, it is impossible to say. It could scarcely be that he
writes " of the Thessalonians " and not " in Thessalonica,"
because he had laboured only for a brief period among them,
and a church could scarcely be said to be planted among them
(Wordsworth). But that a church existed among them the
phrase certainly implies ; and a church of the Thessalonians
is surely a church in Thessalonica. In this early letter, the
Vkr. 1.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONLANS. .11
apostle had not settled down into the use of such introductory
formulae as afterwards characterized his style.
The €KK\t]<ria of the earlier epistles is changed in the later
ones of the Roman imprisonment into the epithet denotive of
character and consecration — to?? ayloi? — found in the address
to the communities in Ephesus, Colosse, and Philippi. In the
private letter to Philemon eKKXycria occurs, "the church in
the house." But there is no ground for Jowett's conjecture
that, as he does not here prefix his official title, probably
the term apostle was not allowed to him with the same special
meaning as to the twelve at Jerusalem, nor does his subse-
quent departure from the use of e/c/cX?/cr/a arise from the fact
that he more and more invested the church on earth with
the attributes of the church in heaven. Why then employ it
in one of his last epistles— that to Philemon ? That church
is described as —
ev Bew 7ra.Tp\ tcai Js^vpup Iqcrov Xp/cxTa> — "in God the Father
and the Lord Jesus Christ." The full meaning is not
belief in God (Vatablus), nor is it simply connection with
Him (Storr, Flatt, Pelt), nor is it existence through Him
(Grotius), nor subjection to Him (Macknight), nor does ei'
mean per Deum pcrductiis ad Jinem, but it is in union
with the Father and Christ as the root and ground of their
spiritual life and progress. It is not faith objectively which is
adduced to characterize them, but this inner fellowship with
Father and Son — " I in them and Thou in me — that they all
may be one in us." "Mark," says Chrysostom, " ev applied to
both Father and Son," as a common vinculum. The phrase is
a kind of tertiary predicate (Donaldson, §§ 489, 490) specifying
an additional element of spiritual condition. Chrysostom's
remark is not without some force that the phrase specially marks
out this €KK\t]<Tia — there being in the city ttoWol e/c/cX>/cr/at icai
'lovSal'icai kou 'EAA>/w/ca/. The first part of the clause "in
God the Father," according to De Wette and Limemann, distin-
guishes them from heathen, and the second " in our Lord Jesus
Christ" from Jewish assemblies. But the distinction cannot
be strictly maintained, for the phrase " in God the Father" is
in the apostle's view as truly and distinctively Christian as the
other " in our Lord Jesus Christ." Jowett robs the phrase of
32 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. T.
all true significance by generalizing it, as when be says "that
the actions, feelings, and words of men are in God and Christ,"
but that this "mode of expression is no longer in use among
us." But it is not men generally, it is only believing men,
whom the apostle describes as being in union with God and
Christ; and the phrase as conveying a truth of primary signi-
ficance and of conscious and blessed experience has not fallen
into desuetude. There is no need to fill up the construction by
supplying t\j, as Chrysostom ry ev 0ew, or with others 77} ooa-j]
(Winer, § 20, 2). As needless is the supplement proposed by
Schott, xaipeiv \iyova-iv, for the full apostolic benediction imme-
diately follows. Worse is the attempt of Koppe to unite the
phrase with the x a P'? KCil ^pwn of the next part of the verse —
X f ipis vfuv Koi elpijvii, " grace and peace." For the salutation see
Gal. i, 3 ; Eph. i, 2.
The concluding words, (Wo Qeov 7raTpos yftocv teal Kvp'ov 'lijarov
^LpiG-Tov, are believed not to be genuine. They have certainly
good authority as A D K L N, but they are omitted in B F, in
the Vulgate, and Syriac, and several of the Greek and Latin
fathers, as by Chrysostom in his commentary, and in the Latin
of Origen. The omission of the familiar words is striking and
not easily accounted for, if they are genuine. Bouman and
Reiche vindicate the genuineness very much on account of the
similar wording of the previous clause ; but possibly on that
very account the usual formula was supplied by copyists from
the other epistles.
(Ver. 2.) ^jv-^apL<TTOv p-ci 1 tw Oe(p iravroTe irepi iravTwv v/jlwv,
pvelav vfj.wv iroiovpLevoi e7n tmv irpocrevx^v fip.(£>v — ''We give
thanks to God always concerning you all, making mention
of you in our prayers."
The second vp.a>v has good authority, though ABN omit
it, for many MSS., versions, minusculi, and fathers are
in its favour. The vp.a>v before pvelav might induce the
omission of vp.wv after it ; similar variations occur in the
text of Ephes. i, 10. The apostle begins in a spirit of
devout thankfulness, so gladsome had been the good tidings
brought to him from Thessalonica. The causes of his
thankfulness he gradually unfolds : their election and the
proofs and fruits of it ; their hearty reception of the gospel, and
Vkr. 2.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 33
its signal success among them, so visible in its living power ;
their exemplary stability in the midst of persecution ; and the
profound impression made and diffused far and near by their
conversion. In praising God for them, there is praise conferred
upon themselves. As these manifestations dwell in his mind,
he gives thanks, the grounds of them being joj^ously enumerated
in sentences which, as Jowett says, "grow under his hand."
'EuxapivTov/u.ei' occurs, as in Col. i, 3 ; Philip, i, 3 ; Phile. 4,
and in the close parallels of Ephes. i, 10 ; 2 Tim. i, 3, and some-
what differently 2 Thess. i, 3; ii, 13; compare also Rev. i, 3.
It is not natural in such a context to narrow the plural verb to
the apostle himself, as is done by Pelt, Koch, and Jowett. The
plural does sometimes mean himself only, as in ii, 18, where
there is a corrective clause: probably this idea suggested the
singular TroiovpLeros in C 1 , and the faciens in the Claromontane
Latin. But the mention in the address of Silas and Timothy,
who had been recently and personally interested in the
Thessalonian Church, makes it very natural that they should
be included with the apostle in the thanksgiving and the state-
ment ; 2 Cor. i, 19, warrants it. If in the address in
Philippians, Philemon, and Corinthians, other persons besides
the apostle are mentioned, and yet he says evxapivTw, we may
infer that if after such names he says evxapiaroii/uei', they are
purposely included. The occurrence of the plural KapSias (ii, 4)
and i/ru^ay(ii, 8) corroborates our opinion. The Greek fathers do
not formally pronounce on the point, though they speak of the
apostle as giving thanks, he being the primary thanksgiver — a
natural mode of reference in their interpretation, which, how-
ever, may not exclude the others mentioned in the first verse.
YjvxapicrTeh' belonging specially to the later Greek (Lobeck
ad Phrynich, p. 18), occurs often in Polybius and after his
time ; but is also found in Demosthenes (Pro Corona, 257, p.
1(54, vol. I, Opera ed. Schaefer). The classic phrase was x ( 'tp 11 '
elSevai ; oovvai x ( 'tp iv ^ s t° g ia -tify> ar >d the. apostle has x'ip n ' *X W
in 1 Tim. i, 12; 2 Tim. i, 3; Phile. 4, according to one read-
ing. The object of thanksgiving is He to whom all thanks are
due for all spiritual change— for all spiritual grace. As the
other epistles show (Col. i, 3 ; 2 Thess. i, 3; 2 Tim. i, 3), by
tv»> Bew God the Father is referred to, since He is the living
< ■
34- COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. I.
and unwearied benefactor, "the Father of mercies and the God
of all comfort." After mentioning Father and Son as sources
of blessing in the opening benediction of his epistles, the apostle
often and immediately turns himself to the Father with a
special thanksgiving (2 Cor. i, 2-3 ; Ephes. i, 2-3 ; Col. i, 2-3).
In Rom. i, 7-8 ; 1 Cor. i, 4 ; Philip, i, 3 ; 2 Thess. i, 3 ; 2
Tim. i, 3, the Father is simply named Geo'?, as in this phrase ;
and in some of the verses where Father is not used, the apostle
adds the equivalent p.ov — " my God," indicating that tender and
confiding relation which the apostle instinctively felt in looking
up to God, " whose I am, and whom I serve."
The thanksgiving was offered " concerning you all." Instead
of 7rep}, vwep is found in similar phrases, as in Rom. i, 8 ; Ephes.
vi, 19 ; 1 Tim. ii, 1. See under Ephes. vi, 19, and Gal. i, 4. It
is difficult to point out any substantial difference of sense
between the two particles. See Ellicott on Philemon 7. To
give thanks "about you" is apparently a wider or more com-
prehensive phrase than to give thanks " for you," and it is here
so far emphatic from the position of iravroyv, " all of you," the
entire community, the fulness of the members deepening the
thanksgiving which was at the same time iravTOTe, " always,"
continuous thanksgiving, there being no intrusion of per-
plexities about them. This adverb is not, with Koppe, to be
diluted into iroWaKig, nor is the phrase to be explained away
as if it only meant non acta sed affectu. From its position
here the adverb is not connected with the verb, but is bound
up with the participle, as in Philip, i, 4, Col. i, 3, the first con-
nection being impossible, inasmuch as fxvelav -TroteirrOai Trepirivo?
is not a Pauline formula. The parallel participial clause,
fxvelav v/xav iroiovixevoi eir\ tosv irpocrevxcov tj/ulcov, " making men-
tion of you in our prayers," is not a limiting assertion as in the
alternative opinion of Jowett, and that of Baumgarten-Crusius,
and Bisping, as if in effect the meaning were, " We give thanks
so often as we make mention." But the sentence is modal, and
describes not when, but how, the thanksgiving was offered ; and
that was by bearing them on his heart, and up before God in
his earnest prayers (Rom. i, 9; Ephes. i, 16; Phile. 4). The
phrase fxvelav Tro'ieicrOai does not signify to remember (Jowett,
Koch, Ellicott), but to make mention of: "making mention of
Vbr. 3.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 35
you in our prayers we alwa}^ give thanks for you all." Such
mention was made eirl tcov irporrevx^v i)/ulwv, on occasion of my
prayers. 'EttI roov Senrvoov (Diodorus Sic, iv, 3). ForexJsee
under Ephes. i, 10.
(Ver. 3.) aSiaXeiTTTw? p.viip.ovevovTe<; — "without ceasing remem-
bering." Not a few connect the participle with the preceding
clause, as if it referred to ceaseless mention of them in his prayers
(Balduin, Benson, Bengel, Ewald, Hofmann, Alford). Alford
refers in proof to Rom. i, 9 ; but his admission that there the
order is slightly different destroys the validity of the reference.
That connection, too, would enfeeble the previous verse, by
throwing in a statement at the end of it which yet really
underlies it; but, taken with the present verse, it emphatically
resumes and carries on the thought. The continuous and un-
exceptional thanksgiving found its utterance in his prayers,
and was sustained in its fervour and continuity by unceasing
remembrance. The participle may not be properly causal, or,
as Ellicott says, " it may define the temporal concomitants,"
yet these temporal concomitants imply a reason ; for, as he
admits, the thanksgiving owed its persistence to the necessary
continuance of the pvi)pi]. The clause is thus an explanatory
aspect of the previous one, showing how natural this making
mention of them was ; for, as he had unfading memory of them,
he could not but make mention of them, so that his thanks-
giving for them was unbroken. The adverb is used only by
Paul, and in reference to religious exercise (ii, 13; v, 17;
Rom. i, 9). The participle is sometimes followed by an accu-
sative (Matt, xvi, 9 ; Madvig, § 58) ; and sometimes by on, and
other particles. It sometimes means commemorantes (Liine-
mann, after Beza and Cocceius) ; but here it signifies as in the
Vulgate memores. The following genitive implies this latter
sense, and, with the exception of Hebrews xi, 22, it is the
uniform signification of the verb in the New Testament, as
Gal. ii, 10 ; Col. iv, 18 ; Heb. xi, 13. Winer, § 30, 10 c.
v/jlwv tov epyov t>7? 7rl<TTe(i)?, koi tou kottou t>j<? ayu7r>/9, kul Ttj?
uiropov?^ Trj? eA.7r/cJo9 tou ~Kvpiov fjpcov 'L/crou Xpicrrov — "your
work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope." The
genitive vpwv is taken by some objectively, " remembering you,"
and eveica is supplied to the following genitives by GEcumenius,
3G COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. I.
Vatablus, Calvin, Zuingli, Hunnius, &c, but such a construction
is clumsy and unwarranted. Winer, § 22, 7, 1. For the geni-
tive pronoun, placed emphatically, is governed by all the
three following nouns — epyov, kowov, v7ro/ut.ovrj? — each of them
emphatic and in turn governing another genitive. For the
order, see v, 8 ; Col. i, 4.
"Work of faith" is a work springing out of faith (Koch,
Schott, Jowett), or, rather, belonging to faith, and therefore
characterizing it — your faith's work. It is not in contrast with
Ao'yo?, as if signifying reality, fidei Veritas; nor is it active, cures
thatigen Glaubens; epyov is not pleonastic (Koppe and Rosen-
rauller) ; nor can the phrase be twisted to mean " faith wrought
by God" (Calvin, Calovius, and Wolf); nor is it epexegetical,
your work — to wit, that you believe (Hofmann) ; nor can the
sense assigned by Chrysostom and his followers be sustained,
which limits it too much to the endurance of suffering — el
Trirrrevei? iravra iracrxe. Compare under Gal. v, 6. Their living-
faith was clothed upon with work ; it was not a belief dead,
barren, and alone. No principle of action is so powerful as
genuine faith, and these believing Thessalonians were noted as
active workers.
kou tov K07rov rijs a.ya.7rtjs, theforce of vfiMv being still recog-
nized, "your love's labour," the relation expressed by the
genitive being, as in the previous clause, labour which belongs
to your love and characterizes it. KoVo? is earnest and toilsome
service, into which the whole heart is thrown, travail of soul,
often self-denial and exhaustion. 'Ayrt7r>; is not specially love
towards Christ, as if the following words " our Lord Jesus
Christ" belonged to it (a-Lapide) ; nor is it love to God or to
God and our neighbours, but love to fellow-Christians, as in
Col. i, 4, which is shown, not simply in overlooking errors and
weaknesses (Theodoret), or in doing the work of a Christian
pastor and teacher (De Wette), for such a meaning limits the
reference in ttolvtcov vjulwv, which includes the entire community;
nor does kottos expend itself merely in tending the sick or in
caring for strangers, which is only one sphere of its operation
(Acts xx, 35). The noun koto? comprises all the labour which
belongs to Christian love. This love, the image of Christ's, is
no ordinary attachment, resting on the slender basis of mere
Ver. 3.J FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 37
professional fellowship, but is embodied in travail, and busies
itself in kindnesses of all shapes, in the doing of which it
spares no pains and grudges no sacrifice (2 Thess. i, 3).
The third element of their character ever remembered by
the apostle was —
KOU TW V7ropOl'ij<i T>/? eAxi^O? TOV lvvplOV t'jfXWV IrjCTOU \pi<TTUV
— "and your patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ." The
genitive eX-n-lSog, not that of origin (Schott, De Wette), indicates
the same relation as the previous parallel one, "your hope's
patience," and cannot signify the cause Sia. rr/v eXx/da (OEcu-
menius). v-wopovi] is not, bearing up under evil, or the resigned
endurance of it ; but is perseverance or constancy, trials and
sufferings being implied (Rom. ii, 4; xv, 4; Heb. xii, 1).
Cicero well says, jjerseverantia est in rations bene considerata
stabilis et perpetua permansio (Koch).
The following personal genitives, tov Kvpiov rj/m.wu 'bjcrov Xpi-
(ttov, do not belong to the previous clauses, or to "faith and love,"
as a-Lapide, Wordsworth, Olshausen, and Hofmann suppose, but
under varying aspects, their special connection is with eXx/co?
as its complement, the Lord Jesus Christ being its object (Philip.
iii, 2, and i, 10). The hope of our Lord Jesus Christ is ever
connected in this epistle with His second Advent, the hope of
which He is the living centre and object, and which is realized
when He comes again according to His promise. Their hope
was no evanescent emotion, gleaming up fitfully and soon
fading out again. It was calm and steady amidst trials and
persecutions ; it had, as virop-ovi] implies, a robust and noble
persistence, in spite of what Theodoret calls to. -k pocnrlirTovTa
a-KuOpco-d. The concluding phrase —
ep.Tr poaQev tov Qeov kou Trarpos yj/mcop — " before God and our
Father," is used by the apostle in this epistle only.
(1) Vatablus, without any plausibility, joins the phrase to
the words the Lord Jesus Christ, qui nunc vultui Dei et
jiutris nostrl apparet. (2) Some connect it with the pre-
vious clauses, as if it qualified them. Thus Theodoret, eTroVr//?
oe toutcou <{»]<t\i> ecrriv 6 tow oXojv Geo?, and so Theophylact,
and CEcumenius in an alternative explanation, with a-Lapide,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Turretin, Wordsworth, and Jowett; while
Doddridge apparently confines the connection to the last clause,
38 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. I.
"the hope of -our Lord Jesus Christ in the view of our God and
Father." But in such a case, a connective article would have
been necessary to give the phrase the power of an adjective,
asserting the genuineness of these Christian graces. The
exegesis, besides, is awkward and unnatural. (3) The phrase
rather belongs to /u.i>r]jui.oveuovT£?, showing where the remembrance
of these graces was experienced, " in the presence of God and
our Father," in solemn prayer and in earnest thanksgiving.
Compare Rom. iii, 20; xii, 17; 2 Cor. viii, 21, where evuiriov is
used. The phrase occurs often in the Septuagint, representing
the Hebrew ^b (Frankel, Vorstiulien zu cler Sept., p. 159).
For the formula Geo? icai irar^p see under Ephes. i, 37; Gal. i, 4.
These three graces are placed together by the apostle in natural
order and development — faith, the spring of all spiritual ex-
cellence ; love, allied to it and vitalized by it, for it worketh by
love ; and hope, based on that faith which is the substance of
things hoped for, and stretching onward to the " glorious ap-
pearing " of Jesus Christ. Faith respects especially one's own
salvation ; love glows for the spiritual well-being of others ;
while the future, containing so much in reserve for us, is firmly
grasped and realized by hope. When the apostle values these
three graces, he sets them in a different order. Thus, in 1 Cor.
xiii, 13, "Now abideth faith, hope, love, these three, but the
greatest of them is love." Compare v, 8 ; Heb. v, 10-12 ; Col.
i, 4, 5. Faith is child-like, hope is saint-like, but love is God-
like.
(\ er. 4.) ei8oTe$, aSe\<pol >]ya7r)]/UL€voi vtto Oeov, ty\v e/cAoy>/r
ufxwv — " knowing (as we do), brethren beloved by God, your
election," as in the margin of the English version. To apply
this participle to the Thessalonians themselves mars the
harmony of thought, the thanksgiving being founded on
what the apostle knew of them, not on what they knew
of themselves. Some, however, take the participle as a kind
of nominative absolute, resolved into o'lSuTe yap (Erasmus),
or elSore? eo-re (Theodoret, Homberg, and Baumgarten-Cru-
sius). Grotius regards it as the beginning of a new sentence
stretching down to eyev)']OijTe in verse ; Pelt attaches it to
juvelav iroioviJ.evoi, which is a needless narrowing of the
connection.
Ver. 4.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 39
E/'JoVep, like fxvtHJioveuovTes, belongs to the first and leading verb
evxapto-Tov/uLei', which is followed by three participles, the first
defining the occasion on which the thanksgiving was offered,
" making mention of you in our prayers," the second specifying
its manner and the immediate prompting motive, " remember-
ing your work of faith," and the third giving the ultimate
grounds, " inasmuch as we know your election." The participle
Uas a causal signification distinctly expressed in the Syriac.
The translation of the Authorized Version — "your election of
God," which is found also in Theophylact and CEcumenius, in
Justiniani and Zanchius — is against the order of the Greek, and
supposes an ellipse of the substantive verb (2 Thess. ii, 13;
Rom. i, 7). The connection then of viro Qeou is not, knowing of
God your election, nor your election of God, but beloved of God ;
not, however, as Estius is inclined to suppose, coutinet ea pars,
dilecti a Deo, causam scquentis, electionem vestram. They were
not only dear to the apostle and his colleagues, but he styles
them in the highest sense, beloved by God, the objects of divine
complacency, in silent contrast to the hatred and malignity of
their persecutors. Compare 2 Chron. xx, 7 ; Ps. lx, 0, repeated in
Ps. cviii, 6. 'E/cXoy?/ is not election simply to external privilege
(Whitby), but out of the world into eternal life by an eternal
purpose, eh croor^piav, and is not to be identified with that /cXj/o-t?
el$ 7repi7roui<Tiv So^g (2 Thess. ii, 13-14), in which it realizes
itself, or with regeneration (Pelt). God is 6 kuXoov in the present,
but He is also 6 eKXegafxevos always in the past. The grounds
of his knowledge of their election are given by the apostle in
the next paragraph, and they are historical in nature — his own
experience of their changed character brightened by so many
Christian graces. He did not profess to know the Eternal Will
and Purpose in itself, or from having the pages of the Book of
Life thrown open to him ; but he came to a knowledge of it from
its results so visibly brought out in them. See under Ephes. i,
4-11 ; Rom. viii, 29 ; 2 Thess. ii, 13 ; 2 Tim. i, 9 ; ii, 10. The next
verse assigns the grounds on which the assertion begun with
eiSores rested.
(ver. o.) art to evuyyeXiov >)fxwv oik eyevt'jOi] els v/u.a$ ev \6yca
/uloi'ov, — " because our gospel came not unto you in word only."
For elf vjuas we have BKLX and some of the Greek fathers ; for
40 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. I.
7rpo? ufxixs we have A C- D ¥, and also some of the Greek fathers.
The words are so like in meaning that little stress can be laid
on their quotation, so that the authorities being so nearly
balanced, the reading is doubtful. There could not be any
great temptation to change 717)09 into els; though, as the context
depicts not the mere arrival of the gospel to them, but the cir-
cumstances in which it came among them, eiV might be changed
into -n-pos or the words might appear so close in meaning that
careless copyists might unconsciously exchange them. Some
give on its demonstrative meaning " that," or to wit, class
namlich. Ewald has wie, and some editors, as Lachmann and
Tischendorf, prefix a comma, to show the expository connection
and the grammatical dependence on eiSores. Thus Bengel,
Schott, and Hofmann regard the following clauses as simply ex-
planatory of the etcXoyi'}, as pointing out its feature or wherein it
consisted. But these verses do not describe election in any view,
and are not in any real sense doctrinal, though they might apply
to effectual calling. They refer to past historical facts, to certain
elements of their history which assured the apostle of their
election. His object is not to show what it was, but to adduce
the grounds on which he and his colleagues were self-persuaded
of it. The conjunction is therefore rightly rendered quia in
the Vulgate and Claromoutane, and in the Syriac by ? v^O
(Winer, § 53, 8).
The objective Bti thus inti'oduces recognized facts in proof of
the previous statement (De Wette, Koch, Luneniann, &c). And
he knew it on two grounds — first, a subjective ground, from the
memory of his own consciousness in preaching ; his own recol-
lections of divine assistance poured in upon him as he pro-
claimed the truth — a token to him that he was not labouring in
vain. Secondly, an objective ground, their immediate and cor-
dial reception of the truth, " and ye became followers of us and
of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction and in
joy of the Holy Ghost."
The first ground is that " our gospel came not unto you in
word only." " Our gospel " is the gospel which we preach and
are known to preach, the genitive being vaguely that of posses-
sion or of instrumental origin. They had it, and by them it was
published. The passive form eyev/jOrjv, originally Doric, occurs
Ver. 5.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 41
often in this epistle in its middle sense, eytvero. Its passive
form has never the mere sense of elvai (Lobeck ad Phrynich.,
p. 108 ; Kiihner ; Winer, § 13). It is therefore rightly rendered
"came." It means that something has been brought about or
has come to be " by divine grace," as Liinemann gives it. The
word may not express this idea of itself, but it is really im-
plied. If we adopt the reading etV vfias, the meaning is simply
ad vos as in the Vulgate, the Claromontane having apud, which
is liker 7rpo9 and not unlike irapa with a dative. Fritzsche in
Marc, vi, 3, p. 201-202 ; 1 Cor. ii, 3; 2 John, 12.
The gospel came not " in word only," ev denoting sphere,
and not simply that the gospel was aanere word. The gospel
was in the word, as ov /ulovov implies, but it did not remain in
it; it burst beyond it. Language was the vehicle of communi-
cation, but the message passed beyond the mere vehicle. It
would have been a lifeless thing if it had been only ev \6yw as
a kernel in an unopened husk ; but vitality and power were in
the truth so spoken —
«XXa kui ev Suva/xei /cca ev llvevjuaTi ayuo, kui ev ir\y]po(j)opia
7roX\fi — "but also in power and in the Holy Ghost, and
in much assurance." 'Ev points again to the medium or
manner in which the preaching was carried out. Now
first these terms are subjective, or they characterize the
emotions of the preachers, not those of the hearers (Koppe,
Pelt), or of speakers and hearers both (Vorstius and
Schott). How the hearers felt and acted under their
preacher is told in the next verse ; but this verse refers to the
apostle's own remembrance of his preaching, what it was in his
own consciousness, or when he was engaged in it, appealing in
the next clause to themselves for the truth of his assertion — " As
ye yourselves know what kind of persons we proved to be for
your sakes." In short, the verse tells how the gospel came, or
the manner of its advent, and not the results produced by it.
It came ev Swd/uei, " in power," on the part of the preachers.
iluva/uus does not mean here miraculous energy — as is supposed
by the Greek fathers, followed by a-Lapide, Grotius, and Tur-
retin. The plural is usually employed when such is the
reference; but here, standing in contrast to ev Ao'yw, it denotes
the mighty eloquence and the overwhelming force with which
42 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap, I.
they preached (1 Cor. ii, 5), and not the external impression
made by accompanying - miracles. There had been an unusual
outburst of mental and spiritual energy in the preaching; they
had been carried beyond themselves; they argued, insisted, and
urged. The second koi is not epexegetical, but in the phrase
Kai ev Ilvev/maTi aylu> it has an ascensive force, and the second
clause says something fuller and higher than the first. They
preached in the Holy Ghost; no wonder that such power was
possessed by them and showed itself in their mighty utterances.
The power was inwrought by the Holy Spirit, and could from
its nature be ascribed only to Him. When Jowett explains the
phrase as the inspiration of the speaker wrought by the hearer;
the statement may not be a denial of the personality of the
Divine Agent, but it reduces the result to that of ordinary human
oratory in which no divine element is involved. It is slovenly
and inaccurate to take the clauses as a hendiadys, h owapei
Uvev/uaTos aylov, as Calvin, Piscator, and Conybeare. On the
want of the article with Ilyetyxa, see under Ephes. i, 17. The
third conjunct characteristic of the preaching was —
ko.\ ev 7r\tjpo(pop[a 7roW}] — "and in much assurance." The
repetition of /ecu and of ev gives a separate and distinct
prominence to each of the three clauses in succession.
IT\}]po(popla, " assured persuasion," is a noun found only in
the New Testament and the ecclesiastical writers (Suicer,
sub voce; Rom. iv, 21; xiv, 5; Col. ii, 2; Heb. vi, 11 ; x, 22).
It does not mean certainty of the truth and of its divine
original produced in the Thessalonians (Musculus, Mncknight,
Benson), nor fulness of spiritual gifts and instruction (a-Lapide,
Turretin), nor fulfilment of the apostolical office, id plene a/pud
eos officio satisfecisse non dubitaretur (Estius). But the mean-
ing is that they preached at once in the full persuasion of the
truth of the gospel, and that, in presenting it at the moment, they
were doing the Master's will. This inborn assurance, combined
with the Spirit's inworking and the powerful utterance vouch-
safed to them, were to them a token that there were in their
audiences those whom they could soon recognize as God's elect,
and these characteristics of their early labours in Thessalonica,
showing that they were divinely owned and strengthened, are
now adduced as one ground of their knowledge that those ad-
Ver. 5.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 43
dressed in the epistle are the elect. Olshausen puts it somewhat
dogmatically and sternly : " Paul means to show how from the
way in which the Spirit operated in him at a certain place, he
drew a conclusion as to the disposition of the persons there —
where it manifested itself powerfully, there, he argued, there must
be elect. Thus the Spirit suffered him not to travel through
Bithyuia because there were no elect there." But there were
Christians in that province very soon afterwards (1 Pet. i, 1),
and what then of their election ? Was it a divine act subse-
quent to the interdict laid on the apostle as told in Acts xvi, 7 ?
And for the truth of what he had been writing he now ap-
peals to themselves — -
Ka9oo$ o'iSaTe 0T01 eyevr'/Oij/uev ev v/niv Si v/nas — " even as ye
know what manner of men we were found to be among you
for your sakes." The rendering of the Authorized Version
"we were" does not give the full sense. Conybeare's trans-
lation is not correct, " behaved myself," nor yet is that of the
Vulgate, quales fuerimus. The appeal is to themselves — to
their own knowledge ; it corresponded (kuOco?) with the
apostle's statement in the previous part of the verse. It
witnessed that the gospel was preached to them " in power,
and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance ;" and these
elements of character and labour proved what manner of men
the apostle and his colleagues were really found to be. The
first part of the verse describes the preaching, what it was, and
this clause describes the preachers, what they were. As no one
who had heard such preaching would forget it, every one
would be eager to verify the apostle's statement from his own
recollection.
The oTol eyevi'iOrjixev therefore includes alone what we have
just said, and to give it a reference to disinterestedness and
self-support by manual labour, is going wholly astray from the
text ; and an appeal, as by Estius, Macknight, and Pelt, to ii, 7-9,
is at this point wholly irrelevant. As remote from the
apostle's immediate purpose is any allusion to dangers and
persecutions — kivovvous ou? inrep avrcov inre<TT>icruv (Theodoret).
'Ej/ v/juv is simply " among you," in your society ; and
Si v/mas points to the final purpose of the whole procedure,
which was prompted and fashioned from a regard to their
44 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. I.
eternal interests — kuSws o'lSure, the appeal is honest, and he felt
that they would respond to it. It is no self-eulogy born
of conceit — no flattering self-drawn picture — "ye yourselves
know."
This, then, is the first or subjective portion of the grounds
on which Paul and his colleagues knew the election of the
Thessalonian believers. " Our transcendent energy, earnestness,
and confidence — all inwrought by the Divine Spirit, and felt
and manifested in our preaching — were proof to us that God
was by us doing His work among you and marking you out
to us as His own chosen ones."
To begin a new sentence, as Koppe does, with KaOtos o'lSare,
and to give it this meaning, qualem me vidistis qnum apud
vos essem tales etiam apud vos nunc estis, breaks the
coherence, gives a past sense to o'lSare, and a wrong meaning
to eyeii'ftiiiJLev, and would need ourwg vjuei? to be expressed in the
next verse.
Now follows the objective ground of his knowledge of their'
election.
(Ver.,6.) kui v/ueis /ow/x;;tcu fj/nwv eyei/jOr/Te kgu tov lvvpiov — "and
ye on your part came to be followers of us and of the Lord."
The connection is still unbroken, and hangs virtually on on be-
ginning the fifth verse and signifying "for " or " because." ' Y/ueis
is emphatic and in contrast to rj/ioov in the previous verse — our
gospel on the one side — your reception of it on the other. The
verb eyevi]6r]Te has the same sense as in the previous verse —
not ye were, but ye came to be (1 Cor. iv, 16 ; Ephes. v, 1). The
additional idea durch die Leitung Gottes of Liinemann is a theo-
logical inference, for it does not lie in the words. The apostle
brings out the result without touching the process, by his pre-
ference of this compound formula to the simpler verb fxifxelaOai.
The first kou is copulative, and the second is rather climactic,
not exactly corrective, as Bullinger, who says that we ought to
be followers of the apostles, eatenus quatenus Mi Christi
imitatores sunt.
Their imitation of the apostle and his colleagues was, in its
spirit and results, an imitation of Christ; for it was imitation
of the apostles in their connection with Christ, in His truth
and His life C\ Cor. iv, 16: xi. 1 ; Philip, iii, 17). Koppe destroys
Ver. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 4,5
the cogency of the argument altogether, by holding that the
points of imitation on the part of the Thessalonians were the
power, the Holy Ghost, and the great confidence mentioned in
the previous verse, as characterizing the preaching of Paul,
Silas, and Timothy. But the point of imitation is plainly not
the mere reception of the word, as that could not apply to
Xoyop, but the spirit and circumstances in which they
received it — " in much affliction with joy of the Holy Ghost,"
as is now stated.
Se^d/uevoi tov \oyov, ev 6\i\fsei 7roXX)j /uera x a P'^ T^peo/muTO?
ay'ov. The participle seems to denote inner conscious
acceptance (ii, I3),amplexi estis (Calvin), excipientes (Vulgate);
and it is in the same tense or point of time with the verb —
implying simultaneous action — ye became followers at the
moment when, or in that, ye received the word. '0 \0y09
is the gospel as preached (Luke viii, 13; Acts xvii, 11;
Gal. vi, 6) : tov Kvpiov being added in verse 8. Other genitives
are used in Ephes. i, 13 ; 2 Cor. ii, 17. The affliction in which
they received it was great, as may be learned from Acts xvii,
5, 9, compared with ii, 14, and from iii, 2, 3. These afflictions
seem to have continued after the violent outburst at the first
preaching of the apostle. The Master had foretold tribulation
to his followers, and the apostle had echoed the prediction
during his residence in Thessalonica. The 6\l\fsis is therefore
not that of the apostles, ■praecones graviter affligebantur, but
that of the Thessalonians themselves. Compare iii, 7. They
received the word, however, not only in affliction, but juera
Xapas Ilvev/ixaTo? uyiov, " with joy of the Holy Ghost," the
genitive being that of origin, and as Ellicott calls it " origin-
ating agent" (Scheuerlein, § 17, 1). The phrase does not mean
merely spiritual joy (Jowett), but joy inwrought by the Holy
Spirit, and is therefore connected with the present conscious
possession of spiritual blessings and hopes (Rom. xiv, 17 ; Gal.
v, 22). See under Philip, iii, 1. This joy is no unnatural
emotion, as if in stoical apathy they did not feel their suffer-
ings, or pray that they should cease ; but it is a grace of the
Divine Spirit which exists independently of them, though it
may be increased by means of them (Acts v, 41) ; the joy of
livino- in Christ and of loving- Him, — all that gladness of
4G COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. I.
position and prospects which faith in the gospel brings, and
which in Christ and his apostle coexisted with the endurance
of great sufferings. The Lord "for the joy that was set before
Him endured the cross, despising the shame," and His early-
servants passed through a similar experience of outer sufferings
and inner gladness, so that they who, in receiving and holding
the truth, are yet supported under affliction by the joy of the
Holy Ghost, are followers both of the apostles and of the
Divine Master. Now the circumstances of the Thessalonians
in receiving the word which are so briefly described, were so
striking and so Christlike, that they were typical —
(Ver. 7.) axrre yeveuQai iifias Tinrovg — "so that ye became an en-
sample." The reading is doubtful, the plural tvttovs being found
in A C F K L X and many fathers; but the singular in B D 17, 67,
in the Latin vei'sions (Vulgate and Claromontane), as also in the
Syriac and Coptic. The Syriac has ]2&P>. D 3 and49have
TU7TO?, conjectured by Mill to be a neuter form like tt\outo$. It
is more likely that tvttov should be changed into tuttovs on
account of the v/mas, than that the reverse should take place.
The singular is accepted by Lachmann and Tischendorf, and is,
moreover, grammatically correct, the believers being taken as a
collective unity, als ein Einheit-begriff (Bernhardy, p. 58).
Chrysostom in his exposition uses, in consecutive clauses, both
the plural and singular form (Winer, § 27 ; Kiihner, § 407).
They became an ensample. There is a binary process — first,
they followed their preachers as a living pattern or example,
/uu/ui]tcu, and then they became in turn an example, rv-rrog, a
pattern for the imitation of other churches ; from being fxifxrjral,
they became Tinrog.
iruaiv tois Trio-rev over iv ev Tfl Mce/ceoW/a icai ev t\i Kyjiia— " to
all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia," the second iv hav-
ing preponderant authority. The present participle with the
article is used substantively, all idea of time being excluded.
Compare Ephes. iv, 28 ; Matt, iv, 3 ; Gal. i, 23. Winer, § 45, 7.
In his exposition Chrysostom virtually changes the tenses of
the participle — ye became an ensample toF? >/$>; TziuTevovm, " ye
so shone that ye became instructors of them who received the
gospel before you." Chrysostom is followed by GEcumenius
and Theophylact, who has iria-reixjacri two?, and among many
Ver. 8.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 47
others by Pelt and Schott. But the Philippian Church was
the only earlier church in Eastern Europe, as the apostle did
not tarry at Amphipolis or Apollonia, and the language is
scarcely applicable to it. Macedonia and Achaia, as two Roman
provinces, are equivalent to northern and southern Greece, the
entire territory. The Grecian churches could look upon the
Thessalonians as a typical or representative community, whose
example was worthy of universal imitation. But Theodoret's
addition that the apostolic encomium is the more expressive,
because the nations referred to were great and wise, ew\ cro</>/«
Otw/ua^o/mevoi^, is simply not in the text. The apostle now gives
the foundation for the previous eulogistic statement.
(Ver. 8.) acp' u/iAcov yap e^i'i^Tai o Xoyo? tov Ivvpiov — "for from
you has sounded forth the word of the Lord." We cannot give
v/jlwv here a wider reference than the previous vju.a$, so that Baum-
garten-Crnsius is wrong in including the Philippians under it.
The natural sense of ac/>' u/jlcov is the local one, from }'ou as the
point of departure (1 Cor. xiv, 30). It cannot well mean v<f>
vfxSiv, by you, as the preachers of it (Riickert), nor SI vfimv, by
your means as having saved our lives (Storr), nor are the two
meanings to be combined as by Schott and Bloomfield. The
"word of the Lord" is very plainly the gospel, as in the 6th
verse, and not, as De Wette makes it, the fame of their recep-
tion of the gospel. Compare 2 Thess. iii, 1 ; and often and
naturally in the Acts, as viii, 25 ; xiii, 48 ; xv, 35, 36 ; xvi, 32 ;
xix, 10, 20. A word having the Lord for its origin, its centre,
and its end ; His life in its purity and sympathy ; His death
in its atoning fulness — told in man's language.
The verb eg/jxirai (has been sounded out uxrirep crd\7nyyog
Xa/uarpou qx°v (Tt 1 < >> Chrysostom) occurs only here in the New
Testament, but it is found in the Septuagint (Joel iii, 14;
Sirach xl, 13). The meaning is, that their conversion and its
circumstances were so noted, that they carried the gospel
through the province as if by the ringing peal of a trumpet.
The rumour of what had happened at Thessalonica sped its
way through Greece, and carried with it the gospel — sounded
abroad loudly, fully, distinctly, the blessed message.
ov fxovov ev tii Ma/ce<W/a icai Aya'/'a — "not only in Macedonia
and Achaia." Before 'Ax«t'«, w t\i is inserted by C DFRL N, 30
48 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. I.
MSS., with the Vulgate and Claromontane Latin and the Syriac,
and it is admitted by Lachmann, while A B and the majority of
MSS. and some of the fathers omit it. It may have been re-
peated from the previous verse, as if again to mark Achaia as
a distinct province, but the authority of MSS. in its favour
is great. Limemann asserts that ev t>/ is necessary, and must
therefore be genuine ; but, as Ellicott replies, the want of the
ev T}i is not only permissible, but grammatically exact, as
Macedonia and Achaia are here regarded as a whole, and put
in antithesis to all the rest of the world (Winer, § 19, 4).
Between grammatical nicety on the one hand, and diplomatic
authority on the other, the point cannot well be decided. The
difference of reading involves a difference of meaning, ov
fxovov .... aXka being used, ubi posterior notio ut major
vel gravior vel latior in prioris notionis locum substituitur
quidem sed prior lion plane tollitur : Kuhner ad Xenoph.
Memor. ii, 6, 2, p. 159. See examples in Stallbaum's Plato,
vol. I, 210; Phoedo, 107 b; and in ninth excursus of Bremi
ad Isocr., p. 212.
uWa ev Travel tottw t] 7r/crTt? v/nwv r) 7rpo? tov Qeov e£e\i'i\v6ev
— "but in every place your faith which is toward God has gone
forth." The kou of the Received Text has no proper authority.
The structure of these words is somewhat difficult. Were the
sentence thus — " From you has sounded out the word of the
Lord ; " and were it to end thus, " not only in Macedonia and
Achaia, but also in every place," it would appear natural and
complete. But ev iravTi tottu), so far from concluding the clause,
is connected with a new subject and predicate, " in every place
your faith which is toward God has gone out." Some propose
a transposition of ov fxovov, ov fxovov e£/ix>iTai. Not only has the
word of the Lord been sounded out in Macedonia and Achaia,
but in every place your faith also has gone out. Such is the
violent proposal ofBeza, Piscator, Zanchius, Grotius, Rosen-
muller, Storr, Schrader, Koppe, Schqtt, and others. It cannot
be entertained for a moment, for it is tantamount to rewriting
the verse.
Others, as Olshausen and De Wette, hold that the two sub-
jects and their predicates are equivalent in meaning — the word
of the Lord, the report of your faith in the Lord has sounded
Ver. 8.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 49
out, very much the same as, your faith God ward, has gone out
(Olshausen). Lunemann proposes to put a colon after Kvpiou,
and begin a clause with 01} /ulovov, the sentence then being thus —
"for from you has sounded out the word of the Lord." But
this punctuation gives the clause a feeble and spiritless aspect,
which is at the same time contradicted by the sonorous e£iJx>iTai,
while aWa ev iravri tottu> stands in direct antithesis to oil /ulovov
ev 77/ M-, and is, apparentl}", the natural and necessary comple-
ment of the sentence. It is probable that the apostle has
mixed two constructions. In writing the sentence, the thought
of a stronger climax came into his mind, and he puts a whole
sentence in antithesis to ov fxovov ev 77/ Ma/cecW/a Ka\ 'kxal'a, in-
stead of, as first intended, a merely local phrase, such as ev iravri
roircp, or, as he has said in Rom. i, 3, ev o\w tw k6<t/jlw. The
apostle, when he got to ev iravri roircp, completing the compari-
son, felt that perhaps an explanatory statement was needed, and
solosing sight of ov novov, he at once and without breaking the
connection goes out into the additional statement, and, the first
nominative also passing out of view, he inserts another and
more directly personal one — i) ir'nrns v/jlwv j) irpo? tov Oeov. The
phrase is made distinct by the repetition of the article- — irpos
being used also in Phile. 5 (Winer, § 50, 2). The 717)09 for
the more common ei? implies, perhaps, the change of creed and
worship referred to in the next verse, before which their faith
toward idols had vanished (Lunemann, Hofmann). For the
verb used for the spread of a rumour, compare Matt, ix, 2G ;
Mark i, 28. Observe, says Chrysostom, how he speaks of it as
of a living thing, irep\ efA\fsvx ov - The P^ rase «/ iravri tottm is a
popular hyberbole, ev and not eh implying that the rumour was
still in every place (Winer, § 50, 4 a). Chrysostom, however
warns, " let no one regard these words as hyberbolical, for
Macedonians were not inferior in fame to the Romans " (John
xii, 19; Rom. i, 8; Col. i, 6-23). Compare the use made of
Ps. xix in Rom. x, 17, 12. The report of their conversion to
Christianity had spread beyond Greece — was known and talked
of everywhere. The words do not convey any impression that
Paul in his travels beyond Macedonia and Achaia had met the
report, and it is only conjecture to inquire how the report
obtained such wide and speedy currency. Christian merchants
T)
50 COMMENTAEY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. T.
might have carried it (De Wette, Zanchius, Grotius). Corinth,
in which he was writing, was a great trading city, with a per-
petual influx of strangers. Thessalonica was a centre of busi-
ness, and the heathen merchants coming from it might repeat
what would appear to them an unaccountable phenomenon.
Wieseler supposes that Aquila and Priscilla had arrived at
Corinth from Rome, and may have mentioned that the report
was known in the metropolis itself. It is not necessary on
this account, with Schrader and Baumgarten, to assign a longer
existence to the Thessalonian church, as a few months might
suffice to justify the apostle's statement.
The result was —
('oa-re /mi] xpelav e'xetv i'l/mas \a\etv rt — " so that we have no need
to speak anything " that is, on this point, or of your faith ; not,
" anything of moment " (Koch), or " of the gospel " (Michaelis).
r Hyua?. standing after eyeiv on highest authority, was put before
the verb, perhaps for the sake of emphatic contrast with the
following avToi. What had happened in Thessalonica was so
notorious everywhere, that any further description of it might
well be spared, the reason being —
(Ver. 9.) Auto* yap ire pi tj/uwv airayyeXkovaiv oiroiav earoSov
ecrxofJ-ef 71-/009 vfia$ — " For they (on their part) report concern-
ing us what manner of entrance we had among you." The
Received Text has exo/uep with no authority. By avro) are
understood the people alluded to in the previous verse, those
not in Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place, and the
construction is according to sense (Winer, § 22, 3 ; Matt, iv,
23; 2 Cor. ii, 12-13). We have no need to speak; they
do it for us — the two pronouns in emphatic contrast. The
persons comprised in irep] })/ulwv are Paul and his colleagues,
not Paul and the Thessalonians (Bisping), and the emphatic
position is in contrast to 7r/)o? v/aa?, while their change of
worship as the result of this entrance is told in the next clause.
EiVooo? is not access to their heart, but simply and historically
ingress (ii, 1 ; Acts xiii, 24 ; Heb. x, 19 ; 2 Peter i, 11. Rost and
Palm sub voce). The kind of entrance, not facilis (Pelt), is ex-
plained in verse 5 by the apostle — his proclamation of the
divine message in power and in the Holy Ghost and in much
assurance — the external perils and persecutions not being ex-
Ver. 0.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 51
eluded, though they are not put into prominence, as by Chry-
sostom, GEcumenius, and Theophylact. This clause then con-
tains in brief what the general report was about the apostle and
his fellow-labourers — that they had come and preached so
mightily and obtained such a welcome, or perhaps in phrase
nearer what might be the form of the report in the mouth of a
wondering heathen — "The other day three Jewish strangers
came to Thessalonica, two of whom bore the scars of a terrible
scourging they had got north at Philippi ; they began to hold
public meetings, and, so far from being opposed, they were
tolerated, and the astounding doctrines which they taught with
a superhuman earnestness made a deep and wide sensation
through the city, which cannot be accounted for and which is
not subsiding." The next clause tells what the universal report
was about the Thessalonians themselves. They themselves are
talking about us and they themselves are at the same time
talking about you — ■
7ra>9 €7T€crTpe^raTe irph<; tov Oeov a.7ro tcov ctSwXow — " how ye
turned from idols to God." IK>? introduces an objective sentence,
and though it may not involve et'/co'Xw? (Chiysostom), or mit
welclter Freudigkeit (Liinemann), still all notion of manner is not
to be excluded — mode as characterizing the fact. They could not
report the fact without some detail of the circumstances, 7rw? to
some extent corresponding to the modal adjective oirolav of the
previous clause. The notion of return is not necessarily in-
volved in the compound verb, e7rto-Tpe(f>eiv, for oirlrrw and elg to,
o-la-co are used with it. Compare Acts xiv, 15 ; xv, 19 ; Matt,
xxiv, 18 ; Mark xiii, 1G : Luke xvii, 31 ; and see under Gal. iv,
9. Cut idolatry being apostasy from God, turning from idols
may be regarded as a return to God. The idea of return to God
in conversion, or from apostasy, is familiar to every reader, of
the Old Testament, and it underlies the epithets " living and
true" applied to God, that these idols are dead and false
(Heb. ii, 19). Idols are also called vanities (Deut. xxxii, 21 ;
Ps. xxxi, 6; cvi, 28; cxv, 4; Jer. viii, 19; Acts xiv, 15;
1 Cor. viii, 4). See under Gal. iv, 8.
SovXeveiv Gew fcvrt k<u aXyOivw — "to serve the living and
true God." On the absence of the article see Winer, § 19, 1.
Tho infinitive is that of purpose, and needs neither the com-
52 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. I.
plemcnt of eiy to nor of lorrre (Winer, § 44, 1, and as in
Ephes. i, 4; Col. i, 22). The Divine Being is called $S>v in
contrast with these dead inanities. He is Life and the
source and substance of all life. He is also aXtjOivos, true
or real ; not aXrjdi]?, verax, but aXyjOivo;, verus — this latter
terra becoming in old English very, as in the phrase of the
Nicene creed, " very God of very God " (Oeov aXrjOivov e/c Qeov
aXtjOivov); or in Wycliffe's translation of John xv, 1, "I am
the verri vine." 'A\>70»/? characterizes God ethically (John iii,
83 ; Rom. iii, 4) as He is true to Himself and all His promises,
a\fsevS}i$ (Titus i, 2) ; but aXfjOivo? characterizes His essence — He
is what He professes to be (John i, 9 ; xvii, 3). See the epithet
with the same sense and a different reference, John vi, 32 ;
Heb. viii, 2 ; ix, 24; Sept., Isaiah lxv, 16. Trench, Synon.,§8.
The clause by itself might describe a departure from heathenism
ending simply in proserytism — the change of a heathen from
polytheism to monotheism. But in this case it was more, it
was specifically a Christian conversion.
(Ver. 10.) kul avafj-eveivTOV vlov uvtov e/c toov ovpavoov — "and to
wait for His Son from heaven," or " from the heavens," as the
phrase is sometimes rendered in the English plural, but most fre-
quently in the singular. The verb ava/ueveiv occurs only here in
the New Testament : u-Tre/coYxea-Out is used in 1 Cor. i, 7 ; Philip,
iii, 20 ; and TrepijjLeveiv is similarly found in Acts i, 4. The ava
cannot give the additional sense of with joy (Flatt). Winer says
it does not mean rediturum exspectare (Bengel), nor avide ex-
spectare. Natura sua habet admixtam . . . patientiae etfiduciae
notionera. (De verborum cum praepositionibus cornpositorum
usu. Particula, iii). On the name " Son," see under Ephes. i,
3. The somewhat elliptical phrase, "to wait for His Son from
heaven," implies that He is in heaven and that He is coming
from it. He, in the fulness of humanity, has gone up to plead,
to reign, to sympathize, to prepare a place, and He will
return, according to promise, to complete His work, to raise
His people, to invest them with spiritual bodies, and to
confer on them the crown and totality of redemption. This
distinctive Christian grace of hope is based on faith. There
must be faith in Him as Saviour ere there can be the
quiet and patient expectation of His advent. Compare Matt.
Ver. 10.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 53
xvi, 27; xxvi, 04; Luke ix, 20 ; Acts i, 11 ; Rom. i, 7 ; 1 Cor.
xi, 2g-.
ov ij-yeipev e/c rwv vefcpccv — "whom He raised from the dead."
The insertion of tow rests on preponderant authority both of MSS.
and fathers, BDFL N — its omission being due probably to
the common form of the phrase without the article. The theo-
logy of Paul is, that the Father raised the Son from the dead,
and this resurrection has an evidential connection with the
Sonship and the completion of His earthly work (Rom. i, 4).
See under Gal. i, 1. There could have been no faith, had He
still been one of the venpo'i, but He comes as a living man, who
has triumphed over death, and He is now 6 £cov (Rev. i, 18). The
apostle emphatically names Him —
'Iijo-ouy tov pvo/uLevov >//jici9 airo t>/9 6py>]s r^? epyo/J-ev^ — " Jesus
who delivered us from the coming wrath." The first participle
is present, and is not on the one hand to be rendered as aorist
(Vulgate qui eripuit — Grotius, Pelt, the English version :
Tyndale, Granmer, and the Genevan preserving the present)
nor is it on the other hand to receive a future sense, as
in the Claromontane Latin, qui eripiet, res certo futura
(Schott ; Bernhardy, p. 371). Christ redeemed us once, says
Bengel, but He is always delivering us. " Jesus who is de-
livering us " gives the full force of the present tense, and by
this work therefore He may be characterized. The combina-
tion of the article and participle may point Him out as our De-
liverer. So Liinemann, Alford, Ellicott, Koch, and Conybeare ;
Winer, § 45, 7. Our deliverance was achieved by that act of self-
sacrifice which placed Him among the dead, and He the risen
Redeemer is ever applying its gifts and power. The present
participle epxo^epi]? maintains its proper meaning — that wrath
is coming, certainly coming, at the period of the judgment.
But from it Christ delivers us, now, through faith in Him ; and
as the Deliverer is coming again from heaven believers wait for
Him, that He may raise their bodies from the dead and confer
upon them full and final blessedness. It is plain from this state-
ment that these truths had occupied a prominent place in the
Apostle's preaching at Thessalonica. He had preached Christ
the Deliverer, a divine person, " the Son of God " who had given
Himself for them and cone down to the dead, but who had been
54 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
raised again — Christ who was now the Governor (Philip, iii, 20),
and who was to be the Judo-e and Rewarder at His coming.
These primary and prominent doctrines had been proclaimed
to them " in power, in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance,"
and their acceptance of them produced an immediate and cor-
respondent revolution in their worship and life. Compare
1 Cor. xv, 34. See Introduction.
CHAPTER II.
(Ver. 1.) Avrol yup o'iSaTe, aSeXcpo), Ttjv eicrooov ijjmaiv Ttjv
7T/oo? vjuag, oti ou kcvi) ylyovev — "For ye yourselves know,
brethren, our entrance to you that it was not vain."
The yap is certainly something more than a mere particle of
transition — audi as Krause, ja as Flatt and Pelt, " yea " as
Conybeare, "nay" as Peile, or simply "and" as in the Syriac
version, while others do not translate it at all. The connection
is not so difficult as these exceptional senses given to yap would
lead us to suppose. Bengel, Flatt, and Schott connect this verse
with i, 5, G ; the intermediate verses being taken as forming a
species of parenthesis. But such a connection is pointless and
obscure. Grotius joins it to the 10th verse, and with this mean-
ing, merito Mam spem vitae aetemae retinetis ; vera enirn su nt
quae vobis annuntiavimus. But the following verses are not
doctrinal, they are merely historical in nature. They contain
no direct pi*oof of the statement put forward by Grotius. The
phrase " ye yourselves " is in contrast to those beyond them —
to the avToi in i, 9, who told of the entrance of the apostle to
them. This paragraph is thus connected with i, 9 : " not only
strangers in the province told about our entrance in to you ;
not only are such statements about your conversion current
everywhere; but you yourselves know what our entering in to
you was. We appeal not to such reports in universal circulation ;
we appeal now to yourselves, to your own personal know-
ledge." The paragraph down to the end of the twelfth verse is
a detailed and confirmatory explanation of what is said in the
first half of i, 9 — " the kind of entrance in to you which w r e
had," o-rro'iav e'icroSoi> eaxofxev; and verses 13, 14, 15, 1G, of this
Ver. 1.] first epistle to the thessalonians. .55
chapter in a similar way take up at length the second half of
i, 9 — their instantaneous reception of the gospel, 7r«? e-jrea-Tpl-
\JsuTe xpo? tou Qeou uiro tmv eiSooXwv, and the mighty change
resulting from it which still endured in spite of persecution
and suffering. The yap thus introduces an explanatory vindi-
cation (Hartung, p. 463). The form of the sentence is common
in Greek, in which, especially after 6lSa, there is an anticipation
of the object — not, ye know that our entrance was not vain ;
but ye know our entrance — that it was not vain (Kriiger, § 61,
6, 2; Bernhardy, p. 466; Luke xii, 24; Acts xvi, 3 ; 1 Cor. iii, 5;
vii, 17; 2 Cor. xii, 7. See under Gal. i. 11.)
Avto\ expressed is emphatic— a direct appeal to themselves.
" Brethren," a name of endearment. The epithet neiv} has been
variously taken; some give it an ethical sense — fxaraia
(CEcumenius), mendax (Grotius), tioti inanis, sed plena virtutis
(Bengel, Schott), vani honoris studio (Rosenmuller), non otiose
(Koppe). The apostle does not say e/? Kevov, as in iii, 5; and
the reference in the following verse is not to the fruit of his
labours — for this idea does not come in till verse 13 — but to the
character of them. The following aX\a is in contrast to
ov Kevh and introduces an explanation : his entrance was not
vain ; it was, as already described, preceded by suffering, but it
was characterized by boldness of utterance, irappija-la, by absence
of deceit, of uncleanness, and of guile ; by fidelity, by gentle-
ness, and disinterested self-denying love, by continuous and
affectionate industry ; all these features of his ministry explain
ov Kevi'i. Chrysostom says, ov kcv>] tovt€ctti, otl ovk avOpwirivii
ovSe n tvxovctu. Kev>/ refers then to the character of the en-
trance, not to the fruits; to its fulness of power and purpose and
reality (Ellicott). This entering in was not empty or unsub-
stantial, but was marked by a living reality, by power, con-
fidence, and spiritual manifestation. And that character
remained (ylyovev) Some, however, combine both ideas, the
nature of the entrance with the results (a-Lapide, Pelt, Schott,
De Wette, and Benson); but the second reference is against the
context. Some of the Greek fathers suppose a special allusion
to persecution and dangers ; but these come into view first in
the next verse, and are referred to also in i, 9, of which this is
an expansion.
56 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAULS. [Chap. II.
(Ver. 2.) 'AXXu 7rpo7ra66vTe<? kui vftpioSevTes, KaOm o'tSare,
ev ^iX'nnroi?, e7rapp>](Tia<TUjULe6a ev Tip Qeip i'j/ulwv XaXijuai
7r/>o9 u//as' to evayyiXiov tov Oeov ev 7roXX« ayoavi — "But
after having suffered before and been injuriously treated,
as ye know, at Philippi, we were confident in our God
to speak unto you the gospel of God in much conflict."
The ica\ of the Received Text after aXka is a gloss with-
out any authority. 'AXXa is opposed to Kevrj (1 Cor. xv, 10) ;
it was not vain ; on the other hand its reality was
manifested as follows. The participles might be taken
as concessive if the kui had been genuine as Pelt sup-
poses, "though we having suffered before" (LiAnemann);
but the simple temporal sense is more in harmony with the
historical statement which follows. The reference is to the
sufferings already endured, and described in Acts xvi. The
participle TrpoiruOovTe*? occurs only here in the New Testament,
but is found in Herodotus, vii, 11; Thucydides, iii, 67;
Plato, Rep., ii, 376. The apostle adds koli v/3pia6evTeg, "and
injuriously treated," the treatment expressed by the verb being
insolent and wanton outrage such as the scourging to which,
though a Roman citizen, he had been subjected, a punishment
forbidden by the Porcian and Valerian laws (Matt, xxii, 6 ;
Luke xviii, 32 ; Acts, xiv, 5 ; Trench, § 29).
If the first compound verb might have a medial sense like
the simple one (Xenoph., Mernor., ii, 2, 5), the second verb in
the clause effectually forbids it.
Kat9ct>? o'lSaTe is repeated — they knew it well, as they had
seen him immediately after the flagellation, and may have done
on him such a work of kindness as did the jailer. The verb
e-Kappr]maaaixSa means literally "we were bold of speech," as
its composition indicates (De Wette, Ellicott). But the word
signifies also to be confident (Job xxvii, 10; Ephes. iii, 12; vi,
20; 1 Tim. iii, 13; 1 John ii, 28; iii, 21).
The following XaX^crat would be somewhat tautological if we
give €7rappr]<ria(rdiue6a its original meaning, though that mean-
ing may be admitted after all. That -wapp^a-ia was in our God,
He being the sphere in which it existed, eVl being used in
Acts, xiv, 13, to denote the ground (Ellicott) ; t]p.Q>v indicates
close relationship — God of our choice, our service, whose
Vkr. 2.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 57
graces sustain, whose spirit cheers, whose presence is our
reward. The infinitive \a\fj<rai may be either explanatory
(Koch, Ellicott; Winer, § 44-, 1); or it may be taken as the
simple infinitive of object after the previous verb (Liinemann,
Hofmaim). The meaning, however, is not to be dwindled into
fxeTa 7rappr](Tias eXaXou/uev.
The genitive QeoO is not that of object, but of origin — the
gospel which is from God (Ellicott, Koch). It adds weight to
the statement, and vindicates alike the irX^po^opla of i, 5 and
the 7rapp>]criu. of this verse. He proclaimed the good news of
God's grace, no earthborn scheme, no human speculation or
conjecture as to the probabilities of the divine purpose in
itself or its results.
He spoke this gospel ev 7toXXm dywvi as referring chiefly, if
not solely, to outward circumstances, and not to inner care and
sorrow (Fritzsche). The former is the view of the Greek
fathers, and the subsequent verses confirm it. Compare Philip,
i, 30 ; Col. i, 29. Some, as Schott, combine both ideas — our
entrance was not vain, and our history shows it. After we had
suffered indignity and cruelty for preaching the gospel at
Philippi, we still had confidence to preach the same gospel to
you in the midst of conflict. It was instigated by unbelieving
Jews, "who took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser
sort and gathered a great company and set all the city in an
uproar." Such confident persistence in spite of past sufferings,
and in the midst of present perils among you, proves that our
entrance was not vain, but full of honest, hearty, and unfear-
ing energy. The conflict must have lasted some time, and its
culmination is told in Acts xvii, 9.
(Ver. 3.) 'H yap 7rapuKX>]<TLs }]/ulu>v oi'/c e/c Tr\ai>t]$ — "For our
exhortation was not of error." Tap explains and confirms. It
does not knit the verse to the mere phrase, gospel of God (Flatt),
nor simply to €7rapprjcria(rup.e9a (Olshausen, De Wette, Koch),
nor yet to XaXTjcrai (Liinemann), but to the whole clause.
We were bold to speak the gospel to you in much conflict,
for our teaching has not its source in error; and larnv, not
?iv, is to be supplied on this negative side of the state-
ment, as is evident from XaXov/uev in verse 4 on its positive
side. He is not telling simply what he did, but what his
58 COMMENTARY ON ST PAUL'S [Chap. II.
habit was. His preaching was characterized by none of
those qualities, and therefore he was not backward or cow-
ardly in it. He was so assured of the truth of the gospel
and of the integrity of his own motives, that he proclaimed
it everywhere and at all hazards. Ilapa/cA?/o-t? is in effect
what the Greek fathers render it — teaching, SiSaxv ', hut
specially it is rather persuasive than didactic instruction,
hortatory rather than expository preaching. It does not
mean here consolatio (Zuingli), nor is it docendi ratio, but
rather what Bengel calls totum praeconium ecangelicum,
jtussionum dulcedine tinctum. It is the earnest practical
preaching of the apostle bringing every motive to bear upon
his audience, plying them with every argument, and working
on them by every kind of appeal, in order to win them over
to the gospel and to faith in Him who delivers from the wrath
to come.
IlXdvf] is probably not imposture (Erasmus, Calvin, Turre-
tin), for the following ev SoXtp has that meaning; nor seda-
cendi stadium (Grotius), Verfilhrungs-lust (Baumgarten-
Crusius). Lunemann renders it Irrwahn, " delusion," and so
De Wette and Koch. We are not in error ourselves, neither
self-duped, nor the dupes of others. TLXavrj, as Lunemann re-
marks, is opposed to aXyOeia either subjectively (1 John iv,
(j) or objectively (Rom. i, 25). Compare Matt, xxvii, G; Ephes.
iv, 14 (Ellicott.)
ovSe . eg aicaOapo-ias " nor of uncleanness," the genitive of
origin, and the word is used in its widest sense — excluding
impurity of all kinds in motive, relation, and act. Whatever
could be deemed impurity in a public teacher — selfishness,
lust of gain, insincerity, or craft of purpose — all is expressly
denied or repudiated. The apostle may allude to charges
which his enemies may have been in the habit of preferring
against him, as in 2 Cor. xi, 8, where he rebuts a charge
of pecuniary interest; and perhaps the same inference may
be gathered from the counsels given to deacons (1 Tim. iii, 8)
and bishops (Titus i, 7).
ovoe ev SoXcp — "nor in guile," the preposition marking the
sphere in which the exhortation is denied to have taken place.
Oi/oe has high diplomatic authority (A B C D F ti), though
Veil 4.J FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. .51)
ouTe occurs in the Greek fathers, and is preferred by Teschen-
dorf in his 7th edition. Compare 2 Cor. ii, 17; iv, 2; xii, 1(3.
" We were not self-deceived or imposed upon ; our exhor-
tation was not of error, but of truth ; it was not of impurity,
but of disinterested and holy motive ; nor was it carried on
in or by means of guile, but in simplicity and godly sincerity.
Truth and truthfulness, light and purity, openness and in-
tegrity characterized us."
(Ver. 4.) 'AAAa /ca0a>? SeSoKifxacrfxeOa viro rov Geou Tiiarrev-
Qr\vui to evayyeXiov, ovtcos XaXovpev — " But according as we
have been approved of God to be put in trust with the gospel
even so we speak."
The KaQia? and ovtw correspond — "according as "..."even
so," the speaking being quite in harmony with the divine
approval and the consequent trust. KaOw? is therefore not
causal quoniam (Flatt), nor "seeing that" (Conybeare), nor
"inasmuch" (Peile). The verb SoKifiafav is to test as metal
by lire (1 Cor. iii, 13; Ephes. v, 10; 1 Tim. iii, 10); then
to distinguish or select after testing (Philip, i, 10) ; and then to
approve what has been so tested (Rom. xiv, 22 ; 1 Cor. xvi,
3). The second and third meanings insensibly blend, so that
the rendering "have been thought fit" represents the general
meaning (agiouu, 2 Thess. i, 11), and it does not much differ
from kKXeyeo-Oai. Any idea of innate fitness in the men them-
selves must be discarded. Theophylact puts Chrysostom's
notion into briefer phrase — "He would not have chosen us
if he had known us to be unworthy." Nor is the idea of
CEcumenius more tenable "that God foresaw their fidelity
to Himself, and so chose them " — f/fia$ p.r]Sev 7rpo? ou^av XaXeiv
avOpuirwv piXXourag (1 Tim. i, 12). Better is an explana-
tory clause of Theodoret — avri rov e-ireiStj eoo^ev aura) kui
eOuKi/xacre iricrTedcrai tjfj.iv.
The phrase iria-revdrivai to evayyeXiov is the leading-
thought, that for which the SoKifxacria prepares (Winer, § 44, 1).
For the idiom by which the passive verb retains the accusa-
tive of the thing, see Winer, § 32, 5. Compare 1 Cor. ix, 17;
Gal. ii. 7; 1 Tim. i, 11; Titus i, 3.
Our work as preachers is in unison with the divine
approval and choice of us. Ovrws XaXov/uev, " so we speak,
CO COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
our speaking has been and is still thus characterized, now
at Corinth, then in Thessalonica. And the proposition is
still further explained —
ovx w? a.v6pu)7rois aptcTKOires, aWu Qew rw Sokijulu^ovti tu?
Kupo'as jJ/Aftjj/ — " not as pleasing men, but God which trieth
our hearts."
'Q? does not look back to ovtws, but characterizes the
action or the actors engaged in it as persons who are not
pleasing men. The present participle has its widest sense.
Laying ourselves out, presenting as our work and aim not to
please men. See under Gal. i. 10; Stallbaum, Protag., p. 56;
Scheuerlein, p. 313.
Their life's labour did not lie in pleasing men: they were
too faithful to their trust, too noble in purpose to be men-
pleasers. They had none of that mixed motive, astute self-
adaptation and versatility of address, discovered in men-pleas-
ing. Their aim in preaching was to please God, to gain his
approval by cordially and unfeignedly doing His work be-
cause it was His work and they bore His commission (2 Cor.
v, 9). They wrought so as to please Him in this special
aspect —
aAXa Oew tw Sokijuu^opti ra? KapSias i]/uwv — "but God that
proveth our hearts." The tm before Gew in the Received Text
has good authority; but BCD 1 ^ omit it, and it may have
been inserted, as it often occurs before a noun when so
followed by an article and adjective or participle. The par-
ticiple making a kind of paronomasia, has its literal meaning,
and })p.wv is not to be generalized (Pelt and Koch), as in
some general statements (Ps. vii, 10 ; Rom. viii, 27), but it
has the same reference as the leading nominative >)p.els — Paul,
Silas, and Timotheus — as is also indicated by the plural KapSia?.
It is in vain to appear other than we are in motive or work
before Him who tests not only outer actions, but knows and
tries the heart (Acts i, 24 ; xv, 8 ; Rom. viii, 27.) There
is in the clause a tacit appeal to God for the truth of what is
uttered, as there is a direct and formal appeal in, the end of
the following verse.
(Ver. 5.) QuTe yap irore ev Xo'yo) KoXaKeia? eyeio'iOij/ucv, KuQag
o'lSure — "For neither at anytime used we speech of flattery, as
Ver. 5.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 61
ye know," that is, in pleasing men. This is a further assertion,
probably expounding what is meant by ovSe ev SoXm. The
verb, as already said, means to come to be, to turn out to be,
and here, as followed by ev, " found to be in " or " to take part
in " or " to have our being in " (Hofmann) ; or it denotes
characterizing habit, in aliqua re versari. Jelf, § 622. Com-
pare Herod, ii, 82, ol ev ttoojo-ci yevojuevoi ; Plato, Pluieilo, p.
59 a, ev (JjiXocrofp'a elvat ; 2 Cor. iii, 7, 8. See Kypke in loc.
As Ellicott remarks, " When the Greek fathers render the
phrase by the simple verb eKoXaKevcra.uev, they do not express
this full idiom, and fail to mark the entrance into and exis-
tence in the given thing or condition."
Ao'yo? KoXaK€ia<? is speech of flattery — the genitive not being
that of origin (Schott), but that of quality or contents (2 Cor.
vi, 7). Heinsius, Hammond, and Pelt wrongly take Aoyo? in the
sense of crimen or imputation; for the opinion of others does
not come into the vindication. Nor do the two words stand for
the simple ev /coXa/cela, as Pelt takes them, resting on the like-
ness of use in Aoyo? to w. KoAcwce/a occurs only here. It is
described by Theophrastus, Char. 2, and the KoXa£ is charac-
terized in Aristotle, JS/icom. Eth., iv, 12. The appeal suddenly
interjected is made directly again to themselves, KaOm o'lSare;
and their knowledge was so complete and continuous as to
cover the declaration — iroTe, at any time.
ovre ev irpofyavei irXeoveglas — " nor in a cloke of covetousness "
(eyev)}6t]fxev). The Vulgate and Claromontane render wrongly
in occasione avaritiae. It is not species (Wolf), nor accusatio
(Heinsius, Ewald, and Hammond), nor is it used for the simple
7rXeovegia, as Koppe, Ptosenmiiller, Loesner, nor Scheinwerh
(Hofmann). Up6(pa<Ti? is pretext — that which is put forward
to mask the real feeling, motive, or act — as the act of the
sailors who wished to escape from the ship under the pretext
of preparing to let go an anchor (Acts xxvii, 30). See under
Philip, i, 18.
HXeove^la?, genitive of object, is that to conceal which the
TrpofiaTi? is intended — praetextu specioso quo tegeremus
avaritiam (Bengel), neque usi sitnvus praetextlbus ad velan-
dam avaritiam (Grotius). This is more natural than to
take 7rXeove£la? as containing the motive of the irpotpcuri^
G2 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chat-. IT.
(Beza, Schott, Olshausen). UXeovegla is avarice or covetous-
ness, the desire to have more and yet more (Trench).
Geo? fxdprvi — " God is onr witness." They knew the char-
acter of the apostle's preaching-, and could bear witness to it,
hut God too was witness (Rom. i, 9; Philip, i, 8). The remark
of the Greek fathers is just in one aspect. In what features
of his work they could judge, he appeals to their own know-
ledge ; in what la3^ beyond their inspection, he appeals to
God. He used not speech of flattery — of that they could
judge; he put forward no pretext to veil a TrXeovegla, which
might be hidden from them in his heart, and he makes appeal
to God.
(Ver. 6.) Outc fyjTOvvres eg dvQpunrow So^av, outc dd> u/ulow outc
dir dXXow — "neither seeking of men glory, neither of you,
nor of others " — still a negative description of his ministerial
work, repeating more fully and pointedly what he had said in
verse 4, ,: not as pleasing men." Glory from men, the apostle
did not covet; he knew it in its fickle worthlessness.
Zr/TOWTes depends still on eyev^Orjfiei/. The emphasis lies on
di'0pco7ro)v — the sense being, not as Chrysostom explains, " not
that they did not obtain glory, that were to reproach them,
but that they did not seek it." CEcumenius puts it more
correctly — "they sought not glory of men ; but the glory that
is from God they both sought and received." The difference if
any between eV and diro has been explained variously. The
notion of Ellicott after Koch is scarcely probable, that the two
prepositions are synonymous — especially when we regard the
apostle's distinctive use of them even in an accumulated form.
The examples given by Winer, § 50, 2, will not bear out such
an exegesis here ; nor can the common distinction be adopted,
as by Schott and Olshausen, that e'/c marks the primary source
and diro the secondary or intermediate, for the clause describes
a uniformity of source, with this difference, that the first
general relation is separated in the next clause, into two
special ones. See under Gal. i, 1 ; Winer, § 50, 6. But as
Lunemann suggests, after Bouman, Soga eg dvOpunroov universe
est dvB punrlvrj quae humamam originem habet, ex hominibus
exsistit ; S6£a ddj' vp.coi> quae singulatim a vobis, vestro ab ore
manat ac prqficiscitur. Alford thus expresses it, "eV belongs
Ver. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONTANS. 63
more to the abstract ground of the Soga, diro to the concrete
object from which it was in each case to accrue." 'E/c, we may
say, is used with the more general, diro with the more special-
ized soui'ces. They were not seeking glory from men in any
aspect, neither from you when we were with you, nor from any
others among whom we happen to be labouring. Human
glory is never, and in no sphere of our work, an object of
ambition. And this —
Svvapevoi iv (Sapei eivai, w; uLpicrTov aTrorrToXoi — " when we
might have been of weight as Christ's apostles." The participle
is concessive and subordinate to fyrovvres. It is not natural to
begin a new sentence with this clause, supplying %/iev, as Flatt;
or making the clause a protasis to eyevr'fitjpev in the following-
verse, as Calvin and Koppe; or connecting it, as Hofmann, with
verse 8 ; or, with Schottgen and Griesbach, marking it as a
parenthesis.
Two very different interpretations have been given of iv
ftdpei eivai. The first which has been suggested by irKeove^'ia is
adopted by the Vulgate, oneri esse, and by our English version,
" when we might have been burdensome to you," in the matter
of our temporal support — that is, we might have demanded
carnal things in return for spiritual things, but we did not,
for we earned our sustenance by our manual labour. So
Wj^cliffe, " whanne we mygten haue bene in charge." A good
deal may be said on behalf of this view, which is supported by
Theodoret, Estius, Beza, Grotius, Turretin, Koppe, Flatt,
Ewald, Hofmann, Webster and Wilkinson, and virtually
Jowett. Similar phraseology is used by the apostle of minis-
terial support, eTTifiapfjcrai in verse 9, and in 2 Thess. iii, 8 ;
Karafiapeiv, 2 Cor. xii, 16. Similarly too the simple verb
/3apei<r6ai occurs in 1 Tim. v, 16, in reference to the support of
widows by the church, and we have dfiaprj epavrov €T)'ip)]cra in
2 Cor. xi, 9. But the exegesis cannot befullysustained. (1) For
why, had such been the meaning, did not the apostle use the
actual verb which he had employed in verse 9, instead of this
idiomatic phrase ? (2) If the clause be a disclaimer of 7r\eovegla,
it contains an admission that the gratification of it was possible,
under the plea of ministerial support — a degradation of office
which the apostle would certainly not suppose for himself and
64 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
his colleagues. (3) The apostle has passed from a disclaimer of
7r\eoveg!a to a new and different subject, the non-reception of
human honour — "neither of men sought we glory, neither of
you nor of others." (t) This clause of the verse must, from the
participial connection Swd/xevoi, he in immediate harmony with
the preceding one, and is meant to tell how in some way
human honour might have been secured— that is, we do not
seek honour, though we might have stood upon our dignity
as Christ's apostles — the English margin having also " used
authority." (5) fidpo? has the sense of dignity or authority.
The Claromontane Latin has in gravitate. In Diodorus
Siculus, iv, 61, occurs the phrase Sid to (3dpog rtj? ttoXco)? ;
xvi, 8, tw S' 'OXvvOloov (3upeiav ttoXiv. . . . Siu. to (3apo$
teal to d^lcofxa TrJ9 7ro'Aew9 ; in Poly bi us, iv, 32, 7, 7rpo? to j3dpog
to tw AaKeSai/ULonoov ; xxx, 15, 1, kcli to ftapo? t^? twv
'Kpye'iwv 7ro'Xew? — Suidas sub voce. Compare the phrase in
2 Cor. iv, 17, — fidpo? &6£r}$, opposed to eXa^pov t^? OX'i^eccxs.
Such in general seems to be the meaning of the term here.
The apostles did not seek glory from men, "from you or from
others," though they could have been of weight — could have
pressed their claims and official importance, or demanded
honourable recognition as Christ's apostles. (6) The contrast
of the following verses supports this view — we could have been
iv [id pet, but were not; on the contrary, so far from being
ev fidpei we were gentle among you ; so far from our insisting
on the honour due to the apostolic office, we were Yjttioi
among you. This is the view of Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster,
Calvin, Hunnius, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, De Wette, Koch,
Bisping, Liinemann, Baumgarten-Crusius. Chrysostom ex-
plains, " not seeking honour nor boasting ourselves, nor
requiring attendance of guards. And yet, even if we had
done this, we had done nothing out of character; for if persons
sent by mere earthly kings are in honour, much more might
we be." CEcumenius and Theophylact give both interpreta-
tions. Piscator, Heinsius, and Hammond understand the
phrases of church censures, severitas ajjostolica : se quum seve-
ritatem exercere apostolicam posset lenem fuisse. Compare 1
Cor. iv, 21. But the notion is not vindicated in any way by
the context.
Ver. 7.] FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 65
The last clause to? HpicrTov utt6<ttoXoi does not mean as
other apostles (Grotius, Pelt), but as Christ's apostles, there
being stress on Xpicrrou, genitive of possession, and cnroaroXoi
is not to be confined to Paul, for the term includes his col-
leagues. See under Ephes. i, 1 ; iv, 2 ; and for the plural
(i7ro(TTo\oi, Gal. i, 17.
(\ er. 7.) aXX eyevi'iQiiiJ.ev >/x*ot eu jnecrtp v/jlwv — "but we were
(were found to be) gentle in the midst of you." The readings
')]-kiol and v7)7rioi are nearly balanced in regard to authority —
the last having perhaps the higher, B C 1 D 1 F tf, the Latin and
Coptic versions, and several of the fathers — 'ijitiol having
A C 2 D 3 K L N :5 , and the majority of manuscripts. But the v may
have come from the last letter of the previous word. Nj/7t*o?
also is the more familiar term, and may for either reason
have been inserted ; but its use here destroys the figure — we
were first as " children," then " as a nurse." The negative
description is continued down to aXXa, which introduces a
strong contrast to the entire preceding verse, and not merely
to the previous clause (Heinsius, Turretin), and begins the
positive account of their deportment. The term ^-n-iog, " mild,"
occurs only twice in the New Testament — here and in 2 Tim.
ii, 24, connected probably with eira, elirelv. It occurs in
classic writers with some frecmency, and is applied in a variety
of ways to persons and things. Thus it is opposed to ru
juuXicTTa Qv/xw Yjoa'yue^oi/ in Pausanias, (Eliac., ii, IS, 2, p. 434,
vol. II, ed. Schubart) ; applied to a God >/7notrraTo? Oetov
(Euripides, Bacchae, 861) ; to a father (Odyssey, ii, 47) ; to a
ruler and father (Herodian, iv, 1); to Cyrus, in contrast to
Cambyses (Herodotus, iii, 89), tj7ritoraTos 6 ev Xoyoi? irpaoraroq
K<xi jjcruxos ; we have also >/7ria fyapixuKa (Iliad, iv, 218). Ety-
mologicum May., sub voce; Tittmann, Synon., p. 140, &c.
So far from seeking human glory, so far from insisting on
official standing and prerogative, and exacting recognition
and service, we were "gentle in the midst of you"; " we were
each of us as one of yourselves;" and so G^cumenius adds,
ovk Ti]i> uvoorepco Xafiovres tcl£iv. Our deportment was mild,
quiet, unassuming, and affectionate.
a>i eav Tpotjibs OaX-mj ra. eavTtjs tIkvu — " as a nurse cherishes
her own children." The fuller eav has the authority of B C D
E
66 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
F N 3 . 'Qg is a particle of comparison, tartquam si; and the
verb, akin to 6d\\co, OtjXvs, denotes fostering warmth as
applied to a bird (Deut. xxii, 6 ; Job xxxix, 14 ; Ephes. v, 29 ;
Josephus, viii, 14, 3). Tpo<po$, occurring only here in the
New Testament, is a suckling mother or nurse, and is used
in a figure, as here, often by Philo — of which several examples
are given in Loesner's Observat., p. 337 ; Gen. xxxv, 8. The
nursing mother warms and fosters her own offspring, eavrtis —
the offspring which she recognizes as her own, and loves and
cherishes with all that maternal fondness and tenderness
which has passed into a proverb (Is. xlix, 15.) The particle
eav with the present subjunctive betokens something which
may have already taken place, or usually should have taken
place, or something still continued (Winer, § 42, 3, b, ft. See
Peile's note).
(Ver.8.) Oi/to)? 6fxeipoiJ.evoiviJ.wii, euSoKodfxev — "so yearning after
you, we were willing to impart to you." The outm? corresponds
to the clause beginning with 009, which is at once illustratively
connected with what goes before, and also stands as protasis to
this verse — "we were gentle among you as a nurse — so .... we."
The participle is read in the common text lp.eipop.evoi, but our
text is supported by ABCDFKLN, 30 cursives, and several
of the fathers, and though the word is not found in the usual
lexicons, it occurs in old glossaries, in Job iii, 21 (Codd. A B), in
Ps. lxii, 1 (Symmachus), but the MSS. vary- as to the spelling.
Hesychius explains it opeipovrai, eiriOvpovcriv. Photius in his
lexicon gives it as compounded of 6pov })pp6crQai (p. 331, ed.
Porson). Theophylact supposes it to be 6pov e'ipeiv. It is, how-
ever, against this conjecture that the verb governs the genitive.
MeipecrOai occurs in Nicander, Ther., 402. If this be the original
form the prefix is added for euphony or strength, as Svpea-Oai and
oSvpea-Oai ; or if it be, according to Post and Palm, for the sake
of the metre, then 6p.elpop.ai is a different form found in the
later stage of the language (Winer, § 16). Fritzsche supposes
that the t and the o were used as suited the writer's taste.
F^vSoKovpev is not present (Grotius, Pelt), but is in the imper-
fect — cupide volebamus (Vulgate) — the imperfect, like the
aorist in the New Testament, without the augment, though
some codices have it (Winer, § 12, 3). The verb has in it the
Vkr. 8.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. fi7
idea of willing purpose, not bare resolve, but generous desire,
spontaneous and hearty impulse. See under Ephes. i, 5.
/j.€Taoovvai v/miv ou /ulovov to evayyeXiov tou Qeov aWa. /ecu Tag
eavTow ^vxag — " to impart not only the gospel of God but also
our own souls." There is a species of zeugma in the clause, as
/meTuSovvai does not strictly agree with the last words (Kuhner,
§ 853). This verb, like verbs of participation, is often followed
by a genitive and with the dative of person, but here by an
accusative and dative, as the last clause does not admit of a
partitive notion — we were willing not only to share the gospel
with } T ou, but to give you our own souls or lives — kavT&v with
the first person (Winer, § 22, 5). They proved this by their
cheerful and undaunted endurance of danger and toil : they
carried their lives in their hands and would have given them
up, when they so lovingly persisted in preaching the gospel to
them.
Sioti ayain]To\ rj/xiv eyem')0t]Te — "because ye became dear to
us," " because ye grew to be dearly beloved to us," the. verb
retaining its usual meaning, as in i, 5. The reading yeyevrjarQe
has little authority. They had listened to and accepted the
good tidings immediately and intelligently and decidedly, and
became followers of us and of the Lord, were not swayed off by
persecution, but so steadfastly adhered to their profession, that
they were everywhere spoken of. Becoming so dear to Paul
and his colleagues, these devoted men cherished them like a
'nurse fostering her own children, did not lord it over them, but
were gentle, affectionate, and self-imparting ; and not only with
enthusiastic fondness had they preached to them the blessed
gospel, but they would have willingly died a martyr's death
for them, had such a proof of heroic attachment been necessary.
Bengel's notion is foreign to the meaning, ani/ma nostra
cupiebat quasi immeare in animam vestram.
(Yer. 9.) /uLini/uLOveueTe yap,ade\<po\, tov koitov ijp.dov kgutov P-ox~
Qov — "for ye remember, brethren, our toil and travail." The apostle
appeals again to themselves — to their recollection of his ardent
and self-sacrificing labours, The connection indicated by yap
has been looked at in various ways. Liinemann and Alford
connect the clause directly with the previous one, " because ye
became so clear to us," but this connection is limited to a mere
68 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
angle of the thought. Nor is it better to select an earlier clause,
Swd/JLevoi ep fidpei eivai, or eyevi'/Oy/uLev ?/7rioi, for in either the
reason alleged would be irrelevant. The chief thought of the
previous verse is — " we were willing to impart to you our own
souls," ui'ged by the subordinate thought, "for ye grew to be dear
to us," and the present verse brings proof of it — a proof, that is, of
actual hard labour, willingly undergone, and accompanied at
the same time with peril. They gave up their lives to daily
and nightly drudgery, which wholly absorbed all their physical
powers, and they would have given their lives in the highest
sense, if there had been a necessity for the sacrifice. The verb
/uLvtl/uLovevere followed by a genitive in i, 3, is here followed by
an accusative, the meaning, perhaps, being — ye bear in mind,
or ye keep in remembrance (Matt, xvi, 9 ; Rev. xviii, 5).
KoVo? and [jloxOos, used together in 2 Thess. iii, 8, and in 2 Cor.
xi, 27, do not essentially differ in sense. Grotius, however,
distinguishes them thus — ■ kottov in fevendo, ix'oyQov hi agendo.
Ellicott says that the first word marks the toil on the side of
the suffering it involves, and the latter on the side of the
magnitude of the obstacles it has to overcome. Beza affirms
that " the second term means something more severe than the
first." But it is better, perhaps, to say that the repetition is
meant to intensify the meaning, for /jloxOos occurs in the New
Testament only in connection with ko7tos — the phrase being a
terse and familiar idiom. Comp. Sept., Num. xxxiii, 11 ; Wisdom
x, 10. It will therefore denote toil even to weariness, labour
even to utter exhaustion, comprising alike the work which he
did as our apostle and the fatigue endured by the effort to
support himself by manual industry. It is wrong, however,
in Balduin to make a distinction between the terms by under-
standing the first de spirituali labore, and the second dc
manuario labore scenopegiae. The apostle adds —
vvktos kcu tj/mepa? epyat,op.evoi, 7T/oo? to jxt\ eirifiapr\(Tal Tiva
viJLU>v, eKripv^afxev et? vp.a.9 to evayyeXiov tou Qeou — "night and
day working, in order not to burden any one of you, we
preached unto you the gospel of God."
Tup in the common text, after wkto?, is rightly rejected as
a correction. The genitives are emphatically placed, and the
apostle always places wkto? first (Acts xx, 31 ; 1 Thess. iii, 10;
Ver. D.J FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 69
2 Tim. i, 3 ; 1 Tim. v, 5). Night may stand first, as the Jews
reckoned from sunset to sunset — the evening preceding the
morning, as we speak yet of a fortnight; or the order may
depend on some suggestion of the apostle's own mind, the
most striking part of the expression being put first, the
period of common rest becoming to him one of heavy toil.
The order is reversed in Luke xviii, 7 ; Acts ix, 24 ; and five
times in the Apocalypse, for Hebrew rfrfe\ np'v (Jer. viii, 23 ; xvi,
13; xxxiii, 25). It may be remarked that Luke places vvkto.
first when he uses the accusative, but i)p.epa? first when he
uses the genitive. The temporal genitive is explained by
Donaldson (§451) as "out of," "within the limit of;" and
examples of this and of other formulas, with varying order,
may be seen in Lobeck's Paralvp., p. 62. The participle epya-
£o/uevoi here refers to manual labour (Acts xviii, 3 ; 1 Cor. ix, 6 ;
2 Thess. iii, 10; Xenoph., Mem., i, 2, 57). In 1 Cor. iv, 12, rah
iSlais x e P (T ' LV i s added. Compare Ephes. iv, 28. This continuous
physical toil was carried on irpbs — with this end in view (Winer,
§ 44, 6). The verb eirifiaptiv is used only tropically in the New
Testament (2 Cor. ii, 5; 2 Thess. iii, 8). See Appian, B. C, 4, 15.
That we might not overburden any of you, by claiming tem-
poral support from you, we supported ourselves by unremitting
labour. Et? u/xa? is neither among you nor in vobis (Vulgate),
but unto you. E/9 implies the direction of the preaching (Mark
xiii, 10 ; Luke xxiv, 47 ; 1 Peter i, 25), the epya^op-evoi being
parallel in time to the eKrjpu^ajuev — all the while they were
preaching they were winning wages by daily and nightly toil.
It is beyond proof in Balduin, Pelagius, and Aretius to make
vvkto? the period of working, and ij/mepa? that of preaching.
For we have no means of making such a distinction, as probably
teaching and working might alternate at shorter intervals, as
opportunity offered or necessity required. No anxious inquirers
would be put off during the clay because the apostle was at
work, and the work laid aside for such a purpose would be
resumed during the watches of the night ; or disciples like
Nicodemus might visit him during the night, and the toil so
interrupted would be taken up during the day. Why the
apostle gave up his claim for pastoral maintenance, and lived
and wrought in this independent spirit in Thessalonica, we do
70 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chai\ II.
not know; but the probability is, that he was anxious that he
might not be misinterpreted or the purity of his motives
challenged, and that he might not be likened to a selfish and
grasping sophist to whom hire was everything, and therefore
he would take nothing in compensation, but toiled to support
himself, that the gospel without hindrance, and in an unselfish
and disinterested form, might win its way among the Gentiles.
Chrysostom supposes that the Thessalonians were poor, and
that the apostle compassionated their poverty. We read, how-
ever, of " honourable women not a few" among the converts,
and the abstinence of the apostle from support is to be ascribed
to a higher motive (Jowett; Philip, iv, 15).
The apostle abruptly, and without any connecting particle,
now solemnly summarizes what ho had previously said in
detached clauses about the behaviour of himself and his col-
leagues at Thessalonica.
(Ver. 10.) ' Y/xeis pciprvpe? Ka\ 6 Geo? — "Ye are witnesses and
God is witness." Much they could judge of, and on such
points he appeals to them ; much they could not judge of,
and on such points lying beyond their cognizance he appeals to
God. He submits himself unconditionally to their judgment and
to that of God, and has no doubts of the decision which would
be given by them and ratified by Him who trieth the heart.
to? o<TMt)<? Kai $ikouu)$ kui ap.ep.7rToci? vp.lv toi$ 7ri(TTevovcru> eyew'/-
6}]/u.ei' — " how holily, and righteously, and unblameably we be-
haved ourselves in the judgment of you who believe." The
apostle does not employ adjectives, for he is not bringing out the
elements of his own personal character, but is describing his
deportment or dealing toward believers (Luke i, 75 ; Ephes.
iv, 24; Titus i, 8 ; Jcsephus, Antiq., vi, 5, 5).
The accumulation of epithets intensifies the meaning. The
three words are not to be taken as adjectives (Schott), but the}^
are a species of secondary predicates (Donaldson, § 436 ; Winer,
§ 54, 2). The epithets are to be distinguished at the same
time, though not perhaps with decided discrimination of
meaning. The first two adverbs assert with a positive aspect,
and the third puts forward a negative statement. The first
epithet, ocruo?, is defined in Plato, 7rep* Se 6eou? ocria (Gorg ,
57, A. B.), and so in Polybius, t« tt/?o? tov<? dv0p(D7rov? SUata
Yer. io,j fiest epistle to the thessalonians. 71
ku} tu wpo? Oeou? oaria (Hist., xxiii, 10 ; Rost and Palm sub voce).
It stands thirty times in the Septuagint for the Hebrew Ton, and
dyios stands a hundred times for v^H, and the two are never
exchanged. Perhaps this meaning may not be thoroughly
sustained in the New Testament ; yet compare 1 Tim. ii, 8 ;
Heb. vii, 26, where purity in its divine aspects is referred to.
The second term, StKalcog, " righteously," means in all conscien-
tiousness and integrity, with special reference to man. The
apostle has called God as well as themselves to witness, and
the ordinary classic reference of otn'w? may therefore be ad-
mitted (Tittmann's Syrion., p. 25), while Sikuiw? has a deeper
range of meaning than the classical quotations intimate, and
does not merely characterize elements of human relationship
(Trench). Holiness in the New Testament is not restricted to
divine relation, but enters into the second table of the law; and
righteousness, though occupied with the duties of the second
table, has its root and life in piety. The third epithet,
a/n€fj.7rTco?, is " blamelessly " — if holily and righteously, then
blamelessly. It is too restricted in Olshausen to make this
adverb the negative iteration of the positive Sikuico?, and too
vague in Flacius to refer it to other graces, as castitas, sohrietas.
It is a rhetorical weakness in Turretin and Bengel to restrict
this third epithet to the apostle and his colleagues — the first
having allusion to God, the second to the people, and the third
to themselves. 'Yp.lv is not specially connected with upep-
7rTcos, as CEcumenius — toi? yap airla-Toi^ ovk a/xe/xTrro? — nor is
it probably the dative of interest (Ellicott), nor is the sense
"toward you" (De Wette). CEcumenius and Theophylact make
it the dative of opinion (Bernhardy, p. 337) ; and so Koch,
Lunemann and Alford : Hofmann finds a contrast in the par-
ticiple to the time when they first believed ; the Vulgate has
qui cfcJ'tdistis.
The apostle's appeal was to the believing Thessalonians, to
them, and to God ; and it was on account of their being be-
lievers in God that he so confidently summoned them to witness
on his behalf. The toi<? ina-Tevova-iv is not pointless, as Jowett
supposes ; it forms, in fact, the very point of the appeal.
Whatever impressions unbelievers formed of us, you who be-
lieve concur in our description of our holy, righteous, and
72 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAULS [Chap. II.
blameless conduct. When they wrought at a secular occupa-
tion, fellow- workmen might form varying estimates of their
character; but those who had profited through their preaching-
were better qualified to understand and judge them, and that
because they believed. " How could we act otherwise to be-
lievers ? " ov yap apepirroi irdcriv co(p6>]pev. Still closer and
more individualizing appeal —
(Ver. 11.) KaOdirep olSare, "even as ye know." KaOdo? is
the term commonly employed ; kuOo. occurs only once (Matt.
xxvii, 10) ; in the word before us it is strengthened by 7rep,
and is perhaps employed because KaOoo? immediately follows.
They had conducted themselves holily, righteously, and un-
blameably, and all this in accordance with the universal and
the individual experience of the Thessalonian believers : —
<09 eva eKacrTOv vpm 1 , to? iraTijp TeKva eavrov, 7rapaKa\ovi>Tes vp.a$
kou 7rapap.v60viJ.ev01 — " how every one of you, as a father his own
children, we were exhorting you and encouraging you." There
are two accusatives — first, eva ckucttov, and then vp.u$ — both
governed by the participles ; " every one of you " placed em-
phatically, "each one of you," individualized, and "you" collec-
tively or in the mass, not a mere pleonasm. Ei? eKaarrog is
found in Plato, So})h., 223 D ; Protag., 332 c ; Luke iv, 40 ; xvi,
5 ; Acts ii, 3, 6 ; 1 Cor. xii, 18 ; Ephes. v, 7, corresponding to
the Latin unus quisque, ita at nemo excliidatur (Pelt). The
two participles may either be a broken construction — modal
clauses — with a finite verb omitted ; " ye know how we did so
— exhorting you " (D(e Wette, Ellicott). Thig is a common
form of idiomatic construction with the apostle. The simpler
way, however, is to supply eyevijOvpev, which has been already
employed (Liinemann, Alford, Hofmann). Other resolutions of
the difficulty have been proposed. Beza, Grotius, and Flatt
propose rjpev, which is not in the context. Schrader, Ewald,
and Riggenbach make KaOdrrep o'lSare a parenthesis, and con-
nect the participles with eyevijOtjpev in ver. 10, an awkward
connection. Others, perplexed with the double accusative eva
eicao-Tov, vpa$, propose to connect vpag alone with the participles,
and supply a finite verb to eva eKaa-rov. Thus, Vatablus, Er.
Schmid, Ostermann propose riyairijuapev. Whitby and others
propose that, or e6d\\p-ap.ev from ver. 7. Pelt introduces owe
Ver. 11.] FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 73
acp/lKa/uev; and Schott prefers a verb in which is notio curandi
aive tractandi sive educandi.
The three participles are closely connected in sense and in
relation with the following ei$ —
irapaKaXovvTe? vpa$ kui TrapapvOoupevoi ku\ papTvpopevoi —
" exhorting you and encouraging and adjuring you." The Re-
ceived Text has papTupovpevoi, with D X F, and most manuscripts,
but the other reading has in its favour B D 3 K L N. A omits
teal fxaprupojueuoi altogether. The first is the more general,
appealing to you by every argument and motive ; the second
is suggested by the peril and persecutions around them, on
account of which they needed to be animated and consoled
(v, 14; John xi, 19, 31; Philip, ii, 1; Plato, Leg., ii, 6GG ; the
Syriac has ^onnV") _»ooi v » V-h) ; and the third is of special
strength, laying charge on them as if in presence of witnesses,
solemnly adjuring them to walk worthy of God (Gal. v, 3 ;
Ephes. iv, 17 ; Polybius xiii, 8, 6 ; Thucydides, vi, 30 ; viii, 53 ;
Raphel. in loc.) As the three participles are connected with
el$ to TrepnraTeiv as the purpose, it is wrong to give any of them
a special supplement, such as Chrysostom and Theophylact
give to the first, irpos to <pepeiv iravTa, or such as G^cumenius and
De Wette give to the second, to meet trials bravely, Treipa<rp.ol<;
(1 Cor. xiv, 3). This work of the apostle was directed to every
one of them, to each individual by himself and for himself, and
also to the mass of believers ; so that Chrysostom exclaims,
(3a(3ai ev touovtco Tr\)'/6ei pijSeva TrapaXnrelv, pi] piicpov yu^f
p.eyav, p.)] ttXovctlov pi] TrevijTa.
And the whole of this comprehensive and yet individualizing
pastoral work has as its model a father toward his children.
It was earnest and faithful, the yearning importunity of a
father's heart, and the fresh, familiar loving counsels breathed
from a father's lips. Compare verse 7 ; "Q? re 7rarrjp u> -waiSl
Odyss., i, 308.
(Ver. 12.) /ecu paprvpopevoi eig to TrepnraTeiv vpus u^tcof tou
Qeou tov kuXovvtos vpas eis Tr\v eavTod /3ao-i\eiav kul So£av
— " and testifying that ye should walk worthily of God, who
is calling you into His own kingdom and glory." The present
TrepnraTeiv has preponderant authority over the common
reading of the aorist TrepnraTija-ai, and the KaXecravTo? of the
74 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
Received Text has only in its favour A N and eight manu-
scripts, the Vulgate (qui vocavit), and some of the fathers.
E/V to with the infinitive denotes the purpose of all their
exhorting, encouraging, and attesting (Winer, § 44, 6), and does
not indicate merely direction or subject (Lunemann, Bisping;
1 Cor. ix, 12; 2 Cor. iv, 4).
The adverb a£lo)$ is similarly used with the genitive (Rom.
xvi, 2; Ephes. \v, 1; Philip, i, 27; Col. i, 10; 3 John 6;
Demosth., OlyntJi., i, 5, 2; Thucyd., iii, 39, 5). For the divine
KXrjcri?, see under Gal. i, 6. The present participle indi-
cates the call as ever present, while it is reaching to the
future. The call is ever ascribed to God, whatever be the
instrumentality ; el? points to that into which they are being
called (Matt, xviii, 9; xix, 17; John iii, 5), "His own kingdom
and glory," the article rrjv being common to both nouns, though
omitted before the second one, on account of the pronoun eav-
toO (Winer, § 19, 4). The Syriac reads oi^oklo giLq2^&&.
His kingdom and glory is not His glorious kingdom, fiao-iXela
evSogog (Koppe, Olshausen). BacriXela rod Qeov is the king-
dom which God sets up in His grace and which is founded in
the merit and mediation of His Son, into which believers
enter now by a second birth, and which reaches its full and
final development at the Second Advent. His glory is His
own perfection and happiness which He confers upon His
people, His own image reimpressed on the hearts of those who
have been made meet for beholding Him and enjoying fellow-
ship with Him (Rom. v, 2 ; viii, 13; 2 Cor. iii, 7. See under
Ephes. v, 5; Col. i, 13). Baa-tAe/a rod Qeou is not the kingdom
in its earthly aspect, glory being its heavenly form (Baum-
garten-Crusius). To walk worthily of God, who is calling us
to His kingdom and glory, is to have one's whole course of life
preserved in harmony with God's gracious work upon the soul,
and with the high and hallowed destiny with which that work
is lovingly connected, and into which it is ever ripening. And
such being the propriety and necessity of this " worthy" walk,
the apostle and his fellow-labourers laid themselves out in
exhorting, encouraging, and conjuring the Thessalonian be-
lievers — all of them as a body, each of them by himself — to
maintain it (1 Peter v, 10).
Visr. 13.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 75
(Ver. 13.) Kcu cua tovto — "and on this account" the kcu is
omitted in D F K L and in the Latin fathers; but is found in
A B, in the Syriac and Coptic Versions, and it is inserted by
Teschendorf and Lachinann. The authority fur kcu is thus
good, but it may have been added for the sake of connec-
tion.
kcu fiiuiei? ev^apiUTOv/Jiev T<a Qew a.Sia\ei7rTa)<; — " and for this
cause we also thank God without ceasing." See under i, 2, 3.
The reference in Sta tovto has been debated. (1) Jowett refers
it to the verses both before and after — an admitted tautology.
(2) Pelt and Bloomfield connect it thus, quoniam tarn felici
successu apud vos evangelium praedicavimus — another form
of tautology: we preached with great success, and we thank
God because ye received our preaching. (3) Schott and De
Wette join the clause to «? to ireptiraTeiv, and as connected
with the result; the former putting it thus, quum haec opera
in animis vestris ad vitam divina, invitatione dignam impel-
lendis minime frustra fuerit collocata. . . . ego vicissim cum
sociis Deo gratias ago assiduas. But this connection also is
not free from tautology, even though Schott places koa fnueig
in direct contrast to v/uag of the previous verse; and then ei?
to 7repnraTeiv is the purpose, not result of the exhortation for
which thanks might be rendered. The latter connects the
word with the purpose, that purpose being one of high moment;
but of that momentousness, as Liinemann remarks, the context
says nothing. (4) Another view is adopted by Auberlen, Balduin,
Zanchius, Olshausen, Bisping, and Alford. They join Sia. tovto
to the immediately preceding clause — who hath called you to
His kingdom and glory ; as God is thus calling you, we
thank God that ye understood and followed the divine call.
But not only, as Ellicott objects, is Sta tovto thus joined to a
mere appended clause, an objection by no means insuperable,
but the chief statements of the previous verse are in this way
overlooked. These statements as to the apostle's zeal and
assiduity occupy a special prominence, so much so that appeal
is made both to God and to themselves for the truth of them.
(5) Ellicott and others connect Sia tovto with the previous
verses, the reference being to the zeal and earnestness with
which the apostle and his colleagues laboured, and the thanks-
76 COMMENTARY UN ST. PAUL'S. [Chap. II.
giving being that in a similar spirit they had received the
gospel so proclaimed to them.
The apostle says kui quel?. Some, as Koch and De Wette,
join the kui to the previous Sia tovto — " for this cause also," as
in the Authorized Version. But such a connection is uncom-
mon, though Liinemann's objection to it, that such a sense
would require oia kou tovto, cannot be borne out — the insertion
of kcu between the preposition and the noun being very uncom-
mon (Hartung, vol. I, 143). But if the kou naturally belongs
to ij/ueis, who are the persons referred to by it ? Some, as
Luneinann, give this sense, we also, i.e., we and all true Chris-
tians, which is too vague; while Alford brings in, all who
believe in Macedonia and Achaia, "we and they give thanks";
but the reference is both too special and too remote, Auberlen
carrying the reference back to verse 1, and Ewald apparently
to the commencement of the epistle. So that we regard the
jj/aeh as simply in contrast to the v/uas of the previous verses —
we too, as well as you, thank God for these spiritual blessings,
we too thank him ; non solum vos propter hanc vocationem
debetis ageregratias, sed etiam nos (Zanchius, Balduin, Ellicott),
kou insinuating a slight contrast in the connection. See under
Philip, i, 3; Col. i, 12.
oti 7rapa\a/3oPTe? Xoyov aKOijs irap >///(* tov Qeov, eSegacrOe
ov Xoyov av6pdo7rot)v — " that having received from us the word of
preaching — itself of God — ye accepted not the word of men."
"Otc introduces the contents and reason of the thanksgiving.
The participle irapahafiovTe? is temporal, describing the act
which was necessarily connected with iSegacrOe, and prior to
it, or all but coincident in time with it. The two verbs are
not synonymous (Baumgarten-Crusius), as the Vulgate in its
repetition of accipere would imply, or as the English Version,
which renders both words by the same term, " receive." The
verbs have been thus distinguished — the first as being more ob-
jective in its nature, and the second more subjective ; the first
describing the reception of the truth as external matter of fact,
and the second the inner acceptance of it as matter of faith.
Bengel distinguishes thus, 7rapa\a/xj3uvu> dicit simplicem ac-
ceptionem, Sixop.ou connotat prolubium in accipiendo. See
under Gal. i, 9, 12. Compare Luke viii, 13; Acts viii, 14; xi, 1;
Ver. 13.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 77
xvii, 11; 1 Cor. ii, 14 ; xi, 23 : xiii, 1; 2 Cor. viii, 17; Col. ii, 6 ;
Raphelius in loc. ; Thucyd., i, 95. In the first act described
they received it as a divine message orally conveyed to them.
\6you aKorj? irap' fj/uLcov. Aoyo? is the doctrine or the gospel,
and aKorjs is used in the passive sense which it has so often in the
New Testament (John xii, 38; Rom. x, 16 ; Heb. iv, 2. See
under Gal. iii, 2).
'A/coJ/f may virtually be the genitive of apposition (Ellicott),
or it may be the characterizing genitive, the word distinguished
as being heard, not read, nor the result of mental discovery.
It was preached, and they on listening received it.
The notion of Theophylact adopted by Pelt is overstrained :
the word of hearing is Ky'ipuy/ma co? Sia tou aicovcrQrivai iricrTevo-
juevov — verbum quod audiendo creditur.
'Ako// may mean actively, the hearing; or passively, that
which is heard. 'A/co>/ Tri<TTea><; may mean the hearing or recep-
tion of that doctrine of which faith is a distinctive principle ;
or, in a passive sense, that which is heard of faith, that report
or message which holds out faith as its prominent and charac-
teristic element. This passive sense is perhaps uniform in
the Septuagint.
The connection of wap' rj/uMi/ has been variously taken, as the
phrase may be joined either immediately to olko?^ (Schott,
Olshausen, Lunemann, Hofmann, Bisping, Pelt), or to the parti-
ciple 7rapuAa/3oVT69 (Turretin, De Wette, Koch, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Auberlen, Ellicott). The first construction is admis-
sible, as in John i, 41, and as (Lunemann) substantives and
adjectives retain the force of the verbs from which they are
derived. It is no objection to the second connection that irap'
t)[Awv is separated by some words — the accusative of object —
from the participle ; for it is a form of syntax by no means
uncommon, and such a sense would not necessitate the order
7rapa\a(36vT€? trap rjp.cov \6yov. Such is the connection indicated
by the Vulgate acc&pistis a nobis, and so the Syriac
Nor in this case is aKOtj? superfluous, as is alleged by Lune-
mann ; for not only does it characterize the mode of convey-
ance as an oral communication, 7r«pa denoting the more im-
mediate source, but it forms a contrast to the following tov
78 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. IT.
Qeou — from us the word of hearing, but that word in its
ultimate origin from God — we preaching it, you hearing it, but
God the giver of it. Compare iv, 1 ; Gal. i, 12 ; 2 Thess. iii, 6.
This Xoyo? aKOtj? is at the same time rou Qeou, " of God," the
genitive of origin, as the contrast in the following dv6pu>7ru)v
plainly indicates. It is not the genitive of possession, nor of
object (Vatablus, Hunnius, Balduin, Grotius). Gal. ii, 9 ; 2 Peter
iii, 1 ; Heb. vi, 1. The too Qeou, appended abnormally and on
purpose, qualifies the preceding clause, \6yov aKorjs Trap i'hjlwv, its
human source near and immediate to them, as contrasted with
its true divine origin. Chandler needlessly supplies 7rep\ before
tov Qeou.
eSe^acrOe ov \6yov avQ pwirodv , dXX' (icaOoo? ecrTiv aX/yOco?) \oyov
Qeov — "ye accepted not the word of men, but, as it is in truth,
the word of God." The difference between this verb and the
previous participle has been already referred to, it being the
inner reception by faith which is now being described. The
genitive dvQpwTrwv is again that of origin. The English version
inserts a supplemental " as," and Pelt says ante \6yov vero quasi
w? supplendum esse, res ipsa docet. But the res ipsa teaches
the opposite. Were the apostle's thankfulness based not only
on the fact that the Thessalonians had accepted the message,
not from man but from God, but also on their estimate or
appreciation of this difference, and their consequent mode of
acceptance, then " as " might be more naturally interpolated.
But it is superfluous, for the apostle simply states the fact of
their acceptance, saying nothing about its manner (Kiihner,
§ 560). The parenthetical clause also states the apostle's
opinion — they accepted not the words of men, but the word of
God, which it really is, d\r]6w$ (Matt, xiv, 33; John i, 48). As
a message spoken to them and heard by them, it was a word
from men ; but when they accepted it, they accepted it in its
divine character, the word of God. Men were but the instru-
ments, God was the primary author and origin. To accept a
human word is ordinary credence; to accept a divine word is
saving faith, accompanied in them that believe with joy in the
Hol} r Ghost. The first part of the process, the hearing and
comprehension of the message, may exist without the second ;
but the second, the belief, ever implies the first (Rom. xi, 14).
Ver. 13.] F1EST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 79
09 ku\ evepyelrai ev vij.Iv to?? TriarTevovaiv — " which worketh
also in you who believe." The Vulgate (by its verbum Dei
qui), a-Lapide, Bengel, Koppe, Auberlen, take Qeov as the
antecedent. Peile apparently understands by Xoyo? the Son
of God (John i, 1). Whitby, with the same antecedent, thinks
the reference is to the primitive gifts or x a P^ <T l uiaTa > called
evepyi'ipara (1 Cor. xii, 6, 10), a far-fetched and groundless
explanation. But the reference to \6yo? is decidedly to be
preferred. (1) For the "word" is the special theme, and their
acceptance of it the special ground of the apostle's continuous
thanksgiving. (2) Geo'9 is never used in the New Testament
with evepyelaOui, but uniformly with the active (1 Cor. xii, 6 ;
Gal. ii, 3 ; iii, 5 ; Ephes. i, 2 ; Philip, ii, 13). (3) Keu points
to the same conclusion — the word of God which also, in ac-
cordance with, or because of, its divine origin, worketh in you.
So the Claromontane Latin (quod opevatur), and the Syriac
(_b01) Theophylact, CEcumenius, and very many expositors.
'Ytvepye'iTai is not to be taken as passive (Estius, Hammond,
Schott, Bloomfield), but as a kind of dynamic middle, evolving
energy out of itself (Kruger, § 52, 8), and is usually spoken of
things (Winer, § 38, 6). The ascensive koi does not belong to
the relative (De Wette, Koch), but to the verb (Klotz, Devarius,
vol. II, p. 6Qj6). That working is experienced —
ev vp.lv iriuTevovariv — " in you who believe." The Latin
versions erroneously have the past tense, qui credidistis. The
meaning is not temporal, ex quo tempore religionem suscejristis
(Koppe), for that would require the past tense ; nor is it causal,
quum susceperitis (Pelt) ; nor is it propterea quodfidem habetis,
for, as Ellicott remarks, that would necessitate the omission of
the article (Donaldson, § 492). Faith was the present char-
acteristic of those to whom the apostle wrote, and only in them
did this working manifest itself, and not in those who heard
merely, or gave but an outer credence to the word in its
human medium and aspect. The word shows its power through
the believing acceptance of it as an enlightening, elevating,
guiding, sanctifying, comforting, and formative principle
(2 Tim. iii, 15).
(Ver. 11.) 'Ypel? yu-p pipr^rai eyevi'jQqre, udeXcpol, twv €kk\t]-
(Tim> tov Qeov tccv ovanov ev t>/ 'lovSaia ev HpicrTM '[>]<rov
80 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
— " For ye became followers, brethren, of the churches of God
which are in Judaea, in Christ Jesus."
Tup gives a proof and illustration of the preceding clause,
" which worketh in you that believe," vpei? corresponding to
the previous ujuliv. The divine word made its power to be
felt in their believing hearts ; for through it they imitated the
Judaean churches in patience and constancy under persecution.
Other references are remote and pointless. Olshausen supposes
the allusion to be to their faith, i.e., ye are believers because
ye imitated the churches in Judaea ; but their faith is viewed
not in itself but in connection with the evepyeia of the divine
word. Flatt, again, groundlessly refers the yap to eoegao-Oe —
that ye received it willingly, is proved by your adherence to
it in spite of suffering. So GEcumenius. But the proof of the
evepyeia lay in this, that they had become followers — imitators
— not in intention, but in fact. As the Judaean churches felt
and acted, so they felt and acted. See under i, G.
The pointed meaning of the noun is diluted, however, in
Pelt's explanation, p. i p. r } t a \ hie non tam ii sunt, qui spontr
imitantur, quam jiotius quibus simile quid contingit. The
phrase twv ovcroov describes the churches as existing at that
moment in Judaea. See under Gal. i, 22 ; and under 1 Thess.
i, 1. They were in Judaea as their locality, the sphere of their
outer existence, but they were in Christ Jesus as their sphere
of inner life and spiritual blessing ; in Him, in union with
Him, and in fellowship with Him, the source of their vitality
and strength. See under Gal. i, 22. The churches in Judaea
which had been so oppressed and persecuted had set an example
of patience and faith which the Thessalonian Church had fol-
lowed, as they received the word " in much affliction, with joy
of the Holy Ghost." The apostle proceeds to explain the simil-
arity of position —
oti to. uvto. eiraBeTe /cat vpeis vtto twv iSiwv <rvp(fivKeTwv,
/caOco? koa avTo\ vtto roov 'lovSaiwv — " for ye also suffered the
same things of your own countrymen, even as they also did
from the Jews."
Tatrra is a form of reading which is without authority, and
some few codices of no great value have airo for v-wo in both
clauses where it occurs : vtto being found after neuter verbs
Ver. 14.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. SI
used as passives and indicating the efficient cause. Compare
iraOeiv uiro (Matt. xvi. 21). Winer, § 47 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph.,
sub voce, II, p. 880. The phrase ret avrd is emphatic in posi-
tion, "the same things" in suffering warranting the use of
jULl/UL>]TCU.
2vjUL(f)v\eTr]s (contribidis, Vulgate) is defined by Hesychius
as 6/ui.oe6i>i}9. Herod ian remarks that the word <pv\erris, like
some others, was used avev rrjs arvv, since they indicated a con-
tinuous relation, while other terms, like av/jLiroTri^, are used
with it, as indicating a temporary connection. See the note
in Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, 471. The compound word is
found only here in the New Testament, though it occurs in
Isocrates (263 a), where, however, some codices read the simple
noun (p. 540, vol. Ill, Orat. Attici, ed. Dobson). It belongs to
the decaying stage of the language, which was marked by a
frequent use of compounds, as Thiersch says, id commune lin-
gua/rum a prisco vigore degenerantium, ut verba cum praepo-
sitionibus composita invedescant loco verborum simplicium
(De Pent,, p. 83). Their own fellow-countrymen are plainly
not Jews (a-Lapide, Hammond), nor Jews and Gentiles (Calvin,
Piscator, Bengel), but heathens, for they are here placed in direct
contrast to the Jews ; and as the Thessalonian Church was
made up chiefly of heathen (i, 0), and as the emphatic term
iSlwu implies, " their own fellow-countrymen " must refer to
them (Matt, ix, 1 ; John i, 11). The statement is verified in
Acts xvii, 5-9.
KaOwg Kai avrol vtto rwu 'lovoa'ioov — " even as they also from
the Jews." The phrase /caOoo? kuI avrol forms an imperfect
apodosis ; ra avra a or airep, as Alford remarks, would have
been grammatically more exact. Compare Philip, i, 30. But
the inaccuracy is not uncommon, a comparative adverbial
sentence standing for an adjectival one : tov uvtov Tpbirov,
cocnrep...ovTO) kui (Demosth., Phil., p. 34, vol. I, ed. Schaefer) ; e<\-
to (jlvto o-xw*", wo-irep (Xenoph., Anab., i, 10, 10; Plato, Phaedo,
p. SG a; Kuhner, § 830, 2 ; Lobeck ad Phrynich., p. 426). In
kcu avrol there is a reciprocal reference to the previous kcu
v[xei$ (Ephes. v, 23), the double kcu giving it prominence. Auto]
is not Paul and his colleagues (Erasmus, Musculus, Er. Schmid),
which would altogether destroy the point of the comparison; but
F
82 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. IT.
avro\ is construed according to sense, the antecedent being twv
€KK\t}<riu>v ev Trj 'lovSala, the believers in Palestine (Winer,
§ 22, 3). See especially Gal. i, 22, 23. That the Judaean
churches suffered no little persecution from their fanatical
unbelieving brethren, is plain from several sections of the Acts.
The apostle Paul at an earlier period of his life had himself a
prominent hand in it. They who stoned Stephen " laid down
their clothes at a young man's feet whose name was Saul."
" Saul yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the
disciples of the Lord." " Saul made havock of the church, and
entering into every house, and haling men and women, he
committed them to prison." " I have heard by many of this
man, how much evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem,"
was the reply of Ananias. He himself says, " Many of the
saints did I shut up in prison, and when they were put to
death I gave my voice against them." " I punished them oft
in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme, being
exceedingly mad against them." Saul was but a prominent
and resolute associate or leader of the persecuting Jews, not
doing the work of ferocity and blood single-handed, but having
hosts of coadjutors and sympathizers in the Sanhedrim and
among the popular masses. Many must have felt as he felt,
though they might not have his daring and enthusiasm, and
their malignant hostility did not cease with his conversion.
The martyrdom of Stephen led to a more general onslaught,
which scattered abroad the disciples. Herod slew James and
imprisoned Peter, because he saw it " pleased the Jews." The
apostle himself was in danger from the Jewish mob; and fort} r
of them banded together, and bound themselves under a curse
to kill him, as a representative of Christian zeal and enterprise.
Compare Acts viii, ix, xi, xii, &c. These indications of feeling
prove the profound enmity which the Jews cherished toward
believers in Christ among them. Paul was only an intensified
type of them, and their conduct toward him indicates their
hatred of all who, though in humbler position and in a nar-
rower sphere, held his doctrines and stood by them. In Thes-
salonica the unbelieving leaders took to them that excitable
and profligate rabble which in such towns lounge about the
market place, and with these worthless allies easily creat-
Ver. 14.] FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. S3
ing <a tumult, assaulted the house of Jason, with whom the
apostle was living, hoping to find Paul and Silas, and bring
them before the people in their corporate capacity («9 tov
Sij/nov). Disappointed in not getting the apostles into their
grasp, they dragged Jason before the rulers, kiri tov? ttoXi-
Tctpxns — Thessalonica being a free city, and not a Roman
colonjr governed by a-rpaTijyoi The charge against the
strangers was that they had broken the Julian laws and dis-
owned the authority of the emperor, saying that there is
another king, one Jesus. Jason was admitted to bail, security
for the peace being taken from him. Perhaps he was bound
over not to accommodate the apostles any longer. A fine may
have been exacted too— something amounting to spoiling of
gools — and this was one way of resemblance to the churches
of Judaea, who endured similar wrong (Heb. x, 32-34). The
first outbreak at Thessalonica did not exhaust the heathen
animosity, and wrongs of various kinds must have been inflicted
on the Christian brotherhood. What had happened to the
Judaean churches had happened to them, as the apostle so fully
intimates.
The reason why the apostle here breaks out so strongly
upon the Jews lies in the context. As he thought of the
churches in Judaea and their native persecutors, this com-
plaint was wrung from him. Olshausen's remark is far-
fetched, that the apostle " in this diatribe wished to draw
the attention of the Thessalonians to the intrigues of those
men with whom the Judaizing Christians stood quite on
a level, as if it were to be foreseen that they would not
leave this church undisturbed either." But Judaizing is no
way referred to in the context ; the enemies are unbelieving
Jews, and it would be premature to censure the Jews on
account of the possibility of a future form of hostility. Calvin's
remark, which is virtually accepted by Auberlen, though he
points out some blunders in it, is ingenious, but quite foreign to
the course of thought. " The apostle," he says, " introduces
this topic because this difficulty might occur — if this be the true
religion, why do the Jews, who are the sacred people of God,
oppose it with such inveterate hostility ? To remove the
stumbling block he asserts first, that they had this in common
84 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. IT.
with the Judaean churches ; and, secondly, that the Jews are
determined enemies of God and of all sound doctrine." The
statement does not solve the difficulty which he proposes,
it only reasserts the fact contained in it. Hofmann's sug-
gestion is similar in its remoteness from the context — that the
object of the apostle was to free the Thessalonians from the
error that the gospel was a mere Jewish thing; for their
heathen neighbours might suppose that their conversion was
but falling into the net of Jewish error. But the Jews " which
believed not " were the instigators of the first outbreak at
Thessalonica, and they were from their position the persecutors
of the Judaean churches — the earliest in origin and the earliest
in suffering. At the moment of his writing, too, the apostle in
Corinth was in intense conflict with the Jewish population
" who opposed themselves and blasphemed," so that he was
obliged to say to them, " your blood be on your own heads ! I
am clean : from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles." At
this period the Jews in Corinth, whose number may have been
increased because of their banishment from Rome, made insur-
rection with one accord against Paul and brought him to Gal-
lio's judgment-seat. One need not wonder that the apostle,
so circumstanced at the moment of his writing, and remembering
what had happened at Thessalonica, opened his mind on the
subject. His own position and recollections, their experience
and his own, naturally led him to portray some unlovely
elements of Jewish character.
(Ver. 15.) tcov k<x) tov Kvpiov airoKTeivavTWv 'Iqcrovv kui tov?
7rpo0)/Ta?, kui }]/ut.a? eKSiwgdpTLov — "who killed both the Lord
Jesus (or, Jesus the Lord) and the prophets, and drave out us :"
marginal rendering, "chased us out."
The IS'lovs of the Received Text before 7rpo<pi']Ta? has not
great authority, and was probably suggested by ISlwv in the
previous verse. Tertullian affirms that it wasMarcion who
interpolated it into the text: licet " suos" adjectio sit haeretici
(Adver. Mar., v, 15, p. 318-19, vol. II, Op., ed. Oehler). De
Wette suggests that it may have been dropped on account of
the repetition (Reiche). The Km is not to be joined to the
participle — who both killed the Lord Jesus and also persecuted
us — qui ut et Dominum occideru nt . . . ita et nos (Erasmus,
Vkr. 15.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 85
Vatablus). Nor is /ecu ascensive, ipstimDominum,a,s in the Claro-
montane, for such a climactic beginning enfeebles the remainder.
Lunemann, De Wette, and Auberlen assign it to twv, tvelche
(inch, who also, impelled by the same spirit, or, who besides
persecuting the Judaean churches, killed — a meaning not very-
different from the first given. This connection is not required,
and the position of /ecu . . . /ecu indicates a different arrange-
ment. The one /ecu is correlative to the other in the enuncia-
tion, " who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets," both
objects being presented in one simultaneous predication (Winer,
§ 53, 4; Donaldson's Cratylus, § 189, 195). Still, tov Kvpioi>,
emphatic from its position, and separated from the human
name 'Iri<rovv, points out the notoriety or heinousness of the
deed, which is described by the aorist as an act in the indefi-
nite past. Jesus the Lord, as Alford suggests, is the proper
translation.
ku). tovs 7r pofa'/ras — or, adopting IStovs, "their own pro-
phets." Chrysostom brings out this emphasis — whose books
even they carry about, 3>v /ecu tu revyj] 7repi^)epovcri. De
Wette and Koch join 7rpo<f>rJTas to eicSuio^avTcov, but without
reason. The majority of expositors naturally connect it with
the previous a-woKTeivavrwv. De Wette's objection that all the
prophets were not killed is met by a similar statement that all
the prophets were not persecuted. The phrase is used in a
popular sense. The Jewish nation, by an act of its high court
in which the people acquiesced, put to death the Son of God,
but it was only the culmination of many previous similar acts,
as is portrayed in the parable, Matt, xxi, 34, 39. Compare
Jer ii, 30; Matt. v. 12; xxiii, 31-37; Luke xiii, 33, 34; Acts
vii, 51, 52. Chrysostom brings forward the second state-
ment to destroy the excuse of ignorance on the part of the
Jews, for they could not but know their own prophets, and
yet they put to death those messengers who came to them in
God's name. The apostle adds —
Kai was eKSicogavTwv — "and drave us out," The e/c is not
without force in the verb (Koppe and De Wette), and it does
not so much strengthen the meaning (Lunemann) as retain a
sublocal signification (Luke xi, 49 ; and in the Sept., Deut. vi,
19 ; 1 Chron. viii, 13; xii, 15; Ps. cxix, 157; Dan. iv, 22, 29,
SO COMMENTAEY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
30 ; Joel ii, 20 ; — Tliucyd., i, 24). The j/yua?, as found in the con-
text, is naturally Paul, Silas, and Timothy — the //^ei? through-
out the previous verses. To restrict the reference to Paul
(with Calvin) is wrong; and to stretch it so as to include all the
apostles (with Liinemann and Ellicott, Pelt and Schott) is true
in fact, but not warranted by the immediate narrative before
us. Does the apostle mean " drave us out " of Palestine or out
of Jewish society ? or is it not simply out of the city in which
dwelt those whom he was addressing and who were aware of
his expulsion ? (Acts xvii, 5.)
icou Bew fx>] apeo-KovTcov — " and please not God," not non
placwerant, as the Claromontane — for, though the preceding
participles are aorists referring to past acts, this is present
marking out a continued condition (Winer, § 45, 1). Nor is the
sense placere non quaerentium(Ber\gel and others),or Oott nicht
zu Gef alien leben (Hofmanu). See under Gal. i, 10. Liinemann
makes it a meiosis for deoo-rvyeis. The subjective /urj is not
to be unduly pressed, as it is the usual combination with par-
ticiples in the New Testament, and the shade of subjectivity
is to be found in the aspect under which facts are presented by
the writer and regarded by the reader (Winer, § 55, 5 ; Her-
mann ad Viger, No. 207, p. ii, p. 640, Londini, 1824 ; Gayler,
p. 274). What they did to the Son of God, to the prophets,
and to the apostles representing Jesus, was of such a nature
that it brought them into this position — they were not pleas-
ing Him, and therefore a terrible penalty was to fall upon them.
Still further they are characterized as —
/ecu Traariv avBpunrois evavrloov — " and are contrary to all men."
It is natural at first sight to find in this clause a description of
the sullen and anti-social elements of character ascribed to the
Jewish race. Such is the view of Grotius, Turretin, Olshausen,
De Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Koch, Jowett, &c. They were
regarded as haughty and heartless bigots, who looked down
with insolence and scorn on all other nations. The Gentiles
repaid their hatred with indignant and contemptuous disdain.
Hainan in his day when he wished to destroy the Jews
impeached them as a "strange people, whose laws are diverse
from all people " (Esther iii, 8). Tacitus writes, " Moyses quo
sibi in posterv/m gentem Jirmaret, novos ritus contmviosque
Ver. 15.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 87
ceteris mortalibus indidit, . . . Profana illic omnia quae
apud nos sacra; cetera instituta sinistra foeda, pravitate
valuere . . . apud ipsos fides obstinata, sed adversus omnes
alios hostile odium (Hist., v, 4, 5). Diodorus Siculus records,
. . . kul vo/uu/ua 7ravTe\w$ e£>]\\ay/ui.eva . . . Mowcreco? vo/uoOeTi'r
(Tuvtos tu /uicraiS panra koi irupavop.a e'0>] toi? lovSaiois (Ex-
cerpta Photii, xxxiv, 1). Josephus Cont. Apion, ii, 11. The
sneer of Horace is
. . Memini bene, sed meliore
Tempore dicam ; hodie tricesima sabbata : vin' tu
Curtis Judaeis oppedere? Nvlla mild, inquam,
Religio est (Lib. i, Sat. ix, 70).
Juvenal's account is —
Quidam sortiti metuentem sabbata patrem,
Nil praeter nubes, et coeli numen adorant *,
Nee distare putant humana came suillam (Sat xiv. 96).
He complains too,
Nunc sacrifontis nemus, et delubra locantur
Judaeis, quorum cophinus, foenumque supellex (Sat. iii, 12).
Martial deals out scornful vituperation (iv, 4 ; vii, 30, 35, 82 ;
Statius, Silvae, i, 14, 72). But the isolation enjoined on the
Jew by the Mosaic institutes, his fierce hostility to other na-
tions, intensified by disasters, persecution, and gross idolatries,
cannot be the reference of the apostle. For, first, much of this
spirit of particularism originated in and was cherished by their
monotheism and by their observance of their national statutes;
and this opposedness to all men, in so far as it did not deepen
into morose malignity, the apostle could not condemn. See the
tract Aboda Sara in the Talmud (Milrnan, II, p. 460).
Secondly, the apostle observed " the customs " and great feasts
himself, and, as a consistent though enlightened Jew, he was
in this state of separation from polytheism, with its impurities,
and from the characteristic elements of heathen society.
Thirdly, the clause is to be taken in a more pointed and speci-
fic sense, for it is explained by the following assertion or rather
identified with it, kuiXvovtwv rj/u-a? tois eOvemv \a\rjcrui. No
additional fact is brought out by it, as no ku) connects the two
clauses as it does the previous ones; so that the anarthrous
SS COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
K(t)\vovTO)v explains the ivavrlwv. They are contrary to all men
in that they are hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles
(Donaldson, § 492). This obstruction of the apostle in preach-
ing to other races was on the part of the Jews a special mani-
festation of contrariness to all men — the result of a selfish and
haughty exclusiveness. Such is the view of the Greek fathers.
Thus Chrysostom, " if we ought to speak to the world and
they forbid us, they are the common enemies of the world."
(Ver. 16.) kcoXvovtwv f}[J.a$ to?? eOverrtv XaXijrrai 'iva arcodaxriv —
" hindering," or " in that they are hindering us to speak to the
Gentiles, that they may be saved."
Pelt, De Wette, Schott, and Koch find in the verb what does
not belong to it — the idea of endeavour, conatus. They were
not simply striving to hinder, but, as the participle expresses
it, they were outwardly hindering so far as they were able,
though they could not stop it altogether. The pronoun has
the same reference as in the previous verses. Tot"? eOvecriv, the
same in meaning with " all men " of the previous verse, or non-
Jewish men, has the stress, as it was not preaching, but
preaching to the heathen— preaching under this special aspect
and to this special class, which they prevented. Compare
Acts xi, 3; xiii, 45; xvii, 5; xviii, 6; xxii, 22; xxvi, 21. See
the Martyrdom of Polycarp, xii, xiii, xiv.
The Xa\r}<rai Iva crcoOcoanv forms one combined idea, the last
words giving virtually an objective case to \a\>j<Tai, and
defining it as speaking the gospel; salvation being the end, the
gospel must be the means. To give XaXtjcrai the meaning of
docere (Koppe, Flatt) is as wrong as it is needless to supply
tov \6yov. The conjunction Iva is telic, but the end merges
so far into result or object. See under Ephes. i, 17. Not
instruction nor social betterment, but salvation was the object
of the apostle's labours and preaching; and the speaking which
does not effect this falls short of its true and mighty purpose.
ei$ to ava.Tr\i]pie(rai <xvt(ov ra? dp.apTia? 7rdvTore — " to fill up
their sins at all times." Ei? to (see verse 12). The clause, con-
nected closely with the whole accusation, and not merely with
kooXvovtow (Hofmann), denotes the final purpose or object. Not
that they had this purpose in definite view and strove to
realize it: tout€(tti '/jSetcrav oti d^aprdi'ovcri tea) })p.dpTavov (CEcu-
Ver. 16.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE TQESSALONIANS. SO
inenius). The purpose of God accomplished itself in their con-
tinuous perversity. They acted freely and from selfish motive
when with wicked hands they crucified the Son of God, and
yet they were unconsciously carrying out the divine purpose :
" Him being delivered up by the determinate counsel and fore-
knowledge of God, with wicked hands they put to death."
Acting from conscious impulse and wicked resolve, they were
unconscious actors in the great drama. Their sin was filling,
but was not filled up (avairXiipioo-ou being more than the simple
verb) till that awful period when they slew Jesus, and in the
same spirit drove out His servants (Matt, xxiii, 32). Compare
Gen. xv, 16 ; 2 Mace, vi, 14. It is best to preserve the tem-
poral sense of iravroTe, which, as the last word of the clause,
has a special moment on it, and not to give it the meaning of
iravTeXw? (Olshausen, Bretschneider) ; 2 Cor. ix, 8. At all
times in their history, ex) tcov Trpo<fniTwv, when they killed
God's messengers to them, they were filling up their sin, though
it was far from reaching its fulness; but vvv eir\ tov XpicrTov
kui ecf> rj/txeov — in Christ's time and ours, by putting Him to
death and chasing out His apostles, the measure of their iniquity
was at length filled up.
e<pda<rev Se eir clvtov? r\ opyt] ei$ re'Xo? — " but the wrath is
come on them to the utmost."
The reading e^Oarrev has preponderant authority over e^OaKev,
a probable emendation of the more idiomatic aorist ; and tov
Oeov added to opyi'i in D F, the Latin versions and fathers, and
the Gothic version, saves the true sense, but the reading is
unsupported by diplomatic authority. Ae points to the con-
trast between their past disobedience to God and hostility to
man's highest interest, on the one hand (avcnrXiipwcrai TravTore);
and their certain and awful punishment on the other. It is not
enim (Vulgate followed by Luther and Beza), but autem, as in
the Claromontane. By i) 6py>], the wrath is characterized in
its prominence and terribleness, either as merited or predes-
tined and foretold (Cbrysostom). The noun does not mean
punishment (Lapide, Schott, De Wette, Ewald), but wrath,
the opposite of x^P'f- I n <j>Qdveiv the idea of anticipation is
not to be thought of, for it has this meaning in later Greek
only when followed by an accusative of person, as in iv, 15.
90 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
It signifies " to come to," " to reach to," with els ti (Rom. ix,
31 ; Philip, iii, 16), or eirl tivo. (Matt, xii, 28; Luke xi, 20), or
axpi tivos (2 Cor. x, 14). The construction with els occurs in
Dan. ii, 17, 18; with e-n-l in Dan. iv, 21; Xenophon, Cyr.,
v, 4, 9. The meaning of the verb therefore is not poena divina
Judaeos vel citius quam exspectaverint, vel omnino praeter
opinionem eorum super ueniente, for the verb is not praevenit,
as the Claroinontane, Beza, Schott, Pelt. See Fritzsche ad
Morn, ix, 31. The aorist is idiomatic and cannot stand for the
present (Grotius, Pelt), nor yet is it used as a prophetic term
(Koppe), nor does it mark of itself the certainty of the event.
It has its proper sense, which cannot be wholly transferred
into English. The apostle places himself close by the divine
purpose which Preappointed that wrath in the indefinite past,
and he uses the aorist, identifying that divine purpose with its
fulfilment. The wrath reached them at the past period when
they had filled up their sins ; the aorist does not say that it is
over, for its most awful manifestations were still to come. Ei?
reXos does not mean penitus, ganz und gar (Koch, Hofmann),
as if it were TeXecos ; nor is it postremo (Wahl), or tandem
(Bengel). In this sense it occurs by itself in Herodotus, i, 30 ;
yEschylus, Prom., 665. Nor is the meaning, to the end of the
Jews, i.e., to their final destruction (De Wette, Ewald, Peile) in
contrast to Jer. iv, 27 ; v, 10. In that case avrwv would
need to be supplied, and De Wette's quotation of eco? els
reXos, from 2 Chron. xxxi, 1, is not to the point. Nor does the
phrase qualify ?/ opyi), wrath which shall continue to its end, or
to the end of the world. Thus the Greek fathers G^cumenius
and Theophylact explain els reXos as a\pi TeXovs, an inadmis-
sible explanation. This defining connection would require the
repetition of the article before els ri\os. Grotius, Flatt,
Olshausen, refer to the full magnitude of the divine chastise-
ment — the wrath will work on to its full manifestation. The
phrase els reXos is connected with the verb and by its usual
construction ; it had reached its end and would exhaust itself
in palpable infliction. The coming miseries of the Jewish
people are plainly alluded to in this verse : the destruction of
their capital and their dispersion ; the slaughter of myriads
and the subjection of many others to servitude, blood, bonds;
Vek. 17.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE TIIESSALONIANS. <J\
and long and weary exile. Because the iniquity ot the
Amorites was not full in Abraham's time, four hundred years
passed away before the promise was realized; but when it
grew and ripened into fulness, they were dispossessed. So now
by the time that the iniquities of the Jews had culminated
to their fulness, the anger of God reached them to its end
or utmost.
(Ver. 17.) 'Hyxei? Se, aSe\(j)Oi, dTrop^avirrOevTes u<p v/ulwv 717509
Kuipov topas, Trpoa-unrip ov KapSla — "But we, brethren, being be-
reaved in separation from you for the space of an hour, in face not
in heart." The three verses 14, 15, 16, are a species of digression,
though the first of them naturally springs out of verse 13. One
illustration of the efficacy of the word in them was given by
their patient endurance of sufferings inflicted on them, specially
by the Jews, against whom, when so referred to, the apostle is
at once led to bring these awful charges. Ae now resumes the
>]p.els of verse 15 under a somewhat different aspect, and the
apostle places himself at the same time in contrast with the
Jewish persecutors. " We, on the other hand" (Klotz, Devarius,
vol. II, p. 353 ; Winer, § 53, 7, b).
'A8e\(f)oi, his usual term of affectionate address. According
to De Wette, Koch, Hofmann, })/uei? is in contrast to the
u/ueis of verse 14, but this connection is rendered exceedingly
doubtful by the structure and course of thought in the verses.
Nor is there any ground for the idea of Calvin, followed by
Hunnius, Piscator, Vorstius, and Benson, and more recently
acquiesced in by Pelt, Hofmann, and Auberlen, that the verse
is an apology for the apostle's absence, lest they should think
that he had deserted them while so momentous a crisis de-
manded his presence. " It is not the part of a father to desert
his children in the midst of such distresses." But the apostle
was forced to leave Thessalonica, as the city and church well
knew, and needed not therefore to offer any explanation of his
involuntary absence (Acts xvii, 9, 19). He had said that he
thanked God unceasingly for their willing reception of the
divine word, and he now expresses his profound interest in
them and his yearning once more to visit them. Those feel-
ings he would have uttered immediately after the record of his
thanksgiving, but his mind was taken off in an allusion to the
92 COMMENTAEY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
Jews, their great sins for ages, and their accumulated penalty.
He keenly felt his enforced separation from them, though he
does not need to make any excuse for it. This state of heart
is described by a very expressive participle, a7rop(ftavicr6evTe?,
desolati (Vulgate). 'Qp(pai>6$ is defined by Hesychius 6 yovecov
ej-Tepfifxevos ical t£kvwv. Thus it is properly a child bereaved of
its parents, a word often occurring ; reversely, it is also followed
by a genitive of parents bereaved of their children — 6p(f>apbs
7ruiS6? (Euripides, Hecuba, 150); optpavol yeueag (Pindar, Olum.,
ix, 92). It is employed in the sense of "bereaved," in reference
to relationship still more remote — 6p(f>ai>os eralpcov (Plato, Leg.,
v, 130, D) ; and then in a sense more tropical, tw </>* Ararat
KT)]p.aT(t)v 6p<pavov (Plato, Phciedo, p. 239, e) ; 6p<fiuvoi i>/3/o«o?
(Pindar, lsthm., 4, 14) ; 6p<pavos e7ncrrypt^ (Plato, Alcib., ii, p.
147). The verb is similarly employed with its ordinary natural
sense, to make, or to be made an orphan ; or, more generally, to
bereave, as yXwa-aav op^avi^ei (Pindar, Pyth., 504) ; £coa?, virvov
(Antholog., 7, 483, 2). The bereavement of some one or some
thing, the being reft from one, clings to the passive verb
through all its modes of use, with the pain and loss consequent
on a forced or violent separation. The compound verb of the
text is found in the Choephorae of iEsclrylus, 249, Tov? S'
a.7rcop(paui(rp.€vov? p^ctti? 7ne£tt ~\i/ulo? — " on them (the brood of
the parent eagle killed in the folds and coils of a terrible
serpent) bereaved is hungry famine pressing." The a<p' in
composition with the verb, followed also by airo before the
pronoun vpwv, expresses strongly the idea of separation (Winer,
§ 47). The idea of local severance as the source or concomitant
of bereavement is thus expressed by the participle, implying
his deej) attachment to them and his strong desire to be among
them again. It is not in good taste to press the figure, and
aSe\<j)ol also forbids it. Thus (Ecumenius, 'Op^avol KaTaXei-
^Ofcj'Tc? a<j> vp-cov, and the Syriac tGOilo £oAj, Chrysostom
explains, " as children after an untimely bereavement are in
great regret for their parents, so really do we feel." But this
reverses the meaning and application of the words. This
orphaning separation had been 7rpo? xuipov copag — " for the
season of an hour" only, when that strong desire filled his
heart. The temporal participle expresses a time before that of
Ver. 17.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 03
the verb. When wo had been bereaved and separated only for
a briefest period, we were the more abundantly longing to see
you again. LTpo? Kaiphv wpas belongs to the participle, and
expresses a very brief space of time, more vividly and dis-
tinctly thau Trpo<? Kaiphv or 7,7)09 lopuv, of which phrases it is
made up. Compare 2 Cor. vii, 8 ; Gal. ii, 5 ; Luke viii, 13.
Horae momentum occurs in Latin (Horace, Sat. I, i, 7, 8 ; Pliny,
Hist. Nat., vii, 52). LLoo? means " motion " toward a point of
time which is before the subject (Donaldson's New Cratylus,
§ 177), as in the phrase 7rpo9 ecnrepav (Luke xxiv, 29; Bernhardy,
p. 564). It has been usually explained as denoting the time
during which anything lasts (Luke viii, 13 ; Heb. xii, 11 ; James
iv, 11). It does not mean subito et quasi horae momcnto
ereptus (Turretin, Balduin). Nor is the meaning that the time
of separation would be very short, and that still he hoped soon
to return (Flatt, De Wette, Koch), for the use of the past parti-
ciple and its connection with the following past verb disallow
it. The general sense then is that the separation was imme-
diately followed by an intense desire of reunion. The sever-
ance was, however, irpocrwTrM ou icapSta, " in face, not in heart,"
the dative of relation to — neither instrumental nor modal —
limiting the separation to this special point or element
(Donaldson, §458; Winer, § 31, 6; 2 Cor. i, 12; Gal. i, 22;
Col. ii, 5). While the severance was only in person, his heart
was ever knitted to them in indissoluble bonds. And he
adds —
7repicrcroTepoo<? ecr7rov8a.1rap.ev to irpocrocnrov vfxoov iSetv ev ttoW?}
eiridvpia — " we were the more abundantly zealous to see your
face with great desire." The comparative TrepicrcroTepco?, a form
veiy rare in classic Greek, occasions some difficulty. It can
scarcely be a species of strong positive ; nor, more abundantly
than usual, that is, very abundantly (Turretin, Pelt, Conybearo,
Olshausen). But this comparative seems always to retain its
proper signification in the apostle's usage (Winer, § 35, 4).
Fromond and Hofmann interpolate this idea, which is not in the
context, that he longed to see them the more, on account of the
danger to which, as new converts, they were exposed. • Nor is
the notion of Calvin to be fully accepted, that it was the sepa-
ration which intensified his regret ; nor the similar one of Winer,
94 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S. [Chap. II.
that the bereavement made his re ore t stronger than it would
have been, but for the Christian affection by which they were
united (§ 35, 4). Two other interpretations are at opposite
poles; that on the one hand of the Greek fathers, that his long-
ing for them was more than was to be expected from persons
so recently separated, >j w$ eiKo? >jv rou? 7rpo? iopav airoket-
(f>6evras. But regrets and longings are all the keener soon after
the separation. On the other hand the view of Lunemann,
adopted by Afford, is that the regrets were the more bitter just
on account of the very recency of the bereavement, the com-
parative referring to 717)09 icaiphv wpa? ; or, as Schott had given
it, ea ipsa de causa, quod temporis intervallo haud ita longo
ab amicis Thessal. sejunctus fuerat. This statement would
imply that the apostle was conscious that mere lapse of
time would diminish his love for his converts and his interest
in them. But the apostle would surely not base the greater
abundance of his zeal either on the more or fewer weeks of the
interval. The reference then seems to be to ov icapSia — to the
fact that the separation was one only of person, not of heart ;
and on account of this unbroken affection, the desire to see
them again was the more ardent. Lunemann objects that if
the separation had been in heart there would have been no
(TirovSd^eiv at all. Granted; but that does not hinder the apostle
from saying that his unbroken oneness of heart with them, in
spite of his personal absence, made him all the more desirous to
revisit them ; had there been less of love, there would have
been proportionately less endeavour to be present again with
them. So Musculus, Zanchius, De Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius,
Koch, Ellicott. But as aTrop^avicrOevTes is also closely con-
nected with KapSia, the violent mode of the severance might
mingle itself with his thoughts and help to intensify the desire
again to see those from whom he had been so rudely torn
away. The ea-TrovSacrap.ev implies that he had put forth actual
effort to return to them — had taken measures to bring it about.
The more abundant endeavour was —
to Trpoa-osTTov v/jlwv ISeiv — " to see your face," not simply your-
selves (Schott), but yourselves in person "face to face " (iii, 10 ;
Col. ii, 1). Compare 2 John 12; 3 John 14.
The last clause ev 7roW?] €7ri0v/nla, "with much desire," points
Ver. 18.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 95
to the sphere in which the action of the verb showed itself.
In no listless spirit did he make the endeavour to reach them;
the desire to return to them was little less than a passion.
The noun is generally used in a bad sense, sometimes with a
qualifying epithet or genitive attached to it, and is usually
translated lust or concupiscence. It bears a good sense here,
as in Luke xxii, 15 ; Philip, i, 23 ; Sept., Ps. cii, 5 ; Prov.
x,24.
(Ver. 18.) Aioti i)Be\i)<raiJ.ev eXOetv irpo? Vfias, eyco /jlgv IlavXo?,
K(Ci aira£ kcu Stg — " Wherefore we wished to come to you — even
I, Paul — both once and twice." The St 6 of the Eeceived Text,
which is also read by some of the Greek fathers, has insufficient
authority, Stori being found in ABD'F tf. " Wherefore," that
is, because we so longed to see your face, rideXijaa^v being
parallel to €a-7rouSdara/ui.ev. It has been remarked that the
apostle does not use i}fiov\i)Q)iiJ.€v, as the latter would indicate
merely disposition (Tittmann, Synon., p. 124). It is, however, to
be borne in mind, as Ellicott cautions, that OeXw is used by the
apostle far more frequently than (3ovXoiuai, in the proportion,
indeed, of seven to one, the latter occurring oftenest in the
Acts of the Apostles. The apostle singles out himself, the fxev
solitariwm giving prominence to eyco by the sudden severance
of himself from the others (Hartung, vol. II, p. 413; A. Butt-
niann, p. 313). On the word itself, see Donaldson's Cratylus,
§ 154. The contrast is not so strong as Chrysostom makes it.
Grotius, laying stress on. the contrast of the suppressed Se, joins
eyco fxev UavXo? to the next clause kcu aira^ kcu St?, I, Paul,
once and again ; and brings out this sense, that Paul made the
effort to revisit them more than once, Silas and Timothy only
once. So Cocceius, Rosenmiiller, Conybeare, Hofmann, and
the text of Lachmann and Tischendorf. But the eyco fxev
IIca'Ao? is parenthetic, and for a moment distinguishes the
apostle from his colleagues, we — I, Paul — a special reference
to himself, alone in the midst of his trials and labours. The
period so referred to may have been that after his hasty de-
parture from Beroea by himself, Timothy and Silas remaining
behind him, and while he was for some time in Athens
alone waiting for them to rejoin him. The phrase kcu dVaf
kcu St? is precise, and means, on two several occasions,
9(5 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
literally "both once and a second time," koi...koi giving this
distinct enumeration, and the clause is not to he taken in
a general way, as if it meant only several times (Turretin,
Koppe, Pelt), which would require the omission of the first icai.
"A.Tra.% K<x\ Sis occurs in Nehem. xiii, 20; 1 Mace, iii, 30; Philip,
iv, 1G (Raphel. in loc) ; Herodotus ii, 121, 37; iii, 148. The
opposite phrase is found in Plato, Clitoph., 410 B ; oi'x aira^
ovSe Sis. Twice, then, did the apostle make an earnest effort to
revisit Thessalonica —
Kal evtKO^ev rjfxas 6 Xara vas— "and Satan hindered us." Keel
must not be identified in meaning with Se, as is done by Benson,
Schott, Olshausen, De Wette, Koch. It simply states the result,
the clauses being placed in simple contiguity, while the context
exhibits that result as in contrast to the intention (Winer,
§ 53, 3 b; Philip, iv, 12). 1
(Ver. 19.) Tis yap tjaoov e\7ris t] X a P a '1 crTe(f>ai>os Kau^'ja-euii ;
5; ovxji tcai v/meis ep-irpoa-dev tov livpiov >]p.coi> L/crof ev ry uvtov
irapovaricy, — "For what is our hope or joy or crown of rejoicing ?
or is it not also you in the presence of our Lord Jesus at his
coming ? "
Xpi<TTou after 'L/o-ol-, on the slender authorit}^ of F L and
some of the Greek fathers, is to be rejected, the omission of the
word being supported by A B D K N, <fcc. The connection is with
the previous verse, and not with verse 17 ; and it gives, in the
form of a question, the reason {yap) of his desire once and
again to see them — viz., because they stood in such a relation
to him and his spiritual honour and happiness. They were
his "hope," not that he expected a future reward for their
conversion (Estius, Fromoncl, Hofmann), or pardon for his
earlier life, and the injury he had done to the church as Saul
the persecutor; for, as Liinemann remarks, the emphasis is not
on tjpojv, but on eA7n?, and the other predicates. His hope was
that he and they, in spite of trials and difficulties, would be
kept by divine power, so as to meet before the Master, and
enjoy His acceptance and welcome. Not only eX-m'? but x«/>">
"joy" in them as the trophies of his toil and warfare, not only
X«/oa, but higher still, o-t^mvos Kavxweco?. The phrase is very
1 A blank page in Dr. Eadie's manuscript here would probably have
been tilled with an exposition of the words " Satan hindered us."
Ver. 19.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 97
expressive ; it is a chaplet of triumph worn by the victor, the
genitive not being that of apposition (Koch), but either of
material, or, rather, of what Winer calls remote internal rela-
tion (§ 30, 2 (3). The Hebrew phrase is rq«Bn rnt?j?, " crown of
glory" (Sept., Ezek. xvi, 12; xxiii, 42; also Prov. xvi, 31,
referring to the "hoary head"; Philip, iv, 1). Compare
2 Tim. iv, 8; Rev. ii, 10. As the victor boasts of his crown,
the apostle might rejoice in the salvation of his converts
through God's grace and Iry his preaching.
The epithets are natural, and are found in Greek and Latin
writers — rw 7roX\tiv eX-rlSa TXiKoreXtjv {Antholog., vol. I, p. 225,
Lips. 1794) ; sjies reliqua nostra (Cicero, Ep. Fam,, xiv, 4) ; C.
Marium, spem subsidiumque patriae {Pro Sextio, 17, 58);
vitae milti pariter dulcedo et gloria (Macrob., Somn. Scip.,1,
1); Scvpionem, spem omnem salutemque nostroim (Livy, Hist.,
xxviii, 39) ; a-re^avov evK\ela<s /J.eyav (Soph., Ajax, 460); and the
same phrase occurs in Eurip., Supp., 325. Lobeck in his note
refers to similar not identical phrases from other authors.
5; ovy) kcu vp.et$ — "or is it not also you?" The particle
i] is sometimes treated in the English version as if it were a
mere particle of interrogation, as in Matt, xxiv, 23; Rom.
iii, 29; v, 1, 3; but it retains its real disjunctive sense as
referring to a previous interrogation, not nonne (Erasmus,
Schott), but an non. It introduces the second member of a
double question (Klotz, Devarius, vol. I, 101 ; Winer, § 57, 1 ;
Hand, Tursell. on the particle an, vol. I, p. 349). While some
erroneously take >/ as a mere mark of interrogation, Pelt regards
3/ oi>xi as meaning nisi. The kcu. with its ascensive force is
" also," not " even," as in our version, reference being to his
other converts, who were also at the same time his hope and
joy — ku\ v/uieis /meru tcov aXXw, as Chrysostom explains it, and
CEcumenius after him. The Vulgate and the Peshito omit kui;
the Claromontane has ctiam.
efiirpouOev tov Kvpiov ij/awv Iqcrov kv T77 clvtov irapovcria —
" in the presence of our Lord Jesus at His coming." ~KpicrTov of
the Received Text has little authority, and is rightly rejected.
Some propose a close connection with the previous clause, as in
the English version, "are not even ye in the presence of our
Lord Jesus Christ." Thus Olshausen says that this expresses a
G
98 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
doubt which is plainly put an end to in the last verse, and his
meaning is, or " do not ye also (as I myself and all the rest of
the faithful) appear before Christ at His second coming " (Bis-
ping)? But such an exegesis mars the full sense of the double
question. It is also partial to connect the clause immediately
with the first part of the verse, " for what is our hope and joy
and crown of boasting in the presence of the Lord Jesus?"
For the clause belongs to both questions, and characterizes
place and time. "What is our hope, joy, and crown of gloria-
tion? or are not ye also in the presence of the Lord Jesus?" and
the period is — at His coming. The two clauses are not very
different in meaning : irapovcria is presence, or a being present
(iEschylus, Persae, 167; Sophocles, Electva, 1232; 2 Cor. x,
10; Philip, i, 26; ii, 12). Appearance often implies advent or
arrival as preceding or producing it, so that advent is a
frequent meaning (1 Cor. xvi, 17; 2 Cor. vii, 6, 7 ; 2 Mace, xv,
21; Diodor. Sic, i, 29). The term is often, as here, employed
to denote the appearance or coming of Christ, which are iden-
tical, as in Matt, xxiv ; 1 Cor. xv, 23; 2 Pet. iii, 4; 1 John ii,
28, fcc. Instances in Abdiel's Essays, p. 166.
In presence of His glorified humanity, seated on His throne,
the work of redemption being finished on earth, the human
species no longer, at least in present organization, living on
it, but having completed its cycle of existence, specially and
formally are believers accepted by Him. His coming — per-
sonal, public, and glorious — is the great hope of the church,
which it ever cherishes as the epoch when it shall be full
in numbers and perfect in felicity. The apostle's hope was
that when he and they stood in the Master's presence, they
would not be " ashamed at His coming," and he anticipated
a "joy and crown of rejoicing" in their final salvation, in their
rescue from temptation and suffering and death, and in their
spiritual change which had ripened into glory — a change of
which he by God's blessing had been the human instrument
(2 Cor. i, 14 ; Philip, ii, 16).
(Ver 20.) 'Y/ytei? yap ecrre t) So£a i'i/how k<u i) X a P a — "For ye
are our glory and joy." Liinemann and many others take yup,
not as causal, but confirmatory, belcraftigend — yes, or indeed,
ye are our glory and joy — the ye element of the word, according
Vkr. 20.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE TIIESSALONIANS. 99
to Ellicott, having the predominance. Winer, § 53, 8; Hartung,
vol. T, p. 473. But yap may have its usual meaning. If* the
apostle virtually repeats what he had just said, the repetition
must have something special, either additional or intensive,
about it. " What is our hope and joy and crown of boasting ?
Are not ye also in the presence of the Lord Jesus ? Certainly,
at that future period, for ye are now in every sense our glory
and joy" — ujueis co-re being emphatic from position, kcu vuv ecrre
Kui rore ecrea-Oe (Theophylact). Hartung, vol. I, 473. The sense
is not different whichever of these meanings of yap be adopted.
At the same time the temporal distinction of Flatt and Hof-
mann cannot be sustained — that verse 19 refers to the future,
and verse 20, in contrast, to the present time. Such a distinc-
tion is not marked out by the words. The 19th verse is not
expressed in the future, there being no verb written, and,
though the reference is virtually to the future, the apostle
views it under a present aspect, and presents it as the source of
his ardent desire to revisit his converts. Chrysostom says, in
reference to these epithets as applied to the Thessalonian
believers, " These words are those of women inflamed with
tenderness and talking to their little children. . . . The
name of crown is not sufficient to express the splendour, but
he has added ' of boasting.' Of what fiery warmth is this !
. . . For reflect how great a thing it is that an entire
church should be present planted and rooted by Paul. Who
would not rejoice in such a multitude of children, and in the
goodness of those children ?" The book Siphra records — Gloria
est disdpulo, si praecepta magistri sui observed ; gloria est
fiUis Aaronis, quod praecepta Mosis observarunt (Schottgen,
Home, vol. I, p. 824).
The practical improvement of two very old commentators
may be quoted — " Certainly the gaining of souls to God's
kingdome is no small pillar to support our hope of salvation,
and a pledge to us of our glory, so runnes the promise they
that turne others to righteousnesse shall shine as starres,
Uan. xii, 3, Prov. xi, 30 " (Sclater's Exposition of ' Thessalonian s,
London, 1627). Bishop Jewel's reflection is — "This ought to
be the case of all such which are ministers, that they should
seek above all things to bring the people to such perfection of
100 COMMENTABY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. III.
understanding, and to such godliness of life, that they may
rejoice in their behalf, and so cheerfully wait for the coming of
our Lord Jesus Christ" (Exposition^of Thessalonicms, 1583).
CHAPTER III.
(Ver. 1.) Aio /mrjKen o-reyovTe? — "Wherefore being no longer
able to bear/' Aio, "for which reason," refers back naturally,
not to the last clauses expressive of the apostle's hopeful and
joyous interest in his converts (Liinemann, Hofmann), but to
his intense desire to visit them and the failure of a double
effort; the connection being, "because I could not come to you,
Satan having hindered me, and because I was still filled with
profound anxiety to hear about you, as I could not see you,
I resolved to send Timothy to cheer and encourage you." The
" we," as formerly limited in ii, 18, means apparently here the
apostle only. The verb ureyeip is defined by Hesychius
as fiao-rd^eiv ; inroiJ.eveiv. Its original meaning (connected
with crrey)]) is to cover, so as to keep out or off, as in Thuc} T -
dides, iv, 37. See Poppo's note, vol. Ill, part iii, p. 121.
The verb is used in 1 Cor. ix, 12; xiii, 7, in both cases with
iravTa. It does not mean, as sometimes in the classics,
occultantes (Wolf, Baumgarten, and Robinson), nor that he was
no longer able to cover up his yearnings in silence ; but the
sense is, when I was no longer able to control my longing for
you without doing something to gratify it (Polyb., iii, 53, 2).
See Kypke in loc. The use of the subjective fifteen implies
the writer's own feeling- being in such a state that I could not
master my desire to see you. Winer, § 55, 5. See under ii, 15.
evOOKijaafiev KaTa\ei(p6yjvai ev' A.0)'/vai$ /ulovoi — "we thought it
good to be left behind at Athens alone." The verb belongs to
the later Greek, the spelling being ev or rjv. Sturrz, p. 1G8. The
idea of pleasing is not in the verb, though it signifies "it was
our pleasure," but only that of libera voluntas, a resolution
freely come to, not prompta inclinatio (Calvin), and the aorist
is not to be taken as an^ imperfect (Grotius, Pelt), the latter of
whom speaks confidently, res ipsa docet. Not a few refer the
plural to Paul and Silas ; but the limitation in ii, 18, governs
Ver. 1.] FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 101
this plural and the following eTre/uLxfsa/ixep ; the singular occurring
again more precisely in verse •">. There is stress from its position
on jtxouoi, not simply, alone in Athens, in urbe videlicet a Deo
alienissimd,but perhaps also the feeling of solitude was deepened
from his intense craving for human sympathy and fellowship.
The statement is supposed to clash with Acts xvii, 14, 15. Jowett
accuses the writer of the Acts of ignorance that only Silas was
left behind, and Schrader supposes two visits to Athens. One
theory is, that the apostle sent Timothy away prior to his own
arrival in Athens— that is, as Alford expresses it, " the apostle
seems to have determined during the hasty consultation
previous to his departure from Beroea to be left alone at
Athens, which was the destination fixed for him by his
brethren, and to send Timothy back to Thessalonica to ascer-
tain the state of their faith" (Prolegom.). Such is also the view
of Wieseler (Chronol. des Apod. Zeitalt., p. 249), and of Koppe,
Hug, and Hemsen. But the natural view is that Timothy was
despatched to Thessalonica from Athens. (1) For this verse
plainly implies that Paul in Athens had Timothy with him,
and, sending him off from Athens to Thessalonica, became
himself "alone," Silas being probably absent somewhere else.
The order of thought and the verbs KaTaXeKpOrji'at, e7re/x\/ra/xei/,
lead without doubt to such a conclusion ; the two verbs indi-
cate a mission personally enjoined by the apostle himself, and
that Timothy was with him in Athens. (2) When Paul left
Beroea he went away alone, but left commandment for Silas
and Timothy to rejoin him, and he waited for them at Athens.
Is there, then, any improbability in the supposition that
Timothy obeyed the order with all speed, and that on his
arrival at Athens the apostle deprived himself of his company
and sent him off at once to Thessalonica ? (3) The apostle,
before the return of Timothy and Silas from Macedonia,
had gone to Corinth, where his colleagues at length joined
him, so that he writes in the beginning of the letter from
the same cit}% " Paul and Siivanus and Timotheus." (4)
The apostle could not say that it was his pleasure to be
left alone at Athens, if he had been always alone during his
sojourn in that city and no other had been in his company.
The phrase, therefore, implies the arrival and presence of
102 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. 111.
Timothy prior to his departure to Thessalonica. There is
really nothing in the narrative of the Acts, which omits this
mission of Timothy altogether, to contradict this view, which
is held by Schott, Koch, De Wette, Luuemann, and Ellicott.
(Ver. 2.) Kcu eire p\frap.ev Ti/uoOeov tov aSeXcpov i]pwv kui
crwepyov rod Qeov — " and sent Timothy our brother and fellow-
worker with God." There is a confusing variety of readings,
showing that the copyists stumbled at some word or phrase.
Though crwepyov rod Qeov, which has been conjectured by
Luuemann and Alford as furnishing the occasion, is a Pauline
phrase (1 Cor. iii, 9), yet perhaps the application of the phrase
to one not an apostle might originate some difficulty. So B
omits tov Qeov, and D 3 E K L supplant it by fowv, " our fellow-
labourer," with the Syriac and Chrysostom ; tov Qeov is placed
after tov Siukovov, which supersedes crwepyov iu An and 67~ ;
the Vulgate has et ministrum Dei, and so the Coptic ; F has
diuKovov koi crwepyov tov Qeov ; the Received Text having
Siukovov tov Qeov kui crwepyov f/pwv, which is vindicated by
Bouman and Reiche. Amidst all this variety it is hard to come
to a decided conclusion.
The text as we have given it is found in DU7, in the Claro-
montane, Sangerm., and Ambrosiaster, fratrem nostrum et
adjutorem Dei. It may be said that Siukovov is an emendation
for crwepyov more humbly fitting to tov Qeov, and if this be
admitted, then the reading of Lachmann, Teschendorf, and
many modern editors may be safely preferred. The phrase
crwepyov tov Qeov does not mean, one who wrought as a fellow
with the apostle, while both belonged to God, as Flatt, Hey-
denreich, and Olshausen contend on 1 Cor. iii, 9; but is a fellow-
worker with God, as aw distinctly belongs to the following
genitive, He being the chief and primal worker himself. Bern-
hardy, p. 171. Compare Rom. xvi, 3, 9, 21 ; Philip, ii, 25 ; iv,
3, in all of which cases crw is connected with the associated
genitive (2 Cor. i, 24 ; Demosth., G8, 27 ; 884, 2). It has been
supposed by some that the apostle so eulogized Timothy to
make the Thessalonians aware of the sacrifice which he made
in sending such a colleague to them, and in deciding to remain
in Athens alone (Theophylact, Musculus). Such a purpose is
not in the context, nor can it be safely ascribed to the large-
Ver. 2.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIxVNS. 103
hearted apostle. As little ean Chrysostom's idea be adopted,
that the object of the apostle in so eulogizing his representative
was to show them the honour which in this way he put upon
them, lest they should be tempted to depreciate him (Hofmann).
It is probable that the apostle wrote simply in the fulness of
his heart, Timothy being specially dear to him, and specially
useful in promoting the great work. Compare Philip, ii, 19-
'2o. See under Col. i, 1 ; v, 7. Timothy was a brother beloved
in many ways — the child of a pious ancestry on the female
side ; a convert of the apostle ; an active, sympathizing, and
indefatigable colleague — " working the work of the Lord, as I
also do " ; a fellow-worker with God himself, for the sphere
was —
ev tw evayyeXlta rod Xpia-Tov — "in the gospel of Christ" — God's
great sphere of operation among men. Timothy preached it,
and God rendered it efficacious (Rom. i, 9; 2 Cor. x, 14; Philip,
iv, 3). And Timothy was sent for this purpose —
ei$ to (TTtjptgai v/uu? Kut irapaKuXecrui uwep t>}s 7n<XTeco?
v/jlwv — " to establish you, and to exhort you on behalf of your
faith."
The Received Text has upas after TrapuKaXeo-ui, but it is
rejected on greatly preponderant authority ; and u-w'ep in the
last clause is to be preferred to -jrep\, being found in A B D 1 F
K N\ The meaning, then, is not that Paul through Timothy
(a-Lapide, Grotius), but that Timothy himself should confirm
them. The infinitive with tig to, as in ii, 16, points out the
special purpose of the mission, and o-Tripl^ai is often similarly
employed (Rom. i, 11 ; xvi, 25 ; James v, 8 ; 1 Peter v, 10). The
next infinitive, 7rapaKaXe(rai, is plainly not to comfort, for an
objective sentence dependent on it begins the next verse
(Acts xiv, 22 ; xv, 32 ; 2 Thess. ii, 17), but to exhort, the ex-
hortation being on behalf of, or in furtherance of, the faith ;
whereas irep\ would refer rather to the object or theme of the
exhortation, which is distinctly put in the following verse.
Winer, § 47, I. The afflictions which made this confirmation
necessary are not those of the apostle only, as CEcumenius,
Theophylact, Estius, Fromond, Macknight; but the whole con-
text points to the persecution which had fallen out at Thessa-
lonica, and in which the apostle had participated.
104 COMMENTARY ON ST. TAUL'S [Chap. III.
The next words are so closely connected with this verse that
there should be no division of verses.
( V er. 3.) to fxrjSeva <Taive<r6a.i ev rai? 6Xi\fsecriu t«utcU9 —
' that no one be disquieted in these afflictions."
The common text has tw for the first word, which is not
admissible (Winer, § 44, 5), and in its place F G have ha. The
text as given has highest uncial authority. Compare, however,
2 Cor. ii, 12; Koch in loc. The verb cralveiv from o-e/co, used
only here in the New Testament, means physically to move
backwards and forwards, or hither and thither, as a dog does
his tail — ^Elian, Hist. Var., xiii,-42; Homer, Odyss., xvi, 4;
Aristoph., Eq., 1031. It then signifies to fawn upon to
flatter (iEschylus, Choeph., 191) ; and in this sense some take it
here (Eisner, Koch, Riickert). Thus Hesychius defines aaluei
by KoXaiceuei. Faber Stap. has adulationi cederet. Beza gives
adblandiri. Bengel says the verb is applied ei$ tou$ vttouXovs
/ecu Ko\aKiKov$. See also Tittmann's Synon., p. 189; Suidassu6
voce; and Wetstein in loc. But the sense is not congruous, for
such blandishment is not the result or accompaniment of per-
secution, which induces terror, and shakes men's constancy.
Such is apparently the meaning.
The verb in later Greek signifies, to be moved in mind, to
be disturbed; or, as Chrysostom explains it, OopvfieicrOai /ecu
TapuTTeaOui' tovto yap ecrri aalvea-Qui. Diogenes Laertius,
viii, 41; Sophocles, Antig., 1214. Hesychius gives as synonyms
KiveiorOai, aaXeuecrOai. The meaning of deluded or infatuated
given by Hofmann has no support. The connection has been
regarded in various ways.
1. Schott, Koch, and Bisping take to /uuiSeva cru'ivea-Qai as
an accusative absolute, quod attinet ad, or, as Cocceius, ad
vos conjirmandum hoc verbo. The construction is admissible,
but very rare. Bernhardy, 132; Kriiger, § 50, 6,8. Liinemann
objects that Schott's appeal to Philip, iv, 10, cannot be sustained
in proof, because the phrase on which the stress is laid, to virep
ep-ou tppovelv, is the usual object accusative to the transitively
employed verb aveOdXeTe. But another interpretation of that
verse is as probable. See under Philip, iv, 10.
2. Liinemann and Alford take the clause as dependent on
els, in opposition to the entire sentence preceding, and as
Ver. 3.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 105
repeating in a negative and sharper form the same thought —
to stablish you and exhort you on behalf of your faith — that
is, that no one of you be shaken by these afflictions. But, as
Ellicott remarks, " the regimen is remote, and the course of
thought is broken." Lunemann's suggestion that rourtcrri
might have been written for to, and Alford's, which is almost
equivalent to it, are more than doubtful, and are at variance
with the asserted connection — els hi the previous verse — for
an explanatory thought is interpolated.
3. The better exegesis is that which makes to p.i]Seva
aruiveaOai an objective sentence, dependent on irapaKaXea-ai,
and explaining the theme of exhortation. Winer, § 44, 5. The
meaning, then, is to stablish you and to exhort you on behalf of
your faith — the exhortation being that no one be shaken. So
De Wette, Reiche, Hofmann, Ellicott, and Riggenbach ; A.
Buttmann, p. 226. The objection, that in this case irapuKaXecrui
would govern only an accusative of the thing, is not formidable.
See 1 Tim. vi, 2, though Lunemann gives another explanation ;
Luke iii, 18, and Mark v, 22, which, however, contains an
accusative of person. But, as has been stated, such infinitives
have not the same immediate dependence on the "verb that
substantives have. On such usage see Matthiae, § 543, 2, 3,
and his numerous examples. The proposal of Matthaei to insert
a second «s before to p.i]Seva is a desperate solution. Compare
Rom. iv, 11. The sense is not materially different under any
of these principal forms of exegesis. To stablish you and
exhort you on behalf of your faith — that is, to the end that
ye be not moved — is not very different from saying, to stablish
you and exhort you on behalf of your faith — the theme of the
exhortation being that ye be not shaken —
ev tuc? 6\l\fse(Tiv TauTais — "in these afflictions." 'Ey is not
purely temporal (Lunemann), nor is it strictly instrumental,
but it points out the condition in which they were placed ;
these afflictions so surrounded them that they were in them
(Winer, 48, a) ; "these afflictions" being certainly not those
special to the apostle, but common to him and to the Thessa-
lonians. See under previous verse.
avroi yap o'ldure oti ef? tovto Kei/meOa — "for yourselves know
that we are appointed thereunto." Tup introduces the reason
106 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap 111.
for which they should not be troubled in these afflictions, and
that reason, generally, is their knowledge that their subjection
to them was the divine will. The verb icei/mai is passively used,
pusiti svAnus (Vulgate). Luke ii, 34 ; Philip, i, 17. TWto refers
to 0\i\J/earLv, and not to the injunction, not to be shaken or
perturbed. The plural verb does not refer to Paul alone
(CEcumenius, Estius), but immediately to Paul and the Thessa-
lonians, representing at the same time all believers. Those
afflictions are not accidental on the one hand, and we do not
court them or merit them on the other hand, but our position
brings them on us, and God by his grace has set us in that
position. Why then be shaken by them, for we cannot avoid
them, and when with you we forewarned you of them (Matt,
x, 22 ; John xv, 20)—
(Ver. 4.) Kcu yap, ore 777)09 i/yua? rjp.€i>, irpoeXeyopev vp.lv on
plWopev OXlfieo-Oai — " For verily when we were with you, we
told (or, were telling) you before that we were to be afflicted."
Yup assigns the reason for the avro) yap oiSare — /cut laying
moment upon it : for ye know because we told you before
when we were with you. Winer, § 53, 8. In the phrase
7T/309 upas, the original notion of direction disappears after
verbs implying rest, and the sense is not different from irapa
with the dative or the Latin apud. Fritzsche on Mark i, 18.
The phrase peXXopeu OXtfiearQai is no mere dilution of the
simple future, but repeats the idea on the divine side of «s
tqvto Ke'peOa — that these sufferings are a portion of God's
allotment which we cannot escape, as they are the characteristic
and inevitable lot of believers. MeXXopev expresses the cer-
tainty, and implies the soonness of the sufferings.
Ka6u>s icat eyeVcro k<u o'ldare — " as also it came to pass and ye
know." It turned out as the apostle had foretold — the pre-
diction had been verified, and in their history or from their
experience they knew it. The words from avrol yap u'lSare to
the end of this verse are very unnecessarily marked by Griesbach
and Kuapp in a parenthesis.
(Ver. 5.) Ata tovto Kayoo p^iteri (Trzywv — "For this cause when
I too could no longer forbear." " For this cause," that is,
because those predicted sufferings had really broken out among
thcm,and they had had actual experience of them. In the relative
Vkk. 5.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 1()7
Kayos the km, belonging simply to the pronoun, may refer either
to Timothy, " I as well as he," or to the vfiets of the previous
verse, " I as well as you," that is, "I longing to see you and
you longing to see me " (Schott, Olshausen), or to those who
were along with him, as in ii, 13. It is difficult to say which
of these references was in the apostle's mind. The first is
natural, the second is rather an anticipation of the latter part
of v. G, and the third has a historical vindication in Acts xvii,
1 5, that there were brethren with him for a period at Athens.
The phrase iu>]K€ti areyoov, "no longer forbearing," is explained
under the first verse.
€7re/uL\fsa e<? to yvusvai tijv ttlcttiv v/jlwv — "I sent Timothy to
know your faith." Eiy to yvS>vcu, the infinitive of purpose,
specifies the design of eVe^n/rct, and the meaning plainly is not,
that Timothy the sent one, but that Paul the sender, might
know — the subject being the same in both verbs. The theme
of information was t>jv ttIutiv v/jlwv, "your faith," what its
aspects and stability were, and if it had passed through the
ordeal in safety. The apostle's anxiety was —
ya)/7rw9 eTretpaaei' v/ulus o weipa^v kul «? nevov yevjjrai o /cotto?
r[[jL$>v — " lest perchance the tempter have tempted you, and our
labour might prove or turn out to be in vain." lsh)iru)$ depends
naturally on yvwvui, and not on ewefx^a, and introduces an
indirect question, as Lunemann states. Not a few connect it
with the idea of fearing ((pofiov/uLevos), fearing lest the tempter,
*.V:c. Beza, Pelt, Turretin. The aorist indicative eirelpuuev
specifies the tempting as having actually taken place, while the
subjunctive yevrfrai represents the results of the temptation as
conditional or doubtful, it being a possible thing that the
apostle's labours should, as the result of the temptation, turn
out to be fruitless. As the apprehension might be verified, or
might prove groundless, the apostle's anxiety was to ascertain
the actual state of things, or whether the temptation which
was intended to shake them had done so. Winer, § .56, 2; Gayler,
p. 323. Winer justly objects to the harsh view of Fritzsche in
taking /x>/7rco? in the first clause as an forte — an forte Satanas
vos tentasset — and in the second clause as ne forte — ne forte
labores mei irriti essent — making it in the first clause an
interrogative particle, and in the second an expression of fear
108 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. III.
or apprehension. See also Ellicott ; Matthiae, § 519, 7. The
verb eire'ipaa-ev, as the following clause shows, does not mean
" may have succeeded in tempting you," the cause for the
effect (Macknight),or, mitErfolg versucht (Baumgarten-Crasius).
The tempter's purpose was obvious, and the apostle was only
in doubt as to the result. The agent of the temptation
is named in harmony with his work, as expressed by the verb
eirelpacrev 6 ireipdfav (Matt, iv, 3 ; 1 Cor. vii, 5). All notion of
time is excluded from the present participle used as a sub-
stantive. Winer, § 45, 7 ; Bernhardy, p. 31G. For eh icevbv
yev)]rui, see the similar phrase under Gal. ii, 2.
(Ver. G.)"ApT* Se eXvovros TipoOeov 7rpo? tjp.a$a(f> vp.£>v — "But
Timothy having just now come' unto us from you." The
adverb of time is most naturally connected with the participle
eXOovros, which in itself implies time, and not with a verb so
remote as 'Tra.peKkriBrip.ev of the following verse, which has its
ground prefixed to it in Sia rouro. Liinemann's arguments for
the last connection are of little weight. Not only did the
return of Timothy bring comfort and that comfort prompt the
writing of the epistle, but he wishes specially to connect the
two things. Timothy had been sent away — his good tidings
on his return cleared up perplexities, and that at once. The
apostle reverts to his position in the mission of Timothy, and
virtually affirms by the cipri eXOovros that no sooner had he
come back than all doubts were cleared up, and at once his
relieved and rejoicing heart gave utterance to its emotions in
the epistle. The adverb apri, though originally different from
vvv, often in the later Greek represents present time. See under
Gal. i, 9.
hull evdyyeXi<Tap.tvou fjp.lv T>]V ttmttiv kui tijv aya.irtiv vpwv —
"and having brought good news to us of your faith and love."
The participle is used in its original meaning — ayadbv fjydro
(Chrysostoin), and has its common construction, dative of
person and accusative of thing (Luke i, 19; Lobeck ad
Phrynich., 26GrS). The subjects of the good news, tt'ktti^ and
<xyaitr\, are both specified by the articles. For their meaning, &c,
see under Ephes. i, 15. Their faith had remained firm in spite
of trial and suffering. Chrysostom explains by using fiefiaieocriv,
and Theodoret tw ci'cre/3fc/a? to fiefiaiov. Their love was
Ver. 7.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 109
evincing itself — had not waxed cold because of abounding
iniquity — i) Se ayainj t>]v irpaKTiKijv dpeT>]v. Their condition
delighted him, as it proved the continued existence of unshaken
faith and active love among them, and he was no less rejoiced
with a third element of their character, their unfacled remem-
brance of himself — rpla reOeiKcv dgcepao-ra (Theodoret). For
he adds —
Kai oti e\€Te pveiav yjpoov dya9>]v iravrore — " and that ye
have good remembrance of us always." For pvela see under i, 2 ;
its meaning differs according as the verb by which it is fol-
lowed is TTOieia-Oa, or e'xeiv. Udvrore belongs more naturally to
the clause before it than to the participle after it (Koch and
Hofmann). i, 2 ; 1 Cor. i, 4; xv, 58 ; Gal. iv, 18 ; Ephes. v, 20 ;
2 Thess. i, 3. Not only was the remembrance good, but it was
continuous, the result being that they were —
eirnroQovvres, t/pd? toeiv KaQ aire p kui qfieig vpds — "longing to
see us as we also (ISeiu €7rnro6ovpev) to see you." The simple verb
■n-oOeo) does not occur in the New Testament, and e7n in the com-
pound is not intensive, greatly desiring, but retains its primary
directive meaning. '"ETrnroOeiv n, as Fritzsche says, idem valet
quod iroOov e'xeiv eiri ti (ad Rom., i, 11 ; Sept., Ps. xli, 1). For
icat see Klotz, Devar ins, vol. II, G33 ; Winer, § 53, 5. They
longed to see the apostle just as the apostle longed to see them.
The longing was therefore mutual, for there was earnest attach-
ment on both sides.
(Ver. 7.) Aid tovto TrapeKXyOtjpev, dde\<po} — " On this account
were we comforted, brethren." Aid tovto compacts into one
argument the three preceding statements — their unshaken faith,
their fervent love, and their continuous desire to see the apos-
tle. The verb in the perfect tense is found in A and 3, 23, 57;
and such a reading may have arisen from connecting dpTi with
it, as Koch does, though the aorist forms one of Lunemann's
reasons against joining the adverb to cXOovtos. The aorist
simple expresses the past fact that Timothy's return brought
comfort, and that this comfort still existed is implied in the
context —
e<j> vp.IV €7Tl 7T(l<Tt] T\] dvW/Ktf KUl 6Xllfs€l }]pWV SlU T>]? VflCOV
7nVreft>? — comforted " over you in all our necessity and afflic-
tion through your faith." The first e-rr] has virtually its literal
110 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAULS [Chap. III.
sense of "on" — you being the foundation on which the com-
fort rested (Winer, § 48, c). Alford, after Luuemann and Pelt,
renders the preposition " with reference to } 7 ou," but this is
somewhat inexact. It is far wrong on the part of Koppe and
Pelt to regard hf vfA.iv as superfluous (jyraprw vcdundat),
because of the following Sid t>i? v/uloov iri<rTew<?. For the first
phrase points out the persons on whom the apostle's comfort
rested (2 Cor. vii, 7), and the second points out that element of
their condition by the instrumentality of which his comfort
was realized ; yourselves were the basis, your faith the medium
of our comfort. The second e7rl does not distinctly differ in
meaning from the first — "over all our necessity and tribulation"
— comfort was so thrown over it that it ceased to vex us and
fill us with sorrow. Such is the semi-local image, the preposition,
as Ellicott says, " marking that with which the comfort stands
in immediate contact and connection ;" you afford the comfort,
and that exists over or in connection with our necessity and
distress, so that these do not fill us with despondency. Some
make e-n-] causal, others temporal. Alford suggests " in spite
of" as the translation, and that is indeed the ultimate sense.
To find the image it is best to adhere to the primary sense of
superposition. Donaldson, Cro.tyl.us, § 172. Compare 2 Cor.
vi, 4. The Received Text reads 6\l\[sei tcai avdyioj, but only on
the authority of K L and some of the Greek fathers. It is not
easy to say what this affliction and necessity were, but the
probability is that they were external in nature. The notion
of Koch and De Wette that they were internal anxiety about
the Thessalonians cannot be entertained, for in that case the
report of Timothy would have removed them, but the expres-
sion implies that they continued still, though countervailing
comfort was enjoyed. It is needless to distinguish the substan-
tives nicely, as when Bouman regards the first as generic and
the second as specific.
'AvdyKij is the unavoidable (Wunder; Sophocles, Trackiii.,
823) as the result of constraint or circumstances (1 Cor. vii, 37;
ix, 17 ; Matt, xviii, 7), and the distress therefrom arising (Luke
xxi, 23 ; 2 Cor. vi, 4; Xenoph., Memor., iii, 1 2, 2). Q\[\fst?, allied
to r pi (3co, tribulatio, is pressure (2 Cor. ii, 4; Matt, xiii, 21).
Compare Rom. ii, 9, 0Arv//7? kcu o-rei'o v«yo/a ; 2 Cor. vi, 4, 0\l\^ii
Ver. 8.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. Ill
kui avdyK}]. It is probably wrong to restrict avayKy to disease,
or scantiness of means, or hardness of manual labour (Scliott),
though these may not be excluded. The apostle may refer to
his entire condition at Corinth, in the midst of peril and perse-
cution from the Jews, "who opposed themselves and blas-
phemed." The words of the Lord in a vision, " no man shall
set on thee to hurt thee," implies that attempts against him
had been made, and these culminated at length in the insurrec-
tion against him when he was dragged before Gallic Sur-
rounding circumstances seemed so dark and forbidding that the
apostle began to despond and was tempted to form the purpose
of leaving Corinth, or at least of moderating his labours so that
the enmity against him might die down. But the divine voice
met him with the words quoted, and Christ's words are ever
fitted to the condition of him to whom they are spoken. " Be
not afraid, but speak and hold not thy peace, . . . for I
have much people in this city." Compare 1 Cor. ii, 3. The
comfort came—
Sia Tjfr vfuov 7r!(TTecos — "through your faith," the faith of
whose stability Timothy had brought so favourable a report.
Grotius would very tastelessly place the phrase before €7r] iraarfl,
&C, and Hofmann would join it^with the following clause on wv
fofxev, with this meaning — weil ever Glaube es ist dadurch wir
jetzt leben — a connection which Liinemann correctly calls so
monstrous as to need no contradiction. Thus the apostle has
in the verse e<p\eTrt, Sta, bringing out, as his manner is, vary-
ing but closely connected aspects of relation. See also under
verse f). The result is —
(Ver. 8.) on vvv ^(jo/uev, eav v/uei? cm'/K^Te [crrj/zcere] ev l\vpi<e —
"for now we live if ye stand fast in the Lord." The spelling of
the verb in the last clause is doubtful. The received text, with
I ) N l , and some minuscules, have crn'iKtjTe. Ellicott quotes B,
but wrongly, for though Mai's reprint so spells it, Alford asserts
e codiee that it reads a-Ti'jKere, and his reason is confirmed by
Tischendorf's edition ex ipso codiee. The solecistic a-r/iKere is
found in A B F H L N 3 , and has therefore good authority.
Scrivener's remark as to the permutation of vowels in the best
MSS. is met by Alford's assertion from personal inspection that,
with certain specified exceptions, it is not so in the Vatican
112 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. ITT.
Codex, in any ordinary occurrences of long and short vowels.
"On gives the reason of the statement which has jnst preceded.
The language is strong. Necessity and distress had brought a
species of death over the apostle, but he came out of it as soon
as he heard of their firmness in the faith. Zw/xev is not to be
explained away by the phrase dum vivimus vivamus (Pelt),
nor is it to be exaggerated into eternal life, faqv tijv imeWovcrav
(Chrysostom). The adverb is probably not used with a purely
temporal meaning — he had been as one having the sentence of
death in himself, but now in their life he lives ( Jowett, Marlor-
atus). The particle has rather somewhat of a logical sense —
referring to and implying the fulfilment of the condition intro-
duced by eav. Hartung gives as an example of the transfer of
this time-particle auf Umstande and Bcdingung — /u^rpoKrovog
vvv (pev^ofxai, t60' ayvos lav (Euripides, Elect., 979). Kuhner,
§ 690.
The next clause is conditional eav orr>//cere. If the subjunc-
tive form be adopted, the meaning is that he did not know
after all whether they would stand fast; and he states the
matter hypothetical^ — assumes the possibility; whereas, if the
indicative a-r/jKere be adopted, the apostle assumes as a fact
that the}^ would stand fast. Donaldson, § 502 ; Klotz, Devarius,
ii, 455. See under Gal. i, 8, 9; Winer, § 41. The verb (m'lKeiv
is used in Mark xi, 25 in the literal sense of to stand ; and
tropically in Rom. xiv, 4; Gal. v, 1 ; Philip, iv, 1 ; and it
derives its specialty of sense from the context, " stand fast."
'Ey Kvp/o) describes the element of their stability, in union
with the Lord and in fellowship with Him. The apostle had
been in hard and heavy circumstances, which weighed him down
to death. Opposition, unbelief, peril, disappointment, physical
labour, and debility so preyed upon him that he felt as one
enveloped in the shadow of death ; but Timothy's news from
Thessalonica so revived him, so lifted him out of the gloom,
that he lived again ; his soul was so joyful over the stability
of his converts, that he triumphed at once over surrounding-
dangers and persecutions. And that conditional sentence was
a warning to them for the future ; the continuance of that life
depended on their continuous stability.
(Ver. 9.) Ttva yap ev^apiarTiav Svva/ueBa tw Qe<p avTairo-
Ver. 9.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 113
Souvai irtpi vfi£>v €7rl — "for what thanksgiving can we render
God for yon in return for." Some MSS.— D 1 F N 1 — insert Kyp/w.
Tap, not a mere particle of transition (Pelt), confirms what
has been said, and brings out one special manifestation of the
power and fulness of the &>]. Tlva, interrogative, implies what
sufficient thanks; or, as Theophylact quaintly paraphrases, Sto
Kai avTco o<pei\ovTe$ evyapicTTelv, ov\ evpirrKopev tijv agiav ev^a-
pifTTiav. The apostle had given thanks for their conversion,
had given thanks for the manner in which they had received
the word ; and now he knows not what amount of thanks to
give for their stability under persecution and suffering.
The double compound avrairoSovvai is properly to give in
return (avr'i), uiro, as Ellicott says, hinting at the debt pre-
viously incurred. Winer's explanation is, "ubi dando te ex-
solvis debito, debitum enim est oneris instar nobis impositi
quo leva/mur rum solvimus" (Be Verb. Praep. Gomp. in N. T.
Usu, iv, p. 12). The verb is used in the sense of penal retribu-
tion (2 Thess. i, 6 ; Rom. xii, 19). It occurs also with a good
sense (Luke xiv, 14; Rom. xi, 35; Ecclus. iii, 31. Compare Ps.
cxvi, 12). It has likewise a neutral sense, to 6/uloiov uvTairooi-
Sovre? (Herod, i, IS; Plato, Parmenides, 128, a), and is
followed both by dyaOd and kuku in 1 Sam. xxiv, IS. This
gift of life in the midst of death, and this fulness of joy were
of God ; and therefore to Him thanks of no common depth and
fervour are due in return.
irep\ vp.Mv is "about you" (for you), you being the objects for
whom thanks are given ; and the following words state the
ground —
€7r\ wacnj tij X a P a i'l X a/ '/ 0O ' uej/ ^' 'W*? epurpocrOev tov Qeoo
}'jpm> — " for all the joy which we joy on your account in the
presence of our God." 'Ex/, " over," " on," gives the "ethical
basis." Winer, § 48, c. See under verse 7. That basis is
irua-a }) x«P«> " a ^ the joy," the joy regarded in its whole
extent — iraa-ij being extensive, not intensive save by inference
(Pelt, Schott), in ihrcr Summe and Totalitat. Winer, § IS,
4. The attraction y for rjv x'^P ^ 1 '* found also in Matt,
ii, 10, gives the sentence a kind of periodic compactness.
Winer, § 24, 1. The use of the correlative noun extends the
meaning of the verb. Winer, § 32, 2; Bernhardt, p. 10G ;
TT
114 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAULS [Chap. III.
Lobeck, Pavalipom,, p. 501. Many examples are found in
the Septuagint, New Testament, and classics. Jelf, §§ 548-9.
The apostle has written -wept vfxwv, " concerning you " ; and to
be more specific he adds Si vp.a<g, the first connected with the
return of thanks, and the second with ^atpo/ueu, on your
account (John iii, 29). Compare Fritzsche in Marc, 205. It
is his usage to distinguish varying but connected relations by
varying prepositions; and he fondly dwells on the different
sides of the connection of the Thessalonians with his thanks-
giving and his joy. The concluding words eparpoa-Qcv rod Qeou
q/Atov, used only in this epistle, are not synonymous with e7n
tu>v Trpoaevx^v ))pu>v, as if he meant that the emotion of joy
ever brought him into the divine presence (Webster and
Wilkinson); nor are they to be joined with what succeeds
(Ewald, Hofmann, and the Peshito); nor is the connection with
X^pa (Koppo, Pelt), but with ^a/po^tei^, we joy in the presence
of God ; our gladness is pure and unselfish ; it bears God's
inspection, and has His approval. The reference is not to God
as the author of that joy, avro$ ical ravr^ rjfuv t>]$ x a P'^
clitios (CEcumenius).
(Ver. ^-0.) pvkto? kcli ij/uepag vTrepeKire purer ov Seop-evot «? to
ioeiv vfxwv to Trpocromrov — " night and day praying very abund-
antly, in order to see your face." The participle Se6p.evoi is not
absolute " we pray " (a-Lapide, Baumgarten-Crusius), but is
closely connected with the preceding verb — what thanks can
we return for the joy which you give us in our separation,
praying as we do night and day to see your face ? The inten-
sity of the prayer to revisit them and perfect their faith was in
proportion to the thanksgiving for the gladness which in the
interval Timothy's report had produced. Schott, De Wette,
Koch, and Riggenbach take oeop.evoi in apposition with x'dp '
p.ev, which is only a subordinate thought in the verse. Luther
and Von Gerlach regard the verse as an answer to the question
in verse 9 ; but the connection is artificial, and might require
a finite verb instead of the participle. The double compound
v7repeK7repi(r(rov, "more than abundantly," expresses the fulness
of the apostle's emotion. Compare 1 Thess. v, 13; Ephes. iii,
20 ; Sept., Dan. iii, 23. See under Ephes. iii, 20. It belongs to
osopei'oi, and not by a trajection to iSeiv (Clericus). Night and
Vkr. 10. j FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. H5
day is an idiom not to be so measured as if night were specially
referred to for its solitude and silence as the most fitting season
for prayer (Fromond); but " night and day praying more than
abundantly " is the utterance of profoundest love and longing.
The purpose or object of the prayer is then given —
els to tSeiv v/jluiv to irpocrw-KOv — " in order to see your face,"
ut videamus (Vulgate), the prayer being heard, that end would
be obtained See under ii, 12, 10, 17. Not only to see them
but in seeing them —
kcli KarapTicrai tu ixTTepi'ifiaTa Ttj? 7ricrTeo)$ vp.u>v — " and to
supply the lackings of your faith ; " et complearnus ea quae de-
sunt (Vulgate), et suppleamus quae desunt (Claromontane) ;
tu eWetTroi'Tu 7r\}]pcocrai (Theodoret). The verb Karapri^w
signifies to refit or readjust literally (Matt, iv, 21 ; Mark i, 10
— Wetstein in loc. ; and Polybius, i, 1, 24) ; then, ethically, to
restore (Gal. vi, 1 ; Herodotus, v, 10G) ; then to fill up, to sup-
ply, or to finish thoroughly ; the meaning of the simple ciprio?
being distinctly preserved, and Kara being intensive in force
(Eisner in 1 Cor. i, 10). Philip, ii, 30 ; Col. i, 24.
Their faith was not perfect, it was lacking in some elements.
It needed to grow in compass, to embrace yet more elements
of doctrine, and have a firmer and more harmonious hold of
truths already taught, such as the Second Advent. Their faith
was also lacking in power; it had not led them to a universal
obedience, or given them strength to surmount all heathen
propensities and impurities, as is implied in the following
chapter. Nor had its influence descended to every-day life in
its secular aspects, enforcing honest industry and ennobling it.
The visit which he so longed to make would have been im-
proved for this purpose — to give them careful and earnest
teaching and guidance on all points in which their faith needed
invio-oration or enlargement. Confirmation was a work which
the apostle loved, it was so necessary and so beneficial. Thus
he longed to visit the church in Rome, that he might impart
to its members " some spiritual gift," to the end that they might
be established (Rom. i, 10, 11).
In a similar spirit he writes to the church of Corinth,
" I was minded to come to you before that ye might have a
second benefit" (2 Cor. i, 15). Calvin's practical reflection is,
ll(i COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. III.
— Hinc etiam patet qiiam necessavia nobis sit doctrinal
assiduitas: neqwc enim in hoc tantu/m ordinati sunt doctores,
nt una die vel mense homines adduccmt ad fidem Christi, sed
ui l fid em incltoatam perficiant.
(Ver. 11.) Atrro? Se o Geo? kcu irar^p fj/ULOov kcu 6 Kv/oto? ypm'
'hj<rou? KarevQuvai tyjv 6S6v rjpSiv 7rpo? vp.a$ — " Now may God
Himself and our Father and our Lord Jesus direct our way
unto you." The Received Text has Xpio-ro? after 'I^crou? on
the authority of D 3 F K L, the Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, and
Gothic versions, and several fathers; but the word is omitted in
A B D 2 hi (I) 1 omitting 'I>/0-oi?? also), and in the Claromontane
Latin, the insertion being probably a conformation to the more
common and familiar formula.
By Se he passes to another aspect of the same subject, and
avTO?, emphatic in position, is not in contrast with the persons
characterized as Seo/uevot (De Wette, Koch, Bisping), but it
means God himself — He and none other — for He alone can
fulfil such a prayer. The apostle had proposed to visit them
once and again, and Satan had hindered him ; but if God
Himself would be pleased to direct the way to them, no hind
ranee would be permitted. 'H/awi/ may belong to Geo? kcu
irarhp (Hofmann, Riggenbach), or simply to -irari'ip. That
ij/uidov is connected with irariip is probable, Geo? being absolute
and irarhp relative, the relation being indicated by the pronoun,
and 7to:t>//3 is often followed by a genitive (Rom. i, 7 ; 1 Cor. i, 3 ;
2 Cor. i, 2, airo Qeov irarpos >)p.u>v). God our Father — believers
have a community of Fatherhood in Him, as they are His
children, bearing His image, enjoying His guardianship, and
being prepared for His house of many mansions. The words
kcu Kt'/oto? r)p.wv 'hjcrovg are in direct apposition with 6 Geo? kci)
irarhp, and form with it the nominative to narevdvvat. For
the meaning and use of the names see under Ephes. i, 2. The
verb KUTevOvvai is the aorist optative, not the infinitive, as such
usage, though found in epic and other poets, and also in prose
authors, is not found in the New Testament. Winer, § 43, 5 ;
Jelf, § 671. It means literally to make straight so that one
may pass, then to guide or direct — irpos vp.as — the preposition
indicating the direction.
It is plain that o Geo? Kat ttht^p and o Ki'yoto? ijpwv L/croi"? are
Ver. 12] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. I] J
parallel in thought, both being related to the emphatic uvtos,
and both being nominative to the singular verb KaTevdvvai.
To the mind of the apostle, therefore, God the Father and
the Lord Jesus were so one that the same prayer is presented
to both without distinction — there being, as the singular
implies, equality of power and oneness of operation, or what
Lunemann calls unity of will. But equality of power and
unity of will imply a higher unity — even unity of essence ;
for only to one possessed of divinity can the worship of
prayer be presented. It is superficial in Koch to say that the
apostle here " regards Christ as the Wisdom and Power of
God," for the language is directly personal in nature — the
Lord Jesus is addressed as God, and the thing prayed for is to
be done by Him and God as one divine and indivisible work —
Karevduvai. See under Ephes. i, 2. The Lord Jesus, though
man, as the name Jesus indicates, is also Lord — at the right
hand of the Father — and Governor of the universe ; but this
government is proof of His possession of supreme divinity, as
it necessitates the possession of omnipotence and omniscience,
attributes with which no creature can possibly be endowed.
Who but God can roll on the mighty and mysterious wheels
of a universal providence without halting or confusion ? — who
but He can know all hearts in their complex variety of motive
and purpose, so as to be their Judge \ Athanasius presses the
argument derived from the singular form of the verb. After
quoting the verse, he says, ttjv kvor^ra rov -arpos kui tov viov
e<f>vXa£ev. uv yap eiwe KarevOvvoiev a>? 7r«pa Svo Swop-ivr}^,
irapa tovtov tcai tovtov, SnrXrjs \apiTO<s, fiXXa k a T e V 6 v v a I
(Oratio, iii, 11, contra Arianos, p. 340; Opera, vol. II, Migne).
(Ver. 12.) 'Y^a? 6e 6 K.vpio$ 7r\eovacrat. kui irepicra-evcrai "777
(i"/a7T)] et? aWi/Xovs kui e<? 7rm'Tac KaOmrep kui tjfieis €ig
v/uLct? — " You may the Lord cause to enlarge and abound in
love to one another and to all, even as we also to you." For
Ku/oto? A reads Beo?; o Ki/yoto? 'L/croi/9 is found in D 1 F, and
the Claromontanc Latin ; but there is no nominative in the
Syriac, nor in the Vulgate in the Codex Amiatinus. The
omission is approved by Mill, Griesbach, Eichhorn.
By Se he passes to another thought suggested by the previous
prayer — " but you may He enlarge " ; whether this prayer be
118 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. III.
heard or not as to guidance in our way to you, or whether
we are privileged to revisit you or not, you may He enlarge
with or without our instrumentality. May He grant this
petition on your behalf. He had spoken in verse 10 of defects
in their faith, and this prayer implies that their love was also
in need of enlargement. The two verbs here used in a
transitive sense are in the optative in continuation of the
construction of the previous verse. Bretschneider wrongly
takes thein to be infinitives, and would supply Swt] vp.lv
(Lex. sub voce 7r\eova£a)). Compare Sept., Num. xxvi, 54 ; Ps.
lxx, 21 ; 2 Cor. iv, 15; ix, 8; Ephes. i, 8. Both verbs, similar
in meaning, seem to refer to ev dyuinj. CEcumenius weakens
the sense by giving the first a reference to number, ™
dpiOjULw. Fromond similarly refers the one to extensio, and the
other to intensio. Olshausen takes the one as cause and the
other as effect, but the distinction is not warranted. If one is
enlarged in any Christian grace, he abounds in it, enlargement
and abundance being varying aspects of the same blessing.
His prayer had been that defects in their faith might be filled
up (verse 10), and now it is specially that their love may be
augmented — first, to one another, in the same believing com-
munity, and then to all men — not to all Christians {opoTria-
tov?) of the places beyond Thessalonica (Theodoret). See under
Gal. vi, 10. Men made in the image of God are to be loved
as God has loved them. Our love to men, as children of a
common Father, should be a likeness of His (j)i\av9poo7rla
(Titus iii, 4), man-love, having its wider circle of objects
in mankind, irrespective of creed or character ; while Christian
love — (f)i\aSe\(pia, brother-love — has its immediate objects of
attachment in the Church. Love is the fulfilment of the law.
See under Gal. v, 14, and Philip, i, 9-10. In the last clause
the two verbs must "be supplied — Kadairep kui })pei? eU v/uag
ev aycnr}] irXcova^opev kcu Trepicrcrevopev — not repeating the
optative which would necessitate qp.a$. This filling up changes
the verbs from a transitive to an intransitive sense — a change
from an unusual to the more common signification. Such
verbs are usually sujoplied from the context (Kuhner, § 852),
and such a supplement, although it appears clumsy, is in
natural harmony with the context. Other methods are weak
Ver. 13.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. H<J
or artificial, as e'xoju.ei>, or ttoXXP/i/ dyux>/y e'xopeu (Pelt, Schottj,
affecti sumus (Calvin), or simply ea-fxev (Grotius). Theoph}dact
explains, "ye have us as the measure and example of love,"
p.erpov tea) irapaSeiyp.a. The prayer is directed to the Lord — 6
Kvpio?. The name may refer either to the Father or the Son
(Alford). That it refers to the latter in this place is extremely
probable. For (1) it is the common usage of the New Testa-
ment in Paul's Epistles. (2) The reader will naturally take
the Kupios of this verse to be the Kvpios of the previous verse
(3) The Kvpio?oi' this verse is also naturally the same with the
\\vplov of the following verse. (4) In the paragraph the Father
is twice called 6 Oeo? ical Trar.'ip >)p.m'. The very distinctness
of this appellation would lead one to suppose that Kvpios by
itself docs not refer to the Father, but to Jesus, who is twice
mentioned by the same epithet in connection with Him. Basil,
in his Treatise de Spiritu Sando, cap. xxi, affirms that Kupios
means in this place the Holy Spirit, referring in proof to '2
Cor. iii, 17, with which it has no analogy (Opera, vol. II, p. 01,
Migne).
The last purpose of this prayer is next given —
(Ver. 13.) eig to (TTijpi^aL vp.oov ra? tcapSius ap-tpurTOv^ ev
ayuoarui'u ep.7rpo<r0ev rod Qeov kcu 7rarpo? i)p.u>v — "in order to con-
firm your hearts unblamable in holiness before God and our
Father." E<V to is not for the more simple ku\ (Kiihner), but
with the following infinitive indicates purpose — the purpose
of the prayer that they might grow and abound in love. Love
tends to confirm — for it is the bond of perfectness. When the
heart is filled with this love to brethren and to mankind, it
becomes established ; it rises beyond the sphere of doubts and
oscillations, for it is fulfilling the law, and growing in that
holiness which such love sustains and develops (Matt, v, 44-48).
The author of this spiritual confirmation, which has its root in
enlarging love, is Kvptog to whom the prayer is addressed, not
Geo? ; the subject of the verb is not ayuir^v (G^cumenius), and
certainly not fifxaq the apostles (a-Lapide). Chrysostom takes
itwiice that he says, " not you, but your hearts — for out of the
heart proceed evil thoughts." The adjective ap.ep.7TTovs is used
proleptically, " so that you may be blameless." The property
expressed by the adjective does not exist in the substantive till
120 COMMENTABY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II £.
after the action of the accompanying verb is completed. Jell", §
4.39, 2; Winer, § 66, 3 ; 1 Cor. i, 8 ; Philip, iii, 21 ; J ude 24. The
usage is not uncommon in classical writers, both in prose and
poetry. Lobeck, Soph., Ajax, p. 230, 3rd ed., Berlin, 1866 ; Soph.,
(Ed. Col., 1084, Wunder's note ; Matthne, § 446, 2, where numerous
examples are given. The adverb a/xe/^TO)? is found in B L.
The prayer then is that He may confirm them so as to be
unblamable, not vaguely, but ev ayiwcrvpfl — the more correct
spelling, ayioaruvy being found in B 1 D F (Rom. i, 4 ; 2 Cor.
vii, 1). The noun denotes neither the process (ayiacr/u.bs) nor
the quality («ytor>/9), but the condition (Lobeck ad Phrynich,
p. 350), or the sphere in which blamelessness was to evince
its power as the result of the divine confirmation. It is a
holy disposition or state in which the soul is freed from all
disturbing and opposing elements of evil, possessing a purity
which is the image of God's, and every element of which will
stand His inspection and meet His approval, for it is
c/uTrpocrOev tov Oeov kui 7rarpo9 iip-wv, " before God and our
Father." See under i, 3 ; iii, 9. The phrase brings out the
genuineness of the holiness and the final acceptance of him
who possesses it, and in whom this prayer is fulfilled. On the
relation of rj/mcov to the two preceding nouns, see under Gal. i, 4.
The phrase is not to be connected solely with the word ayiaxrvvu
(Koppe, Pelt), nor solely with afxep-Trrov? (De Wette, Koch), but
with the entire verse.
ev Tfl Trapovma tov iivpiov tj/u-wv hjcrov p.era ttuvtcjov tcov ayuov
uvtov — " at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints."
Xpia-rou, occurring after 'Itjaov in the Received Text, has in its
favour F L, the Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, and Gothic versions.
But A B 1) K M, and 20 mss. omit it, as also the Claromontane
and some of the fathers ; and it is therefore rightly rejected
by Lachmann and Tischendorf. For the first part of the clause
see under ii, 19.
The main question is, who are included under the oi dyioi,
with whom or in whose company the Lord comes ? (1) Some
restrict them to the saints or earlier believers, sanctified and
perfected (iv, 14 ; 1 Cor. vi, 4). So Flatt, Olshausen, Hofmann.
The word is often employed in this narrower sense. See under
Ephes. i, 1. (2) Others understand by the term the holy angels.
Ver. 13.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 121
That these are to accompany Christ is evident from many pas-
sages (Matt. xvi, 27 ; xxv, 31 ; Mark viii, 38 ; Luke ix, 26 ;
2 Thess. i, 7). So Musculus, Benson, De Wette, Olshauseu, Mac-
knight, Bisping, and Liinemann. But ol uyioi never by itself
alone in the New Testament signifies angels ; and the word
here cannot denote them exclusively, for it is continually or
uniformly applied to human believers. (3) Some take the
noun as signifying both hoty men and holy angels, " with all
His holy ones." In favour of this supposition there are several
arguments : (a) For, as a fact, saints will be there (iv, 14), and
angels too, as is fully told in the passage already quoted. (6) If
the apostle had wished to exclude the angels to whom he makes
special reference in the second epistle, he would have employed
some umnistakeable epithet. But he uses a term that may
comprehend both, according to the usage of the Hebrew and
Septuagint (Dent, xxxiii, 2, 3 ; Ps. lxxxix, 7) ; o'HR, and ol
ayioi, without any addition, denote angels in Dan. iv, 10; vii,
13 ; Zech, xiv, 5. Compare Heb. xii, 22, 23. (c) The addition
Travraov gives some weight to this opinion. (4) Angels as
well as saints are called His ; for the avrov refers to Him
and not to Qeov (Liinemann) : Matt, xiii, 41 ; xvi, 27 ; xxv, 31;
2 Thess. i, 7. So Bengel, Baumgarten-Crusius, Riggenbach,
Alford, and Ellicott. True, indeed, some raise an objection
from -ku.vtu>v. Musculus objects that Jesus does not come with
all His saints ; or, in the words of Conybeare, " our Lord will
not come with all His people, since some of His people will be
on earth." But ttuitcou embraces the angels too; and iv, 14,
tells us that both the dead who are raised and the living who
are changed will together meet the Lord in the air. Angels,
the unfallen ones so near God and so like Him, and saints
redeemed and perfected, and made equal to the angels, \uay-
yekoi, are with Him when He comes — those who owe to Him
existence and glory, and those who owe to Him restoration
and blessedness. Flatt proposed to join the clause d/uL€jU7TTov?
. . . with jueTa iravTwv ..." that he may stablish you blameless
in holiness, along with all His saints at the coming of the Lord
Jesus" ; as Peile paraphrases, that "you may take part in"; or as
Conybeare translates, " and so may He keep your hearts stead-
fast and unblameable in holiness and present you before our
1-22 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. IV.
God and Father with all His people at His appearing." So
also Musculus and Flatt, Aretius, Estius. Hofmann adopted
this connection in his Sckriftbeweis, II, 2, 1st ed. ; but in the
second edition and in his //. Schr, JS r . T. he has abandoned it.
The connection is unnatural, and of course restricts ol dyioi
to the saints.
The word 'A/aj/j/, found at the end of the chapter in some
codices and versions, is apparently an addition from some
church lectionary, the lesson for the day ending at the place ;
or it may be a liturgical response.
CHAPTER IV.
The apostle commences now the practical part of the Epistle.
He introduces exhortations to personal and sexnal purity and
to industry, in order that the believers should present a salutary
and an impressive contrast to the heathen round about them.
(Ver. 1.) Aonrov ovv, dSe\(j)oi, epioTwp.ev vpug kgu Trapa-
KnXov/jLev ev Kvpiw 'hjcrov — "Finally, therefore, brethren, we be-
seech you and exhort in the Lord Jesus." The to before
\onrbv in the Received Text has no uncial authority save B 2 ;
on the other hand, the ovv is omitted by B 1 , a few manuscripts,
the Syriac and Coptic versions, with Chrysostom and Theo-
phylact, but it is certainly to be retained. Koiirov, de caetero,
Vulgate, denotes that what follows is not only additional to
what has been said (furthermore, Ellicott), but is at the
same time the concluding portion of the epistle (2 Cor. xiii, 1 1 ;
Philip, iv, 8; Ephes. vi, 10; 2 Thess. iii, 1). It does not signify
ilberhaupt (Baumgarten-Crusius). Chrysostom lays undue
stress upon it when he paraphrases it, ae\ pev ku\ eh to
SirjveK.es ; and Theodoret errs too in writing to Xonrbv uvti
tov diroxpuovToos vpiv t>jv )]perepav TrapuKKijcnv. See under
Philip, iii, 1. The alternative explanation of CKcumenius
gives the sense, though not the exact meaning — to el$ Ttapalvecriv
eXOelv. The ovv introduces a conclusion based on the statement
of the previous verse. As the apostle had prayed for them that
they might be so confirmed as to be found spiritually perfect at
Vjsr. l.J FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIAN.S. 123
Christ's coming, on this account he sought and exhorted them
to live in harmony with the divine will, or so as to please
God. They should strive that their life might be in unison
with his prayer. It restricts the sense unnecessarily to refer'
ovv simply to the second coming (Calixtus) ; and it takes away
from the point to give it a vaguer and remoter allusion to the
report carried by Timothy to the apostle (Musculus). The
first of the two verbs, epooTuv, is used by classical writers only
in the sense of asking a question. Here, however, as also in
v, 12 ; 2 Thess. ii, 1 ; Philip, iv, 3, it means to entreat. The
Hebrew %& f though often rendered in the Septuagint by alrelv,
as when followed by nan or na applied to a person (1 Sam.
viii, 10; Ps. ii, 8), is sometimes also rendered by epwrdw. In
the New Testament the verb has both a classical and a Hellen-
istic sense. Compare Matt, xvi, 13, " He asked them, saying,"
(iipurra) ; John i, 19, Iva epcoTijcrtocriv, on the .one hand; and on
the other, in addition to the texts already quoted, Matt, xv,
23; Luke xiv, 18, 19; John xii, 21. With the second sense
it is followed by Trepi or vir'ep, and sometimes by the con-
junctions Iva and oVco?. This verb, according to Lunemann,
is the entreaty of a friend; while the second, TrapaKoXovpev,
is more official in its nature — the charge enjoined by an apostle.
The exhortation is ev Kvpiw 'lycrou, in the Lord Jesus ; not by
Him (Siu, per), as a formula of adjuration (Beza, Estius, Grotius,
Pelt, Schott), but in Him, in fellowship with Him — He being
not the source only, but also the element of our exhor-
tation ; in Him it is formed, in Him it is tendered — in
Him lies its vitality and power. What the charge was is
now told —
'Iva kuOws —upeXafieTe Trap s'jpcov to 7t&>? oVi v/xas 7repnra-
reh' kuI apicriceiv Qew — " that as ye received from us how
ye ought to walk and please God." "Iva is omitted in the
Received Text, and is not found in AD 3 K L a, and in some
of the Greek fathers ; but it is found in B D 1 F, in both Latin
versions, and in the Syriac Peshito. The repetition of Iva in
the next clause has probably originated the omission. See
Reiche on the verse. If the Iva be genuine, it blends the
purpose of the charge with its contents. See under Ephes. i,
17: and for the verb, see under ii. 13; Gal. i, 12; the refer-
124 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. IV.
ence being to the personal teaching of the apostle during his
brief sojourn among them. The verb refers simply to oral
instruction, and not, as the Greek fathers, to example also.
What they received is specified under one aspect by to tos,
the how; and thus the entire clause has given to it a substan-
tival character. Winer, § 18, 3. Rom. iv, 13 ; viii, 20 ; Gal. v,
14 ; Philip, iv, 10. For 7repnruTeh>, see under Ephes. ii, 2.
Kal has a common consecutive force — how ye ought to walk,
and by this walking as its medium to please God. The pleas-
ing is the result of the walking. To walk so as to please God
is to act according to His will, to live the life of His Son on
the earth ; and, though one may come far short of the divine
ideal, yet the perfect and paramount desire so to live will
enjoy the divine acceptance. The charge is not that they
should begin so to walk, for he adds —
Kadws Kai 7repi7rur€ire — "as ye also are walking." The
clause, though omitted in the Received Text and also in
D 3 K L, the Syriac version, and the Greek fathers, is found in
A B D 1 F M, the Vulgate, and some other versions, and has
therefore high authority, besides being a naturally interjected
thought in unison with the following 7re piarcreu^re. They had
been already so walking, and in such walking they are exhorted
to abound —
iva 7repiarcr€U)]Te paWov — " in order that ye would abound
still more." Ka0<W kcu implies for its supplement a ovtco? in
this clause, iv rw ovtw? irepnrareiv (Col. ii, G). The second or
repeated iva comes in naturally, after so long an intervening
clause. This use of paWov characterizes the apostle's style
(iv, 10; 2 Cor. vii, 13; Philip, i, 23), but it does not mean that
they were to go beyond the divine commandments (Chrysos-
tom). They had been walking so as to please God ; and the
charge is that they would still grow in this conformity to the
precepts delivered by the apostle. It is not a bare command
so to walk, but a recognition at the same time of their begun
sanctification, combined with an earnest injunction to con-
tinue and make rapid progress in this holy and blessed
course.
(Ver. 2.) 0\Sare yap rivas irapayyekias eScoKapev vp.lv Sia tov
Kvpiov 'hjcrov — "For ye know what commandments Ave gave
Vkk. 3.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 1 25
you by the Lord Jesus." Yap gives the ground of the exhor-
tation, introducing an appeal to their present knowledge —
they had not forgotten what they had received — they know it
— 7rape\a(3eTe of the previous verse corresponding to eScoKap.ei>
vp.lv of this verse. Compare Gal. iv, 13; 1 Cor. xv, 1. The
plural irapayyehlai is not " preaching of the gospel," but
means precepts (Acts v, 28 ; xvi, 24 ; 1 Tim. i, o, 18; Polybius,
vi, 27). These ethical commands were based on the gospel,
and are in harmony with its spirit, true obedience being-
prompted by those motives which it alone supplies. The
stress is on Tivas, to which the specific tovto in the next
clause corresponds. The preposition Sta in the last clause is
not to be confounded with ev (Pelt), but means through the
Lord Jesus, as the living medium through whom the apostle
was enabled to deliver them, the precepts being in origin not
his own, but Christ's. Bernhardy, p. 236 ; Winer, § 47, 1.
Before Sid Grotius needlessly inserts the participle -irapaXapfia-
vopeva? ; find Sid has not so loose a signification as Schott gives
it, auxilio sea benefido Ghristi, as if it referred to the revela-
tions connected with the apostleship, Si cnroKaXvifseoo? Xpicrrov.
Nor is the immediate purpose of the words that which Olshausen
gives, to maintain his investment as an apostle with full
powers to issue moral commandments ; for its object is rather
to turn attention to the momentous character and obligation
of the precepts so enjoined.
(Ver. 3.) Tovto yap ccttiv deXqpa tov 0eoi~, 6 ay lacr/Ao? v/Jxav
— " For this is God's will — your sanctification."' Tdp intro-
duces an illustrative reason ; and tovto, emphatic in position,
is not the predicate (De Wette), but the subject, and refers
back to rlvas, it being specially included among them ; for
this, about to be uttered, is the will of God — to wit, your
sanctification. The omission of the article before OiXtj/ua has
been accounted for in various ways ; either because what
follows as a special injunction does not exhaust the whole
will of God (Liinemann), or because after verbs substantive
and nuncupative it is frequently omitted (Ellicott). Nam
pronomen ubi pro subiecto habendum est, substantivum aut&m
praed/icati locum obtinet, articulus omittitur (Stallbaum,
Plato, Apolog., p. 57). What comes Sta. tov Kvplov is in true
126 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. IV.
and ultimate source and authority the will of God. ' Aytao-yuo?,
in apposition to rovro, preserves, according to its derivation,
its active force (see under iii, 13) ; and v/ulwv is the genitive of
object — the sanctification of you. Estius, Koppe, Usteri,
Olshausen, and Hofmann take it wrongly, with a passive
meaning, as equivalent to ayiaxrvvi], which, however, does not
mean (roo^pocrvvi], as (Ecumenius and Theophylact give it.
But " the termination pog is generally found with a class of
nouns which represent the action of the verb proceeding from
the subject; and may be expressed by the infinitive active used
as a noun" (Donaldson, Cratylus,% 253). On account of the
to /ul}] before inrepftaivetv of ver. C, taken as parallel to tovto,
some give ayiacrp.6? the more limited meaning, which that
verse would suggest, of purity from sexual sin ; " this is the
will of God " airexea-Qai . . . eiSevat eKauTOV . . . to pi] virep-
fimveiv. So Turretin, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, Lunemann.
But there is another and better method of explanation. (1)
The explanatory infinitive cnrexitrOai, without the article, de-
fines negatively the ayiacrpo?, or, at least, a portion of it
requiring immediate enforcement. (2) Then clStvai, also with-
out the article, gives a positive explanation in continuance
of the negative statement. (3) But in to virepfiaiveiv, the
article brings it into a line with 6 ayiacrpo?, and as a dis-
tinct exemplification suggested by the second clause of ver. 4.
a.'rrexeo'Oai vp.a<s airo t>7? 7ropveia$ — " that ye abstain from
fornication." The infinitive is explanatory of the more general
ayiacrpos. Winer, § 44, 1. Your sanctification is God's will ;
and His will for you under this aspect, and in your present
position in Thessalonica, is that you abstain from fornication,
which the heathen around you scarcely reckon a sin, and to
which previous habits, beliefs, and surrounding temptations
may be ever tempting you. The preposition airo is repeated
after the compound verb with which it is incorporated, as in
v. 22, though it is sometimes omitted, as in 1 Tim. iv, 3. In
Acts xv, 20 the preposition is inserted, and in v, 29 it is
omitted, with the same construction and references. There is
therefore no substantial difference of meaning, though with
a7ro, according to Tittmann (De Synon., I, p. 225), the separa-
tion looks more ad rem. Uopvela may be taken in a wide
Ver. 4.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS 127
sense ; and, indeed, some manuscripts and fathers read 7ra'en/?
t»7?- The Syriac and some of the fathers give iraui^ for the
article. In every sense and aspect the sin referred to is to be
abstained from, and all the more as it was reckoned among
things indifferent, and was commonly practised (Terence,
Adelphi, i, 2, 21). In Horace, Sat., I, 2, 33, occurs a sententia
dice Catonis in praise of 7ropvela. Cicero says of any one who
speaks as the apostle has done here, est Me quidem valde
sever us ; and that the sin is not only not abhorrent ab hujus
seculi licentia, verum etiam a majorum consuetudine, atque
concessis — quando enim hoc non factum est ? quando repre-
hensv/m? quando non permissuml (Orat. pro M. Gaelio, 48,
p. 285, vol. II, pars ii, Opera, ed. Orellius.) Consult Grotius
on Acts xv, 20; Becker's Charicles, p. 241.
(Ver. 4.) eioevai eaacrTOv v/urn* to eaurov crKeuos KTaaOai ei
ayiaa-jUM tcai ti/j.}] — " that every one of you know how to get
himself his own vessel in sanctification and honour" — another
explanatory infinitival clause, without the article, and parallel
to arrex^crOai (Philip, iv, 12). There has been no little debate
on the meaning of cr/ceyo?. One may dismiss at once the more
special meanings assigned to it, as membrum virile — the view
of Er. Schmidt and others, mentioned in Wolf. The word,
certainly, has such a sense in iElian (Hid. Animal, xvii, 11,
p. 379, vol. I, ed. Jacobs), but not in the New Testament. A
great many expositors give o-fcevos the sense of body — one's
own body, and as many take it in the sense of wife — one's own
wife. Thus Theodoret says, rives to eavrov encevos ryv o/u6£vya
ijpfxi'ivevarav, eyo? Se pojuic^u) to eKa<TT0i> <rco/ua ovtco? uvtov kc-
K-\>]K€i>ai. Theodoret had been preceded in his view by Chiy-
sostom, and it is held by (Ecumenius, Theophylact, Tertullian,
Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, Calvin, Musculus, Zanchius, Hunnius,
Drusius, Piscator, a-Lapide, Beza, Grotius, Hammond, Tur-
retin, Bengel, Flatt, Schrader, Pelt, Olshausen, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Macknight, and Wordsworth. Primasius explains
mum corpus castum servando sanctificet et honor et, vel certc
taut am propter Jilios uccorem cognoscat. But there are several
objections to this view. (1) It is questioned if cr/ceuo?, of or
by itself, can ever mean the body. It is, indeed, employed in
this sense, but usually the metaphor has some distinct ad-
128 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. IV.
junct, or is explained in being used. Thus in 2 Cor. iv, 7, the
epithet oorpa/aWs is added — the body being called an "earthen
vessel." So in the other passages commonly quoted as to
a-Keuos tou irvev/j-uroq (Barnabas, Ep., vii, 4; xi, 1(5; xxi, p. 13,
24, 42, ed. Hefele) ; ayyelov is used of the body in its in-
strumental connection with the soul in Philo (De Migration?.
Abraham, p. 418, &c). See Loesner. Cicero says too, "corpus
qv. Idem quasi vas est aid aliquod. animi receptaculum" (Tuscul.
Disput., i, 22) ; corpus, quod vas quasi constitit ejus (Lucre-
tius, iii, 441). But in these cases the figurative meaning is
brought out by an epithet, or by the contextual phraseology.
Nor can any proof be taken from the uses of the Hebrew £?,
which has so many various significations, and which does not
simply signify body, even in the phrase " the vessels of the
young men are holy " (1 Sam. xxi, 5). The tropical uses of
o-Kevo? in Acts ix, 15 ; Rom. ix, 22, 23 ; 2 Tim. ii, 21, have no
relation to the clause before us. It cannot be proved, then,
that a-Kevos ever means by itself the body, and the instances
adduced by Vorstius are not to the point (De Hebr. N. Test.,
pp. 24, 25, 1705). (2) Nor can to eaurov o-Kevo? Kraadai mean
to possess his own body, for KTacrOai means to acquire, not to
possess. That each one of you should acquire his own body,
yields no tolerable meaning. Some of the Greek fathers, how-
ever, attempt to evade this by the paraphrase, foeis avro
KTw/meOa orav fxevy naOapov, " we acquire it when it remains
pure " (Chrysostom). " Sin takes possession " (ktutcu), Theo-
plvylact says, " of the body when it is tainted by sin, but
when it is purified we make it our own" (///xef? avro KTw/ueOa).
But this is only repeating the verb without explaining it, and
this verbal sense is rendered impossible by the negative clause
fxrj ev iraOei, which implies another party or person. The same
objection applies to the " sole admissible " explanation of
Olshausen, who makes the verb signify dominion over the
body — " to guide and master his body as a true instrument of
the soul." Wordsworth also eludes the lexical difficulty, by
rendering the verb to acquire and hold, quoting the Pharisee's
boast (Luke xviii, 12), "I give tithes," iravra ocra KTU>/xai, but
the verb has in the quotation its proper meaning, "I get" or
" acquire," i.e., " of all my increase." So Matt, x, 9, where the
Ver. 4.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 12!)
verb is vaguely rendered " provide," but wrongly " possess " in
Luke xxi, 19; "purchased," in Acts i, 18; viii, 20; in the last
instances the version is coloured by the context ; the word is
rightly rendered " obtained " in Acts xxii, 28. (3) Nor can
eauTov tit into that interpretation, as from its position the stress
is on it. It cannot stand as the equivalent of a mere possess-
ive pronoun; nor can it in any way denote the individuality,
die Tchheit, by which the \Jsvx>'i is distinguished from the
a-Kevo?. It simply denotes his own in special possession.
Neither noun, verb, nor pronoun can thus sustain the interpre-
tation which we have been considering. 2«reuo? does not, with-
out any adjunct or defining genitive, signify body ; nor does
Krdojuai denote to possess; nor does euvrov mark any distinc-
tion. The other interpretation gives ovcet/o? the meaning of
wife, a meaning which the substantive may have, while the
true sense of the verb and pronoun is also preserved. Theo-
dore of Mopsuestia has given this sense, o-Keuos ri]v iS'iav
eKacTTov yajU€T>]v ouo/ud^ei {Opera, p. 14>5, ed. Fritzsche).
Augustine explains the noun by uxor (Serm. 278, Opera, vol.
V, p. 1G54, Gaume) ; and again, qui suum vas possidet, id est,
eonjugem suam {Opera, vol. X, p. 613; Cont. Julian., xxxix,
p. 1125, Gaume). And in favour of this view it may be noted
that (a) The noun, as in Hebrew usage, may mean a wife.
Thus the examples from Schottgen : In convivio illius impii
regis Ahasuerus aliqui dicebant; Mulieres Medicae sunt
r pulchriores : alii vero ; Persicae sunt pulchriores. Dixit ad
eos Ahasuerus ; vas meum, quo ego utor « vnnm »w» • f ?2 } neque
Medicum, neque Persicum est, sed Chaldaicum. An vultis
illam rid-/ re? Illi responderunt : Volumus. Quicunque
enim semen suum immittit k-ieo k^i nnc3, In vas nonbonum
tile semen suum deturpat {Horae Hebr., p. 827). Compare
I, p. iii, 7. (2) The verb Kraa-dai is often used in this connec-
tion — ktu<tQui yvvaiKd. Thus 6 KToofievos yvvaiKu evap^eTui
KT>'i(reu)! (Ecclus. xxxvi, 29) ; Ti]v yvvalica MaaXwi/ KeKTi][xat e/xavrip
(Ruth iv, 10) ; ravrrjv /a'/cr^at, Socrates speaking of Xantippe
(Xenoph., Symp., ii, 10, p. 9, ed. Bornemann). (3) The pronoun
euurou preserves its proper significance and emphasis — his own
— her who specially is his own, as his wife. (4) The context
points very distinctly in this direction. There is the decided
I
180 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. IV.
prohibition or negative aspect, to abstain from fornication, and
there is now the positive and permitted aspect — the divinely
appointed remedy against that sin. Com p. 1 Cor. vii, 1, 2. See
Ellicott. This view has been maintained by Thomas Aquinas,
Zwingli, Estius, Balduin, Wetstein, Schottgen, Koppe, Schott,
De Wette, Koch, Bisping, Ewald, Hofmanu, Riggenbach,
Liinemann, &c. De Wette would take the tropical a-Kevos
more directly, and understands it vom Wcrhzeuge zur
Bcfi'ledhjiing des Geschlechtstriebes, an interpretation which
would include both sexes, as the woman has power over the
man (1 Cor. vii, 4). Besides, in warning against iropvela, the
man is usually addressed, but the woman is implied ; and so
here the counsel to the husband is mutatis wiutandAs for the
wife (1 Cor. vi, 15-18). This virtual comprehension of both
sexes gets rid of the objection of Calvin and Olshausen to the
view which we adopt, to wit, that the exhortation to purity
would not apply to unmarried men or widowers, and not at all
to women (1 Cor. vii, 2-9). The last phrase, ey dyiao-juM kcu ti/u?],
" in sanctification and honour," is connected with KTaaQai as
its sphere or ethical element, the active sense of the first noun
being so far shaded by its connection with the abstract ti/luj.
The Thessalonian believers were to abstain from all forms of
illicit sexual intercourse, and were in one way to preserve them-
selves from it, by each not simply getting a wife, but getting to
himself his own wife according to God's ordinance in purity
and honour (Heb. xiii, 4; Gen. i, 28; ii, 24). The objection to
this view that it degrades woman under the appellation of a-Keuo?
is met by quoting the words of Peter, co? acrQevea-repM (riceuei tu>
ywaiKeiM (1 Peter iii, 7), and bearing in mind that it is only
in one special aspect of relation that the epithet is given.
(Ver. 5.) fxr] ev irdOei €7ri6vfxlag — "not in lustfulness of desire."
The second noun e-jnQvfxia is the general term, and is sometimes
used in a good sense in the New Testament and Septuagint,
but it has often epithets and genitives attached to it which
show its evil nature. See under Col. iii, 5 and Gal. v, 24. It
is rather the irdQos than the e-rnQu^la which is here condemned.
The word occurs twice besides in the New Testament (Col.
iii, 5; Rom. i, 26). Cicero says, "quae Gfraeoi iraOn vocant, nobis
'perturbationes appellari magis placet quam morbos" (Tusc.
Ver. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 131
Disput,, iv, 5). It is according to Zeno rj aXoyo? /ecu irapu <\>v<nv
yjsvxw kii>>](tis, ?/ op/j.}] Tr\eova^ov<ja. Diogerwes Laertius, Zeno, 63,
p. 160, vol. II, Opera, eel. Huebner). UdOo? is ever wrong
and sinful passion, and when eindvpia is mastered by it, when
mere sensual gratification is the one pervading accompaniment,
then the prohibition of the apostle is set at nought, and mar-
riage in motive and sphere is brought down to the level of
TTopvela, for it is contracted Sia rtjv pl^iv poi»]v airXws (Theo-
dor. Mops., p. 145, ed. Fritzsche).
KaOcnrep kui t<1 e6vi] T.a P-rj etSoTa tov Qeov — " even as the
Gentiles also that know not God." The particle kou, omitted in
the Authorized Version, occurs often in such comparisons, and
compares the class implied in previous words with the heathen.
Klotz, Devarins, II, 635; Harking, I, 126. Compare ii, 13;
iii, 6-12. According to Fritzsche the article is prefixed to t'Ov)],
uhl de paganis in wnivermm loquitur (ad Bom., ii, 1-1). The
subjective negative prj is employed, as the Gentile ignorance of
God is asserted from the writer's own point of view, and as the
preceding clauses are "oblique and infinitival." Winer, § 55, 5.
Their ignorance is not regarded as a simple fact, but as a fact
which forms a portion of the argument ; they sink into such
vices from their ignorance. Gayler, p. 275, &c. The Gentiles
know not God, and what else can be expected than that they
should fall into the sin denounced, and what greater inconsis-
tency can be predicated of believers than that they are
governed by these inordinate passions which characterize
the Gentiles because they are ignorant of God. See under
Gal. iv, 8.
(Ver. 6.) to p.}] virepfiiuveLv kui irXeoveKreiv ev tw Trpu.ypa.Ti
top aSe\(pov avrou — " that no one go beyond and overreach his
brother in the matter." The previous parallel infinitive —
elSevai — is anarthrous, but the article gives this clause a kind
of substantival force, and shows that it is not co-ordinate with
eiSevcu, but with 6 ayiaa-po? of verse 3 ; the verse being there-
fore really the second parallel to that clause, and Tiva, suggested
by the following avrov, and not eKucrTov, being supplied to the
infinitive. The two infinitives from the structure of the clause
both govern a8e\<f)6v. The first verb vTrepfialvew occurs only
here, and literally signifies, to pass over or beyond, such as
132 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. IV.
walls or mountains (2 Sam. xxii, 30 ; Xenoph., A nub., vii, 3, 43) ;
then with two ethical significations, to pass by, that is, to leave
unnoticed (Herod, iii, 89 ; Isasus, p. 38, G) ; and to go beyond,
that is, to surpass (Plato, Timceus, 24 d). With an intransi-
tive sense (as in Iliad, ix, 497; Euripides, Alcest, 1077), the verb
might mean to transgress ; but with an accusative, it may sig-
nify to set one at nought by trespassing on his right. The
second verb irXeoveKreh, as its composition denotes, with an
accusative of person means to take advantage of any one for
the sake of gain, or more generally, to defraud (2 Cor. vii, 2 ;
xii, 17, 18) ; or what Meyer on the place characterizes als Act
der eigentUchen Habsucht is involved in the verb. 'A^eA^o?
is not a neighbour (Schott, Koch), but specifically a Christian
brother. The context shows that in ev tm irpuyixari there is a
definite allusion, and the phrase cannot mean " in any matter,"
as to) cannot be taken for run. Ilpayfxa is something involved
in the previous verses, for it cannot be changed as by Wolf and
De Wette into tchV irpuyixaa-i, " matters of business " (im
Geschdfte). The fourth and fifth verses naturally lead to a defi-
nite interpretation of this verse as following up the previous
injunctions and presenting another example of what 6 aytacr/xos
includes. Not a few interpreters take the clause in a general
sense as a prohibition of covetousness and selfish gi'asping,
among whom are Zwingli, Calvin, Zanchius, Hunnius, Baldwin,
Are tins, Grotius, Koppe, Flatt, De Wette, Koch, Bourn an,
Bisping, Ewald, Hofmann, Riggenbach, Liinemann, &c.
On the other hand that it is a definite warning against impurity
or breach of marriage law is held by the Greek fathers, by
Jerome, Zegerus, a-Lapide, Estius, Wetstein, Kypke, Michaelis,
Bengel, Baumgarten, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, Ellicott, Alford,
Jowett. This is the true interpretation. (1) Because the
reason why virepfialveiv is disallowed is that God called
us — not eir\ uKaOapj-ln, which is in verse 7 put in con-
trast with ayia&ij.w. The meaning of the term in such a
connection cannot well be doubted. (2) The structure of the
paragraph points to this interpretation. First, -wopvela is for-
bidden, and then, secondly, its special remedy is pointed out,
with appended directions for the spirit and manner in which
a wife should be taken, and then, thirdly, and naturally, warn-
Ver. 6.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 133
ing against any violation of marriage law is delivered, and
followed up by the awful menace of divine indignation. (3) Tw
-n-pdy/uari cannot mean business generally, ;'/ irpayp-areia, " in
chaffering" (Wycliffe), or in emendo et vendendo (Piscator),
but " in the matter" ; and that matter is to eavrou <TKeuo$
KTuo-Oai, and the verse therefore implies impurity and
adultery. The phrase refers to incestuous sin in 2 Cor.
vii, 11. It is not correct in translation, though it is true in
result, to explain it iv t>j fillet (Theophylact), or to say
with Estius, -wpay/xa verecunde dixit Apostolus pro concubitu.
(4?) It is no objection to affirm that the two verbs irapa-
fialveiv Kai 7r\eoveKT€?v should have their simple commercial
signification, for the context demands a modified ethical sense
and application. One may set at nought and defraud his
brother more deeply and basely in matrimonial than in mer-
cantile life. UXeoveKTelv does not indeed in itself contain the
idea of unchastity, any more than the clause in the tenth
commandment (Exod. xx, 17), " Thou shalt not covet thy
neighbour's wife ; " yet Theodoret says, irXeove^lav t>V p.oiyeiav
eKaXecre, which only gives the desire a different object from
money. Hopvela and irXeove^ia occur together in Rom. i, 29 ;
1 Cor. v, 10 ; vi, 9, 10; Ephes. v, 3, 5 ; Col. iii, 5. Compare
Wisdom xiv, 12, 2G. The apostle's residence in Corinth at
the moment may have laid upon him the necessity of the injunc-
tion. Compare 1 Cor. v, 9 ; vi, 9-10; 2 Cor. xii, 21. Of such
impurities Burns has said —
" They harden a' within."
(5) Nor does the occurrence of the phrase irep\ iravrwv
tovtooi', adduced by Koch, Lunemann, and De Wette, present
any real objection, as if it implied that more sins than one are
reprimanded, whereas in our exegesis only one is thought of.
But both iropvela and poiye'ia are included; and, as Alford
observes, it is not ravra -wavra which the apostle uses, and the
phrase only generalizes from the sin mentioned to a wider
range. (G) One might perhaps hint, too, that in cases of
grasping and over-reaching, human law sternly interferes ; but
in the cases specified, law was in those days inoperative, and
God Himself, as we are told, assumes the vindication. Chrysos-
134? COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. IV.
torn thus illustrates — "He has well said to p>j virepfiaiveiv.
For to each man God has assigned a wife, and has set bounds
to nature, that there may be intercourse with one only ; there-
fore, intercourse with another is transgression and robbery, and
the takiDg of more than belongs to one — 7r\ecu'ef/a — or rather
it is more cruel than any robbery, for we grieve not so much
when our wealth is carried off, as when marriage is invaded.
Dost thou call him thy brother and defraudest him, and that
in things which are forbidden ? Here he speaks concerning
adultery, but above also concerning all fornication." The
earnest and plain-speaking peroration of the Golden-mouth
which follows, discloses a sad state of society, and the strong
terms are, alas, not inapplicable to the present day. The difficulty
of the interpretation has arisen from the fact that on this
subject the apostle, as Joannes Damascenus says, €v<pi'jp.(jo$ Se
crcpoSpu kui e7riKeiia\vfJLiJ.lv<j)s ti]v poiyeiav wpop-acre. The injunc-
tions are enforced by the solemn thought —
Siori eicSiKOs TLvpio? irep\ iravrwv tovtwv — " because that the
Lord is the avenger concerning all these things." j 'Ek&/cc>9,
used only here and in Rom. xiii, 4, has passed away from its
original meaning of " without law," to signify one who main-
tains law, one who avenges (Wisdom xii, 12; Ecclus. xxx, C).
The verb e/ccW<o may be followed by a simple accusative, or
by TLva, to avenge one upon another — by riva a-wo tlvos, or by
tlvi, to make retribution to him, or by irepl with a noun as here,
€K§iKi'jcrw 7rep) rod e'Ovov? pov (1 Mace, xiii, 6). Suicer sub voce.
The last words — " all those things " — toutoov not being mascu-
line, as the Authorized Version supposes, but not the earlier
English ones — have a wide range of reference to all the sins
warned against in the previous verses. The caution against
these sins has a similar basis or initiatory enforcement in
Gal. v, 21 ; Ephes. v, 5, 6 ; Col. iii, (5. Liineinann adduces from
Homer's Batrachom., the phrase e^ef #eo? skSlkov oppu.
Kauws kui Trpoenrap.ev vp.iv kcu StepaprvpapeOa — "as also we
told you before, and did solemnly testify." The spelling
Trpoenropev is found in A K L and some of the fathers, the
other spelling in B D F N. The comparative kcu is connected
with KaOoos as in verse 5 — see under it. Upo means before the
avenging takes place, and the reference is to the apostle's
Ver. 7,8.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 135
words, spoken when he was among them. See under Gal.
v, 21. The last compound verb witnesses to his thorough and
continuous testifying on such points, so essential to Christian
life and progress.
( v er. 7). Ov yap eKaXearev >]/u.us 6 Oeo? eiri aKaOapaia, u\\ ev
ayiaafiM — "for God called us not for uncleanness, but in sancti-
fication." By yap the reason is assigned for the statement just
made, that the Lord is avenger of all such things. For the act
ascribed to God in calling, see under Gal. i, 6, and compare ii,
12. 'Ett/ denotes purpose, as in Gal. v, 13; Ephes. ii, 10
(Winer, § 48, c; Kruger, § 68, 41), and ev marks the spiritual
element in which they were called. Nor is there any brevilo-
quence — um zu sein in, ut essemns. ^7rl,Jinem, ev, indolent rei
magis exprimit (Bengel). 'A/ca0«yo<x/a is the sexual impurity
pointed out and condemned, and ayiacrfxos with its active
sense is not only the opposite (iii, 13), but embraces all that
growth in spiritual purity, which prepares believers for that
kingdom to which God has called them.
(Ver. 8.) TOiyapovv 6 aOeTccv ovk av0pco7rov aOeTe'i, aAAu tov
Qeov — " wherefore, then, the despiser despises not man but God."
The first compound particle syllogistically introduces a strong
influence, knitting together as premises what has been already
stated from verse 3, and basing a solemn conclusion upon it
(Heb. xii, 1; Xenoph., Anab., I, 9, 18; Klotz, Devar.,
vol. II, p. 738 ; Hoogeveen, p. 502). '0 aOercciv loses the idea of
time, and becomes a virtual substantive (Gal. i, 23 ; Winer, §
45, 7). The verb uOerw, first found in Polybius, has sometimes
the strong sense of to cast aside, or violate, to annul, or make
void (Mark vii, 9; and see under Gal. ii, 21), but it often
denotes to despise or reject (Mark vi, 26; Luke vii, 30; x, 16 —
four times). There is no expressed object to the participle, and
it is all the more significant without it. It is needless and
enfeebling, therefore, to propose any supplement. The apostle
fixes attention on the act and the actor — the despised and
the despiser. Various supplements have been proposed- — istam
legem (Koppe, Schott), t>V K\>jcriv (Pelt), e^e (Flatt), hoBG (Vul-
gate and Beza). The real objective is of course the precepts
already given— not repeated, particularized, or summed up. but
so present to the mind of the reader that he can be at no loss
136 COMMENTAEY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap IV.
about them, while the emphasis is put on the person
and on the act which is shown to involve a heinous sin
and an awful peril. The phrase ovk avOpunrov aWa tov
Qeov presents a direct and absolute antithesis, and is not to be
softened into "not so much man as God" (Estius), or " not only
man but also God" (Macknight, Flatt). Winer, § 55,8. As
ai>9pto7ro? has no article, the meaning is general and may
include as well the apostle himself, who has given the
solemn charge (Pelagius, Beza, Schott), and the brother tov
7rXeoveKT>]0ii'Ta (CEcumenius, Pelt). Hofmann takes the refer-
ence to be, the misused woman. The article before Qeov may
not be translated, but it has a specializing power — almost as
Ellicott says, ipsum Deum. Whatever may be the refer-
ence in avQpwwo?, the apostle fixes down the sin as one against
God, who has forbidden sexual impurities, and who has
ordained the marriage relation, so that whoever lawlessly
indulges in the one, or wilfully invades the other, throws off
the authority of God — of God —
tov kou Sovtu to Hveu/ua avTOv to dyiov eig vp.as — " who also
gave his holy Spirit unto you." There are several various read-
ings. ABU 3 , the Claromontane Latin, the Peshito, and the
Gothic version, with several of the Greek Fathers, omit kou; but
it is found in D 1 F G K L ^, the Philoxenian Syriac, the Vulgate,
and others of the fathers, and may therefore be retained,
though Lachmann omits it and Alford brackets it. The similar
appearance of tov to Sovtu may have led some copyist to omit it,
and its insertion could not well be accounted for. Then
BDF^ 1 read SiSovra, but Sovtol is read in A K LN 3 , most mss.,
very many versions, and some fathers. It is difficult to decide,
only SiSovtu may be a correction in order to represent the gift
as a present one. The Received Text has ;/yua?, but on the
slender authority of A, some mss., the Vulgate, &c. ; but vjua$
is found in BDFKLN and not a few of the fathers. The
change to fnuas may have been made under the impression that
av9pco7rov meant the apostle, while this clause, taken to assert
his inspiration, thus aggravates the sin of despising him. The
kou introduces a new idea — God who called us in sanctification
and also, that we might fully reach it, gave unto us His Holy
Spirit. Bengel well says novum hie additur momentum. The
Ver. 9.] FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 137
sin is shown in its heinousness as the despisal of God, who to
enable us to reach this ayiacrpos in which he called us, has in
addition conferred upon us His Holy Spirit. He then who
indulges in the sins forbidden and falls into aicaOaparia, — as he
frustrates the end of the divine call, and has nothing of its
spiritual element — despises not man but God, who to elevate
men above that impurity and to provide for their sanctification,
gave them the Holy Spirit to do His work in securing the final
perfection of His people. This divine gift is named solemnly
and emphatically to ILvevpa to dyiov, the third person of the
Ever-blessed Trinity; to LTi/eu/xa, the life of believers; to ayiov,
not only in essence but because His gracious function is to
implant and sustain holiness — uvtov, His, proceeding from
Him, carrying out His blessed purpose in those who believe.
And He is a gift (Sovto) conferred on true believers, as really
as the Son is a gift, for we are utterly unworthy ; and a gift
through Christ applying what He has provided in His incarna-
tion and death. See under Ephes. i, 13. The concluding-
words el$ v/j.a$ are not equivalent to vp.iv (Koppe, Pelt), but in
vos, the idea of direction being implied, not of Raumlichlceit
(Liinemann). ii, 9 ; Gal. iv, G. In this paragraph we have the
Lord Jesus, God who calls, and the Spirit who is given — Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost — a triune interest in those who have
accepted salvation. Compare Luke xi, 13 ; John iii, 34 ; Acts
v, 32 ; viii, 18 ; xv, 8 ; Rom. v, 5 ; 2 Cor. i, 22.
(Ver. 0.) Uepl Se t>}$ <pi\a.Se\<fna$ ov \peiav eyere ypcupeiv
vp.lv — "Now concerning brother-love ye have no need that I
write to } r ou." By Se the apostle passes to other topics some-
what in contrast to the previous statement about certain sins —
to the inculcation of brotherly love and of honest industry in
their secular calling. The </>{Aa6V\</>/a is the love of a brother,
that is, a fellow-believer or Christian brother. The last part of
the compound word is the object of the love and does not
characterize its name — brotherly, not because I feel that I am
his brother, but because I know that he is my brother —
(ptXapyuplu, ^CKavQpunr'ia, ipCkavSpia.
The next clause creates some difficulties. The ordinary
construction is according to Liinemann inadmissible, because
this use of the active infinitive is confined to cases in which
138 COMMENTARY ON ST. PA l'1/S [Chap. IT.
no special personal reference is attached to the verb; but
here vp.?v belongs to ypd<f>etv, and he affirms that either
epe would be used, or the passive ypdfacrOai as in verse 1.
Bournan and Reiche have no objections to rjpa<s or riva (Heb.
v, 11). It is true that the instances usually adduced as analo-
gous are not strictly so, as from Soph., (Edip. Col., 37, e^e*? yap
X^pov ovx ayvov 7rareiv, or from Thucydides, i, 38, yv ....
6 OefiicrTOKXrjs . . . agios Ouvpdtrai, or Euripid., Med., 318, as in
these cases there is no personal word connected like vp.lv with
the verbs. Liinemann therefore adopts the reading 't^opev
which is found in D 1 F N 4 (B having eixopev), in the Latin and
Philoxenian Syriac versions, and in Chrysostom, Theophylact,
and some of the later fathers. But the common reading has
good authority, AD 3 KL^ X , the Peshito, Theodoret, Damas-
cenus, &c. It is probable that eyo/Aej/ came in on account of
the grammatical difficulty in the same way as many codices
have ypd(pe(x6ai as in chap, v, 1. The construction is harsh and
irregular, perhaps a colloquialism, the infinitive having virtually
a passive sense — ye have no need that one should write to
you, or ye have no need of one's writing to you. Winer, § 44,
8, 1 ; Kiihner, § G40, a, 3; A. Buttmann, p. 223. The first clause
ov xP e ' Lav ex eTe * s a rhetorical touch, delicately hinting a gentle
reproof, /caret Trapd\ei\]siv Se tijp irapaivecnv TiOijtri (Theophylact).
Compare 2 Cor. ix, 1 ; Phile. 19 ; chap. v. 1. The figure prae-
teritio, assumed by some here, implies that something is
omitted that might have been said in order to induce a more
ready compliance — or as Chrysostom says, Nw Se tw eiirelv,
ou XP e ' ia €< TTl p-el^ov eiroirjcrev ij ei ei7rei>. They did not need
to be written to on brother-love, for they knew its nature
and obligation (verse 10); but their practice was not cpaite so
full as their knowledge. Compare the spirit and wording of
the first verse of the chapter. There is no contrast like that
assumed by Estius and Benson ; they needed specially to be
taught purest chastity as in the previous verses, but there was
less occasion to say much about what follows — -
uvtoi yap vpecg OcoSlSuktol eare ei$ to ayu7rav uAA?/-
\ou$ — " for you yourselves are taught of God to love
another." Tap gives the reason why there was no need
for him to write to them, for they themselves are taught,
Vek. 10.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 139
and that by God — the stress lying on ctvrql vfxeh,
coupled with SiSuktoi. They who were taught had no need
of farther teaching; but 6eo in the compound term, which has
been coined for the occasion, cannot be so subordinate as Ellicott
seems to regard it. The contrast is not indeed — when God
teaches, the apostle may be silent — wo Gott lehrt, kavn ich
schweigen (Olshausen) ; but the fact that the teaching is of
God, a fact too which is expressed by a significant compound
employed only here, surely gives emphasis to the entire clause,
is a weighty addition to the statement— not only taught, but
taught of God — though there is no formal contrast to any other
teaching, irapa avOpco-rrou p.a6eiv (Chrysostom). In avroi does
not lie the idea of vos ipsi or of sponte (Schott) which is con-
tradicted by OeoSlSuKToi (John vi, 45 ; Isaiah liv, 13; Barnabas,
Ep'tst., § 21, p. 44, Pair. Apost., Opera, ed. Dressel; Schottgen,
Hot. Heb., p. 829). The allusion is not to the precept as uttered
by Jesus in John xiii, 34 (Pelagius, Schott, Baumgarten-Cru-
sius), nor to the divine compassion manifested towards us, and
of which we should be imitators (Ambrosiaster, Pelt). The
last clause with eh to ayairav expresses under the purpose
the contents also of the teaching (iii, 10). The compound
verbal noun is not to be taken absolutely in the sense of
deoirvtva-Toi, and this clause regarded as describing the result.
This mutual love, the tendency and purpose of the divine
teaching, was an earnest actual affection, manifesting itself in
such forms and spheres as the state and wants of the churches
around them opened up for them. Docti estis noil modo intel-
lectiv, ut sciatis, seel etiam affect u, ut facialis (Estius). To be
God-taught is to have divine teaching as a divine power and
life. Brother-love has a special prominence, (1) for it is a
testing fruit of regeneration (1 John iii, 14 ; iv, 8) ; (2) its visible
existence is a condition of the world's conversion (John xvii,
21); (3) a token also of true discipleship (John xiii, 35); (4) wdiile
it is obedience to Christ's new commandment, and enforced by
his own example (John xiii, 34 ; xv, 17 ; Eph. v, 2) ; and is
essential to the spiritual growth of the church (Ephes. iv, 1G).
(Ver. 10.) kul yap iroielTe avTO eh wavTa? tov$ aSe\<pov<} ev oXy
rfi MuKeSovln — " for ye also are doing it toward all the
brethren which are in Macedonia." The second tovs is omitted
140 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAULS [Chap. IV.
in A D 1 F, but retained on preponderant authority. Our ver-
sion renders wrongly "and indeed," for yap introduces one-
ground of the previous statement " } r e are taught of God,"
and that ground is, not only were they taught it, but they
were also doing it, kcu being thus taken along with the verb.
Hartung, vol. I., p. 137. De Wette takes this yap as co-ordi-
nate with the previous one, and as furnishing an additional
argument that on the duty of brother-love they needed
no one to Avrite to them. But the yap of this verse is best
taken with the immediately preceding clause introduced by the
first yap. He needed not to write to them (yap) for they had
been taught of God. By avro is meant to ayairav aXhi)\ovs, and
els marks the direction of the love toward all the fellow-
believers, not only in their own city, but also in the whole
province, including Philippi and Beroea, along with other places
to which the gospel had been carried. It is added —
7rapaKa\ou/u.ev Se vp.ag, aSe\(j>oi, ire pia rreveiv paWov — " But we
exhort you, brethren, to abound still more." The apostle incul-
cates an increase of this love which, according to the previous
verse, they already possessed, Se implying a slight contrast
between the fact and the exhortation. Their love was not per-
fect, but was capable of increased intensity, guided by a grow-
ing Christian intelligence and experience. The infinitive present
denotes the permanence of the act. Winer, § 44, 7. What the
manifestations of this brother-love were we do not know, only
from the use of the verb -woieiTe we may infer that their love
had embodied itself in some acts of substantial Christian benefi-
cence — perhaps of hospitality, liberal relief of the poor, or kind
refuge afforded to such as might be the victims of persecution.
Calvin finds an argument — a major e ad minus ; if their love
spread through the whole of Macedonia, he infers that it is not
to be doubted that they loved one another — quln ipsi mutuo
inter se anient. We know that afterwards the apostle bears
high testimony to their grace of liberality in the Macedonian
province (2 Cor. viii, 1, 2). They are warned still further —
(Ver. 11.) kol <pi~\oTi/ui.elcr6ai tja-vx^iv — " and to make it your
aim to be quiet." It is unnatural in the extreme on the part of
Ewald and others to connect this infinitive with the previous
irepKTcreveiv p.uk\ov — such a connection would be without example
Ver. 11.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 141
(see Liinemann's note on Evvakl), and it is as wrong too in
Liinemann to assert that there is no connection whatever.
The juxtaposition of the counsels will not he thought so start-
ling, eingedenk tier raschen Uebergange, if we remember the
apostle's rapid transitions in the practical parts of his other
epistles. But there is plainly a connection with 7rapaKa\ov/uLev;
though the themes of exhortation are not very similar, yet
some inner relations must have been present to the apostle's
mind. Olshausen's proposed connection is artificial and incor-
rect. He supposes that all the exhortations are specially con-
nected with love — first brother-love, and then love to those
beyond the church — the latter being dwelt upon in this and
the following verse ; but surely these injunctions to quietness,
industry, and seemliness, can scarcely be summed up under the
head of love (Col. iv, 5, 6).
Theodoret puts the connection in another light — " The one
counsel is not," he says, " contrary to the other, for it happened
that some indeed supported the needy generously ; but others,
on account of the munificence of these persons, neglected
to work — crw£(3atve yap tov$ p.ev (piXon/uoos -xppiiyelv Tolf
Scop-tvois Ti]v ^peiav, tov$ Se Sia ti']v tovtoov (piXoTifJuav up-eXelu
T>J? epyacrlas. That is, the brother-love was abused, and the
abuse was restlessness and idleness, which, as it had a bad effect
on onlookers, was rebuked by the apostle, both in itself, and on
account of its deleterious results. There were of the chief
women not a few who believed, and they might be imposed
upon by these idlers (Acts xvii, 4). This is also the view of
Estius, Benson, Flatt, Koch, De Wette, Alford, and Ellicott, and
it is at least probable, when other elements are taken into
account. One objection of Liinemann, that in such a case two
distinct parties must be addressed by the apostle, whereas
there is no trace of such division in the paragraph, is of no
great moment, for often the apostle puts into general terms as
if speaking to the whole church what is really applicable
to one section of it. His other objection, that in this
case the stress would only fall on epya^eo-Qai raff x € P <T * 11 ' v/uloov
is denied, for the opposite of >}cn<Ya'^W and Trpdatjeiv to. '!Sia is as
plainly condemned as idleness and is the parent of it. It is
probable that mistaken notions about the immediate coming of
142 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap, IV.
the Saviour may have unsettled many minds and led them to
live in this indolent dependence on their richer brethren, in the
expectation of a new state of society, all old things having
passed away. At all events the phrase " that ye may have
need of nothing " or " of no man " implies that they had been
dependent on some around them, and that dependence arising
from their own indolence, they could surmount it by steady
honest industry. Some such law of association must have
suggested the connection of these precepts to the apostle's
mind. Some take the first infinitive <pi\oTi/txeia-9ai by itself as
an independent infinitive, as in the alternative explanation of
Theophylact, Calvin, and Hemming. Calvin says, that he
recommends a sacred emulation, that they may strive among
themselves in mutual emulation, or at least he enjoins that
each one should strive to conquer himself, adding atque hoc
posterius magis amplector. But the connection and meaning-
are alike unsatisfactory, especially as kul stands before the
second verb. The verb literally means, to make it a point of
honour, to be fired with ambition, to strive eagerly after or to
endeavour earnestly after (Rost and Falm, sub voce). The word
occurs in Rom. xv, 20, rendered " have I strived," that is, rather
making it a point of honour not to build on any other man's
foundation. In 2 Cor. v, 9, it is translated " we labour," rather
too neutral a rendering. Though the idea of rijui] never wholly
fades away in the verb, it can scarcely bear Koppe's translation,
honovem et laudem restrain in co ponite utvitam agatis tran-
qiiillam et laboriosam. Examples may be seen in Wetstein
on Rom. xv, 20, and Kypke, vol II, p. 189. Nor is Wetstein's
explanation more satisfactory— eleganter dictum : Ambite et
expetite non honores et magistratus quod pleri que solent. The
connected infinitive qcrvxafcv has its opposite in the
Treptepyd^ecrOui of 2 Thes. iii, 11, and in the 7ro\v7rpay/uLO(rvv}]
which was a marked element of Athenian character (Plato,
Gorg., 526 c). The unrest or uneasiness here referred to cannot
be political, as Zwingli, perhaps naturally from his own circum-
stances, supposes, nor can there be any allusions to seditious
tumults (Koppe and Schott). Bengel's pithy clause is <pi\orifxla
politica erubescit ycrvxu^eiv. Their unsettledness of spirits
was probably produced by their erroneous belief as to the
Ver. 11.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THES3ALONIANS. 143
speed}- advent of the Saviour. The present state seems to
have been contemned and its obligations set at nought, through
that feverish enthusiasm which their false expectations had
excited within them. They were also in deep uneasiness about
the share which departed friends and relatives would have in
the blessing and. glory of the second advent. They are there-
fore charged to study sedateness and composure.
koi Trpda-a-eiv tu 'iSia — " and to do your own business."
According to Phrynichus the usage of ol Tra\aio\ as opposed to
ol iro\\o\ was tu. epuurov irpaTTw or toc 'iSia epavrov irpaTTto
(Phiynichus, ed. Lobeck. p. 441). They were to mind their own
affairs, eneracring in that business which devolved unon them as
theirs, the life that now' is having its own claims as well as the
life to come. Still farther and more specifically —
kgu epyd^e&Qai tu1$ x € P (TIV vpw kciOco? v/nu> Trap}]yyei\apev —
" and to work with your hands as we enjoined you." The iSiau
of the Received Text, though it is found in AD 3 KL K 1 and
many mss., is probably a correction to suit the previous to.
'tSta, and is omitted in B D l F N 3 , and probably all the versions
and the Latin fathers, the Greek fathers being divided. The
infinitives are all in the present, denoting continuous action.
According to Pelt, Schott, and Hofmann, the phrase means
qucvvis indiistria, any kind of industry ; but the words are to
be taken in their plain literal significance, and no doubt the
majority of the Thessalonian Church belonged to the working-
classes. They were not to cease manual labour, and by their
idleness mulct the generosity of others ; but they were to be as
assiduous at their daily toil as they may have been before the
Gospel came to the city. At his visit to Thessalonica the
apostle had noticed the germs of the same evil, and warned
against them, kuOco? vplv -Trap^yyelXapev, " as we commanded
you." The reference is to the period of his personal labours
among them. Their minds were getting unhinged by the novel
and momentous truths laid open to them, of some of which
they were forming a wrong conception. The clause underlies
all these previous charges. The forewarning was suggested by
tendencies which began to crop out during his sojourn. Minds
intoxicated by new expectations, became unsettled and specu-
lative, industry was forsaken or despised, and habits of gadding
144 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. IV.
about in listless laboriousness began to show themselves. The
purpose of all this instruction being —
(Ver. 12.) "ivu 7repi7raT>]T€ evar^/moi'cog 7rpu? TOvse^oo — " in order
that ye may walk becomingly toward them that are without."
The verb is often used for the general tenor of one's life. See
under verse 1. The adverb ev<rx>]povcos is "honourably," or "in a
becoming manner," " decently," according to the original mean-
ing of the term (Rom. xiii, 13; 1 Cor. vii, 35; xiv, 40), the
" honestly " of the English version having now changed its
meaning. The opposite seems to be araKTovg, verse 14, and
utuktw? in 2 Thes. iii, 6. The want of seemliness here referred
to is plainly what is characterized in these clauses that enjoin
them to study quietness and do their own business. As Theo-
phylact says, evrpeirei to. o-wpaTiKU epya avaipovvTas /ecu povov
to irvevpaTiKov fyiTovvras, or, as (Ecumenius briefly puts it, pi;
acrx'llJ-ovriTe eiraiTovvTes. LT/oo? signifies direction in reference
to or towards, not coram (Schott, Koch). Those without ol e£(o
are those without the Christian community — the non-Christian
population around them (1 Cor. v, 12, 13; Col. iv, 5); and in
1 Tim. iii, 7, the phrase is ol e£w6ei>. The term had been used
among Rabbinical writers, Q'xwvn (Schottgen's Hor. Heb., p. 5G0-
599). The want of this decent behaviour towards unbelievers
induced disparaging views of the gospel, created prejudice
against it, and hindered its reception. Not only is our relation
towards those within to be consulted, but our relation toward
those without is also to be studied, lest by any inconsistency
they should be repelled.
ku\ pt]Set/o? XP eiuv eX } l T€ — " an( ^ that J e ^ iave nee ^ °f no one "
or of " nothing." This clause is connected with the previous
charge to work with their hands, for they would thus earn the
supply of their wants, and stand in need of assistance from
nobody. The Authorized Version reads in its text "of nothing,"
but in the margin " of no man." The neuter is adopted by
many. Liinemann's argument, repeated by Alford, goes for
little, " to stand in need of no man is for man an impossibility,"
for it may as truly be said in reply, " to stand in need of
nothing is equally for man an impossibility." A general saying-
is rightly limited by its context. The dependency of those
that do not work on their fellow-men is the underlying
Ver. 13.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 145
thought, and therefore fitjSevos is better taken in the mascu-
line as by many commentators, and the Syriac reads *aJ) \^>
the allusion perhaps being general, not to Christians specialty
or to non-Christians, though if there be specialty in the refer-
ence, dependence for support on Christian brethren may be the
special idea. Chrysostom says, "he had not said that ye may
not be shamed by begging, but he insinuated it ; if our own
people are stumbled how much more those who are without,
when they see a man in good health and able to support him-
self begging and asking help of others"; "wherefore," he adds,
" they call us xP^^^P-^opov? — Christmongers "; or as Theodoret,
" it is disgrace to live in idleness and not acquire things
necessary from labour — d\\a -rrpoo-aiTov [31 ov ulpecrOai kui toov
aXKwv 7r poo- fj.lv eiv (jiiXoTi/uiai'." This dependence of one class
upon another and wealthier class might soon have introduced
the unnatural distinction of patron and client into the earl\ T
Christian church. •« —
(\ er. 13.) Oi' Ot\op.ev Se vp.a$ ayvoeiv, <we\<poi, irepi tccv
Koip.cop.hcou — " Now we would not have you to be ignorant,
brethren, concerning them that are sleeping." The singular
OeXoa of the Received Text has no authority, and it also reads
KeKoipLtjpeiwv in the perfect, with DFKL, the majority of the
minuscules, and the Greek fathers, as Chrysostom, not only on
this verse, but in many quotations in various parts of his works.
The present is read in A B N, in some MSS., and is found occasion-
ally in some of the Greek writers, as in the MSS. of Origen and
Chrysostom. The reading of the common text has been
accepted by Tischendorf in his seventh edition, though he had
given it up in his second. For the present there is uncial
authority high in value (there is a hiatus in C), and the word
is unusual, the past tense being with one exception invariably
employed, as in the following verses, 14 and 15, and in Matt,
xxvii, 52 ; Acts vii, 60; xiii, 36; 1 Cor. vii, 30; xv, 6 and 20 ;
Sept., Isaiah xliii, 17. The present being the rarer form there
would be some temptation to alter it into the more common
one, though it may be asked, why should the apostle use the
unwonted tense only in this place and, under a different aspect,
in 1 Cor. xi, 30 ? There was no such temptation, as Reiche
alleges, to change the perfect into the present, in defiance of so
K
\4C) COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. IV.
many examples of aorists and perfects. In the phrase ov
■ OiXcmev, &c, the apostle as usual introduces some new and
special information (Rom. i, 13; xi, 25; 1 Cor. x, 1; xii, 1;
2 Cor. i, 8). By the transitional Se he passes to another but
not wholly disconnected theme. Some ignorance on the subject
which he is going to discuss had apparently a share in produc-
ing that state of feeling, that indolence and restlessness which
he has condemned in the previous verses. The knowledge
which he is about to impart is given not only as consolator}',
but as a corrective element. The apostle must have taught the
doctrine of the resurrection during his abode in Thessalonica,
but some features of it may have been misapprehended,
and the special points now to be adduced may not have
been brought into prominent illustration. These points on
which he offers enlightenment are not the general state or
destiny of the departed, but specially the connection of departed
believers with the Second Advent.
He wishes them to be enlightened 7rep] row koi/ul(o/ul€vci)v, "con-
cerning those who are sleeping." The expression is a common
and natural one. See the passages quoted on the occurrence of
the participle and also John xi, 11 ; 2 Peter iii, 4; 6 irovna-Beh
MvpriXos eKoi/mdOi] (Sophocles, Electra, 509) ; ireo-oiv KOi/uujo-aro
XaXiceov virvov (Homer, II., xi, 211); lepov virvov Koip-arai Qvt'jcrKeiv
/uLi]\eye roi/s ayaOoi'? (Callimachus, Fragm,, x, p. 56, Opera, ed.
Bloomfield). The verb often represents the Hebrew 3 ?~' in the
Septuagint (1 Kings ii, 10; xi, 43; Isaiah xliii, 17; 2 Mace, xii,
45). Compare also Job iii, 13; Psalm xiii, 3; xvii, 15. The dead
here are plainly the Christian dead, not the dead generally,
as the context so distinctly shows, especially 14 and 16.
The apostle refers to their fellow-believers in Thessalonica
who had died, and concerning whom they were in great sorrow
and perplexity. But this sorrow and perplexity did not arise
from any doubts about their ultimate resurrection. That
primary article of faith the apostle must have fully proved and
expounded to them. There seems to have been no scepticism
about the fact of a resurrection as at Corinth, and no mistake
as to the nature of it as by Hymemeus and Philetus (2 Tim.
17, 18). But the point which disturbed them was the connec-
tion of dead believers with the coming kingdom. What they
Ver. 13.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 147
seem to have feared was that those who fell asleep before
that period might by their death be excluded in some way
from the glories expected at the Second Advent, deemed
by not a few to be so near at hand. Not their decease
in itself, bat their decease in the time of it, or before
that epoch, troubled the survivors. The apostle therefore
shows that their death is no loss, that they forego no advan-
tage, that they rise first, and are in no way forestalled
by those who shall be alive at the Saviour's second coming.
The Greek fathers fall so far aside from the context that they
refer the passage to the resurrection generally. Chrysostom,
however, briefly points to the proper theme. " He glances at
some further mystery. What then is this ? We who are alive
and remain shall not prevent them that are asleep." But his
peroration is direct appeal to those suffering under bereavement,
pressing on them the hopes and comfort of a glorious resurrec-
tion. It is wrong then to fasten any dogma on this simple and
touching figure of sleep, either with De Wette, Dahne, Weizel,
and others, to infer the sleep of the soul, or with Zwingli and
Calvin to find in it an argument against that theory. The
term is one in popular use applying to the person what is really
true only of a portion of him. In this spirit allusions to the
dead occur in the Old Testament as if all that formed humanity
had been committed to the tomb (Ps. vi, 5 ; xxx, 9 ; lxxxviii,
10 ; Is. xxxviii, 18 ; Eccles. ix, 4, 6, 10). Sleep implies
continued existence, rest, and awakening. The sleeper does not
cease to be, though he sinks into a kind of unconsciousness ;
he is often thoughtful and active in dreams, but in this
state of insensibility he enjoys repose, and then he wakens up
to fresh activity. Dormientes eos appellat Scripturw veracis-
sima consuetude, ut cum dormientes audimus, evigilaturos
minime despevemus (Augustine, Serm. 172). The very name,
" them that are asleep," as Chrysostom says, suggests consola-
tion, evOeoo? a.7ro irpooLfiuov ti]v 7rapaK\)]<rii' KaTa(3aX\6fxevo?.
Still there is no support in the apostle's writings for the hypo-
thesis of soul-sleep or \fsvxoTravwxia- Compare 2 Cor. v, 1, 8 ;
Philip, i, 21-23 ; Matt, xxii, 23, 33.
\va fxi] Xv7rr]a-0e kuOws icai 01 \onro\ 01 juj) e\ovTe<} e\7rloa —
" that ye sorrow not even as the rest who have no hope."
148 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. 1Y.
AD-FL read \u7raV0e, not a common construction ; but our
text is based on the reading of BD 3 EK tt, and lias therefore at
least high probability, "ha prefaces the purpose of the informa-
tion to be imparted. Sorrow is forbidden, plainly, absolutely-
Many suppose that a certain measure or amount of sorrow only
is forbidden, or that Christian sorrow should not be so
immoderate as that of the hopeless heathen. So Theodoret,
ov 7ravTe\o)s Kco\vei ti]v Au7r;/j', aXXu r*]V a/meTpiav e/c/3u'AAct.
Calvin, too, Non autem prorsus lugere vetat, sed moclerationem
requirit in luctu : also Hemming, Zanchius, Piscator, a-Lapide,
Pelt, Koch, Bisping, Hofmann, Puggenbach. But the inter-
pretation goes beyond the apostle's word, and kuOw? is a particle
not of measure or degree but of comparison. Christian sur-
vivors are not to sorrow. Sorrow under bereavement belongs
to those who have no hope of resurrection and life. The death
of a believer only translates him from sin and struggle, from
disease and death, from mixed society and imperfect work, to
purity, life, unwearied activity, and joyous fellowship with
Christ. The apostle saj's virtually, believers are not to feel as
unbelievers concerning the departed — the former are not to
grieve, for they have no reason to grieve ; the latter cannot
help it, for they have no hope — KaOoog koi oi Xonro), even as
also the rest, to wit \vttovvtcu. For kuOcos see under Ephes. i, 4.
Kcu appears in one of the members, and has its proper significa-
tion. Hartung, vol. I, p. 12G; Klotz, Devar., II, p. G35. "The
others" are the unbelieving heathen or perhaps Jews also, round
about them, and they are characterized as a class " who have
not hope," or are described as such here by the apostle. For
this use of the subjective /*?/, see Winer, § 55, 5. The sorrow
which the apostle forbids is not our grief over our loss and
separation caused by death, for that is instinctive and " Jesus
wept," but sorrow about the state and prospects of the de-
parted, a sorrow which was especially felt in the Thessalonian
church, and produced by the fear that those who died before
the second coming of Christ would be denied participation in
its blessedness and triumph. Sorrow for ourselves bereaved
is different from sorrow about the dark fate of those who are
gone, very different from dismay and that utter desolation of
heart that fell upon the heathen when friends and relations
Ver. 14.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 14!)
passed away, and sank, as they thought, into unbroken dark-
ness and non-existence (Lucian de Luctu, vii, 211). Why this
grief should not exist, the apostle proceeds to argue, for they
who sleep have not ceased to be, and they will appear with
Christ.
(Ver. 14.) Ei yup TncrTeJo/zei' on Yrjaov^ aiceuavev kui ui'£<tt)]
— "For if we believe that Jesus died and arose again." By yap
the substantiating statement is introduced, and el is, as often,
syllogistic or hypothetic, introducing the premiss of a condi-
tional syllogism, and is not to be rendered " because " or
" seeing that," but " if," implying at the same time the absolute
certaint}^ of the fact which is brought forward. The apostle
naturally employs 'Irjcrovs, the special human name of the
Saviour, so identified with men as their head and representa-
tive, that His resurrection secures as it precedes theirs. He
characterizes the death of Jesus by the common verb u-wtdavev.
Theodoret supposes without any ground that the apostle in the
phrase had his eye on Doketic views, but adds more truly that
" while he calls Christ's death by the proper term, he names the
death of believers a sleep" — h no ovopan Yruxaywywi'," consoling
them by the very name." The death and resurrection of Christ
are primary objects of belief, the one event being the comple-
ment of the other, the resurrection proving that the purpose of
the death had been accomplished, that the self-oblation had
been accepted, that salvation had been provided in fulness and
freeness, and that mortality had been conquered. The two
events are often connected in the New Testament (Rom. vi).
To die and to rise again specially characterize Jesus and also
his people. He died and rose again. They die, and they cer-
tainly shall rise again from their connection with Him — the
organic union of the members with the Head.
ovtlos Kai 6 Geo? rovg KOijurjOevTa? Sia tov 'l)]aruv agei aw
avrw — " even so also those who are laid to sleep by Jesus will
God bring with Him." The apodosis is defective, and it might
run if written fully, ko.\ iriaTevopev on ovroo?, " we believe also
that those laid to sleep by Jesus will be raised," or, kou tthtt€V€lv
Sei on. If we believe the one proposition we must believe the
other which is involved in it. But (1) O1/TC09 is certainly not
pleonastic, as the mere sign of the apodosis (Schott, Olshausen),
150 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. IV.
but maintains its full signification, " in like manner," pointing
out the similarity of our condition and destiny to that of our
blessed prototype, while koi strengthens the comparison or
correspondence. Klotz, Devar., vol. II, p. G35, G3G. There
is generic sameness — death and resurrection to Him, also
in like manner death and resurrection to us. But there
is specific difference. The result is similar, though some-
what differently arrived at. It is not simply God shall
raise us as He raised Him, but more complexly, God shall
bring them with Him. (2) Nor is oi/tco? to be referred only
to avea-Tij, as if the meaning were in cinem solchen Zwstande
d. It. auferweckt, wiederbelebt, that is, having been raised,
God will bring them with Him (Flatt). For ovtcos refers
to both verbs of the preceding clause and brings them into
comparison with this clause. (3) It is wrong in Koch and
Hofmann to give ovrcog the meaning of "under this condition,"
turn vero, or "if we believe," nobis credent lb as, then or in that
case God will bring them with Him. The cases quoted are not
in point. Our faith in the resurrection is different from the
fact and power of it, and the second clause under this third
view would be not a consequence deduced from, but a mere
confirmation of, the previous statement. Besides it is not of the
resurrection of the y/fxeis who are believing, but of the resurrec-
tion of deceased believers, Koi/mtjOevra?, that the apostle is
speaking. It is true that a blessed resurrection for us is con-
nected with our faith, but the apostle is referring to a different
class — to those already dead, and to our belief and hope with
regard to them.
The meaning and connection of the phrase Sia rod 'hjcrov
have been much disputed. The preposition Siu cannot signify
" in," as in the Authorized Version, and in an alternative
explanation of Jowett; ol vetcpol ev Xpicrro) in verse lGth is a
very different phrase, and so is ol Kot/ntjOivre? ev Xpia-rcp (1 Cor.
xv, 18), and ol ev Ku/o/w airodinja-Kovret; (Rev. xiv. 13). The
preposition must have its true meaning when used with the
genitive, " through " or "by means of" — per in Vulgate and
Tertullian — and does not represent, as some suppose, the
Hebrew ?.
I. Many join the phrase with agei — " will through Jesus
Ver. 14.] FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 151
bring- tliem with Him"; Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, De Wette,
Liinemann, Kocli, Conybeare, and many others, adopt this view.
But there are objections to this exegesis. (1) The order of the
words is apparently against it, as in such a case one would
expect Sta. too 'L/crot) to be placed before KoifivjQhnra^ for the
sake of emphasis. The present nnemphatic position of the
words throws them back on the participle. (2) The verb aget
would have two accompaniments — Sia. and eu, Sia rou 'ly'o-ov
and <tvv avTio — referring to 'lyo-ov, a connection not impossible,
but very improbable. (3) The sentence with this interpretation
is hard and forceless, with a virtual repetition. It is, therefore,
not necessary to connect the phrase with a£ei, which has more
force when taken by itself, unencumbered with any of the
previous words.
II. Many connect the phrase with the participle KoijuijOevra?.
>Such is one opinion of Chrysostom, Theoplrylact, (Ecumenius ;
and it is held by Ambrosiaster, Calvin, Hemming, Estius,
Balduin, a-Lapide, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Koppe, Jowett, Hil-
genfeld, Riggenbach, Ellicott, Alford. The aorist is used from
the standpoint of the resurrection — all that have gone to sleep
prior to that period. Now (1) it is not necessary to give Sia,
the sense of eu, as Liinemann objects ; nor is it needful to take
it as referring to the condition or circumstance in or out of
which anything is done, as Koch, who quotes in support Rom.
iv, 11 ; 2 Cor. ii, 4 ; iii, 4; 1 John v, 6. Winer, § 47 i. (2) It
is forced and unnatural to give the strong sense that " laid to
sleep by Jesus " means, put to death by Jesus — He being the
cause of their death, the reference being to the martyrs. Such
is the view of Salmeron, Hammond, Joseph Mede, and Thiersch.
The view is untenable. The participle is too gentle a term to
express a violent death. It is used indeed of the first martyr, but
it could not be employed to designate the act of his murderers;
besides, the context involves no reference to persecutions or
to martyrdom under them, and is not in any way intended to
comfort either those who are sorrowing over martyred friends,
or who may expect to be put to death for their Christianity ;
and, lastly, the reference of the apostle is to all the sainted
dead, and not merely to a section or minority of them, such as
the martyrs, or to the First Resurrection of the book of the
152 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. IV.
Revelation. (3) Nor is it necessary, in the third place, to give the
phrase Sin rou 'L;cro?/ any theological meaning as Chrysostom,
who explains as an alternative 3y rovro Xeycou on Tfl irla-rei tou
'lijcrou KotfXijOevTa^, and similarly GEcumenius and Theophylact,
and the scholiast in Matthrei. Subsequently Chrysostom vir-
tually quotes the clause, giving it this connection. Ambrosiaster
writes, per Jesum, i.e., mbspefidei hujus; and Calvin, dormire
per Christum, est retinere in morte conjunctionem quam
habemus cum Christo. Webster and Wilkinson say the idea
conveyed undoubtedly is, that " by Him they died in peace,"
" those who through Jesus entered into rest." A simpler mean-
ing is more natural.
The phrase Sia. tou 'Ljcrov is to be taken as closely con-
nected with Koiat]6epra?, "laid to sleep by Jesus," the stress
being on Sia, which is so often used of the mediatorial instru-
mentality of Christ (Rom. ii, 10 ; v, 1 ; 2 Cor. i, 5; Gal. i, 1 ;
Ephes. i, 5 ; Philip, i, 11 ; Titus iii, G). The words will bear
this interpretation, though, as Ellicott says, the examples
adduced by Alford are scarcely in analogy (Rom. i, 8 ; v, 1 ;
v, 11), since in these instances an active verb is employed.
Lihiemann objects that the extent of the idea expressed by
Koi/m.t]Oevrag here is to be taken from the relation which the
apodosis in this clause bears to the previous one. The objec-
tion is not strong, for 'L/o-ot^ in the first member stands in
direct contrast to Koi^jOei'TUf Sia tou hjrrou in the second
member, the noun being repeated, and the article being inserted.
Jesus dead and raised is the prime subject of the first clause as
an article of belief, and those laid to sleep by Jesus and
awakened are the distinctive and correspondent subject of the
second clause. They are called in the opening verse of the
section simply koi/ulco/ui.€voi, but now the connection of that sleep
with Jesus is more specially indicated, as through Him it is a
sleep, and through his victory over death those in their graves
are only lying in their beds, and are laid there in the sure and
certain hope of a blessed awakening. The comfort and expec-
tation implied in the clause, and the tender and beautiful con-
ception of death which it conveys as a time of repose with the
prospect of resuscitation, are all owing to Jesus, and to Him be-
cause He died and rose again. Those who are laid so to sleep —
Veil 15.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THE8SALONIANS. 153
o 6eo? aga (tvv ax/rep — " God will bring with Him," that is,
" with Jesus," not avr/2, secum, as some would read it. The
apostle does not use eyepei, as he wishes to say more than that
He will raise them, for he associates their resurrection with the
Second Advent, the point on which there had been perplexity
and doubt among the Thessalonian believers. The words avv
uvtw are not for ob? avrov (Zachariae, Koppe) — " God will raise
them as He raised Him " (Turnbull), but " with Him." The
pregnant clause implies that they are raised already, as told in
the end of verse 1G, and are then brought with Him. The
verb is not used of bringing from the dead, though a compound
is used of Christ (Heb. xiii, 20) ; yet the sense is not exactly,
brought to glory in heaven, as many take it, but rather, brought
in Christ's train at His appearance and coming (Schrader).
The reference is not so precise as Hofmann gives it — God will
not bring Jesus aoain into the world without His brethren
who sleep coming with Him. The statement is true, but the
apostle, as Liinemann observes, is not teaching about Christ's
coming and its mode, but only of the departed and their coming
again with Christ. The signification, therefore, is not what is
often given — will bring their souls from heaven that they may
be reunited to their bodies ; for to their souls there is no
allusion, nor could their souls as such be said to be laid to
sleep by Jesus. The Resurrection, as this clause asserts, is the
work of God (Acts xxvi, 8; 1 Cor. vi, 14- ; 2 Cor. i, 9 ; Heb. xi,
19) ; but the same word is often assigned to the Mediator
(John v, 21, 29 ; vi, 40 ; xi, 25 ; 1 Cor. xv, 22 ; Philip, iii, 21 ;
in another form 2 Cor. iv, 14). The doctrine of the Resurrec-
tion occupies a prominent place in the New Testament.
(Ver. 15.) Tovto yap vfiiv Xeyo/mev iv Xoyto Kvplou — " For this
we say unto you in the word of the Lord." Tap. refers to the
previous verse and to the statement, " them laid to sleep by
Jesus God will bring with Him." Though they die before the
Advent they are certainly to share in its glories, and are in no
way to be anticipated by those who may happen to be alive at
that momentous period, this being what so perplexed the
church in Thessalonica, so that Koppe, Flatt, and Koch are in
error when they refer yap to verse 13, and regard this verse as
giving an additional reason why believers should not sorrow,
154 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chai\ IV.
taking verses 14 and 15 as parallel in tlie argument. But this
verse is plainly an advance on the previous one, and not col-
lateral with it. As to the destiny of the departed, there is
first a negative statement, they " who are alive shall not
prevent them who are asleep," and then follows a positive
statement, " the dead in Christ shall rise first," &c. The
previous verse affirms only that God shall bring them with
Christ, and this verse and the one after it show how and in
what order. Tovto, emphatically placed, refers to the next
statement introduced by on. What follows is of special
moment, being matter of direct revelation ev \6yu> Kupiou —
Kvpios being the Saviour. The phrase occurs in 1 Kings xx, 35,
n'yr -a-ja, rendered in the Septuagint ev \6yw Kvplou, "in the word
of the Lord" in the Authorized Version, and compare Esther i,
12 ; 1 Kings xiii, 2 ; Hosea i, 2. The preposition may bear its
usual meaning, "in the sphere of" (Winer, § 48 a), that is, the
following declaration is a repetition of what the Lord had
revealed, and has all its truth from this correspondence. " In
the word of the Lord" is, therefore, " in it" as to contents,
and virtually and iuferentially "by it" as to authority.
None of the nouns has the article. 'Ey is not directly "by,"
as in the Authorized Version — that is, by divine commis-
sion, nor is it secundum, as Flatt and Pelt, under reference
to Rom. i, 10. What the apostle is about to utter was
specially revealed to him, and in that revelation his utter-
ance had its contents and authority, the reception of it con-
veying the commission and the crualification to tell it. It
came iic Oelas axo/caA^ao? as Theodoret says, or as Theophy-
lact, irapa rod Xpicrrou p.aBwv. The formula of the old prophets
was " thus saith the Lord," and the apostle uses kcit eirirayi'iv
(1 Cor. vii, 6), and ev a-KOKoKv^ei (1 Cor. xiv, G). There has
been no little speculation as to the oracle referred to. (1) Many
refer it to some portion of the New Testament which records
Christ's eschatological sayings. Thus Pelagius, Musculus,
Schott, and Pelt refer it to the twenty-fourth chapter of
Matthew. Evvald unites Luke xiv, 14. Hofmann points to
the special promise of Christ in Matt, xvi, 27, 28, and John vi,
44. Zwingli, as also Luthardt, selects Matt, xxv, the parable
of the wise and foolish virgins, on account of the phrase eij
Ver. 15.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 155
cnrdvTrjariv, which occurs in the first verse of that chapter, and
also here in verse 17. But the apostle nowhere quotes our
present gospels, and those places have not the fulness and
speciality of revelation which are found in this paragraph, and
they say nothing out of which one might conjecture the
relations of the dead and the living to the Second Advent. (2)
Others again imagine that the apostle refers to some sayings of
Christ, preserved by tradition, or perhaps spoken, according to
v. Zezschwitz, during the forty clays between the resurrection
and ascension. Calvin and Koch hold this view — the first
saying generally that the utterance is taken from Christ's
discourses, and the latter, that it is taken from some collection
of his sayings. Theophylact compares the utterance to that
(wcnrep KaKeivo) given in Acts xx, 35. But this supposition is
quite precarious, though many sayings of our Lord must have
been preserved that are not found in the canonical gospels.
Compare Acts xx, 35 ; 1 Cor. vii, 10. The opinion, if not
baseless, is at least beyond all proof. No saying has been pre-
served to us that could, by the widest construction, form the
basis of this declaration. (3) It follows, then, that we accept
the clause in its simple significance, as asserting an immediate
revelation from Christ to the apostle on this point. Such is the
view of the majority of expositors. It is needless to inquire
when, where, or how the revelation was vouchsafed to him, and it
is erroneous in Jowett to affirm that Paul nowhere speaks of an} T
special truths or doctrines as imparted to himself, for he had
many direct revelations, though he does not always unfold the
special subject of them — as about his special mission field
(Acts xxii, 18-21) ; as to the position of believing Gentiles
(Ephes. iii, 3) ; as to the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. xi, 23); and as to
the reality, proofs, and results of Christ's resurrection (1 Cor.
xv, 3 ; 2 Cor. xii, 1). See also under Gal. i, 12, and especially
i, 16. On this point before us, of which no man can know
anything of himself, and on which mere hypothesis would be
alike audacious and vain, the apostle enjoyed an immediate
revelation which he proceeds to unfold. This is, however,
denied by Usteri, and the revelation is described as subjectivity,
this especially being said to rest auf dem aUgemeinen Glauben
and der Fortbildung der Tradition vcrbnnden mit einer
156 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. IV.
lebendigen combinatorischen Imagination (p. 341). The reve-
lation is —
on >)fJLeis ol fovTeg ol TrepiXenro/meroi e<? t?jv 7rapovcriav too
Kvpiov — "that we the living, the remaining over unto the com-
ing of the Lord." The participle 7repi\ei7r6fAei>oi occurs only
here and in verse 17 in the New Testament — the inclusive pre-
position signifying "around" and then "over," the idea being
that of overplus — and means "remaining over" or "behind." It
is an epithet applied to the water left over after a sacrifice, to
■jrepikenrofxevov vSoop (2 Mace, i, 31). Orthryades is called tov
■7repi\€i(j)9evra, the only surviving one of the three hundred
Spartans. Herodot., i, 82; Herodian, II, 1, 10; Plato, De Legi-
bus, III, 677 E, p. 295, Opera, vol. X, ed. Stallbaum. These
words naturally suggest the idea that the apostle by his use of
>)p.el<i expected to be among them — among those who should
not die before the Second Advent. Many modern commen-
tators adopt this view ; while as many, regarding such a notion
as derogatory to the apostle and his inspiration, strive by vari-
ous expedients to get rid of it. That an inspired man should
be guilty of so gross a blunder as to believe and affirm that he
should live on to the Second Advent would be extraordinary,
and yet more extraordinary when he is professedly speaking
from a special divine revelation. But many of the arguments
against the view we have stated as the apparent one are utterly
void. (1) (Ecumenius, after Methodius, adopts the opinion that
the two participles refer to the souls of the departed as being
immortal, ^unvras Tct9 \frJ\a?, KoifxijOevra Se ra crcop-ara \eyei —
the statement being that those souls shall not precede their
bodies into the presence of the Lord, but shall resume them
ere they ascend to meet the Lord. But the class indicated by
the two participles is plainly opposed to the other class who
are laid to sleep before " that day." The term fcvrag moreover
describes living men and not their mere souls. (2) By some
the participial clause is taken hypothetically, " provided that
we live, provided that we survive." Thus Turretin si modo ex
eorum numero simus ; Cornelius, a-Lapide, nos qui vivimus,
inanity i.e., quicunque vivent, sire ex nobis sive e poster is nos-
tris, quorum personam hie induo et subeo. But in that case,
as Liinemann states, the two articles must be omitted, and the
Vee. 15.J FIRST EPISTLE TO THE TIIESSALONIANS. 157
statement of the apostle is direct and unconditional in its
words. (3) Nor can these present participles admit of a future
signification, after some supposed Hebrew usage (Flatt, Pelt),
for they are both present and ideally describe some men as a
class alive and surviving at the Second Coming, in opposition
to another class who have fallen asleep, the apostle putting
himself among the former number — )}p.eis. (4) Nor can ^/xeig
ol £wvres mean them who live and remain behind (J. P. Lange),
that is, we, so far as we in the meantime represent those who
shall then be alive. This sense is forced and ungrammatical.
(5) In the opinion of Calvin the apostle in using foeis makes
himself one of the number who will live until the last day, and
in doing so meant to impress on the Thessalonian church the
duty of waiting for the Advent, and to hold all believers in
suspense about it, adding what appears to convey a charge of
simulation against the apostle, " granting that he knew by a
special revelation that Christ would come at a somewhat later
time, it was nevertheless necessary that this doctrine should be
delivered to the church in common," which really means that
the apostle did not consciously speak truth when he put him-
self among the ij/xei?. The earlier and indeed the commoner view
has been that the apostle uses i)p.eis by a figure of speech, that
he speaks communicative, adopts what is called enallage per-
soncv, avaKolvoocris. The sense then is, those of us Christians
who at the Advent shall be in life. This is the view of Chry-
sostom and his followers, with Erasmus, Zanchius, Hunnius,
Balduin, Bengel, Flatt, &c. Thus Chrysostom writes, to Se
jy/xetV, ov irepL eavrou <fj))criv' ov yap St] e/aeWev avros P-e)(pi T>}i
wacrTacrews p.eveiv, aXXu tov; it arrow; \eyei. A modification of
this view may be held. When the apostle says, we the living
and remaining behind, he means himself and includes those
addressed by him. Did he then affirm that he and they with-
out exception would survive till the second coming, or that he
and they so surviving would without exception be caught up
to meet the Lord in the air, every one of them being a genuine
believer ? Certainly not. It seems best therefore Wsuppose
that as Paul distinguishes the two classes, the living and the
dead, he naturally puts himself among those to whom at the i
moment he belonged, and who as the living and surviving are
158 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S JChap. IV.
contrasted with those who had fallen asleep or died. /For there
will be a like distinction when the Saviour comes ; and to
describe the one class the apostle employs the present time and
says, "we who are alive and remain." If the Advent were to
take place just now, the classification would be literally correct.
To the mind of the apostle the second coming was ever present,
and under this aspect he puts himself and his contemporaries
in the one category without actually intending to affirm that they
should not taste of death till the Redeemer should appear. The
clause is thus a vivid way of characterizing all the living as
represented by himself and the Thessalonians to whom he writes,
while the deceased Thessalonian believers represent all who
have died before His appearance and coming. Alford says,
" Doubtless he expected himself to be alive together with the
majority of those to whom he was writing at the Lord's com-
ing." Must not the declaration on which this inference is based
be a portion of the Xoyo? Kvplov, " this we say by the word of
the Lord, that we living and remaining over"? Dean Alford,
however, quite neutralizes his argument when he says, " at the
same time, it must be borne in mind that this inclusion of
himself and his hearers among the £toi/re? and -7repi\enr6p.evoi
does not in any way enter into the fact revealed and here
announced, which is respecting that class of persons only as
they are and must be, one portion of the faithful, at the Lord's
coming, not respecting the question who shall or who shall not
be among them in that day." This is in other words the con-
clusion we have come to, and the exegesis does not compel us
on the Dean's own showing to hold the strict belief that Paul
expected himself and his contemporaries to survive the Second
Coming. The apostle's use of " I " and " we " for argument's
sake may be seen in Rom. iii, 7 ; 1 Cor. iv, 6 ; xiv, 14.y^fhere
ia no dLLilicti or independent prrW' fhnt the npWle really
K expected to live till the Second Advent; nay, he says (1 Cor.
vi, 14), " God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise
up us by His own power;" and again (2 Cor. iv, 13), "knowing
that he which raised up the Lord Jpsnw sWjj_mi^ pp nsalgojjy
Jesus, and shall present us with yojx ^/^ThQ declaration (1 Cor.
-" x v", ' fl l'J,' " WU sTta TTnoTall sleep, but we shall all be changed,"
can be satisfactorily explained without supposing that the
Ver. 15.] FIRST EPTSTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 159
apostle expresses his belief that he would not die, and the para-
graph adduced by Alford (2 Cor. v, 1-10), if this belief be
supposed to underlie it, contradicts itself; for how could the
man who believed that he was not to die and who longed to be
clothed upon without mortal change, declare in almost the same
breath that he was willing rather to be absent from the body
and to be present with the Lord. These Corinthian epistles
were written not more than four or five }^ears after those sent
to Thessalonica. Towards the end of his life indeed the apostle
says very decidedly, "to die is gain," and that he "had a desire
to depart and to be with Christ " — not a word of any hope that
Christ was coming in his lifetime, and that therefore he should
not die ; or should be still among living men when the Master
returned. This longing for the day of the Lord might work
itself into a belief that it was near, and this was the common
impression, for its period had not been revealed, and it was
ardently hoped for. But the apostle in the midst of such
fervent expectations, warns this church a few months after
writing the clause before us, that the belief " that the day of
Christ is at hand " is a serious delusion, for prior to it there
must be the development of the mystery of iniquity. He might
regard the Advent as possible in his lifetime, but never
apparently as certain. He never distinctly teaches that it
would either be or not be before his death. He was not so
presumptuous as to fix a date for an event known to the
Father only, and not revealed to angels or even to the Son
Himself. If he taught its nearness, he assigned it to no year ;
if he taught its certainty as a fact, he also dwelt on the
uncertainty of its time. In a word he never expresses sur-
prise that the day had not come so soon as he had anticipated,
never utters a word of disappointment that it seemed more
than ever at a great and indefinite distance. For irapovma
see ii, 19 ; and the phrase «? rrjv -wapovarlav belongs, by the
arrangement of the sentence, to TrepiXenrofxevoi, and not to the
following verb (pOao-oo/JLev.
ov fx?j (pOdo-wfxev rovi Koi/uDjOevra? — " shall in no wise antici-
pate them that are laid to sleep " — "prevent " in the old English
sense, and according to its Latin derivation, meaning " go
before." You may go before one to help or to hinder him ; the
1 60 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. IV-
latter being so common an impnl.se in our poor fallen nature,
the word has now sunk into the second sense exclusively.
The verb (pOaveiv — sometimes followed by els ri, the object,
sometimes by ex/ tivu, the person, and sometimes by the par-
ticiple of another verb — here governs the simple accusative.
Jelf, § 094. For ov p.//, as a strengthened negative, see
Winer, § 56, 3, where he remarks that Hermann's rule, given
under (Edip. Col., 853, as to the difference of those negatives
with the future and the aorist, must not be pressed in the
interpretation of the New Testament, as the mss. vary so
much in so many passages, and the subjunctive is the pre-
dominant usage. The two negatives occur often similarly in
the Septuagint. Gayler, p. 441. Strengthened negatives, like
compound verbs, characterize the later Greek. The idiom is
supposed by many to be elliptical, and thus to be resolved,
" there is no fear that," or as Alford, " there is no reason to fear
that." See also Ellendt, Lex. Soph., II, p. 409, sub voce ov. The
meaning is, that they who are found alive when the Saviour
comes shall have no priority in any sense over those who have
died — shall not, because they survive and need not to die, start
sooner into the Master's presence, or come into participation of
His glory and honour earlier than those who have gone down
to the bed of rest. The living shall in no privilege or blessing
forestall the dead, and the dead lose nothing by their earlier
decease. The Thessalonian believers need not sorrow over the
deceased as if they had in any degree fallen short of the prize,
or were in any way to come behind the others who shall be
alive, and remaining over at the Second Advent. So far from
being anticipated by this class, the dead anticipate them —
" the dead in Christ shall rise first," or before the living are
changed (1 Cor. xv). It is a strange thought that some shall
outlive all history, and see the end of all kingdoms, of all
scientific development, and of all human affairs ; shall see the
world at its last moment, and humanity in its final phase, as it
ceas es as a species to exist upon earth.
(Ver. 10.) oti avTO? 6 Kvpios . . . KarafiricreTai air ovpuvov
— "because the Lord himself . . . shall descend from heaven."
"On might be taken as parallel to the previous, on, and as intro-
ducing another portion of the \6yog Kvplov, and as dependent
Ver. 16.] FI'RST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 101
on Xeyo/uev (Koch, Hofmann). But it develops the order and
the proof more distinctly to take it as the ancient versions do,
quoniam in the Vulgate, quia in the Claromontane Latin.
The Syriac has ?^£°, and some of the Greek fathers
interpret by yap — kcu yap cu'to? (Theophylact), avros yap
7T/3WTO? (Theodoret).
The phrase avros 6 Kvpio? is not "He the Lord," as De
Wette and Hofmann, which is, as Alford says, to the last degree
flat and meaningless. Nor is the reference expressly to His
holy person, to His glorified body, for the purpose of excluding
any meaning of mere operation or influence, as Olshausen and
Bisping, after Estius and Fromond. This interpretation does
not brine out the whole truth. The sense is also fuller than
Alford gives it, " the words being," he says, " used for
solemnity's sake, and to show that it will not be a mere
gathering unto Him, but He himself shall descend." For the
meaning is that Himself and none other, Himself in person
and glory will descend — not Himself as the principal person,
and as in contrast to believers (Lunemann) — not Himself as
the first of all the host of heaven to come down — but Himself
in proper person. The work is delegated to no substitute, but
Himself, the same Jesus who ascended into heaven, will return
from it, Kara^i'io-era: air ovpavov. He went up in person, and
in person He descends (Mark xvi, 19; Acts i, 10, 11; ii, 33;
Ephes. i, 20 ; iv, 8, 10). 'E/c is usually employed in the con-
nection, save here and in Luke ix, 54. Compare Sept., Dan.
iv, 10. He shall descend —
ev KeXeva-p-aTi — "with a signal shout," the Latin versions having
in jussu. The noun KcXeva-p-a, which occurs only here in the
New Testament, is the word of command, or any sounded
signal. It is used of the shout of a huntsman to his dogs
(Xenoph., Veil., vi, 20) ; of the shout of a chariot-driver to his
steeds, a7rA>//cT09, KeXevp-ari p.6vov . . . })vioxe~iTai (Ptuedrus, p. 253
d) ; of the cry of the captain to the rowers, by which they kept
stroke, €7ratcrav aX/mt^ ... e/c Ke\eucr/ui.aTo? (iEschylus, Persae,
403); e/c KeXeuarfxaTog (Euripides, Ipkig. in Taur., 1405 ; Silius
Italicus, vi, 3G0 ; Ovid, Mctam., iii, 10) ; of the word of
military command, a0' eVo? neXevarp-aros . . . iopp.)](Tav (Thucy-
dides, ii, 92). It is also used of the shout of a man with a
I.
162 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. IV.
stentorian voice, (pcoveoov /meyia-rov, who hailed another across
the Ister, and that other heard tw 7t/)cot<o KeXevarfxari, and
brought up all the ships (Herod., iv, 14) ; of the flight of the
locusts (Prov. xxx, 27); and Philo, in a phrase not unlike that
before us, uses it of divine command — God can easily gather
together all men from the ends of the earth into one place,
evt KeXeva/mari (De Praem., § 19). On the spelling KeXev/xa,
K€Ke\ev/uLai, and the similar variety in other words, Lobeck has
a long note (Ajax, 704, p. 268, 3rd ed.). See also a long note
of Bloomfield's (Persae, 403). The prevailing sense then is
a battle-shout, or a signal sounded to a fleet or army. It is
wrong in Hunnius and Bisping to identify the KeXevcr/ma with
the trump of God, as if the meaning were horribilis fragor
inclarescentium tonitruum. The three prepositions ev — ev
— ev, point to three distinct circumstances accompanying the
Descent. The preposition has its usual sense — something in
which an event takes place — a concomitant circumstance ; and
it may therefore be rendered " with." The idea may be that
in the KeXevarjua, or surrounded by it, the Descent takes place.
That KeXevarfxa is a mighty shout of warning and command, but
who can tell what it is as it heralds and accompanies the
Second Advent ? It is not the shout of the army, as is some-
times supposed, but the shout of the general to his army ;
therefore it cannot mean, as Macknight says, "the loud acclama-
tion which the ivhole angelic hosts ivill utter to express their
joy at the Advent of Christ to raise the dead and judge the
ivorld." But it may be the thunder-shout which ushers in the
Great Day, perhaps sounded by the archangel through the
trump of God, and may be addressed to the dyioi who are to
accompany Him, and as if to summon them to the royal pro-
gress. See under iii, 13; 2 Thess. i, 7. Theodoret and
QEcumenius refer the KeXevcr/ua to Christ, " He will bid the
archangel sound," and so after them Grotius and Olshausen.
But the clauses with ev refer to concomitants of Christ's
Descent, and therefore not naturally to Himself, and the KeXevo-jua
may be explained by the following clauses —
ev (pwvfi apxayyeXou — "with the voice of an archangel."
'ApxuyyeXo? occurs in the New Testament only here
and in Jude 9. Like similar terms as d 1 oY.<T ) o//cAfyo?,
Vkr. 16.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 163
apxiTeXwvtfi, ap\nrotiJ.t)ii, apxiepeiiv, upxivvvayooyo?, «PX 1 ~
tcktcou, it means not chief angel, but chief of the
angels — a head or leader, as is implied in the phrase
" Michael and his angels." The word occurs only in the
singular, and with the definite article, in Jude 9. According to
the apostle there are various ranks of angels (see under
Ephes. i, 21) ; Jesus when he comes is surrounded by troops of
them (Matt, xxv, 31), and an archangel may be leader of the
(TTpanaf ovpavlov (Luke ii, 13). Who this archangel is it is
vain to inquire. Michael is the only one mentioned in the
New Testament, but in Dan. x, 13, he is called cnton inx
D'jfcinn, " one of the chief princes," as if apparently there were
others of similar rank ; though some signal eminence still
attaches to him, as he is styled Vnan -itrn (Dan. xii, 1). They
are sometimes said to be seven, " the seven lamps " burning
before the throne ; and sometimes ten ; and in the Jewish
writings four are especially named, corresponding to the
" thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers," in Ephes. i, 21.
The names also of these serving angels have thus been given :
Michael and his company stand on the right hand of the
throne, and Gabriel similarly on the left, Uriel in front, and
Raphael behind, the Shechinah being in the centre (Tobit
xv, 15 ; Book of Enoch). With these speculations we have no
special concern. One archangel is here singled out — one of
those most glorious beings, the eldest of the creation, godlike
in splendour and attributes. To say that he is Michael may
have probability, but no sure foundation (Hunnius, Estius,
Ewald, Bisping). Nor can the term mean the Lord Jesus
himself (Ambrosiaster, Olshausen), for such a notion would
destroy the symmetry of the verse, and give to the Saviour
first a distinctive, and then a unique and unfamiliar title ; for
Olshausen admits that nowhere else is Christ called archangel.
Olshausen refers the KeXevcrpa to Him, and holds that to mention
a creature next in order would be startling, but the neXeucrpa is
not necessarily to be referred to Christ (Bishop Horsley), "it
belongs rather to the archangel." Honertius and Alphenius, in
Wolf's Curae, think that the Holy Ghost is meant b}' the
archangel. It is hard to say how such a notion could
originate, though the idea sprang apparently from an attempt to
1G4 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. IV
find the Trinity in the verse — the Father in the last word,
the Son being the Lord Himself, and the Holy Spirit under the
name of the archangel, ^odvi) is ascribed to the archangel — a
voice no doubt like himself, " powerful and full of majesty," the
form, perhaps, which the KtXeucriua assumes. This mighty voice
heralds and accompanies the descending Lord, reaching
through the universe, and summoning all its ranks into His
presence, and to adoration — startling those who are alive and
remain, and piercing even " the dull cold ear of death" (Theo-
doret, Schott).
ku] ev (TuXinyyi Qeou — " and with the trumpet of God."
The genitive Qeou is not the so-called Hebrew superla-
tive (Nordheimer). Winer, § 36, 3 b. The phrase, therefore,
does not mean a large or a far-sounding trumpet, excelling
vastly the trumpet of men (a-Lapide, Benson). Bengel has
''tuba Dei adeoque magna," and Storr, "tuba longe lateqiie
sonans." Nor is the meaning a trumpet blown at God's com-
mand, as Balduin, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen. These things ma}'
be true, but they are inferential only ; the genitive is simpl}-
that of possession — the trumpet which is God's, and being His
may possess the qualities which those expositors assign to it.
The trumpet is His, as being employed in His heavenly service.
The many allusions to the trumpet in the Hebrew poetry, as a
signal and warning blast, afford no illustration. Compare,
however, Isaiah xxvii, 13 ; Zech. ix, 14 ; Rev. viii, 2. But the
trumpet used at the Jewish festivals comes somewhat nearer,
since by divine command it blew various signals of assembly
under the theocratic government, and might be an earthly
image of what is super-celestial, "a pattern of things in the
heaven." Compare Numbers x, 2 ; xxxi, 6 ; 1 Chron. xvi. 42 ;
Ps. lxxxi, 3 ; Joel, ii, 1. But the trumpet is often associated
with Old Testament Theophanies. In Psalm xlvii, 5, the
trumpet is associated with a divine ascension — the reverse in
idea of this place. The descent on Sinai was accompanied
by such peals — thunder, lightnings, a thick cloud on the
mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud — nay,
the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder
and louder (Exod. xix, 1G, 19; Heb. xii, 19). As Milton
has it —
Ver. 16.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 105
" The Son gave signal high
To the bright minister that watch'd ; he blew
His trumpet, heard in Oreb since perhaps
When God descended ; and perhaps once more
To souud at general doom."
The distinct announcement is made in the New Testament —
" He shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and
they shall gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of
heaven to the other" (Matt, xxi v, 31) — a passage which has a close
connection with the verse before us, for the trumpet-blast is
associated with the second Advent — " The son of man coming in
the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." More dis-
tinctly still the apostle says, " We shall not all sleep, but we
shall all be changed — in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,
at the last trump, for the trumpet shall sound." What the
trumpet-peal accomplishes we know not. It gathers apparently
the elect together — it may raise the dead, and give universal
warning that the Lord is come.
Tuba mirum s[)argens sonum
Per sepulcra regidnum,
Coget onines ante thronum.
The voice of the archangel may be uttered by the trumpet.
Chrysostom gives a choice of three suppositions as to the
theme of utterance, "it is either as in the parable, 'The Bride-
groom cometh,' or, ' Let the dead arise,' or, ' Make all ready,
for the Judge is at hand.'" The phrase, " the last trump " (1 Cor.
xv, 52), is supposed by the same author to imply previous
trumpets, at the last of which the Judge descends, while
others identify it with the seventh trumpet of the Apocalypse ;
but these notions, the second especially, are exceedingly pre-
carious — the phrase, "the last trump," being apparently a
popular one, and meaning the trumpet in connection with the
End. The power of God can at once raise the dead, but un-
doubtedly, for the best of reasons, He has chosen to employ the
instrumentality dimly disclosed in this verse. It would on the
one hand be presumptuous to speak dogmatically upon it, or
to refine upon it, and spiritualize it as a mere image — as is done
to some extent by Olshausen. On the other hand, in some of
16(3 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. IV.
the Jewish books, the trumpet and its seven blasts are dwelt
upon with puerile exaggeration, as may be seen in Eisenmenger
Entd. J ad., vol. II, pp. 929, 930. " The trumpet is a thousand
ells long, according to the ells of God ; at each peal a certain
result follows ; at the first peal the world is awaked, and at the
others, the various parts of the human body are collected and
re organ ised," &c, kc.
What the passage may show is, that as the trumpet blast
was supposed in Jewish theology to herald or accompany God
to legislation or judgment — as it did in the awful manifestation
at Mount Sinai — so the doctrine of the apostle, though a new
disclosure on this point, was in unison with the traditionary
Jewish faith.
kul ol v€Kpo\ eV y^piurw ava<rT^(TovTaL 7rpwTov — " and the
dead in Christ shall rise first." Some manuscripts and fathers
read 7rpwroi, the Latin versions having pri/m/i, an evident emen-
dation, prompted by the idea of a first resurrection. The text
has superabundant authority, the connecting kui is consecutive
" and so," introducing the result of the Advent or Descent
from heaven as just described — though it would be pre-
carious to connect the clause solely with ev cru\Triyyi
Qeov.
'Ei/ Xpi<TT(} is by Krause, Pelt, Schott, and Peile, wrongly
connected with the verb, " shall rise in Christ." Winer adopted
this connection in his earlier, but abandoned it in his later
editions (§ 20, 2 a, ed. 6th), his objection being that the dis-
tinction is superflous, there being no allusion to non-believers.
Schott and Pelt render " mortui primum resurgent per
Christum," i.e. Sia ~Kpto-Tou, deriving in this way the idea of a
first and then that of a general resurrection. Schott adds,
"pro mortuis omnibus in vitam rcvocandis, parte pro toto
posita, cultores Christ i resuscitandi commemorari poterant"
quoting in proof 1 Cor. xv, 23. But the idea of a second
resurrection is nowhere found in the context. The dead are
opposed to the living — the resurrection of the Christian dead
is in contrast to the change and rapture of Christian survivors,
and to the first, therefore, the distinctive ev Xpio-rw is naturally
added. The question is not by what means the dead shall
rise, but what is the relation which they shall bear to the
Ver. 16.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 167
Redeemer at his advent. He has said that the dead shall
not take precedence of the living, and this order which had
been asserted negatively in the previous verse, is asserted
positively in this clause. The Vulgate has et mortui, qui in
Christo sunt, resurgent pri/mi, and the Syriac has ]Zuio
LOrOaL .qLdqqj ] »> i »V)0 ). The connection of iv Xpicrr^
with the verb would therefore leave the character of
the veKpoi undefined, and by putting the stress on ev
XpuTTw would introduce confusion into the sentence, as
if it were meant that the dead, all the dead, would rise
through Christ, an idea quite foreign to the context,
and the apostle's immediate object. 'Ei/ XpiaT<2 has the
common meaning — in union with Christ; that union is not
dissolved by death ; they were in Christ — the source of their
spiritual life when in the body, in Him when they died, and
they are in Him still ; yea, so in Him that His resurrection
secures theirs. He cannot rise without raising all included in
Him, and livingly and organically united to Him as the
members to the Head.
HpCorov has its distinct and momentous position in the
clause, for it solves the perplexity which was felt in the Thes-
salonian church. Not only shall the dead share in the glories
of the Advent, but they shall share first; its first result is their
resurrection. They lose no privilege by dying before the Advent,
they even win this priority over those who shall then be alive.
Upwroi* corresponds to eireiTu, the dead rise first, and then the
living are with them caught up. Upwrou has no reference to the
resurrection of unbelievers ; it is simply first, or before the rap-
ture of the living and surviving saints. The apostle thus refers to
the two great results of the Advent — first, the resurrection of the
dead saints ; and, secondly, the assumption of the living saints.
To identify the resurrection asserted in this verse with the " first
resurrection " of Rev. xx, 6, is quite unwarranted. The view is
held by the Greek expositors with Pelagius, Ambrosiaster,
Estius, Turretin, and Olshausen. For, 1st, if the TrpCcTt]
avdo-Taais, the prophetic picture in the Apocalypse, be a literal
resurrection, it is confined to the martyrs ; 2nd, the first resur-
rection is that of "souls" — said to live, not to be reclothed — and
it is in contrast to the "second death," which is explained to be
l(jS COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. IV
" the lake of fire." Are the martyrs only to escape the second
death ? Is not that death, the death of a soul severed for aye
from God, the source of life ? Of a general resurrection there
is here no mention, as there is no allusion to the resurrection
of unbelievers; their destiny is here undisclosed and is left
under awful shadow. Three reasons are adduced in (Ecume-
nius for the omission, but only one of them is of any weight,
viz., that any allusion to the fate of unbelievers was foreign to
his immediate purpose of enlightening and consoling the
Thessalonian church. Mackuight is verbose and tenacious in
expounding his theory that the wicked shall be raised with
their present bodies, and that as, after the righteous ascend,
the earth is to be burned, they will, in all probability, remain
on it to be consumed in the oreneral conflagration. But this
passage is totally silent as to such a fate, and it cannot be
found in it even by implication. Nor does any other Scripture
give any countenance to the conjecture. On the other hand
Karsten (die letzten Dinge) supposes, with as little proof, that the
wicked are raised in order to be disembodied.
The apostle does not say where the souls of the dead are.
The thief went to Paradise, not to Heaven. Hades represents
generally the world of spirits, both good and bad, and Hades
ceases to exist at the last day. They themselves — that is,
their bodies — shall be raised, personality being attributed to
them though one portion is wrapt in unconsciousness.
(Ver. 1/.) ' E7retra tj/meh oi £un>Tes oi irepiXeLirop-tvoi d/xa (tvv
avTOis ap7ray>](TO,ae0a ev ve(fie\(u<z el$ diravT^mv tov Kvpiou et?
depa — " Then we who are alive and remain over shall be caught
up at the same time along with them in clouds to meet the Lord
in the air." Some MSS. as D X F read el? v-wavrncriv rw Xptarr(},
and the Latin versions similarly have obviam Christo, and so
Tertullian and Jerome. The adverb eireira (eir e'ira) "then," not
only introduces the second result of the Lord's descent, that the
living shall be caught up, but also implies that the last event is
closely connected with the former. Erfurdt on Antig., 607,
remarks ubi qyuwm praecedat tu it para, necessario ea temporis
pars intelligi debet, quae rd irpwra proxiine sequitur — i. e.,
6 evearrcos (vol. I, p. 139, 3rd ed.). It is almost equivalent to ko\
roVe. Heindorf, Plato de Rejmblica, p. 336 C. The two events
Vbr. 17.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 169
are consecutive, the one follows close upon the other. For foeis
ol £wvtc$, &c, see under verse 15. "A/xct may mean simul, at the
same time, or all in one company. But as <tvv uutoiV follows, the
temporal meaning of d/ua is to be preferred, and it also implies
that the one event, though behind the other in time, is in close
proximity to it. Klotz, Deiuvhis, vol. II, p. 95. 2w avroh
comprehends those who have been raised — we who are
alive and remain shall be caught up at the same time
with them who are raised, and shall form one company.
The resurrection precedes, and though the dead are prior
in resurrection, the living are not posterior to them in this
rapture, but both simultaneously are lifted up in one band to
meet the Lord. In dp-way^rroixSa is the idea of sudden and
irresistible seizure by a power beyond us. For the form of the
verb, see Buttmann,§141. 'Ey ve<fie\ai9 is connected with the verb,
and seems to characterize either manner or instrument " in the
clouds," enveloped by them and borne up by them. Lunemann
and De Wette render "on the clouds," aufWolken — mitten auf
ihnen thronend. The phrase does not mean " into the clouds,"
as if ev were ei$ (Beza and Hammond), nor does it, as if it were
i'e<-/>o?, signify in clusters or a great multitude (Koppe, Rosen-
miiller, Macknight). Clouds are often associated with the
divine presence — " He maketh the clouds his chariot " (Psalm
civ, 3); "the clouds are the dust of his feet" (Nahum i, 3);
Jesus went away in a " cloud " ; "a cloud received Him out of
their sight" (Acts i, 9); and in the clouds he returns, cttI tcov
ve<j>e\wv (Matt, xxiv, 30 ; xxvi, 64); ev ve<pe\ai$ (Mark xiii, 26) ;
/ueru ro)v vefaXwv (Rev. i, 7). The rapture of the living in
some way corresponds in majesty to Him and His coming, or,
as Theodoret says, t'Seige to /xeyeOo? t^s tlij.?^. The purpose of
the seizure is —
elg aizavT)]<riv too Kuplou — " to meet the Lord." The phrase
comes from the Septuagint, where it usually represents the
Hebrew nx^h, as often in Judges and in the historical
hooks, also in Jer. xli, 6 ; li, 31 ; and is followed by a genitive
and occasionally by a dative. Polybius, v, 26, 5 ; Winer,
§31,3. The word belongs to the later Greek. Matt, xxv, 1,6;
Acts xxviii, 15. The Lord is descending to the earth, they
are caught up on His progress to meet Him, and thus God
170 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. IV.
" brings them with Him " (verse 14). Theophylact, after Chry-
sostom, likens the meeting to a king's entrance into a city — all
its aristocracy coining out to meet him. The meeting is one
of welcome and praise. He is coming in fulfilment of His
promise and to crown His work.
He last words, els depa, are connected with the verb
a p7r ay qcr 6 fxeO a, in ae'ra, and cannot mean through the air
(Flatt), nor, as is the opinion of the same author, can di'/p denote
heaven. The air is not to be regarded as the heaven of
believers, as virtually Pelt, Usteri, and others. The New
Testament affords no basis for this dream, nor does this place
say more than that the dead who are raised and the living
along with them meet the Redeemer, not in heaven as he
leaves it, nor on earth if He come down to it, but between
heaven and earth in the air, which, in our imagination, is
the pathway up to glory (Augustine, De Civ'd. Dei, xx, 20, 2).
It is not said, on the one hand, that they will descend
with him to earth, nor, on the other hand, that He will return
with them to heaven. What shall follow after His saints meet
Him the apostle does not declare ; he affirms nothing of the
judgment or the admission to final blessedness. He pauses at
the point when he had shown how groundless was the per-
plexity of the Thessalonian believers concerning the position
and destiny of the dead at the second Advent. But he adds in
a word as the grand conclusion —
not ovtoos irdvTOTe <rvv Kv/otw ecrojueOa — " and so we shall ever
be with the Lord." " And thus," not, under these circumstances,
but as the consequence of being caught away to meet Him
into the air. We meet and never more part from him.
Thucydides, i, 14. The subject of the verb is the sainted dead
and the .sainted living — who simultaneously are snatched up to
meet the Lord. Hvv (not nerd) implies close fellowship, and
-n-dvTOTe expresses its endless duration without limit of time —
not simply to " the end," when the mediatorial government
shall pass into that of God in simplicity and immediateness.
The fellowship of the saved with the Saviour is this unending
spring of blessedness. It is plainly implied in these words that
those who survive till the second Advent do not die. Some
have doubted this, because death is so often asserted to be the
Ver. 18.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 171
sure and common destiny of mankind. Disturbed by a various
reading of 1 Cor. xv, 51, some took £covre$ in a spiritual sense,
" those who are spiritually alive." Jerome gives Origen's view-
thus : no8 qui vivimus quorum corpus mortuum est
propter peccatum ; spiritus a litem vivit propter jiistltlam.
Jerome reports another opinion : vivi appellant wr, qui
iiumquam peccato mortal sunt, qui autem peccaverunt,
et in eo quod peccaverunt, mortui sunt, . . . mortal
appellantur, quia peccaverunt; in Chrlsto autem mortui,
quia plena ad Deum mente conversi sunt (Eplst. 119,
vol. I, p. 811, ed. Vallarsii). That these living survivors
should in some way die, has been held by many. Augustine
says: nee Mi per immortalltcm vlvljicabuntur, nisi, qiuim-
libet paululum, tamen ante moriantur ; ac per hoc eta resur-
rectione non erunt allenl, quam dormltlo praecedlt, quamvis
brei'lssima, non tamen nulla {Be Civitate Del, xx, 20, vol.
VII, p. 963, Opera, Gaume, Paris, 1838). A similar view was
held by Ambrosiaster, Aquinas, and Anselm, the death taking
place according to Augustine, Anselm, and a-Lapide In aere et
raptu ; according to others in terra, qui locus est morlentium.
See a-Lapide in loc. Ambrosiaster says: in Ipso enlm
raptu mors provenlet et quasi per soporem, ui ' egressa anima
in momento reddatur (Opera Omnia, vol. II, p. 450). The
same hypothesis occurs in the exegesis given by (Ecumenius,
which states that the living are spirits and the dead are bodies.
But the apostle in 1 Cor. gives us a glimpse of the truth — " we
shall not all die, but we shall all be changed." A sudden and
mysterious change passes over the living — the change of their
animal body into a spiritual body ; this is supposed to have
taken place at the point where the apostle says, " We who are
alive and remain shall be caught up." The exposition of
a-Lapide ends by showing from the rapture of the saints, quick
and dead, how the valley of Jehoshaphat, the scene of judgment,
will be able to hold all — omnes homines qui umquamfuerunt,
sunt, aid erunt.
(Ver. 18.) cocrre irapaKaXeire a.\\t]\ou? ev roc? \6yoi$
tovtois — " wherefore comfort one another with these words."
"Qare, consequently, or, so then, Itaque — the verse being an in-
ferential exhortation. Winer, § 41, 5. The verb corresponds to
172 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. IV.
the purpose of the paragraph indicated in verse 13, "iva /mrj
Xv7rijcr6e — in order that ye should not sorrow; and such being the
blessed hope as now revealed, the injunction is, comfort one
another — not each one laying up the hope in his own heart for
his own individual comfort, but pressing it on others in all
its blessed adaptation and fulness. By the use of ev the
Trapa/cA^en? is conceived of as residing in ''these words." It is
not a Hebraism, as Grotius supposed, for it is often found in
classical writers, the dative, as Wunder says, being used for the
Latin ablative of instrument, signifying that the power of
doing something is contained in that thing to whose name the
preposition is prefixed, as is conversely the case with ek and
d-wo (Sophocles, Philoct., 60). 'Ey here thus indicates the instru-
mental adjunct. Donaldson, § 476 a ; Matthiae, § 396, 2, 2.
See Raphe!, in loc. There is stress on toutois, as in 1 Tim. 4, 6
— "these words," from verses 15, 16, 17. Aoyoi is words, "not
things here or anywhere " (Alford), nor arguments (Pelt), nor
argumentis et vationibus (Aretius), nor \6yot tj;? -wio-Tews
(Olshausen). These words, spoken by immediate divine reve-
lation and authority, contain the elements of genuine and
lasting consolation. The dead are not lost, and they forego no
privilege by dying before the Advent; the living obtain no advan-
tage over them, for these words tell that the dead rise first, and
that the living being suddenly changed, both are simultaneously
snatched up to meet the descending Lord, to whose merit and
mediation all those hopes and glories are owing, and with Him
shall they be for ever. The inference given by Theodoret
is foreign to the context — ravra to'lvvv eiSore? (pepere yevvalw?
rod irapovTO? aicovog to. <TKu0pcc7ra, though the hope here un-
folded will not only bear up Christians under bereavement, but
under every form and kind of evil which may fall upon
them.
Ver. 1.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 173
CHAPTER V.
The question of the disciples was a natural one, " Tell us
when shall these things be, and what shall be the sign of Thy
coming." Such curiosity must have been evinced in Thessa-
lonica, excited by the apostle's preaching on the duty of
waiting for His Son from heaven. And he seems to have given
them the Lord's words, " of that day and hour knoweth no
man." This statement had been distinctly made, so that they
knew it perfectly. At least the suddenness of the Advent had
been impressed on them. The Lord had said " in such an hour
as ye think not the Son of Man cometh," using also a figure
here briefly repeated, " know this, that if the goodman of the
house had known in what watch the thief would come, he
would have watched" (Matt, xxiv, 43). There is no need
therefore to conjecture with Olshausen that the Thessalonians
had sent a special question as to the period of the Advent to
Paul, and prayed for his solution of the mystery. In such a
case the language of the first verse would have borne some
trace of being a response. The apostle has told them what had
been revealed to him by immediate revelation, and he has
exhorted them to apply to their own comfort such words of
wonder, hope, and assurance. And now he passes by Se to a
different but collateral subject.
(Ver. 1.) Uep\ Se rwv xpovoov Koi twv Kcupaiv, aSe\<po) — " But ot
the times and the seasons, brethren." The nouns are thus dis-
tinguished by Ammonius, the first as defining 7roo-oV>;?, quantity,
and the second ttoioti^, quality; or, the first means simple or inde-
finite duration, while the second carries with it limitation and
character, and thus comes to denote epoch, season, or opportunity
— involving the notion of transitoriness. Tittmann, Be Syiwn.,
I, p. 39 ; Trench, II, p. 27. Kcupo? is probably allied to Ketpco
as tempu8 to re/uvui, a special period cut out of time, for time
comprehends all seasons, or as Bengel says, Y/>oVaw partes
Kfupoi Hence the phrase xP^vov Kaipbv (Sophocles, Electro,
1292). Xpovo? may stand generally for Kaipo?, but not the
reverse (Luke i, 20; Acts iii, 20, 21 ; Gal. iv, 10). The Latin
tongue, as Augustine acknowledged, has no special term to
174 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. V.
represent Katpo?, as opportanitas has in it the idea of fitting-
ness or favourableness, whereas Kaip6$ may bear the opposite
meaning. The Vulgate renders here de temporibus autem et
momentis as in Acts i, 7; ilber Zeit und Stunde (Lunemann).
The same Greek terms are used in Acts i, 7 ; Wisdom, vii, 18 ;
viii, 8; and in the singular in Eecles. iii, 1 ; r'umepa. and copa,
general and special, occur in Matt, xxiv, 3G; Mark xiii, 32. The
plural is employed here in reference to the number of times and
seasons, not to their absolute length, though it does imply some
extent of duration. The object is the Second Advent, the
period of which may comprise a variety of times and seasons
preparing for it, characterizing, and fixing it.
ou xP eluv e'x eTe vi x ~ lv ypufevOai — " ye have no need that it or
anything be written to you." See under iv, 9. This version is
more in accordance with the Greek idiom than the common
ones, " that I write unto you," or " to be written unto," as it
preserves the force of the dative and the infinitive passive. The
ground of the statement has been variously given. (1) The
Greek fathers suppose that the apostle regarded information on
the point as superfluous and unprofitable, oo? irepirTov, kui
w? aarvp.<j>opov (Chrysostom). (2) Others imagine the reason
to be, that no one can know these things. Fromond, Koch,
Pelt, Estius, Baumgarten-Crusius. (3) Bengel assigns a moral
reason — qui vigilant, his non opus est dici, quando futura sit
hora, nam semper parati sunt. (4) The true and simple reason
probably is that the apostle had already instructed them
during his sojourn among them, and as he had taught them
orally, he did not need to write now to them. For he
affirms in the following verse that they know with perfect
accuracy, not indeed the times and seasons, but they knew this
— that the Second Advent would take men by surprise. They
had been taught not its period, that being undisclosed, but its
suddenness.
(Ver 2.) avrol yap a/cp</3a>? o'lSare — " for ye yourselves know
perfectly." This verse assigns the reason (yap) why they had no
need to be written to on the times and seasons — they themselves
had correct information ; the emphatic avrol in contrast with
the writer himself as in iv, 9. The adverb dicpi/3a)? occurs only
once more in Paul's epistles, and is rendered " circumspectly "
Vku. 2.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 175
(Ephes. v, 15). It is rendered " diligently " in Matt, ii, 8, and in
Acts xviii, 25, "perfect," (Luke i, 3), "having had perfect under-
standing"; the comparative adjective is used in Acts xviii, 2G;
xxiii, 15, 20, and the superlative in Acts xxvi, 5. Their know-
ledge of what he is going to state was not dim, uncertain, or
fluctuating, but precise, clear, and accurate.
on tj/Liepa l\.vp:ou to? /cAe7rr>/? ev vvkti, ovtu>$ ep^crut —
" that the day of the Lord as a thief cometh in the night,
so it cometh." The article which the Received Text places
before t)p.'epa is omitted in BDF N, but is found in AKL and
many mss. and fathers. It may have been omitted, as % stands
so close to ?)juepa succeeding it, but its insertion may have been
owing to grammatical precision. It is not needed, for the sense
is not affected by the omission, " the day of the Lord " being a
definite and unique expression. Compare Philip, i, G, 10; ii, 16;
2 Peter iii, 10. Winer, § 19, 1, 2 b. The phrase in the usage of
the Old Testament, n i~\ ai', is used in the prophets to denote
the appearance of Jehovah's direct and glorious self-manifesta-
tion in his awful rectitude and power (Is. ii, 12 ; Ezek. xiii, 5 ;
Joel i, 15; ii, 11; iii, 14; Zeph. i, 14; Mai. iv, 5). Here the
Lord is Jesus Christ, who returns on this day, specially His as
fixed by Him — His, as showing His glory and crowning His
mediatorial work, as declared in the previous paragraph. On
Kvpios, see Ephes. i, 2. The day of the Lord is the period of the
Second Coming, as may be seen by comparing Luke xvii, 30 ;
1 Cor. i, 8; v, 5; 2 Cor. i, 14; Philip, i, G, 10; ii, 16; 2 Thess.
ii, 2. (1) The phrase, as it is suggested by the 14th, 15th, 16th
verses of the previous chapter, cannot refer to the destruction of
Jerusalem as Schottgen, Hammond, Harduin. See Whitby's
reply to Hammond in loc. (2) Nor, for the same reason, can it
refer to each man's death, or to this and to the end of all things
(Zwingli, Bloomfield, and Riggenbach). Chrysostom writes oi>x
rj Koivh fxovov dXka ku'i >] eKacrrov ISia," for the one resembles the
other." That may be the self-application for each one, since
death to him is the day of the Lord, but it is not the true
meaning and reference of the clause under review —
co? /cAe7TT>79 ev vvkti . . . epx^Tai — " <is a thief in
the night cometh." The day cometh not simply in the
night, but in the night as a thief. Winer, § 20, 4 note.
170 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. V.
It is not simply nocturnal, but sudden and unexpected.
The figure is common in Scripture (Matt, xxiv, 43 ; Luke
xii, 39; 2 Peter iii, 10; Rev. iii, 3; xvi, 15). The allusion
is first found in Job xxiv, 14 ; Jer. xlix, 0. The house is
unguarded, deep sleep has fallen on its unprepared inmates, and
in such a night the thief comes and makes sudden and effectual
entrance to " kill and to steal and to destroy." It is added
emphatically ourw? epxerai, so it cometh, the manner of the
Advent being brought into formal prominence, o>? being
resumed in ovrco?, not as Bengel puts it, uti dicetur versa
sequente. The present is not for the future (Koppe, Flatt,
Pelt), nor does it express the suddenness of the event (Bengel,
Koch), but its absolute certainty. Bernhardy, p. 371; Winer,
§ 40, 2. Though the Advent be future, the present gives it an
abiding characteristic. There is no need of saying with
Riggenbach, das Bild des Diebes scheint unedel zu sein ;
or with Schott, si quid parum decor i Jtuic cojnparationi
inesse videatur perpendamas necesse est, minime personam
Christ I redituri cum fare adventante, sed rein ipsam cum Juris
adventu conferri. Such a distinction serves no purpose. The
figure in its suggestiveness is easily understood. He comes as
the thief comes without warning, in such an hour as men think
not, and when they are not looking for him. Theodoret says,
to ai<pi>lSiov tj/? SecnroTiKijg irapovata^ aire'iKaa-e AcXe7TT>/. The
suddenness of the event is therefore the idea specially sug-
gested by the image, so far as dead saints and the surviving
ones are concerned. The terribleness of the event which
Schott, Hofmann, and Alford find in the figure is brought out
only in the following verse, and as regards unprepared unbe-
lievers, as has been remarked. There is no doubt that this
verse and others having a similar figui'e originated in the earl}'
church the opinion that the Lord would come in the night,
and especially on Easter Eve, as He came when the first pass-
over was held in Egypt, and solemn vigils were kept in
expectation of the event. Lunemann. Bingham, vol. VII, p. 23(>.
The language employed by the apostle has a strong resemblance
to that of our Lord in Matt, xxiv, 43 ; xxv, G; and he ascribes
to his readers a perfect knowledge of the statement. Most
probably the information was acquired through the apostle's
Ver. 3.] FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 177
own personal teaching when he was with them. There is no
proof of Ewald's supposition that he had left with them a
written document, Urhunde, a so-called gospel referred to in
the previous words Aoyo? Kvplov (iv, 15). Nor is there any
foundation for Wordsworth's hypothesis that they might have
had a written gospel, " either Matthew or Luke, probably the
latter." The apostle had in his preaching at Thessalonica
dwelt on the suddenness of the Second Advent ; the ignorance
of its period imposing constant preparedness and watchfulness.
And they knew this correctly. What they knew was that
they did not know the time, but only the solemn suddenness,
of the Lord's coming (Luke xii, 39).
(Ver. 8.) oral' Xeyoocriv Etp'/w/ koi a<r<pa\eia — " when they
may be saying peace and safety." The Received Text inserts
yap after orav with K L, many mss., the Vulgate (enim) ; Se in
place of yap is found in BD N 3 , in the Philoxenian Syriac, and
in Eusebius, Chrysostom, and Theodoret ; orav stands alone,
A F N, in four mss., the Claromontane Latin, the Peshito, the
Gothic, and in many of the Latin fathers. There was ever a
strong temptation to supply connecting particles, so that very
probably <5e is to be rejected as well as yap. The two particles
are often exchanged in codices, as Rom. iv, 15 ; xi, 13 ; xv, 8 •
Gal. i, 11 ; iv, 25 ; v, 17. The description is all the more vivid
from its apparent abruptness and the want of any copula. In
cases parallel to this, the Authorized Version often uses the
present, as in Matt, vi, 2, 5, 6, 10 ; x, 19, 23 ; though here it
employs the future. The persons implied are not merely, as
Hammond supposes, the Jews who persecuted those who
received the faith with all bitterness, and all " temporizing-
Christians who complied and joined along with them — Jews
and Gnostics, who were the cockle among the wheat in every
Christian plantation." Chrysostom also partly holds the same
view, " those who warred upon them," ol 7roAepowre? avrovs.
The reference, as the context shows, is to unbelieving men
who are wholly unprepared for the sudden crisis —
E<p>/j/>/ Kai aa-cpaXeia — " peace and safety," that is, are on all
sides, perhaps a reminiscence of Ezek. xiii, 10, 10, " saying
peace and there was no peace." The first term may be inner
quiet and the second outer tranquillity, nothing within or
M
178 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. V.
without disturbing or menacing their ominous repose, which is
so fallacious and so soon to be sternly and suddenly broken and
destroyed. The unheralded storm dashes on them in a moment,
as if from a clear and unclouded sky, or, in the apostle's
figure — ■
rore a!(pi'lSiog avroig ecplcrrarai oAeOpo? — " then suddenly
on them does come destruction." The adjective ai<j>v!Sto?,
" unforeseen," from its position emphatic — a species of predicate
of manner — is more, as Ellicott says, than a mere epithet, and
may be rendered by an adverbial phrase, repentinus eis super-
veniet interitus (Vulgate), the Syriac having i»OQQJ jl^AiLo
Kiihner, § 685 ; Winer, § 54, 2 ; Ellendt's note, Arrian, vol. I,
p. 174 ; Thucydides, vi, 49 ; viii, 28. The same happens often
in Latin — as subitus irrupit (Tacitus, Hist., iii, 47); Kritz, Sal-
lust, note on the phrase aspera fcedaque evenerant, i, p. 125,
compared with do., ii, p. 174. The present verb e^la-rarai is
to come upon by surprise (Luke xxi, 34 ; Acts iv, 1 ; xvii, 5) ;
to al<pviSiov kcu aTrpocrSoK^TOv (Thucydides, II, 61). It has here
the simple dative, eiri being used in the passage just quoted
from Luke xxi, 34. "OXeOpos (oXXvpi) means death in the
Homeric poems, and then destruction in a general sense (1 Cor.
v, 5), ruin inflicted as a divine penalty or as the result of sinful
courses (2 Thess. i, 9 ; 1 Tim. vi, 9 ; Sept., Pro. xxi, 7 ; Obadiah
13). This state of false peace is suddenly broken, and they a,re
destroyed in their dream of security.
locrirep »} wSiv T)j ev yacrrpi poverty /ecu ov pa] ac(J)vyo)(Tiv — "as
travail upon her with child, and they shall in no wise escape."
The form wSlv instead of odSIs, like ukt'lv, belongs to the later
Greek. Winer, § 9, 2, note 1 ; Buttmann, § 41, 3. The phrase ev
yacrrpi exovcrt] is the usual formula denoting pregnancy (Matt, i,
1 8, 23 ; xxiv, 19 ; Mark xiii, 17; Luke xxi, 23 ; Rev. xii, 2). The
phrase in Iliad, vi, 58 is yaarrepi <pepeiv, and ev yacrrpi (pepeiv
occurs in Plato, De Legg. vii, 792 e. This comparison is found
often in the Old Testament (Ps. xlviii, 6 ; Is. xiii, 8 ; xxi, 3 ;
Jer. vi, 24 ; Hosea xiii, 13 ; Micah iv, 9, 10). The point of
comparison is the suddenness and uncertainty of the birth-
pang. The throe of agony comes in a moment upon the woman,
no matter where she is or in what she is engaged. Other points
of analogy have been sought for, but they unnecessarily strain
Ver. 3.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 179
the figure. (1) Rieger and Calvin suggest that, as the woman
carries in herself the cause of her anguish, so these unbelieving
men bear their sin, the source of their suffering, within
them. (2) Pelt mars the unity of the figure by laying
undue stress on the inevitableness of the travail. (3) Chrysos-
tom combines in his illustration the severity as well as the
suddenness of the spasm. Theodore t's words are " she knows
that she is pregnant, but docs not know the time of her travail,
so we know that the Lord of all will come, but we have not
indeed learned the time of His Advent." (Ecumenius adds,
" that indeed she has signs of birth, but she knows not its hour
or day." (4) De Wette, approved by Koch and Lunemann, in
the same spirit, thus puts it — " that the figure assumes the day
to be near, as such a woman, though she does not know the day
and hour, has yet knowledge of the period." The idea so far
contradicts the context which represents the unbelieving world
as wholly taken by surprise ; and, besides, it is not the preg-
nancy nor the birth, but the proverbially sudden pang which
seizes such a woman, that the apostle puts into prominence.
(5) Olshausen brings out another idea foreign to the figure in
its present use, that a higher life is to be produced in humanity
by the will of God, through the ordinance of these pangs; and
Bisping thus enlarges, " the end of all things is the time of the
birth- woe, which is followed by the new birth of humanity im
grossen Gauge, and of all nature (Rom. viii, 22)." But it is not
the result or product of the birth which is here presented, it is
the sudden rush of destruction upon those who are lulled in a
false and carnal security. Or it is the unexpectedness of the
Advent to all who are not prepared for it and looking for it ;
that is the apostle's statement in itself, and as pointed by
the double figure. The Lord himself delivered and illustrated
the same awful truth — as it was in the days of Noah, when
the flood, swift and undreamed of, came on a busy and self-
indulging world ; as it was in the days of Lot when Sodom
was absorbed in social merriment and prosperity, and when in
a moment it rained fire and brimstone from heaven upon it, so
shall also the coming of the Son of Man be. Compare Is. xxx,
13 ; Matt, xxiv, 36, 30; Luke xvii, 20-30.
ku\ ov firj €K(j>vywa-iv — " and they shall in no wise escape."
180 COMMENTAEY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. V.
There is no accusative expressed, and it narrows the sense to
supply one, so that the verb is to be taken in its fullest signifi-
cance (Heb. ii, 3 ; xii, 25 ; Ecclus. xvi, 13). A direct accusative
is, however, sometimes added (Rom. ii, 3 ; 2 Mace, vii, 35 ; vi,
2G). Whatever is threatened, whatever they merit, they shall
not escape, but shall meet with the opposite of peace and safety.
For the double negative ov p.7'1, see under iv, 15. Compare Ps.
lxxiii, 18, 19.
(Ver. 4.) 'Yp-ei^ Se, dSe\<po}, ovk ecrre ev cncorei — "But ye,
brethren, are not in darkness." Their character is placed in
contrast, Se, with that of those whose doom is told in the pre-
vious verse. 'Ecrre is not imperative, but indicative. (1) The
imperative would have required /uuj (Schmalfeld, p. 143). (2)
Besides, Christians are in profession and character, not in dark-
ness. (3) As Koch remarks, the imperative ecrre does not occur
in the New Testament. The clause is simply an assertion,
and ev a-Korei appears to have been suggested by the previous
ev vukti. The ctkotos is not simply ignorance (Theodoret and
others), but spiritual darkness or depravit}- — darkness of soul
as well as of intellect — without the saving enlightenment of
the truth — the state of unthinking and unbelieving men, who
though on the verge of ruin are in self-delusion, saying " peace
and safety " (Rom. xiii, 12). See under Ephes. v, 6. The apostle
uses the abstract ev a-Korei — in it as their enveloping element.
(Greek fathers). See under Col. i, 13.
'Iva ?) foepa vfAas co? /cAcVtjj? Ka.Ta\df3>] — " that the day should
overtake you as a thief." The order >; foepa vjuu? is supported
by BKLN, nearly all mss., and by the Greek fathers Epi-
phanius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Damascenus ; while the order
vfxus i] foepa is found in A D F, both Latin versions, and many
Latin fathers, and is adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf in
his first edition, and Ellicott. The authority is not very
decided either way, and it may be said on the one hand that
vfias was emphasized purposely by putting it first, or,
on the other hand, that it was put after foe pa according
to the simpler order which is preferred by Tischendorf in
his 2nd and 7th editions, and by Alford. The reading
K-AeVra?, received by Lachmann, and found in A B and
the Coptic version, is favoured by Grotius, De Wette, and
Ver. 4.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, lSl
Ewald, but cannot be sustained, for though it be the more
difficult reading, it wants the authority of manuscripts, ver-
sions, and fathers, "ha is not to be rendered ecbatically as
iorrre (Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping,
Jowett), but with its usual telic signification so far modified
that result is combined with purpose (Winer, § 53, 6), or pur-
pose is viewed as embodied in result. Liinemann states the
connection thus, " the penalty which falls on the unbelieving
and God-estranged, may that not fall upon you." Hofmann
regards it differently — " the being in darkness would be indis-
pensable in order to such a surprise." The sense then is, ye are
not in darkness, for this blessed purpose, that the day may not
overtake you as a thief. The purpose of your enlightenment is
that the day may not surprise you, as it must and will those
who are still in darkness. The verb KaraKafiy has from Kurd an
intensified meaning, that of eager or sudden seizure, and
not necessarily that des feindlichen Ergreifens (Koch). A
similar sense modified by the context is found in Mark ix, 18 ;
John viii, 3, 4; xii, 35 ; Philip, iii, 12. The phrase r) yifxepahas
been taken by many as synonymous with ;; i]pkpa Kvplov.
Hence F adds eKelvrj, the two Latin versions have ilia, and
the Syriac reads psOQj ooi. But the reference is wrong, as
the following verses show in the phrases, "children of
the day," " not of darkness," " let us who are of the day."
The noun >']/u.epa is now used as in contrast with ct/co'to?, and is
the period of light, that light which, breaking in upon the soul,
so benignly fills it that it is no longer ev a-Korei, and which
shineth more and more unto the perfect day — the day of the
Lord. The day — the period of light, the day-spring from on
high — should not surprise them like a thief stealing suddenly
upon them, for they were not in darkness, they were already
children of light, familiar with it, and prepared for the fuller
light of "that day." If the reading K\e7rrashe adopted,the mean-
ing would be — The day bursting upon the thief surprises him
in his nocturnal prowling, or seizes him unawares when not
suspecting the dawn to be at hand ; but ye are not in that
predicament, ye are not like thieves " who ply their work
in the night" (De Wette) The inference or lesson is given
by Ambrose, nobis cn'nn nun scire proderat ; ut dum certa
182 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. V.
futuri judicii momenta nescimus, semper tanquam in excubiis
constituti, et in quadam virtutis specula collocati peccandi
consuetudinem declinemus ; ne nos inter vitia dies Domini
deprehendat; non enim prodest scire, sed metuere quodfuturum
est (De Fide, v, 14, Paris, 1845).
(Ver. 5.) Travres yap vueis viol (pcoros e<rre /ecu vio\ t)[xepa$ — "for
all ye are sons of the light and of the day." There is over-
whelming evidence in uncials, versions, and fathers for the
insertion of yap, which the Received Text omits. Ye are not in
darkness, " for ye are all sons of light." The Hebraic form
*vmri ?,?, viol <J)goto$, denotes genetic relationship, light in the
aspect of a parent to his children. Winer, § 34, 3 6 2. The usage
with the genitive of an abstract noun is common in Hebrew — the
light is their origin and life. Many examples may be seen in
Glassii Philologia Sacra, vol. I, p. 95, ed. Dathe. All the six
sections of examples are not so distinguishable in meaning or
reference as Glassius makes them. Compare Luke xvi, 8 ; John
xii, 36 ; Matt, viii, 12 ; xiii, 38 ; Acts iv, 36 ; Ephes. vi, 8. See
under Ephes. ii, 2, 3. There are phrases remotely similar in
classic Greek, but none of them has the genitive of an abstract
noun; and even with regard to them Bloomfield remarks, notan-
dum, hoc genus loquendi apud sopmistas et scriptores neotericos
maxime in gratia fuisse (Peraxe, 408; Goettling, Hesiod, Theog.,
240, p. 26). The relation expressed being derivative, the sense is
not that of the Greek expositors, ol to. 0o>to? 7rpdrrovTe?, or
ol to. SiKcua K(u ire^idTKTjxkva TrpaTTOVTes (CEcumenius), though
such is the result. The " light " and " the day " are so far
synonymous, as the day is the period of the light, which puts
an end to the darkness. Divine enlightenment fills the
believer — the light is his life, the birth and growth of his
spiritual existence.
ovk ea-p-ev vvktos ovSe cr/coroy? — " we are not of the night nor
of darkness." 'Ecr-re, found in a few codices, is a conformation to
the previous clauses. It is wrong in Estius, Pelt, and Schott to
supply viol ; the genitive by itself rather denotes the sphere to
which one belongs. Acts ix, 2 ; xxiii, 6 ; 1 Cor. vi, 19 ; Heb. x,
39 ; Winer, § 30, 5 ; Ast Lex. Platon., sub voce ei/xi ; Bernhardy,
p. 165. We believers in general belong not to the night nor
to darkness ; night being the period of darkness, it is not our
Ver. 6.] FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 183
sphere of origin or action. The night has passed away ; the
darkness is gone ; and we are light in the Lord. The apostle
passes from the meaning of t)p.epa, as the point of time when
the Lord comes again, to its more common meaning of day-
time as the period of light in contrast with night-time and
darkness, these being taken at the same time as symbols of
spiritual states. Being now sons of the day, we live in its
light, which is only brightened by the clay of the Lord when
it comes, for it brings fuller and endless radiance. In Rom. xiii,
11, 12, 13, the apostle makes a similar transition from the use of
day, as meaning the Advent, to its natural or spiritual significa-
tion. The startling reverse of the picture is given in Amos v,
18, 19, 20.
(Ver. 6.) " Kpa ovv p.i] fca.6ev8cop.ev ws /ecu ol Xonroi — " So then
let us not sleep even as the rest." After go?, tcdi is wanting in
A B N 1 and in the Vulgate (Codex Amiatinus); but it is found in
DFKL N 3 , in the Vulgate, Peshito, and several of the fathers.
It is found in similar clauses, 1 Cor. ix, 5 ; Ephes. ii, 3 ; 1 Thess.
v, 13. The authorities for the omission are about as valid as
those for the insertion.
"A.pa is inferential, such being the case, and ovv is collective
and argumentative ; then, therefore, as things are, let us in
consequence of our being so. Klotz, Devarius, ii, pp. 181-717 ;
Donaldson, Cratylus, § 192. As we are sons of the day, and
are not sons of the night, let us, I and you, not sleep — sleep
and night go together, but sleep and day are incompatible.
Sleep is the image of spiritual lethargy and indifference, with-
out earnestness or activity. " The others " are the unbelieving
world around them, that cared for none of these things, wrapped
in a profound slumber, never awakened to the reality of the
soul's condition and prospects, and the spiritual consciousness
so wholly sunk into torpor and death as to be unsusceptible of
saving impressions. See under Ephes. v, 14. Compare Matt,
xiii, 13, 14, 15.
aWa yp>jyopwp.ev /ecu vij(j>wp.ev — " but let us watch and be
sober." The clause is the direct positive contrast to the
previous negative one. The verb yp^yopkoo, used as a present,
is from the perfect of the verb eyeipco, eypijyopa. Buttmann,
vol. II, pp. 114, 115; Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, p. 118. For
184 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. V.
the use of the subjunctive, see Winer, 41, 4. Wakefulness is
enjoined by the apostle, on himself, and all his fellow-believers.
The verb v)'i(pcop.eu may be from v>) + e<j> = eb, Sanscrit wp, water,
der nocht nicht getrunken hat, connected with ebrius and x/wb.
(Benfey, Wurzellcx., vol. II, p. 75). Thomas Magister says u/i<pec
Ti? brav /xea;/? e/cTO? »} . . . yprjyopel otuv €kto? vttvov ?}. Let
us who are not in the world's great dormitory not only be
wakeful and ever on the alert, but also wary in our vigilance,
serene and circumspect in thought and act, neither dreaming
on the one hand, nor suddenly thrown off our guard on the
other hand, unbeguiled by "dreams and fantasies," oveiparwv
kuI <pavracrla$ (Chrysostom) ; as the same father remarks, "for
even by day if one watches, but is not sober, he will fall into
numberless dangers"— coarre yp>/yo/))/cre«9 €7riTa<ri? i) vrfyjris ecrTiv.
Mark xiii, 35, 36, 37- This is probably not strictly correct,
for the two verbs are taken as being nearly synonymous,
as Huther on 1 Peter v, 8 ; but the second is rather the result
of the first, and cannot exist without it. There may be a
watchfulness devoid of that self-discipline which is implied
in sobriety. Then follows the confirmatory illustration —
(Ver. 7.) ol yap Ka6euSovT€$ vvktos KaQevSovaiv, na\ ol
pedvo-Ko/JLevoi vvktos p.eBuovcriv — " for they that sleep sleep in
the night, and they that be drunken are drunken in the night."
The last half of the verse is rendered in the Claromontane Latin
et qui inebriantur nocte ebrii sunt. So Bengel says, /meOua-KOfxai
notat actum; p.e6vw statmn vel habitum. Macknight makes
the same distinction, " the first verb signifies the act of getting
drunk, and the second the state." Similarly, Erasmus, Beza,
and Piscator. But the distinction does not seem to be tenable,
at least it serves no purpose to make it here. Compare John
ii, 10; Ephes. v, 18 ; Rev. xvii, 2. Both verbs represent the
same Hebrew word in the Septuagint, ~av — the first, how-
ever, in its Piel form -ac-'. The second Greek term is
often used figuratively with ai/ua in the Septuagint, and
also in the New Testament, as Rev. xvii, 0. As the verb
is repeated in the first half of the verse, the variation need
not be insisted on in the second half. The Vulgate has
et qui ebrii sunt, nocte ebrii sunt — the stress of the sentence
lying on the repeated vvktos- By many the verse has been
Veb. 7.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 185
taken in a figurative or spiritual sense. Thus Chrysostom,
" the drunkenness of which he here speaks is not that from
wine only, but that also which comes from all sins. For wealth
and the lust of possession is a drunkenness of the soul, and so
is carnal lust (acofxdrwv ejowy), and every sin you can name is a
drunkenness of the soul." Then he says, " Sin is a sleep,
because in the first place the vicious man is inactive with
regard to virtue, and again because he sees everything^ a vision,
he views nothing in its true light, but is full of dreams — 6 TrXouro?
ovap, i) Soga, iravra to. Toiavra" The illustration is repeated
by CEcumenius and Theophylact, and is virtually adopted by
Baumgarten-Crusius, Koch, Hofmann, &c. Baumgarten-Crusius
thus gives it, " Defect in spiritual life and immorality, belong to
the lightless condition, therefore not to you"; or as Hofmann,
"with those who sleep and get drunk it is night." Pelagius
explains, qui dormicrunt obliti sunt sui; curae quoque in-
cbriant mentem. Augustine is still more decided, noctem
dicens iniquitatem, hi qua Mi obdormiunt cupiendo ista
terr&na, &c, {Enarrat. inPs. 131, vol. IV, p.2102,O^crc/, Gaume).
But it is better to take the words in their natural sense, the
meaning being that in ordinary experience night is the common
time for sleep and for drunkenness. The repetition of the verbs,
as subject and predicate, shows, as Lunemann remarks, that vuk-
tos is only a designation of time. The verse is thus a familiar
illustration of the use and abuse of night. Admonct indecoi'wm
atque toirpe esse dormirc medio die aid inebriari (Calvin).
Peter's disclaimer was, " these men are not drunk, seeing it is
but the third hour of the day" (Acts ii, 15) ; and in his second
epistle he brands some persons as guilty of an uncommon and
aggravated sin, "that shall perish in their own corruption,"
viz., " that count it pleasure to riot in the daytime " (ii, 13).
8leep and drunkenness belong to the night season, it is the
natural time for the one, and it is for many reasons taken
advantage of for the other. Believers, on the other hand, are
to be wakeful and sober, are not to be like the rest, ol \onrol,
who are of the night in every sense, it being their element and
sphere. What is true of sleepers and drunkards literally is
true in a higher and more awful sense of those who want
spiritual illumination. See under Gal. v, 20.
186 COMMENTAEY ON ST. PAUL'S [<Jhai\ V.
(Ver. S.) Sjfxeis Se i)/u.epa? cWe? vityoo/uev — " but let us as being
of the day be sober." By the emphatic q/xeis he identifies
himself with his readers, and by Se he passes to contrasted
conduct. The participle has a quasi-causal, or what Schmal-
feld calls a temporal-causal force (p. 207), "inasmuch as we are
of the day," an argument to be sober and to arm ourselves. See
under verses 5 and G. The Peshito inserts JLl£>, " sons," and
some expositors, as Estius, Whitby, Schott, &c, needlessly do
the same, and mar the idiom. See under verse 5. It would
seem that $ /jfxepa and rj/jiepa are kept distinct in the para-
graph, the first being the definite day of the Lord, and the
second the present period of illumination and activity. This
sobriety, in which the mental powers are preserved in strict
discipline, is necessary, and yet it is not enough to be never off
our guard, there must also be the assumption of armour — aWa
Se'i Kul Ka9o7r\c£e<r6cu (Chrysostom).
evSvcra/uevoi Ocopaica 7ri<TTeoos /ecu aya7n/? /ecu irepiKe(pa\aiav
kX-rriSa acoryplas — " having put on the breast-plate of faith and
love, and for an helmet the hope of salvation." Not merely
induti (Vulgate). The past participle describes the action as
just preceding the state inculcated by the verb, or contem-
poraneous with it. Winer, § 45, 2. He has said in verse 6, "let
us watch and be sober " ; and now, assuming that believers are
watchful, he repeats, " let us be sober." Sobriety is self-
restraint, self-discipline, indispensable to our getting the benefit
of the armour which we are to assume. An armed man not
watchful, an armed man undisciplined, will soon be seized and
vanquished. The figure of a Christian soldier is common with
the apostle (2 Cor. x, 4 ; Ephes. vi, 11 ; 1 Tim. vi, 11 ; Sept., Is.
lix, 17). Perhaps the idea of watching suggested that of being
armed for defence, the underlying thought being that we must
not be so subdued, and so kept in spiritual captivity, that the
day of the Lord should surprise us. Resistance against evils,
which are apt to overpower and fetter us so as to throw us
into unpreparedness for the Advent of the Master, is the soul
of the figure — the being armed not for aggression but for
safety.
The three genitives, 7rlcrTeoo$, aydirr)^, o-coryplas, are without
the article, as being well known and unique terms, and by
Ver. 8.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 187
correlation they cause the governing substantives, 6u>paica,
irepiKec^oXaiav, also to want the article, and that in cases
" where the governing noun might seem to require the definite
form." Winer, § 19, 1 ; Middleton, Greek Article, p. 48, ed.
Rose. For the use of the verb euSveiv, compare Herod., vii,
218 ; Xenoph. Cyrop., vi, 4, 2; Wisdom, v, 17; Ephes. vi, 11 ;
Rom. xiii, 12.
In the phrase OdopctKu wlo-recDs koi ayair^, the genitives are
those of apposition. Winer, § 59, 8. Faith and love are the
defence of the person. The breast-plate or coat of mail covers
the heart, the helmet or military cap defends the head. Il/o-rt?
is a Owpag, for it is a faith which realizes one's position, its
dangers and its means of safety ; which grasps the truth, and
is filled with its living power ; steady in its dependence on the
Master, and in its conscious union with Him ; heroic from His
example, and self-sustained by His presence. 'AyaVj/, which
with 7t[(tti9 forms the KapSicxpvXag, is a love which lives in
self-consecration ; which does all duty, and bears all trial from
paramount affection to Him ; being knitted to Him, and,
through Him, to all that bears His image. These in their
combination form an armour of mail tempered so that no
weapon can pierce it; a harness through whose joints no arrow
can find an unsuspected entrance (1 John v, 4, 5).
"And for an helmet the hope of salvation." The genitive
crwrj/yo/a? may be taken as that of object, not the basis on which
hope rests, but the object which it embraces, or what it desires
and expects. See under i, 3. Hoor^pla, used in the abstract,
has its most comprehensive meaning, of deliverance from sin
and death, from all the penal and polluting effects of the fall —
a deliverance incipiently and partially enjoyed now, and to be
fully and finally possessed at the Second Advent. The hope of
such salvation covers the head in the day of battle, preserves
from despondency, nerves to face danger, and braces up under
fatigue and difficulty by fixing the gaze on the glorious issue
which is no uncertainty, as is told in the following verse. " It
is not possible that one fortified by such armour as this should
ever fall" (Chrysostom), or as Theodoret pithily puts it, yeveaOa)
<Se rji&lv tcpavo<s appayes i) Tt}S e7rtiyye\p.evt]s <rcoT>ipia? eATrt?.
What keeps believers sober, vigilant, armed, and thus pre-
188 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. V.
pared, is the possession of the three primary graces, faith, love,
and hope, arranged as in i, 3. See under it. When these are
in lively exercise, the soul is ever wary and watchful, ever
prepared for the Master's coming, nay, longing for it — faith
believing it, love embracing it, hope ardently anticipating it —
and then the day will not overtake us unawares or as a
thief.
Between this and the somewhat corresponding passage in
Ephes. vi, 13, &c, there are some points of difference. First,
in the Epistle to the Ephesians, there is a fuller description of
the defensive armour — the girdle, the sandal, and the shield,
omitted here, are there mentioned. Secondly, there is also
mention in that epistle of an aggressive weapon — the sword.
And, thirdly, there is some variation in the explanatory terms —
there it is the breast-plate of righteousness, but here the breast-
plate of faith and love, the distinction between them being that of
process and result ; there it is the helmet of salvation, but here
the hope of salvation ; and the shield, not enumerated here, is
there called the shield of faith. Heart and head being such
vital organs are selected as needing special and fitting defence,
the shield as well as the breast-plate being said to be faith ;
the idea of self-defence is common to both. " Salvation " is
also exchanged for the "hope of salvation," the difference
being that between salvation, partial now but consciously
enjoyed, and the prospect of a perfect salvation in heaven, so
that the various figures are not to be pressed too closely, as in
Chandler's paraphrase or Gurnall's Christian Armour. For
the meaning of the military terms see under Ephes. vi, 14, 17.
(Ver. 9.) uti ovk eOero rjixas 6 Geo? ety opyi'jv — " because God
did not appoint us to wrath." Alford calls this verse epexe-
getical of eXirlSa o-cortiplas, but it rather assigns the ground of
that expression — the basis of the "hope" — given first in a nega-
tive and then in a positive form. It is not a new motive for
watchfulness (Musculus), nor yet generally a motive to assume
the armour mentioned, as the Greek fathers, (Ecumenius and
Theophylact. Nor is on to be rendered " that " as if it intro-
duced the contents or object of the hope (Hofmann). Rom. viii.
20, 21, is not in analogy, for there eV eX-rlSi has no object
genitive attached to it as here. In this use of the verb riBivai,
Ver. 9.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 189
that with an accusative of person followed by ei<? pointing out
the object, tivo. el$ ti, there is a species of Hebraism, — at least
the Hebrew verbs mfc, jtb> or jtu are used similarly with \ m Thus
in Sept., Ps. lxvi, 9; Is. xlii, 15; Jer. ix, 11; xiii, 1C; Ezek.
xiv, 8 ; John xv, 16 ; Acts xiii, 47 (reScuca <re eiV 0w?); 1 Tim.
i, 12 (Ot/ueuog eis SiaKOviav) ; 1 Peter ii, 8 («? b kui ered^uav).
See under iii, 3. God did not appoint us to wrath, to be the
victims of it, or to suffer under it, though we had sinned
against him and were by nature children of wrath. The rjp.u<?
are those who believe, and therefore escape the awful penalty.
The indefinite aorist refers to a past period, though not perhaps
to the eternal decree, but to its embodiment in time or its
temporal manifestation. See under i, 10. We are destined not
to punishment, to " death " or " destruction " (2 Cor. vii, 10 ;
Philip, i, 19), nor to mere escape but to positive blessing. In
sending the gospel and giving us His Spirit, God did not set
us out for wrath. 'Oyoy>/ is divine wrath against sin, the con-
verse of eXeo?. The one implies the other, love to the sinner,
opyi'i to his sin.
aAX' «9 7repi7roit]<Tiv cra)Ti]pia? Siu tov Ki/piou ij/uwv Ir/crov
Xptrrrou — " but to the obtaining of salvation through our Lord
Jesus Christ." For the various meanings which 7repi7roit]crt?
and its verb may bear or which have been assigned to them, see
at length under Ephes. i, 14. The verb denotes to acquire for
oneself (Gen. xxxvi, 6 ; Prov. vii, 4 ; Is. xliii, 21 ; Acts xx, 28 ;
also in the classics, Thucyd., iii. 102 ; Xenoph., Cyrop., iv, 410 ;
Herod., i, 110; vii, 52). In the Definitions ascribed to Plato,
the words occur, cram/p/a, 7repnrott]<Ti$ a/3Xa/3>/?. The meaning of
conservatio is sometimes attached to the word, as in 2 Chron. xiv,
13, where it represents the Hebrew TP9; in Heb. x, 39, "to the
saving of the soul" ; but it is needless here to give this meaning
and make the following genitive that of apposition. Acquisition
therefore is the probable meaning of the noun, as in 2 Thess. ii,14,
"Whereunto he called you by our gospel els Trepnrouja-iv Sogtjs" •
Heb. x, 39. Hesychius defines it by 7r\eouaa-ju6?, Krtjcri?. In
Ephes. i, 14; 1 Peter ii, 9, the word represents the Hebrew
n^D : , and the noun is collective in sense (Exod. xix, 5 ; Deut.
vii, 6 ; xiv, 2 ; Matt, iii, 17). The Latin versions rightly and
simply have in acquisitioncm salutis. See under previous
190 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap: V.
verse. God's appointment was that we should obtain salvation,
deliverance from the opyy, with final acceptance and perfection.
The Greek fathers do not give any definite assistance as to the
precise shade of meaning. Generally, Chrysostom and CEcume-
nius give the result, " that he might save us." Theodoret has
'Iva acbTrjplag a{ft&><r# kcii oiKetovg airo<pi'}vri, and Theophylact
merely exchanges the noun for the verb and adds kcu crwcnj —
God did appoint us to obtain salvation, and this being so, that
salvation comes not as an immediate gift, but —
Slu tou Kvpiov t][xwv''h}<Tov Xputtou — "through our Lord Jesus
Christ. The clause is not to be connected with eOero (Estius),
but with the words immediately before it, to obtain salvation.
Nor does it refer to the securing of salvation (Hofmann), for
the participation of it is the present thought. Nor does it
mean, through his doctrine (Grotius), nor through faith in Him
(Liinemann), but through Himself — through His mediation,
and, as the next verse shows, especially through His atoning
death. This is the uniform doctrine of Scripture. Salvation
having God for its source, has Christ for its medium. Only
through Christ is God known and accessible to us, and only
through Him are spiritual blessings conferred upon us by God.
See under Ephes. i, 7, and for the meaning of those proper
names see under Ephes. i, 2, and under Gal. ii, 1 6. " Through
our Lord Jesus Christ " —
(Ver. 10.) rod airoQavovTO? virep r][xu>i> — " who died for us."
inrep has preponderant authority, irepl being found in B N 1 , 17,
a similar difference of reading occurring in other places. The
clause points out the process by which salvation is obtained,
through His death — not His teaching or example, but His death.
Not that the clause is properly causal, as the participle in that
case would have wanted the article. Donaldson, § 492. It
simply describes the death of Christ in immediate connection
with our obtainment of salvation, and as showing its precious-
ness and certainty.
Iva e'cre yprjyopwpev erre KaOevSoo/uev ap.a aw avrco ^crcopev —
" in order that whether we wake or sleep, we should together
live with Him." "Iva points out the great purpose of His
atoning death. The compound e'/re follows generally the con-
struction of the simple el, and it may be connected with a
Ver. 10.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 191
subjunctive. Nor may such a connection be called unclassical,
though it is not the ordinary usage, at least among Attic prose
writers, paucis admodum locis. Klotz, Devarius, ii, 501. The
usage is admitted by Thomas Magister, ov p.era inroraKriKov Se,
ir\t]v art twv avdviroTOLKTOdv olov el \d/3cojuai (p. 2G7). In Plato
occurs the phrase elre -n? apprjv ehe rig 6>}\v$ y {De Legihis,
xii, 9 D, p. 958). See the first note of Stallbaum on the
point, vol. X, p. 399; that of Wex, Antig., vol. II, p. 187; and
that of Poppo (Thucydides, i, 139) ; Hermann De Parti-
cula av. Though the optative in such a case be commonly
employed, the subjunctive in the secondary clause may, as
Winer suggests, be the result of conformity to the subjunctive in
the principal clause (§ 41, 2 c, note 2). The purpose of Christ's
death is our life, and that life is independent of the states
implied in yp^yopcopev and KaOevSoi/xev ; we may be in the one
condition, or we may be in the other, it matters not, we shall
together live with him, for on the certainty and reality of this
life waking or sleeping has no influence.
But what is the meaning of the alternative clauses, " whether
we may sleep, whether we may wake"? (1) The opinion of
Musculus, Aretius, Whitby, and Fell, which is, whether He
comes during the day when we are awake, or during the
night when we are asleep, cannot be entertained. This explan-
ation is wholly meaningless and unsatisfactory, and is also out
of harmony with the solemn statement, and it does not relieve
us from the difficulty of a change of meaning in the verbs. (2)
Nor can the verbs be taken in an ethical sense, as in the
previous paragraph, verses 6-8. For the declaration is that
they who being in darkness are asleep, shall be overtaken by
the day of the Lord as a thief in the night. To be asleep in
this spiritual sense is to be in death, and such a state is wholly
incompatible with the possession or prospect of the life
described in ha £r'icrcop.ev. (3) The opinion proposed but
not adopted by Alford is sufficiently refuted by himself.
His statement is, " To preserve the unity of metaphor we
may interpret in this sense, that our God died for us, that
whether we watch, are of the number of the watchful, that is,
already Christians ; or sleep, are of the number of the sleeping,
that is, unconverted — we should live." Thus it would be
192 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. V.
" who died that all men might be saved," " who came not to
call the righteous only, but sinners to repentance." There is
to this interpretation the great objection that it confounds the
ol Xonroi with the tj/uag, who are definitely spoken of as set by
God, not to wrath, but els irepnro'irjcriv o-ooriipia?. And the ex-
pression would be a rough and somewhat misleading statement
of the general purpose of Christ's death; but its special purpose
toward himself and his fellow-believers is the aspect of it
present to the apostle's own mind. (4) The words are to be
taken in their figurative sense, the first as descriptive of plty-
sical life, and the second of physical death. The meaning of
the first verb is changed from its ethical sense, and the second
is equivalent to Koi/xaa-dai in chap. iv. Compare Matt, ix, 24;
Sept., Ps. lxxxviii, 6 ; Dan. xii, 2. Chrysostom says, aXX' erepov
eKei tov v7rvov (f)i]cr\ koI eTepov evravQa. The first verb will thus
correspond with " we who are alive and remain," and the second
with those " who are fallen asleep." The verb ypvyopeh, how-
ever, is nowhere found in the sense of to live, and it gets such
a meaning here only from its immediate contrast with KaOevSew,
and the employment and meaning of both are shaped by the
following fyjcrco/mei'. Besides, the two verbs do not simply
signify living and dying in themselves, but the first expresses
life in its spiritual attitude of watchfulness and preparedness
for the Lord's coming, and the second describes that condition
or form which death has assumed through the mediation and
atonement of the Lord Jesus (iv, 14). Compare Matt, xxiv, 42;
xxv, 13 ; Rev. iii, 2, 3 ; Titus ii, 13.
There is, as has been said by De Wette, a want of per-
spicuity in this necessary change of sense, but the signification
is apparent. Von Gerlach's observation, that the sleep of death
is itself a portion of the curse of the sleep of sin, however true,
does not explain the change of meaning in the two verbs, and
would introduce a confusing reference. The final cause of
Christ's death is wholly uninfluenced by these two states,
living or dying ; they who survive have no advantage over
those who sleep, they who sleep are waked up to a higher
life.
ajuia <rvi> avrw ^'/crcopev — " we should together live with Him."
The connection of d/xa has been variously given. (1) Hofmann
Vek. 10. J FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 193
and Riggenbach take the whole clause as one thought, "together
with Him," that is, in closest union with Him. Such is pro-
bably the purport of the Authorized Version, and the other
earlier English ones. But it does not need d/xa to express this
idea. (2) Bengel takes djua in a sort of temporal sense — simul,ut
Jit adventus. Tot urn institutum est, irepi tcov xP^ vu>v — but ^is
idea neither suits the train of thought nor the connection. (3)
The adverb d/u.a is suggested by the two states described in the
previous clause. They who die before the Advent are severed
from them who survive till that period, but both parties in
spite of this separation shall be in company as a band of con-
temporaries living with Christ (iv, 17). "A//a is together, that
is, "in one society" (Rom. iii, 12). It refers immediately to
the connection of believers with one another, and not to their
union with Christ, which is expressed by arvv avrw. That we
should live is the great purpose of His death, and the life is
plainly an existence above and beyond the life that ends in
sleep. The waking and sleeping have immediate reference to
the Second Coming, and the life purposed (W) for us is in con-
nection with the same period. The entire paragraph points to
this grand destiny, it underlies all the teaching from verse 13
of the previous chapter; the dead rise and the living are changed
when the Lord descends, and both together shall be for ever
with the Lord. So that the notion of Moller and Hofmann,
that the living with Christ is that which is enjoyed now — the
living being united to Him, and the dead being asleep in Him
— though true in itself, falls short of the full meaning of the
declaration before us. The starting-point was the relation of
the dead and the living to Christ's Second Coming, ignorance
or misconception of that relation having filled the Thessalonian
church with sorrow over departed friends and kindred, and the
paragraph now closes with an annunciation of the comforting-
truth that the dead and the living, though severed in the
meantime, are so comprised in the final purpose of our Lord's
atoning death that both of them at His return are united, live
as one company, and in fellowship with Him. As the result of
His death for them the}' - live, life in every form and in every
sphere of their nature being secured for them by the surrender
of His life for them; they shall together live for ever with Him
N
194 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. V.
— in His presence, and in communion with Him. Of that life,
so blessed and unending, His presence is the primal element
and the " chiefest joy" (Rom. xiv, 8, ; 2 Cor. v, 9). Z)}<ro)ju.ev
is a more definite and expressive term than the ea-o/ixeOu of
iv, 17; John xiv, 19; Col. iii, 3, 4.
(Ver. 11.) A/o 7rapaKa\eiTe aXX>/Xou? — "wherefore comfort
one another." This verse is the inference from the foregoing-
section — Sio. ovv = quod quum ita sit, Si6 = quamobrem,ut etiam
hoc aptius ducts res conjungat Klotz, Devarius, II, p. 173.
See under Gal. iv, 31. The Claromontanc Latin has exhorta-
mini, the margin of the English version has " exhort," and this
rendering is allowed by Turretin, Pelt, De Wette, Peile, Koch,
Conybeare, Hofmann, kc. It is a favourite word of the apostle,
and its precise meaning in any place can only be gathered from
the context. As the exhortation in this place has comfort for
its theme, the verb is better taken, as in iv, 18, as meaning
" comfort," and the entire preceding context necessitates or at
least suggests such a meaning. Even the edification com-
manded in the following clause requires this meaning of comfort,
as Pelt supposes, ut ejus sit effectus. Baumgarten, Rosen-
muller, and Schott would combine both meanings. Theodoret
explains by xfyvxaytoyelre. The hortatory part begins in verse
6, passing, as Liinemann remarks, into the consolatory, and the
10th and 11th verses are parallel to iv, 17, 18. The discussion
of these momentous themes was brought on by the perplexity
and sorrow of the Thessalonian church : they were not to
grieve over departed fellow-believers, and the grounds of com-
fort are then distinctly set before them. The first portion of
the paragraph ends with "wherefore comfort one another;"
while the second portion, prolonging the illustration on some
points in a more ethical form, leads to the same result, followed
up by a similar practical inference, " wherefore comfort one
another." There is need of comfort under bereavement, but all
true comfort lies in these utterances of the apostle, and they
were to ply one another with them. In a word, this wonderful
paragraph starts with the monition " that ye sorrow not," and,
after opening up the grounds of consolation in the death, re-
surrection, and final return of Jesus — securing the union of His
people with Him as Saviour, representative, and pledge, and
Veb. 11.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 195
their communion with one another — it ends with the charge,
«' comfort one another." This is the only place where the
authorized version renders aXXj/Xoi;?, " yourselves together,"
Luke xxiii, 12, and xxiv, 14, being somewhat similar; the
usual translation is " one another," or " among themselves " or
" yourselves," &c.
kcu oiKoSofjieiTe eh tov eva, KaOws kol 7roielre — " and edify one
another, even as also ye are doing." The figure in the verb is
common with the apostle. See under Ephes. ii, 20, where the
figure of vaog Qeou is developed at length. Compare 1 Cor. iii,
9, 10; viii, 1 ; x, 23 ; 2 Cor. vi, 16. The phrase eh tov eva,
" the one the other," is not without parallel in later classical
writers, as Lucian, Dionysius Halicar., Plutarch, Arrian, and
also in Theocritus, Idyll, xxii, 05. Examples may be found in
Kypke, vol. II, p. 339. Compare Plato, Be Leg., eh Trpo? eva (I,
p. 020 c), and see the remarks of Winer, § 20, 2 b. The phrase
is in meaning equivalent to u\\)'i\ov<? — ol tca6' eva (Ephes. v, 33).
But this natural sense is too simple for many. The words will
not bear the meaning assigned by Faber, ad unurn usque, to a
man — no one omitted, em evos ; nor that given by Whitby,
" edify yourselves into one body," eh ev ; and still less that pro-
posed by Ruckert — so as to show, the one the other, that it is
Christ as the foundation on whom the building should be
reared, e-n-l rco evi ; such an idiom would be without example
(Romerh., vol. II, p. 240). All these proposals conjecture «V
for eh.
And they did not need to begin obedience to this injunc-
tion as to mutual comforting ; they were doing it ; it had
already been their practice, and the counsel virtually implies
praise for previous work, and encouragement to proceed with
yet profounder mutual sympathy. For KaOcos see under Ephes.
i, 4; /caOco? /cat as in 1 Cor. xiii, 12 ; xiv, 34. Klotz, Devarius,
II, 035 ; Winer, § 53, 8. In several earlier verses of the
epistle, as in iv, 1, 10, the apostle has a similar allusion to the
Thessalonian church as having commenced to do what he is
enjoining upon them. The church had set itself in earnest to do
the Master's will, and the apostle urges not only a continuous,
but a still fuller compliance. Calvin's remark is 8ed lie v'tdc-
atuv coram negligentia/m 'perstHngere sinful dicit eos spcmte
19(5 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. V.
facere quod prcedpit. Verum quae nostra est ad bonum seg-
nities, qui optime omnium sunt animati, stimulis tamen
semper indigent,
The apostle has been enjoining the duty of mutual com-
forting and edification, and he turns now to one special
form in which his counsel could be obeyed. The connec-
tion proposed by Chrysostom is peculiar, " rulers stir up
opposition, so do physicians, and parents, and so does the
presbyter ; he who is rebuked is sure to become an enemy."
But this connection is far-fetched and is probably a reflection
from the commentator's own times and experience. For he
suffered for his fidelity and died a virtual martyr. This other
proposed connection has apparently a similar origin, to wit, the
desire of the laity on the smallest encouragement to become
teachers. " And lest they should imagine that he had
raised them to the rank of teachers by bidding them edify one
another, he has subjoined this — all but saying, I give leave even
to you to edify one another, for it is impossible for a teacher to
say everything." Similarly CEcumenius and Theophylact. Such
a connection presupposes a state of things which, in any extreme
form at least, could scarcely have existed at that early period in
the Thessalonian community. There is no clear trace of any such
difference as Olshausen supposes, between the church and its
rulers ; and verse 27 does not distinctly imply it. Hofmann's
remark is also beyond the context — " forget not in your activity
what you owe to the office-bearers." All we can say is that if
there were any untoward tendencies to neglect the duties now
to be enjoined, the injunction would be read with a special
point and significance. The apostle, naturally and without any
polemical motive, turns from mutual edification to those whose
special function it was to instruct the church.
(Ver. 12.) 'Epwrco/xej/ Se vjixas, aSeXcfjo) — " Now we beseech
you, brethren." Ae marks the transition to another theme. On
the verb, see under iv, 1. This brief preface shows the special
earnestness with which he utters the counsel now to be given.
On obedience to it depended, in no small measure, the peace
and the spiritual prosperity of the church.
eioevui Tovg KwrnoouTag ev v/jliv kui Trpo'itTTa/ULti'OV? v/ulow ev Ivvptco
icat vovderovvras vfxas — "to know them that are labouring among
Vkr. 12.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 107
you, and are presiding over you in the Lord, and arc admon-
ishing you." As the absence of the article in the two last
participles shows, the same class of persons is described in the
three clauses, and they are characterized by their functions,
or, as the use of the participle shows, by their actual exercise
of those functions. More generally, they are described as
" labouring among you." In the verb Koinaoo (kottos,
kotttw) lies the notion of severe toil, exhausting labour. It
is applied again and again to ministerial industry (Rom. xvi,
12; 1 Cor. xv, 10 ; Gal. iv, 11 ; 1 Tim v, 17). The Christian
ministry rightly discharged is no sinecure, it is the highest and
hardest of human enterprises; the reward is proportionate.
It is sometimes followed by «? defining its object, as in Philip,
ii, 1G ; Col. i, 29 ; or its final purpose, 1 Tim. iv, 10 ; Rom. xvi,
12. 'Ej/ is sometimes used to mark its sphere or its spirit, but
here it seems to have a local reference, inter vos (Vulgate) ;
not as Pelt (in vobis), in your hearts ; nor as Hofmann, " on
you," as its objects, ut ipsi veri fcerent Christiani. The clause
being somewhat vague in reference is defined by the following
one —
Koi 7rpoi(TTu/ui.ei'0u? vfxwv ev Ki//)/w — "and are presiding over
you " (1 Tim. v, 17). These presidents are the class designated
generally as they who are labouring among you. The labours
here recognized are not those of hearty zeal and fatiguing toil
on the part of any in the church who might spontaneously
undertake them, but are specially those of the presbyters. Two
functions are assigned to them, labour and presidence ; they
wrought among them, and they were over them ; laboured in
virtue of being presidents ; their presidency was therefore no
idle or neutral oversight, no mere position of preferment and
honour. The church could not exist in order and usefulness
without some species of government, law being essential to
liberty, superintendence and control being indispensable to
harmony and development. The phrase iv Ivvpuo, not juvante
Domino (Schott), marks the sphere of presidency — in Him, in
union with Him, in harmony with His authority and pur-
poses, not " lording it over God's heritage," but in an adminis-
tration "distinct from, and not subordinate to, civil government."
The explanation given by Chrysostom, and more distinctly
198 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. V.
put by Thoodoret, is wholly wrong — to oe 7rpoicr-a/jLevovs v/ulwv
eu l\vpi(p avTi vTrepev^o/mevov? v/uloov, &zc. Examples from
Josephus of the participle governing the genitive may be found
in Krebs, p. 346. Justin Martyr describes the work of the
president in his day.
kui vovderovvras vp.as — " and admonish you." The verb sig-
nifies to put in mind, to correct by word — a word of encourage-
ment, or a word of remonstrance (vovderiKol \6yoi, Xenoph.,ilfem.,
i, 2, 21), though it does also signify correction by deed (pdfiSov
vovderrjo-i?, Plato,De Leg., 700 c). See under Ephes. vi, 4; Trench,
Synon., § 32. This admonition is another element or sphere of
the labour referred to in the first clause. It implies teaching,
but means particularly, practical counsel, suggestion, and
warning ; earnest, pastoral instruction ; unwearied, tender, and
watchful guidance in the midst of trial, struggle, and tempta-
tion (Ephes. iv, 11). In this way the apostle describes the
presbyters of the Thessalonian church as labouring, their labour
being superintendence and admonition, not two distinct offices
held by different individuals, but combined apparently in one —
"warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom, in
order to present every man perfect in Christ Jesus " (Col. i, 28).
And these they are charged first to know, eiSevai. The verb
seems to mean, to know emphatically, like j?i;, almost equiva-
lent to recognize (Furst, Heb. Lex., sub voce) ; other senses
have been assigned which usage will not warrant. They were
to know their office-bearers, that is, not simply how it was
with them, or what they had in them, but in themselves, in
their position and duties — in effect, so to understand their value,
as to esteem them highly in love. Compare 1 Cor. xvi, 18,
where €7riyinc<7Kw is used (eTriyivwo-Kere ovv tovs toiovtovs) ; and
for somewhat similar Hebrew usage compare Ps. cxliv, 3 ; Prov.
xxvii, 23 ; Nahum. i, 7.
(Ver. 13.) km )')y€(<r0ai uitovs virepeKTrepicrao^ ev uyuTrij Sia to
epyov avrwv — "and to esteem them very highly in love for their
work's sake." As De Wette, Liinemann, and Ellicott have re-
marked, the sense of the clause depends on the connection of kv
ayair\]. If it be kept in what seems its natural position, the
meaning will be, " regard them very highly, and that in love,"
love being the element in which this superabundant esteem is
Vjsr. 13.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 199
to embody itself. So Theodore t, Estius, Grotius, De Wetto,
Koch. Or ev ayax>; may be joined more closely to the verb, as
the Vulgate, hoheatis illos abundantius in charitate, " esteem
them in love very highly." So several Greek fathers, Beza,
Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, Hofmann, Riggenbach. Neither con-
nection is free from difficulty, for, in the first mode, the neutral
verb which means to reckon or hold must signify emphatically
to regard with esteem, and would require, therefore, some sup-
plement as 7repl -TrXeiovo?, Theodoret changing it in explanation
into 7r\eiovos avrovs dgiovre rifxrjs') and, in the second mode, a
supplement is also indispensable, which GEcumenius inserts
thus, ijyeio-Qcu avrovs agtovg rov ayairaaOai; Chrysostom simply
saying, fx>] awXcos ayairare aXX InrepeKirepKraov uxravei 7ralSes
irarepas. There is, however, no strict example of such a
construction. Some quote rl rovro ijyi'jario ev Kplcrei (Job
xxxv, 2), and the phrase ev roiavry opyii elxev occurs
(Thucydides, ii, 18), but neither of these instances is analo-
gous. The sense, however, seems to be what the second mode
indicates.
The reading of the Received Text, vwep eKirepi<jo~ov, has
good authority, as it is found in AD 3 KLX; the ending
ws has in its favour B D 1 F ; the tcs might have been
changed into ou as being the more common form. The
compound adverb, which is quite in the apostle's style, is
to be taken with ev dyu7r)j. See under iii, 10. (Ecumenius
remarks 7roXX// Se r) eirlraa-is rod uxep /cat rod e k. The
presidents were to be held in love very abundantly " for their
work's sake " ; that work was so momentous in itself — the
care of souls — and it was to be performed so thoroughly,
that it could be characterized as toilsome labour (Heb.
xiii, 17). They who felt the spiritual benefit of such work,
such presidence, and such practical counsels, belonged to a
church so blessed in its pastorate that they were surely under
no common obligation to cherish deep regard and love for the
presbyters, to whom such affectional esteem must have been
very welcome as a recognition of their ardour and self-denial,
and a proof that their efforts had not been in vain. Indifference
and indolence on the part of church rulers preclude, therefore,
all claim to this affection. To claim or extort it in virtue of
200 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. V.
the ofHce is to miss or forfeit it — it must be won by the ear-
nest discharge of duty.
eip>]vevcre iv eavrots — " be at peace among yourselves." The
English version and the Syriac Peshito, with codex n\ supply
an unauthorized "and." This verb, with the exception of
Mark ix, 50, is found only in the Pauline writings. Though
there is no connecting particle, the clause is not so wholly dis-
connected from the previous part of the verse as Liinemann
supposes. Next to knowing and loving those who were over
them in the Lord was the duty of preserving internal peace,
and the injunction prepares the way for the more detailed and
special inculcations of the following verses. The reflexive eauroh
is used for the reciprocal a\\ij\oi$ (Col. iii, 13 ; Ephes. iv, 32 ;
1 Peter iv, 8). The permutation, as Kuhner remarks, has no
other cause quam ut varietur oratio. Gr. Gr., vol. II, § G28 ;
Winer, § 22, 5. Xen. Mem., ii, 6, 20, (frdovovvres eavrots
pacrovariv aAA^Aot;?. A different reading, ev avroh, is found
in D 1 F N and some minuscules, in the Syriac, Vulgate, and
some of the Greek fathers ; but eavrois is warranted by
A B D 3 K L, in ipsis being employed in the Claromontane
Latin. The other reading is not therefore to be adopted, though
Theophylact says ypdcperat koi ev avroi?. It was probably felt
that the very short injunction appeared awkwardly between
the larger entreaties immediately before and after it in verses
11, 13, and 14. Nor could even that reading bear the inter-
pretation of the Syriac ^OQiV).\ Ql^A*}, or of the Vulgate,
pacem habete cam eis, that is, " be at peace with the presi-
sidents." So also Theophylact and Luther, Calvin, Zuingli,
Balduin, a-Lapide, Fromond, and others, guided by the
Latin version. Chrysostom, like the Peshito, apparently
connects the clauses, " for their work's sake be at peace
with them." Theodoret puts it, kou p.>] avriXlyeiv rots
Trap avrwv Xeyo/xc^ot?. But to sustain such a meaning p.er
avroov would be requisite (Rom. xii, 18) ; and the injunction of
peace in regard to the presbyters would not be suitable, for
submission would be enjoined, as in Heb. xiii, 17. Zuingli
proposes another rendering, " in or through them ye have
peace" ; but even allowing the reading avrols, this version
would require a different order of the words. Peace was a
Ver. 14.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 201
blessing essential to growth and usefulness; the want of it
destroyed edification ; jealousies, alienations, turmoil lead to
ultimate extinction (1 Cor. vii, 15 ; xiv, 33 ; Gal. v, 15 ; Ephes.
iv, 31 ; 2 Thess. iii, 10; 2 Tim. ii, 22 ; James iii, 14, 10).
(Ver. 14.) TrapaKaXovjueu Se vjuag, aSeX^ol — "Now we exhort
you, brethren ;" Se being transitional. This address is to the
brethren, believers in general. The apostle has alluded to
those who held office and wrought and counselled ; but his
mind is not wholly occupied by them, or their official preroga-
tive. The church itself must act as well as its officers; the
presbyters do not so represent the church, or are not so identi-
fied with it, as to preclude congregational industry and
co-operation. Duty lies on them which they cannot devolve
on their rulers. From the time of Chrysostom, however, who
says without any argument 717)09 tovs apxovras SiaXeyerai, this
charge has been taken as addressed to the office-bearers. The
Greek fathers have been followed in this interpretation by
Estius and Fromond in the Catholic church, and by Benson,
Bloomfield, Macknight, Conybeare, and Peile. But the words
are addressed to the a8e\<f>ol, parallel to the aSe\(poi in verse 12,
or generally to the members of the church. Conybeare lays a
wrong emphasis on t^xa?, " but you, brethren (that is, rulers) I
exhort." The order of the words will not bear that exegesis,
and the repetition of vovQerelre, and the charge in verse 27, will
not sustain it. The allusion to the rulers comes to an end
when a new clause intervenes — be at peace among yourselves,
you, the people — and the address in this verse has the same
continuous congregational reference. Nor is the verse to be
regarded as taking up what had been said in verse 11, which
is the fitting inferential conclusion (Sio) to the previous sec-
tion. The first injunction is —
vovQerelre rovs aruKrovg — "admonish the unruly." For
the verb see verse 12 and under Ephes. vi, 4. 'AraVro? is
found only here in the New Testament, but the adverb and
verb occur in the second epistle — the adverb (2 Thess. iii,
0, 11), and the verb (2 Thess. iii, 7). It means out of rank;
a soldier in rank is rerayfxevog; uraKroi are ov ra^Qevreg,
inordinati (Xenoph., Mem., Ill, 1, 7; Plato, Be Leg., vii,
800 c). See Sturz, Lex. Xenoph., nub voce, vol. I, p. 455.
202 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. V.
The term naturally came to denote men lawless in life or disor-
derly (Plutarch, Be Puer. Educ., 7). See Ast's Lex. Platon., sub
voce, vol. I, p. 298. The translation of the Peshito is too vague,
and so is the explanation of Chrysostom and his followers,
who class under the epithet all who do contrary to the will of
God — as the drunken, the riotous, the covetous, ku\ Travres ol
a/uLaprdvovTes. But it is plain that the apostle does not include
all sinners under the epithet, which is intended to specify a
certain class. From the use of the word in the second epistle,
" the disorderly " appear to be those whose minds and habits
had become unhinged from their misapprehension of the near-
ness of the Lord's coming; those who were ne^lectim; the
duties of common life, and had ceased to maintain themselves
by such honest labour as characterized the apostle himself
when he sojourned among them. See under iv, 11, 12; 2
Thess. iii, 6, 12.
irapaiJ.vde'iaOe tovs 6\iyo\fsvxov? — " comfort the feeble-
minded." For the verb see under ii, 11. The compound
adjective occurs only here in the New Testament, though
it is found in the Septuagint, Is. liv, G; lvii, 15; Prov.
xviii, 14 ; in Artemidorus, iii, 5, Sia to 6\iyo\Jsuxoi>- The
verb occurs also in Isocrates (p. 392 b). Who the feeble-
minded are has been disputed. One can scarcely apply
the epithet to those who from a sense of sin despaired of
divine mercy, or, with Theodoret and Theophylact, to those
who had not courage to endure trial or persecution, the
latter, after Chrysostom, comparing them to the seed that fell
on the rocky ground. The reference, considering the strain
of the previous context, is to the class who were inclined to
" sorrow as those who had no hope," who had not grasped the
great truth of the safety of the dead as propounded by the
apostle — so Theodoret in one of his explanations — and they are
distinguished from the weak generally in the following clause.
Hofmann's objection that theirs was a case of error and not of
faint-heartedness, nicht Kleinmuth sondem Irrtkum, is of no
weight, as Riggenbach remarks, for the error led to feeble-
mindedness. They, then, who were faint-hearted and could
not realize the hope of immortality and resurrection at the
Master's return, so as to be filled with the sure and certain
\ i:n. 15.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 203
prospect, were to be comforted — not to be chidden as dull, or
rebuked as sceptical, but to be encouraged.
uvre-^eaOe twv dcrOei'cov — "support the weak" — sustinete in-
Jlrmos (Claromontane). The verb is used only in the mid-
dle in the New Testament (Luke x, 9; Acts iv, 9; v, 15;
1 Cor. xi, 30 ; Sept., Prov. iv, G ; Is. lvi, 2, 4, G). From
signifying " to hold against " literally, or " stand firm
against," it came to signify " to hold on by " or " to keep
close to," and thus " to care for, to assist." Thus the Greek
fathers generally understand it (1 Cor. xi, 30). The weak are
not the physically infirm, but the weak in faith or in other
Christian graces, roh daOepouvrag irepl rrjv -k'kttiv (Theophylact).
Rom. xiv, 1; xv, 1 ; 1 Cor. viii, 7, 11, 12. Pelagius explains
by sustinete uuper eredentes, qui nondum sunt confirmati.
Those whose faith had not risen to that ascendency which
governs and inspires the whole nature, or whose knowledge had
not acquired clearness and symmetry, who had not come to the
riches of the full assurance of understanding, or a perfect and
unshaken confidence and hope, were to be helped and not
frowned upon; were not to be neglected, but cherished with
assiduous and kind painstaking —
/muKpoOvmeiTe -trpbs iravTas — " be long-suffering towards all."
The verb is opposed to o^vOv/ueiv, and denotes that mild and
patient temper which does not easily take offence, which is not
excited to immediate anger by hasty words or deeds, which
does not fly into a rage when one's zeal is thwarted or his
motives disparaged, but bears and forbears in the midst of pro-
vocation. And this spirit was to be exercised 7rpo? 7rarra?.
The reference is limited to the three classes specified in the
verse — the unruly, the faint-hearted, and the weak — by Chry-
sostoni and Theophylact, Koppe, De Wette, Hofmann, and
Jowett. But it is better to take it as unrestricted — all men and
not all fellow-believers. Long-suffering towards all with whom
one is brought into contact in the church and out of it is
enjoined. See under Ephes. iv, 2.
(Ver. 15.) )opare /x»/ -n? kclkov avri koikovtivi uttoow — "see that
no one render evil for evil to any one." The optative form dirocxn
is found in some codices ; airooo'u] is read in D 1 , but there is no
ground for accepting it. BXexeti'//)/ is commoner in the New
204 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. V.
Testament than the formula commencing this verse, which is
found, however, in Matt, xviii, 10 ; Mark i, 44, and also among
classical writers. Gayler, p. 316, 17; Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck,
p. 345. 'A.7roS(ti is explained at length by Winer, De Verborum
cum Praepositionibus Compositovum in N. T. Usu, part IV,
which treats of verbs compounded with airo. The original
reference is to what one possesses, kcckov, and out of which he
gives, in return for what he got, kukov. The exhortation is
general, and with an individualizing application to the church
and to every member of it without exception. The cautionary
form of the charge shows that it was needed, that they were
living in the midst of inducements to cherish retaliation. De
Wette argues that because the apostle does not write rt? v/jlwv,
he implies that revenge could not be imputed to believers, and
enjoins that the better among them were to labour to prevent
its outbreak in others. But the apostle is writing to the
church, v/xwv being implied, and what power could they have
to restrain vengeful words and acts in the case of others
around them ? The recency of their conversion made it
possible, if not probable, that, on the part of many, the habits
of heathen times had not been wholly surmounted. Compare
Matt, v, 30, &c. ; Rom. xii, 17 ; 1 Pet. iii, 9. All retaliation
is forbidden, and the prohibition is peculiar to Christianity
(Koch). See under Ephes. iv, 2G, 27. It is needless to say
with Schrader that the prohibition refers to the heathen
from whom believers had so much to endure, though they
are also included. The negative is followed by the positive
inculcation —
uXXa iruvrore to ayuOov Sito/cere — " but always follow after
what is good." The precise meaning of ayaOov has been dis-
puted. Liinemann and Riggenbach take it to mean morally
good, sittlich Gute ; Koppe, Flatt, Schott, and Olshausen
regard it as the beneficial or the useful; Hofmann and
Moller, " what is good for one " ; Beza, Piscator, Pelt, and
Baumgarten-Crusius view it as special beneficence. As it
is opposed to kukov, evil embodied in word or act, it will
naturally mean the opposite, or good embodied in word or
act, and this comprises all the other opinions, for it is what is
morally good according to the divine law, and must from its
Ver. 1G.J FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 205
nature tend to his good who receives it. See under Gal. vi, 10;
Ephes. iv, 28. And this good was not to be studied accidentally
or periodically, they were not to be surprised into it, nor yet
driven away from it by provocation — iravrore SicoKere, pursue it
always, neither intermittently nor languidly — they were to
set their soul upon it. This verb is often followed by an
abstract noun (Rom. ix, 30, 31 ; xii, 13 ; xiv, 19 ; 1 Cor. xiv, 1 ;
Heb. xii, 11; Sept., Ps. xxxiii, 15; Pro v. xxi, 21). It is similarly
used in Plato, and sometimes with the contrast ovre Sicokciv
ovre <pevyeiv (Gorg., 507 b). The next clause is read in the
Received Text —
kcu et's uW/fkovs teal eis 7rdvra?. Kcu, however, is doubt-
ful. In its favour are BKL N 4 , very many mss. the Philoxe-
nian Syriac, the Amiatine codex of the Vulgate, and the Greek
fathers. Tischendorf inserts it in his second and seventh
editions. But it is not found in A D F i< 1 , many mss., nor in the
Peshito, the Claroinontane Latin, the Coptic and Gothic ver-
sions. The evidence is thus rather against it, and it may have
been inserted for the sake of fulness, or for the balancing of the
two parts of the clause, On the other hand it might be left
out as unnecessary. The continuous pursuit of good was to
have for its objects not only the members of the church, or
a select circle of fellow-believers, but all men around them —
even, as Theophylact says, kcu ety dirlaTovq. Their Christian
beneficence was to be continuous in its exercise and universal
in its range. See under Gal. vi, 10. Compare Matt, v, 44 ;
Rom. xii, 17, 10.
(Ver. 16.) Hdvrore ya'ip e Te — "Rejoice always." This clause
is not detached from the previous exhortations, though they
have relatively others in view, and this is absolute or personal.
It means far more than salutation, lebt imrner wohl (Bolten), or
semper bene valete (Koppe). Joy springs from the possession
of present good. It is the natural result of escape, of conscious
safety, of deliverance from so great evil and peril — and by such
a process as His self-gift — into a condition so blessed as to give
the hope of living for ever with Him, implying assimilation to
His image, and an intense delight in His presence, and in
fellowship with Him. This joy is virtually connected with
faith (Philip, i, 25), it " is in the Lord " as its sphere (i, 0), and
206 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. V.
'•'in the Holy Ghost," by whose special influence it is created
and diffused ; joy unspeakable and full of glory (1 Pet. i, 8).
And they were to rejoice " always," their joy was not to be
spasmodic and intermittent, but continuous as the source of it
is unchanging - , and even in days of trial and suffering though it
may be clouded, it is not to be extinguished, as it should be
independent of external incumbrances, and as " all things work
together for good to them that love God " (Rom. v, 2, 5 ; James
i, 2). See under Philip, i, -i ; iv, 4. The close connection,
proposed by Chrysostom, between this verse and those pre-
ceding it is, " when we possess such a soul that we avenge
ourselves on no one, whence, tell me, will the sting of grief
be able to enter into us ? " But this is too precise, though it
may be true, that had we a spirit so elevated, so disinterested,
and so Christ-like, we should rejoice evermore. The exhor-
tation appears to be general, and is proposed to those who
from their history, position, and experience, might have man}-
causes of sorrow, or might find it difficult to cherish perpetual
gladness.
(Ver. 17.) dSia\ei7TTco? tt poa-evxecrOe — " pray without ceasing"
(Ephes. vi, 18; Col. iv, 2; i, 3; ii, 13). This injunction is not
to be obeyed as to its external form, for on bended knees one
cannot always be. The apostle himself travelled and preached
as well as prayed ; but the journey and the sermon had their
birth, strength, and success in prayer. Did one only bear
in mind that God is benefactor, ever giving, and ever to be
inquired of to give more, that we are always receiving and
therefore ought to be always asking, the precept would not
seem so strange as it does to some ; for what attitude is
more becoming, in our condition of close and constant depend-
ence on God, than to be ever looking up and expecting an
answer — the supply of our wants to-day only edging our appe-
tite and intensifying all our yearnings for still larger supplies
for the morrow. It is not right therefore to say that this
command can be fulfilled only in idea — it is a real and a
blessed privilege to pray always ; there is no place where
one may not pray ; no time when one may not pray ; no
blessing which one may not solicit ; no human being for
whom intercession may not be offered; no step should be
Vkr. 18.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 207
taken without asking divine counsel, and no enterprise
engaged in without invocation of the divine blessing. Theo-
doret refers to the time of taking a meal and making a
journey as special periods for prayer. This injunction, " pray
without ceasing," the apostle did not think it necessary to
explain any more than the declaration " praying night and
day that we might see your face " (iii, 10) ; nor did he seek to
show the congruity of both with the other and apparently
contradictory expression, " labouring night and day, because we
would not be chargeable unto any of you " (ii, 0). Prayerful-
ness therefore should always characterize us, that spirit of
devotion which ever realizes the nearness of God and our
relation to Him, the heart filled with unspoken adoration,
and with those profound and struggling aspirations which
the apostle calls unutterable groanings. Prayer in its ful-
ness comprises all this complex variety of emotions. So
great are our wants and so weak is our faith, that the old
words are still true, "hitherto ye have asked nothing." The
precept is not fulfilled b}^ observing set hours of prayer,
nor does obedience to it necessitate monastic seclusion
(Augustine, iv, 427). Chrysostom's connection is, that prayer
is the way or means of enabling one to rejoice evermore,
or as Theophylact adds, 6 yap eOicrOei? o/uli\€?v tw Qeoi will
always possess ground of joy.
(Ver. 18.) ev -iravri ev^apia-Teire — " in every thing give
thanks." See under i, 2. The precept is universal in sphere,
as the two before it are continuous in time (Philip, iv, 6).
The phrase ei' iravri cannot mean at every time but in " every
thing." See 2 Cor. ix, 8, where iravrore is associated with it.
See under Ephes. v, 20; Col. iii, 22, 23. As there is no ex-
ception, adverse things are not excluded. In the dungeon at
Philippi Paul and Silas sang praises unto God, and it is good
to be afflicted. There is nothing on this side of eternal pun-
ishment that ought not to fill us with thankfulness. Thanks
especially for mercies — for privileged existence ; for continued
means of grace ; for the growth of divine life in the soul ;
for what blesses us now; for what is promised to bless us
through eternity, as well as for all that disciplines us for it —
for all this should humble and hearty thanks be given.
208 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. V.
tovto yap 6e\)]/na Qeov ev XptcrTfo 'Itjcrov «? Vfias — " for this is
God's will in Christ Jesus toward you." The minor variation
of reading need not be noticed, eariv being found in D 1 E 1 F G.
The singular tovto seems to refer to the previous clause only, and
not also to the other clauses before it. Grotius and Schott
take in the clauses commanding prayer and thanksgiving, and
the precept enjoining joy is also comprised in the reference by
a-Lapide, Moller in De Wette, Jowett, and, with hesitation,
Alford. The apostle can scarcely have regarded all these pre-
cepts as being so much in unity, that he might characterize
them by tovto. This OeXtj/txa is not the decretum divinum,
special or unique, as Schott supposes, though it may imply it,
— such a reference would have required the use of the article —
but it is God's will in its nearer form given or expressed for us.
The absence of the article may, as Ellicott suggests (iv, 3),
point out that thanksgiving is only one of many portions of
the divine will. The phrase ev Xpio-Tw 'Iqaov represents the
sphere in which this divine will exhibits itself. Theophylact
and G^cumenius in their explanations exchange ev for Sia, as
if it denoted means or medium, Sia, tw tou 'Ir/a-ov Xpio-Tov
crvvepyla?. Eig v/uus is " towards you," and not, as the Vulgate,
in vobis.
(Ver. 19.) To LTVei^a fir) ufiivvvTe — " Quench not the Spirit."
The verb often occurs, and means literally " to put out a fire or
a light" (Matt, xii, 20; xxv, 8; Ephes. vi, 1G; Heb. xi, 34;
Sept., Is. xlii, 3 ; Lev. vi, 12 ; Job xxi, 17). Its tropical sense
is evident, tt)v ayainiv (Song of Solomon viii, 7) ; tjjv xdpav
(Joseph., B. Jud., vi, 1, 4) ; Ovfxov (^Elian., Hist. Var., vi. 1; Plato,
De Leg., 888 a) ; to efMpvTov Trvevfia (Galen, De Theriac, i, 17) ;
cnroo-fttjvai to irvevfxa (Plut., De Defect. Orac, p. 419 b). The
word is also applied to the wind, and there are similar phrases
in the Latin classics. Wetstein in loc. The irvev/jia is viewed
as a flame, "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with
fire " (Matt, iii, 11). Compare Acts ii, 3 ; xviii, 25 ; and in 2 Tim.
i, 6, ava&irvpelv is the opposite of afievvvTe. To Hvevp.a is the
Spirit of God, and this meaning is not to be diluted in any way.
This Divine Being dwells in the hearts of believers; their
bodies are His shrine. He is the Enlightener, Purifier, Inter-
cessor, Comforter, Sealer, the Earnest, the First Fruits. The
Ver. 20.] FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 209
figure in the verb is striking, and did the verse form part of a
series of ordinary practical counsels, it might mean that the
Spirit within us as Quickener and Sanctifier was not to be
thwarted by unthankfulness (Calvin), or, as the Greek fathers,
by an unholy life, by sprinkling water upon it or not supplying
oil (Chrysostom). The joy, the prayer, and the thanksgiving-
enjoined in the previous verses are the fruit of the Spirit, and
He Himself, the Divine Producer and Sustainer, is now referred
to in person. The verse would thus be nearly parallel to Ephes.
iv, 30. But the following context suggests a more special
signification. The apostle seems to refer to the Spirit in His
extraordinary manifestations, so frequent in the church at that
early period, and one of them he specifies in the following
verse. Some of these are described in 1 Cor. xii — " word of
wisdom," " word of knowledge," " faith," " gifts of healing,"
" working of miracles," " prophecy," " discernment of spirits,"
" divers kinds of tongues," " interpretation of tongues," " diver-
sities of gifts, but the same spirit," " these all wrought by
one and the selfsame spirit/' " dividing to every man seve-
rally as he will." Those gifts of the Spirit appearing in the
church were not to be rudely repelled, for they were "given
to profit withal." We do not know the state of the Thessa-
lonian church, so that it is perhaps too much to say with
Olshausen, on the one hand, that the apostle had no presenti-
ment that the Thessalonians were in danger of becoming a prey
to fanaticism, though this was the case later, as is seen in the
second epistle, and too much to deny on the other hand, with
Hofmann, that there was any disinclination to spiritual utter-
ances. The counsel is general, but may imply that there was
a tendency to repress such spiritual utterances, from a rigid
love of order and dread of irregular and infectious enthusiasm,
for all these gifts were liable to abuse. From the abuse they
were not to argue against the use, or forbid the genuine because
of the spurious manifestation.
(Vei\ 20.) Upo(p}]Tei(ig /uli] e^ovOeveire — " despise not prophc-
syings." The verb, literally " to set at nought," is found in
various parts of the New Testament; the other form, egovSevovr,
being found in Mark ix, 12, ovQev being also a later form of
ovSev (Lobeck, Phrynichus, p. 182). For an account of the rank
o
910 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. V.
and office of the 7r/3o0»/r>/? in the New Testament, see under
Ephus. ii, 20, and iv, 11. The prophet was next in honour and
position to the apostles ; he was a teacher directly inspired by
the Holy Ghost, uttering, suddenly and consciously, and with
strange power, revelations which had not of necessity in them
any disclosure of the future. The prophet's impulse was under
his own control, and his teaching was to "edification, exhortation,
-and comfort." His special function was toward them which
believe — it was not to win converts, but to promote spiritual
progress, though not specially or exclusively, for there belonged
to him the awful power of laying bare men's hearts and character
by flashing a sudden light upon them; and a plain man (ISuirrijs),
or an unbelieving man (airia-Toi), who felt his nature so read
would be so struck that, " falling down on his face, he will
worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth " (1 Cor.
xii, 14). Prophecy, therefore, in the primitive church, served a
vital and momentous purpose. Compare Acts xi, 27 ; xiii, 1 ;
xv, 32 ; xix, 6 ; Rom. xii, G. Teaching, as distinct from prophe-
sying, was more human and equable in its character " as the
reflective development of thought," was not so original, and
might not produce those instantaneous and alarming results.
These prophesyings they were not to despise, but were ever to
welcome them as divine manifestations. The apostle gives
direction to the prophets themselves in 1 Cor. xiv, 2G-33. A
proneness to set prophesyings and all such uncommon charis-
mata at nought might originate in the church, because either
impostors might make pretensions to the gift and lead the
simple astray by their false lights, or because fanatics might
become their own dupes, and give out for supernatural utterances
their own wretched delusions. But there is no ground for
supposing that in Thessalonica prophecy was depreciated in
comparison with the more dazzling gift of tongues, as was the
case at Corinth (1 Cor. xiv, 1, 5). We find Paul disobeying
prophecy, and the earnest dissuasives based upon it (Acts xxi,
4,14). "
(Ver. 21.) -Trdi'Ta Se SoKifxa^ere — " but prove all things."
The particle Se is omitted in the Textus Receptus, and is not
found in A N 1 and many mss., nor in the Peshito or Coptic
versions, nor in many quotations in the fathers. But it is
Ver. 21.] FIEST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 211
found in BDFKL S* in both Latin versions, in the Philoxe-
nian Syriac, in the Gothic version, and in several patristic
citations. The genuineness is thus amply supported. Some of
the fathers might omit it pro libertate citandi, and it might
fall out from being next to So in the following word, or be left
out from a desire to make the verse a terse and disconnected
maxim. The reading SoKi/uLa^ovTe? has no real authority, nor has
Kal in connection with the next clause. The verb means, to
put to the test, to try whether a thing should be accepted,
" the proved becoming the approved." See 1 Cor. iii, 13. The
injunction, begun by oe after a negative clause, stands in anti-
thesis to the previous command, and Travra is thus restricted
b}^ the context. The clause by itself is an excellent maxim of
general significance and application, but the sense is fairly
limited to the subject in hand. "Do not put down the pro-
phesyings, but subject them to the proof — ru? ovrcag irpo(p}j-
rela<i — this being said lest they should think that he had opened
the {Btjiua to all" (Chrysostom). What the test to be applied is
we are not here informed. In 1 Cor. xiv, 29, 30, 31, one rule is
given, prescribing the order and succession of the utterances to
prevent confusion. There was also a gift in the early church
— the discernment of spirits, SiaKpicreis 7rvevp.drcou (1 Cor. xii,
10 ; xiv, 29). Ellicott, after Neander, would apply this injunc-
tion specially to the class so gifted, but the text does not
directly warrant such a limitation. The church so admonished
would, however, fulfil the command in and through a xupiv/xa,
if any of her members possessed it ; if not, they must apply
their own spiritual discernment, which in those days of spiritual
enlightenment and fulness might be endowed with sufficient
keenness of insight for the purpose. Compare the injunction
in 1 John iv, 1, SoKCfxd^ere ra irvevp-ara — a general injunction,
accompanied by a simple and decisive test, the confession of
Christ come in the flesh being proof of possessing the Spirit
of God, while the denial of this primary truth characterized
Antichrist.
to koXov /caTexere — "hold fast the good." For the adjective,
which is not here in result different from uyaOov in v, 15, see
under Gal. vi, 9. Donaldson's Cratylus, § 334. For the verb,
compare Luke viii, 15 ; 1 Cor. xi, 2 ; xv, 2 ; Heb. iii, 0. Though
212 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [CnAr. V.
there be no connecting particle, the clause seems to be naturally
joined to the one before it. The meaning will then be, " hold
fast that element or species of prophesying to which the epithet
ku\6v is applicable." It is not a general or disconnected maxim,
though the clause is asyndetic, as if it meant, keep the good
you at present possess (Hofmann). On the other hand, Flatt
takes it as referring: as much to the following clause as to the
preceding one. While it does refer especially to the clause,
" prove all things," and is its natural consequent, the testing-
being satisfactory, it may be regarded as transitional to the
more general injunction coming after it, ko\6v suggesting its
antithesis irovrjpov] and Karexere, "hold by," being opposed to
airexecrde, " hold away."
(Ver. 22.) diro xai/TO? elSovs irovtipov d-7rex e(T ^ e — " abstain
from every kind of evil " (Rom. xii, 9). EtSo? is originally
what presents itself to the eye — figure, or form — often used in
Homer of a human appearance ; also in Luke iii, 22, a-oojuariKw
e'iSei ; Luke ix, 29, to etSo? rod Trpoa-wirov ; John v, 37, outc
elSo? avrov ecopa/care ; 2 Cor. v, 7, " we walk by faith," ov Sia
elSovg, " not by appearance," the objects of faith being unseen ;
Xenoph., Cyrop., i, 2, 1, eISo$ /j.ev kuWig-to?. In these cases
appearance is equivalent to form, and does not mean mere
semblance without reality. The Authorized Version reads, " all
appearance of evil," that is, avoid even what bears the aspect
of evil, though it may not be really evil, externa species quae mali
suspicionem concitare possit (Wolf). This notion is found in
some of the older English versions — in Wycliffe, in the Rheims,
and in Cranmer; Tyndale having, "all suspicious things," and
the Vulgate, ab omni mala specie. It is also adopted by
Luther, Calvin, Piscator, Grotins, Michaelis, Wordsworth, and
Webster and Wilkinson. But, as has been said, the antithesis
is not between what is really good and what is evil only in
appearance — schein — a meaning also which elSos cannot bear.
But the noun may signify sort, kind, or species — species under
the genus — and the specie of the Vulgate is by many so under-
stood : thus, e?(5o? Kcil yeVo? (Plato, Epin., 990 e). This is the
view of the majority of modern interpreters. See Wetstein in
loc. The Greek fathers seem to have entertained the same
view, as Chrysostom explains the clause after quoting it, fir]
Ver. 22.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 213
tovtov )j eKeli'ou «AA' awo ttclvto?. This exegesis assumes that
7rov>ipov is a substantive ; but Bengel, Pelt, Schott, and Lasch
take it as an adjective, von jeder Boxen Art; ah omni specie
mala (Vulgate), and the Syriac has )m » n as . ^i> ^1d. Bengel,
Middleton, Tittmann, and Schott contend that if irov^pov were
a substantive, it would have the article prefixed to it. But,
first, the article would be necessary if irovt\pov referred to some
distinct element of the iravra in the previous verse ; and,
secondly, the article is not necessary to abstract adjectives
when the totality of what is specified is not intended, but only
a part (Kuhner, § 48G) ; kuku kcu cuV^/xt eirpa^ev : TpiTov . . .
clSos uyaOov (Plato, Rep., II, 357 c). Heb. v, 14. Chrysos-
tom, in one of his Homilies, has ovSiv eo-riv kukiu? etSos oirep
ar6\p.j]Tov. Then, thirdly, if irov^pov were an adjective, the
antithesis to to kuXov would be greatly weakened ; and, lastly,
an adjective would scarcely agree with eloos as signifying kind
or species. From every kind or form of evil were they to
abstain in thought and deed ; from whatever would prompt
them to retaliate, chill their joy, hinder their prayers, inter-
rupt or limit their thanksgivings, or lead them to frown on
spiritual utterances ; from everything " in doctrine or in
conduct " (Theodoret) which might bring them spiritual injury
in their individual or ecclesiastical capacity.
The commentators have remarked that some of the fathers
use a peculiar quotation which has been thought to throw
some light on these clauses. The phrase is ylvecrOe Sokijuoi
Tpaire^lraL, "become 3^0 approved money-changers." The
clause is connected immediately with this verse, and quoted as
if it formed a portion of this epistle by Clement of Alexandria,
Basil the Great, Ambrose, and Athanasius ; the citation of the
Alexandrian Cyril and that of the apostolical constitutions are
somewhat different, and do not directly connect themselves
with the verses before us. Various sources have been assigned
to it by those who have employed it. Clement of Alexandria
assigns it generally to Scripture, rj ypafyi] ; Cyril of Alexandria
ascribes it to Paul, and after quoting it adds verses 21 and
22 of this chapter. Similarly, and without quoting these verses
so fully, Origen, Jerome, and Epiphanius ascribe it to Christ.
Usher thought that it was taken from the Apocryphal Gospel
214 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. V.
according to the Hebrews. The probability is that it is one of
Christ's unwritten utterances, many of which must have been
preserved and handed down in the early church. Compare
1 Cor. vii, 10 ; Acts xx, 35. But the connection of this prjpa
<iypa(j>ov with the verses under discussion, though somewhat
striking in the patristic writings, is in reality very slender. It
is but the echo of Soki/uloi in SoKipd^ere, with some slight re-
semblance of thought which might be imaged in the work of
a nummular ius. Hansel, however, imagining that the apostle
had the utterance before his mind, has wrought out the idea to
its full extent, in the belief that it throws a new light upon
verses 21 and 22. His paraphrase is, "The good money keep;
with every sort of bad money have nothing to do ; act as expe-
rienced money-changers ; all the money presented to you as
good, test." The illustration is artificial and far-fetched, though
it is adopted by Baumgarten-Crusius, and allowed by
Neander. But if such were the usage, the wording must
have been different, as Liinemann. Besides, elSos cannot of
itself mean money — elSo$ vopia-paros — nor would the verb
a7re'xecr#e be at all applicable, for the turn of thought would be,
not keep away from it, but put it away from you. The quota-
tions from the fathers referred to in this paragraph may be
found in Suicer's Thesaurus, sub voce rpa-Tre^irw ; and a list of
the supposed unwritten utterances of Christ may be seen in
Fabricius, Codex Apocr. Novi Testamenti, pp. 321-335, with a
long note on the one in question.
(Yer. 23.) Avtos <5e o Geo? T>j? etprjvijs ayiacrai vpas
oXoreXei? — " Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify
you wholly." Ae is transitional to another theme — not
in full contrast to what has been stated, but rather
complementary. They are enjoined to abstain from vengeful
acts, and to cherish beneficent feelings ; to act towards
those among them as their condition and character sug-
gested and required ; to be continuous in spiritual gladness,
in prayer and thanksgiving; not to repress spiritual manifesta-
tions, but to apply a spiritual discernment to them ; to appro-
priate what was good in them, and to abstain from every
species of evil. These are so many detached elements of sanc-
tification, which are pressed upon them, and which only
Vjsb. 23. J FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 215
through divine grace they could possess or exhibit, and through
frailty often only in an imperfect degree. His heart's desire
for them is now summed up in this concluding and comprehen-
sive prayer. It can scarcely be said to be in contrast with
them and the efforts which they might be able to make, as
De Wette, Ellicott, Alford, Liinemann — for though in form,
indeed, prayer is in contrast with precept, yet this is rather a
prayer to God to strengthen them for all those duties which
had been set before them, by developing their perfect sanctifi-
cation. They are bidden to do those duties, and God himself is
implored to sanctify them. Ae implies that the subject, though
connected, is different from what precedes; they are enjoined
to do, but He is implored to give. Auto? is emphatic — Himself
and none other; and indeed none other than He can be so
appealed to, or can answer such an appeal. Winer, § 24, 5.
The genitive eipi'ivrj? points to Him as its continuous giver or
producer, and thus characterizes Him, die domlnirenden
Eigenschaften (Scheuerlein, p. 115). Peace is that inner tran-
quillity resulting from divine acceptance and growing assimila-
tion to the divine image, which is inwrought by God,and sustained
by His Spirit. See under Ephes. i, 2; Col. iii, 15; and especially
under Philip, iv, 7. It is out of the question to refer the noun
to the distant cognate verb in the 13th verse. ' Aytdaat, not
used by the classics, occurs often in the Septuagint and New
Testament, and means to make ciyios ; hence believers are
called oi I'lyiao-fxevoi (Acts xx, 32; xxvi, 18; 1 Cor. i, 2; Jude 1).
See under Ephes. i, 1.
The adjective oAoreXe*? occurs only here in the New
Testament, though it is sometimes found in later Greek
writers ; and the adverb occurs in the version of Aquila
(Dent. xiii. 17). It signifies, complete in reference to amount,
that in which nothing is wanting essential to aim or end.
Thus the Vulgate, per omnia, or as OEcumenius explains it,
tovtccttl oXoug Si' oXtov. The emphatic order of the words is
thus preserved, and the pronoun and adjective kept in natural
concord. Others, however, take oXoreXeis in an ethical sense,
and as the accusative of result — sanctify you so that you
become entire or perfect. So the Claromontane Latin, ad
perfectionem ; Jerome gives us the alternative, per omnia vel
216 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. V.
in omnibus sive plenos et perfectos; and this last view is
adopted by Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Estius, Koppe, Pelt. But
the other interpretation is preferable, as being the simpler, and
as it keeps distinct the meaning of the two compound
adjectives —
kcli o\6ic\i]pov vpwv to 7rvev/ULU kul i) \tsvx>] K(u TO (r^P-U-
afiifiTTToos . . . Ti]p)j6eii] — " and entire may your spirit and
soul and body be preserved blameless." B}- Ka) he passes on
to the particulars, annexing to the more general prayer the
specific petition. Winer, § 53, 3. The adjective oXoKXypog is,
whole in all its parts, explained in James i, 4, as kv pqSevl
Xenropevoi, " wanting in nothing," and this is the only other
place of the New Testament in which the word occurs. The
cognate noun, 6\oK\tjpiai> — "his perfect soundness " — is applied
in Acts iii, 10, to the state of the lame man after being-
healed, and the adjective describes the unchipped or unbroken
stones of which an altar might be built, in Deut. xxvii, 6.
In Ezek. xv, 5, it represents the Hebrew dw, and similarly
in 1 Mace, iv, 47, XlOovs oXo/cXj/poi/? /caret top vopov ; applied
also to a full week in Lev. xxiii, 15 ; and in Deut. xvi, 6,
in the Alexandrian Recension. Is. i, 6 ; Wisdom xv, o.
Josephus employs it to denote the physical symmetry of the
priests (Antiq., iii, 2, 2) ; and Philo uses it both of priests and
victims {Be Vict, 2; De Of., 1). Plato, Leg., vi, 759 c;
Stallbaum's Note, vol. X, § 2, p. 140 ; Phacdrus, p. 250 c ;
Ast., Lex. Platon., sub voce; Trench, 8ynon., § 22; Wetstein,m
loc. The adjective standing here as a secondary predicate
belongs to all the substantives, irvevp-a, V^X'?' o-wp-a, though
agreeing in gender with the nearest one, to which the Autho-
rized Version wrongly confines it. Winer, § 59, 5. It describes
a sanctification in which no element of God's purpose is
unrealized, or of a believer's perfection is absent or defective,
and that in every part of our nature. The verb Tijpcco is used
of divine guardianship (John xvii, 11, 12, 15; Rev. iii, 10; Jude
21). The preservation of spirit, soul, and body, is characterized
as up.ep7rTW, the adverb qualifying the verb. Compare ii, 10 ;
iii, 13. The preservation is embodied in this holiness which
shall incur no censure, as being perfect in nature (oAoreXe??),
and complete in extent (6\oK\ypoi>) ; and the period is —
Ver. 24.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 217
ev t) l i irapoutTia tov Ivupiov ij/uuov 'hjcou \pi<TTOu, "in the
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," — uot " unto," as in the
Authorized Version. This prayer for the preservation of our
whole nature will be found answered at the Second Advent
(1 John ii, 28). See iii, 13. The clause is closely connected with
aiuLe/joTTM?. And the apostle rested his confidence on God's
unchanging truthfulness, for he at once adds—
(Ver. 24.) ILctto? 6 koXwv vp.u<z o? kcu iroi^rrei — " Faithful is
he that calleth you who also will perforin or do it." ILcrro? is
emphatic in position, and the participle designates God as the
Caller, the idea of time being dropped. Winer, § 45, 7. It is
not to be taken for the aorist, and the reference is to God, as in
the Pauline theology. See under Gal. i, 6 ; v, 8. The faithful-
ness of God is unchallenged, carrying out every purpose which
He has formed, and fulfilling every promise which He has
made (1 Cor. i, 9 ; x, 13 ; 2 Cor. i, 18 ; 2 Thess. iii, 3 ; 2 Tim. ii,
13; Heb. x, 23; Is. xlix, 7). Calling is God's initial work, leading
to justification and final glorification (Rom. viii, 30). Whatever
pledge that calling implies — and it implies perfection — He will
fulfil; as He calls so also (kcu) will He perform. There needs
no formal accusative to -Kou'icrei, as is supplied in some codices;
neither iravra ravra (Olshausen), nor was ich wiinsehe (De
Wette), nor yet exactly e^' w eKuXecrev, though that be the
result. The verb is used alone in relative sentences (Thucy-
dides, v, 70, and Poppo's note). Koch refers to Schoemann,
ad Isaeum, p. 372. Pie will do what is involved in the call,
and comprehended in the prayer; not merely, to ap.ep.TTTw;
vjuas Tt]p)]0t]vai (Lunemann), but also what is included in the
previous part of the prayer, ayiacrai i'/x«? oAoTeAef?. Baum-
garten-Crusius takes occasion to remark, Der Klang soldier
Stellen ist prddestinativisch ; and then proceeds to reply to
his own observations, that he may remove from his readers
such an impression. Three injunctions follow. First —
(Ver. 25.)'Ac)eA(/>o<, ir poarevx^o-Qe irep) t)pwv — " Brethren, pray
for us." The same request is made in other epistles (Rom. xv,
30; Ephes. vi, 19; Col. iv, 3; 2 Thess. iii, 1; Heb. xiii, 18.
Compare 2 Cor. i, 11). The verb is sometimes followed by
virlp, and for the distinction, if any, between the two preposi-
tions, see under Ephes. vi, 19. For their use in another con-
218 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. V.
nection, see under Gal. i, 4. The Greek commentators call
attention to the request as a proof of the apostle's humility.
That Timothy and Silvanus are included is quite likely as they
are comprised in the opening salutation. Prayer for them on
the part of the church would prove its living interest in
them, and a sympathy with their labours and trials, and would
doubtless comprehend earnest petition for divine blessing on
them in person, and in all the arduous evangelical toil in
which they were engaged. A second injunction is —
(Ver. 20.) 'A<x7racraa"(9e tous aSeXcpovg 7rdvras ev <jn\t'ifiaTi
ay/<» — " Salute all the brethren with a holy kiss." Had the
injunction been " Salute one another," as in some other places,
it might have been regarded as addressed to the church. But
it is given to one class, and they are charged to salute all the
brethren — the class on whom the obligation devolved being
probably those who were over them in the Lord. The pres-
byters were to salute all the brethren, probably in the apostle's
name — "being absent he greets them through others" — o>?
orav \eyw/j.ev (frlXtjcrov uvtov uvt e/m.ov (Chrysostom). The
verse plainly implies that those who received the epistle
were to salute all the others. Hofmann, approved by Riggen-
bach, wrongly holds, on the other hand, that as verse 25 is ad-
dressed to all the Thessalonians, this verse also has the same
application, the meaning being — " Deliver my salutation in
connection with the holy kiss to all the brethren ; and this the
Thessalonians did collectively, when on hearing these words
they kissed one another." But the simple terms will not
warrant such a deduction.
The greeting was to assume a special form — ev (piXi'ifxari, ep
being instrument; the kiss conveyed the salutation. It is called
holy, aylw, as being the token and symbol of Christian affection,
and not the form of mere civility or worldly courtesy. The
same epithet is employed in Rom. xvi, 16; 1 Cor. xvi, 20 ;
2 Cor. xiii, 12, where also aXXyXov? is employed. In 1 Peter v,
14, the phrase is ev (piX/i/nari ay('nrt^. The apostle sometimes
reverses the position of the noun and adjective, as in some of
these passages — the difference being, according to Fritzsche,
as between osculum Christianum, and Christianum osculwm
(Ad. Rom., vol. Ill, 310). Theodoret from the epithet dyiov
Ver. 26.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 219
infers that the kiss was not to be a SoXepov (plXy/ma like
that of Judas. As may be seen from many passages in the
Old Testament, not only near relations of both sexes kissed
one another, as parents and children and members of the same
household, but also persons unrelated, in token of friendship
or under the guise of it. Among the Greeks and Romans the
custom prevailed ; and, among Persians and Arabs, the mode
of kissing part of the person and dress was indicative of rank.
The Christian kiss here enjoined was continued in the early
church — both in the East and West. It was apparently observed
at first without distinction of sex, as the verse before us would
seem to imply. The Apostolical Constitutions say—" Then,"
that is, at the end of the service, " let the men give the men,
and the women the women, the Lord's kiss, but let no one do it
in deceit, as Judas betrayed the Lord with a kiss " (Lib. ii, 57).
Again, at the end of a form of prayer for the faithful, " let the
deacons say to all, Salute ye one another with a holy kiss " (Lib.
viii, 11). In the Eastern churches the men and women sat on
opposite sides of the building. Justin the martyr records, that
after the administration of baptism and the prayers accompany-
ing it, " we salute one another with a holy kiss " (Apol., i, 65).
Thus Tertullian argues that a Christian woman should not marry
a heathen, as he would be unwilling to allow her to go to the
prisons to embrace the martyr in his chains, or at other times
to give the kiss of peace to a brother. The kiss was also given
to persons newly baptized, as is mentioned both by Cyprian
and Augustine (Cyprian, Ep. 59 ; Bingham, iv, 49). Tertullian
says, Jejunantes habita oratione cum fratribus subtrahunt
osculum ixicis,quod est signaculum orationis (Be Oratione, xviii,
vol. I, p. 5G9, Opera, ed. (Ehler). The kiss was given before
the distribution of the elements at the Eucharist, and it was
also given to the bishop and to the presbyter on their conse-
cration (Bingham, Antiquities, ii, 11, £ 10; ii, 19, § 17; iv,
6, § 15). It was called eiprjvtj, pax, and oscidum pads — hence
the phrase dare pacem, rhv apyvtjv SlSocrOai; and Clement of
Alexandria gives it the epithet pv<ttikov, as in contrast to the
shamelessness of those who do nothing but make the churches
resound with kissing, not having love within. " We dispense
the affections of the soul by a chaste and closed mouth "
220 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. V.
(Pcedag., iii, 11, vol. I, p. 329). Athenagoras warns against the
abuse of the custom — " the Logos has said, If any one kiss a
second time because it has given him pleasure, he sins" (Legat,
32). See a chapter on the subject in Augusti, Handbuch der
Christ. Archaeol., vol. II, p. 718. The custom is still found in
the Coptic church, and in the Greek Church at Easter, though in
the eai'ly church it was omitted on Good Friday in reference to
the kiss of Judas. It fell into disuse in the Latin church about
the thirteenth century, and a relic or picture called osculatorium
was handed round the conoreo'ation that each one might kiss
it. Du Cange, sub voce Osculum. Palmer's Origines Litarg., II,
p. 102.
(Ver. 27.) 'EvopKtyo ufias tov iivptov, avayvw<r9riva.i tijv eiruj-
ToXrju iracri toi$ aSe\<po?s — " I adjure you by the Lord that
this epistle be read to all the brethren." D 3 FKL.H have the
simple verb opicifa — the compound being found in A B D 1 E,
17. The Received Text inserts ayloi? before a8e\(pols,
with A K L N 3 , many versions, and some fathers. But the
epithet is omitted in BDF N 1 , and the Claromontane Latin.
The evidence from the MSS. is strongly against the word,
though the versions are in its favour. Lachmann refuses it,
but Tischendorf has admitted it in his seventh edition ; Ellicott
and Biggenbach bracket it, but Liinemann and Alford reject
it. The word is at all events suspicious. The verb with its two
accusatives— that of the persons adjured, and that of Him by
whom adjuration is made — involves an argument for the
Lord's divinity (Mark v, 7; Acts xix, 13). Grotius, Pelt, and
Olshausen needlessly understand v)\ before Kupiov. On the verb
as condemned by the Atticists, see Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck,
p. 300.
The verb avayivaxricw in the active is often followed by the
thing or author read, and occasionally by on ; in the passive
it has here the dative after it — not of those by whom, but of
those to whom the epistle was to be read (Luke iv, 16; Acts xv,
11 ; 2 Cor. iii, 15 ; Col. iv, 16). The infinitive aorist in sentences
of command may not refer to a single act (Alford), but it may
imply that the thing is to be done instantly, for the use is more
general in such sentences, though the present would have
implied that the action was in course of performance, and the
Ver. 27.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 221
future that it would take place at some indefinite period to
come. According to Stallbaum the action is represented as
unconditioned by time (Euthyd., p. 140), or it may command
the simple performance of the action (Lobeck, Phrynichus,
p. 7-51; Schmalfeld, p. 346). "All the brethren" implies a
public assembly of the brotherhood in Thessalonica, not in
the whole of Macedonia (Bengel, Flatt), in the same way as the
Old Testament was read in the synagogue. The command,
then, is simply that the epistle be openly read to the assembled
church, but not for the purpose of recognizing it as a genuine
letter of the apostle (Michaelis). The letters forged in his name
belong to a later period. (There was often a recitatio of a
newly composed work prior to its publication. Tacitus, Dialog.
De Oratore, 9, p. 358, vol. IV, Opera, ed. Ruperti.) But why this
strong adjuration to do a work so natural and so necessary as
to read to the church an epistle sent to them by their founder ?
The adjuration is not meant to secure that the epistle should
not be undervalued as the substitute for the apostle's own
personal presence, so earnestly longed for (Hofmann). Nor is
it any proof of a later origin, or of a time when an epistle was
reckoned a sacred composition, treated with a special
solemnity, and frequently read. The aorist does not imply
such a frequency, and there is nothing abnormal in the request
that a letter designed for a Christian community should be
read by all of them, iracriv having the stress upon it.
Jowett's two surmises are alike groundless — either that the
apostle doubted the good faith of the rulers, or was not com-
pletely master of his own words. The one has no sure basis,
and the other is derogatory to the writer, and unsubstantiated
by any critical analysis of his style, or by any true estimate of his
modes of expression — words being with him the faithful vehicle
of thought and emotion. Nor can we say with Theodoret, that
there was a likelihood (eko?) that those who got the epistle
might keep it back from some members of the church, there
being no hint that the presbyters were so alienated from the
church that they might be tempted to such a course (Olshausen).
Still the language is strong, and is not found anywhere else.
All that we are warranted to say is that the apostle felt that
the contents of the letter were so important, so suited to the
222 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. V.
spiritual wants of the people, that he was very anxious that
every member of the church should hear it read, and therefore
puts them under solemn oath to secure this result. For the
letter touched on their first reception of the gospel and its
blessed fruits ; on the trials which they had encountered, and
his own earnest desire and frustrated efforts to revisit them ;
on his disinterestedness when he laboured among them, and the
joy which he had in their progress ; on the fulness of comfort
set apart for those distracted by sorrow and anxiety about the
relation of the dead to the Second Advent — that solace edged
with a word of warning to those whose minds had become
unsettled, and who, by their indolence, were bringing discredit
on the new religion. The entire epistle — so simple, and some-
what historical — was the immediate and natural disclosure of his
heart toward them. Perhaps in the prospect of writing letters
to other churches, he enjoined the reading of this first one
written by him. They might not know how they were to deal
with it, or when, how far, or to whom, to make known its con-
tents. He, therefore, solves all such difficulties, and at once
adjures them to read it publicly to the assembled church.
Quod Paulas cum adjuratione jubet, id Roma sub anathemate
prohibet (Bengel). The inferential structure raised on this
verse by Wordsworth is conjecture without great plausibility,
so far, at least, as the Thessalonian church is concerned, how-
ever it might be in subsequent centuries.
(Ver. 28.) f H x a P l $ TOV Kvpiov fj/u.m> Irjcrov jZ.pi<TTov jueO'
vfiwv — "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you."
For these names see under Ephes. i, 2. The grace of the
Lord Jesus Christ, in its fulness, he implored upon them — of
Him who in love took upon Him their nature and became
Jesus — of Him the Anointed One, the Christ, who is now at
the right hand of the Father, as Lord of all. That grace adapts
itself to every want, to every variety and element of spiritual
condition. See under Ephes. i, 2.
In the epistles are found varying forms of the concluding
salutation. Those most resembling the one before us are Rom.
xvi, 24 — "the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all ;"
2 Thess. iii, 18 — "the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with
you all ;" 1 Cor. xvi, 23 — " The grace of the Lord Jesus be with
Ver. 28.] FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 223
you." There are shorter forms — Col. iv, 18 ; 2 Tim. iv, 22 —
" Grace be with you ;" Titus iii, 13 — " Grace be with you all ; "
1 Tim. vi, 21 — "Grace be with thee ;" and there are also longer
ones — Gal. vi, 18 — "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with
your spirit, brethren;" Philip, iv, 23, and Phile. 25 — "The
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit ; " and the
full benediction is (2 Cor. xiii, 14) — "The grace of the Lord
Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the
Holy Ghost be with you all;" and in Ephes. vi, 24, it is —
" Grace be with all those that love our Lord Jesus Christ in
sincerity."
The 'A/ui'/v of the Received Text, though supported by
A D 23 K L $, and some fathers, is scarcely to be accepted — it
is not found in B D 1 F, and the Latin versions. Lachmann
and Tischendorf omit it, as it may have been an ecclesiastical
addition or response.
The subscription, with its many variations, has no authority,
being added by some copyist of an unknown date.
COMMENTARY
SECOND THESSALONIANS.
227
SECOND THESSALONIANS.
CHAPTER I.
(Ver. 1.) IlauAos" kcu ^.iXovai'O'i Kat TijuoOeo? t>] eV/cA>/o-/a
OccTcraXoi'iKecou ev Qeo> iraTpi })[xm> kui YLvpiw Itjarov X/j/rrrw —
" Paul and Silvanus and Timotheus to the Church of the
Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
The address is the same as in the First Epistle, with the
addition of tj/utov after -n-arpi See under i, 1, for some of its
peculiarities. There are some minor variations and corrections
in the reading which need not be recounted.
(Ver. 2.) X"/° i? l V^ Kai &PW } ] otto Geo? irarpos ij/uan' Kat
Kvplou lijcrov Xpia-rov — " grace to you and peace from God
our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." The rnxwv after
7raTpo9 is doubtful, though it has in its favour A F K L N, the
Vulgate, both the Syriac versions, and the Coptic version, with
Chrysostom, Theodoret, &c. It is omitted in BD, in the
Claromontane Latin, and in Theojihylact. The external
authority is great, and probably prevails over the conjecture
that ))/ul(ou may have been inserted for the sake of conformity
to the opening salutations in many other epistles (Rom. i, 7 ;
1 Cor. i, 3 ; 2 Cor. i, 2 ; Ephes. i, 2 ; Philip, i, 2 ; Col. i, 2 ;
Phile. 3). There is little probability that the pronoun was
omitted in this verse on account of its occurrence in the first
verse. Tischendoi-f omits it, Lachmann brackets it, Griesbach
prefixes his mark of omissio minus probabilis. Harpos is
used absolutely in Gal. i, 3, and in the pastoral epistles, 1 Tim.
228 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. I.
i, 2 ; 2 Tim. i, 2 ; Titus i, 4- ; but in the two first citations there
is a various reading, not, however, of preponderant value. For
the sense of the terms see under Ephes. i, 2 ; Gal. i, 1, 3.
The apostle, as is his wont, now thanks God for them — for
their spiritual progress, and for their patience under persecution
and afflictions, those afflictions being tokens of God's righteous
judgment, which will reward them and punish their enemies ;
and the period of retribution is the personal revelation of the
Lord Jesus from heaven in glory at the final day.
(Ver. 3.) YiV)(api<TT€iv o^e/Ao/xey too Gew irdvTOTe irepi vp.u>v,
dSe\<j>oi — " We are bound to give thanks to God always for
you, brethren." See under 1 Thess. i, 3; Ellicott on Col. i, 12.
Not only does he give thanks, but he feels a profound and
irrepressible obligation to give thanks. Not that he was ever
reluctant or forgetful to bless God ; not that his thanksgiving
needed a special impulse to express itself ; but that in this case
there sprang up, from all the circumstances, a sense of duty so
profound that the thanksgiving is not simply a becoming form
at the opening of the epistle, but a devout act which, from the
healthy condition of the Thessalonian Church and his intense
paternal interest in it, had become to him a holy necessity.
And he adds —
icadois a£tov €<ttii>, oti inrepav^avei >/ 7tiitti<; v/jlwv, k<u
7r\eovd£ei i] uyairi] evov eKWTTuu 7ravTon> vfxwv ei<; aWyXov? —
" as it is meet, because your faith groweth exceedingly, and
the love of every one of you all to each other aboundeth." By
not a few the clause KaOm d^iov earw is taken as a paren-
thetical insertion — uti par est (Beza) — and ore is joined to
<HJje[\oju.6i>, " we are bound to give thanks (as is meet and
right) — bound to give thanks, that your faith," &c. Others,
who hold the same connection, regarding such a sense as flat
and pointless, infuse other thoughts, as in one of Theophy-
lact's explanations, \va p.t]Se ewi Tfl ev\api<TTia avTtj eirai-
pwfxeOa, cos £ei'ov ri o-vveia-ayayovres ; he adds, in one place,
that }) agio, evxapicrria is to be shown by words and by
deeds. CEcumenius writes, 5/ to yueya'Aco? e^uKova-Tiov, as if
the clause meant the greatness of the thanksgiving, great
thanks for great mercies. So Bengel too, 6b rei magni-
tiidinem, Schott explains the phrase as showing modum
Vek. 3.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 229
eximium, quo animus grains declarari debeat. Hofmann
says, " with the acknowledgment of personal obligation he
joins a recognition of the circumstances of the case." So
Erasmus, Fromond, Pelt, and others — De Wette being in
doubt.
But (1) if oti be joined to o</>e/Aoyuei', the intervening clause,
kuOws a^iov eo-Tiv, is superfluous. (2) The insertion of aSeX^oi
breaks the connection,and, making the clause independent, severs
6<f>e[\ojtjL€v from on, &C. (3) As Limemann remarks against
Schott's exegesis, kuOws does not signify measure or degree, as
is implied in modani eximium. (4) The clause KaOcos a£i6v
ccrriv does not gather the stress upon it, but only carries
forward the thought to the distinct and enumerated grounds of
thankfulness, and therefore the clause connected with the first
words of the verse is specially linked to what follows. We are
bound to give thanks as is most due, because your faith groweth
exceedingly — the brief assertion of the meetness of the thanks-
giving leading so naturally to the production of the reasons for
it. Nor is there in the clause any pleonasm (Schott), or that
tautology which Jowett imagines — "tautology which with the
apostle is often emphasis, a£ioy expressing a higher degree of
the same notion than o^e/Xo^ei'." Such an exegesis, however,
does not create tautology—" it is not merely an obligation, but
a noble and worthy thing," is his own paraphrase. The tw r o
thoughts are quite distinct — duty in itself and in the character
of the deed comprised in it. Nor is the connection so poor and
unnatural as Jowett asserts, for in o^e/Ao/xey the duty is repre-
sented in its subjective aspect, as obligation felt by the apostle
and his colleagues, our " bounden duty," and KaOcos a£iov
ecrriv introduces its objective basis — the spiritual experience
and progress of the Thessalonian Church. The clause, there-
fore, is followed by otl — quoniam in both Latin versions —
because your faith groweth exceedingly. Winer, § 53, 8.
Though verbs compounded with- vir'ep are favourites with the
apostle, the verb inrepavgdvei occurs only here. Fritzsche, Rom.,
vol. I., p. 351, who, besides Rom. v, 20 — the verse commented on
— refers to Rom. vii, 37; 2 Cor. vii, 4; xi, 5; Philip, ii, 9 ; 1 Tim.
i, 14. The simple verb is used transitively in other places, but
intransitively, as here, in Acts vi, 7. Their faith w r as growing
230 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. I.
exceedingly ; expanding out of its original germ, as a tree from
its seed ; increasing in the intensity of its confidence, and of its
regulating and ennobling power ; and opening up so as to
embrace a wider cycle of truths. It would not have been a
living faith if it had not grown. And as it had increased so
much (Inrep) — not merely bej^ond expectation (Riggenbach),
but beyond measure — the apostle felt bound to give thanks to
God. Olshausen finds in the verb an indulgent reference to
too great an eagerness of belief or credulousness by which they
afterwards brought reproof upon themselves. So also Baum-
garten-Crusius. But surely the apostle could not make such a
faith the ground of thanks to God, nor can v-wep have in it
what is really a satirical allusion.
Not only their faith in its growth, but their love also in
its enlargement, formed the ground of the apostle's thanks-
giving. That love is specified in no vague terms, but is
individualized — not simply your love of the church as a
mass, but the love of each one of you all toward one an-
other — the whole body of believers in Thessalonica. It is a
freak of Hofmann to take iravrwv v/uloov as in apposition
with evos eicacrTOv. The love, ;/ ayuiri] eh «\A>/Aou9, is
brother-love — not man-love, or love of all (Pelt), but the love
of fellow-Christians — there being no reference to those without
the church, as in 1 Thess. iii, 12, or to any supposed antipathy
to the heathen unbelievers (Schrader). While virepav^avei
characterizes their faith in its growth, irkeovd^ei characterizes
their love in its extension, or, not only in its increasing
fervour, but specially in the enlargement of its sphere ;
every one loving, every one conscious of being beloved —
universal reciprocal affection — "equal," as Chrysostom says,
" on the part of all." Chrysostom notices the distinction
in the use of the two verbs, but the figure employed by him
fails to explain it. See under 1 Thess. iii, 12 ; Ephes. i, 15.
There might be, as Olshausen remarks, some differences in the
church, as the third chapter indicates; but they were so merged
in universal attachment that the eulogy of the apostle was
warranted. Faith, hope, love, and patience already charac-
terized them, as is said in 1 Thess. i, 3 ; iii, G ; iv, 9 ; the
apostle had prayed for an increasing abundance of love among
Ver. 4.J SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 2:31
them, and in this clause he thanks God virtually that his
prayer had been heard.
For the signal spiritual progress of the Thessalonian Church
the apostle felt bound not only to thank God, the source of all
good, but he always had peculiar pleasure in Thessalonica, and
he gave it an honourable and prominent place in his addresses
and ministry among the other churches —
(Ver. 4.) lo(tt€ fjixas auTOvs ev vfxh eytcavxuo'Bai ev tuis
extcXqcriais rod Oeou — "so that we ourselves glory in you in the
churches of God," "make a boast of you" (Coverdale). There
are some various readings — B tt, and a few minuscules read
avrovs iifAas, and this order is preferred by Alford. These are
two old and high authorities. C is here deficient. The
Received Text has kuuxuctOul after D K L, and many
of the fathers, F having Kauxtjcraa-Oai ; but A B tf have
eyKuv^acrOai, the more unusual form, which is therefore to be
preferred. It is found in the Sept., Ps. li, 3 ; Ps. cvi, 47. The
first pronouns are emphatic — we ourselves, not we of our own
accord (Hofmann), but we as well as others, who know you,
and honour, appreciate, and praise you for }^our spiritual pros-
perity ; we ourselves who prayed and laboured for you, and
have a tender and abiding interest in you, as being the instru-
ments by which God has brought you into this happy
condition. The insertion of kcu is not needed for this
meaning — 1 Thess. iv, 9, where, however, it is aurol
ujuLel? with a slight change of emphasis. But (1) it is to
be questioned if the clause can sustain the contrast in Ellicott's
paraphrase — " ourselves, as well as others, who might call atten-
tion to your Christian progress more naturally and appropriately
than those who felt it, humanly speaking, due to their own
exertions, but who, in the present case, could not forbear."
Such an expression of feeling is in no way opposed to what the
apostle says in 1 Cor. i, 31 ; iii, 21. The apostle felt himself so
wholly an instrument in the Master's hand that he never
scrupled to mention his services — ever ascribing humbly and
gratefully to Him the strength to do them, and any success
which might attend them (1 Thess. i, S, 9 ; ii, 11), 20). (2) The
contrast is not that presented by Jowett — " so that it is not
only you who boast of yourselves, but we ourselves who boast
232 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap, 1.
of you." Similarly Chrysostom — " if we give thanks and glory
to God for you among men, much more ought you to do so for
your own good deeds." "We ourselves" is not in opposition to
you — "your self-gloriation " is in no sense hinted at — but is in
opposition to others who also glory in you. Surely this refer-
ence of the apostle to the exultant feelings of himself and his
colleagues is so natural in the circumstances that the language
has no " semblance of a false emphasis, or of awkwardness of
expression." (3) Nor is the contrast that indicated by Schott and
Pelt, de se potissimum Apostolo intelligi valt, >)/ixus avrov?
being equivalent to e/mavrov — for verse 3 refers to himself and
his companions. Such a contrast would be abrupt and un-
natural, and it is disproved by the close logical connection of
the verses. The boasting is ev vjuliv, " in you," you being its
object and sphere. Winer, 48; Bernhardy, p. 210. Comp.
Exod. xiv, 4 ; Isaiah xlix, 3. The churches of God in which
this boasting had taken place must be those which the apostle
visited and addressed — those in Corinth and its neighbourhood,
the Achaian capital being his headquarters. The inference of
Chrysostom that patience is shown by much time, and not in
two or three days, must not be unduly pressed as settling in
any way the date of the epistle. Still further —
inrep r^? v7ro/uov>}s v/uloov kui 7ncrreco9 ev iracnv tois 6tooyju.oh'
vfxwv kui ruig OXixjyeaip eu? avtxeoSe — " for your patience and
faith in all your persecutions and the afflictions which
ye endure." 'Yirip points out the elements of spiritual
character, over or on account of which he boasted. Ben-
gel's connection of the preposition with evxapivTeiv is too
remote and unnatural. The Hendiadys supposed by Pelt
and others is not to be thought of, vwoiuoi'ijs tijs iri(TTeic<s—
— terns viroixlvovcra, or t>j$ vtto/uloi'ijs ev 7ri<TTei. The noun
v-o/j.oi'1], "bearing up under," means quiet and steadfast
endurance — not the bearing of evil in apathy or stoical unrc-
sistance, but in a spirit of serene firmness, and of earnest
expectation that God would vouchsafe final deliverance.
IT/o-t/p has its common signification, confidence in God and
Christ, as in the previous verse ; and there is no necessity for
Liinemann to give it the sense of " Treue" or for Bengel to
explain it as ftdelem constantiam confessionis. Similar!}'
Veu. 4.J SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. -2:&
Olshausen. Though the omission of the article before 7r/o-Tew?
])l;ices it and inro/uovr) under one conception, the signification of
" fidelity " is not warranted. Their patience and their faith are
closely allied. That their faith had been growing is his general
statement, and he thanks God for it ; and here he again
mentions the same faith in a more special aspect and connection.
Suffering for Christ they still believed on Him — persecution did
not uproot their faith or even bring it into suspense. They
were enduring, and in spite of this endurance believing, when
the apostle gloried in them (Rev. xiii, 10). Their endurance
tested their faith, and showed its stability, and their faith was
the inner element of that patience which was one of its fruits.
In the next phrase,as the repetition of the article before 6\t\lse(riv
shows, iruaip belongs to Siooy/uoh v/j-wv, and 6\i\Jseoriv is
specialized by ah arexeo-Qe which takes up again the vjumv.
The term otuy^io? appears to be the more special and
0\t\Uis the more general — the first being that injury done to
the person, property, or character of believers by the powerful
and unscrupulous opponents of the gospel ; and the other, those
evils that came upon them on account of their faith, many of
them connected with persecution — hardship, poverty, disease,
loss of friendship, rupture of family ties, the pressure of other
trials— all on account of their Christian professsion, maintained
so boldly and patiently in a city so hostile and powerful
as Thessalonica. And these are still endured by them—
uh avexecrOe — " which ye are enduring " at the moment or at
the time when the epistle was written. There had been earlier
persecutions, as during the apostle's own brief sojourn; and
these are alluded to in 1 Thess. i, G ; ii, 14, by the aorist, as
having passed away. But they appear to have been renewed,
and the church was suffering from some fresh outbreak when
the apostle was writing this epistle. Fritzsche maintains that
ah avexcvOe i' s a regular poetical construction, as the verb may
govern the dative, as in Euripides, Androm., 981. He assigns to
it a passive meaning sustinendo premi. But while the verb in
the classics governs the accusative of person, in the New
Testament it uniformly governs the genitive both of person and
thing — the former as in Matt, xvii, 17 ; Mark ix, 19 ; Luke ix,
41 ; Acts xviii, 14; ± Cor, xi, 1, 19; Ephes. iv, 2; Col. iii,
234 COMMENTARY UN ST. PAUL'S [Chap. 1.
13 ; 2 Tim. iv, 3, and the latter in Heb. xiii, 22 ; in other pas-
sages it is used indefinitely, so that very probably ah is here
an attraction, not for «?, as Schott, Olshausen, De Wette, and
Hofmann, but for m> — the ease regularly governed by the verb.
A. Buttmann, p. 14-0.
Timothy had been sent to them for the purpose of comfort-
ing them concerning their faith, that no man should be moved
by those afflictions, and the clauses before us assert the success
of that mission. The apostle's heart poured itself out in
thanksgiving to God, and he had gloried in the Thessalonian
church and held it up as a model to other Christian communi-
ties. But there were ethical lessons in those afflictions, and
these the apostle proceeds to unfold and apply.
(Ver. 5.) ci'Seiy/uu tJ/? Sikuius Kpicrecos tov Qeou — " which is a
token of the righteous judgment of God." In a similar
connection (Philip, i, 28) rjris ccttiv is expressed, and similarly
6 tl early may be supplied here. Compare Bom. viii, 3. The
clause is not to be resolved into els evSeiy/ua, as is read in Cod.
73, and explained by Theophylact, supported by Koppe, Flatt,
and Olshausen, the Vulgate having also in exemplum. The
noun occurs only here, but the other verbal, evSeigis, is found in
Rom. iii, 25 ; Philip, i, 28. The apposition is nominatival.
Winer, § 59, 9. The reference or connection has been vari-
ously taken ; what is declared to be the evSeiy/ma ? (1) Some
take it to be the Thessalonians themselves — the v/meis in-
volved in dvexeffOe (Erasmus, Camerarius, Estius). Such a
connection is simple indeed, but it would have required the
participle optcs to be expressed ; nor does it yield a sense at all
in harmony with the context. Estius finds in it an argument
for adhuc htenda poena temporalis. (2) Some take the refer-
ence to be to -rraa-iv Siooy/tAois, &c, as Calvin, Bullinger, Aretius,
Pelt, Schrader, Ewald, Bisping. But the afflictions themselves,
apart from their nature and source, and apart from the
character and spirit of those who endure them, cannot be the
evSeiy/nu. (3) The connection is better taken with the entire
clause, not themselves simply, or their afflictions, but themselves
so conditioned — "your patience and faith in all your persecu-
tions, and the sufferings which you are enduring." The
patience and faith manifested by you in severe suffering —
Vkr. 5.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 235
not the suffering, but the noble spirit in which it had
been borne, forms the evSeiyfia. The phrase ij'Sucala Kpicri? rod
Seou presents in itself an undoubted and universal truth —
God judges, and He "judges righteous judgment." But in its
present connection the phrase presents difficulty. There are
two extremes of opinion. Olshausen, on the one hand, followed
by Riggenbach, restricts the judgment to the present time,
while Ellicott, on the other hand, confines it to the future judg-
ment. The use of the articles proves nothing on either point.
That it is not wholly present judgment the entire coming con-
text shows — on from the following verse where the revelation
of Christ from heaven with angels and in fire is brought
into view, and, by the very terms, into immediate relation
with the verse before us — "the righteous judgment of God,"
"seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribu-
lation," on the one hand, and " rest with us," on the other. Nor
is the reference wholly to the future tribunal, for the just
judgment begins now, not simply by the effect of such suffer-
ing in purifying and perfecting them — the judgment is for
condemnation to enemies and unbelievers — but because the
patient sufferings of believers demonstrate that there is now
righteous judgment on the part of God ; the grace that so
sustains them is from Him ; He as Judge accepts and ap-
proves them by the bestowal of such gifts of patience and
faith ; and this experience is a further token or presage that a
period of fuller manifestation is coming when the persecutors shall
receive condign retribution, and their victims shall be brought
into perfect and eternal repose. Their condition, and that of their
persecutors, both here and hereafter, were in contrast; but there
is a mutual reversal in the world to come — the future compen-
sating the present (Luke xvi, 25). Suffering here, especially the
suffering of the good at the hand of wicked oppressors, implies
under God's righteous government a future state of balancing
and compensation, of reward and penalty, equitably adminis-
tered. Compare De Wette, Liinemann, Hofmann.
et? to KaT(i£ieoQ)jvai u/ut-dg T*js (3a<Ti\eia$ tov Geoii — -" that ye
may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God." The connec-
tion of this clause has also been variously taken. (1) Some
would connect it with af? dvix^crOe, as Estius, Bengel, Hofmann,
236 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. 1.
Bisping. "The suffering makes them worthy of the kingdom"
— to pati ftic it dignos regno (Bengel) ; Estius advancing
farther and saying, against the heretics, that eternal life
is not so to be ascribed to the grace of God — ut non
etiam dignitati et meritis kominum a gratia Bel profectis
retribuatuv. But though this connection may not neces-
sarily include the Popish doctrine of merit, while it would
bring out the purpose of the suffering, yet as Liineniann
remarks, it reduces to a parenthesis the momentous clause,
"which is a token of the righteous judgment of God" — a
clause from which spring the thoughts which, taken up in
verse G, lead to the startling disclosures of the following verses.
(2) Nor does it belong to the whole sentence, evSeiy/um rijs Si/talus
Kplcrecas tov Qeov, " a token of the righteous judgment of God,
which has this end in view, that ye may be accounted," &c.
(Schott). For the token itself is not directly connected with
the end or result, but belongs especially to the Kpicris, while
eiy to introduces the purpose. (3) The connection is directly
with ti/9 Siicaias Kpifrew? — the aim or result of the righteous
judgment (Liineniann, Ellicott, Ewald, Alford). Winer, § 44, (i.
Result is expressed in 2 Cor. viii, 6, and De Wette queries if it
may not mean the substance or contents of the judicial decision.
Surely it is refinement to debate in such a case whether eiV
to refer to result or purpose, as the result is simply the embodied
purpose, and the purpose by appointed and fitting means works
out the result. The purpose or result of the k plan? was that such
sufferers in patient heroism for Christ should be accounted
worthy of his kingdom. For the infinitive compare Luke xx,
35 ; xxi, 36 ; Acts v, 41. Joseph., Antlq. xv, 38. It is by the
righteous judgment of God that they are counted worthy, or
declared to be meet for the divine inheritance (Lillie). The
righteous sentence of God, efficient even now in the creation
and sustenance of faith and patience in the midst of suffering,
shall at the appointed time relieve and accept the sufferers, and
translate them into God's eternal kingdom. For the kingdom,
see under 1 Thess. ii, 12.
inrep >/9 koi 7racr^eTe — " on behalf of which ye are suffering."
The preposition Wep means "on behalf of," as in Acts v, 41 ; ix,
16 ; Rom. i, 5; xv, 8 ; 2 Cor. xii, 10; xiii, 8. Winer, § 47, 6.
Vrr. ■(».] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALOXTAXS. 237
The Kai points out the connection, as in Rom, viii, 17 — Alford
making it equivalent to "ye accordingly" — Ellicott saying, " it
has a species of consecutive force, and supplied a renewed hint
of the connection between the suffering and the being counted
worthy." Suffering gave them no claim on the kingdom, but
it separates the two classes, and by God's grace inworks or
develops those elements of character which enable and induce
believers to suffer for the kingdom, and prepare them for the
ultimate enjoyment of it.
'• The path of suffering, and that path alone,
Leads to the land wheie sorrow is unknown."
John xvi, 33 ; Acts xiv, 22; Rom. viii, 17.
(Ver. G.) e'nrep SiKaiov irapu 0ew avTairodovvai toi<? 0Xl(3ovcrti'
i^uas 6Xi\Jsii' — " if so be that it is a righteous thing with God to
render back to those who afflict }*ou affliction." In eiirep there
is no doubt implied — the argument is stated hypothetically for
the sake of confirmation. Compare Rom. viii, 0, 17. Kiirep
signijicat proprie, si omnino, quod nostro sermone dicas —
wenn iiherhaupt ; ubi vim ac rationein condicionis magis vis
efferre — ivenn anders. Klotz, Devarius, vol. II, p. .528.
Hartung. I, p. 343. Hermann's note under Gal. iii, 4. Thus
Chrysostom interprets to E'tVep evravOa uvt\ tov, exe*, Ketrai,
oirep €7r\ Tm> <T(j>68pa op.o\oyovpevoov Kai )]p.ei9 TiOe/uev teat
IWaVTtppUTOH' . . . TlU>l<Tl TO € I 7T € p TOVTO, (0? €7Tl T(0}'
('>\ao\oy)]/uei'toi'. So Theodoret — ovk et! aiMfrifioXlas . ■ . aW
e-rrl fiefiaiwcreo*? — according to a familiar idiom. In the phrase
~apu Oeio, there is a quasi-local reference to the divine tribunal
and judgment (Rom. ii, 13 ; 1 Cor. iii, 10 ; Gal. iii, 11 ; 1 Peter ii,
3; Herod, iii, 160). Winer, § 48, d; Rost and Palm,s?t6 voce irapu.
The term SUaiou takes up the Sikuiu Kpicri? of the previous
verse — the characteristic element of justice in the divine
judgment being the foundation of the argument, which is pre-
sented under a human aspect and analogy, " if such a course
with men much more so with God" (Chrysostom). In order
to substantiate his statement the apostle appeals virtually to
our innate sense of justice, which by analogy declares that it is
a right thing with God, and the hearer cannot but respond, aAXu
p.)ji' SiK-aioi'. For the verb see under 1 Thess. iii, 0. What is
238 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. I.
just or righteous is the divine retaliation, " affliction to those
who afflict you," like sin like penalty. " with what measure ye
mete " (Ps. xviii, 47 ; lvii, 6 ; Rom. ii, 5). See under Col.
iii, 24, 25. By this jus talionis, the penalty in kind is not only
entailed by the sin, but also fashioned by it as a reproduction
of itself. Totally wrong is the remark of Pelt, that the phrase
makes mention non de essentiali Dei justitia, sed de gratia
potius ; and that of Hunnius — justitia Dei, quemadmodum
ilia in Christo est misericordia erga nos affectu tincta atque
temperata. But there is another aspect — divine rectitude is
not one-sided —
(Ver. 7.) Kal v/xlv toi? OXiBo/mevotg aveariv /meO fj/ULcbv — " and
to you who are afflicted rest with us." The participle is
passive, not middle, as in Bengel's explanation, qui pvessuram
toleratis. The noun avea-i$ is used in the classics in contrast to
ewiraa-19 — tightening and slackening rwv x°P^ v (Plato, Rejx, I,
p. 349 e) ; Ttjs 7roXtTe/«9 (Plutarch, Lycurg., 29 ; Vitae, vol. I,
p. 94, ed. Bekker). It signifies also relief, as from labour
(Joseph., Antiq., iii, 10,6); from immediate execution (2 Chron.
xxiii, 15) ; from close confinement (Acts xxiv, 23) ; from
moral obligation, and in contrast to 6Xi\Jsi$ (2 Cor. viii, 13); and
then generally it denotes rest — Hesychius defining it by
uvd-Travcri?. In 2 Cor. ii, 13 ; vii, 5, it is in contrast again with
OXixfsis. It is rest from all that persecution which they
were suffering from the fury of unbelieving Jews and
heathens — rest jxeff ww — with us, Paul, Silvanus, and
Timothy, for we have suffered from persecution, and hope for
rest (1 Thess. ii, 2). Turretin and De Wette err in giving the
] thrase a wider reference to all believers, for all of them are not
exposed to such sufferings. Bengel similarly errs in rendering
nobiscum, i.e., cum Sanctis Israelitis, and after him Macknight,
and virtually Ewald. This aW<9 is the immediate aspect of
heaven to the suffering, rest to the weary and worn-out, release
from all the disquiet, pain, and sorrow of the earth, stillness
after turmoil, the quiet haven after the tempest. This view of
heaven was specially natural and welcome to them, who were
suffering for its sake, for it was a complete reversal of their
present condition (Luke xvi, 25 ; Acts iii, 19 ; Heb. iv,
3, 11 ; Rev. xiv, 13). " Kvea-iv is governed by the double
Ver. :.j second epistle to the thessalonians. 230
avTcnroSovvai, for which see under 1 Thess. iii, 0. The period
of introduction to the " rest " is —
ev Tjj <i7roKa\v'ylsei rod K.vplov 'L;<TOt? air ovpavov — " in or at
the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven." The
clause specifies the time when the judicial retribution implied
in avTcnrooovvai is to take place, the period of the Second
Advent. Hupovcrla is the word commonly employed (see under
1 Thess. ii, 19 ; iii, 13), but u7ro/caAi/i/y-<? is a more vivid term,
pointing to the visible, personal, and gracious manifestation
of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. i, 7). Compare Luke xvii,
30 ; Rev. ii, 5. 'Fi7rufidveia is also employed, as in ii, 8 ; 1 Tim.
vi, 14; 2 Tim. iv, 1, 8 ; Titus ii, 13. This term seems to imply
previous or present concealment (the heavens have received
TTim), in contrast with His immediate and magnificent appear-
ance "in His own glory," and "in the glory of His Father,
and of the holy angels " (Matt, xvi, 27 ; xxv, 31 ; Luke ix, 26).
The words air ovpavou indicate the locality whence he comes.
He is now in heaven, at the right hand of God, pleading,
reigning, and preparing a place for His people; and the
economy of redemption being completed, in itself and in the
number of its recipients, He descends to raise the dead, and
usher all His own perfected ones in the fulness of their
humanity into everlasting blessedness. See under 1 Thess.
iv, 10, 17. That personal revelation is now characterized as
being —
per dyyiXwv owdpeoos avrov — " with the angels of his power."
The preposition means " in company with," the angels being
His attendants or retinue. The genitive Svvdpiecos is that of
possession ; the power is not theirs but His. They are the
servants of his power, manifesting and fulfilling it. Winer, § 34,
3 b. The Advent is accompanied by the voice of the arch-
angel when the dead are raised, and angels are referred to in a
similar connection, as gathering together the elect, and as
" gathering out of this kingdom all things that offend, and
them which do iniquity " (Matt, xiii, 41 ; xxiv, 31). " All the
holy angels " are with Him when " He shall come in glory, and
shall sit on the throne of His glory " (Matt, xxv, 31). The
work performed by Him at the Second Advent is momentous
and mighty — resurrection and final victory over death ; judg-
240 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAULS [Chap. T.
ment, and the ultimate separation of believers and the wicked ;
and the angels of His might, as its heralds and ministers, are
specially connected with Him and His glorious appearance.
(I) While the margin of the Authorized Version presents the
right translation, the version itself, " His mighty angels " is in
no way to be justified, though it may be an inference. The
mistranslation is an old one. Theophylact explains, Swdjueu)?
yap ayyeXoi, tovt€<tti Svvaroi, and the alternative explanation
of CEcumenius is similar. It has been followed by Piscator,
Benson, Flatt, Tyndale, and in the Genevan version. But avrov
is to be construed with Swap-em, not with ayyiXwv, the
sense being " not the angels of might," as if the genitive
might have an adjectival meaning, but the angels of His might,
He being the central figure. (2) Another and as erroneous
translation has been given in the Syriac, . .mr>n|1v>» |1 . 1, ^OL,
— r ' y
with the power of His angels, that is, with the host of them ;
and the view has been followed by Drusius, Michaelis, Koppe,
and Hofmann who for this purpose attaches avrov to the
following Sidoi'rog — Swa/uus being taken as representing the
Hebrew N3>\ But, first, duvapis has never this meaning in the
New Testament, and Hofmann's reference to Luke x, 19 ; xxi,
26 ; Matt, xxiv, 29, will not sustain him ; second, the order of
the words with this sense would require to be pera. Svvapeoo?
ayyeXaw avrov. The next clause is read in the Textus
Receptus —
(Ver. 8.) ev irvp\ (pXoyog, after AKLN, with nearly all mss.,
Theophylact, Ambrosiaster, Ghrysostom, Theodoret, and Dama-
scenes. It is also preferred by Keiche, Tischendorf, and Alford.
The other reading, ev <pXoy] Trvpos, is found in BI) F, and both
Latin versions, the Peshito and Gothic versions, and in CEcu-
menius, Tertullian, and others of the fathers, and is adopted by
Lachmann and Ellicott. No assistance can be got from the
similar clauses in Exod. iii, 2, or Acts vii, 30, for in each there
is also a difference of reading. Both readings are well sus-
tained by diplomatic authority, though the last has the appear-
ance, in spite of its apparently higher evidence, of being a cor-
rection as to sense, flame of fire being more natural than fire of
flame. The Hebrew in Exod. iii, 2, reads Kw-na^i, in a flame of
fire ; followed by A of the Seventy, ev (fXoyi irvpcU ; which B of
Ver. 8.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 241
the same version reads cv irvp\ </>AoyoV Compare in the
Septuagint Ps. xxix, 7 ; Is. xxix, 6 ; Joel ii, 5 ; Dan. vii, 9 : also
Sirach xlv, 10 ; Heb. i, 7; Rev. xix, 12. The former is appar-
ently the more usual form. The clause specifies another element
or accompaniment of the diroKoXv^-iq. He is revealed in, or
enveloped in, a fire of flame — no dulled or veiled glow, but a
radiance, bright, pure, and flashing; a fire burning with
intensest brilliance. That was a familiar symbol of the divine
presence and glory — the cloud that guided Israel being as the
veil by day of the inner brightness, which shone out in the
night as fire. Compare Gen. xv, 17 ; Exod. iii, 2 ; xiii, 21, 22 ;
xix, 18; Ps. xcvii, 3, 4; Is. xxx, 30; and the other passages
already quoted. What characterizes the Theophanies of the
Old Testament characterizes the Advent of the Son in our
nature — similar majesty of manifestation betokening the God-
head of the Redeemer, Jehovah-Jesus (1 Cor. iii, 13).
It serves no good object to attempt any minute detail of the
meaning and purpose of the phenomenon, either as Zachariae and
Koppe, to refer it to thunder and lightning, or to say that the
fire is meant to consume the world of unbelievers, as Zuingli,
Aretius, a-Lapide, Fromond, for the context does not assert
any such purpose, though the punctuation of the English
version would seem to imply it. Some connect this clause
with the following one, SiSovto? €kS!k7](tip, "in flaming fire
awarding vengeance." So Estius, a-Lapide, Macknight,
Hofmann, Hilgenfeld, regard the previous words as instrumen-
tally connected with the judgment to which, according to
Hilo-enfeld, the flamingf fire belono-s. Hofmann's exegesis is
strained and unnatural ; he connects avrou with SiSoyro?,
referring the pronoun to God, and begins the sentence with ev t#
(X7roKa\v\p-ei. But. as Lunemann remarks, in that case avrov
would require to be left out, and the genitive Siodvros changed
into SiSovri, with the article prefixed. Theodoret regards the
fire as rrjs Ti/muipias to eISo$, and similarly Theophylact in the
first of his explanations. Jowett needlessly combines both
references, expressing at once the manner of Christ's appear-
ance, and the instrument by which he executes vengeance
on His enemies. It is best to keep the clause iv 7rvp\
(p\oy6i by itself, and as parallel to it, /ulct dyyeXoov Suvd/dcwg
Q
242 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. T.
avTov, and to regard the words as descriptive of the awfulness
and sublimity of the airoKa\v^n<s, the glory in harmony with
the work ; while SiSovtos, connected with 'Iqo-ov, tells the pur-
pose of the Advent by asserting the fact —
Sl86vTO$ eKSlK7]tTlV TO?? fXt] €lS6(TlV QeOV KUl T019 fXl] V7TaKOVOVCTlP
tu> evayyeXlu) tou Kvplov >)/ulcov 'Irj<rov — " awarding vengeance to
those who know not God and to those who obey not the
gospel of our Lord Jesus." The Received Text has XpicrTov
after 'hjcroii, with AFK, the Latin, Peshito, and Gothic versions,
and some of the fathers, but it is omitted in BDKL, 25
mss., in the Philoxenian Syriac, in the Coptic, and many of
the fathers, and is probably to be rejected as a conformation
to common usage. The first and awful phrase, SiSovto?
et{SiKt]cnv, occurs only here in the New Testament, but in
Ezek. xxv, 14, we have the words kcu Swcroo eKSiKija-iv fxov e-w]
t*jp 'ISovfAaiav, and cnroSovvai is employed with the substantive
in Num. xxxi, 3, representing the Hebrew nVp-mojM nrb. This
vengeance is and must be just, as it is His sentence, who is the
righteous Judge, and who has also been the loving Saviour ;
the Lamb of God, by whose gentleness the apostle adjures
the Corinthian church. As man and mediator, Jesus is Judge;
all judgment is committed to the Son ; He awards merited
penalty " to them that know not God " ; and by the subjective
ixr) the apostle records this as his own opinion of them. Winer,
§ 55, 5. Whatever their own flattering impressions on the
point, he asserts their ignorance — an ignorance that might have
been enlightened in Thessalonica. The clause characterizes the
heathen. See under 1 Thess. i, 9, and iv, 5 ; Gal. iv, 8; Ephes.
ii, 12. Compare Jer. x, 25 ; Rom. i, 28. Ignorance of God
prevents all confidence in Him, and all intelligent service to
Him. The contrast is stated in John xvii, 3, 25. The class
referred to did not know God, and in their wilful ignorance
persecuted His servants.
The second clause, by the repetition of rolg, indicates another
distinct class. Winer, § 19, 5. Matt, xxvii, 3 ; Luke xxii, 4.
Schott, De Wette, Riggenbach, Turretin, Pelt, and Hofmann
suppose it to include all who reject the Gospel, whether as
Jews or not. In the second clause the words Kup/ou
t)/j.wv hjo-ov are solemnly written, as in distinction from
Ver. 9.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 243
Qeov of the previous clause. Schrader understands the first
clause of heathen, and the second clause of Christians, or as
Aretius puts it, pestes in sinu ecclesiae latitantes — plainly
against the context. In Hofmann's view the first clause
describes heathen, and the second Jews and heathen, but
the two clauses are distinctive delineations. The basis of
safety is to obey .the Gospel of our Lord Jesus — so to listen,
understand, and believe, that the heart is induced and enabled to
obey, accepting' its invitation, believing its doctrines, trusting
its promises, and obeying its precepts. That Gospel is no
vague thing, it has a living personal source — our Lord Jesus,
who as Jesus brought the good news of divine mercy to the
world, and as Lord is sending his Spirit to give His truth a
deep and vital lodgment in men's hearts. This clause will
thus characterize the Jews. They had knowledge of God, but
would not accept the Gospel, spurned it from them, and in
their fanatical rejection of it persecuted Christ's servants who
proclaimed it (Rom. x, 3, 16, 21). See under 1 Thess. ii, 14, 15,
16. Both classes, though differing in spiritual condition,
united in afflicting the Thessalonian believers, and the pro-
phetic words are verified to them, roig dXlfiovcriv vfias
0\[\lsiv. Ignorance of God and disobedience to the Gospel
urged them to molest and harass the Thessalonian believers, a
course of conduct which not only insures the penalty, but
moulds its nature, as a retribution in kind.
(Ver. 9.) oWives SiK)]v tktovctiv, oXeOpov altoviov utto
irpoatoirov tov ls^vpiov kui airo Ttj? So£>]$ tyjs icryyos
avTov — " who shall suffer punishment, everlasting destruction
away from the presence of the Lord, and away from the glory
of His power." The qualitative and generic pronoun o'lrtve?
characterizes the persons referred to as being of a class just
s]H'ciried. This relative may sometimes bear a causal sense,
saepissime rationi reddendae inservit, according to Hermann
(Praef. ad Soph. (Edvp., Tyr. } p.xiii). Such a sense, advocated
by Liinemann and Alford, is not formally needed here. The
two parties referred to are men who as a class have been
already characterized. The phrase SiKtjv tictovo-iv, " shall pay
the penalty," occurs only in this place. Compare Jude 7. But
its meaning is clear, as it is often employed in classical writers,
244 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. T.
the verb being sometimes followed by the accusative of that for
which penalty is borne, or atonement is made — cjiovov {Iliad,
xxi, 134), vj3piv (Odyss., xxiv, 350); and often as here it is fol-
lowed by SiKtjv — Tiarovcrd y agiav SUrjv (Soph., Electra, 298). A
long list of instances is given by Wetstein from the tragedians,
and from Plato, Thucydides, Lucian, vElian, Arrian, Plutarch.
The noun is also used with SiSovai, when the meaning is,
punishment awarded or legal penalty. The sinners referred to
not only feel the inner ruin wrought by ignorance and dis-
obedience—for all sin punishes as it degrades, and hardens, and
widens the distance from God — but a positive penalty is laid on
them, Slier]. And that SiKt] is declared to be oXeOpov aidoviov,
" everlasting destruction." The reading 6Xe6piov has but very
slender support. "OXeOpo? (oXXv/mi) means death in the
Homeric poems, and then destruction in a general sense ; ruin
as the result of a sinful course, or inflicted as a divine penalty.
For the word see under 1 Thess. v, 3. The words are awful ;
and the next clause deepens the awe —
a.7ro 7rpocroo7rov roy Ivvplov — " from the face of the Lord."
(1) The simplest and most natural meaning of u-k'o is local, in
separation from the face of the Lord, the source of joy (Rom.
ix, 3; 2 Cor. xi, 3 ; Gal. v, 4). So Schott, Liinemann, Lisping,
Riggenbach. His face or countenance throws its benign radi-
ance over his saints, who in their nearness worship Him, and
are ever in fellowship with Him. His personal presence is the
life and joy of heaven, and to see His face is supreme blessed-
ness, so that to be severed from it is gloom and death, and in
that sad severance (diro) is the penalty to be endured (Ps. xi, 7;
xvi, 11; xvii, 15; Matt, v, 8; xviii, 10; Heb. xii, 14;
Rev. xxii, 4). Compare Septuagint, KpinrrecrOe . . . airo
7rpocroo7rov tov <po(3ou Huplov kuI airo t^? Sog>]s ti]<i icrx^og
avrov (Is. ii, 10), the clauses being repeated in verses 19 and 21
of the same chapter. The language of the verse before us has
apparently its origin in this portion of Isaiah. See also Jer.iv, 26.
(2) But the earliest interpretation of airo takes it in a tem-
poral sense, the eternal destruction takes place " at " or "after"
the manifestation of His presence. So the Greek fathers ;
(Ecumenius explaining it by d/ua ; Chrysostom more fully,
apuel irapayevecrdai p.ovov . . . kcu iravTes ev KoXacrei, repeated
Ver. 9.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 245
virtually by Theophylact. This interpretation is adopted by
Erasmus, Vatablus, Fromond, Webster and Wilkinson. But,
first, airo is specially connected with oXeOpov, and seems to
explain its awful nature in a local sense ; secondly, the term
irpocrwirov has this species of local meaning attached to it,
and thus differs from 7rapoucrla or cnrOKakwjsis ; thirdly, the
phrases adduced, in which airo has a temporal meaning, describe
an act, event, or period, which forms an epoch (Rom. i, 20 ;
Philip, i, 5). (3) A third interpretation takes airo as causal,
an idea virtually involved in the interpretation of the Greek
fathers. His presence will be the means of their punishment.
His mere look brings the penalty. So Bengel, Pelt, De Wette,
Ewald, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Hofmann who compares
Jer. iv, 29, where, however, this meaning is not necessary.
But this signification, to sustain itself, virtually inserts some
epithet before it poa-wirov, zornigen or Jinsteren, angry or dark '■>
and as airo in this sense is used to denote a personal source,
such a meaning would be more plausible if only airo tov
JLvplov had been written, and for this the phrase, as we have it,
is merely a circumscriptio according to Pelt. Winer, § 47.
Besides, it would with this sense be a mere repetition of the
previous statement, " awarding vengeance." De Wette lays
stress on the following lax^os, a s if it threw back into this
clause the idea of power yjut forth, and so far suggested or
corroborated the causal signification of airo. But tcr^o? belongs
to So£)]s as its source, and that So£a is repeated in the verb of
the next verse, evSo£ao-Q?ivai. —
kui airo tJ/s" <5o^/? tJ/? Icrx^og avrou, " and from the glory
of His power." The preposition has the same local sense,
the glory being that glory which springs from His power,
and which may be conceived of as a visible splendour,
gathered up like the old Shechinah into one spot. The
phrase is therefore not to be diluted either into icrxvs evSo£o$
or So£a icrx v pu> " mighty glory " (Jowett). The glory is so
connected with His might that, as it is originated by it, it
characterizes and envelops it — all its outgoings are ever
encircled with glory. That power manifests its glory in the
perfection and happiness of His saints, who have been rescued
and blessed by Him, and lifted at length beyond death to
246 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. I.
supreme and immortal felicity. This glory so won by His
power is reflected upon Him from His glorified ones, as the next
verse intimates, and from such living splendour surrounding-
Christ's and Christ are the unbelieving for ever exiled.
(Ver. 10.) OTO.V eXOi) evSo£a<r6fjvai ev to?? ayloi? avrou — " when
He shall have come to be glorified in His saints." The clause
defines the period when the judgment or penalty of the previous
verse is to be inflicted. "Qrav is used with the aorist subjunc-
tive in reference to the future occurrence of an event or action
objectively possible, when there is no certainty as to the period
of such occurrence. Winer, § 42, 5 ; more fully, Schmalfeld,
§ 121. The coming though future in itself is conceived of as
having taken place prior to these contrasted results. The in-
finitive kvSogaaOfjvai is that of purpose, and the compound verb
is used only, in the New Testament, in this verse and in verse
12 ; but it is found in the Septuagint, Exod. xiv, 4 ; Is. xlv,
2o ; xlix, 3. The dyioi are plainly human saints, not angels,
as Schrader and Macknight ; and angels are already mentioned.
See under 1 Thess. iii, 13, where a more comprehensive mean-
ing may be assigned to the term. 'Ev is not to be taken for
Sia, as Chrysostom and his followers, and after them Pelt,
Bengel, and Schott ; nor does it signify among (Michaelis), but,
with its usual force, it points out the element in which this
glorification takes place. He is glorified in them — in their
persons, in the saving power which pardoned and changed
them, in their spiritual maturity, in all the prior steps and
processes by which it has been reached, in His own image
indelibly enstamped upon them, in their perfect and unchang-
ing blessedness, in their full and final glorification — in all these
elements of their history and destiny Christ's glory is reflected,
He himself is glorified (Ephes. i, G, 12). His love and His aton-
ing death, His spirit and His intercession, have wrought out
His own hallowed purpose in them, and in them as the fruit
of His mediation He is glorified. Not only to be glorified,
but—
Koi OavjaaarOtjvai ev iracriv to?? iria-reucrairiv — " and to be
admired in all them that believed." The Received Text has
the present iria-Tevova-iv, but on no uncial authority, and indeed
no authority worth mentioning. The aorist refers back to the
Ver. 10.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 24-7
earthly period when they possessed faith in Jesus Christ, a period
past when looked at from "that day." The adjective ira<yiv,
not prefixed to ayioiq, enhances the value of faith — in every one
without exception who has faith in Christ— the element wanting
in those who suffer the righteous penalty. Bengel, from the use of
the same term, and without any ground, distinguished the ay lots
from the iria-Tevcracriv, as if iracriv gave the latter epithet a wider
signification than the former, " saints being those of the cir-
cumcision, believers they of the Gentiles." The Lord Jesus is
to be not only praised, but wondered at — wonder being excited
by what is great and unwonted, or when the result far
transcends the instrumentality, or turns out beyond expec-
tation, or, when actually realized and beheld, surpasses every
conception. The results of faith are so marvellous — a gift so
great as forgiveness, a change so thorough and benign as from
death to life, the continuous sustenance of that life amidst
many defects and struggles, preparation for glory, and welcome
entrance into it — these results so rich, lasting, and godlike,
wrought out for believers by Jesus, surely so single Him out
and exalt Him that He is to be wondered at. When believers
appear on that day so pure, lovely, and Christlike ; when their
present glory is contrasted with their first condition on earth — so
guilty, so frail, so defiled, and so helpless; when they call to mind
by what a work they have been saved — His cross and passion ;
and by what a simple instrumentality — a child's trust in the
Son of God ; then He who has done such great things for them
will command their admiration and homage. It creates
wonder at Him that He purposed to save us at all in our low
and lost estate ; greater wonder still that His purpose involved
His becoming the Infant of Days, the Man of Sorrows, and the
victim of sacrificial agony; and greatest wonder of all that
believers in Him are not only raised to their original status,
but elevated to a loftier honour, bearing the image of the
Second Adam, and admitted into the heavenly inheritance. It
is a mere surmise of Theophylact, that this admiration is to
happen in the presence of rous oiKTpovg. The ground is now
given —
oti eiri(7T€v0j] to /xapTvpiov rj/Awv e(j) v/u.as — " because our
testimony unto you was believed." The verb eTnarevB)} with
248 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. I.
the stress upon it takes up the participle Tricrrevcracriv, and
places the Thessalonian believers among the number. Christ
is to be admired in them that believe, and you believed our
testimony, and therefore possess this joyous anticipation. That
testimony was directed to them, e<f> {/[/.us, and the absence of
the article gives to the clause unity of conception, connecting ecj>
u/ulus immediately with fxaprvpiov. Winer, § 30, 2 ; § 49, I.
" Our testimony " is the testimony borne by us, fj/uoov being
the genitive of efficient or proximate origin, and that testi-
mony in itself was the divine message of the Gospel, which
they are said in the First Epistle to have " received in much
affliction with joy of the Holy Ghost." The apostle and his
colleagues brought and delivered the testimony. The Thessa-
lonians heard and believed, remained firm in the midst of trials
and persecutions, and are commended by the apostle for their
patience and faith ; their spiritual growth and their afflictions
being a token of the righteous judgment of God, when the
solemn scenes now described shall take place ; and they take
place —
ev t[j >]/u.epa eKe'ivy — " in that day," the previous clause being
parenthetical. This clause is thus to be joined to Oavjuao-Oijvai,
defining the period, and put last to gather up the whole from
otuv eXO}] into a solemnity of emphasis. " That day " must
have been the theme of his earlier lessons to them, and the
manner of this allusion shows their familiarity with it. Cal-
vin's note is that the day is so named to check impatience —
ne ultra modam festinent. Some, however, propose for the
clause a different connection. Bengel takes the connection
back to eXOy, and Webster and Wilkinson to SIkjju tl<tov<tlv.
The Syriac Peshito version reads tfi^As; tZojcnch -SdOiZZj
f,LDQj ocno, "for our testimony concerning you will be believed
in that day." So Damascenus, Estius, a-Lapide, Grotius, Storr,
Flatt, L'aumgarten-Crusius. They join ev t# 'ifxepa eKelvij either
with fxaprvpiov or eiria-TevOip This construction either necessi-
tates ecf vp.a$ to be translated "about you"; or the aorist kiri-
(TrevQr) to be translated as a future or a future perfect (Grotius
and Ptosenmiiller) with a new meaning, " will be made good or
substantiated" ; or kv 77/ fjp.epq, "about that day," as Luther, "our
testimony to you about that day ye believed" (a-Lapide);
Ver. 11.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 249
a vobis respidentibus ad ilium diem creditum fuerit (Estius) ;
or, as others, " our testimony about you will then be substanti-
ated," or " our testimony to you shall be believed even by the
wicked in that day." Grotius, "Quod de salute vestra prcedixi-
nivus, id illo tempore eventu firmatum erit, ut Jidem negare
nemo amplius possit." Storr, Opusc, vol. II, p. 10G. Some-
what similarly Ewald, Doss beglaubigt war unser Zeugniss an
euch, &c.
(Ver. 11.) E'<9 o i:a\ TrpoTev^oiJ.eOa iravroTe irepi v/uoov — "In
reference to which we also pray always concerning you." The
phrase el? o is not to be rendered " wherefore," as in the
Authorized Version, as if it were oV 8 ; quapropter being the
rendering also of Grotius, Pelt, Baumgarten-Crusius ; itaque
being given by Koppe. Nor is it equivalent to virlp 8 (De
Wette). But the clause has the original meaning of direction —
to or towards which, viz., the realization of the glorification of
Christ in saints and believers. Winer, § 49 a. Liinemann's
objection to the rendering "with a view to which," that it
would make the consummation predicted dependent on the
apostle's prayers, is not formidable. For the Thessalonians are
regarded as believers, and therefore as belonging to that happy
company ; and certainly the divine purpose never renders
unnecessary the prayers and aspirations of faith. Nay, by
them, and in perfect consistency with divine immutability and
human responsibility, it realizes itself. The same objection
might be taken against the following %a, referring to or intro-
ducing the subject or purpose of the prayer. Kou, " we also,"
that is, according to Ellicott, " not only longing and hoping, we
avail ourselves also of the definite accents of prayer." The
result being so glorious, with a view to it as portrayed by
him, the apostle also prayed for preparatory grace to all the
members of the Thessalonian Church. Afford suggests that to
support Liinemann's view, that the prayer was added to the
fact of the evSogacrd>jvai, the words should have stood kui v/meis
-Trpoa-evxop-eOa. For rrepi after this verb, see under Ephes. vi, 18.
The prayer was continuous, iravTOTe, as there was need of
continuous grace. And its object was —
Iva vp.u$ a^uhat} rt]i firX?)creco? 6 Geo? tj/mcov — -" that our God may
count you worthy of your calling/' vfias having the stress upon
250 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. I.
it. The els o at the beginning of the verse is so far different from
?va that the former refers back to what had just been written —
the glorification of Christ in His saints; and the latter points for-
ward to blessings needed by the Thessalonians in the prospect
of it, and to qualify them for it. In Iva the purpose and theme of
the prayer are blended, as sometimes. See under Ephes. i, 17.
The verb a^iouv means to count or reckon worthy, followed
here by the accusative of person and genitive of object, though
sometimes by the accusative and the infinitive (Luke vii, 7); in
the passive by the simple genitive (1 Tim. v, 17; Heb. iii. 3
x, 29 ; Sept., Gen. xxxi, 28) ; and by the infinitive (Xen., Mem.,
i, 4, 10). Compare Joseph., iii, 8, 10. Luther, Grotius, Flatt,
Bengel, Olshausen, and Ewald give the verb the meaning of
"to make worthy" — a meaning which, as the passages cited
show, does not belong to it. See Liddell and Scott, sub voce.
There is some difficulty about k\/]<t€oos. If /cXi/crt? be the initial
divine act alone, then as it was past, how could the apostle
pray that God would count them worthy of it ? This difficulty
has induced Olshausen to attach to the verb the unsupported
sense of "to make worthy." Liinemann takes K\rj<ri$ in a
passive sense— the blessing to which one is called — the
heavenly blessedness of the children of God. Ellicott and
Alford view it as descriptive of the Christian life which springs
from effectual calling. See under Ephes. iv, 1 ; Philip, iii, 14.
Hofmann gives it somewhat differently — " that He may count
you worthy of a calling which brings to completion what
began with our testimony and your faith therein." Allied to
this is another view proposed by Riggenbach, that, as is illus-
trated by the parable of the supper, this call may be the last,
decisive, energetic call — the Sevre (Matt, xxv, 34). But
Scripture usage does not warrant this supposition. There is,
however, little reason to give KXtjai? other than its usual mean-
ing. See under Gal. i, 6; v, 13; Philip, iii, 14. Compare Rom.
viii, 30; ix, 11, 24; xi, 29; 1 Cor. i, 9, 24; 1 Tim. vi, 12. The
call was divine — it had summoned them from death unto life ;
and the apostle's prayer is, that God in that day would deem
them worthy of it — would judge that their entire life had been
in harmony with it (1 Thess. v, 24). Compare the use of the
adjective (Matt, iii, 8 ; Luke iii, 8 ; Acts xxvi, 20) and of the
Ver. 11.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 251
adverb (1 Thess. ii, 12). To secure such a result, or that this
d^iovv may be realized, it is added —
Kai 7r\>ipco<T>] TTOLaav evSoKiuv dya6co(Tuvi]g kou epyov 7ri<JTeu><i ev
Svvdpet — " and may fulfil every good pleasure of goodness and
the work of faith in power."
I. The Authorized Version renders " the good pleasure of His
goodness," along with CEcumenius, Zuingli, Calvin, Estius,
Justiniani, Beza, Bengel, Pelt, Bisping, &c. But to this exegesis
— which by itself might be true, as the noun evSoKia is used
in reference to God in Ephes. i, 5, 9 ; Philip, ii, 13 — there are
various objections in the verse itself. (1) Such a sense
would necessitate irua-av tijv evSoKtav. (2) The following phrase
epyov 7r[(TTews, also without any pronoun, must refer to those on
whose behalf the prayer is offered, so that by parity of thought
the first clause must have a similar reference, and evSoKiav
uyaOctxruvt]? belong to the Thessalonians also. (3) The noun
uyuQuKTvvri is never used of God by the apostle. It occurs in
three other places — " ye also are full of goodness" (Rom. xv, 14) ;
in the catalogue of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. v, 22) ; and
similarly in Ephes. v, 9 — " the fruit of the Spirit is in all
goodness." See 2 Chron. xxiv, 16.
II. Some are disposed to combine a divine and human
reference. Grotius has, omnem bonitatem sibi gratam ;
Olshausen, " God fills you with all the goodness which is well
pleasing to Him " ; Theophylact, kou ovtoos i]re w9 fiouXerai 6
Bed? pySevo? vp.1v XelirovTos. But evSoKia is closely connected
in relation with dyaOcoa-uvij?, and cannot have that Godward
signification. Jowett says, without any good foundation,
that the apostle uses mixed modes of thought, and has not
distinguished between the Word of God as the cause, and as
the effect. Strangely does Thomas Aquinas understand it, de
sola humqncB voluntatis mutatione, the decree of God, on the
other hand, being immutable. The clause is rendered by
Fritzsche, ut expleat omnem dulcedinem honestatis (Ad. Rom.,
x, 1). Tyndale translates, " every delectation of goodness."
The meaning may be, all or every delight in goodness — com-
prising every purpose or impulse toward it, and complacency in
it (Rom. x, 1 ; Philip, i, 15). For the spelling of dyaOcoaruvt] with
o instead of w, see Buttmann, § 119, 10 c, and Thomas Magister,
252 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. I.
p. 391, ed. Ritschl). ' Ayadwa-vv}] is not, well-doing or bene-
ficence (Schott, Chandler), but moral goodness. See under
Gal. v, 22. 'Aya6a)(Tuv7]$ does not seem to be in apposition — a
good pleasure consisting in goodness — but is rather the genitive
of object, that on which their good pleasure specially turned,
so that it delighted to expend itself on it. And not this or
that, but " every " (iracrav) good pleasure having this earnest
propension and aim.
Kai kpyov Trio-Tew? ev Suvapei — " and the work of faith with
power." The words epyov 7ri<TTea)$ are not in apposition. See
1 Thess. i, 3. The concluding phrase ev Swdpei belongs to
7rX//pco(TJ/, indicating the element inwhich it shall realize itself,
or the manner in which it is prayed that it may be brought
about. The clause has thus really an adverbial force (Col.
i, 29).
(Ver. 12.) o7r(o? evSo^aaOtj to ovopa tov iivplov >jpwv 'lyo-ov ev
vp.iv Kai vpeh ev avrw — " in order that the name of our Lord
Jesus may be glorified in you, and ye in Him " or " it." The
jVpia-Tou of the Received Text rests on the rather slender
authority of A F, the Vulgate, both Syriac versions, and
Chrysostom, but it is wanting in BDKLN, the Claromontane
Latin, the majority of mss., (Ecumenius, and Damascenus.
"Q7rto9 indicates the final purpose, and does not differ materi-
ally from %a in meaning, though it does in construction (Klotz,
Devarius, II, p. 629). "Ovopa is certainly not a periphrasis for
Kvpio? (Turretin, Koppe). The " name " is not Himself, but
Himself as made known to men in those elements of character,
relation, and glory which ovopa contains and implies — the
name which he has made for Himself. See under Phil, ii, 10.
That name wins for itself a new lustre in the salvation of the
Thessalonian believers, ev vp.?v — as He is glorified in all His
saints in that day (verse 10). And the glorification is reciprocal —
Krai vp.eU ev cu'tm. The pronoun may refer to ovopa (Liinemann
and Hofmann), but though in that case the reciprocity would
be more formally balanced, the meaning is not so expressive,
as our glorification in His name is not so significant as glorifi-
cation in His person. The familiar but expressive phrase ev
avroi is that union with Him, which so identifies His people
with Himself that the}^ are glorified in Him, are " partakers
Ver. 12.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 253
of His glory." His, the glory of Saviour ; theirs, the glory of
being saved in Him, and of being; with Him for ever (I Thesp.
iv, 17).
kcxtu Tt]v X a P 11 ' TOU t/eoy )]/utov kcu ls.vptov Itjctou
Hpicrrov — " according to the grace of our God and the Lord
Jesus Christ." Kara passes, as Winer remarks, §49, "from the
idea of norm into that of result," or the signification " in con-
sequence of" naturally springs out of "according to," or
is blended with it. For x^P 1 ?' see un der Ephes. ii, 8.
Though there is no rod before ~Kvpiov, it would be wrong to
identify it immediately with Oeov, as is done by Hofmann,
Riggenbach, and others, for Kt/p/o? had become as a proper
name, and therefore may want the article when it is joined to
a preposition, or is used in the genitive, or precedes 'L70-0U?
Xpia-To'9 (Winer, § 19, 1). See especially Middleton's remarks
on the non-applicability of Granville Sharpe's rule to this
clause, p. 379, «fcc. See also under Ephes. v, 5. But it is plainly
implied that this grace has a unity of origin, both in God and
Christ ; it is a possession common to both, and equally charac-
terizing both. The final aim indicated by oiruxs recognizes
both equally as answering the prayer which includes such a
purpose kuto. t>]v x^P lv - Such oneness of attribute and gift
implies the divinity of the Saviour, and His oneness of essence
with the Father. Nor is such theology at all un-Pauline,
though Hilgenfeld adduces it as a proof of the spuriousness of
the epistle. It is found in the common benedictions at the
beginning of many of the epistles. See under Gal. i, 1, 3.
CHAPTER II.
The apostle now passes to one special purpose of the epistle —
to check and correct those erroneous and premature anticipa-
tions of the Second Coming which had become prevalent in
Thessalonica, and were doing damage, and producing an
unsettledness of mind which led to various irregularities. The
apostle therefore tenders to them reassuring prophetic instruc-
tion —
254- COMMENTAEY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
(Ver. 1.) 'JLpooTcoiuLev Se (',««?, aSeXcpo'i, V7rep Trj? Trapovcriwi
tov Ivvpiov >)p.ooi' It]<tov Xpi(TTOU /coil /jfxcov e7n<xwaycoyi;9 ex'
avTov — " Now we beseech you, brethren, in regard to the
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our oratherino- together
unto Him." By Se the apostle passes to his main point — the
slight contrast being a transition from his request for them to
his request of them. For the verb see under 1 Thess. iv, 1.
The epithet aSe\<pol — the expression of his attachment — is
meant to gain their affectionate attention, while with the verb
it implies the momentous nature of the following charge.
The Authorized Version takes inrep as a formula of adjura-
tion, "We beseech you by the coming of our Lord Jesus," and
so the Vulgate (per adventum), Pelagius, Erasmus, Calvin,
Beza, Fromond; by the solemnity or certainty of it, by the
interest you have in it, or the fervent expectation which you
cherish about it. The preposition, like Trpog, may be so used,
as in Homer —
Xicr(TeO' vvrep tokcwv yovi'ov/ievo 1 ; avSpa eKacrrov.
(II., xv, 660, 665; xxii, 338.)
km /xlv vrrep Trarpus kui pijrepos tp'KOfioio,
Ac'crcreo Kal tckcos (II., xxiv, 466).
Xi(T(rop virep Oveajv Kal Soll/jlovos (Odyes., xv, 261).
But this construction never occurs in the New Testament,
and it would be strange, as Liinemann remarks, that the
apostle should adjure them by the very thing which he was
about to open up to them. The preposition v-rrep is to be
taken as not very different from irepl. Liinemann gives it the
sense of "in behalf of," "in the interest of" — so virtually
Wordsworth, Ellicott, and Jowett — the Second Coming being-
misunderstood, he was about to do it justice. But this is
regarded by some as rather a refinement, though v-wip does
impty interest in the person or thing referred to (Acts v, 41 ;
Rom. ix, 27; 2 Cor. viii, 23; xii, 5, 8; Philip, i, 7; iv, 10).
Chrysostom explains it by irepl — in reference to that event
in which we have so profound an interest, and which on account
of this very interest you so sadly misunderstood, we entreat
you. For 7rapovcrla see under 1 Thess. iii, 13. It is the second
Ver. 2.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 255
personal and glorious Coming of our Lord at the end of the
present dispensation, and for its double purpose, see under
G — 10 of previous chapter. The apostle during his visit had
told them of the Advent, and the twin features of their con-
verted state were, turning from idols and waiting for His Son
from heaven. The double compound eVtcrwayeoy)/ occurs only
here, and in Heb. x, 25, with a very different reference. Liine-
mann suggests that eiri must mean " up to," but though that is
really the case (1 Thess. iv, 17), the preposition does not express
it, e7r/ merely " marking the point to be reached " — eh airav-
ti]ctiv tov Kvptov. See Mark v, 21. The fumwv is objective, the
gathering together of us — us at present in life — not us, the
living and the dead raised up as contemporaries, but us
spoken of in the previous epistle as living and surviving till the
Second Coming. The living are at that epoch to be caught up,
and the result is, their "gathering together unto Him." The Ttj?
is not repeated before e-muvvaywyris; the two events are joined
in unity, the one bringing with it the other as a synchronous
result. No notice is taken here of the resurrection — though
when Christ comes down, the dead in Him rise — for the appeal is
to the present generation of believers who regarded the Advent
as on them, and their gathering together without suffering
death as about to take place. Their own death is not implied,
and the death of friends, which had grieved them, precedes
this wondrous assemblage. The aim or purpose of his request
is next stated, and it contains also the theme.
(Ver. 2.) eh to fir) raveo)? araXeuQtjvai v/ua? airo tov voo$ /xi'iSe
OpoelarOai — " that ye be not quickly shaken from your mind,
nor yet be troubled." For eh to see 1 Thess. ii, 12 ; iii, 10.
The verb a-aXevOrjuai, from cra'Ao?, agitation, tossing of the sea
(Luke xxi, 25 ; Sept., Jonah i, 15), and of an earthquake
(Is. xxiv, 20), denotes besides its physical sense (Matt, xi, 7 ;
Acts iv, 31), to be mentally agitated or disturbed (Acts
ii, 25 ; xvii, 13 ; Heb. xii, 2G, 27, &c). The adverb T ax£w has
been variously taken — so soon after my exhortations to you
either orally or in the First Epistle (Piscator and Olshausen), or
so soon after my departure, or even perhaps so soon after they
heard any doctrine of the kind (De Wette, Lunemann). But
the adverb may refer to manner rather than time, " soon and
256 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
with small reason " (Alford). It implies certainly a mental
disturbance, quickly, easily, and unthinkingly brought about,
and, on this solemn subject, they are specialty warned against it.
The phrase airo rod vobs is rendered adverbially by the Author-
ized Version, " in mind," and as the Syriac .on».l*V^3 ; better
in Wycliffe, " from your witte," and in Tyndale, " from your
mind," the Rhemish version having "from your sense," "a
vestro sensu" (Vulgate). But vdv? is not sensus verborum
Paidi (Wolf), nor your earlier and more correct view, sen-
tentia (a-Lapide, Grotius), deserentes id quod tenetis (Fro-
mond). Rom. vii, 23, 25 ; xiv, 5. Nou? is to be taken in
its general sense, as mind or reason, your sober or right mind
— "from your common sense" (1 Cor. xiv, 14; Philip, iv, 7).
The construction is pregnant, shaken so as to be driven out
of your mind, ita concuti animo, id dimovearis sea ahdu-
caris cnro (Schott). Rom. vi, 7 ; vii, 2 ; ix, 3 ; 2 Tim. ii, 26.
Winer, § Q6, 2. The language implies that something like a
panic had taken place, or that they were in imminent danger
of falling into one. In the clause, /mySe Opoeia-Oai is climactic,
" nor yet be troubled or terrified " ; the verb is more significant
than that of the previous clause, as terror rises above disturb-
ance, and is occasioned by it. The disjunctive fjajSe has high
authority over fi^re, a reading suggested by its triple occurrence
in the next clauses. It has a slight ascensive force. See under
1 Thess. ii, 3.
fxi'jre Sia. wveutxaTOS mure Sia \oyov /Uj/re Si eincrTo\>^ ai?
Si rj/uLoov — "neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter, as by
us." The clause is divided into three co-ordinate and connected
negations (Matt, v, 34, 35 ; Luke ix, 3 ; Acts xxiii, 8, 12, 21 ;
1 Tim. i, 7; James v, 12). Winer, § 55, 6; Wex, Antig., ii,
156, &c. ; Klotz, Devarius, II, p. 715 ; Hermann, Opuscwla., vol.
Ill, p. 151, &c. Wire Sia TrveufxaTo?, " neither by spirit," some
oracle or saying embodying or professing, but falsely, to embody
spiritual wisdom and foresight on the doctrine, or rather the
period of the Second Advent. Theophylact explains it by Sia
7rpo(p)]Te!as. The phrase cannot mean signa quasi per Spiri-
tual facta, nor the prophecies of the Old Testament falsely
understood (Krause), " nor delusive spiritual apparitions "
(Schrader). Some take irvevfj-a as the abstract for the concrete
Ver. 2.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONTANS. 257
TrvevjuariKog (Chrysostom, Koppe, Storr). Compare 1 John iv, 1.
This meaning would yield (mite a good sense — the man who
framed the false oracle under assumed spiritual influence, for
some human agency is implied ; but it is out of harmony
with the words that follow, \6y6v and e7r*<xToX>/?, which
cannot be taken as abstract, but are definite terms. There
had been some one in the Church at Thessalonica that, under
assumed spiritual influence, uttered the false and alarming-
doctrine.
fju'jTe Sia \6you, " nor by word." Ao'yo? has been
understood in different ways. (1) Some take it in the
sense of calculation, as if the reference were to some
wrong computation based on the prophecies and " times "
of Daniel, and bringing out the result that the day of the Lord
was immediately imminent (Michaelis, Tychsen). Such a
meaning is groundless and artificial to the last degree, and
Xo'yo? by itself could not convey such a sense. (2) Some
regard it as a word of Christ, some falsified saying of His on
the last day, resting on the prophecies of Matt, xxiv, Mark xiii,
and Luke xxi (Baumgarten-Crusius, Noesselt). But such a
ref rence would have required from the apostle some more
definite expression. (3) Macknight would give it the sense of
verbal message, as if sent from the apostle to the Thessalonians;
and Grotius similarly renders it rumores de nobis, to this effect,
that Ave are now speaking otherwise than we had done formerly.
Both conjectures need no refutation. (4) Others put Xoyou
in contrast with 7rvev/j.aTo?, and regard it as a teaching
(8iSax>'i)> which did not deliver itself in prophetic rapture, but
perhaps rather took its proofs from Scripture. Chrysostom
explains by 7ri6av6\oyia, Theophylact by 8iSaa-ica\ia$ £007/ <pm»j
yivo/uevris, and the view generally is held by Zuingli, Calvin,
Ewald, Hofmann, and Riggenbach. But the natural contrast
is not between Xoyo? and Trvev/nd, but between Xoyo? and the
following e-Trto-ToX?/, what is spoken being contrasted with what
is written. The same contrast is repeated in verse 15. . A6yo?
is therefore an oral utterance ascribed to the apostle, and here
falsely ascribed to him, as o>? 67 fjfjuav implies. For Siu
\6yov is not to be taken as an independent statement, or as
connected simply with Si e7rtcrTo\rJT, but the meaning is that
258 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
both utterances and letters of a fictitious character were
ascribed to the apostle.
The last phrase, fxrfre Si eTTLUToXris, has been strangely
supposed by not a few to refer to the first epistle and to some
misinterpretation of it — so Jerome, Kern, Hilgenfeld, Ham-
mond, Krause, Paley, Reuss, Bleek, and Webster and Wilkinson
— his former letter, but comprehended under the general signi-
fication "any communication by letter"; hence the omission
of the article. But a reference to his former epistle would
have necessitated the article or some phrase equally definite,
and the epistle would not as here have been disowned. Com-
pare 1 Cor. v, 9-11 ; 2 Cor. vii, 8. The last words, co? Si })fxwv,
have been connected in various ways. Some join them to all the
preceding words, as Erasmus, Reiche, Noesselt, Jowett, Web-
ster and Wilkinson. Not to repeat that Ao'yo? and ema-ToX))
are connected closely in verse 15, and are taken so here, it may
be replied that co? Si rjfxwv cannot apply to itvev/xa, as it could
not be feigned for him in his absence; the TrvevfAa must have
been in the midst of themselves — the immediate witnesses of
its manifestations. It could in no way be said to be by our
agency, Si t]/ulccv, as are the "word" and "letter" supposed to
have the apostle for their medium. The particle <o?, as = as
so represented — implies the fictitious nature of the assumption.
Ellicott, Fritszche, Winer, Vulgate (tamquam per 7ios); Syriac,
tjQI ,'ZCL^ ^^05 wi^!>-
This warning apparently implies that forgery was early
at work, and that during the few months elapsing from the
date of the first epistle a fictitious utterance and a letter had
been circulated in the apostle's name, teaching what the
apostle intimates in the last clause of the verse. Nothing
farther do we know of them. Jowett says that the apostle
refers only to the possibility of such a speech or epistle being
used against him, but the language describes an actual occur-
rence. The 15th verse of this chapter places the genuine word
and letter in contrast with the spurious, and the 17th verse of
the third chapter describes a guard against a forged epistle, by
showing the token of a true one — " the salutation of me, Paul,
with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle. So
I write." It is needless to wonder why any men at that early
Ver. 2.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 259
time could be so audacious as to attach to any forgery, written
or oral, the apostle's name and authority, for we know nothing
of the motive and almost nothing of the contents save in the
one point. Nor can we now say why the apostle treated the
matter so leniently, Iry averring that the deception was inno-
cent in motive, or that the letter was anonymous. The apostle
could not prevent sayings being put in his name — he could
only deny or disclaim them ; but he took precautions against
the repetition of such literary forgery.
w? oti eve&Tt]Kev i) ijpepa tov lvvplov — "as that the day of the
Lord is come." For Ivuplov the Received Text has Xpta-Tov,
with D 3 K, most mss., and the Gothic ; but Kvplov is read in
A B D 1 F L iV, both Latin and both Syriac versions, with the
Greek and Latin fathers. The o>? introduces the statement not
as actual, but as so represented, its falsehood being implied.
The " day of the Lord " is the day of the Second Advent — His,
as He appears as Judge, His last and loftiest function — His, as
on it He crowns His work, and His church becomes complete
in happiness and in numbers — His, as then He is glorified in
His saints and wondered at in all them who believe. On that
day He rises into a pre-eminence hitherto unwitnessed.
The true meaning of the verb evea-Tt^ev is not " is at hand,"
but " is come," or " is present." The rendering of the English
version, "at hand," has been adopted by many — Calvin,
Jowett, &c. Thus Hammond, "were instantly a-coming;"
Benson, "just at hand, and will happen shortly;" Bloomfield,
Conybeare, Webster, and Wilkinson, "near or close at hand;"
Wordsworth, " instantaneously imminent." (1) Now the verb
is used in six other places of the New Testament, and in all of
them it bears the sense of "present." Rom. viii, 38, ovre
eve(TTu>Ta out€ peWovra, "neither things present nor things to
come;" 1 Cor. iii, 22, e'lre evearr^ra e'/re p.e\\ovTa, "whether
things present or things to come;" 1 Cor. vii, 2(3, Sia tw
evea-Twcrav avuyK^v, " on account of the present distress ; " Gal.
i, 4, etc tov aiwvos tov evecrTWTO? irov^pov, " out of this present
world, an evil one ; " 2 Tim. iii, 1, evvTijo-ovrai icaipoi xaXeirol,
"grievous times shall be present," i.e., the grievous times are
not to follow the last days, but to be included in them ; Heb.
ix, 9, 7rapa/3o\t] et? tov Kaipov tov €ve<TT>]KOTa, "a figure for the
260 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. IT.
time now present," spoken of the Jewish economy. In all
these cases, except 2 Tim. iii, 1, for which there is some
apology, the Authorized Version renders by "present"; and
there was no reason, therefore, to deviate from the true sense
in the verse before us. The translation "is come," "has
arrived," is fully justified by the uniform meaning of the
verb in the New Testament, and is the rendering also, save in
two cases, in the Authorized Version. (2) To show that our
translators were swayed by other than philological reasons, it
may be remarked that the rendering " is at hand " occurs
in twenty other places in the New Testament, and in none
of these, of course, does that rendering represent the Greek
verb before us. It rightly stands for ;/yy«re nine times, ten
times for eyyu?, and once for eipecrrrjicev (2 Tim. iv, 6), where
Luther renders ist vorhanden. (3) The Septuagint usage is
similar to that of the New Testament. In Dan. vii, 5, eh pepo?
ev ea-Tadt], the simple verb has a different meaning, where it
represents the nn'pn, stare facta, constitute est. But we have
in the Apocrypha, 1 Esdras v, 46, ivcrTavTO? Se tov e/3S6fxov
/uLtjvos, " the seventh month being come," not " being at hand,"
as in the Authorized Version; ix, 6, Tpsp-ovTes Sia top evecrTcoTa
Xeip-wva, "trembling on account of the present foul weather;"
1 Mace, xii, 44, iroXipiOv /mi] evecxT^KOTO? fj/juv, " there being at
present no war between us;" 2 Mace, iii, 17, to kuto. KapSlav
eveo-To? a\yo?, "the sorrow at present in his heart," oi', as in the
Authorized Version, " what sorrow he had now in his heart ;
vi, 9, Tr\v eveo-Twcrav TaXanrcopiav, "the present misery;" xii, 3,
u)<? fj.t]Seiuuas eve<TTuxriis 7rpo? avTov? Sucrp-evelag, "as if there had been
no ill-will at present between them;" 3 Mace, i, 16, t[i evea-Twcnj
avdyKy. The same meaning is found in the Hellenistic writers.
Joseph., Antiq., xvi, 6, 2, ov povov ev tw evecrTWTi Kaipw, "not
only in the present time," but also in the past time ; Philo, De
Plantat. Noe, os ei? tov 7rape\>]\v0oTa /ecu eveaTWTa Kai
peWovTa, "it is of the nature of time to be divided into the past
and the present and the future" {Opera, vol. Ill, p. 136, ed.
Pfeiffer). (4) Nor does the classical usage differ. Xenoph.,
Hellen., ii, 1, 6, irep\ rw evecrTtjKOTcov irpaypaTWv, " concerning
the present state of affairs;" Polybius, i, 60, tov evea-TWTa icaipov;
do., 7-5, eis tov evccrTioTa 7ro\epov; xvm, 38, kcxtii tov evearTOSTa
Yer. 2.J SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 201
fJaaiXea, "against the present king." Examples from yEschines
and Demosthenes, as applied to Kuipos, -n-oXepog, are given by
Host and Palm. There may be some cases where it may bear
the sense of, impending, as good as come, ideally present; but
the prevailing temporal meaning is what we have given. Nay,
Hesychius defines evecrrwra by irupovra. Xpovos euecrr^KW? is
the grammatical name of the present tense, and peroxh evea-ruxra
is the present participle. Sextus Empiricus divides time into
tov 7rapipx i ll UL ^ l ' ou Kai T0V evecTTWTa nai tov /meWovTa. iheodore
defines the term by irupuiv. Not simply "at hand," but "is
present" or "has begun," is the coiTect translation, even taking
the classical usage which Webster and Wilkinson assume,
though they wrongly render it " imminent." (5) How could
the doctrine that the day of the Lord is at hand be treated by
the apostle as an error ? That the day of the Lord is at hand
is the uniform teaching of the New Testament (Matt, xxiv;
Rom. xiii, 12; Philip, iv, 5; Heb. x, 25, 37; James v, 8; 1 Peter
iv, 7; 1 John ii, IS; Rev. xxii, 20). Could the apostle disclaim
the teaching of such a doctrine as that " the day of the Lord is
at hand," or warn the Church against it as an error and a
species of deception ? The rendering " at hand " cannot there-
fore here be the correct translation of evecrTrjKev. (6) Were
the doctrine against which the apostle warns, and which he so
solemnly disowns, only that the day of the Lord was at hand,
how could such a doctrine throw the Church into panic and
confusion — how could they be driven from their sense and
alarmed, as he calls it ? For they were familiar with it ; they
were waiting for His Son from heaven, and His Coming is again
and again referred to in the first epistle. The imminence of
the Advent was no new theme to them, and they could not be
so startled by it. Nay, such was their spiritual condition and
temperament, that such a doctrine, if disclosed for the first time
to them, would have filled their spirits with unutterable glad-
ness. They were waiting for His Son from heaven; they were
meanwhile characterized by works of faith, labours of love, and
patience of hope ; the word had wrought effectually in them ;
their faith had grown exceedingly, and their mutual love
abounded; they were children of the light; they were the
apostle's joy, hope, and crown of rejoicing in the presence of
262 COMMENTAEY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
our Lord Jesus Christ at His coming. His prayer for them
was, that "God would establish their hearts unblameable before
Him at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His
saints," and that " their whole spirit, soul, and body might be
preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."
He " comes to be glorified in His saints," and He comes sud-
denly,*" as a thief in the night;" and how, in such a spiritual
state, could they be filled with consternation at the thought
that the period was near when all their own anticipations and
all these prayers for them should be fully realized. As the
nearness of the Advent was no new doctrine, it could not have
so alarmed them; and as their character was such as to lead
them to love His appearance and to lift up their heads as their
redemption drew nigh, it could not have so excited and con-
founded them, nor could the apostle have branded such a doc-
trine as false, or have ascribed it to some spurious spiritual
manifestation or to some utterance or some letter forged and
circulated in his name. Thus, both philologically and doctrin-
ally, the rendering " is at hand " cannot be sustained.
Lastly, the translation we give seems to be the oldest one.
The Syriac has «£o? Global Oil *.*^Lq 2*qS )aiy "Lo the day
of our Lord is come." At all events the same Syriac term,
which is but the Syriac form of the Chaldee hod, stands
for ?j\6ov in Acts viii, 36; for eireo-nia-civ, Acts x, 17, "were
arrived and standing at the gate;" for KaTi)vTi}<Tev, Acts xviii, 19,
" he came to Ephesus, &c." The meaning in these places is
"is come " or "arrived." Compare Daniel vii, 13, 22. Chry-
sostom identifies the error here condemned with that of those
who said that the resurrection is already past, adding that
believers, henceforth hoping for nothing great and splendid,
might faint under their sufferings. Theodore of Mopsuestia
understands this to be the error condemned w? av eyyvBev
TrapovTO? eKelvov tov Kaipov {Catena in Thessal., p. 386, ed.
Cramer). CEcumenius puts it thus — " the apostle does not
say when the resurrection shall be, oti Se ov vvv effteo-rrjKev
diroSeiKwari " ; and more distinctly in his preface, w? '/jS?i
t>]? 7rapouTia? evcrTacrtfi — f/Srj irapeivai avn'jp ', and in the
same preface, Theodoret is emoted as asserting that some
seducers eXeyov irapuvai Xolttov tjjv irapovcriav tou I^vpiov;
Ver. 2.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIA.NS. 263
Pelagius, ne quis vos seducat ullo modo, dicentes : hie
Christ Ltb; ecce illic ; and Ambrosiaster has de adventu quasi
imminentis Domini. But it may be asked — how could
these early believers persuade themselves that the day of
the Lord was come— how could they hold that the Lord
had descended — that the trumpet had been heard — that
the dead had been raised and the living caught up ? It will
scarcely do to conjecture, with Lillie, that they might imagine
that "the day had come in some different way from that in
which they had been taught to look for it, or else, that this
great crisis had actually transpired, and in that precise shape,
while they were not aware of it." They must in such a case
have thought that they had forfeited their share in the glory
of the kingdom. We cannot imagine the possibility of such
delusion, and the hallucinations which Lillie brings in proof are
not at all to the point. The first instance adduced by him is
that of a party in the church of Corinth who said that "there
is no resurrection." But this denial is a very different error
from saying that it had already taken place without their par-
ticipation in the result, or their witnessing its glories and
mysteries. The other instance, that of those who said that the
resurrection is past, was based on a false spiritualistic philosophy,
which identified resurrection with the revivification of the soul ;
surely a veiy different error from the imagination that the
resurrection of the dead in the physical sense had already
taken place. It was scarcely possible that the error had pro-
ceeded so far as to impugn the reality and universality of the
resurrection. The apostle had said that "the day of the Lord
cometh as a thief in the night," suddenly and without warning,
but could they persuade themselves that the sudden destruction
then threatened had fallen on their enemies, and that none of
them had escaped? The phrase employed, rj/mepa tov K.vpiov may
not be identical with the actual irapova-la tov Ivvpiov, but may
denote its period and comprehend the events which are its
antecedents and concomitants. Not the irapovaia itself, but its
period had come. The day of the Lord, the epoch of the Second
Advent had now dawned upon them, and the persecutions now
falling on them were tokens of its presence. Thej^ regarded the
day of grace as apparently at an end, so that in fancy they
264 COMMENTAKY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
were in the period of judgment, which was to witness the disso-
lution of society and the introduction of a new state of things.
This error was taught as if on the apostle's authority — his
teaching or letter — and it may have been the more readily
adopted from his own words, which seemed to imply that he
himself was to be alive at the Advent ; or the error may have
been given out not as a retractation, but as a farther expansion
of his oral teaching and his doctrine as given in the first
epistle.
(Ver. 3.) M>7 -n? v/ulcis e£a7ra,T)'i<T>i Kara prjSeva Tp'oirov — "Let
no one deceive you in any wa} 7 ." The anxiety of the apostle
on the point leads him to a virtual repetition of the warning.
The doctrine that the day of the Lord had set in was a decep-
tion; whatever might be the motives of those who taught
it, it was a perilous error and they were to guard against being
its dupes. The Ik in the compound verb has an intensive force,
the verb meaning "to deceive out and out." The phrase Kara
fj.}]Siva rpoirov does not allude merely to the three ways
specified in the preceding verse, as if it meant by any of
these means (CEcumenius, Theophylact, Bengel, Baumgarten-
Crusius), but is absolute and inclusive, "in no way," by no
method of deception whatever its form or character.
otl eav /ut.)] eXOij i) aTro&Taa-'ia irpMTov — " because the day will
not set in unless there come the apostacy first." The ellipse is
easily supplied — otiovk€V€(tti]K€v i) rtfi&pa rod Ku/ r j/ou(Liinemann),
or, as Ellicott, t) ijfxepa ovk eva-r^arerai, or, as Theophylact, ov
yevi'jcrtTui >) irapovuia tou KuptW The clause involving the use
of a finite verb is omitted ; the mind of the writer is fixed
specially on the event which must intervene, the mental nega-
tion implied in the two previous verses, namely, "the day of the
Lord has not taken place," involving the consequent unex-
pressed negation, " nor will it take place unless." Winer, § 64, 7 ;
Hermann, Vigerus, II. p. 694. On av with the subjunctive, see
Donaldson, § 583 /3. There are two proposed constructions
which are hard and unnatural. Storr and Flatt propose to get
rid of the ellipse by giving eav juli'i a sense analogous to the
Hebrew lb n^ ganz gewiss, certissime (Numbers xiv, 28 ; Ezek.
xvii, 19 ; Heb. iv. 3, 5) ; but in those places the phrase has the
form of an oath. Knatchbull's connection is as unsatisfactory,
Ver. 3.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 265
for lie places a comma after on, joins it to e 'fa7rciT?/07/, and sup-
plies eveo-TtjKev, " let no man deceive you that the day of the
Lord is come, if it shall not come before the apostacy, ne qivis
sed/ucat vos ullo modo quod instet dies Domini si non venerit
prius a/postasia.
' A.iroa-ra(Ti(i is a more recent form for the older airo-
crTaa-tf. Lobeck, Phrynichus, p. 528. The word is found in
Acts xxi, 21 — a charge against Paul that he taught defection
from Moses ; in Sept., 2 Chron. xxix, 19 — the idolatrous defection
of Ahaz; in Jer. ii, 19, with a similar sense — iruiSevo-ei <re i)
air out aula rrou ; and in 1 Mace, ii, 15, in reference to enforced
idolatry — ol KdTavayicd^ovTGS t>]v uiro<TTa<rlav. The verb is used
in 1 Tim. iv, 1, followed by tJJs Trlcrrewg, and in Heb. iii, 12,
with airo Qeov. This usage shows that by the term spiritual
defection is meant, and such a meaning is in harmony with the
context, for its connection is with the Man of Sin and the
Mystery of Iniquity. It is therefore wrong for this double
reason —
I. To refer it to any political dissatisfaction or revolt either
(1) to that of the Jews from the Romans — singularis et nota--
bills ilia rebcllio (Schottgen, vol. I, p. 840; and so Clericus,
Noesselt, Rosenmiiller, and partly Usteri, Paulin. Lehrbegr., p.
349); or (2) to the mutiny against, and the assassination of Galba,
Otho, and Vitellius, prior to the consolidation of the empire by
the gens Flavia (Wetstein), or (3) to any mingled religious and
political defection (Aretius, Vorstius, Kern) ; or (4) to the
breaking up of the Roman Empire, as a-Lapide. " Quis, nisi
Romanus status, cujus abscessio in decern reges dispersa Anti-
el/ ristum super d/vbcet?" (TertullianDe Resurr. Carnis, vi, p. 499,
vol. II, Opera, ed. Oehler) ; discessio . . . ut omnes gentes
quae Romano imperio subjacent, recedant (Jerome, ad Alga-
siam, p. 887, vol. I, Opera, ed. Vallarsi).
II. Equally wrong is the notion of Hammond that the word
describes " a notable discernible apostatizing of Christians to
that abominable impiety of the Gnostics," quoting 1 Tim. iv, 1.
But no Gnostic aberration expresses the full meaning of the
term, nor dues it harmonize with the contents of the prophecy.
Hammond, however, understands by the Advent, the infliction
of divine judgment on the Jews.
266 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
III. Nor can airocrraa-la be taken as the abstract for the
concrete, meaning Antichrist himself, as Chrysostom, and the
Greek fathers, with Augustine. Thus Theophylact, air oar aa- la
Tovrecrn 6 AvrixpHTTog ; Augustine, dieingue judicii non esse
ventururn, nisi ille prior venerit, quem refugam vocal (De
Givitate Dei, lib. vol. VII, p. 958, Opera, Gaume, Paris).
But such a personification confuses the order of the prophecy ;
the apostacy precedes, and prepares for the revelation of the
Man of Sin. " The falling away," therefore, is not the result of
the appearance of the Man of Sin, but the antecedent ; not as
Pelt, secessionem cujus ille evil auctor ct signifer. Thus
airoa-racrla, so signalized by the article /;, is something distinct,
something so far familiar to them, and on which they had
enjoyed previous instruction. See verse 5. It is a spiritual
falling away, the opposite of that growth in Christian excel-
lence which the apostle commends in them — faith fled, love
dead, hope collapsed, and the truth forsaken ; all spiritual
graces and energies fallen out of recognition and existence ;
God ignored, Christ forgotten, and the Spirit grieved and gone.
Such a defection is so sad and fatal that it opens the way
for the daring and defiant revelation of the Man of Sin. He
seizes the opportunity when all is asleep and fearless because
faithless, to found his kingdom, diffuse his falsehood, and
fortify his impious pretensions. This man would not be
suffered to show himself, would not be permitted to gather
strength and hardihood in a healthful and vigilant condition of
the church (Luke xxi, 8). The elements of that apostacy seem
to be gathered up at length, and to culminate in a single per-
sonality, as its last appalling embodiment. The Kai of the fol-
lowing clause has something of a consecutive force — marking
its clause as the result of the previous one.
Kac a7roica\v<p6i] 6 avOpcoiros T>js a/uapTiag, 6 vio? T?]$ airoo-
Xe/u? — " and there be revealed the Man of Sin, the Son of
Perdition." For a/uaprla?, avop.la<s is read in B n and several of
the fathers, but the text has good authority. The phrase has
resemblance to jit* fry. (Isaiah lv, 7). The genitive t-v?
afxapTias is that of predominating quality, die dominirenden
Eigenschaften (Scheuerlein, § 16, 3). He is the Man of Sin,
whose inner element and outer characteristic is sin and nothing
Veb. 3.J SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 267
but sin ; who has his being, plans, and activity in sin and in
nothing else ; who, as the living embodiment of it, is known
and recognized as the man of sin. The following verse shows
that he fully verifies his awful and significant name — a name
in terrific antagonism to the Holy and Loving One, and His holy
and benignant government, the purpose of which is to put
down sin and deliver sinners. The aTroKaXv^d?] suggests a
contrast with the same word in i, 7, " the Lord Jesus shall be
revealed from heaven" — a sudden and distinct personal mani-
festation is implied (Turretin, Pelt). There are to be secret
preparations, causes in hidden operation, prior to the final
embodiment and outburst. The man of sin is also —
6 wo? t>7? cnrcoXelas — " the Son of Perdition." A similar
phrase renvoi a7rcoXe/a? occurs in Isaiah lvii, 4. The man of sin
stands to perdition as child to parent (John xvii, 12 ; Ephes. ii,
2). Sonship indicates in Hebrew idiom a variety of relations,
even among inanimate things. The son of perdition is he on
whom perdition falls as his due and his heritage, who is so
indissolubly related to it, and so bound up with it, that he
cannot escape it. Being the Man of Sin, he must be in God's
righteous government the Son of Perdition. Such sin entails
and measures out its own retribution.
'A-rrooXeia is the perdition which he himself is to suffer, not
that which he brings on others (Pelt), nor are the two ideas in
combination, as Theodoret, CEcumenius, Bengel, Heydenreich,
and Schott suppose. Thus CEcumenius, Sia to cnroWveiv ttoWov?
kou avrov (nroWveadai. The one intransitive meaning is most
in harmony with the idiom. The person so described is a man
— av6pw7ros — a single man, and not a series or succession of men,
not the personification of evil influences, or the head of any
human organization. This man, made of sin, and the represen-
tative impersonation of it, is the counter-Christ, " he who
opposes ; " both are individual men, both come to view r , or are
"revealed" in immediate personal manifestation, both are sig-
nalized in character, the one by righteousness, the other by sin.
The one has life and glory as his destiny, but the other ruin and
perdition. At the same time the idea of a Satanic incarnation
is not to be admitted, as Pelagius curtly puts it, diabolus
scilicet. " Is it then Satan ?" asks Chrysostom. " By no means,
2GS COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. 11.
but some man that admits his full inworking iu him, iracrav
Sexojuevos (rod 'Zuravd) ryv evepyttav" and more fully in Theo-
doret. It is an inspiration, rather than an incarnation, as
verse 9 also implies.
(Ver. 4.) o avTiKeifxevos Kai V7re puipop.ei>o<? ctti iravTa Xeyop-evov
Qeov I] a-e^uG-juia — " he who opposes and exalts himself above
every one called God, or an object of worship." These parti-
ciples, connected with cnroKa\v<p6f], carry forward the descrip-
tion begun by the nouns of the previous clauses and add
several dark features to it. '0 uvriKelfxevo?, the opposing one,
or one who opposes = the opposer. His characterizing work
or function, or that which gives him distinctive notoriety is,
that he opposes; there is 'no object mentioned, and Christ is
to be understood, as may be inferred from verse 8, for the Lord
is at His coming to consume and destroy him. The opposing
is not directed against mankind (Michaelis, Baumgarten), there
being no idea of this kind in the context, nor generally against
God and Christ (De Wette, Riggenbach), but specially and
pointedly against Christ, corde, lingua, stilo, factis, per se, per
suos (Bengal). This gives him a character not unlike that of 6
uvtlSizos, Sid(3o\o?, )B»ri (1 Peter v, 8 ; Rev. xii, 10). Compare
Job i, G; Zech. iii, 1. Filled with the devil's spirit, he is
noted as the devil's workman, withstanding, counteracting all
that Christ is planning and doing — his heart so set upon it that
his uniform attitude toward it is that of a daring and defiant
antagonist. Satan entered into the heart of Judas, the son of
perdition, and he takes possession of the Man of Sin, inspiring
him with power, intensifying his malignity, feeding his pride
and profanity till he is tempted to self-deification, which is now
described. As the verb avriKeifxai is always followed by a dative
in the New Testament, and as no object is here expressed, the
participle may be regarded as absolute, as being virtually a
substantive, and there is no need therefore of a zeugmatic
construction, as is supposed by Benson, Koppe, Flatt,
Pelt, Hofmann, and Riggenbach — the clause beginning
with eir\ belonging only to inrepaipoiuevo?. The omission of
the article before the second participle does not unite both
participles under one construction, but only shows that both
refer to the same person. Winer, § 19, 4.
Vkr. 4.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 20!)
Km virepaip6tj.evo<i eir\ irdvTa Xeyo/uevov Oeov — " and exalting
himself above every one called God. The compound verb
occurs only in 2 Cor. xii, 7, v-n-ep being a favourite preposition
with the apostle. The modifying participle Xeyo/mevov does not
mean every so-called God (Peile), as that would exclude the
one true God, " nor every one that entitled himself a God "
(Wakefield), but it is used to prevent the conclusion that the
God and gods are placed in the same category; "every God"
would be a profane and erroneous expression, impossible for
«i Christian believer, who acknowledges one God only. One
is rightly called God, others are falsely so-called, Xeyo/uevoi
Geo/ (1 Cor. viii, 5). Compare Ephes. ii, 11. The phrase then
means the true God and every other one bearing the name — the
false gods of heathenism. The preposition eiri, supra in the
Vulgate, means "upon," (i over," or "above" " motion with a
view to superposition " (Donaldson, Gr. Gr., § 483 c), motion
followed by rest on or over. It is used sometimes with a
hostile reference (Matt, x, 21 ; 2 Cor. x, 2) ; such a reference
being here reflected from the previous participle (Winer, § 49 I).
The clause bears a strong resemblance to Daniel xi, 30 — " and
the king shall do according to his will, and he shall exalt him-
self and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak
marvellous things against the God of gods." This description
portrays a heathen and polytheistic king, and the phrases eVt
TrdvTa 6e6v . . eirl irdvras Oeovg in verse 37 are quite ana-
logous. The Man of Sin exalts himself above and against
eveiy one called God. He puts himself into a position higher
than that of any God, refuses to worship anything divine, as
if he himself possessed a higher divinity.
I] crefiaar/uLa — "or an object of adoration," out quod colitur,
Syriac " worshipful." Hefiacr/uLa occurs in Acts xvii, 23, " objects
of divine reverence," and with the same meaning in Wisdom
xiv, 20 ; xv, 17 ; Bel and the Dragon, 27. Jlepl tu Beta
a-ePao-fiara. Dionys. Halicar., Antiq., I, 30, v, 1. It cannot
here at all refer to the Roman Emperor called Se/Sacrros, and
denote the majesty and power of Caesar which the Man of Sin
subjects to himself and defames. Whatever bears a divine
name or claims divine worship, he will put beneath himself in
a spirit of overbearing an 1 self-glorifying hostility, and of
270 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAULS [Chap. IT.
blasphemous insolence, as if to himself alone divine homage
were due. He that lifts himself above everything divine in
person or homage puts himself in its room as divine. The
inference is that this 'AvrlOeo? thrusts God out of His place,
usurps it, and arrogantly and impiously claims the worship
due to Him. The apostle adds in proof —
were avrov ei? rov v'Jlov rov Qeov Kauicrai, d'troSeucvvvra eavrov
on ear iv Geo? — "so that he sitteth down in the temple of God,
showing himself that he is God." The Received Text has tog
Qeov, with D 3 FKL, the Syriac, Chrysostom, and Theodoret;
but the words are omitted in ABD 1 ^ both Latin versions and
the Coptic, with very many of the Greek and Latin fathers.
They are to be rejected therefore, and they are a species of
gloss. The result is introduced by oxrre. In this unparalleled
and audacious wickedness, the antagonist and exalter of Himself
above every one divine in title enters into the shrine of God
and there sits down a self-made God. The connection has been
taken by Conybeare thus, so as to seat himself in the temple,
(avrov for avrov) and as if KaQ'iarai were transitive (Grotius,
Koppe, Pelt); but KaOlcrai is usually intransitive in the New
Testament, so that avrov is the subject, and has the stress
upon it. KaOluai . . . el? is a pregnant construction — goes
into and sits down (Matt, ii, 23; xiii, 2). Arrian, Ellendt, note,
vol. I, p. 247; Schaefer, do.; Demosth., vol. I, p. 194; Winer, §
50, 4. The aorist describes the act — he sits down, and it is
implied that the sitting lasts after the act. By veto? (valco)
is meant the temple proper, as distinct from lepov, the cluster of
sacred buildings around it (Herodotus, i, 181-183); and the
distinction is observed in Josephus, Philo, the Septuagint, and
New Testament. Trench, Synon., I, § 3. Into the temple proper
does this proud opposer thrust himself — as if he were its divine
inhabitant with his throne in the Holy of Holies. But what is
this vao? ? (1) The term may be used figuratively for the
Church (1 Cor. iii, 17; 1 Cor. vi, 19; Ephes. ii, 21, 22). So the
Greek fathers, Theodoret, CEcumenius, and Theophylact, after
Chrysostom who says — "for he will not introduce idolatry, but
will be a kind of opponent to God, and he will abolish all the
gods and will order them to worship him instead of God, and
he will be seated in the temple of God — ov rov iv 'lepoaoXv/uoi?
Ver. 4.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 971
fxovov aWa /cat a? tu? iravTa\ou e/c/cA?/cna?. ' Theodoret says
that by the temple is to be understood the churches in which he
will snatcli the primacy — irpoeSpelav. Similarly Theophylact —
" not specially in the temple at Jerusalem, aWa els ra? eiackycTiaq
a-rrXooq, icai iravTa vaov Qelov" and to the same effect OEcumenius.
The same view is held by many commentators, among whom
are Musculus, Hunnius, Estius, Aretius, Benson, Wolf, Heyden-
reich, Pelt, Olshausen, Bisping, Hilgenfeld. The opinion is
so far sanctioned by the usage of Scripture. But the places
quoted in support of it are not wholly analogous ; the spiritual
temple is in them said to be built up of individual believers
as living stones ; they are affirmed to be a temple, and the
appeal is to them in this character. The phrase is an im-
mediate and impressive symbol of their purity and consecration
and of their being the dwelling-place of God, "an habitation
of God through the Spirit." In those ethical passages, de-
scribing spiritual privilege, blessing, and destiny, the meaning
lies on the surface, and is so clear that it cannot be for a
moment mistaken, for the metaphor carries its own explanation,
and believers are asserted to form the temple. See Howe's
Living Temple ; see also Essay on the Man of Sin.
But the case is somewhat different in a picture like
this where, without any explanation, the profane and daring
usurper, as the acme of his antagonism, is said to take his seat
in the temple of God. (1) There is no allusion in the context
to believers as being God's temple, but in the text quoted
believers are directly asserted to constitute it. (2) The sitting
in the temple does not harmonize so fully with the notion of an
ideal or spiritual structure. The citations adduced by Alford
are scarcely in point, as 1 Cor. vi, -i, where, ev rfj eKKXija-ia
occurring, the meaning is evident, and the clause signifies,
set them as judges for a definite purpose; Matt, xxiii, 2,
where sitting in Moses' chair is without ambiguity; and the
image is as evident in Rev. xx, 4. The places where Jc.^us
is said to sit on the right hand of God are not in analogy; his
royal seat is the symbol of highest exaltation and of universal
dominion. (3) If the temple of God be the church, what is
meant by the Man of Sin entering and seating himself in it,
what is the position which he thus occupies, what is his
272 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
locality? for he is no ideal usurper, no personified evil influence,
but a man with human conditions. (4) Could those for whom
the epistle was written easily understand by the phrase the
Church of Christ ; or would not their first and most natural
conclusion be that the Man of Sin was to intrude into some
actual edifice, set apart to God as His shrine, like that at Jeru-
salem, and appropriate it. (o) The next clause, " Showing
that He is God," leads to the same conclusion — he that sits in
(rod's temple takes God's place and prerogative, for the temple
is His dwelling — a conclusion which could not have the same
force and evident connection with the premises, if the temple
were the church so symbolized, for the usurpation would in
that be more directed against Christ, the Head of the Church,
or the Holy Spirit who fills it. (6) Were the Church to
permit such intrusion, and such impious self-assumed exaltation
on the part of the Man of Sin above all divine persons and
worship, it would cease to merit the appellation of the temple
of God, and also on account of the previous apostacy which
made such self-deification possible. (7) The entire prophecy
is distinct and personal, of prosaic and plain directness in its
description of a man possessing a certain character, bringing on
himself a certain destiny, and as he is at length to be consumed
by the Lord at His Second Advent; may it not therefore be
said that it would be out of harmony with this literal style of
prediction, if in the midst of it should occur an unfamiliar
image as the name of a place which is the scene of a usurpation
without parallel ? (8) This is also the earliest interpretation.
Irenseus says expressly, " Besides he has also pointed out,
which in many ways I have shown, that the temple in Jerusa-
lem was made by the direction of the true God. For the
apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly calls it
the temple of God ... in which temple the adversary shall
sit, trying to show himself off as Christ, " tentans semetipsum
Christum ostendere . . . transferet regnum in earn, et in
templo Dei sedet, seducens eos qui adorant earn, quasi ipse sit
Christ us (Contra Haeres., v, 25, 2, 4, pp. 784, 786), et sedebit in
templo Hierosolymis (do., v, p. 803, vol. I, Opera, ed. Stieren).
Cyril of Jerusalem, who had a natural interest in the matter of
prior possession, asks, iroiov apa vaov the ruined temple of the
Ver. 4.J SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 27:3
Jews? ju>] y'evoiTo' yap tovtov ev w ecr/uev, adding that the temple
is that built by Solomon, which Antichrist shall rebuild, 6 too
^LoXojuwvo? vaov KaTa<TKeva<rdevTa p.lX\cov oikoSojulcTu (Gatech.,
xv, 7, p. 212, ed. Miller). Jerome refers to the same opinion,
though he does not adopt it, et in templo Bel, vel Hicrosolymis,
ut qiiidam putant (ad Algas., Lit. 121, p. 888, vol. I, Opera,
ed. Vallarsi). Gregoiy of Nazianzus held a like opinion, $atr\v
otl o vao? o ev lepocroXvjuioi? oLKOOop.)]9i']<reTai vcrTepov, cos tov
A.VTl\pL(TTOV 7Tl(TT€v9)](rop.€l>6v V7TO 'IovSa.(0)V ^\.pi<TTOV (vol. I,
Orat, 47, p. 724 d, Opera, ed. Paris, 1630). All these argu-
ments are not very strong, but may somewhat incline the
balance in favour of this opinion, though certainly the difficulty
of interpretation is increased, if the old temple of Jerusalem be
regarded as the scene. Yet such is the view of Grotius,
Clericus, Schottgen, Whitby, Kern, De Wette, Ltinemann,
Wieseler, Dollinger. See Essay.
airoSciKvvvTa eavrov otl €ctt\v Geo? — " showing himself off
that he is God." The compound verb means, according to
Winer, speetandum aliquid proponere, and its participle is
more than, trying to show himself, ireipuop.evov a-rroSeacvvvai
(Chrysostom) ; he is actually doing so, though he cannot
succeed. He is showing himself that he is God, as he sits in
the temple ; this his claim to be regarded as God is a present,
characteristic, continuous self-exhibition as God. Geo? is not a
god, or a possessor of divinity, one among many, but God.
The expressed ecrrlv emphasizes the assertion. How this self-
deification is done, or how this wretched assumption aud
exhibition of divinity is held up, we know not. The impious
pretence is not kept up by false miracles, as many contend,
such as the Greek fathers, Hej'denreich, Schott, Glshausen, De
Wette, Riggenbach, for these lying wonders are not introduced
till verse 7, and they belong more to his mission as a seducer
than to this culmination of blasphemy — usurping God's place
and prerogatives, and giving out that he is God. This is the
crowning act of impiety — not putting his statue in the temple,
but sitting in state in it himself; not multiplying false gods,
or setting up many idols, but himself claiming godhead, either
as a rival, or to the exclusion of the one true God. For a creature,
for a man, to venture upon this divine treason, and, from pride
274 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
and insolent ambition and antipathy, to take God's seat and
claim His honour, is surely the most awful consummation of
wickedness and blasphemy that can be imagined, and he who
rises to the height of such flagrant, "damnable" enormity, is
truly named the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition. One can
scarcely imagine the possibility of such God-defying and God-
personating rebellion, and we must surely wonder why it is
tolerated at all, not why vengeance is flashed upon it in God's
time at the Second Advent.
(Ver. 5.) Ov /j.vi]aoveveTe brt €Ti cov irpos v/aug ravra eXeyov
vfxh — " Eemember ye not that when I was yet with you I was
telling you these things ? " For 777)09 vfxa$ see under 1 Thess.
iii, 4. TavTa refers to the contents of the two previous verses
— the things just touched on by him, and more fully communi-
cated during his very brief residence at Thessalonica. The
imperfect implies more than a solitary communication — " I
used to tell you." Winer, § xl, 3 b. He had been in the habit
of giving them such lessons and disclosures, no doubt for some
good purpose. His eschatology was no idle or purposeless
speculation ; it ever had influence on present duty, patience,
and hope. The commencing interrogation, " Do ye not re-
member ? " has in it tacita objargatio. If they had only
remembered his definite and repeated lessons, they could not
have been so perplexed and seduced as to imagine that the
day of the Lord had set in ; for they would have sustained
themselves by the thought that defection must precede it, and
the terrible development of the Man of Sin.
(Ver. 6.) Kc« vvv to Kare^ov o'lSaTe, el? to a.7rOKoXv(pr]paL avrov
cv to) kavrov Kuipcp — "And now what hinders ye know, in order
that he may be revealed in his own time." They knew what
this restraining power or influence was — knew it from his
previous personal teaching, and therefore he does not here
repeat the information. We have not the same knowledge,
and so must be contented to conjecture his meaning. Because
they knew it so well, we know it so imperfectly. The particle
vvv has been variously taken. (1) It has been taken as a par-
ticle of time, qualifying Karexov— what now hinders. So
Heydenreich, Schrader, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bis-
ping, Wieseler. But in that case the order would require to
Ver. 6.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THE3SALONIANS. 975
be to vvv kutcxov, the emphatic adverb having its natural
position between the article and the participle. The places
adduced to exemplify such a l^perbaton as these expositors
assume are not parallel instances, as verse 7 ; Rom. xii, 3 ;
1 Cor. vii, 17. The use of upri and of '/jS>] with 6 Kar'ex^v,
in verse 7, does not favour this view. For as er« refers to his
sojourn, and qualifies a>v s upri after 6 Kar'ex^v, as Liinemann
says, has not the stress upon it, but the participle has, and
therefore upri is not connected with vvv as the repetition of
its meaning ; while f/S)], again, is in contrast with the phrase
"in his own time." Some connect it with o'lSare, and as
in contrast to eri — while he was yet with them he told them
of those things already mentioned, and now after his writing
they knew, or when they recalled his instructions they knew
(Riggenbach). They knew either what hindered — the previous,
or intermediate and necessary happening of the apostacy (Ben-
gel, Storr, and Flatt) ; or, under another aspect suggested by
Kern and Hilgenfeld, "ye now know Avhat preventeth the
coming of Christ — namely, the prior manifestation of this self-
deifying Man of Sin." But as these topics imply additional
knowledge, the words would be vvv 6e kcu o'lSare.
(2) The particle vvv may be taken with its logical significa-
tion as an advance to a new thought. See under 1 Thess. iii,
8. Compare Acts vii, 34 ; x, 5 ; xii, 11 ; 1 Cor. xiv, 6. "And
now, those things being so," or passing away from the question
and implied rebuke of the previous verse to another point —
"ye now know what withholds;" so De Wette, Liinemann,
Ewald, Alford, Ellicott ; not " and thus " (Koppe), nor igitur
(Flatt, Pelt). Schott takes vvv in the sense of etiam nunc, com-
pertwm habetis, non Mo tantum tempore, quo vos de his omni-
bus coram edocui, cognovistis, quid adhuc ilium cohibeat. But
the idea expressed by /caTc'xov is a new idea, and not contained
in the ravra, and the words as Liinemann argues, would require
to be to ovv Karex ov o'lSare ko.\ vvv, " }*e knew it then ; ye know
it also now." The participle denotes what restrains or hinders
or 70 kwKvov (Chrysostom). Luke iv, 42; Rom. i, IS; Sept.,
Gen. xxiv, 56 ; Xenoph., Mem. ii, G, 9.
There are two important questions. What is the restraining
power, and from what does it restrain \ The former will be
276 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
considered in the appended Essay, and various answers have
been given to the latter. (1) The meaning cannot be what
hinders me from speaking more fully to you on Antichrist — to
wit, the fear of incurring the wrath of Nero : such is the absurd
view of Heinsius, which is contradicted by verses 7 and 8. (2)
Nor is it the Second Advent which is so hindered (Noack), for
avTov does not refer to Christ, as /cuTt'x«^ in verse 7 distinctly
shows ; and therefore the true reference is to avBpunros tJJ?
afxaprlas, the main theme of the present section, the
(nroKa\v(p6tivai of this verse being identical with the airoKaKiKpd}]
of verse 3 and the airoKaXv^Q^creTai of verse 8, and tcarexov is in
contrast with "revealed in his time"; the restraining power holds
him back from being revealed — from any premature manifesta-
tion. The following ei$ to introduces not the result (Flatt), but
the design of this restraining power, in order that he may be
revealed ev tw eavrou tcaipcZ, " in his own time " — not before it,
but in it (Matt, xx, 18 ; Luke i, 20 ; 1 Tim. vi, 15). A set time
is appointed by God for the manifestation of the Man of Sin —
a time neither to be antedated nor postponed, and the restrain-
ing power which prevents his immediate appearance is also in
God's hand. It is a mistranslation of els to to make it donee
or usque clum, for it is not equivalent to eoog in the next verse.
The revelation of the Man of Sin is so prearranged that it was
not impending, and does not come by chance or at any self-
selected epoch. Christ came in the fulness of the time, and his
great, dark, and last counter-worker and caricature comes also
in his own time.
(Ver. 7.) To yap p.vaTi'/piov i'/Si] evepyeiTai Ttj? (wo/miag — " For
the mystery already is working of lawlessness." Tap intro-
duces confirmative explanation, as p.vuT)'jpiov is opposed to
a7roKo\v(p6ijvai, what is hidden to what is manifest. "Ho 1 ;/ is in
contrast with «V to enroKa\v<j>6rjvai, present as contrasted with
future, and evepyetrai is in antithesis with rb Karexou, working
and yet retarded from open outbreak. For /uLvarTi'/pioi/ see under
Ephes. i, 9 ; v, 32. It is not something incomprehensible, but
here something veiled and hidden, and apparently as yet un-
known to the church, yet working its way toward the awful
consummation. 'IZvepyeirai, middle, has an active sense as
usually in the New Testament; not "is being wrought," or efficax
Ver. 7.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 277
redditur, but " worketh " (Estins, Calovius, Noesselt, Storr,
Schott). See under Gal. ii, 8. 'Avo/uta — rendered " iniquity,''
Matt, xiii, 41; " unrighteousness," 2 Cor. vi, 14; "transgression
of the law," 1 John iii, 4 — is lawlessness, the reference being to
the law of God (1 John iii, 4, ;/ up.apTiu ecrr'iv fj dvop.'ia). This
avo/uLia is utter and wanton disrespect for divine law ; not only
the wilful non-recognition of it, but perhaps the virtual super-
seding of it by some godless self-constituted and usurping
authority. Trench, Synon., ii, § 16. In —
to /uvcrruptov tjJ? avofiias, the genitive does not seem to be
that of opposition (Lunemann, De Wette, Alford) ; nor is the
meaning von derselben und fur dieselbe gemacht ; nor is it the
hidden plans of wickedness (Kern, Baumgarten-Crusius) ; nor
does it signify the agent or source, t/}? dvopias iray^v (Theodoret)-
The genitive is that of the characterizing principle, die domin-
irenden Eigensclwften (Scheuerlein, p. 115), or that of contents.
This mystery is characterized specially by uvopla as its
leading and distinctive principle, or it is so filled with it as to
take its character from it. Nor does the phrase mean, evil
working under pretext of good (Flatt). But the moment lies
on jULucrr/ipiou from its position, and by its emphatic separation
from its genitive by the adverb and verb. Nor can the refer-
ence of the phrase be to a person, as Simon Magus (Grotius),
as if the mystery was in apposition with the Lawless one. Thus
Clirysostom, " He speaks here of Nero as if he w T ere the type of
Antichrist, for he too wished to be thought a God." The
opinion of Olshausen is similar. Christ, according to him, is
called the mystery of godliness in 1 Tim. iii, 16, and that too
because in Him God Himself appeared in the flesh; so His coun-
terpart is here called the mystery of lawlessness, because in him
the devil was manifest in the flesh, 6 SidfioXos e<pavepw9i] ev
aapKi. But the Man of Sin is, according to verse 9, not an incar-
nation of the devil (of which Scripture knows nothing), but an
inspiration of the devil — not didbolus, sed diaboli praecipuum
organum, and the mystery is not a person, but a process.
Nor can the meaning proposed by Krebs, then by Hofmann
and Heydenreich, be sustained, " a confounding and incon-
ceivable extreme of wickedness " — Joseph., De Bello Jud., i,
24, 1, being quoted in proof. But this signification is not in
278 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
harmony with the context, which places the mystery in virtual
antithesis with the revelation. To ~MvcrWipiov rqs dvo/ila? is
allied to the a-Koarracria, not as identical with it, but as con-'
nected with it, both being preparatory to the public manifesta-
tion of this self-made God. The mystery of lawlessness was I
working at the moment, but its nature was undetected and its
huge development unguessed at. That wickedness existed
already in germ, but the germs were of continuous and un-
suspected activity and growth ; there were principles of incipi-
ent lawlessness at work, which would gather into them kindred
elements, and combine and ripen at length into that terrible
personal manifestation — the Man of Sin.
This mystery was to work up to a certain point, until the
power that bore back the Man of Sin should be removed.
fxovov 6 KaTi\u>v apTl eW e/c /uecrou yixnyrai — "only till he who
now restraineth be taken out of the way." Many have thought
that this verse required in some way to be supplemented.
(1) Some supply e<m — only there is one who restraineth
(Knatchbull, Benson, and Baumgarten) ; but a word of such
importance and as something more than a mere copula, could
scarcely be omitted, and there is no necessity for the supplement,
which mars the compact brevity of the clause. (2) Numerous
expositors supply a verb to the participle, tantum ut qui tenet
nunc teneat, donee de medio fiat (Vulgate), "only he who
letteth will let until he be taken out of the way." Instead of
teneat some supply tenebit or obstablt, some Karexei, some
KaOe£ei, and others Karex^ro. Various are the objects which
the verb so supplied is imagined to govern — qui tenet
nunc fidem catholicam teneat earn firmiter (De Lyra), and
similarly Zegerus and Estius, while Vatablus gives it as
solus liodie Christi aclventum detinens, et remorans, donee
per ipsius Christi adventum tollatur; rhv upxw — crui im-
perium tenet — is the filling up of Bos, and avopiav of Schott.
But the masculine cannot have a different meaning from the
neuter participle in the previous verse, and the withhold-
ing plainly refers to the manifestation of the Man of Sin.
Others transpose ecog and put it before 6 Karexcov apri, till only
he who still withholds it, shall be taken out of the way (Rosen-
muller, Heydenreich, Schott) ; but such a version does not
Ver. 8.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 279
correspond with '//Si]. Olshausen and Pelt regard the clause as
a fusion of several propositions into one, but such a supposition
is quite unwarranted. ~M6vov is not to be taken with the first
clause, either with puo-ri'ipiov, as Jowett — "the hidden mystery-
is already at work, but only as a hidden mystery"; or with
evepyeirai, as "Wordsworth — "worketh inwardly only, to be
hereafter revealed outwardly." But \xovov belonging to eW
states the temporal limitation of evepye'irai, and commences a
protasis, the apodosis being in the following verse, icai rore, &c.
The moment is on 6 Karexov, placed therefore before ew? as
in Gal. ii, 10, povov row irro^x^v ^va pvtjpovevoipev, and apri is
closely connected with it — not actually at the present time, but
present time in the conception of the writer. The mystery
works already and will work in preparation for the Lawless one,
till the restraining power which bars back his open revelation
of himself be removed. The century or year implied in eco? is
not given. The last words eic pecrov yev^rai, are not necessarily
to be understood of a violent removal (Olshausen, Baumgarten-
Crusius); the fact is given without any assertion of the man-
ner (1 Cor. v, 2; Col. ii, 14). The opposite phrase ev peanp elvai
means to be in the way, to be a hindrance, so that etc pecrov
ylyvecrOai means to be taken out of the way, to cease to
be a hindrance. Plutarch, Timol, p. 238 ; Herodot., viii, 22 ;
Xenoph., Cyrop., v, 2, 26 ; Sept., Is. lvii, 2. The nominative
to yev>irai is 6 Karexov without doubt, and therefore Zuingli,
after Augustine, is wrong in referring it to the Man of Sin —
his interpretation being, " only he who holds any element of
truth now should hold it fast till Antichrist is taken away."
Similarly Calvin, who says that the apostle makes both
statements in reference to one person, Antichrist being thus
the person to be taken out of the way, adding et participiv/m
" obtincns" resolvi debet in futibvum tempus. This exegesis
recmires a different meaning to be given to the masculine
participle from the neuter one, and connects this verse with
verse 5. The neuter Karexov of the previous verse is ex-
changed for the masculine Karex m> > ^ ie restraining power being-
no w regarded as in an embodied form or individuality.
(Ver. 8.) Kcu Tore air o Ka\v(pO//creT a i 6 uvopo$ — "And then
shall be revealed the Lawless one," avopla like Karexov being
280 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
now viewed as a living personality. The emphasis is on the
phrase kcu tots, "and then," when the power or person with-
holding shall have been removed out of the way, taking up the
point of time indicated by /jlovov ea>$ and echoing ev rip Katpco.
A.-n-OKa\v(f)di'](TeTO.i looks back to to /uLvtrrypiov evepyeiTai — no
longer a veiled working, but an open undisguised personal
manifestation — repeating the airoKaXvcpOrjvai of verse 6, and the
u7roKa\v<pO}] of verse 3, and 6 avop.o$ takes up T/79 avopuas,
viewed now as a living personality. There is no doubt that
6 avo/jLo? is the same with airro? in verse 6, and with the
6 av6pw7ros rriv ajuaprlag of verse 3. The opposite opinion of
Grotius is utterly baseless. The terms avo/ula, uvopoq point
out so far what the form of wickedness is which the Man
of Sin will assume — lawlessness, as described in verse 4 — not
heathenism, nor polytheism, but the audacious and profligate
setting aside of all rule, the casting off of all divine
supremacy, and the establishment of an autonomy, his
arrogant and godless self-will being the only law. What has
been so long working as a mystery and growing in lawless
energy, and which in the interval has been kept back by a
stronger hand from open manifestation, shall at length assume
a personal shape, and appear as a "man" verifying his title
as the Lawless one ; not an outlaw or one beyond law, but
one above law, subject to no rule save his own as the highest
power — God disowned and His legislation superseded, not by
atheism, or by dull negative anarchy, but by wild and virulent
antitheism, enthroned in blasphemous and God-defying outrage.
As Christ glorified all divine law in His obedience unto death
and was the righteous one, the servant of Jehovah, so this
counterpart — not a pseudo-Christ, but truly an Antichrist —
flings all divine law off and away, and stands out as the
Lawless one and as a God-personating usurper. The apostle
adds in haste and to comfort the believers —
ov 6 Kupio? T^croL'? aveXei tw TrvevpaTi Tov crrojuarog
avrou kcu Karapyijo-ei Tfl eTrKfxxvelcL Ttjs Ttapovaias avrov —
" whom the Lord Jesus shall consume with the breath of His
mouth, and shall destroy with the appearance of His coming."
The Received Text omits 'hjcrous with B D 3 K L, many mss.,
and some of the fathers, but 6 Kupto? 'L/o-oy? has the authority
Ver. 8. J SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 281
of A D 1 F L' 2 N, both Latin and both Syriac versions, the Coptic,
and very many of the fathers, both Greek and Latin. For dveXet
the Received Text has avaXaxrei, with D 3 K L, and some of
the fathers ; dveXei is found in A B and some of the fathers.
This form has authority from the fact that a somewhat similar
reading dvdXoi occurs in M 1 , and dveXoi in D 1 F N 3 . The
reading of D 1 is, however, doubtful, and dveXe7 may be a con-
formation to Isaiah xi, 4. These twin clauses have the
ring of the old Hebrew prophetic parallellism, and are,
perhaps, an echo of Isaiah xi, 4 ; kui Trardgei yrjv tm Xoyw
tou (TTop.aTOs auTOU, kui ei> irvevfxari Sia xeiXewv dveXei
ucre/3ij. The apostle has not finished his account of the Lawless
one, but he hastens, ere he adds some dark features to the
picture, to assure his readers of his final and certain des-
truction. If he verify his name as " The Man of Sin," he shall
also verify his name as " The Son of Perdition." If dveXei be
adopted, the verb avaiplw signifies often to put away,
or to put out of the way — spoken of death, or a public
execution, &c.,- — in many places both of the gospels and Acts.
Compare also Heb. x, 9 ; Polyb., xxxii, 1, 3 ; Xenoph.,
Cyrop., i, 1, 1. See on a similar form Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck,
p. 183. If hvaXwa-ei be adopted, it means in the classics " to use
up," as money, in a bad sense, and the verb dvaXio-Koo is also
used of persons in the New Testament (Luke ix, 54; Gal. v,
15), representing in the Sept. the Hebrew bsx, " to eat up," "to
devour " (Jer. 1, 7), and it describes the result of fire four
times in Ezekiel and twice in Joel. It also stands for rta in
Gen. xli, 30, and Is. xxxii, 10. IIveu/uLu is used with its
original signification of breath (Is. xi, 4; Rev. xi, 11, &c.)
Compare Gen. vi, 17 ; vii, 22. The figure is a very expressive
one. His mere breath as he comes the second time will con-
sume his terrible antagonist. Compare Ps. xxxiii, (J ; Wisdom
xi, 20, 21. It is needless to take off from the impressive force
and simple majesty of the figure by any rude and prosaic
analysis. But (1) Theodoret and Theodore of Mopsuestia refer
the term to a cry or word uttered ; the first has (pQeygerai
fxovov, and the second /uovov eVi/Soj/a-a?, followed by the quaint
explanation that we employ breath in articulate speech {Opera,
ed. Fritzsche, p. 148). (2) Vatablus and a-Lapide take it as
282 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chai\ II.
meaning the condemnatory sentence of* a judge, jussu suo,
verbo suo, sua sententia — a tame explanation. Similarly Calvin
explains Trpev/xa by verbum, aud Pelagius more vaguely, ccelesti
imperio, vel solo. (3) Atlianasius understands by Trvevp.d the
divine or Holy Spirit (Epist. ad Scrap., 1, G, p. 547, Opera,
vol. II, Migne) ; and the same view is given in the alter-
native explanation of Theophylact. But the phrase carries
on the face of it its plain and natural sense, and implies the
ease and perhaps the suddenness of the annihilation of the
Lawless one. The verb Karapyelv, often used by the apostle, is
" to put down," " to do away with," " to destroy " (Rom. vi, 6 ;
1 Cor. vi, 13 ; xv, 24 ; 2 Cor. iii, 7). The meaning is not to
make inoperative, as Calovius, Olshausen, and Riggenbach,
referring to Rev. xix, 15-19, which describes the fate of the
beast and the false prophet. Uapovcrla. is here, as everywhere
in this connection, the Second Personal Advent, and the places
are so numerous that they need not be quoted. See under
1 Thess. ii, 19.
'E7n</>aVeia is simply appearance, and it is usually in the
Authorized Version rendered "appearing," as 1 Tim. vi, 14;
2 Tim. i, 10 ; iv, 1, 8 ; Titus ii, 13 ; but here the Authorized
Version, after the Genevan and the Bishops', gives "bright-
ness," Tyndale, however, having " appearance," and the Latin-
ized Rheims, " manifestation of His Advent," the Vulgate,
illustrations, but the Claromontane, aspectu. The idea of
brightness or glory does not belong to the term — rtj?
Sot;}]? is added in Titus ii, 13; an immense number of
expositors, however, unwarrantably attach such an idea to the
word in this place. The appearance must be glorious, but the
apostle does not say so, and the expression is all the more
significant that he does not say so. The term is applied to the
First Coming (2 Tim. i, 10), " made manifest by the appearing
of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death;" and
it is, as applied to the Second Advent, followed by some title
of the Saviour (1 Tim. vi, 14), " until the appearing of our
Lord Jesus Christ" (Titus ii, 13); once it is connected with
/3acrtXe/av (2 Tim. iv, 1), " who shall judge the quick and
the dead at His appearing and His Kingdom " ; once it
stands by itself (2 Tim. vi, 8); eirKpam^ is applied to foe-
Ver. 9.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 283
pav l\.vplov (Acts ii, 20). The noun is used in the classics
of the appearance of a deity to aid a worshipper (Diodor.
Sic, i, 17 ; Athenseus, xii, 542). Compare 2 Mace, iii, 24; the
so-called second epistle of Clement 12; Suicer, Thes., sub
voce; and Wetstcin, in loc. Olshausen's distinction serves
no good purpose — that the first is the subjective, and the
second the objective aspect ; the meaning is that His
coming has only to make itself visible, when the result
described by KUTapyetv shall take place. The first gleam of
His presence shall destroy His antagonist. " Let God arise,"
sang the Psalmist in a similar spirit, " and let His enemies be
scattered." The bringing to nought of the Man of Sin, there-
fore, does not happen till the Second Advent. The phrase on
that account does not mean the entrance of Christ's word into
the heart (Zuingli). Chrysostom says, " it is enough for Him
to be present, and all these things are destroyed. He will
put a stop to the deceit by only appearing." The two clauses
are not different things, though the one may precede the other,
but the words mean that the coming shows itself as a visible
reality. The first clause also is clearly connected with this
one as its preceding feature. The breath is not His word and
spirit operating in hominum anhnis (Hunnius) invisibly in
time, nor is wind or storm as heralding Him to be thought of,
but it is the breath issuing from His mouth, as He is coming
nearer and nearer to destroy this blasphemous assumer of
divine prerogative.
(Ver. 0.) ov ecTTiv i) 7rapoucrla kut evepyeiav tou "EaTava —
" whose coming is after the working of Satan." The relative
takes up b ccVo/xo?, after his awful, irresistible, and sudden doom
is told by anticipation. By the use of irapova-'ia the apostle
brings the Man of Sin into immediate connection and contrast
with the personal Jesus, though at different points of time.
Tlapovcrla belongs to each — to Christ at His last coming; to Anti-
christ at an earlier period of his human manifestation, but at
an epoch future to the composition of the epistle. 'EcttJv,
the ethical present, asserts the certainty of the coming event
(Lunemann), " either as unchangeably determined, or about to
take place by some unalterable arrangement." Winer, § 40, 2.
For 7rapovcria, see under last verse, and 1 Thess. ii ; 19. Or
284 COMMENTAEY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
eo-Tiv may be used doctrinal]} 7 , describing, as Alford says, " the
essential attribute" (1 Cor. xv, 35). KaT« is best taken with
its usual signification, " according to," not " in consequence of,"
in Folge (De Wette). It serves no good purpose to take kut
evepyeiav tov Harava as an independent clause, 6 dvofios appear-
ing as a working or energy of Satan. It is better to connect
the clause with ea-Tiv — ev. The one view is, that the coming is
after the energy of Satan, and the second that it is a coming in
false wonders, /car' evepyeiav tov 1,arava, pointing to the source
of the power so put forth. The Syriac, indeed, has cnA>Z£o
U&ed? •-•en ]2QJ r aik2 ocrb •,-•».. The entire coming of the
Man of Sin is full of Satan's power, and is displaying itself in
these false miracles. Just as in Christ the fulness of the Godhead
dwelt bodily, so without there being an incarnation, without
there being a personal union, Satan's fulness dwells in the Man
of Sin, dowering him with superhuman craft and might, and
finding a fitting agent and organ in him. This irapova-la of the
lawless one is a Satanic counterpart, or infernal mimicry of
Christ's -irapovarla, as the following context also shows. Being-
according to the inworking of Satan, its sphere is —
ev Trucri] Svvd.ju.ei /ecu anj/aeiois kcu repacriv \JscvSovs — " in all
powers and signs and prodigies of lying." Udo-y singular, used
with the first noun, yet agrees with all three of them, and with
its extensive signification denotes "all kinds of" (Winer, § 59,
5 b; Matt, iv, 23; Eph. i, 21), and ev denotes the sphere
(Winer, § 48, 3). The genitive \fsevoovs is probably that of the
characterizing qualities. But Lunemann and De Wette take it
as the genitive of purpose — der Genitivus des Gesichtspunhtes
— " wonders whose aim is lying." Winer, § 30, 2 6. And so
Chrysostom explains alternatively eig \jsevSos ayoven. But the
characterization of these miracles would seem to be a more im-
mediate necessity than a statement of their purpose ; and if
they were false themselves, they could not but lead to falsehood,
and they must have had their origin in it. In fact, Alford
brings together the three possible meanings of source, character,
and result — all have falsehood for their basis, essence, and aim ;
and so also Riggenbach, Theodoret, Calovius, Turretin, Ols-
hausen take the word in a somewhat similar way. Theodoret's
illustration is, they show gold which is not gold, XP V(T0V °^ K
Ver. 10.] SECONJD EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONTANS. 285
dXrjOatg ovto. xp v <tov. Chrysostom, GKcumenius and Theophylact
mention both interpretations of the genitive — character and
result — but do not decide. Hofmann finds the epithet specially
verified in the antagonism of these miracles to the truth. The
nouns Suvd/u.ei$, cn/yuem, repara, are words of similar meaning,
and the three are found in a somewhat different order in Acts ii,
22, and in Heb. ii, 4— "God also bearing them witness both
with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles." These
phenomena are works of power, signs or tokens of divine
interposition, and also prodigies or rare and startling mani-
festations. ^}]/txecou is the highest term applied to a true
miracle, and it often occurs in the gospel of John. The words
are allied in signification, and the phrase may set them over
against the true miracles of the Son of God, " a man approved
of God among you by miracles, and wonders, and signs." Com-
pare Matt, xxiv, 24; Rev. xiii, 14. There is no proof whatever
that these are miracles in the proper sense of the term ; real
miracles misleading into the belief that they are done by divine
power (Augustine). Riggenbach calls them "monstrosities with-
out any saving object, but not, therefore, mere juggleries." But
can any one but God work a miracle ? See Farmer on the one
side and Trench on the other. No doubt the wonders referred to-
are to be startling and portentous, the last exhibition of Satan's
craft and power through the Lawless one, the last concentration
of all hellish energy and cunning ; and men may be led to
regard them as proofs and indications of divine power on the
part of him who sits in the temple of God, dispossessing God
of His seat ; showing himself in this way among others, that he
is God. Falsehood is Satan's essence and element, and it is
embodied in this, his last and chosen human organ, the Man
of Sin, not only the usurper of God's prerogative, but also the
malignant arch-deceiver.
(Ver. 10.) Kal ev irda-i] airdrfl aSiKia? — "and in all deceit
of unrighteousness." The Received Text has t>/? before
aSiKias, with DKL N 3 , and some of the fathers, but the omission
has the higher authority of A B F N 1 , &:c. The conjunction
introduces a fuller statement, which gathers up into itself the
previous particulars. Winer, § 53, 3. What was said of
\Jrev8ovs may be said of this genitive. The deceit is charac-
286 COMMENTAKY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
terized by unrighteousness, or it leads to it (Estius, Aretius,
Grotius, De Wette) ; its utterly iniquitous nature may be
specially dwelt on. The Lawless one is wholly iniquitous and
deceitful; he lives in guile, and that guile is ever hostile to
righteousness. He does his work by seduction and lying, both
in the false wonders and also in every possible form of wicked
imposture. There is thus a terrible accumulation of epithets
throughout the paragraph — a man of sin, a counter-God, mystery
of iniquity, lawless one, working of Satan, false miracles, and
every sort of iniquitous deceit. No wonder that perdition and
thorough destruction are associated with them. But this deceit
of unrighteousness does not prevail over every class; it has
efficacy only —
tch? a7roX\vjuLevois — "for those that are perishing." The
Received Text has kv before to?s with D 3 K L S 3 . but the pre-
position is wanting in A B D 1 F W 1 , in the Latin and Coptic
versions, and in several of the Greek and Latin fathers. The
phrase is therefore in what is called dativus incommodi. The
Authorized Version, by its punctuation, connects the words
exclusively with the previous clause, " deceivableness of un-
righteousness in them that perish," and so Heydenreich, Flatt,
Hofmann, Baumgarten-Crusius. The reference is better taken
to the whole previous verse, the entire false and Satanic
diplomacy there characterized. But the connection cannot be
that indicated by Schott, fraudibus imjj'ris, quae patrantur
inter homines miseros, nor that given by Benson, " by their
fraudulent practices the Man of Sin and his adherents will
greatly prevail. But among whom ? Among men, but men of
corrupt minds." The tois a7roX\vjuLepoi? are those who are
perishing, and the reason of their perishing state follows.
Turretin gives the meaning as qui exitlo digni sunt adeoque
certissime sunt perituri; Grotius, apud cos, qui evangelio
credere noluerunt, ac propterea perituri sunt. The present
tense characterizes their future perdition as already decided
(Liinemann), as those who are perishing at the time in con-
templation (Ellicott). 1 Cor. i, 18; 2 Cor. ii, 15; iv, 3.
Theodoret describes them as those who, though the Lawless
one had not come, had deprived themselves of salvation. The
sentence that consigns them to perdition is God's sentence, as
Ver. 11.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 287
we are told in i, 6, 9; but they bring their sentence on them-
selves, as the apostle goes on very distinctly to affirm —
dv6' tov ri]v uydirrjv Ttjs a\)i6eia<? ovk eSe^avTo eig to <ro)6tjvai
avTOvg — " because they did not receive the love of the truth
that they might be saved." The significant phrase, avQ'
wv is "in return," "in requital for" (Luke i, 20; xix, 44; „
Acts xii, 23 ; Sept., Lev. xxiv, 20 ; 1 Kings xi, 11 ; Joel iii, 5 ;
Xenoph., Anab., i, 3, 4 ; v, 5, 14 ; Winer, § 47 a ; Haphelius and
Wetstein'm Luc, i, 20). In the phrase aya-m/v r>/9 aXtjOela?, the
genitive is naturally that of object — the love that has the truth
for its object. The meaning, therefore, is not charitatem veram
(Anselm), nor does the love of the truth here mean Christ, as
the Greek fathers supposed, He being the love of the truth
because He truly and really loved us. The truth is especially
Christian truth, in which all truth culminates; the truth by the
love and reception of which men are saved. But to receive the
love of the truth is more than to receive the truth (Kern,
Jowett). To want the love of the truth is to be wholly
indifferent to its claims, and to be wholly unsusceptible of its
beauty, power, and adaptation. The truth might be received
in some faint and fragmentary form — held so lightly, and
understood so superficially, that no true love for it might co-
exist ; and where this love for it is absent, the mind is open to
assaults and hesitations, and is self-prepared for falling a
victim to such astute frauds as are so artfully practised by the
Lawless one. EiV to, the infinitive of purpose, in order to
their being saved. The love of the truth had salvation for its
object, but that they disregarded. In their indifference to the
means they rejected the end; or rather being careless about the
end, they neglected the means.
(Ver. 11.) /ecu Slu tovto Tre/A-irei avTOts o Geo? evtpyeiap ir\av>}$,
ei$ to TricrTevcrat civtou? tw ifseuSet — " and on this account God
is sending them an inworking error that they should believe a
lie." The Received Text reads -7re/u\Jsci with D 3 K L N 4 and
very many versions, with several of the fathers, but the
present has in its favour A B D 1 F N 1 ; besides, the change would
be naturally suggested by the occurrence of the clause in a
prophecy. Kai has virtually a consecutive force — " and so,"
for this reason, that is, because they received not the love of
288 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [ Chap. II.
the truth. '~Rvepyeta TrXdvtjs is not a "strong delusion," for the
phrase refers not to the passive result, but to the active cause,
Kal 7r\ai'}'/crat icrxuoucrav (CEcumenius). Nor is it irkavrjv
evepyov, but evlpyeia is an activity which deepens and circulates
the Tr\dv)] — on this last word see under 1 Thess. ii, 3. The
genitive may again be that of the point of view, or of charac-
terization — the in working is marked by error, and is moulded
by it, 7r\dv>]? corresponding to the \Isau8oui of verse 9.
Ei? to points out the final purpose, and not the mere result,
mit dem Erfolje (Baumgarten-Crusius), or, " so as they will
believe a lie" (Maeknight); non meram sequelam, sed consilium
indicat (Schott). Hofmann's connection Avith eiV to is gewalt-
sam, strained, as Llinemann calls it. To> \fsev8ei is " the lie,"
not falsehood in the abstract, or falsehood generally, but the
falsehood just detailed, and involved in the phrases, the coming
of the Lawless one, working of Satan — the liar, power and signs
and wonders of falsehood, deceit of iniquity — all this complex
array and network of imposture which belongs to the open
manifestation of the Man of Sin, and by which they are
entangled and taken. " The lie " is opposed to the truth the
love of which they did not receive, and the want of which
left their minds an easy prey to this machinery of deception.
They believe the pretensions of this wretched mimic and
dethroner of God ; his false wonders they take as genuine
miracles; they believe the lie. This unparalleled hallucination
indicates a mysterious state of mind and of society — anti-
christian, antitheistic, credulous, with a fatal facility of being-
imposed upon by hellish mastery and subtlety; and the apostle
expressly says —
irkfxiret avroig 6 Geo*,- — "God is sending them this in working
of error to the end that they may believe the lie." The present
is used probably as a species of doctrinal present, connecting
itself continuously or contemporaneously with the process
which the apostle is describing. Liineinann, Ellicott, and
others regard it as a direct present, the mystery of iniquity
being even now at work. True; but the decided development
of the mystery is laid in that far future, to which belongs God's
action of sending the in working of error. This infliction
directly ascribed to God is glossed over by not a few commen-
Ver. 12.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 289
tators, as the Greek fathers, and many after them, as if the
verb " He is sending" only meant "He permits to be sent."
As a specimen, (Ecumenius explains, To ire/xyfrei, yu?) ovrca
Se£y, (o? toO Qeov ire jjlttovto?, aXXa tv)v airo tov Qeov
cruyx^pwiv, ovtco? e6o$ KaXeiv ra> UavXcp. Joannes Damas-
cenus writes, To Se a7ro<7Te\ec avroig o Geo?, trvyx^pwei
a.7ro<TTa\rivai, quoting as analogous Rom. i, 26. Schott
explains, haud raro, quae Deum sapienter permittere dicamus,
ejusmodi formulis enuntiari, quae Deum hanc perversitatem
summam immittentem . . . describant. The Eastern church
had less profound views of divine relations and acts than the
Western church. The wilful and persistent rejection of the
truth God punishes with judicial blindness, so that the power
of discernment is blunted, and error comes to be accepted as
truth — nay, the perversity becomes sometimes so morbid that
men bring on them the woe pronounced against such as "call
evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light
for darkness ; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter "
(Is. v, 20). Sin often receives its chastisement in a deeper
load of sin ; is punished by the sinner's sinking into worse
enormities. Indifference to the truth gets its divine recompense
in its facile seduction into gross and grosser errors. It indeed,
by its own spiritual callousness, lays itself open to such awful
retribution ; but this punitive infliction is in itself God's own
act, according to His own fixed procedure as Moral Governor.
The Scripture ever recognizes His immediate agency in such
penal visitations, whatever instrumentality may be employed.
Compare 1 Kings xxii, 20; 2 Sam. xxiv, 1; Job. xii, 10 ; Is.
lxvi, 3, 4 ; Ezek. xiv, 9.
(Ver. 12.) \va Kpidoxriv airavTe? ol fxtj irio-revo-avTes r>j
aXtjOela, ciAX' evSoKijo-avre? (ev) rfj aStKia — " in order that they
all might be judged who believed not the truth, but had
pleasure in unrighteousness." The readings diravre? and
7rdvT€s are pretty nearly balanced, the former having in its
favour AFX, and the latter B D E L, mss., and many of the
fathers. The authorities for and against eV are pretty nearly
balanced — it is bracketed by Lachmann, and rejected by
Tischendorf in his first edition. The preposition may have
been omitted to balance the clauses, as in B D F K", but it is
T
•><)() COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
found in A D 3 K L N 1 , and the construction with the simple
dative does not occur in the New Testament, though the accus-
ative of the object is found. The first clause (u>a) develops,
not the result (Koppe, Pelt, Schott), but the final purpose, a
purpose more remote than that expressed by eh to of the
previous clause, though connected with it as a step in the fatal
progress, and connected too with Trefxirei, indicating a more
distant divine act, which leads eh to iriarevcrai. The simple verb
KpiOoocriv does not of itself here or elsewhere express the idea
of condemned, " damned," but the context plainly implies it.
The sin is heinous, and the judgment is according to truth.
The aorist, 7rio-Tev<ravT€s, glances back at the period which has
passed before the judgment, and the object of this denied
belief is 777 aXqOeia, the love of which they had not received,
and faith in which, therefore, they did not possess — their faith
being given in judicial infatuation to the lie. This clause
expresses negatively what the clause beginning with eh to
affirms, and the next clause expresses positively what the
clause commencing with uvQ' &v puts into a negative form.
For evSoKeco see i, 11. To have delight in unrighteousness,
in what is opposed to the divine character and law, must from
its nature foster unbelief, and suffocate all love of the truth.
There is thus a moral reason for want of faith in the truth,
and that is delight in unrighteousness, which is wholly incom-
patible with it.
The apostle now thanks God for their election, and their
realization of it, exhorts them to adhere to sound teaching, and
asks for them divine comfort and confirmation.
(Ver. 13.) ' H/u.ei<? Se 6<pei\o/u.ev ev^apicrTeiv tm Qeu> nravTore irepi
{^wv — " But we are bound to give thanks to God always for
you." By Se he passes to another and different subject. They
are judged who believe not the truth, but for you we are bound
to give thanks. By tjfxeh he does not mean himself alone
(Jowett, Conybeare), but includes his colleagues Silvanus and
Timothy. For the form of the phrase, &c, see under i, 3.
We not only do it; we cannot help doing it. It is an
obligation to which we gladly bow. Riggenbach approves
of Hofmann's connection — that over against the antichristian
deception which God will send, and which has already begun
V"er. 13.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 291
we, the preachers of the gospel, give thanks for what He is
now doing by us to save you from the coming judgment.
Such a connection is rather laboured.
uSeX^o] riya.TrtiiJ.evoL vtto Kvplov — " brethren beloved by the
Lord." See under 1 Thess. 1, 4. There it is Qeov, here Kvplov,
meaning Christ, the prevailing reference in the epistles and
especially here ; for though love in this aspect is usually ascribed
to the Father, yet as tw Gey precedes and 6 Geo? follows,
Kvplov must have a different personal allusion. Rom. viii, 37 ;
Gal. ii, 20; Ephes. v, 2, 25. See under Ephes. 1, 2. The
ground or theme of thanksgiving is now 'given —
on elXaro vp.as 6 Geo? cnr' apxy? eiV crtOTypiav — " that God
chose you from the beginning unto salvation." The Received
Text reads e'lXero, with K and many mss., but the Alex-
andrian form, elXaro, has the overwhelming authority of
A B D F L N. Compare 1 Thess. 1, 4. "On, "to wit,
that," is expository in nature, and introduces the matter
of the thanksgiving. Donaldson, Gr. Gr., § 5, 84 ; Winer, § 53,
!). Only in this place does the apostle use alpeiaOai of the
divine election, eKXeyerrOcu being employed by him in 1 Cor.
i, 27, 28. ; Ephes. i, 4. But the word is employed in the
Septuagint in the compound verb, Deut. vii, 6,7 ; x, 15, and
the simple verb, xxvi, 18. Compare Philip, i, 22 ; Heb. xi. 25.
See under Ephes. i, 4. The purpose, the divine choice, was et?
ara)T>ipiav, "unto salvation," as if in contrast to that awful
Kpiaris, which falls on those who believe not the truth. See
under 1 Thess. v, 9. The epoch of the divine choice is —
aV dpx^y " f rom tne beginning."
(1) There is a reading uTrupxvv, supported by B F, a very
few mss, the Vulgate which has pri/mitias, and Joannes Dama-
scenus who reads in his commentary wcnrep uirapxw- The
reading is also found in Cyril, Ambrosiaster, and Pelagius,
and is accepted by Lachmann, Jowett, and Riggenbach ;
but the common reading has in its favour AD KLN, the
Claromontane Latin which has ab initio, and similarly many
Greek and Latin fathers. Lunemann alleges that the assertion
would not be historically true, as the Thessalonians were not
the first believers in Macedonia, and that, therefore, the word
cannot be used as in Rom. xvi, 5, " firstfruits of Asia " ; 1 Cor.
292 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chai>. IT.
xvi, 15, " The house of Stephanas, firstfruits of Achaia." But
Riggenbach and Hofmann find only this vague idea — " first-
fruits in comparison with the rest of the world " — the mass of
the profane. To this there are two objections — first, where
James (i, 18) uses the term with such a reference he qualifies
it by ri9 ; and second, in the two places referred to, " first-
fruits of Asia," " firstfruits of Achaia," the reference is to an
individual and to a household. Rev. xiv, 4 explains itself —
" being firstfruits to God and the Lamb." But apart from such
reasonings the reading is on good grounds to be rejected. (2)
Some give air a/>xw a relative or a temporal signification, " from
the beginning " of the gospel among you. Thus Zuingli — ab
initio praedicationis ; similarly Vorstius, Krause, Michaelis.
Such a sense would have required some notifying addition, as
in Philip, iv, 15, "in the beginning of the gospel," and the con-
nection of the phrase with 6 Oeo? elXaro is wholly different
from its use and position in Luke i, 2, and in 1 John ii, 7, 24.
Schrader opines from this alleged signification that the writer
of the epistle supposes that a long time had elapsed since the
gospel was first preached in Thessalonica, and could not, there-
fore, be the apostle Paul. (3) The phrase is to be taken in an
absolute, though in a popular sense, from eternity. Compare 1
John i, 1 ; ii, 13, and also John i, 1 ; Isaiah xliii, 13 — Kvpios 6
Geo? en air apxw- The phrase, with this meaning, is unique
in the apostle's writings, his modes of expression being 7rpo
toov alwvoov, 1 Cor. ii, 7 ; irpo /cara/3oXi/? koct/uou, Eph. 1, 4 ; airo
twv aicovcov, Eph. iii, 9 ; similarly, Col. i, 26 ; irpo YjOoV&w aiwvicov,
2 Tim. i. 9. The choice of God is, from its nature, an eternal
choice, though His call takes pla,ce in time, and through the
preaching of the gospel. This divine and ultimate aspect and"
origin of human salvation the apostle rejoices to contemplate,
as, rising above all human instrumentalities, weakness, and
failures, it carries all back to His blessed sovereignty and His
gracious self-formed purpose, and gives Him all the glory.
ep ayiaarp-w irvevfxarog — " in sanctification of the Spirit." Two
erroneous views of this clause have been given ; first, that of
De YVettc that ev, directly connected with eiXaro, is virtually
«?, chosen to sanctification, the nearest object of the divine elec-
tion. But eV bears its common signification, and to give it the
Tee. 13.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 233
sense of eh would obscure el? aooniplav. Nov can ev here mean
sub conditions, (Pelt). Secondly, some understand by wvevfia
the human spirit — as Koppe and Schott. The absence of the
article does not necessitate such a meaning, as its omission
may be accounted for by what Middleton calls the principle of
correlation, i.e., where the noun governing is indefinite, the
governed becomes anarthrous (Greek Article, p. 30, and the
modifying explanation in the note.) The connection of the
clause has been variously understood. (1) Some connect it
immediately with o-coT^piav, as Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius,
Hofmann, Biggenbach. The meaning then is, salvation by
means of sanctification, &c, ev being regarded as instrumental,
as in Theophylact's explanation, eawuev v/u.ag ayidua? oiu rov
7rvev/uLa.T0?, and Chrysostom says expressly that ev is used for
Sid — 'ISoit to, ev, irdXiv Sia ecrnv. (2) It is better to connect the
last clauses of the verse with e^Xaro et? o-coriipiav, and then ev
may be taken in its more ordinary signification, pointing to the
sphere in which the choice to salvation realized itself. Liinc-
mann takes ev as instrumental, pointing to the means by which
this election works its gracious end. Hofmann and Eiggen-
bach object to the connection of ev with eiXaro, simply because
the election cannot be conditioned by any subjective process,
and they object equally to its connection — e'iXaro eh crcoTijplav,
because it is not the election but the being saved that is brought
about by sanctification — -Hofmann adding das Wcihlen heines
Mittels bedarf, the choice needed no means. The objection is
one-sided, for election to salvation does not realize itself im-
mediately ; the chariot of fire does not come down and snatch
away one after another to glory. The election of God, though
it be independent or unconditioned, works through a certain
process, or in a certain element it attains its end. Two com-
bined elements are specified here — first, in sanctification of
the Spirit, the genitive being that of efficient cause. Winer, §
30, 1 ; Scheuerlein, § 17. The meaning of the phrase is not
ayiaarjuibs -Trvev/aariKo? (Pelt). This sanctification is inwrought
by the Spirit in the elect and to prepare them for this crwTijpia,
which involves not only the pardon of their sins, but also that
spiritual change of nature which makes them meet for the in-
heritance of the saints in light. The second element is —
294 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. 11.
kuI iri<TT€i u\i]6eius — " and faith in the truth," the genitive
being that of object. Winer, §30, 1 ; Philip, i, 27. The
phrase does not mean itlcjtiv a\i]0iv>)v (Pelt), nor irlcrreoos
d\i]0ov? (Chrysostom). Compare 1 Peter i, 12. The
truth is Christian truth (John xiv, ; xviii, 37), there
being an implied contrast to the previous irnrrevcrai tw
\UevSei. There are thus two aspects or sides of the element in
which the divine choice realizes itself — the divine or objective
aspect, sanctitlcation by the Spirit ; and the human or subjective
aspect, believing reception of the truth. The two things are
closely associated. Chrysostom asks, Sta ri ov irporepov etwe
Tnv ttlo-tiv, uXku tov ayiaa-p-ov ; and his answer is, " because
even after sanctitlcation we have need of much faith that we
may not be shaken. Seest thou how he shows that nothing is
of themselves, but the whole of God ? " It is hard to say what
stress is to be laid on the order of the clauses as indicating-
order or temporal connection in the blessings. Olshausen says,
" it seems that belief in the truth of the gospel must precede
sanctitlcation by the Holy Spirit, as the cause precedes the
effect. The interpreters pass over this difficulty, which is not
a slight one." His solution is, " that by faith the apostle means
faith perfected in insight, and not the quite general faith which
is given with the very first elements." But there cannot be
faith without the Spirit's work, nor can the Spirit's work be
without faith in such a case. The Spirit brings home the truth
to the heart, and the heart under His blessing consciously
and cordially accepts it — Himself the agent, and His truth the
organ of our sanctifi cation. This work of the Spirit done in
them, this faith possessed by them, and the destiny to which
these lead are comprehended in the divine choice as really
as the vjulus are included in it.
(Ver. 14.) ti? 6 eKaXccrev vpa$ Sia tov evayye\iou ))p.wv —
" whereunto He called you by our gospel." ¥ $, the Vulgate, and
Philoxenian Syriac insert km after el 9 o, and for vpu?, ABI) 1
read fipas with the Claromontane Latin, &c. It might be said,
indeed, that vp.as is a correction to correspond with the v/ma?
of the previous verse, but ))pa$ wants uncial authority. What
is the antecedent to el? o, which cannot mean " deshalb " ?
(Olshausen.) Some propose the last clauses of the previous
Vkr. 14.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 295
verse, " sanctiiication of the Spirit, and belief of the truth "• —
the final end of salvation to which these belong being the
obtainment of glory (Froniond, Schott, De Wette, Hofmann).
The reference, however, is better taken, not merely to the
sphere, but to salvation along with its means. Aretius, indeed,
theologically confines the reference to 7na-n?, but then it might
have been &g iju — plenius explicat causam organicam. (2)
Pelt explains, ad electionem atque animum quo eaclem digni
Qvadimus, an explanation away from the point ; for the election
was a divine eternal act. (3) The reference then is to the
eomplex statement of the previous verse, and not to any of its
separate parts, "to which," that is, "to being saved in sanctifi-
cation of the Spirit and belief of the truth." God who chose
them to this also called them to it. The election takes effect
in and through the call. So Theophylact.
oia tou euayyeXiou ))pwp — "by our gospel." See under 1
Thess. i, 5. The divine call evinced itself through the preach-
ing of the gospel by the apostle and his colleagues, and ukoi'i
precedes -kI(ttis as the historic condition (Rom. x, 17). And
the end is —
«? 7repi7roL>]rrtv 8o£r]S tov lvvpiov tjpwv 'Irjcrov Xpt(7TOu — -"unto
the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." The
elause is in apposition with el? o and its antecedents, and is
perhaps not a mere exact specification of el? crcoTijp'ai', or a
giving of the final aspect and consummation of o-cor^p/a. For
7repnrolt](Ti? see under 1 Thess. v, 9, and more fully under
Ephes. i, 14. The genitive in the proper names is that of pos-
session, not of origin (Pelt). John xvii, 4; Rom. viii, 17.
Those who are saved obtain a share in that glory which the
Lord Jesus possesses — the sense given by the body of expositors.
Other interpretations have been proposed, but without any
basis. (1) Some take TrepiiroiqcrLs in a passive sense, and give
So£>]$ the sense of an adjective or epithet, in order to be a
glorious possession of the Lord Jesus Christ, sum herrlich&n
Eigenthum (Luther, so also Menochius, Harduin, and Estius —
alius sensits, haudquaquam impvobandus, ut ejus essent
glonosa jiossessio). But this exegesis is against the distinct
use and meaning of 7repnroi)i<ri$ in the first epistle, and it would
assign the glory fully as much to Christ as to the Thessalonian
296 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
believers ; whereas it is their condition specially winch the
apostle describes, and puts as the basis of the counsel which
follows. (2) Others, giving irepnroli^cnq an active sense,
connect it with Geo? as the nominative to eicdXecrcv, and
give it this peculiar signification, ^Va S6£av irepiiroii'icri} rto vlw
avTov, " that He might obtain glory for His Son." So CEcu-
menius, and virtually Chrysostom, Theophylact, Vatablus,
a-Lapide, and the Syriac version. Calvin, as one explanation,
{qui sensus melius convenit), vel quod eos Christus acquisierit
in suam gloriam. Ambrosiaster — acquiruntur ad augmen-
tum gloriae corporis Christi. But this sense would certainly
require the dative to Kvpicp ; and the apostle has expressed one
aspect of that idea otherwise, and very distinctly, in i, 10. The
ultimate destiny to which the divine choice leads them by the
sure steps detailed is participation in Christ's glory — the saved
in the Saviour's glory — rich, ennobling, and eternal, the divine
plan and purpose stretching from eternity {air upx^?), and
leading onward to irepnroliiviv So£)]s tov Ivvplov fj/uicov in a
coming eternity. Compare Rom. viii, 30.
(Ver. 15.) "kpa ovv, aSe\<poi, crn'iKere — " accordingly, then,
brethren, stand firm." "Apa illative, and ovv collective. See
1 Thess. v, 6; Gal. vi, 10. The counsel is thus based on the
previous statement. Such being the divine eternal interest in
you; such your condition, believing and sanctified; such the
reality and the end of your divine call — glory with Christ,
" stand firm ; " a-WiKere being in contrast to a-uXevO^vai of the
second verse. See under 1 Thess. iii, 8; Gal. vi, 1; Philip, i,
27. Firmness, in the midst of agitations, defections, and un-
sound novelties, is enjoined.
Ka\ Kpareire ra? 7rapaS6crei$ a? eSiSax@t]T e — "and hold fast
the instructions which ye were taught" (1 Cor. xi, 2).
llapdSocris is employed in the gospels to signify traditional
doctrines and usages (Matt, xv, 2; Mark vii, 8). See under
Gal. i, 14* ; Col. ii, 8. It signifies here apostolical doctrines
taught or delivered orally as in iii, 6 ; Joseph., Antiq., x, 4, 1 ;
Polybius, xi, 8, 2. More distinctly it is added —
a$ eSiSdxO>]re — " which ye were taught." The passive
governs the accusative of object, the active governing both
tli at and the accusative of person. Winer, § 32, 5. The
Veb. 16.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 297
TrapdSoo-ig is not at all something handed down, but some-
thing handed over to these Thessalonians —
eire Siu Xoyou eiTe Si e7n<xToA>7? i)p.(jdv — " whether by word or
by our epistle." 'EiVe . . . eire — whether . . . whether, whether
. . . or, specifying and yet connecting the two ways by which
the action of the verb is usually clone, oral and written
communication (1 Cor. xii, 2G ; xiii, 8). The phrase, our
epistle, in connection with the aorist, refers to the first epistle,
and not also to the one under hand or to epistolary com-
munication generally (Riggenbach). It has been noticed that
the apostle does not say here, as in ii, 2, e-mo-ToXijs <W &'
fjfiwv. The inferential remark of Chrysostom is away from the
true meaning altogether ; " therefore let us think the tradi-
tions of the church also worthy of credit" (Damascenus in
Riggenbach).
(Ver. 16.) Auto? §6 6 I\.vp'os i)p.'2v L/rroy? 'KpicrTo? tcai o
Oeo? 6 irarhp fjfJioov — " But may our Lord Jesus Christ and God
our Father." There are minor differences in the order of the
names and the insertion of the definite article. The Received
Text has kou instead of 6 before 7rar//p, with A D 3 K L, the
Vulgate and Claromontane Latin versions, and several of the
fathers, but the 6 is found in B D 1 F N 1 , and in the Peshito ; and
it is difficult to say which on the whole is the better supported
reading — perhaps the latter. The Se indicates a transitional
contrast, hearty prayer for them in contrast with earnest
counsel tendered to them. See under 1 Thess. iii, 11 ; v, 23.
Auto? in itself and in its position has a solemn emphasis on it
— Himself standing out in His own grace and majesty from us
— fjiJLow — the last word. Again, a prayer after an admonition,
tovto yap €(ttlv ovtcos /3or]6eiv, " I indeed have spoken thus ;
but the whole is of God, to strengthen, to confirm" (Chrysostom).
The order is peculiar, though it occurs in the benediction
(2 Cor. xiii, 14). The Lord Jesus Christ is placed first, con-
trary to the apostle's habit in so many places. This order may
have been adopted, not simply " because Christ is mediator
between men and God " (Lunemann), for in that case the order
might have been God, Christ, you — the order of spiritual
bestowment, God through Christ, or God and Christ, the
ultimate Source and the Medium. If, as Alford says, a climax
298 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
is intended, is there an anti-climax in the reverse order ? But
perhaps the preference arose thus — Christ and the Father are
so one that a singular verb is employed in this benediction,
which is really a prayer to both divine persons as equally
givers, and the Son is named first as being so recently referred
to in the words, the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ — the ulti-
mate and indescribable inheritance of believers. Naturally in
offering this prayer the apostle first mentions Him for whose
glory they are set apart, as he asks comfort and strength to
guard them on their way to that glory, and to prepare them
for it. For 6 Geo9 6 irarhp rjfxcov see Gal. i, 4. God the
Father is the ultimate source of all spiritual blessing. Both,
as the one object of prayer, are to the apostle divine, for
Divinity alone is the living object of adoration. The Greek
fathers naturally refer to this order of naming the divine
persons — Theodoret especially as against Arius and Eunomius
— the argument being, that the honour of the Son is not less
than that of the Father though He is usually mentioned
second, as in the Baptismal service — the order of the names not
involving difference of dignity.
6 aya7n']<Ta$ )]/mag nai Sous — "who loved us and gave us.'' The
aorist does not mean qui nos a/mat et quovis tempore amavlt, but
refers to a past act, and is no doubt the love manifested in the
mission of the only begotten Son (John iii, 1G; 1 John iv, 10;
Fphes. ii, 4). It seems probable that 6 Qeb? o iraT^p is specially
characterized by the participle, for aydiri] is usually ascribed
to Him (Riggenbach, Lunemann). Others incline to include
Jesus also, and to this the singular participle can be no objec-
tion, for a singular verb follows, and as Alford remarks, the
apostle could not have written ayaTn'ia-avreq — the unity of
Father and Son being so distinctly recognized. It is impossible
to decide, and it would be profane to be dogmatic on the point,
yet we rather incline to the single reference to the Father,
whose spontaneous, gracious, sovereign, and intense love is the
source of all spiritual blessing. It is, however, quite capricious
in Baumgarten-Crusius to refer the first participle to Christ,
and the second, Sous, to the Father.
icat Sou? 7rapaK\}]<Tiv aimnav /cat e\7rlSa ayuOiju ev xupLTi —
" and gave us everlasting consolation and good hope in grace."
Veu. 16.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 299
This second aorist is in historical reference or similar parallel
to the first — loved us, and in that act of love gave us, when the
gift of His love came into the world and died. UapaKXycri?
is here consolation, as in Luke ii, 25 ; vi, 24 ; xvi, 25 ; 2 Cor. i,
3; Heb. vi, IS. The feminine form aloovlav occurs only here
and in Heb. ix, 12. The phrase does not of itself mean or
characterize eternal blessedness (Chrysostom, Estius, Grotius,
Fromond). For the consolation is enjoyed in the present, and
it is everlasting as compared with any comfort which time or
the world can present and which from its nature is transitory
and imperfect, for it suffices for all time and for eternity.
There are evils, trials, changes, and struggles around believers
— "without fightings, within fears"; so many temptations to
harass them; so much indwelling sin to oppress them; so much,
in short, to create sorrow and lassitude, that they have press-
ing need of comfort. Such comfort they have in the conscious
enjoyment of their Father's love, and in the conviction that
what they suffer is for their good, that what is laid on them is
less than they deserve, and that grace is given them to bear it
so that " where afflictions abound, consolations much more
abound." This is true of all time, and such assurances and
enjojanents last for ever. Along with this also —
ical e\7riSa ayaQt]v — " and good hope." That hope regards
the future, and is good not only in its basis, but in its cheering
power, and in the blessed object which it contemplates
(Titus ii, 13; Col. i, 5; Heb. vii, 19; 1 Peter i, 3, 4). The
last words, iv \apiri, are best connected with the participle
Sou?, ev marking the element in which the double gift of
consolation and hope takes place. Some connect the phrase
with both participles, as Estius, Limemann, De Wette ; for the
grace is alwa}-s included in the first participle, and, as has
been remarked, when applied to God in Christ it usually stands
absolute (Alford). Rom. viii, 37; Gal. ii, 20; Ephes. v, 2.
Others would connect the words with eXirlSa, a hope resting
on grace, but some fuller expression would be required to
sustain this sense. The gift of God in its combined aspect of
consolation and hope takes effect in His grace, that grace being
opposed to necessity on His part, and to any merit on ours.
The prayer is that our Lord Jesus Christ and God—
300 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. II.
(Ver. 17.) TrapaKaXea-cu v/uwv ret? KapSias — "comfort your
hearts." The verb irapaKaXea-ai is singular, and in the aorist
optative. The two nominatives, " our Lord Jesus Christ
Himself and God our Father," are both so much regarded by
the apostle in his prayer as one that a singular is employed.
If the prayer to both express unity of operation, that unity
implies oneness of essence, and both so appealed to in prayer
are regarded by the apostle as of equal divinity. See under
1 Thess. iii, 11. They had been troubled about the Second
Advent, and the apostle prays that they may be com-
forted, with no self-created consolation, and by no human
sympathizer, but by our Lord Jesus Christ and God our
Father, who knows all hearts, and has all access to them.
The apostle had written to comfort them, but he implores
comfort from a higher source.
kol arrtjpi^ai ev iravTi epyw kcu Xoycp ayaOw — "and stablish
you in every good work and word." The Received Text has
v/tias after the verb, with D 3 K L, but it is omitted in
A B D 1 F N, both Latin and both Syriac versions, and man y
Greek and Latin fathers. The Received Text reads also Aoyw
kcu epyw, with F K, but the reverse order has in its favour
A B D L N. For an accusative to a-rtjpl^ai, singular like the
previous optatives, some would supply /ca/x5/a?, and others
more rightly vp.ug, from the previous vp.wv. The apostle prays
for strength to them, ev pointing out the element in which that
strength was to evince itself. It does not mean "for," els
(Grotius), nor can it signify "by means of," Sia, as Chrysos-
tom renders it, followed by Theophylact and Bengel. The
sense in that case would be, " may God strengthen you by
His work and word"; but with such a meaning iravri
and ayaOw are both superfluous and inapplicable. Nor can
Xoyo? in this position mean doctrine, ra 6p6a 86yp.ara
(CEcumenius, Theophylact); sana doctrina (Calvin). Work and
word so placed have a meaning easily understood — in every
good work and word, in all you do and say, may He strengthen
you (Rom. xvi, 25, and Fritzsche in loc). Spiritual stability
so conferred in answer to such a prayer would ward off that
risk of cru\evd>jvai spoken of in the second verse.
Veb. 1.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 301
CHAPTER III.
(Vor. 1.) To Xonrov irpocrevxecrde, aSe\<poi 3 7rep\ rj/xcov — "Finally
pray, brethren, for us." For to Xoitcov, as to what remains
to be written, or what I have yet to say, see under 1 Thess.
iv, 1 ; and compare under Gal. vi, 17. For irepi }]p.wv, see
under Ephes. vi, 19.
He had been offering prayer for them, and now he asks
them to offer prayer for himself and his colleagues. The
prayer which he directed them to present for him was not
for any personal end, but for himself and colleagues in connec-
tion with their necessary labours, and the end which such toil
and self-denial had in view. These are two collateral aspects,
each introduced by Iva, which in such a connection contains
the purport of the prayer with its purpose. The first is more
general and impersonal —
'Iva 6 Xoyo? rov ~Kupiou Tptxil kou So^a^rat KaOco? kol 7rpo?
up.as — "that the word of the Lord may run and be glorified
even as it is also with you." By o Xoyo? is meant the gospel,
1 Thess. i, 8; ii, 13 — the genitive being that of subject. The
first verb Tpexil expresses free and unimpeded diffusion, that it
may speed its way everywhere without hindrance, all barriers
of every kind being removed. Comp. Ps. cxlvii, 15; 2 Tim. ii, 9.
Mere rapid spread is not enough, but the prayer comprehends
"that it may be glorified," that is in its cordial reception
everywhere among Jews and Gentiles, when the Saviour whom
it reveals is savingly embraced; when its divine power is
felt unto salvation, and all its ennobling influences are seen
to mould the character into spiritual symmetry. When it thus
realizes its great purpose, its glory as a divine message is
manifested, Rom. xi, 13. The verb is not middle as Pelt
supposes, laudem sibi paret, for that is not the usage of the
New Testament, nor is that meaning at all sustained by
the following 7rpo?, which simply denotes locality. The glori-
fication of the gospel has no allusion to any miracles wrought
in its attestation. Ka&w koi 777)09 vp.ag — "even as it also
is with you " — connected closely with the second verb, though
Hoffman connects with both. But it is the glorifying of
302 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. III.
the word in its saving virtue that the apostle brings up; its
diffusion was momentous to him only as a means to this
end. For 717)09, see 1 Thes. iii, 4. It had been glorified "among
them," not specially in them or by them, but among them
it had been accepted ; and in their turning from idols and
waiting for His Son from heaven, in their faith's work, their
love's labour, and their hope's patience (1 Thess. i, 3), in the
growth of all Christian graces in the midst of peril and perse-
cution, the word of the Lord had been glorified also with them
as in other cities. Prayer for the success of the gospel was
prayer for us — irep\ tJ/ulwv ; he and his colleagues were so identi-
fied with the enterprise.
(Ver. 2.) ko.1 'iva pvaOayxev utto twv utottcov kui Trovijpcov
dvOpwTTwv — "and that we may be delivered from perverse
and wicked men." This portion of the prayer is closely
connected with the first — that the gospel may have free course
and be glorified, and that we may be at liberty unhampered
by ungodly adversaries to take our part in the great work of
preaching and diffusing it. The present verbs of the former
verse seem to denote a continuous theme and purpose, but the
aorist in this clause may denote an act of deliverance from
a danger really impending, Iva again combining the subject
and the design of the prayer.
The epithet utottos is peculiar, meaning literally placeless, or
not in the right place, or what is out of the way ; applied
to rjSovt'i (Euripides, Iph. Tam:, 842) ; to opvig (Aristoph., Aves,
27G); to opinion, SovXoi ovres twv utottwi 1 , slaves always to
novelties or paradoxes (Thucyd., iii, 30). As applied to persons,
it means one who says or does what is inappropriate or out
of place, ineptus, absurdus (Cicero De Oratore, ii, 4) ; and so
often in Plato, eg utottov kcu wfiovs (Leg., i, 646 b), tov
Qaujuaarrov re ku\ utottov, (Ep. vii, 333 C ; Ast., Lex. Platon,
sab voce). But the word passes into a darker signification —
what is unnatural or disgusting — a person who is wrongful or
wicked. Thus ovSev utottov, Luke xxiii, 41 ; Acts xxviii, 6.
The anomalous easily passed into the unlawful, our utotto? rjv
uv oure /uloixos ovSe els (Athenreus, vii, 279 C, p. 18, vol. Ill, ed.
Sch weigh.); and so p.rjSev utottov, nihil damni (Joseph., Antiq.,v\,
14; 2 Mace, xiv, 23, &a ; Kypke in Acta, xxviii, 6). Suidas
Ver. 2.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 303
explains aroTrlas, as descriptive of water, by naic'ias, and renders
it by such epithets as gevov, kukov, poxOtjpov (sub voce).
Philo explains in reference to the divine summons to Adam,
Where art thou ? that the proper answer to the question would
be "nowhere." tottov yap ovSlva e'xei r\ tov <pav\ov \^fX'/> ( p
e7r</3)/o-eTat . . . irap ' o /ecu utotto? Xeyerai eivai 6 </>ai/Ao?
(xtottov Se icrri kolkov SvuOerop (Allegor., iii, p. 271,
vol. I, ed. Mangey). Hesychius defines the term by irovrjpo?,
(uo-xpo?. See Loesner in loc. It represents in the Septua-
gint the Hebrew ps, iniquity, falsehood, (Job xi, 11; xxxvi,
21; Prov. xxx, 20) ; also tqt&, vanity, (Job xxxv, 13); the Hiphil
of j;»n is expressed by aroira iroi^creiv, (Job xxxiv, 12), "surely
God will not do wickedly." Compare Job xxvii, G, ov yap
uuvoiSa ep.avTO) aroira Trpd^as. The Vulgate here renders by
import unis, the Claromontane by iniqwis, and the English
version in the margin by absurd. Macknight renders brutish,
that is, according to the etymology, " men who have, or deserve
to have, no place in society." Erasmus — qui nulli loco con-
venientes quales sunt haeretici. Estius — forsan et ad etymon
vombuli allusit — loco nusquam consistebant. Doddridge- —
those " whom no topics can work on." Different opinions have
been held as to who these perverse and wicked men were. The
answer will depend on the sense assigned to the next clause —
ov yap iravrwv t] 7ti(ttis — "for the faith does not belong
to all." This use of the possessive genitive is common — Acts
i, 7; 1 Cor. iii, 21 ; 1 Cor. vi, 19. Winer, § 30, 5. Jlavrwv is not
to be softened into 6\lywv (Pelt). HI cm? is most naturally
the Christian faith, the want of which led such men to thwart
and persecute the apostle. It cannot signify probity, as
Schoettgeu, Bullino-er, Krause, Flatt, as if the meaning were —
there are few good men whom we can safely trust. Nor can
it mean true faith, as Schott, Jowett. Jowett bases on this
misinterpretation the notion that the persons referred to were
false brethren, apparent friends, secret enemies ; so partly
Calvin, Zuingli, and Flatt. The clause is meant to show
why perverse ami wicked men were so hostile to him, and
the cause that he asked the Thessalonians to pray for his
deliverance from them. It is pressing the words to give them
this meaning — all men have not the capacity of faith — " have no
304- COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. III.
receptivity for it," (Alford); fidei 11011 sunt omnes capaces,
(Crellius); similarly Pelt, De Wette, Lunemann. But the
apostle does not allude to this point at all ; his simple assertion
refers to the fact that all men have not faith, and not to the moral
or spiritual grounds of its absence. So that it is wrong to base
on the clause any doctrine about divine sovereignty, or the
withholding of divine grace, as is done by some. The men so
referred to are described generally, and Chrysostom and
Theophylact are wrong in confining the reference to heretics
as Hymenaeus and Philetus. Such a class would have been
named with a more specific designation. Those opponents were
probably Jews ; Jews in Corinth who opposed themselves
and blasphemed, who in their malignity broke out in insur-
rection with one accord against Paul and brought him to
the judgment seat of Gallio (Acts xviii, 12).
(Ver. 8.) Ukttos Se ecrrcv 6 l^vpio?, b? crTijp'^ei vjuos — " but
faithful is the Lord who shall establish you." Codices A D 1 F,
with the Latin versions, read Geo? for Ki'pto?, doubtless an
alteration to the more common phrase, as found in 1 Cor.
i, 9; xi, 13; 2 Cor. i, 18. But Kvpio? has preponderant
authority in BD 3 KL ft, the Syriac versions, &c. By KJ/ko?
is naturally meant the Lord Jesus, and not the Father, as
Schrader, Schott, Olshausen, Hilgenfeld. See under ii, 13 ;
1 Thess. iii, 11, 13. The Lord is the object of that faith which
all men have not. Men are faithless, but (Si) He is faithful.
The paronomasia is suggestive. Winer, § 68, 2. Faithful is
He, and He so faithful will confirm you, in answer to the
prayer offered for them in ii, 17 — a prayer suggested by the
spiritual perplexities occasioned by the errors which he has
been exposing.
kcu <pv\d£ei axo rov Trovtjpov — " and will preserve you from
the evil one." The reference in 7rovi]pov is difficult, though
certainly it is not a kind of collective substitute for the Trovripm>
avOpunroov of the previous verse. Compare Koppe, Rosenmuller,
Flatt. The word, however, may be either masculine or neuter,
either the evil one, or evil in the abstract (Rom. xii, 9 ; 1 Thess.
v, 22). Lunemann contends for the latter, because the clause
is but a negative resumption of a-rrjpi^ai ev iravri epycp kw.
Xoyw aya6(7\ But (1) the resumption is not very distinct, and
Ver. 4.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 30o
it is at best but fragmentary, for it is broken by the formal to
Xonrov, and by the use of <pv\d£ei, introducing a new idea —
preservation from evil — scarcely the full negative form of being-
confirmed in every good word and work. The epithet, similarly
used in other parts of Scripture, seems to have a personal
reference (Matt, xiii, 19 ; Ephes. vi, 1G ; 1 John iii, 12). Com-
pare Matt, v, 37 ; vi, 13; 1 John v, IS (if not a quotation). (2)
The clause seems to be an echo of the clause in the Lord's
prayer, and in that petition the masculine is preferable. (3)
Satan is specially referred to in the previous chapter in con-
nection with that awful development described — the personal
counterpart of God. (4) The acceptance of the neuter form
would be a kind of anti-climax — stablish you in every good
work and word ; stablish } t ou and keep you from evil — a
bare and unemphatic conclusion, implied also in the previous
positive prayers. But it is impossible to decide the ques-
tion —
(Ver. 4.) Heiro'iQapev 8e ev Kvpuo ecp'vpa? — "but we have confi-
dence in the Lord as regards you." Ae introduces an additional
thought somewhat in contrast to what has been just expressed.
Not only is our reliance on the Lord who is faithful, but we
have also confidence towards you in the Lord. The ev and the
€(i) are thus distinguished, the first with Kvplw, marking the
inner element or sphere in which this trust is felt, for "the Lord
is faithful," and e(p' up.as pointing out the objects of it, towards
and on you, the personal direction. Winer, § 49 I; Gal. v, 10 ;
Philip, ii, 24 ; Rom. xiv, 14. This relation is often expressed
by the dative in classical writers. 2 Cor. i, 9. No trust could
be satisfactory to him but one eu Kvpiw, especially when it
concerned the future obedience of believers, His grace being
so requisite to bring about the desired result. The confidence
referred to the following —
oti ii irapayyeWopev vp.lv Kai iroieiTe teat. 7roo')creTe — " that
the things which we command ye are both doing and will do."
There are several various readings. The Received Text has vp.iv
after irapciyyeWopev with A D 3 F K L, but it is omitted in
B D 1 tf, two mss., the Vulgate, and some of the fathers. It is
probably a correction from the 6th verse. A D 1 ^ x omit kai
before Troierre, and so does the Peshito ; but perhaps it should
U
306 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. III.
be retained. There are other and not probable readings in
BFG, B and F having km eirouja-aTe, while F omits km
7ron'j(reT6, the longer reading being preferred by Lachmann.
"Ort introduces the matter of the apostle's confidence. The
verb is not in the past tense, quce praecepimus, but signifies
what we are now enjoining, a transition to the commands in
the following verses. What we command you is the protasis,
not what we command and ye do (Erasmus), but the sense is,
what we command — that ye both do and will do. The thoughts
are linked together. They are prayed for that they may be
stablished in every good work and word; they are established
and kept from the evil one by the faithful Lord ; and the
apostle's confidence, resting on the same Lord, is that they, so
confirmed and preserved, are obeying and will obey his man-
dates, which rest on Christ's authority, and are observed only
through His imparted grace. He thus takes it for granted that
the}^ will act up to his anticipations, and the confidence so ex-
pressed implies a charge that they will do so. The two verbs kgu
7roieiTe tcai Tronjaere are placed in simultaneous or co-ordinate
connection. Winer, § 53, 4. The verb TrapayyiWoo is almost
peculiar to these Thessalonian epistles, being found besides
only once in 1 Tim. vi, 13, and twice in first Corinthians (1
Cor. vii, 10 ; xi, 17).
(Ver. 5.) 'O Selvupioq KarrevdvvM vpwv tu? Kapoias — "but may
the Lord direct your hearts." By Se this prayer is somewhat
in contrast to the previous assertion — " we have confidence
toward you that ye are doing, but over and above may He
direct your hearts." For the verb see under 1 Thess. iii, 11 —
" We need," says Theodoret, " both good purpose and co-
operation from above." The heart, " the reservoir of the entire
life power," is the centre of the spiritual nature also, with its
impulses, energies, resolves, and cognitions. Delitzsch, Bib.
Psych., iv, 12. That heart is capricious and wayward, and
needs to have the way pointed out to it, and to be kept in that
way by Him who alone knows it. Kvpios here is undoubtedly
again the Saviour, as in the other previous verses, and not God
(Hilgenfeld), nor the Holy Spirit, as the Greek fathers, Basil,
Theodoret, Theophylact, CEcumenius. Basil's argument is, e'/re
yap Trepl tov Qeoii kui UaTpo? o Xoyo? ttuvtuis uv eiptjTO, 6 Se
Ver. 5.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 307
vpio? v/uu? KaTevuvvai e<9 ty\v cuvtou uyanrt^v, eiTe Trcpi tov
I LOU, TTpO(T€K€lTO UV €1$ Tl]V €UVTOV V7rO/U.OV}'jV {De Sp^Tltll
Sancto, xxi, pp. 60, 61, Opera, torn. Ill, Gaume, Paris). The
argument of the Greek fathers who follow Basil is similar —
the Lord cannot be Christ, for He is asked to direct them into
the patience of Christ, as if He were a different person. But
this is not the usage of the New Testament, and Xpto-roil is
repeated as being at the end of the verse, and as being in con-
trast with the intervening Qeov. The direction of the heart is
His work, who is Saviour and Lord, who by His grace and His
Spirit guides and blesses His people. Self-led hearts are
usually misled hearts. He prays that their hearts be
directed —
ei$ Tr\v ayaiT7]V tov Qeov kui «? t>]v v7rop.ovi]V tov
XpirrTov — " into the love of God and into the patience of
Christ." The Received Text omits ti)v before v7rop.oi't]p, but all
MSS. have it. The words tj aya-jn] tov Oeov may mean by them-
selves either God's love to us, or our love to God. To take the
genitive as that of object is more in harmony with the context,
love to God, to ayaTTijirai olvtov (Theophylact). So De Wette,
Liinemann, &c. The other signification would not be at all
suitable. The phrase is to be taken, therefore, not as meaning
love enjoined by God (Clericus) nor infused by God (Pelt), nor
is the sense, to imitate the love which God has shown to man-
kind (Macknight), nor can it be the love which God has to us,
and has especially manifested in the work of redemption
(Riggenbach, Olshausen). The love of God is the source of all
true spiritual power, and the grand motive to all acceptable
obedience. The entire decalogue is summed up into love.
God, robed in perfection, is altogether lovely, and every one
knowing Him and trusting Him will love Him and study to
please Him. Yet the wayward heart needs to be directed by a
higher power into this love —
Kai eo? Ttjv v7ro/j.oi>}]i> tov XptiTToy — ■" and into the patience of
Christ." For the noun see under 1 Thess. i, 3. The clause is
somewhat difficult.
I. Very many understand it as the Authorized Version —
" patient waiting for Christ." So Chrysostom in one of his
interpretations, CEcumenius, Ambrosi aster, Erasmus, Vatablus,
308 COMMENTAEY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. IIT.
a-Lapide, Calvin, Benson, Hofmann. (1) But inrojuow'} never
bears such a meaning. It is found thirty-four times, and has
always the sense of patience, patient endurance. (2) The
word used to signify, to wait for Christ, is another compound,
avafxeveiv, and its substantive might have been expected
here if such were the meaning. (3) Hofmann's examples
will not sustain him. In Jeremiah xiv, 8, God is called
vTroiJi.ov)] 'Lxpco/A, a different form of expression altogether. The
genitive is, therefore, not of object, nor does the similarity of
the two clauses require it.
II. It is regarded by some as signifying patience on
account of Christ — patientia propter Christum praestita
fBengel) ; or as De Wette — steadfastness in the cause of
Christ. Such a meaning would require more than the simple
genitive.
III. Nor is the genitive that of source or author — the
patience which Christ bestows (Grotius, Pelt).
IV. The phrase means " the patience of Christ " — such
patience as characterized Christ — the genitive being generally
that of possession, or as Chrysostom distinctly puts it in
one of his explanations — "iva V7rofj.evooij.ev w$ eiceivos inre/j-eivev.
Compare 2 Cor. i, 5. Patience under suffering characterized
Christ — perfect subordination to the divine will — and such
steadfastness and unmurmuring acquiescence should mark all
who are Christ's. The Thessalonian believers were subjected to
persecution, and they needed this patient endurance, and there-
fore the apostle implores Christ to lead them into this grace,
which distinguished Himself with prominent fulness — no suffer-
ing like His in depth and severity, and no patience like His in
its serene and self-supporting power. The apostle in the first
epistle had given several warnings and premonitions about
social disorders creeping into the church from the impression
that the day of the Lord was on them (1 Thess. iv, 11, 12).
But the restlessness and irregularities had been growing, and
the wrong impression had been deepened by forged revelations,
utterances, and letters. Idleness and habits of gossip and
aimless gadding about had been perilously increasing. The
jeopardy was imminent, the credit of Christianity was at stake,
and the apostle is the more earnest and severe in his dissuasives
Vbr. 6.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 309
and rebukes. The church itself in its centre was sound, but
there were attached to it those busybodies whom the apostle
marks as he exhorts the better portion to withdraw from
fellowship with them.
(Ver. 0.) IIapayyJXXop.ev Se vp.lv, dSeXcpol, ev ovopari tou
Kvpiov (t]/uwi>) 'hjcrod Xpio-Tou — " Now we command you,
brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." The
Received Text has y/maiv after AD 3 FKLN and the Vulgate,
but the pronoun is wanting in B D 1 E 1 , and in the Claromontane
and Sangerm. Latin. It has good authoiity, but it may be an
interpolation from common usage. By irapa.yyeXhoiJ.ev Se the
apostle resumes the a irapayyeXXopev of verse 4, and puts it as
a distinct and special injunction, in the confidence that the body
of the people were obeying, and would obey them, the aSeXrpol
being not the office-bearers (Olshausen), but the believing com-
munity. The charge is given solemnly — in the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ, under His commission, by His authority — a. yap
eyco Xeyco etccivos Xeyei (Theophylact). 1 Cor. v, 4. The charge
is —
(TTeWeirOai vpag airo 7ravTO<? aSeX(f)Ov utuktco? ire pnruTOvvTO?
— " that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother walking
disorderly." The verb is the object infinitive, the duty con-
tained in irapayyeXXopev. HreXXco is properly to set or place,
as an army ; and figuratively, to fit out, to prepare, and then to
send or despatch — the common signification. Examples of those
meanings need not be given. As a nautical term it denotes to
send in sail, itrrla (Iliad, i, 433; Od.,'\\\, 11), and thence to
draw in or to repress (Joseph., Antiq., v, 8, 3), or to restrain
from, airo (Philo De tipec. Leg.) Polybius thus employs it,
e/c (rvvtjOelas Karaglworiv arreXXerrdai (viii, 22, 4). In the middle
voice the reflexive meaning is se subtrahere. The idea of fear
is sometimes implied, to shrink away for fear (Mai. ii, 5).
Hesychius says a-reXXerai, (pofielrai. No idea of tremor can
find place here. Theodoret explains it to (rreXXecrOat avrl
rod xwpifcaQai ; and the Vulgate, at subtrahatisvos; the Syriac,
^iAi-2) <oA^6aij. See 2 Cor. viii, 20; Heb. x, 38; and
under Gal. ii, 12. See the notes of Loesner, Kypke, Eisner.
For ara/cTco? see under 1 Thess. v, 14. The adverb is ex-
plained in the context — working not at ail, busybodies — in
310 COMMENTARY ON 1ST. PAUL'S [Chap. III.
flagrant contrast to the example of industry and indepen-
dence set by the apostle himself during his stay in Thessa-
lonica.
Kdl /aij kcitu tt]V -TrapuSocriv i)v TrapeXafiocrav irap i)p.wv —
" and not according to the instruction which they received
from us." There are difficulties about the reading of the verb.
The Received Text has 7rapiAafie, which has almost no autho-
rity, and is probably a grammatical correction of the plural
-jrupeXdfieTe, adopted by Lachmann after B F, the Philoxenian
Syriac, and some of the fathers — a reading suggested by the
syntactic difficulty ; 7rapi\a(3ov has D 3 K L N 3 , with several of
the Greek fathers ; and Trapekafioarav is found in A N 1 ;
ehdfiovav being found in D 1 . The two last are different forms
of the third person plural. The form in ocrav is unusual, and
may have been corrected, but it is found in the Sept., Exod.
xv, 27; xvi, 21; xviii, 26; Josh, v, 11; and among the Byzantine
writers. Winer, § 13, 2// Phavorinus, sub voce 'tj^Qouav, p. 228,
ed. Dindorf; Lobeck, Phrynichus, p. 319. The third person
plural has the highest authority of MSS. and versions, though
the peculiar form cannot be satisfactorily decided. Only, the
less common Alexandrian form would be more likely to
be altered than to be inserted. The plural is a construction
as to sense, ttuvtos having a collective force. Jelf, § 378 a. For
7rapdSocrig see under ii, 15. It signifies instruction, given by
the apostle either orally or in writing (1 Thess. iv, 11, 12),
both being implied, as we learn from the following verse.
Hapdoocris is here not instruction by example, as the Greek
fathers and Hofmann, for that would be an anticipation of
what follows, but the instruction given so distinctly, irap
rj/uLwv, was illustrated and fortified by example, as is afterwards
shown. From every one walking in this lawless way — indolent,
fanatical, and self-duped — they were to separate themselves.
Nothing like excommunication is spoken of — they were to
avoid all intercourse with these disorderly neighbours. They
are not bidden to thrust them out of church fellowship, but
they were to avoid all fellowship with them, and to show in
this way their decided disapproval of their inconsistencies
which were bringing dishonour on the faith.
( Ver. 7.) avroi yap oioare 77-609 Set pip-eicrOai >jp.ug — " for ye
Ver. 8.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 311
yourselves know how ye ought to follow us." Tup, confirmatory
and illustrative of the wisdom and necessity of the previous
injunction — "yourselves know it," we need not tell you now.
For juu/uelo-Qai see under 1 Thess. i, 6. Yourselves know how ye
ought to live, in imitation of us. Our life lays you under
obligation to copy it. On this point the reference is not the
general imitation of Christian graces, but this special aspect of
the apostle's conduct.
on ovk riraKTwaixev ev vp.lv — " for we behaved not disorderly
among } 7 ou." "On is causal, or "secondary causal," as Ellicott
expresses it, meaning not so much because, as seeing that —
an argument and an example. 'Ara/cTetV, a verb occurring
only here, is the same in meaning as oltuktoos 7repnraTelv. The
adjective occurs only in 1 Thess. v, 11, and the adverb in
verses and 11. See under 1 Thess. v, 14; Kypke, in loc.
The disorder is specified immediately. Hofmann artificially
takes on with o'lSare — ye know how ye ought to follow us,
and, as a parallel clause, ye know that we were not disor-
derly, bringing verse 9 under the same vinculum. The apostle
appeals to his own conduct and to their estimate of it. He
asserts about it what lie felt assured they would unanimously
affirm —
(Ver. 8.) ovSe Scopeuv uprov k(puyop.ev 7rapa tivo? — " neither
did we eat bread for nought from any one." "Aprov (puyeiv, in
imitation of onS. h^ ) means to take food, bread being the staff
of life (Gen. xliii, 25 ; 2 Sam. ix, 7 ; Prov. xxiii, 6 ; Mark vi,
36) — eaOleiv in ver. 10. Acopetiv, emphatic in position, is
like pLcucpdv, an adverbial accusative; gratis, Vulgate. See
under Gal. ii, 21. Uapu tivos is a familiar idiom — "off any
one " — that is, at any one's expense. This food was not a gift
from any body ; he earned it for himself. In the highest
sense his sustenance would not have been owpeuv, "for the
labourer is worthy of his meat " (1 Cor. ix) ; but his meaning
is that he set an example of honest industry, and maintained
himself by manual toil.
uXX' ev Koircp Ka\ p.6)(Bw vvktu k<u ))p.epav epya^o/mevoi —
" but in toil and travel, day and night working." The
genitive reading puktos kcu ))p.epu? has B F K in its favour.
It may, hosvevor, be an assimilation to 1 Thess. ii, 9; iii, 10.
312 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. III.
There is no need to regard the participle as irregularly
used for the finite verb, or to supply q/mev. Winer, 4-3, 8.
The words may be understood in two ways: (1) 'Epya^o/mevoi,
as a modal participle, may belong to aprou e(j)dyo/u.ev, as in
contrast to Swpedv — but we ate bread, working night and
day, not owpedv (Alford, Riggenbach, Liinemann). (2) Or ev
K07r(p Kal mo'x% may be the positive complement, in opposition
to Soopeuv, of apTOv ecfidyonxev, and vvktu ku\ >)p.epav epyu£o-
/xevoi, an explanatory parallel; that is, we did not eat bread
for nought, but we ate it in toil and labour, as we wrought
night and day (De Wette, Winer, Conybeare, Lillie, Ellicott,
Hofmann). The emphatic position, Ellicott remarks, requires
the sharper antithesis. There is in either way a full antithesis.
We did not eat bread (Soopedv) at any one's expense ; on the
contrary (dXXa), we ate it in toil and travel, working day
and night. Aoopedv is denied by the severity of the toil,
and denied also by its continuity ; it was heavy and uninter-
mitted. For the two pairs of nouns see under 1 Thess. ii, 9 ;
iii, 10.
Mo'x^o? in the New Testament occurs only in connection
with /co7To? — a terse and familiar idiom — toil to weariness,
labour to utter exhaustion.
7T/30? to p.*] e7rif3apr]<Tai Tiva v/ucov — " that we might not be
burdensome to any of you." See under 1 Thess. ii, 9, where
the same words occur with the very same inference.
(Ver. 9.) The next clause is a qualifying limitation — ovx ori
ovk exo/meis egovcrlav — " not that we have not power." The
clause is a restriction of the previous utterance to prevent mis-
understanding. 2 Cor. i, 24; iii, 5 ; Philip, iii, 12; iv, 11, 17 ;
and examples in Hartung, II, p. 153. The sense is— we did this,
not because we have not power tou p.r] epyd^eaOai (1 Cor. ix, 6),
or rod Soopeav (payelv dprov ; the apostle reserved his right of
ministerial support, though he might occasionally waive it, as
in this instance. See the long argument in 1 Cor. ix. What
he did in Thessalonica and what he was doing at Corinth was
not to be regarded as any surrender of his claim. His purpose
was —
aXX' iVct euuTOvs tvttov Sw/txev vp.iv etg to p-i/meicruai t)p.ag —
"but in order that we should give ourselves as an example
Ver. 10.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 313
to you that ye should imitate us ;" that is, but foregoing our
right we wrought and earned our bread, to set you an example.
The pronoun envrovs, originally belonging to the third person,
is used here for i)pds avrovs'. Winer, § 22, 5 ; Bernhardy, p.
272 ; Rom. viii, 23 ; and for the second person, John xii, 8 ;
Philip, ii, 12. The purpose, rvirov Swpev, is prefaced by the telic
'li'a, and its farther connected object, els to, was that you should
imitate us. He abstained from his right in order that he
might set an example, and he set that example in order that it
might be followed. A practical purpose, one of immediate
moment and utility, was ever before him in all his actions.
There needed an example of honest, unashamed industry in
that church, some members of which were prone to idleness,
and the apostle in self-denying care set it, working to utter
weariness, and toiling at hours when other people rested, " day
and night." He was in no way ashamed of his handicraft
labour, or of the special form of it to which he had been
trained.
(Ver. 10.) Kou yap otc i)pev irpos vpa? tqvto 7rapi]yyeWopep
vp.iv — " for also when we were with you, this we charged you."
Tup is apparently co-ordinate with yap in verse 7 — " a second
confirmation of the wisdom and pertinence of the preceding-
warning" (Ellicott). He takes koi simply as connective, serving
to connect the two verses. Lunemann and Alford give koi an
ascensive force, referring it to the following rovro, as bringing
out an additional element in the reminiscence. Winer, § 53, 8.
Hofmann thus understands it — for even when we were with
you, already at that time we commanded you. This is virtu-
ally the view of Theodoret — ovoev kuivov vjuliv ypd(J)opei> — but
what from the beginning we taught you. But koi is not
related to the record of the sojourn which underlies the previous
verses ; it rather belongs to tovto TrupayyeWopev—wc
laboured and earned our bread, foregoing our just claim ;
that was our example, and this also was our familiar com-
mand — we were commanding you, the verb being in the
imperfect.
For 7rpog upas, see under 1 Thess. iii, 4. Touro refers to what
follows —
on el t<? ov OeXei epya^ecrOai pipe ecrOteTCO — " that it any one
314 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. III.
will not work, neither let him eat." For the use of el ov, as
distinct from el pi'i, except in the New Testament — the negative
coalescing with e't to express a single idea — see Winer, 55, 2 c;
Gayler, p. 1)9, &c. The phrase is an oratorical enthymeme
warranting its converse ; but every one does eat, therefore let
every one labour. 1 Cor. xi, 6. There is an allusion to
Gen. iii, 19 — "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread
till thou return unto the ground." The form of the saying is
proverbial as the expression of a universal law. If one can
work and will not, or if he cannot dig, and is ashamed to beg,
then he must starve or steal. Of course there are exceptions,
when there is physical inability or work cannot be had —
nolle vitium est (Bengel) — but as a general principle, eating
presupposes working according to divine arrangement, and
strength to earn food and health to enjoy it are comprised in the
petition, " Give us this day our daily bread." The idlers re-
ferred to had no right to "sorn " on their friends or burden the
funds of the church. There does not appear to have been
such a common table, such a fraternal community of goods as
Ewald supposes. Similar sentiments are found in Jewish
authors.
(Ver. 11.) 'A/couOyuev yap —iva<$ irepLiraTOvvTas ev vpiv utuktco?
■ — "For we hear of some walking among you disorderly." Tap
assigns the reason for the repetition of the irapayyeXla, and
does not, as in Hofmann's view, refer to the whole section,
verses 6-10. The participle marks or asserts the state as now
in existence, and so far differs from the infinitive. Winer,
§ 45, 4 ; Scheuerlein, § 45, 5 ; Kiihner, §§ 657-664. Only a
small portion of the church is thus characterized, rivas ; and
for the adverb see under verse 6, and under 1 Thess. v, 14.
What the disorderliness consisted in is now stated —
fXtjSeu epya^o/ueuovg aXXa, 7r e piepya^o fj.lv ovs — " doing no busi-
ness, but being busybodies." The verb irepiepyd^opai occurs
only here. It signified originally to work round a thing, or
with great pains. Thus it was said of Theon the painter, kui
7r\eov ovSev 7repie!pyacrTai toi OeWt. 2EA.. Var. Hist., ii, 44,
and the note of Perizonius on the verb. The accusation of
Diogenes against Socrates was ire pieipydcrOai yap ical tw oIkiSiw
(Do., iv, 12). Then it signifies to overdo — to be a busybody.
Ver. 12.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 315
Ey toi<? 7repicr(Toi? tmv epyoov aou /nl] irepiepya^ov (Sirach, iii,
23.) "EcoKpart]? aditcel koi irepiepya^erai £>]tow tu re viro y/79
k<u to. eirovpdvia (Plato, Apol., 19, B). Uep'epyo? is similarly
employed in 1 Tim. v, 13. Compare Titus i, 10. Hesychius
gives it quaintly, ttol^tov eiroujcra — factum feci. Theophylact
explains it as idleness, carried away to useless things, curiously
inquiring into other people's lives, and thence falling els
KUTaXaXia?, upyoXoylas, eurpa7reXla?, Theocloret says the
characteristics of the idle are aSoXecrxia icai (pXvaplu ko.1 j)
av6vr}To$ 7ro\v7rpayp.otTuv}]. It is difficult to imitate in a trans-
lation the paronomasia. Demosthenes has eg wv epydfa kuI
irepiepyu^j {Philip., iv, p. 9G, vol. I, Opera, ed. Schaefer) ; and
Quintilian has non agere sed satagere (Instituh, vi, 3, 54,
p. 257, vol. I, Opera, ed. Gernhard). The phrase has been
variously translated — nihil facientes, sed curiose agentes
(Erasmus); nihil operantes, sed circumoper antes (Estius) ;
nihil operis agentes, sed curiose satagentes (Calvin); thand
nut und thund zevil — " they do nothing and' do too much " —
(Zuingli in his old German); ne travaillant point, mais se
travaillamt pour rien (French version) ; nicht arbeit treibend
sondern sich herumtreibend ; " working nothing, but over-
working " (Webster and Wilkinson) ; " doing nothing, but
overdoing" (Robinson). The lines of Phsedrus come to mind —
" Trepide concursans, occupata in otio,
Gratis anhelaas, multa agendo nihil agens"
PhsedriiSj II, 5. See under 1 Thess. iii, 11, 12.
(Ver. 12.) Tois Se toiovtois 7rapayyeXXoju.ev icai irapaKa-
Xov/xev ev Kup/w 'hjcrou Xpicrrcp — " Now them who are such
we charge and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ." The
Received Text has Sid tov Ivvpiov i]p.u)v 'Iijcruv X/no-Toi/, on the
authority of D 3 K L N 3 , many mss., and the Greek fathers; but
our text is supported by the higher authority of ABD 1 F H l ,
with the Latin versions and fathers, the Received Text being
probably a correction to the more usual formula. The phrase
rots toiovtois takes in the whole class who have been so
characterized (Kriiger, § 50, 4, G) ; de toto genere coram, qui
tides sunt usurpatur (Kulmer in Xen. Mem., i, 5, 2). The
dative belongs specially to the first verb, as the second verb
316 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. III.
governs the accusative — avrov? — understood. Both verbs " we
command and exhort " the one streno-thenino- the other —
authority and earnestness combined — are connected with "in
the Lord Jesus Christ," as the sphere in which they realize
themselves. The matter was of no small moment to the
welfare of the church and the progress of the gospel, and
therefore the charge is given in this solemn and authoritative
form. See under 1 Thess. iv, 1. The purpose and matter of
the charge was —
\va /ul€tu >)(TV)(ia9 epya^op-evoi top eavrcou apTOv korOUocriv — "that
working with quietness they eat their own bread." They were
to work and no longer to go " loafino- " about — intermeddling
disturbers — doing everything but what they ought to do; but
they were to give themselves to their proper occupation, and
that with quietness, pera denoting the accompaniment of
their industry. Winer, § 47 h. The phrase stands opposed to
araKTco? . . . irepiepoya^pevoi. Their life and conduct were
to be in contrast to what they had been. So far from idling
they were to work ; so far from overworking themselves in
laborious trifling, they were to toil with quietness — with a
tranquil mind and without any unnecessary bustle. And
working in this way they were to eat —
tov eavroov uprov — " their own bread " — special moment on
kavrcov — what is theirs as having quietly and honestly earned
it, according to the repeated injunction and after the example
of the apostle who did not eat any man's bread for nought, but
wrought with labour and travail night and day, that he might
not be chargeable to any of them.
(Ver. 13.) 'Y/xeiV oe, aSe\<f>oi, pr\ ewca/o/<x>;Te /caXo7roioui/Te? —
'' But ye, brethren, be not dispirited in well-doing." The
Received Text has e/c/c, but ere is found in ABD ] R For the
forms and the meaning of the verb, see under Gal. vi, 9. For
the use and meaning of the participle, see under verse 11.
Ye, brethren, on the other hand (Se), who have maintained
the true course, unaffected by these examples of pernicious and
fanatical idleness; "brethren," the sound portion of the church,
who obeyed the precept and followed the example of the
apostle.
The Greek fathers give to KaXoiroiovvTes a restricted meaning
Ver. 14.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 317
suggested by the context. Chrysostom says, " withdraw your-
selves from them and reprove them, do not, however, suffer
them to perish with hunger ;" the well-doing being confined in
that case to almsgiving or beneficence. He is followed by
Theophylact, (Ecumenius, and Theodoret who says expressly
/j.)] vna'jarri t>]v v/uerepav (J)i\oTi/u.ia.v i) €K€ii>a)v /moxO}]p'a. . This
view has also been adopted by Calvin, Estius, Flatt, Pelt, Do
Wette, Ewald, Bisping,Bloomfield,and,to some extent, Olshau sen.
Tlie meaning in that case might be that, while they had seen
examples of kindness abused on the part of the slothful, their
hearts were not to be shut against cases deserving of pity and
support; they were to make a distinction between the lazy
poor and the really poor. This is Koppe's view virtually,
which implies greatly more than the apostle has expressed.
But this interpretation restricts unnecessarily the meaning
of the participle. The compound verb, which occurs only here,
is a later term for to koXov -iroieiv. In Lev. v, 4 (Codex A), we
have Ka\5)<s iroirjuai as opposed to KaKoiroielv, (Lobeck, Phryn.,
p. 200). The meaning is to do well, so handeln wie es gut und
recht ist — the contrast in ku\o being to the loose and dis-
honourable lives of the persons reprobated in the previous
verses. Liinemann's restriction is too narrow and negative,
persist in not allowing yourselves to be tainted by their evil
example. It is better to take the word in its wide or general
sense, and as explained also by the context. They were not to
weary in acting fairly and honourably on all occasions, in doing
all that was right and good in all spheres of life and duty, more
especially in whatever these previous warnings and charges
implied, and there was the more need of their consistent
perseverance, as others had deflected from the honest and
blameless course.
(Ver. 14.) Et <5e t«9 ovx inraicovei tic Xoyw ijfxwu Siu Tij$
€7ri<TTo\>i?, tovtov a-iifiaouaOe — " But if any man obey not our
word by the epistle, that man mark." The connection of Siu Ttj?
e7r<crToX^9 has been disputed, whether it should be joined to
what [irecedes or to what comes after it.
I. The phrase has been connected with the verb a-^/uietova-Oe
in two ways. First, rj eiria-ToXi) has been taken to mean this
Second Epistle, and the meaning assigned is — " by means of this
318 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. ITT.
epistle mark him;" that is, as Pelt says, eum hac epistola freti
severics tractate et a consortia- vestro secludite ; or as Bengel,
notate, notd censoria; hanc epistolam, ejus admonendi causa,
adhibentes, eique inculcantes vt, aUorwm judicio perspecto, se
demittat But this interpretation gives the verb a meaning
which cannot be sustained.
II. Secondly, with the same verbal connection, some regard
f] e-m<TTo\r) as a letter to be sent by the Thessalonians to the
apostle, the sense then being, mark such an one by means
of a letter sent to me about him. This has been a common
interpretation, held by Luther, Calvin, Musculus, Hemming,
Balduin, Grotius, Zachariae, Koppe. Winer allows its possibility
(§18, 9, 3), and it is found in the margin of the Authorized
Version, " signify that man by an epistle." " Yf eny man obey
not our sayinges, send us word of him by a letter." — Tyndale
followed by Cranmer and Genevan. "If any obey not our word,
note him by an epistle." — Rheims. "If any man obey not our
doctrine, signifie him by an epistle." — Bishops' '. But there are
strong objections to such an interpretation. (1) In the phrase
8ia rrjs €7riarro\yJ9 the article cannot specify a letter still to
be written, nor is there any probability in the explanation
of Winer, "in the letter which you have then to write and
which I then hope to receive from 3 7 ou." Neither can it mean
your answer to this letter, for it is not implied in the context.
The article t?v? would denote either this or an earlier one, were
there any allusion to it in the previous verses. (2) The phrase
Siu tJ/9 6ti<jto\?i$ would with this interpretation have from its
position an unaccountable emphasis upon it. (3) The present
order of the words is against this view, and the expected order
would be tovtov Sia t^? e7ri<TTo\ij? arijimeiovcrOe. (-i) Nor does
the middle crtjfxeiovcrde agree well with the notion of a letter
sent by them to the apostle, it would rather be "mark out
for us," i)/juv. (o) It can scarcely be supposed, that after what
he has said on the subject in verse 6, the apostle should ask or
expect any communication on the subject of those persons, the
treatment of whom he has thus described and enjoined. There
is nothing leading us to suppose that the churches could not
note such an one without consulting the apostle. Such a
correspondence must have been precarious from Paul's frequent
Ver. 14.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 319
change of residence, and as Riggenbach says, " what a paralysis
of all self-dependence would it have involved ! " And therefore
the other interpretation is to be preferred which connects Sia. Ttj?
e7riaroA^? with the immediately preceding word, tw Ao'yw
il/j-odv, our word or deliverance conveyed to you by this letter ;
the Xoyo? supposed to be disobeyed being found in verse 12, and
}) eiricTToX^, meaning the letter under hand, as in Rom. xvi, 22-
Col. iv, 16; 1 Thess. v, 27. Compare 1 Cor. v, 9. Chrysostom's
comment implies this construction; CEcumenius has tw Sia rfjs
€7ri<TTo\t]$ airoa-TaXevTi. The view has been held by Estius,
Piscator, Ar-etius, a-Lapide, Beza, Fromond, Hammond, Schott,
Olshausen, De Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping, Ewald,
Hofmann, Riggenbach, Ellicott, and Alford. A. Buttmann,
p. 80. It is no objection to this construction that tw is not
repeated after ^/uoov — tw Aoyco rjjuow tw Sia. — for tw Xdyw tj/jlcov
Sia t»7? e7rt(TToXi/? i s one idea — a written injunction. Winer,
§ 20, 2 ; Fritzsche's note ad Rom. iii, 25. The Syriac reads —
if any one hearken not to these our words in the epistle,
IZ^Joj ; and the Vulgate follows the Greek order, verbo nostro
O ^\ 71*
per epistolani. If any one obey not our word or utterance
conveyed by this letter which I am now writing, note such
an one.
tovtov <rt]jueiov(r6e tcai //.;/ crvvavafxiyvea-Qe avTu>, or, p.r\ crvvava-
p-iyvva-Oai avTw. — The Received Text inserts koi, as in the first
reading, on the authority of D 1 F K L, the Vulgate and Syriac
versions, with Basil, Ambrosiaster, and Augustine ; but kou is
omitted in ABD 3 N17, the Claromont. and Sangerm. Latin,
the Gothic version, with Chrysostom. The infinitive, again,
is read in ABD 1 it, in the Claromont. and Sangerm. Latin,
the Gothic versions, with Chrysostom. Ellicott, however,
remarks that the reading of the last syllable cannot well be
decided by the reading of MSS., as there is a constant inter-
change of e and at by itacism. Perhaps the infinitive is, from
the omission of the km, the older reading — compare 1 Cor. v, 9,
which yet may have suggested the infinitive here. The
meaning is the same whichever reading may be adopted. Tov-
tov — that man, held up and emphasized. The verb cnjiueiovcrOe
occurs only here in the New Testament. It denotes in the
active to put a mark on, or to distinguish by means of a
320 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. III.
art]/ueiov, verbs in oc» having this factitive meaning. It is used
in the passive of a road marked in its distances by milestones
(Polyb., iii, 398), also of letters, crea-ijpeiwfxeva? Tfl tov 7rarpo?
(T(f>payhu (Dion Halicar., iv, 57). In the middle it denotes to
mark for oneself (Polybius, xxii, 11, 12; compare Sept., Ps. iv,
b"). Thomas Magister, quoting Aristophanes, says that anro-
a-rjfxalvea-Oai is the proper term (p. 337, 7th ed., Ritschl).
The middle has its dynamic force (Kriiger, § 52, 8, 4). They
were to put a cnjpeiov on such an one — to note him that they
might avoid him. The double compound infinitive is a charac-
teristic of the later Greek. 1 Cor. v, 9, 11 ; compare Sept.,
Hosea vii, 8 (Codex A). It occurs in Athen;eus, oi fj.lv Tepyivoi
aiwavafj.LyvviJ.evoi toIs kutu Ttjv 7ro\iv (vi, 68, p. 481, Opera, vol.
II, ed. Schweigh. ; Plutarch, Philopmm., 21). They were to
have no fraternal intercourse with such an one — much the
same advice as that given already in v. C. How much is im-
plied in this withdrawal from intercourse it is impossible to
say. The object is —
Iva evrpa7rf] — " that he may be shamed." The verb is pas-
sive, not middle, as Pelt takes it, intus convert), ad se ipsum
quasi redire; so Grotius. 1 Cor. iv, 14; Titus ii, 8. The
middle with the accusative occurs in Luke xviii, 2, and the
noun in 1 Cor. vi, 5 ; xv, 34. This shame, produced by the
withdrawal of his brethren from fellowship with him, was
meant to induce thought, contrition, and reform.
(Ver. 15.) kou p.}] tag exOpov r/ytia-de — "and regard him not
as an enemy." Kai is not for aXXa (Jowett, De Wette), but is
simply connective — joining a command, not opposed to the
previous one, but in harmony with it, and showing the spirit
in which it is to be carried out. For to? see under ii, 2; it
qualifies exOpov. He is not to be regarded in the light of an
enemy. Compare cocnrep with the same verb in Job xix, 11 ;
xxxiii, 10, representing ?3c-n; Col. iii, 23. He was not, as
an enemy, to be repelled and battled with. He had indeed
become inconsistent; a false impression about the Second
Advent had led him sadly astray; he was neglecting imme-
diate secular duty, and had fallen into perilous habits of
indolent dissipation of time ; but he was still to be counted a
brother, as lie had not forsaken the faith, or cut himself off
Ver. 16.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 321
from communion by notorious immorality, or by a relapse into
heathen creed and profligacy.
aXXu vovderelre 005 aSe\<j)ov — "but admonish him as a
brother," the one w; corresponding to the other. ^SovOereiv, to
correct by word and then deed. See under 1 Thess. v, 12.
Theophylact says, vovOereiv irpoa-ira^ev, ovk oveiS'^eiv; still as
a brother, though an erring one, was he to be kindly dealt
with; undue severity was to be avoided, the purpose being
not to frown him away, but to win him back.
(Ver. 16.) Ai'to? Se 6 Is^upio? t>7? etp/jvr]? Sco>] vpiv Ttjv eipi'/v>]v
Sin irai'To? ev iravri Tpoirw — " Now may the Lord of peace
Himself give you peace by all means, evermore and in every
way." The reading rpowo) is well supported, having in its
favour A 2 BD 3 KL N, almost all mss., with the Syriac and
Coptic versions, Theodoret and Damascenus. On the other
hand tottw is found in A 1 D 1 F, two mss., in the Vulgate and
Claromontane Latin versions, in the Gothic version, and in
Chrysostom. The unusual phrase ev ttuvtl Tpo7rcp is thus
well authenticated ; the other, ev iravri tottw, was somewhat
familiar, being found in 1 Cor. i, 2 ; 2 Cor. ii, 14 ; 1 Tim. ii, 8.
As Bouman remarks, the reference to time in Sia 7ravTos
would naturally suggest to the copyist a reference to place —
ev iravri tottw. By Si he passes to a prayer, as in contrast to
the previous injunction, as in 1 Thess. v, 23, the olvtos being-
emphatic. See also under ii, 16. By 6 Ivvpio? Christ is to
be understood, and we have 6 Oeo? similarly, Rom. xv, 33 ;
xvi, 20; 2 Cor. xiii, 11; Philip, iv. 9; Heb. xiii, 20. For
the relation expressed by the genitive, see under 1 Thess.
v, 23 — God of peace, characterized by peace, and especially
the giver of it. The Greek fathers unnecessarily and un-
warrantably restrict this peace to concord — to peace among
themselves, and their view is followed by Estius, Calo-
vius, Pelt — Schott including both outer and inner peace —
and Calvin, " the bridling of the refractory." But there is
nothing in the epistle to imply that the peace had been
broken, or that alienation and disunion were afflicting the
Thcssalonian church. The peace — rys eipijvi]?, t>;v eipi'jv>]v— is
peace in its widest and profoundest sense, the peace of God
that passes all understanding, blessed confidence, conscious
x
322 COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. III.
acceptance, joyous anticipation; and that Sia iravrog, "always,"
without intermission, not periodically (Matt, xviii, 10; Acts
ii, 25; Rom. xi, 10); "and in every way," ev ttuvt). rpoirw —
in every possible form and mode in which God can give it and
you accept it — for time, for eternity, for earth, for heaven.
The stress is on vp.lv, "on you," that you may realize this peace,
and be kept from all spiritual disturbance — all disquietude such
as that felt by those who imagined that the day of Christ was
at hand. This wish or prayer is, as Lunemann remarks, the
apostolic way of saying valete or eppooo-Oe — as the classic writers
employ salntem or ev -wpJiTTeiv.
o Kvpiog /uera irdvroov vpcov — "the Lord be with you all." A
brief but all-inclusive benediction, invoking the presence of
Christ to be with them in its benign and cheering influences,
in its guiding and sustaining power. With you all — iravruov, not
pleonastic (Jowett), but comprehensive ; the brother walking
disorderly and to be admonished, if he be not contumacious,
is not excluded.
(Ver. 17.) '0 d<T7ra<rp.og tij ejuLy X ei P l Ilai/Xou, 6 ecrri arijfieiov ev
iraarj e7ri<jTo\i)' ovroog ypdcfxio — "The salutation by the hand of
me, Paul, which is a token in every epistle: so I write." The
Authorized Version renders the first clause in three ways — " the
salutation of me, Paul, with mine own hand," (1 Cor. xvi, 21) ;
"the salutation by the hand of me, Paul," (Col.iv, 18); and here
" the salutation of Paul, with mine own hand." ILavXov is a
species of appositional genitive with ep.fj. Jelf, § 467. The neuter
o is not in attraction with <rrjp.eiov (Winer, § 24, 3), instead of og,
the antecedent being aa-Ka<rp.6g, but refers to the fact of the
previous clause — which circumstance, which salutation in mine
own hand is a token or mark of authorship or genuineness
in every epistle. Up till this verse the epistle had been
dictated by the apostle and written by an amanuensis. But
verses 17, 18 are autographic, and are meant to authenticate
the letter as his own composition, and to show in contrast that
it was not cog Si fjfAwv, ii, 2. His own handwriting was the
voucher, cr^pelov. It is apparently wrong to suppose that the
apostle wrote only the last verse. Chrysostom says a<nra<Tp.ov
KaKel rr\v e.vyr\v, an opinion repeated by Theophylact — Theo-
doret saying more explicitly a<T7ra<Tp.ov efcdXeve ti)v ev tw Te\ei
Ver. 17.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 323
Keijxivriv evXoylav, and the view is adopted by Estius, Piscator,
a-Lapide, Beza, Bengel, Bauv, Hofmann, and Riggenbacli. But
the mere benediction in itself can scarcely be called a salu-
tation while the salutation implies and is naturally followed
by the benediction. The words which express the salutation
and its character are in his own hand, and he naturally
writes also the brief benediction which follows the saluting
words. And this autographic a-yjixetov was to be ev 7raa-fi
eTTHTToXf], " in every epistle." Theophylact in his first ex-
planation, Tfl 'icrco? 7T€iJ.(j)di]<T0fX€vi} 717)0? vjua?, and Lunemann,
restrict the reference too much when they suppose the
meaning to be, in every epistle which he might purpose to
send to the Thessalonian church. For we find at least that
he adopted the practice in writing to other churches ; though,
in consequence of the letter forged in his name and circulated
in Thessalonica (ii, 2), he began this mode of authentication in
writing to the church in that city. Lunemann objects that the
authentication is not found in all the epistles written after this
date, and that therefore the phrase must be taken in a relative,
not in an absolute sense. It is found, however, in all that
seem to require it. It does not occur in first Thessalonians, for
circumstances had not then arisen to necessitate it; but it is
found in Colossians, and the first epistle to the Corinthians.
The circumstances in which the other epistles were sent
might make such authentication superfluous. In the epistle
to the Romans, the last three or four verses were probably
autographic ; the epistle to the Galatians was, contrary to
his visual custom, written wholly with his own hand ; the second
epistle to the Corinthians was sent by Titus, and the greeting
and benediction may have been autographic ; the epistle to the
Ephesians was sent b}^ Tychicus, who himself could vouch for it,
but the apostle may have written the last verse ; that to the
Philippians was carried by Epaphroditus, though the apostle
again, probably without saying it, added the last verse ; the
epistle to Philemon was apparently a holograph ; so in all likeli-
hood were those sent to individuals, as Timothy and Titus. It
was, not, however, what the apostle wrote, but his hand-
writing that proved the genuineness of the letter, and his
handwriting being so different from that of the copyist, he did
324- COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S [Chap. III.
not always need formally to call attention to it. Grotius
wrongly infers from this verse that this epistle was the first
sent to Thessalonica. See Introduction. The words ovrw?
ypacpoo are to be taken in the simplest signification, " so I
write," " witness my hand," referring to the manner and form
of letters in which verses 17, 18 were written. See his own
account of it, -rrrjXiKu ypappara, under Gal. vi, 11. The clause
refers, therefore, simply to the manner — not tuvtu but only
ovtco?, this is my handwriting — so that it is wrong to suppose
that the apostle added anything as a specimen, such as his
name or signature ; certum quendam nexum literarurn, quo
nomen suwm scribebat (Grotius) ; or, as a-Lapide describes it —
sicut jam multi signum manus ut vocant, per certos gyros,
quos non facile sit imitari ; or some ingenious monogram —
nomen Pauli monogrammate aliquo expression ab ipso
fuisse, conjunctis scilicet apte Uteris II and A, posteriori hoc
elemento pernio altius evecto, ut A simul referrct ; and for
this opinion Zeltner adduces seven reasons, one example being
that the Emperor Charles employed such a signature. But, as
Wolf argues, the apostle refers to no occult or inimitable
signature, and though the custom referred to may have been
common among the later rabbis, it cannot be ascribed certainly
to the apostolic age. The conjecture is too artificial, the
apostle often naming himself in the simplest manner possible,
as 2 Cor. x, 1 ; Gal. v, 2 ; Ephes. iii, 3 ; Col. i, 23 ; 1 Thess.
ii, 18; Philemon 19. Bengel's notion is similar — Paulum
singulari et inimitabili pictura et ductu literarurn ex-
pressisse illud, gratia, &c, verse 18. The view of CEcumenius
is liable to the same objection — that the apostle wrote down
some words, olov to a<T7ra£oiuat. vju.as // to ' JLppaxrQe, 5/ tl
toiovtov. To say with Lunemann that the apostle's use of the
phrase for the first time would imply that his handwriting
was unknown to the Thessalonians, is an inference balanced
by the conjecture that he may have written the salutation
of the first epistle without calling attention to it —
(Ver. 18.) r\ x a P l< > T0 ^ Kvpiov ij/uoov 'Itjcrov XpicrTOV p-era
Travroov vpoov — " the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you
all." The concluding benediction is the same as that of the
first epistle (see under 1 Thess. v, 28), with the exception of
Ver. 18.] SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 325
ttclvtoov here — not a word of course, but showing that those
were not excluded who had incurred his rebuke. His full heart
includes in his parting blessing the entire church without ex-
ception, and the epistle, like the first one, would be " read unto
all the holy brethren." The ' kfxi'jv is usually bracketed or
omitted. Though it is found in A D F K L N ! , it is most
probably a liturgical conclusion. The subscription airo
'A&rjvobv, with its variation, is certainly to be rejected.
IIP02 9E22AA0NIKEI2, B.
E SSAY
THE MAN OE SIN
THE MAN OF SIN.
2 Thess. ii, 3-10.
The various points in this paragraph are : that prior to the
Advent, which had been regarded us come, there are to be the
apostacy and the revelation of the Man of Sin; that he opposes
God, and exalts himself above God and every object of worship;
that he seats himself in God's temple, exhibiting himself as
God ; that the Mystery of Iniquity had already begun to work,
but was retarded by some mightier influence, on the removal
of which the Lawless one should be revealed ; that his power
and craft should be Satanic in character and result ; and that
he shall be destroyed by the Lord at His second and personal
coming at the end of the present dispensation.
(1) The first question is, Is this utterance a prophecy in the
true sense of the term? (2) If it is a prophecy, has it been
already fulfilled, or has there been any person or any system
vei^dng the description given? (3) But if history presents no
one so audacious as to displace God, usurp His seat, and
arrogate His worship, does the oracle remain to be fulfilled,
and may we or can we form any conjecture about the time and
region of its fulfilment, its ominous antecedents, its develop-
ment, and its dark and malignant consolidation ?
I.
Is it a Prophecy?
(1) Some deny it to be a prophecy. Tychsen thought
that the passage was a quotation, clause by clause, from a
830 THE MAX OF SIN.
letter which the Thessalonians had sent to the apostle, a
hypothesis that has not even ingenuity to recommend it.
(2) Others, admitting its prophetic form and features, so
idealize it that it ceases to be in any true sense a prediction.
According to this view it presents a vivid lesson, the minuter
features of which are not meant to be separately considered,
for they contribute only to the general impression — are a kind
of sombre drapery, or a dark background to the portrait. The
apostle simply gives a vivid view of his own forebodings, many
of them created by his own personal history, so that the futurity
does not stretch beyond his own horizon. Thus Schnecken-
burger regards the paragraph as merely the personification of
evil, the climax of antagonism to the Gospel, a general defec-
I tion prior to its great triumphs — the 6 ko.tIx wv being the
imperial power of Rome, and the /u.v<rWipiov, Jewish sorcery
penetrating into heathendom, as in the case of Elymas. Koppe
says, that the apostle has only bodied forth the general pro-
phetic creed of the Jews, which they gathered from the pro-
phecies of Daniel — an awful outbreak of ungodliness after the
apostle's own time, he himself in his apostolical energy and
earnestness being the restraining power (6 Kare^y), taken
away at his death. The view advocated by Pelt is somewhat
I similar, that the "Adversary" is the consummation of spiritual
evil, which in Pohtificiorum Romanorum operibus ac serie
luculentissime sese prodiit; that the mystery already working-
was the tendency to fall back to the Jewish legalism, false
u ytwt? and angelolatry ; that the restraining power is the
will of God, holding back the kingdom of Satan ; that the
instrumentality is the imperii Romani vis; and that the
coming of the Lord is but regni divini victoria, thus denying
personality to the Man of Sin and also the Second Advent. Storr
holds a like opinion — that the verses forebode the outbreak of
a virulent and powerful opposition to God and all religion at
some future and unknown period, and that by to kut^ov is
meant copia hominum verissimo amove inflammatorum in
Christianam religionem. This last opinion as to the meaning
of to KaTexov is virtually held by Heydenreich, Schott, and
Grimm; and, as the apostle, himself one of this band of devoted
believers, thought that he should survive until the Second
THE MAN OF SIN. 331
Coming, the taking the restraining power out of the way
cannot be his death, but only his imprisonment. Jowett's view
is not very different — that the language about the apostacy was
suggested to the apostle by what he saw around him among
his own converts — " grievous wolves " entering into the church
at Ephesus, the " turning away of all them of Asia." But it is
enough to say that all this happened at a posterior time.
Jowett adds, that four elements enter into the conception of
the Man of Sin. (1) "The traditional imagery of the elder
prophets " — But the prophecy is bare and plain in language.
(2) " The style of the apostle and his age " — A mere assumption.
(3) " The impression of recent historical events which supply
the form" — A vague and unsupported statement. (4) "The state
of the world and of the church, and the consciousness that,
where good is, evil must ever be in aggravated proportions,
which supply the matterof the prophecy" — An hypothesis which
really means that the prophecy is only an assertion that what
is and has been will be in all time coming. Out of such hints
Jowett could construct a prophecy equally with the apostle,
for such a prophecy is only a moody reflection thrown into the
style of an ancient Hebrew oracle without its imagery. Such
a theory also takes away all prophetic authority from the
passage, which becomes only a reflex of the apostle's own
experience stated in general terms — the individual and sectional
pictured as the universal, his own little sphere in its trials and
struggles assuming the aspect of world-wide history and doom.
That is to say, the verses are a gloomy meditation on present
scenes, not any unveiling of things to come — a morbid subjectiv-
ity so intensified that it personates its thoughts, and throws its
difficulties and discouragements into a dramatic form. But
surely this is to deny the inspiration of the apostle, and it
takes all reality out of his pictorial words, leaving behind but
a weak delusive residuum, which only projects into the future
an image of the present and the past. Accepting the prophetic
form, however, we feel bound to believe in the underlying-
truth. The apostle opens up the time far off, and we receive
the disclosure of subsequent crises as the proof of a divine gift,
and a fulfilment of the Saviour's promise. Prophecy is to Him
as history, the future and the past being undivided and uncon-
332 THE MAN OF SIN.
trasted in His divine existence and duration. The paragraph
is given to us as an avowed prediction, whatever be its true
meaning and interpretation ; and we are not to explain it away
as a mere portraiture of present combinations and antagonisms,
seen and measured in the light of the apostle's own life and
trials — nay, exaggerated in the working of his earnest and
mighty spirit. De Wette and Liinemann propound a similar
hypothesis. They, however, do not hold the opinion that the
paragraph is a vague and abstract picture, but rightly inter-
pret " the Man of Sin " of a person, though with this sound
exegesis they deny the objective reality and divine authority
of the prediction. De Wette says, "Whoever finds more than a
subjective outlook into the future of the church from his own
historical position falls into error. Such foreknowledge is
beyond human reach, and the apostle paid a tribute to human
weakness, der mcnschlichen Schivachheit einenZoll, since he
wished to know too much beforehand, as is apparent from
1 Thess. iv, 17 ; 1 Cor. xv, 51 ; Rom. xi, 25. The personifica-
tion of Antichrist is a misinterpretation of the prophecies of
Daniel, phantastische Auslegung, mingled with some specula-
tion of his own in connection with the dogma of the Divine
Wisdom and Logos." He adds, "An incarnation of God in Christ
we believe ; but an incarnation of Satan, such as the apostle
accidentally points out, is not to be thought of, for the honour
of humanity." These assertions of the impossibility of prophecy
in general, and the falseness of this one in the matter of it,
betoken a philosophical unbelief, which would, if carried to
its ultimate sweep, root out the basis of all divine revelation.
De Wette goes so far, indeed, as to assert that the limitation
of human knowledge by time and space, durch Zeit und Raum,
to which Jesus Christ Himself was subject, makes prophecy as
containing objective truth an impossibility to the apostle and
to every man. Nay, he advances and affirms that the predic-
tion is in itself untrue, for this antagonism to God, connected
with Satan's imposture, is a contradiction to the reflective
understanding as well as to the pious feeling — ebenso sehr dem
denkenden Verstande als dem frommen Gefuhle. Liinemann
ascribes the prophetic form to the apostle's Jewish education,
and to the current Judischen Apokalyptik, based on the
THE MAN OF SIN. 333
picture of Antiochus, and of Gog and Magog, in the prophecies
of Daniel and Ezekiel. What the apostle wished to paint of
the future was impossible. " The exact conclusion about the
course of events and their historical foretokens was a knowledge
not granted to him or to any man, even though he be filled
with the spirit of Christ " — the proof adduced being Matt, xxiv,
35 ; Mark xiii, 32 ; Acts i, 7- The events of this prophecy,
however, were so near in his supposition, that he hoped to
outlive them, for he believed that he was to survive till the
Second Coming. " The prophecy was not fulfilled in the apos-
tolic age, and it is capricious to look for its fulfilment in a
remote future." These declarations not only eliminate from
prophecy all that really gives it value, but also, undermining
its possibility, remove it entirely from the Word of God,
spiritual influence being too feeble to produce it ; while they
brand it either as daring conjecture, or as a romantic and for-
bidden attempt to uncover what God has so surely veiled
from mortal vision. Such opinions are at once to be rejected,
and there is no common ground between us and those who
hold them. Our creed is that expressed by the apostle, "No
prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation, for
prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy
men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost "
(2 Peter i, 20, 21).
II.
If the paragraph be a Prophecy, has it been
Fulfilled ?
Many maintain that it has long since come to pass, and they
understand by the irapovo-ia of verse 8, the coming of Christ at
the destruction of Jerusalem. These " praeterist " interpreta-
tions are very discordant. Some of them being political in
nature fall far short of the full sense of the prophecy. One
class of such expounders associates the fulfilment with the
Roman emperors, another with the Jewish people and their
leaders, and a third with some ecclesiastical system.
First Class. — Associating fulfilment with Roman Emperors.
1. The theory of Grotius is that Caligula was the Anti-
334 THE MAN OF SIN.
cltrist, inasmuch as he ordered prayers to be universally
presented to him, and wished a colossal statue of himself
to be erected in the temple at Jerusalem — an attempt which
Herod Agrippa I. succeeded in putting aside — the 6 Karex^v
being the proconsul Vitellius who strongly opposed the project,
and the 6 avop.os of verse 8 being Simon Magus, who is con-
sumed by the ministry of the apostle Peter. But (1) this last
distinction is certainly wrong — " the Adversary " and the
" Lawless one " are the same person, and the ministry of
Peter cannot be called the coming of Christ, rj irapovu'ia tov
Kvpiov. (2) After Vitellius was " taken out of the way," the
project was not carried out, and this is opposed to the spirit
and words of the oracle, which affirms that after he that letteth
has been taken out of the way, then the " Lawless one " shall
be revealed. The reply of Grotius in reference to the erection
of the idol-statue, that before God the will is as the deed, serves
no purpose in this exegesis. (3) There is an extraordinary
anachronism in the interpretation, for Caligula had been more
than ten years dead before this epistle was written.
2. Wetstein finds Antichrist in Titus, because, after the
temple had been burnt down, his army brought their standards
into it, and setting them over against the eastern gate, offered
sacrifice to them, and proclaimed Titus avroKparoop (Joseph.,
Bell. Jud., vi, 6, 1). The restraining power is in that case Nero,
I who must die before Titus can reign, the " falling away "
referring to the struggle of Galba, Oth o, and Vitellius, and their
deaths, which opened the way for the ascendency of the
Flavian House. But the character of Titus will not suit the
epithet " man of sin," nor Nero that of the restraining one, and
the homage done by his victorious troops to their military
ensigns was not in any sense homage to himself as affecting
divinity.
3. Dollinger is more precise, for he holds that the youthful
Nero is Antichrist, and the stupid Claudius still reigning his 6
\ Karex^v, rendering the participle " who is now in possession."
The reasons are, that Nero was addicted to magical arts, and
that he commenced that war in Judaea which led to the dese-
cration of the temple, the previous "falling away" being the
wretched imposture of the Gnostic heresy. But there is a
THE MAN OF SIN. 335
want of reality about these hypotheses and all similar political
speculations, and they do not fit in to the bold and awful lan-
guage of the paragraph.
4. Kern, Bauer, and Hilgenfeld, who maintain that the expec-
tation expressed by the apostle in this paragraph has long ago
found its refutation in history, imagine that the Antichrist is
Nero, who was long supposed to be about to return to earth, 6
KctTexow i Q that case being Vespasian possessing the throne —
the " falling away " being the profligacy of the Jews, and the
mystery of iniquity, the Gnostic heresy.
Mariana found Antichrist in Nero, Bossuet in Diocletian
and in Julian, and Maurice discovers him in the Emperor
Vitellius. Noack finds the man of sin and the restraining
power alike in Simon Magus and his Treiben. Some saw
Antichrist in the first Napoleon, as Faber, who found him
typified in the wilful king of Daniel. When he was shut up
in St. Helena, some thought that the Atlantic was the sea
out of which the beast was to emerge. 1
5. Some similar vague opinions may be noted. Victorinus
conjectures the man of sin to be a revivified hero or chieftain;
Lactantius, that he will be a Syrian sovereign, sprung from an
evil spirit; Cyril, that he will be a dragon, who by his sor-
cery will raise himself to the mastery of the Roman Empire.
Theophylact portrays him as a man who will carry Satan
along with him. Andreas believes that he will be a kin^-
inspired by Satan, who will reconsolidate the old empire of
Rome and reign in Jerusalem. Aretius asserts that he will
be a king of the Romans, who will reign over the Saracens at
Bagdad. The schoolmen, such as Albert and Hugo, have a
view not unlike : Aquinas saying more definitely, that he will
be born at Babylon, be initiated into Magianism, and that his
life and works will be a caricature of those of Christ. There
is a IAbellus de Antiehristo, once ascribed to Augustine, to
Alcuin, and to Rabanus Maurus, and printed in their works,
but now believed to be written by Adso (a.d. 950), Abbas
Monasterii Dervensis (Montier-en-Der), in which he says that
the devil will descend on the mother of Antichrist, as did the
1 Frere's Combined View of the Pro/Jtecies, p. 468 ; Hoblyu On the Num-
bers of Daniel, p. 142.
:);){i THE MAN OF SIN.
Divine Spirit on the Virgin, et tutam earn replebit, et totam
eamcircumdabit, totamque tenebit, et totam interius exteriusque
possidebit earn, at diabolo per hominem cooperante concipiat,
et quod nat/uum fuerit totam sit iniquum, totam malum, totum
perditum. He is to be born at Babylon, and brought up at
Chorazin and Bethsaida. A king of the Franks is to reunite
the empire, and after a faithful reign he shall retire to
Jerusalem, and there lay down his royal power — sceptrum et
eoronam swam deponet. Then Antichrist will assume the
supremacy and saying to the Jews, " I am Christ," will slay
all his adversaries, Enoch and Elijah among them, rebuild
Solomon's temple, and take his seat in it, feigning that he
is the Son of Almighty God, and doing many false wonders,
&c. Augustine, Opera., p. 1649, vol. VI, Gaume, Paris;
Alcuini Opera, vol. II, 1291, Migne.
Second Class. — Others, again, who understand by the
"Coming" the destruction of Jerusalem, find the Man of Sin in
some element or aspect of the Jewish people prior to that
terrible catastrophe. Thus —
1. Whitby regards the entire nation as Antichrist, and as
the Man of Sin, quoting Josephus who records, " It is im-
possible to recount severally the particulars of their wicked-
ness, nor was there any generation since the memory of man
more fruitful in iniquity." That nation is also well called the
Adversary of Christ, as the gospels and epistles abundantly
show. They, by their Sanhedrim, sat in the temple of God —
enacting laws, and elevating tradition above the divine
statues, and led away into sedition by jugglers and impostors.
The 6 Kansxcov is the Emperor Claudius, who made two edicts
1 in favour of the Jews, and whose mild government kept back
the final national outbreak, and he was at length taken out of
the way. The phrase e'/c /xeaou yiveaOai imports death, often a
violent death,and Claudius, according to Suetonius, was poisoned.
But this scheme is devoid of all probability The apostacy,
he says, is the revolt of the Jews from the Roman Empire, or
from the faith. The first notion ascribes an unlikely mean-
ing to airouraa-la, and how could the Jews revolt from a
faith which they never embraced 1 Nor did the Sanhedrim, a
body so strictly monotheistic in creed, ever sit in the temple
THE MAN OF SIN. 337
and assume itself, or any member of it, to be God either in
prerogative or in name.
2. Schottgen on the other hand supposes that by the Man
of Sin is meant the Pharisees, the Rabbis, and the doctors of the
law, who not only sinned themselves, but caused others to
sin, nay, committed the sin against the Holy Ghost in ascrib-
ing Christ's miracles to connivance with Beelzebub. The chief
priests sit in the temple of God and so far fulfil the prophecy,
the falling off being their rebellion against the authority of
Rome, and the restraining power being perhaps (fortasse) the
prayers of the Christians which warded off the catastrophe till
they left the city and retired to Pella in safety. Somewhat
similarly Le Clerc takes the Man of Sin to be the rebellious
Jews with their leader Simon, the son of Gioras, whose atroci-
ties are related by Josephus. The mystery of iniquity is their
insurrectionary turbulence under pretence of national inde-
pendence and zealous attachment to the law of Moses, and the
restraining power is the Emperor and the political leaders who
sought to dissuade them from the rebellion, rex Agrippa el
pontiflces plurimi.
3. Nosselt and Krause understand by Antichrist the Jewish
zealots, and by the restraining power the Emperor Claudius.
4. Harduin holds that the falling away is the defection 01
the Jews into paganism, that the Man of Sin is the High Priest
Ananias — his o Karexwv being his predecessor, whose removal
by death was necessary to his elevation. From the beginning
of his high-priesthood he was a prophet of lies, and he was
destroyed at the capture of Jerusalem by Titus.
5. Baumgarten thinks that the prophecy was suggested
by the apostle's own experience in Eui'ope, and his interpre-
tation of it in the light of old prophecy; the Jewish population
being so malignantly hostile to him, and the Gentiles being
brought into wicked league with them. This union of Israel
with the secular power had led to the crucifixion of the Son of
God, and had given to that atrocity the aspect of legality and
zeal for God, and such a union will consummate the final
development of evil, "those who have the care of the sanctuary
having a part in it." The apostacy of the Jews from Him who
was the promised Messiah, their king and head, had aire
Y
338 THE MAN OF SIN.
shown itself in Thessalonica, but the restraining power was
still at work, that power being the imperial authority ; for
when the apostle affirmed in Philippi that he was a Roman
citizen, he was dismissed in peace. This power "withheld the
outbreak of extreme corruption" and the apostle could not look
for the Man of Sin anywhere but within the limits of the
secular power, "for it is to the empires of this world that all
the visions and prophecies of Daniel refer."
6. Hammond, differing from these political and Jewish hypo-
theses, argues that the Man of Sin is Simon Magus, who, as
the head of the Gnostics, professed himself the "supreme Father
of all, who had created the God of the Jews " ; the "falling
away" being a lapse into Gnosticism ; 6 Kare^v being 6
vojulo?; to Karexov being the union still subsisting between
Christians and Jews so long as those Christians conformed to
the Jewish law, but which soon came to an end, when Gnos-
ticism was revealed in its true colours, as a system of deadly
antipathy to the gospel ; and the mystery of iniquity being " the
wicked lives of these unbelieving persecutors." Simon " did
miracles by the help of devils, and was taken for a god — nay,
was owned in Samaria for a god, and had a statue erected to
him on the banks of the Tiber with the inscription Simoni
sancto Deo." The eighth verse is explained by him thus — that
as the chariot and fiery horses of Simon, with which this
magician undertook a voyage in the air, were blown away by
Peter's mouth and vanished at the name of Christ, and so the
impostor fell down and brake his legs, and soon ended his
miserable and shameful days by suicide — the "breath of his
mouth " is thus the power of the Gospel in the mouths of Peter
and Paul, and the "brightness of his coming" the vengeance
that befell the Jews by the Poman armies, at which time the
Gnostics that sided with them were destroyed also.
7. Wieseler regards the Man of Sin as no abstract idea
keine collectiv Person, but an actual individual in whom the
power of sin should be embodied, in whom the apostacy should
culminate — the godless self-deifying ruler of a worldly empire —
that Christ who was expected to come in Paul's own day is to
be his immediate destroyer ; the restraining power being the
pious in Jerusalem viewed collectively, or if an individual
THE MAN OF SIN. 339
is meant, then lie is James the Just, who was named the
bulwark of the people. Jerusalem fell, James was slain, but
Antichrist did not make his appearance. What then comes of
the truth of this oracle ?
To all these opinions there are insuperable objections, and
each of them is beset with special difficulties. None of them
realizes to the full or exhausts the prophetic delineation, but
each comes greatly short of it. Some features of it may appear
in them, but not in complete combination. None of them forms
a portrait of which the prediction might be taken as a faithful
description. Neither Caligula, nor Nero, nor any emperor, nor
Simon Magus realizes the epithet — the Man of Sin, the Adver-
sary, the Lawless one displacing God in His own Temple and
claiming the homage due to Him, and beeaiilino; the world
" with lying wonders and all deceivableness of unrighteousness."
The ferocity and sensuality of those emperors and the imposture
of Simon — whatever in short stood out in characterizing pro-
minence in their lives — could not be described as in these clauses.
The resemblance is very faint and fragmentary and the inter-
pretation is only guess-work. The other conjectures as to the
Jews, their Rabbis, their zealots, their priests or political leaders,
are as improbable, for the Man of Sin is an individual and not
a company or succession of wild or wicked men. Lastly, the
irapovo-'ia cannot be the destruction of the Jewish capital, for, as
the general usage of the New Testament indicates, and as these
Epistles unmistakeably prove, the term denotes the second and
personal coming of the Lord Jesus.
Third Class. — Looking into a more remote future, a third
and larger party of interpreters identify the Man of Sin with
some ecclesiastical system. Some even look to the Moham-
medan imposture — its name-father being the Man of Sin ; "the
falling away," the defection of so many in the Oriental and
Greek Churches from Christian truth ; and the Roman Empire
being the restraining power. Pope Innocent III stirred anew
the zeal of the Crusaders by pronouncing Mohammed to be
the Man of Sin. That the apostacy was to precede the reve-
lation of the Man of Sin is so far true in this case, yet
Mohammed was the means of increasing and extending the
defection. Nor did he ever put forward any claim to be Godj
340 THE MAN OF SIN.
nor did he sit in the temple of God, for the phrase means
something more than the conversion of churches into mosques;
and certainly he never professed to work miracles and signs —
nay, he expressly disavowed the possession of such a power.
So much probabilit} T , however, was attached to this opinion
that some have imagined a double Antichrist — an Eastern one
in Mohammed and the Turkish power, and a Western one in
the Pope and his spiritual despotism. So Melancthon, Bucer,
Piscator, Musculus, and Vorstius. Bishop Bale says that
Antichrist in Europe is the Pope, but Mohammed in Africa ;
and Montague, a chaplain under the Stuart dynasty, pleaded
that the characteristics of the prophecy belong rather to the
Turk than the Pope (Newton, p. 4G7. Compare also Fell's
Annotations). But the notion is baseless as an interpretation
of this passage.
The prevailing Protestant interpretation has been that the
Man of Sin is Popery, gathered up into the person of the
Pope ; or the Papal hierarchy, the head of which is the
occupant of the Papal chair, — the falling away being a defec-
tion from inspired truth to human tradition ; the " restrain-
ing power" being the old Roman Empire, out of the ruins of
which the Papacy rose. There is no little verisimilitude in
this opinion, and it arose before the period of the Reformation
and among men belonging to the Church of Rome. Gregory T,
toward the end of the sixth century, had foreshadowed the
opinion in asserting theoretically that any one possessing the
kind and amount of power, which the Pope claimed soon after
his time, would be the forerunner of Antichrist. His words
are, Ego autem fidenter dico quia quisquis se universalem
sacerdotem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elatione sua Anti-
christum prcecurrit, quia, superbiendo se caiteris prceponit. 1
He calls the title of Universal Priest erroris nomen, stnltum
ac superbum vocabulum, perversum, nefandam, scelestum
vocabulwm, nomen blasphemiae; and in one of his letters he
asks, Sed in hac ejus superbia quid aliud nisi propinqua jam
Antichristi esse tempora designatur; 2 and these were his
utterances when John, Bishop of Constantinople, first assumed
1 Ep. XXXIII, lib. vii, p. 891, Opera, vol. Ill, Migne.
2 Ep. XXI, lib. v, p. 749.
THE MAN OF SIN. 341
the title of Universal Bishop. Arnulphus, Bishop of Orleans
about a.d. 991, spoke in the Synod of R-heims against Pope
John XV, summing up by saying that if he had not charity and
was puffed up with knowledge, he was Antichrist. 1 Joachim, of
the twelfth century, in his Commentary on the Apocalypse,
describes the second Beast as ruled by some great prelate who
will be like Simon Magus, and as it were Universalis Pontifex
• — the very Antichrist of whom the apostle speaks. In the
famous interview with King Richard on his way to Palestine,
Joachim is said to have maintained that Antichrist was shortly
to come, was born already in Rome, and was soon to be raised
to the apostolic see. But the Franciscans, in self-defence, may
have interpolated Joachim's works. At the end of the same
century Amalric, professor of logic and divinity, more than
hinted that the Pope was Antichrist; and the idea pleased two
classes especially — those who abhorred the lax morality of the
Papal court, like the Franciscans; and those political Imperial-
ists who were battling against the Papacy and its pretensions :
men, on the one hand, like Peter John of Olivi, Ubertinus,
and Grostete who, on being excommunicated, appealed from
the court of the Pope to the tribunal of Christ ; and on the
other, like Eberhard, who accuses Hildebrand of laying the
foundation of Antichrist's kingdom 170 years before his
time ; and identifies him with the little horn of Daniel. 2
So also Petrus de Vineis, chancellor to Frederick II, and
his defender against the Pope ; Marsilius of Padua, a famous
jurist; Roger Bacon, &c. Some of these men were writing
under strong natural feeling against the Pope as a personal
antagonist, and therefore they denounced him in bitter terms
intended to wound and humble him ; so that their denuncia-
tions of him were not suggested by sober and careful inter-
pretation of this prophecy, and they would have shrunk from
applying to him all its terms.
If such license of language was taken occasionally by persons
within the pale of the Romish Church, it is not to be wondered
at that those who were in separation from it came to hold
similar views, such as the Waldensians, the Hussites, and the
followers of Wycliffe. The Waldensian document belonging to
1 Zauchius, 483. - Ibid, p. 489.
342 THE MAN OF SIN.
the thirteenth century — Treatise of Antichrist — identifies the
Man of Sin with Antichrist, Babylon, the fourth Beast, the
harlot; hut La Nobla Leyczon, "the noble lesson," of over 470
lines written in the Provencal dialect in the latter part of the
twelfth century, speaks more doubtfully. " The people are to
be well advised when Antichrist conies that we give no
credence to his doings or his sayings. But according to
Scripture there are many Antichrists, for all who are contrary
to Christ are Antichrist." Those documents are of great
antiquity, though Leger has certainly exaggerated the early
origin of the Waldenses ; and the date referred to in the poem
is doubtful, as the point of commencement cannot be exactly
ascertained. 1 Men like Lord Cobham and like Walter Brute,
who suffered under Papal tyranny, naturally felt that the Pope
as a spiritual despot must be the Antichrist. The Reformers
as a body held the same view — Luther, Melancthon, Calvin,
Zuingli, Bucer, Beza, Bullinger, &c; Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer,
Jewell, Hooper, Hooker, &c. It is embodied in the articles of
the Smalcald Confession. King James put forth the same
view in his Apologia pro Juram. Fidel.; and for this publica-
tion he is complimented by our translators in their dedication,
" that it hath given such a blow unto that Man of Sin as will
not be healed." Hosts of English divines and commentators
have given the same interpretation, such as Bishop Andrews,
Sanderson, Napier of Merchiston, Mecle, Bishop Newton, Faber,
&c. Many find the Papacy in the first or second Apocalyptic
Beast; and some identify the system with both Beasts, as
Pareus, Vitringa, Croly, Elliott. This view represents also the
popular belief, at least in Scotland, and it is often brought
forward in times of anti-Papal agitation. The points of
similarity between the Pope or Popery and the description of
this paragraph have been elaborated by Bishop Jewel in his
Exposition, and the commentary of Bishop Wordsworth puts
them in a more precise and definite form. The same identifi-
cation may be found in Bishop Newton, in Faber's Sacred
Calendar of Prophecy, and in many current and popular
works.
The points of identification are the following : — Many of the
1 Gieseler, III, 418 ; Elliott, II, 686 ; Mosheim, 428 ; Hallam, I, 28.
THE MAN OF SIN. 343
Roman Pontiffs were men of sin, characterized by debauchery,
sensuality, cruelt}^ and bloody ambition. Popish writers
describe the vileness of many Popes in the blackest terms.
About the tenth century, from John VIII to Leo IX fifty
Popes are said, by Genebrard, to be apostatici pot I lis quam
apostolid. Baronius shrinks not from depicting those of the
tenth century as being guilty of robbery, assassination, simony,
dissipation, tyranny, sacrilege, perjury, and all kinds of wicked-
ness. Two courtesans, mother and daughter, dispensed the
Papal patronage of the period. During the pontificate of John
XII, women were afraid of going to St. Peter's tomb, lest they
should be violated by Peter's successor. Cardinal Bellarmine
admits that he was nearly the most wicked of the Popes.
Boniface VII is declared by Cardinal Baronius to have been a
thief, a miscreant, and a murderer. John XXIII was found
guilty by the Council of Constance of forty species of vices,
including incest and unnatural lust. Sixtus IV established
brothels in Rome, and was the " Vicar General of God and
Venus." Alexander VI was a monster of depravity. His
vices and crimes were so base that they are unfit for descrip-
tion, and he was poisoned with a cup which he had treacher-
ously prepared for others. It is needless to extend the list.
There have been, certainly, many exceptions — many good men
in the Papal chair ; but so many have been notorious for sins
and profligacies that they are held by many to give the Papal
succession the aspect and character of " The Man of Sin."
Then, on the same hypothesis, the "falling away," airocrrauia, (
is the declension from the pure and primitive faith of the early
centuries, and no system of apostacy can be compared with
Popery in long continuity of time and wide extent of place.
Among the elements of such apostacy may be reckoned false
doctrine, idolatry, or worship of images, and the gradual assump-
tion of a universal pontificate in the person of St. Peter's suc-
cessor. The Second Council of Nice, in a.d. 787, authorized
many previous errors and practices which had been growing
for centuries.
The "mystery of iniquity" is so called from its early and secret
working : what at first was harmless grew by degrees into sin
and degradation. Jewel instances celibacy, single communion,
344 THE MAN OF SIN.
the power of the keys, purgatory, pre-eminence of the Romish
Bishop — all which things came in gradually and with no evil
purpose, acquired strength without being observed, and at
length obtained an extreme form, a virulent predominance.
Bishop Wordsworth says, " It may be asked how could this
power be said to be at work in St. Paul's age," and his reply is
" St. Paul was inspired by the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost
can see what man cannot see ;" and he adds, " no wonder we
should not be able to discern it." But the germs were to some
extent visible even then to human sight. The quick eye of the
apostle discerned them, as may be learned from various indica-
tions in his epistles.
This word, in its Latin form mysterium,wa,s formally inscribed
in letters of gold on the front of the Pope's tiara, and is said to
have been removed by Pope Julius II, who reigned from a.d.
1503 to 1513. 1 But such an ostentatious use of the word differs
from the meaning of the clause. From the word mystery the
Popish expositor Estius has an argument against the identifi-
cation of the Man of Sin with the Pope. The mystery of
iniquity was already working in secret attempts to oppress
the church in the apostle's own times. Si enim uti conten-
clunt Romanus Pontifex Antici hristus est, extitit autem Anti-
christ us Apostolorum tempore, nee alius tunc Romanus Pon-
tifexfuit, nisi beatus Petrus, igitur Retrus erat Antichrist us.
Again, the description of the fourth verse is said to be realized
in Popery. The Man of Sin is the opposer, 6 avriKeifxevo?, in
nearly every sense. Christ is the Rock, and the Pope says "I am
the Rock," "a rival foundation." The Pope exalts himself above
all gods, such as Elohim or civil rulers, for every Pope on being
crowned with the tiara is saluted as Pater Principum et Regum,
Rector orbis. 2 On his coins the legend runs, omnes reges servient
ei. It is his prerogative to cancel an oath of allegiance; and he
declares that oaths of allegiance to persons excommunicated are
void, for the kingly power is subject to the pontifical and
is bound to obey it. Bulls for these purposes have often been
issued, as by Hildebrand against the Emperor Henry IV, by
Gregory IX and Innocent IV against the Emperor Frederick
i Newtou, 642 : Wordsworth's Letters, p. 41.
2 The full form is iu Wordsworth's Letters, p. 317.
THE MAN OF SIN. 345
II, by Paul III against Henry VIII of England, by Pius V
against Queen Elizabeth — a sentence repeated by Gregory XIII
and Sixtus V.
Then as to the session in the Temple of God, showing
himself as God, the Pope on his election and proclamation
is carried into St. Peter's and seated on the high altar, where
he is saluted by the kneeling cardinals — oscido pedis, manus,
ct oris. The Church calls this ceremony the adoration — the
princes of the Roman church kiss " the profane feet which
trample on the altar of the Most High." The medals of
Martin V have the legend Quem crecoit, adorcint.
Next, the restraining power is with this interpretation said
to be the old Roman Empire — Romanus status, as Tertullian
calls it, who also says, " that Christians had special need to
pray for the empire, since on its removal some terrible violence
would come/' 1 That is to say, when the Roman Empire was
dismembered, the Man of Sin would grow in daringness — for
he was curbed and kept down by the civil power, which
brooked no rival and tolerated no upstart. Paul had spoken of
this when he was with the Thessalonians, and therefore he does
not repeat it in writing, and for another reason too, as Jerome
alleges, "if St. Paul had written openly, and boldly said that the
Man of Sin would not come until the Roman Empire was
destroyed, a just cause of persecution would then appear to have
been afforded against the church in her infancy." 2 Chrysostom
(in loc.) repeats the same assertion, and also Augustine. 3 So that
the reserve of the apostle is taken as a proof that he must
have meant the imperial power. It is true that when the court
and government were transferred to Constantinople, Rome was
left as a prey to the ecclesiastical power. Odoacer in A.D. 47G
deposed and exiled Romulus Augustulus, and with his removal
the Roman Empire in the West came to an end. De Maistre
says, "a secret hand chased the emperors from the Eternal City
to give it to the head of the Eternal Church." In A.D. 755, the
Pope obtained the exarchate of Ravenna, and in 77-i got
possession of the kingdom of the Lombards, and having at
1 Apologia, xxxii, p. 236, vol. I, Opera, ed. CEhler.
2 Epist. ad Algasiam, lib. 121, p. 8S8, vol. I, Opera, ed. Vallar.
3 De Civitate Dei, lib. xx, cap. 19, p. 958, vol. VII. Opera, Gaume.
340 THE MAN OF SIN.
length accepted the territory of the Vandals, Ostrogoths, and
Lombards, he formally assumed the triregno? the triple tiara,
the super-imperial crown — extra ecclesiam — the symbol of his
political prerogative as opposed to the mitre, the symbol of his
ecclesiastical dignity intra ecclesiam.
The " miracles and signs and lying wonders " which the
Lawless one is to perform find, it is averred, a fulfilment in the
Church of Rome, where miracles of various kinds are recorded
in every century, such as those wrought at the tomb of the
Abbe' Paris and at many other tombs, as told in the Roman
Breviary: the annual liquefaction of the blood of St. Januarius
at Naples ; the wonders done by sacred images moving, speak-
ing, weeping, bleeding ; supernatural visitations from the
Virgin and the saints; and great prodigies done by holy relics.
Now, many of these resemblances are very striking, and
Popery is a system in many of its features quite opposed to the
spirit and the letter of the inspired volume — a dark system of
spiritual slavery, the iron of which enters into the soul. The
Inquisition on the one side was balanced by indulgences on
the other side. Its cruelties have been ferocious in their out-
breaks : Te Dewm was sung in the church of St. Louis in Rome
for the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, and a medal with the
words Pietas excitavit justitiam was struck in commemoration
of it. Its arrogance is blasphemous; its sacerdotal prerogatives
in confession, absolution, and transubstantiation are quite
superhuman in pretension. The devotion it inculcates to the
Papal chair, as by the creed of Pius IV and the Bull in Ccena
Domini, is inconsistent with personal freedom and civil liberty.
It claims toleration, but yields none save under necessity. Its
people are, in the mass of them, as firm believers in legend and
tradition as in the Word of God. Popery is a s} 7 stem of baleful
intervention between heaven and earth : the priest stands
between the sinner and God, auricular confession between him
and the footstool of mercy, penance between him and godly
sorrow, the mass between him and the righteousness of Christ,
indulgences between him and a self-denying and earnest life,
tradition between him and holy Scripture, and purgatory
between him and the heavenly world.
1 Elliott, vol. II, p. 901.
THE MAN OF SIN. 347
This identification of the Pope with the Man of Sin was
not very popular in the days of the Stuarts. Mede, the
famous writer on prophecy, says in one of his letters that
" some of his opinions would have made another man a Dean,
Prebend, or something else ere this, but the point of the Pope's
being Antichrist as a dead fly marred the savour of that
ointment."
It is scarcely to be wondered at that some Popish writers
retaliated on Protestant commentators and polemics. Estius
says that Protestants, prhno auctore Luthero, have formed
an apostacy from the true faith and worship, and paved the
way for Antichrist — ut hodie insigniter facit Jacobus rex
Angliae. 1 Compare a-Lapide and Fromond. Archbishop Bram-
hall brings the matter nearer home, for at the conclusion of his
"Fair Warning of Scottish Discipline," a tract which is a plea
for the lowest Erastianism, he says, "it were worth the enquiry
whether the marks of Antichrist do not agree as eminently to
the General Assembly of Scotland as either to the Pope or to
the Turk." 2 The king of France, with the advice of his
council, forbad that any one should call the Pope Antichrist ;
and Grotius, at the time Swedish ambassador in Paris, com-
posed a treatise on Antichrist, minimizing the difference
between Protestantism and Popery in the vain hope of effecting
some reconciliation. 3 Baxter attacked the " Grotian theory,"
accused Grotius of a design to reconcile Papists and Protestants
in a Cassandrian Popery, and, believing that the scheme had
been regarded with favour in England, among others attacked
Bramhall. Bramhall in his reply shrank from avowing his
belief that the Pope is Antichrist, and makes so many distinc-
tions and limitations as to show that he did not heartily
concur in the views of the Reformers. 4
For very different reasons from any of the preceding ones,
the Polish Socinians regarded the Pope as Antichrist, since he
was the main supporter of Trinitarian doctrine ; and Schlich-
ting explains the clause, " a strong delusion that they should
1 Estius, p. 79.
2 Works, p. 287, vol. Ill, Oxford, 1844.
3 See Bochart's reply, Examen Libellide Antichn'sto, Opera, vol. I, p. 1044.
4 BranihaU's Works, vol. Ill, p. 500.
348 THE MAN OF SIN.
believe a lie," by saying, "they refused to believe that the man
Jesus is a God made by the one God; therefore let them
believe that He is the one very God himself" (in loc).
But while the resemblance is so close between the Papacy
and this prophetic description, the Papacy does not by any
means exhaust it. The oracle harmonizes with it on many
points, but goes greatly beyond it. Popery embodies no small
portion of it, but does not comprehend all of it. The Man of
Sin has not yet appeared. No one so daring, so defiant, so
Antichristic, so successful in imposture, has yet appeared
among men or in the Popish community. The arguments
against identification are —
1. The phrases and epithets, " the Man of Sin," the " Son
of Perdition," the " Lawless One," naturally represent a single
individual, not a polity or system. Had the apostle wished to
portray a system, he could have used an abstract term like
;} a-woo-rao-la. The terse personal language forepictures one
man, one human being, as really as the phrase " son of perdi-
tion" described from the Lord's lips the fate of Judas the
traitor. In 1 Tim. iv, 1, when the apostle portrays a coming-
defection, he uses the plural number — " some shall depart from
the faith," &c; and in 2 Tim. iii, 2 the plural is again employed
— "men shall be lovers of themselves," &c, Jannes and Jambres
being a specimen of them. The "falling away" consists of
those who have fallen away — the apostacy, of apostates ; but
the apostacy as a fact or as a system is not to be identified
with the "Man of Sin," for it precedes him and is the condition
of his appearance. He is then one human being, and is not to
be identified with a complicated system such as Popery. On
the other hand, the Apocalyptic Beast plainly represents a
polity, and the second Beast seems to correspond to the little
horn of the fourth Beast of Daniel.
2. Nor can these individualistic phrases mean a succession
of men, series et successio hominum, or the line of nearly
three hundred Popes. The instances adduced by Bishop
Newton in favour of that view will not sustain him. 1 Thus he
argues, "a king is often used for a succession of kings, as in Dan.
vii, viii " ; but in these chapters there are no parallel instances.
1 Dissertations on the Prophecies, p. 440, 16th edition (Londou, 1832).
THE MAN OF SIN. 349
In the seventh chapter it is said distinctly, " the four beasts
are four kings," in explanation of the symbols ; and in the
eighth chapter " the kings of Media and Persia" are spoken of
in the plural number ; " a king of fierce countenance " is
foretold, but he is evidently one individual. The declaration
" the rousdi £oat is the kino- of Greece, and the great horn that
is between his eyes is the first king," implies by the terms a
succession of individuals. Bishop Newton refers again to the
phrase, Heb. ix, 7, "into the second went the high priest alone
once every year," a clause he expounds as " denoting the series
and order of high priests." But the high priest means in this
sentence the one for the time being, and a definition of hereditary
sacerdotal function in this way is wholly different in terms from
a prediction delivered in the singular number. Other instances
adduced in proof have nothing analogous in them, for they are
symbols with their interpretation. Bishop Newton adds, "No
commentator ever conceived the whore of Bab}don to be meant
of a single woman, and why then should the ' Man of Sin ' be
taken for a single man?" But the statement involves a
strange confusion of ideas about the sign and the thing signi-
fied. The woman, as an hieroglyph, is most certainly a single
woman, but she may symbolize a variety of malign and
seductive influences, for she is " that great city which reigneth
over the kings of the earth." On the other hand, in the
paragraph before us, there is no imagery or symbolism — all is
as plain and prosaic as if it were a mere historical statement
of fact. The arguments of Elliott for a plural sense are similar,
and their refutation is of equal facility. He says that
"o KaTex<x>v in the masculine singular is used synonymously with
to Karexov in the neuter, as of a power — referring to the then
existing line, succession, or government of the Roman em-
perors." He adds as to this example, " It at once annihilates
all the arguments of those who would contend on the around
of this phraseology for a personal individual Antichrist." 1
But as we deny the meaning which he assigns to the two
participles, his whole argument falls to the ground. His other
proofs are like those of Bishop Newton, such as the reference
to the high priest (Lev. xxi, 10), "the high priest among his
1 TInrce Apocxdypticce, p. 833.
350 THE MAN OF SIN.
brethren shall not rend his clothes," where the official designa-
tion means each high priest for the time, in order to define his
office. So with regard to the Jewish king (Deut. xvii, 15): the
king, an official epithet, warrants its application to each one
who holds the office and who is to be guided by the law. But
when a phrase portrays a man by his character, it only
includes himself, unless a class is specified or an assertion is
made bringing others under the same category. Nothing of the
kind occurs in the verses under consideration. A succession
of priests and kings is contemplated in these verses quoted, and
is therefore naturally presupposed, but there is no such idea
asserted or implied in this passage. The words are therefore
to be taken in their simple and current significance, as if they
formed part of a nai'rative. One individual is distinctly
pointed out under the awful epithets. There is no hint that
one is to be taken as a symbol of many. Thrice the emphatic
singular is employed. The 6 /caTe'vow becomes to kcat€~xov —
a significant change ; but it is 6 avdpunros Trj? afxaprtag, 6 vlos
rfc cnrooXeias, 6 avrtKei/mevos, direct and individual unity ; and
then, after an inserted appeal to previous conversations, a
return to him is luade by the singular avrov = 6 uvo/xo?, and
the relatives ov . ■ ' . . ov — plain immediate matter of
fact, a single personality without figure or disguise or anything
to suggest a plurality or succession.
3. And this natural interpretation of the phrases is the
earliest one. The first fathers took the Man of Sin to be a
single person, and since they regarded the prophecy as unful-
filled in their day, they did not attempt to interpret its
language by bringing it into harmony with any supposed
accomplishment. Thus Irenseus describes him as diabolicam
apostasiam in se recajpitulans ; . . . se autem extollens
unum idolum. . . . habens in semstijiso reliquorum
idolorum varium errorem. 1 Justin Martyr uses the words
o 7% onToo-rao-ias avOpunro?, his quotations, references, and
explanations being all in the singular number. 2 Origen in his
references to the prophecy also emplo}^ the singular, and
understands one individual opposed kclto. Sid/uerpov to the
1 Advers. Hceres., lib. v, c. 25, p. 783, vol. T, Opera, eel. Stieren.
- Dial, cum Tryph., c. 110, p. 364, vol. II, Opera, ed. Otto.
THE MAN OF SIN. 35I
Christ, vlbv tou 7rov7]pov Saipovo? teal Harava /cut SiaftoXov. 1
Hippolytus affirms that Antichrist is to be born in Dan, as the
Christ was in Judah, calling him the son of the devil, . . .
that tyrant and shameless one and enemy of God. 2 In a para-
graph the genuineness of which has been doubted, he says, "that
deceiver seeks to make himself like to the Son of God," with
numerous other allusions. Tertullian holds the same view;"
and Chrysostom, in loc, more expressly writes ai/0pa>7ro? ti?
Tracrav avTod (Earava) Sc^o^po? r^v evepyctav. Cyril of Jeru-
salem does not differ, 4 nor Augustine, who styles him adver-
sarius ejus Antichristus, though he indicates the other view.
Lactantius describes Antichrist as one person — hie est autem,
qui appellator Antichristus; orietur ex Syria, malo spiritu
genitus. 5 Jerome's own view is precise — qui adversatur
Christo et ideo vocatur Antichristus. , 6
That the Man of Sin was to be one human being — one man
so terribly signalized in character, energy, and perdition — was
the first and prevailing interpretation, for it was suggested by
the terse simplicity and the unambiguous singular unity of the
terms. The long line of Popes is therefore not intended by the
phrases under discussion. Nay, so many schisms have raged
among Popes and in the Popedom, that they could scarcely be
represented by a unity. Baronius himself admits twenty-six
schisms, and others make thirty. The claim of Liberius to the
Papal chair was denied by the fathers, and Athanasius called
him a monster. Silverius was in A.D. 536 elected by simony,
and Julius II pronounced the election void. Stephen flung
the corpse of his predecessor into the Tiber, and his rescission
of the dead man's acts was reversed by his own successor
John X. Sergius III called a council and nullified the acts of
John. Sylvester, John, and Benedict fought fiercely in the
eleventh century against one another for the tiara, but agreed
at length to divide the revenues. To expel this " three-headed
1 Contra Celsum, p. 307, ed. Spencer.
2 De Christo et Antichristo, xv., Opera, ed. De Lagarde, pp. 7, 8.
3 De Resurrect., xxiv, p. 497, vol. LI, Opera, ed. (Elder.
4 Cateches. xv, 7, p. 212, Opera, ed. Miller.
5 Divin. Institut., lib. vii, c. 17-19.
6 Epist. ad Algas., already quoted.
352 THE MAN OF SIN.
monster," Gratian bought the Papacy and became Gregory VI.
In the twelfth century happened the great schism, which
lasted seventy years, one Pope reigning in Avignon and
another in Rome, Urban and Clement dividing Christendom,
and thundering anathemas at one another. The succession
was uncertain, and none could tell who was rightful pontiff.
At a later period Eugenius and the Council of Florence excom-
municated Felix, and the Council of Basle and the latter
heartily reciprocated the anathema. There are various theories
on the nature of the Papal supremacy and infallibility, and on
many tenets of its theology. Pope Gelasius in the fifth century
condemned communion in one kind ; his successors strictly
command it. Gregory the Great branded the title of Universal
Bishop as impious ; his successors glory in it. Pope Vigilius
fell into the heresy of Eutychianism, Pope Liberius into that
of Arianism. Pope Houorius was condemned as a Monothelite
by Pope Leo II. The infallibility meant to secure unity has
often showed itself in suicidal weakness. Pope Sixtus in
1589 completed an authorized edition of the Latin Vulgate,
which had been begun by Pope Pius IV, continued by Pope
Pius V, and announced by a bull of date 1st March, 1589;
and the preface threatens from the chair every one with
excommunication who shall dare to alter the text in the
smallest way. But in spite of this fence, the book was found
to be full of blunders. The successor of Pope Sixtus V
(Gregory XIV) was so sensible of this, and so little afraid of
the Papal thunder, that he made preparations for a new
edition, which was finished by Pope Clement VIII three years
afterwards in 1592, and it was similarly defended with threats
of highest curses on every one who should presume in any way
to change it. Cardinal Bellarmine, to save the Papal infalli-
bility, laid the blame on the printer, and this poor and un-
worthy defence — an awkward attempt to escape from a
dilemma — is said to have secured the cardinal's canonization.
Baldwin the Jesuit went so far as to affirm that the edition of
Sixtus was never published ! Thus the two literary infallibili-
ties clashed, and in the contradiction throw one another into
mutual destruction.
4. Nor is the description of the 4th verse exhausted in its
THE MAN OF SIN. 353
application to the Pope as the head of the Papal hierarchy,
" who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called
God or that is worshipped ;" that is, every one called God, and
every object of divine homage, for o-efiao-iua is not used in
Scripture of objects of human veneration, such as rulers and
magistrates. Two features very strongly marked are given —
opposition to every God, true or false, and self-elevation above
every God, true or false. Now, there is no little idolatry in the
Romish Church ; but these words are not a charge of idolatry f
but of utter antagonism to God. The Pope holds the three
creeds and owns himself to be a worshipper and servant of God.
He professes to identify himself with God's cause, and he offers
adoration to Father, Son, and Spirit. He blesses the people,
not in his own name, but in the blessed triune name. So far
from being the antagonist of God avowedly, as is the Man of
Sin, he claims to be only a humble vassal in spiritual fellowship
with the Divine Master, and his hymnal prayer for grace to do
God's work is Veni Creator Spiritus. So far from exalting
himself above God, he proclaims himself " servant of servants
to the Most High," and craves from God divine cn-ace and
direction. In all he does — even in the burning of heretics, in
oro-anizins; crusades against unbelievers, in crooked and un-
scrupulous diplomacy, in tampering with oaths and civil allegi-
ance, in acts of ferocious cruelty and wildest ambition, or in
doing ungodly and wicked deeds at which most men shudder
— he ever acknowledges the divine authority and avows sub-
mission to the divine guidance. Nor can it be properly said
that the Roman Pontiff " opposes and exalts himself above every
object of worship," for his sin lies quite in an opposite direction.
He is not opposed to the a-e^darfxara, for he is ever multiplying
them ; nor does he exalt himself above them, for after he has
made them they are objects of veneration to him really as much
as to any of his vassals. He puts himself under them, and
exalts them over himself, for he does them homage along with
the poorest of his flock. By virtue of a commission as Christ's
first minister, as he alleges, he ordains o-e/3uV/xara, but at once
he prostrates himself beneath them as their inferior, and in no
way opposes or lifts his head above them. So that the clause
does not distinctly and formally characterize either him or the
z
35 4 THE MAN OF SIN.
Papal system ; for it describes a frightful antithcism — open,
fanatical, malignant, and haughty antagonism to God, and
every object of divine worship — "he opposes, and exalts himself."
5. Nor does the next clause verify itself fully in the Pope-
dom : " So that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself
that he is God." There is no question that the Pope arrogates
central dominion and does many things with so high a hand
that he resembles this description and almost fixes it upon him-
self. One very close approach to this verification takes place at
his installation, when he is carried into St. Peter's and seated by
the cardinals on the high altar as his throne. This, considering
the Romish belief about the altar and the uses to which it is
applied, is an act of daring profanation, making a footstool of
that on which in Popish conviction is done the most awful
work of the priest on earth, and on which is offered the most
solemn religious service. This is Bishop Wordsworth's great
proof and position. But (1) can St. Peter's at Borne be
called, or has it any claim to be called, the Temple of God ; or
can the designation be given to the earlier church of the
Lateran, which is the Pope's church as Bishop of Rome, and
loftily called Ecdesiarvm urbis et orbis Mater et Caput?
(2) If the temple of God means the Christian church, how can
he be said in literal palpability to go and take his seat in that
temple, so wholly an ideal structure ? (3) When we reflect on
the myriads of Protestants in all parts of the earth, we cannot
hold that the centre and capital of Christ's church in the world
is the city of Rome, and though Rome be truly the centre and
capital of Papalism, yet we should refuse to call the Popish
church by the solemn and exclusive title of the temple of God.
Though the seating of the Pope on the high altar might even
on Popish premises be branded as an act of consummate im-
piety, it does not come up to the charge, " showing himself
that he is God." The Pope's seat on the high altar is pro-
fessedly the symbol of his being the one vicar and representa-
tive of the Lord Jesus on earth. But no Pope ever did show
himself that he was God. No one has ever been guilty of such
gross self-deification. Blasphemous titles may be given him ;
he has not assumed them. The adoration paid to him on the
high altar is gross in itself, and may be a kind of idolatry ; but
THE MAN OF SIN. 855
it professes to be only the adoration of Christ's presence and
power in him. The claim of infallibility on the part of the
Pope looks like a shadow of divine omniscience and immuta-
bility, and his theocratic government exalts him to a divine
altitude as its anointed head. It is a power like to God's
which he assumes over the consciences of men and the destinies
of nations, as if he were sovereign and unchallenged disposer ;
or when he has claimed the impious prerogative of authentica-
ting the books of Scripture to invest them with canonical
authority, 1 as Pope Gregory VII said, " Not a single book of
scripture shall be held canonical without the Pope's authority."
But in all these things he does not show himself that he is God,
for the formal acknowledgement of God prefaces all his decrees
and sanctifies, as his adherents call it, all his deeds, even the
worst of them. In his loftiest and most daring claims he shows
himself only as God's viceroy. Hildebrand, in building up and
compacting this marvellous complication of spiritual tyranny,
believed himself to be only God's chosen instrument for the
work. The Council of Trent gives the Pope simply the supreme
power in the universal church, though Cardillus said to the
Council " the Pope holds as a mortal god the place of Christ on
earth." " The Pope," says the gloss on the canon law, " is not
a man." Bernard said, " None except God is like the Pope."
Turrecrema and Barclay tell us Doctorculi volunt adulando
eos quasi aequiparare Deo. The canon law declares that he
occupies "the place not of a mere man, but of God ;" he is called
" our Lord God ;" some affirming that the Pope and the Lord
form the same tribunal. " The Pope is above right, and can
change the substantial nature of things ;" can, according to
Bellarmine, change duty into sin, and sin into duty. 2 Some
1 Another Pope, Sixtus V, in 1590, authorized a Latin Bible as an
authentic infallible standard, in the place of the Hebrew and Greek
original ; and in this Latin Bible several books are called canonical which
were never regarded as such by the Christian Church for fifteen hundred
years ! and in 1592 behold another development ! Clement VIII comes
forth with another Latin Bible to supersede the infallible Bible of his pre-
decessor, and differing from it in several thousand places ! Wordsworth,
pp. 108, 109.
- For the authorities, see Edgar's Variation* of Paprn/, p. 129, London.
356 THE MAN OF SIN.
of these epithets and assertions, as Dominus Dens, Foster
Papa, given and made by canons, divines, and councils
had no small authority surrounding them, but for the most
part they were the extravagance of adulation, and were
generally met by some opposition. 1 Those wild and wanton
blasphemies, while they come amazingly close to the words of
this verse, do not satisfy them. No Pope has ever arrogated
those names to himself, nor would his arrogation of them have
been tolerated. No Pope has ever really deified himself and
ventured to supersede God in His own temple. What he has
said, or done, or assumed, does almost by inference imply it ;
but cannot be fully identified with it. No Pope has so acted
out antitheism as to thrust aside God formally and put him-
self in His place ; but the Man of Sin is openly and avowedly
to take God's seat within His own house, and so to displace its
divine occupant as to be not God's rival merely but God's sub-
stitute, " showing himself that he is God."
6. The prediction of false miracles in verse 9 suits the
Papacy, which abounds with them — not only in transubstan-
tiation, but in a great variety of shapes. 2 Some of the
miracles have been already referred to. A curious illustra-
tion is given by Athanasius. Among other reasons why
the Son said of the time of the last days ovSe 6 vtbs o'tSe, one
was that he might confute future impostors, angelic or human,
who might pretend to know it. If Antichrist will say, I am
Christ, pretend to a supernatural knowledge of the last times,
and work in confirmation miraculous signs, let him be con-
fronted with this utterance, that is, If the true Christ did not
know it, how shall a false Christ reach the possession of such
knowledge ? 3
The wonder of transubstantiation has been told in frightful
words. "He that created me," says one cardinal, "if it be lawful
to say it, gave me power to create Himself." "Her ladyship
once conceived the Son of God, while the priest daily calls into
existence the same Son in a corporeal form." 4
i Jewel's Works, vol. II, p. 195.
2 Jewel, VII, 187.
3 III Orat. contra Arianos, p. 426, vol. II, Migne.
4 Edgar's Variations of Pope?y, p. 384.
THE MAN OF SIN. 357
But as we have said, the prophecy under consideration
portrays a single human being, not a system or polity. In a
word, Popery is characterized by many bad features, in direct
opposition to the letter and spirit of Scripture ; the primacy
of the Bishop of Rome rests on no true foundation ; many of
the earlier Decretals are spurious; the so-called Donation by
Constantine of Italy and Rome and the provinces of the West
to Sylvester, in a.d. 32-t, was a downright forgery, yet, as
Gibbon says, by it the Popes "were invested with the purple
and prerogatives of the Caesars." But idolatry, superstition,
will-worship, injustice, lust of power, lordship over men's
consciences, and utter disregard of equity in pursuit of its
ends, though they so sadly and sinfully characterize the Papal
system everywhere, are not found in this prophetic sketch.
Nor is there any allusion to images, worship of saints and
angels, faith in relics, or the intense and absorbing adora-
tion of the virgin ; to the invention of purgatory, the sale of
indulgences, priestly absolution, the power assumed over the
world of spirits — symbolized in his badge of the two cross-
keys, the one that of purgatory, the other that of heaven. The
apostle portrays the apostacy, out of which springs a man
in whom evil holds a defiant supremacy ; who shall rage with
hellish hostility against God, and trample on every object of
worship ; who takes his seat in God's temple and claims for
himself as God all adoration ; the Lawless one who seduces the
world by prodigies and lying wonders and all deceivableness of
unrighteousness, for he is all but an incarnation of Satan — the
Man of Sin, and therefore also the Son of Perdition. No one
has yet appeared in whom all these elements are concentrated ;
but Popery, as certainly a signal and continued defection from
the true faith, and as embodying many of these features, seems
to typify him ; or it may be the apostacy preceding and pre-
paring for his advent.
Whatever truth may be in the statements of Tertullian,
Lactantius, Jerome and others, that there was among the
churches a secret understanding about the speedy doom of
the Roman Empire, this esoteric knowledge was soon thrown
into open circulation — as in the Sibylline verses. Tertullian
and Lactantius refer to these oracles and quote them. They
358 THE MAN OF SIN.
are of different ages, but many of them belong to the period
of the Antonines, and the so-called second book of Esdras is
written in a similar spirit. Bishop Jewel quotes the Sibyl
for the identification of Antichrist with the Pope — " Sibylla
saith that this king shall be 7ro\i6icpavo?, that is, that he shall
have a white head, and be called by a name much like to
Pontus," — a prophecy according to the Bishop fulfilled in the
white mitre of silver worn by the Pope, while in Latin he is
named Pont if ex. The reference is to the lines —
"K(T(TiT am£ TroXtoKpavos e^wu 7reAas ovvop.a ttovtov.
But the epithet means silver-helmed, the allusion being to a
warrior and not to a priest ; and the name resembling the sea is
Hadrian, as the context plainly shows, and the reference in the
name is to the Hadriatic sea. The terrible enemy and de-
stroyer who occupies such prominence in the Sibylline verses
is Nero returned to life. The vaticination says —
iv, orav y kiraviXdrj
'FjK TrepaTOJV ycu'v^s o cfavya? fx^TpoKTOvo'i e\9wv. 1
The return of the revivified Nero from the East as Antichrist
haunted men's minds for a very long period, and by writers of
the period it is often alluded to. Not a few supposed him to be
Antichrist, as is told by Augustine, though he stigmatizes it as
tanta prcvsumptio in his De Civitate Dei (lib. xx, c. xix); and it
is alluded to by Cbrysostom, Jerome, Cyril, and Tertullian, and
in the history of Sulpicius Severus (ii. 28). This belief of Nero's
return began in his lifetime, as the promise of some mathematici
or astrologers, and many in Rome and the provinces firmly
believed it after the tyrant's death. Compare Suetonius, Nero,
40 ; Tacitus, ii. 8 ; Dio Chrysostom, xxi. Orat. de Pulchr., p. 314,
vol. I, Opera, ed. Emperius.
The Man of Sin is to appear immediately before the Second
Advent. He is to be in the world when Christ comes, and the
" appearance of His coming " destroys him. His manifestation
1 142, also 144, Oracula Sib>/lli)ia, ed. Friedlieb. The lines preceding
and following the first we have quoted are a spirited description of the
downfall of the Roman power, and of the helplessness of its wealth and its
nods to save it.
THE MAN OF SIN. 35<J
as an individual is therefore confined to a single lifetime, so that
again in this view he cannot be identified with Popery, which
has endured for ages. It is no objection to say that the
apostle does not profess to fix the time of the Second Advent ;
he simply says that the apostacy and the Man of Sin precede
it. The apostacy may require centuries for its development,
the mystery of lawlessness may work through ages, but the
Advent finds the Man of Sin in existence, and acting out his
predicted character, and him at once it consumes, and then
he realizes his name as the Son of Perdition. In the opinion
of the fathers, as Barnabas and Irenaeus, his reign is to be
short.
The Jewish tradition about Antichrist needs not be gone into
at length, but it regarded Antichrist as an individual whose
advent is preceded by twelve signs — such as a grievous oppres-
sion of the Jews on the part of the Romans for nine months.
When the Messiah Een- Joseph, named Nehemiah, will appear
and defeat the persecuting despot, then shall come the Anti-
christ, called by the Jews Armillus, who is to be born of a
marble statue in one of the churches in Rome. To the Romans
he will give himself out as their Messiah, and they will accept
him as God for king. Subduing the world and proving from
Scripture that he is God, Nehemiah, with a guard of thirty
thousand soldiers, shall herald him with the proclamation, I am
the Lord thy God ; thou shaft have none other gods but me.
But Armillus will deny that any such statement is found in the
law, and will order the Jews to act as the other nations and
adore him as their god. This challenge produces a great battle,
in which the Messiah Ben-Joseph is slain, and terrible afflic-
tion shall fall on the Jews for forty-five days. But Michael
shall blow three peals of his trumpet ; at the first peal shall
come the true Messiah, Ben David, with the prophet Elijah,
and all Jews in the world will joyfully flock to Jerusalem.
Armillus, who has an army of Idumeans, that is Christians, shall
besiege Jerusalem, and he himself and his army shall perish.
The name Armillus is taken from the last clause of Isaiah xi, 4.
The Hebrew reads, y~n rvo; vnsc; nn?i, "and with the breath of his
lips will he slay the wicked ;" but the Chaldee version has
Kjpsn DhVnriN jvdd, "shall slay the wicked Armillus " (Eisenmenger's
360 THE MAN OF SIN.
EntdeJct. Juden., ii, 705 ; Buxtorf, Synagoga Judaica, p. 717).
The legend has also spread among Mahometans. Their Anti-
christ, Messiah Ben David as he is named by the Jews, shall
come and devastate the world with the exception of Mecca and
Medina. But Jesus shall descend on the white tower at the
east of Damascus and destroy him. Pocock, Porta Mosis, p.
221, 222.
Lastly, I enter not into the question whether the Babylon of
the Apocalypse be Papal or Pagan Rome. Lacuuza, a Spanish
Jesuit under the name of Ben Ezra, identifies Babylon with the
existing Church of Rome, and argues for a future personal
infidel Antichrist, in whose affairs the infidel Spanish clergy
will take a prominent part. * But granting it to be Papal
Rome, it seems to present many features of contrast to Anti-
christ, or the Man of Sin, especially if the typical Antichrist of
the book of Daniel be combined in the delineation. Babylon
is a feminine, shameless, and seductive influence throned on the
seven hills; has seven kings, and then ten kings, which at length
hate her, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn
her with fire. Then she is lamented by all her royal accom-
plices standing afar off and saying, " Alas, alas, that great city,
that mighty city." Babylon contains to the close some genuine
believers, who are exhorted to come out of her. On the other
hand, the Man of Sin is a masculine and individual power,
warlike and truculent, springs out of a great apostacy, and is
put down with none to lament his fall, and all his followers are
involved in perdition, his locality being apparently in Jerusalem
and certainly not in Rome. Nay, after Babylon is destroyed,
as is told in the 18th chapter of the Apocalypse, there remains
an antichristian power, which is overthrown, as is told in the
19th chapter of the same book. The striking features of this
antithesis certainly forbid any identification of these two wicked
forms of antagonism to God and His Son Jesus Christ. But
there is in the last confederacy, destroyed after Babylon is over-
thrown, a person constantly described in the singular form as
the false prophet (Rev. xvi, 13; xix, 20). He is allied to the
second beast, and is its minister, and he works miracles and
deceives men, as does the Man of Sin. The false prophet is thus
1 Coming of the Messiah, translated by the late Edward Irving.
THE MAN OF SIN. ;j(JL
different from the second beast, which may represent the Papal
system ; it revives all the old tyranny, deals in miracles and
idolatry, refuses civil rights — as to buy and sell — to all who
refuse to wear its symbols or will not bow to its supremacy, and
it persecutes to the death all who arc opposed to its system.
What is ascribed to the second beast is also ascribed to the
false prophet as its minister and guardian, so that if this false
prophet be the Man of Sin, the inference is that he, though un-
believing and atheistical, will take advantage of the Papal
tyranny or some similar spiritual system to revivify it into
some darker shape and convert it into the means of his own
aggrandisement. Such a revival, in a form of political and
spiritual intolerance combined with a special irreligious defec-
tion and the shaking of all social order, may be the falling away
which the Man of Sin lays hold of as the step to his terrible
antitheistic pre-eminence, uniting " superstition and unbelief
in a combined attack on liberty and religion, the embodiment
of Satanic as distinct from brutal wickedness." Having attained
his throne of blasphemy, his power shall be fatal to the apos-
tacy, out of which he sprung ; yet we find commentators on the
Apocalypse discovering Antichrist in it in various ways and
identifying him with the Papal power. Thus the angel clothed
with a cloud, a rainbow on his head and his face as the sun, is
said to be Jesus, who is counterfeited by Pope Leo X, his name
being recognized in the phrase "as when a lion roareth." 1
Gualterus thought the wild boar of the forest, in Psalm lxxx,
a type of the Pope, and at once selected Bocca di Porco (hog's
snout), the name of Pope Sergius II. Antichrist, a name so
accursed, proved a good weapon to use in a controversy, and so
the rival Popes branded each other as Antichrist, and St.
Bernard hurls the same terms against the Anti-Pope Anacletus.
The little horn had eyes as a man, and it symbolizes the Pope ;
the eyes, being the organ of vision, refer to the overseer or
bishop — oculus pastoralis — and by necessity of inference to
the Pope — speculator super omnia. 2
A special question still is — what is meant by this power that
holds back and delays the appearance of the Man of Sin ? It
1 Elliot, Home Apocalypticae, p. 388.
2 Elliot, p. 900.
362 THE MAN OF SIN.
must be something mighty and beneficent, for it checks and
retards a great and malignant evil. The old fathers believed it
to be the Roman Empire and Emperor, but these have passed
away, and the Man of Sin has not come. Some thought of the
German Empire restored by Charlemagne, but Napoleon dis-
solved it in 1806, and neither yet has the Man of Sin come.
Were the "Man of Sin" the Popedom, it might be said that
the civil power has been always restraining it, and the two
have been often in deadly conflict, not only in mediaeval but
in more recent times. The gross pretensions of the Papal
power have been generally repressed by statesmen, who were
alarmed at its stealthy encroachments and its wary and watch-
ful ambition. This withholding power is connected by Ewald
with the expected return of Elijah, who, when he comes, will
confront the Antichrist, till he be removed again to heaven.
Such^an opinion is a peculiar dream, which there is nothing in
the passage to suggest. Hofmann regards the restraining
i power as supernatural, and it may therefore be expressed in
either a masculine or a neuter form, 6 kutIx^v, to Karexov. Its
type is the good angel who withstood the evil genius that
sought to infuse sinister purposes into the heart of the king of
Persia. The same author, looking back to the prophecies of
Daniel, believes in the actual return of Antiochus, the inveterate
persecutor of the covenant people, who on his personal remani-
festation shall, as more thoroughly demonized by the long
interval, begin his ancient work in deadlier energy — shall, in
fact, eclipse his former self in godlessness and ferocity. Such a
revivification is not suggested by this prophecy.
This restraining power, in fine, may be, as Afford ex-
presses it, " the fabric of human polity and those who rule
that polity, by which the great upbursting of godlessness is
kept down and hindered." Similarly Ellicott. Whatever
thwarts personal ambition or suppresses atheistic impulses
"rowine; to a head, whatever counteracts the growth of that
mystery which dethrones God and enslaves man, be it civil
rule or evangelical influence, may be the withholding power,
given first in the abstract — r< Karexov — then to be embodied
in some eminent individual — 6 kutIx^v ; he will be removed,
and then, the dam having burst, evil will deluge the earth —
THE MAN OF SIN. 30o
that evil finding its living centre and impersonation in the
Lawless one, who gathers in to himself all power, secular
and sacred, and fulfils his course by this wanton self-created
apotheosis.
Already, in the apostle's day was this proud impiety of
apotheosis beginning to prevail, this mystery of insane super-
stition was unfolding itself. The term Augustus itself implied
divineness, and the step toward deification was easy. The
Emperor Augustus had allowed a temple to be dedicated to
him in Pergamus, and the imperial god and his deified
capital shared a joint worship. The statue of the Ctesar had
ever a special sacredness attached to it. The living Caligula
was worshipped on the Capitoline hill, and Domitian styled
himself "Lord and God." Trajan, according to Pliny, made
a god of Nerva, his predecessor, from a sincere conviction of his
divinity. Antinous, a debased favourite of Hadrian, was
similarly exalted, and the fane of Isis at Rome celebrated him
on one of its tablets "as the temple associate of the Egyptian
gods." During the Roman occupation, a temple was built at
Colchester to the divine Emperor Claudius. The living when
deified assumed the name of some deity, but the dead on
receiving the honour were simply admitted into the Pantheon.
The custom spread through the empire, and was not confined
to Rome and the imperial dynasty. An approach to this folly
is found in the Acts of the Apostles, when the people shouted
aloud at Herod's oration, "It is the voice of a god and not of a
man" (xii, 22). The boldest part of this daring and self-
glorifying profanity is adopted by the "Man of Sin" — he makes
himself a god, and enters not into any Pantheon as the rival or
colleague of other divinities, but into God's own Temple and
seats himself as God without equal or superior. At any
common epoch no one would venture on this blasphemous
vanity — it would find no response, and the profane and rash
impertinence would be speedily blasted and shivered to atoms —
"Men would clap their hands at him and hiss him from his
place." The character of his period may therefore be inferred
from his successful adventure, as he is borne on the tide of the
time to the highest pinnacle, even to the earthly throne of God
— an altitude to which common ambition never looked up, and
364 THE MAN OF SIN.
from which ordinary insolence would shrink back in dismay
and terror. He shall be, as usually happens, the creature of
his age, realizing its godlessness, and giving it palpability in
himself — his colossal genius towering above all his contempo-
raries by means of their encouragement and hero-worship —
for they see themselves reflected and glorified in him, as he
grasps, with sublime audacity, the divine prerogative, and
wields it as a native and unchallenged right.
Had not France, as a nation, become so audacious and
atheistic, had not society been so altered, wrecked, and thrown
into anarchy, Paris would never have witnessed the spectacle
of a prostitute throned on the high altar of Notre Dame,
saluted and worshipped under the title of the "Goddess of
Reason." The act was the fruit and crown of the national
insanity, and had one of the revolutionary leaders proclaimed
himself the " god of reason," and maintained and exercised his
godship, he would have been, in some respects, a type and
illustration of the Man of Sin. That God had become man is
the old belief, that man has become God is the new phantasm ;
that Eire Supreme being, accordkjg/to positivism, humanity
or the collective life of all human beings, the Infinite being-
ignored. When men take home to them the old falsehood,
" ye are gods," they are only opening a way for one of them-
selves, of greater courage and dexterity, to assert " I am God."
Humanity in the last times finding its divinity within itself,
shall at length bow down to its apotheosis in the Man of Sin
as its collective image and representative. Wearied of a God
of love who gives it everything, and to whom all thanks are
ever due, it sets up this god of power, and its worship of
humanity enthi-oned in him, so near itself and so like itself,
is but a new form of self-adulation. Throwing off all
faith in the Saviour, it places a wretched confidence in a
self-deifying usurper, whose tyranny is equalled only by his
blasphemy. Flinging all former beliefs to the winds, losing-
all confidence in God's truth, and superseding it by some
new revelation of self-evolved speculations — gratifying to a
proud, daring, and pantheistic intellect — it becomes the vic-
tim of delusion and a lie, for it has not received the love of the
truth. The Man of Sin will be but the living reflection of the
THE MAN OF SIN. 365
godless apostacies and impieties of his period, the power of
the god of this world inspiring and stimulating him. What
Satan could be, were he permitted to assume humanity, that
will his organ be — showing pre-eminence, not in immorality,
or brutishness, or any inordinate lusts and orgies, but lifted
above all in pride and insolence, and flinging out his contemp-
tuous challenge to all power in heaven, and all authority and
law on earth. And his kingdom shall be confirmed with all
miracles, and signs, and wonders, and with all deceivableness
of unrighteousness, so that it can accumulate evidences, to
doubt which may be branded as unreasonable and unnatural
scepticism.
Antichrist has been often described as made up in the stylo
of the expositor's own age. Some of the early fathers — be-
lievers in magic and occult power's — portraj^ed him as Simon
Magus, endowed with vaster craft and energy. Mediaeval
schoolmen regarded him as the boldest and subtlest of dis-
putants, able to confound, b} r his scholastic shrewdness, every
opponent. Men of monastic seclusion thought of him as
awing the world by his austerities. Malvenda pictures him as
possessed of rare and victorious eloquence, so cunning and
overpowering that he will succeed in proving, beyond a doubt,
that the Lord Jesus was an impostor. Maitland seems to
ascribe to him, not the knowledge and employment of science,
but imagination and pantheistic eloquence. It is difficult to
conjecture that subversal of the divine administration and
erasure of the divine existence in idea and purpose — that
union of reckless disbelief on the one hand and of credulous-
ness on the other — which the possibility of the ascendency
of the Man of Sin presupposes. It may be that his transcen-
dent intellect shall not only take advantage of all circum-
stances propitious to his lawless audacity, but that he shall
cunningly arrange and combine human passions, policy, and
events, to further his enterprise ; or that he shall, by force of
will, originality of conception, and sublimity of godless daring-
ness, at once create the crisis which' lifts him to his awful
pinnacle. Bede imagines that he shall spread abroad a report
— " Lo, Christ is here ! " " Lo, he is there ! " — that men may be
accustomed to the expectation of a new Christ, and that then
366 THE MAN OF SIN.
he shall openly and impiously assume the blessed name. It is
the last struggle of sin and Satan, inspired and envenomed by
a thousand memories of defeat, the concentrated malice and
rage of centuries, intensified into frenzied and furious anti-
theism. It is the devil's final effort, so wisely and warily
conducted, so long and cunningly prepared for by the apos-
tacy, as to augur success ; and it may be that ordinary de-
fences and strategy would be unequal to the contest. There
has ever been opposition to God in the world, sometimes rising
into virulent eminence — as in Balaam and Antiochus, and
in many blasphemers and persecutors ; this, however, is its last
and loftiest culmination. But Satan's ministers, and his vice-
devil organ encounter an irresistible doom — he is consumed by
the breath of Christ's mouth. The prospect is a dark one, but
it is the apostle's picture. This terrible monstrosity may be
connected with the apocalyptic conspiracy of Gog and Magog
— a great and appalling reaction after the revival, or so-called
millenium, has passed away (Rev. xx, 7, 8, &c). The Lord
himself puts the startling question, " When the Son of Man
cometh, shall he find faith on the earth ?" (Luke xviii, 8).
This opinion is in the core of it similar to that of Olshausen,
Ellicott, Alford, Riggenbach, Lacunza, Lillie, Lange, 1 though
the last takes a limited and secular view, tinged perhaps witli
the political combinations and prospects of the European con-
tinent, when he writes of Antichristianism, that while Ultra-
montane absolutists see' it in the consummation of Radicalism,
and Radical literati look on Jesuitism as the incarnation of
this evil principle, his supposition is that these extremes may
be reconciled, and " the last form of Antichristianism may
proceed from a coalition between completed absolutism and
completed Radicalism." We should be disposed to say that
such a coalition — destroying all rule, trampling on all right, and
breaking all social bonds — would prepare that anarchy, in the
midst of which, and taking advantage of it, the daring power
of the Man of Sin shall climb to this solitary eminence, stand
out as the supplanter of God, and crown himself as the per-
sonal concentration, or the organ and representative, of all
secular and spiritual despotism.
1 Article, " Antichrist " in Herzog, Real. Encydopddie, Gotha, 1863.
THE MAN OF SIN. 3G7
What the temple of God is, in which the Man of Sin is to
take his seat, it is difficult to say. The vaos, as we have seen,
may be an image, and may mean the church of Christ. But
the sense is not supported by analogy, for, as we have also
seen, in all the places in which the word is used in a symbolic
sense, the clause explains the metaphor, or contains the asser-
tion that believers form the temple — " Know ye not that ye are
the temple of God," — "which temple ye are" (1 Cor. iii, 16, 17;
vi, 19). Compare Ephes. ii, 20, 21, 22. The somewhat similar
phrase, "temple of my God," in Rev. iii, 12, does not refer to
the church of Christ on earth, but to the heavenly edifice.
Besides, what idea would the first readers of that epistle asso-
ciate with the " temple of God" when there was only one struc-
ture bearing the name of it, and it was in the city of Jerusalem ?
Shall that temple be rebuilt, or shall some central sanctuary of
the latter day, the metropolitan church of the world, bear the
hallowed appellation ; or shall it be some place of honour
hitherto unreached by any one, which the Man of Sin shall
stealthily climb to, and in which, throwing off his disguise,
he shall begin by word and deed to act out his predicted
career ? The realistic view seems most in harmony with the
meaning of the terms, which suppose some locality in which
this profane parade of himself as God shall take place (Elliott,
p. 835).
To conclude, I question if the term Antichrist, so commonly
given to the Man of Sin, be properly applied to him. True,
indeed, as the Man of Sin does a work so opposite to Christ's
in relation both to God and man, in its nature and purpose —
dishonouring the Father and enveloping the world in awful
peril — he may be called Antichrist. The meaning of the word
may be disputed, as avrl may signify either " instead of " or
" against." Thus dvTi{3a<Ti\eu$, "a viceroy"; dvOinraros, a "pro-
consul " : but avTi<j)i\ocro<f)eu>, "to hold opposite tenets";
avrenreiv, "to speak against"; dvriOecris, "opposition"; dvrt-
\oyla, " contradiction " ; avriTay/uia, " the opposite army " ;
aVraycowcm/9, an " opponent." Thus we have the term " anti-
pope," and this seems to be the common meaning of avrl in
composition. With the former meaning it would not differ
much from ^sevdoxpivTO?, as in Matt, xxiv, 24, a pretender or a
368 THE MAN OF SIN.
vice-Christ, whom, according to Jerome, the Jews will accept
as the true Messiah, and, as in the words of Irenaeus, tentans
semetipsum Christum ostendere, one giving himself out to be
the Christ. But the word means, opposed to Christ. Irenaeus
seems to have combined both views, for the previous clause is
in quo adversarius sedebit. 1 Musculus says that Antichrist
means Christ's vicar, and this the Pope pretends to be ; but
a-Lapide replies that, on that theory, Peter and Paul and all
the apostles were antichrists, for they acted as vicars of Christ.
The word is used only by John, and that no less than five
times ; three times, 1 John ii, 18, 22 ; iv, 3 ; 2 Ep. 7. The
apostle also explains the meaning of the term, which is
peculiar to him. In iv, 3, he writes, "and every spirit that con-
fesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God,
and this is the spirit of antichrist." In the 2nd epistle, verse 7,
" many deceivers are entered into the world who confess not
that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." This is a "deceiver
and an antichrist." (1) The stress in those definitions lies in
the words " in the flesh," not in the denial of the Messiahship
or of His coming (for such an error would comprehend all the
Jews), but in the denial of the true humanity, of His coming in
the flesh. (2) The persons to whom the name is given had once
been in visible fellowship with the church "among us, but not
of us" — a statement that could not be made of unbelieving Jews.
(3) The language also implies that these persons still made a
Christian profession, and under its guise they are deceivers,
for it is not want of faith altogether or infidelity, but a defec-
tive faith, or the denial of a primary and distinctive truth, that
characterizes them. They were 7roX\oi irXavoi, each of them
was 6 \Jseu<TT>i? an( i o 7r\dvo$, beguiling men, and teaching
fatal heresy under the guise of Christian discipleship. (4) In
ii, 22, the apostle says, " he is antichrist that denieth the
Father and the Son," the sense probably being that the denial
of the Son necessarily involves denial of the Father, since
Father and Son are correlative terms, and the Father without
the Son is not the true God — " whosoever denieth the Son
the same hath not the Father." (5) The word is also used in the
plural — ii, 18, " even now there are many antichrists," 7ro\\o}
1 A elvers. Haeres., v. 25 ; a-Lapide ; Maitland, p. 385.
THE MAN OF PIN. 369
avrixpurroi, many persons holding and propagating those views
whicb are so radically antichristian in nature and result. (6)
The Antichrist is therefore in John no special individual
marked out, for there were many deceivers. There is no hint
that these numerous antichrists are precursors of the Antichrist,
identifying him with " the Man of Sin," as De Wette, Liicke,
and Dusterdieek. (7) These antichrists of John's epistles were
already in the world doing their work, and that work was
deception, but the Man of Sin is to appear at a future period.
(8) The form of error promulgated by these men seems to have
been incipient Gnosticism, obscuring the true doctrine of the
incarnation and of the person of Christ. The error was soon to
ripen into Doketism, and the theory of iEons and Emanations,
as held by Cerinthus, and many heresiarchs after him. It
impugned Christ's real humanity, made him a mere phantom,
and thus destroyed the reality of His sympathy and His
teaching; and as He was not a partaker of their flesh and
blood, He had no kinship with men, and could in no way
represent them in atonement or example. This system of
error and enmity is wholly different from that portrayed in
2 Thess., and it has been only by importing descriptions from
Daniel and the Apocalypse that any identification has been
attempted. The antichrist or antichrists were " deceivers,"
" liars," apostates from the church, busy and malignant in their
zeal at the moment, not forepictured to come at some future
epoch. They were in existence "even now," so that as all
vital error is antichristian, and leads to yet lower depths, they
were preparing the way for the apostacy. With all its anti-
christian elements, Popery has never held the false doctrine
defined in John's epistles, but has ever protested against it,
and its error lies in the opposite direction, for it abounds in
realistic symbols of Christ, and fabricates representations of the
babe and the manger, the cross and the nails, the five wounds
and the sepulchre. The fathers indeed as a body identified the
predicted ]\Ian of Sin with Antichrist, and usually so named
him. But, in the first place, as we have seen, the definitions
of Antichrist in John, both of his error and his time, ami the
use of the plural antichrists, -ttoXXo'i, fairly preclude such an
identification ; secondly, it is not warranted by this prediction.
870 THE MAN OF SIN.
Christ is not mentioned in this description till His Second
Coming is referred to. The antagonism of the Man of Sin is
directly, specially, and immediately against God ; he opposeth
and exalte th himself above every one called God ; takes his
seat in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. He
is thus not a false Christ, but a false God ; and he is charac-
terized not by infidelity, but by atheism, or rather scornful
antitheism — a counter-God rather than a counter-Christ. Of
course, it is implied that a denial of Christ must have preceded
as an intermediate step in the blasphemous process of self-
deification, but the spirit and letter of the entire paragraph
portray not unbelief in Christ, but fierce and 'ultimate hostility
to God — not a yp-evSoxP^ro^, but a \lsevS69eos.
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS MORE PARTICULARLY
REFERRED TO.
dyadov, 204.
dyaduxrvvrj, 252.
aydirr], 36, 187, 230, 307.
ayiacryios, 12G.
aytot, 120, 246.
ayLOHrvin), 120.
dywi't, 57.
d8iaAei7TTa>s, 206.
dOerew, 135.
ulcJu'iSlos, 1 78.
cu'om'os, 298.
dxaOapcTLa., 135.
d/covy, 77.
UKpl.filOS, 174.
dA?/#ivos, 53.
dyza, 192.
U/lifJLTTTOS, 71, 120.
draytrwcr/va), 220.
di'dy/oy, 110.
drcupew, 281.
di'a/xei'eii', 52.
drdcrracri?, 167.
dvaTrXi/piocrat, 89.
aveo-ts, 238.
dv€\£0-#e, 233.
drruTroSorrrei, 113.
dl'T/.K€t/i€l'05, 268.
a^tioc, 74.
u7rdi'T;/(Tii', 169.
drra^ xal Sis, 96.
d—oSecKi'vfXi, 273.
aTTOKaAl'TTTOJ, 266.
diroKaX.v\pei (er), 230.
aTrop(f)avi£o), 92.
a7rocrTacrta, 265.
d7ralAeta, 267.
a/j/rd^oj, 169.
a/m, 108.
dp^dyyeAos, 162.
ucr6?enys, 203.
d<x<£aAei'a, 178.
dra/cros, 201.
draKTeoj, 311.
dro^-os, 302.
fSdpos, 63, 64.
/SacriAei'a (tou 8eoi5), 74, 235.
f3ovXop.aL and #eAw, 95.
ydp, 54, 57, 98.
ypyyopeo), 183, 190.
Oe^o/xai, 45, 76.
Si'/oyr TtVeiv, 243.
<$i(i>y/xos, 233.
SoKi/JLa^eiv, 59, 211.
:;::>
INDEX OF GEEEK WORDS
So'Aos, 58.
S%, 74, 245.
Svyafifs, 41, 240.
etSei/cu, 198.
elSos, 212.
dprjvr), 177, 321.
eKSuo^cris, 242.
ekSikos, 134.
e/v8ltoKW, 85.
€KI<\l]<Tia, 30, 31.
e/<Aoy>y, 39.
IAtti's, 37, 96, 299.
epirpocrdtv, 37.
ev&eiypa, 234.
ei'8o£a(r6rjvaL, 246.
iv€iTT1]K£V, 259.
ei'epyeirai, 79, 276.
evopKifa, 220.
eirtOvpia, 95, 130.
eirnroQew, 109.
67rtO"Tp€</>OJ, 51.
e7n.cri>!'uya>y7y. 255.
£7TL(fidv€La, 282.
£^a7raracD, 261.
e£ov0ei'ea), 209.
€^oj.(oi), 144.
epojTaw, 123.
ei'<5oKea) 100.
et'.5o/<ta, 251.
CVS^jAOl'dOS, 144.
(w/xer, 112.
£cov, 52.
1)' ov^i, 97.
1'jmoi, 65.
0d\—o>. 66.
6avpa(r6?p'ai, 217.
OeoolduKTOL, 139.
Opozicrdai, 256.
0Atyis, 233.
#wp«£, 187.
Ka^erSw, 184.
Kaipos, 92, 173.
KaAov, 211.
KaAo7rotea), 317.
KaAwi/ (6), 217.
Karapyeiw, 282.
KarapTL^w, 115.
Karei'#iVai, 117, 306.
KaTe^'OF, 274.
Ket/xat, 106.
KeXevo-pa, 161.
KCV7J, 55.
;<Ae7TT?/?, 176.
KOipcopevoL, 146, 147.
KoXuKtLOL, 61.
K077taW, 196.
koVos, 36, 68, 312.
KTUOyUCU, 128.
Aoyw (ev) Krptoi', 154.
AotTrov (to), 122.
Xi'TTijcrOe. 147.
puKpodvpeu}, 203.
paprvpopai, 73.
pe0vcrKop.aL } 185.
yueAAw, 106.
peraFovvai, 67.
po'x^os, 68, 312.
pv<TTi'jpiOV, 276.
i aos, 270.
vrjcf>(i>, 183.
I'oi'^eretu, 198, 321.
rovs, 256.
MORE PARTICULARLY REFERRED TO.
WKTOS ku.l wuepas, 68, 311.
vvv, 274.
oiTLves, 243.
(Uetfpos, 169.
oAtyoi/'t^os, 202,
0/\okA^/305, 216.
oAoTeAvys, 215.
o/iei'po/iai, 66.
opyi), 89, 189.
irdOos, 130.
7rapayye\\(D, 306.
TrapdSocri^, 296, 310.
TrapaKaXeoi, 73, 103, 191.
7rapa/vAryfrt?, 58, 299.
TTapaXap.,Suvo), 76.
Trapu/JLvOew, 73.
TrupovcrLa, 98, 255, 283.
7rappncria, 58.
7retpa("a»i', 108.
—epLepyu^opiLL, 314.
TTepLK€(J>a\aia, 187.
TrepcXenrop.ei'Ot, 156.
~epi— 01770-45, 189, 295.
Treptcrcrei'w, 118.
TrepicrcroTepws, 93.
Trior is, 232.
TrAurv/, 58,
7rAeova£w, 118, 230.
TrAeoi'eKTeu', 133.
jrAeoveA'a, 61.
7rA/y/_)o</iop.'a, 42.
irpayfia, 132.
—pOiCTTUjUfOi, \'.'~.
Trpo<f>a.cris } 61.
pvofievov, 53.
crali'eaOai, 104.
(raXei'd'Tji'ai, 255.
a-fikvvvjxi., 208.
cre/^atr/xa, 269.
cn]pe?oi', 235.
crvy/y.eioa), 319.
o-Kevos, 128.
oreyeiv, 100.
ir rp.'ju'Xir-ijS, 81.
crrre/>yos, 102.
ridi]jit, 189.
roiyapovi', 135.
tottos, 46.
rpe^oj, 301.
Tpo<f)6s, 66.
vf3pi(r6evTes, 56.
'—(pUA'gdtXI, 229.
vweppa lvci r, 131.
i—ep€K—ep«rcro?', 114.
v-op.oir h 37, 232, 308.
<j>ddveiv, 89, 160.
(jjiXaSeXtfiia, 137.
(jnX-ij/i'i., 2 L8.
(/uAoTipeitTpai, 141.
X apa, 45, 96, 113.
XpoVos, 173.
ERRATA.
Page 33, line 31, for "Phrynich," read "Phrynich.,"
Page 86, line 22, for "Viger," read "Viger.,"
Page 145, line 25, for "MSS.," read "mss."
Page 1-18, line 23, for XrirovvTai, read \vn-uuvTat.
Page 167, line 35, for TrpwTi], read Troon-)/.
Page 168, line 30, for inravTi)<?w, read v*rcavTi)cnv.
Page 216, line 39, for oXonXvpuu, read b\.6i<\i]pov.
Page 312, line 32, for (paysiv, read <payfw.
Page 233, line 17, for 0A.ii//ts, read 6Xi\ln<:.
Page 316, line 17, for iripupoya^ntvoi, read Trepupya^n/itvoi.
DATE DUE
HIGHSMITH #45230
-SiH'ii^'
Open Library
