St. Paul's epistles to the Thessalonians : with a critical and grammatical commentary, and a revised translation

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2006 with funding from
Microsoft Corporation

httos://archive.org/details/stpaulsepistlesOOelliuoft

: ταν ee
Gut F Ὧν
al “a

Ae
; Ὶ
4
'
᾿
}
ἡ
i

ar ork.

se

ῳῷ
oe),
ἃ:
a
ἢ:
7
;
Ἥ"
Ὑ!

“ν»

ST PAUL'S EPISTLES TO THE

THESSALONIANS.

͵
eA |
Ἢ
Bee
δ΄: |
1

ST PAUL’S EPISTLES TO THE
THESSALONIANS:

WITH A CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL
COMM™UNTARY,
AND A REVISED TRANSLATION,

BY

CHARLES J. ELLICOTT D.D.

BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL.

THE THIRD EDITION, CORRECTED.

LONDON:
LONGMAN, GREEN, LONGMAN , ROBERTS & GREEN.

1866.

Meee δ χα ar) ee

7 ᾿ - ᾿ ᾿ - | ire we
Υ

eee ee eee ee ee 2 ΦΝΘΝ ΣΝ

2
Ἂς
=
;
: Ἑ
. ἢ
" ma
a .
'
”
; ᾿
>
'
᾿ ; ᾿ ;
,
-
4
_s ᾿ ᾿
a
΄
:
:
;
‘
e
Ε
¢ re
| 5
ς
δ -
:
“ ἄν
ae
: ὍΣΑ
pee
bd ¢
- 5
" ᾿
: ἱ
Ss 5
- 3
a ᾿ ᾿ ᾿
ον Ω ἢ 2 ᾿ pa :
ve 2 7 7 7 é 7 Veo
eed here>: ay ms Pwr ᾿ ᾿ ay ψ. iy " ᾿

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.

VERY slight amount of change has been found necessary

during the revision of this volume for the new edition.
It is however brought fully up to the standard adopted in
the Third Edition of the Pastoral Epistles, especially as re-
gards the Translation.

It is as well to call the reader’s attention once for all to
the fact that in these two Epistles the Codex Ephraemi only
contains ch. i. 2—11. 8 of the First Epistle. This has been
often noticed in the critical notes, but not invariably.

GLOUCESTER,
April, 1866.

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

HE present edition differs but little from the first. There

will be found however traces of a regular and deliberate
revision on every page. Scriptural references have been
again verified; readings and interpretations have been care-
fully reconsidered, and the grammatical principles on which
the interpretations appear to rest tested by fresh investiga-
tion. Though the result is a very small amount of change,
yet the amount of time thus spent in reconsideration has not
been wholly thrown away; as the Commentary is now pre-
sented anew to the reader with a humble yet increased con-
fidence in the general soundness of the principles on which
it is based.

EXETER,
December, 1861.

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.

HE present volume forms the fifth part of my Commen-

tary on St Paul’s Epistles, and is constructed as nearly
as possible on the same plan as the portion which appeared
last year, viz. that containing the Epistles to the Philippians,
the Colossians, and Philemon. I particularly specify this, as
I have been informed by friends on whose judgment I can
rely that the last portion of my labours is an improvement
on those which preceded it.

If I may venture to assume that this is really the case,
I cannot help feeling that it is to be attributed not only te
increased experience, but also to the cautious but somewhat
freer admixture of exegesis which two of the three Epistles’
contained in the volume seemed more especially to require.
This slight modification, and so to say dilution, of the critical
and grammatical severity which distinguished the earlier
parts of the work has been continued in the present volume,
but it has been done both watchfully and cautiously, and
will be really seen more in the way of slight addition than
in actual change. Time and experience both seem to show
that the system of interpretation that I have been enabled
to pursue is substantially sound, that plain and patient accu-
racy in detail does in most cases lead to hopeful results, and
serves not unfrequently to guide us to far loftier and more
ennobling views of the Word of Life than such an unpre-
tending method might at first prepare us to expect.

The modifications then, or rather additions and expan-
sions, are really slight, and may be briefly summed up under
two heads; on the one hand, an attempt to elucidate more
clearly the connexion of clauses and the general sequence of
thought; and on the other hand, an attempt to develop more
completely the dogmatical significance of passages of a more
profound and more purely theological import. Neither of

vii © PREFACE ΤῸ THE FIRST EDITION.

these portions of sacred interpretation was neglected in the
early parts of this Commentary, but in the present a deep-
ening sense of their extreme importance has suggested this
further expansion and development.

A few slight additions to other departments of the Com-
mentary may be briefly noticed.

To the ancient Versions which I have been in the habit
of consulting, viz. the Old Latin, the Peshito, the Gothic, the
Coptic, the Philoxenian Syriac, and the two Ethiopic Versions,
I did not think it would be necessary for me ever to make
any addition. I have been convinced however by the able
notice of the Armenian Version in Horne’s Introduction by
my learned acquaintance Dr Tregelles that this venerable
Version has greater claims on our attention than I had before
believed. In spite of the excellent edition of Zohrab, I had
shared the opinion entertained by the majority of critics
that the once-called ‘Queen of the Versions’ had but slender
claims to that supremacy, and had suffered so much from
Latinizing recensions as to be but of doubtful authority.
The charges which have been brought against the labours of
King Haithom in the thirteenth century, and the readings
adopted by the collator Usean in the seventeenth, tended
of late years to awaken the suspicions of critical ‘scholars.
It is fair however to say that the charges of Latinism do
not appear to be well founded, and that this ancient Version
deserves the attention of the critic and commentator; still,
if I am not presumptuous in hazarding an opinion, I do
seem to myself to perceive a generally Occidental tinge in
its interpretations, and I have more than once verified the
observation of Loebe and De Gabelentz that there are coin-
cidences and accordances with the Gothic Version that seem
to be not wholly accidental. My knowledge however is at
present too limited to enable me to speak with confidence.

I have then deemed it my duty to make use of this
Version, and to acquire such a knowledge of the language as
should enable me to state faithfully its opinion in contested
passages. To the student who may feel attracted towards
this interesting, highly inflected, yet not very difficult lan-
guage, I will venture to recommend the Grammar and Dic-
tionary of Aucher’. The former is now selling at a low
price, and can easily be procured. Its great defect is in the

1 Since the above was written a 1841). It hasa simple Chrestomathy
much more useful and better arranged and good Glossary, but no Syntax.
Grammar has come under my notice, The standard. Grammar of a larger
viz. Brevis Lingue Armeniace Gram- size appears to be that of Cirbied.
matica, by J. H. Petermann (Berol. [1861].

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. ΙΧ

syntax, which I cannot think very clearly or scientifically
arranged; and in the Chrestomathy, which is not at. first
sufficiently easy and progressive. The extracts, though cu-
rious, are not well suited for a beginner, and are not intro-
duced by any elementary lessons in parsing and grammatical
application. A strong sense of the value of such aids re-
minds me that I may not unsuitably take this opportunity
of recommending the Coptic Grammar of Uhlemann. It is
extremely well arranged, is brief and perspicuous, and _be-
sides a good progressive Chrestomathy is furnished with a
small but very useful Vocabulary.

I again venture to commend these ancient Versions to
the attention of all students who have leisure, and an aptitude
for the acquisition of languages. It is startling to find how
little we really know of these ancient witnesses, how erro-
neous are the current statements of their mere readings, how
neglected their authority in interpretation. And yet we see
on all sides critical editions of the sacred volume multiplying,
and, in at least one instance (I regret to say that I allude
to the otherwise useful editions of Dr Tischendorf), can
abundantly verify the fact that Latin translations, not always
trustworthy or exact, have been the main authorities from
which the readings have been derived. Is it too much to
demand of a critical editor, of one who is by the very nature
of his work free from the many distractions of thought that
are the lot of the commentator,—is it too much to demand
that he should consider it a part of his duties to acquire
himself such a knowledge of these languages as to be able to
tell us plainly and unmistakeably what are and what are not
the true readings of these early and invaluable witnesses?
Nay more, it is, and it will ever be, of paramount importance
that the loyal critic should use no eyes but his own. He
may endeavour to procure collations from others, he may try
to proceed on the principle of division of labour, but he will
I firmly believe ultimately be forced to admit that this is
one of those cases in which labour cannot be well divided,
and in which the mechanically-made comparisons of the
associated collator can never be put in the same rank with
the results of the intelligent search of the professed critic.
The very interest that the latter feels in what he is looking
for protects him to a great degree from those inaccuracies
which the mere collator can never hope entirely to escape;
added to which, his exact knowledge of the variations of the
reading at issue will save him as nothing else can from con-
founding merely a greater inclusiveness of meaning with evi-
dences of distinct textual change. To cite a single and fa-

χ PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION,

miliar instance,—how often must the critical scholar have
observed that Oriental Versions are adduced on one side
or other in such cases of prepositional variation as ἐν and
διά, when the plain fact is that the greater inclusiveness of
the Beth or Bet of the Version leaves the actual reading
which the translator had before him a matter of complete
uncertainty. Are then our scholars, and more especially
our critics, to shrink from such a useful and even necessary
duty as the study of the ancient Versions? Are a certain
number of weary hours, more or less, to be set in comparison
with the ability and the privilege of making clearly known
to others the critical characteristics of Versions of the Book
of Life that have been the blessed media of salvation to
early churches and to ancient nations ?

One word, and one word only, as to my own humble, most
humble efforts in this particular province. Time, toil, and
patience, have done something; and though, alas, my know-
ledge is still limited, yet I may at length venture to hope
that in most of these Versions the student may fully rely on
my statements, and that the number of those statements that
may hereafter be reversed by wiser and better scholars than
myself will not be very large. I am forced to say this, as I
have observed in one or two reviews with which I have been
favoured, that avowals of inexperience, which seemed the
more suitable and becoming in proportion as the means of
detecting it were in fewer hands, have been understood to
imply that my citations from these ancient authorities con-
fessedly could not be relied on. This however has not been
and is not the case. While I sensitively shrink from drag-
ging into notice the amount of my own labours, I still
perceive that 1 must beware of leading the reader to pass
over what may be of real use to him, and of feeling distrust
where actually there may be no just ground for it. The
intelligent scholar will see at a glance that to state fairly and
correctly the translation of words of which the subject is
familiarly known is a task which certainly does not lie be-
yond the reach of ordinary patience and industry.

Among other additions the reader will I trust be benefit-
ed by the still increasing attention paid to our best English
divinity. I have made it my study to refer especially to
sermons on all the more interesting and difficult verses, and
it is unusually cheering to find that no portion of my labours
has been more kindly appreciated, or has apparently been of
more real service to theological students. Without drawing
any unfair comparison between English and German divinity,
it. does not seem one whit too much to say that if we are

PRS
=

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xl

often indebted to the latter for patient and laborious exegesis,
it is to the former alone that we must go if we would fain
add to our mere contextual knowledge some true perceptions
of the analogy of Scripture, and are really and sincerely
interested in striving to comprehend all the profound and
mysterious harmonies of Catholic Truth.

With regard to matters of textual criticism, the student
will observe in this volume the same persistent attention to
the principal differences of reading, even in the grammatical
notes. My constant effort is to popularize this sort of know-
ledge, to make exegesis lend it a helping hand, and insensibly
to decoy the student into examining and considering for
himself what human words seem to have the best claims to
be regarded as the earthly instruments by which the adorable
mercies of God have been made known to the children of
men. These notices, it must be remembered, are merely
selected, and neither are nor are intended to be enumerations
of all the differences of reading; still I have good hope that
no reading that deserves attention has been overlooked.

I have now only to conclude with a few notices of those
works to which I am especially indebted. The list is gra-
dually becoming shorter. I have been enabled to use so
many more first-class authorities than when I commenced
this series, that it does not seem disrespectful to omit si-
lently such as can be fairly considered second-class from
pages where text and notes only too often stand in an un-
desirable though unavoidable disproportion.

In these Epistles, as in the Pastoral Epistles, I have lost
the sagacious guidance of Dr Meyer; I have not however
so much to lament the change of editor as in the Epistles

above alluded to. Though distinctly inferior to Meyer, es-

pecially in the critical and grammatical portion of his work,
Dr Liinemann is still a commentator of a very high order. ἡ
His exegesis is usually sound and convincing, and no one, I
am sure, can beneficially study these two beautiful Epistles
without having at hand the Commentary of this able editor.

The larger and more comprehensive Commentaries will
be found specified in former portions of this work, but I
must pause to express my hearty sense of the continued
excellence of my friend Dean Alford’s Commentary. As our
readers will see, we occasionally break a friendly lance, more
especially in matters of detail. These gentle encounters
however are not only unavoidable but even desirable. It
is by all such amicable conflicts of opinion that the truth,
often lying midway between those engaged in her defence, is
most surely seen and recognised.

xii = = PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.

Of the separate editions of these Epistles I desire to specify
the very able Commentaries of Pelt and Schott. The former
of these two writers has the great merit of being one of the
first of later times who distinctly felt the importance of using
the exegetical works of the Greek Fathers, and the latter
supplies a good specimen of that patient mode of grammatical
interpretation which has now obtained such general currency.
Though both these works have been many years before the
world, and though in many cases their opinions have been
reversed by more modern expositors, they can neither of
them be justly considered as superseded or antiquated.

Last of all I come to the edition of Professor Jowett.
And here I would rather that our differences of opinion ap-
peared in their respective places than were specifically
alluded to. I feel it however a duty to speak, and it is with
pain that I must record my fixed opinion that the system
of interpretation pursued by Professor Jowett is as dangerous
as I believe it to be maccurate and untenable. After making
every possible allowance for the obvious fact that our systems
of interpretation are completely and persistently antagonistic,
after willingly making in my own case every correction for
bias, I still feel morally convinced that the objections to
Professor Jowett’s system of interpretation are such as cannot
be evaded or explained away. After having thus performed
a very painful duty, I trust I may be permitted to express
my full recognition of the genius that pervades his writings,
the ease, finish, and, alas, persuasiveness of the style, the
kindly though self-conscious spirit that animates his teach-
ing, and the love of truth that, however sadly and deeply
wounded by paradoxes and polemics, still seems to be ever
both felt and cultivated. May these good gifts be dedicated
anew to the service of Divine Truth and be overruled to
more happy and more chastened issues.

It now only remains for me with all humility and low-
liness of heart to lay this work before the Great Father of
Lights, imploring His blessing on what I may have said
aright, and His mercy where my eyes have been holden,
and where I have not been permitted to see clearly all the
blessed lineaments of Divine Truth.

TPIAZ, MONAZ, EAEHZON.

Lonpon, August 4th, 1858.

͵ ΠΡΟΣ OESSAAONIKETS A.

ree ee
"yey

INTRODUCTION.

HIS calm, practical, and profoundly consolatory Epistle was

written by the Apostle to his converts in the wealthy and
populous city of Thessalonica not long after his first visit to
Macedonia (Acts xvi. 9), when in conjunction with Silas and
Timothy he laid the foundations of the Thessalonian Church
(Acts xvii. 1 sq.). See notes on ch. i. 1.

The exact time of writing the Epistle appears to have been
the early months of the Apostle’s year and a half stay at Corinth
(Acts xviii. 11), soon after Timothy had joined him (1 Thess.
iii. 6) and reported the spiritual state of their converts, into
which he had been sent to enquire (ch. 111. 2), probably from
Athens; see notes on ch. 111. 1. We may thus consider the close
of A.D. 52, or the beginning of A.D. 53, as the probable date, and,
if this be correct, must place the Epistle first on the chronological

list of the Apostle’s writings.

The arguments in favour of a later date are based either on
passages which have been thought to imply that the Apostle had
preached the Gospel for some time elsewhere (ch. i. 8), or on
statements in the Epistle (ch. iv. 13, v. 12; see 2 Thess. lii. 17)
which have been judged to be in accordance with a greater in-
terval between the time of the first preaching at Thessalonica and
the date of the Epistle than is usually assigned. These have all
been satisfactorily answered by Davidson (/ntrod. Vol. 11. p. 435),
and have met with no acceptance at the hands of recent exposi-
tors or chronologers ; comp. Liinemann, Hinlettung, p. 6, Wieseler,
Chronol. p. 40 sq.

The main object of the Apostle in writing this Epistle can
easily be gathered from some of the leading expressions. It was
designed alike to console and to admonish ;—to console, with

ΧΥΪ INTRODUCTION.

reference both to recent external trials and afflictions (ch. ii. 148q.),
and still more to internal trials arising from anxieties as to the
state of their departed friends (ch. iv. 13 sq.) ;—to admonish, with
reference to grave moral principles (ch. iv. 1 sq.), Christian watch-
fulness (ch. v. 1 sq.), and various practical duties (ch. v. 14) which
had been neglected owing to the feverish expectations and anxie-
ties which appear to have prevailed at Thessalonica even from
the first: comp. ch. iv. 11, and see notes in loc. St Paul had
heard of all these things from Timothy; and this information,
combined with the Apostle’s full consciousness that there were
many points both in knowledge and practice in which they were
deficient (ch. iii. 10) and on which he would fain have further
taught them personally (comp. ch. ii. 17 8q.), appears to have
called forth this instructive and strengthening Epistle.

The authenticity and genuineness of the Epistle are placed
beyond all reasonable doubt both by clear external testimonies
(Ireneus, Her. v. 6. 1, Clem.-Alex. Pedag. τ. p. 109, ed. Potter,
Tertullian, de Resurr. Carn. cap. 24) and by still stronger in-
ternal arguments derived from the style and tone of thought.
The objections that have been urged against it, like those ad-
vanced against the Second Epistle (see Introd.), may justly be
pronounced rash, arbitrary, and unworthy of serious consider-
ation. They will be found fully answered in Davidson, Introd.
Vol. 1 p. 454 84.

IPOS OESSAAONIKETS A.

Apostolic address and
salutation.

ΑΥ̓ΛΟΣ καὶ Σιλουανὸς καὶ Τιμό- 1.

“" , 9
θεος TH ἐκκλησίᾳ Θεσσαλονικέων ἐν

1. Παῦλος] The absence of the
official designation ἀπόστολος in the
salutations of these Epp. is not due to
their early date, nor to the fact that
the title had not yet been assumed by
St Paul (comp. Jowett), but simply to
the terms of affection that subsisted
between St Paul and his converts at
Thessalonica, and their loving recog-
nition of his office and authority ; comp.
Beng. in loc., and see notes on Phil. i.
1. The reason of Chrys., followed by
Theoph. and Cicum., διὰ τὸ veoxarn-
χήτους εἶναι τοὺς ἄνδρας καὶ μηδέπω
αὐτοῦ πεῖραν εἰληφέναι, does not seem
sufficient. That it was ‘propter reve-
rentiam Silvani’ (Cajet., Est.) is far
from probable, for comp. 1 and 2 Cor.
Et, Col. 1.35 Σιλονανός] Iden-
tical with Silas mentioned in the Acts
' (comp. Acts xvi. 19 sq. with 1 Thess.
ii. 1, 2, and Acts xviii. 5 with 2 Cor.
i. 19), ἃ προφήτης (Acts xv. 32), one
ἡγούμενος ἐν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς in the Church
of Jerusalem (ver. 22), and also pro-
bably a Roman citizen (Acts xvi. 37):
he was sent by the Apostles and elders
of that Church with St Paul and St
Barnabas to Antioch, and, after first
returning to Jerusalem (ver. 33), ac-
companied the former on his second
missionary journey (Acts xv. 40)
through Asia Minor to Macedonia.
There he co-operates with the Apostle

. 408.

(Acts xvii. 4) and Timothy (comp.
Acts xvi. 3, xvii. 14, 1 Thess. iii. 6)
in founding the Church of Thessalo-
nica, and after staying behind at
Bercea (Acts xvii. 14) rejoins St Paul
either at Athens or Corinth, and ac-
tively preaches the Gospel in the last
named city (2 Cor. 1. 19). It does not
seem improbable that he afterwards
joined St Peter, and is identical with
the Silvanus mentioned in τ Pet. v. 12;
compare Bleek on Hebr. Vol. I. p.
He is here placed before
Timothy (so also Acts xvii. 14, 15,
xviii. 5, 2 Cor. i. 19, 2 Thess i. 1), as
being probably the older man, and
certainly the older associate of St
Paul. According to tradition,
Silas was afterwards Bishop of Co-
rinth, and Silvanus of Thessalonica
(compare the list in Fabric. Lux
Evang. p. 117); the former name
however, though paroxytone, is in all
probability only a contracted form of
the latter; see Winer, Gr. § 16. note
I, p. 93. For further and legendary
notices of Silas, see Acta Sanct. July
13, Vol. mt. p. 476, and for an at-
tempt to identify Silas with St Luke,
see Journal of Sacr. Lit. Oct. 1850,
p- 328 sq. Τιμόθεος] The
name of this convert is too well
known to need more than a brief
notice. He was the son of a Greek

B

2 ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.

Θεῷ πατρὶ καὶ ἸΚυρίῳ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ. χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ

εἰρήνη.

father and a Jewish mother (Acts xvi.
I, 2 Tim. i. 5), most probably from
Lystra, and perhaps converted by St
Paul on his first visit to that city
(Acts xiv. 8 sq.). He accompanied
the Apostle on his second missionary
journey to Macedonia, remains behind

at Bercea (Acts xvii. 14), is summoned '

by St Paul when at Athens; pro-
bably rejoins him there (comp. 1 Thess.
iii. 1, 2, and see Neander, Planting,
Vol. I. p. 195), is despatched to Thes-
salonica, and returns to the Apostle
at Corinth (Acts xviii. 5). After an
interval, he reappears in St Paul’s
third missionary journey, and is sent
from Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts xix.
22) and Corinth (1 Cor. iv. 17). He
was with St Paul when he wrote 2
Cor. (i. 1) and Rom. (xvi. 21), accom-
panied him from Corinth to Asia
(Acts xx. 4), and subsequently was
with him when he wrote Phil. (i. 1),
Col. (i. 1), and Philem. (ver. 1). He
appears afterwards to have been left
in charge of the Church at Ephesus
(1 Tim. i. 3), and finally is summoned
by St Paul to Rome, at the close of
the Apostle’s second imprisonment.
He is named by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl.
Ill. 4, comp. Const. Apost. vir. 46) as
first bishop of Ephesus, and is said to
have suffered martyrdom under Do-
mtian; see Phot. Biblioth. coniv.
p- 1402 (ed. Hoesch.), Acta Sanct.,
Jan. 24, Vol. 1. p. 562, and Menolog.
Grec. Vol. τι. p. 128. It may be
remarked that Silvanus and Timothy
are here named with St Paul, not
merely as being then with him (comp.
Gal. i. 2), or as the ‘socii salutationis’
(see notes on Phil. i. 1), but also as
having co-operated with him in found-
ing the Church of Thessalonica.

τῇ ἐκκλ. Θεσσαλ. KTA.] ‘to the

Church of the Thessalonians in God

the Father,’ &c.; not ‘scribunt aut

mittunt hanc epistolam’ (Est.), but in
the usual elliptical form of greeting
(Lucian, Conviv. § 22), the xalpew
(James i. 1) being involved and im-
plied in the wish (χάρις κιτ.λ.) which

_ forms the second period of the saluta-

tion: see notes on 1 Tim. i. 2.

Thessalonica was a large (Lucian,
Asin. § 46), wealthy, and populous
city (Strabo, Geogr. vit. 7. 4, Vol. 11.
Ρ. 60, ed. Kramer), at the north-east
corner of the Sinus Thermaicus. It
was built on the site of or near to
(Pliny, Hist. Nat. Iv. to [17], ed.
Sillig) the ancient Therme (Herod.
vil. 121, Thucyd. I. 61) by Cassander,
in honour of his wife Θεσσαλονίκη
(Strabo, Geogr. vir. Fragm. 21, Vol.
1. p. 79, ed. Kram.), and under the
Romans was of sufficient importance
to be chosen first as the capital of the
second district of Macedonia, and
afterwards, when the four districts
were united, of the whole province:
see notes on ver. 7, and Livy, XLV. 29.
It afterwards became a libera civitas
(Pliny, J. c.). It retained its import-
ance through the middle ages (see
Conyb. and Howson, St Paul, Vol. 1.
Ῥ. 345 sq., ed. 1), and even at the
present day, under the name of Salo-
niki, is one of the chief cities of
European Turkey: see Leake, J.
Greece, Vol. 111. p. 238 sq. For fur-
ther notices, see the good account of
Conyb. and Hows. l.c., Winer, RWB.
Vol. τι. p. 608, Pauly, Real Encyel.
Vol. vi. p. 1880, and especially the
learned and comprehensive treatise of
Tafel, de Thessal. ejusque agro, Berol.
1830. ἐν Θεῷ πατρί κ-τιλ.
must be closely joined with τῇ ἐκκλ.
Θεσσ., to which it stands in the rela-

I.

We thank God for your
spiritual progress. The

2. | $

. ΄' ΄᾿ lal ,
Εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ Θεῷ πάντοτε 2

Η A Ul e “~ , | ““ ,
manner in which We προ, TAVTWY ὑμῶν, μνείαν ὑμῶν TOLOU=

pao and. ye heard
he Gospel is now well known unto all men.

tion of a kind of tertiary predicate
(Donalds. Gr. § 489), and which it
serves to distinguish from the πολλαὶ
ἐκκλησίαι καὶ ᾿Ιουδαϊκαὶ καὶ ᾿Ἑλληνικαὶ
(Chrys.) which were in that city; ἐν
Θεῷ πατρί, as De Wette suggests, dis-
tinguishing it from the latter, καὶ Kup.
k.T.., from the former. To connect
these words with what follows (Koppe),
or to understand χαίρειν λέγουσιν
(Schott,—not Winer [Alf.], who ex-
pressly adopts the right view) is arbi-
trary and untenable, and to supply τῇ
or τῇ οὔσῃ (De W., Alf., comp. Chrys.,
Syr.) unnecessary and even inexact,
such unions without an art. being by
no means uncommon in the N.T.; see
exx. in Winer, Gr. ὃ 20. 2, p. 123,
and for the principle of such combina-
tions, notes on Eph. i. 15. Com-
mentators call attention to the fact
that the term ἐκκλ. occurs only in the
addresses to 1 and 2 Thess., 1 and 2
Cor., and Gal., while in the supposed
later Epp. Rom., Eph., Phil., Col.,
the more individualizing τοῖς ἁγίοις
k.T.X. is adopted. The variation is

‘slightly noticeable; it does not how-

ever seem to point to gradually altered
views with regard to the attributes of
the Church (Jowett), but merely to
the present comparative paucity of
numbers (compare Chrys.), and their
aggregation in a single assembly;
comp. Koch, p. 56, note. On the
meaning and application of the term,
see Pearson, Creed, Art. 1x. Vol. 1.
Ρ. 397 (ed. Burt.), Jackson, Creed,
XII. 2. I sq. Χάρις ὑμῖν
κι τ.λ.] Scil. εἴη, not ἔστω (Schott) ; see
notes on Eph. i. 2. On the blended
form of Greek and Hebrew greeting,
see notes on Gal. i. 3, Eph. i. 2 The
reading is somewhat doubtful: Rec.

adds ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμών καὶ Κυρίου
Ἰησοῦ Xp. on strong external authority
[AC (appy.) KLN and DE omitting
ἡμών ; most mss.; Fuld., Tol., Copt.,
Syr.-Phil. with asterisk), Ath. (Platt) ;
Chrys. al. (Lachm. in brackets)]; the
omission however is fairly supported
[BFG: some mss.; Vulg., Syr., Aath.,
Arm.; Chrys. (comm.), Theoph., al,
(Tisch.)], and on critical grounds is
decidedly preferable, as the uniqueness
of the form in St Paul’s Epp. would
be likely to suggest interpolation ;
comp. Col. i. 2.

2. Ἑἰὐχαριστοῦμεν] ‘ We give thanks ;
see note on Phil. i. 3, and add 2 Thess.
i. 3, ii. 13. It has been doubted whe-
ther the plural is to be understood of
the Apostle alone (Koch, Conyb.), as
in ch. ii. 18, iii. 1 sq., or to be referred
also to Silvanus and Timothy; con-
trast Phil. i. 1,3. As the plural is
elsewhere used in reference to the
Apostle and his συνεργοί (comp. 2 Cor.
i. 19, and notes on Col. i. 3), and as
Silvanus and Timothy stood in a
very close relation to the Church of
Thessalonica, it seems most natural
here to adopt the latter view; so
Liinem., and Alford, who however
appears inexact in claiming all the
ancient commentt., as Chrys. and the
Greek expositors seem clearly, though
indirectly, to adopt the former view.
On the late use of the verb evxapi-
στεῖν in the sense of ‘gratias agere,’ see
notes on Phil. i. 3, and esp. on Col.
i. 12; the more correct χάριν ἔχω
occurs in i Tim. i, 12, 2 Tim. i. 3,
and as an alternative reading in Phi-
lem. 7 (Tisch.). These thanks
are returned to God (the Father, comp.
Col. i. 3), ὡς αὐτὸς ἐργασάμενος τὸ
πάν, Chrys.: so 2 Thess. i. 3, 2 Tim.

B2

4 ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ A.

~ “σ΄ ~ 4
3 μενοι ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν ἡμῶν, ἀδιαλείπτως μνημο-

i. 3, and, with the addition of μου,

Rom. i. 8, 1 Cor. i. 4, Phil. i. 3,
Philem. 4. πάντοτε K.T.A.
here obviously belongs to the finite
verb (1 Cor. i. 4, 2 Thess. i. 3, comp.
Eph. i. 16), not to the participle
(Phil. i. 4, Col. i. 3, Philem. 4). Even
if the second ὑμῶν be omitted (see
below), the connexion with the par-
ticiple will be almost equally unten-
able, as the expression μνείαν ποιεῖσθαι
περί twos, though not unclassical
(Plato, Protag. p. 317 ΕἾ, is not else-
where found in St Paul’s Epp.; so
Syr., Aith., the Greek expositors
(silet Theod.), and nearly all modern
editors. On the alliteration πάντοτε
περὶ πάντων, comp. notes on Phil. i.
4. περὶ πάντων ὑμῶν] ‘concern-
ing you all;’ not without slight em-
phasis and affectionate cumulation;
the Church of Thessalonica, like that
of Philippi, presented but few unfa-
vourable developments. The very
εὐχαριστία was tacitly commendatory
(τὸ εὐχαριστεῖν K.T.N. μαρτυροῦντός
ἐστιν αὐτοῖς πολλὴν προκοπήν, Chrys.),
the inclusive nature of it still more
expressly so. The difference be-
tween the use of περὶ (1 Cor. i. 4, &c.)
and ὑπὲρ (Rom. i. 8, 4:6.) in this and
similar formule in the N.T. is scarcely
appreciable; see notes on Eph. vi. 19.
Perhaps, as a general rule, we may
say that in the former the attention
is more directed to the object or cir-
cumstances to which the action of the
verb extends, in the latter more to
that action itself; see notes on Gal.
i”4, and Phil. i. 7.

μνείαν ὑμῶν ποιούμ. ‘making men-
tion of you;’ not a limitation of the
preceding evxap. πάντοτε, but a de-
finition of the circumstances under
which it took place; see Rom. i. 9,
Eph. i. 16, Philem. 4, and comp. Phil.

i. 3, 4, 2 Tim. i. 2. For further re-
marks on the formula (not ‘making
mention of or remémbering,’ Jowett,
but simply the former,—as often in
Aristotle, al.), see notes on Philem. 4,
and for a distinction between μνήμη
(γενικὴ τύπωσις ψυχῆς) and μνεία
(λόγος κατ᾽ ἀνανέωσιν λεγόμενος), Am-
monius, Voc. Diff. p. 95 (ed. Valck.).
Mvela has the meaning ‘commemo-
ratio’ only when it is joined with
ποιεῖσθαι, see notes on Phil. i. 3.
The reading is doubtful; Lachm. omits
ὑμῶν after μνείαν with ABN!; Vulg.
(Amiat.), C omits ὑμῶν (1); see crit.
note on Eph. i. 16. It does not how-
ever seem improbable that the pre-
sence of the former ὑμών suggested a
supposed emendatory omission.

ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν ἡμῶν] ‘in our
prayers,’ ‘in orationibus nostris,’ Vulg.,
Copt. (comp. Syr., Aith.),—not merely
‘at the time I offer them,’ but, with a
tinge of local reference, ‘in my per-
formance of that duty ;’ see Bernhardy,
Synt. V. 23 a, p. 246, and notes on
Eph. i. 16. In such cases the funda-
mental meaning of the prep. may just
be traced in the way in which it
marks the object to which the action
has reference, its point, so to say, of
application ; see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68.
40. 5.

3. ἀδιαλείπτως] ‘ unremittingly;
used in the N. T. only by St Paul,
ch. ii. 13, v. 17, Rom. i. 9, and in
all cases in direct (ch. v. 17) or indirect
connexion with prayer or thanksgiv-
ing. The adverb is referred by Vulg.,
Syr., 4ith., Arm., and some modern
expositors, to the preceding participle,
but far more naturally by Chrys. and
the Greek commentators to μνημονεύ-
ovres, each new clause serving to en-
hance and expand what had preceded ;
so Lachm., Tisch., Buttm., and per-

¥. 3: | 5

~ ~ »- A , 4 ~ , “
νεύοντες ὑμῶν του εργου τῆς πιστεῶς Καὶ TOV KOTOUV τῆς

haps Copt., Vulg. (Amiat.). Alford
connects it with ποιούμ. urging Rom. i.
9, but there the order is different.
μνημονεύοντες ‘remembering,’ Auth.,
‘memores,’ Vulg., Clarom.; partici-
pial clause parallel to the preceding
μνείαν ποιούμενοι, and defining not
the cause (Schott) but the circum-
stances and temporal concomitants of
the action: the εὐχαριστία found its
utterance in the prayers, and owed its
persistence (πάντοτε) to the unceasing
continuance of the μνήμη. The first
participle has thus more of a modal,
the second of a temporal tinge; οὐ
μόνον φησὶν ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου
μέμνημαι ὑμῶν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλοτε πάν-
τοτε, Theoph. It has been doubted
whether μνήμον. is here ‘commemo-
rare’ (Beza), or ‘memor [esse’] (Vulg.,
Syr., Aith., Arm., and appy. Copt.)
as in Heb. xi. 22 (but with περὶ and
agen.). The context (ἔμπροσθεν Θεοῦ
k.T.X.) seems to be slightly in favour
of the former (De Wette), but St
Paul’s use of the verb, and the case
which follows it (gen. not accus.), are
somewhat decidedly in favour of the
latter ; see ch. ii. 9, Winer, Gr. ὃ 30.
Io, p. 184, Jelf, Gr. ὃ 515, obs., and
notes on 2 Tim. ii. 8. The three
objects of the Apostle’s remembrance
then follow in their natural order (so
ch. v. 8, Col. i. 4, comp. Tit. ii. 2;
aliter 1 Cor. xiii. 13), ἀγάπη being the
result and exemplification of πίστις,
and é\ms the link between the pre-
sent and the future; comp. also r Pet.
i, 21, 22, and see Reuss, Théol. Chrét.
Iv. 20, Vol. 11. p. 219, and esp. Us-
teri, Lehrb. τι. 1. 4, p. 238.

ὑμῶν τοῦ ἔργου Kt.A.] ‘your work of
faith, ὁ. 6. ‘which characterizes, is
the distinctive feature of faith ;? comp.
Rom. ii. 15, and in point of sentiment
Gal. v. 6, πίστις δὲ ἀγάπης ἐνεργου-

μένη. The precise meaning and con-
nexion of these words has been much
contested. The simplest view seems
to be as follows: (1) Ὑμῶν is not
immediately dependent on μνήμον.
(GEcum.), as this would involve an
untenable ellipse of a prep. before the
succeeding words (see Herm. Viger,
p- 701, Lond. 1824), but is a possess.
gen. in connexion with τοῦ ἔργου, and
also (as its slightly emphatic position
suggests) with τοῦ κόπου and τῆς ὑπο-
μονῆς: see further exx. in Winer, Gr.
§ 22. 7. note I, p. 140. (2) Tod ἔργου
is certainly not pleonastic, but must
stand in parallelism both in force and
meaning (hence not ‘ veritas,’ Kypke,
Obs. Vol. τι. p. 332) with the succeed-
ing τοῦ κόπου (Winer, Gr. ὃ 65. 7, Ρ.
541), and has probably here not so

much a collective (Syr. {28 [opera]),
as a tinge of active force, imparted
both by the context and the following
τοῦ κόπου ; comp, Eph. iv. 12, Knapp,
Scripta Var. Arg. Vol. τι. p. 491 note,
and Usteri, Lehrd. 11. 1. 4, p. 238. (3)
Τῆς πίστεως is certainly not a gen. of
apposition (Alf.), as it would thus lose
all parallelism with the succeeding
genitives, but is either (a) a gen. of the
origin (Hartung, Casus, p. 17, comp.
notes on Col. i. 23), ‘quod ex fide pro-
ficiscitur,’ Grot., or perhaps more
simply (Ὁ) a possessive genitive, τοῦ
ἔργου being the prevailing feature and
characteristic of the πίστις, and that
by which it evinces its vitality ; comp.
Chrys., ἡ πίστις διὰ τῶν ἔργων δείκνυ-
ται, who however, with Theod., al.,
limits τὸ ἔργον to endurance in suffer-
ings (τὸ ἐν κινδύνοις βέβαιον, Theod.),
a very doubtful restriction.

τοῦ κόπου τῆς ἀγάπης] ‘toil of
love,” ὁ. 6. (retaining the same geniti-
val relation as in the preceding words)

6 ΠΡΟΣ

ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.

? , 4 “ ς “ - Φ. LA\S “ εὖ, Φ'." δι
ἀγάπης καὶ τῆς ὑπομονῆς τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν

Ἴ “ ~ »+ A a 3 4 ε -
σου Χριστοῦ ἔμπροσθεν του Θεοῦ και πατρος WY,

‘the toil which characterizes and
evinces the vitality of love; ‘multum
est per se dilectio, sed multo magis si
accedunt molesti labores, id enim κό-
mos,’ Grot.; see notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10.
_ The ἀγάπη is here not in reference to
God,. or to God and one another
(comp. Gicum.), but simply to the lat-
ter (Col. i. 4, Heb. vi. 10); and that
as evinced,—not merely in teaching
(comp. De W.) or in bearing a bro-
ther’s faults (Theod.) or in ministering
to the sick, dc. (Alf.)—but, as the
forcible κόπος sems to suggest, in mi-
nistering to, labouring for, and if need
be suffering for, a brother-Christian ;
comp. Chrys. in loc. On the theolo-
gical meaning and application of
ἀγάπη (Vulg. ‘caritas’ [89 times] or
‘ dilectio’ [24 times] but never ‘amor,’
consider however August. de Civ. Dei,
XIV. 7), see Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v.
19, Vol. 11. p. 203 sq., and comp.
Barrow, Serm. XXVIiI. Vol. 11. p. 44 54.
τῆς ὕπομ. τῆς ἐλπ.} ‘patience of
Hope,’ t.e. as before, the patience
which is not exactly the product (De
W.) or the cause (Ecum.), but the
distinguishing and characterizing fea-
ture of your hope; ὑπομένειν δὲ προσή-
κει τὸν ταύτην δεξάμενον τὴν ἐλπίδα,
καὶ φέρειν γενναίως τὰ προσπίπτοντα
σκυθρωπά, Theod. In the noble word
ὑπομονή, there always appears in the
N. T. a background of ἀνδρεία (comp.
Plato, Theet. p. 177 B, where ἀνδρικῶς
ὑπομεῖναι is opp. to ἀνάνδρως φεύγειν) ;
it does not mark merely the endurance,
the ‘sustinentia’ (Vulg., but here
only), or even the ‘ patientia’ (Clarom.
here, and Vulg. generally), but the
‘ perseverantia’ (see Cicero, de Invent.
II. 54. 163), the brave patience with
which the Christian contends against
the various hindrances, persecutions

(Chrys.), and temptations (Theoph.),
that befall him in his conflict with
the inward and outward world; comp.
Rev. ii. 3, and see notes on 2 Tim. ii.
το, Trench, Synon. Part τι. § 3, and
Neander, Planting, Vol. I. p. 479
(Bohn). In some cases it seems almost
to occupy the place of ἐλπίς, as it
stands in conjunction with πίστις and
ἀγάπη in τ Tim. vi. 11, Tit. ii. 2, and
with πίστις in 2 Thess. i. 4: for a full
notice of other shades of meaning,
comp. Barrow, Serm. ΧΙ. Vol. 11. p.
525 sq. τοῦ Κυρίου x.7.X.
does not refer to the three preceding
substantives (Olsh.), but merely to the
immediately foregoing ἐλπίδος : our
Lord was the object of that hope;
His second coming was that to which
it ever turned its gaze; comp. ver. 10,
and see Reuss, Z'héol. Chrét. 1v. 20,
Vol. 11. p. 221. For exx. of similar
accumulation of genitives, esp. in St
Paul’s Epp., see Winer, Gr. § 30. 3.
note I, p. 172. ἔμπροσθεν K.T.A, |
‘before God and our Father,’ scil.
μνημονεύοντες (Syr., Theoph. 1, Beng.,
Alf.), not with τοῦ ἔργου τῆς πίστεως
x.T.. (Theod., Theoph. 2, Jowett), as
in such a case the article could
scarcely be dispensed with. *EurpooGev
is joined expressly with τοῦ Θεοῦ only
in this Ep. (ch. iii. 9, 13, comp. ii. 19)
and in Acts x. 4 (not Rec.); but the
phrase is scarcely distinguishable in
meaning from the more usual ἐνώπιον
τοῦ Θ., Rom. xiv. 22, Gal. i. 20, al., or
the less usual ἔναντι rod Θ., Luke i. 8,
Acts viii. 21 (not Rec.) : it serves to hint
at the more solemn circumstances (of
prayer) under which the remembrance
took place, and to mark its sincerity
and earnestness; it was no accidental
or pretended μνεία, but one entertain-
ed in His presence, and in which His

I. 4, 5. 7

εἰδότες, ἀδελφοὶ ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ Θεοῦ, τὴν ἐκλογὴν 4
ὑμῶν: ὅτι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐγενήθη εἰς ὑμᾶς 5

eyes saw no insincerity; comp. Calv.

in loc., and on the phrase generally,

Frankel, Vorstud. z. LX X. p. 159.

On the formula ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατήρ, see

notes on Gal. i. 4, and on the most suit-

able translation, notes to Z'ransl. in loc.
4. εἰδότες] ‘seeing we know,’ or

‘ ᾿ . 9

knowing as we do ; a ἢ ne γα
[novimus enim] Syr.; participial clause
parallel to μνημονεύοντες, and similarly
dependent on εὐχαριστοῦμεν, serving
to explain the reasons and motives
which led to the εὐχαριστία. The
finite verb has thus three participial
clauses attached to it; the first serves
principally to define the manner, the
second the time and circumstances, the
third the reason and motive of the
action. These delicate uses of the
Greek participle deserve particular
attention; comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. §
56. το sq. See also Phil. i. 3, 4, 5,
and notes on ver. 5. It is somewhat
singular that so good a commentator
as Theodoret should refer εἰδότες to
the Thessalonians ; so also Grot., who
connects the clause with the remote
ἐγενήθητε, ver. 6. There is no trace
of such a connexion in any of the an-
cient Vv. except Ath.-Pol.
ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ Θεοῦ) ‘beloved by
God ;’ comp. 2 Thess. ii. 13; so rightly
Syr., Vulg., Clarom., Copt., Ath.-
Pol., and inferentially Chrys. (ὑπὲρ
yap τῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀγαπητῶν τί οὐκ ἄν
τις πάσχοι). To connect ὑπὸ Θεοῦ with
τὴν ἐκλογήν, as Aith. (Platt), Theoph.,
and our own Auth., involves a dis-
turbance of the natural order, and an
ellipse of εἶναι that is here highly im-
probable. The article is inserted be-
fore Θεοῦ by ACKN; ro mss.

τὴν ἐκλογὴν ὑμῶν] ‘your election ;’
8011, out of others not ἐκλεκτοί, with

reference to the sovereign decree of
God made before the foundation of the
world; see Eph. i. 4, and notes a loc.
To refer this merely to the manner of
their election to the Gospel (Baumg.-
Crus., Jowett 2), or to any internal
renewing of the Spirit (Pelt), is in a
high degree forced and unsatisfactory.
On the use of the terms ἐκλέξασθαι,
ἐκλογή, and ἐκλεκτός, in St Paul’s Epp.
see Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 14, Vol. τι.
p- 132, and on the doctrine generally,
the clear and in the main satisfactory
statements of Ebrard, Dogmatvk, ὃ 560,
561; comp. also the very valuable
remarks of Hooker, on Predest. Vol.
II. p. 705 sq. (ed. Keble), especially
pp. 711, 712.

n
5. ὅτι] ‘in that,’ ‘because,’ ΚΣ

Syr., ‘quia,’ Vulg. (not perfectly
conclusive), and sim. Copt., Aith.,
Arm.: reason for this knowledge on
the part of St Paul and his com-
panions, ὅτε having here its causal
force (Winer, Gr. § 53. 8. b, p. 395),
and, with its regular objective charac-
teristics (Kriiger, Sprachl. § 65. 8. 1),
referring to known facts as confirma-
tory of a preceding assertion. The
Apostle argues they must be elect,
first because (ver. 5) he and his com-
panions were enabled to preach the
Gospel among them with such power,
and secondly (ver. 6) because they re-
ceived it with such joy; ἐκ τούτου
φησὶ δῆλον ὅτι ἐκλεκτοί ἐστε, ἐκ TOU
τὸν Θεὸν τὸ κήρυγμα ἐν ὑμῖν δοξάσαι,
Theoph. Others, as Bengel ahd Schott,
give ὅτι its expository force, ‘that,’
‘to wit that’ (see Kriiger, Sprachl.
δ 61. 1. 3), and place only a comma
after ὑμῶν; in which case ver. 5 be-
comes an objective sentence (Donalds.
Gr. ὃ 584 sq.) dependent on εἰδότες,

Fee =) ρον

8 ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.

at , ? 9 4 }

ἐν λόγῳ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν δυνάμει καὶ ἐν Πνεύματι ἁγίῳ
\ 9 U “ @

καὶ ἐν πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ, καθὼς οἴδατε οἷοι ἐγενήθημεν

and more distinctly explanatory of the
nature of the ἐκλογή. This is gram-
matically tenable, but certainly not
exegetically satisfactory, as the whole
context seems to have more of a direct
and argumentative, than of a depend-
ent and explanatory nature.

τὸ edayy. ἡμῶν] ‘our Gospel,’ ‘the
Gospel which we preached ;’ the gen.
being appy. that of the mediate source
or origin (Hartung, Casus, p. 23), or
perhaps rather of the mediate causa
eficiens ; see notes on ver. 6.

οὐκ ἐγενήθη εἰς ὑμᾶς] ‘came not unto
you ;’ not ‘erga vos,’ Calv., but simply
‘ad vos,’ Vulg., Copt., the preposition
not having here its ethical force (comp.
Philem. 6), but simply marking the
direction which was taken by the
εὐαγγέλιον ; comp. Donalds. Cratyl. ὃ
170, and notes on Gal. iii. 14.

The reading is perhaps doubtful. Πρὸς
ὑμᾶς is well supported, viz. by AC?D
EFG; § mss.; Chrys., Theoph.
(Lachm.). As however els appearsa less
probable correction for πρὸς than the
converse, and is supported by strong ex-
ternal authority [B (perhaps C!) KLN;
nearly all mss.; Chrys. (ms.), Theod.,
al., Griesb., Tisch.], we retain the
reading of Rec. If πρὸς be adopted,
the same meaning will be admissible
(comp. 2 John 12, not Rec.), but
will seem less probable than ‘apud’
(Clarom.; comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 10), as
the general reference of the context
is rather to the development of the
Gospel among them than the circum-
stances of its first arrival; for this
meaning of γενέσθαι πρὸς (denoting
continuance) in the N.T., which Alford
seems to doubt, see Meyer on 1 Cor.
ii. 3, and Fritz. on Mark, p. 201.

On the passive form ἐγενήθη, which
occurs noticeably often in this and the

following chapter (8 times, against 17
in the rest of the N. T. of which 5 are
quotations from the LXX.), but appy.
does not involve any passive meaning
(Alf.), see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 108,
Thomas M. p. 189 (ed. Bern.), and
notes on Col, iv. tt.

ἐν λόγῳ] ‘in word ;’ not merely equi-
valent to λόγος (comp. Jowett), but,

-as usual, with areference to the sphere

or domain of its action; ‘non stetit
intra verba,’ Grot.; compare Winer,
Gr. § 48. a. 3. a, p. 345.

ἐν δυνάμει kK. τ. A.) Sin power and in
the Holy Ghost ;’ ‘in the element of
power and—to specify a yet higher
principle (καὶ being not so much ex-
planatory as slightly climactic, see
notes on ver. 6)—in the influence of the
Holy Ghost ;’ the preposition as before
defining the sphere, and thence in-
ferentially the manner, in which the
preaching took place; see notes on
ch. ii. 3. Δυνάμει does not appear to
refer specially to ‘miraculous powers’
(Theod., Theoph., al.), but, as in the
similar passage 1 Cor. ii. 4, to the
reality, energy, and effective earnest-
ness, with which the Apostle and his
followers preached among the Thessa-
lonians. Jowett defends the refer-
ence of ἐν duv. to the influence pro-
duced on the Thess., but is thus led
into an interpr. of ἐν Πνεύμ. ἁγίῳ, ----

- ‘the inspiration of the speaker caught

by the hearers,’ which, as tending
to obscure the reference to the per-
sonal Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, seems in a high
degree precarious and unsatisfactory.
On the use of Πνεῦμα as a proper
name, see notes on Gal. v. 5, and
comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 19. I, p. 111.

ἐν πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ] ‘in much as-
surance,’ i.e. ‘much confidence, much
assured persuasion,’ on the part of the

iS 6 9

ἐν ὑμῖν δι’ ὑμᾶς: καὶ ὑμεῖς μιμηταὶ ἡμῶν ἐγενήθητε καὶ 6

preachers ; subjective, corresponding to
the more objective side presented in the
preceding clause: comp. Heb. x. 22,
πληροφορίᾳ πίστεως, which latter subst.
Alford here unnecessarily inserts in
translation. Of the three explanations
which Jowett proposes, (a) certainty,
(6) fulness of spiritual gifts, Corn. a
Lap., al., (c) effect, fulfilment, Thom.
Aq. 2, the first alone seems in harmony
with the context, if limited to the
Apostle and his companions. To refer
it to the Thessalonians (Musc., comp.
Zanch. ap. Pol. Syn.), or to them and
the Apostle (Vorst., Schott), seems to
mar the correct sequence of thought,
and to introduce notices of the state
of the recipients which-come first into
view in ver. 6. The word πληρο-
gopia (Hesych. BeBardrns) appears to
be confined to the N.T. (Col. ii. 2,
Heb. vi. 11, x. 22) and the ecclesiasti-
cal writers. The ἐν before πληροῴ. is
omitted by BN; some mss.

καθὼς οἴδατε! ‘even as ye know;
‘appeal for confirmation to the know-
ledge of the readers themselves,’ Olsh. ;
ὑμεῖς φησὶ μάρτυρες πῶς ἐν ὑμῖν dve-
στράφημεν, Theoph. To place a colon

or period at πολλῇ, and regard καθὼς

οἴδατε as the antecedent member of a
sentence of which καὶ ὑμεῖς is the conse-
quent (‘qualem me vidistis . . . tales
etiam vos estis,’ Koppe), involves un-
tenable meanings of οἴδατε and ἐγενή-
θητε, and is well refuted by Liinemann
in loc. οἷοι ἐγενήθημεν] ‘what
manner of men we proved ;’ not ‘quales
fuerimus,’ Vulg., nor yet quite so much
as ‘facti simus,’ Alf. (who throws un-
due emphasis on the passive form),
but, with the more certain and natural
sense, ‘came to be, proved to be;’ see
notes above, and on Col. iv. 11. The
ποιότης was not evinced merely in con-
fronting dangers (Theod, comp. Chrys.),

but in the power and confidence with
which they delivered their message.

δι ὑμᾶς] ‘on your account,’ ‘for your
sake ;’ ‘propter vos,’ Vulg.; not with
so specific a force as ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν (comp.
Theod., who uses this latter formula
in connexion with κινδύνους ὑφεστάναι),
nor yet one so undefined as περὶ ὑμῶν,
but with a clear and distinct reference
to the cause and best interests [‘sake,’
—Sax. sac, Germ. Sache] of those to
whom the Apostle preached; τῆς ἐμῆς
[ἡμετέρας] σπούδης τῆς els ὑμᾶς ἡ ὑμῶν
παρὰ Θεοῦ ἐκλογὴ πρόφασις γέγονεν,
(icum. The ἐν ὑμῖν, it need scarcely
be said, is simply ‘among you;’ dve-
στράφημεν ἐν ὑμῖν, Theoph. The ἐν
however is omitted by ACN; 4 mss. ;
Vulg. (Amiat.).

6. καὶ ὑμεῖς κιτ.λ.1 ‘and [because]
ye becameimitators of us ;’ second ground
for knowing that the Thess. were
éxXexrol,—the καὶ not being ascensive
(comp. notes on Eph. ii. 1, Phil. iv. 12)
or equivalent to ‘sic, more Hebreo’
(Grot.), but simply copulative, and the
verse remaining, if not structurally,
yet logically, under the vinculum of
the preceding ὅτι. It thus seems best
to place neither a period (Tisch., Alf.)
nor a comma (Lachm., Buttm.), but a
colon, after ver. 5. Here, as in ver. 5,
Liinem. and Alf. lay a stress on the
passive form ἐγενήθητε, This however
is lexically doubtful: the Apostle is
rather dwelling on the effects pro-
duced among them, on what they
came to be, and thus significantly adopts
not the simple verb μιμεῖσθαι, but the
more definitive μιμηταὶ γίνεσθαι; see
1 Cor. iv. 16, xi. 1, Eph. v. τ, Phil.
iii. 17. Kal τοῦ Κυρίου]
‘and of the Lord,’ all misunderstand-
ing is prevented by means of the in-
sertion of τοῦ K. with the slightly
climactic καί, see Hartung, Partik,

10

ΠΡῸΣ OEZZAAONIKEIS A.

τοῦ Kupiov, δεξάμενοι τὸν λόγον ἐν θλίψει πολλῇ μετὰ

7 χαρᾶς νεύματος ἁγίου,

καί, 5. 4, Vol. 1. Ρ. 145. This use of
the particle, which is strictly in ac-
cordance with its supposed derivation
[tsht, ‘cumulare,’ comp. Pott, Etym.
Forsch. Vol. τι. p. 320], forms the sort
of connecting link between its simply
copulative and simply ascensive uses,
and may perhaps be termed its clé-
mactic use ; comp. Fritz. on Mark i. 5,
p- 11. For a brief analysis of the
leading distinctions in the use of this
particle, see notes on Phil. iv. 12.

The exact manner in which the Thes-
salonians became imitators of their
founders,—and of the Lord, is defined
in the concluding words of the verse,
ἐν θλίψει πολλῇ μετὰ χαρᾶς Πν. ἁγίου:
joy amid suffering and affliction is the
‘tertium comparationis; comp. Acts
v. 41, Heb. x. 34. δεξάμενοι
τὸν λόγον] ‘having received the word ,’
temporal use of the participle (see notes
on Eph. iv. 8), marking here the con-
temporaneousness of the action with
that of the finite verb: the predication
of manner is given in the following
words; comp. Rom. iv. 20. It is
scarcely necessary to add that τὸν
λόγον is here practically equivalent to
τὸν λόγον τοῦ Kuplov (ver. 8), τοῦ Θεοῦ
(2 Cor. ii. 17), or τῆς ἀληθείας (Eph. i.
13), and refers to the preaching of the
Gospel, which was the λόγος κατ᾽ ἐξο-
χήν; comp. Luke viii. 13, Acts xvii.
11. On the force of δέξασθαι τὸν
λόγον, and its probable distinction
from παραλαβεῖν τ. λόγ., see notes on
ch, ii. 13. ἐν θλίψει πολλῇ]
‘in much affliction.’ The affliction of
the Thessalonians dated back as early
as their first reception of the Gospel
(see Acts xvii. 6), and, as this Epistle
incidentally shows, continued both
while the Apostle was with them (ch.
ii. 14), and after he had left them

4 , ε ~ ,
wate γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς τύπον

(ch. iii. 2, 3). χαρᾶς
Πνεύματος dy.] ‘joy of the Holy Spi-
rit,’ certainly not ‘letitiam de Spiritu,’
Fritz, (Nova Opuse. p. 271), still less
χαρὰ πνευματική (Jowett), but ‘joy
inspired by and emanating from the
Spirit:’ gen. of the originating cause ;
see notes on Col. i. 23. Between the
two usual forms of the gen. of ‘ abla-
tion’ (see Donaldson, Gr. ὃ 448, 449),
viz. (a) the stronger gen. of the causa
eficiens, and (c) the weaker gen. ori-
ginis, which forms the point of transi-
tion to the partitive genitive, it is
perhaps not hypercritical in the N. T.
to insert (6) a gen. of the originating
cause, or, if the expression be permis-
sible, the originating agent,—in which
the two ideas of source and agency
are blended and intermixed; consider
the exx. cited in Scheuerl. Synt. § 17.
I, p. 126. With the present case,
which appears to fall under (b),—the
Spirit being not only an external
giver, but an internal source of the
xapd—contrast on the one hand 2
Thess. ii. 13, ἁγιασμὸς Πνεύματος,
where the verbal in -yos suggests (a),
and on the other Gal. v. 22, ὁ καρπὸς
τοῦ IIveiu., where, if the gen. be not
possessive, the image seems to suggest
the weaker (6). Such distinctions,
which are not wholly without impor-
tance in the N.T., are really due as
much to doctrinal as to grammatical
considerations ; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 30.
I, p. 167 sq.

ἡ. Gore γεν. dp. τύπον] ‘so that ye
became an ensample:’ spiritual progress
of the Thessalonian converts; they
were not only imitators of the ex-
ample of their teachers, but were
themselves (regarded as a collective
body; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 27. 1, p.
157 note) an example to others. This

1273-8:

11

ἦν. “4 4. δὰ ' » δ °° “ $ PORN SP 49 η᾽ΔΑ of.
πᾶσιν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἐν τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ καὶ ἐν TH’ Ayaia:

ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν γὰρ ἐξήχηται ὁ λόγος τοῦ Κυρίου οὐ μόνον ἐν 8

could hardly apply to those who had
received the Gospel before them (οἱ
προλαβόντες, Chrys., Theoph.), for, as
Liinemann observes, the church of
Philippi was the only one in Europe
which received the Gospel before that
of Thessalonica; comp. ch. ii. 2, Acts
xvi. 1284. The reading is very doubt-
ful; the plural τύπους (Rec.) is well
supported [ACFGKLN; most mss.;
Boern., Syr.-Phil.; many Ff.], but
seems so much more likely to have
been changed from the singular than
vice versa (Schott), that on the whole
τύπον, though having less external
authority [BD1(D?EK and 1 ms. read
τύπος); 7 mss.; Clarom., Sangerm.,
Vulg., Syr., Aith. (both), al., Lachm.
(non marg:), Zisch.], is here to be pre-
ferred. πᾶσιν τοῖς ToT. |
‘to all the believers; πιστεύουσιν not
having here a pure participial force,
τοῖς ἤδη πιστεύουσι, Chrys., but, as
often in the N.T., coalescing with the
article to form a substantive; see
Winer, Gr. ὃ 45. 7, p. 316.
ἐν τῇ Maxed. καὶ ἐν rq’ Ax.] ‘Mace-
donia and Achaia,’ i.e. the whole of
Greece; Acts xix. 21, Rom. xv. 26,
comp. 2 Cor. ix. 2. Macedonia was
at first (B. 0. 167) divided by the Ro-
mans into four districts, but subse-
quently (B.c. 142) reunited into one
province comprising all the northern
portion of Greece. Achaia proper was
also united with Hellas and the rest
of the Peloponnese (B.C. 142) in one
province, and as the leading state at
that time gave the name to the whole
southern portion of Greece ; see Winer,
RWB. Vol. τ. p. τό, and Vol. 1. p.
44. The omission of ἐν before τῇ *A-
χαΐᾳ (Rec.) has against it all the uncial
MSS. except KL.

8. dd ὑμῶν γάρ] ‘For from you.’

proof and amplification of the pre-
ceding assertion. The preposition is
here simply local (Alf.),—not ethical
(‘vobis efficientibus,’ Storr; a very
questionable paraphrase), nor both com-
bined (Schott),—and marks the Thes-
salonians as the simple terminus a quo
of the ἐξηχεῖσθαι. It may be observed
that appy. in all cases in the N.T.
where ἀπὸ is said to be equivalent to
ὑπὸ the action implied in the verb is
represented as emanating from, rather

than wrought by the assumed agent;

comp. Luke vi. 18 (not Rec.), James
i. 13, see Winer, Gr. § 47. b, p. 331,
and notes on Gal. i. 1.

ἐξήχηται] ‘hath sounded forth,’ an
dm. λεγόμ. in the N.T. (Hesychius,
ἐξῆλθεν" ἐκηρύχθη), but found in the
LXX. (Joel iii. 14, Ecclus. xl. 13)
and occasionally in later writers, 6. g.
Polyb. Hist. xxx. 4. 7, τὸ κύκνειον
ἐξηχήσαντες. The word forcibly marks
both the clear and the pervasive na-
ture of the λόγος τοῦ Κυρίου" ws ἐπὶ
σάλπιγγος λαμπρὸν ἠχούσης καὶ ἐπὶ
πολὺ φθανούσης, Theoph.

ὁ λόγος τοῦ Κυρίου] ‘the word of the
Lord,’ i.e. the Gospel (see above, ver. 6)
as received by the Thessalonians, not
‘the report that it was received by
them’ (De W.), still less ‘your bright
example became itself a message from
the Lord’ (Alf.),—both of which in-
terpretations seem needlessly artificial.
The Gospel was received by them with
such eager zeal, its words were so
constantly in their mouths and so
wrought in their hearts, that it swelled
as it were into a mighty trumpet-call
that was heard of all men sounding
forth from Thessalonica.

ἐν τῇ Max. kal’ Ax.] Here the omis-
sion of the article and prep. before
᾿Αχαΐᾳ is not only permissible (on the

12

ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΞΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.

”~ id 4 9 Af 9 ᾿
τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ καὶ ᾿Αχαΐᾳ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ ἡ πίστις

ὑμῶν ἡ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἐξελήλυθεν, ὥστε μὴ χρείαν ἔχειν

ground that the previous more exact
specification of each would preclude
any misconception), but really gram-
matically exact: Macedonia and A-
chaia now form a whole in antithesis
to the rest of the world; comp. Winer,
Gr. ὃ το. 4, p. 116 sq. The reading
however is very doubtful: Lachm. in-
serts ἐν τῇ with the strongest external
testimony [CDEFGKLN; 30 mss. ;
Vulg., Clarom., Syr. (both), al.], but
as the insertion of the ἐν τῇ would
seem so much more likely to have been
a conformation to ver. 7, than its
omission to have been accidental, we
retain the reading of Rec., Tisch.,
though only with B; majority of mss.;
some Vv.; Chrys., Theod., al. nA
there is a lacuna (ver. 8 beginning
with ἀλλ᾽ ἐν παντὶ) arising from Ho-
mceoteleuton. ἀλλ᾽ ἐν παντί
k.T.A. ] There is some little difficulty in
the exact connexion, as ἀλλ᾽ ἐν x.T.X.
seems clearly to stand in immediate
antithesis to οὐ μόνον x.T.d. (opp. to
Liinem., who places a colon after
Kuplov), but yet stands associated with
a new nominative. The most simple
explanation is that of Riickert (Loc.
Paul. Expl. Jen. 1844), according to
which the Apostle is led by the desire
of making a forcible climax into a
disregard of the preceding nominative,
and in fact puts a sentence in anti-
thesis to οὐ pdvov—’Axaia, instead of
the simple local clause ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ
or ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ (Rom. i. 8) which
the strict logical connexion actually
required. Rec. inserts καὶ after
ἀλλά, but on decidedly insufficient
authority—viz. D9EKL; Vulg. (not
Amiat.), and several Ff. On the dis-
tinction between this latter form (‘ubi
prior notio non per se sed quatenus
sola est negatur’) and οὐ μόνον... ἀλλά

(‘ubi posterior notio ut gravior in
locum prioris substituitur priore non
plane sublato’), see the good note of
Kiihner on Xen. Mem. 1. 6. 2, and
correct accordingly Jelf, Gr. § 762. 1;
see also Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 8.

ἡ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν] ‘which is toward
God,’ ‘to God-ward,’ Auth.: more
exact definition of the πίστις by means
of the repeated article; comp. Tit. ii.
10, notes on Gal. iii. 26, and Winer,
Gr. § 20.1, p. 119 sq. The less usual
preposition πρὸς is here used with
great propriety, as there is a tacit
contrast to a previous faith πρὸς τὰ
εἴδωλα (see ver. 9), in which latter
case the deeper πίστ. εἰς (faith to and
into,—surely not ‘on,’ Alf.) would
seem to be theologically unsuitable.
On the meaning of πίστ. πρός, see
notes on Philem. 5, and on the force
of πίστις and πιστεύειν with different
prepp., Reuss, Zhéol. Chrét. 1v. 14,
Vol. Il. p. 129, and notes on 1 Tim.
i, 16. ἐξελήλυθεν] ‘is gone
forth: so, with reference to a report,
Matth. ix. 26, Mark i. 28, Rom. x. 18
(Ps. xix. 5); Koch compares the He-
brew N¥*, Ezek. xvi. 14, ἐξῆλθε,
LXX. The currency of the report
was probably much promoted by the
commercial intercourse between Thes-
salonica and other cities, both in
Greece and elsewhere; see Koch in
loc., and Wieseler, Chronol. p. 42,
who suggests that Aquila and Pris-
cilla, who had lately come from Rome
to Corinth (Acts xviii. 2), might have
mentioned to the Apostle the preva-
lence of the report even in that more
distant city. If this be so, the justice
and truth of the Apostle’s hyperbole
is still more apparent; to be known
in Rome was to be known everywhere :
contrast Baur, Paulus, p. 484. Rec.

Ig.

13

eon a ὦ 1+ 4 ‘ ee ee

ἡμᾶς λαλεῖν TL αὐτοὶ γὰρ περὶ ἡμῶν ἀπαγγέλλουσιν g
4 “ A

ὁποίαν εἴσοδον ἔσχομεν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, Kal πῶς ἐπεστρέψατε

πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων δουλεύειν Θεῷ ζῶντι καὶ

adopts the order ἡμᾶς ἔχειν, but only
with KL; most mss.
λαλεῖν τι] ‘to speak anything,’ sc. about

your mioris, or as Syr. eaads

4

[de vobis]; προὔλαβεν ἡμᾶς ἡ φήμη
καὶ παρ᾽ ἄλλων ἀκούομεν ἃ λέγειν ἐθέ-
λομεν, Theod, On the difference be-
tween λαλεῖν and λέγειν, comp. notes
on Tit. ii. 1; and see Trench, Synon.
Part τι. $26. The fundamental dis-
tinction that λαλεῖν (Hesych. φθέγ-
γεσθαι) points merely to sound and
utterance, λέγειν to purport, is mainly
observed in the N.T., with the excep-
tion that λαλεῖν is sometimes used
where λέγειν would appear more natu-
ral, but never vice vers&; see esp. the
good note of Liicke on John viii. 43.

9. αὐτοί] ‘ they themselves ;’ i.e. the
people in Macedonia and Achaia and
elsewhere ; a very intelligible ‘con-
structio ad sensum;’ see Winer, Gr.
§ 22. 3, p. 131, and notes on Gal. ii. 2.
The interpr. of Pelt, ‘sponte,’ αὐτο-
μαθῶς, is here artificial and unneces-
sary: αὐτοὶ stands in somewhat em-
phatic antithesis to the preceding ἡμᾶς ;
‘we have no need to say anything
about you, for they to whom otherwise
we might have told it themselves
speak of it and spread it ; οὐ παραμέ-
vouow ἀκοῦσαι περὶ ὑμῶν, ἀλλὰ τοὺς
παρόντας καὶ τεθεαμένους τὰ ὑμέτερα
κατορθώματα οἱ μὴ παρόντες μηδὲ τε-
, θεαμένοι παραλαμβάνουσιν, Chrys.

περὶ ἡμῶν] ‘about us,’ scil. the Apostle
and his helpers; not ‘de me et vobis
simul,’ Zanch. (compare Liinem.,—-.
well answered by Alf.), as the studied
prominence of περὶ ἡμῶν and the real
point of the clause are thus completely
overlooked : instead of our telling

about our own success, they do it for
us; ἃ γὰρ αὐτοὺς ἐχρῆν παρ᾽ ἡμῶν
ἀκούειν, ταῦτα αὐτοὶ προλαβόντες λέ-
γουσι, Chrys. ὁποίαν K.T.A. |
‘what manner of entering in we had
unto you:’ fuller explanation of the
preceding περὶ ἡμῶν. The reference
of the qualitative ὁποίαν to the dangers
and sufferings undergone by St Paul
and his followers in their first preach-
ing at Thessalonica (Chrys., Theoph.,
(cum.) is rightly rejected by most
modern commentators: the ποιότης is
rather evinced in the power and confi-
dence with which they preached, and
serves to illustrate verse 5.

Eicodos has here no ethical meaning,
‘indolem nostram’ (Aith.-Pol. ; comp.
Olsh.), but, as always in the N. T.
(ch, ii. 1, Acts xiii. 24, Heb. x. τὸ,
2 Pet. i. 11), is simply local in its re-
ference, ‘introitus,’ Vulg., Arm., ‘in-
gressus,’ Copt., ‘quomodo venimus ad
vos,’ Aith. (Platt): so too inferentially
the Greek commentators, and after
them most modern writers. The pre-
sent éxouev (Rec.) appy. rests only on
the authority of cursive mss., and is
rejected by all modern editors.

πῶς ἐπεστρέψατε] ‘how ye turned,’
illustration of ver. 6. The πῶς does
not necessarily involve εὐκόλως, μετὰ
πολλῆς σφοδρότητος, Chrys., ‘ quanta
facilitate,’ Calv., but simply points to
the fact of ἐπιστροφή (Alf.), the clause
being not modal but objective; comp.
Donalds. Gr. § 584. In the verb ém-
στρέφειν the prep. does not here seem
to mark regression (comp. notes on
Gal. iv. 2), but simply direction: both
meanings are lexically admissible (see
Rost u. Palm, Lex. 5. v. and 5. v. ἐπί,
c), but the second seems to be most

14

ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ Α.

ΕῚ 7 4 ο ” Ss " 4A es ae se WP ~ . “-
10 ἀληθινῴ, καὶ ἀναμένειν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν,

εἴ ΕΣ 9 οἱ “ T “ \ eS: δ' τὰς “5 ‘
ον ηγειρεν €K τῶν νεκρῶν, ἤσουν τον βυομενον ημας απὸ

τῆς ὀργῆς τῆς ἐρχομένης.

in accordance with the context.

“πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν marks the conversion
in its general rather than its specifically
Christian aspects, with reference to
the former heathen and Gentile condi-
tion of the Thessalonians: if they had
been Jews, the appropriate formula,
as Olsh. well observes, would have
been πρὸς τὸν Κύριον." On this and
the following verse, see a sound ser-
mon by Sherlock, Serm. Li. Vol. 11.
p. 56 (ed. Hughes). δουλεύειν
κιτιλ.} ‘to serve the living and true
God ; infinitive of the purpose or in-
tention, εἰς τὸ δουλεύειν x.7.d., Chrys.,
-——a form of the final sentence (Donalds.
Gr. ὃ 606) not uncommon in St Paul's
Epp.; see 1 Cor. i. 17, Eph. i. 4, Col.
i. 22. On the difference between this
and the infin. with wore (consecutive
sentence), see notes on Col. l. c., and
comp. Winer, Gr. § 44. I, p. 284, ed.
6, but more fully in § 45. 3, ed. 5.
God has here the appropriate title of
ζῶν (Acts xiv. 15) in contrast with
the dead (Wisdom xiv. 5, 29, comp.
Habak. ii. 19) and practically non-
existent (1 Cor. viii. 4, see Meyer in
loc.) gods of the heathen,—and that
of ἀληθινὸς (John xvii. 3, 1 John v.
20, comp. 2 Chron. xv. 3) in contrast
to their false semblance (Gal. iv. 8)
and ματαιότης (hence pd'dy Lev. xix.
4, xxvi. 1). On the omission of the
art. with Θεός, comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 19.
I, p. 110.

Io. ἀναμένειν] ‘to await; second
great purpose involved in the ἐπιστρο-
$7: hope of the nature here described,
as Liinem. observes, involves and in-
cludes faith, and forms a suitable pre-
paration for the allusions in the latter
portion of the Epistle. If χαρὰ be said

to be the key-note of the Ep. to the
Philippians (iii. 1), ἐλπὶς may truly be
termed that of the present Ep. The
verb ἀναμένειν, a dr. λεγόμ. in the
N. T., does not here involve any re-
ference to awaiting one who is to return
(comp. Beng.), nor yet any specific
notion of eagerness or joy (Flatt), but
simply that of patience (‘ erharren,’
Winer) and confidence ; the ἀνὰ having
that modified intensive force (προσμέ-
νειν, Theod., see 1 Tim. i. 3; περιμέ-
vew, Theoph., see Acts i. 4, which is
so hard to convey without paraphrase ;
see esp. Winer, de Verb. Comp, 11.
p- 15, and comp. Rost ἃ. Palm, Lex.
8. v. avd, E. Ὁ. ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν
belongs to ἀναμένειν, involving a slight
but perfectly intelligible form of bra-
chylogy, scil. ἐρχόμενον ἐκ τῶν οὐρ.;
comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 66. 2, p. 547.

ὃν ἤγειρεν K.T.A.] ‘whom he raised
from the dead’ relative sentence placed
emphatically before ᾿Ιησοῦν as involv-
ing an ‘ argumentum palmarium’
(Beng.) of His sonship; see Rom. i. 4,
and comp. Pearson, Creed, Art. v. Vol.
I. p. 3t3 (ed. Burton). The article
before νεκρῶν is omitted by Rec. with
ACK; c., but is supported by pre-
ponderating, external evidence [BDE
FGLN; Ff.], and by the probability
of a confirmation to the more usual
ἐγείρειν ἐκ νεκρῶν. ᾿Ιησοῦν
κιτ.λ.} ‘Jesus who delivereth us.’ The
present participle has not the force of
an aor. (‘ qui eripuit,’ Vulg., Arm.) or
future part. (‘qui eripiet,’ Clarom.,
‘qui liberabit,’ Copt.), but may serve
(a) to mark the action as commenced
and continuing (Vorst., Beng. ‘Chris-
tus nos semel ἐλυτρώσατο, semper
pvera.’), or (Ὁ) as ‘rem certo futuram’

ho PE 2.

Our coming among you
was not vain; we nei-
ther beguiled you. nor
‘were burdensome, but

toiled bravely, and en- ¥

15

τς Αὐτοὶ yap οἴδατε, ἀδελφοί, τὴν 11.

4 ew 4 Α eon ¢ 9 4
εἴσοδον MWY τὴν προς υμας OTL οὐ Κενῆ

couraged ag both by γεγονεν" ἀλλὰ προπαθόντες καὶ ὑβρι- 2

actions and words.

(Schott), or still more probably (c) is
associated with the article in a sub-
stantival character, ‘our deliverer,’
Alf. ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 45. 7, p. 316.
ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς] This powerful word
(ὀργή) is not merely synonymous with
κόλασις or τιμωρία (Orig. Cels. Iv. p.
211; comp. Liinem.), but implies de-
finitely the holy anger of God against
sin,—that anger which, when deeply
considered, only serves to evince His
love; see esp. Miiller, Doctr. of Sin,
I. 2, 2, Vol. 1. p. 265 (Clark). For
ἀπὸ τῆς dépy. ABN; 17, 73, read ἐκ τ.
ὀργ. ᾿ τῆς ἐρχομένης] ‘which is
coming ; more specific definition of
the ὀργή; εἶπε τὴν ἀνάστασιν, λέγει
καὶ τὴν ἀνταπόδοσιν, ἣν ἡμέραν ὀργῆς
καλεῖ, cum. The present participle
has no future tinge, e.g. Ξε μελλούσης
(Olsh., Koch), but marks the certainty
of the coming (Bernhardy, Synt. x. 2,
p- 371), and hints at the enduring
principles of the moral government of
God; comp. Eph. v. 5, Col. iii. 6.

CuaprerR 11. 1. Αὐτοὶ yap οἴδατε]
‘For ye yourselves know; explanatory
confirmation of the first part of ch. i.
9, by an appeal to the knowledge and
experience of his readers. In ch. i. 9
two distinct subjects are alluded to,
(a) the power and confidence of the
preachers, (b) the obedience and recep-
tivity of the hearers, comp. Chrys. :
the former is amplified in the present
and 11 following verses, the latter in
ver. 13—16, Tap is thus certainly not
resumptive, nor yet explicative, but
what Hartung (Partik. γάρ, § 2) terms
‘argumentativ-explicativ,’ the dpa ele-
ment of the particle referring to what
had preceded (‘quasi pro re naté jam

recte atque ordine hoc ita se habere
dicitur,’ Klotz), the yé element add-
ing an explanatory asseveration; see
esp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 235. If
the distinction of Hand (Tursell. Vol.
II. p.° 375) be correct, ‘nam ipsi,’
Vulg., is here a’ judicious correction
of ‘ipsi enim,’ Clarom.

ὅτι οὐ κενὴ yey.] ‘that it has not been
empty,’ ὁ. 6. void of power and earnest-
ness; ‘non inanis, sed plena virtutis,’
Beng. In this form of the objective
sentence—by no means uncommon
after verbs of ‘knowledge, perception,
&c,’—there is an idiomatic anticipation
of the object, which serves to awaken
the reader’s attention to the subsequent .
predications ; see esp. Kriiger, Sprachl.
§ 61. 6. 2. For other forms of the
objective sentence, see Donalds. Gr.
§ 592. The exact meaning of κενὴ
has been somewhat differently esti-
mated: it can scarcely involve any
ethical reference (‘deceitful,’? Ham-
mond, μῦθοι ψευδεῖς kal λῆροι, Ecum.),
or any allusion to accompanying dan-
gers (Theod., Theoph.), or yet to the
results of. the εἴσοδος (De Wette 1), as
these belong to the second part of ver.
9,—but, as γέγονεν and the leading
idea in the following words (ἐπαῤῥησ.
ἐν τῷ Θεῷ x.7T.d.) both suggest, to the
essential character of the εἴσοδος, its
fulness of power and purpose and
reality ; οὐκ ἀνθρωπίνη οὐδὲ ἡ τυχοῦσα,
Chrys. So rightly De Wette 2, Lii-
nem., and Alf.

2. ἀλλὰ introduces the positive an-
tithesis to the preceding negative ov
κενὴ γέγονεν; see 1 Cor. xv. 10. Rec.
reads ἀλλὰ καί, but has only the sup-
port of a few mss., and Clarom.
προπαθ, καὶ ὕβρισθ.] ‘having suffered

10

ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙ͂Σ A.

4 ᾿ , ς
σθέντες καθὼς οἴδατε ἐν Φιλίπποις, ἐπαῤῥησιασάμεθα

ἐν τῷ Θεῴ ἡμῶν λαλῆσαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον

4 τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν πολλῷ ἀγῶνι.

previously and having been injuriously
treated,’ Acts xvi. 22 sq.; ‘id quod
alios a preedicando deterrere potuisset,’
Beng. It is doubtful whether the
participle is here concessive (‘although
we had, é&c.,’ Liinem.; see Plato, Rep.
Il. p. 376 A), or simply temporal. If
καὶ (Rec.) were to be admitted in the
text before the part., the former mean-
ing would seem more probable, as in
such cases the καὶ (though not = καίπερ,
De W.) serves to sharpen the anti-
thesis involved in the concession (see
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 56. 13. 1 sq.); as
however καὶ must be rejected, the sim-
ple participle seems here more natu-
rally regarded as temporal ; comp. Xen.
Mem. τι. 2. 5. So Auth., and appy.
Syr., Copt. The verb rpordcxew is
a dr. λεγόμ. in the N. T. though not
uncommon elsewhere (Thucyd. 111. 67,
Xen. J. c., Plato, 7. c.), and serves
clearly to define the relation of time;
ἀπὸ κινδύνων ἐκφυγόντες πάλιν εἰς éré-
ρους κινδύνους ἐνεπέσομεν ; comp. Syr.
and 0. (Platt). To this word the
addition of ὑβρισθ. gives force and cir-
cumstantiality. ἐπαῤῥησιασά-
μεθα] ‘we were bold of speech ;’ so dis-
tinctly Aith.-Pol. (but not Platt). It
seems more exact to retain this pri-
mary meaning; for though παῤῥησία
has indisputably in-the N. T. the deri-
vative meaning of confidence, boldness
(see on Eph. iii. 12), still after a com-
parison of Eph. vi. 20, and Acts xxvi.
26 (a speech of St Paul’s), the idea of
bold speech, even though reiterated in
λαλῆσαι, can scarcely be excluded.
This παῤῥησία was ἐν τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν;
it was in Him (not exactly ‘per Deum,’
Schott 1), as the causal sphere and
ground of its existence, that the παῤ-

ἡ γὰρ παράκλησις ἡμῶν

ῥησία was felt and manifested. On the
particularizing ἡμῶν, see notes on
Philem. 4, and Phil. i. 3.
λαλῆσαι] ‘so as to speak ; explanatory
infinitive, defining still more clearly
the oral nature of the boldness; see
Winer, Gr. ὃ 44. 1, p. 285; so rightly
De W., Meyer (on Eph. vi. 20), and
Koch, who however appears (from his
reference to Winer, Gr. p. 379, ed. 5)
to confound this use with that of the
inf. with τοῦ. Liinem., Alf., and
others, far less plausibly, consider the
inf. as a simple object-infin. after
érappno. The ancient Vv. here give
no distinct opinion, except perhaps
Syr.-Phil., ‘in fiducia (?) in Deo nostro
loqui, &c.,’ where the inf. seems clear-
ly regarded as explanatory: so too
(appy-) Chrys. τὸ evayy. τοῦ
Θεοῦ] ‘the Gospel of God ;’ the Gospel
which comes from Him, and of which
He is the origin; gen. not of the ob-
ject (Chrys. on Rom. i. 1), but of the
origin or originating cause; see notes
on ch. i. 6. On the various genitives
associated with evayy., comp. note on
Eph. i. 13, and esp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét.
Iv. 8, Vol. 11. p. 81. ἐν πολλῷ
ἀγῶνι] ‘in much conflict; not without
emphasis: it was this fortitude amidst
external dangers that peculiarly evinced
that the εἴσοδος οὐ κενὴ γέγονεν. It
does not seem necessary here to refer
ἀγὼν to any internal conflict (comp.
notes on Col. ii. 1), but simply, in ac-
cordance with the context, to the ex-
ternal dangers by which they were
surrounded; so Theoph., C£cum.:
Chrys. appears to unite both.

3. ἡ yap παράκλ. ἡμῶν] ‘ For our
exhortation ; explanatory confirmation
(comp. note on ver. 1) of ἐπαῤῥ. x.7.X.,

πα ee, ky A

ἃ Rae ΜῈΝ 2 17

‘ ὃ - ᾿ s
οὐκ ἐκ πλάνης οὐδὲ ἐξ ἀκαθάρσίας οὐδὲ ἐν δόλῳ, ἀλλὰ 4

3. οὐδέ (2)] So Lachm. with ABCD!FGN; 6 mss. ; Copt. (Tisch. ed. 1).
In ed. 2, 7, however, Tisch. reads οὔτε with D?EKL; nearly all mss. ; Chrys.
(aliquoties), Theod. (οὔτε... οὔτε), Dam., al. (Rec., Alf.), and with some plausi-
bility, as οὐδὲ might be thought a correction for οὔτε, which, though unusual,
is here deemed not indefensible (comp. Schott, Alf.): still, as this defence rests
mainly on a doubtful use of év,—as a recognition of the change of prepp. might
have suggested a change from οὐδὲ to οὔτε nearly as probably as a non-recogni-
tion of it the converse,—and lastly, as the uncial authority very distinctly
preponderates in favour of οὐδέ, we revert to the reading of Tisch. (ed. 1).. So

Winer, Gr. ὃ 55. 6, p. 437, Olsh., De W., Liinem., Koch.

especially of the concluding words; of
πλανῶντες οὐκ εἰς κινδύνους ἑαυτοὺς ἐκδι-
δόασιν, (Εσαμη., compare Chrys. There
is here, as Bengel acutely observes, an
‘ztiologia duplex,’ the present γὰρ
introducing a reference to the Apostle’s
regular habit, the second γὰρ (ver. 5)
to that habit as specially evinced
among the Thessalonians. The word
παράκλησις here includes ‘totum pre-
conium evangelicum’ (Beng.), and ap-
proaches in meaning to διδαχή (Chrys.),
or διδασκαλία (Theod.), from both of
which however it is perhaps distin-
guishable, as being directed more to
the feelings than the understanding ;
comp. notes on 1 Tim. iv. 13, and
Beng. in loc. who says ᾿ παράκ. late
patet: ubi desides excitat est hortatio,
ubi tristitiz: medetur est solatium.’ A
good dissertation on παρακαλεῖν, παρά-
κλησις, and παράκλητος will be found
in Knapp, Script. Var. Argum. No. Iv.;
see esp. p. 134.

οὐκ ἐκ πλάνης] ‘is not of error,’ not
‘grounded on,’ Alf. 1, but ‘having
its source in,’ Alf. 2, the prep. retain-
ing its usual and primary force of
origination from; see notes on Gal, il.
16, Winer, Gr. § 47. b, p. 329. The
verb to be supplied is not ἣν (Syr.,
Ath.) but ἐστίν (Copt.); as the Apo-
stle is here referring to his general
and habitual mode of preaching; see

above. Lastly, πλάνη is not trans-

itive, ‘impostura,’ Beza, ‘seducendi
studium,’ Grot. (comp. Theoph.), but,
as appy. in all passages in the N.T.,

intransitive, ‘error,’ Vulg., \Za.sf

[error] Syr., the context serving to show
whether it is in the more abstract
sense of ‘mentis error’ (Irrthum) as
in Eph, iv. 14, or as here in the more
general meaning of ‘being deceived’
(Irrwahn, delusion), whether by one-
self or others; comp. Theod., οὐκ ἔοικε
τὰ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν προσφερόμενα τῇ μυθολο-
γίᾳ τῶν ποιητῶν, ἃ πολλοῦ μὲν ψευδοῦς
πολλῆς δὲ ἀκολασίας ἐμπέπλησται.
ἀκαθαρσίας] ‘impurity,’ almost ‘im-
pure motives; not apparently with any
reference to the unclean and licentious
teaching of μάγοι καὶ γόητες, Theoph.
(comp. Chrys.), but, as ἐν προφάσει
πλεονεξίας (ver. 5) seems to suggest,
with reference to moral impurity
(comp. notes on Gal. v. 19), more espe-
cially as evinced in covetousness (Olsh. )
and desire of gain (Liinem., Alf.);
comp. αἰσχροκερδὴς as used in ref. to
Christian teachers in 1 Tim. iii. 8,
Tit. i. 7, and the charges that appear
to have been brought against the
Apostle himself, 2 Cor. xi. 8 sq.

οὐδὲ ἐν δόλῳ] ‘nor in guile,’ ὁ, 6. ‘in
any deliberate intention to deceive ;’
not so much with reference to ‘the
manner in which’ (Alf.), as to the
ethical sphere in which the παράκλησις

C

18

ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙΣ A.

καθὼς ᾿δεδοκιμάσμεθα ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ πιστευθῆναι τὸ

° , 4 ~ 9 [ 9 ’; 8 ,
εὐαγγέλιον οὕτως λαλοῦμεν, οὐχ ὡς ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκοντες
5 ἀλλὰ Θεῷ τῷ δοκιμάζοντι τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν. Οὔτε γάρ

was found, and by which it was, as it
were, environed; comp. 2 Cor. iv. 2,
μὴ περιπατοῦντες ἐν πανουργίᾳ μηδὲ
δολοῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, a some-
_ what instructive parallel. The use of
év, especially with abstract or non-
personal substantives, is always some-
what debateable in the N.T., and can
only be fixed by the context; it some-
times librates towards διὰ both with
gen. (1 Pet. i. 5) and acc. (Matth. vi.
7), sometimes towards μετά (ver. 17,
Col. ii. 7, iv. 2, see notes), sometimes,
appy. very rarely, towards κατά (Heb.
iv. 11),—but is commonly best referred
to the imaginary sphere in which the
action takes place ; see Winer, (r. ὃ 48.
a, p. 345, and Rost u. Palm, Lez. s.v.,
where this prep. is very fully discuss-
ed. On the reading of this passage,
see crit. note, and on the most suitable
transl. of οὐ... οὐδέ, notes to Transl.
4. καθὼς SeSoxip.] ‘according as
we have been approved ;" οὐκ αὐτοχειρο-
τόνητοι διδάσκαλοι καθεστήκαμεν, ἀλλ᾽
ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐπιστεύ-
θημεν, Theod. Καθὼς (see notes on
Gal. iii. 6) has here no argumentative
force (Eph. i. 3, see notes), but stands
in correlation to οὕτως, marking the
measure or proportion existing be-
tween their approval by God to preach
the Gospel and their actual perform-
ance of the commission. The idea of
a recognition of any worth on the part
of God in the δεδοκιμασμένοι (Chrys.,
Theoph., Gicum.) is certainly here not
necessarily involved in the word. Ao-
κιμάζειν is properly (a) ‘to put to the
test’ (Luke xiv. 19, Eph. v. 10, 1 Tim.
ili. 10, &c.), thence by an easy grada-
tion (δ) ‘to choose after testing’ (see
Rom, i. 28, with infin.), which again

passes insensibly into—(c) ‘to approve
of what is so tested:’ comp. Rom.
xiv. 22, 1 Cor. xvi. 3, and notes on
Phil. i. το. In the present case the
appended notice of the subject in
respect of which the δοκιμασία was
exercised seems clearly to limit the
meaning to (0): ἐπειδὴ ἔδοξεν αὐτῷ
καὶ ἐδοκίμασε πιστεῦσαι ἡμῖν, Theod.
πιστευθῆναι τὸ evayy.] ‘to have the
Gospel entrusted to us,’ comp. 1 Tim. i.
11, Tit. i. 3: explanatory infinitive
serving to define more nearly that to
which the δοκιμασία was directed, see
Winer, Gr. § 44. I, p. 285; compare
Madvig, Synt. § 148. For remarks
on, and exx. of the idiomatic construc-
tion of the accus. re? with πιστεύομαι
and similar verbs, see Winer, Gr. ὃ
32. 5, Pp. 204. οὐχ ὡς ἀνθ.
dpéokovres] ‘not as busied in pleasing
men ;° the present tense having here
its fullest force, and marking that
which they were engaged in, were
seeking to do; οὐκ ἀρέσκειν θέλοντες,
Theoph.; see Scheuerl. Synt. § 31. 2,
p- 313, and comp. notes on Gal. i, το.
The particle ws serves as usual to
characterize the action, and to define
the aspect in which the whole was to
be regarded, ‘not as striving to please
men, but (as striving to please) God,
é&c.;’ comp. Bernhardy, Synt. vil. 2,
Ρ. 333, and notes on Eph. v. 22.

τῷ δοκιμ. K.T.A.] ‘who proveth, trieth,
our hearts ;’ Soxip. here relapsing back
to its primary meaning, see above.
The plural ἡμῶν can here scarcely be
referred otherwise than to St Paul
and his fellow-preachers at Thessalo-
nica: if the sentence had been gene-
ral, it would have been omitted (Rom.
viii, 27); if the reference were simply

ie a
aS
ce,

Ih 5. ΡΣ oo ag

; A ‘
ποτε ἐν λόγῳ κολακείας ἐγενήθημεν, καθὼς οἴδατε, οὔτε ἐν

to St Paul, the plurals καρδίας and
ψυχὰς (ver. 8) would seem wholly inap-
propriate. The art. before Θεῴ
(Ree.), though well attested [A D?EFG
KLWN*], seems due to grammatical cor-
rection, and is rightly rejected by7%sch.:
it is inserted in brackets by Lachm.

5. Οὔτε γάρ «.t.A.] Confirmation
of this general character of his and
their Apostolic teaching by a special
appeal to the experience of his readers ;
comp. ver. 3. ἐν A. κ᾿ ἐγενήθημεν]
“came we [to share] in;’ scarcely
‘were we found employed in’ (comp.
Liinem.), as the more distinct passive
meaning cannot safely be maintained :
see notes on Eph. iii. 7; on the form,
see note on ch. i. 5. The Greek
commentators (Chrys., Theoph.) para-
phrase it simply by ἐκολακεύσαμεν ;
this however somewhat falls short of
the idiomatic γίγνομαι ἐν, ‘in aliqua
re versor’ (Matth. Gr. ὃ 577. 5, Vol.
II. p. 1004), and fails to mark the
entrance into, and existence in the
given thing or condition; see notes
on τ Tim. ii. 14.
λόγῳ κολακείας] ‘speech of flattery,’
‘sermone adulationis,’ Vulg., ‘verbo
adulationis,’ Syr., Copt., ‘ blanditiis
«--in voce,’ Aith. (Platt); λόγος
having here its simple and proper
meaning of ‘speech,’ ‘teaching’ (not
coextensive with Heb. 2 ,---ῶὧ use
apparently not found in the N. T.),
and κολακείας being a gen.—not of
quality (‘assentatorio,’ Beza), nor of
origin (‘ex adulandi studio profecto,’
Schott), but of the substance and con-
tents; comp. 2 Cor. vi. 7, Eph. i. 13,
al.; and see Scheuerl. Synt. § 12. 1,
p. 182, Hartung, Casus, p. 21. The
word κολακεία [possibly connected with
κλείειν, Pott, Htymol. Forsch. Vol. τ.
p- 233, or with κόλος, kAdw, in sense of
broken-spiritedness, cringing] is a dr.

λεγόμ. in the N. T., and is defined in
Pseud.-Plat. Def. p. 415 E (Vol. 1x.
Ρ. 272, ed. Bekk.) as ὁμιλία 7 πρὸς
ἡδονὴν ἄνευ τοῦ βελτίστου: comp.
Theoph. Charact. 2. It serves: here
more specifically to illustrate the ἐν
δόλῳ of ver. 3, and forms a natural
transition to the next words, the es-
sence of κολακεία being self-interest ;
ὁ δὲ ὅπως ὠφέλειά τις αὑτῷ γίγνηται
εἰς χρήματα καὶ ὅσα διὰ χρημάτων
κόλαξ, Aristotle, Ethic. Nicom. Iv. 12
(ad fin.), comp. VIII. 9.

ἐν προφάσει πλεον.] ‘in a cloke of
covetousness ;’ ‘ preetextu specioso quo
tegeremus avaritiam,’ Beng. The exact
meaning of these words is not per-
fectly clear. Πρόφασις is not here
‘occasio,’ Vulg., Clarom., nor ‘ accu-
satio, Hamm., nor even ‘species,’
Wolf, still less is otiose, Loesn. (Obs.
p- 376), but has its simple and usual
meaning of ‘pretextus’ (comp. Copt.;

qAX\s Syr. is somewhat indef.), while
ρ an

the gen. πλεονεξίας is a gen. objecti
(comp. Scheuer]. Synt. § 17. 1, p. 126)
serving to define that to which the
πρόφασις was applied, and which it
was intended to mask and conceal;
comp. Xen. Cyr. Il. 1. 25, πρόφασις
μειονεξίας, and see exx. in Rostu. Palny
Lez..s, Ὁ. (b),. Vol. 1% p. 1251. The
Apostle and his companions used no
λόγος which contained κολακεία, nor
any πρόφασις which was intended to
cloke their πλεονεξία. On the true
meaning of πλεονεξία, see notes on
Eph. iv. 19, and on its distinction from
φιλαργυρία, Trench, Synon. ὃ 24.

Θεὸς μάρτυς] ‘God is witness ;’ strong
confirmation of the declaration imme-
diately preceding; comp. Rom. i. 9,
Phil. i.8. The Greek commentators
pertinently remark that in what men
could judge of he appeals to his read-

C2

xh

20

ΠΡῸΣ OEZZAAONIKEI> A.

6 προφάσει πλεονεξίας, Θεὸς μάρτυς: οὔτε ζητοῦντες
ἐξ ἀνθρώπων δόξαν, οὔτε ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν οὔτε ἀπὸ ἄλλων, δυνά-

7 μενοι ἐν βάρει εἶναι ὡς

ers, but in what they could not so
distinctly recognise he appeals to God ;
ὅπερ ἣν δῆλον, αὐτοὺς καλεῖ μάρτυρας"
εἰ ἐκολακεύσαμεν ὑμεῖς οἴδατε φησίν"
ὅπερ δὲ ἄδηλον ἣν, τὸ ἐν τρόπῳ πλεον-
εξίας, Θεὸν καλεῖ μάρτυρα, Chrys.

6. οὔτε ζητοῦντες κιτ.λ.}] ‘neither
seeking glory from men;’ continued
notice on the negative side of the
characteristics of his own and his
companions’ ministry ; ἑξητοῦντες being
dependent on the preceding ἐγενήθη-
μεν, and the clause serving to illustrate
οὐχ ὡς ἀνθρ. dpéox., ver. 4. Itis very
difficult here to substantiate any real
distinction between ἐξ and dé. The
assertion of Schott and Olsh. that ἐκ
refers to the immediate, ἀπὸ to the
more remote origin, is true (see notes
on Gal. ii. 16), but here inapplicable ;
that of Liinem. and Alf.,—‘that ἐκ
belongs more to the abstract ground of
the δόξα, ἀπὸ to the concrete object from
which it was in each case to accrue,’
— is artificial and precarious. It would
really seem more probable that they
.are here synonymous (Winer, Gr. ὃ
50. 2, p. 365), and that while in the
first clause ἐκ might seem more idioma-
tic in immediate union with ζητεῖν, the
disjunctive clauses into which it is ex-
panded might admit of and be lightened
by the change to dé. St Paul’s love
of prepositional variation has often
been noticed; comp. Winer, Gr. § 50.
6, p. 372, and notes on Gal. i. τ.
δυνάμενοι ἐν βάρει εἶναι] ‘though we
could be of weight; concessive parti-
cipial clause subordinated to the pre-
‘ceding part. ζητοῦντες: comp. Krii-
ger, Sprachl. § 56. 13. 1, Donalds. Gr.
§ 621. The meaning of ἐν βάρει εἶναι
is somewhat doubtful. Two interpre-

Χριστοῦ ἀπόστολοι"

ἀλλ᾽

tations deserve consideration: (a) ‘on-
eri esse,’ Vulg., Auth. (Copt. baros,
uncertain), βάρος retaining its more
simple meaning, and referring to the
Apostolic right of being maintained
by the Churches (Theod.); comp. πρὸς
τὸ μὴ ἐπιβαρῆσαι, ver. 9, 2 Thess. iii.
8, οὐ κατεβάρησα, 2 Cor. xii. 16, and
ἀβαρῆ... ἐμαυτὸν ἐτήρησα, 2 Cor. xi. 9:
(5) ‘in gravitate [honore]esse,’ Clarom.,

ο n n Ψ
and appy. Syr. JootSad {pao
{honorabiles esse; see Schaaf, Lee.
8.v.], βάρος having its derivative sense
of ‘weight,’ ‘authority ;) comp. Diod.
Sic. Iv. 61, τὸ βάρος τῆς πόλεως (τὴν
ἰσχύν, Suid.), esp. xvi. 8 (where it is
associated with ἀξίωμα), and somewhat
similarly Polyb. “δι. Iv. 32. 7, XXX.
15. ©: see esp. Suidas, s.v. Of these
(a) is plausible on account of ἐπιβαρ.,
ver. 9: as however the concessive
clause is closely appended to one in
which δόξα is the prevalent notion,
and as the reference to ἠπιότης serves
to enhance the same idea by contrast,
it seems more exegetically correct, and
more in harmony with the immediate
context, to adopt (6); so Chrys. πολ-
λῆς ἀπολαῦσαι τιμῆς, and less decidedly
Theoph. and Gicum.
ὡς Xp. ἀπόστολοι] ‘as Christ’s Apo-
stles the possessive gen. marking with
slight emphasis whose ministers they
were (see notes on Eph. i. 1, Col. i. 1),
and the term ἀπόστολοι receiving its
more extended sense (see notes on
Gal, i. 1), and including Silvanus and
Timothy. De Wette, Koch, al., refer
the plural solely to St Paul, but with-
out sufficient reason. Though a refer-
ence to the Apostle’s coadjutors must
not perhaps be strongly pressed in

LTE Sgt 82

21

ἐγενήθημεν ἤπιοι ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν, ὡς ἐὰν τροφὸς θάλπη τὰ

“ 7 A 9 “
ἑαυτῆς τέκνα, οὕτως ὁμειρόμενοι ὑμῶν εὐδοκοῦμεν μετα- 8

every case where the plural occurs,
yet in the present passage the plurals
καρδίας (ver. 4) and ψυχὰς (ver. 8)
seem distinctly to favour the wider
application.

7. GAN ἐγενήθημεν] Statement, on
the positive side, of the behaviour of
the Apostle and his helpers, the ἀλλὰ
introducing an antithesis, not merely
to the last clause, but to the whole
of the preceding verse: they did not
seek δόξαν as διδάσκαλοι, but, what was
very different (see Klotz, Devar. Vol.
Il. p. 2), evinced the affection of a
parent; οὐ βάρυ οὐδὲ κόμπον ἔχον ἀπε-
δειξάμεθα, Chrys. ἥἤπιοι]
‘gentle: a δὶς λεγόμ. in the N. Τ'.,
here and 2 Tim. ii. 24. The epithet
is similarly applied to a father (Hom.
Od. τι. 47), to a ruler (Herod, 111. 89),
to a god, Dionysus (Eur. Bac. 861), as
marking ‘animi lenitatem in aliis fe-
rendis’ (Tittm.), and pointing to an
outward exhibition of an inward πραό-
Tyns* comp. Etym. M., ἤπιος" ὁ ἐν λόγῳ
πάντα ποιῶν Kal μὴ πάθει, ἐκ μεταλή-
ψεως δὲ καὶ ὁ διὰ λόγου προσηνὴς καὶ
πρᾶος (where however the derivation
seems too much pressed), see Tittm.
Synon. 1. p. 140, and notes on 2 Tim.
ic The reading is doubtful:
νήπιοι is most strongly supported
[Lachm. with BC'D! FGN'; some mss. ;
Vulg., Clarom., Copt., Auth. (both),
al.], but as a repetition of the N,
owing to the somewhat common use
of νήπιος in St Paul’s Epp., is more
probable than that of an omission,
and as νήπιος mars both the sense and
metaphor, we seem justified in retain-
ing ἤπιος, with AC?D5EKLN?; great
majority of mss.; Sah., Basm., Syr.
(both). So Tisch., and the majority
of recent editors. ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν]
‘in the midst of you,’ scarcely, by an

anticipation of the image, ‘sicut gal-
lina pullis circumdata,’ Beng.,—but,
with a hint at the absence of all as-
sumption of authority, ‘as one of your-
selves,’ ‘ut zequales idque cum omni-
bus,’ Zanch. ; ws ἂν εἴποι τις ἐξ ὑμῶν,
οὐχὶ τὴν ἄνω λαβόντες λῆξιν, Chrys.

ὡς ἐὰν τροφός K.T.A.] fas a nurse
(nursing mother) doth cherish her own
children ;’ the particle ὡς having here
not a temporal but simply a compara-
tive force (Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p.

757) © [sicut etiam] Syr., ‘tam-
yolc

quam si,’ Vulg., Clarom., ‘sicut,’
Copt., Atb.,—and combining with
ἐὰν and the pres. subj. in marking the
habitude or perhaps rather the con-
tinuance of the objectively-possible
event; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 42. 3. Ὁ, p-
274, and comp. Herm. de Part. ἄν,
p- 275, Green, Gr. p. 578q. ec.
reads ἂν with AD*(K ?)LN ; most mss.
For exx. of somewhat similar usages
of τροφός, see the list collected by
Loesner, Obs. p. 377, and on the
meaning of θάλπειν [fostering warmth
of the breast, comp. Deut. xxii. 6],
see Krebs, Obs. p. 345, and notes on
Eph. ν. 29. Tue tenderness conveyed
in the τὰ ἑαυτῆς τέκνα should not be
overlooked; τὴν φιλοστοργίαν αὑτοῦ
δείκνυσιν, Theoph. The present
clause must not be marked off by a
colon at ὑμῶν (Liinem.), but regarded
both as an illustration of the preceding
words, and as the protasis to the follow-
ing οὕτως ὁμειρόμενοι ὑμῶν εὐδοκοῦμεν,
ver. 8.

8. ὁμειρόμενοι ὑμῶν] ‘earnestly,
affectionately, desiring you,’ ‘having a
fond affection for you; ἐπιθυμοῦντες,
Hesych., Photius (Lex. p. 242). This
form, though not found in the current
lexicons (Rost u. Palm not excepted),

22

ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.

7 ry cme το δα , ἜΑ. ἀκ,
δοῦναι ὑμῖν οὐ μόνον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀλλὰ καὶ
‘ ς “ 4 , ° A e oa 93 ,
Tas ἑαυτῶν ψυχὰς διότι ἀγαπητοὶ ἡμῖν ἐγενήθητε.

is supported by all the uncial and
more than 30 cursive mss., and rightly
adopted instead of iwep. (Rec.) by
Lachm., Tisch, and most modern
commentators. It is not compounded
of ὁμοῦ and elpew (Theoph., Phot.),
but is either (a) a form of the shorter
Melpouae (comp. δύρομαι, ὀδόρομαι),
Winer, Gr. ὃ τό. 4, p. 92, or (Ὁ) a late
and perhaps coarsely-strengthened form
of the more usual ἱμείρομαι, comp.
Fritz. 1, on Mark, p. 792. As it seems
probable that μείρομαι (Nicander, The-
riaca, 402) is not an independent
verb, but only an apocopated form of
ἱμείρομαι ‘metri causa’ (see Rost u.
Palm, Lex. s.v. weipou.), it seems safer
to adopt (δ), and to consider ὁμείρομαι
as a corrupted and perhaps strength-
ened form of the more usual verb.

ovrws...ed80K.] ‘So...had we good will;
the οὕτως being connected not with
the participle but with the finite verb.
The verb evdox. is here not present,
‘cupimus,’ Clarom., but imperf., ‘cu-
pide volebamus,’ Vulg. (comp. Copt.,
an-temat), the past tenses being com-
monly found in the N.T. with the
more Attic ed (comp. Lobeck, Phryn.
Ῥ. 140, 456), not with ηὐ as B here,
and a few MSS. elsewhere, see eh. iii.
1 [BN], 1 Cor. x. 5 [ABC], Col. i. 19
[ADE], al. The verb εὐδοκ. is only
found in writers after the time of
Alexander (see Sturz, de Dial. Maced.
p- 167), and appears to be commonly
used in N.T. not as a mere equivalent
for doxéw (comp. Koch), but as con-
veying the idea either of the ‘propensa
voluntas’ (Fritz.), or of the free, un-
conditioned, and gracious will (Luke
xii. 32, Gal. i. 15, comp. 1 Thess. iii,
1) of the subject; comp. notes on Eph.
i. 5, and esp. see Fritz. Rom. x. 1,
Vol. I. p. 369sq. For a notice of

the constructions of εὐδοκ. in the
N.T., see notes on Col. i. 19.

μεταδοῦναι] ‘to impart ;’ properly and
specially connected with τὸ εὐαγγ.;
but also by a very intelligible zeugma
with ras ἑαυτῶν ψυχάς, the compound
verb being in the latter case under-
stood in its simple form; comp. δοῦναι
τὴν ψυχήν, Mark x. 45. The use of
μεταδιδόναι with a dat. and ace.,
though less usual than with a dat.
and gen. (Jelf, Gr. § 535), is not with-
out example, especially when the par-
titive notion is owing to the context
inadmissible; see Kriiger, Sprachl. ὃ
47. 15. ἀλλὰ Kal κ.τ.λ.]
‘but even our own souls,’ ‘nostras ani-
mas,’ Clarom.,’ Vulg.; not with any
Hebraistic tinge (=1Niwb2) ‘ nos-
met ipsos’ (Koppe), nor even merely
‘nostras vitas,’ but perhaps with a
faint reference to the deeper meaning
of ψυχή, as pointing to the centre of
the personality (Olshaus. Opusc. p.
154, Beck, Seelenl. § 1), our life and
soul (Fell), our very existence, and all
things pertaining to it. On the plu-
ral, see above on ver. 4, and on the
use of ἑαυτῶν with reference to the
first person, Winer, Gr. § 22. 5, p. 136.
The force of the strong antithesis οὐ
μόνον.. ἀλλὰ καὶ is noticed in notes on
ch. i. 8. διότι ἀγαπ. ἡμῖν éyev.]
“because ye became very dear (beloved)
to us;’ surely here with no reference
to the Agent by whom they were
made so (Alf.), but simply to their
having become so, owing to their eager
and earnest reception of the Apostolic
message; see notes on ch. 1. 5. On
the pronominal conjunction διότι, here
used in its slightly modified sense of
διὰ τοῦτο ὅτι (co quod), ‘quoniam,’
Vulg., ‘quia,’ Clarom., see Fritz. Rom.
i. 19, Vol. 1. p. 58, but correct the

IT. 9.

23

μνημονεύετε γάρ, ἀδελφοί, τὸν κόπον ἡμῶν καὶ τὸν 9
μόχθον: νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας ἐργαζόμενοι πρὸς τὸ μὴ

very doubtful statement (endorsed by
Koch) that διότι is there equivalent to
yap or ‘nam,’ see Meyer in loc. The
reading of Rec. γεγένησθε is only sup-
ported by K; mss.; and may have
been a correction to harmonize the
clause with the supposed present εὐδοκ.
9. μνημονεύετε γάρ] ‘For ye re-
member ;? confirmation of the main
declaration of ver. 8, μεταδοῦναι... τὰς
ἑαυτῶν ψυχάς, not of the more remote
ἐγενήθημεν ἤπιοι (comp. Olsh.), still
less of the subordinate causal member
διότι x.7.d. (Liinem.; comp. Just.,
Alf.),—a doubtful reference of yap
appy. suggested by limiting the term
ψυχὰς unduly, and still more by find-
ing no allusion in the present verse to
actual dangers. This however is not
necessary: the Apostle and his fol-
lowers practically gave up their ‘ex-
istence’ to their converts, when they
spent night and day in toil rather than
be a burden to any of them.
is of course the indic. pres.

Μνημ.
On μνη-
μον. with the accus. see notes on ch.
i. 3, and esp. on 2 Tim. ii. 8. Com-
pare throughout this verse 2 Thess.
iii. 8. τὸν κόπον ἡμῶν Kal
τὸν μόχθον] ‘our toil and our travail,’
the article being repeated to give em-
phasis to the enumeration and to en-
hance the climax; comp. Winer, Gr.
§ 19. 5, p. 117. The words κόπος and
μόχθος are again found connected in
2 Thess. iii. 8 and 2 Cor. xi. 27: the
former perhaps marks the toil on the
side of the suffering it involves (see
notes on 1 Tim. iv. 10), the latter, as
its derivation seems to suggest [con-
nected with μόγις, and perhaps allied
to μέγας, see Pott, Htym. Forsch. Vol.
I. p. 283], on the side of the magni-
tude of the obstacles it has to over-
come: the connexion of μόχθος with

ἄχθος (Koch, Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. v.)
seems philologically doubtful; comp.
Pott, l.c. No. 373.

νυκτὸς καὶ tp. épyat.] ‘working night
and day; modal participial clause de-
fining the circumstances under which
the κήρυγμα was delivered. On the
secondary predication of time νυκτὸς
kal ἡμέρας, and on the strict gramma-
tical force of the gen. as pointing to
some indefinite point of the space of
time expressed by the subst. (contrast
2 Thess. iii. 8, Rec., Tisch.), see notes
on τ Tim. v. 5. There is perhaps
some emphasis in the collocation of
the whole expression, but appy. none
in the fact of νυκτὸς preceding ἡμέρας
(Alf.), as St Paul always adopts this
order; see further on 1 Tim. l. c., and
comp. Lobeck, Paralipom. p. 62 sq.
The addition of γὰρ after νυκτός [ Rec.
with D3EKL; mss.; Chrys. (text),
Theod.], though partially defended by
De W., seems to have been an inser-
tion ‘nexus caus4,’ and is rightly re-
jected by most modern editors.
ἐργαζόμενοι has here a special refer-
ence to the manual labour (Schott) of
the Apostle and his associates ; comp.
Acts xviii. 3. In 1 Cor. iv. 12 (comp.
Eph. iv. 28) the verb is enhanced by
the addition ταῖς ἰδίαις χερσίν.

πρὸς τὸ μή K.T.A.] ‘with a view to not
being burdensome to any of you,’ object
contemplated in the νυκτὸς καὶ ju.
épyagf. On this use of πρός, comp.
Winer, Gr. § 44. 6, p. 295, and on its
possible distinction from els, comp.
notes on 2 Thess, iii. 4. The late form
ἐπιβαρεῖν (2 Cor. ii. 5, 2 Thess. iii. 8,
comp. Dion. Halic. Iv. 9, VIII. 73) is
nearly but not quite equivalent in
meaning to καταβαρεῖν (2 Cor. xii. 16),
the prep. in the former case being
mainly directive (onus imponere), in

24 ΠΡΟΣ

ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.

ee a Me ΚΡ ee Rea >. en 0 alae
ἐπιβαρῆσαί τινα ὑμῶν ἐκηρύξαμεν εἰς ὑμᾶς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον

10 τοῦ Θεοῦ.

« “-“ ’ 4A « A ς e ’ Ἁ
υμεις μαρτυρες Kat ὁ Θεὸς ως οσιῶς Kai

, μὰ ὦ , ct « .- ’ὔ 9
δικαίως καὶ ἀμέμπτως ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἐγενήθημεν"

the latter mainly intensive; comp.
ἐπιβαρύνειν, Exod. xxi. 30. The in-
ference of Chrys., Theoph., that the
Thessalonians were ἐν πενίᾳ is very
questionable; consider Acts xvii. 4,
γυναικῶν τε τῶν πρώτων οὐκ ὀλίγαι,
and comp. Baumgarten, Acts, Vol. 11.
p- 208 sq. (Clark). ἐκηρύξ. εἰς

a»
ὑμᾶς] ‘we preached unto you,’ ans

Syr., Vulg. (Amiat.), ith. ; not ‘in
vobis,’ Vulg., Clarom., Copt., the pre-
position being not equivalent to ἐν,
but indicative of the direction, so to
say, which the κήρυγμα took; see
Matth. Gr. ὃ 578. Ὁ. It is singular
that Winer (Gr. ὃ 31. 5, p. 101, ed. 6)
should have been induced merely by
the plural following to adopt the less
probable translation ‘ unter,’ especially
as in ed. 5 (p. 241) he has added the
more exact rendering ‘ Botschaft an
die Volker gebracht;’ comp. Mark
xiii. 10, Luke xxiv. 47, 1 Pet. i. 25.
το. ὑμεῖς μάρτ. καὶ ὁ Θεός] ‘ Ye are
witnesses, and [so is] God.’ statement
in a collected form of what had pre-
viously been expanded into particulars.
As the summary involves what could
not be adequately judged of by man,
the Apostle subjoins an appeal to God ;
τοῦ δὲ Θεοῦ τὴν μαρτυρίαν προστέθει-
kev’ ἐπειδὴ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις δῆλα τὰ
ὁρώμενα μόνα, τῷ δὲ Θεῷ καὶ τὰ τοὺς
ἀνθρώπους λανθανόμενα, Theod.
ὡς ὁσίως K.t.X.] ‘how holily and right-
eously and blamelessly we behaved to you
that believe ;’ characteristics of the be-
haviour of the Apostle and his asso-
ciates, the adverbs ὁσίως x.7.X. not
being merely adjectival, but serving
as secondary predicates (Donalds. Gr.
§ 436 sq.) to define the form and man-

ner of the ‘comparatum esse’ involved
in ἐγενήθημεν: see Winer, Gr. ὃ 54. 2,
Ρ. 341, Kriiger, Sprachl. ὃ 62. 2. 3.
The adverbs are grouped together
somewhat cumulatively, to express
both on the positive and neyative side
the complete faithfulness of the minis-
try. The ordinary distinction between
the two former (περὶ μὲν ἀνθρώπους τὰ
προσήκοντα πράττων δίκαι᾽ ἂν πράττοι,
περὶ δὲ Θεοὺς ὅσια, Plato, Gorg. p. 507
B; comp. Chariton, I. 10), urged here
with some plausibility (Theoph., Alf.,
al.) on account of the preceding ὑμεῖς
καὶ ὁ Θεός, is still always precarious in
the N.T.; see notes on Eph. iv. 24,
Tit. i. 8. Perhaps it is safer to say
that ὁσίως and δικαίως form on the
positive side a compound idea of holy
purity and righteousness whether to-
wards God or towards men, while
ἀμέμπτως (see Phil. ii. 15, iii. 6) gives
on the negative side the idea of gene-
ral blamelessness in both aspects and
relations. To refer ἀμέμπτως to Paul
and his companions (‘respectu sui ip-
sorum,’ Beng.), or to regard it as
merely the negative reiteration of 6:-
καίως in ref. to men (Olsh.), seems too
restrictive ; comp. Luke i. 6.

ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν] ‘to you that
believe ;’ objects in whose interest the
behaviour was shown; dative of zn-
terest, see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 48. 4.
Liinem. and Alf., following Gicum.
and Theoph., and swayed by the posi-
tion of the words and supposed passive
force of ἐγενήθ, regard ὑμῖν asa dat.
judicii; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 31. 3. b,
p- 245 (ed. 5,—omitted in ed. 6). This
however seems very doubtful; the
Apostle would scarcely have appealed
to God in ref. to the judgment of the

τὰν

LI. 10,

5; τὸ: 25

, 70. e Ψ 4 ἂν οἰσὸ e ‘ , 4
καθάπερ OLOATE, WS EVA EKATTOY ὑμῶν ὡς πατὴρ τεκνὰ IT

~ al = e ~
ἑαυτοῦ παρακαλοῦντες ὑμᾶς

Thessalonians; nor would an allusion
to their estimate of a former line of
conduct have been so pertinent as one
to their consciousness that they were
the interested objects of it. The ad-
dition τοῖς rior. is not otiose (Jowett),
nor suggestive of different relations
with unbelievers (comp. Theoph.), but
enhances the appeal to the conduct
displayed towards the Thess., by show-
ing that their spiritual state was such
as would naturally evoke it.

11. καθάπερ οἴδατε) ‘even as ye
know,’ confirmatory appeal to the in-
dividual experience of his hearers ; the
general ὁσιότης καὶ δικαιοσύνη καὶ ἀμεμ-
φία of the Apostle and his companions
was verified by its strict accordance
(καθάπερ) with what was observable in
special cases. The genuine and ex-
pressive form καθάπερ (καθὰ marking
the comparison, περ the latitude of
the application, ‘ambitum rei majorem
vel quamvis maximum,’ Klotz, Devar.
Vol. 11. p. 722) is only used in the
N.T. in St Paul’s Epp. (11 times),
and in Hebrews (ch. iv. 2, v. 4 Rec.),
the later καθὼς (see notes on Gal. 111.
6) being the greatly predominant form.
The simple καθὰ only occurs once,
Matth. xxvii. το. ὡς ἕνα
ἕκαστον] ‘how as regards each one of
you,’ ‘unumquemque, nemine omisso,’
Schott; the ws referring to a finite
verb that has been omitted (see below),
and the accus. being governed by the
participles, and put prominently for-
ward to mark the individualizing re-
ference of the acts; BaBal, ἐν τοσούτῳ
πλήθει μηδένα παραλιπεῖν, Chrys. The
collective ὑμᾶς follows, as serving still
more clearly to define that all were
included: it is thus not so much a
mere pleonastic repetition of the pro-
noun (Col. ii. 13, comp. Bernhardy,

καὶ παραμυθούμενοι καὶ 12

Synt. p. 275), as a defining and sup-
plementary accus. somewhat allied to
the use of that case in the σχῆμα καθ᾽
ὅλον καὶ μέρος, Jelf, Gr. ὃ 584.

ὡς πατήρ] Appropriate change from
the image of a nursing-mother (ver. 7)
to that of a father; the reference not
being here to the tenderness of the
love, but to its manifestation in in-
struction and education. The remark
of Theoph. (suggested by Chrys.), ἄνω
μὲν οὖν τροφῷ ἑαυτὸν ἀπείκασε viv δὲ
πατρὶ τὴν ἀγάπην δεικνύων καὶ τὴν
προστασίαν, is thus not wholly appro-
priate. παρακαλ, ὑμᾶς Kal
παραμυθ.] ‘exhorting you and encou-
raging you; more exact specification
of the behaviour previously described.
The participles are certainly not di-
rectly (Copt.), nor even indirectly (by
an assumed omission of ἦμεν, Beza,
al.) equivalent to finite verbs, but are
either (a) dependent on ἐγενήθημεν
supplied from the preceding clause
(Liinem., Alf.), or (6) are used ἀνακο-
λούθως, as modal clauses to a finite
verb (-Ξ ἐγενήθ. ὑμῖν) that has been
omitted, but is readily suggested by
the context; ‘ ye know how we did so,
so appy. Theod.,
ταῦτα δὲ ἐποίουν [ἐγὼ] προτρέπων
k.T.X., and probably Goth., which
simply retains the participles. Between
(a) and (δ) the difference is practically
not great; in the former case the par-
ticiples form part of the primary, in
the latter of the modal and secondary
predication: (Ὁ) however seems pre-
ferable, both from the special consi-
deration that thus the secondary pre-
dications of manner in ver. 10 find
a parallelism in ver. 11, and from the
general consideration that these parti-

?

exhorting you, &c.;

cipial anacolutha are common in St

Paul’s Epp.: comp. 2 Cor. vii. 5, aud

20 ΠΡΟΣ

OEZZAAONIKEI® A.

μαρτυρόμενοι εἰς TO περιπατεῖν ὑμᾶς ἀξίως τοῦ Θεοῦ

“ “ e ed 9 A ΄ “~ ’ ‘
τοῦ καλοῦντος ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ βασιλείαν Kat

δόξαν.

Winer, Gr. ὃ 45. 6, p. 313. The
verb παραμυθ. seems here to imply
not so much direct ‘ consolation’
(Jobn xi. 19, 31), Vulg., comp. Syr.

@naks <a sso [loquentes in

corde vestro], Copt., Aith., as ‘ encou-
ragement,’ see ch. v. 14, yet not spe-
cially to meet dangers bravely (Gicum.),
but, as the context suggests,—to per-
form generally their duties as Chris-
tians.

12. μαρτυρόμενοι] ‘ charging,’ ‘con-
juring, ‘quasi testibus adhibitis’
(comp. Eph. iv. 17),—not however
= διαμαρτυρόμ. (De Wette, Liinem.),
which is obviously a stronger form;
see notes on 1 Tim. v.12. This sense
of μαρτύρ. is abundantly confirmed by
the use of the verb not only in later
(Polyb. Hist. x11. 8. 6), but even in
earlier writers, e.g. Thucyd. vI. 80,
δεόμεθα δὲ καὶ μαρτυρόμεθα, and VIII.
53, μαρτυρομένων καὶ ἐπιθειαζόντων
(Goéll.),—and is similar to though, as
the context shows, not perfectly iden-
tical with (Koch) its use in Gal. v. 3,
Eph. iv. 17, where it approaches more
nearly to μαρτυροῦμαι; see notes in
loce. The reading is slightly
doubtful: Rec., Lachm., read μαρτυ-
pov. with D!FG ; most mss.; Theod.,
Theoph., al., but as the external evi-
dence in favour of paprupdu. [BD?
(appy.) D'E (appy.) KLN; 30 mss. ;
Chrys., GEc.: A omits καὶ μαρτ., and
C is deficient] is of superior weight,
and as μαρτυρεῖσθαι is always used
passively in the New Test., we adopt
μαρτυρόμ. with Tisch. and the majority
of modern critics; see Rinck, Lucubr.
Crit. p. οι. εἰς τό κιτ.λ.7 ‘ that
ye should walk worthy,’ Col. i. 10; de-
pendent on the preceding participles,

and indicating not merely the subject
(Liinem.) or direction (Alf.), but, as
εἰς τὸ with the infin. nearly always
indicates, the purpose of the foregoing
exhortation and appeal: comp. Chrys.,
who paraphrases by ἵνα with the subj.,
and contrast Theod. who paraphrases
with a simple infin. The form εἰς τὸ
with the infin. is commonly used by
St Paul simply to denote the purpose
(comp. Winer, Gir. § 44. 6, p. 295,
Meyer, on Rom. i. 20, note), and pro-
bably in no instance is simply indica-
tive of result (ecbatic) ; still, as perhaps
in the present case, there appear to be
several passages in which the purpose
is so far blended with the subject of
the prayer, entreaty, ἄπ. or the issues
of the action, that it may not be im-
proper to recognise a secondary and
weakened force in ref. to purpose,
analogous to that in the parallel use
of wa; comp. notes on Eph. i. τῇ.
The
adopted instead of the aor. περιπατῆ-
σαι (Rec.) by most modern editors on
preponderant uncial authority [A BD!
FGN; many mss.: C is deficient].
τοῦ καλοῦντος] ‘who is calling; not
καλέσαντος, as in Gal. i. 6, and here
in AN and 8 mss.: the calling was
still continuing as relating to some-
thing which in its fullest realization
was future. It has been before ob-
served that in the Epistles the gra-
cious work of calling is always ascribed
to the Father; comp. notes on (Gal.
l.c., Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Iv. 15, p.
144 sq., Usteri, Lehrb. τι. 2. 3, p. 269
sq. On the ‘vocatio externa’ and
‘interna,’ see the good distinctions of
Jackson, Creed, XII. 7. 1, 2.
βασιλείαν καὶ δόξαν] ‘kingdom and
glory; not ἃ ἕν διὰ δυοῖν for βασιλείαν

present περιπατεῖν is rightly

TE: 3. a7

Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς εὐχαριστοῦμεν 13

We thank Goa that ye
i reachin
ae ihe ae of Go Ye suffered from ᾿

your own people as we did from the Jews.

13. Διὰ τοῦτο] So Rec. with DEFGKL; appy. all mss.; Syr., Vulg.,
Clarom., Goth., Auth. (both); Chrys., Theod., Theoph., Gicum. (De W., Liinem.,
Wordsw.). Tisch. and Lachm. prefix καὶ with ABN; Copt., Syr.-Phil. ; Theod.
(ms. B), Ambrosiaster (A/f.). The reading is thus very doubtful, as the addi-
tion of δὲ (C is here deficient) must justly be considered of great weight. I
do not however at present reverse the reading of ed. 1, 2, till the peculiarities
of δὲ (which is of very unequal weight in different portions of the N.T.) are
more fully known to us; especially as it is by no means unreasonable to sup-

pose that the καὶ was prefixed to help out the difficulty of connexion.

ἔνδοξον (Olsh.), but, as all the Vv.
rightly maintain (Syr., Copt., Aith.,
even repeat the pronoun), two separate

substantives, the common article being

accounted for by the inserted geni-
tive ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ το. 4. d, p. 116.
The βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ is the kingdom
of His Son, the βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν
(Chrys.), of which even while here on
earth the true Christian is a subject,
but the full privileges and blessedness
of which are to be enjoyed hereafter ;
comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Iv. 22,
Vol. 11. p. 244 8q., and the long trea-
tise of C. G. Bauer in Comment. Theol.
Part II. p. 107—172. The δόξα to
which He calls us is His own eternal
glory, of which all the true members
of the Messianic kingdom shall be
partakers; comp. Rom. v. 2, and see
Reuss, ὦ. 6. p. 253, Usteri, Lehrd. τι.
2. B, p. 351.

13. Διὰ τοῦτο] ‘For this cause,’
as we have displayed this zeal and
earnestness, we thank God that ye
received our message in an accordant
spirit: see note on ver. 1. The exact
reference of these words is somewhat
doubtful. Schott and others refer the
words to the ‘ effectum admonitionis’
implied in εἰς τὸ περιπ. x.7.d. (comp.
Jowett); De W., al., to the purpose
and object of the preaching which the
same words seem to imply, but thus

introduce a greater or less amount of
tautology which it seems impossible
to explain away. It would seem then,
as Liinem. correctly observes, that we
can only logically refer them (a) to the
specific declaration involved in the
clause immediately preceding, scil. ὅτι
καλεῖ ὑμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς εἰς κιτ.λ. Olsh., Lii-
nem., Alf.; or (Ὁ) to the general sub-
ject of the preceding verses,—the
earnestness and zeal of the Apostle
and his associates. Of these (a) de-
serves consideration, but is open to
the grave objection that thus διὰ τοῦτο
is made to refer to a mere appended
clause rather than, as usual, to the
tenor of the whole preceding sentence.
We therefore, it would seem with the
Greek expositors, adopt (Ὁ); οὐκ ἔστιν
εἰπεῖν ὅτι ἡμεῖς μὲν πάντα ἀμέμπτως
πράττομεν ὑμεῖς δὲ ἀνάξια τῆς ἡμέτέρας
ἀναστροφῆς ἐποιήσατε, Chrys.

καὶ ἡμεῖς] ‘ we also,’ not, as Alf. and
Liinem., ‘ we as well as πάντες of πι-
στεύοντες᾽ (ch. 1. 7),—a reference far
too remote,—but ‘ we as well as you
who have so much to be thankful for :’
the καὶ involving some degree of con-
trast (see notes on Phil. iv. 12), and
delicately marking the reciprocity of
the feeling between οἱ περὶ τὸν Παῦλον
and the twice repeated ὑμεῖς in the
preceding verse; see esp. notes on Eph.
1,15. De W. and Koch (so also Auth.)

28

ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ A.

τῷ Θεῷ ἀδιαλείπτως, ὅτι παραλαβόντες λόγον ἀκοῆς

Tap ἡμῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐδέξασθε οὐ λόγον ἀνθρώπων

refer καὶ to διὰ τοῦτο, ---ὃι connexion
decidedly at variance with the usage
of the particle in demonstrative clauses,
but involving a less error than the
counter-assertion of Liinem., that we
should then expect διὰ καὶ τοῦτο : such
collocations are very rare; see notes
on Phil. iv. 3, and comp. Hartung,
Partik. καί; 4. 3, Vol. τ. p. 143.
εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ Θεῷ] ‘we give
thanks to God.’ On the meaning and
usages of εὐχαρ. see notes on Phil. i.
3, and esp. on Col. i. 12.

ὅτι παραλαβόντες] ‘that when ye re-
ceived ;? objective sentence (Donalds.
Gr. § 584 sq.) defining the matter and
grounds of the εὐχαριστία. The par-
ticiple is here temporal, and specifies
the more external act that was either
contemporaneous with, or rather im-
mediately prior to the more internal
ἐδέξασθε; comp. notes on Eph. iv. 8.
The distinction between παραλαμβάνειν
and δέχεσθαι stated by Liinem. and
Koch, viz. that παραλαμβάνειν points
rather to an objective (Gal. i. 12, see
notes), δέχεσθαι to a subjective recep-
tion (2 Cor. vill. 17), seems substan-
tially correct, but must be applied
with caution; see notes on Col. ii. 6.
λόγον ἀκοῆς] ‘the word of hearing ;’
ὦ. 6. ‘the word which was heard,’ or
‘the word of preaching,’ ἀκοὴ being
used in its passive sense which pre-
vails in the N.T. (see notes on Gal.
iii. 2; comp. Heb. iv. 2, and the Heb.
πον Sip, Jer. xX. 22, φωνὴ ἀκοῆς,
LXX.), and the gen. being that of ap-
position or identity; Winer, Gr. § 59.
8, p. 470, Scheuerl. Synt. § 12. 1, p.
82, 83. The gen. ἀκοῆς is probably
here subjoined to λόγος to introduce a
slight contrast between the λόγος in
its first state as heard by the ear and
the same λόγος in its subsequent state

4

as ἐνεργούμενος in the hearts of be-
lievers; comp. Rom. x. 17.

παρ᾽ ἡμῶν thus naturally belongs to
παραλαβόντες (ch. iv. 1, 2 Thess. iii
6, comp. Gal. i. 12), from which it is
only separated by the somewhat em-
phatic object-accusative; so Vulg.,
Syr., Copt., Goth. (4ith. omits παρ᾽
ἡμῶν), Gcum., and a few modern com-
mentators. The construction adopted
by the majority of expositors, and
perhaps Clarom., Syr.-Phil., ἀκοῆς
παρ᾽ ἡμῶν is defensible,—but harsh
and unnatural, and probably only sug-
gested by the unusual but significant
position of the following rod Θεοῦ.
On the force of παρὰ as denoting the
more immediate source, see notes on
Gal. i. 12, and esp. Schulz, Abendm.
p. 218 sq.

τοῦ Θεοῦ] ‘ of God,’ sc. ‘which cometh
from God ;’ Θεοῦ not being a gen. ob-
jecti (‘de Deo,’ Grot.), nor the pos-
sessive gen. (‘belonging to,’ Alf. 1),
but a gen. of the author (De Wette,
‘coming from,’ Alf. 2), or even more
simply of the source from which the
λόγος ἀκοῆς really and primarily came ;
see notes on ch. i. 6. The unusually
placed τοῦ Θεοῦ seems added correc-
tively, the words being appended al-
most ‘ extra structuram,’ to mark that .
though the ἡμεῖς were the immediate |
human eaxxee οἵ the ἀκοὴ its real pnd
proper source was divine-{

οὐ λόγον ἀνθρ.] ‘not the word of men,’
z.e. which cometh from them, and of
which they are the true source; see
above. It is incorrect to supply ta-
citly ws: the Apostle, as Liinem. ob-
serves, is not stating how the Thes-
salonians regarded the message, but,
as the next clause still more clearly
shows, what it was as a matter of
fact. The importance of this clause

ΤΙ: 12.

29

ἀλχὰ καθώς ἐστιν ἀληθῶς λόγον Θεοῦ, ὃς καὶ ἐνεργεῖται

ἐν ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν. ὑμεῖς γὰρ μιμηταὶ ἐγενήθητε, 14

, “ “ “ “ “ 9 -“ 9 a
ἀδελφοί, τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ τῶν οὐσῶν ἐν TH

Ἰουδαίᾳ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, ὅτι τὰ αὐτὰ ἐπάθετε καὶ

as asserting the direct Inspiration of
the spoken words must not be over-
looked. ὃς Kal ἐνεργεῖται]
‘which also worketh,’ ‘is operative,’
scil. the λόγος Θεοῦ (Clarom., Syr.,
Goth., Theoph., Gicum.), not Θεός
(Vulg., Theod.),—which in St Paul’s
Epp. is never found with the middle
ἐνεργεῖσθαι, but always with the act.;
see 1 Cor. xii. 6, 11, Gal. ii. 8, iii. 5,
Eph. i. 11, al. On the constructions
of évepy., see notes on Gal. ii. 8, and
on the distinction between the active
(‘vim exercere’) and the intensive
middle (‘ex se vim suam exercere’),
see notes on Gal. v. 6, Winer, Gr.
§ 38. 6, p. 231, and comp. Kriiger,
Sprachl. ὃ 52. 8. tsq. The καὶ must
not be omitted in transl. (Alf.), or as-
sociated with the relative (De W.,
Koch), but connected with évepy.,
which it enhances by suggesting a
further property or characteristic of
the Inspired Word, and perhaps a con-
trast with its inoperative nature when
merely heard and not believed. On
this use of cai, see notes on Eph.i. 11,
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 636, and
comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 69. 32. 12.
ἐν ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστ.] ‘in you that be-
lieve,’ not ‘in vobis qui credidistis,’
Vulg., which would require τοῖς πι-
στεύσασιν, nor ‘propterea quod fidem
habetis,’ Schott (comp. Olsh., Koch),
which would require the omission of
the article (comp. Donalds. Gr. ὃ 492),
but ‘vobis qui creditis,’ Goth., Syr.-
Phil., rots πιστεύουσιν adding a spi-
ritual characteristic that serves indi-
rectly to illustrate and verify the pre-
ceding declarations of the verse.

14. ὑμεῖς γάρ] Confirmation, not of

their reception of the word (Gicum.),
nor of the predication of their belief
(Olsh.), but of the ἐνέργεια displayed
in them by the λόγος Θεοῦ: ‘your
imitation of the churches of Judea in

_your sufferings is a distinct evidence

of the ἐνέργεια of the word within
you.” On the words μιμηταὶ ἐγενήθ.,
see notes on ch. i. 6.

τῶν οὐσῶν ἐν τῇ Lovd.] ‘which are in
Judea ;’ not ‘ preesens pro preterito,’
Grot., but with a direct reference to
the churches that were still existing
in Judea; comp. throughout Gal. i.
22. Why the Apostle peculiarly
specifies these churches has been very
differently explained. The most pro-
bable reason seems to be that as the
Jews were at present the most active
adversaries of Christianity, he specifies
that locality where this opposition
would be shown in its most determined
aspects, and under circumstances of
the greatest social trial: see Wordsw.
in loc. ἐν Xp. “I.] ‘in Christ
Jesus;’ ‘in union and communion
with Him;’ ‘incorporated with Him
who is the Head.’ Both here and in
Gal. i. 22 this spiritual definition is
suitably subjoined, as still more clearly
separating them even in thought from
the συναγωγαὶ τῶν Ἰουδαίων (icum.),
which might be ἐν Θεῷ, but were far in-
deed from being ἐν Χριστῷ. Forraaira
Rec. reads ταῦτα with AD; most mss.
ὑπὸ τῶν ἰδίων συμφυλ.] ‘ at the hands
of your own countrymen; closely de-
pendent on ἐπάθετε, ---ὑπὸ being used
correctly with neuter verbs which in-
volve a passive reference, see Winer,
Gr. ὃ 47. Ὁ, p. 330: the reading ἀπὸ
[D'FG; Orig. (1) in some ed.] is pro-

90

ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.

a 4A “ ; “~ Γ
ὑμεῖς ὑπὸ τῶν ἰδίων συμφυλετῶν, καθὼς καὶ αὐτοὶ

e Ἁ “ 9 ’ “A 4 Ἁ , 5] ,
15 ὕπο τῶν Ἰουδαίων τῶν καὶ τὸν Κύριον ATOKTELVAVTWVY
αἱ “~ \ A , Nr ΑΝ 3 ὃ 4 4
ησοὺν καὶ τοὺς προφήτας, καὶ μας εκ ιωξάντων, Kal

bably only due to a grammatical cor-
rector. The supererogatory compound
συμφυλ. (‘contribulibus,’ Vulg., ὁμοε-
θνής, Hesych.) is a ἅπ. λεγόμ. in the
N.T.; it is not found in earlier writers
(πολίτης, δημότης, φυλέτης, ἄνευ τῆς
σύν, Herodian, p. 471, ed. Lobeck),
and is an instance of the noticeable
tendency in later Greek to compound
forms without corresponding increase
of meaning: comp. συνπολίτης, Eph.
ii. 19, and see Thiersch, de Pentat. τι.
1, p. 83. These συμφυλεταί, as the
contrast requires, must have been
Gentiles ; it is however not unreason-
able to suppose that they were insti-
gated by Jews (De W.); comp. Acts
xvii. 5, 13. καθὼς Kal
αὐτοί] ‘even as they also ;’ not a gram-
matically exact, though a perfectly
intelligible apodosis ; comp. Demosth.
Phil, 1. p. 51, and Heindorf on Plato,
Pheedo, § 79 (p. 86 A), Jelf, Gr. § 869.
2. On the repetition of καὶ in both
members of the sentence, by which
‘per aliquam cogitandi celeritatem’ a
double and reciprocal comparison is
instituted, see Fritz. Rom. i. 13, Vol.
I. p. 37, 38, and notes on Eph. v. 23.
The αὐτοὶ obviously does not refer to
the Apostle and his helpers [Goth.,
Aith.-Pol. (but not Platt), Copt.], but
by a ‘constructio ad sensum’ to the
persons included in the more abstract
ἐκκλησιῶν [Syr., Vulg., Clarom.,
Arm.]; comp. Gal. i. 22, 23, and
Winer, Gr. ὃ 22. 3, p. 131.

15. τῶν Kal Tov Kup. κιτ.λ.] ‘who
slew both the Lord Jesus and, &c.:’
warning notice of the true character
of the unbelieving Jews, suggested
probably by recent experiences ; comp.
Acts xvii. 5, 13, xviii. 6, The particle

’

kai is not ascensive, ‘qui ipsum Do-
minum occiderunt,’ Clarom., nor con-
nected with τῶν (Liinem.),—a most
questionable connexion, as τῶν pro-
perly considered has no relatival force,
—but simply correlative to the follow-
ing καί, ‘et Dominum...et prophetas’
(Vulg.; Copt. omits first καί), and in-
troductory of the first of two similar
and co-ordinate members; see Winer,
Gr. ὃ 53. 4, p. 389, and notes on 1 Tim.
iv. Io. The position of τὸν Κύριον
is obviously emphatic, and serves more
forcibly to evince the heinous nature
of their sin. Kal τοὺς προφήτας]
‘and the prophets ;’ clearly governed
by the preceding dmoxrew. (Chrys., |
Theoph., Gicum.), not by the succeed-
ing ἐκδιωξάντων (De W., Koch). The
counter-argument that all the prophets
were not killed is of little weight, as
‘mutatis mutandis’ it can be nearly
as strongly urged against the connexion
with ἐκδιωξάντων. The addition of
this second member serves indirectly
to weaken the force of the plea of
ignorance (comp. Acts iii. 17): ἀλλ᾽
ἠγνόησαν αὐτὸν tows. Μάλιστα μὲν οὖν
ἤδεσαν. Τί δαί; οὐχὶ καὶ τοὺς ἰδίους
προφήτας ἀπέκτειναν ; Chrys.

There is here a variety of reading:
ἰδίους is inserted before προῴ. by Rec.
with D?D*E*KL; appy. Syr., Goth.,
al.; Chrys., Theod., al., but is not
found in ABD'E! FGN; 7 mss. ; Vulg.,
Clarom., Copt., Orig. (2), Tertull. (who
ascribes the insertion to Marcion) ; C is
deficient. It was perhaps suggested
by the preceding ἰδίων in ver. 14. It
is thus rightly omitted by nearly all
modern editors.

καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐκδιωξ.] ‘and drove us out ;’
ὦ. 6. not merely St Paul and his helpers,

LTS 85516,

91

“ , A “ 9 ’ > 4 y
Θεῷ μὴ ἀρεσκόντων καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἐναντίων,

“ A “- A 9
κωλυόντων ἡμᾶς τοῖς ἔθνεσιν λαλῆσαι ἵνα σωθῶσιν, εἰς τό

but the Apostles generally. The force
of the compound ἐκδιώκειν is somewhat
doubtful: é« does not seem otiose
(De W.), nor even simply intensive
(Liinem.), but has appy. a semilocal
reference, ‘qui persequendo ejecerunt,’
Beng., Alf.; comp. Luke xi. 49, and
consider Acts xviii. 6. This meaning
of ἐκδιώκειν does not seem to have
been clearly recognised either by
Chrys., al., or any of the best Vv.,
but is somewhat strongly supported
by the prevailing use of the verb in
the LXX.; see Deut. vi. 19, 1 Chron.
viii. 13, xii. 15, Joel ii. 20, al. For
ἡμᾶς Steph. 1550 (not Rec.) reads
ὑμᾶς probably by an error.

Θεῷ μὴ ἀρεσκ.} ‘do not please God ;’
not ‘placere non querentium,’ Beng.
nor aoristic ‘non placuerunt,’ Clarom.,
but, with the proper force of the tense,
‘are not pleasing,’ are pursuing a
course displeasing to,—the present
marking the result of a regular and
continuing course of behaviour ; comp.
Winer, Gr. ὃ 45. 1, p. 304. The μὴ
here does not seem to imply so much
as ‘Deo placere non curantium,’ Alf.,
but is simply used to mark the aspects
under which their conduct caused them
to be presented to the reader; comp.
Winer, Gr. ὃ 55. 5, Ρ. 429, and esp.
Gayler, de Part. Neg. cap. IX. p. 275
sq. In estimating the force of
μὴ with a participle in the N.T. two
things should always be borne in mind,
(1) that μὴ with the participle is so
decidedly the prevailing combination,
that while the force of οὐ with the
part. will commonly admit of being
pressed, that of μὴ willnot; see Green,
Gr. p. 122; (2) that it is not correct
always to find in the μὴ (as Alf. here)
a reference to the feelings or views of
the subject connected with the partici-

ple (comp. notes on Gal. iv. 8), but
that it sometimes refers to the aspect
in which the facts are presented by the
writer, and regarded by’ the reader ;
see esp. Winer, Gr. /. c., and Herm,
Viger, No. 267. πᾶσιν ἀνθρ.
ἐναντίων ‘contrary to all men ;’ scil.
‘quia saluti generis humani per in-
vidiam et malitiam obsistebant,’ Est.
2, and in effect Chrys. and the Greek
commentators. The usual reference ©
of the τὸ ἐναντίον to the ‘adversus
omnes alios hostile odium’ entertained
by Jews, Tacit. Hist. v. 5 (Olsh., De
W., Jowett), has been recently called
in question by Liinem., and satisfac-
torily refuted, (1) on the ground that
this exclusiveness, which had originally
a monotheistic reference, would hardly
have received from the Apostle such
unqualified censure; (2) on the gram-
matical principle that the causal par-
ticiple κωλυόντων does not add any
new fact, but explains the meaning of
what is appy. ‘ generaliter dictum’ in
the preceding words; so also Schott
and Alford.
16. κωλυόντων] ‘seeing they hinder ,᾽

not <a SO? [qui prohibent] Syr.,
comp. De W., but ake r
» vy

{dum prohibent] Syr.-Phil., ‘ prohi-
bentes,’ Vulg., the participle being
anarthrous, and supplying the causal
explanation of the foregoing asser-
tion; comp. Donalds. Gir. § 492 sq.
There is no idea of ‘conatus’ (De W.)
involved in κωλυόντων; the present
simply states what they were actually
doing, as far as circumstances permit-
ted them; comp. Liinem.

λαλῆσαι ἵνα σωθῶσιν] ‘to speak that
they might be saved; not ‘evangelium
predicare ut (‘qua,’ Erasm.) salve

92

ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙ͂Σ A.

9 ΄“ , αἱ 4 e , ’ 4 ;
TO ἀναπληρῶσαι αὐτῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας παντοτε. ἔφθασεν

δὲ 4... Φ ᾿] A e 9 4 9
€ ἐπ᾿ αὐτοὺς ἡ ὀργὴ εἰς τέλος.

fiant,’ Menoch. ap. Pol. Syn., but
simply, ‘gentibus loqui ut serventur,’
Beza,— λαλῆσαι preserving its ordinary
meaning, and appy. coalescing with
iva σωθῶσιν to form an emphatic peri-
phrasis of εὐαγγελίζεσθαι (Olsh.). “Iva
will perhaps thus have a somewhat
weakened force (see notes on Eph. i.
. 17), and the final sentence will to
some extent merge into the objective.
On the nature of these forms of sen-
tence, see Donalds. Gr. § 584 sq. and
605 sq. ‘els τὸ ἀναπληρ.
κιτ.λ.7 ‘in order to fill wp (the measure
of ) their sins ;’ final clause appended,
not merely to κωλυόντων, but to the
whole preceding verse, and marking
with the full force of εἰς τὸ (see notes
on ver. 12) the purpose contemplated
in their course of action. This pur-
pose, viewed grammatically, must be
ascribed to the Jews,—whether as
. conscious and wilful (σκοπῷ τοῦ ἁμαρ-
τάνειν ἐποίουν, Gicum.), or as blinded
and unconscious agents (De W.): con-
sidered however theologically, it main-
ly refers to the eternal purpose of God
which unfolded itself in this wilful
and at last judicial blindness on the
part of His chosen people; comp.
Olsh. and Liinem. in loc. The
compound ἀναπλ. is not synonymous
with πληροῦν, but marks the existence
of a partial rather than an entire
vacuum; the Jews were always blind
and stubborn, but when they slew
their Lord and drove forth His Apo-
stles they filled up (supplebant) the
measure of their iniquities; see notes
on Phil. ii. 30, and Winer, de Verb.
Comp. Ill. p. 11 sq.

y »
πάντοτε] ‘at all times,’ «995

{omni tempore] Syr., not only in the
times before Christ (ἐπὶ τῶν προφη-

τῶν), but when He came, and after
He left them (ἐπὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων). -
There is no exegetical necessity for
assuming that πάντοτε = παντελῶς
(Bretschn., Olsh.): the Jews were
always in all periods of their history
acting in a manner that tended to fill
up thecontinually diminishing vacuum.
ἔφθασεν δὲ ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς] ‘ But there is
come upon them;’ contrast between
their course of evil and its sequel of
puniskment. It is scarcely necessary
to say that δὲ is not equivalent to γάρ
(‘enim,’ Vulg.), but with its usual

and proper force (+2, Syr., ‘autem,’

Clarom.) marks the antithesis between
the procedure and its issue; ‘alii rei
aliam adjicit, ut tamen ubivis que-
dam oppositio declaretur,’ Klotz, De-
var. Vol. 11. p. 362. On the meaning
of the verb φθάνειν in later Greek (not
‘prevenit,’ Clarom., Vuilg. [Amiat.],

but ao [advenit] Syr., and with
= Vv

els ‘pervenit,’ Vulg.), see notes on
Phil. iii. 16, and Fritz. Rom. ix. 31,
Vol. I. pp. 356, 357. The aorist
ἔφθασεν ‘came’ (but see notes to
Transl.) is certainly not equivalent
either to a present (Grot.) or to a
future (Schott), but marks the event
as an historical fact that belongs to
the past, without however further spe-
cifying ‘quam late pateat id quod actum
est ; see esp. Fritz. de Aor. Vi, p. 17.
The perfect ἔφθακεν [Lachm. (non
marg.) with BD'] was appy. an interpr.
suggested by a supposed inappropriate-
ness in the use of the aorist. The
perf. contemplates an endurance in
the present, the aorist leaves this fact
unnoticed but does not exclude it.

ἡ ὀργή] ‘the anger,’ scil. τοῦ Θεοῦ,---
which is actually added in DEFG;

I endeavoured to see ε Ἂ ’
ou, but was hindered Hues δέ,

by Satan. Ye truly are our crown and glory.

Vulg., Clarom., ‘Goth. ; comp. Rom. —

v.9. The article either marks the
ὀργὴ as προωρισμένη καὶ mpopnrevo-
μένη (Chrys. 2, 3), or perhaps rather
as ὀφειλομένη (Chrys. τ, CGicum.), or
even simply ἐρχομένη ; comp. ch. i. 10.
εἰς τέλος] ‘to the end,’ ‘to the utter-
most; ‘usque ad finem,’ Clarom. ; in
close connexion with ἔφθασεν, not
with épy7,—a construction that would
certainly require the insertion of the
article. Eis τέλος is not used adver-
bially (Jowett,—comp. Job xx. 7),
whether in the sense of ‘ postremo”
(Wahl, comp. Beng. ‘tandem’) or
‘ penitus’ (Homb.), but, in accordance
with the ordinary construct. of φθάνειν
εἰς τί, marks the issue to which the
ὀργὴ had arrived: it had reached its
extreme bound, and would at once
pass into inflictive judgments. As the
cup of the ἁμαρτία had been gradually
filling, so had the measures of the
divine ὀργή. It can scarcely be
doubted that in these words the Apo-
stle is pointing prophetically to the
misery and destruction which in less
than fifteen years came upon the whole
Jewish nation. To regard the present
clause as specifying what had already
taken place (Baur, Paulus, p. 483) is
wholly inconsistent with the context:
see Liinem. in loc., who has well re-
futed the arguments urged by Baur,
l.c. against the genuineness of the
Ep., derived from this and the pre-
ceding verses.

17. “Hpeis δέ] ‘But we, return
after the digression to the subjects and
leading thought of ver. 13, the δὲ not
being simply resumptive, but reintro-
ducing the Apostle and his associates
with contrasted reference to the Jewish
persecutors just alluded to: comp. the
remarks on this particle in notes on

1 7. : 9 ὦ

ἀδελφοί, ἀπορφανισθέντες 17

Gal. iii. 8. ἀπορφανισθέντες
ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν] “ bereaved in our separation
from you,’ ‘desolati a vobis,’ Vulg.,

Gato hod. [ὀρφανοὶ a vobis]

Syr., temporal not concessive (Theod.)
use of the participle, marking an ac-
tion prior to that of the finite verb;
comp. Winer, Gr. § 45. 6. b, p. 315.
In this expressive compound the ἀπὸ
(reiterated before the pronoun) serves
to mark the idea of separation (Winer,
Gr. ὃ 47, Ῥ- 331), and the term ὀρφα-
vos, ὀρφανίζω, the feeling of desolation
and bereavement which the separation
involved. The further idea παίδων
πατέρας ζἑητούντων, Chrys. (Aisch.
Choéph. 249), or conversely, ‘ orbati ut
parentes liberis absentibus,’ Beng., is
not necessarily involved in the term,
as ὀρφανὸς [cognate with ‘ orbus,’ and
perhaps derived from Sanscr. rabh, the
radical idea of which is ‘seizing,’ ὅς. ;
see Pott, Hiym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 259]
is not unfrequently used with some
latitude of reference; comp. Pind.
Isthi. Vu. 16, ὀρφανὸν ἑτάρων, Plato,
Republ. vi. p. 4950, ὀρφανὴν ξυγγενῶν,
and the good collection of exx. in
Rost u. Palin, Lex. s.v. Vol. 11. p. 542.
The idea of separation from those we
love seems however to be always in-
volved in the term, when used in re-
ference to persons; comp. Plato,
Phedr. p. 239 E, τῶν φιλτάτων...κτη-
μάτων ὀρφανόν. πρὸς καιρὸν
ὧρας}7 ‘for the season of an hour,

more emphatic expression than the
usual πρὸς wWpav (2 Cor. vii. 8, Gal. ii.
5, Philem. 15), or the less defined
πρὸς καιρόν (Luke viii. 13, 1 Cor. vii.
5), serving to mark the shortness of
the time that elapsed between the
bereavement and the longing expecta-
tion of return; comp, the Latin ‘hora

D

etshtt ΟΝ

94

ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.

Sie - ἃς Ν Α “ , 3 δί
ἀφ UMWY προς καιρὸν WPAS προσώπῳ OV καρόιᾳ, περισ-

, 9 , ‘ , 6-3 9 a 9
σοτέρως ἐσπουδάσαμεν τὸ πρόσωπον ὑμῶν ἰδεῖν ἐν πολ-

“ A 4A ΄-“
18 Ay ἐπιθυμίᾳ. διότι ἠθελήσαμεν ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ

momento,’ Hor. ϑαΐ, 1. 1. 7. On the
use οὗ πρὸς in these temporal formule,
as properly serving to mark motion
toward an epoch conceived as before

the subject, see notes on Philem. 15.

(where see also on the derivation of
wpa), and compare Donalds. Cratyl.
§ 177. προσώπῳ οὐ καρδίᾳ]
‘in face not in heart ;’ scil. τῆς αἰσθη-
τῆς ὑμῶν ἐστέρημαι θέας, τῆς δὲ νοητῆς
ἀπολαύω διηνεκῶς, Theod.: datives,
certainly (not)of manner (Alf.), but of
relation (‘of reference’), marking with
the true limiting power of the case
the metaphorical place to which the
action is restricted; comp. 1 Cor. v.
3, Col. ii. 5, see notes on Gal. i. 22,
and esp. Scheuerl. Synt. §22, p. 179 8q.,
where the distinctions between the
local, modal, and instrumental, uses
of this case are well illustrated.

περισσοτ. ἐσπουδ.1 ‘were the more
abundantly zealous,’ ‘eo amplius [ma-
gis] studuimus,’ Beza,—viz. because
our heart was with you, and our long-
ing consequently greater. The exact
reference of the comparative is some-
what doubtful. It is certainly not
merely an intensified positive (Olsh.,
Just. 2, comp. Goth.) ; for though fre-
quently used by St Paul (2 Cor. i. 12,
Ἐ 4, Wis-33, 18... M1. 23; KU 28, Cal.
i. 14, Phil. i. 14; comp. Heb. ii. 1,
xiii. 19), it has appy. in every case its
proper comparative force; see Winer,
Gr. ὃ 35. 4, p. 217. The most plau-
sible ref. is not to the mere fact of the
ἀπορφανισμός (Winer, l.c.), nor to the
briefness of the time as suggestive of
a less obliterated remembrance (Lii-
nem., comp. Alf., Jowett), still less to
the comparative length of it (περισσοτ.
ἢ ὡς εἰκὸς ἦν τοὺς πρὸς ὥραν ἀπολει-

φθέντας, Theoph., eomp. Chrys.), but
to the fact that the separation was
προσώπῳ οὐ καρδίᾳ; ‘quo magis corde
presens vobiscum fui, hoc abundan-
tius faciem vestram videre studui,’
Muse. The form περισσοτέρως (περισ-
σότερον, Mark vii. 36, 1 Cor. xv. 10,
Heb. vi. 17, vii. 15 only) is appy. rare
in classical Greek, comp. however
Isocr. p. 35 E. τὸ πρόσωπον
ὑμῶν ἰδεῖν] ‘to see your face,’ not
‘exquisite positum’ for ὑμᾶς ἰδεῖν,
with reference to the preceding προσώ-
mw (Schott, Jowett), but appy. an ex-
pressive Hebraistic periphrasis (MIN
ΒΘ ΓΝ), marking the personal face-
to-face nature of the meeting ; comp.
ch. iii. 10, Col. ii. 1.

ἐν πολλῇ ἐπιθ.] ‘with great desire,’
appended clause specifying the ethi-
cal sphere in which the σπουδὴ was
evinced (‘in multo desiderio,’ Clarom.,
Copt., Goth.), or perhaps more simply
the concomitant feeling (‘cum multo
desiderio,’ Vulg., comp. Arm.) with
which it was associated; see notes on
Col. iv. 2, and comp. above on ver. 3.
Ἔπιθ. is seldom in the N. T. used as
here in a good sense: see Trench,
Synon. Part It. ὃ 37.

18. διότι] ‘ On which account,’ scil.
of our longing to come and see you.
The particle διότι is here used in a
sense little different from διό (comp.
Lat. ‘quare’), and stands at the be-
ginning of the period,—a usage in
which Jowett and Lachm. appear to
have felt a difficulty, as they place
only a comma after ἐπιθυμίᾳ. Lachm.
and Tisch. (ed. 1, 7) read διότι with
ABD'FGSN; 9 mss. (Liinem., Alf.).
Tisch. has here rightly returned to the
reading of his first edition, as the ex-

IT. 18, 19.

30

μὲν ἸΠαῦλος καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ dis, καὶ ἐνέκοψεν ἡμᾶς ὁ
: “- ’ ἈΝ eA 9 A “A ‘ aA , ;
Σατανᾶς. τίς yap ἡμῶν ἐλπὶς ἢ χαρὰ ἢ στέφανος 19

ternal authority for διό (Rec., De W.,
Tisch. ed. 2)—viz.(D??)D?EKL; great
majority of mss.; Chrys., Theod.,
Dam., al. (C is deficient) is not strong,
and, owing to the unusual position of
διότι, the temptation to correct was
very great. ἠθελήσαμεν] ‘we
wished,’ ‘would fain,’ not ἠβουλήθη-
μεν, which would have expressed ‘ ip-
fam animi propensionem’ (Tittm.)
with a greater force than would be
consistent with the context; comp.
Philem. 13, 14. On the distinction
between θέλω and βούλομαι, see notes
on 1 Tim. v. 14, and Donalds. Cratyl.
§ 463, but in applying it in St Paul’s
Epp. observe that θέλω is used 7 times
to βούλομαι once. This perhaps sug-
gests that we may commonly with
safety press the latter, but must be
cautious with regard to the former.
ἐγὼ μὲν Ilatdos] ‘even I Paul,’ ‘ipse
ego Paulus,’ Aith. The μὲν ‘solita-
rium’ serves to enhance the distinctive
use of the personal pronoun (Hartung,
Partik. μέν, 3. 3, Vol. τ΄. p. 413) by
faintly hinting at the others from
whom for the sake of emphasis—not
of contrast in conduct (κἀκεῖνοι μὲν yap
ἤθελον μόνον, ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ ἐπεχείρησα,
Chrys.)—he is here detaching himself ;
comp. Devar. de Partic. Vol. 1. p. 122
(ed. Klotz). On the proper force of
μέν (incorrectly derived by Klotz and
Hartung from μήν), and its connexion
with the first numeral, see Donalds.
Cratyl. ὃ 154, and comp. Pott, Etym.
Foisch. Vol. Τί. p. 324.

kal ἅπαξ καὶ Sls] ‘both once and
twice,’ ὁ, 6. ‘not once only, but twice ;’
see Phil. iv. 16, and notes in loc. The
first καὶ is not otiose (Raphel, Annot.
Vol. 1. p. 522), but adds an emphasis
to the enumeration ; contrast Nehem.
xiii. 20, 1 Macc, iii. 30, where the

omission of the καὶ leaves the formula
scarcely stronger in meaning than ‘ali-
quoties.’ Kal ἐνέκοψεν κ-.τ.λ.7
‘and Satan hindered us.’ The καὶ has
not here an adversative force (‘sed,’
Vulg., De W.), but simply places in
juxtaposition with the intention the
actual issue (‘ et impedivit,’ Clarom.,
and all the other Vv.), the opposition
lying really in the context. On this
practically contrasting use of καί, see
notes on Phil. iv. 12, and Winer, Gr.
δ 53. 3, ἢ. 388. On the primary mean-
ing of the verb ἐνκόπτειν (Hesych.
ἐνεκοπτόμην᾽ ἐνεποδιζόμην) ‘to hinder
by breaking up a road,’ see notes on
Gal. v. 7. ὁ Σατανᾶς]
‘Satan,’ Heb. τοῖν, the personal evil
Spirit, the ‘adversary’ κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν (ὁ
ἐχθρός, Luke x. 19); comp. notes on
Eph. vi. 27. To refer this term to
human adversaries (De W.), or tosome
inward impediment (Jowett, who
most inaptly compares Acts xvi. 7),
is in a high degree doubtful and pre-
carious : St Paul here plainly says that
the Devil was the hindrance; what
peculiar agencies he used are not re-
vealed. Without here entering into
controversy, it seems not out of place

to remark! that the language of the ;
N. T., if words mean anything, does |

ascribe a personality to the Tempter |

so distinct and unmistakeable, that a
denial of it can be only compatible
with a practical denial of Scripture
inspiration. To the so-called charge
of Manicheism, it is enough to answer
that if an inspired Apostle scruples
not to call this fearful Being ὁ θεὸς
τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου (2 Cor. iv. 4), no
sober thinker can feel any difficulty
in ascribing to him permissive powers
and agencies of a frightful extent and
multiplicity ; see Hofmann, Schriftb.

ὁ τ 5.

90

ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.

καυχήσεως 7 οὐχὶ καὶ ὑμεῖς Eumpoo Ger ᾿ τοῦ Κυρίον ἡ ἡμῶν

20 ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐ εν τῇ αὐτοῦ παρουσίᾳ: ὑμεῖς γάρ ἐστε ἡ δόξα

ἡμῶν καὶ ἡ χαρά.

Vol. 1. p. 389 sq., Ebrard, Dogmatik,
§ 240, Vol. 1. p. 290, and Plitt, Hvang.
Glaubensl. § 31, Vol. 1. p. 245 56.

19. τίς yap ἡμῶν] Interroygative
confirmation of the Apostle’s earnest
desire to see his converts; ‘who is so
if ye are not so?’ Olsh., ‘quid mirum
si tanto tenear vestri desiderio? nam
quid aliud est in hoc mundo quo mihi
placeam, quo me jactem, quo fretus
mihi promittam felicitatem?’ Calv.
ἡμ. ἐλπὶς ἢ χαρά] ‘our hope or joy;
not exactly ‘causa spei et materies le-
tandi,’ Schott, but the subject and
substratum of both one and the other,
—the subject in whom both reside;
comp. Phil. iv. 1, and 1 Tim. i. 1 (see
also notes) where this form of expres-
sion is used with the highest emphasis,
Examples of similar uses in pagan
writers are collected by Wetst. an loc. ;
the most pertinent is Livy, XXVIII. 39,
‘ Scipionem...spem omnem salutemque
nostram,”
στέφανος καυχήσεως] ‘crown of boast-
ing; comp. Prov, xvi. 31, Ezek. xvi.
12, NIN|H NILY [στέφ. καυχήσεως,
Ux xy, ‘and Isaiah Lxii. 3 [στέφ. κάλ-
λους, LX X]: the Thessalonians were
to the Apostle as it were a chaplet of
victory, of which he might justly make
his boast in the day of the Lord. It
is scarcely necessary to add that καυ-
χήσεως not merely = δόξης λαμπρᾶς
(Theoph.), but implies ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ἀγάλλο-
μαι [καυχῶμαι], Chrys., the genitive
being not the gen. ‘appositionis’
(Koch), nor even of the metaphorical
substance (comp. Rev. xii. 1), but, as
the termination in -σὶς seems to re-
quire, that of the ‘remoter object ;’
see exx. in Winer, Gr. ὃ 30. 2. 8B,

*\

p-» 170. ἢ οὐχὶ Kal

ὑμεῖς] ‘or is it not also you?’ not
‘nonne,’ Vulg., but ‘aut [an] non,’
Clarom., aN οἣ Syr.-Phil., the
ψ Υ͂

particle ἢ retaining its proper disjuncs
tive force (see Devar. de Part. Vol. 1.
p- to1, ed. Klotz), and introducing a
second and negative interrogation, ex-
planatory and confirmatory of what is
implied in the first; comp. Winer, Gr.
§ 57..1, p. 451, and esp. compare the
good remarks of Hand, TJ'wrsell. Vol.
I. p. 349. The ascensive καὶ serves to
place the Thessalonians in gentle con-
trast with other converts, ‘you as well
as my other converts;’ οὐ yap εἶπεν
ὑμεῖς ἁπλῶς, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑμεῖς μετὰ
τῶν ἄλλων, Chrys. [How accurate is
this great commentator's observation
of the details of language.]

ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Κυρίου x.t.r.] ‘in
the presence of our Lord Jesus at His
coming?’ There is some little diffi-
culty in the connexion of this mem-
ber with what precedes. We clearly
must not assume a transposition, and
connect it with τίς γὰρ--καυχήσεως
(Grot.), nor again closely and exclu-
sively unite it with ἢ οὐχὶ καὶ ὑμεῖς
(Olsh.), but, as the context seems to
require, append it to the whole fore-
going double question, to which it im-
parts its specifically Christian aspect.
The Apostle might have paused at καὶ
ὑμεῖς, and proceeded with ver. 20, but
feeling that the ἐλπίς, χαρά, κ.τ.λ.
needed characterizing, he subjoins the
circumstances of place and time. Ἔν
τῇ παρουσίᾳ obviously refers to the
Lord’s second coming,—not merely
and exclusively ‘to establish his Mes-
sianic kingdom’ (Liinem., compare the
objectionable remarks of Usteri, Zehrb,

«

14. 00, ΤΠ 1,'2: .

As we could not forbear
any longer, we sent Ti-

Διὸ μηκέτι στέγοντες εὐδοκήσαμεν ITI.

mothy to reassure you a ἢ 3 ’ , δ
in your affliction. > καταλειφθῆναι ἐν ᾿Αθήναις μόνοι, καὶ ἃ

p. 352), but—to judgment; comp. ch.
iii, 13, iv. 15, v. 23. The addition
Χριστοῦ [ Ree. with FGL; Vulg. (not
Amiat.), Goth., Copt.] is rightly re-
jected by Lachm., Tisch., and most
modern editors.

- 20. ὑμεῖς γάρ «7.A.] 6 Yea verily
ye are our glory and our joy.’ The
yap does not appear here to be argu-
mentative,—i.e. it does not subjoin a
reason of greater universality (Alf.,
citing Soph. Philoct. 756, but see
Buttm. in loc.), but seems rather con-
firmatory and explanatory (‘ confirmat
superiorem versum serid asseveratione,’
Calv.), the yé element having here the
predominance; see notes on Gal. ii. 6,
and Winer, Gr. ὃ 53. 8. Ὁ, p. 396.
For a complete investigation of the
primary meaning and principal uses
of this particle, the student is espe-
cially referred to Klotz, Devar. Vol.

Il, p. 231 86.

CuapTer III. τ, Διό] ‘On which
account; not exactly διὰ τὸ εἶναι buds
τὴν δόξαν ἡμῶν καὶ τὴν χαράν (Liinem.),
which seems too restricted, but on
account of the affectionate but abor-
tive desire expressed in the three
preceding verses; ἐπειδὴ ἡμεῖς δραμεῖν
πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐκωλύθημεν ἀπεστείλαμεν
Τιμόθεον, Theod. On the use of διό,
see notes on Gal. iv. 31, and gram-
matical reff. on Philem. 8.

"μηκέτι στέγοντες) ‘no longer able to

forbear ;? ‘no longer able to control
my longing to see or at least hear
about you;’ ‘cum desiderio vestri im-
pares essemus,’ Just. Liinemann (ap-
proved by Winer, Gr. ὃ 55. 5, p. 429)
rightly objects to the assertion of
Riickert that μηκέτι is here incorrectly
used for οὐκέτι, as μηκέτι can be pro-
perly and accurately explained as in-

volving the subjective feelings of the
writer (‘being in a state that I could
not,’ ‘as one that could not’); still,
as has been before said (notes on ch. ii.
15), the tendency of later Greek to
adopt the subjective form of negation
with participles is very noticeable, and
must always be borne in mind ; comp.
Madvig, Synt. § 207, and see also notes
and reff. on ch. ii. 15. The verb
στέγειν(βαστάζειν, ὑπομένειν, Hesych. ;
φέρειν, ὑπομένειν, καρτερεῖν, Chrys. on
1 Cor. ix. 12) is only used in the ΝΤ,
by St Paul, twice with an accus. ob-
jecti (1 Cor. ix. 12, xiii. 7, in both
cases πάντα), and twice without (here
and ver. 5): see however the list of
exx. in Wetst. on 1 Cor. ix. 12, and
those in Kypke, Annof. Vol. 11. p.
213, the most pertinent of which in
ref. to this place is Philo, in Flace.
§ 9, Vol. π΄. p. 527 (ed. Mang.), μη-
κέτι στέγειν δυνάμενοι Tas ἐνδείας.

εὐδοκήσαμεν] ‘we thought it good ;’
Auth., comp. Arm. ‘placuit nobis,’
Vulg., Clarom., ‘galeikaida uns,’Goth.,
not ‘enixe voluimus’ [abedarna] Atth.,

comp. Syr. [ea gl, as the idea

of a ‘libera’ (εἰλόμεθα, προεκρίναμεν,
Theoph.) rather than a ‘propensa vo-
luntas’ seems here more suitable to
the context; see notes and reff. given
on ch. ii. 8. The plural here seems
clearly to refer, not to St Paul and
Silas (Beng.), but to St Paul alone,
the subject of the verse being in close
connexion with the concluding verses
of ch. ii., where (ver. 18) the Apostle
expressly limits the reference to him-
self. On the form εὐδ, not 706. see
notes on ch. ii. 8. καταλειφθ.
ἐν ᾿Αθήν. μόνοι] ‘to be left behind
at Athens alone,’—alone, not without
some emphasis, as its position seems to
indicate; alone, and that at Athens,

98.

ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.

ἐπέμψαμεν Τιμόθεον τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν καὶ συνεργὸν
τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ “Χριστοῦ εἰς τὸ στηρί-

aa A , A ~ ~
3 Eat ὑμᾶς καὶ παρακαλέσαι ὑπὲρ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν TO

‘in urbe videlicet a Deo alienissima,’
Beng. There is some little difficulty
in reconciling this passage with Acts
xvii. 14.8sq. From the latter passage
compared with xvii. 5, it would seem
that Timothy and Silas first rejoined
St Paul at Corinth, and so that the
former was not with the Apostle at
Athens; from the present words (κατα-
λειφθῆναι, ἐπέμψαμεν, ver. 2; ἔπεμψα,
ver. 5) however it seems almost cer-
tain that Timothy was despatched
from Athens. Omitting all untenable
assumptions—such as that a second
visit was paid to Athens (Schrader),
or that St Luke was ignorant of the
circumstances, or ‘ that only Silas was
left behind’ (Jowett),— we must either
suppose (a) that St Paul despatched
Timothy before his own arrival at
Athens (Wieseler, Chronol. p. 246 sq.),
or perhaps more naturally (6) that
Timothy, having been able to obey
the Apostle’s order (Acts xvii. 15)
more quickly than Silas, did actually
come to Athens, and was at once
despatched to Thessalonica. The
Apostle then continued waiting for
both where he was (Acts xvii. 16), but
ultimately left the city, and was re-
joined by them both after his arrival
at Corinth; see Neander, P/anting,
Vol. I. p. 195, note (Bohn).

2. συνεργὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ] ‘ fellow-
worker with God,’ ‘adjutorem Dei,’
Clarom.; comp. 1 Cor. iii. 9. The σὺν
does not refer to others not named,
but, in accordance with the regular
construction of the word in the N. T.
(Rom. xvi. 3, 9, 21, Phil. ii. 25, iv. 3,

comp. 2 Cor. i. 24), to the expressed.

and associated genitive Θεοῦ; comp.
Bernhardy, Synt. lI. 49, p. 171, Jelf,

of the expression.

Gr. ὃ 507. The reading is
somewhat doubtful, and the variations
very numerous, but all may probably
be referred to the supposed difficulty
Rec. reads καὶ
διάκονον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ συνεργὸν ἡμῶν
with Τ5Ὲ) (confusedly) KL; most
mss. ; Syr. (omitting καὶ 1), Syr.-Phil.
(but with asterisk to καὶ συν. ἡἧμ.),
al.; Chrys, Theod. The text as it
stands [Griesh., Lachm. (text), Tisch.,
and most modern editors] is only
found in D!; Clarom., Sangerm., Am-
brosiast., but is supported indirectly,
(1) by AN; some mss. ; and several
Vv. (Vulg., Copt., Goth., Ath.),
which have διάκονον instead of cuvep-
γόν (so Lachm, in marg.), (2) by FG;
Aug., Boern., which have διάκ. cal
συν. τοῦ Θεοῦ, and also (3) to some
extent by B, which gives καὶ cuvepy.
omitting τοῦ Θεοῦ.

ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ defines more precisely
the sphere in whieh his co-operation
was exhibited; see Rom. i. 9, 2 Cor.
xX. 12. PRL ive 3.

εἰς τὸ στηρίξαι k.7.X.] ‘to establish you
and to exhort in behalf of your faith
that, &c.:’ purpose of Timothy’s mis-
sion; in the unavoidable absence of
the Apostle, he was to strengthen
them, and to exhort them to be stead-
fast; comp. ἐπιστηρίζειν joined with
mapax. Acts xiv. 22, xv. 32, 2 Thess.
ii. 17. These expressions do not seem
in accordance with the timid cha-
racter which Alf. (in notes in loc. and
on αὶ Tam. v.23, 2 Tim. 1, 7, 8) 88:
cribes to the Apostle’s faithful fellow-
worker.

παρακαλέσαι] ‘to exhort,’ ‘ad...exhor-
tandos,’ Vulg.; not here ‘to comfort,’
Auth., Syr.-Phil., al. (Eph. vi. 22, Col.

ἀπ Raed aed

39:

4 ‘ « " ᾽ 9. 4 ®.
μηδένα σαίνεσθαι ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσιν ταύταις: αὐτοὶ yap

n»
iv. 8), still less anrso 152.

As [roget vos de] Syr. (and so in

2 Cor. viii. 6, &c.), but, as the next
verse seems to require, in the more usual
sense of ‘encouraging’ or ‘exhorting ;’
iva παρακαλέσῃ φέρειν γενναίως Tas τών
ἐναντίων ἐπιβουλάς, Theod. The se-
cond ὑμᾶς which Rec. adds after mapax.
with D*KL; most mss.; Syr., is
rightly rejected by Lachm., Tisch.,
with distinctly preponderant external
evidence [ABD!FGN; 15 mss.; Cla-
rom., Vulg., Goth., Copt.; Chrys.,
Theod. ; C is deficient].

ὑπὲρ τῆς πίστεως) Not identical in
meaning with περὶ τῆς πίστεως (De
W.), which Rec. here adopts on weak
external authority [D3E?L; mss. ], but
appy. more distinctly expressive.of the
benefit to, and furtherance of the
faith, which was contemplated in the
παράκλησις ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 47. 1,
p- 343, and comp. notes on Phil,
ii. 13.

3. τὸ μηδένα x.7.A.] ‘that no one,’
&ec.: objective sentence (Donalds. Gr.
§ 584) dependent on παρακαλέσαι, ex-
plaining and specifying the subject-
matter of the exhortation; comp.
Winer, Gir. ὃ 44. 5, p. 294 (ed. 6), but
more fully p. 375 (ed. 5). Of the dif-
ferent explanations of this infinitival
clause, this seems far the most simple
and grammatically senable. That of
Schott, according to which τὸ μηδένα
k.7.X. is an accus. of ‘reference to,’ is
defensible (see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 50.
6. 8, comp. notes on Phil. iv. 10), but
in the case of transitive verbs like
παρακαλεῖν of precarious application:
that of Liinem. and Alf., according
to which τὸ μηδ. is in apposition to
the whole preceding sentence and de-
pendent on the preceding εἰς, more

than doubtful; the regimen is remote,
and the assumption that τουτέστι might
have been written for τὸ (Liinem.) or
that it is nearly equivalent to it (Alf.)
extremely questionable, if not incon-
sistent with the assumed dependence

on εἰς. The only objection to the con-

struction here advocated—that παρα-
καλέσαι would thus be associated with
a simple accus. rei—is of no real
weight; for (1) such a construction is
possible (comp. 1 Tim. vi. 2), and (2)
the dependence of such explanatory
or accusatival infinitives on the govern-
ing verb is appy. not so definite and
immediate as that of simple substan-
tives; comp. Matth. Gr. § 543, obs.
2, 3, Scheuer]. Synt. § 45. 4, p. 478.
The only real difficulty in these and
similar constructions is correctly to
define the difference between the infin.
with and without the article: perhaps
it amounts to no more than this that
in the former case the infinitival clause
is more emphatic, aggregated, and
substantival, in the latter more merged
in the general structure of the sentence ;
see Winer, Gr. § 44.2, p. 286, Kriiger,
Sprachl. § 50. 6. 3, Matth. Gr. 1. 6.
obs. 2. _ The reading of Rec. τῷ
μηδένα κ.τ.λ. is not either exegetically
or grammatically admissible (opp. to
Green, Gr. p. 277; see Winer, J. 6. p.
294), and is wholly unsupported by
uncial authority. The text has the
support of all MSS. except FG which
give ἵνα (in the place of τό) with the
infin.

σαίνεσθαι] ‘ be disturbed,’ ‘be disquiet-
ed.’ This verb (a dz. λεγόμ. in the
N. T.) properly signifies ‘to be fawned
on’ (σαίνειν, ἐπὶ ζώων ἀλόγων, & ἐστι
σείειν τὴν οὐράν, Eustath. p. 393, 9),
and metaphorically ‘soothed’ (sch.
Choéph. 194), but is occasionally found
in later writers in the stronger sense

40

ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΊΚΕΙΣ A.

i} a 9 Seg ek ,᾿ a Vee Tee ‘ “hae Ν᾽ Ἂς
4 οἴδατε OTL εἰς τοῦτο κείμεθα: καὶ γὰρ ὅτε πρὸς ὑμᾶς
> an
᾿ἥμεν προελέγομεν ὑμῖν ὅτι μέλλομεν θλίβεσθαι, καθὼς

Ἢ καὶ ἐγένετο καὶ οἴδατε.

of κινεῖσθαι, σαλεύεσθαι (Hesych.) ;
comp. Diog. Laert. v1. 41 (cited by
Elsner), σαινόμενοι τοῖς λεγομένοις ἐδά-
κρυον καὶ ᾧμωζον. So rightly Chrys.
(θορυβεῖσθαι), Theod., Zonaras, Lex.
p. 1632 (κλονεῖσθαι), al., most of the

ancient Vv. (Syr. wholZ _[succi-
ΨΩ n

deretur], Vulg. ‘moveatur’), and near-
ly all modern commentators. Wolf,
Tittmann (Synon. 1. p. 189), and appy.
Jowett, retain the more usual sense
‘pellici,’ scil. ‘ad officium deseren-
dum,’ but with little plausibility, and
in opposition to the consent of both
Ff. and Vv. The derivation, it need
scarcely be said, is not from Σ ΑΝ- or
ΞΑΝ- (Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol. 1. p.
181), but from celw; comp. Donalds.
Cratyl. ὃ 473 év tats
θλίψεσιν ταύταις] ‘in these afflictions ;’
not merely those endured by the Apo-
stle (comp. Cicum.), but those in
which both he and his readers had
recently shared, and which, though
appy- over for a time (ver. 4), would
be almost certain to recur. The é is
certainly not instrumental, nor even
temporal (Liinem.), but merely local,
with ref. to the circumstances in which
they were, and by which they were
(so to say) environed; comp. Winer,
Gr. § 48. a, p. 345. αὐτοὶ
γὰρ οἴδατε] ‘for yourselves know;?
reason for the foregoing exhortation
τὸ μὴ σαίνεσθαι κ. τ. λ.: both their
own experiences and the Apostle’s
words (ver. 4) taught them this prac-
tical lesson. εἰς τοῦτο
κείμεθα] ‘we are appointed thereunto ;’
scil. τὸ θλίβεσθαι (comp. ver. 4), not τὸ
ὑπομένειν θλίψεις, Koch 1, the τοῦτο
referring laxly to the preceding θλίψε-

4 ~ : 4 ,
διὰ τοῦτο κἀγὼ μηκέτι

ow. On the meaning of κείμεθα (Vulg.

‘positi sumus,’ Syr. 40

y = x

Goth. ‘ratidai,’ but?), see notes on
Phil. i. 16, and with respect to the
sentiment, which is here perfectly ge-
neral (περὶ πάντων λέγει τῶν πιστῶν,
Chrys.), see 2 Tim. iii. 12 (notes), and
comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Iv. 20,
Vol. Il. p. 224 8q.

“4. καὶ γὰρ ὅτε KA.) ‘for verily
when we were with you,’ ‘nam et cum,’

n

Vulg., Clarom., er 2
Syr. ; proof of the preceding assertion,
γὰρ introducing the reason, καὶ throw-
ing stress upon it; see Winer, Gr. ὃ
53. 8, p. 397, and notes on Phil. ii. 27,
where this formula is briefly discussed.
On the use of πρὸς with acc. with
verbs implying rest, &c., see notes on
Gal. i. 18, iv. 18.

μέλλομεν θλίβεσθαι] ‘ we were to suffer
afliction;’ here not merely a peri-
phrasis of the future, but an indirect
statement of the fixed and appointed
decree of God; comp. ver. 3. The
verb μέλλω has three constructions in
the N. T.; (a) with the present,—in
the Gospels and the majority of pas-
sages in the N. T.; (Ὁ) with the aor.,
Rom. viii. 18, Gal. iii. 23, Rev. 111. 2,
16, xii. 4,—a construction found also
in Attic Greek (Plato, Critias, p. 108
B, Gorg. p. 525 A,.al.); (c) with a fu-
ture,—only in a few passages (Acts
xi. 28, xxiv. 15, xxvii. 10, in all three
cases with ἔσεσθαι), though the use is
the prevailing one in earlier Greek:
see Winer, Gr. § 44. 7,p. 298, Kriiger,
Sprachl. § 53. 8. 3 sq.

Kal οἴδατε] ‘and ye know,’ scil. from
your own experiences. The first xal

Ὕλας 6.

41

: 4 Q - aA ἬΝ ’ » ς “ ,
στέγων ἔπεμψα εἰς TO γνῶναι τὴν TITTY ὑμῶν, μήπως

. ὡς e aT ΤῊΝ A , e
ἐπείρασεν ὑμᾶς ὁ πειράζων καὶ εἰς κενὸν γένηται O

κόπος ἡμῶν.

When he came tous and
reported your faith, we
were greatly comforted,
and are deeply thankful.

does not here seem to be correlative
to the second, καὶ... καί (see notes on 1
Tim. iv. 10), but appears rather to have
an ascensive force, while the second is
simply copulative ; οὐχ ὅτι ἔγένετοτοῦτο
λέγει μόνον, GAN ὅτι πολλὰ καὶ ἄλλα
προεῖπε, καὶ ἐξέβη, Chrys.

5. διὰ τοῦτο] ‘For this cause ;᾽
scil. because the foretold tribulation
had now actually come upon you.
In the following κἀγὼ the καὶ does
not belong to the sentence (the argu-
ment of Liinem. however that it would
then be διὰ καὶ τοῦτο is of no weight,
see notes on Phil. iv. 3) but to the
pronoun, which it puts in gentle con-
trast with the ὑμεῖς twice expressed
in the preceding verse: as they had
felt for the Apostle (more fully alluded
to in ver. 6), so he on his part felt for
them; comp. notes on ch. ii. 13.
μηκέτι στέγων] “πὸ longer forbear-
ing, able to contain;’ see notes on
_ ver. I.
εἰς τὸ γνῶναι] ‘with a view of know-
ing; design of the ἔπεμψα, comp.
ver. 2. It does not seem right to
supply mentally αὐτόν (Olsh.; ‘ut
cognoscerel,’ Aith.-Platt, sim. Pol.);
the subject of the principal verb is
naturally the subject of the infinitive.

So rightly Syr. W919 [ut cognoscer-
EES

em]: the other Vy. adopt the inf,,
or an equivalent (‘ad cognoscendam
fidem vestram,’ Vulg., Clarom.), and
are thus equally indeterminate with
the original. μήπως ἐπείρασεν
K.t.r.] ‘lest haply the tempter have
tempted you ;’ aor. indic. specifying a
fact regarded as having actually taken

-

Αρτι δὲ ἐλθόντος Τιμοθέου πρὸς 6
ἡμᾶς ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν καὶ εὐαγγελισαμένου ἡμῖν

place already: the temptation was a
fact, its results however were uncer-
tain (comp. Chrys.); see Winer, Gr.
8 56. 2, p. 448, and comp. notes on
the very similar passage Gal. ii.2. It
may be observed that Green ((7r. p.
81), Fritzsche (Fritz. Opusc. p. 176
note), and Scholef. (Hints, p. 114) re-
gard μήπως as dubitative in the first

clause, and expressive of apprehen-

sion in the second, ‘an forte Satanas
tentasset...ne forte labores irriti es-
sent,’—but with little plausibility. The
argument of Fritz. that the μήπως
(metuentis) in the first clause would
have required γενήσεται in the second
(‘atque ita labores irriti essent fu-
turi’) is certainly not valid: the future
would have represented something to
occur at some indefinite future time,
the aor. subj. is properly used of a
transient state occurring in particular
cases; see Matth. Gr. § 519. 7, and
comp. Madvig, Synt. § 124. 1, who
correctly observes that μὴ with fut.
after verbs of fearing, dc. always
gives a prominence to the notion of
futurity. On the substantival
form ὁ πειράζων, see exx. in Winer,
Gr. ὃ 45. 7, Ῥ. 316, comp. Bernhardy,
Synt. VI. 22, p. 316.

εἰς κενὸν γένηται] ‘prove to be in vain;
comp. Gal. ii. 2, and the exx. collected
by Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 275. The
primary force of the prep. is somewhat
similarly obscured in the adverbial
formule, εἰς κοινόν, εἰς καιρόν, K.T.A. 5
see Bernhardy, Synt. Vv. 11, p. 221.
On the meaning of κόπος, see notes on
ch. ii. 9.

. 6. ἤΑρτι 8% is most naturally con~

42

ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙ͂Σ A.

ὶ . Ι A 4 “ δ @P. ,
τὴν πίστιν Kal τὴν ἀγάπην ὑμῶν, Kal OTL ἔχετε μνείαν
~ ’ - ~ 9. -" ,
ἡμῶν ἀγαθὴν πάντοτε, ἐπιποθοῦντες ἡμᾶς ἰδεῖν καθάπερ.

nected with the participle (ΖΕ Π.-Ῥοὶ.
distinctly), not with the remote verb
παρεκλήθημεν, ver. 7 (Liinem., Koch),
which has its own adjunct διὰ τοῦτο;
so appy. Syr., and probably all the
other Vv., but the uncertainty as to
punctuation precludes their being con-
fidently cited on either side. The
adverb ἄρτι [dpw, connected with dp-
τίως, ἁρμοῖ], which properly stands in
opp. as well to immediately present
(viv, Plato, Meno, p. 89 0) as to re-
motely past time (πάλαι, Plato, Crito,
p- 434), is often used in the N.T. and
in later writers in reference to purely
present time; seeesp. Lobeck, Phryn.
Ρ. 18 sq. εὐαγγελισαμένου]
‘having told the good tidings of;’
comp. Luke i. το: οὐκ εἶπεν ἀπαγγεί-
λαντος, ἀλλ᾽ εὐαγγελισαμένου" τοσοῦτον
ἀγαθὸν ἡγεῖτο τὴν ἑκείνων βεβαίωσιν
kal τὴν ἀγάπην, Chrys. The verb
εὐαγγελ. is used in the N.T. both in
the active (Rev. x. 7, xiv. 6, only),
passive (Matt. xi. 5, Gal. i. 11, Heb.
iv. 6, al.), and middle. In the last
form its constructions in the N.T. are
singularly varied; it is used (a) abso-
lutely, Rom. xv. 20, 1 Cor. i. 17; (6)
with a dat. persone, Rom. i. 15; (c)
with an accus. persone, Acts xvi. 10,
1 Pet. i. 12; (d) with an accus. rei,
Rom. x. 15, Gal. i. 23; (ὁ) with a
double accus., persone and rei, Acts
ΧΙ, 32; and lastly (f)—the most
common construction—with a dat.
persone and acc. rei, Luke i. 19, al.
Of these (ὁ) and occasionally (c) are the
forms used by the earlier writers; see
Lobeck, Phryn. p. 267, Thom.-Mag.
Ρ. 379, ed. Bern. τὴν πίστιν
καὶ τὴν dy. ὑμ.} ‘your faith and your
love,’ the faith which you have, and
the love which you evince to one an-

other (ver. 12); δηλοῖ ἡ μὲν πίστις τῆς
εὐσεβείας τὸ βέβαιον, ἡ δὲ ἀγάπη τὴν
πρακτικὴν ἀρετήν, Theod. The third
Christian virtue, ἐλπίς, is not here
specified (comp. 1 Tim. i. 14, 2 Tim.
i, 13, al.), but obviously is included;
comp. Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 1. 4, Ὁ. 241,
Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 22, Vol. 11.
Pp. 259, 260. ὅτι ἔχετε
μνείαν K.t.A.] ‘that ye have good re-
membrance of us always,’ not exactly
μνημονεύετε ἡμῶν μετὰ ἐπαίνων καὶ εὐ-
φημίας, Theoph. (comp. Chrys.), but
simply ‘that ye retain a good, ὦ. 6. as
the following words more fully specify,
a faithful (βεβαίαν, GEcum.) and affec-
tionate remembrance of us,’ ‘ut nostra
memoria bona sit in vobis,’ Copt.,
comp. Syr. On μνεία, see notes on ch.
i, 2. The μνεία ἀγαθὴ formed the
third item in the good tidings; τρία
τέθεικεν ἀξιέραστα, τὴν πίστιν, τὴν
ἀγάπην, καὶ τοῦ διδασκάλου τὴν μνή-
μην, Theod, πάντοτε Seems
here more naturally joined with the
preceding verb (Syr., Aith.), as in
ch. i. 2, 1 Cor. i. 4, 2 Thess. i. 3, al.,
than with the participle (Copt.): the
μνεία was not only ἀγαθή, but ἀδιά-
Aeros; see 2 Tim, i. 3. So Auth,
Arm., and appy. the majority of mo-
dern commentators.

ἔπιποθ. ἡμᾶς ἰδεῖν] ‘longing to 866
us.’ further expansion of the preceding
words; comp. 2 Tim. i. 4. On the
force of the ἐπί, here not intensive
but directive, see Fritz. Rom. i. 11,
Vol. I. p. 31, and notes on 2 Tim. l.c.
καθάπερ Kal ἡμεῖς ὑμᾶς] ‘even as we
also are longing to see you;’ τὸ yap
μαθεῖν τὸν φιλοῦντα ὅτι τοῦτο oldev ὁ
φιλούμενος ὅτι φιλεῖται πολλὴ παρα-
μυθία καὶ παράκλησις, Chrys. On the
meaning and use οὗ καθάπερ, see notes

III. 7, 8.

43

καὶ ἡμεῖς ὑμᾶς" διὰ τοῦτο παρεκλήθημεν, ἀδελφοί, ἐφ᾽ 7

a 4 , eat γι ὡῷ a τὴ “ ea ‘ δι», Wie
ὑμῖν ἐπὶ πάση TH ἀνάγκῃ καὶ θλίψει ἡμῶν διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν

, ‘ ec nw “ 94 e ΕΝ , 9 Κ ’
πιστεως OTL γὺυν ζῶμεν εαν υμεῖς στήκητε εν ἰΔυριῳ. ὃ

8, στήκητε! So Rec., Lachm., and Tisch. ed. 2, with BDEN!; many mss, :
Tisch. ed. 7 adopts the solecistic στήκετε with AFGKLN*; mss. ; Chrys. (ms,),
which is maintained by Koch. The authority however is insufficient, as such
permutations of vowels are found occasionally even in the best MSS.; comp.

Scrivener, Introd. to N.T. p. το.

on ch. ii. r1, and on the use of καὶ
with comparative adverbs, notes on
Eph. v. 23.

7. διὰ τοῦτο] ‘for this cause: in
reference to the three preceding speci-
fications, which are here grouped to-
gether in one view. The resumed διὰ
τοῦτο is not superfluous (comp. De
W.): the length of the preceding sen-
tence, and the fact that ἄρτι ἐλθόντος
involved mainly the predication of
time, make the occurrence of a re-
capitulatory and causal formula here
by no means inappropriate.
παρεκλ.... ἐφ᾽ ὑμῖν] ‘we were comforted
over you; you were the objects which
formed the substratum of our com-
fort; comp. 2 Cor. vii. 7. The prep.
ἐπὶ is not exactly equivalent to ‘in,’
Vulg., ‘ex,’ [fram] Goth., or even
‘propter,’ Aith.-Pol.,—still less to
‘quod attinet ad,’ Liinem.,—but with
its usual and proper force points to
the basis on which the παράκλησις
rested, ‘fundamentum cui veluti su-
perstructa est,’ Schott; see Winer,
Gr. ὃ 48. c, p. 351. The reading πα-
ρακεκλήμεθα, though found only in A
and 3 mss., has been adopted by Koch,
as according better with his connexion
of ἄρτι with the finite verb. Surely
this is most rash criticism.
ἐπὶ πάσῃ K.T.A.] ‘in all our necessity
and tribulation; certainly not ‘in
quaévis angustia et afflictione,’ Schott,
—a translation distinctly precluded
by the presence of the article, which

here represents the ἀνάγκη καὶ θλίψις
as a collective whole; comp. 2 Cor. i.
4, vii. 4. The use of ἐπὶ is here only
slightly different from that above; it
has appy. neither a temporal (Liinem.)
nor a causal (2 Cor. i. 4, but obs. the
accompanying ἐν 7. @X.), but a semi-
local force (comp. 2 Cor. vii. 4, and
Mey. ὧν loc.), marking that with
which the παράκλησις stands in im-
mediate contact and connexion ; comp.
Bernhardy, Synt. v. 24. b, p. 248 8q.,
and notes on Phil. i. 3. In the
former use the idea of ethical super-
position seems mainly predominant,
in this latter that of ethical contact;
comp. Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 41. 5.

It is somewhat doubtful to what

the ἀνάγκη καὶ θλίψις should be re-
ferred. On the whole, the force of
ἀνάγκη [connected with AT'X-, Pott,
Etym. Forsch. Vol. 1. p- 184; ‘vim
omnem notat que evitari non potest,’
Herm. Soph. Trach, 823] and the
tenor of the context seem to imply
not any inward distress (De W.), but
rather some outward trial and trouble
(Alf. compares Acts xviii. 5—10)
under which the Apostle was then
suffering ; see Liinem. in loc.

The order of the words is inverted in
Rec. (Orly. x. ἀνάγκῃ), but only on the
authority of KL; mss.; several Ff.
διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν πίστεως] ‘through your
faith? the medium by which this
comfort was realized by the Apostle
was the faith on the part of. the Thes-

44

ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.

, " : 9 Ud } , “ “9 “
9 τίνα γὰρ εὐχαριστίαν δυνάμεθα τῷ Θεῷ ἀνταποδοῦναι
A a a a oe ’ a “δ + ’ Re
περὶ ὑμῶν ἐπὶ πάσῃ TH χαρᾷ ἣ χαίρομεν dv ὑμᾶς ἔμ-

salonians of which he had received
tidings; αὕτη ἀσάλευτος μείνασα τὴν
παράκλησιν ἡμῖν εἰργάσατο, Gicum.

8, ὅτι νῦν ζῶμεν] ‘because now we
live ;’ reason for the preceding state-
ment of the comfort which he re-
ceived from hearing of the faith of
his converts. The contrast shows that
the Apostle regards the ἀνάγκη καὶ
θλίψις as a kind of death, from which
he is raised to the full powers of life
(comp. Rom. viii. 6) by the knowledge
of the firm posture of the Thess. ; τὴν
yap ὑμετέραν βεβαίωσιν ζωὴν ἡμετέ-
ραν ὑπολαμβάνομεν, Theod.; compare
Pearson, Creed, Vol. 11. p. 319 (ed.
Burt.). The conditional member, ἐὰν
ὑμεῖς K.7.A., shows that viv (like the
Lat. ‘nunc’) is not here used in a
purely temporal (comp. Jowett), but
in a logical and argumentative sense,
approaching in meaning to ‘in hoc
rerum statu,’ ‘rebus sic se habenti-
bus; see Hartung, Partik. viv, 2. 2,
Vol. ΠΡ p. 25, Jelf, Gr. § 719. 2.
The true principle of the usage is well
explained by Hand; ‘sepe in his
duz rerum conditiones collocantur,
quarum altera aut precessit, aut cogi-
tatur esse posse, eique ex. adverso op-
ponitur ea que vera ac presens adest
et valet,’ Zursell. Vol. Iv. p. 340.
ἐὰν ὑμεῖς στήκητε] ‘if ye stand
( fast) ;’ hypothetically stated, as the
faith of the Thessalonians was not yet
complete (comp. ver. 10); experience
was yet to show whether the assump-
tion was correct. On the force of ἐὰν
with the subj. (‘sumo hoc, et potest
omnino ita se habere, sed utrum vere
futurum sit necne id nescio, verum
experientia cognoscam,’ Herm.), and
on its general distinction from εἰ with
the indic., see notes on Gal. i. 9g,

Winer, Gr. § 41. 2, p. 260, and
Herm. Viger, No. 312. On the mean-
ing of this late form στήκειν, not per
se ‘to stand fast’ (comp. Rom. xiv. 4),
see notes on Phil. i. 27. In the N.T.
it occurs only in St Paul’s Epp. and
Mark iii. 31 (Zisch.), xi. 25; and in
the LXX in Exod. xiv. 13 (Alez.).

ἐν Κυρίῳ] ‘in the Lord,’—in Him as
the element of their true life, and the
sphere of its practical manifestations ;
so with στήκειν in Phil. iv. 1; see
notes on Eph. iv. 17, vi. 1.

9. τίνα γάρ κιτ.λ] Confirmation
of the preceding conditioned declara-
tion ὅτι νῦν ζῶμεν κιτ.λ.; ‘we live, I
say, for what sufficient thanks can be
rendered to God for our plenitude of
joy on your account” τοσαύτη, φησίν,
ἡ δὶ ὑμᾶς χαρά, ὅτι οὐδὲ εὐχαριστεῖν
κατ᾽ ἀξίαν εὑρίσκομεν, CGicum., comp.
Theoph. For θεῷ ΓΕΘ δ read Κυ-
ρίῳ, and 41 also gives Κυρίου for Θεοῦ
at the end of the verse. ἀνταπο-
δοῦναι] ‘render,’—properly ‘in return,’

¥
‘retribuere,’ Vulg., Wi; aSO\ Syr. ;

εὐχαριστία is regarded as a kind of
return for the mercies and blessings
of God: Grot. aptly compares Psalm
exvi. 12, ΠῚ DYN AD. The bi-
nary compound ἀνταποδιδόναι is used
by the Apostle both ‘in bonam’ and
‘in malam partem’ (2 Thess. i. 6,
comp. Rom. xii. 19) in the sense of
rendering back a due; the ἀντὶ mark-
ing the idea of return, the ἀπὸ hinting
at that of the debt previously in-
curred, ‘ubi dando te exsolvis debito,’
Winer, de Verb. Comp. Iv. p. 12.

περὶ ὑμῶν] ‘concerning you, ‘for
you ;’ comp. ch. i. 2 (and notes), 1 Cor.
i. 4, 2 Thess. i. 3, ii. 13. The differ-
ence between περὶ and ὑπὲρ (Eph. i.

-
-
: i:
Me
3
ἅ
Ἑ
-

r

Tie Byte 45

. ; 5 Θεοῦ ἡμῶν: νυκτὸς φέσι See
προσθεν του €0U ἡμῶν 9ς νυκτος Και ημερας ὑπερεκ- IO

A ’ 9 δ δον σὰς ΤΑ, . : A
περισσου δεόμενοι εἰς TO ἰδεῖν υμῶν TO προσῶπον Kael

Ἁ “- , e 7
καταρτίσαι τὰ ὑστερήματα τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν.

16, comp. Phil. i. 4) in such combina-
tions as the present is scarcely appre-
ciable; see notes on Col, iv. 3, and
comp. on Phil. i. 7."

ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ χαρᾷ] ‘on accownt of,
for, all the joy; ἐπὶ having here more

. of its causal and derivative sense, and

marking the ground and reason of the
ἀνταπόδοσις εὐχαριστίας : comp. 1 Cor.
i. 4, 2 Cor. ix. 15, Polyb. Hist, XVIII.
26. 4, see notes on Phil. i. 5, and
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 41. 6. The
present use of ἐπὶ is nearly allied to
the common use of the prep. with
verbs denoting affections of the mind,
θαυμάζειν, ἀγαλλιᾶν, x.7.d., but per-
haps recedes a shade farther from the
idea of ‘ethical basis,’ to which both
this and all similar uses of the prep.
are to be ultimately referred; see
notes on ver. 7, and Winer, Gr. ὃ 48.
6, p. 351. Itis scarcely necessary to
say that πᾶσα ἡ χαρὰ is not, except
by inference, ‘summa letitia’ (Schott,
—who however fails to observe the
article), but ‘all the joy,’ Copt.,—
“the joy taken in its whole extent ;’
see Winer, Gr. § 18. 4, p. Tor: the
Apostle’s joy wanted nothing to make
it full and complete.

ἢ χαίρομεν] ‘which we joy; attraction
for ἣν χαίρομεν. (Winer, Gr. ὃ 24. T,
p: 147), the construction being appy.
here χαίρειν χαράν (Matth. ii. 10), not
χαίρειν χαρᾷ (John iii. 29), which,
though analogous, would be scarcely
so natural with the simple relative.
On these intensive forms, see Winer,
Gr. § 32. 2, p. 201, $54. 3, Pp» 413;
Lobeck, Paralipom. p. 224 sq.
ἔμπροσθεν κι τ.λ.} ‘before our God;
further. definition of the pure nature
of the joy: it was such as could bear

the scrutiny of the eye of God, ‘illo
videlicet teste atque inspectore et ut
arbitror probatore,’ Just., comp. Calv.
On the formula ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Θεοῦ,
only used by St Paul in this Ep., see
notes on ch. i. 3. The clause ob-
viously belongs not to χαρᾷ (Pelt),
still less to ver. 10 (Syr., but not Syr.-
Phil.), but to the verb xalpouev.

10. νυκτὸς kal ἡμέρας] ‘night and
day; καὶ τοῦτο τῆς χαρᾶς σημεῖον,
Chrys. On this formula, see notes on
ch. ii. 9, and on 1 Tim. ν. 5.
ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ δεόμενοι] ‘above mea-
sure praying;’ participial adjunct,
not to χαίρομεν, which is only part
of a subordinate clause, but to the
leading thought τίνα--- ἀνταποδοῦναι
(Liinem., Alf., Jowett), the participle
not having so much a causal (Liinem.)
as a circumstantial (‘praying as we
do,’ Alf.), or perhaps rather a simply
temporal reference; compare Kriiger,
Sprachl. ὃ 56. το. 1. On the rare cu-
mulative form ὕπερεκπ'. (ch. v. 13 [-ὥς],
Eph. iii. 20, Clem.-Rom. 1 Cor. 20
[-@s]) and St Paul’s noticeable use of
compounds of ὑπέρ, see notes on Eph.
Lt. εἰς τὸ ἰδ. κι.τ.λ.]
‘that we may see your face; “αὖ vi-
deamus,’ Vulg., Clarom.; purpose and
object (iva ἰδῇ αὐτούς, Theoph.) of the
prayer, with perhaps an included re-
ference to the subject of it; comp.
2 Thess. ii. 2, and see notes on ch. ii.
12, and on tu. τὸ mpdc., notes on ch.
ii. 17. καταρτίσαι] ‘make
complete,’ ‘ut suppleamus,’ Clarom.
The verb καταρτίζειν (Hesych. κατα-
σκευάζειν, στερεοῦν, Zonar. ἁρμόζειν)
properly signifies ‘to make dprvos’—
the xara having appy. a slightly in-
tensive force (see Rost ἃ. Palm, Lea.

40

ΠΡΟΣ OEZZAAONIKEI= A.

II Αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ ἡμῶν May God direct τὴν way

o you. May He make

ou abound in love, and
καὶ ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς κατευθύναι : is Prergeresgo be doy

8.v. κατά, IV. 4),—thence ‘to re-ad-
just and restore,’ whether in a simple
(Matth. iv. 21) or an ethical sense
(Gal. vi. 1), what had been previously
out of order; and thence, with a some-
what more derivative sense (as here),
‘to supply what is lacking or defi-
cient,’ πληρῶσαι, Theod., ἀναπληρῶσαι,
(Ecum. For exx. see Wetst. Vol. 1.
p. 278, Elsner, Obs, Vol. 11. p. 70, and
notes on Gal. l.c.

τὰ ὑστερήματα K.T.r.] ‘the lacking
measures of your faith,’ ‘that in which
your faith is yet deficient;’ comp.
Phil. ii. 30, Col. i. 24. These defects
are referred by Olsh. to their faith not
on the side of its power but of its
knowledge. This seems substantially
true (οὐ πάσης ἀπέλαυσαν τῆς διδασκα-
λίας, οὐδὲ ὅσα ἐχρῆν μαθεῖν ἔμαθον,
Chrys., comp. ch. iv. 13); it does not
however seem correct to exclude de-
fects on the side of practice, which ch.
iv. I sq. seems mainly intended to
supply; see Liinem. in loc,

11. Αὐτὸς δέ κ.τ.λ.}] ‘Now may
God Himself and our Father; transi-
tion by the δὲ μεταβατικὸν (see notes
on Gal. iii, 8) to good wishes and
prayers for their progress in holiness,
The αὐτὸς does not seem here to sug-
gest any antithesis between God and
the δεόμενοι, ver. το (De W.), but
merely to enhance the power of God
in respect of the κατευθύνειν τὴν ὁδόν
(Liinem.), and to place in contrast
the human agent with his earnest but
foiled efforts (ch. ii. 18), and God
who if He willed could instantly and
surely accomplish all; ὡσεὶ ἔλεγεν ‘O
Θεὸς ἐκκόψαι τὸν Σατανᾶν τὸν παντα-
χοῦ ἡμῖν διὰ τῶν πειρασμῶν ἐμποδί-
ἕοντα, ἵνα ὀρθὴν ὁδὸν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ποιησώ-
μεθα, Gicum. On the meaning
of the august title ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατήρ,

and the probable connexion of ἡμῶν
with the latter subst. only (so also
Liinem.), see notes on Gal. i. 4. It
may be remarked that the copula is
omitted in Syr., Copt., Auth. (both),
and retained in Vylg., Clarom., Goth.,
Arm., Syr.-Phil., but that in these
latter Vv. where it thus occurs there is
no trace of the explanatory force here
ascribed to it by many modern com-
mentators. Kal ὁ Κύριος x.7.X. ]
Union of the Son with the Father in
the Apostle’s prayer. The language
of some of the German expositors is
here neither clear nor satisfactory:
we do not say with Liinem., that
Christ as sitting at the right hand of
God has a part in the government of
the world ‘nach paulinischer An-
schauung’ (compare Usteri, Lehrb. τι.
2. 4, Ῥ. 315), still less with Koch, that
the Apostle regards Christ ‘als die
Weisheit und Macht Gottes,’— but
assert simply and plainly that the
Eternal Son is here distinguished from
the Father in respect of His Person-
ality, but mystically united with Him
(observe the significant singular xar-
evOivat) in respect of his Godhead,
and as God rightly and duly address-
ed in the language of direct prayer ;
see esp. Athan. contr. Arian. III. 11,
Waterl. Defence, Qu. xvul. Vol. 1. p.
423, Qu. XXII. p. 467.

The addition after "Inc. of Χριστός
(Rec.), though supported by D°EFGK
L; mss.; Vv.; Ath., and many Ff.,
is rightly rejected by most modern
editors with ABD? (D! omits "Inc.
as well); 5 mss.; Clarom., Sangerm.,
Vulg. (Amiat.), Ath. (Pol.,—but not
Platt), al., as a conformation to the
more usual formula.

κατευθύναι] ‘direct,’ optative, not in-
finitive,—which, though occasionally

ὙΠ τὰ ΤΖ, 35:

47

a“ ‘eon: nr a ’
τὴν ὁδὸν ἡμῶν πρὸς ὑμᾶς. ὑμᾶς δὲ ὁ Κύριος πλεονάσαι 12

ι A , a ἢ Ud πῶς," , A 9 ’
Kal περισσεύσαι TH ἀγαπῇ εἰς ἀλλήλους Kal εἰς παντας,

a cd J 4 , e “~ 4
καθάπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς ὑμᾶς, εἰς TO στηρίξαι ὑμῶν τὰς 13

- found in older and esp. poetical writers
in ref. to wishes and prayers (Apollon.
de Synt, 111. 14, Bernhardy, Synt. 1x.
3, Ῥ. 357), has no place in the lan-
guage of the N.T.; see Winer, Gr. ὃ
43. 5, Ῥ- 283. The singular is cer-
tainly very noticeable both here and
in 2 Thess. ii. 17: no reasons except
those founded on the true relations of
the Father and Son seem in any way
to account for the enallage of number.
The verb κατευθύνειν (Luke i. 79, 2
Thess, iii. 5) properly signifies ‘to
make straight,’ thence (as here) ‘to

a .
direct? (‘dirigat,’ Vulg., 4052.
n

Syr.), the κατὰ being appy. not so
much intensive (Koch) as directive,
and the appended πρὸς specifying the
terminus ad quem; comp. Winer, Gr.
§ 52. 4. 9, Pp. 383.

12. ὑμᾶς δέ] ‘But you,’—you—
whatever it may please God to ap-
point with respect to us and our
coming: ‘altera precatio ut interea
dum obstructum illi est iter se tamen
absente Dominus Thessalonicenses con-
firmet in sanctitate et caritate im-
pleat,’ Calv. ὁ Κύριος]
Not the First Person of the blessed
Trinity (Alf.),—still less the Third
(Basil, ap. Pearson, Creed, Vol. τι. p.
265, ed. Burt.), but, in accordance
with the application of the title both
in ver. ΙΓ and ver. 13, and the pre-
vailing usage in St Paul’s Epp., the
Second ; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 19. I, p.
113. The subject ὁ Κύριος [so BD? K
LN ; Augiens.: ὁ Θεός, A ; 73: ὁ Κύριος
᾿Ιησοῦς, D'E' FG ; Clarom., Sangerm.,
al.] is omitted in Syr., Arab. (Erp.),
Vulg. (Amiat.), and is rejected by
Mill (Prolegom. p. cxxx.), De W.,

Koch, al., as an interpolation. The
external authority for its insertion is
too preponderant to be safely set
aside: Lachm. and Tisch. retain it.
πλεονάσαι Kal περισσεύσαι] ‘make
to increase and abound,’ ‘multiplicet
et abundare faciat,’ Vulg., Clarom. ;
both verbs transitive, and nearly
synonymous; the former referring not
to mere numerical increase (τῷ ἀριθμῷ
πλεονάσαι, Theod.) but to spiritual en-
largement, the second to spiritual
abundance, and having more of a
superlative meaning; comp. Fritz.
Rom. Vol. 1. p. 351. πΠλεονάξειν is
not transitive elsewhere in the N.T.,
see however Psalm Ixxi. 21, ἐπλεό-
vacas τὴν δικαιοσύνην cov, τ Mace. iv.
35, πλεονάσας τὸν γενηθέντα στρατόν;
the verb περισσ. is also commonly in-
trans., but see 2 Cor. iv. 15, ix. 8, and
notes on Eph. i. 8.

τῇ ἀγάπῃ KT.A.] Sin your love to-
ward one another and toward all,’ in-
strumental or rather ablatival dative
specifying that with which they were
to be enlarged and to abound; see
Hartung, Casus, p. 94, Scheuerl. Synt.
δ. 22, p. 178, 182. This love was to
be shown both in the form of brotherly
love (φιλαδελφία, ch. iv. 9) and in its
more extended form to all mankind
whether ὁμόπιστοι (Theod.) or not;
τοῦτο yap τῆς κατὰ Θεὸν ἀγάπης ἴδιον
τὸ πάντας περιπλέκεσθαι, Theoph.
καθάπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς ὕμ.} ‘even as
we also abound toward you; comp.
ver. 6; 501], πλεονάζομεν καὶ περισ-
σεύομεν τῇ ἀγάπῃ [περὶ ὑμᾶς διετέθη-
μεν, Theod.], the verbs which were
previously transitive now relapsing in-
to their usual intransitive meaning:
TO μὲν ἡμέτερον ἤδη ἐστί, τὸ δὲ ὑμέ-

μα pa

48

ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΣ A. ’

ΠΥ) 9" Ἂ > ἄν a . a . «δὰ ὦ “ “Ὁ
καρδίας ἀμέμπτους ἐν ἁγιωσύνη ἔμπροσθεν rod Θέοῦ
A A ΄“ 9 a , A “.
καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν
3 “ ‘ , a ὁ a
Ἰησοῦ μετὰ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων αὐτοῦ.

τερὸν ἀξιοῦμεν “γενέσθαι, Chrys. This
mode of supplying the ellipsis, though
open to the objection of causing two
different meanings to be assigned to
πλεον. and περισσ. in the same verse,
seems less arbitrary than that of Syr.
(comp. Copt.), al., ἀγάπην ἔχομεν,
Grot. ‘swmus, more Hebreo,’ dc.,
and is supported by the analogy of
simple verbs being supplied from com-
pound verbs, affirmative from nega-
tive; comp. Jelf, Gr. ὃ 895. 1. Ὁ. .
On the meaning of καθάπερ, see notes
on ch. ii. 11, and on the use of καί,
notes on ch. iv. .5.

13. εἰς τὸ στηρίξαι] ‘in order to
establish,’ ‘to the end he may stablish,’
Auth.; not the result (Baumg.-Crus.)
but the end and aim of the πλεον. καὶ
περισσ. TH ἀγάπῃ: ἂν yap αὐτὴ wepic-
σεύῃ, στηριγμός ἐστι τῶν κεκτημένων
αὐτήν, CEcum.; love being, as De W,
observes, ‘the filling up of the law’
(Rom. xiii. 10) and ‘the bond of per-
fectness’ (Col. iii. 14). The subject of
the inf., it need scarcely be said, is
not ἡμᾶς (Corn. a Lap. 1), nor ἀγά-
πην (Gicum.), nor even Θεόν (a Lap.
2), but the subject of the foregoing
verse, τὸν Κύριον. ἀμέμπτους
ἐν ἁγιωσύνῃ] ‘so as to be unblameable
in holiness ;’ proleptic use of the ad-
jective; comp. 1 Cor. i. 8, Phil. iii. 21,
see Winer, Gr. ὃ 66. 3, p. 550, Jelf,
Gr. § 439. 2, Schaefer, Demosth. Vol.
I. p. 239, and the long and elaborate
note of Koch in loc. The hearts (ἐκ
τῆς καρδίας ἐξέρχονται διαλογισμοὶ πο-
νηροί, Chrys.) were to be blameless,
and that not simply, but in a sphere
and element of holiness. On the
orthographically correct but late form
ἁγιωσύνη (Rom. i. 4, 2 Cor. vil. 1, as

ἐξ, not ἁγιοσύνη, as B'DEFG (A has
δικαιοσύνη), see Fritz. Rom. Vol. 1. p.
10, Buttm. Gr. ὃ 118. 11. In mean-
ing it differs but little from ἁγιότης
(2 Cor. i. 12 [not Rec.], Heb. xii. 10),
except perhaps that it represents more
the condition than the abstract quality,
while ἁγιασμός, as its termination
shows, points primarily to the process
(2 Thess. ii. 13, 1 Pet. i. 2), and thence,
with that gradual approach of the ter-
mination in -yos to that in -cvvy which
is so characteristic of the N.T., the
state (ch. iv. 4, 1 Tim. ii. 15), frame’
of mind, or holy disposition (Water-
land, on Justif. Vol. vi. p. 7), in
which the action of the verb is evinced
and exemplified ; see Usteri, Lehrb. 11.
I. 3, p. 226, and comp. ἀγαθωσύνη,
ἀγαθότης, and notes on Gal. v. 22.
ἔμπροσθεν κιτιλ. does not belong ex-
clusively either to ἐν ἁγιωσύνῃ (Pelt)
or to ἀμέμπτους (De W.), but to both
(Liinem.): their ἀμεμφία ἐν ἁγιωσ.
was to be such as could bear the
searching eye of God; see notes on
ver. g, and on ch. i. 3.

τοῦ ©. καὶ 1. ἡμ.] See notes on ver.
11, and on Gal. i. 4. ἐν τῇ
παρουσίᾳ K.t.A.] “αὐ the coming of
our Lord Jesus; καὶ yap ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ
κρινόμεθα ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Πατρός,
Theoph. ; see notes on ch. ii. 19. The
addition Χριστοῦ is rightly rejected
by Lachm. and Tisch., with ABDEK® ;
20 mss.; Clarom., Sangerm., Vulg.
(Amiat.), Aath. (Pol.,— but not Platt);
Dam., Ambr.: the appearance of ᾽1η-
σοῦς without Χριστὸς seems somewhat
noticeably frequent in this Epistle (Ὁ
times out of 16); comp. ver. 11, ch. i,
10, ii 15, 19, iv. 1, 2, 14 (bis).

μετὰ πάντων K.tA.}] ‘accompanied

ae ᾿ ΤΥ. Τὰ»

Abound ye, according to
my precepts. God’s will
is your sanctification,
wherefore be chaste and
continent.

with all His Saints; not σὺν .but
μετά; they are here represented not
so much as united with Him as at-
tending on Him and swelling the
majesty of His train; comp. notes on
Eph. vi. 23, and contrast Col. iii. 4,
where on the contrary the context
shows that the idea is mainly that of
coherence. It is very doubtful whe-
ther οἱ ἅγιοι are, with Pearson (Creed,
Vol. 11. p. 296), to be referred to the
Holy Angels (see 2 Thess, i. 7, Matth.
xvi, 27, xxv. 31, al; comp. Heb.
ὩΣ ΡῚΡ Psalm Ixxxix. 6, Zech. xiv. 5,
al.), or, with Hofmann (Schriftb. Vol.
Il. 2, p. 595), to the Saints in their
more inclusive sense (see ch. iv. 14,
comp. 1 Cor. vi. 2); perhaps the addi-
tion πάντες may justify us in referring
the term to both; so Beng., Alf.

The ἀμὴν at the end of the verse [insert-
ed by AD'EN'; mss. ; Clarom., Sang.,
Vulg., and by Zachm. in brackets]
seems to be a liturgical addition.

. CHAPTER LV. 1. Δοιπὸν οὖν] ‘ Fur-
thermore then,’ in consequence of, and
in accordance with the issue prayed
for in the preceding verse; the οὖν
having here its collective force, and
introducing an appeal to the Thessa-
lonians on their side, grounded on
what the Apostle had asked in prayer
for them from God; they were to do
their part, Olsh. On the two uses of
οὖν (the collective and reflexive), see
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 717, com-
pared with Hartung, Partik. Vol. τι.
p- 9. The transl. of Vulg., ‘ergo’
(Clarom. less correctly ‘autem’), is
judiciously altered by Beza to ‘igitur ;?
the former being properly used only
‘in graviore argumentatione,’ Hand,
Tursell. Vol. 111. p. 187. The exact
meaning of λοιπὸν has been somewhat

49

to Λοιπὸν οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ἐρωτῶμεν IV.
e A \ “ ει A tes Ἴ A
ὑμᾶς καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν ev Κυρίῳ ᾿Ιησοῦ

contested. By observing its use (2
Cor. xiii. rr) and thit of the more
specific τὸ λοιπὸν (Eph. vi. το, Phil.
iii. 1, iv. 8, 2 Thess. iii, r) in St
Paul’s Epp., we see that it is neither

‘simply temporal (del μὲν καὶ eis τὸ

διηνεκές, Chrys., Theoph.), nor simply
ethical (ἀποχρώντως, CEcum. 2), but
rather marks the transition to the
close of the Ep. and te what remains
yet to be said (‘de cetero,’ Vulg.),
whether much (Phil. iii. 1) or little
(2 Cor. xiii. 11); τὸ els παραίνεσιν

ἐλθεῖν, CGicum. 1: comp. notes on
Phil, iii. 1. The omission of

τὸ (inserted by Rec.) is here supported
by all MSS. except B? [mss. ; Chrys ,
Theod. 7, and acquiesced in by Lachm.,
Tisch., and appy. all modern editors:
that of οὖν [omitted by 1; 10 mss. ;
Syr., Copt. ; Chrys. ], though approved
by Mill (Prolegom. p. xcv) and Tisch.
ed. 1, is on the contrary by no means
probable. ἐρωτῶμεν] ‘we
beseech ; comp. ch. v. 12, Phil. iv. 3, 2
Thess. ii. 1, where alone it is used by
St Paul: a derivative and non-classi-
eal use of ἐρωτᾶν, perhaps suggested
by the double use of oxy (Schott),
of which in the LXX it is not un-
commonly a translation; see Psalm
exxii. 6, ἐρωτήσατε dONw) δὴ τὰ els
εἰοήνην τὴν Ἱερουσαλήμ. ᾿

παρακαλοῖμεν ἐν Kup. ᾽Ιησ.] ‘exhort
you in the Lord Jesus; our παράκλη-
σις is in Him alone (see Phil. ii. 1, and
notes); He is the sphere and element
in which alone all we say and do has
its proper existence an1 efficacy: see
notes on Eph. iv. 17, vi. 1. The gloss
διὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, Chrys. (τὸν Χριστὸν παρα-
λαμβάνει, Theoph., ‘per Christum
rogat et obsecrat,’ Schott 2), involves
a needless departure from the almost
regular meaning of this significant

E

50 ΠΡΟΣ

ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.

oe ᾳ« - ’ ’ Φ erm be A ΄- δ᾽ “0
ἵνα καθὼς παρελάβετε παρ᾽ ἡμῶν τὸ πῶς δεῖ ὑμᾶς περιπα-
τεῖν καὶ ἀρέσκειν Θεῷ, καθὼς καὶ περιπατεῖτε, ἵνα περισ-

2 σεύητε μᾶλλον. οἴδατε γὰρ τίνας παραγγελίας ἐδώκαμεν
. -ὦὦ 4A a , , “ ΄σ 4 ,
3 ὑμῖν διὰ τοῦ Kupiov ᾿Ιησοῦ. τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν θέλημα

formula: all the ancient Vv. retain
the simple and primary meaning of
the preposition. ἵνα καθώς
K.7.A.] ‘that even as ye received from
us,’ subject of the prayer blended
with the purpose of making it, intro-
duced by the partially final wa; see
notes on Eph. i. 17. On the meaning
of παρελάβετε, here unduly extended
by Chrys., Theoph., to the teaching
of examples (οὐχὶ ῥημάτων μόνον ἐστὶν
ἀλλὰ καὶ πραγμάτων), see notes on ch.
ii. 13. This ἵνα is omitted by Ree.
with AD°E*KLN; great majority of
mss.; Syr.-Phil., Aith.-Platt (appy.) ;
Chrys., Theod., al. (Zisch. ed. 2): but
is rightly retained by Lachm., Tisch.
ed. 7. C is deficient.

τὸ πῶς δεῖ κιτ.λ.} ‘how ye ought to
walk ;’ literally ‘the how, dc.,’ the
τὸ giving to the whole clause a sub-
stantival character, and bringing the
two members into a single point of
view; comp. Luke ix. 46, Rom. iv.
13, viii. 26, see Winer, Gr. § 20. 3,
p- 162, ed. 5 (omitted or placed else-
where in ed. 6), Fritz. on Mark, p. 372,
Jelf, Gr. ὃ 457. 3, and the numerous
exx. in Matth. Gr. ὃ 280.

Kal ἀρέσκειν Θεῷ] ‘and (by so doing)
to please Ged.’ The καὶ does not seem
to be either explanatory (Schott 2) or
Hebraistic (‘vim consilii aut effectus
describens,’ Storr, cited by Schott),
but with its not uncommon consecu-
tive force marks the ἀρέσκειν as the
result of the περιπατεῖν ; comp. notes
on Phil. iv. 12. The words καθὼς καὶ
περιπατεῖτε are omitted by 7 τον, Tisch.
ed. 2, but only on the authority of
D*E*KL; most mss.; Syr., Chrys.,
Theod., Dam.: they are rightly in-

serted by Lachm., Tisch. ed. 7, on
greatly preponderant authority. We
can hardly say that the words are in-
serted ‘vitiose et parum ad rem’
(Just.); the terms of the concluding
exhortation seem to render an allusion
to their present state, if not necessary,
yet certainly natural and appropriate.
For a sound sermon on this text,
see Beveridge, Serm. Oxxi1I. Vol. v.
Ρ. 347 584. περισσεύητε
μᾶλλον] ‘ye may abound still more,’
scil. in your walking and pleasing
God: the expression occurs again in
ver. 10 and Phil. i. 9. The omission
of a οὕτῳς corresponding to the first
καθώς, and the conclusion of the sen-
tence jn terms not wholly symmetrical
with what had preceded, involve no
real difficulty, and are characteristic
of the Apostle’s style.

2. οἴδατε γάρ] ‘For ye know.’
Appeal to the memory of the Thes-
salonians in confirmation of the fore-
going declaration καθὼς παρελάβετε,
‘quasi dicat Accepisse vos a nobis
dico,’ Est.; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 1, 2,
Gal. iv. 13. τίνας Tapayy. |
‘what commands ;’ not ‘evangelii pre-
dicationem,’ Pelt,—but, in accordance
with the regular meaning of the word
and the tenor of the context, ‘ pre-
cepta,’ scil. ‘bene sancteque vivendi,’
Est., ‘vivendi regula,’ Calv.; comp.
Acts v. 28, xvi. 24, 1 Tim. i. 5, 18,
and see notes in locc. The emphasis,
as Liinem. observes, rests on τίνας, and
prepares the reader for the following
τοῦτο, ver. 3. "διὰ τοῦ
Kup. ᾽Ιησ.] ‘by the Lord Jesus,’ ‘ per
Dominum Jesum,’ Vulg., Clarom.,
‘pairh,’ Goth.; not equivalent to ἐν

IV.
τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν,

Κυρίῳ (Pelt), but correctly designating
the Lord as the ‘causa medians’
through which the παραγγελίαις were
declared: they were not the Apostle’s
own commands, but Christ’s (οὐκ ἐμὰ
γάρ, φησίν, ἃ παρήγγειλα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκείνου
ταῦτα, Theoph.), by whose blessed in-
fluence he was moved to deliver them;
comp. 2 Cor. i. 5, and see Winer, Gr.
§ 47. i, p. 339 note 2. The addition
does not then seem designed so much
to vindicate the authority of the Apo-
stle (Olsh.) as to enhance the impor-
_ tance of the commands ; comp. 1 Cor.
Vii. 10.

3. τοῦτο yap κ.τ.λ.} ‘For this is
the will of God,’—‘this that follows,
this that I am about to declare to
you; further explanation of the τίνας
παραγγελίας, yap having here more of
its explanatory (‘quippe hec,’ Schott)
than its argumentative force; see
notes on Gal. ii. 6. Τοῦτο is obviously
not the predicate (De W.), but the
subject, placed somewhat emphatically
forward to echo the preceding τίνας
and direct the reader’s attention to
the noun in apposition that follows.
Liinem. and Alf. compare Rom. ix. 8,
Gal. iii. 7; but the passages are not
perfectly analogous, as there the de-
monsirative pronoun is retrospective,
here mainly prospective; comp. notes
on Gal. l.c. θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ]
‘the will of God; ‘id quod Deus
vult,’ Fritz. Rom. Vol. 11. p. 33. The
omission of τὸ before θέλ. [inserted by
AFG, and by Lachm., in brackets} is
not to be accounted for by the ‘non-
distribution of the predicate θέλ. τοῦ
Gcod’ (Alf.; but with 3), nor because
what follows does not exhaust the:con-
ception (Liinem.), but simply on the
‘principle noticed by the Greek gram-
marians (Apollon. de Synt. τ. 31, Ὁ. 64,
ed. Bekk.) that ‘ after verbs substantive

Hg: A 51

9 s €¢ 2 : Φ wn
ἀπέχεσθαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τῆς

or nuncupative’ the article is fre-
quently omitted: see Middleton, Gr.
Art, Ul. 3. 2, p. 43 (ed. Rose), but
observe that the rule is by no means
se universal as Middl. seems to think;
see Winer, Gr. ὃ 18. 7, p. 104. When
the subject is a demonstrative pro-
noun and the verb is omitted (Rom, ix.
8), the exceptions are naturally fewer,
as the insertion of the article might
often leave it uncertain whether the
demonstr. pronoun was intended to be
predicative or no; see Stallb. on Plato,
Apol, p. 18 A, and Engelhart on Plato,
Lach, ὃ τ΄ It may be noticed
that the useful and common form
θέλημα is appy. confined to the LXX,
N.T., and late writers; comp. Lo-
beck, Phryn. p. 7.

ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν] ‘your sanctifica-
tion ;’ appositional member to the
preceding θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, further
defined both negatively and positively
in the following clauses, and more
specially exemplified in the subsequent
appositional member τὸ μὴ ὑπερβαί-
ver. 6. The late substantive
ayiacuds,—which, as the defining
clauses seem to show, has here some-
what of a special meaning (Beng.),—
is not equivalent to ἁγιωσύνη (comp.
Olsh., Usteri, Lehrb. p. 226, note), but
in accordance with its termination
(‘action of verb proceeding from sub-
ject,’ Donalds. Cratyl. § 253) still re-
tains its active force, ὑμῶν being a
simple gen. objecti, ‘sanctificatio ves-
tri,’ i.e. ‘ut sanctitati studeatis,’ Me-
noch, ap. Pol. Syn.; comp. Kriiger,
Sprachl. § 47. 7. 1 8q., and see note
on ch. iii. 13.

ἀπέχεσθαι ὑμᾶς K.t.d.] ‘to wit that
ye abstain from fornication ;’ explana-
tory infinitive, defining on the nega-
tive side the preceding term ὁ ayia-.
σμός, which otherwise must have been

E2

νειν,

52 ΠΡΟΣ

ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙΣ A.

Dee eae ν᾽ ὡς ey a ane a Te a ew a
4 πορνείας, εἰδέναι ἕκαστον ὑμῶν TO ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος κτᾶσθαὶ

regarded as simply general in its sig-
nification; see Kriiger, Sprachl. ὃ 57.
10. 6 sq., Winer, Gr. ὃ 44. 1, p. 284,
and comp. Madvig, Synt. § 153, who
however has not sufficiently illustrated
this not uncommon use of the infini-
‘tive. Even Winer (Gr. ὃ 44. 2) seems
to regard the inf. here as a subject-inf.
in apposition to θέλημα Tod Θεοῦ (comp.
too Syr., Aith.), but appy. with but
little plausibility. The insertion (ch.
v. 22) or omission (1 Tim. iv. 3) of
ἀπὸ after the compound ἀπέχεσθαι
involves no real change of meaning
(compare Acts xv. 20, 29), but differs
at most only thus much, —‘ut in priori
formula [with ἀπό] sejunctionis cogi-
tatio ad rem, in posteriore autem ad
nos ipsos referatur,” Tittmann, Synon.
I. p. 225. | τῆς πορνείας]
‘ Fornication ;᾽ abstract, and perhaps
here with a somewhat comprehensive
meaning [F reads πασι τῆς, and 31
πάσης τῆς: S4; a few mss.; Syr.,
Chrys., Theod., al. substitute πάσης
for the art.], ‘quicquid est rerum
venerearum,’ Calv., or more suitably to
the present context ‘omnem illicitum
concubitum’ (comp. Est.). It must
be always remembered that the deadly
sin of πορνεία in its usual and general
sense ever formed the subject of
special prohibition, as being one of
those things which the Gentile world
regarded as ἀδιάφορα; see Meyer on
Acts xv. 20.

4. εἰδέναι ἕκαστον ὑμῶν] ‘that
each one of you know how &c.; ex-
planatory infinitive, parallel to ἀπέ-
χεσθαι, defining on the positive side
the preceding ἁγιασμός: so (as far as
can be inferred from the collocation
of words and form of expression),
Copt., Goth., Arm., and Vulg. in
spite of modern punctuation. Alford
and others (comp. Clarom. ‘abstinere

...ut sciat...ut nequis’) regard the
whole εἰδέναι --- διεμαρτυράμεθα as a
further specification of what imme-
diately precedes; this however tends
to obscure the distinction between the
infinitival clauses with and without
the article (see below on ver. 6), and
exegetically considered has nothing
particularly to recommend it. For a
similar comprehensive force of εἰδέναι,
see Phil. iv. 12; δείκνυσι ὅτι ἀσκήσεως
kel μαθήσεώς ἐστι τὸ σωφρονεῖν, Theoph.
For ἕκαστον AFG read ἕκαστος, so
Lachm. in marg.

τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος κτᾶσθαι] ‘to get
himself his own vessel:’ so it would
seem Syr., Copt. (e-chphof naf), Ar-
men, (sddndal) ;—-but as in these and
other languages the ideas of acquisi-
tion and possession are expressed by
the same word, discrimination is not
easy. The meaning of the clause,
and especially of the word σκεῦος, has
been much debated. Setting aside all
arbitrary and untenable interpreta-
tions, we have two explanations of τὸ
ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος ; (a) ‘ his body,’ σκεῦος
τὸ σῶμά φησιν, Theoph., Gicum.; so
Chrys., Theod. (who notices and re-
jects the other expl.), Tertull. (de
Resurr. 16), Ambrosiast., Olsh., and
some modern commentators ; (b) ‘his
wife,’ σκεῦος τὴν ἰδίαν ἑκάστου yauér ny
ὀνομάζει, Theod.-Mops., August. con-
tra Jul. 1v. 56 [x]—or more generally
(De W.) his lawful ‘copartner and
recipient’ in fulfilling the divine ordi-
nance (Gen. i. 28), with a reference to
a similar use of the Heb. 2} (see the
pertinent example from Megill. Est. i.
11, ‘vas meum quo ego utor,’ cited by
Schoettg. Hor. Hebr. Vol. 1. p. 727,
and most commentators) and the gene-
rally appropriate nature of the trope
(see Sohar Levit. xxxviii. 152, cited
by Schoettg.): so Aquin., Est., more

: td ee Σδο, ἵ

,

99

-' ῥα ys ‘ a. ” ‘ , . , me
ev ἁγιασμῷ καὶ τιμῇ, μὴ ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας καθἄἅπερ καὶ 5

᾿ : 4 ’ ; 4
τὰ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ εἰδότα τὸν Θεόν: TO μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν καὶ 6

recently Schott, De W., and appy. the
majority of modern expositors. Of
these two interpretations (a) is plaus-
ible, but open, as Liinem. clearly
states, to four objections,—(a) the in-
accurate meaning ‘ possidere’ (Vulg.)
thus assigned to κτᾶσθαι; (8) the ab-
sence of any adj. (2 Cor. iv. 7) or de-
fining gen. (Barnab. Lpist. § 7, 11)
which might warrant such a meaning
being assigned to oxevos,—unsuccess-
fully evaded (Olsh.) by the assump-
tion that ἑαυτοῦ practically = ψυχῆς ;
(y) the emphatic position of ἑαυτοῦ
(comp. 1 Cor. vii. 2), which is hardly
to be explained away as a mere equi-
valent of a possess. pronoun; (δ) the
context, which seems naturally to sug-
gest, not a mere periphrasis of what
had preceded, but a statement on the
positive and permitted side antitheti-
cal to the prohibition on the negative.
These objections are so strong that
we can scarcely hesitate in adopting
(6), towards which both lexical usage
(κτᾶσθαι γυναῖκα, Ecclus. xxxvi. 29
[24], Xen. Symp. Il. 10) and exegetical

j arguments very distinctly converge.

While πορνεία is prohibited on the
negative side, chastity and holiness in
re-pect of the primal ordinance are
equally clearly inculcated on the posi-
tive. For further details see the ela-
borate notes of De W., Koch, and
Liinem. in loc. ἐν ἁγιασμῷ
καὶ τιμῇ] ‘in sanctification and ho-
nour; ethical element in which τὸ
κτᾶσθαι was to take place: the union
of man and woman was to be in
sanctification and honour, not, as in
the case of πορνεία, in sin and shame.
Here, as the associated abstr. subst.
suggests, ἁγιασμῷ passes from its act.
into its neutral meaning ; comp. notes
on ch. iii. 13.

5. μὴ ἐν πάθει ἐπιθ.} ‘not in the
lustfulness of desire; not in that sin-
ful and morbid state (comp. Cicero,
Tusc. Disp. Ut. 4. 10) in which éme-
θυμία becomes the ruling and prevail-
ing principle, and the κοίτη ceases to
be ἀμίαντος (Heb. xiii. 4). On the
meaning of πάθος, see Trench, Synon.
Part 11. ὃ 37, and notes on Col. 111. 5.
καθάπερ Kal ta ἔθνη] ‘even as the
Gentiles also ;’ the καὶ having here its
comparative force, and instituting a
comparison between the Gentiles and
the class implied in the ἕκαστον ὑμῶν ;
comp. ch. iii. 6, and see notes on Eph.
v. 23, where this usage is fully dis-
cussed. Alford cites Xen. Anabd. I.
1. 22, ὅτι καὶ ἡμῖν ταὐτὰ δοκεῖ ἅπερ
καὶ βασιλεῖ, but not with complete
pertinence, as there the καὶ appears in
both clauses, here only in the relative
clause; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. II. p.
635. The remark of Fritz. (Rom.
Vol. I. p. 114) on the presence or ab-
sence of the article with ἔθνη, ‘ubi de
paganis. in universum loquitur articu-
lum addit, ubi de gentilium parte agit
eundem omittit,’ is substantially cor-
rect, but must not be over-pressed ;
comp. I Cor. i. 23 (not Rec.).
τὰ μὴ εἰδότα τὸν Θεόν] ‘which know
not God, who as a class are so
characterized, the subjective negation
μὴ being rightly used as being in har-
mony both with the oblique and in-
finitival character of the preceding
clauses, and with the fact that the
Gentiles are here not historically de-
scribed as ‘ignorantes Deum’ (see
notes on Gal. iv. 8) but only regarded
as such by the writer; see Winer, Gr.
$35. 5, p. 4288sq. The article is here
appropriately added to Θεόν, but this
is one of the many words in the N. T.
for which no precise rules can be

54 ΠΡΟΣ

ΘΕΣΣΛΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.

Ps ~ ὡς OA 4 by, Ὁ a “ ᾿Ἂ
πλεονεκτεῖν ἐν τῷ πράγματι τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, διότι

laid down: see Winer, Gr. ὃ 19. 1,
p- IIo.

6. τὸ μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν] ‘that no
one go beyond,’ ‘that there be no
going beyond,’—the subject-accus. not
being ἕκαστον (Alf.), but twa (comp.
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 55. 2. 6) supplied
from the following αὐτοῦ, and sug-
gested by the general character of the
prohibition. The clause is thus not
merely parallel to the anarthrous εἰ-
δέναι (Alf.), but reverts to the preced-
ing ἁγιασμός, of which it presents a
specific exemplification (comp. Kriiger,
Sprachl. § 50. 6. 3) more immediately
suggested by the second part of ver. 4.
First πορνεία is prohibited; then a
holy use of its natural remedy affirm-
atively inculcated; and lastly the
heinous sin of μοιχεία, especially as
regarded in its social aspects, formally
denounced. So rightly Chrys. (é-
ταῦθα περὶ μοιχείας φησίν. ἀνωτέρω δὲ
καὶ περὶ πορνείας πάσης), and after him
Theod., Theoph., Gicum., and the
majority of modern commentators. To
regard the verse with Calv., Grot., and
recently De W., Liinem., Koch, as
referring to fraud and covetousness in
the general affairs of life, is (a) to in-
fringe on the plain meaning of τῷ
πράγματι, see below ; (8) to obscure the
ref. to the key-word of the paragraph
ἀκαθαρσία, ver. 7; (vy) to mar the con-
textual symmetry of the verses; and
(5) to introduce an exegesis so frigid
and unnatural, as to make us wonder
that such good names should be as-
sociated with an interpretation seem-
ingly so improbable.
ὑπερβαίνειν Kal πλεονεκτεῖν] ‘go be-
yond and over-reach,’ ‘supergrediatur
neque circumveniat,’ Vulg., both
words associated with the following
accus.,—and both of them significant-
ly and appositely chosen. Ὑπερβαίνειν

(a dr. λεγόμ. in the N.T.) with an
accus, persone properly signifies a
‘passing beyond,’ thence derivatively
a ‘leaving unnoticed,’ whether simply
(Iseus, p. 38.6, and 43. 34) or con-
temptuously (Plutarch, de Amore Prol.
δ. 3; comp. Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. 337),
as appy. Aith. taahaja [extulit se],—
with which perhaps in the present case
there may be associated a reference to
a ὑπέρβασις of another in respect of
the ὅροι appointed by God and by
nature; see Chrys. and the Greek
commentators, who however seem to
have taken ὑπερβαίνειν absolutely ;
comp. Raphel, Annot. Vol. I. 542.
Πλεονεκτεῖν with an aecus. persone
properly signifies ‘lucri caus4 fraudem
facere alicui’ (2 Cor. vii. 2, xii. 17, 18),
thence with a slightly more general
reference ‘circumvenire aliquem’
(comp. 2 Cor. ii. rr), ‘bifaih(o),’ Goth.,
the idea of selfish and self-seeking
fraud rather than mere wrong or in-
jury (comp. Syr., Copt., Arm.) being
always involved in the word; see Sui-
cer, Thesaur. s.v. Vol. τι. p. 746, and
comp. Meyer on 2 Cor. vii. 2.

ἐν τῷ πράγματι] ‘in the matter,’
Copt. (definitely expressing the art.),
and similarly, but too strongly, Syr.

Ἰ2ὰς 3 jos [in hoc negotio],

—not exactly ἐν τῇ μίξει, Theoph.,
(Ecum., but more generally, in the
matter of which we are now speaking
(comp. 2 Cor. vii. 11), which however
obviously involves reference to deeds
of carnality and adultery ; see Middle-
ton, Gr. Art. p. 377 (ed. Rose), Green,
Gram. p. 156. To regard TO as en-
clitic (Auth., Koppe) is contrary to
the usage of the N.T.; and to as-
sume that τῴ πράγματιΞετοῖς mpdy-
μασιν (De W., comp. Winer, Gr. § 18.
8, p. 105), or that it can imply ‘the

ΤΌΣ 8.

55)

ἔκδικος Κύριος περὶ πάντων τούτων, καθὼς καὶ προεί-

ς « Α rv 9 A 9 , . Φ “
παμεν υμῖν και διεμαρτυράμεθα. οὐ γαρ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς 7

‘ “
ὁ Θεὸς ἐπὶ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ ἀλλὰ ἐν ἁγιασμῷ.

business in question’ (Liiinem.) when
nothing has preceded sufficient to mark
what the πρᾶγμα really is, must re-
spectively on grammatical and logical
grounds be pronounced wholly unten-
able. τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ] “ his
brother,’—not merely ‘his neighbour’
(Schott), but ‘his Christian brother,’
him whom so to wrong and defraud
is doubly flagitious; ἀδελφὸν καλεῖς
kal πλεονεκτεῖς, καὶ ἐν οἷς οὐ χρή, Chrys.
διότι ἔκδικος Κύριος] “ because that the
Lord is the avenger? οὐδὲ yap ἀτιμω-
ρητὶ ταῦτα πράξομεν, Chrys.; see Eph.
v. 6, Col. iii. 6, where similar prohi-
bitions are accompanied by a similar
warning reason. The term ἔκδικος, a
δὶς λεγόμ. in the N. T. (here and Rom.
xiii. 4), primarily denotes τὸν ἔξω τοῦ
δικαίου ὄντα (Suid. 5. ν., Zonar. Lex.
p- 651), ‘lawless,’ ‘ unjust’ (comp.
Soph. Gd. Col. 917); thence in later
writers it passes over to the meaning
of ‘an avenger ;’ comp. Suid. 5.ν. Ἴβυ-
kos (ἴδε ai ᾿Ιβύκου ἔκδικοι), Wisdom
xii. 12, Ecclus. xxx. 6. On the still
later use in eccl. writers to denote
‘Defensores’ or ‘Syndics’ of the
church, see Suicer, Z’hesaur. 5. v. Vol.
I. p. 1045, Bingham, Antig. UT. 11. 5.
On διότι, comp. note and reff. on ch,
ii. 8. Rec. reads 6 Kup., but the arti-
cle is rightly omitted by Lachm., Tisch.,
with ABD'®N; al. περὶ πάντων
τούτων] ‘concerning, in the matter of,
all these things,—not merely cases of
ὑπερβασία and πλεονεξία (Alf.), but,
as the comprehensive expression seems
to require, all the sins of the flesh
previously mentioned; see Chrys.,
Theoph., Gicum., who from the inclu-
sive nature of their language seem to
adopt the latter view. As illustrative

τοιγαροῦν ὁ 8

of the use. οὗ ἔκδικος with περί, comp.
1 Mace, xiii. 6, ἐκδικήσω περὶ τοῦ ἔθνους
μου. καθὼς καὶ προείπ. κ-.τ.λ.]
‘as also we before told you and solemnly
testified ; the first καὶ being compara-
tive and associated with καθώς (see on
ver. 5), the second simply copulative.
The πρὸ appears merely to point toa
time prior to the ἐκδίκησις taking place:
comp. Gal. v. 21, and notes im loc.
On the stronger and more emphatic
διαμαρτύρ. (not simply = μαρτύρομαι,
Olsh.), see notes on 1 Tim. v. 21, and
on the form εἴπαμεν [Griesb. and Scholz
here -ouey, with AKL; most mss. ;
Chrys., Theod.], comp. Winer, Gir.
§ 15, p. 78. In the N.T. the rst aor.
form seems to prevail in the 2nd _per-
son (Matth. xxvi. 25, 64, Mark xii.
32, Luke xx. 39, John iv. 17), the
2nd aor. forms in the other persons,
but in the latter instances, esp. in the
case of the 3rd pers. plural, there is
much difference of reading.

7. οὐ γάρ κ-ιτ.λ.] ‘For God called
us not,’ confirmation of the preceding
statement διότι ἔκδικος x.7.X., derived
from the object contemplated in the
κλῆσις. On the act of calling, scil.
εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ βασιλείαν καὶ δόξαν (ch.
li. 12), as specially attributed to God
the Father, see notes on Gal. i. 6.
ἐπὶ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ] ‘for uncleanness ;’ ob-
ject or purpose for which they were
(not) called, the primary meaning of
the prep. (‘nearness or approxima-
tion,’ Donalds. Crat. § 172) not being
wholly obliterated; see Gal. v. 13;
Kriiger, Sprachl. ὃ 68. 41. 7, Jelf, Gr.
δ 634. 3, Winer, Gr. ὃ 48. c, p. 351, and
exx. in Raphel, Annot, Vol. 11. p. 546.
ἐν ἁγιασμῷ] ‘in sanctification ; not ‘in
sanctificationem,’ Vulg., but ‘in sanc-

δ

ΠΡΟΣ OEZZAAONIKEIS A.

3 12 ἢ “Ὁ Rae
“ἀθετῶν οὐκ ἄνθρωπον ἀθετεῖ ἀλλὰ τὸν Θεὸν τὸν καὶ

, ι ‘ “ 9 “ {0 9 e 1d
δόντα τὸ Πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ τὸ ἅγιον εἰς ὑμᾶς.
, "

tificatione,’ Clarom., Vulg. (Amiat.) ;
ἐν being neither equivalent to εἰς (Pisc.),
-nor yet used brachylogically, scil. ὥστε
εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἐν (Winer, Gr. ὃ 50. 5, p.
370), but simply marking the sphere
in which Christians were called to
move; see notes on Gal. i. 6, on Eph.
iv. 4, and compare Green, Gr. p. 292.
On ἁγιασμός, see notes on ch. iii. 13:
it here retains its active meaning.

8. τοιγαροῦν] ‘ Wherefore then ;’
logical conclusion from the preceding
verse. The compound particle rovyap-
οὖν (only found here and Heb, xii. 1)
is not simply synonymous with τοι-
ydpro (Hartung, Partik. s.v. τοί, 3.
5, Vol. 1. p. 354), but while differing
from the simpler τοιγὰρ ‘hac de causa
igitur’ (Klotz) in imparting a more
syllogistic and ratiocinative character
to the sentence, differs also from τοι-
γάρτοι ‘qua propter sane’ in having
not an affirmative (roi) but a collective
and retrospective (οὖν) force; see
‘Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 738.

ὁ ἀθετῶν] ‘the despiser,’ “ the rejecter ;’
substantival use of the present parti-
ciple ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 45. 7, p. 316,
and Middleton, Gr. Art. p. 159. Any
definite insertions after ἀθετῶν, 6. 9.
Vulg. ‘haec,’ Arm, ὑμᾶς, Beza ‘hee,
scil. preecepta,’ are wholly unneces-
sary. It is clear that the commands
recently given must form the objects
of the ἀθέτησις ; these however the
Apostle does not specify, his object
being to call attention not so much to
what is set at naught as to the person
who sets at naught, and the personal
risk that he incurs. On the verb
ἀθετεῖν, used in the N. T. both with
persons (Mark vi. 26, Luke x. 16,
John xii. 48) and things (Mark vii. 9,
Gal. iii. 15, al.), comp. notes on Gal.
di. 21. οὐκ ἄνθρωπον K.T.A.]

“ γογοοέοί ἢ, not man but God,’ not one
whom it might be thought in some
degree excusable to despise,—but τὸν
Θεόν. The antithesis οὐκ... ἀλλὰ is thus
not to be explained away, ‘non tam
hominem...... quam Deum,’ Est., but
retained with its usual and proper
force, ‘non hominem......sed deum,’
Vulg. ; see esp. Winer, Gr. § 55. 8,
P- 439 sq-, and notes on Eph. vi. 12.
On the exact difference between this
formula (‘ubi prior notio tota tollitur,
et in ejus locum posterior notio sub-
stituitur’), od μόνον... ἀλλά, and οὐ μόνον
ο. ἀλλὰ Kal, see Kithner on Xen, Mem.
I. 6. 2, comp. also notes on ch. i. 8.
The omission of the article before
ἄνθρωπον, ‘a man,’ ‘ any man,’—with
a latent reference to the Apostle, not
to τὸν πλεονεκτηθέντα (Ecum.),—and
its insertion [it is however omitted by
D'FG] before Θεόν (almost ‘ipsum
Deum’), though not capable of being
conveyed in translation, must not be
overlooked. τὸν kal δόντα]
‘who also gave;’ who in addition to
having called us ἐν ἁγιασμῷ has also
been pleased to furnish us with the
blessed means of realizing it; comp.
Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Iv. 15, Vol. 11.
p- 150. The only difficulty is the
reading: καὶ is omitted by Lachm.
with ABD*E; 10 mss.; Clarom., San-
germ., Syr., Goth., al.; Athan., Did.,
Chrys., Theod. (ms.), Theoph., al.,—
but, as the insertion is well supported
[D'FGKLN; most mss.; Augiens.,
Boern., Vulg., Syr.-Phil., al.; Clem.,
Theod., Dam., Cicum.], and far less
easy to be accounted for than the
omission, we retain καὶ with Rec.,
Tisch., Alf., and the bulk of recent
editors. It is much more difficult to
decide between δόντα [Rec., Lachm. in
marg., Tisch., with AK LN‘; most mss. ;

SV 6.

On brotherly love I need

say nothing. I beseech
‘you to be quiet, indus-

trious, and orderly.

appy: all Vv.; Clem., Chrys., Theod. ]
and διδόντα [Lachm. text, with BDE
FGRS!; τὸ mss.; Ath.,. Did.]. The

latter deserves great consideration as:

having such very strong uncial autho-
rity, still as the Vv. appear all to
favour the aorist, and as it also cer-
tainly does seem probable that the
correction might have arisen from a
desire to represent that the gift of the
Spirit was still going on (comp. Luke
xi. 13), we retain δόντα.

τὸ IIv. αὐτοῦ τὸ ἅγιον] Not without
great emphasis and solemnity (comp.
Eph. iv. 30),—‘ His Holy Spirit,’ the
blessed Spirit which proceeds from
Him (see notes on Phil. i, 19), whose
attribute is holiness, and whose office
especially ‘ consists in the sanctifying
of the servants of God,’ Pearson,
Creed, Vol. 1. p. 387 (ed. Burt.). To
dilute this distinct personal expression
into ‘the gift of spiritual insight, &e.’
(Olsh.), is by no means satisfactory ;
see notes on Gal. iv. 6.

els ὑμᾶς] ‘unto you; not merely equi-
valent to a transmissive dative, nor
yet with any idea of diffusion (Alf.,—
see notes on ch. ii. 9), but, with the
usual and proper meaning of local
direction, ‘in vos,’ Clarom., Copt.
(ekhret): they were the objects to
whom that blessed gift was directed ;
comp. Gal. iv. 6. The reading of Rec.
ἡμᾶς has but weak external support
[A ; some mss.; Augiens., Vulg., Syr.-
Phil., Aith. (Pol., but not Piatt);
Chrys., al.], and on internal grounds
is not free from some suspicion.

9. Περὶ δέ κιτ.λ.1 ‘ Now concerning
&c. ; transition by means of the δὲ
μεταβατικὸν to afresh exhortation. On
this force of δέ, see notes on Gal. iii. 8.
τῆς φιλαδελφίας] ‘brotherly love,’ love
to their fellow Christians; Rom. xii.

57

᾿ Περὶ δὲ τῆς φιλαδελφίας οὐ χρείαν 9

a , > ae ae 2 b aos e a
ἔχετε γράφειν ὑμῖν: αὐτοὶ γὰρ ὑμεῖς,

10, Heb. xiii. 1, 1 Pet. i. 22, 2 Pet.
i. 7, comp. 1 Pet. iii. 8. This love
was to be no passive virtue, but, as
verse Io suggests, was to display itself
in acts of liberality and benevolence
towards their poorer and suffering
brethren: so Theod., though perhaps
a little too definitely, φιλαδελφίαν ἐν-
ταῦθα τὴν τῶν χρημάτων φιλοτιμίαν
ἐκάλεσεν. It is unnecessary to exclude
wholly a reference to a love εἰς πάντας
(Theoph.): the Christian ἀδελφοὶ were
the primary objects (comp. 2 Pet. i. 7,
where φιλαδελφία is distinguished from,
and precedes the general ἀγάπη), but
the great brotherhood of mankind was
still not to be forgotten ; comp. Gal.
vi. το. οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε γράφειν
ὑμῖν] ‘ye have no need that I write to
you;’ rhetorical turn, technically
termed ‘ preteritio,’ or παράλειψις, in
which what might be said is partly
suppressed, to conciliate a more loving
acceptance of the implied command;
κατὰ παράλειψιν δὲ τὴν παραίνεσιν τί-
θησι, δύο ταῦτα κατασκευάζων" ὃν μὲν
ὅτι οὕτως ἀναγκαῖον τὸ πρᾶγμα ὡς μηδὲ
διδασκάλου δεῖσθαι" ἕτερον δὲ μᾶλλον
αὐτοὺς ἐντρέπει, διεγείρων ἵνα μὴ δεύτε-
ροι ἔλθωσι τῆς ὑπολήψεως ἣν ἔχει περὶ
αὐτῶν, νομίζων αὐτοὺς ἤδη κατωρθωκέ-
vat, Theoph. On this rhetorical form,
see notes on Philem. 19, and Wilke,
N. 1. Rhetorik, p. 365. The reading
is doubtful: ZLachm. adopts ἔχομεν
with D'FGN* [B; Vulg. (Amiat.)

give εἴχομεν]; 6 mss. ; Vulg., Clarom.,

Goth., Syr.-Phil.; Chrys., Theoph.,
but though the external authority
for the first person is strong, yet the
probability of a correction to obviate
the difficulty of construction is very
great. γράφειν] ‘that I write,’
The object-inf. has here practically
the sense of a passive (comp. ch. vy. 1),

58

ΠΡΟΣ OEZZAAONIKEI® A.

10 θεοδίδακτοί ἐστε εἰς τὸ ἀγαπᾶν ἀλλήλους: καὶ γὰρ

a φ 4 be] , A 9 4 A 9 Φ
ποιείτε αὐτὸ εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς τοὺς ev ὅλη

τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ. παρακαλοῦμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, περισ-

but differs from it in suggesting the
supplement of some accusative,—‘that
I or any one should write to you;’ see
Winer, Gr. § 44. 8. note 1, p. 303,
Jelf, Gr. § 667. obs. 3. To deny this
on the ground that the context pre-
cludes an indefinite reference, and
practically limits the supplied accus.
to the Apostle (Liinem.), seems dis-
tinetly hypercritical. αὐτοὶ γὰρ
ὑμεῖς} ‘for you yourselves,’ not ‘vos
ipsi sponte,’ Schott, but ‘ yourselves,’
—in sharp contrast to the subject in-
volved in the infinitive; comp. 1 John
ii. 20. θεοδίδακτοι] “ taught
of God,’—not in marked opposition to
any other form of teaching (οὐ δεῖσθε,
φησί, παρὰ ἀνθρώπου μαθεῖν, Chrys.,
comp. Olsh.), but with the principal
emphasis on the fact of their being
already taught, and with only a subor-
dinate emphasis on the source of the
teaching. Thechief moment of thought,
as Liinem. well observes, rests on the
second and not on the first half of the
compound verbal θεοδίδακτοι. The
form itself is a ἅπαξ λεγόμ. in the
N.T.; comp. however John vi. 45,
διδακτοὶ Θεοῦ, and add Barnab. LFpist.
δ 21, γίνεσθε δὲ θεοδίδακτοι, ἐκζητοῦντες
τί ζητεῖ Κύριος ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν.

εἰς τὸ ἀγαπᾶν ἀλλήλους] “ἐο love one
another,’ “αὖ diligatis invicem,’ Vulg. ;
practical tendency and purpose of the
διδαχή, with perhaps an included re-
ference to the purport and subject of
it; see notes on ch. ii. 12.

10. καὶ γάρ κ-τ.λ.] ‘for indeed ye
do it,’ confirmatory explanation of the
preceding clause; γὰρ introducing the
historical fact on which the confir-
mation rested (οἶδα ἀφ᾽ ὧν ποιεῖτε,
Theoph.), καὶ enhancing the ποιεῖτε,

“the θεοδίδακτοί. ἐστε.

and putting it in gentle contrast with
Thus neither
the καὶ nor the γὰρ (Syr., Aith.-Pol.,
—but not Syr.-Phil. and Aith.-Platt)
is otiose: both fully retain their proper
force (Copt., Goth., Arm.), their asso-
ciation being due to the early position
which γὰρ regularly assumes in the
sentence; see notes and reff. on Phil.
ii. 27, and comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 53. 8. Ὁ,
Ῥ. 307. αὐτό] ‘it,’ scil. τὸ
ἀγαπᾶν ἀλλήλους (Liinem., Alf.), not
τὸ THs φιλαδελφίας (Koch),—a refer-
ence needlessly remote.

els πάντας τοὺς ἀδελφ.] ‘toward all
the brethren ;’ direction and destination
of the action; not, observe, with any
marked universality, εἰς πάντας τοὺς
ἁγίους, but,—els πάντας τοὺς ἀδ. τοὺς
ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Μακεδ., the last definition
fairly justifying the remark of Liinem.
(opp. to Baur, Paulus, p. 484) that
there is no reason for assuming any
longer period between the conversion
of the Thessalonians and the time of
writing the Epistle (13 or 2 years)
than is assumed in the ordinary chro-
nology. The arguments of Baur, ac-
cording to which this beautiful and
most genuine Ep. is to be considered
as a ‘matte Nachbild’ of 1 Cor., have
been recently reiterated in Zeller,
Theol. Jahrb. for 1855, p. 151, but it
is not too much to say that they lack
even plausibility. The second
and definitive τοὺς (Winer, Gr. ὃ 20. 1,
p- 119) is omitted by Lachm. with
AD'FG ; Chrys. (ms.), but appy. right-
ly retained by Tisch. with BD?D3EK
LN‘; all mss.; many Ff.: δὲ! reads
a5. ὑμῶν ἐν ὅλ. παρακαλοῦμεν
δὲ ὑμᾶς] ‘but we exhort you; con-
tinuation of the implied command in

ἐν ΠΣ ΣΑΣ ὑγρᾶς ἃ Ἡ

59

4 S a“ , A PA μ
σεύειν μᾶλλον καὶ φιλοτιμεῖσθαι ἡσυχάζειν καὶ πρᾶσ- II

σειν τὰ ἴδια καὶ ἐργάζεσθαι

ver. 9 in ἃ slightly antithetical form ;
not only is the duty of φιλαδελφία
tacitly and delicately inculcated, and
an expansion of it in the form of
general ἀγάπη (ver. 9) distinctly sug-
gested, but further an increase in the
same is set forth as the subject of
direct hortatory entreaty. On the
pres. infin. after παρακαλῶ, which is
here rightly used as marking the con-
tinuance and permanence of the act,
see Winer, ΟὟ. ὃ 44. 7, p- 297, but
observe that the use of the pres. inf. or
aor. inf. after commands, é&c., depends
much on the habit of the writer, and
on the subjective aspects under which
the command was contemplated ; comp.
Bernhardy, Synt. X. 9, p. 383, and the
good note and distinctions of Matzner
on Antiphon, p. 153 sq.

περισσ, μᾶλλον] Comp. ver. 1, Phil.
i. 9.

It. καί «.t.A.] ‘and &e.; exhor-
tation in close grammatical though
somewhat more lax logical connexion
with what immediately precedes. The
close union of these appy. different
subjects of exhortation has been va-
riously explained. On the whole it
seems most natural to suppose that
their liberality involved some elements
of a restless, meddling, and practically
idle spirit, that exposed them to the
comments of of ἔξω. It is perhaps
not wholly improbable that mistaken
expectations in respect of the day of
the Lord had led them into a neglect
of their regular duties and occupations,
and was marring a liberality of which
the true essence was ἐργαζόμενοι éré-
pos παρέχειν, Chrys.
φιλοτιμεῖσθαι ἡσυχάζειν] ‘to make it
your aim to be quiet,’ ‘et operam detis
ut quieti sitis,’ Vulg. (sim. Clarom.),
‘biarbaidjan anaqal,’ Goth. It is some-

ταῖς χερσὶν ὑμῶν καθὼς

what doubtful whether (a) the primary
meaning of φιλοτιμ. with infin., ‘glo-
riz cupiditate accensus aliquid facere’
(compare Copt., Aith.-Pol.), or (Ὁ) the
secondary meaning, ‘magno studio
anniti,’ ‘operam dare’ (Vulg., Clarom.,
Syr., Goth., Arm.), is here to be adopt-
ed. As both meanings rest on good
lexical authority (comp. Xen. Mem. τι.
9. 3, with con. Iv. 24, in which
latter passage φιλοτιμεῖσθαί τι is asso-
ciated with μελετᾶν), the context will
be our safest guide. Of the three
passages in which it is used in the
N.T., Rom. xv. 20, 2 Cor. v. 9, and
here, the first alone seems to require
(a); comp. Fritz. Rom. l.c. Vol. 11.
p- 277, and even Meyer, on 2 Cor. l.c.,
who, while affecting to retain (a),
translates in accordance with (0) ‘beei-
fern wir uns u.s.w.’ In all perhaps
some idea of τιμὴ may be recognised,
but in 2 Cor. /.c. and here that mean-
ing recedes into the background; see
the numerous exx. in Wetst. Vol. 11.
Ῥ. 94, 95, and Kypke, Obs. Vol. τι.
p. 189. To consider φιλοτ. an inde-
pendent inf. (Copt., Theoph. 1; comp.
Theod., Calv.) seems to be very un-
satisfactory. ἡσυχάζειν marks
the sedate and tranquil spirit (comp.
1 Tim. ii. 2) which stands in contrast
to the excited and unquiet bustle
(περιεργάζεσθαι, 2 Thess. iii. 11) that
often marks ill-defined or mistaken
religious expectation ; see esp. 2 Thess.
l. c. which forms an instructive parallel
to the present exhortations.

πράσσειν τὰ ἴδια] ‘to do your own
business,’ ‘to confine yourselves to the
sphere of your own proper duties.’ The
correct formula according to Phryni-
chus is τὰ ἐμαυτοῦ... πράττειν, or τὰ
ἴδια ἐμαυτοῦ. ..πράττειν ; see exx. col-

lected by Lobeck, p. 441, and Kypke,

00

ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙ͂Σ A.

j ᾿ aa 4 . 4
12 ὑμῖν παρηγγείλαμεν, ἵνα περιπατῆτε εὐσχημόνως πρὸς

aE, 4 ‘ , ”
Tovs ἔξω και μηδενὸς χβειᾶαν εχῆτε.

Do not grieve for those

13 Οὐ θέλομεν δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελ- that sleep. We shall

not anticipate them, but

at the last trump they will be raised, and we translated.

Obs. Vol. τι. p. 338. The form ἰδιο-
πραγεῖν occurs in Polyb. Hist. vu.
28. 9, and later writers.
ἐργάΐζ. rats χερσὶν ὑμῶν] ‘to work with
our hands,’ i.e. ‘follow your earthly
callings,’ which, as the words imply,
were those of handicraftsmen and ar-
tificers; ‘ad populum scribit, in quo
plurimorum est ea que manibus fiunt
opera exercere,’ Est. The numbers en-
gaged in mercantile and industrial call-
ings at Thessalonica are alluded to by
Tafel, Hist. Thessal. p.g. The insert-
ed ἰδίαις [Rec. with AD?KLN!; most
mss. ; Theod., Dam.] after ταῖς is rightly
struck out by Lachm., Tisch., and most
modern editors, on the preponderant
authority of BD! E(?)FGN*; 10 mss.;
appy. all Vv.; Bas., Chrys., Theoph.,
and Latin Ff. καθὼς ὑμῖν
παρηγγ.] ‘according as we commanded
you,’ scil. when personally present with
you; with reference not merely to the
last, but to all the preceding clauses.
The very first publication of Chris-
tianity in Thessalonica seems to have
been attended with some manifesta-
tions of restlessness and feverish ex-
pectation.

12. ἵνα περιπατ. εὐσχημόνως] ‘in
order that ye may walk seemly,’ Rom.
xiii. 13, ef. 1 Cor. xiv. 40; purpose of
the foregoing παράκλησις, the present
member referring mainly to ἡσυχάζειν
kal πράσσειν τὰ ἴδια, the following to
ἐργάζ. ταῖς χερσὶν ὑμῶν. The adverb
εὐσχημ. (associated with κατὰ τάξιν
1 Cor. /.c.) stands in partial contrast
to ἀτάκτως, 2 Thess, iii. 6 (Liinem.) ;
the general idea however of that decent
gravity and seemly deportment (εὐλα-
βῶς" σεμνῶς, Zonar. s.v.), which should

ever be the characteristic of the true
Christian, ought not to be excluded.
On the use of περιπατεῖν as commonly
implying the ‘agendi vivendique ra-
tionem quam quis continentur et ex
animo sequitur,’ see Winer, Comment.
on Eph. iv. 1, p. 5. (cited by Koch),
Fritz. Rom. xiii. 13, Vol. m1. p. 140
sq., Suicer, Z'hesaur. s.v. Vol. τι. p.
679, and comp. notes on Phil. iii. 18.
πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω] ‘ toward them that are
without ; πρὸς pointing to the social
relation in which they were to stand,
or the general demeanour they were
to assume, toward those who were
not Christians. On this use of πρός,
in which the primary meaning of
ethical direction is still apparent, see
reff. in notes on Col. iv. 5, where the
Same expression occurs. Οἱ ἔξω is the
regular designation of those who were
not Christians; see 1 Cor. v. 12, 13,
Col. ἐ. c., and notes on 1 Tim. iii. 7.
μηδενὸς χρείαν ey.] ‘have necd of no
man,’ the contrast being ἐπαιτεῖν καὶ
ἑτέρων δεῖσθαι, Chrys., comp. Theod.
It is somewhat doubtful whether μη-
devds is here to be regarded as masc.
with Syr., Vulg. (appy.), Aath., and the
Greek commentators, or neuter with
Copt. (appy.; Goth., Clarom. uncer-
tain) and several modern commenta-
tors. On the whole the masc. seems
most in accordance with the context;
they were not by the neglect of their
proper occupations to live depend-
ent upon others, whether heathens
or more probably fellow-Christians ;
comp. Chrys., Theod. The argument
of Liinem. repeated by Alf., that ‘to
stand in need of no man is for man an
impossibility,’ is not of much weight,

IV. 12, 13. 61

Pe ἣν a ; ᾿ ow ee Pi Ang Se, eT
Hol, περὶ τῶν κοιμωμένων, ἵνα μὴ λυπῆσθε καθὼς καὶ οἱ

13. κοιμωμένων] So Lachm., Tisch. ed. 2, with ABN!; τὸ mss. In ed. 7
however Tisch. has returned to the reading of Rec. κεκοιμημένων, which has the
support of DE(FG κεκοιμηνωνὴκΤ, ; most mss. C is deficient. As the present
part. is not used elsewhere in this sense it is certainly to be retained here.

λυπῆσθε] So Lachm. (text), Tisch. ed. 2, with BD?EKN; most mss.; many
ἘΝ: here also Zisch. ed. 7, has departed from his former reading, and with
Lachm. in marg. reads λυπεῖσθε, on the authority of AD'D?FGL; many mss.
The weight of evidence is hardly sufticient to justify us in adopting here the

harsh and unusual construction.

as the general statement will naturally
receive its proper limitations from the
context.

13. Οὐ θέλομεν κιτ.λ.] ‘Now we
would not have you to be ignorant.’
transition by means of the δὲ μεταβα-
τικόν (Hartung, Partik. Vol. τ. p. 165,
notes on Gal. iii. 8), and the impressive
οὐ θέλομεν ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν (Rom. i. 13,
xi. 25, 1 Cor. x. 1, xii. 1, 2 Cor. i. 8)
to a new and important subject, the
state of the departed. Most modern
expositors seem rightly to coincide in
the opinion that in the infant Church
of Thessalonica there had prevailed,
appy. from the very first, a feverish
anxiety about the state of those who
had departed, and about the time and
circumstances of the Lord’s coming.
They seem especially to have feared
that those of their brethren who had
fallen on sleep before the expected
advent of the Lord would not partici-
pate in its blessings and glories (ver.
15). Thus their apprehensions did
not so much relate to the resurrection
generally (Chrys., Theod., Theoph.),
as to the share which the departed
were to have in the παρουσία τοῦ Κυ-
plov; see Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. τι.
2, p- 596, comp. Wieseler, Chronol.
Ῥ. 249. The reading θέλομεν has
the support of all MSS.; nearly all
mss.; all Vv. except Copt., Syr.
(both), and most Ff., and is rightly
adopted by Lachm., Tisch., and all

modern editors; Rec. gives θέλω.

περὶ τῶν κοιμωμένων] ‘concerning
those that are sleeping; ὦ. 6. those that
are dead, according to the significant
expression found not only in Scripture
(1 Kings ii. to, John xi. 11, Acts vii.
60, 1 Cor. xi. 30, al.) but in Pagan
writers (Callim. Fragm. X. 1), yet here,
as the following verses clearly show,
to be specially restricted to the Chris-
tian dead ; comp. οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ,
ver. 16, and see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v.
Vol. 1. p. 121. All special doctrinal
deductions however from this general
term (Weizel, Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p.
916 sq., comp. Reuss, T'héol. Chrét.
IV. 21, Vol. τι. p.239) must be regarded
as extremely precarious, especially
those that favour the idea of a Wuxo-
mavvuxia in the intermediate state;
see esp. Bull, Serm. 11. p. 41 (Oxf.
1844), Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. vi. 4,
Ρ. 360 sq., Zeller, Theol. Jahrb. for
1847, p. 390—409, and a long and
careful article by West, Stud. u. Krit.
for 1858, esp. p. 278, 290; comp. also
Burnet, State of Departed, ch. 111. p.
49 sq. (Transl.), and notes on Phil. i.
23. Death is rightly called sleep as
involving the ideas of continued exist-
ence (Chrys.), repose, and ἐγρήγορσις
(Theod.); comp. Theoph. on John xi.
11, and the eloquent sermon of Man-
ning, Serm. xxI. Vol. I. p. 308 sq.
ἵνα μὴ λυπῆσθε] ‘ that ye sorrow not:’
purpose and object of the οὐ θέλομεν

62

14 λοίποὶ οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες ἐλπίδα.

ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙΣ A.

4 Φ
εἰ γὰρ πιστεύομεν ὅτι

*T my Ὁ τὰ at OY cf A 2 ra) ‘ A
ησοὺυς ἀπέθανεν και AVETTH, ουτῶς καί O εος τοὺς ΚΟι-

ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν. The λύπη in this parti-
cular case was called out not merely
by the feeling of having lost their de-
parted brethren, but by anxiety in re-
gard to their participation in Christ’s
advent, καθὼς καὶ of λοιποί]
‘even as the rest also,’ scil. λυποῦνται.
The καθὼς [for which D'FGN* here
give ds] does not introduce any com-
parison between the sorrow of Chris-
tians and that of of λοιποί, as if a cer-
tain amount of sorrow was permissible
(οὐ παντελῶς κωλύει Thy λύπην ἀλλὰ
τὴν ἀμετρίαν ἐκβάλλει, Theod.), but
simply contrasts with Christians those
in whom λύπη might naturally find a
place, of uh ἔχοντες ἐλπίδα. Christians,
as the antithesis implies, were not to
mourn δύ all; σὺ δὲ ὁ προσδοκῶν dvd-
στασιν τίνος ἕνεκεν ὀδύρῃ; Chrys. The
οἱ λοιποὶ (Eph. ii. 3) obviously includes
all, whether sceptical Jews or unen-
lightened heathen (Chrys.), who had
no sure hope in any future resurrec-
tion. On the use of καὶ with adverbs
of comparison, see notes on Eph. v. 23.
οἱ μὴ ἔχοντες ἐλπίδα] ‘who have no
hope,’ who form a class (μή) that is so
characterized ; comp. notes on ver. 5,
and Winer, Gr. ὃ 55.5, p. 428 sq., but
observe also that the comparative
member is in a dependent clause
under the vinculum of the wa. The
hope here alluded to is obviously in
reference to the Resurrection; τίνος
ἐλπίδα; ἀναστάσεως" οἱ yap μὴ ἔχοντες
ἐλπίδα ἀναστάσεως οὗτοι ὀφείλουσι πεν-
θεῖν, Theoph. The true hopelessness
of the old heathen world finds its sad-
dest expression in Asch. Lumen. 648,
ἅπαξ θανόντος οὔτις ἔστ᾽ ἀνάστασις ; see
fuller details in Liinem. and Jowett,
and in answer to the quotation of the
latter from the O.T., the pertinent
remarks of Alford in loc.

14. εἰ γὰρ πιστεύομεν] ‘For if we
belveve ;? reason for the purpose ex-
pressed in the preceding verse, ἵνα μὴ
λυπῆσθε κιτ.λ., based on the funda-
mental truth that as Christ the Head
died and rose again, even so shall all
the members of His body ; comp. Pear-
son, Creed, Art. xi. Vol. I. p. 450 (ed.
Burt.), Jackson, Creed, x1. 16. 8 sq.
The εἰ here obviously involves no ele-
ment of doubt, but is simply logical (‘ed
particulaest plane logica,’ Herm. Viger,
No. 312)and virtually assertory ; comp.
Phil. i. 22, and notes on Col. iii. 1.
ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἀνέστη] ‘died and rose
again ; the two foundations of Chris-
tian faith united in one enunciation;
comp. Rom. xiv. 9 (not Rec.). It is
noticeable that the Apostle here as
always uses the direct term ἀπέθανεν
in reference to our Lord, to obviate all
possible misconception: in reference
to the faithful he appropriately uses
the consolatory term κοιμᾶσθαι; see
esp. Theod. in loc. οὕτως κ.τ.λ.]
‘so also shall God;’ slightly inexact
apodosis: the rigidly correct sequel
would be οὕτως καὶ πιστεύειν δεῖ ὅτι
κιτ. ὰ. (Liinem., Jowett), or some
similar formula. The οὕτως is not
pleonastic (Olsh.), but, as Liinem.
correctly observes, marks the com-
plete accordance of the lot of Chris-
tians with that voluntarily assumed
by their Lord, while the καὶ serves to
enhance and to give force to the com-
parison; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 60. 5, p. 478,
and on this use of καὶ after relative or
demonstrative particles, Klotz, Devar.
Vol. 11. p. 636.
κοιμηθέντας διὰ τοῦ "Ino.] ‘those laid
to sleep through Jesus ;’ certainly not
equiv. to ἐν “Inc. (Auth., Jowett), but,
with the usual and proper force of the
prep., those who through His media-

τοὺς

τς whe ΕΣ ᾿Ξ jake? iz. Wee rate,
ΠΣ ba, C&G. «1.

IV. 14, 15.

. ἢ ᾿ . a Φ ΄“΄ Ὁ 4 7 A
μηθέντας διὰ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἄξει σὺν αὐτῷ.

09

aA a
TOUTO yap J 5

ὑμῖν λέγομεν ev λόγῳ Κυρίου, ὅτι ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ

‘

tion are now rightly accounted as
‘sleeping.’ It must remain to the last
an open question whether διὰ τοῦ Ἴησ.
is to be connected (a) with the finite
verb ἄξει, or (Ὁ) with the participle.
Chrysostom and the Greek commenta-
tors (silet Theod.) admit both, but
prefer the latter; modern writers
mainly adopt the former. There is
confessedly a difficulty in (6) which
the exx. adduced by Alf. scarcely
tend to diminish; for the meaning 77
πίστει τοῦ Ἰησοῦ κοιμηθ. (Chrys.), or
the more exact meaning advocated
above, is but in lax parallelism with
εἰρήνην ἔχειν δι’ αὐτοῦ (Rom. v. 1),
καυχᾶσθαι δί αὐτοῦ (Rom. v. 11), al.
Still the arguments against (a)—viz.
(1) that thus ἄξει would have two
participial members, (2) that the na-
tural emphasis would then suggest
the order διὰ τοῦ Ἴησ. τοὺς κοιμηθ.,
(3) that the sentence would thus be
harsh (De W.) and awkward in the
extreme—seem so unanswerable, that
with the earlier interpreters, -Aith.,
and appy. (as the rigid preservation of
the order seems to hint) the remaining
Vv., we adopt the more simple and
logical connexion κοιμηθέντας διὰ τοῦ
Ἴησ. The two contrasted subjects
Ἰησοῦς and κοιμηθέντας διὰ τοῦ ’inood
thus stand in clear and illustrative
antithesis, and the fundamental decla-
ration of the sentence ἄξει σὺν αὐτῷ
remains distinct and prominent, undi-
luted by any addititious clause.

ἄξει σὺν aita] ‘bring with Him.’

The more natural word would have
been ἐγερεῖ (comp. 2 Cor. iv. 14), but
the Apostle probably uses the more
significant de to mark that blessed
association of departed Christians with
their Lord at His παρουσία, in which
the Thessalonians feared their sleeping

brethren would have no part; see
above on ver. 13.

15. τοῦτο K.T-A.] ‘For this we say
to you;’ confirmation, not (by an
‘ztiologia duplex’) of the foregoing
wa μὴ λυπῆσθε (Koch), but of the
words immediately preceding. The
relation of the faithful living to the
faithful dead is explained, first nega-
tively in this verse, then positively in
ver. 16, 17. ἐν λόγῳ Κυρίου]
‘in the word of the Lord,’ in coinci-
dence with a declaration received di-
rectly from Him, ‘quasi Eo ipso lo-
quente,’ Beza. The prep. is here
neither equivalent to xara (Zanch.)
nor to διά (Auth., comp. De W.), but
has appy. its usual and prevalent
meaning ‘in the sphere of:’ the decla-
ration was couched in the language of
the Lord Himself, and gained all its
force from coincidence with His words;
see Winer, Gr. § 48. a, p. 345, who
however by comparing 1 Cor. ii. 7,
λαλοῦμεν... ἐν μυστηρίῳ, τ Cor. xiv. 6,
λαλήσω...ἐν ἀποκαλύψει, gives ἐν more
of a reference to the form or nature
of the revelation than seems fully in
The
meaning is simply ‘edico Domini man-
datu,’ Fritz. Rom. Vol. II. p. 34; so
LXX for M14? 1372 1 Kings xx. 35.
This revelation is certainly not to be
referred to Matth. xxiv. 31 (Schott 1,
comp. Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2. B, p. 325)
nor to any traditional ‘effatum Christi’
(Schott 2, and appy. Jowett), but was
directly received by the Apostle from
the Lord himself ;
ἀλλὰ παρὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ μαθόντες λέγο-
μεν, Chrys.; see Gal. i. 12 and notes,
ii. 2, Eph. iii. 3, and comp. 2 Cor. xii.
1. With these passages before us can
we say with Jowett that ‘St Paul no-
where speaks of any special truths or

accordance with the context.

οὐκ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν

64 ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΆΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ A.

wT on a eae™ ἃ ja. ee K a? γε
περιλειπόμενοι εἰς τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ Kupiov οὐ μὴ

ὲ ‘ ’
16 φθάσωμεν τοὺς κοιμηθέντας, ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος ἐν

doctrines as imparted to himself’?
The language of Usteri, /.c. is equally
unsatisfactory ; not so that of De W.
in loe. ἡμεῖς K.T.A.] Swe
the living who are remaining.’ The
deduction from these words that St
Paul ‘himself expected to be alive,’
Alf., with Jowett, Liinem., Koch, and
the majority of German commentators,
must fairly be pronounced more than
doubtful. Without giving any undue
latitude to ἡμεῖς (οὐ περὶ ἑαυτοῦ φησίν
«ἀλλὰ τοὺς πιστοὺς λέγει, Chrys.), to
ζῶντες (ζῶντας τὰς ψυχὰς κοιμηθέντας
δὲ τὰ σώματα λέγει, Method. de Resurr.
ap. Αὔἴουμ.), or to περιλειπόμενοι
(‘tempus presens loco futuri more
Hebraico usurpat,’ Calv., ‘superstites,’
Bretsch.), it seems just and correct to
say that περιλειπόμενοι is simply and
purely present, and that St Paul is to
be understood as classing himself with
‘those who are being left on earth’
(comp. Acts ii. 47), without being
conceived to imply that he had any
precise or definite expectations as to
his own case. At the time of writing
these words he was one of the ζῶντες
and περιλειπόμενοι, and as such he
distinguishes himself and them from
the κοιμηθέντες, and naturally identi-
fies himself with the class to which he
then belonged. It does not
seem improper to admit that in their
ignorance of the day of the Lord
(Mark xiii. 32) the Apostles might have
imagined that He who was coming
would come speedily, but it does seem
overhasty to ascribe to inspired men
definite expectations proved since to
be unfounded, when the context calm-
ly weighed and accurately interpreted
supplies no certain elements for such
extreme deductions; see notes on
1 Tim. vi. 14, and comp. the long

note of Wordsw. on ver. 17. On the
verb περιλείπεσθαι, see note on ver. 17
(Transl.). οὐ μὴ φθάσωμεν]
‘shall not prevent,’ Auth. i.e. shall not
arrive into the presence of the Lord,
and share the blessings and glories of
His advent, before others. The verb
φθάνειν (Hesych. προήκειν, προλαμβά-
νεινὺὴ has here its regular meaning of
‘preevenire,’ involving the idea of a
priority in respect of time, and thence
derivatively of privilege; οὕτω, φησίν,
ὀξέως καὶ ταχέως καὶ ἐν ἀκαρεῖ ol rere-
λευτηκότες ἅπαντες ἀναστήσονται, ὡς
τοὺς ἔτι κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρὸν περι-
όντας προλαβεῖν, καὶ προαπαντῆσαι τῷ
σωτῆρι τῶν ὅλων, Theod. On the
strengthened negation οὐ μὴ with the
aor. subj., see Winer, Gr. ὃ 56.3, p- 450;
and observe that the usually recog-
nised distinction between these par-
ticles with the fut. and with the aor.
(Hermann on Soph. Gd. Col. 853)
must not be pressed in the N.T. (opp.
to Koch), the prevalence of οὐ μὴ with
the subj. being much too decided to
justity a rigorous application of the
rule; see notes on Gal. iv. 30.

16. ὅτι] ‘because,’ 9 dso [prop-
δι nm

terea quod] Syr., ‘quia,’ Clarom.,
‘quoniam,’ Vulg., ‘unte,’ Goth., sim.
ἄπ. (Platt,—Pol. omits), Arm. ; rea-
son for the declaration immediately pre-
ceding, derived from the circumstances
of detail. To regard ὅτι as ‘that’
(Koch), and as dependent on the pre-
ceding τοῦτο ὑμῖν λέγομεν (ver. 15),
mars the logical evolution of the pas-
sage, and is opposed to the opinion
of the Greek expositors (γάρ, Theod.,
Theoph.) and, as is shown above, of
the best ancient Versions.

αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος] ‘the Lord Himself ;’
obviously not ‘He the Lord’ (De W.),

—_ Ὑν

IVE 0 Ὁ ΤΣ δ

» . ὡς ‘ 9 , : a
κελεύσματι ἐν φωνῆ ἀρχαγγέλου καὶ ἐν σάλπιγγι Θεοῦ

nor yet ‘Himself’ with ref. to His
glorified body (Olsh.), but simply with
ref. to His own august personal pre-
sence, αὐτὸς yap πρῶτος τῶν ὅλων ὁ
Κύριος ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν ἐπιφανήσεται
κατιών, Theod. ἐν κελεύσματι]
‘with a shout of command,’ ‘in jussu,’
Vulg., Clarom., Goth., sim. Copt.
[ouah-sahni], Syr., Arm. The word
κέλευσμα (sometimes, though question-
ably, κέλευμα, Lobeck on Soph. Ajax,
704, p. 323), ἃ dm. λεγόμ. in the
N. T., occurs frequently in classical
Greek as denoting the command or
signal given by a general (admiral, or
captain of rowers, Thucyd. 11. 92), the
encouraging shout of the charioteer
(Plato, Phedr. p. 253 D) or the hunts-
man (Xen. Cyneget. VI. 20), or more
technically the cry of the κελεύστης to
the rowers (Eurip. Zph. 7. 1405), but
in most cases has some ref. more or
less distinct to the prevailing meaning
of the verb: comp. Prov. xxx. 27 [xxiv.
62], στρατεύει ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς κελεύσματος εὐ-
τάκτως, and Philo, de Prem. § 109,
Vol. I. p. 427 (ed. Mang.), ἀνθρώπους
«««ἀπωκισμένους ῥᾳδίως ἂν ἑνὶ κελεύ-
σματι συναγάγοι Θεός. To whom
the κέλευσμα is to be referred is some-
what doubtful. The Greek expositors
(Chrys.?) seem to refer it directly to
Christ ; it appears however more plau-
sible to refer it immediately to the
ἀρχάγγελος as Christ’s minister, and
to regard it as a general expression of
what is afterwards more distinctly
specified by the substantives which
follow. The purport of the κέλευσμα
it is idle to guess at: if may perhaps
be ἐγείρεσθε, ἦλθεν ὁ νυμφίος (Chrys. 1),
or more naturally, ἀναστῶσιν οἱ νεκροί
(Chrys. 2, Theod.), or perhaps, still
more probably, with a strict preserva-
tion of the current use of the word,
the shout of command of the Arch-

angel to the attendant angelical hosts,
ἑτοίμους ποιεῖτε πάντας, πάρεστι γὰρ ὁ
κριτής, Chrys. 3; comp. Matth. xiii.
41. On the use of ἐν to denote
the concomitant circumstances (Arm.
uses its ‘instrumental’ case), see notes
on Col. ii. 7, and comp. Eph. v. 26, é&c.
Though, with the Aramaic £& before
us, it is not always desirable to over-
press ἐν, yet in the present case it
may be used as serving to hint at the
κατάβασις taking place during the
κέλευσμα, in the sphere of its occur-
rence; comp. notes on ch. ii. 3.

ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου] “ with the voice
of the Archangel ;’ more specific ex-
planation of the circumstances and
concomitants. To refer dpxyayy. to
Christ (Olsh.) or the Holy Spirit (see
in Wolf) is obviously wrong: the term
is a δὶς λεγόμ. (here and Jude 9) in
the N.T., and designates a leader of
the angelical hosts by whom the Lord
shall be attended on His second com-
ing; compare Matth. xxiv. 31, xxv.
31, 2 Thess. i. 7. With regard to the
oblique references of some of the
German commentators to the ‘jiidis-
cher nachexilischer Vorstellung’ (Liin.
comp. Winer, RWB. Vol. IL. p. 329,
ed. 3), it seems enough to say that the
Apostle elsewhere distinctly alludes to
separate orders of angels (see notes
and reff. on Eph. i. 21, Col. i. 16), and
that he here as distinctly speaks of a
leader of such heavenly Beings: to
inquire further is idle and presump-
tuous. σάλπιγγι Θεοῦ] ‘the
trumpet of God ;" not ‘tuba Dei, adeo-
que magna,’ Beng.,—such a form of
Hebraistic superl. not occurring in the
N.T., but simply ‘the trumpet per-
taining to God’ (gen. possess.), the

trumpet used in His service; comp.

Rev. xv. 2, and see Winer, Gr. ὃ 36.
3, p. 221. The Greek expositors ap-

¥

ι᾿

66

ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ A.

’ 9 9 ᾽ a“ A e ᾿ 2 a ?
καταβήσεται aT ovpavou, και Ob VeKPOt εν Χριστῷ ava-

17 στήσονται πρῶτον, ἔπειτα ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλει-

ie oe A 9 “- ς , 9. “
TOMEVOL AULA συν AVTOLS αἀρπαγησόμεθα εν νεφέλαις εἰς

propriately allude. to the use of the
trumpet when God appeared on Sinai,
Exod. xix. 16; comp. also Psalm
xIvii. 5, Isaiah xxvii. 13, Zech. ix. 14.
With the Jewish use of the trumpet
to call assemblies (Numbers x. 2,
xxxi. 6, Joel ii. 1) we have here
nothing to do, still less with the spe-
culations of later Judaism as to God’s
use of a trumpet to awaken the dead
(Eisenmenger, Enid. Jud. Vol. τι. p.
929; adduced by Liinem.): the Apo-
stle twice in one verse definitely states
that the trumpet will sound at Christ’s
advent (1 Cor. xv. 52), and it infallibly
will be so.

dm’ οὐρανοῦ] ‘ from heaven,’— where
He now sits enthroned at the right
hand of God; see esp. Acts i. 11.
καὶ οἱ νεκροί K.1.A.] ‘and the dead in
Christ, &c.; consequence and sequel of
ἐν κελεύσματι---καταβήσεται, the καὶ
having here a slightly consecutive force ;
comp. notes on Phil. iv. 12. The
words ἐν Χριστῷ are clearly to be
joined with vexpol, as more specifically
designating those about whose share
in the παρουσία the Thessalonian con-
verts were disquieted : the general re-
surrection of all men does not here
come into consideration; see Winer,
Gr. § 20. 2, p. 123. Comp. West,
Stud. u. Krit. for 1858, p. 283, and
on the omission of the art., notes on
Eph. i. 15, and Fritz. Rom. iii. 25,
Vol. I. p. 195. The connexion with
ἀναστήσονται (Schott) would indirectly
assign an undue emphasis to ἐν Xp.
(Liin.), and introduce a specification
out of harmony with the context:
the subject of the passage is not
the means by which (2 Cor. iv. 14)
or element in which the resurrection

is to take place, but the respective
shares of the holy dead and holy liv-
ing in the παρουσία of the Lord, con-
sidered in relation to time.

πρῶτον] ‘ first;’ not with any re-
ference to the πρώτη ἀνάστασις, Rev.
xx. 5 (Theod., Theoph., Gicum., al.),
but, as the following ἔπειτα sug-
gests, only to the fact that the resur-
rection of the dead in Christ shall be
prior to the assumption of the living.
The reading πρῶτοι is found in D'FG;
Vulg., Clarom.; Cyr., Theod. (1), al.,
and was perhaps suggested by the
supposed dogmatical ref. to the first
resurrection,

17. ἔπειτα] ‘ then,’—immediately
after the ἀνάστασις of of ἐν Χριστῷ;
second act in the mighty drama. The
particle ἔπειτα, as its derivation [ἐπ᾽
εἶτα, Hartung, Partik. Vol. 1. p. 302]
and the following dua (see below) both
seem to suggest, marks the second
event as speedily following on the
first, and, like ‘deinde’ (‘de rebus in
temporis tractu continuis et proximis,’
Hand, Tursell. Vol. 11. p. 240), speci-
fies not only the continuity but the
proximity of the two events; comp.
Erfurdt, Soph. Antig. 607.
ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες of περιλειπ.} ‘we the
living who are remaining,’ ‘we who
are being left behind;’ see notes on
ver. 15. ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς] ‘at the
same time together with them,’ ‘simul...
cum illis,’ Vulg., Copt. [ewson]; ὁ. 6.
we shall be caught up with them at
the same time that they shall be
caught up, dua appy. not marking
the mere local coherence, ‘all to-
gether,’ Alf., but, as usual, connexion
in point of time (‘res duas vel plures
una vel simul aut esse aut fieri signi-

TV ay.

67

. , - ’ 3 “» RS, , , ‘4
απαντῆσιν του Κυρίου εις aepa* Kal OUTWS TWAVTOTE συν

ficat,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 95):
comp. Ammon. s.v., dua μέν ἐστι

χρονικὸν ἐπίῤῥημα, ὁμοῦ δὲ τοπικόν,

and Tittm. Synon. 1. p. 156, who how-
ever remarks that in Rom. iii. 12 (from
the LXX) this distinction is not main-
tained. See notes on ch. v. 10.
ἁρπαγησόμεθα ἐν νεφέλαις] ‘shall be
caught up in clouds; certainly not ‘in
nubes,’ Beza, nor even ‘auf Wolken,’
DeW., Liin., but, ‘in nubibus,’ Vulg.,
Clarom., ὁ. 6. ‘tanquam in curru trium-
phali,’ Grot.—the clouds forming the
element with which they would be
surrounded, and in which they would
be borne up to meet their coming
Lord: ἐπὶ (?) τοῦ ὀχήματος φερόμεθα
τοῦ Ilarpés, καὶ γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐν νεφέλαις
ὑπέλαβεν αὐτόν [Acts i. 9], καὶ ἡμεῖς
ἐν νεφέλαις ἁρπαγησόμεθα, Chrys. The
transformation specified in 1 Cor. xv.
52, 53 (‘ compendium mortis per de-
mutationem expuncte,’ Tertull. de
Resurr. ch. 48, compare Delitzsch,
Psychol, Vit. 5, p. 368 sq.), will neces-
sarily first take place (comp. Pearson,
Creed, Vol. τ. p. 357), upon which the
glorified and luciform body will be
caught up in the enveloping and up-
On the nature of the
resurrection body, compare Burnet,
State of Dep. ch. vil. vii1., and the
curious and learned investigations of
Cudworth, Jntellect. Syst. ch. v. 3, Vol.
III. p. 310 sq. (ed. Harrison).

The forms ἡρπάγην and ἁρπαγήσομαι
appear to be later forms (Thom.-Mag.
Ῥ. 412); but the ‘librariorum arbi-
trium’ often leaves it uncertain whe-
ther the first or second aor. was the
original reading ; comp. Pierson, Mer.
Ῥ. 168 (ed. Koch),

εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ Kup.] ‘to meet the
Lord,’ as He is coming down to earth ;
kal yap βασιλέως eis πόλιν εἰσελαύνον-
Tos οἱ μὲν ἔντιμοι πρὸς ἀπάντησιν ἐξία-

bearing clouds.

ow, of δὲ κατάδικοι ἔνδον μένουσι τὸν
κριτήν, Chrys. The expression εἰς
ἀπάντησιν (Matth. xxv.1 [BCS ὑπάντ.],
6, Acts xxviii. 15) seems to have been
derived from the LX X, where it com-
monly answers to the Hebrew MN p2;
as 1 Sam. ix. 14, al. It may be
associated either as here with a de-
fining gen., or with a dative (Acts
xxviii. 15), the verbal subst. preserv-
ing in the latter case the government
of the verb from which it is derived ;
see Bernhardy, Synt. UI. 10, comp.
Winer, Gr. ὃ 31. 3, p. 189. Some au-
thorities [D'(E'?)FG] read εἰς ὑπάν-
τησιν and the same [with the addition
of Vulg. (not Amiat.), Clarom.; Tert.,
Jer., Hil.] give τῷ Χριστῷ, but with
every appearance of correction in both
cases. εἰς ἀέρα] ‘into the
air,’ ‘in aera,’ Vulg., Clarom., ‘in
luftan,’ Goth., and sim. the other Vv.
except Nth. (Pol.), ‘in nube; de-
pendent on dprayno. His ἀέρα is
certainly not ‘in ceelum’ (Flatt), but,
as the regular meaning of the word
requires, ‘into the air,’—though per-
haps not necessarily (comp. Wordsw.)
with any precise limitation to the ter-
rene atmosphere. The ἀήρ, as De W.
well observes, marks the way to hea-
ven, and includes the interspace be-
tween earth and heaven, with greater
or less latitude according to the con-
text; see notes on Eph. ii. 2. To
question whether the air is here re-
presented as the final realm of the
faithful (Usteri, Lehrb. 11. 2. B, p. 338,
441) is surely monstrous: the Apostle
makes here a pause, simply because
his design of clearing up the anxieties
which his converts entertain is accom-
plished when he declares that the holy
quick and holy dead shall be caught
up into the air s¢multaneously to meet
the Lord. The great events imme-

F2

68

ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙ͂Σ A.

“ - ie ‘ “
18 Κυρίῳ ἐσόμεθα. ὥστε παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους ἐν τοῖς

λόγοις τούτοις.

ὮἋΣ

“- ς , ° ’ 4 δ. ψ; ,
ρῶν, ἀδελφοί, οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε ὑμῖν ypd-
2 φεσθαι' αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἀκριβῶς οἴδατε ὅτι

diately following Christ’s descent to
judgment (see Jackson, Creed, XI. 12.
I, 2) and His final and eternal union
with His Saints in the heavenly Jerusa-
lem (Rev. xxi. xxii.) are to be collect-
ed from other passages (see Alf. in loc.).
καὶ οὕτως κιτ.λ.} ‘and so shall we be
ever together with the Lord; so, in
consequence of this ἁρπάζεσθαι,--- ἘΠ 6
subject of the ἐσόμεθα (Hesych. βιώ-
gouev) being clearly both classes pre-
viously mentioned. The force of the
σύν, as implying not merely an accom-
panying (μετά) but a coherence with,
should not be left unnoticed ; see notes
on Eph. vi. 23.

18. ὥστε] ‘So then,’ ‘Consequently ;"
in consequence of the foregoing reve-
lation. On the force of ὥστε and its
connexion with the imperative mood,
see notes on Phil. ii. 12.
παρακαλεῖτε] ‘console ;’ not here
‘exhort,’ ‘teach,’ th. (both), but, in
accordance with the preceding ἵνα μὴ
λυπῆσθε (ver.13), ‘consolamini,’ Vulg.,

Clarom., Goth., ἘΞ RA Syr., and
=: .¥

similarly the remaining ν.: see notes
on ch. v. 11, and on Eph. iv. 1.

ἐν τοῖς λόγοις τούτοις] ‘with these
words ;’ not ‘words of faith’ (Olsh.),
but simply ‘these words’ (τούτοις not
without emphasis),—the words in
which the Apostle here delivers to them
his inspired message; τοῦτο δὲ ὃ λέγει
νῦν καὶ ῥητῶς ἤκουσε παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ,
Chrys. on ver. 15. The ἐν is here used
in that species of instrumental sense
in which the action, d&c., of the verb
is conceived as existing in the means;

A A A , 4 “A
Περὶ δὲ των χβονῶν καὶ τῶν Και-

Ye know that the da

of the Lord cometh sud-
denly. Be watchful and
prepared, for God has
appointed us not for
wrath, but for salvation.

‘solent Greeci pro Latinorum ablativo
instrumenti seepe ἐν preepositionem po-
nere, significaturi in e& re cujus nomini
prepositio adjuncta est vim aut facul-
tatem alicujus rei agende sitam esse,’
Wunder, Soph. Philoct. 60, see exx.
in Raphel, Annot. Vol. 11. p. 549. Thus
in the present case the παράκλησις
may be conceived as contained in the
divinely inspired words themselves ;
comp. Jelf, Gr. § 622. 3 b.

Carter V. 1. Περὶ δέ κ.τ.λ.]

‘ But concerning the times and the
seasons,’ scil. of the Lord’s coming,
τῆς συντελείας, Theoph. The terms
χρόνος and καιρὸς are not synonymous:
the former denotes time indefinitely,
the latter a definite period of time
(μέρος χρόνου, ἢ μεμετρημένων ἡμερῶν
σύστημα, Thom.-M. p. 489, ed. Bern.),
and thence derivatively the right or
fitting time; comp. Ammon. de Diff.
Voc. p. 80, ὁ μὲν καιρὸς δηλοῖ ποιότητα
ὐχρόνος δὲ ποσότητα, and see Titt-
mann, Synon. I. p. 41, where the
meaning of καιρὸς is carefully investi-
gated, and Trench, Synon. Part 11.
§ 7. The force of the plural has
been somewhat differently estimated.
On the whole, it seems most natural
to refer it, not to the length of the
periods (Dorner, de Orat. Christ. Eschat.
p- 73), but simply to the plurality
either of the acts or of the moments of
the time (Liinem.). There
appears no reason to take καὶ here as
explanatory (Koch): the two words
are simply connected by the copula;
comp. Acts i. 7, χρόνους ἢ καιρούς,
pride m “spooks

tome

IV. 18—V. 3.

69

ἡμέρα Kupiou ws κλέπτης ἐν νυκτὶ οὕτως ἔρχεται. ὅταν 3

Eccles. iii. τ, 6 χρόνος, καὶ καιρός, Dan.
li. 21, καιροὺς καὶ χρόνους, Wisdom
viii. 8, καιρῶν καὶ χρόνων.

οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε] ‘ye have no need; a
παράλειψις, see notes on ch. ἷν. 9. The
reason why there was no need does
not seem here to be due to any ἀσύμ-
gopov (Hvum., compare Chrys., and
Acts i. 7) in the Apostle here writing
to them on the subject, but, as the
next verse suggests, because they bad
been accurately informed by him by
word of mouth of all that it was ne-
cessary for them to know. On the
qualifying and explanatory object-infi-
nitive, see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 55. 3,
comp. ὃ 50. 6. 4, 5.

2. ἀκριβῶς] ‘accurately; only used
once again by the Apostle, in Eph. v.
15. The use of this adverb, considered
exegetically, is very striking. It cer-
tainly seems to point to special and
definite information on the subject;
but whether this was derived from a
written Gospel (Wordsw.) or from the
oral communications of the Apostle
cannot possibly be determined. The
latter seems much the most probable;
comp. 2 Thess. ii. 5. The derivation
of dxp. is slightly doubtful; most pro-
bably from ἄκρος in a locative form
(dxpt), and a root BA-, Benfey, Wur-
zellex. Vol. 1. p. 158. ἡμέρα
Κυρίου] ‘the day of the Lord,’ scil.
THs δεσποτικῆς ἐπιφανείας, Theod.; the
day of our Lord’s coming to judgment
(comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét. 1v. 21,
Vol. 11. p. 243), 7 ὁ vids τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
ἀποκαλύπτεται, Luke xvii. 30; comp.
1 Cor, i. 8, v. 5, 2 Cor. i. 14, Phil. i.
6, and for the somewhat similar 0D}!
MYM, Joel i. 15, ἢ, τ, Ezek. xiii, 5, all
To refer it to the destruction of Jeru-
salem (Hamm.), or to include in it
τὴν ἰδίαν ἑκάστου ἡμέραν (Theoph.,
comp. notes on Phil. i. 6), is here dis-

tinctly at variance with the context,
which treats solely and entirely of the
Lord’s παρουσία. The reading is
hardly doubtful. Rec. gives ἡ ju. with
AKL; most mss.; many Ff.; but
though the ἡ might have been absorbed
in the ἡ of the following ἡμέρα, the
probability of insertion (as more defi-
nitive) and the preponderance of un-
cial authority [BDEFGN] are in
favour of the omission: so Lachm.,
Tisch. ὡς κλέπτης ἐν νυκτί]
‘as a thief cometh in the night,’ scil.
ἔρχεται; ἐν νυκτὶ not being added as a
quasi-epithet to κλέπτης, but belonging
to an unexpressed ἔρχεται ; see Winer,
Gr. § 20. 4, p. 126, note. This solemn
and regular Scripture simile (comp.
Matth. xxiv. 43, Luke xii. 39, 2 Pet.
iii. ro, Rev. iii. 3, xvi. 15) does not
contain any reference to the dread felt
with regard to the coming (Schott,
compare Alf.), but simply to the τὸ
αἰφνίδιον (Theod.): see esp. Rev. iii. 3,
ἥξω ws κλέπτης καὶ οὐ μὴ γνῷς ποίαν
ὥραν ἥξω ἐπὶ σέ, and comp. Usteri,
Lehrb. 11. 2. Β, p. 337. The addition
ἐν νυκτὶ (comp. however Matth. xxiv.
43, ποίᾳ φυλακῇ) is peculiar to this
place, and (combined with Matth. J. c.
and xxv. 6) may have given rise to the
ancient tradition of the early Church
(noticed by Liinem.) that Christ was
to come at night on Easter Eve;
compare Lact. Jnst. vil. 19 (‘intem-
pesta et tenebros4 nocte’), and Jerome
on Matth. xxv. 6. οὕτως
ἔρχεται] ‘so it comes ;’ the οὕτως being
added to give force and emphasis to
the comparison. The pres. ἔρχεται is
not for a future (Pelt, al.), nor yet to
mark the suddenness of the event
(Bengel, Koch), but its fixed nature
and prophetic certainty; see Winer,
Gr. § 40. 2, p. 237, comp. Bernhardy,
Synt. X. 2, p. 371.

70

ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΞΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙ͂Σ A.

, e
λέγωσιν Kipyvy καὶ ἀσφάλεια, τότε' αἰφνίδιος αὐτοῖς
Ε 7 a
ἐφίσταται ὄλεθρος ὥσπερ ἡ ὠδὶν TH ἐν γαστρὶ ἐχούσῃ,

3. ὅταν λέγωσιν] ‘ When they may
say; certainly not the Jews (Hamm.),
nor even their persecutors generally
(Chrys.), but all unbelieving and un-
thinking men; comp. Matth. xxiv. 38,
39, Luke xvii. 26—30. The true be-
lievers were always watching and wait-
ing, knowing the uneertainty and un-
expectedness of the hour of the Lord’s
coming; comp. Matth. xxiv. 44, xxv.
13, Luke xii. 35-40. After ὅταν Ree,
inserts yap with KL; most mss.;
Vulg.; al.: Lachm. after ὅταν inserts
δὲ in brackets, as it isfound in BDEN? ;
Copt., Syr.-Phil.; Chrys., Theod.
Though δὲ is well supported, and not
uncommonly exchanged with γάρ (see
notes on Gal. i. 11), still the tendency
to supply expletives is so very decided
(Mill, Prolegom. p. clvi.) that we are
justified in reading simply ὅταν with
AFGN!; 4 mss.; Clarom., Syr., Goth.,
Ath. (both); many Lat. Ff. So
Tisch., Griesb., Scholz, De W., Liinem.,
Alf.

Εἰρήνη καὶ ἀσφάλεια] ‘Peace and
safety,’ scil. ἐστίν,---β everywhere pre-
sent; comp. Ezek. xiii. 10, λέγοντες
Εἰρήνη, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν εἰρήνη. The
distinction between these words is ob-
vious: the first [e%pw, necto, or more
probably EP-, elpw, dico; comp. Ben-
fey, Wurzellex. Vol. 11. p. 7] betokens
an inward repose and security; the
latter [a, σ-φάλλω ; comp. Sanscr. root
phal, Heb. 557}, Pott, Etym. Forsch.
Vol. 1. p. 238, Donalds. Crat. § 209]
a sureness and safety that is not in-
terfered with or compromised by out-
ward obstacles. τότε αἰφνί-
διος κιτ.λ.7 ‘then with suddenness does
destruction come upon them ;’ αἰφνίδιος
not being a mere epithet (adjectivum
attributum), ‘sudden destr.,’ Auth.,

‘ plétzliches Verderben,’ De W., but a
secondary predication of manner (ad-
jectivum appositum), scil. ‘repentinus
eis superveniet,’ Vulg., Syr., Copt.
[chen ou-exapina], al., and fully em-
phatic ; see esp. Donalds. Cratyl. ὃ 303,
and Miiller, Kleine Schriften, Vol. 1.
p- 310; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 54. 2, p.
412, and notes on Col. ii. 3. The
verb ἐφίσταται may be either simply
‘imminet,’ Beza, or tnore derivatively
‘superveniet,’ Vulg. (but not fut.),
being a ‘verbum solemne de rebus
hominibusve citius quam quis existi-
maverit adstantibus,’ Schott; see esp.
Luke xxi. 34, μήποτε... ἐπιστῇ ἐφ᾽
ὑμᾶς αἰφνίδιος ἡ ἡμέρα (al. does not
occur elsewhere in the N.T.). On
ὄλεθρος, comp. notes on 1 Tim. vi. 9.

ὥσπερ ἡ ὠδίν] ‘as the birth-pang.’
The true point of the appropriate
comparison (‘mwép vim eam compara-
tivam quam habet ws usitato more
auget atque effert,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol.
1. p. 768) is neither the knowledge
that the event is to come (Theod.),
nor its nearness (De W.), but, as the
context seems clearly to suggest, its
suddenness and uncertainty; ‘mulier
doloris materiam ...... gestat absque
sensu, donec inter epulas et risus vel
in medio somnio corripitur,’ Calv.
The form ὠδίν, like the form δελφίν,
belongs to later Greek ; comp. Winer,
Gr. § 9. 2, p. 61.

τῇ ἐν γαστρὶ ἐχούσῃ! The regular
formula in the N.T., Matth. i. 18,
23, xxiv. 19, Mark xiii. 17, Luke xxi.
23, Rev. xii. 2. The more usual ex-
pression in earlier Greek appears to
have been ἐν γαστρὶ φέρειν (Plato,
Legg. Vu. p. 792 ΒΕ, comp. Hom. 77.
VI. 58), or ἐγκύμων εἶναι or γίγνεσθαι,
as in Plato, pin, p. 979 As al.

zx ee
rm ΓΝ

V. 4.

71

n~ 9 , Ε] ’ A

καὶ ov μὴ ἐκφύγωσιν. ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀδελφοί, οὐκ ἐστὲ 4
κα t , SF: or
ἐν σκότει, ἵνα ὑμᾶς ἡ ἡμέρα ὡς κλέπτης καταλάβῃ

4. ὑμᾶς ἡ ἡμέρα] So Lachm. with ADEFG; Vulg., Clarom., appy. Ath.
(both); many Lat. Ff. (Tisch. ed. 1, Schott, Liinem., Koch), C is here deficient.
The simpler order of Rec. ἡ ἡμέρα ὑμᾶς is retained by Tisch. ed. 2, 7, with

BKLN; appy. all mss.; Goth., al. ;

Chrys., Theod., Dam., al. (Griesb., Alf.) ;

but appy. with less probability, as the uncial authority is not decisive, and the
change is just as likely to have been owing to a conformation to the more
natural order, as a transposition for the sake of throwing emphasis on the ὑμᾶς.

οὐ μὴ ἐκφύγωσιν] ‘they shall in no
wise escape,’ not τόν Te πόνον καὶ ὄλε-
θρον, CAcum., but simply and abso-
lutely; comp. Heb. ii. 3, xii. 25,
Ecclus. xvi. 13. On the strengthened
negation οὐ μὴ with the subjunctive,
see notes and reff. on ch. iv. 15.

4. ὑμεῖς δέ] ‘But ye,’ in opposi-
tion to the unthinking and unbelieving
noticed in the preceding verse: ‘ occa-
sione accepté ex superioribus adhor-
tatur Christianos ad vigilantiam, so-
brietatem, et sanctimoniam,’ Calv.

In the following words it is scarcely
necessary to say that ἐστὲ cannot pos-
sibly be imperatival (Flatt): both the
negative and the non-occurrence of
the imper. ἔστε in the N.T. utterly
preclude such a translation.

ἐν σκότει] ‘in darkness,’ in the ele-
ment or region of it. The σκότος here
mentioned seems to have been sug-
gested by the preceding ἐν νυκτί (ver.
2): it does not mark exclusively either
τὸν σκοτεινὸν καὶ ἀκάθαρτον βίον.
(Chrys., Theoph., Gicum.), as might
seem suggested by the succeeding
verse, or τὴν ἄγνοιαν (Theod.), as is
partially suggested by the preceding
verse, but, as the general context re-
quires, botk,—‘statum ignorantiz et
vitii,’ Turretin. It was a darkness
not only of the mind and understand-
ing (Eph. iv. 18) but of the heart and
will (1 John ii. 9); see Andrewes,
Serm, Xv. Vol. Ill. p. 371.

ἵνα ὑμᾶς κι τ.λ.} “ὧν order that the
day should surprise you ;’ not merely
a statement of result, but of the pur-
pose contemplated by God in His mer-
ciful dispensation implied in οὐκ ἐστὲ
ἐν σκότει. See Winer, Gr. ὃ 53. 6,
p. 408. It may be doubted however
whether we have not here some trace
of a secondary force of iva (see notes
on Eph. i. 17), the eventual conclu-
sion being in some degree mixed up
with and obscuring the idea of finality;
comp. Gal. v. 17. Considering the
numerous instances of a secondary
final use of iva which the writings of
the N.T. (esp. those of St John,
Winer, Gr. ὃ 44. 8, p. 303) distinctly
supply, and a remembrance of the
ultimate decline of the particle into
the va of modern Greek (Corpe, Gr. p.
129), it is prudent to beware of over-
pressing the final force in all cases;
comp. Winer, Gr. l.c. p. 299 sq.

The ‘day’ here specified is not speci-
fically the day of judgment [ἡ ἡμέρα
ἐκείνη FG ; Vulg., Clarom., Syr. ], but,
as the context seems to require, the
period of light (De W.), which indeed
becomes practically synonymous with
the day of the Lord, as bearing salva-
tion (comp. Rom, xiii. 12), and bring-
ing to light the hidden things of dark-
ness (1 Cor. iv. 5), κατα-

λάβῃ] ‘overtake,’ ‘surprise,’ yd
a ¥Y

Syr., ‘adprehendat,’ Clarom., ‘ gafa-

΄

72

ΠΡΟΣ OEZZAAONIKEIS A,

a th Pa Sap) a ik Se ig Rich's a5 ᾽ ἣν . »
5 πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς υἱοὶ φωτός ἐστε καὶ υἱοὶ ἡμέρας. οὐκ

Ἁ A A 4 >
6 ἐσμὲν νυκτὸς οὐδὲ σκότους. Apa οὖν μὴ καθεύδωμεν

7 ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποί, ἀλλὰ γρηγορώμεν καὶ νήφωμεν. οἱ

hai,’ Goth. ; the κατὰ here not intro-
ducing any definite sense of hostility
(comp. Koch), but, as usual, being
simply intensive, and deriving its fur-
ther shades of meaning from the con-
text: see the good collection of exam-
ples in Rost u. Palm, Lez. s.v. Vol. 1.
p. 1623, The reading κλέπτας
[Lachm. with AB; Copt.] has cer-
tainly not sufficient critical support.
5. πάντες yap ὑμεῖς] ‘for ye all;’
confirmation of the preceding negative
statement by a more specific positive
declaration. The particle γάρ, which
we can hardly say with Schott is
‘haud necessaria ad sententiam,’ is
omitted by Rec., but on authority
[K (e sil.); majority of mss.; Vulg.
(Amiat.)] decidedly insufficient.
viol φωτός] ‘ sons of light ;’ a Hebra-
istic formula (comp. Ewald, G’r. ὃ 287)
expressing with considerable emphasis
and significance, not merely that they
‘belonged to the light’ (Alf.), but that
they belonged to it in the intimate
way that children belong to a parent,
—almost οἱ τὰ τοῦ φωτὸς πράττοντες,
Chrys., Theoph.: see Winer, (Gr. ὃ 34.
3. b. note 2, p. 213, Steiger on 1 Pet.
i. 14, Ρ. 153, and notes on Lph. ii. 2.
Somewhat analogous expressions are
found in classical Greek, παῖδες σο-
φῶν, παῖδες ἱερέων x.7.d., but appy.
never (as here) in connexion with
abstract substantives; comp. Blomf.
on Aisch. Pers. 408.
οὐκ ἐσμὲν νυκτός] “ We belong not to
night: the genitive idiomatically spe-
cifying the domain to which the sub-
jects belong; comp. Acts ix: 2, and see
Winer, Gr. § 30. 5, p. 176, On the
various meanings in which this pos-
sessive gen. is connected with εἶναι

and γίγνεσθαι, see Kriiger, Sprachl.
§ 47. 6. 18q., Bernhardy, Synt. 111. 46,
p- 165, and on the very intelligible
χίασμός [φῶς, ἡμέρα...νύξ, σκότος], see
Jelf, Gr. ὃ 904. 3, Madvig, Lat. Gr.
8 473. a. The reading ἐστὲ [D'FG;
Syr. (not Phil.), Clarom., Goth., al.]
is obviously a conformation to the
preceding ἐστέ.

6. “Apa οὖν] ‘Accordingly then;
exhortation following on the preceding
declaration, the illative dpa being sup-
ported and enhanced by the collective
and retrospective οὖν; see notes on
Gal. vi. 10. In Aftic Greek this com-
bination is only found in the case of
the interrogative dpa, comp. Klotz,
Devar. Vol. 11. p. 181, Herm. Viger,
No. 292, and Stallb. on Plato, Republ.
V. p. 462 4. μὴ καθεύδωμεν]
‘let us not sleep,’ ὦ. 6. be careless and
indifferent, μὴ ἀμελῶμεν τῶν καλῶν
ἔργων, Theoph. ; comp. Eph. v. 14, and
the very pertinent remarks of Beck,
Christ. Lehrwiss. Vol. 1. p. 299 (cited
by Koch), on the deepening sleep of
the soul under the influence of sin;
see also Beck, Seelenl. 1. 8, p. 18,
ot λοιποί] ‘the rest;’ here obviously
unbelievers, whether careless Jews or
ignorant heathens ; comp. notes on ch.
iv. 13. Lachm. omits the καὶ before
οἱ λοιποὶ with ABN; 2 mss. ; Augiens.,
Vulg. (Amiat.), Syr.; al., but appy. in
opposition to St Paul’s prevailing
usage; comp. I Cor. ix. 5, Eph. ii. 3,
and above, ch. iv. 13. γήφωμεν]
‘be sober ;’? comp. 1 Pet. v. 8. The
νήφωμεν enhancés the preceding ypnyo-
ρῶμεν ; Christians were not orily to be
wakeful, but have all their senses and
capacities in full exercise: ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἂν
γρηγορῇ Tis μὴ νήφῃ δὲ puplois περιπε-

Υ. 5—8.

79

ὐ = ᾿ 4 ,
yap καθεύδοντες νυκτὸς καθεύδουσιν, καὶ of μεθυσκόμενοι

Ὰ ’ ς a δὲ ς , ϑ᾽ , 9 8
νυκτὸς μεθύουσιν: ἡμεῖς δὲ ἡμέρας ὄντες νήφωμεν, εν-

δυσάμενοι θώρακα πίστεως καὶ ἀγάπης καὶ περικεφα-

σεῖται δεινοῖς, Chrys. On the regular
meaning of this verb, which appears
to be always that of ‘sobriety,’ not of
‘watchfulness’ or ‘ wakefulness’ (as
perhaps CEcum., ἐπίτασις éypnyoprews),
see notes on 2 Zim. iv. 5, and 1 Zim.
iii, 2.

7. ob yap καθεύδοντες] “ Mor they
that sleep,’ ‘ sleepers,’ Winer, Gr. ὃ 45.
7, p. 316; confirmatory explanation of
the preceding exhortation by a refer-
ence to the prevailing habits of non-
Christian life. At first sight it might
seem plausible to give all the words in
this verse a spiritual reference (Chrys.,
Theoph., Koch): as however νυκτὸς
seems only to mark tbe period when
the actions referred to usually took
place, the literal and proper meaning
is distinctly to be preferred: ‘quem-
admodum in hoc versu dormire ita
etiam ebrium esse dicitur proprie, tan-
quam exemplum ejusmodi sentiendi
agendique rationis que nonnisi homi-
num sit in caligine nocturné lubenter
versantium,’ Schott; so Liinem. and
Alf. οἱ μεθυσκόμενοι] ‘they
that are drunken.’ The distinction ad-
vocated by Beng., ‘ μεθύσκομαι notat
actum, μεθύω statum’ (comp. Clarom.
‘inebriantur..,ebrii sunt’), seems here
more than doubtful. The transition
from ‘being made drunk’ to ‘being
actually drunk’ is go slight (in Rost
u. Palm, Lex. s. vv. both are translated
‘berauscht seyn’), that with the pre-
ceding καθεύδοντες... καθεύδουσιν before
us it seems best to regard them here
as simply synonymous.

8. ἡμεῖς δέ K.t.A,] ‘but let us, as
we are of the day: not exactly ‘ qui
diei sumus,’ Vulg., Clarom., but ‘quum
simus,’ Auth, (Platt), Arm., comp.

Goth. ‘ visandans ;’ the participle not
being here used predicatively, but with
a slightly causal, or combined ‘tem-
poral-causal’ force; see Schmalfeld,
Synt. des Gr. Verb. § 207, comp. Do-
nalds. Gr. ὃ 615. On the connexion of
the gen. with εἰμί, see notes on ver. 5.
ἐνδυσάμενοι] ‘having put on,’ tempo-
ral participle defining the action con-
temporaneous with or perhaps, more
probably, immediately preceding. the
νήφειν. The Apostle now passes into
his favourite metaphor of the Christian
soldier; comp. Rom. xiii. 12, 2 Cor,
x. 4, and esp. Eph. vi. 11, where not
only (as here) the defensive, but the
offensive portions of the equipment
are described. The ‘armatura’ here
consists of the three great Christian
virtues, Faith, Love, and Hope, the
first and second forming the breast-
plate (aliter Eph. vi. 14, 16), the third
(similarly Eph. vi. 17, see notes) the
helmet; comp. Reuss, Zhéol. Chrét.
Iv. 22, Vol. IL p. 259, 260.

θώρακα πίστεως] ‘a shield of faith,’
or more probably ‘ the shield, &c.,’
the second and third substantives, as
well known terms, here dispensing
with the article (Winer, Gr. ὃ 19. 1,
Ρ. 109), and causing the governing
noun to be also anarthrous on the
principle of correlation (Middl. Gr.
Art. Ul. 3.6). The gen. is that of
‘apposition ;’ see notes and reff. on
Eph. vi. 14. καὶ περικεφ. K.T.A. |
‘and as a helmet the hope of salvation ;"
a defence that can never fail. With
hope fixed on the ἐπηγγελμένη σωτηρία
(Theod.) all the dangers and trials of
the present seem light and endurable ;
καθάπερ yap ἡ περικεφαλαία τὸ καίριον
σώζει τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν, τὴν κεφαλὴν περι-

74

ΠΡΟΣ OEZZAAONIKEIS A.

9 λαίαν ἐλπίδα σωτηρίας, ὅτι οὐκ ἔθετο ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς
Ἁ “
εἰς ὀργὴν ἀλλὰ εἰς περιποίησιν σωτηρίας διὰ τοῦ

, aid “ ~ “
10 Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿]ησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῦ ἀποθανόντος ὑπὲρ

e a 4 4 ἊΝ " , “ 4
NOV Wa ETE γρηγορωμεν εἴτε καθεύδωμεν ἅμα σὺν

βάλλουσα καὶ πάντοθεν στεγάζουσα"
οὕτω καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς τὸν λογισμὸν οὐκ
ἀφίησι διαπεσεῖν, ἀλλ’ ὀρθὸν ἵστησιν
ὥσπερ κεφαλήν, οὐδὲν τῶν ἔξωθεν εἰς
αὐτὸν πεσεῖν ἐῶσα, Chrys. The gen.
σωτηρίας is the gen. objecti, that to
which it is directed and on which it is
fixed, comp. ch. i. 3 (τοῦ Kup.), Rom.
v. 2, and, if necessary, Winer, Gr.
§ 30. τὸ p. 167.

9. ὅτι κ-τ.λ.] ‘because, &c.;’ reason
for the use of the foregoing words
ἐλπίδα σωτηρίας, expressed both nega-
tively (οὐκ ἔθετο x.7.X.) and positively
(ἀλλὰ els περιπ. K.T.r.): οὐ πρὸς τοῦτο

ἐκάλεσεν εἰς τὸ ἀπολέσαι ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὸ

σῶσαι, Chrys. οὐκ ἔθετο ἡμᾶς
κιτ.λ.7 ‘appointed us not unto anger,’
ὦ. 6. to become the subjects of it, to
fall under its punitive action. The
form τιθέναι (Acts xiii. 47) or θέσθαι
els τί (1 Tim. i. 12) appears to have a
partially Hebraistic tinge and to answer

to Div, jD), or Mv followed by ὃς
comp. for example Psalm lxvi. 9, Je-
rem. ix. 11, xiii. 16. On ὀργή, see
notes on ch. i. ro. els περι-
ποίησιν σωτηρίας] ‘unto obtaining of
salvation, Ὁ... [ad

.
a 7 oo nan

acquisitionem vite], sim. Vulg., Cla-
rom., Copt. [tancho,—here needlessly
rendered ‘ vivificatio ;?> comp. Mal. iii.
17], ‘du gafreideinai ganistais,’ Goth. ;
comp. 2 Thess. ii. 14, els περιποίησιν
δόξης. Neither here, Heb. x. 39, nor
2 Thess. J.c., is there any reason for
departing from this simple and _pri-
mary meaning of περιποίησις ; Hesych.
πλεονασμός" κτῆσις, Suid. κτῆσις. Both
in Eph. i. 14 (see notes) and 1 Pet. ii.
g, as the context shows, the use is

wholly different, and appy. a reflection
of the nbap of the O. T. (comp. Acts
xx, 28): in 2 Chron. xiv. 13 (Heb.
MMI), Pseud.-Plato, Def. p. 415 © (see
Rost u. Palm, Lex. s.v.), the meaning
seems to be rather ‘ conservatio;’ but
neither the one (appy. favoured by
(icum., comp. Theod., ἵνα οἰκείους
ἀποφήνῃ) nor the other is here either
natural or suitable.

διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου κ-τ.λ.] Dependent, not
on ἔθετο, but on the preceding περι-
ποίησιν σωτηρίας, and specifying the
medium by which the σωτηρία was to
be obtained. This medium is certainly
not ‘doctrinam eam quam Christus
nobis attulit’ (Grot.), nor, in this
passage, ‘faith in Him’ (Liinem.), but,
as the next verse seems to show, His
atoning death; comp. Eph. i. 7, and
notes in loc.

10. τοῦ ἀποθ. ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν] ‘who
died for us; specification of the bless-
ed act of redeeming love by which the
περιποίησις σωτηρίας has become as-
sured to us; comp. ch. iv. 14. The
clause, as Liinem. properly observes,
is not causal (ἀποθ. would then be
anarthrous, comp. Schmalfeld, Synt.
§222,225 note, and Donalds. Gr. § 492),
but relative and assertory; ‘ne quid
de salutis certitudine dubitemus aut
de satisfactione soliciti essemus, dicit
Christum pro nobis mortuum esse, et
pro peccatis nostris satisfecisse, ut
salutem consequeremur,’ Calv.

On the meaning of ὑπὲρ in dogmatical
passages,—not exclusively ‘in our
stead’ (Waterl. Serm. xxxI. Vol. v.
Ρ- 740), see notes and reff. on Gal. iii.
13. For ὑπέρ, BN!'; 17, here read

περί. ἵνα εἴτε κ-τ.λ.7 ‘in order

Oy 6; ΤῈ

75

ow 4 wn 4
αὐτῷ ζήσωμεν. διὸ παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους καὶ οἰκοδο- τὶ

n @ \ Φ ‘ 4 a
MELTE ELS TOV EVA, καθὼς και “ποιειτε.

that whether we wake or sleep; holy
purpose of the Lord’s redeeming death.
There is some little doubt as to the
exact meaning of the terms καθεύδειν
and γρηγορεῖν. It seems clear that
they cannot be understcod in a simple
physical sense (comp. Fell), still less
in an ethical sense, as τὸ καθεύδειν was
described (ver. 6) as a state incompa-
tible with Christianity. There remains
then only the supposition that they
are used in a metaphorical sense (comp.
Psalm Ixxxviii. 6, Dan. xii. 2, al.), to
which also the following ζήσωμεν seems
very distinctly to guide us. The mean-
ing then is. substantially the same as
Rom. xiv. 8, ἐάν τε οὖν ζῶμεν ἐάν re
ἀποθνήσκωμεν τοῦ Κυρίου ἐσμέν.

It is not exact to say that the sub-
junctive with εἴτε... εἴτε as here is not
classical (Alf.), for see Plato, Legg. x11.
p- 958} (v.1.). As a general rule εἴτε
is associated with the same moods as
εἰ (Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 533); as
however there are cases in which it
is now admitted that εἰ can be asso-
ciated with the subj. (‘ef cum conjunct.
respectum comprehendit experientiz,
expectandumque esse indicat ut fiat
aut non fiat,’ Herm. de Part. dv, τι. 7,
see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 500 sq.),
a similar latitude may rightly be as-
signed to εἴτε. It seems probable here
that the subj. is used in the dependent
clause by way of conformity with the
subj. in the principal clause; comp.
Winer, Gr. ὃ 41. 2. 6, p. 263 (note).
ἅμα σὺν αὐτῷ ζήσ.7 ‘we should together
live with Him,’ not ‘together with
him,’ Auth.; the (jv σὺν Χριστῷ form-
ing the principal idea, while the dua
(Heb. V1‘) subjoins the further no-
tion of aggregation ; comp. Rom. iii.
12, and see notes on ch. iv. 17, where
the previous specifications οἵ time

make the temporal meaning the
more plausible. The (jowuev is both
more emphatic than ἐσόμεθα (ch. iv.
17), and also serves slightly to eluci-
date the metaphorical use of the pre-
ceding words. ;
11. διό] ‘ Wherefore,’ ‘On which
account; not exactly ‘que cum ita
sint’ (Alf.), but ‘quamobrem’ (see
Klotz, Devar. Vol. τι. p. 173, who cor-
rectly assigns the former meaning to
οὖν), thereby serving’to place in closer
logical connexion the foregoing decla-
ration and the present exhortation.
On the uses of this particle by St Paul,
see notes on Gal. iv. 31.
παρακαλεῖτε] ‘ comfort,’

ae,
oD Syr., ‘consolamini,’ Vulg.,

not ‘ exhortamini,’ Clarom.: the ana-
logy of this verse to ch. iv. 17 (where
the contextual argument for the pre-
sent sense is very strong) appears to
require a similarity of translation,
more especially as the hortatory tone
(ver. 6) seems now to have merged into
the consolatory. The exact meaning
of this word is frequently somewhat
doubtful: it is used more than fifty
times in St Paul’s Epp., with several

‘ console,’

varieties of meaning which can only
be decided on by a careful considera-
tion of the context; comp. notes on
Col. ii. 2. εἷς τὸν ἕνα] ‘one the
οἶον", equivalent in meaning to ἀλλή-
λους ; see exx. in Kypke, Annot. Vol.
II. p. 339, all of which however, except
Theocr. Jdyll. xx11. 65, are from late
authors. Compare οἱ καθ᾽ ἕνα, Eph.
v. 33, and the somewhat analogous
eis πρὸς ἕνα, Plato, Legg. 1. p. 6260,
al.; see Winer, Gr. § 26. 2, p. 156.
To regard εἰς as a prep., and to refer
τὸν ἕνα to Christ, is in the highest
degree forced and improbable; see

76

+ 9 3 ~ 4 ταν » ᾽
12 ᾿Ερωτῶμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, εἰδέναι
τοὺς κοπιῶντας ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ προΐστα-

, ε A 3 K ’ 4 θ A
μενους υμῶν εν UAL Kat νουσετουν-

Liinem. in loc. The metaphorical
term οἰκοδομεῖν (1 Cor. viii. 1, x. 23,
al.) is derived from the idea, elsewhere
both expressed and implied in St Paul’s
Epp., that Christians form a ναὸς or
οἰκοδομὴ Θεοῦ; see 1 Cor. iii. 9, τύ,
2 Cor. vi. 16, Eph. ii. 20, al., and comp.
Andrewes, Serm. vi. Vol. 11. p. 273.
καθὼς Kal ποιεῖτε] ‘even as ye also
are doing,’ praise and encouragement
founded on the actual state of the
Thessalonian church; comp. ch. iv. 1,
1o. On the force of καὶ in compara-
tive sentences of this kind, see notes
on Eph. ν. 23.

12. ᾿Εἰρωτῶμεν δέ] ‘Now we beseech
you;’ transition, by means of the δὲ
μεταβατικόν (see notes on Gal. iii. 8),
to their duties towards the rulers of
the church, —a subject not improbably
suggested by the words immediately
preceding. In no case could the pre-
cept οἰκοδομεῖτε els τὸν ἕνα be carried
out with greater practical benefit to
themselves and to the church at large
than by showing respect to their ap-
pointed spiritual teachers. On the
meaning of ἐρωτᾶν, see notes on ch.
ἀν:
εἰδέναι] ‘to know,’ ‘to regard,’ ‘ut
rationem ac respectum habeatis,’ Est.;
not ‘to show (by deeds) that you
know’ (Koch), but simply ‘to know,’
z.e. ‘not to be ignorant of,’ ‘ to recog-
nise fully ;’ this somewhat unusual
meaning of eid. being analogous to
that of the Heb. YJ) (see Gesen. Lex.
s.v. 8), and here approximating in
meaning to ἐπιγινώσκειν, 1 Cor. xvi.
18. No instance of a similar or even
analogous usage has as yet been ad-
duced from classical Greek.
τοὺς κοπιῶντας ἐν ὑμῖν] ‘those who

ΠΡῸΣ OEZZAAONIKEI= A.

Reverence ‘your spiri-
tual rulers; be

ful and prayerful and
thankful. Quench not
the Spirit: and may God
sanctify and preserve
you.

are labouring among you,’ ‘those who
are engaged in sacred and ministerial
duties;’ comp. 1 Tim. v. 17, where
the more specific ἐν λόγῳ is supplied.
On the meaning and derivation of
κόπος, κοπιάω, see notes on 1 Tim. iv.
10. This general designation, as the
following explanatory terms seem to
suggest, is to be referred to the Pres-
byters of the Church of Thessalonica
(Thorndike, Prim. Gov. ch. 111. Vol. 1.
p. 8, A.-C. Libr.), ἐν ὑμῖν obviously
having no ethical reference, ἐν ταῖς
καρδ. ὑμῶν (Flatt), still less ‘in vobis
docendis’ (Zanch.), but simply imply-
ing ‘in vestro coetu’ (Schott), ‘inter
vos,’ Vulg.,—with mere local refer-
ence to the sphere of the κόπος.

kal προϊσταμένους K.T.A.] ‘and are
presiding over you in the Lord;’ fur-
ther explanation and specification of
the generic κοπιῶντας. The omission
of the article plainly precludes any
reference of the three participles to
three different ministerial classes: the
κοπιῶντες are simply regarded under
two forms of their spiritual labour, as
rulers and practical teachers, and as
‘morum magistri,’ Grot. Whether
these duties were executed by the
same or different persons cannot be
determined; at this early period of
the existence of the Church of Thess.
the first supposition seems much the
most probable; contrast Eph. iv. 11,
1 Tim. vi 17. The sphere of the
προΐστασθαι was to be ἐν Κυρίῳ: οὐκ
ἐν τοῖς κοσμικοῖς ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τοῖς κατὰ
Κύριον, Theoph. καὶ νουθε-
τοῦντας ὑμᾶς] ‘and admonishing you,’
‘et monent vos,’ Vulg.; not simply

arto [docentes] Syr., but
ἂν

Vit 2, τὰ, 12.

77

~ a > A e ~ Φ
τας ὑμᾶς, καὶ ἡγεῖσθαι αὐτοὺς ὑπερεκπερισσῶς ἐν 13

ς , A A a4 . AS.
ayaTn διὰ TO epyov αὐτῶν.

’ 9 φ a
elonveveTe ἐν ἑαυτοῖς.

Πρακαλοῦμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, νουθετεῖτε τοὺς ἀτά- 14

«οο [admonentes] Syr.-Phil.,
. A

with reference to the ‘exhortationes
et correptiones’ (Est.) which it might
be their duty to administer. Ou the
proper meaning of vovderety, —pri-
marily ‘to correct by word’ (νουθέτησις"
λόγος ἐπιτιμητικὸς ἕνεκα ἀποτροπῆς
ἁμαρτίας, Zonar. Lex. p. 1406), and
then derivatively by deed—see Trench,
Synon. ὃ 32, and the numerous exx.
collected by Kypke, Obs. Vol. I1. p.
339-

13. Kal ἡγεῖσθαι κιτ.λ.] ‘and to
esteem them in love very highly.’ These
words appear to admit of two trans-
lations according as ἐν ἀγάπῃ is con-

nected (a) loosely with all the fore-

going words, marking the element
(certainly not the cause, Schott 2, 1)
in which the ἡγεῖσθαι αὐτοὺς ὑπερεκ-

περισσῶς is to be put in force,—or (6).

closely with the preceding ἡγεῖσθαι
as specifying and enhancing the gene-
ral duty implied in the preceding
εἰδέναι, ver. 12. Both involve some
lexical difficulties, as in (a) ἡγεῖσθαι
must be regarded as equivalent to
πλείονος ἀξιοῦν (Theod.), and in (6)
ἡγεῖσθαι ἐν ἀγάπῃ must be taken as
ἡγεῖσθαι αὐτοὺς ἀξίους τοῦ ἀγαπᾶσθαι
(Chrys., Theoph., Gicum.),—solutions
neither of them very strictly defen-
sible. On the whole, the context, the
appy. similar ἡγεῖσθαί τι ἐν κρίσει,
Job xxxv. 2 (Schott), and perhaps the
analogous ἐν ὀργῇ ἔχειν τινά, Thucyd.
1. 18 (Liinem.), seem to preponderate
in favour of (6): in ver. 12 the Thess.
are exhorted to respect their spiritual
rulers, in the present verse also to
love them. So Schott, Olsh., and
Liinem. The Vv. by preserving care-

fully the order deprive us of all clue
to the exact construction they adopt-
ed. On the cumulative word
ὑπερεκπερισσῶς, comp. ch. iii. 10, and.
notes on Eph. iii. 20. The form ὑπερ-
εκπερισσοῦ is here given by Rec. with
ADSEKLN; appy. all mss.; many
Ff. διὰ τὸ ἔργον αὐτῶν]
‘for ther work’s sake;’ on account
both of the importance of the work
(Heb. xiii. 17) and the earnest and
laborious manner in which it was per-
formed; comp. Phil. i. 22, ii. 30.
elpnvevere ἐν ἑαυτοῖς] ‘Be at peace
among yourselves ;᾽ comp. Mark ix. 50,
Rom. xii. 18, 2 Cor. xiii. rr. On this
not uncommon use of the reflexive for
the reciprocal pronoun (ἀλλήλοις), see
Jelf, Gr. § 654. 2, Apollon. de Synt.
1. 27, and for the general principle
and limits of the permutation, Kiihner
on Xen. Mem. τι. 6.20. Of the con-
verse use (recipr. for refi.) there is no
distinct trace found; see Bernhardy,
Synt. VI. 2, p. 273. The reading av-
rots [D'FGN; many mss.; Augiens.,
Vulg., Syr. (both), al. ; Chrys., Theod.],
though distinguished by Griesbach’s
highest commendatory mark (‘indicat
lectionem supparem aut equalem, im-
mo forsitan preferendam recepte lec-
tioni’), certainly does not seem to
deserve it, as it arose in all probability
from the feeling that the short admo-
nition was out of place between the
longer ἐρωτῶμεν δέ x... (ver. 12) and
παρακαλ. δέ x.7.d. (ver. 14). Under
any circumstances it can scarcely bear
the meaning ‘pacem habete cum eis,’
Vulg., Syr. (comp. Chrys., Theod.), as
this would so much more naturally
have been expressed by εἰρηνεύετε pet’
αὐτῶν, as in Rom. xii. 18.

78 ΠΡΟΣ

κτους,

15 τῶν ἀσθενῶν, μακροθυμεῖτε πρὸς πάντας.

14. ἸΠαρακαλοῦμεν δὲ ὑμ.] ‘Vow
we beseech you; address, neither πρὸς
τοὺς ἄρχοντας (Chrys.), nor πρὸς τοὺς
διδασκάλους (Theoph., Gicum.), but, as
the ἀδελφοὶ suggests, to all (Pseud.-
Ambr., Justin.). The Christian bre-
thren at Thessalonica were not only
to be at peace with one another, but
also to do their best to cause peace
to be maintained by others.
vovleretre τοὺς ἀτάκτους] ‘admonish
the unruly; those who do not pre-
serve their τάξιν, ‘inordinatos,’ Beza,
‘ungatassans,’ Goth. The term dra-
κτος, somewhat Jaxly rendered by Syr.

[Xscato [offendentes], is prima-

rly δὰθ᾽ ἔμεν; as Chrys. suggests,
a ‘vox militaris’ (Xen. Mem, 111. 1.
7, where it is opp. to τεταγμένος), and
thence derivatively a general epithet
to denote a dissolute (Plato, Legg. vit.
p- 8060), ill ordered (περίεργοι καὶ
mapa τὸ προσῆκον ποιοῦντες, Bekker,
Anecd. p. 216), and unruly way of
living: τίνες δέ εἰσιν of ἄτακτοι; πάν-
τως οἱ παρὰ τὸ τῷ Θεῷ δοκοῦν πράττον-
Tes’ τάξεως γάρ ἐστι τῆς στρατιωτικῆς
ἁρμοδιωτέρα αὕτη ἡ τάξις τῆς ἐκκλησίας,
Chrys. Here the precise reference is
probably to the neglect of duties and
callings into which the Thessalonians
had lapsed owing to their mistaken
views of the time of the Lord’s com-
ing; comp. ch. iv. ro, 11, and 2 Thess.
iii. 6, 11, where alone ἀτάκτως occurs.
Λτακτος isa ἅπαξ Neydu., cf. ἀτακτεῖν,
2 Thess. iii. 7. On the meaning of
νουθετεῖν, see notes and reff. on ver. 12.
παραμυθ.] See note on ch. ii. 11.

τοὺς ὀλιγοψύχους] ‘the feeble-minded ,’
perhaps mainly (as the παραμυθ. seems
to suggest) in reference to those who
were unduly anxious and sorrowful
about the state of the κοιμώμενοι, ch.

OEZZAAONIKEI® A.

παραμυθεῖσθε τοὺς ὀλιγοψύχους, ἀντέχεσθε

ὁρᾶτε μή

iv. 13; ὀλιγοψύχους τοὺς ἐπὶ τοῖς τε-
θνεῶσιν ἀμέτρως ἀθυμοῦντας ὠνόμασεν,
Theod.,— who however not injudi-
ciously also includes τοὺς μὴ ἀνδρείως
φέροντας τῶν ἐναντίων Tas προσβολάς,
comp. Theoph. ὀλιγόψ. ὁ μὴ φέρων
πειρασμόν. The word ὀλιγόψ. is a

’ dar. λεγόμ. in the N.T., and appy. of

rare occurrence elsewhere except in
the LXX (Isaiah lvii. 15, Prov. xviii.

14, al.; comp. Artemid. Oneiroer. 111.

5); the more correct and usual term
being μικρόψυχος, Aristot. Lthic. Ni-
com. IV. 7, Isocr. Panegyr. p. 76D.
ἀντέχεσθε τῶν ἀσθενῶν] ‘support the
weak ;’ clearly not the weak in body
(Luke x. 9, Acts iv. 9, v. 15, 1 Cor.
xi. 30), but the weak in faith, τοὺς μὴ
ἑδραίαν κεκτημένους πίστιν, Theod.;
comp. 1 Cor. viii. 7, 10, so Chrys.,
Theoph., Gicum., and nearly all mo-
dern commentators. In Rom. v. 6,
and appy. 1 Cor. ix. 22, the reference
seems to be more inclusive, as marking
those who were not Christians, who
had not yet received the strength im-
parted by the Holy Spirit. The verb
ἀντέχεσθαι (comp. Matth. vi. 24, Luke
Xvi. 13, and more generically Tit. i. 9)
does not so much seem to imply ‘ob-
servare,’ Beng., as ὑπερείδειν, Theod.,
ὑποστηρίζειν, Theoph., ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι
(Bekker, Anecd. p. 408), or perhaps
more exactly ‘sustinere,’ Clarom.
(comp. Goth., Aith.), with a more
direct allusion to the primary and
physical meaning of the word; comp.
notes on Tit. l.c., and see Suicer,
Thesaur. s.v. Vol. 1. p. 371.
μακροθυμ. πρὸς πάντας] ‘be long-suf-
fering to all;’ not merely to the three
classes just mentioned (Theoph.), but
to all, καὶ τοὺς οἰκείους Kal τοὺς ἀλλο:
τρίους, Theod.; comp. ver. 15. On
the term μακροθυμεῖν opp. to ὀξυθυμεῖν

V. 15, 16. 79

κ 9 4 A a. δῶ 9 A , ΘΝ.
τις κακὸν ἄντίὶ κακοῦ τινὶ ἀποὐῷ, ἀλλὰ πάντοτε τὸ

, ,
ἀγαθὸν διώκετε εἰς ἀλλήλους Kal εἰς πάντας. πάντοτε τό

15. εἰς ἀλλήλους] So Lachm., Scholz, Tisch. (ed. 1), with ΑΘΕΕ ΟΝ; 15
mss. ; Syr., Copt., Goth., Clarom., al. (De W., Koch, Liinem., Griesb. marking
it with 50), In ed. 2, 7, Tisch. inserts καὶ before εἰς with BKLN*‘; great
majority of mss. ; Syr.-Phil., Vulg. (Amiat.); Chrys., Theod., al. (Rec., Alf,
Wordsw.); but not on satisfactory grounds, as the external authority seems to
preponderate for the omission, and the internal arguments (opp. to Alf.) would
certainly seem rather in favour of its being an interpolation for the sake of

specification, than of its being omitted as unnecessary.

(Eurip. Androm. 689), which here
serves to mark that gentle and for-
bearing patience which is so essentially
a characteristic of ἀγάπη (1 Cor. xiii.
4), seeesp. Basil, Serm. (Sym. metaphr. }
xin. Vol. 111. p. 784 (ed. Bened. 1839),
the good notice in Suicer, Thesaur.
s.v. Vol. 11. p. 293 sq., Rothe, Theol.
Ethik, § 1056sq., Vol. 11. p. 518 sq.,
and comp. 2 Tim. iii. ro, and notes
and reff. on Eph. iv. 2. Lastly,
πρὸς is not merely ‘in regard to,’ ‘ad
omnes,’ Vulg., Clarom., ‘cum omni-
bus,’ Copt., but more precisely and
definitely, erga: comp. the Goth.
‘vipra,’ and see notes on Gal. vi. το.
15. ὁρᾶτε μή τις K.7.A.] “See that
no man render evil, ὅτο. ; warning
against revenge,—yet surely not in
the sense that the better among them
were to check its outbreaks in others
(De W.), but simply that all were to
abstain from it; see Liinem. én loc.
The usual and correct statement that
Christianity was the first system de-
finitely to forbid the returning evil for
evil (see Fritz. Rom. xii. 17, Vol. 1m.
Ῥ. 91) is called in question by Jowett

on the ground that ‘Plato knew that |

it was not the true definition of jus-
tice to do harm to one’s enemies.’ Not
_ to multiply quotations, can we sustain
this opinion against de Legg. 1x. p. 868 B,
p. 882, al., where vengeance rather
than punishment seems certainly con-
templated by the legislator? Indivi-

dual instances of the recognition of
this precept may be found in hea-
thenism (see Pfanner, Theol. Gentil.
ch. ΧΙ. ὃ 23, comp. Basil, de Legend.
Gent. Libr. ὃ 5, Vol. τι. p. 251, ed.
Bened.), but as a general statement
the remark of Hermann seems to be
perfectly correct ; ‘nec laudant Greci si
quis iniquis equus est, sed virtutem
esse censent equis equuim, iniquum
autem iniquis esse,’ on Soph. Philoct.
679. The formula ὁρᾶν μὴ (Matth.
xviii. 10, Mark i. 44) is of less frequent
occurrence than βλέπειν μή (Mark
xill. 5, Acts xiii. 40, 1 Cor. x. 12, al.),
but is more classical and correct: for
exx. of it in combination with the
pres. and aor. subj., see, if necessary,
the collection in Gayler, Partik. Neg.
Ῥ. 316 sq. ἀποδῷ] ‘render,’
‘usgildai,? Goth. The primary idea
conveyed by ἀποδιδόναι, scil. ‘ubi
quid de aliqu& copia das’ and thence
‘ubi dando te exsolvis debito’ (Winer)
here naturally passes into that of ‘re-
tribuere,’ the κακὸν being represented
as something stored up, out of which
and with which payment would be
made; see Winer, de Verb. Comp. tv.
p- 12, 13, where this verb is well dis-
cussed. The opt. ἀποδοῖ is found
in D? (appy.) FGN}, and ἀποδοίη in D1.
τὸ ἀγαθὸν διώκετε] ‘follow after that
which is good;’ not here what is
‘morally good’ (Liinem.), but, as the
antithesis seems rather to require,

‘al
17

what is ‘beneficial,’ what proves good
to him who receives it: οὐκ ἀρκεῖ τὸ
μὴ ἀποδοῦναι κακὰ ἀντὶ κακῶν, ἀλλὰ
χρή, φησί, καὶ ἀγαθοῖς ἀμείβεσθαι τὸν
κακοποιήσαντα, Theoph., comp. Chrys.
Some shade of the same meaning is
perhaps apparent in Gal. vi. το, Eph.
iv. 28 (see notes): here however it
seems to be more decidedly brought
out by the preceding κακόν. On the
use of διώκειν (ἐπιτεταμένως σπουδάζειν
τι, Theoph.) with abstract substan-
tives or their equivalents, see notes
and reff. on 2 Tim. ii. 22, and for exx.
of the same use in classical Greek, see
Ast, Lex. Platon. s.v. Vol. 1. p. 548
sq. The correlative term is καταλαμ-
βάνειν, Phil. iii. 12, and the antithesis
φεύγειν, Plato, Gorg. p. 507 B.

16. πάντοτε χαίρετε] ‘ Rejoice al-
way ;’ Phil. iii. 1, iv. 4, comp. 2 Cor.
vi. 10; not merely κἂν πειρασμοῖς
περιπέσητε (Theoph.), —a limitation
not inappropriate in reference to the
recent troubles at Thessalonica, but
at all times—under all circumstances
and in all dispensations. To the en-
quiry ‘Why should this be a duty?’
(comp. Jowett) it seems sufficient to
say with Barrow, in his good sermon
on this text,—‘if we scan all the doc-
trines, all the institutions, all the pre-
cepts, all the promises of Christianity,
will not each appear pregnant with
matter of joy, will not each yield great
reason and strong obligation to this
duty of rejoicing evermore?’ Serm.
XL. Vol. 11. p. 557; see also sound
and comprehensive sermons by Beve-
ridge, Serm. cv. Vol. v. p. 62 84.
(A.-C. Libr.), and Donne, Serm. OxxxI.
Vol. v. p. 344 8α. (ed. Alf.). The true
originating cause (ch. i. 6) and true
sphere (Rom. xiv. 17) of this joy is the
Holy Spirit, and its more immediate
source is Faith ; see notes on Phil.i. 25.

ΠΡῸΣ OEZZAAONIKEI® A.

18 χαίρετε" ἀδιαλείπτως προσεύχεσθε' ἐν παντὶ εὐχαρι-

17. ἀδιαλείπτως προσεύχ.7ὔ ‘pray
without ceasing; a precept naturally
following on and suggested by the
foregoing words ; τὴν ὁδὸν ἔδειξε τοῦ
ἀεὶ χαίρειν, τὴν ἀδιάλειπτον προσευχὴν
καὶ εὐχαριστίαν' ὁ γὰρ ἐθισθεὶς ὁμιλεῖν
τῷ Θεῷ καὶ εὐχαριστεῖν αὐτῷ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν
ὡς συμφερόντως συμβαίνουσι, πρόδηλον
ὅτι χαρὰν ἕξει διηνεκῆ, Theoph. This
exhortation to unceasing prayer is dis-
tinctly urged by the Apostle in other
passages (comp. Eph. vi. 18, Col. iv. 2),
and is certainly neither to be explained
away as ‘a precept capable of fulfil-
ment in idea rather than in fact’
(Jowett), nor yet, with Bp. Andrewes,
to be referred to appointed hours of
prayer (Serm. vi. Vol. v. p. 354, A.-C.
Libr.), but is to be accepted in the
simple and plain meaning of the words,
and obeyed, as Barrow has well shown,
by cherishing a spirit of prayer, and
by making devotion the real and true
business of life: see Wordsw. in loc.,
who appositely cites Barrow, Serm.
Vol. 1. p. 1078q. Surely the τὸ ὁμι-
λεῖν τῷ Θεῴ (Theoph.) is one of those
things which is real and actual; οὐδὲ
τοῦτο τῶν ἀδυνάτων, ῥᾷδιον yap καὶ τῷ
ἐσθίοντι τὸν Θεὸν ἀνυμνεῖν, καὶ τῷ βαδί-
ζοντι τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ συμμαχίαν αἰτεῖν,
Theod.; compare Hofmann, Schriftb.
Vol. 11. 2, p. 335. On the duty of
constant prayer, see the sound remarks
of Hammond, Pract. Catech. It. 2, p.
224 (not quite decided on this text),
and on the power of it, compare the
noble epilogue of Tertullian, de Orat.
cap. 29.

18. ἐν παντὶ εὐχαριστεῖτε] “75
every thing give thanks; not ἐν παντὶ
scil. καιρῷ, Flatt (comp. Chrys. ἀεί),
still less ‘in iis que vobis bona sunt,’
Est., but ἐν παντὶ scil. χρήματι, Chrys.

on Phil. iv. 6, $0,80 (do Syr.,

a
ἝΝ 4 ial vel
oe ve

oe

V. 17—20.

81

crete τοῦτο yap θέλημα Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿]ησοῦ

a = ἢ Ι
εἰς ὑμᾶς. τὸ ]]νεῦμα μὴ σβέννυτε: προφητείας μὴ Pr

‘in omnibus,’ Vulg., Copt.; comp.
2 Cor. ix. 8, ἐν παντὶ πάντοτε, which
seems to fix the interpretation, and
contrast ἐν μηδενί, Phil. i. 28. On the
duty of εὐχαριστία, so often dwelt on
by St Paul (comp. notes on Col. iii. 15),
see Beveridge, Serm. Οὐ. Vol. Vv. p.
76 sq., and on this and on the preced-
ing verses Basil’s homily de Grat. Act.
Vol. 11. p. 34 (ed. Bened. 1839).
τοῦτο γάρ] ‘for this,’ scil. τὸ ἐν παντὶ
εὐχαρ. (Theoph., Gicum.); not with
reference to it and ver. 17 (Grot.), nor
to it and the two preceding verses
(Alf.), for though the three precepts
χαίρετε, προσεύχεσθε, εὐχαριστεῖτε---
especially the two latter—are suffi-
ciently homogeneous in character to
be included in the singular τοῦτο, yet
the peculiar stress which the Apostle
always seems to lay on evxap. (see
above) renders the single reference to
εὐχαριστία apparently more probable;
‘gratiz sunt in omni re agenda, quia
scimus omnia nobis cooperare ad bo-
num, Rom. viii. 28,’ Cocceius; see
Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. τι. 2, p. 335.
So also Olsh., Bisping, and Liinem.,
and appy. the majority of recent ex-
positors. After yap Lachm. adds
ἐστιν with D!E!FG; several Vv.; and
Lat. Ff., but on insufficient external,
and appy. opposing internal evidence.
The possible doubt caused by the
juxtaposition of τοῦτο and θέλημα
would naturally suggest the interpola-
tion of the verb subst.

ἐν Xp. Ino. εἰς ὑμᾶς] ‘in Christ Jesus
toward you:’ Christ is here represented
not exactly as the medium by which
(Theoph., Gicum.) but as the sphere
in which the θέλημα is evinced and has
its manifestation; ἐν ᾧ καὶ τὰ δόξαντα
ποιεῖ καὶ ἀναγεννᾷ, Athan. contr. Arian.

9

111. 61, Vol. 1. p. 610 (ed. Bened. 1698).
The objects towards whom ‘ad vos’
(Clarom.)—not ‘in vobis’ (Vulg.,
Copt.), nor ‘in reference to whom’
(De W.)—it was so evinced, and to
whom it was designed to apply, were
the converts of Thessalonica. The
reference of θέλημα to the ‘decretum
divinum de salute generis humani per
Christum reparand&’ (see Schott) is
grammatically doubtful on account of
the omission of the article, and by no
means exegetically plausible. The
θέλημα seems here suitably anarthrous,
as marking εὐχαρ. as one part and
portion out of many contemplated in
the collective θέλημα Θεοῦ; see Lii-
nem. in loc.

19. τὸ Πνεῦμα] ‘the (Holy) Spirit,’
not merely ‘vim divinam Christianis
propriam’ (Noesselt; comp. Beck,
Seelenl. p. 37), nor even the gifts of
the Spirit as evinced in prophecy
(Theod.), nor, more generally, τὴν ἐν
αὐτοῖς ἀναφθεῖσαν τοῦ Πνεύματος χάριν
(Athan. ad Serap. I. 4; see Chrys.), but
simply the Holy Spirit, which dwells
within in association with our spirit,
and evinces His presence by varied
spiritual gifts and manifestations;
comp. I Cor. xii. 8sq., and see Waterl.
Serm. XX1. Vol. v. p. 641. The sub-
ject of prayer leads naturally to the
mention of the Holy Inspirer of it
(comp. Rom. viii. 26, Gal. iv. 6), and
thence to the specification of other
gifts (προφητείας, ver. 20) which ema-
nate from the same blessed Source.
μη σβέννυτε] ‘ quench’not,’ whether in
yourselves or in others ; contrast 2 Tim.
i.6. The Eternal Spirit is represented
as a fire (comp. Andrewes, Serm. Vol.
ΠΙ. p. 124, A.-C. Libr.) which it was
regarded as possible to extinguish,—.

G

89

ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙ͂Σ A.

21 ἐξουθενεῖτε' πάντα δὲ δοκιμάζετε, τὸ καλὸν κατέχετε'

not however in the present case by a
βίος ἀκάθαρτος (Chrys.), but, in accord-
ance with the context,—by a studied
repression and disregard of its mani-
festation, arising from erroneous per-
ceptions and a mistaken dread of en-
thusiasm; comp. Neander, Planting,
Vol. 1. p. 202 (Bohn). This is more
distinctly specified in what follows.
For several illustrations of the ex-
pression, see exx. in Wetst., the most
pertinent of which is Galen, de Theriac.
I. 17, τὸ φάρμακον...τὸ ἔμφυτον πνεῦμα
ῥαδίως σβέννυσιν. Plutarch, de Defect.
Orac. ὃ 17, p. 419 B, ἀποσβῆναι τὸ
πνεῦμα. Tisch, ed. 7 gives ἔβέν-
vure on the authority of B'D' FG.

20. προφητείας] ‘prophecies,’ not
merely announcements of what was to
come to pass, but, in accordance with
the more extended meaning of προφή-
τὴς in the N. T. (see notes on Eph. iv.
11), varied declarations of the divine
counsels and expositions of God’s ora-
cles, immediately inspired by and
emanating from the Holy Spirit; see
Meyer on 1 Cor. xii. 10, and Fritz.
Rom. xii. 6, Vol. 111. p. 55—59. The
difference then between ordinary 6:-
δαχὴ and προφητεία consisted in this,
that the latter was due to the imme-
diate influence of the Spirit, the former
to an ἐξ οἰκείας διαλέγεσθαι, Chrys. ;
see Neander, Planting, Vol. I. p. 133
(Bohn), and for a comparison between
prophecy and speaking with tongues,
Thorndike, Relig. Assemblies, ch. v.
Vol. I. p. 182 sq. (A.-C. Libr.).
ἐξουθενεῖτε] ‘despise,’ ‘set at naught ;’
a word used in the N.T. both by St
Paul (Rom. xiv. 3, 10, 1 Cor. i. 28,
al.) and St Luke (xviii. 9, xxiii. 11,
Acts iv. 11), and found also in the
LXX and later writers. On this word,
and also the more orthographically
correct but apparently less usual ἐξου-

ενεῖν (Mark ix. 12, Lachm.) and ἐξου-

ενοῦν (Mark ix. 12; LXX; al:
Hesych. ἀποδοκιμάζειν), compare Lo-
beck, Phrynichus, p. 182. The habit
of despising prophecies, here expressly
forbidden, most probably arose from
instances of πλανῶντες and πλανώμενοι
in the Church of Thessalonica, who
had brought discredit on this spiritual
gift. The deduction of Olsh., that
up to the present time St Paul had no
apprehensions of any of the fanaticism
which afterwards showed itself among
the Thessalonians (see 2 Thess.), seems
in every way questionable ; contrast
Neander, Planting, Vol. I. p. 203 sq-
(Bohn). They were even now in a
state of unrest and disquietude (ch.
iv. 11 sq.); nay, the very exhortation
before us gains all its point from the
fact that the more sober thinkers had
been probably led by the present state
of things to undervalue and unduly
reject all the less usual manifestations
of the Spirit.

21. πάντα δὲ Soxip.] ‘but prove all
things,’ antithetical exhortation to the
foregoing: ‘instead of despising and
seeking to repress spiritual gifts, let
them be manifested, but be careful to
prove them.’ Πάντα must thus have
a restricted sense, and be limited to
the χαρίσματα previously alluded to;
πάντα, φησί, δοκιμάζετε τουτέστι Tas
ὄντως προφητείας, Chrys. A more
precise exhortation is given to the Co-
rinthians (1 Cor. xiv. 29), from which,
observing the similar and peculiar
subject (προφητεία) here in question,
we must conclude that the present
precept to exercise spiritual discern-
ment applied not so much to the
Church at large (Neander, Planting,
Vol. 1. p. 138, Bohn) as more restrict-
edly to those who had the special gift
of διακρίσεις πνευμάτων, 1 Cor, xii. 10.

Ve 21,
az 4 4 » nw
avo WavTos εἴδους πονήρου

In 1 John iv. 1 (see Waterl. Serm.
XXVII.) the exhortation is appy. more
general, but the points to be tried are
more elementary, and more easy to be
decided on. On the meaning of the
verb δοκιμάζειν, see notes on Phil. i.
το, Trench, Synon. Part 11. ὃ 24; and
for an ingenious but improbable expla-
nation both of the word [to test as a
coin] and the following verse, Hansel,
Stud, u. Krit. 1836, p. 170 sq. The
δὲ is omitted by Rec., and by Tisch.
ed. 2, but only on the authority of
ΑΝ; appy. many mss.; Syr., Copt.,
al.; Orig., Chrys. (often), Theod., al.
On the one hand there is only the in-
ternal argument that δὲ was interpo-
lated to help out the connexion; on
the other hand there is the strong ex-
ternal support, the ‘ paradiplomatic’
argument (comp. Pref. to Gal. p. xvii,
Scrivener, Introd. to Criticism of N.T.
Ῥ- 376) of the AE having fallen out
before the AO, and lastly the plausible
internal argument that δὲ was omitted
“to make this sentence equally uncon-
nected with what precedes and follows.
τὸ καλὸν κατέχ.7 ‘hold fast that which
is good;’ precept naturally and im-
mediately following on the foregoing :
‘exercise the gift of διάκρισις, and
having found what is really good hold
to it; τὰ ψευδῆ καὶ τὰ ἀληθῆ μετὰ Go-
κιμασίας κρίνετε, καὶ τότε τὸ δόξαν ὑμῖν
καλὸν τουτέστι τὰς ἀληθεῖς προφητείας
κατέχετε, τουτέστι τιμᾶτε, διὰ φροντί-
δος ποιεῖσθε, Theoph. On the primary
meaning and derivation of καλός [xad-
λός], see Donalds. Cratyl. ὃ 334; but
observe that in the N. T. it seems
equally co-extensive in meaning with
ἀγαθός, and frequently, as here, denotes
what is simply and morally good ; see
notes on ἀγαθὸς on Gal. vi. το, and
comp. Aristot. Rhetor. I. 9 (init.), καλὸν
μὲν οὖν ἐστὶν ὃ ἂν δι’ αὑτὸ αἱρετὸν ὃν

22, 25. 89

2
3

ἐπαινετὸν 7. On this whole
verse, see an excellent practical ser-
mon by Waterland, Serm. xx11I. Vol.
Vv. p. 655 sq.

22. ἀπὸ παντός «T.A.] ‘ abstain
from every form of evil ;’ general exhor-
tation appended to and suggested by,
but not closely connected (De W.)
with what precedes; comp. Neand.
Planting, Vol. 1, p. 204, note (Bohn).
In this verse there is some little diffi-
culty, depending first on the meaning
of εἴδους, and secondly on the con-
struction of πονηροῦ. We will notice
these separately. Εἰδος cannot
here be ‘appearance,’ Auth., Calv.
(both probably misled by Vulg. ‘spe-
cie’), as this meaning is more than
lexically doubtful (comp. Luke iii. 22,
ix. 29, John v. 37, 2 Cor. v. 7), and,
even if it could be substantiated, would
here be inappropriate, since the anti-
thesis seems plainly to lie not between
τὸ καλὸν and any semblance of evil,
‘quod malum etiamsi non sit apparet’
(Calv., comp. Wordsw. in loc.), but
what is actually and distinctly such.
We therefore adopt the more technical
meaning ‘species,’ ‘sort’ (Plato, Hpin.
Ῥ. 9908, εἶδος καὶ γένος, Parmen. p. —
129 0, τὰ γένη τε καὶ εἴδη), which is
supported by abundant lexical autho-
rity (see Rost ἃ. Palm, Lex. s.v., and
the numerous exx. in Wetstein in loc.),
and is exegetically clear and forcible;
they were to hold fast τὸ καλὸν and
avoid every sort and species (μὴ τούτου
ἢ ἐκείνου, ἀλλ᾽ ἁπλῶς παντός, Theoph.)
of the contrary. So probably Vulg.,
Clarom., ‘specie,’ and more plainly

>
ἀπέχεσθε. Αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ "

Syr. aD, [negotio], Copt. 26d [re],
Aath. megbar [agendi ratione], Goth.,

_al., appy. the Greek Ff., and nearly

all modern commentators. It is
more difficult to decide whether πονη-

G2

84

ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ A.

Α “- e »“ “
Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης ἁγιάσαι ὑμᾶς ὁλοτελεῖς, καὶ ὁλό-

εἴ ae \ a . eh ᾿ δ ως πὰ A
KAnpov ὑμῶν TO πνεῦμα Kal ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ TO σῶμα

pov is an adjective or substantive.
Most of the ancient Vv. (Syr., Vulg.,
Copt., Auth.) adopt the former, and
so possibly the Greek commentators ;
the latter however preserves more
correctly the antithesis, and infringes
less (comp. Syr., Copt., al.) on the
technical meaning of εἶδος. So De
Wette, Liinem., Koch, Alf., and the
majority of modern commentators.
The absence of the article (Bengel,
Middl. Gr. Art. p. 378) does not con-
tribute to the decision; as abstract
adjectives can certainly have this con-
struction, when it is not necessary to
mark the wholeness or entirety of what
is specified; comp. Heb. v. 14, Plato,
Republ. τι. p. 3570, Tplrov...etdos ἀγα-
θοῦ, and see Jelf, Gr. ὃ 451. 5.

The artificial interpretation of Hinsel
(Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 180 sq.), εἶδ,
πον. --κίβδηλον νόμισμα, founded on
the association of this text in several
patristic citations with our Lord’s tra-
ditional saying γίνεσθε τραπεζῖται
δόκιμοι (see Suicer, Thesaur. Vol. τι.
p- 12818q.), is here adopted by Baumg.-
Crus., but rightly rejected by most
subsequent expositors. Even if we
admit the very doubtful assumption
that the simple εἶδος might gain from
the context the more definite meaning
εἶδος νομίσματος, the use of ἀπέχεσθε
in such a form of expression would
still be, as De W. observes, appy. un-
precedented.

23. Αὐτὸς δέ] ‘But may He;’ He
on whom all depends,—in contrast to
them and the efforts they might be
enabled to make; comp. ch. iii. 12,
where however the emphasis is some-
what different, and the contrast less
definitely marked. ὁ Θεὸς
τῆς εἰρήνης] ‘the God of peace ;’ the
God of whom peace is a characterizing

attribute; the gen. falling under the
general category of the gen. of content
(Scheuerl. Synt. ὃ 16. 3, p. 115, comp.
notes on Phil. iv. 9), and the subst.
εἰρήνη marking the deep inward peace
and tranquillity which is God’s espe-
cial gift, and which stands in closest
alliance with that holiness which the
preceding clauses inculcate. On this
meaning of εἰρήνη, see notes on Phil.
iv. 7, and on the various meanings
which it may assume in this and
similar collocations, see Reuss, Théol.
Chrét. Iv. 18, Vol. 11. p. 201.
Odoredets}] ‘wholly;’ ‘per omnia,’
Vulg.,—in your collective powers and
parts; ὁλοτ. marking more emphati-
cally than ὅλους that thoroughness and
pervasive nature of holiness (ὅλους δι᾽
ὅλων, CXcumen., ‘secundum omnes
partes,’ Cocceius) which the following
words specify with further exactness:
so distinctly Theoph., odor. δὲ τί ἐστί;
τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι σώματι καὶ ψυχῇ" Kal ἐφεξῆς
δὲ μαθήσῃ. This seems preferable to ἡ
the qualitative interpretation ‘ad perfec-
tum,’ Clarom., Ath. (Syr. unites both
a» n~ ρ bs

giving es5o% Aa|eaSo.9),
according to which ὁλοτελεῖς would be
used proleptically (Syr.-Phil.; comp.
reff. on ἀμέμπτους, ch. iii. 13), but in
which the connexion between the sub-
stance of the first and second portions of
the prayer is less close and self-explana-
tory. The form ὁλοτελὴς is a ἅπ. λεγόμ.
in the N. T., but occurs occasionally
in later Greek; comp. Plutarch, de
Placitis Philos. ὃ 21, p. 909 B.

καί] ‘and’—to specify more exactly;
the copula appending to the general
prayer one of more special details;
see Winer, Gr. ὃ 53. 3, p- 388, and
comp. notes on Phil. iv. 12.
ὁλόκληρον KT.A.] ‘may your spirit

ἀμέμπτως ἐν TH παρουσίᾳ

3

...be preserved entire ;’ not ‘ your whole
spirit...be preserved,’ Auth., Wordsw.,
comp. Syr.; ὁλόκλ., as its position
shows, not being an epithet but a
secondary predicate; see Donalds.
Cratyl. § 302, and comp. notes on Col.
ii. 3. This distinction seems to be
clearly maintained by all the ancient
Vv. (except appy. Syr.); some, as
Vulg., al., preserving the order of the
Greek; others, as Atth., rendering
ὁλόκλ. by an adverb placed at the end
of the clause. The adj. ὁλόκληρος is
a δὶς λεγόμ. in the N. T. (here and
James i. 4), and serves to mark that
which is ‘entire in all its parts’ (ἐν μη-
devi λειπόμενοι, James /. c.), differing
from τέλειος as defining rather what is
complete, while the latter marks what
has reached its proper end and ma-
turity. In a word, the aspect of the
former word is (here especially) mainly
quantitative, of the latter mainly quali-
tative; comp. Trench, Synon. § 22,
and for exx. see the large collection of
Wetst. in loc., one of the most per-
tinent of which is Lucian, Macrob. § 2,
els γῆρας ἀφίκεσθαι ἐν ὑγιαινούσῃ τῇ
ψυχῇ καὶ ὁλοκλήρῳ τῷ σώματι. See
also Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 278.

The predicate clearly belongs to all
three substantives, though structurally
connected with the first. ὑμῶν
τὸ πνεῦμα K.T.A.] ‘your spirit and
soul and body ;’ distinct enunciation
of the three component parts of the
nature of man: the πνεῦμα, the higher
of the two united immaterial parts,
being the ‘vis superior, agens, impe-
rans in homine’ (Olsh.); the ψυχή,
‘vis inferior que agitur, movetur, in
imperio tenetur’ (ib.), the sphere of
the will and the affections, and the
true centre of the personality; see
Olshausen, Opusc. p. 154, Beek, Seelenl,
Il. 12, 13, p. 30 8q., Schubert, Gesch.

23.

85
TOU Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ

der Seele, ὃ 48, Vol. 11. 405 sq., comp.
Vitringa, Obs. Sacr. p. 549 sq.j and
more especially Destiny of the Crea-
ture, Serm. V., where this text is con-
sidered at length, and the scriptural
distinction between the πνεῦμα and
ψυχὴ discussed and substantiated. It
may be remarked that we frequently
find instances of an apparent dichoto-
my, ‘body and soul’ (Matth. vi. 25,
x. 28, Luke xii. 22, 23), or ‘body and
spirit’ (1 Cor. v. 3, vii. 34, ef. Rom.
Vili. 10), but such passages will be
found to be only accommodations to
the popular division into a material
and immaterial part; the Ψυχὴ in the
former of the exceptional cases includ-
ing also the πνεῦμα, just as in the
latter case the πνεῦμα also compre-
hends the ψυχή; see Olsh. J. ¢., p-
153 note, and contrast the ineffectual
denial of Loesner, Obs. p. 381. To
assert that enumerations like the pre-
sent are rhetorical (De W.), or worse,
that the Apostle probably attached
‘no distinct thought to each of these
words’ (Jowett), is plainly to set aside
all sound rules of scriptural exegesis.
Again to admit the distinctions but
refer them to Platonism (Liinem.) is
equally unsatisfactory, and equally
calculated to throw doubt on the truth
of the teaching. If St Paul’s words
do here imply the trichotomy above
described (comp. Usteri, Lehrb. p.
384 sq.), then such a trichotomy is
infallibly real and true. And if Plato
or Philo have maintained (as appears
demonstrable) substantially the same
views, then God has permitted a hea-
then and a Jewish philosopher to ad-
vance conjectural opinions which have
been since confirmed by the independ-
ent teaching of an inspired Apostle.

ἀμέμπτως] ‘blamelessly;’ the adver-
bial predication of quality appended to

80.

24 “Χριστοῦ τηρηθείη.
ποιήσει.

25 ᾿Αδελφοί, προσεύχεσθε περὶ ἡμῶν.

. 9 4
26 ἀσπάσασθε τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς πάντας ἐν

τηρηθείη, ὁλόκληρον (see above) involv-
ing that of quantity. On the meaning
of ἄμεμπτος, ‘is in quo nibil desiderari
potest,’ and its distinction from ἄμω-
μος, see notes on ch. ii. 10, and Tittm.
Synon. 1. p. 29.

ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ «.7t.4.] Time—the
coming of Christ to judgment—when
the preservation of the ὁλοκληρία is
especially to be evinced and found to
be realized: comp. notes on ch. ii. 19.
On the more exact way in which this
ὁλοκληρία may be ascribed to body,
soul, and spirit, see Destiny of the
Creature, p. 107.

24. πιστός «7.A.] ‘Faithful is
He who calleth you,’ ‘qui vocat,’ Cla-
rom., scil. God the Father; comp.
1 Cor. i. 9, and see notes on Gal. i. 6.
The tense is neither to be pressed as
implying an enduring act (Baumg.-
Crus., Bisp.), nor to be regarded as
identical with the aor. ‘qui vocavit,’
Vulg., Goth., but simply to be con-
sidered as timeless, and as equivalent
to a substantive, ‘your Caller;’ see
notes on Gal. v. 8, and Winer, Gr. §
45. 7, p- 316. Πιστὸς here in ref. to
God implies a faithfulness and trueness
to His nature and promises (1 Cor. i.
9; πιστὸς ὁ Θ. δι᾽ οὗ ἐκλήθητε, x. 13,
2 Cor. i. 18, 2 Tim. ii. 13), and hence
becomes practically synonymous with
ἀληθής, Chrys., Theod.; ἐν γὰρ τῷ
ποιεῖν ἃ ἐπαγγέλλεται πιστός ἐστι λα-
λῶν, Athanas. contr. Arian. Il. I0,
Vol. 1. p. 478 (ed. Bened.), see Reuss,
Théol. Chrét. tv. 13, Vol. 11. p. 124.
ὃς Kal ποιήσει] ‘who also will do,’ not
exactly ‘what I wish’ (De W.), nor
ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ἐκάλεσεν sc. σώσει (Ecum.,
Theoph.), but simply ‘ that same thing

ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.

Α « A en εἴ 4
πιστὸς ὁ καλῶν ὑμάς, OS καὶ

Pray for us. Salute the
brethren, and cause this
Epistle to be read be-
fore the Church.

(Arm.), scil. τὸ ἀμέμπτως ὑμᾶς τηρη-
θῆναι (Bisp., Liinem.), or, as the iden-
tity of subject suggests, τὸ ἁγιάσαι
and τὸ τηρηθῆναι,---ἰη a word, the
substance of the prayer expressed in
the preceding verse. In such cases
there is really no ellipse of any pro-
noun; ποιεῖν is merely ‘nude positum,’
receiving its more exact explanation
from the context; comp. Koch in loc.,
and Schémann on Iseus, de Apoll.
Mars $38, Ῥ. 372.

25. προσεύχεσθε περὶ ἡμῶν] ‘pray
for us; comp. Eph. vi. 19, Col. iv. 3,
2 Thess. iii. 1, Heb. xiii. 18. De
Wette and Alf. remark that περὶ is
here less definite than ὑπέρ; but it is
very doubtful whether in this and
similar formule in the N. T. the differ-
ence is really appreciable ; see notes
on Eph. vi. 19, Fritz. Rom. i. 8, Vol.
I. p. 26, and for the general distinction
between the prepositions, notes on Gal.
i. 4, and on Phil. i. ἡ. The prayer
was doubtless intended to include re-
ference both to his own personal state
and to the general success of his Apo-
stolic work; comp. Cocceius in loc.
Whether Silvanus and Timothy are
included in ἡμῶν is perhaps doubtful:
Lachm. inserts in brackets καὶ before
περὶ ἡμῶν, but on authority [BD'; a
few mss.; Clarom., Sangerm., Syr.-
Phil., Goth.] scarcely sufficient.

26. ἀσπάσασθε κ.τ.λ.] ‘Salute all
the brethren ;’ concluding exhortation,
apparently addressed to the Elders of
the Church (consider ver. 27). In the
parallel passages, Rom. xvi. 16, 1 Cor.
xvi. 20, and 2 Cor. xiii. 12 (ἐν ἁγίῳ
φιλ., see Fritz. Rom. l. c.), comp. I
Pet. v. 14, the exhortation is ἀσπά-

‘V. 24---27. 87
φιλήματι ἁγίῳ. ἐνορκίζω ὑμᾶς τὸν Κύριον ἀναγνω- 27
σθῆναι τὴν ἐπιστολὴν πᾶσιν τοῖς | ἁγίοις | ἀδελφοῖς.

27. [ἁγίοις] ἀδελφοῖς] The reading is very doubtful. Rec., Scholz, and
Tisch. ed. 7, insert ἁγίοις with AKL; most mss.; Syr. (both), Vulg., Copt.,
Goth., Aath. (Platt), Arm.; Chrys., Theod. (De Wette, Koch). It is omitted by
Lachm. and Tisch. ed. 1, 2, with BDEFGN; 6 mss.; Clarom., Ath. (Pol.);
Ambrst. (Liinem., Alf.). Though the uncial authorities strongly preponderate
for the omission, still the almost unanimous testimony of the Vv., and the
probability that a word, here used somewhat uniquely by St Paul in adjectival
connexion with ἀδελφοῖς, should be omitted as superfluous, prevent our ex-
cluding it altogether from the text: comp. Heb. iii. 1. The epithet is certainly
not without pertinence in reference to the adjuration and strength of language
which marks the verses: all the brethren, viewed generally as Christians, were
holy (comp. Numb. xvi. 3), and would especially profit by having this letter

read to them.

cache ἀλλήλους: ἐπειδὴ φιλήματι
αὐτοὺς ἀσπάσασθαι οὐκ ἠδύνατο, ἀπὼν
δι’ ἑτέρων αὐτοὺς ἀσπάζεται, Chrys.
The Oriental custom of kissing in their
greetings (Winer, RWZ. 8. ν. ‘ Kuss,’
Vol. 1. p. 688) is here enhanced with
Christian characteristics: it is to be a
φίλημα ἅγιον, a φίλημα ἀγάπης, τ Pet.
v. 14, an ‘osculum pacis,’ Tertull. de
Orat. cap. 14, a φίλημα μυστικόν,
Clem.-Alex. Pedag. 111. 11, Vol. I. p.
301 (ed. Potter),—whether as given
after prayer (Just. M. Apol. 1. 65;
comp. Const. Apost. τι. 57, τὸ ἐν Kuplw
φίλημα), or more probably as a token
of brotherly love and holy affection, —
no idle, meaningless, and merely pagan
custom of salutation. On this custom,
see more in Bingham, Antig. 111. 3. 3,
Augusti, Archdol. Vol. 11. p. 718 8q.,
Coteler on Const. Apost. 1. c., and
Fritz. Rom. xvi. 16, Vol. 11. p. 310.
The prep. ἐν may here possibly mark
the accompaniment (see notes on Col.
iv. 2), but is more naturally taken as
simply instrumental; the φίλημα being
that in which, so to say, the ἀσπασμὸς
was involved; see notes on ch. iv. 18.

27. ἐνορκίζω υμᾶς k.t.A.] “1 adjure
you by the Lord.’ ‘This very strong

form of entreaty has been differently
explained. There does not seem suf-
ficient reason for concluding from ver.
12, 13, with Olsh., that there had been
such differences between the Elders and
the Church of Thessalonica as to sug-
gest a fear that the Epistle might not
be communicated to the church at
large; as the language of those verses
is admirably calculated both to be-
speak respect for the Elders, and to
conciliate the Church. That the ex-
pression arose from slight distrust com-
bined with a θερμὴ διάνοια towards his
converts (Chrys., Theoph.) is impro-
bable ; that it was a customary form
with St Paul (Jowett 1) is indemon-
strable; that the inspired Apostle was
not master of his words or did not
know their value (Jowett 2) is mon-
strous. We therefore may perhaps
fall back on the reason hinted by
Theodoret and expanded by recent
expositors,—that a deep sense of the
great spiritual importance of this Ep.,
not merely to those who were anxious
about the κοιμώμενοι (ch. iv. 13) but
to all without exception, suggested the
unusual adjuration ; ὅρκον προστέθεικε,
πᾶσι τὴν ἐκ τῆς καταγνώσεως ὠφέλειαν

88

TIPOZ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ A.

28° ‘H χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ — Benediction.

Χριστοῦ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν,

πραγματεύων, Theod. The objections
of Baur are briefly but satisfactorily
answered by Neander, Planting, Vol.
1. p. 126 (Bohn). The verb
évopx. [Rec. has the more usual ὁρκίζω
with ‘D?D°FGKLN; mss.] is appy.
not found elsewhere, and is even
omitted in the best modern lexicons.
τὸν Κύριον] Accus. of the person;
comp. Mark v. 7, Acts xix. 13, and
for the similar construction of ὁρκόω,
see Jelf, Gr. ὃ 583. 140. On the two
forms ὁρκοῦν and ὁρκίζειν, and the pre-
valence of the former in Attic writers,
see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 360, 361.
ἀναγνωσθῆναι] ‘be read—as the con-
text suggests—publicly ;’ comp. Luke
iv. 16, Acts xv. 21, 2 Cor. iii. 15, Col.
iv. 16. This meaning (‘palam prvle-
gatur,’ Schott) is however not specially
due to the prep. dvd, as dvayv. is
frequently used without any accessory
notion of publicity, but is reflected on
the verb by the general tenor of the
sentence. The aor. infin. perhaps re-
fers to the single act (Alf.), but must
certainly not be pressed, as this tense
in the infinitive, especially after verbs
of ‘hoping,’ ‘commanding,’ &c. (see
notes on ch. iv. 10), is often used in
reference not merely to single acts, but
to what is either timeless (‘ab omni
temporis definiti conditione libera et
immunis’ Stallb. on Plato, Zuthyd. p.
140), or simply eventual, and dependent
on the action expressed by the finite
verb; see Scheuerl. Synt. ὃ 31. 2. ἢ,

p- 320 sq., Winer, Gr. § 44. 7. Ὁ,
p- 296, and esp. Schmalfeld, Syntax,
$173. 4, p. 346,—where the different
moods of the infin. are carefully con-
sidered and contrasted.

28. “H χάρις x... ] The concluding
benedictions of St Paul’s Epp. are
somewhat noticeably varied. Adopt-
ing the best attested readings, we may
observe that the shortest form is 7
χάρις μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν, Col. iv. 18, 2 Tim. iv.
22 (preceded by ὁ Κύριος I. X. μετὰ
τοῦ πνεύμ. cov), and similarly ἡ x. μετὰ
πάντων ὑμῶν, Tit. iii. 15, [Heb. xiii.
23,] and ἡ x. μετὰ σοῦ, 1 Tim. vi. 21;
the longest being the familiar benedic-
tion in 2 Cor. xiii. 13. Of the rest we
have first, ἡ x. τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν "I. X.
μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν, as here and Rom. xvi. 20;
2 Thess. iii. 18 and Rom. xvi. 24 (a
doubtful verse) give πάντων ὑμ.; 1 Cor.
Xvi. 23 omits ἡμῶν and probably Xpic-
τοῦ, and appends ἡ ἀγάπη μου μετὰ
πάντ. tu. ἐν Χ. Ὶ. Secondly, 7 x. τοῦ
Κυρίου ἡμῶν I. X. μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος
ὑμῶν, as Philem. 25, Gal. vi. 18 (add-
ing ἀδελφοί), Phil. iv. 23 (om. ἡμῶν).
And lastly, 7 x. μετὰ πάντων τῶν
ἀγαπώντων τὸν Kipiov ἡμῶν I. X. ἐν
ἀφθαρσίᾳ, Eph. vi. 24. See Koch on
Philem. 25, Ὁ. 135 sq. The ἀμὴν [Rec.
with AD?D?EKL ; mss.] is appy.
rightly omitted by Lachm. and Tisch,
with BD!FG; mss.; Clarom., San-
germ., Vulg. (Amiat.), al., being very
probably a liturgical addition.

ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΊΚΕΙΣ B.

INTRODUCTION.

7s short but important Epistle was written by the Apostle
to his converts at Thessalonica a short time after his First
Epistle, and apparently from the same place. If, as seems highly
probable, Corinth be regarded as the place from which the First
Epistle was written (see Introd. to the First Hp.), we may reason-
ably suppose the present Epistle to have been written from the
same city: the same companions (ch. i. 1, comp. 1 Thess. i. 1) were
still with the Apostle (contrast Acts xviii. 18); similar forms and
circumstances of trial appear to have been surrounding him (ch.
iii. 2, compared with 1 Thess. ii. 16, Acts xviii. 6).

The exact time at which the Epistle was written cannot be
determined. If the First Epistle was written soon after the arrival
of Timothy from Macedonia (ch. iii. 6), and towards the commence-
ment of the Apostle’s eighteenth-month stay at Corinth (Acts xviii.
11), we shall probably not be far wrong in placing the date of
the Second Epistle towards the end of the first twelve months of
the Apostle’s residence there (comp. ch. iii. 2 with Acts xviii. 12,
and consider ver. 18, ἔτι προσμείνας ἡμέρας ἱκανάς), and thus
_but a few months after that of the First Epistle. . We may then
specify the autumn of A.D. 53 as an approximately correct date:
see Davidson, /ntrod. Vol. 11. p. 449.

The circumstances which gave rise to the Epistle seem clearly
to have been some additional information which the Apostle had
received concerning the disquieted state of the minds of his con-
verts. Whether this reached him through the bearer of the First
Epistle, or formed the substance of a letter from the elders of the
Church of Thessalonica, must remain mere conjecture. This
much however seems to be certain, that some letter had been cir-
culated at Thessalonica purporting to come from the Apostle (ch.
ii. 2) which, combined probably with some teaching equally said
to be derived from St Paul (comp. notes on ch. ii. 2), had added

92 INTRODUCTION.

greatly to the general excitement, and rendered it necessary for
this Second Epistle to be written, and to be vouched for by a clear
mark of genuineness (ch. iii. 17). The purport of the letter and
the teaching was clearly to the effect that the day of the Lord was
at hand; and it does not seem improbable that this might have
been based on some expressions in the First Epistle (ch. iv. 15, 16,
17, V. 2 sq.), which had been distorted or exaggerated so as better
to keep alive the feverish anxiety and unregulated enthusiasm
of the converts in this busy city. We may thus perhaps, with
Davidson (Introd. Vol. 11. p. 448), consider it more probable that
the Second Epistle was an indirect than a direct result of the First.
It was apparently not so much designed to correct innocent mis-
apprehensions of the former Epistle (Paley, al.) as to remove a
positively false construction which had been put—whether with
a partly good or mainly bad intent we know not—both on that
Epistle and on the Apostle’s general teaching.

The whole Epistle indeed is so clearly supplemental to the First
(comp. also ch. ii. 15) that we may without hesitation reject the
opinion of Grotius and Ewald, who reverse the order of the two
Epistles.

The main object of the Epistle then was to calm excitement,
and to make it perfectly plain that the Lord’s second Advent was
not close at hand, nay, that a mysterious course of events pre-
viously alluded to (ch. ii. 5), of which the beginning could confessedly
be already recognised (ver. 7), had first to be fully developed.
Corrective instruction is thus the chief subject; with this however
is associated cheering consolation under afflictions (ch. i. 4 sq.),
and direct exhortation to orderly conduct (ch. 111. 6), industry
(ver. 8 sq.), and quietness (ver. 12).

The authenticity and genuineness are supported by early and
explicit external testimonies (Ireneus c. Her. 11. 7. 2, Clem.-Alex.
Strom. v. p. 655, ed. Pott., Tertullian de Reswrr. Carn. cap. 24),
and have never been called in question till recently. The objec-
tions however are of a most arbitrary and subjective character,
and do not deserve any serious consideration. Complete answers
will be found in Liinemann, Linleitung, p. 163 sq., and Davidson,
Introd. Vol. 11. p. 454 sq.

ΠΡΟΣ

Apostolic address and
salutation.

ἐν Θεῴ πατρὶ ἡμῶν καὶ Κυρίῳ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ.

OESSAAONTIK ETS

ΑΥ̓͂ΛΟΣ καὶ Σιλονανὸς καὶ Τιμό- T

θεος τῆ ἐκκλησίᾳ Θεσσαλονικέων

Β.

χάρις 2

€ oan ‘ Sie 38 a ᾿ eon ᾿ ,
υμιν και εἰρηνή avo Θεοῦ TAT POS HWY Και Κυρίου

Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

2. πατρὸς ἡμῶν] The reading is doubtful.

Tisch. (ed. 2, 7) omits, and

Lachm. brackets ἡμῶν with BDE; 3 mss.; Clarom., Sangerm.; Theoph. ;
Ambrst. (ed.), Pel. (Liinem., Alf.). Ο is deficient. The pronoun is retained
in Rec. with AFGKLN; appy. great majority of mss.; Syr. (both), Aug.,
Vulg., Goth., Aith. (both), Copt., Arm.; Chrys., Theod., al. (Griesb., but
marked with®),—and appy. rightly; for on the one hand the preponderance of
external authority is very decided, and on the other the probability of an
omission either accidentally or intentionally, owing to the ἡμῶν just preceding,
is not much less than the probability of an interpolation to conform with other

Epistles.

1. Παῦλος καὶ Σιλουανὸς καὶ T.]
The same form of salutation as in the
First Epistle ; see notes in loc. The
only difference lies in the addition of
ἡμῶν to πατρί, which, contrary to
what we might have expected, does
not appear to have suggested any
variety of reading. Fora brief account
of Silvanus and Timothy, who are
here, as in the First Ep., associated
with the Apostle as having co-operated
with him in founding the Church of
Thessalonica, see notes on 1 Z'hess. i. I.

2. χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη] Regular
form of salutation, uniting both the
Greek xaipew and the Hebrew iby
(Gen. xlili. 23, Judges vi. 23, al.) ; τὸ
χάρις ὑμῖν οὕτω τίθησιν ὥσπερ ἡμεῖς
τὸ χαίρειν ἐν ταῖς ἐπιγραφαῖς τῶν ἐπι-

στολών εἰώθαμεν, Theod.-Mops. p. 145
(ed. Fritz.): see more in notes on
Eph. i. 2, and in the long and labori-
ous note of Koch on 1 Thess. i. 1.
The remark of Thom. Aquin. is not
without point, “χάρις que est princi-
pium omnis boni, εἰρήνη que est finale
bonorum omnium;’ see also notes on
(1. τ ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς
ἡμι] ‘from God our Father;’ 501]. as
the source from which it emanates.
In 2 John 3 we find παρὰ in the same
combination, but with a difference of
meaning that in the present case (in
ref. to God) is scarcely appreciable,
and depends perhaps entirely on the
usage and mode of conception of the
writer. St John, for example, uses
παρὰ (with gen.) and ἀπὸ in a propor-

94

ΠΡΟΣ OEZZAAONIKEI®> B.

4 ~ . ~ ~ r
3 Kvyapioreiv ὀφείλομεν TH Θεῷ “παν-- We thank God for your

faith and patience. He
will recompense you

a A τ
τοτε περὶ ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοί, καθὼς ἄξιόν ΟΣ ἀν

He count you worthy of

9 “ e 4 U ~
ἐστιν OTL ὑπεραυξάνει ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν, καὶ His calling.

tion rather more than 1 to 3, while
St Paul uses the same prepp. in a pro-
portion of 1 to nearly 10. The gene-
ral distinction between these prepp.
(ἀπό, emanation simply; παρά, eman.
from a personal source) and the more
frequently used ἐκ is well stated by
Winer, Gr. § 47. b, p. 326.

καὶ Κυρίου κ.τ.λ.} Scil. καὶ ἀπὸ Κυ-
ρίου κιτ.λ.; not καὶ πατρὸς Κυρίου
κι τ᾿ Δ., an interpretation rendered
highly improbable by the occurrence of
πατὴρ without any gen.—here possibly
(see crit. note); with less doubt in Gal.
i. 3, 1 Tim. i. 2; and with no var. of
reading in 2 Tim. i. 2, Tit. i. 4; see
notes on Eph. i. 3.

3. Hvyap. ὀφείλομεν] ‘We are bound
to give thanks,’ scil. St Paul, Silvanus,
and Timothy. Though we must be
cautious in pressing the plural in every
case, yet in the present, when we re-
member the relation in which Silvanus
and Timothy stood to the Church of
Thessalonica, it can hardly be over-
looked: see notes on 1 Thess. i. 2. On
this use of εὐχαριστεῖν in the sense of
χάριν ἔχειν, see notes on Phil. i. 3,
and for the constructions of evxap.,
notes on Col. i. 12. The occurrence
in this connexion of so strong a word
as ὀφείλειν is well worthy of note.
περὶ ὑμῶν] ‘concerning you,’ with no
very appreciable difference from ὑπὲρ
(Eph. i. 16) in the same formula; see
notes on τ Thess. i. 2, Υ. 25, and for
the distinction between these preposi-
tions in cases where they appear less
interchangeable, see on Gal. i. 4, and
on Phil. i. 7. καθὼς ἀξιόν
ἐστιν) ‘as it is meet ;᾽ ποῦ on the one
hand a mere parenthetical addition to
the preceding edxap. ὀφείλ, (‘ut par

est,’ Beza), nor yet on the other an
emphatic statement of the ‘modus
eximius’ (Schott; καὶ διὰ λόγων καὶ
δι᾿ ἔργων, Theoph. 2) in which such
a εὐχαριστία ought. to be offered, but
simply a connecting clause between
the first member of the sentence and
the distinctly causal statement ὅτι
ὑπεραυξάνει x.7.X. which follows, and
with which καθὼς ἄξιον x. τ. Δ. stands
in more immediate union. Thus, as
Liinem. well observes, while the ὀφεί-
λομεν states the duty of the εὐχαριστία
on its subjective side, καθὼς κ.τ.λ.
subjoins the oljective aspects. Few
probably will hesitate to prefer this
simple and logical explanation to any
assumption so injurious to the inspired
writer as that of a tautology design-
ed to supply the place of emphasis
(Jowett). ὅτι will thus be
not relatival, 2 [quod] Syr., but dis-
tinctly causal, ‘quoniam,’ Vulg.,
Clarom., Aith. (both), Goth., Syr.-
Phil.,—in close union with the clause
immediately preceding. It may be
remarked that few particles in St
Paul’s Epp. cause a more decided dis-
crepancy of interpretation than ὅτι.
Between the merely objective (Winer,
Gr. ὃ 53. 9, Ῥ- 398) and the strictly
causal force (id. 8. Ὁ, p. 395) of the
particle it is not only often very diffi-
cult to decide, but in several passages
(e.g. Rom. viii. 21) exegetical con-
siderations of some moment will be
found to depend on the decision.

ὑπεραυξάνει)] ‘increaseth above mea-
sure;’ a ἅπ. λεγόμ. in the N. T. and
not a very common word elsewhere
comp. Andoc. contr. Alcib. p. 32 (ed.
Steph.), τοὺς ὑπερανξανομένους. The
predilection of St Paul for emphatic

I. 3, 4-

95

, ε 9 ld ae ae , e a 9 9 ,
πλεοναζει ἡ ἀγάπη ενὸς εκάστου πάντων ὑμῶν εἰς ἀλλή- 4

ea en b A 9 e° τὰς > ~ 9 - 3
λους, WOTE ἡμᾶς αὑτους εν UMLY ἐνκαυχάσθαι εν ταῖς εκ-

compounds οὗ ὑπὲρ has been noticed
and briefly illustrated on Eph. iti. 20;
see also Fritz. Rom. v. 20, Vol. 1.
Ῥ. 351. It may be observed that
ὑπεραυξάνει appears to be associated
with πίστις as conveying more dis-
tinctly the idea of organic evolution
and growth (comp. Matth. xvii. 20,
Luke xvii. 6), while with ἀγάπη a
term is used which expresses more
generally the idea of spiritual enlarge-
ment, and of extension toward others ;
comp. notes on 1 Thess. iii. 12.

ἑνὸς ἑκάστου K. τ΄ λ.7 ‘of every one of
you all toward each other ;’ not with-
out distinctive emphasis,— first, in
specifying that this ἀγάπη was not
merely general, but was individually
manifested (ton ἣν παρὰ πάντων ἡἣ
ἀγάπη εἰς πάντας, Theoph.), and
secondly, in showing that it was not
restricted in its exhibitions to those
who loved them, but extended to all
their fellow-Christians at Thessalo-
nica; ὅταν μερικῶς ἀγαπῶμεν, οὐκ ἀγά-
πη τοῦτο ἀλλὰ διάστασις" εἰ γὰρ διὰ τὸν
Θεὸν ἀγαπᾷς πάντας ἀγάπα, Theoph.
On this verse see five practical ser-
mons by Manton, Works, Vol. Iv. p.
420—458 (Lond. 1698).

4. ἡμᾶς αὐτούς] ‘we ouwrselves,’—
as well as others, whether among you
or elsewhere, who might call attention
to your Christian progress more natu-
rally and appropriately than those
who felt it to be humanly speaking
due to their own exertions, but who
in the present case could not forbear.
De Wette compares 1 Thess. i. 8, but
it may be doubted whether St Paul
had here that passage very distinctly
in his thoughts. To refer ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς
to St Paul himself, in contrast to his
associates included in the preceding
plural verbs (Schott), seems distinctly

illogical: and to leave open the possi-
bility that this may be only an instance
of ‘false emphasis or awkwardness of
expression’ (Jowett) can only be cha-
racterized as a subterfuge at variance
with all fair, sound, and reasonable
exegesis. The distinction between
ἡμεῖς αὐτοὶ (in which the emphasis
falls on the ἡμεῖς) and αὐτοὶ ἡμεῖς (in
which it falls more on the αὐτοί,
comp. 1 Thess. iv. 9) is illustrated by
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 51. 2. 8. The
order αὐτοὺς ἡμᾶς is here actually
given by BN; 7 mss. ἐν ὑμῖν
ἐνκαυχᾶσθαι] ‘boast in you;’ you
were the objects of it, and the sphere
or rather substratum of its manifesta-
tion; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 48. a. 3. a,
p- 345, and see notes on Gal. i. 24.
The somewhat rare form ἐνκαυχᾶσθαι
is found a few times in the LXX,
e.g. Psalm 111. 1, cvi. 47, al., in 600].
writers, and in Aisop, Fab. cocxLi.
p- 139 (ed. Schneider). ‘The reading
is not by any means certain: Ree.
with DE(FG καυχήσασθαι) KL; mss. ;
many Ff., reads καυχάσθαι; but the
probability that the change to the
simpler and more common form is due
to a corrector is in this case so great
that the reading of Lachm. and Tisch.,
supported by ABN; 17, must be con-
sidered to deserve the preference. C
is deficient. ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλ. τοῦ
Θεοῦ] ‘in the Churches of God,’ scil.
in Corinth and its neighbourhood,
where the Apostle was at the time of
writing this Ep.; comp. Acts xviii.
11, and see Wieseler, Chronol. p.
254 sq. The remark of Chrys., é-
ταῦθα δείκνυσι καὶ πολὺν παρελθόντα
χρόνον" ἣ γὰρ ὑπομονὴ ἀπὸ χρόνου φαί-
νεται πολλοῦ, οὐκ ἐν δύο καὶ τρισὶν
nuépars,—muust be received with reser-
vation; as there seems no reason for

“

90 ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΔΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ B.

. es aA m Ὁ A “ ς a α΄ Μὰ 4 ’
κλησίαις τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑπερ τῆς ὑπομονῆς ὑμῶν καὶ πίστεως

ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς διωγμοῖς ὑμῶν καὶ ταῖς θλίψεσιν αἷς
SE ὦ “" “ ὃ , " “ “ “3 A
5 ἀνέχεσθε, ἔνδειγμα τῆς δικαίας κρίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ, εἰς TO

thinking that the Epistle was written
any later than the spring of 54 A. D.,
probably a few months earlier; comp.
Liinem. Finleit. p. 160.

τῆς drop. ὑμῶν Kal πίστεως] ‘your
patience and faith ;’ precise subjects
of the Apostle’s boasting. There is
no ὃν διὰ δυοῖν in these words, scil.
ὑπομονῆς ἐν πίστει, Grot.,—ever a
doubtful and precarious assumption
(see Fritz. on Matth. p. 853 ff. Excurs.
Iv. where this grammatical formula is
well considered), nor does πίστις here
imply ‘fidelis constantia confessionis ἢ
Beng., ‘ Treue,’ Liinem.,—a doubtful
meaning of πίστις in the N. T., es-
pecially when the more usual meaning
has just preceded (ver. 3) in reference
to the same subjects. The Thessa-

lonians evinced faith in its proper and
usual sense, in(bearing up under their
tribulations, and) believing on Him
while they were bearing His cross.
On the meaning of ὑπομονή (here al-
most taking the place of ἐλπίς, Neand.
Planting, p. 479, Bohn), which in the
N.T. seems ever to imply not mere
‘endurance’ but ‘brave patience,’ see
notes and reff. on 1 Thess. i. 3.

πᾶσιν seems clearly to belong only to
διωγμοῖς ; the article would otherwise
have been omitted before @Alpeow.
The distinction between the two words
appears sufficiently obvious: διωγμὸς
is the more special term (‘injurias
complectitur quas Judi et ethnici
Christianis propter doctrine Christi-
ane professionem imposuerunt,’ Fritz.),
θλίψις the more general and compre-
hensive; see Fritz. Rom. viii. 35, Vol.
I. ἢ. 221. αἷς dvé-
χεσθε] ‘which ye are enduring,’ ‘ quas
sustinetis,’ Vulg., Clarom.; ordinary

and regular attraction (Winer, . Gr.
§ 24. 1, p. 147)—for ὧν ἀνέχ., if we
follow the analogy of 2 Cor. xi. 1,
2 Tim. iv. 3,—or for as ἀνέχ., if we
follow the more usual structure of the
verb in classical Greek. In the N.T.
ἀνέχομαι is associated most commonly
with persons, and but rarely with
things; in both cases however it is
followed by a gen., while in earlier
Greek it generally, esp. with persons,
takes the accus.; see Rost u. Palm,
Lex. s.v. Vol. I. p. 227. The present
tense shows that the application is
still going on, and is in no way at
variance with 1 Thess. i. 6, ii. 14
(contrast Baur, Paulus, p. 488, notes),
which refer to an earlier persecution
that appears to have partially sub-
sided before the first Epistle was writ-
ten. The present allusion, as Liinem.
rightly observes, is to some fresh out-
break. On this verse and on the
remaining verses of the chapter, see
sixteen practical sermons by Manton,
Works, Vol. Vv. p. 393—514 (Lond.
1608).

5. ἔνδειγμα «.7.A.] ‘(which is) a
token or proof of the righteous judg-
ment, &e.;’ appositional clause to the
whole foregoing sentence, and practi-
cally equivalent to ὅ τι ἐστιν ἔνδειγμα
κτλ. ; comp. Phil. i. 28 [whence ob-
serve the comparatively slight differ-
ence of meaning between the two
verbals], and see Fritz. Rom. xii. 1,
Vol. 111. p. 16. The apposition here
seems to be not accusatival (Rom. xii.
1, 1 Tim. ii. 6), but nominatival,
ἔνδειγμα not referring merely to the
clause that more immediately involves
the verb, but to all the preceding
words, τῆς ὑπομονῆς---ἀνέχεσθε: the

I. 5.

97

καταξιωθῆναι ὑμᾶς τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὑπὲρ ἧς Kat

endurance of all their persecutions
and their afflictions in patience and
faith formed the ἔνδειγμα τῆς δικαίας
κρίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ; comp. Rom. viii. 3,
and see Winer, Gr. ὃ 50. 9, Ρ. 472.
The reference of ἔνδειγμα to the
Thessalonians (‘ipsi Thessal. adversa
sustinentes intelligi possunt esse ex-
emplum justi judicii Dei,’ Est.) is
grammatically plausible, but both
logically and exegetically improbable
and unsatisfactory: the proof of the
righteous judgment of God was not
to be looked for in the Thessalonians
themselves, but in their acts and their
patient endurance. τῆς δι-
Kalas κρίσεως] ‘the just judgment,’
that will be displayed at the Lord’s
second coming (comp. ver. 7), when
they whe have suffered with and for
the Lord will also reign with Him;
To refer the
δικαία κρίσις solely to present suffer-
ings as perfecting and preparing the
Thessalonians for future glory (Olsh.)}
is to miss the whole point of the
sentence: the Apostie’s argument is

comp. 2 Tim. ii. 12.

that their endurance of sufferings in
faith is a token of God’s righteous
judgment and of a future reward,
which will display itself in rewarding
the patient sufferers, as surely as it
will inflict punishment on their perse-
cutors; ἴστε σαφῶς τῶν κινδύνων τὰ
ἄθλα, καὶ τὴν τῶν οὐρανῶν προσδέχεσθε
βασιλείαν, τοῦ ἀγωνοθέτου τὴν δικαίαν
ἐπιστάμενοι ψῆφον, Theod.

εἰς τὸ καταξιωθ.} ‘that ye may be
counted worthy ;’? general direction of
the δικαία κρίσις and object to which
it tended. This infinitival clause has
been associated with three different
portions of the preceding sentence ;
(a) with αἷς ἀνέχεσθε, scil. ‘quas
afflictiones sustinetis eo fine et fructu
ut...efficiamini digni regno Dei,’ Est. ;

(Ὁ) with ἔνδειγμα--- Θεοῦ, scil. ‘que
perseverantia vestra judicii divini jus-
tissimi olim futuri pignori inservit,
quod hoe attinet ut digni judicemini,’
Schott 2; (c) with δικαίας κρίσεως, 50
as to mark either (1) the result to
which it tended, Liinem., or (2) the
aim which it contemplated, De Wette.
Of these, while (a) causes the really
important member ἔνδειγμα k.7.X. to
relapse into a mere parenthesis, and
(Ὁ) infringes on the almost regular
taeaning of εἰς τὸ with the infin.,
(c) preserves the logical sequence of
clauses and the usual force of εἰς τὸ
with the infin. Whether however
the result or the aim is here specified
is somewhat doubtful. The decidedly
predominant usage in St Paul’s Epp.
of eis τὸ with the inf. suggests the
latter (Winer, ‘Gr. § 44. 6, p. 295,
Meyer on Rom. i. 20, note): as how-
ever there seems some reason for
recognising elsewhere in the N.T. a
secondary final force of eis τό (see
notes on 1 Thess. ii. 12), we may
perhaps most plausibly in the present
case regard the καταξιωθῆναι x. 7.2.
not purely as the purpose, ‘in order
to,’ Alf., but rather as the object to
which it tended: the general direction
and tendency of the κρίσις was that
patient and holy sufferers should be
accounted worthy of God’s kingdom.
τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ Θεοῦ] ‘the king-
dom of God;’ His future kingdom in
heaven, of which the Christian here
on earth is a subject, but the full
privileges of which he is to enjoy
hereafter; see notes on 1 Thess. ii.
12, and comp. Bauer’s treatise there
alluded to, de Notione Regni Div. in
N.T. in Comment. Theol. Part 11.
Ῥ. 120 sq. ὑπὲρ ἧς καὶ πά-
σχετε] ‘ for which ye are also suffering ;"
not exactly ‘pro quo consequendlo,’

H

98

ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙΣ Β.

6 πάσχετε' εἴπερ δίκαιον παρὰ Θεῷ ἀνταποδοῦναι τοῖς
7 θλίβουσιν ὑμᾶς θλίψιν καὶ ὑμῖν τοῖς θλιβομένοις ἄνεσιν

Est., but, with a more general refer-
ence, ‘in behalf of which,’ ‘for the
sake of which,’—the ὑπὲρ marking
the object for which (‘in commodum
cujus,’ Usteri, Lehrd. τι. τ. 1, p. 116)
the suffering was endured (comp.
Acts v. 41, Rom. i. 5, see Winer, Gr.
§ 48.1, p. 343), while the καὶ with a
species of consecutive force supplies a
renewed hint of the connexion be-
tween the suffering and the καταξιω-
θῆναι x. 7.. On this force of καί, see
Winer, Gr. ὃ 53. 3, p- 387, and comp.
notes on 1 Thess. iv. 1. The clause
thus contains no indirect assertion
that sufferings established a claim to
the kingdom of God (ἀπὸ τοῦ πάσχειν
προπορίζεται ἣ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν,
Theoph.), but only confirms the idea
elsewhere expressed in Scripture that
they formed the avenue which led to
it (οὕτως δεῖ els τὴν βασιλείαν εἰσιέναι,
Chrys.), and that the connexion be-
tween holy suffering and future bles-
sedness was mystically close and indis-
soluble ; comp. Acts xiv. 22, Rom.
viii. 17. On the general aspects of
suffering in the N.T., see Destiny of
the Creature, p. 36—43.

6. εἴπερ δίκαιον] ‘if so be that it
is righteous ;’ confirmation, in a hypo-
thetical form, of the preceding decla-
ration of the justice of God, derived
from His dealings with their persecu-
tors. The εἴπερ thus involves no doubt
(οὐκ ἐπὶ ἀμφιβολίας τέθεικεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ
βεβαιώσεως, Theod.), but only, with a
species of rhetorical force, regards as
an assumption (“ εἴπερ usurpatur de re
que esse sumitur,?’ Hermann, Viger,
No. 310) what is really felt to be a
certain and recognised verity; τίθησι
τὸ εἴπερ ws ἐπὶ τῶν ὡμολογημένων,
Chrys, On the force οὗ εἴπερ, see
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 528, and on

its distinction from elye, comp. notes
on Gal, iii. 4. The word δίκαιον evi-
dently points back to the δικαία κρίσις
in ver. 5, not with any antithetical
allusion to the grace of God (comp.
Pelt), but in simple and immediate
reference to His justice as regarded
under the analogies of strict human
justice (εἰ γὰρ παρὰ ἀνθρώποις τοῦτο
δίκαιον, πολλῷ μᾶλλον παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ,
Chrys.), and as inferred from His own
declarations: comp. Rom. ii. 5, Col.
iii, 24, 25. παρὰ Θεῷ] ‘before
God,’ ‘with God,’ ‘apud Deum,’ Vulg.

Ba $0.0 [coram Deo] Syr.; the

secondary idea of locality (‘motion
connected with that of closeness,’
Donalds. Cratyl. § 177) being still
faintly retained in the notion of judg-
ment as at a tribunal, 6. g. Herod. 111.
160, παρὰ Δαρείῳ κριτῇ ; comp. Gal.
iii. 11, and see Winer, Gr. ὃ 48. d,
p- 352. On the meaning of ἀνταπο-
διδόναι, see notes on τ Thess. iii. 9.
τοῖς θλίβουσιν k.7.A.] ‘to those that
afflict you affliction ;’ the ‘ jus talionis’
exhibited in its clearest form: the θλέ-
Bovres are requited with θλέψις, the
θλιβόμενοι with ἄνεσις. Theoph. sub-
joins the further comparison; οὐχ
ὥσπερ δὲ αἱ ἐπαγόμεναι ὑμῖν θλίψεις
πρόσκαιροι, οὕτω καὶ αἱ τοῖς θλίβουσιν
ὑμᾶς ἀντεπαχθησόμεναι. παρὰ Θεοῦ
πρόσκαιροι ἔσονται, ἀλλ᾽ ἀτελεύτητοι"
καὶ αἱ ἀνέσεις ὑμῖν τοιαῦται.

7. τοῖς θλιβομένοις] ‘who are af-
jlicted ;’ passive, clearly not middle,
‘qui pressuram toleratis,’ Beng., as
the antithesis would thus be marred,
and the illustration of the ‘jus talionis’
rendered somewhat less distinct.
ἄνεσιν μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν] ‘rest with us;’ rest
in company with us who are writing
to you, and who like you have been

a 6.3.7.6.

99

“ “ “ A ~ Ὁ 1]

μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν, ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει τοῦ Κυρίου ᾿Ι]ησοῦ ἀπ

“ “ 4A ,
οὐρανοῦ μετ᾽ ἀγγέλων δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ ἐν φλογὶ πυρός, 8

8. φλογὶ πυρός] So Lachm. (text) with BDEFG; 71;
Iren. (interpr.), Maced., Theod. (comment. ὃ), Gicum., Tertull.

Syr., Goth., al. ;

(Scholz, Tisch. ed. τ, Liinem., Wordsw.).

Vulg., Clarom.,

In ed. 2, 7, Tisch. adopts πυρὶ φλογὸς

with AKLN; nearly all mss.; Syr.-Phil. (marg.); Chrys., Theod. (text), Dam.,

al. (Rec., Alf., Lachm. marg.). C is deficient.

The expression adopted is here

on the whole the better supported, but both in Exod. iii. 2 and in Acts vii. 30

there is a similar variation of reading.

exposed to suffering ; see ch. iii. 2. To
give ἡμεῖς a general reference (De ὟΝ.)
would not be strictly true, and would
impair the encouraging and consola-
tory character of the reference; ἐπάγει
τὸ μεθ᾽ ἡ μῶν, ἵνα κοινωνοὺς αὐτοὺς
λάβῃ καὶ τῶν ἀγώνων καὶ στεφάνων τῶν
ἀποστολικῶν, (ἔσυμη. Λλνεσες is simi-
larly used in antithesis to θλίβεσθαι
and θλίψις in 2 Cor. vii. 5, viii. 13; it
properly implies a relaxation, as of
strings, and in such combinations
stands in opposition to ἐπέτασις ; comp.
Plato, Republ. τ, p. 3495, ἐν τῇ ἐπι-
τάσει καὶ ἀνέσει τῶν χορδῶν, It here
obviously refers to the final rest in the
kingdom of God; and forms one of
the elements of its blessedness consi-
dered under simply negative aspects ;
comp. Rev. xiv. 13. ἐν τῇ
ἀποκαλ. κ.τ.λ.] “αἱ the revelation of
the Lord Jesus ;’ predication of time
when the ἀνταπόδοσις shall take place.
The term ἀποκάλυψις (1 Cor. i. 7, comp.
Luke xvii. 30) is here suitably used in
preference to the more usual παρουσία,
as perhaps hinting that though now
hidden, our Lord’s coming to judge
both the quick and dead will be some-
thing real, certain, and manifest; viv
γάρ, φησί, κρύπτεται, ἀλλὰ μὴ ἀλύετε"
ἀποκαλυφθήσεται γὰρ καὶ ὡς Θεὸς καὶ
δεσπότης, Theoph. ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ]
Predication of place: it is from hea-
ven, from the right hand of God where
He is now sitting, that the Lord will
come; comp. 1 Thess. iv. 16, and

Pearson, Creed, Art. vit. Vol. I. p.
346 (ed. Burton). μετ᾽ ἀγγέλων
δυνάμ. αὐτοῦ] ‘accompanied with the
angels of His power ;’ predication of
manner; the Lord will come accom-
panied with the hosts of heaven, who
shall be the ministers of His will and
the exponents and instruments of His
power. The gloss of Theoph. and
CEcum. 2, δυνάμεως ἄγγελοι, τουτέστι
δυνατοί, followed by Auth., al., but
found in none of the best Vv. of
antiquity, is now properly rejected by
ΔΡΡΥ. all medern commentators. The
gen. appears simply to fall under the
general head of the gen. possessivus,
and serves to mark that to which
the ἄγγελοι appertained, and of
which they were the ministers ; comp.
Bernhardy, Synt. 111. 44, p. 161,
Winer, Gr. ὃ 34. 3. Ὁ, p. 211 (note).
The Syr. inverts the clause, 80.

«-σιά δ]; in "ἋΣ [cum

virtute τ ΤΠ γος δεδὶ αι εϑαν sad may
have suggested the equally incorrect
and inverted paraphrase of Michaelis,
‘das ganze Heer seiner Engel:’ the
former however is corrected in Syr.-
Phil., and the latter has been pro-
perly rejected by all recent expositors.
On the force of μετὰ in this combina-
tion, see notes on 1 Thess. iii. 13.

8. ἐν φλογὶ πυρός] ‘in a flame of
jire, ὦ. ὁ. encircled by, encompassed
by a flame of fire; continued predica-
tion of the manner of the ἀποκάλυψις ;

m2

100

ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΞΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙΣ B.

ὃ δό 9 δὶ a 4 ἰδό 60 ‘ 4 - ‘
LOOVTOS EKOLKYTLY τοῖς μὴ εἰόόσιν Θεὸν Kal τοῖς PH

e , ~ ° , “ , e “a 3 ΄Ὁ
ὑπακούουσιν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ"

e A
9 οἵτινες δίκην τίσουσιν ὄλεθρον αἰώνιον ἀπὸ προσώπου

‘in libris V.T. sepenumero ignis et
flamma commemoratur, ubi de pre-
sentid et efficacitate Numinis divini
singulari modo patefaciend4, preser-
tim de judicio divino, sermo est, Exod.
iii. 2 sq., Malach, iv. 1, Daniel vii. 9,
10,’ Schott. The addition thus serves
not only to express the majesty of the
Lord’s coming, but is noticeable as
ascribing to the Son the same glorious
manifestations that the Old Test.
ascribes to the Father. The Syr.,
Aith. (Platt), and, if the punctuation
can be trusted, some of the other Vv.
(comp. Theoph. 1) connect this clause
with διδόντος ἐκδίκ. as an instrumental
clause (Jowett actually unites both
interpr.), but without plausibility ; the
attendant heavenly hosts and the en-
circling fire seem naturally to be as-
sociated as the two symbols and ac-
companiments of the divine presence.
διδόντος ἐκδίκ.7 ‘awarding vengeance ;’
scil. τοῦ Κυρίου Ἴησ., not in connexion
with πυρός, which would not only be
a halting and unduly protracted struc-
ture, but would wholly mar the sym-
metry of the two clauses of manner.
The formula διδόναι ἐκδίκ. only occurs
here in the N.T., but is ‘occasionally
found elsewhere; see Ezek. xxv. 14,
and comp. ἀποδοῦναι éxd. in Numb.
xxxi. 3. No exx. of its occurrence
have been adduced from classical
Greek; ἐκδίκ. ποιήσασθαι is found in
Polyb. Hist. 111. 8. τὸ: τοῖς μὴ
εἰδόσιν Θεόν] ‘to those who know not
God,’ who belong to a class marked by
this characteristic; first of the two
classes who will be the future objects
of the divine wrath, ‘qui in ethnicd
ignorantia de Deo versantur’ (Beng.),
—in a word the Heathen. On the

peculiar force of the subjective nega-
tion, see notes on 1 Thess. iv. 5, and
comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 55. 5, Ρ. 4288q.
τοῖς μὴ trax. K.T.A.] ‘those who obey
not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus ;’
second class of those who afflicted the
Thessalonian converts, those whose
characteristic was disobedience gene-
rally, and especially to the Gospel
(Rom, x. 16),—in a word, the unbe-
lieving Jews. It is somewhat singu-
lar that a scholar usually so sound as
Schott should have felt a difficulty at
the division into two classes: surely
the article before μὴ ὑπακ. renders
such a view all but certain; see
Winer, Gr. § 19. 5, p. 117, Green,
Gr. p. 215. Even in seeming excep-
tions to the rule (Matth. xxvii. 3
[Rec.], Luke xxii. 4 [Zisch.], al.) it
may be fairly questioned whether the
writer did not in these particular cases
really intend the two classes to be
regarded as separate, though other-
wise commonly united. The
reading is slightly doubtful; Rec.

‘adds, and Lachm. inserts in brackets,

Χριστοῦ with AFGN; mss.; Vulg.,
Clarom., Syr., Goth., al. Ο is defici-
ent. Though the omission of Xp.
does not characterize this Ep. as it
does the first (see notes on 1 Thess. iii.
13), “Ins. alone [with BDEKL; 25
mss.; Copt., Syr.-Phil., Ath.; many
Ff. 7 is on the whole the more probable
reading here.

9. οὕτινες] ‘men who; reference
by means of the qualitative rel. pro-
noun to the two preceding classes.
If we revert to the distinctions stated
in the notes on Gal. iv. 24, it would
seem that ὅστις is here used, not in a
causal sense with ref. to the reason

᾿ I. 9, Io.

101

“ f , τὰ “ ’ »-“- . , ᾿ ar ὦ
τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ, ὅταν. το

for τίσουσιν (Liinem., Alf.— who how-
ever mix up two usages), but expli-
catively (‘ who truly’), or even simply
classifically, with ref. to the class or
category to which the antecedents are
referred, and to the characteristics
which mark them ; see notes on Gal. ii.
4, and on Phil. ii. 20. The brief dis-
tinction of Kriiger (Sprachl. § 50. 8),
that ὃς has simply an objective aspect,
ὅστις one qualitative and generic, will
in most cases be found useful and
applicable. For other and idiomatic
usages, see Ellendt, Lex. Sophocl. s. v.
Vol. I. p. 381 sq., and comp. Schaefer,
notes on Demosth. Vol. τι. p. 531.

δίκην τίσουσιν] ‘shall pay the penalty.’
This formula does not occur elsewhere
in the N.T. (comp. however δίκην
ὑπέχειν, Jude 7), but is sufficiently
common in both earlier and later
_ Greek, and is copiously illustrated by
Wetst. in loc. ὄλεθρον
αἰώνιον] ‘eternal destruction ;’ accus.
in apposition to the preceding δίκην:
on ὄλεθρος, comp. notes on 1 Tim. vi.
9. All the sounder commentators on
this text recognise in αἰώνιος a refer-
ence to ‘res in perpetuum future’
(Schott), and a testimony to the
eternity of future punishment that
cannot easily be explained away:
ποῦ τοίνυν οἱ ᾿Ωριγενισταὶ οἱ τέλος τῆς
κολάσεως μυθούμενοι; αἰώνιον ταύτην ὁ
Παῦλος λέγει, Theoph.; comp. Pear-
son, Creed, Art. XII. p. 465 (ed,
Burton). In answer to the efforts of
some writers of the present day to
give αἰώνιος a qualitative aspect, let it
briefly be said that the earliest Greek
expositors never appear to have lost
sight of its quantitative aspects; ἀκρι-
βέστερον ἔδειξε τῆς τιμωρίας. τὸ μέγε-
θος αἰώνιον ταύτην ἀποκαλέσας, Theod.
For further remarks on this subject,
see notes and reff. in Destiny of the

Creature, Serm. Iv., and for a dis-
cussion of the grave question of
the eternity of divine punishments,
Erbkam, in Stud. u. Krit. for 1838,
Pp. 422 sq. The reading of
Lachm. (non marg.) ὀλέθριον [with A;
2 mss.; Ephr., Chrys. (ms.)] is far too
feebly supported to deserve much con-
sideration. ἀπὸ προσώπου
τοῦ Κυρ.] ‘removed from the presence
of the Lord.’ These words have re-
ceived three different explanations,
corresponding to the three meanings,
temporal, causal, and local, which
may be assigned to the preposition.
Of these ἀπὸ can scarcely be here (a)
temporal (ἀρκεῖ παραγενέσθαι μόνον
καὶ ὀφθῆναι τὸν Θεὸν καὶ πάντες ἐν
κολάσει καὶ τιμωρίᾳ γίνονται, Chrys.,
comp. Theoph., Gicum.), as the subst.
with which it is associated (not παρ-
ovolas but προσώπου) seems wholly
to preclude anything but a simple
and quasi-physical reference. Equally
doubtful is (Ὁ) the causal translation ;
for though ἀπὸ may be thus associated

with neuter and even passive verbs,

as marking the personal source whence
the action originates (see exx. in
‘Winer, Gr. § 47. a, p. 332, comp.
Thiersch, de Pentat. 11. 15, p. 106),
yet, on the other hand, such a con-
nexion in the present case would in-
volve the assumption that προσώπου
τοῦ Kup. was a periphrasis for the
personal τοῦ Κυρίου. (Acts iii, 19, cited
by De W., owing to the dissimilar
nature of the verbs, is no parallel),
and merely equivalent to ‘ presente
Domino’ (comp. Pelt),—a resolution of
the words in a high degree precarious
and doubtful. We therefore adopt (c)
the simply Jocal translation, according
to which ἀπὸ marks the idea of
‘separation from’ (Olsh., Liinem.),
emkedma [‘de devant’] Aith., while

102 ΠΡΟΣ

ΘΕΣΣΛΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ B.

ἔλθη ἐνδοξασθῆναι ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ καὶ θαυμασθῆναι

9 ~ a , Ψ 9 ’ Ἁ ,
εν πασιν τοις πιστευσασίιν, OTL ἐπιστεύθη Το μαρτυρίον

προσώπου τοῦ Kup, retains its proper
meaning, and specifies that perennial
fountain of blessedness (comp. Psalm
xvi. 11, Matth. xviii. 10, Rev. xxii. 4),
to be separated from which will con-
stitute the true essence of the fearful
‘pena damni’ (Jackson, Creed, XI.
20. 9): see further details in Schott
and Liinem. in loc., by both of whom
this view is well maintained. The
article before Κυρίου is omitted by
DEFG; 10 mss. ἀπὸ τῆς
δόξης κι τ. Δ. ‘from the glory of His
might;’ not ‘His mighty glory,’
Jowett,—a most doubtful paraphrase,
but the glory arising from, emanating
from His might (gen. originis, comp.
notes on 1 Thess. i. 6), the δόξα being
regarded, so to speak, as the result of
the exercise of His ἰσχύς, and as that
sphere and halo which environs its
manifestations. The assumption of
De W. that in this clause ἀπὸ has
a causal force is perfectly gratuitous.
10. ὅταν ἔλθῃ] ‘when He shall have
come ;’ specific statement of the time
in which the preceding δίκην τίσουσιν
shall be brought about and accom-
plished ; τότε γὰρ τοῦ κριτοῦ τὴν δικαίαν
ψῆφον θαυμάσουσιν ἅπαντες, Theod.
On the force of ὅταν with the aor.
subj. as referring to an objectively
possible event, which is to, can, or
must, take place at some single point
of time distinct from the actual pre-
sent, but the exact epoch of which is
Jeft uncertain, see Winer, Gr. ὃ 42. 5,
p- 275, and esp. Schmalfeld, Synt.
§ 121, where the nature of the con-
struction is well discussed. The most
natural and idiomatic mode of trans-
lation is briefly noticed in notes to
Transl. ἐνδοξασθῆναι ἐν
κιτ.λ.} ‘to be glorified in (the persons
of) His saints ;’ infinitive of design or

purpose,—not equivalent to ὥστε x.7.X.
(Jowett), from which it is grammati-
cally distinguishable as involving no
reference to mode or degree; see notes
on Col. i, 22, where both formule are
briefly discussed. The verb itself is a δὲς
λεγόμ. in the N.T. (here and ver. 12),
and, except in the LXX (Exod. xiv.
4, Isaiah xlv. 25, xlix. 3, al.) and
eccl. writers, is of rare occurrence.
The prep. seems here very distinctly to
mark—not the mere locality ‘among
His saints’ (Michael.), still less the
instruments or media of the glorifica-
tion (ἐν διὰ ἐστί, Chrys., Beng.), but
the substratum of the action, the
mirror as it were (Alf.) in which and
on which the δόξα was reflected and
displayed ; comp. Exod. xiv. 4, Isaiah
xlix. 3, and see notes on Gal. i. 24.

Lastly, the ἅγιοι do not here appear
to be the Holy Angels, but, as the
tacit contrasts and limitations of the
context suggest, the risen and glorified
company of believers ; contrast 1 Thess.
iii. 13, where both πάντες, and the
absence of all notice of the unholy,
suggest the more inclusive refer-
ence. θαυμασθῆναι K.T.A. |
‘to be wondered at in all them that
believed ;’ scil. owing to the reflection
of His glory and power which is dis-
played in those who believed on Him
while they were on earth; f obstupes-
cent Christum in credentibus tam
magnum et gloriosum esse,’ Cocceius.
The aor. πιστεύσασιν [ Rec. πιστεύουσιν,
but in opp. to all MSS.; many Vv.
and Ff.] is here suitably used in con-
nexion with the period referred to: at
that time the belief of the faithful
would belong to the past; comp.
Wordsw. in loc. For exx. of this
pass. use of θαυμάζω, see Kypke, Obs.
Vol. IL p. 342. ὅτι ἐπιστεύθη

mes
oo baw we

Es ¥I-

e “a ’ 2 eA 3 “ ¢ , > ἵν
ἡμῶν ep ὑμᾶς, εν TH ἡμέρᾳ εκείνῃ.

108

Els 6 καὶ προσ- τι

? , 4 | Fe, δ“ e. ὧδ 9 , A
ευχόμεθα πάντοτε περὶ ὑμῶν να υμας ἀξιώση τῆς

K.7.A.] ‘because our testimony unto you

was believed ;? parenthetical clause
taking up the preceding πιστεύσασιν,
and giving it a more distinct reference
to those (ἐφ᾽ duds) to whom he was
writing. The μαρτύριον ἡμῶν is the
testimony relating to Christ (uapr.
τοῦ Xp., 1 Cor. i. 6), the message of
the Gospel (μαρτύριον δὲ κήρυγμα προσ-
ηγόρευσε, Theod.), delivered by the
Apostle and his associates (gen. origi-
nis or cause efficientis, Scheuerl. Synt.
§ 17, see notes on 1 Thess. i. 6), the
destination of which is specified in the
same enunciation; comp. Col. i. 8,
τὴν ὑμῶν ἀγάπην ἐν Πνεύματι, where,
as here, the anarthrous prepositional
member gives the whole clause a more
complete unity of conception; see
notes J.c., and Winer, Gr. § 30. 2,
p. 123. On the prep. ἐπί, which here
seems to mark the mentaldirection of
the μαρτύριον (comp. Luke ix. 5), and
commonly involves some idea of ‘near-
ness or approximation’ (Donalds. Crat.
§ 172), see Winer, Gr. ὃ 49. 1, p. 3638q.
ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκ. is most naturally
jomed with θαυμασθῆναι κ. τ. λ., to
which it is joined as a predication of
time, reiterating and more precisely
defining the foregoing temporal clause
ὅταν ἔλθῃ x.7.X. Some of the older
Vv., e.g. Syr., Zith., Goth., appear to
have joined these words with what
precedes, but are compelled either to
regard the aor. ἐπίστ. as equivalent to

a future (Sand, Syr., but not

Syr.-Phil.) or to assign meanings to ἐν
TH ἡμ. ἐκ., 5011. ‘de illo die,’ Menoch.,
‘cum spe retributionis in illo die per-
cipiende,’ Est., that are neither gram-
matically nor exegetically defensible.
The position of ἐν τῇ ty. ἐκ. is con-

fessedly somewhat unusual, but per-
haps may have been designed to im-
press still more on the readers the ex-
act and definite epoch when all was to
be realized.

11. Ets 6] ‘Whereunto,’ ‘ with ex-
pectations directed to which,’ to its
realization and fruition; not equiva-
lent to δι᾽ 8 (Auth., Schott), nor even
to ὑπὲρ ὅ (comp. De W.), but simply,
with the primary force of the prep.,
definitive of the direction taken, as it
were, by the longing prayers of the
Apostle and his associates ; see Winer,
Gr. § 49. a p. 354, Donalds. Cratyl.
§ 170, and comp. Col. i. 29, but observe
that the verb with which it is there
associated (κοπιῶ) gives the prep. a
somewhat stronger and more definite
meaning. kal προσευχόμεθα]
‘we also pray ;’ besides merely longing
or merely directing your hopes, we also
avail ourselves of the definite accents
of prayer, the καὶ gently contrasting
the mpocevx. with the infusion of con-
fidence and hope involved in the pre-
ceding words and especially echoed in
the parenthetical member. On this
use of καί, see notes on Phil. iv. 12,
and on the use of περὶ with προσεύχ.,
see notes on 1 Thess. v. 25, and on
Col, i. 3. ἵνα ὑμᾶς «.7.A.]
‘that God may count you worthy of
your calling ;’ subject of the prayer
blended with the purpose of making it ;
ἵνα having here, as not uncommonly
in this combination, its secondary and
weakened force; comp. Col. iv. 3,
1 Thess. iv. 1, and notes on Eph. i. 17,
and on Phil. i. 9. The verb ἀξιοῦν
occurs 7 times in the N.T. (Luke vii.
7, 1 Tim. v. 17, Heb. iii. 3, al.), and
regularly in the sense of ‘esteeming or
counting ἄξιος᾽ (‘dignari,’ Vulg. here,

104

ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ 8.

κλήσεως ὁ Θεὸς ἡ ἡμῶν καὶ πληρώσῃ πᾶσαν κοὐ δδδ ἡ αγα-

12 θωσύνης καὶ ἔργον “πίστεως ἐν δυνάμει, ὅ όπως ἐνδοξασθῆ

Clarom.), not of making so (comp. Syr.

Dade), Copt., al.), a meaning
not lexically demonstrable; compare
Rost.u. Palm, Lex. s.v. The contrary
is urged by Olsh., on the ground that
the context shows that the call lad
been already received: κλῆσις how-
ever, though really the initial act
(comp. 1 Thess. ii. 12), includes the
Christian course which follows (Eph.
iv. 1), and its issues in blessedness
hereafter ; κλῆσιν οὖν ἐνταῦθα λέγει τὴν
διὰ τῶν πράξεων βεβαιουμένην, ἥτις καὶ
κυρίως κλῆσίς ἐστι, Theoph., see notes
on Phil. iii. 14, and comp. Reuss,
Théol. Chrét. tv. 15, Vol. 11. p. 148.

πληρώσῃ πᾶσαν KT.r.] ‘fulfil, bring
to completion, every good pleasure of
goodness,’ ‘ut expleat omnem dulce-
dinem honestatis, h. e. ut plenam et
perfectam, qua recreemini, honestatem
vobis impertiat,’ Fritz. Rom. x. 1, Vol.
II. p. 372, note, The meaning of these
words is not perfeetly clear. The
familiar use of εὐδοκεῖν, εὐδοκία, in ref.
to God (Eph. i. 5, 9, Phil. ii. 1.3), sug-
gests a similar reference in the present
case ((Ecum., Theoph. in part, Beng.,
al.); to this however there is (1) the
exegetical objection that ἀγαθῳωσύνη,
though occurring 4 times in St Paul’s
Epp., is never applied to God, and (2)
the more grave contextual objection
that the second member ἔργον πίστεως,
equally undefined by any pronoun,
certainly refers to those whom {86
Apostle is addressing. It seems safest
then to refer the present member to
the Thessalonians; εὐδοκία marking
the good pleasure they evinced, and
the defining gen. ἀγαθωσύνης (gen. ob-
jecti, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47. 7. 1,—not
of apposition, Alf.) the element in
which it was so manifested, or more

exactly, the object to which the action
implied in the derivative subst. was
especially directed ; see Scheuerl. Synt.
$17. 1, p. 126. The attempt
to refer the expression partly to God
and partly to the Thess. (Olsh., comp.
Theoph.), or to regard the operation of
the believer and that of the Spirit as
blended and confused (Jowett), is in a
high degree precarious and unsatisfac-
tory. On the meaning of εὐδοκία,
see the good note of Fritz. J.c. Vol.
H. p. 369 sq., and on the meaning
of ἀγαθωσύνη (moral goodness) and
its distinction from ἀγαθότης, notes on
Gal. v. 22. ἔργον πίστεως]
‘the work of faith,’ the work which is
the distinctive feature of it; ἔργον
being that which marks, characterizes,
and evinces the vitality of the πίστις,
almost ‘the activity of faith,’ not
however merely as τὴν ὑπομονὴν τῶν
διωγμῶν, Theoph., but ὑπομονὴν as ex-
hibited in the various circumstances
of Christian life and duty. On the
exact meaning and construction of
these words, see notes on 1 Thess. i. 3,
and comp. Reuss, Théol. Chrét. Iv. το,
Vol. τί p. 205. ἐν δυνάμει}
‘with power,’ ὁ. 6. powerfully,—specifi-
cation of manner annexed to the verb
πληρώσῃ, with which it is associated
with a practically adverbial force;
comp. Rom. i. 4, Col. i. 29, and see
Bernhardy, Synt. v. 7, p. 209. The
analogous use of σὺν (comp. Scheuerl.
Synt. § 22. b, p. 180) is not found in
the N. T.

12. ὅπως ἐνδοξ. k.7.d.] ‘in order that
the name...be glorified ;’ reiteration of
the purpose (not merely result, ἐνδο-
ξασθήσεται, Theoph.) stated generally
in verse 10, in special reference to the
converts of Thessalonica. It is not
easy to define the exact difference be-

Τ7 1] Bf, “2:

105

a » “ ’ « “A Ἶ “ 9 e a 4 e - 9. '
TO OVOKA TOU Κυρίου HWY LNTOV EV υμιν Και υμεις εν

9 a A 4 , “ “He “ Α Κ , at ΄“
αὐτῷ κατα τὴν χάριν του Θεοῦ MWY και υριου ἤσου

Χριστοῦ.

Be not disquieted con-
cerning the Lord’s com-
ing. The Man of Sin,
as ye know, must first

"Eporouer, δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, ὑπὲρ!].

“ , “ , e “ 9 “
τῆς παρουσίας τοὺ Κυρίου ημωὼν Ἰησοῦ

be revealed; and then shall be destroyed by the Lord.

tween the present use of ὅπως (used
comparatively rarely by St Paul; only
6 times excluding quotations), and the
corresponding one of ἵνα. Speaking
somewhat roughly, one may perhaps
say that the relatival compound ὅπως
(Donalds. Cratyl. § 196) involves some
obscure reference to manner, while wa
(appy. connected with the reflexive ἵ,
or the pronoun of the second person,
comp. Donalds. Cratyl. § 139) may
retain some tinge of its primary refer-
ence to locality. The real practical
differences however are these, (a) that
ὅπως has often more of an eventual
aspect; (6) that it is used with the
future and occasionally associated with
év,— both which constructions are in-
admissible with the jinal wa; see
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 629 sq.

τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Kup. is not a mere peri-
phrasis for ὁ Κύριος, but specifies that
character and personality as revealed
to and acknowledged by men; comp.,
but with caution, Bretschn. Lew. s.v. 6,
Ῥ. 291, and notes on Phil. ii. το. The
assertion of Jowett in loc. that these
words have ‘no specific meaning’ can-
not be sustained, and is language in
every way to be regretted.

The addition Χριστοῦ [Rec., Lachm. in
brackets, with AFG; Vulg., Syr.
(both); Chrys.] is rightly rejected by
Tisch. with BDEKLN; Clarom., San-
germ., Copt., Sahid., al.; Theod. (ms.),
(Kcum., al. ἐν αὐτῷ] ‘in
Him; not in reference to τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ
Kup. (Liinem.), but to the immediately
preceding Ἰησοῦ. The exact notion
of reciprocity (comp. notes.on Gal. vi.

14) would be best maintained by the
former reference ; but, as Alf. correctly
observes, the present expression is used
far too frequently and exclusively in
ref. to union in our Lord Himself to
admit here of any different applica-
κατὰ τὴν χάριν] ‘in
accordance with the grace; the χάρις
is the ‘norma’ according to which the
glorification took place, and thence,
by an intelligible transition, that of
which it is regarded as a consequence ;

tion.

ἡ χάρις αὐτοῦ δι’ ἡμῶν πάντα κατορθοῖ,
Cicum. ; comp. notes on κατὰ on Phil.
ii, 3, and Tv, iii. §. τοῦ Θεοῦ
ἡμῶν «7.A.] This is one of the pas-
sages supposed to fall under Granville
Sharpe’s rule (comp. Middl. Gr. Art.
p- 56, ed. Rose), according to which
Θεὸς and Κύριος would refer to the
same person. It may be justly doubted
however whether, owing to the pecu-
liar nature of Κι ύριος (Winer, Gr. ὃ 19.
I, p. 113), this can be sustained in the
present case; see esp. Middleton, p.
379 8q., and comp. Green, Gr. p. 216.

CHapTerR II. 1. ᾿Ε!ρωτῶμεν δὲ ὑμ.]
“Now we beseech you, transition by
means of the δὲ μεταβατικὸν (see notes
on Gal. iii. 8) from the Apostle’s
prayers for his converts to what he
claims of them, and the course of con-
duct he exhorts them to follow. On
the meaning of ἐρωτᾶν, see notes on
1 Thess. iv. 1. ὑπὲρ is here
certainly not introductory of a for-
mula of adjuration (Vulg., perhaps:
AMth. [baenta,—often 80. used], Beza,
al.), as such a meaning, though gram-

106

ΠΡῸΣ OEZZAAONIKEI>® B.

~ 4 eA 9 - πὰ . ’ . ‘ |

2 Χριστοῦ καὶ ἡμῶν ἐπισυναγωγῆς ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, εἰς TO μὴ
, A e τὰν 9 Α “- 4A A a

ταχέως σαλευθῆναι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ νοὸς μηδὲ θροεῖσθαι,

matically tenable (Bernhardy, Synt. v.
21, p. 244,—partially, but appy. with-
out full reason, objected to by Winer),
is by no means exegetically probable,
and is without precedent in the lan-
guage of the N.T. The more natural
interpretation is to regard the prep.
as approximating in meaning to περί
(Winer, Gr. ὃ 47. 1, p. 343; comp.
Kriiger, Sprachl. ὃ 68. 28. 3), but still
distinct from it, as involving some
trace of the idea of benefit to or fur-
therance of the παρουσία; comp.
Wordsw. in loc., and see notes on Phil.
ii. 13. The subject of the παρουσία
had been misunderstood and misinter-
preted, and its commodum therefore
was what the Apostle wished to pro-
mote. ἡμῶν ἐπισυν. ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν]
‘our gathering together unto Him,’ scil.
in the clouds of heaven, when He
comes to judge the quick and dead;
see 1 Thess, iv. 17, and comp. Matth.
xxiv. 31, Mark xiii. 27. The subst.
émicuaywyh only occurs once again
in the Ν. T. (Heb. x. 25), in ref. to
Christian worship (comp. 2 Mace. ii.
7), and seems confined to later writers.
The meaning assigned by Hammond,
‘the greater liberty of the Christians
to assemble to the service of Christ,
the greater freedom of ecclesiastical
assemblies,’ is due to his reference of
the present παρουσία τοῦ Κυρίου to
God’s judgment on the Jews. The
mutual relation of the two Epp. seems
totally to preclude such a reference:
if in 1 Thess. iv. 15 the words refer
to the final day of doom (Hamm.),
the allusion here must certainly be the
same. ἔπ᾽ αὐτόν] ‘unto Him;
comp. Mark v. 21, συνήχθη ὄχλος πο-
Ads ἐπ’ αὐτόν ; the preposition marking
the point to which the συναγωγὴ was
directed, and losing its idea of super-

position in that of approximation to
or juxtaposition ; comp. Donalds. Cra-
tyl. § 172. The difference between
περὶ and πρὸς in the present combi-
nation is perhaps no more than this,
that while πρὸς points rather to the
direction to be taken, ἐπὶ marks more
the point to be reached.

2. εἰς τὸ μή K.7.A.] ‘that ye should
not be soon shaken,’ ‘ut non cito move-
amini,’ Vulg., Clarom.; object and
aim of the ἐρωτᾶν, with perhaps some
included reference to the subject of it ;
comp. 1 Thess. iii. 10, and notes on
1 Thess. ii. 12. This construction
though not found elsewhere with
ἐρωτᾷν is perfectly intelligible. The
verb σαλεύω, as its derivation shows
[σάλος, connected with AA-, and with
Sanscr. form sal, Benfey, Wurzellex.
Vol. I. p. 61], marks an agitated and
disquieted state of mind, which in the
present case was due to wild spiritual
anticipations ; compare Acts xvii. 13,
and see exx. in Elsner, Obs. Vol. 11. p.
283. The ταχέως does not seem to refer
to the period since St Paul was with
them, or to the date of the First Epi-
stle, but simply to the time when they
might happen to hear the doctrine;
the reference being rather modal
(‘ precipitanter,’ De W.) than purely
temporal; ‘si id crederent facili mo-
mento quassaretur ipsorum fides,’ Coc-
ceius. ἀπὸ τοῦ νοός] ‘from
your mind,’ ‘a vestro sensu,’ Vulg.;
certainly not ‘a sententi& seu doctrina,’
Est., but simply ‘statu mentis solito,’
Schott 1,—their ordinary, sober, and
normal state of mind, παρατραπῆναι
ἀπὸ τοῦ νοός, dv μέχρι τοῦ viv εἴχετε
ὀρθῶς ἱστάμενον, Theoph.; comp. Rom.
xiv. 5, and Beck, Seelen/. ὃ 18. 1, p. 51.
The construction is what is usually
termed pregnans, scil. ‘ ita concuti ut

ΤΡ... ἢ 107

μήτε διὰ πνεύματος μήτε διὰ λόγου μήτε Ov ἐπιστολῆς

e 9 e ~ e Φ vi Κ e e , ~ , [4
ὡς δι’ ἡμῶν, ὡς ὅτι ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἥμερα TOU Κυρίου. BY 3

demovearis,’ Schott; comp. Rom. vi.
7, ix. 3, 2 Tim, iv. 18 (els), al., and
Winer, Gr. ὃ 66. 2, p. 547.

μηδὲ θροεῖσθαι}] ‘nor yet be troubled,’
stronger expression than the foregoing,
introduced by the slightly ascensive
μηδέ; see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 3
(Transl.). The verb @poéw [derived
from OPEOMAT, and connected with

_ tpéw; comp. Donalds. Cratyl. § 272]

properly denotes ‘clamorem tumul-
tuantem edere’ (Schott), and thence,
by a natural transition, that terrified
state (ταραχίζεσθαι, Zonaras), which
is associated with and gives rise

to such outward manifestations. In

later writers μὴ θροηθῇς comes to
mean little more than μὴ θαυμάσῃς,
Lobeck, Phryn. p. 676. The reading
of Rec. μήτε [with D?EKL; several
Ff.] is rightly rejected by Zachm. and
Tisch. on the preponderating external
authority of ABD! (giving it also be-
fore διὰ λόγου) F (giving μηδὲ thrice,
but μήτε with διὰ λόγου) GN; Orig.
The change from the disjunctive nega-
tive was probably suggested by the
following μήτε, the true relation of the
negatives not having been properly
understood. μήτε διὰ πνεύματος]
‘neither by spirit; scil. of prophecy;
διὰ προφητείας" τινὲς yap προφητείαν
ὑποκρινόμενοι ἐπλάνων τὸν λαὸν ὡς ἤδη
παρόντος τοῦ Kuplov, Theoph. The
second negation is here, by means of
the thrice repeated μήτε, divided into
three members; see exx. and illustra-
tions in Winer, Gr. § 55. 6, p. 437,
where the distinctive character of μηδὲ
and μήτε, their meaning, and sequence,
are well delineated. μήτε διὰ
λόγου may be either regarded, (a) as
an independent member distinguished
both from what precedes and follows,
or (b) may be connected more closely

with the third negative member, both
being associated with ws δὴ ἡμῶν. In
the former case λόγου forms a species
of antithesis to πνεύματος as denoting
oral teaching, less marked by super-
natural or prophetic characteristics
(διδασκαλίας ζώσῃ φωνῇ γενομένης,
Theoph. ); in the latter the λόγου stands
contrasted with ἐπιστολῆς, as marking
what the Apostle had communicated.
by word of mouth in contradistinction
to what he had written; μὴ πιστεύειν:
...phre el πλασάμενοι ws ἐξ αὐτοῦ ypa-
φεῖσαν ἐπιστολὴν προφέροιεν, μήτε εἶ
ἀγράφως αὐτὸν εἰρηκέναι λέγοιεν, Theod.
Of these (Ὁ) seems slightly the most.
probable, especially as λόγος and ém-
στολὴ are found similarly combined in.
ver. 15. To extend ws δ ἡμῶν
to the first clause, either partially
(Jowett) or completely (Ndsselt), seems
illogical; oral or written communica-
tions might be ascribed to the absent.
Apostle, but the πνεῦμα could only
have been recognised as working in
him (De W.) when he was with them ;.
comp. Liinem. in loc. ὡς δὶ
ἡμῶν] ‘as (coming) through us,’ repre-
sented to come from us as its mediate
authors; the ὡς as usual marking the.
erroneous aspects under which the
λόγος or ἐπιστολὴ was designed to be
regarded: ‘particula ὡς substantivis.
participiis totisque enuntiationibus
preposita rei veritate sublataé aliquid
opinione errore simulatione niti decla-
rat,’ Fritz. Rom. ix. 32, Vol. I. p.
360, comp. notes on Eph. v.22. It
seems impossible to understand these
words otherwise, especially when cou-
pled with the notice in ch. iii. 17, than
as implying that not only oral but
written communications, definitely as-
cribed to St Paul, were, not conceived

(Jowett), but actually known by the

108

᾿

ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ Β.

; eon ’ ENS A ae δ aa , “8. 4
Tis ὑμᾶς ἐξαπατήσῃ κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον" ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ
ἔλθη ἡ ἀποστασία πρῶτον καὶ ἀποκαλυφθῇ ὁ ἄνθρωπος

Apostle to have been lately circulated
in the Church of Thessalonica: καὶ
γὰρ καὶ ἐπιστολὰς πλάττοντες ὡς παρὰ
Παύλου σταλείσας ἐκύρουν ἃ ἔλεγον,
Theoph., comp. Neander, Planting,
Vol. I. p. 204 (Bohn). When we con-
sider the extreme disquietude and
anxieties that appear to have prevailed
in this Church in ref. to the παρουσία
τοῦ Κυρίου, there appears nothing
strange in the supposition that even
within less time than a year since the
Apostle had last written fictitious let-
ters should have obtained currency
among them. To refer the ex-
pression with Hammond, al., to por-
tions of the First Epistle which had
been misunderstood seems distinctly
to infringe on the simple meaning of
ὡς be” ἡμῶν. ὡς ὅτι ἐνέστ. K.T.A,]
‘as that, to the effect that, the day of
the Lord is now commencing, already
come ;’ subject of the pretended com-
munication introduced by ws, which,
as before, represents the statement not
as actual, but as so represented, as the
notion which was designed to be pro-
pagated; see Winer, Gir. § 65. 9, p.
544, Meyer on 2 Cor. xi. 21, and exx.
in Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 268. The
verb. ἐνέστηκεν is somewhat stronger
than épéor. (2 Tim. iv. 6), and seems
to mark not only the nearness but the
actual presence and commencement of
the ἡμέρα τοῦ Kup.; ‘magna hoc verbo
propinquitas significatur ; nam ἐνεστὼς
[Rom. viii. 38, 1 Cor. iii. 22] est pre-
sens,’ Beng., comp. notes on Gal. i. 4,
Hammond in loc., and see the nume-
rous exx. in Rost ἃ. Palm, Lez. s. v.
Vol. I. Ὁ. 929. The ἡμέρα τοῦ Kup.
thus approximates in meaning to παρ-
ουσία τοῦ Kup., and like it includes,
besides the exact epoch of the Lord’s
appearance, the course of events im-

mediately preceding and connected
with it; comp. Reuss, Zhéol. Chrét.
Iv. 21, Vol. IL. p. 230, 243. For Κυ-
plov Rec. reads Χριστοῦ with D®K;
most mss.

3. μή τις κιτιλ.}] ‘Let no one de-
ceive you in any way;’ not only in
any of the three ways before specified
(Theoph., Gicum.), but, with a more
completely inclusive reference, —in
any way, or by any artifice whatever ;
πάντα κατὰ ταὐτὸν τὰ THs ἀπάτης
ἐξέβαλεν εἴδη, Theod. On the form
ἐξαπατᾶν, comp. notes on 1 Tim. ii.
14. ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ] ‘because
(the day will not arrive) unless there
come ;’ slight grammatical irregularity
owing to the omission of any member
involving a finite verb (such as οὐ
γενήσεται ἣ παρουσία τοῦ Kup., Theoph.,
or ἡ ἡμέρα οὐκ ἐνστήσεται) which can
easily be supplied by the reader; see
Winer, Gr. ὃ 64. I. 7, p. 528, comp.
Donalds. Gr. ὃ 583. B, note. The
most natural punctuation is not a
comma before ὅτι, asin Lachm., Tisch.,
Buttm., but a colon, as in Mill, and as
suggested by Liinemann.

ἡ ἀποστασία] ‘the falling away,’ the
definite religious apostasy that shall
precede the coming of Antichrist, and
of which it is not improbable that the
Apostle had informed them by word
of mouth ; see ver. 5, and comp. Green,
Gram. p. 155. It is hardly necessary
to say that ἀποστασία is not an abs-
tract for a concrete term (αὐτὸν καλεῖ
τὸν ἀντίχριστον ἀποστασίαν, Chrys. ; so
Theod., Theoph., (Ecum. 1), nor again
a political (Ndsselt) or politico-reli-
gious (Kern) falling away, whether
past or future, but simply, in accord-
ance with what seems to be the regular
use of the word (Acts xxi. 21, comp.
2 Chron. xxix. 19, 1 Mace. ii, 15), that

RES 4.

109

LA ¢ > Oey [2 ~ " λ Υ̓ e 9 , 4
τῆς αμαρτιίιας, Oo vlogs τῆς ATW ειἰαςζ, ὁ αντικειμένος Και 4

religious and spiritual apostasy (‘dia-
bolicam apostasiam,’ Iren. adv. Her.
v. 25. 1), that falling away from faith
in Christ (ἀπὸ Θεοῦ ἀναχώρησιν, cum.)
of which the revelation of Antichrist
shall be the concluding and most ap-
palling phenomenon; comp. Luke
xviii. 8. The paulo-post future view,
according to which the ἀποστασία re-
fers to the revolt of the Jews from
the Romans (Schoettg. Hor. Hebr.
Vol. 1. p. 840), is thus opposed to the
probable technical meaning of the
. word, while that of Hammond, who
mainly refers it to the lapse to Gnos-
ticism, fails to exhibit its generic re-
ference, and to exhaust its prophetic
significance. On the form of the
word, a later form for ἀπόστασις, see
Lobeck, Phryn. p. 528.
ἀποκαλυφθῇ] ‘be revealed,’—a very
noticeable expression: as the Lord’s
coming is characterized as an ἀποκά-
λυψις (ch. i. 7), so is that of Anti-
christ. As He is now spiritually pre-
sent in His Church, to be personally
revealed with more glory hereafter,
even so the power of Antichrist is now
secretly at work, but will hereafter be
made manifest in a definite and dis-
tinctive bodily personality. The
καὶ has here appy. its consecutive force
(see notes on 1 Thess. iv. 1); the re-
velation of Antichrist was the aggra-
vated issue of the ἀποστασία.

6 ἄνθρ. τῆς ἁμαρτίας] ‘the man of
Sin,’ the fearful child of man (obs. the
distinct term ἄνθρ.) of whom Sin is
the special characteristic and attri-
bute, and in whom it is as it were im-
personated and incarnate; ἄνθρωπον
δὲ αὐτὸν ἁμαρτίας προσηγόρευσεν, ἐπει-
δὴ ἄνθρ. ἐστι τὴν φύσιν, πᾶσαν ἐν
ἑαυτῷ τοῦ διαβόλου δεχόμενος τὴν ἐνέρ-
γειαν, Theod. On this gen. of the
‘ predominating quality,’ which is com-

monly classed under the general head
of the gen. possessivus, see Scheuerlein,
Synt. § 16. 3, p. £15, Winer, Gr. § 34.
3. Ὁ, p. 211 sq. For ἁμαρτίας, BN;
To mss. read ἀνομίας. ὁ υἷος
τῆς ἀπωλ.] ‘the son of perdition,’ he
who stands in the sort of relation to it
that a son does to a father, and who
falls under its power and domination,
‘cujus finis est interitus,’ Cocceius
[Phil. iii. 19]; see John xvii. 12, where
this awful name is given to Judas, and
comp. Evang. Nicod. cap. 20, where
it is applied to Satan; see Thilo, p,
708. The transitive (Pelt), or mixed
trans. and intransitive meaning (ws
καὶ αὐτὸς ἀπολλύμενος καὶ ἑτέροις πρό-
ἕενος τούτου γινόμενος, Theod., comp.
(Ecum.), seems to be phraseologically
doubtful ; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 34. 3. Ὁ,
p. 213, and notes on 1 Thess. V. 5.

4. ὁ ἀντικείμενος] ‘he that opposeth,’

» y ye,
the adversary, OO1 tloaaXs Oo1

vi
[qui adversarius est] Syr., comp. Copt.,
Ath. ; participial substantive defining
more nearly the characteristics of An-
tichrist; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 45. 7,
p. 316. The adversary, though assi-
milating one of the distinctive fea-
tures of Satan (ae), is clearly not to
be confounded with him whose agent
and emissary he is (ver. 9), but, in
accordance with the almost uniform
tradition of the ancient Church, is
Antichrist,—no mere set of principles
(‘vis spiritualis evangelio contraria,’
Pelt) or succession of opponents (J ow-
ett, comp. Middl. Gr. Art. p. 383, and
Wordsw. in loc.), but one single per-
sonal being, as truly man as He whom
he impiously opposes: τίς δὲ οὗτός
ἐστιν; dpa ὁ σατανᾶς ; οὐδαμῶς" ἀλλ᾽
ἄνθρωπός τις πᾶσαν αὐτοῦ δεχόμενος
τὴν ἐνέργειαν, Chrys., see Wieseler, :
Chronol. p. 261, Hofmann, Schriftb.

‘

110

4 ’
ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα

11. 2, Vol. 1. p. 617. The patristic
references will be found in the Excur-
sus of Liinem. p. 204, and at length
in Alford, Prolegom. on this Epistle.
The object of the opposition (ἀντικείμ.),
it need scarcely be said, can be none
other than Christ,—He whose blessed
name is involved in the more distinc-
tive title (ἀντίχριστος) of the adver-
sary, and to whom that son of perdi-
tion, as Origen well says, is κατὰ
διάμετρον ἐναντίος, contra Cels. V1. 64.
The present grammatical connexion,
which (see above) is as old as Syr., is
rightly adopted by De W., Liinem.,
and most modern commentators: the
absence of the art., urged by Pelt.,
only shows that the ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ
πάντα, κιτ.λ. is not a different person
from the ἀντικείμενος, but by no means
specifies that both are to be united in
connexion with ἐπὶ πάντα k.7.X.;
comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 19. 4, 5, p. 116
sq. In a case like the present the
article really performs a kind of dou-
ble duty; it serves to turn ἀντικ. into
a subst., and also indicates that the
two participles refer to the same in-
dividual. καὶ ὑπεραιρόμ. K.T.A.]
“and (who) exalteth himself above (and
against) every one called God,’ scil.
every one so called, whether ‘eum qui
verissime dicitur Deus’ (Schott), or
those esteemed so by the heathen;
the participle being prefixed to avoid
the appearance of placing on a level
or including in a common designation
tov Θεὸν and the so-called gods of
paganism; comp. 1 Cor. viii. 5, λεγό-
μενοι θεοί, Eph. ii. 11. The verb
ὑὕπεραιρ. occurs (probably) twice in 2
Cor. xii. 7, and serves to mark the
haughty exaltation (ὑψωθήσεται καὶ
μεγαλυνθήσεται ἐπὶ πάντα θεόν, καὶ

λαλήσει ὑπέρογκα, Dan. xi. 36, Theod.),

while ἐπὶ with its general local mean-

ΠΡῸΣ OEZZAAONIKEI®> B.

λεγόμενον Θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα,

ing (‘supra,’ Vulg., ‘ufar,” Goth.) of
‘motion with a view to superposition’
(Donalds. Gr. § 483) involves the
more specific and ethical one of op-
position: comp. Matth. x. z1, and
Winer, Gr. § 49. 1, p. 363 sq.

ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμ. Θεόν] This charac-
teristic of impious exaltation is in such
striking parallelism with that ascribed
by Daniel to ‘the king that shall do
according to his will’ (ch. xi. 36), that
we can scarcely doubt that the ancient
interpreters were right in referring
both to the same person,—Antichrist.
The former portion of the prophecy in
Daniel is appy. correctly referred to
Antiochus Epiphanes, but the con-
cluding verses (ver. 36 sq.) seem only
applicable to him of whom Antiochus
was merely a type and shadow; comp.
Jerome on Dan. xi. 21, and see Pri-
deaux, Connection, Part 11. Book 3
(ad jin.). If this be correct, we
may be justified in believing that other
types of Antichrist may have ap-
peared, and may yet appear before
that fearful Being finally come. If ,
asked to name them, we shrink not
from pointing to this prophecy, and
saying that in whomsoever these dis-
tinctive features be found—whosoever
wields temporal, or temporal and spi-
ritual power, in any degree similar to
that in which the Man of Sin is here
described as wielding it—he, be he
pope or potentate, is beyond all doubt
a distinct type of Antichrist. From
such comparisons the wisest and most
Catholic writers have not deemed it
right to shrink; see Andrewes, Serm.
vi. Vol. iv. p. 146 sq., and compare
the reff. at the end of Wordsworth’s
long and important note on this pas-
sage. ἢ σέβασμα] ‘or object
of worship,’ scil. of divine worship,—
a further definition appended to Θεόν.

ἘΣ ἃ

111

oe “ἦν 3 Us κ π Θ a θὶ 9 ὃ ,
WOTE AUTOV ELS TOV VAOV TOU €OU KQAULOAL ATOVELKVYUVTa

The special interpretation of Ben-
gel, founded on the connexion of
σέβασμα and σεβαστός, ‘Cesaris ma-
jestas et potestas Rome maxime
conspicua,’ is wholly at variance with
the prevailing use of the word (Acts
xvii. 23, Wisdom xiv. 20, xv. 17, Bel
27 [Theod.], see Suicer, Thesaur. s.v.
Vol. τι. p. 942), and still more so with
the generic terms of the prophecy.
ὥστε αὐτὸν... καθ. ‘so that he sitteth
down :’ his arrogance rises to such an
impious height as to lead to this utter-
most act of unholy daring ; ‘ore minus
hic consilium quam sequelam innuere
videtur,’ Pelt. The verb καθίσαι is
here not transitive (1 Cor. vi. 4, Eph.
i. 20), but in accordance with its
nearly regular usage in the N. T, in-
transitive; comp. Thom.-Mag. p. 486
(ed. Bern.). The pronoun is thus not
reflexive (Grot.), but is introduced and
placed prominently forward to mark
the individualizing arrogance (‘hic ipse,
qui quevis sancta et divina contemnit,’
Schott) of this impious intruder. The
interpolation after Θεοῦ of ws Θεόν,
adopted by Rec. with D?EKI(FG!
ἵνα Θ.) ; mss.; Syr., Syr.-Phil. with an
asterisk, Ar. (Pol.); Chrys.,al., is right-
ly rejected by Lachm., Tisch., with A
BD'&; 10 mss.; Clarom., Sangerm.,
Augiens., Boern., Vulg., Goth. (Ὁ),
Copt., Sah., Aith., Arm. ; Origen (3),
and many Ff. C is deficient.

εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ] ‘in the temple
of God’ (the ‘adytum’ itself, not the
mere ἱερόν), literally ‘into,’ with the
not uncommon pregnant force of the
preposition in connexion with ἵζειν,
καθέζεσθαι x.7.A.; comp. Winer, Gr.
§ 50. 4, p. 368 sq., Buttm. Mid. p. 175.
The exact meaning of these words has
been greatly contested. Are they (a)
merely a figurative or metaphorical
expression (1 Cor. iii, 17, comp. Eph.

- of the fourth century?

ii. 21) for the Church of Christ, ras
πανταχοῦ ἐκκλησίας (Chrys.), according
to the views of most of the interpreters
Or do they
refer to (Ὁ) the actual temple of God
at Jerusalem (Matth. xxvi. 61), which
prophecy seems to declare may be
restored (Ezek, xxxvii. 26; see Todd
on Antichr. p. 218), as proposed by
Trenzus (Her. Vv. 30. 4), and as adopted,
though with varying modes of explana-
tion, by the majority of recent German
commentators? If we are called on
to decide absolutely, the combination
(opp. to Alf.) of local terms and the
possibly traditional nature of the in-
terpr. of Irenzeus must decidedly sway
us to (Ὁ). It may be asked however
whether in so wide a prophecy we are
wise in positively excluding (a). May
it not be possible that a haughty judi-
cial or dictatorial session in the Church
of Christ may be succeeded by and
culminate in a literal act of ineffable
presumption’ to which the present
words may more immediately though
not exclusively refer? Combined or
partially combined interpretations are
ever to be regarded with suspicion,
but in a prophecy of this profound
nature they appear to have some claim
on our attention. ἀποδεικνύντα
K.T.A.] ‘exhibiting himself that he is
God,’ not merely ‘a god,’ Copt., or
even ‘tamquam sit Deus,’ Vulg. (com-

pare Syr.), but ἊΝ ooh]

[quod sit Deus] Sve -Phil. ἜΤΕΙ a
studied reference to the execrable as-
sumption of an unconditioned glory,
dignity, and independence, which will
characterize the God-opposing session
of the son of perdition: so, with an
effective paraphrase, Aith. ‘et dicet
omnibus Ego sum Deus.’ The parti-
ciple thus does not mark the ‘ cona-

119

ΠΡῸΣ ina i B.

5. ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν Beds. - Οὐ, μνημονεύετε ὅτι ἔτι ὧν πρὸς

6 ὑμᾶς. ταῦτα ἔλεγον ὑ ὑμῖν; καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε εἰς

a

tus’ (πειρώμενον ἀποδεικνύναι, Chrys.),
—this must be from the nature of the
case,—but the continuing nature of
the act, the impious persistence of this
developed outcoming of frightful and
intolerable selfisness; see Mtiller on
Sin, Book 1. 3. 2, Vol. 1. p. 148, comp.
Book v. Vol. τι. p. 480 (Clark). For
examples of this use of ἀποδεικνύναι,
see Loesner, Obs. p. 384, and for the

force of the compound ἀποδ. (‘spec- ὁ

tandum aliquid proponere’), Winer,
de Verb. Comp. Iv. p. τό.

5. Οὐ μνημονεύετε] ‘Remember ye
not ;? emphatic, reminding them, with
some degree of implied blame, of the
definite oral communications which
had been made to them during the
Apostle’s first visit; ἰδοὺ yap καὶ παρ-
ὄντος ἠκουσανῦ ταῦτα λέγοντος, καὶ πά-
Aw ἐδεήθησαν ὑπομνήσεως, Chrys.
πρὸς ὑμᾶς} ‘with you;’ so 1 Thess.
iii. 4. On this combination of πρὸς
with the acc. and verbs implying rest,
see notes on Gal. i. 8, iv. 18. The
ταῦτα is clearly the substance of the
two preceding verses.

6. Kal viv τὸ κατέχ. οἴδ.] ‘and
now what restraineth ye know.’ The
difficulty of these words is twofold,
(1) lexical, turning on the meaning of
viv, (2) exegetical, in reference to the
explanation that is to be given of τὸ
κατέχον. With regard to the first,
the temporal particle subsequently
connected with ὁ κατέχων (ver. 7),
and the preceding ἔτε (ver. 5), both
seem to suggest the temporal use of
viv (Wieseler, Chronol. p. 259 note) ;
the order of the words however and
the context are so very distinctly in
favour of the logical use (Hartung,
Partik, viv, 2. 2, Vol. 11 Ὁ. 25, see
notes on 1 Thess. iii. 8), that on the
whole that meaning is to be preferred ;

see esp. Liinem. én loc. who has appy.
brought valid arguments against the
temporal meaning. To investigate (2)

properly would far outstrip the limits’

of this commentary. I may however
Say briefly—that after most anxious
consideration I believe that a modifi-
cation of the current patristic view is
much the most plausible interpreta-
tion. The majority of these early
writers referred the restraining influ-
ence to the Roman Empire, ‘ quis
nisi Romanus status?’ Tertull. de
Resurr. cap. 24: so Chrys., Theoph.,
(Ecum., Cyril of Jerus., al. In its
literal meaning this cannot now be
sustained without artificial and unhis-
torical assumptions: if however we
refer the τὸ κατέχον to what really
formed the groundwork of that inter-
pretation—the restraining power of
well-ordered human rule, the principles
of legality as opposed to those of
ἀνομία---οἵ which the Roman Empire
was the then embodiment and mani-
festation, we shall probably not be far
from the real meaning of this very
mysterious expression. Of the nu-
merous other views, we may notice
the opinion of Theod. and Theod.-
Mops., that the τὸ κατέχον is ὁ τοῦ
Θεοῦ ὅρος, as certainly being at first
sight plausible ; but to this the ἕως ἐκ
μέσου γένηται introduces: an objection
that seems positively insuperable.
Further information will be found in
the Excursus of Pelt (who however
adepts the view of Theod.), p. 185 sq.,
in the thoughtful note of Olsh., the
discussion of Liinem. p. 204 sq., the
useful summary of Alford, Prolegom.
on this Epistle, and the good note of
Wordsw. in loc.; comp. also Hof-
mann, Schriftb. τι. 2, Vol. 11. p. 613
sq. els τὸ ἀποκαλ.7 ‘ that

\

ΤΣ Ξε; 67

118

Α 3 ~ 9 Α 9 “~ e “ nm A 4
τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ. TO Yap 7
μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας, μόνον ὁ κατέχων

he should be revealed ;’ purpose con-
templated in the existence of the re-
straining principle. This ἀποκάλυψις

was not to be immediate (οὐκ εἶπεν ὅτι"

ταχέως ἔσται, Chrys.), or fortuitous,
but was to be deferred till the 6 éav-
τοῦ καιρός, ---ἴ 8 season appointed and
ordained by God. On the correct
insertion of év, see notes on Eph. ii. 12.

7. τὸ γὰρ μυστήρ. κ.τ.λ.] ‘or the
mystery of lawlessness ;’ confirmatory ex-
planation of the preceding statement :
the mystery of lawlessness is truly at
work; but its full manifestation can-
not take place till the removal of the
restraining power. On this blending
of the explanatory and argumentative
forces of ydp, see notes on 1 Thess.
aes The meaning of μυστή-
ptov τῆς ἀνομ. is somewhat doubtful.
Considered merely grammatically, the
gen. does not seem to be that of the
agent (Theod.), or that of apposition
(Liinem., and Alf.— who however
seems to mix it up with a gen. con-
tinentis), but simply a gen. definitivus
(comp. Madvig, Synt. § 49) or gen. of
the ‘characterizing principle or qua-
lity’ (Scheuerl. Synt. § τό. 3, p. 115),
-——the mystery of which the character-
izing feature, or, so to say, the active
principle, is ἀνομία; comp. Joseph.
Bell. Jud. τ. 24. τ, τὸν ᾿Αντιπάτρου
βίον οὐκ ἂν ἁμάρτοι τις εἰπὼν κακίας
μυστήριον. The transition from this
gen. to that of ethical content is so
easy and natural, that it is often diffi-
cult to decide whether the gen. be-
longs to that category or to that of
the possess. gen.; see Scheuerl. J. 6.
The genitival relation of μυστήρ. τῆς
εὐσεβείας is often somewhat plausibly
contrasted with the present expression
(Andrewes, Serm. 111. Vol. 1. 34), but
really seems to be different; see notes

on τ Tim. iii. 0. This mystery
of ἀνομία is no personality, scil. Anti-
christ, or any'real or assumed type
of Antichrist (Νερῶνα ἐνταῦθά φησιν,
Chrys.), but all that mass of uncom-
bined and so to say unorganized dvo-.

_ pla, which, though at present seen

only in detail and not revealed in its
true proportions, is even now (757)

aggregating and energizing, and will

hereafter (ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ) find its
complete development and organiza-.
tion in the person and power of Anti-
christ. On the meaning of μυστήρ.;---
here placed emphatically forward as
standing in tacit antithesis to ἀποκα-
λυφθ. ver. 6, 8,—see notes on Eph. v.
32, and comp. Sanderson, Serm. IX.
(ad Aul.), Vol. 1. p. 227 (ed. Jacobs.).
ἐνεργεῖται] ‘is working,’ ‘operatur,’

Valg, QDAwASON Caps [inci-

pit efficax esse] Syr., comp. A®th.;
clearly not passive, ‘efficax redditur’
(Schott), which would not only be here
inappropriate but is opposed to the
prevailing use of the word in the N.T.;
see notes on Gal. v. 6, and on the
different constructions of the word,
notes on ib. ii. 8. In the middle it
stands either absolutely or followed by
ἐν. τῆς ἀνομίας] ‘lawlessness ;’
in appropriate and illustrative anti-
thesis to the principle of order and
legality involved in the probable mean-
ing of τὸ κατέχον. On the meaning
of ἀνομία (‘in qua cogitatur potissimum
legem non servari,’ Tittm.) and its
distinction from ἀδικία, see Tittm.
Synon. 1. p. 48, Trench, Synon. Part
11. ὃ τό, and notes on Tit. ii. 14.

μόνον ὁ κατέχων K.7.A.] ‘only until he
that now restraineth shall have been re-
moved ;’ rhetorical change of the usual
order; see exx. in Winer, Gr. § 61. 3,

1

114

~

ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙ͂Σ B.

9 ,
8 ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται καὶ τότε ἀποκαλυφθήσεται

p- 485, and comp. Gal. ii. 10, μόνον
τῶν πτωχῶν ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν, Where
the emphatic words are similarly at-
tached to the semi-elliptical μόνον. As
however in Gal. /.c. so here it is not
necessary to supply definitely any verb
to complete the ellipsis (‘tantum ut
qui tenet nunc teneat,’ Vulg., comp.
Auth.), still less to connect μόνον with
what precedes (Kypke, Obs. Vol. τι.
p- 342). The μόνον belongs to ἕως,
and simply states the limitation in-
volved in the present working of the
μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας: it is working
already, but only with unconcentrated
action until the obstacle be removed,
and Antichrist be revealed. So rightly
as to structure Chrys., ἡ ἀρχὴ ἡ ‘Pw-
μαϊκὴ ὅταν ἀρθῇ ἐκ μέσου, τότε ἐκεῖνος
ἥξει. The only other plausible struc-
ture is the supplement of ἔστι, but the
objection of Liinem., that in the pre-
sent case a word of such real impor-
tance could scarcely be omitted, seems
reasonable and valid. The
greatest difficulty however is the
change of gender in the designation of
the restraining principle. Perhaps the
simplest view is to regard it, not as a
studied designation of a single indivi-
dual (e.g. St Paul, Schott, p. 249),
or of a collection of such (e.g. the
saints at Jerusalem, Wieseler, Chronol.
Ῥ. 273, or, more plausibly, the succes-
sion of Roman Emperors, Wordsw.),
but merely as a realistic touch, by
which what was previously expressed
by the more abstract τὸ κατέχον is
now represented as concrete and per-
sonified ; comp. Rom. xiii. 4, where
the personification is somewhat simi-
larly introduced after, and elicited
from, a foregoing abstract term (ἐξου-
olay). ἄρτι is to be closely
connected with ὁ κατέχων, and simply
refers to time regarded as present to

the writer. On the derivation and
meaning of the word, see notes on
1 Thess. iii. 6.

ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται] On this con-
nexion οἵ ἕως with the subjunctive
without év,—a construction especially
characteristic of later writers, see
Winer, Gr. § 41. 3, p. 266. The dis-
tinction acutely drawn by Herm. (de
Partic. ἄν, τι. 9, p. 109) between such
formule as μίμνετε ἕως θάνω (de mori-
bundo) and ἕως ἂν θάνω (de eo qui
non ita propinquam sibi putaret mor-
tem esse) and repeated by Klotz
(Devar. Vol. 11. p. 568) cannot with
safety be applied in the N. T.; nor
can we with distinct probability as-
cribe the omission of ἂν to any idea of
design supposed to be involved in the
sentence (it is actually inserted here by
FG), as suggested by Green, Gram.
Ρ. 64, note. We have only an in-
stance of that obliteration of finer
shades of distinction which charac-
terizes the later and decadent Greek.
The phrase ἐκ μέσου γίγνεσθαι is il-
lustrated by Wetstein and Kypke
(Obs. Vol. 11. p. 343): it indicates the
removal of any obstacle, of anything
ἐν μέσῳ ὅν (Xen. Cyrop. Vv. 2. 26,
cited by Liinem.), leaving the manner
of the removal wholly undefined ;
comp. ἀρθῇ ἐκ μέσου ὑμῶν, τ Cor. v. 2,
ἤρται ἐκ τοῦ μέσου, Isaiah lvii. 2.

8. καὶ τότε] ‘and THEN,’—then
when ὁ κατέχων shall have been re-
moved; the primary emphasis clearly
falling on the particle of time, the
secondary and subordinate on ἀποκα-
λυφθήσεται. ὁ ἄνομος] ‘the
lawless one ;’ identical with the fore-
going ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτ., the
changing designation serving appro-
priately to echo the preceding term
(ἀνομίαν), which defines more nearly the
evil principle that the Man of Sin will

IT. 8, 9.

115

e »᾿ εἴ « , 9 _ 7 9 .- - Ft “
O ἄνομος, ὃν O Κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἀνελεῖ τῳ πνεύματι TOU

, ᾿] “ 4 a. 9 , ~
στόματος αὐτοῦ Kal καταργήσει TH ἐπιφανείᾳ τῆς παρου-

’ 5 νὰ a 9 A , ay Sa ee a
σιας αὐτου" OU ECTLY ἡ “ἀαρούσια ΚΑΤ ενεργειᾶαν του 9

8, ἀνελεῖ] So Lachm., Tisch. ed.1, with ABD‘; τὸ mss.; 8].-- ἀνέλοι is the

reading of FGN4—dvddo of NI.
D®EKL; mss., Ff. C is deficient.

Rec., Tisch. ed. 2, 7, read ἀναλώσει with
In spite of the possibility of conformation

to Isaiah xi. 4, it seems best to retain the reading to which so great a prepon-

derance of MS. authority points.

especially develop: ‘Ezlex ille qui
nullis legum vinculis coerceri vult, sed
omnia jura divina et humana suo
ipsius arbitrio subjicit,’ Vorst, ap.
Pol. Syn. dv ὁ Κύριος
K.t.d.] ‘whom the Lord Jesus shall
consume with the breath of His mouth ;’
relative sentence describing, with a
consolatory glance forward to the final
issue, the ultimate fate of Antichrist ;
kal τί μετὰ ταῦτα ; ἐγγὺς ἡ παρα-
μυθία" ἐπάγει yap “Ov ὁ Κύριος κ.τ.λ.,
Chrys. The forcible expression τῷ
πνεύμ. TOU στόμ. αὐτοῦ has received dif-
ferent explanations. It has been re-
ferred (a) by the Greek commentators
to the words of power (φθέγξεται
μόνον, Chrys. ; comp. Theod., Theod.-
Mops., al.) issuing from the Lord’s
lips; (Ὁ) by Athan. (ad Serap. 1. 6, p.
655), Theoph. 2, al., to the Holy
Spirit; but is most simply regarded
(c) as a vivid declaration of the glorious
and invincible power of the coming
Lord, ‘cui sufficiat halitus oris quo
ἄνομος ille perdatur,’ Schott; comp.
Isaiah xi. 4 (from which these words
may have been derived), Wisdom xi.
20, 21, and the pertinent quotations
from Rabbinical writers collected by
Wetst. in loc.: on the word xarapyéw,
comp. notes on Gal. v. 4. The
reading is hardly doubtful: ὁ Kup.
᾽Ιησοῦς is supported by ADE1FGL28 ;
10 mss.; Syr. (both), Vulg., al. Ree.
omits Ἰησοῦς with BE?KL!; most
mss.; Arab. (Pol.); Orig., al. C is

deficient. ᾿ς πῇ ἐπιφανείᾳ
τῆς παρ. αὐτοῦ] ‘with the manifestation
of His coming ; not with a semi-
theological reference to the glorious
manifestation (‘inlustratione,’ Vulg.,
‘brightness,’ Auth., ‘vi salutari,’
Kypke, Obs. Vol. 11. p. 343) of Christ
at His second coming (comp. notes on
rt Tim. vi. 14, and Tit. ii. 13, where
τῆς δόξης is definitely added), but with
simple reference to His visible coming
(‘aspectu adventus sui,’ Clarom., Aith.)
and actual local appearing ; στήσει τὴν
ἀπάτην καὶ φανεὶς μόνον, Chrys., Theoph.

9. οὗ ἐστὶν ἡ παρουσία] Return to
the time and subject of Antichrist’s
coming, after the anticipatory allusion
to his final overthrow; the οὗ resuming
and re-echoing the ὃν of verse 8. The
ethical present ἐστὶν marks the cer-
tainty of the future event; see Winer,
Gr. § 40. 2, p. 237, Bernhardy, Synt.
xX. 2, p. 371. The instant repetition
of παρουσία in the new connexion is
remarkable. kat évépy.
τοῦ Lat.] ‘according to the working
of Satan ;’ not here ‘in consequence
of’ (De W., comp. notes on ch. i. 12),
but, in accordance with the more
usual force of κατά, ‘in agreement and
correspondence with’ an ἐνέργεια such
as belongs to and might be looked for
from Satan; comp. notes on Eph. i.
19, and Col. i. 29. The remark of
Bengel is full of deep thought,—‘ut
ad Deum se habet Christus, sic e con-
trario ad Satanam se habet Anti-

Le

110 ΠΡΟΣ

ΘΕΣΞΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ B.

ΜΝ“ , , A , ‘ , ,
Σατανᾶ εν πασὴη δυνάμει καὶ σημειοις και TEpacly ψεύ-

ey , 9 , " ’ a 5] , " >
10 Oovs καὶ ἐν πασὴ ἀπατὴη ἀδικίας τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις, ἀνθ

christus.” ἐν πάσῃ
δυνάμ. κιτ.λ.7 “ἐπ all power and signs
and wonders of lying,’—in every form
of (see notes on Eph. i. 8) power,
signs, and wonders, leading to and
tending to develop ψεῦδος : ἐν being
no ‘nota dativi’ (Olsh.), but marking
the sphere and domain of this [ἀντι
παρουσία (comp. notes on 1 Thess. i.
5), and both πάσῃ (comp. Winer, Gr.
§ 59. 5, p. 466) and the gen. being
associated with all the three substan-
tives. The exact nature of the geni-
tival relation is not perfectly certain:
ψεύδους may be regarded as (a) a gen.
of the origin, (b) of the characterizing
quality or essence (see notes on ver.
7), or lastly, (c) of ‘the point of
view’ (Scheuerl. Synt. ὃ 18, p. 129).
Of these (a) is by no means probable ;
but between (6) and (c) it is very diffi-
cult to decide. Perhaps the object
specified in ver. 11, and the analogy
of ἀπάτη ἀδικίας (ver. 10), scil. ‘fraus
quz ad improbitatem spectat’ (Schott
1, Winer, Gr. § 30. 2. B, p. 170), may
here incline us to the latter; so Chrys.
2, els ψεῦδος ἄγουσι. For exx. of these
more lax connexions of the gen., see
Winer, Gr. l.c.

The three substantives might seem to
be climactic; it was not only in an
element of power (see notes on 1 Thess.
i. 5), but one of signs, and further
one of prodigies, that the working of
Satan took place; as however we find
a varied order (Acts ii. 22), and as the
difference between σημεῖα (‘res inso-
litas quibus Deus aliquid significet,’
Fritz.) and répara (‘que ut inusitata
observari soleant,’ 7b.) exists less in the
things themselves than in the mode of
regarding them, we may perhaps most
naturally consider the substantives as
studiedly accumulated so as to give

force and expansion to the description ;
compare Bornemann, Schol. in Lue.
p- xxx. On the meaning of the last
two words, and the derivation of τέρας
[τηρέω, comp. Benfey, Wurzellex. Vol.
II, p. 238], see the elaborate note of
Fritz. Rom. xv. 19, Vol. Ill. p. 270.
The form σημεῖον appears closely con-
nected with σῆμα (@nuar-), and thence
with @EQ, τίθημι; see Pott, Etym.
Forsch. Vol. τι. p. 592.

το. καὶ ἐν wdoynk.t.Ar.] Sand in all
(every kind of) deceit of iniquity ;’
generic and comprehensive term ap-
pended by the collective καὶ to the
foregoing list of more special details ;
comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 53. 3, p- 388, and
notes on Phil. iv. 12. On the geni-
tival relation, see above, ver. 9, and
Winer, Gr. ὃ 30. 2, p. 170, and on the
meaning of ἀδικία (‘de quacunque im-
probitate dicitur quatenus τῷ δικαίῳ
repugnat,’ Tittm.), notes on 2 Tim.
ii. 19. The reading of Rec. τῆς
a5. [with DEKLN?*; mss.; Hippol.,
Chrys., Theod.] is rejected by Lachm.
and Tisch. on the higher authority of
ABFGN!; mss.; Orig. (6), Cyr.-
Jer. τοῖς ἀπολλυ-
μένοις] ‘for those that are perishing ;
dat. incommodi, belonging to the gene-
ral head of the dative of interest ; see
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 48. 4. The more
exactly specifying τοῖς ἀπολλ. has no
reference to any ‘decretum reproba-
tionis’ (comp. even Pelt, ‘damnationi
a Deo devoti’), but either like ἐστὶν
marks the certainty of the event (‘qui
certissime sunt perituri,’ Turret.), or
perhaps more simply, with merely a
temporal parallelism, points to those
who ‘are perishing’ at the time in
contemplation,—not too without re-
ference to the present existence (comp.
ver. 7) of such a class (1 Cor. i. 18,

ἘΣ, ατὶ

117

Ὄ cy . ’ a 9 , > ν᾽) 9 4 A
ὧν THY ἀγαπὴν τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ ἐδέξαντο εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι

᾽ , ‘ A A , Fue Ate PR ae -
QuTOvug. Kal διὰ TOUTO TEMTEL AUTOS ὁ Θεὸς ενεργειαν II

2 Cor. ii. 15, iv. 3), of which those
here specified will be the continuance
and development. The consolatory
nature of the tacit limitation is not
overlooked by the Greek commenta-
tors; μὴ φοβηθῇς ἀγαπητέ, ἀλλ᾽ ἄκουε
λέγοντος αὐτοῦ" ἐν τοῖς ἀπολλ. ἰσχύει,
οἱ εἰ καὶ μὴ παρεγένετο ἐκεῖνος οὐκ ἂν
ἐπείσθησαν, Chrys. Ἔν is
prefixed to τοῖς ἀπολλ. by Rec. but only
on the authority of DDEK LN‘; mss. ;
Syr. (both) ; Orig. (1), al.

ἀνθ᾽ ὧν] ‘for that,’ ‘in requital for
that’ (ri οὖν τὸ κέρδος ; Chrys.), Luke
i. 20, xii. 3, xix. 44, Acts xii. 23, comp.
Ley. xxiv. 20; explanatory statement
of the cause of the judicial dispensa-
tion of God, and of the justness and
deservedness of their punishment. On
this meaning of ἀνθ᾽ ὧν (‘propterea
quod’), see Herm. Viger, No. 33, Winer,
Gr. ὃ 47. a, p. 326, and for exx. see
the list collected by Wetst. on Luke
i, 20, and Raphel, Annot. Vol. 1. p.
442. τὴν ἀγάπην τῆς ἀληθ.]
‘the love of the truth ; not ‘charitatem
veram,’ Anselm (cited by Corn. a Lap.),
but ‘th love felt for the truth,’ ‘di-
lectionem veritatis,’ Pseud.-Ambr.,—
ἀληθ. not being a gen. of quality, but
the simple and common gen. objecti ;
comp. Winer, Gr. § 30, p. 167, Kriiger,
Sprachl. § 47. 7.1 sq. Ἡ ἀλήθεια is
opposed to τὸ ψεῦδος (ver. 11). It
seems somewhat perverse in Jowett to
deny that this implies any higher de-
gree of alienation from the truth than
the less distinctive οὐκ ἐδέξαντο τὴν
ἀλήθειαν : surely it is one thing not to
receive the truth,—an unhappy state
that might be referable to a mental
obliquity for which some excuse might
be found,—and another to receive no
love of it, to be open to no desire to
seek it, to be worse than indifferent

to it; ‘ubi veritas summopere amabi-

_ lis, ibi se quodammodo amor veritatis

insinuat,’ Cocceius. The prosopopeia
(ἀγάπην ἀληθείας τὸν Κύριον κέκληκεν)
adopted by Theod., Theoph., and
(Ecum., is artificial, and unsupported
by analogy. εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι
αὐτούς] ‘that they might be saved;
object that would have been naturally
contemplated in their reception of it;
and which was disregarded and nega-
tived by their pursuing the contrary
course; ‘non ita sibi chari fuerunt ut
cogitarent de vita zterna,’ Cocceius.
11. Kal διὰ τοῦτο] ‘And for this
cause ;’ almost ‘so for this cause,’ καὶ
serving to mark the correspondence
between the judgments and the course
of conduct that had provoked them,
and perhaps involving partly a conse-
cutive and partly a contrasting force ;
comp. note on the uses of καί, on
Phil. iv. 12. πέμπει] ‘doth
send; not so much an ethical (see
ver. 9) as a direct present; the my-
stery of iniquity is even now at work
(ver. 7), and is even now calling down
on itself the punishment of judicial
obduracy. There is no need for ex-
plaining away πέμπει (συγχωρήσει pa-
νῆναι τὴν πλάνην, Theod., comp. Theod.-
Mops., Theoph., Gicum.), nor is it
right merely to ascribe it to a form of
thought in the age of the Apostle
(Jowett), nor enough to say merely
that ‘whatever God permits He or-
dains,’ Alf. The words are definite
and significant; they point to that
‘judicial infatuation’ (Waterl. Serm.
Vol. v. p. 486,—differently however
in Vol. iv. p. 363) into which, in the
development of His just government
of the world, God causes evil and
error to be unfolded, and which He
brings into punitive agency in the

118 “ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΞΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙΣ B.

, 9 4 “ 9 4 ~ A
12 πλανῆς εἰς TO πιστεῦσαι αὐτοὺς TH ψεύδει, ἵνα κριθῶσιν
oe e Α , na 9 ’ 9 9 9 ΓΣΣ
ἅπαντες οἱ μὴ πιστεύσαντες TH ἀληθείᾳ ἀλλ᾽ εὐδυκή-
σαντες [ἐν] τῇ ἀδικίᾳ.

12. [ἐν] τῇ ἀδικίᾳ] The reading is not quite certain; ἐν is given by Rec.
and Tisch. ed. 2,7, with AD®EKLN*‘; most mss.; Orig. (2), Chrys., Theod., but
is enclosed in brackets by Lachm., and was rejected by Zisch. ed. 1, with BD!
FGN'; 7 mss.; Orig. (2), Hippol., al. C is deficient. As, though the construc-
tion with the simple dat. is not found in the N.T., the omission of the pre-
position may have been suggested here by a desire to preserve a parallelism of
clauses, we still retain the ἐν in the text, but deem it necessary to mark the
increased doubt which the authority of δὲ produces by enclosing the word in

brackets.

case of obstinate and truth-hating re-
jection of His offers and calls of mercy ;
comp. Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, Book v.
Vol. 1. p. 471 (Clark), and see two
able Sermons on this text by South,
Serm. Vol. 11. p. 192—228. The read-
ing of Rec. πέμψει [DSEKLN*; mss. ;
Clarom., Augiens., majority of Vv.,
and many Ff.] is rightly rejected by
most modern editors, being inferior in
uncial authority to πέμπει [ABD'F
GN!; 67; Vulg. (Amiat.), Orig. (3),
al.], and a correction of it that would
easily suggest itself.

ἐνέργειαν πλάνης} ‘an in-working of
error ;’ not πλάνην évepyov, CEcum.,
—here a most questionable solution of
the governing subst. (see Winer, Gr.
§ 34. 3, p. 211), but, in accordance
with δυνάμει----ψεύδους, of which évépy.
πλάνης is a kind of summary,—‘a
working which; tends to enhance and
develop πλάνη, the gen. being (as
ψεύδους in verse 9) that of ‘the point
of view; τὰ ἔργα ἃ ποιεῖ [’Avrixp. |
els τὸ πλανῆσαι, Theoph. On the
meaning of πλάνη (‘erroris,’ Vulg.),
‘see notes on 1 Thess. ii, 3, and Eph.
iv. 14. els τὸ πιστεῦσαι κ.τ.λ.]
‘to the intent that they should believe
the lie,’ opposed to ‘the truth’ (ver.
10), scil, the falsehood implied in the
preceding words οὗ ἐστὶν .--- ἀδικίας

(Green, Gram. p. 141), not falsehood
generally, as Middl. Gr. Art. p. 383
(ed. Rose); clause stating the purpose
of God (‘non meram sequelam,’ Schott)
in sending to them the évépy. πλάνης
by His judicial act. He sends a power
of a nature designed to work out the
appointed issue, and to bring about a
state which involves its own chastise-
ment. On the force of εἰς τὸ in sen-
tences similar to the present, see Meyer
on Rom. i. 20.

12. ἵνα κριθῶσιν ἅπαντες] ‘ that
they may all of them be judged 7 more
remote purpose involved in the preced-
ing words els τὸ πιστεῦσαι κιτ.Ὰλ., with
which this clause seems more naturally
connected than directly with the pre-
ceding πέμπει. The preceding εἰς τὸ
x.T.\. renders a reference to result
(‘quo fiet ut,’ Schott) here distinctly
untenable. It need scarcely be said
that -xpi0dcw is not per se ‘might be
damned,’ Auth.
Chrys.), but simply ‘may be judged,’
‘judicentur,’ Vulg., the further idea
of an unfavourable judgment being
supplied by the context; comp. κρῖμα
in 1 Tim. iii. 6, and see notes én loc.
The reading is doubtful: Zisch. reads
ἅπαντες with AFGN; mss.; Orig. (2),
Cyr.: Rec. and Lachm. (non marg.)
adopt πάντες with BDEL; mss, ; Orig.

(wa κατακριθῶσι,

δ ὅθι

We must thank God
that He hath chosen and
called you. Hold what
we delivered unto you;
and may God stablish
you.

t

119

Ἡμεῖς δὲ ὀφείλομεν εὐχαριστεῖν τῷ 13 |
Θεῷ πάντοτε περὶ ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοὶ nya-

, ἃ 28 K ’ 4 cf ee. £
THMEVOL VUTO υριου, OTL εἵλατο υμας ὁ

Θ ΨΥ ἐν Νὰ A 9 ’ > a TI , \
εος AT αρχῆς εἰς σωτηριᾶν εν αγιασμῳ νευματος Και

(1), many Ff. The evidence is thus
very evenly balanced.
εὐδοκήσαντες [ἐν] τῇ ἀδικ.1 ‘took
pleasure in unrighteousness.’ On the
meaning of εὐδοκεῖν (‘re aut persona
delectari,’ Fritz.), compare notes on I
Thess. ii. 8, but see esp, the elaborate
note of Fritz. Rom. x. 1, Vol. I. p.
369 sq.

13. Ἡμεῖς δέ] ‘ But we,’ scil. the
Apostle and his companions, Silvanus
and Timothy (ch. i. 1), not St Paul

alone (Jowett),—placed by means of.

the oppositive δὲ in contrast with those
alluded to in the foregoing verses.
ὀφείλομεν] ‘ are bound,’ Auth., ‘opor-
tet,’ Copt. [sempsha]; the verb ὀφείλειν,
as in ch. i. 3, expressing the duty on
its subjective side, ‘das innerlich Ge-
drungenfiihlen,’ Liinem. On the con-
nexion of εὐχαριστεῖν with περί, and
ov the meaning of the verb, see notes
and reff. on 1 Thess. i, 2.

ἀδελφοί «.7.A.] Similarly, 1 Thess. i.
4, ἀδελφοὶ ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ Θεοῦ,---οχ-
cept that Κυρίου here, as nearly always
in St Paul’s Epp., refers to our Lord,
not to God the Father. Though love,
as Alf. remarks, is in this sort of col-
location somewhat more usually refer-
red by St Paul to the First Person of
the blessed Trinity (ver. 16, Eph. ii.
4, al.), yet such references to the
Second Person are by no means with-
out precedent; comp. Rom. viii. 37,
Eph. v. 2, 25. ὅτι εἵλατο K.T.A. |
‘that God chose you; objective sen-
tence (‘ quod,’ Vulg., 9, Syr.), stating
the matter and grounds, surely not
‘the reason,’ Alf. (comp. Aith., Auth.),
of the εὐχαριστία; see 1 Thess. ii. 13,
1 Cor. i. 14, and on objective sen-

tences generally, or as they are some-
times termed ‘expositive’ sentences,
consult Schmalfeld, Synt. ὃ 163 sq.,
Donalds. Gr. ὃ 584 sq. The verb ai-
ρεῖσθαι is a dm. Neydu. in St Paul’s
Epp. in reference to the divine ἐκλογή,
the term ἐκλέγεσθαι being used in I
Cor. i. 27, 28, and Eph. i. 4; comp. 1
Thess. i. 4, and Reuss, Zhéol. Chrét.
Iv. 14, Vol. 11. p.133 sq. Rec. reads
εἵλετο with K; most mss., but the
Alexandrian form εἵλατο (see Lobeck,
Phryn. p. 183) is rightly adopted by
Lachm., Tisch., and most modern
editors, with greatly preponderating
authority [ABDEFGLN; some mss. ;
Theod. (ms.)]. On these forms in the
N.T., see Tisch. Prolegom. p. LVI (ed.
7), and the somewhat opposing com-
ments of Scrivener, Introd. to N. T.
vul. 6, p. 416. ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς]
‘from the beginning,’ scil. of all things,
‘from eternity ;’ so 1 John i. 1, ii, 13,
but not elsewhere in St Paul’s Epp.,
where the more distinctive formule
mpd καταβολῆς κόσμου (Eph. i. 4), πρὸ
τῶν αἰώνων (1 Cor. ii. 7), mpd χρόνων
αἰωνίων (2 Tim. i. 9), and more re-
strictedly, ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων (Eph. iii.
g), are used to express the same or a
similar idea. The reference to the
beginning of the gospel-preaching
(Michaelis, al.) is rightly rejected by
Schott and Liinem., as requiring some
explanatory supplement either imme-
diately connected with ἀρχὴ (Phil. iv.
15) or obviously involved in the con-
text (1 John ii. 7, 24). Finally
the reading ἀπαρχὴν (Lachm., Tisch.
ed. 1) has the good external support
of BFG; 5 mss.; Vulg., but is in-
ferior in external authority to dm’ dp-

120

ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙ͂Σ B.

Υ̓ 4 - ,
14 πίστει ἀληθείας, εἰς ὁ ἐκάλεσεν ὑμᾶς διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου

e “A 9 , ’ ~ ’ ¢ ~ ᾽ “
ἥμων, εἰς περιποιησιν δόξης TOU Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ

~ xijs[ which is found in DEK LN; nearly

all mss. and Vv.; Gr. and Lat. Ff.
A non liquet and C is deficient. ’Ar-
αρχὴν tacitly involves such a contradic-
tion to actual fact (the Thessalonians
were not the first believers in Maced.),
that we can here scarcely hesitate in
our choice, ἐν ἁγιασμῷ
Πνεύματος] ‘in sanctification of the
Spirit,’ scil. wrought by, and effected
by the Spirit; Πνεύματος being the

τ gen. of the causa efficiens (see notes on

7

1 Thess. i. 6), and referring not to
man's spirit (Schott), but to the per-
sonal Holy Spirit. No argument can
be founded on the omission of the
article, as in the first place such omis-
sions are not rare with Πνεῦμα, and
secondly, it might here be due to the
common principle of correlation; comp.
Middl. Gr. Art. 111. 3. 7, p. 49 (ed.
Rose). The prep. ἐν may be instru-
mental (Chrys., Liinem., al.), but is
perhaps more naturally taken in its
usual sense as denoting the spiritual
state in which the εἵλατο εἰς σωτηρίαν
was realized; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 50. 5,
Pp. 370, who in ed. 5 with less accuracy
referred it to σωτηρία, The assump-
tion of De W. that ἐν is here equiva-
lent to e/s is well refuted by Liinem.,
who justly urges the obscuring effect
this would have on the preceding εἰς
σωτηρίαν. πίστει ἀληθείας]
‘faith in the truth ;’ ἀληθείας not being
a gen. of quality (πίστεως ἀληθοῦς,
Chrys.), but simply the gen. objecti,
see Winer, Gr. § 30. 1, p. 167, and
comp. Phil. i. 27.

14. εἰς 6] ‘whereunto,’ scil. εἰς
σωτηρίαν ἐν ἁγιασμῷ x.r.r., not ‘ad
electionem atque animum quo efdem
digni evadimus’ (Pelt), as the his-
torical ἐκάλεσεν naturally stands in
connexion, not with the election

which had taken place dm’ ἀρχῆς, but
with those issues contemplated by the
εἵλατο which had their commence-
ments in time. So rightly Theoph.,
els τοῦτο yap ἐκάλεσεν ὑμᾶς, φησίν" els
τοῦτο, ποῖον ; εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι διὰ (1)
τοῦ ἁγιασμοῦ καὶ τῆς πίστεως. After
ὃ FGN; Vulg., al. add καί.

ὑμᾶς] The reading of Lachm. ἡμᾶς has
the support of ABD!'; a few mss.;
Clarom., Sangerm., Augiens., and,—
as ὑμᾶς miyht have been a conforma-
tion to the preceding buds,—is plaus-
ible, but hardly sufficiently supported
by external authority to be admitted
with confidence.

διὰ τοῦ edayy. ἡμῶν] ‘by means of
our Gospel,’ scil. ‘the Gospel we
preached,’ that which involved the
ἀκοὴν which is the antecedent of πίέ-
otis; comp. Rom. x. 17, and Usteri,
Lehrb. τι. 2, 2, p. 267. On the exact
genitival relation of ἡμῶν, see notes on
1 Thess. i. 5. εἰς περιποίησιν
κ, τι λ.} ‘unto the obtaining of the
glory of our Lord J. C.,’ ‘in adquisi-
tionem glorie,’ Vulg., Copt., compare
Atth. ‘ut vivatis in gloria Domini ;’
more exact specification of the pre-
ceding els σωτηρίαν (ver. 13), the term
περιποίησις giving the σωτηρία the
aspect of a κτῆσις (Hesych., Suid.),
and that of a glory of which Christ
was—not the author (Pelt), but, in
accordance with the analogy of Scrip-
ture—the Lord and possessor ; see John
xvii. 24, comp, Rom. viii. 17. See
esp. notes on 1 Thess. v. 9, where this
meaning of περιπ. is briefly investi-
gated. Of the two other interpreta-
tions of mepir.,—(a) active, with re-
ference to God, seil. ἵνα δόξαν περι-
ποιήσῃ τῷ vig αὐτοῦ, CEcum.; and ()
passive (comp. Eph. i. 14), δόξης being
resolved into an adj., scil. ‘gloriosa

ΤΤ, Ὑ5; τ. 121

Χριστοῦ. ἄρα οὗν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε, καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς 15

παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε δὲ ἐπι-

στολῆς ἡμῶν. αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς τό

possessio,’ Est. 2,—the first is gram-
matically, the second contextually
doubtful. In the case of (a) we must
have had the usual dative of ‘interest,’
not (as here) a gen. of possession ; in
the case of (Ὁ) the seeming parallelism
with 1 Thess. v. 9 would be destroyed,
and the glorification of our Lord would
really bevome the object of the

a»
καλεῖν, as Syr. expressly (OOOH?

Se na»
sod jdrcen22 [ut sitis glo-

ria Domino nostro], not the future
~ reserved for the Thessalonians, on
which the illative exhortation of
ver. 15 (dpa οὖν) seems logically to
depend; comp. Liinem. in loc.

15. ἄρα «οὖν κ-.τ.λ.] ‘Accordingly
then, brethren, stand (firm); exhorta-
tion following on the preceding decla-
ration of the gracious purpose of God,
—the illative dpa being supported by
the collective οὖν; see notes on (al.
vi. 10, and reff. on 1 Thess. v. 6. On
the present derivative meaning of
στήκετε (perstate, Beza, μὴ καταβλή-
θητε, CEcum.; comp. 1 Thess. iii. 8),
here suitably used in retrospective an-
tithesis to σαλευθῆναι (ver. 2), see notes
on τ Thess. iii. 8 and Phil. i. 27.
κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις] ‘hold fast
the instructions; practically synony-
mous with 1 Cor xi. 2, τὰς παραδόσεις
κατέχετε. These παραδόσεις (Mark vii.
3, Gal. i. 14, al.) probably related,—
not as in 1 Cor. 1. 6. (see Meyer in
loc.) to matters both of doctrine and
discipline, but, as the more specific
ἐδιδάχθητε and the general tenor of
the context (comp. ver. 5) suggest,
solely to the former, κανόνα διδασκα-

as, Theod. The polemical and con-
troversial use of the term, hinted at
even by Chrys., is brought forward by
Damase. (de Imag. τ. 23, Vol. I. p.
518, Paris, 1712), and enforced by
most writers of the Romanist Church
(comp. Canon. Conc. Trid. Sess. Iv.
p. 15, ed. Tauchn.), but distinctly
without plausibility. No reference to
any ἐκκλησιαστικὸν φρόνημα (Kuseb.
Hist. Eccl. v. 28; comp. Mohler,
Symbolik, § 38, p. 361) can fairly
be elicited from the words. The
Apostle, as the following clause most
distinctly shows, is referring to some
definite and lately-given communi-
cations on doctrine which he had
specially made to the Thessalonians
(comp. 1 Cor. 1. ¢., καθὼς mapédwxa)
by word of mouth and in his former
letter. For the most ingenious modern
defence of the Romanist doctrine of
tradition, see Mohler, Symbolik, l. 6.
p- 361—365. ds
ἐδιδάχθητε! ‘which ye were taught.’
For exx. of this well-known con-
struction, see Winer, Gr. § 32. 5, p.
204, and for the general theory of the
connexion of the accus. with passive
verbs, Schmalfeld, Syntax, § 25, p.
29 sq. εἴτε διὰ λόγου
K.t.A.] ‘whether by word or by our
(gen. aue-
toris), not an ἐπιστολὴ ὡς 80 ἡμῶν,
ver. 2. We can hardly say with
Gom. (cited and approved by Pelt,
comp. Schott)—‘ etre non disjungit, sed
conjungit et copulat;’ it rather sub-
divides the general ἐδιδάχθητε into the
two special modes in which διδαχὴ is
usually and regularly conveyed ; comp.
1 Cor. xiii. 8, and Meyer in loc.

16. αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Kup.] ‘but may

epistle,—émisTtorn ἡμῶν

122 ΠΡῸΣ @ESSAAONIKEIS B.

kat ὁ Θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν, ὁ ἀγαπήσας ἡμᾶς Kat δοὺς

17 παράκλησιν αἰωνίαν καὶ ἐλπίδα ἀγαθὴν ἐν χάριτι, παρα-

16. ὁ πατήρ] So Lachm. (text) with BD!FGN! (N* reads simply πατήρ) ;
mss. ; Augiens., Syr.; al. Lachm. (in marg.) and Tisch. follow Rec. in reading
kal π. with AD*EKL; mss.; Vulg., Clarom. al. Although judgment cannot
be absolutely pronounced, yet the reading given in the text has certainly the
best claim to appear there. The previous variations in the reading of the clause

are noticed below.

our Lord himself ;’ concluding prayer
after exhortation, as in ch. iii. 16
(πάλιν εὐχὴ μετὰ παραίνεσιν" τοῦτο
γάρ ἐστιν ὄντως βοηθεῖν, Chrys.), the
δὲ contrasting the succeeding prayer
with the foregoing exhortation, and
the αὐτὸς giving force and dignity to
the mention of our Lord as compared
with the preceding ἡμῶν ; comp. the
similar concluding prayers in 1 Thess.
iii. 11, v. 23, in both which cases how-
ever the connexion is less close, and
the contrasting force, both of the par-
ticle and the pronoun, somewhat less
emphatic. Our Lord is put first
in the enumeration (2 Cor. xiii. 13),
contrary to the Apostle’s usual habit
of writing, either on account of the
recent mention of Him in ver. 14,
or from the feeling that it was by
His grace alone that they could have
strength to carry into practice the
preceding exhortations; ‘per gratiam
Christi venitur ad Patris amorem,’
Bengel on 2 Cor. l.c. This unusual
order is not left unnoticed by Chrys.
and the Greek expositors; τῇ τῆς
τάξεως ἐναλλαγῇ τὴν ὁμοτιμίαν δεικνύει,
Theod. The readings throughout
the clause are somewhat doubtful. Be-
sides the variation given in the criti-
cal note, Lachm. differs from Tisch.
in inserting ὁ before Χριστός [with A],
and including it in brackets before
Θεός [BD! omit]. ὁ Θεὸς
ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν] ‘God our Father.’ This
exact form of expression, though so
strongly supported here, does not ap-

pear to occur elsewhere.

ὁ ἀγαπήσας K.T.A. seems to refer
only to God the Father. The union
of Father and Son, esp. as shown by
the subsequent singular verb, is I
confess so mystically close that it is
difficult to speak with complete con-
fidence (Alf., but see his previous
note), still the usual reference of ἀγάπη
to the Father (see above) may incline
us here to the more exclusive refer-
ence. The arbitrary reference of the
first of the two participles to Christ,
and of the second to God the Father
(Baumg.-Crus.), is almost obviously
untenable. παράκλη-
σιν αἰωνίαν] ‘eternal comfort; the
best shade of meaning for παράκλησις
here. αἰώνιος is used not appy. with
any specially qualitative reference to
an ἐλπίδα τῶν μελλόντων (Chrys.,
Theoph.), but mainly in a temporal
sense, in contrast to the transitory and
fleeting nature of earthly joys (Olsh.) :
the ἐλπὶς τῶν μελλόντων is embodied
in the ἐλπίδα ἀγαθήν, ‘la perspective
d’un heureux avenir,’ Reuss, Zhéol.
Chrét. Iv. 9, Vol. 11. p. 85; comp.,
though with a slightly different refer-
ence, τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα, Tit. ii. 13.
Αἰώνιος is used in the N. T. as an adj.
of two terminations except here and
Heb. ix. 12.

ἐν χάριτι] ‘in grace;’ adjunct of
manner, not to both preceding par-
ticiples (dya7. being more usually un-
defined, Rom. viii. 37, Gal. ii. 20, al.),
but to δούς (Schott, and appy. Chrys.,

Sa gabled

fe ie West:

' of the Aramaic 2,

II. 17, EEE Ὁ

128

καλέσαι ὑμῶν τὰς καρδίας καὶ στηρίξαι ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ

καὶ λόγῳ ἀγαθῷ.

Finally, pray for the
advance of the Lord’s
word, and for us. He
will stablish you ; and
may He guide your
hearts.

(CEcum.), the ἐν as usual defining
the sphere and element in which the
love is evinced and the consolation
vouchsafed. In cases like the present
the line of demarcation between the
above reference to ethical locality and
the instrumental use (χάριτι, Chrys.)
is really very shadowy. It can
scarcely be doubted that such a use
has arisen from the inclusive nature
and it is well not
to be unduly narrow in interpreta-
tion; still in most of the expressions
similar to the present there is a theo-
logical idea,—an idea of an encompass-
ing element of grace, which it seems
desirable to retain; comp. notes on
5 Thess. 3;

17. παρακαλέσαι] ‘comfort ;’ opt.
and sing., as in 1 Thess. iii. 11,
where see notes. The Apostle does
not say merely ὑμᾶς, but ὑμῶν τὰς
καρδίας (comp. Col. ii. 2); it was the
καρδία, the seat of their feelings and
affectiuns (comp. notes on 1 Zim.i. 5,
Beck, Seelenl. 111. 24, p. 92 8q.), the
καρδία that was so full of hope and
fear about the future, that the Apo-
stle prayed might receive comfort.

ΤΟΎ
This meaning (yay [consoletur ]

Syr., comp. Aith.), seems thus in the
present case more suitable than ‘ex-
hortetur,’ Vulg., as a translation of
παρακαλέσαι; see notes on 1 Thess.
vont: στηρίξαι] ‘ stablish
(you) ; βεβαιώσαι, ὥστε μὴ σαλεύεσθαι
μηδὲ παρακλίνεσθαι, Chrys.; comp.
1 Thess. iii. 2. The obvious supple-
ment ὑμᾶς is inserted by Rec, with

To λοιπὸν προσεύχεσθε, ἀδελφοί, Hi:
περὶ ἡμῶν, ἵνα ὁ λόγος τοῦ Κυρίου
, A , A 4 A
τρέχη καὶ δοξαζηται καθὼς καὶ προς

D°E*KL; mss., but rightly rejected
by Lachm. and Tisch. with very de-
cidedly preponderating uncial autho-
rity. ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ κ.τ.λ.7
‘in every good work and word ;’ both
παντὶ and ἀγαθῷ being clearly con-
nected with the two intervening sub-
stantives. The slightly unusual order
[Rec. however gives λόγ. x. &py.,—but
only with FGK; mss.] has appy.
caused the Greek commentators (silet
Theod.) to assign the doubful meaning
δόγματα to the simple word λόγῳ.
This is by no means probable; the
association with ἔργῳ (comp. Fritz.
Rom. xv. 18, Vol. m1. p. 268), and
still more the inclusive παντί, seem
both decisive for the ordinary mean-
ing. It is singular that Chrys. (so
Theoph.) should have here taken ἐν
as instrumental; clearly the ἔργον καὶ
λόγος are not the means by which, but
the elements in which the στηριγμὸς
takes place.

Cuaprer IIT. τ, Td λοιπόν] “ Fi-
nally,’ ‘as to what remains to be
said ;’ similar in meaning to λοιπόν
(1 Thess. iv. 1), but owing to the
article slightly more specific. On the
grammatical difference between this
formula and the gen. τοῦ λοιποῦ, see
notes on Gal. vi. 17.
προσεύχεσθε... περὶ ἡμῶν] ‘pray for
us; ἄνω αὐτὸς εὐξάμενος ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν
νῦν αἰτεῖ εὐχὴν παρ᾽ αὐτῶν, (συμ.
On the formula προσεύχομαι περί, and
its practical equivalence to mpocedxo-
μαι ὑπέρ, see notes on Col. i. 3.
ἵνα ὁ λόγος KT.A] Subject of the

194

ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕῚΙ͂Σ B.

e ~ Δ ψῃ{ αι A ᾿] Α ~ . , 4 σι
2 υμας, και να ῥυσθῶμεν a7TO Τῶν ATOT@Y και πονήρων

prayer blended with the purpose of
making it, as so often in St Paul’s
Epp.; see notes on Eph.i. 17. This
prayer of the Apostle, as Chrys. has
well observed, was not iva μὴ κινδυνεύῃ
‘(els τοῦτο yap ἔκειτο), but that his
Loftd’s word (compare 1 Thess. i. 8)
might speed onward and be glorified.
As ever so now his prayer did not
involve one single selfish element.
τρέχῃ Kal δοξάζηται)] ‘may have free
course and be glorified; ‘currat et
clarificetur,’ Vulg., ¢.e. may find no
obstacles and hindrances (ἀκωλύτως
συντρέχῃ, Theod., προκόπτῃ, Damasc.)
in its onward course (comp. 2 Tim. ii.
2, οὐ δέδεται), and be manifested, felt,
and acknowledged in its true power
and glory by all; compare ch. i. 12,
but not, as usually cited, Acts xiii. 48,
—where, as De W. rightly observes,
the word (δοξάζ.) has a somewhat
weaker force, more nearly approach-
ing to ‘laudare,’ comp. Schneider on
Xen. Anab. v. 9. 32. The middle
force adopted by Pelt, ‘laudem sibi
paret,’ is not supported by the usage
of the N. T., nor is it at all accurate to
say that ἀπὸ would have been more
naturally used if the verb had been
passive. If any other prep. had
been used, it would have been ὑπὸ
(Matth. vi. 2, Luke iv. 15) or ἐν (John
xvii. 10, al.) with persons : comp. δοξασ-
θῇ...δι᾿’ αὐτῆς [ἀσθενείας] in John xi. 4.
IIpés however is perfectly suitable, as
denoting the locality reached where
the glorification took place. On the
use of πρὸς with verbs implying rest,
d&c., see notes on Gal. i. 18.

καθὼς Kal πρὸς ὑμᾶς] ‘even as it is
also with you; the καὶ gently con-
trasting them with others where a
similar reception had taken place, and
the clause ‘tacité laude’ (Est.) remind-
ing them of their previous and present

readiness to receive the Word ; comp.
I Thess. i. 6 sq.

2. Kal ἵνα ῥυσθῶμεν] ‘and that
we may be delivered,’ that we may by
our freedom co-operate in this advance
of God’s word. To find here a mere
shrinking of the flesh on the part of
the Apostle from the dangers that
awaited him (Jowett) is to assign to
the Apostle a character that never
belonged to him, and which such pas-
sages as Rom. xv. 31 (see ver. 32,
which shows the true reason) and
2 Cor. i. 8 most certainly do not sub-
stantiate. How much keener are the
perceptions of the older commentators ;
διπλῇ μὲν ἡ αἴτησις εἶναι δοκεῖ, μία δὲ
ὅμως ἐστί τῶν γὰρ πονηρῶν ἀνθρώπων
ἡττωμένων, ἀκωλύτως καὶ ὁ τοῦ κηρύγ-
ματος συντρέχει λόγος, Theod.
τῶν ἀτόπων KT.A.] ‘perverse and
wicked men,’ or, in the more deriva-
tive sense of the term dromos,—‘ ini-
quis et malis hominibus,’ Clarom. ;

comp. Syr. 1daS6 leis [malo-

rum et perversorum], where ‘the order
is appy. reversed. The word ἄτοπος,
frequently used by Plato, and in con-
nexion with καινός (Rep. II. p. 405 D),
θαυμαστός (Legg. τ. p. 646 8), and
ἀήθης (Tim. p. 48 D, Legg. vit. p.
797 A), properly signifies ὁ μὴ ἔχων
τόπον (Suid. 5. v.), and thence deriva-
tively, as the same lexicographer ob-
serves, κακός, μοχθηρός (see Bekk.
Anecd. p. 460, Hesych. πονηρός,
αἰσχρός), with concomitant ideas of
‘mischief,’ dc., according to the con-
text ; see Luke xxiii. 41, Acts xxv.
5, xxvill. 6, Philo, Leg. Alleg. m1.
§ 17, ἄτοπος λέγεται εἷναι ὁ φαῦλος,
ἄτοπον δέ ἐστι κακὸν δύσθετον (Vol. I.
p- 98, ed. Mang.), and the exx. col-
lected by Kypke, Obs. Vol. τι. p.
145 8q. Who these men were

Pre.

9 , Φ Ἁ , e
ἀνθρώπων" ov yap πάντων ἡ
Κύριος ὃς στηρίξει ὑμᾶς καὶ

is somewhat doubtful. The most na-
tural supposition is that they were
perverse and fanatical Jews (not Chris-
tians, on account of what follows) at
Corinth, who were then opposing the
word of God and the Apostle’s minis-
try of it; comp. Acts xviii. 12 sq. and
Wieseler, Chronol. p. 256. The remark
of Tertullian seems to have always
been very true in reference to the.
early Church,—‘synagogas J udeorum
fontes persecutionum,’ adv. Gnost.
Scorp. cap. 10.

οὐ γὰρ πάντων ἡ πίστις] ‘for the
faith doth not pertain to all men ;᾽
reason for the foregoing clause and the
mention of those alluded to in it. The
definite ἡ πίστις can here only refer
to ‘faith’ in the Christian sense (τὸ
πιστεῦσαι, Gicum., and perhaps Syr.

» y
1202180.607) : the expansion of

Schott, ‘fides sincera et constans,’ in
contrast to false Christians (ψευδάδελ-
got, Gal. ii. 4), seems inconsistent with
the use of the simple unqualified sub-
stantive. For exx. of this not un-
common use of the possessive gen.,
see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 47. 6. 8, and
comp. Acts i. 7, Winer, Gr. § 30. 5,
p. 176. Wetstein in loc. quotes the
well-known proverbial saying οὐ παν-
τὸς ἀνδρὸς és Κόρινθον ἐσθ᾽ ὁ πλοῦς,
cited by Suidas s. vv. οὐ παντός, Vol.
II. p. 1220 (ed. Bern.).

3. πιστὸς δέ κιτ.λ.] ‘But faithful
is the Lord ;’ antithesis to the member
immediately preceding, with a paro-
nomasia, or rather play on the word,
suggested by the preceding πίστις ;
comp. 2 Tim. ii. 13, and see exx. in
Winer, Gr. ὃ 68. 2, p. 561, where the
distinction is drawn between simple
paronomasia and a play on words
(Wortspiel) where a fresh or slightly

4. ἢ, 125

πίστις. πιστὸς δέ ἐστιν ὁ 3 :
φυλάξει ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.
changed meaning is introduced. There
seems no reason for departing, either
here or in ver. 4, from the usual refer-
ence of ὁ Κύριος to the second person
of the blessed Trinity ; comp. notes
on ch. ii. 13. The reading adopted
by Lachm., ὁ Θεός [AD!FG; Vulg.
(not Amiat.), Armen. (marg.); Latin
Ff.], seems to be a correction, and
conformation to the more usual for-
mula, 1 Cor. i. g, x. 13, 2 Cor. i. 18.

ὃς στηρίξει ὑμᾶς] ‘who shall stablish
you,’ not perhaps without a faint ex-
planatory force in the relative, ‘ being
one who will, &c.;’ comp. notes on
1 Tim. ii. 4, and on Col. i. 25, 27.
The form ornpice (found in B) is
noticed by Winer, Gr. § 15, p. 82,
and is not without analogy in Alex-
andrian Greek. ἀπὸ
τοῦ πονηροῦ] ‘from the Wicked One.’
Here as elsewhere in the N.T. it is
extremely doubtful whether τοῦ πονη-
pod refers to evil in the abstract (see
Rom. xii. 9), or to the Evil One
( John v. 18, comp. Eph. vi. 16, and
notes in loc.). The context alone must
decide ; and this in the present case,
in spite of the reference to ch. ii. 17,
στηρίξαι ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ, urged
by Liinem. and repeated by ΑἹἱῇ,
seems ratber in favour of the mascu-
line,—(1I) in consequence of the pro-
bable ref. to the Lord’s prayer, where
the Greek commentators (whose opinion
in such points deserves full considera-
tion) adopt the masc.,—and (2) from
the tacit personal antithesis suggested
by the preceding Κύριος. The ancient
Vv., whose testimony would here have
been of considerable importance, do
not seem to afford us any sure indica-
tions of the view they adopted. The
same word, we may observe, is used
by Syr. both here and in 1 John v. 18,

120

ΠΡῸΣ OEZZAAONIKEIS Β.

4 πεποίθαμεν δὲ ἐν Κυρίῳ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ὅτι ἃ παραγγέλλο-
5 Mev καὶ ποιεῖτε καὶ ποιήσετε. ὁ δὲ Κύριος κατευθύναι

where the meaning is not doubtful.

4. πεποίθαμεν δὲ ἐν Kup.] ‘ Yea
we have trust in the Lord; declara-
tion of the Apostle’s trust in his con-
verts,—the δὲ subjoining with a faint
antithesis to the simple future just
preceding (‘ ei que jam significata est
similis notio quodam modo opponitur,’
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 361) the
Apostle’s present trust and convic-
tions, and paving the way for the ex-
hortations in ver. 6 84. ; καὶ τοῦτο els
προτροπὴν αὐτῶν τέθεικεν, va μαθόντες
olas ἔχει δόξας περὶ αὐτῶν τοῖς ἔργοις
βεβαιώσωσι ταύτας, Theod. This πεποί-
θησις was now as ever ἐν Κυρίῳ: it
was not only a trust in His φιλανθρω-
mia (Chrys.), but a trust in Him as
the blessed sphere and element in
which alone it could be truly felt and
entertained: see Phil. ii. 19, and notes
on Eph. iv. 17, vi. 1.
ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς] ‘in regard of you; the pre-
position marking the ethical direction
of the πεποιθέναι ; comp. Matth. xxvii.
43, 2 Cor. ii. 3, and see Winer, Gr.
§ 49. 1, p. 363. It is very difficult to
draw clear lines of demarcation be-
tween the ethical uses of πρός, ἐπί,
and εἰς, in combinations like the pre-
sent. To speak somewhat generally,
we may perhaps say that πρὸς with
the acc. commonly indicates simple
ethical motion (comp. Donalds. Crat.
§ 169, 171); ἐπὶ with the same case
mental direction with an idea of ap-
proximation (Donalds. Crat. § 172)
and a more defined expression of the
erga (Luke vi. 35) or contra (Matth.
x. 21); εἰς direction or destination with
the idea of having actually reached
the object (comp. Kriiger, Sprachl.
§ 68. 21. 5, and notes on Philem. 5),
and with a wider and more inclusive
notion of general behaviour however

characterized. For the distinctions be-
tween els, πρός, and κατά, see notes
on Tit. i. τ.

ὅτι ἃ παραγγέλλ.] ‘that the things
which we command ;’ objective or ex-
positive sentence (Donalds. Gr. § 584,
see notes on ch. ii. 13), stating the
matter of the Apostle’s confidence.
The ἃ wapayyéAX.,—clearly not ‘ que
precepimus,’ Pelt,—here refers most
naturally to the commands which the
Apostle is now in the act of giving to
his converts, and links the present
verse in an easy and natural way to
ver. 6,

καὶ ποιεῖτε κ. troujo. belongs to the
apodosis of the sentence, καὶ... καὶ
presenting both ποιεῖτε and raze. si-
multaneously in a single predication ;
see notes on 1 Tim.iv. το. There is in
this verse much variation of reading.
After παραγγέλλομεν Rec. inserts ὑμῖν,
but it is rightly omitted by Zachm.
and T'isch. with BD'8 ; 2 mss.; Vulg.,
al. The insertion may have been sug-
gested by ver. 6. Also Lachm. reads
παραγγέλλομεν [ὑμῖν καὶ ἐποιήσατε Kal]
ποιεῖτε καὶ ποιήσετε, but the reading
in this extended form is supported only
by B, as FG (which insert καὶ ἐποιήσ.)
omit καὶ ποιήσετε. It is doubtful
however whether the καὶ should be
retained before ποιεῖτε as it is omitted
by AD'!N!; Syr. Observe that C is
deficient.

5. ὁ δὲ Kup. κιτ.λ.] ‘But may the
Lord direct your hearts ; repetition
of the Apostle’s prayer, introduced in
the form of a gentle antithesis (δέ) to
what precedes,—‘ I doubt you not, my
confidence is in the Lord; may He
however vouchsafe His blessed aid ;’
ἀμφοτέρων ἡμῖν χρεία καὶ προθέσεως
ἀγαθῆς καὶ τῆς ἄνωθεν συνεργείας,
Theod. The appearance of τοῦ Χριστοῦ

HE 4.5.6

127

e a 4 OL 9 A 9 , “ Θ A 4 : | 4
UM@V τας καρ tag εἰς τῆν αγαπην του εου και εἰς τὴν

e 4 -“ a
UTOKOVHV TOU Χριστοῦ.

Avoid all disorderly
brethren, and imitate
us. We charge such
to labour, and bid you
'mark them that dis-
obey. The Lord give
you peace.

in the concluding member of the verse
has led Basil (de Spir. Sanct. cap. 21),
Theod., Theoph., Gic., and recently
Wordsw., to refer ὁ Κύριος to the
Holy Spirit. This however is unne-
cessary, and indeed contrary to the
language of the N.T.; Κύριος appy.
not being so applied even in the de-
bateable passage 2 Cor. iii. 18, see
Meyer in loc. On the compound
κατευθύνειν (εὐθυπορεῖν, Theoph.), see
notes on 1 Thess. iii. 11, and on the
meaning of καρδία in such combina-
tions (here the centre of the active
will and its practical applications), see
Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych. iv. 12, p. 202,
Beck, Seelenl. 111. 24, p. 94, 95.

els τὴν Gy. τοῦ Θεοῦ] ‘into the love of
God; principle to which and into
which the Apostle prays that his con-
verts may be guided. The only doubt
is whether τοῦ Θεοῦ is a gen. subjecti,
under the more specific form of a gen.
auctoris, scil. ‘amor quem Deus homi-
num quasi infundit animis,’ Pelt,—or
simply a gen. objecti, ‘amorerga Deum,’
Beng., τὸ ἀγαπῆσαι αὐτόν, Theoph.
The latter is most natural; the love
of God is indeed the ‘virtutis Christi-
anz fons limpidissimus,’ Schott; see
Matth. xxii. 37.

τὴν trop. τοῦ Xp.] ‘the patience of
Christ.’ The meaning of these words
is also slightly doubtful, owing to the
different aspects in which the gen.
may be regarded. Analogy with what
precedes would suggest (a) a gen. ob-
jecti, ‘patient waiting for Christ’
(Auth., Chrys. 2, Theoph. 2), but
would introduce a meaning of ὑπομ.

ΠΠαραγγέλλομεν δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, 6
ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ,
στέλλεσθαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀδελφοῦ

that is appy. not lexically defensible,
and certainly is contrary to the usage
of the N.T. Of the other meanings,
(b) the gen. auctoris or cause efficientis
(Pelt) is plausible, but appy. less sim-
ple than the more inclusive possessive
gen. (Liinem., Alf.), ‘ patience such as
Christ exhibited ;’ ἵνα ὑπομένωμεν ὡς
ἐκεῖνος ὑπέμεινεν, Chrys. τ, Theod. 1,
comp. 1 Pet. ii. 21. On the meaning
of the word ὑπομονή, see notes on 1
Thess. i. 3. The addition of
the art. before ὑπομονὴν which Ree.
omits has the support of all the MSS.
most mss. and Greek Ff.

6. ILapayy. δὲ ὑμῖν] ‘Now we com-
mand you,’ transition by means of the
δὲ μεταβατικὸν (see notes on Gal. iii. 8)
to the more distinctly preceptive por-
tion of the Epistle. In what follows,
the exhortations of the former Epistle
(ch. iv. I1, 12, v. 14) are repeated and
expanded with more studied distinct-
ness of language, it being probable
that the evils previously alluded to
had advanced among some members
of this Church to a still more perilous
height. The words ἐν ὀνόματι κ.τ.λ.
give the παραγγελία a greater force
and solemnity; οὐχ ἡμεῖς ταῦτα λέγο-
μεν ἀλλ᾽ ὁ Χριστός, Chrys.: see 1 Cor.
v. 4, and comp. Acts iii. 6, xvi. 18.
The addition ἡμῶν after Κυρίου (Rec.,
with AD?E*7FGKLN; mss. ; Vulg.),
though strongly supported, is appy.
rightly rejected by Tisch. with BD'E!;
Clarom., Sangerm.; Cypr. (1), as a
likely interpolation. Zachm. inserts
it in brackets. στέλλεσθαι
ὑμᾶς] ‘that ye withdraw yourselves;

128

ΠΡῸΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ

Β.

ς , “ 4 4 4 4 ,
ATAKTWS TEMAATOVYTOS καὶ μὴῇ KATA THV παράδοσιν

7 ἣν παρελάβοσαν παρ᾽ ἡμῶν.

object-inf, stating the substance of
the mapayyeAla. The verb στέλλειν
{derived from a root =TA-, Pott, Hiym.
Forsch. Vol. 1. p. 1977] properly signi-
fies ‘collocare,’—thence, with a not
improbable figurative reference (τὰ
ἑστία, Rost ἃ. Palm, Lex. s.v. Vol. 11.
Ῥ. 1529), ‘cohibere,” ‘comprimere,’ and
reflexively, ‘se subtrahere,’ Vulg.,

= = 7 a» Υ͂ v
Clarom, 20442 l.001)
{ut sitis distantes] Syr., ‘gaskaidaip
izvis,’ Goth., sim. Copt., al.; comp.
Mal. ii. 5, ἀπὸ προσώπου ὀνόματός μου
στέλλεσθαι αὐτόν [where the Heb.
MM) seems to suggest a tinge of the
still further derivative meaning ‘ pre
metu se subducere ;’ Hesych. φοβεῖται,
στέλλεται], Gen. viii. τ (Aquit.), and
with an accus. 2 Cor. viii. 20, στελλόμε-
vo. τοῦτο, rightly translated by Vulg.
4“ devitantes hoc;’ add also Gal. ii. 12,
ὑπέστελλεν... ἑαυτόν, Heb. x. 38, ὑπο-
στείληται. For further exx., see Elsner,
Obs. Vol. τι. p. 283, Kypke, Obs. Vol.
II. p. 344, Loesner, Obs. p. 387, where
this verb is copiously illustrated.
ἀτάκτως περιπ.] ‘walking disorderly ;
comp. ἢ Thess. v. 14, τοὺς ἀτάκτους,
and see note on ver. 7. On this use
of the verb περιπατεῖν (περιπ. τουτέστι
βιοῦντος, Chrys.), as indicating the
general course of a life in its habitual
and practical manifestations, see reff.
on 1 Thess. iv. 12, and comp. notes on
Phil. iii. 18. κατὰ τὴν παρά-
δοσιν] “ according to the instruction or
lesson; παράδοσις (comp. ch. ii. 15)
including both the oral (comp. ver. 10,
1 Thess. iv. 11) and written instruc-
tions which the Apostle had delivered
to his converts. To refer this to a
παράδοσιν τὴν διὰ τῶν ἔργων, as Chrys.
and the Greek expositors do, is to in-
fringe on what follows, where this

9 Α 4 ” ~
αὐτοὶ yap οἴδατε πῶς

mode of teaching is distinctly speci-
fied. ἣν παρελάβοσαν]
‘which they received,’ scil. those inti-
mated in the foregoing expression
παντὸς ἀδελφοῦ, which here serves the
purpose of a collective substantive.
The main difficulty is the reading.
Lachm. (text) adopts παρελάβετε with
BFG ; 3 mss. ; Goth., Syr.-Phil., al.,—
but scarcely with plausibility, as the
change would have been so easily sug-
gested by the seeming difficulty of con-
struction in the 3rd plural. The same
may be said of Rec. παρέλαβε, which
however has only the authority of a
few mss. and Syr. The choice then
lies between παρέλαβον [Scholz, with
D*D?EK LN‘; mss.; Greek Ff.] and
the text παρελάβοσαν [Griesb., Tisch.,
Lachm. in marg., with AN!; Basil,
and ἐλάβοσαν, D']. The majority of
Versions support the third person
plural: C is deficient. The tendency
to grammatical correction coupled with
the known existence (Sturz, de Dial.
Alex. p. 60, Matth. Gr. ὃ 201. 5) and
prevalence even to a late period (Lo-
beck, Phryn. p. 349) of the form -οσαν
in the 3rd plur. of the imperf. and
second aor., induces us to acquiesce in
the probable, though not strongly sup-
ported reading παρελάβοσαν ; so Olsh.,
Liinem., Alf., and Wordsworth.

7. αὐτοὶ yap ot8.] ‘ For yourselves
know; confirmation of the wisdom
and pertinence of the foregoing exhor-
tation, and more esp. of the modal
clause immediately preceding, by an
appeal to their own knowledge and
observation. The Thessalonian con-
verts knew ‘of themselves’ πῶς δεῖ
x.T.\., and needed not that the Apo-
stle should inform them.
πῶς δεῖ μιμεῖσθαι ἡμ.} ‘how ye ought
to imitate us ;’ a simple and intelligible

ἘΠῚ 8:

\ , 129

= a 9 ec a 9“ ΛΝ
δεῖ μιμεῖσθαι ἡμᾶς, ὅτι οὐκ ἠἡτακτήσαμεν ἐν ὑμῖν, οὐδὲ 8
A ? 9 , , 9 ΄- ἫΝ ’ A
δωρεὰν ἄρτον ἐφάγομεν παρὰ τινος, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν κόπῳ καὶ
’ A A 4 9
μόχθῳ νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν ἐργαζόμενοι πρὸς TO μή. ἐπι-

‘brachylogy.? The more natural se-
quence would have been πῶς δεῖ περι-
πατεῖν καὶ ἡμᾶς μιμεῖσθαι, but the more
brief mode of expression is probably
designedly chosen, as throwing em-
phasis on the μιμεῖσθαι, and giving the
whole appeal more point and force.
It is somewhat doubtful whether the
plural is to be referred to St Paul
alone, or to the Apostle and his asso-
ciates. From comparison with 1 Thess.
ii. 9, where the ref. seems to be the
more inclusive one, we shall most pro-
bably be justified in adopting the same
view in the present case.

ὅτι οὐκ ἠτακτήσ.7 ‘in that we behaved
not disorderly.’ This is appy. one of
those cases in which the causal sen-
tence approaches somewhat nearly, —
not so much to the modal (comp. AXth.,
kama [sicut, quemadmodum], Peile,
‘how’) as to the relative (comp. Syr.

y
—aA01 ἢ)» [qui non ambulavimus])

or to the expositive sentence, with both
of which it has some logical and gram-
matical affinity ; comp. Winer, Gr. ὃ 60.
6, p. 479. It was not so much ‘be-
cause’ St Paul and his associates οὐκ
ἠτάκτησαν, as ‘seeing that,’ ‘in that,’
such was the case, that the Thessalo-
nians came to know how (‘quali ra-
tione vivendi,’ Beng.) to imitate them.
In a word, the εὐταξία was not so
much a cause, as a causa sine quad non
of the knowledge. This use of ὅτι,
which might perhaps be termed its
‘sub-causal’ or ‘secondary causal”
use, deserves some attention, esp. in
the N. T. The verb ἀτακτεῖν
is a dm. λεγόμ. in the N.T., as is
ἄτακτος (1 Thess. v. 14), while the
adv. only occurs in ver. 6, 11, the

whole group being thus peculiar to
these Epp. The word is here practi-
cally synonymous with περιπατεῖν
ἀτάκτως, ver. ΤΙ : it occurs occasionally
in classical Greek, sometimes in a
more restricted reference to τὰ στρα-
τιωτικά, 6. gy. Demosth. Olynth. III. p.
31, τοὺς ἀτακτοῦντας (‘qui disciplinam
militarem labefactant,’ Wolf), some-
times, as here, with a more general
reference, ¢.g. Xen. Cyrop. VIII. 1. 22;
see Kypke, Obs. Vol. 1. p. 345.

8. οὐδὲ δωρεὰν ἄρτον ἐφάγ.] ‘nor
ate we bread for naught.’ Δωρεὰν is an
adverbial accusative implying either
‘sine just& causa,’ Gal. ii, 21 (see
notes), or, as here, ‘ gratis,’ Vulg.,

> iv
τι Syr.,—the true idea of λαμβά-

νειν δωρεὰν being ‘ ita accipere ut nihil
referas, nullé preegress& caus& acci-
piendi,’ Tittm. Synon. 11. p. 161. The
formula ἄρτον φαγεῖν appears to be
Hebraistic (comp. ond Sox, Gen.
xliii, 25, 2 Sam. ix. ἢ, 10, al.), imply-
ing really little more than the simple
verb φαγεῖν (1 Cor. ix. 4), but, like
all these Hebraistic turns, being full
of force and expressiveness ; comp.
Winer, Gr. ὃ 3, p. 26 sq.

ἐν κόπῳ καὶ μόχθῳ], ‘2n toil and tra-
vail,’ scil. ἄρτον ἐφάγομεν ; adjunct of
manner, involving a tacit opposition
to the preceding δωρεάν. On the mean-
ing and derivation of these words, and
the apparent distinction between them,
see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 9.

γύκτα καὶ ἡμ. κ-τ.λ.] ‘working during
night and day ;’ participial explanation
of the preceding ἐν κόπῳ καὶ μόχθῳ,
more remotely dependent on the fore-
going ἐφάγομεν ; see Winer, Gr. ὃ 45.
6. Ὁ, p. 314. Liinem. connects the

K

130

ΠΡΟΣ OESZAAONIKEI= B.

9 βαρῆσαί τινα ὑμῶν" οὐχ ὅτι οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν, ἀλλ᾽

᾿ ἵνα ἑαυτοὺς τύπον δῶμεν ὑμῖν εἰς τὸ μιμεῖσθαι ἡμᾶς.

4 A Φ i A “ “ -“

10 καὶ γὰρ ὅτε ἦμεν πρὸς ὑμᾶς τοῦτο παρηγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν

participial clause closely with ἐν κόπῳ
καὶ μόχθῳ, according to which épy.
would have a more distinctly modal
force. This is perfectly admissible ;
the emphatic position of δωρεὰν how-

ever suggests the sharper antithesis .

which the separation of the members
here seems to introduce. The read-
ing νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας [Lachm. (non
marg.) with BFGN; 5. mss.; Chrys.
(ms.), Dam.] has very strong claims
to attention. Still it may have been
suggested by 1 Thess. ii. 9, ili. 10.
On the phrase itself, see notes on
1 Thess. l.c., and on τ Tim. v. 5.
πρὸς TO μή K.T.A] ‘with the view
of not being burdensome to any of you ;’
object contemplated in the νύκτα καὶ
nu. épyag. On the word émiBap., see
notes on 1 Thess. ii. 9, where precisely
the same words are used in reference
to the same subject.

9. οὐχ ὅτι] ‘ not that,’ limitation of
what precedes, to prevent the preceding
declaration being misapprehended and
misapplied: the Apostle reserves his
ministerial right and privilege of re-
ceiving if need be support from his
converts; comp. 1 Cor. ix. 4 58ᾳ. On
the use of this formula (‘ex dialecticis,
ut ita dicam, formulis Paulo solemni-
bus,’ Pelt), which is found several
times in St Paul’s Epp. (2 Cor. i. 24,
πὶ. Kp ῬΏΠ ail. στ. γι ΤΠ; 17), 866
Hartung, Partik. Vol. Τὶ. p. 154,
comp. Herm. Viger, No. 253.
ἐξουσίαν] ‘power,’ ‘right,’ scil. τοῦ
μὴ. épy. (De W.), or more naturally
τοῦ δωρεὰν φαγεῖν ἄρτον (Liinem.),—
the latter being the principal state-
ment of the preceding verse. The word
ἐξουσία (‘jus, licentia, auctoritas, ali-
quid faciendi,’ Schott) is used exactly

similarly in τ Cor. ix. 12.

ἑαυτούς] ‘ourselves ;’ with reference to
the Apostle and his associates. On
this use of ἑαυτοὺς for ἡμᾶς αὐτούς,
ὑμᾶς αὐτούς, see Winer, Gr. ὃ 22. 5,
p- 136, and for exx. in classical Greek,
Kriiger, Sprachl. ὃ 51. 2. 15.

εἰς TO pip. ἡμᾶς] ‘that ye should, to
the intent that ye, imitate us; not
merely an objective member, but as
usual specifying the object and pur-
pose of the ἑαυτ. τύπον διδόναι ; comp.
Winer, Gr. § 44. 6, p. 295.

10. Kal ydp] ‘For also,’ ‘for be-
sides ; second confirmation of the
wisdom and pertinence of the preced-
ing warning that they ought to avoid
those that were walking disorderly, —
the γὰρ being co-ordinate with the
preceding γὰρ in ver. 7, and the καὶ
having appy. a conjunctive force, and
serving to connect this argumentative
clause with that in ver. 7, and thus
more thoroughly to substantiate the
κατὰ Thy παράδ. ἣν κιτ.λ. Liinemann,
followed by Alf., makes καὶ ascensive,
and refers it to τοῦτο παρηγγέλλ., as
bringing out an additional element in
the reminiscence. This is somewhat
forced: καὶ yap has two usages in the
N.T.,—one in which the conjunctive
force of καὶ prevails (‘ etenim,’ Beza),
the other (‘nam etiam; ‘nam et,’
Vulg.,—but not Clarom., which omits
‘et’) in which the ascensive force is
predominant ; see Winer, Gr. § 53. 8,
p. 397, and notes on Phil. ii. 27. The
latter has been undoubtedly far too
often overlooked in the N.T. (comp.
Fritz. Rom. xi. 1, Vol. 11. p. 433), but
is not to be obtruded in a passage
like the present, where the context
(contrast 1 Thess. iii. 4) and sequence

III. g—12. 131

ὅτι εἴ τις οὐ θέλει ἐργάζεσθαι μηδὲ ἐσθιέτω. ἀκούομεν τὶ

an a , A 9
γάρ τινας περιπατοῦντας ἐν ὑμῖν ἀτάκτως, μηδὲν ἐργα-

ζομένους ἀλλὰ περιεργαζομένους.

of argument seem somewhat decidedly
in favour of the conjunctive use.

On the use of πρὸς with εἶναι and
verbs implying rest (παρ᾽ ὑμῖν, μεθ᾽
ὑμῶν, Theoph.), comp. notes on Gal.
i, 18, and see 1 Thess. iii. 4, and
ch. ii. 4 (els).

τοῦτο] ‘this,—that follows ;’ the pro-
noun being placed emphatically for-
ward to direct attention to the suc-
ceeding declaration ; comp. Winer, Gr.
§ 23. 5, p. 145. The partially pro-
verbial statement which follows is il-
lustrated by Wetstein im loc., and
Schoettg. Hor. Hebr. Vol. 1. p. 850:
the most pertinent quotation is Bere-
schith, x1v. 12, ‘R. Hunna dixit: fecit
eum servum manumissum coram se
ipso, ut si non laboret non manducet.’
The exhortation is expressed in the
form of a kind of ‘enthymeme’
(Whately, Logic, τι. 3. 7, p. 121), the
portion to be supplied being ‘ atqui
quilibet edit; ergo quilibet laborato,’
Beng. On the use of οὐ following
εἰ, when the negative is closely united

with the verb, see notes on 1 Tim. iii.

5, and the exx. collected by Winer,
Gr. ὃ 55. 2, p. 423 84., Gayler, de
Part. Neg. ch. Vv. p. 99 sq.

11, ἀκούομεν γάρ K.7.A.] ‘For we
hear that there are some walking, &c. ;’
ground for the reiteration of the Apo-
stle’s previous παραγγελία. In cases
like the present the predicative parti-
ciple is not merely equivalent to an
infinitive mood, but is idiomatically
used as marking the state or action as
now in existence, and coming before
the observation of the writer as such;
see Winer, Gr. § 45. 4, p. 308 sq.,—
where there is a good collection of
exx.; comp. also Schmalfeld, Synt.

τοῖς δὲ τοιούτοις τὸ

§ 217. 2, p. 437, and esp. the able
tract of Weller (Bemerk. zum Gr. Synt.
Meining. 1845), where the distinctions
between the finite verb with ὅτι, with
the infin., and with the participle, are
carefully stated, and illustrated by
numerous examples. ἀτάκτως]
See notes on ver. 7. μηδὲν ἐργαΐ.
ἀλλὰ περιεργ.]7 ‘doing no business, but
being busy-bodies,’ ‘nihil operantes,
sed curiose agentes,’ Vulg., Clarom.,

IM ASS ἢ. κδιῶο

ἸΔώ τ οο [et nihil quidquam ope-

rantes nisi vana] Syr.; more exact
specification of the preceding περιπ.
ἐν ὑμῖν ἀτάκτως by means of a forcible
paronomasia which cannot but be
weakened in translation ;» comp. [De-
mosth.] Phil. Iv. p. 150, ἐξ ὧν ἐργάξῃ
kal περιεργάζῃ, and Quintil. Jnst. Orat.
VI. 3. 54, ‘non agere dixit, sed sata-
gere.’ The verb mepiepy. is a ἅπαξ
λεγόμ. in the N.T., and serves to mark
the ἀνόνητον πολυπραγμοσύνην (Theod.),
the ‘pravam curiositatem et sedulita-
tem’ (Pelt), which marked the actions
of those to whom the Apostle referred ;
eontrast πράσσειν τὰ ἴδια in τ Thess. iv.
11, comp. περίεργοι in τ Tim. v. 13, and
see the good notice of this verb in
Suicer, Thesaur. s.v. Vol. 11. p. 670.

12. τοῖς δὲ τοιούτοις] ‘ Now to all
such,’ the article with τοιοῦτος marking
the whole class of persons that come
under the same denomination, and
have the same characteristics, as those
previously mentioned ; so Gal. v. 21.
See Kriiger, Sprachl. § 50. 4. 6, Jelf,
Gr. ὃ 453. B, and Kuhbner on Xen.
Mem. 1. 5. 2.

K 2

139

ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙ͂Σ 8.

παραγγέλλομεν καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν ἐν Kupio Ἰησοῦ Χρι-
στῷ ἵνα μετὰ ἡσυχίας ἐργαζόμενοι τὸν ἑαυτῶν ἄρτον

13 ἐσθίωσιν.

καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν] ‘andexhort(them),’
ὥσιλτο > Η > © [et petimus ab

iis} Syr.,—rovds τοιούτους (Schott), or
more simply αὐτούς (Liinem.), being
here supplied zeugmatically, as it is
called, to mapaxad., which is only
found with the accus. This παράκλη-
σις is ἐν Kup. Ino. Xp.; it is in Him
that it has its proper force and effi-
cacy; see notes on 1 Thess. iv. 1,
where παρακαλεῖν is enhanced by the
same addition. The reading can hardly
be thought doubtful: ἐν Kup. "Ince.
Χριστῷ is supported by AB(D'E! ἐν
K.’I. Χριστοῦ) FGN'; 4 mss. ; Vulg.,
Gothb., Copt., al. (Lachm., Tisch. ed. 7).
The reading of Rec. διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου
ἡμῶν Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ only rests on
the authority of D®E?KLN*; most
mss. ; Chrys., Theod. al. (Zsch. ed. 2).
C is deficient.

μετὰ ἡσυχίας] ‘with quietness; in
opposition to the busy and meddle-
some course of life followed by the
περιπατοῦντες ἀτάκτως and περιεργα-
ζόμενοι; see 1 Thess, iv. 11. The pre-
position μετὰ serves to point not to
the ‘causa instrumentalis’ (Kypke,
Obs. Vol. τ. p. 143), but to the conco-
mitant of their working,—that which
was associated with it, and character-
ized their ‘modus operandi; comp.
Winer, Gr. ὃ 47. h, p. 337. On the
derivation of ἡσυχία and its probable
distinction from the less common ἦρε-
pla, see notes on 1 Tim. ii. 2.

τὸν ἑαυτῶν ἄρτον] ‘their own bread,’
—‘their own’ (τὸν ἐξ οἰκείων πόνων,
Chrys.), not without emphasis ; they
were not to seek it at the hands of
others (comp. ver. 8), they were not
‘alien& vivere quadra,’ Juven. Sat.

ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀδελφοί, μὴ ἐνκακήσητε καλοποι-

v. 2. The sentiment is well illus-
trated by Schoettg. and Wetst. in loc.
from the Rabbinical writings, out of
which the following deserves citation ;
‘quo tempore homo panem proprium
edit, animo composito ac sedato est;
si vero panem parentum aut libero-
Tum comedit, non animo tam sedato
est, ne dicam de pane peregrino,’
Aboth R. Nathan, cap. 30.

13. ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀδελφοί] ‘ But ye, bre-
thren ;’ renewal of his address to those
who were ‘recte animati’ (Schott),
and lived orderly after the example
which he had set them. Such the
Apostle urges to pursue their course,
and not from faintness to fall into idle,
and eventually meddlesome and un-
quiet habits, like those he had just
been condemning. μὴ évkak.
καλοστ.] ‘lose not heart in well doing.’
The exact meaning of καλοποιεῖν has
been somewhat differently estimated.
Several modern writers, following the
hint, though not the exact interpr.
(μὴ μὴν περιίδητε λιμῷ διαφθαρέντας)
of Chrys., Theoph., assign to the verb
the idea of ‘conferring benefits ;’ the
connexion between this and the pre-
ceding verse arising from the gentle
contrast between the duty of living by
their own labour, and the still further
duty of conferring benefits on others ;
see Calv. in loc. As this meaning how-
ever seems to be lexically doubtful,
see Lev. v. 4 (Cod. Coisl., where καλοπ.
stands in antithesis to κακοποιῆσαι),
and as the more generic ‘recte agere’

(comp. Syr. Cs 2 OS So\)

is perfectly in harmony with the con-
text, it seems best here, as in the very
similar passage Gal. vi. g, to give

LS CURE cae 8 BES

οὔντες.

133

9 , » ? e , 4 , δ΄. ὦ τς A A
εἰ δέ τις οὐχ ὑπακούει τῷ λόγῳ ἡμῶν διὰ τῆς 14

A A “ 4 4 ,
ἐπιστολῆς, τοῦτον σημειοῦσθε Kal μὴ συναναμίγνυσθε

καλὸν its less restricted meaning. The
exact definition of this καλὸν lies in
the specifications of the context.
On the form ἐνκακεῖν [Lachm., Tisch.
with ABD'S] andthe somewhat doubt-
ful ἐκκακεῖν [Rec.], see the remarks
and distinctions in notes on Gal. L.c.
14. τῷ λόγῳ ἡμῶν KT.A] ‘our
-word conveyed by the epistle ;’
Υ͂ ρ n
glo: adc GAL
[sermonibus nostris istis qui sunt in
epistola]. It is doubtful whether διὰ
τῆς ἐπιστολῆς is to be joined (a) with
the following verb σημειοῦσθε, or (ὁ)
with the preceding subst. τῷ λόγῳ,
scil. τῷ διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ἀποσταλέντι,
(βουῃ. The former is adopted by
Ath. (Pol.), Beng., Pelt, Winer (Gr.
§ 18. 9. note 3, p. 108), and others,
either (a,) in the simple sense, ‘ notate
in epistola,’ Auth., scil. ‘in epistola
ad me script& illum suis notis depin-
gite,’ Grot.,—rfs ἐπιστολῆς referring
to the letter which St Paul would in
that case receive from the Thess. (see
Winer) ; or (ag) in the more artificial
sense, ‘hdc epistola freti severius trac-
tate,’ Pelt (comp. Beng.),—rfs ἐπι-
στολῆς in that case referring to. the
present epistle. Of these last men-
tioned (az) seems clearly forced and

improbable, while (a,), though some-.

what more plausible, lies open to the
contextual objection that the present
order of words would tend to throw

an emphasis on διὰ τῆς ἐπιστ. which.

cannot be accounted: for, and further
to the still graver exegetical objection

that a letter would seem uncalled for:

after the precept in ver. 6, where the
course to be pursued by the Thessalo-
nians is already stated. We retain
then (0) with Syr., not improbably
Vulg., Copt., Goth. [the exact order

of the Greek is preserved], Chrys.
(appy.), Theoph., Gicum., and most
modern expositors. The objec-
tion: founded. on the- omission of the
art. τῷ after ἡμῶν is not of weight, as
διὰ τῆς ἐπιστ. is so- associated with τῷ
λόγῳ ju. as to form with it only a
single idea; see exx. in Winer, Gr.
§ 20. 2, p: 123. It may be observed
that this is one of those cases in which
the use of the art. in the N. T. seems
slightly to differ:from that in the best
Attic Greek. While in the latter the
article is rarely omitted, except after
verbal substantives (Kriiger, Sprachl.
§ 50. 9. 9), or where the structural
connexion of the:prepositional member
with what precedes is palpably close,
this omission of the art. in the N. T.
is so far from unusual, that its inser~
tion usually implies some degree of
emphasis ; see Fritz. Rom. iii. 25,
Vol. I. p. 195 (note).

σημειοῦσθε] ‘mark,’—scil. by avoid-
ing his company (comp. ver. 6), as
more fully specified in the words
which follow. So paraphrasticall\ Syr.

x» n n
(2 aN —9;0/A3 [separetur a vobis],
comp. Aith.-Platt. The verb σημειοῦ-
σθαι isa dm. λεγόμ. in the N.T.: it
properly: implies in the active ‘signo
distinguere’ (Schott), e.g. ἐπιστολὰς
σφραγῖδι, Dion. Hal. Antig. iv. 57,
and thence in the middle ‘sibi notare
aliquid’ (Polyb. Hist. ΧΧΙΙ. 11. 12),—
more correctly, according to the Atti-
cists,, ἀποσημαίνεσθαι (Thomas-Mag.
p. 791, Herodian, p. 420, ed. Koch),
or as here, with a more intensive
force,. ‘not& (censoria) notare ; the
middle having what has been termedits
‘dynamic’ character, Kriiger, Sprachl.
§ 52. 8.4. For a large list of verbs
of this class, see Schmalfeld, Synt.

184

15 αὐτῳ, ἵνα ἐντραπῇ.
16 νουθετεῖτε ὡς ἀδελφόν.

ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΊΚΕΙΣ B.

καὶ μὴ ὡς ἐχθρὸν ἡγεῖσθε, ἀλλὰ
4 πε , A ae 4
αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Κύριος τῆς εἰρήνης

PY , δ΄ τῆν 4 ° Ψ ὃ A 4 9 a , e
@Y υμιν τὴν εἰρήνην ta WavTos ev ταντι τρόπῳ. Oo

4 a
Κύριος μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν.

§ 35) ἢ. 44 8q., and compare notes on
Col. iv. τ. |

μὴ συναναμίγνυσθε] ‘keep no company
with ; present, pointing to the course
they were to follow. The double com-
pound συναναμίγν. (Athen. Deipn. VI.
68, p. 256 A) is used in a sense little
differing from the simpler and more
usual συμμίγν., and probably only in
accordance with the noticeable ten-
dency of later Greek to accumulate
prepositions in composition. The read-
ing is doubtful; Lachm. omits καὶ
with ABD®EN; 17; Clarom., San-
germ., Goth., Copt.; Chrys. ; Tert.,
al.,—and reads συναναμίγνυσθαι in
which he is supported as to the termi-
nation by ABD!EFGN; on this last
reading it is impossible to pronounce
from the Manuscript evidence, on ac-
count of the constant interchange of ε
and a by itacism. Of the Versions
Clarom., Sangerm., Copt., Goth., sup-
port the infinitive, Vulg., Syr., Au-
giens., the imperative.

ἵνα ἐντραπῇ ] ‘ that he be shamed,’ ‘ut
confundatur,’ Vulg.; passive, —-not
with a middle sense, ‘ad se ipsum
quasi redire,’ Pelt (comp. Grot., ‘ut
pudore tactus ad mentem meliorem
redeat’),—a meaning for which there
seems no sufficient reason either here
or in Tit. ii. 8 (where see notes), The
active occurs in 1 Cor. iv. 14.

15. Kal does not stand ‘here in-
stead of ἀλλά ᾽ (Jowett ; comp. De W.,
‘aber’),—a most precarious statement,
—but, with its usual and proper
force, subjoins to the previous exhor-
tation a further one that was fully
compatible with it, and in fact tended
to show the real principle on which

the command was given: it was not
punitive, but corrective.

ὡς ἐχθρόν] ‘as an enemy,’ ‘in the
light of an enemy ;’ the ws being used
(here almost pleonastically, comp. ¢l-
λον γάρ σε ἡγοῦμαι, Plato, Gorg. p.
473 A) to mark the aspect in which he
was not to be regarded ; comp. notes
on ch. ii. 2, and on Col. iii. 23.

On νουθετεῖν, see notes and reff. on
1 Thess. v. 12.

16. αὐτὸς δέ κιτ.λ.1 ‘ But may the
Lord of peace Himself; the δὲ (as in
1 Thess. v. 23) putting in slight anti-
thesis the prayer with the foregoing
exhortation, and the αὐτὸς enhancing
the dignity of the subject ; comp. notes
on ch. ii. 16, where however the anti-
thesis is somewhat more distinctly
marked. On the meaning of the word
εἰρήνη, not merely ‘concord’ (wore
μηδαμόθεν ἔχειν φιλονεικίας ἀφορμήν,
Chrys.), but peace in its widest and
Christian sense,—the deep tranquillity
of a soul resting on God, see notes on
Phil. iv. 7, and on the nature of the
gen., see notes on 1 Thess. v. 23,—
but observe that Κύριος can more
readily be associated with the gen. as
being allied to verbs that regularly
govern that case; comp. Kriiger,
Sprachl. § 47. 26. 8.
διὰ παντός κ,ιτ.λ.] ‘continually in
every manner,’ —at all times (Matth.
xviii, 10, Acts ii. 25, Rom. xi. I0,
al., comp. Ast, Lex. Platon. Vol. II.
p- 63) and in every possible mode
of manifestation, ‘in omnibus que
facitis,’ Aith.-Pol. ; ὥστε πρὸς αὐτὸν
εἰρηνεύειν καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους Kal THs
τῶν ἐναντίων ἐπιβουλῆς ἀπηλλάχθαι,
Theod. The second mode however

eee te ἀρηῃθῇ

111. 15, 16, 17.

Autograph salutation
and benediction.

135

Ὁ ἀσπασμὸς τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ Ilav- 17

“ 59 A 93 9 “ e x
Aov, ὅ ἐστιν σημεῖον ἐν πάση ἐπιστολῇ" οὕτως γράφω

enters but slightly into the contem-
plation of the Apostle, as there is
nothing in the Ep. to make us think
that τὸ εἰρηνεύειν πρὸς ἀλλήλους had
been seriously endangered or violated.
The reading ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ, adopted
by Lachm. with A!D'!FG; 2 mss. ;
Vulg., Clarom., Goth. ; Chrys. [see the
note of Montfaucon], seems to have
been suggested by the not uncommon
occurrence of the formula (1 Cor. i.
4, 2 Cor. i. 24, 1 Tim. ἢ: 8), and
perhaps partially by the foregoing allu-
sion to time. The reading of the text
is supported by A7BD3 EK LN ; nearly
all mss.; Syr. (both), Copt., al. ;
Theod., Dam., and seems in every
way more suitable to the context.

17. ‘O ἀσπασμός k.t.d.] ‘The salu-
tation by the hand of me Paul ;
comp. I Cor. xvi. 21, and Col. iv. 18.
On the quasi-appositional genitive
Παύλου, see exx. in Jelf, Gr. ὃ 467. 4.
These words appy. form the com-
mencement of the autograph saluta-
tion with which the Apostle attests
the genuineness and authenticity of
the Epistle (comp. notes on Gal. vi.
11), the two verses having appy. both
been written by the Apostle,—not
merely ver. 18 (τὸ Ἣ χάρις κ.τ.λ.
ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐῤῥῶσθαί σε γράφειν εἰώθει,
Theod., al.), which, as Liinem. rightly
observes, could hardly be termed a
direct ἀσπασμός.

6] ‘which thing; not meaning, by at-
traction (see exx. in Winer, Gr. ὃ 24.
3, p. 150) to the following σημεῖον,
‘which greeting,’ but more simply
and naturally referring to the preced-
ing words, and to the general fact of
their being written τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ Ταύλου.
These autograph lines formed a σημεῖον
that the Ep. was not ws δ αὐτοῦ (ch,

ii. 2), but was truly and genuinely his
own inspired composition.

ἐν πάσῃ ἐπιστολῇ] ‘in every epistle ;’
appy. with reference to every future
Epistle (τῇ πρὸς οὕστινας δήποτε,
Theoph. 2) which the Apostle might
hereafter deem it necessary so to au-
thenticate, —not merely those he might
have contemplated writing to Thessa-
lonica (Theoph. 1, Liinem.); for con-
sider 1 Cor. xvi. 21, and Col. iv. 18.
If it be urged that these last men-
tioned are the only Epp. in which the
autograph attestation seems to have
found a place, it may be reasonably
answered that the πάσῃ must be un-
derstood relatively of every Epistle
that was sent in such a way or under
such circumstances as to have needed
it. All the other Epp. (except 1 Cor.,
Col., which have the σημεῖον, and
1 Thess., which was sent before cir-
cumstances proved it to be necessary)
are fairly shown both by De Wette
and by Alf. zn loc. to have either been
delivered by emissaries (2 Cor., Phil.),
to bear such marks (Gal. vi. 11, and
perhaps the doxology in Rom., Eph.),
or to be of such a general character
(Rom.? Eph.? and those to indi-
viduals), as to have rendered a formal
attestation unnecessary.

οὕτως γράφω] ‘so 7 write; scil. in
such characters as ver. 17 and 18
appeared to be written with. The sup-
positions that the Apostle here in-
serted some words (rd’Aomdfoua ὑμᾶς,
ἢ τὸ "Eppwode, 7 τι τοιοῦτον, CAcum.),
or adopted a monogram (‘conjunctis
scilicet apte literis 1 et A,’ according
to Zeltner, de Monogr. Pauli, Altorf,
1721; see contra, Wolf zn loc.), or
lastly ‘singulari et inimitabili pictura
et ductu literaruin expressisse illud

136

ΠΡῸΣ OEZZAAONIKEIS B.

18 ἡ χάρις τοῦ Kupiov ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ πάντων

ὑμῶν.

[᾿Αμήν.]

18. [Api] This is omitted by Tisch. (marked by Griesb. with) with
BN! ; 17. 44. 67%". 116; Fuld., Harl., Tol. ; Ambrst.,—but retained by Ree.
and Lachm. As it may not improbably be a liturgical interpolation it is the
safest course to insert it in brackets. See notes on Tit. iii. 15.

Gratia, &c.’ (Beng.),—seem all far too
artificial to deserve serious considera-
tion. The οὕτως simply and naturally
points to the visible and recognisable
difference between the handwriting of
the transcriber and of the Apostle.

18. ἡ χάρις «.7.A.] The same form
of benediction as at the end of 1 Thess.
(where see notes), except that the in-
clusive and significant πάντων is here

added,—‘all,?—- even those who had
deserved and received the Apostle’s
censure (comp. μετὰ πάντων, ver. 16)
were to share in his benediction and
farewell prayer ; see Pelt in loc., who
however joins with it the less probable
supposition, ‘ne rixe [none of which
appear to have existed] disceptationes-
que Thessalonicenses turbarent.’

ase ΒΡ ee ee FT UU aa me oa "5 5 Se 1 4 + - ψ- Ἂν im) peel | 8 OE ae aT ee Ost
i Pic >) οἰ. ὁ ΝΣ - - ᾿ -- ΡΟ. J "> ty
᾿ “Ὺ z ᾿ ᾿
᾿ iar ας τ Ue ΨΥ, ᾿ Ξ ΜΝ ae ΝΕ ᾿ - ν» " ΠΝ 2
‘ ᾿ 7 7 = 7 ‘ ᾿ 3 ᾿
᾿ τὶ πεν ee ae Sali .
» ww a ᾿ ᾿ a ‘Ev oie ~~ 7
4 7 ᾿ Fe ΝΙΝ = . 7
- J 7 7 ᾿ = ᾿ Ἵ
ΝΙΝ ‘ = ¢ ᾿
᾿ ᾿ ‘
“"
᾿ ᾿ ᾿
» ᾿ a
‘
᾿
᾿ 7 Ns
= + ᾿ 8:
- ᾿ - ᾿ . 2
φῶ Ε ; i
4 ᾿ i
7 ᾿ ey ne ie ; 7 ἜΝ a ᾿
n τς . ῃ a
ute ᾿ οἰ ᾿ = τ8
τὴν ᾿ ᾿
_ ᾿ Ἐ " a " ἃ } ἣν
" ᾿ ih - 7 =
᾿ ie ’ ᾿ 7 7, -
7 [
: ᾿ : ᾿ ; ῃ
= a τς a ᾿ ῃ yore ᾷ
. : Ϊ A
7 ᾿ =
2 ᾿ ᾿
ὃ τ ᾿
= ᾿ ᾿ ,
> 7 > 7 ut - ᾿ Φ
᾿ ve ~ = ee 7 ᾿ y - Ξ
Ἰ > As ε
- 5 ᾿ 7 Ξ νυ =.
-
- Π -
‘ ’ ᾿
Φ τι " ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ Ἡ
᾿ ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ i ᾿ ᾿
᾿ A. . ἵν
᾿ 5 " ᾿ ᾿
᾿ ᾿Ν ᾿ ᾿ Π
ΝΙΝ ¢a) ᾿ ψ
. ᾿ "
᾿ ᾿
- ᾿ ᾿ “ εν 1s
; ΕΝ = ; _ _ ᾿
By oe ᾿ on ri - =
A =| = 7 oy ; τ
᾿ = ᾿ ᾿
᾿ - = ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ 1)
᾿ > ι 7 7 7
δ 7 ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ J = ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ _ 7 = be - =
ΕΝ ᾿ τὰ "»ν ᾿ ; ᾿ ae ; 7
it, τ :
1 = =! ᾿
᾿ “ Ὁ ᾿ - μ >
᾿ ᾿ ᾿ <2 ὺν ΝΕ
; ᾿ Ξ ᾿ ᾿ γ᾽. “εν ἢ
Ε μι) Π ~ ‘i -~i 5 ‘
. ᾿ Γ i " ᾿ a ᾿

NOTICE,

HE following translation has been revised in accordance with
the principles laid down in former portions of this work.
Experience seems satisfactorily to show that change is undesirable
except where our Authorised Version is incorrect, inexact, insuffi-
cient, obscure (Pref. to Galatians, p. xxv), or inconsistent with itself
in renderings of the less usual words or forms of expression (Notice
to Transl. of Pastoral Epistles), The last form of correction is per-
haps the most difficult to adjust, as our Translators expressly state
that they have not been careful to preserve throughout their
work a studied uniformity of translation, and consequently any
attempt to do this regularly would reverse the principles on which
they acted, and tend to produce what they avoided—dulness and
monotony. Still in the same Epistle, and especially in the same
context, it is so obviously desirable to be consistent, that here at
least changes will have to be introduced. It must however
always rest with individual judgment whether the word or ex-
pression in question is of such a character as to demand uniformity, —
or whether it is best left to take its hue from the context. That
I have always been judicious in my decisions is more than I dare
hope, but still I have striven to make them with a clear recognition
of the general principles that characterize the noble Version which
I am presuming to revise.

That these points may be more fully considered, and that my
Opinion, where seemingly capricious or precipitate, may be more
completely tested, I have made a few additions to the notes in the
shape of reasons for the changes adopted, and I have further

140 NOTICE.

sought to add to the common stock of principles of revision a
brief record of my own experiences and my own many difficulties.
Sincerely and earnestly do I trust that the revision of our Autho-
rised Version may be undertaken in its own good time, and that
that time is not indefinitely remote, still year after year | am made
more sensibly to feel that this can only be done by a frank and
modest avowal, on the part of every one who has gained any expe-
rience, of the real difficulties that attend on the work,—difficulties ᾿
far more numerous than the inexact and often presumptuous criti-
cism of the day is at all aware of.

I have carefully considered the Revised Translation of these
Epistles published by the American Bible Union (Triibner, Lon-
don, 1856), and have in a few cases profited by its suggestions,
still I cannot but feel that this laborious work is at present very
far from what we may imagine to be the model of a national
Revision.

It may be as well to notice here that the translation of Wiclif
is quoted from the New Testament published by Pickering in
1848; that Coverdale’s Testament of 1538 is cited from the Paris
edition; that the edition of Cranmer employed is that of April
1540; that the Genevan Version is given from the first edition
1560; and that the citations from the Bishops’ Bible are made
from the first edition 1568. For the remaining Versions, of
Tyndale and Coverdale, the Rhemish and the Authorised, I

have used Bagster’s reprints.

ὲ
δὰ
7 “ἥ
7
3
|
a

THE

FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.

AUL and Silvanus and Timothy to the church of the I.
Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Je-

sus Christ.

Grace be to you and peace.

We give thanks to God always for you all, making 2
mention of you in our prayers; remembering without 3
ceasing your work of faith, and toil of love, and patience
of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the presence of God
and our Father: knowing, brethren beloved of God, your 4
election; because our Gospel came not unto you in word 5

1. Timothy] So Wict., CRaAnN.,
RuemM.: Timotheus, AUTH. and re-
maining Vv. See notes on Col. i. 1
(Transl.). In God] So all
Vv. except AUTH., GEN., which is
in God, —an unnecessary and inexact
addition, not adopted by AUTH. in
the parallel passage 2 Thess, i. τ.
And the Lord] So Wict., Cov. Test.,
Ruem. (our L.): and in the Lord,
AUTH. and remaining Vv. The addi-
tion of ‘in’ seems unnecessary, and is
best reserved for those cases where it
is expressed in the Greek, or where,
as in I Tim. vi. g (see notes), there
are contextual reasons for its introduc-
tion. The mistakes caused by such
insertions are well noticed by Blunt,
Parish Priest, p. 56. And
peace] AuTH. adds *from God our
Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

3. Toil] Similarly Wicu., traueyl:

labour, AuTH. and the remaining Vv.
except GEN., diligent loue. Though ‘la-
bour of love’ has from the alliteration
become familiar to the ear, it seems de-
sirable here to maintain the more strict
translation of κόπος : see notes in loc.
In the presence of |] So AutH. in ch.
li. 19: m.the sight of, AUTH. and the
other Vv. except WIcL., Cov. (both),
RueEw., before. It is of little moment
which of these translations is adopted ;
but as the expression ἔμπρ. τοῦ Θεοῦ
is only used by St Paul in this Epi-
stle, it should be similarly translated
throughout.

4. Beloved of God, your el.] So
AutH. Marg., Cov. Test., RHEM., and
(giving how that ye are electe) TYND.,
Cov., CRAN.: beloved, your election of
God, AUTH., BisH., and sim. GEN.
(that ye are elect of God).

5. Because] For, AutTH. and all

142

Το

1 THESSALONIANS.

only, but also in power and in the Holy Ghost and in
much assurance; even as ye know what manner of men
we became among you for your sake. And ye became
followers of us and of the Lord, having received the word
in much affliction with joy of the Holy Ghost; so that ye
became an ensample to all that believe in Macedonia and
in Achaia. For from you hath sounded forth the word
of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but in
every place your faith to God-ward is gone forth; so that
we need not to speak anything. For they themselves
report of us what manner of entering in we had unto
you, and how ye turned unto God from idols to serve the
living and true God; and to wait for His Son from hea-
ven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who de-

livereth us from the coming wrath.

Vv. except RHEM., that. Even as}
As, AvTH. and all Vv. It is almost
impossible to lay down any exact rule
for the translation of καθώς. Whether
the lighter ‘as,’ or the more expres-
sive and perhaps more literal ‘ even
as’ or ‘ according as’ is to be adopted,
must appy. be left wholly to the con-
text and to individual judgment.

Became] Behaued oure selves, TYND.,
Cran.; haue ben, Cov. Test., RHEM. ;
were, AUTH. and remaining Vv.

6. Followers] So AvuTH. and all
Vv. Though ‘imitators’ would be
more exact, it is hardly necessary to
displace the present idiomatic and
perfectly intelligible translation.

7. Became an ensample| Sim., are
become an ens., Cov. Test.: were *en-
samples, AUTH.; were an ensample,
Tynp., Cov., Cran., BisH.

And in Achaia] And * Achaia, AUTH.

8. Hath sounded forth] Sounded
out, AUTH., TYND., CRAN., GEN.,
BisH. The perfect ought always to
be observed in translation, Though
idiom may occasionally require the

aorist to be translated with the usual
sign of the perfect, the converse is
extremely rare ; comp. 2 Cor. i. 9.
But] But *also, AUTH.

Is gone forth] Sim. Cov. Test. (ὦ
gone out): is spread abroad, AUTH.,
Cov., Bisu.; spred her silfe abroade,
TYND., CRAN. ; 18 proceded, RHEM.

9. Report] So RuEm.: shew, AUTH.
and remaining Vv. Turned]
Returned, AUTH. ed. 1611, as given in
the English Hexapla.

10. From heaven] So AuTH. and
all Vv. except WioL., fro heuenes.
Many modern Vv. preserve both the
article and the plural, but with the
familiar usage of the word in the
N.T. (e.g. Matth. vi. 9) before us it
seems in general passages like the
present both harsh and unnecessary
to be thus literally precise. Who]
So RHEmM.: which, AUTH.

Delivereth] So Tynp., CRAN., GEN.,
Bisu. : delivered, AUTH., WIcL.; hath
delyuered, Cov. (both), RHEM.

Coming wrath] Wrath to come, AUTH.
and all Vv. (w. to comynge, WICL.).

—— =

ΟΟΒΑΡ, I. 6—IL. 3.

148

For yourselves know, brethren, our entering in unto II.
you that it hath not been vain: but after that we had suf- 2
fered before, and had been shamefully entreated, as ye
know, at Philippi, we were bold of speech in our God, so
as to speak unto you the Gospel of God in much conflict.
For our exhortation is not of error, nor yet of unclean- 3

Carter II. 1. Know, brethren] So,

in the same order, TyND., GEN.,
RueEm.: brethren, know, AvuTH., Cov.,
Cran., BisH. There seems here no
cause for departing from the order of
the original.
Entrance, AutH. There is no reason
why the rendering adopted in ch. i. 9
should not be retained.
Hath not been] Was not, AuTH. and
all Vv. Vain] So WICL.,
REM. : in vain, AUTH. and remaining
Vv.

2. But after] But “even after,

Entering]

AUTH. Had been shamefully
entr.] Were shamefully entr., AUTH.,
TYNpD., CRAN., GEN., BisH. The

other Vv. vary the translation of the
participle ; Cov. gives, but as we had
suffred afore, & were, &c.: Cov. Test.,
but we suffred...and were...and were
boldened : and RHEM., but hauing suf-
fered before and been abused, &c. If the
view taken in the notes be correct, it
seems best to regard both participles
as temporal, and to express them both
by the idiomatic resolution into the
English pluperfect. On the transla-
tion of the aorist part. when associated
with the finite verb, see notes on Phil.
ii. 30 (T’ransl.). Were bold of
speech] Were bold, AUTH. and the
other Vv. except WICL., hadde triste ;
Cov. Test., were boldened ; and RHEM.,
had confidence : see notes in loc.

So as to speak] To speak, AUTH. and
all Vv. (for to sp., Wict.). The intro-
duction of ‘so as’ seems necessary to
exhibit the explanatory nature of the
infinitive, and to avoid tautology.

In (3)] So Wict., Cov. Test., Cran.,
BisH., RHEM.: *with, AUTH., TYND.,
Cov., GEN. Conflict] So AuTH.
in Col. ii. 1, giving contention here.
There is much variation in the trans-
lation here: Bisynesse, WIcL.; care-
fulnesse, Cov. Test., RurM. (these
three following the Vuly. sollicitu-
dine) ; strivynge, TynD., Cov., CRAN.,
GeEN., BIsH.

3. 15] Was, AuTH. and all Vv.
Error] So all Vv. except AuTH., GEN.,
BIsH., deceit. Nor yet...nor}
Nor yet...nether, Tynp., Cov., CRAN.;
nor...nor, AUTH., Cov. Test., GEN. ;
nether...nether, WicL., BIsH.; not...
nor, RHEM. There is some little diffi-
culty in the choice of an appropriate
rendering in the different cases of con-
tinued negation. Perhaps the follow-
ing distinctions of translation may be
found generally satisfactory in appli-
cation. (1) Μὴ... μηδὲ or ov...0v5é will
commonly admit the translation (a)
‘not...neither,’ when the two words
or clauses to which the negation is
prefixed are simply parallel and co-
ordinate, e.g. Matth. vii. 6; (6) ‘not
..-nor,’ when there is some sort of
conuexion in thought, or accordance
in meaning, in the words or clauses
with which the negatives are asso-
ciated, 6. g. ch. v. 5; (c) ‘not...nor yet,’
where there is less accordance, and
where the latter clause has some-
what of a climactic character, e.g.
Phil. ii. 16, and see notes to Z’ransl.
(2) Μὴ..«μηδὲ..«μηδέ, ‘not...nor...nor’
(John 1. 13), where the terms are
similar or non-ascensive, or ‘not’

144

1 THESSALONIANS.

_4 ness, nor in guile: but according as we have been ap-
proved of God to be put in trust with the Gospel, even so
we speak; not as pleasing men, but God which proveth

5 our hearts.

For neither at any time used we speech of

flattery, as ye know, nor a cloke of covetousness; God is —

6 witness: neither seeking glory of men, neither of you nor
of others, though we might have used authority as Christ’s

. 7 apostles. But we were gentle in the midst of you, like as
8 a nurse cherisheth her own children; so, being affec-
tionately desirous of you, we had good will to impart to

followed by ‘nor...nor yet,’ as per-
haps Col. ii. 21 (but see notes), or by
‘nor yet...nor,’ as here, according as
the dissimilarity or climactic force
is mainly exhibited in the second or in
the third term. (3) Μὴ...«μήτε... μήτε,
‘not...neither...nor ;) where the first
negation, so to say, bifurcates, and is
expanded into two similar clauses in-
troduced each by the adjunctive μήτε;
comp. AUTH. in 1 Tim. i. 7. In cases
where there are three or more repeti-
tions of μήτε, our Authorised Version
appears to adopt in the main (3), re-
peating ‘neither’ after ‘nor;’ comp.
Matth. v. 34, Luke ix. 3.

4. According as] As, AUTH. and
all Vv. It has been before ob-
served that the introduction of ‘ac-
cording’ or ‘even’ must depend on
the general hue of the passage: here
it seems necessary. Have been}
Were, AUTH. Approved] So RHEmM.;
sim. prouede, WI0L.: allowed, AUTH.
and remaining Vv. Proveth| So
Wict., RuHEM.: trieth, AUTH. and
remaining Vv. WIoL. and RHEM. are
the only Vv. which preserve the paro-
nomasia in δεδοκιμάσμεθα ... δοκιμά-
ἕοντι.

5. Speech of flattery] Somewhat
similarly, worde of glosynge, WHOL. ;
the vvord of adulation, RHEM.:
flattering words, AUTH. and remain-

ing Vv.

6. Neither seeking] So Wiot., and
(giving nor) Cov. Test., RHEM.: nor...
sought we, AUTH., and so the remaining
Vv., except that they more correctly
adopt neither at the commencement of
the clauses. In some cases, especially in
St Paul’s Epp., it is almost impossible
to givean idiomatic translation without
converting the participle into a finite
verb (comp. Rom. xii. 9. sq.): here
however there is no such necessity.
Nor] So rightly Wiou. (nether), Cov.
(both), GEN., RHEM.: nor yet, AUTH.,
TYND., CRAN., BisH. Though]
Vvhereas, RHEM.; when, AUTH. and
remaining Vv. Have
used authority] So AutH. Marg.: be
charge to you, Wi0L. ; have bene charge-
able, TyND., Cov. (both) [adding vnto
you], GEN.; haue bene ἃ auctorite,
CRAN., BisH.; haue been a burden to
you, ἜΗΕΜ. ; have been burdensome,
AuTH. (Vulg. here adds vobis.)
Christ’s apostles] So Wict.: the Apo-
stles of Christ, AUTH. and remaining
Vv. (Cov. Test. omits the).

7. In the midst of] So Wicu.
(mydil), RHEM.: among, AUTH. and
remaining Vv. Like as}
So Cov.: even as, AUTH.

Her own] Her, Autu. and all Vv.

8. Wehad good will to] Somewhat
similarly, owre good will was to, TYND.,
CRAN., GEN., BISH.; we...wolde with
good wyl, Cov.: we were willing to,

᾿
%

SES Pr

Cuap. Il. 4—12, | 145

you, not the Gospel of God only, but also our own souls,

because ye became very dear to us.

For ye remember, 9

brethren, our toil and travail: working night and day,
that we might not be burdensome to any of you, preached
we unto you the Gospel of God. Ye are witnesses, and 10
so is God, how holily and justly and unblameably we be-
haved ourselves to you that believe; even as you know 13
how in regard of every one of you we did so, as a father
toward his own children, exhorting you and encouraging
you, and testifying that ye should walk worthy of God 12
who is calling you into His own kingdom and glory.

AUTH.; we...wolden, Wict., Cov.
Test. ; vve would gladly, Rumm. ἘΕὐ-
δοκεῖν occurs again in ch. iii. 1,
2 Thess, ii. 12, but it is not possible
to preserve a uniform translation.
Impart] So, as to the tense of the
infin., WIcL. (bitake), Roem. (deliuer):
hawe imparted, AUTH.; have dealte,
TYND. and the five remaining Vv.
Became] Similarly Wict., ben made ;
and RHEM., are become: were, AUTH.
and remaining Vv. Very dear]
Similarly Cov. Test., RHEM., most
deare; and WicL., most derworth:
dear, AUTH. and remaining Vv.

_ 9. Toil] Labour, AutH. and the
other Vv. except WIcL., traueyl
(giving werynesse for μόχθον). See
notes on ch. i. 3 (Z'ransl.).

Working] So Wiot., RuEM.: * for la-
bouring, AUTH. Itis well to translate
ἔργον, ἐργάζομαι, always by “ work.’
That we might not, &c.] Because we
would not be chargeable unto, AUTH.,
TYND. (greveous), Cov., CRAN., GEN.,
Bish. ; that we schulden not greue,
Wict. ; leste we shulde be chargeagle
unto, Cov. Test. ; lest vve should charge,
RHEM.

Preached we] We preached, Avtu.
The inversion seems to give a slight
force, and to keep in more immediate
connexion the participle and its finite
verb,

10. So ts God] So Tynp., Cov.
(both), Cran.: God also, AUTH., GEN.,
Bisu.; God, Wict., Roem. To you]
So WIcL., RHEM.: among you, AUTH.
and the other Vv. except Cov. Test.,
wyth you.

it. Even as] As, AuTH. and all Vv.
How in regard of, &c.| How we ex-
horted and comforted, and charged every
one of you, (as a father doeth his chil-
dren,), AUTH.: CRAN. alone preserves
the correct construction, though with
a somewhat free translation, how that
we bare soch affeccyon vnto euery one of
you, as a father doth vnto chyldren,
exhortynge, confortyng, and besechyng
you that, &c. This also seems the
more correct position for the clause
ws πατὴρ K.T.r., except that it some-
what interferes with the easy run of
the sentence. His own]
As above in ver. 7: his, AuTH. and
all Vv. except CRAN., which omits
the pronoun. Exhorting you]
AUTH. omits you here; and does not
supply it after the following word.
Encouraging] AUTH. and all Vv. use
the word comfort for παρακαλοῦντες
here: for the constr. of AUTH. see
above. Testifying] So AuTH. for
μαρτύρεσθαι in Gal. v. 3; Eph. iv. 17;
here it employs “charge, reading
μαρτυρούμενοι.

12. Should] So Ὑτσι.: would,
L

146

1 THESSALONIANS.

13 + For this cause we also thank God without ceasing,
that when ye received from us the word of preaching that
as of God, ye accepted not the word of men, but, as it is
in truth, the word of God, which worketh also in you

14 that believe. For ye, brethren, became followers of the
churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus, in
that ye also suffered the same things of your own country-

15 men as they too did of the Jews, who killed both the
Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and please

16 not God, and are contrary to all men, hindering us from

AUTH. and remaining Vv.

Is calling] Hath ealled, AUTH. and
the other Vv. except WICL., clepide.
Into] So Wict., RHEM.: unto, AUTH.
and remaining Vv. His own]
His, AUTH. and all Vv.

13. Wealso thank] Also thank we,
AvTH., GEN.: as καὶ belongs to ἡμεῖς it
is better to adopt the order of the text ;
sim. Cov. Test., RHEM. That
(before when)] So GeEn.: because,
AutH., BisH.; for, WicL.; because
that, TyND., Cov. (both), Cravn.,
RHEM. From us the word of, &c.]
Very similarly, of vs the worde of the
preachinge of God, Cov. (both), GEN.:
the word of God, which ye heard of us,
AutuH.; of vs the worde of the herynge
of god, Wict., RuEm. ; of vs the worde
wherwith God was preached, TYND.;
of vs ψ' worde (wherwith ye learned to
know God), CRAN. ; the worde which ye
hearde of vs concernyng God, ΒΙΒΗ.
Accepted] Received, AUTH. and allother
Vv. except WICL. (token, giving hadden
take before). It is desirable to show
by the translation that two words
are used, παραλαβόντες ... ἐδέξασθε.
Vulg. uses accipere in both cases.
Not] Jt not as, AuTH. and all Vv.,
and so Vulg. Worketh]
So all Vv. except AvuTH., BIsu.,
effectually worketh. See also AUTH.
in James v. 16, The force of évep-

γεῖσθαι, ‘ex se vim suam exercere,’
cannot easily be expressed in English:
‘to work’ seems hardly sufficient on
the one hand ; ‘to work effectually ’
somewhat too strong on the other.
The most exact translation is perhaps
‘to evince (its) working,’ but is not in
harmony with the tone of our Autho-
rised Version.

14. Followers] See note on ch. i. 6
(Transl.). Are in J.] So WICL.,
Cov. Test., RHEm., following the Vulg.:
in J. are, AUTH. and remaining Vv.
In that] Similarly GeEn., because: 80
that, Cov.; for, AUTH. and remaining
Vv. Suffered] Have suffered,
AvurtH. and all Vv. The same] So
WIcL., GEN., RHEM.: soch, Cov. Test.;
like, AUTH. and remaining Vv.

As they too did] Even as they have,
AUTH.

15. Killed both] Both killed, AUTH.,
GEN., BisH., RHEM. The prophets]
*Their own Pr., AUTH. Drove
us out] Haue chased vs out, AUTH.
Marg.; pursuen vs, WICL.; haue
persued vs, Cov. Test.; have persecuted
us, AUTH. and 6 remaining Vv.
Please not God] So Cov., Cov. Test.
(do not pl.), Ruem.: they please not
God, AuTH., Wick. (to g.); God they
please not, TYND., CRAN., GEN., BisH.

16. Hindering| And hynder, CRAN.,
Bisu.; forbidding, AUTH., WICL.,

πὰ
5
ὰ

Cuap. II. 13—17. 147

speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved,—in
order to fill up their sins alway. But the wrath is come

upon them unto the very end.

But we, brethren, having been torn from you for a 17
short time, in face, not in heart, the more abundantly en-

Cov. (both) ; and forbid, Tynp., GEN.;
prohibiting, Rum. Though the transl.
given by ΑΥΤΗ. is the usual one of
κωλύειν and cannot be ealled incor-
rect, yet that adopted in the text is
here far more forcible. From
speaking] To speak, AUTH.; see pre-
vious note. In order to fill up]
To filup, AutH. But] For, AurH.
and all Vv. ( forsothe, Wict.). Vulg.
here gives enim for δέ.

Is come] So AutH., and all Vv. (Cov.
adds allready) except Wrct., bifore
came. This certainly seems one of
those cases in which our English aorist
does not convey the full force of the
Greek, but remands the event too
absolutely to the past. While the
Greek ἔφθασε states the fact, but is
simply silent as to ‘quam late pateat
id quod actum est’ (see notes in loc.),
the English ‘came’ seems to express it,
and also to imply distinctly that the
event with all its issues plainly be-
longs to the past. Unto the very
end] Tilinto the ende, WICL. ; even to
the end, RuEM.; both following the
Vulg.: to the uttermost, AuTH., Cov.
(vento γ΄ vitemost), GEN. (vtmoste), BIsH.
(vtm.); even to the vtmost, TYND.,
CRAN.; vntyll the vttemost, Cov. Test.
The translation adopted in the text
perhaps more precisely renders φθάνειν
eis τέλος than the more qualitative and
appy. adverbial ‘to the uttermost ;’
see notes in loc,

17. Having been torn from you]
Being taken from you, ΑὝΤΗ. ; desolate
fro you, Wick. ; for as moch...as we
are kept from you, TYND., Cov. (haue
bene), CRAN., GEN. (were), ΒΙΒΗ.; beynge

kepte fro you, Cov. Test.; depriued
you, RuEm. It is almost impossible
represent in English without a para-
phrase the highly expressive dop¢a-
νισθέντες, which serves so forcibly to
convey not only the separation and
severance of the Apostle from his
converts, but also his desolate and
bereaved state while so separated. The
present translation, adopted by Mur-
doch (Transl. of Syr. N. T.), Peile,
and others, seems to approach this
meaning as nearly as any single word
that has yet been suggested.

Face] Presence, AUTH.: πρόσωπον is
translated face in the next clause.

The more abundantly endeavoured]
More aboundauntly haue hiyede, Wict.:
end. the more abundantly, AUTH.; en-
Jorsed the more, TYND., CRAN., GEN.,
Bisu.; haue haisted the more, Cov.;
hasted more spedely, Cov. Test.; haue
hastened the more aboundantly, RuEm.
Though all the Vv. except Wich. put
the adverb after and not before the
verb, the latter order is perhaps to be
preferred, as throwing the emphasis
more distinctly on the ‘more abun-
dantly.” It may be observed that
much caution must be used in adjust-
ing the order of the words in English
with regard to emphasis; for while in
Greek the emphatic word seems always
to have the precedence, the attentive
reader will often observe that the con-
trary is the case in English. In the
position of the verb and adverb how-
ever the two languages seem to be
mainly coincident. The discrepancy
between the English and the Greek
position of emphasis has been far too

ΤΟ

148

1 THESSALONIANS.

18 deavoured to see your face with great desire. On which
account we would fain have come unto you, even I Paul,
19 both once and again,—and Satan hindered us. For what
is our hope or joy or crown of boasting? Or 7s τύ not
also you in the presence of our Lord Jesus at His coming?
20 Verily ye are our glory and joy.

III.

Wherefore when we could no longer forbear, we

2 thought it good to be left behind at Athens alone; and
sent Timothy, our brother and fellow-worker with God in
the Gospel of Christ, to establish you, and to exhort you

3 in behalf of your faith that no man be disquieted in these

much neglected by modern revisers,
many of whom seem to think that in
all cases the most complete faith-
fulness is attained by rigidly following
the order of the original; see for ex-
ample the canons laid down by Wade,
Notes on the Revised Transl. of St John,
p. iy.

18. On which account] * Wherefore,
AUTH. Would fain]
Would, ΑΥΤΗ, and all Vv. Few words
cause more difficulty to the translator
of the N. T. than the verb θέλω:
‘wish’ is commonly much too weak,
‘desire’ not always exact, and ‘will’
and ‘would’ often liable to be mis-
taken for mere auxiliaries. In many
cases the Translators of our Version
appear to have availed themselves of
the past tense ‘would’ as a very suit-

‘able and idiomatic translation of the
present θέλω; comp. Rom. vii. 15 sq.
Here however it is open to the mis-
conception above alluded to.
Both onee] Once, AUTH.
But, AvTH. and all Vv.

19. Boasting] Rejoicing, AUTH. and
theother Vv. except WictL., Cov. Test.,
Ruem., glorie (glorie, Vulg.).

Or is it not also you] Whether yee ben
not, WICL.: are not even ye, AUTH. ;
are not eué you it, GEN.: are not ye it,
TynpD., Cov. (both), Cran., BISH. ;
are not you, RueM. It will thus be.

And (2)]

seen that Wict. alone offers any
equivalent to ἢ οὐχί (nonne, Vulg.),
and that καὶ is preserved only by AUTH.,
Gen. It is frequently difficult to de-
cide whether in interrogations intro-
duced by ἢ οὐχὶ the ἢ is to be regarded
as only giving a greater vividness and
abruptness to the question, almost
‘What! are not, déc.,’ or as really
retaining its proper disjunctive force.
In the present case, and in more per-
haps than are usually so regarded,
the latter seems the more correct
view. Lord Jesus| Lord Jesus
*Christ, AUTH.

20. Verily] Similarly, yes, TyND.,
Cov., CRAN., GEN., Bisu.; forsothe,
Wict.; for, AUTH., Cov. Test., RHEM.

CHapter III. 1. Thought it good]
On the transl. of εὐδοκεῖν, see note on
ch. ii. 8 (Transl.). Be left
behind] Be left, AuTH.; dwelle, WIcL.;
remayne, TYND. and six remaining
vee

2. Timothy] Timotheus, AUTH. :
see notes on Col. i. 1 (Transl.).

And fellow-worker with God] And
*minister of God, and our fellow-
labourer, AUTH. Exhort] So
Cov. Test., RoEm. (ad...exhortandos,
Vulg.): comfort, AUTH., TYND., Cov.,
CRAN., GEN., BISH.

In behalf of ] *Concerning, AUTH.

δ
Ed
} Ξ ᾿
ἐξ
5

Cuap. II. 18---Π|. 7. ες .149

afflictions: for yourselves know that we are appointed

thereunto. For verily, when we were with you, we told 4

you before that we were to be afflicted; as also it came
to pass, and ye know. For this cause, when I too could 5
no longer forbear, I sent with a view of knowing your

toil should prove in vain.

‘faith, lest haply the tempter have tempted you, and our

But now when Timothy came unto us from you, and 6
brought us the good tidings of your faith and love, and
that ye have good remembrance of us always, longing
to see us, as we also fo see you,—for this cause were we 7

3. Be] So Wicu., RuEm.: should
be, AUTH. and remaining Vv.
Disquieted] Moved, Autu. and all Vv.
As the word is peculiar and a ἅπαξ
λεγόμενον, it is better to give it a dis-
tinguishing translation. In] So
all Vv. except AuTH., by; and GEN.,
with.

4. Were tobe afflicted] Should suffer

tribulation, AuTH. and all Vv. WICL.,
Cov. Test., GEN., RHEM., however give
tribulacons (vs to suffre t.. WICL.).
As also] So Cov. Test. (putting also
after passe), RHEM.; as ὦ, WICL.:
even as, AUTH. and remaining Vv.

5. I too] Sim., 1 also, RHEM.:

_AuTH. and remaining Vv. except

Wict. (which gives ὦ J poul) omit to
translate καί. With a view of
knowing] To know, AuTH., WICcL. (for
to), Cov. Test., ΒΙΒΗ., ΒΗΒΜ.; 9° J
mighte kn. of, GEN.; that Imyght have
knowledge of, TyND., Cov., CRAN.

Haply| So Tynp., Cov. (both); and
sim., parauenture, WIcL.; perhaps,
RuEM.: by some means, AUTH., CRAN.,
Bisu. ; in any sorte, GEN. Have
tempted] So Autu., Cov. Test., RHEM.
(hath): had t., TynpD., Cov., CRAN.,
GEN., BisH. WICtL. gives schal tempte.
Neither translation is quite exact or
strictly idiomatic; the English perfect
however seems here to approach more

nearly to the present use of the Greek
aorist than the pluperfect, and per-
haps, owing to the peculiar form of
the expression in the original, may be
considered as admissible in point of
English. Toil] Labour, AuTH.
See notes on ch. i. 3 (Zransl.).
Should prove] Be, AvutH.; be made,
Wict., Cov. Test., Rurzm.; had bene
bestowed, TYND., Cran.; had bene,
Cov., GEN., BIsH.

6. Timothy] Timotheus, AUTH.: see
notes on Col. i. τ (T'ransl.). Unto
us from you] So Wict, (to), Cov. Test.,
Ruem.: from you unto us, AUTH. and
remaining Vv.,—a departure from the
order in the Greek for which there
does not here seem any satisfactory
reason. The good tidings] Good t.,
AUTH. Love] So Tynp., Cov.,
CRAN., GEN., Bisu.: charity, AUTH.,
Wict., Cov. Test., Rurm. On this
correction see notes on 1 Tim. i. 5
(T'ransl.). Longing] Desiring
greatly, AUTH.; desirynge, Wick. and
remaining Vv.: the ἐπὶ in ἐπιποθεῖν is
not intensive; see notes. Cov. gives,
desyringe to se vs as we also longe to
86 YOu,

7. For this cause] Therefore; AUTH.
and all Vv. Were we] We were,
AutH. The transposition seems to
keep the sentence a little closer toge-

180

_1 THESSALONIANS.

comforted, brethren, over you in all our necessity and

8 affliction by your faith: since now we live, if ye stand

9 fast in the Lord. For what thanksgiving can we render

to God for you, for all the joy which we joy for your sakes

10 in the presence of our God; night and day praying very

exceedingly that we may see your face and supply the
lacking measures of your faith ?

11 Now may God Himself and our Father and our Lord

12 Jesus Christ direct our way unto you.

But you may

the Lord make to increase and abound in your love to-
wards one another and towards all men, even as we also

ther, and is frequently adopted in
AUTH. Brethren] So, in this
order, RHEM.: AUTH. and remaining
Vv. append it to therefore. Here it
seems more exact to retain the order
of the Greek. Necessity and
afiliction |*A fiction and distress, AUTH.
There is no cause for forsaking the
ordinary rendering of ἀνάγκη which is
preserved by 6 Versions. AUTH. has
here distress; Wich. and Cov. Test.
give nede.

8. Since] For, AUTH. and the other
Vv. except RuEM., because. Here the
particle ὅτι seems scarcely to have so
full a force as ‘because,’ and yet to be
somewhat stronger than ‘for,’—which,
as a general rule, it is desirable to re-
serve as the translation of γάρ.

9. Thanksgiving] So Cov. Test.,
RuHeEM., and sim. Wick. (doinge of
thankyngis): thanks, AUTH. and re-
maining Vv. Render to God]
So Cov. Test. (vnto), RHEM., and simi-
larly Wick. (yilde to god): render to
God again, AUTH. ; recompence to god
agayne, TYND., Cov., CRAN., GEN.,
BIsu. Which] Similarly, that,
Tynp., Cov. (that we haue concernynge
you before oure G.), CRAN.: wherewith
Autu., Cov. Test.,GEN., BIsH., RHEM, ;
in whiche, WI0tL. .

In the presence of | Before, AuTH. and
all Vv.; see notes on ch. i. 3 (7’ransl.).

10. Very exceedingly] Exceedingly,
Aut. See ch. v. 13, Eph. iii. 20, the
only places where this ernphatic com-
pound ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ [-Gs] occurs.
May] So Cov. Test., RuEM.: might,
AUTH, Supply, &c.| Might per-
fect that which is lacking in, AUTH.,
and sim. TyND. and Cov. (both giving
fulfill), Gun. (accdplish); fuljille tho
thingis that faylen of, Wicu.; to ful-
Syll the thynges that are lakyng vnto,
Cov. Test., Cran. (myght...which) ;
repayre the wantynges of, BISH.; may
accomplish those things that vvant of,
RueEM. Cov. omits might (2).

11. May God] AUTH. and the other
Vv. omit may, which however seems
to add perspicuity to the sentence
(CRAN. gives wrongly God...shall).

12. But you may the Lord make}
And the Lord make you, AutH. But
is rightly given by Cov. (both). Though
there is perhaps some little awkward-
ness in the prominence given to the
pronoun, it seems required to convey
to the English reader the antithesis of
the original; see notes. Your]
So Wict., Cov. Test., RuEM., follow-
ing the Vulg. It is better to insert
the pronoun in transl. though it is
here omitted by AuTH. and remaining
Vv. Towards one another] One
towards another, AUTH. We
also} So Cov. Test., BisH., RHEM.:

Cuap. III. 8—IV. 6. 151

abound towards you; to the end He may stablish your 13
hearts unblameable in holiness in the presence of God
and our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with
all His saints.

Furthermore then, brethren, we beseech you and ex- IV.
hort you in the Lord Jesus, that as ye received of us how
ye ought to walk and to please God, as indeed ye are
walking—that so ye would abound still more. For ye 2
know what commandments we gave you by the Lord
Jesus. For this is the will of God, even your sanctifica- 3 |
tion, to wit that ye abstain from Fornication,—that every 4
one of you know how to get himself his own vessel in
sanctification and honour, not in lustfulness of desire, 5
even as the Gentiles also which know not God; that no 6

we, AUTH. omitting καὶ in translation.
Abound (2)] Do, AUTH.

13. In the presence of | Before,
AurTH. and all Vv.: see notes on ch.
i. 3 (Transl). God and our Father]
So Wict., Cov. Test., ΒΙΒΗ., RHEm.:
God even our Father, AUTH., GEN.;
God oure father, TynD., Cov., CKAN.
On the best mode of translating this
august formula, see notes on Gal. i. 4
(Transl.). Lord Jesus| Lord
Jesus* Christ, AUTH.

Cuapter IV. 1. Furthermore]
So AuTH. and the other Vv. except
WIcL., hensforthwarde; and RHEM.,
for the rest. This translation of
λοιπὸν is perhaps not exactly literal,
but seems sufficiently approximate:
‘finally’ would here be hardly ap-

‘propriate, and ‘for the rest’ (RHEM.),

though literal, is both harsh and awk-
ward.

Brethren, we] So Cov. Test., RHEM.,
and similarly WIL. (therfore br. hens.
we): AUTH. and remaining VV. insert br.
after you,—but not in accordance with
the Greek order. In] So WIct.,
TynpD., Coy. (both), Gzn., RHEM.: by,

AutH., CRAN., ΒΙΒΗ. Received)
Have received, AutH. and all Vv.

As indeed ye are walking] AUTH.
*omits this clause. That 80]
AUTH. omits *that. Still more]
More and more, AUTH. and the other
Vv. except WIcL., RHEM., more; and
Cov. Test., which gives that ye maye be
more plentyfullyer.

3. To wit that ye] Sim., that yee,
Wict., Cov. Test., RHEM. (you): that
ye should, AuTH., Cov., CRAN., BISH. ;
and that ye shuld, TYND., GEN.—but
Tyrnp. translates the preceding clause
even that ye shuld be holy: GEN. as
AUTH.

4. Know] Should know, Αὐτή.
This clause is parallel to the preceding
‘to wit that,’ &c. Get himself ]
Possess, AUTH., GEN., BisH., RHEM. ;
welde [t.e. wield] Wicu.; kepe, TYND.,
Cov., CRAN.; vse, Cov. Test.

His own] His, AutTH. and all Vv.

5. Lustfulness of desire] Sim., pas-
sioun of desire, WicL.: the passion of
lust, RuEM.; the lust of concupiscence,
AUTH. and remaining Vv.

Gentiles also] AUTH. omits καὶ in trans-
lation.

152

1 THESSALONIANS.

man go beyond and overreach his brother in the matter:
because that the Lord 7s the avenger of all these things,

7 as also we before told you and did solemnly testify.

For

God called us not for uncleanness, but in sanctification.

8 Wherefore then he that rejecteth rejecteth not man but
God, who also gave His Holy Spirit unto you.

9 Now as touching brotherly love ye need not that I

write to you; for ye yourselves are taught of God to love

10 one another: for indeed ye do it towards all the brethren

that are in the whole of Macedonia. But we exhort you,

6. Overreach] So AutTH. Marg. (op-
presse, or, ouerreach): deceyue, WICL.;
begyle, Cov. Test.; circumuent, RHEM.
(all three from Vulg., circumveniat) ;
defraud, AUTH. and 5 remaining VV.
The matter] So AutTH. Marg.: any
matter, AUTH., GEN., BisH.; bargayn-
ange, TYND., Cov. (both), CRAN.;
businesse, RHEM. All these
things] So Wict., Cov. Test., RHEM.:
all such, ΑΥΤΗ., BrisH.; all suche
thinges, TYND., Cov., CRAN., GEN.
As also, &c.| As we also have forewarn-
ed you, and testified, AUTH., ΒΙΒΗ.
The renderings of the other Vv. are
here added as they exhibit a singular
variety of translation in a simple
clause. As we bifore seyden to you, &
haue witnesside (or prouede by autorite),
Wict.; as we tolde you before tyme
and testified, TYND., CRAN. (om. tyme) ;
as we haue sayde & testified vnto you

afore tyme, Cov.; as we haue sayd and
witnessed vnto you before, Cov. Test.;
as we also haue tolde you before time
and testified, GEN.; as vve haue fore-
told you, and haue testified, RHEM.
The slight change to ‘did testify’ is
made for the sake of preserving a sort
of rhythm; comp. notes on Phil. ii.
16 (Transl.).

7. Called us not] Clepide not vs,
Wict.; hath not called us, AUTH. and
remaining Vv. For (2)...in] To
...vnto, Cov.; vnto...into, BIsH.; inte

(bis), WicL., RHEM. ; wnto (bis), AUTH.
and 4 remaining Vv. It is probably a
mere accident that Cov. and Bisu.
preserve a difference in rendering be-
tween ἐπὶ and ἐν. Sanctification]
So RueEm.: holiness, AUTH. It is well
to preserve uniformity of translation
with ver. 3, 4.

8. Wherefore then he] And so he,
Wict.; wherfore he, Cov. Test. ; ther-
fore he, Ruem. ; he therefore, AuTH.
and remaining Vv. Rejecteth
(bis)]So AurH. Marg.: despiseth, AUTH.
and all Vv. WICcL., Cov. Test., GEN.,
RuEM., insert thes thingis after the first
dispisith (Vulg. haec). Gave]
So Wict.: hath sent, TYND., CRAN.;
hath...given, AUTH. andremaining Vv.
His Holy Spirit unto you] Unto *us his
holy Spirit, AuTH.; his holy spirit in
vs, Wict., Cov. Test., RHEM.; his
holy sprete amonge you, TYND., CRAN. ;
his holy sprete in to you, Cov.; you his
holie Spirit, GEN.; to you his h. s.,
BISH.

9. Now] But, AuTH. and all Vv.
except WICL. (forsothe).

10. For indeed] And in deed, AUTH.;
& forsothe, Wicu.; for, Cov. Test.; ye
and...verely, TYND., CRAN., GEN.,
Bis. ; yee and, Cov., RHEM.

That| Which, AuTH. The whole
of M.] Whole M., Cov. Test.: all M.,
AvTH. and remaining Vv.

Exhort] Beseech, AUTH.: see ver. T.

Cuap. IV. 7--15. 153

brethren, to abound still more, and to study to be quiet, 11
and to do your own business, and to work with your
hands, according as we commanded you; in order that 12
ye may walk becomingly toward them that are without,

and may have need of no man.

Now we would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, 13
concerning them that are sleeping, that ye sorrow not, even

as the rest which have no hope.

For if we believe that 14

Jesus died and rose again, even so them that are laid to
sleep through Jesus will God bring with Him. For this 15
we say to you in the word of the Lord, that we which are

To abound] That yee abounde, WICcL.,
RueEM. (you); that ye increase, AUTH.
and remaining Vv. Still more]
More, Wict., RHEM.; more and more,
AutH. and remaining Vv. (yet m. and
m., Cov.). See ver. 2.

11. To study] That ye st., AUTH.
Your hands] So Wict., Cov. Test. :
your own h., AUTH. and remaining
Vy; According as] As, AUTH.
and all Vv.

12. In order that] That, AUTH.

and all Vv. Becomingly]
Honestly, Auta. and all Vv. The
translation ‘seemly’ deserves consi-
deration, but is appy. open to the
objection that in point of strict ety-
mology such a form of the adverb is
somewhat doubtful; see Trench, on
Auth. Vers. ch. 11. p. 31. May
have] That ye may have, AUTH.
Need| Lack, AUTH. No man]
So AutH. Marg.: nothing, AUTH.
The clause is translated, and that no-
thinge be lackynge vnto you, by TYND.,
Cov., CRAN., GEN., BISH. (in you).

13. Now] But, AutH., BisH.; for-
sothe, Wicu.; and, RuEM. : the remain-
ing five Versions omit δὲ in translation.
We] *J, AUTH. That] Which,
AUTH. Are sleeping] Are *asleep,
AuTH., GEN.; are fallen a slepe, TYND.,
Cov., CRAN.; slepe, Cov. Test., BIsu.,
Ruem. For περὶ τῶν x. Wich. has

simply of men slepyng (or dyinge).
The rest] Others, AUTH., RHEM.; other,
Wict. and the six remaining Vv.

14. Them that are laid to sleep
through Jesus] Them also which sleep
in Jesus, AUTH.: no Version has at-
tempted to express the Aorist parti-

ciple.
15. In] So all Vv. except AUTH.,
GEN., by. Which are living and

are remaining behind] Which are alive
and remain, AUTH.; that lyuen that
ben residue (or lefte), WicL.; which
live and are remayninge, TYND., Cov.,
GEN.; that lyue, whych remayne, Cov.
Test.; whych shall lyue, & shall re-
mayne, CRAN.; whiche lyue, remayn-
ing, BisH.; vvhich liue, vvhich are re-
maining, RHEM. It is not easy to
give these words a perfectly aecurate
and perfectly idiomatic translation :
‘we the living, the remaining, ἀπ.
would be accurate, but bald; ‘we the
living who are, &c.’ somewhat harsh
and appositional. We therefore may
perhaps not unwisely retain the ‘and,’
and also (with AUTH.) omit the second
relative in translation, as tending to
overload the sentence. The slight ad-
dition ‘behind’ seems suggested by
the compound περιλείπεσθαι, the prep.
probably marking the idea of over-
plus, and thence, in the present con-
text, of a continuance on earth and

154

1 THESSALONIANS.

_ living and are remaining behind unto the coming of the
Lord shall in no wise prevent them that are laid to sleep:
16 because the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with
a shout, with the voice of the Archangel, and with the
trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first;
17 then we which are living and are remaining behind shall
be caught up at the same time together with them in
clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever
18 be with the Lord, So then comfort one another with

these words.

V. But eoncerning the times and the seasons, brethren,

2 ye have no need to be written to.

For yourselves know

perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in
3 the night. When they shall say Peace and safety; then
doth destruction come suddenly upon them, as travail

survival; comp. Herod. I. 82.

Shall in no wise] Shall not, AuTH. and
all Vv. Great caution is required in
the translation of οὐ μὴ in the N.T.,
as in some cases it appears very doubt-
ful whether any emphatic negation is
really contemplated by the writer, and
whether the formula was not due to
that general tendency to strengthened
negation which is often observable in
later Greek. Perhaps the simplest
and best rule is to be guided by the
context,—which here seems to require
the stronger form of translation.
Prevent] If it be thought necessary to
alter this now obsolete word, we may
have recourse to the more modern
‘ precede:’ archaisms however as such
are not altered in this Revision.

Them that are laid to sleep] Them
which are asleep, AUTH.: see note
on ver. 14.

16. Because] For, AUTH. and all
Vv. In the following words it is per-
haps doubtful whether the order of
‘the Greek, which places καταβήσεται
ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ last, might not be advan-
tageously retained, as indeed it is by

Wict., Rum. It tends however to
throw appy. a greater stress on these
words than is conveyed by the ori-
ginal.

17. Are living, &c.] Are alive, and
remain, AUTH.: see note on ver. 1.
At the same—them] Together with
them, AUTH., Wict., Cov. Test., ΒΙΒΗ.;
with them also, Tynv., Cov., CRAN.,
GEN.; vvithal...vvith them, RuEM. On
the translation of ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς, see
notes in loc. In clouds] So
Wict.: in the clouds, AUTH. and re-
maining Vv.

18. So then] Wherefore, AUTH. and
the other Vv. except WIcL., & so;
and RuHEM., therfore.

CHAPTER V. 1. Concerning] Of,
Avra. and all Vv. To be
written to] To wryte vnto you, Cov.;
that we do wryt unto you, Cov. Test. ;
that vve vvrite to you, RuEm.; that I
write unto you, AUTH. and remaining
Vv. (WICL., to).

3. When] *For when, AUTH.

Doth destruction come suddenly] Sud-
den destruction cometh, AUTH.: αἰφνί

Ἐπὶ 3
ie:
Ἦ

of darkness.

are drunken in the night.

Caap. IV. 16—YV. 11. 155

‘upon a woman with child; and they shall in no ‘wise

escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that the 4
day should overtake you as a thief. For ye all are sons 5
of light, and sons of the day: we are not of the night, nor

Accordingly then let us not sleep, even as 6
do the rest; but let us watch and be sober.

For they 7

that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken

But let us, as we are of the 8

day, be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and
love, and as an helmet the hope of salvation; because 9
God did not appoint us unto wrath, but to obtain salva-
tion through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, that, 10
whether we watch or sleep, we should together live with
him. Wherefore comfort each other, and edify one the I1

other, even as also ye do.

dios is a ‘secondary predication of
manner,’ a force preserved by no Ver-

sion. In no wise] Not, AUTH.
and all Vv.; see notes on ch. iv. 15
(Transl.).

4. The day] The ilke d., Wi0u.; the
same d., RHEM.; that d., AUTH. and re-
maining Vv. (Cov. Test. omits one that
appy- by mistake). It may be doubted
whether the text is here so explicit
as AUTH.; the translation however of
the article by a pronoun is so hazard-
ous, and so erroneous in principle,
that the cases are but very few in
which idiom or perspicuity can be al-
lowed to prevail over the literal ren-
dering: comp. 2 Thess. iii. 14.

5. Lor ye all are]* Ye are all, AUTH.
Independently of the insertion of ydp,
which is required by Manuscript au-
thority, it seems better to give to ‘all’
a prominence corresponding to that of
πάντες in the Greek. Sons

(bis)] Similarly τσ. (the sones...

sones): the children, AutTH. and re-
maining Vv.; but Cov. omits the arti-
cle in both cases, and RHEM. omits it
in the second.

6. Accordingly then] Therefore,
AurTH. and all Vv. Even as] As,
AUTH. The rest] The other,
Cov. Test.: others, AUTH., RHEM.;
other, TYND. and 5 remaining Vv.

8. As we are] Who are, AuTH.: all

Versions insert a relative.
Having put on] Putting on, AUTH.:
see notes in loc. As an helmet]
So Tynp.: for an helmet, AUTH.,
CRAN., GEN. .

9. Because] For, AuTH. and all
Vv. Did not appoint] Hath not
appointed, AutH. and the other Vv.
except WICL. ( puttide not).

Through] So Cov. Test.: by, AUTH.,
Wict., ΒΙΒΗ., RuEm.; by the meanes
of, TYND., Cov., CRAN., GEN.

10. Watch] So Ruem.: wake, AuTH.
and remaining Vv.: see ver. 6.
Together live] Live together, AUTH. and
all Vv.; see notes.

11. Each other] Your selves together,
AutH., TYND., Cov., CRAN., BISH.;
one another, Cov, Test., GEN., RHEM.
One the other] Eche other, WIcL.; every
one another, CRAN., BISH.; one another,
AUTH. and remaining Vv.

1 THESSALONIANS.

12 Now we beseech you, brethren, to regard them which
labour among you, and preside over you in the Lord, and
13 admonish you; and to esteem them very exceedingly in
love for their work’s sake.

156

14 selves.

Be at peace among your-

Moreover we exhort you, brethren, admonish the

disorderly, encourage the feeble minded, support the
15 weak, be longsuffering toward all men. See that none
render evil for evil to any man; but alway follow after
that which is good towards one another and towards all

I
17 men.
18

Rejoice alway; pray without ceasing; in every

19 thing give thanks, for this is the will of God in Christ

20 Jesus toward you.

Quench not the Spirit; despise not

21 prophesyings: but prove all things; hold fast that which

22 is good. Abstain from every form of evil.

a3

12. Now] So Gen.: and, AUTH.,
Cov. Test., BisH., Rorem.; TyYnp.,
Cov., CRAN., omit. Regard]
Know, AvrTH. and all Vv.

Preside over] Are over, AUTH., GEN.;
ben bifore to, Wi0u.; have the oversight
of, TyND., Cov. (both), CRAN., BIsH. ;
gouerne, RHEM.

13. Very exceedingly] Very highly,
AUTH.: see notes on ch. iii. 10 (7'ransi.).
Be at peace} So GEN.; and sim. WICL.,
Cov. Test., RHEM., omit and (follow-
ing the Vulg., and giving haue p.):
and be at p., AUTH. and remaining Vv.

14. Moreover] Now, AUTH.; and,
Cov. Test., RueM.; forsothe, WICL. ;
the five remaining Vv. omit.
Admonish] So GEN., RHEM.: reproue
yee (or chastise), WICL.; rebuke, Cov.
Test.; warn, AvUTH., TYND., Cov.,
CraN., BIsH. The disorderly] Vn-
quyete men, WICL.; the vnquiet, RHEM.;
them that are unruly, AUTH. and 6
remaining Vv. (AUTH. Marg., disor-
derly). Encourage] Com-
fort, AUTH. and all Vv.: see notes on
ch. ii. 11. Be longsuffering]
Have continuall pacience, TYND.; be
patient, AUTH. and remaining Vv.

But may the

(Wict., be yee p.).

15. None] So AuTH. and the other

Vv. except Wict., Cov. Test., no man.
It may be remarked that AUTH. and
the older Vv. appy. always adopt the
form ‘none,’ not ‘no one.’
Alway] So Cov. Test., RHEM. (alvvaies):
euermore, WICL.; ever, AUTH. and re-
maining Vv. Follow after] So
AuTH. in 1 Tim. vi. 11: swe, WICL. ;
pursue, RuEM.; follow, AUTH. and 6
remaining Vv. Towards one an-
other] Sim., towarde your selues, GEN. ;
tovvards eche other, RuEM.: ‘*both
among yourselves, AUTH., TYND., Cov.,
Cov. Test. (om. oth), CrAN., BIsH.
WICcL. gives simply to gedir. See ch.
iii. 12. Towards (2)] So Cov.
Test., GEN., RHEM.: to, AUTH. and re-
maining Vv. (WIOCL., into).

16. Alway] So Cov. (both), RoEm.
(alvvaies): evermore, AUTH., GEN.,
WICL.; ever, TYND., CRAN., BISH.

18. Toward] So Tynp., Cov. (both),
Cran., GEN., BIsH.: concerning,
Autu.; in, Wict., RHEM. (so Vulg.).

21. But prove] *Prove, AUTH.

22. Every formof evil] All appear-
ance of evil, AUTH., GEN., BISH.,

Σ Cuap. V. 12—28. 157

God of peace Himself sanctify you wholly; and may your
spirit and soul and body be kept whole without blame in

the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Faithful 1s He 24

that calleth you, who also will do ὁ.

Brethren, pray for us.

Wret. ; all suspicious thinges, TYND.,
Cov. (both); all euell appearaunce,
CRAN.

23. But] Forsothe, WIcL.; now,
Gen.; and, AUTH., BISH., RHEM. ;
omitted by Tynp., Cov. (both), CRAN.
May the Ged of peace Himself So
RuaEM. but omitting may: the same
god of pees, Wiou.; the very God of
peace, AUTH. and remaining Vv.

And may] That, Wict., Cov. Test.,
Ruem.; and I pray God, AUTH. and
remaining Vv. (all but AurTH. adding
that). Your spirit...whole]
So Wict.: your whole spirit, AUTH.
and remaining Vv.: see especially
notes in loc. Κορέ] So Wict.,
Tynb., Cov. (both), GEN.: preserved,

Salute all the brethren with a3

an holy kiss. I adjure you by the Lord that the epistle 27
be read to all the [holy] brethren.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. 28
Ruem.; euyl spice (or lickenesse), AUTH., Cran., BisH., RHEM.

Without blame] So RuxEm.: blameless,
AutH., Cov. (both), GEN., ΒΙΒΗ. ;
with outen pleynte, WicL.; fautlesse,
TYND. ; so that in nothyng ye maye be
blamed, CRAN. In] So Wict.,
Cov. Test., CRAN., BisH., RHEM.:
unto, AUTH., TYND., Cov., GEN.

26. Salute] So RuEm.: greet, AUTH.
and remaining Vv. (WICL., grete yee
wel).

27. Adjure] So Αὐτη. Marg.,
RuHeEM., and sim. coniure, WICL.:
charge, AUTH. and 6 remaining Vv.
The epistle] This Ep., AUTH. and all
Vv.: see notes on 2 Thess. iii. 14
(Transl.).

28. With you] AuTH. adds *Amen.

THE

SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.

ἢ poe and Silvanus and Timothy to the church of the
Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus
2 Christ. Grace be to you and peace, from God our Father

and the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 Weare bound to give thanks to God always for you,
brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith increaseth
exceedingly, and the love of every one of you all towards

4 each other aboundeth; so that we ourselves make our
boast in you in the churches of God, for your patience and
faith in all your persecutions and the afflictions that ye

5 endure;—which is a token of the righteous judgment of

αν, Timothy] So Wict., Ruem.:
Timotheus, AUTH. and remaining Vv.:
see notes on Col. i. 1 (Transl.),

2. Grace be] So ΤΎΝΡ., Cov. (both),
Cran., GEN.: grace, AUTH., WICL.,
BisH., Rue. For ὑμῖν Tynp., Cov.,
GEN., give with you; the six remain-
ing Vv. giving to (or wnto) you.

3. Give thanks to] So Cov. Test.
(vnto), RuEM., and AurH. in 1 Thess.
i. 2: do thankyngis...to, WHICL.;
thank, AUTH. and 5 remaining Vv.
Increaseth] So Cov. Test., RuHeEm.:
waxith, WicL.; groweth, AUTH. and re-
maining Vv. However Cov. Test. omits
exceedingly, and WICL. gives euer (?read-
ing semper cr.) before waxith. Love]
So Tynp., Cov. (both), CRAN., GEN ,
BisH.: charity, AUTH., WICL., RHEM.;
comp. notes on 1 Tim. i. 5 (Transi.).

4. Make our boast in] Similarly,

make oure boast of, Cov.; make boast
of, Cov. Test. ; boast of, CRAN.: glory
in, AUTH., WIcL., RHEM.; reioyce of,
TYND., GEN.; reioyce in, BIsH.
The afflictions] Tribulations, Autu.
and the other Vv. except Cov. (both),
troubles. No Version inserts the
article.

5. Token] So Trnp., Cov., CRAn.,
GEN., ΒΙΒΗ. : manifest token, AUTH.;
ensaumple, WI0L., Cov. Test., RHEM.
Ye are also suffering] & yee suffren,
Wict.; also you suffer, RHEM.; ye
also suffer, AUTH. and remaining Vv.
The change appears to have two ad-
vantages, first, that it more distinctly
preserves the association of καὶ and
πάσχετε, and secondly, that it conveys
more fully the present and continuing

—s- >.

GHap. Τ. £-—16,

159

God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of
God, for which ye are also suffering. If so be that it is a 6
righteous thing with God to recompense to them that afflict
you affliction; and to you who are afflicted rest with us, 7
at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the
angels of His power in flame of fire, rendering vengeance 8
to those who know not God, and those who obey not the

Gospel of our Lord Jesus.

Who shall suffer punishment, 9

even eternal destruction away from the face of the Lord |
and from the glory of His might, when He shall come to 10

nature of the trials of the Thessalo-
nians,

6. If so be that] So AuTH. in Rom.
vill. 9, 17, 1 Cor. xv. 15, 2 Cor. v. 3,
1 Pet. ii. 3: seeing, AUTH.; yif ne-
theles, Wicu.; verely, TYND., CRAN. ;
for, Cov. (both), GEn., BisH. ; 2f yet,
RuHeEM. To them that afflict
you affliction] Yildynge to hem that
turblen you, Wict.; tribulation, to
them that vexe you, RHEM. ; tribulation
to them that trouble you, AUTH. and
remaining Vv. [Cov. (both), vnto].
The change seems to preserve more
clearly the antithesis, and also to
bring more into prominence the ‘lex
talionis’ that is tacitly referred to.

7. Afflicted] Troubled, AUTH. and
the other Vv. except RHEM., vexed :
see previous note. At the
revelation of 1 So BisH., RHEM. (both
giving in) ; in the schewynge of, WI0L.;
in the appearyng of, Cov. Test.:
when...shall be revealed, AUTH.; when
.. shall shewe him silfe, Tynp., Cov.,
CRAN., GEN. The angels of
His power] So AutH. Marg., Cov.
(both), Cran., ΒΙΒΗ., RHEM., and
sim. Wick. (a. of his vertue): his
mighty Angels, AuTH., TYND., GEN.

8. In flame of fire] So RueEm.,
and sim. WICL, and Cov. Test. (thejl.):
in flaming fire, AUTH., TYND., GEN.,
Bisu.; with fl. f., Cov., CRAN.
Rendering vengeance to] So Tynp.,

Gen., Brisa. (all giving wnto): taking
vengeance on, AUTH. CRAN. gives the
transl. of the text, but has a different
construction, whych shall rédre v.
unto. Those who (bis)] Them
that...that, AUTH. - Lord
Jesus] Lord Jesus *Christ, AUTH.

9. Shall suffer punishment, even]

Shall be punished with, AuTH. and
the other Vv. except WicL., Cov.
Test., RHEM., which follow the Vulg.
poenas dabunt in interitu aeternas.
Eternal] So Rum. : everlasting, AUTH.
and remaining Vv. Though here the
change is really unimportant, itis still
perhaps best to translate this word
uniformly, except where the context
seems - specially and exclusively to
imply simple duration. In the present
case the αἰώνιος is equally qualitative
and quantitative.
Away from] From, AvtH. and all
Vv. Face] So Wict., Cov.
Test., RHEM.: presence, AUTH. and
remaining Vv. Might| So
ΑΥΤΗ. in Eph. vi. 10: vertue, WICL. ;
power, AUTH. and remaining Vv.

10. Shall come] So AUTH. and all
Vv. There is some little difficulty in
the translation of ὅταν with the aor.
subj. Perhaps, as a general rule, it
may be said that when the exact ren-
dering ‘shall have’ is inapplicable
(see notes on Tit. iii. 12, Transl.), we
may conveniently adopt in transla-°

100

> THESSALONIANS.

be glorified in His saints, and to be admired in all them
that believed (because our testimony to you-ward was be-
ΤΙ lieved) in that day. Whereunto we also pray always for
you, that our God may count you worthy of your calling,
and fulfil every good pleasure of goodness and the work of
12 faith with power; that the name of our Lord Jesus may
be glorified in you, and ye in Him, according to the grace

of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.
II. Now we beseech you, brethren, touching the coming
of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto
2 Him, that ye be not quickly shaken from your sober
mind, nor yet be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word
nor by letter as coming through us, to the effect that the
3 day of the Lord is now come. Let no man deceive you
in any way; because the day shall not come except there

tion the present (indic. or conj.) when
the reference to the actual futurity of
the subsequent event is less specially
contemplated (comp. Matth. xxi. 40,
Mark iv. 29 [Rec.], al.), and future
when, as here, such a reference is
more distinct and prominent.

That believed] That *believe, AUTH.
To you-ward | Sim., toward you, BIsH.;
that we had vnto you, TYND., CRAN. (to);
vento you, Cov.: among you, AUTH.

11. Whereunto] Wherefore, AUTH.
We also] So GENn.: we, TYND., Cov. ;
also we, AUTH. and remaining Vv.
May] So Gen.: would, AuTH., BISH.;
wyll, Cov. Test., CRAN.; the four
remaining Vv. omit the auxiliary.
Your] This, AvuTH., Cran.; his,
Wict., Cov. Test., GEN., RHEM.;
the, TyND., Cov., BISH. Every
good pleasure of 5.1. So Bisu. (all) :
all the good pleasure of his g.,
AuTH., GEN., RHEM,.

12. Lord Jesus] Lord Jesus *Christ,
AUTH.

CuapTeR 11. 1. Touching] By,
Aur. and all Vv.: see notes in loc.

And our] So WicL.: and by our,
ΑΥΤΗ., GEN., BIsH.

2. Quickly] Soon, AuTH., WICL. ;
sodenly, Tynp., Cov., CRAN., GEN.,
BisH.; hastely, Cov. Test.; easily,
REM. From your sober
mind] Similarly, fro youre witte, WICL. ;
from youre mynde, TyND., Cov. (both),
CRAN., GEN., BisH.; from your sense,
RueEM.: AvtTH. alone gives the in-
correct in mind. Nor yet be]
Nor be, Cov. Test., Cran., Bisu.,
RHEM.: nor, GEN.; or be, AUTH. ;
nether be yee, WIcL. ; and be not, TYND.,
Cov. Coming through]
From, AvutH. Although διὰ occurs
four times in this verse, it is not
worth while to overweight the sen-
tence by translating it uniformly
through. To the effect that}
As that, AurH. This slight change
seems to make the meaning a little
more perspicuous, The Lord}
*Christ, AUTH. Now come]
At hand, AvutH. and the other Vv.
except WICL., nyg.

3. In any way] In any mamer,
WIcL.; by any means, AUTH. and

Cap. I. ρα 8.

161

come the falling away first, and the Man of Sin be re-
vealed, the son of perdition; he that opposeth, and ex- 4
alteth himself against every one called God or an object
of worship; insomuch that he sitteth in the temple of
God, displaying himself that he is God. Remember ye 5
not that when I was yet with you I used to tell you

these things?

he may be revealed in his own time.

And now ye know what restraineth, that 6

For the mystery 7

of lawlessness is already working, yet only until he who
now restraineth be taken out of the way. And then 8

Υ

remaining Vv. Because] For,
AUTH. and all Vv. The day shall
not come] So AuvtTH., GEN. (both
giving that d.): the lorde commeth not,
Tynv., Cov. (both); the Lorde shall
not come, CRAN., BIsH.; no clause is
supplied by WicL. or RHE.
The falling away] A falling away,
AvuTH., BisH.; departynge aweye (or
discerncon), WicL.; a reuolt, RHEM.;
a departynge, TYND., CRAN., GEN.;
the dep., Cov. (both), which alone of
all the Vv. rightly give the article.
The Man of Sin] So Wict., RHEM.:
that man of sin, AUTH., Cov., GEN.,
BisH.; that synfull man, Tywnpv.,
Cran.; the 8. man, Cov. Test.

4. He that opposeth] Who opposeth,
AuTH.; that is aduersarie, WICL.;
whych is the adu., Cov. Test.; which
is an adv., TYND. and five remaining
Vv. It will thus be seen that the Vv.
rightly recognise the substantival cha-
racter of ὁ ἀντικείμενος, and unite ἐπὶ
πάντα K.T.r. solely with the following
participle. Against] So GEN.:
vpon, WI0L.; above, AUTH. and remain-
ing Vv. Every one called] All
that is called, AUTH. and all Vv. except
WICL. (alle thing that is seyde). An
object of worship] That is worshipped,
AvTH. and the other Vv. except Cov.,
Gods seruyce. Insomuch] So Cov.
Test.: so, AUTH. and remaining Vy.
He sitteth| He *as God 8., AUTH.

Displaying himself] Shewing himself,

AuTH., WicL., GEN., BISH., RHEM. ;

and shew him silfe, TYND. (giving shall
sitt above) ; and boasteth himselfe, Cov. ;
boastynge hym self, Cov. Test., CRAN.

5. Used to tell] Told, AuTH.: no
Version attempts to give the force of
the imperfect.

6. Restraineth] Withholdeth, AUTH.
and the other Vv. except Cov. Test.,
doth withholde; and RueEm., letteth.
There does not seem any reason for
supplying the pronoun ‘him,’ with
Scholef. (Hints, p. 116, ed. 4): we
seem bound to preserve the mysterious
indefiniteness of the original: Cov.
(both) supply. {ϊ. May be] So
Cov. Test., RuEM.: be, WICL. ; might

' be, AUTH. and remaining Vv.

His own] His, AvuTH. and all Vv.

7. Lawlessness] Iniquity, AvTH.
and all Vv. except WICL., wickidnesse.
But TyYnpb. gives that in., and Cov.,
CRAN., give the in. It seems desirable
here to retain this more rigidly literal
translation as serving more clearly to
indicate the essential character of τὸ
κατέχον. Is already working]
Doth already work, AutH., CRAN.,
GEN., ΒΙΒΗ. Yet only until, &c.]
Similarly, tyll he which now onely let-
teth, Cov., CRAN., BISH.; only he who
now letteth, will let, until he, AUTH. ;
onely that he that holdith nowe, holde,
uilit, Wiou. ; which onlie loketh, vntill

M

102

2 THESSALONIANS.

shall the Lawless One be revealed, whom the Lord Je-
sus shall consume with the breath of His mouth, and
g shall destroy with the appearance of His coming; whose
coming is after the working of Satan in all power and
10 signs and wonders of lying, and in all deceit of un-
righteousness to them that are perishing; because they
embraced not the love of the truth, that they might be
11 saved. And for this cause doth God send them a work-
12 ing of error that they should believe the lie; that they
may all of them be judged who believed not the truth,
but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

it, Tynp.; only he that holdeth, let
hym holde now, tyll he, Cov. Test. ;
onely he which now withholdeth, shal
let til he, GEN.; only that he vvhich
novv holdeth, doe hold, vntil he, RHEM.
The insertion of ‘yet’ may perhaps
be admitted as slightly clearing up
the elliptical expression.

8. The Lawless One] That wicked,
Avti., Tynp., Cov. (both), CRAN.,
Bisu. : the ilke wickide (man), WICL. ;
the wicked man, GEN.; that vvicked
one, RHEM. The Lord Jesus] The
Lord, AUTH. omitting *Jesus.

Breath] Spirit, AuTH. and all Vv.
Appearance] So Tynp., Cov. (both),
Cran.; brightness, AUTH., ΟΝ.
Bisu.; illumynynge (or schynynge),
WicL.; manifestation, RuEM. The
regular trans'ation of this word in
AUTH. is ‘appearing’ (1 Tim. vi. 14,
2. Tim: 1: 10, ‘ivu.t,.8,. Tit. 2. 23),
which is here slightly changed to
avoid the juxtaposition of two parti-
cipial substantives.

9. Whose] Hym whos, WICcL.,
RuEmM.: even him whose, AUTH. and
remaining Vv. In] So WICct.,
Cov. Test., BisH., RoEM.: with, AUTH.
and remaining Vv. Wonders of
lying] So Bisu.: lying wonders, AUTH.,
Cov. Test., GEN.

10. And in] So Wict., TYND.,
Cov. Test., GEN., ΒΙΒΗ., RHEM.: and

with, AuTH., Cov., CRAN.

Deceit] So Wiot., Cov. Test.: sedue-
ing, Ruem.; deceivableness, AUTH.
and remaining Vv. To them] So
Wict., Cov. Test. (vnto), RHEM.: in
them, AUTH., BIsH.; amonge them,
Tynpv., Cov., CRAN., GEN.

Are perishing] Perish, AUTH. and all
Vv. Embraced] Received, AUTH.

11. Doth God send] God *shall
send, AUTH. A working of error]
So Wioct.: the operacion of erroure,
Cov. Test., RHEM. ; strong delusion,
AUTH. and remaining Vv.: see ver. 9.
Though in both cases the introduction
of the adjective ‘effectual’ before
‘working’ might be rendered suitable
by the context, it is still, lexically
considered, somewhat too strong as a
purely literal rendering. It would
thus seem perhaps better to strike out
‘ effectual’ in Eph. iii. 7, iv. 16, or to
retain it only in italics. These are
however points which itis very difficult
to adjust, for if the one translation
is too strong, the other certainly seems
somewhat too weak: ‘energy,’ which
is adopted by some translators, is
appy. too modern. The lie) A lie,
AUTH.

12. That they may all of them]
That they* all might, AUTH.; that alle,
Wict.; that all they myght, TYND.,
Cov., Cran.; GEN., BisH.; that all

CuHap. II. 9—17..

163

But we are bound to give thanks to God alway for 13
you, brethren beloved of the Lord, that God chose you
from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the
Spirit and faith in the truth: whereunto He called you 14
by our Gospel, unto the obtaining of the glory of our

Lord Jesus Christ.

Accordingly then, brethren, stand 15

fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught whether

by word or by our epistle.

But may our Lord Jesus 16

Christ Himself, and God our Father, which loved us, and
gave us eternal comfort and good hope in grace, comfort 17
your hearts, and stablish you in every good work and word.

they maye, Cov. Test.; that al may,
Ruem. The two slight changes are
made to preserve the reading ἅπαντες,
and the correct sequence of tenses ;
comp. Latham, Lngl. Lang. ὃ 539
(ed. 4). ᾿ Judged] So RHEM.:
demyde (or dampnyde), Wicu.; damn-
ed, AUTH. and remaining Vv.

Had pleasure in] On the transl. of
εὐδοκεῖν, see note on 1 Thess. ii. 8
(Transl.).

13. 10 God alway] Alway to God,
ΑΥΤΗ.: there is here no necessity for
deserting the order of the original.
That} So Wict., Cov. Test., RHEM.:
because, AUTH. ; for because that, TYND.,

_CrAn.; bec. that, Cov.,GEN., BISH.
Chose you from the beginning] Hath
from the beginning chosen you, AUTH.
All Vv. except Wict. (chees) give hath
chosen. fn (1)] So Wict., Cov.
(both), Bisu., RHEM.: through, AUTH.,
TYND., CRAN., GEN. Faith in
the truth] Feith of treuthe, WI0L.,
GEN. (the 5), Bisu. (the tr.), RHEM.
(the tr.): belief of the truth, AUTH.

14. Our Lord] The Lord, ΑὐΤΗ.

15. Accordingly then] Therefore,
AUTH. and the other Vv. except WICL.,
and 80. Traditions] So AvuTH.,
Wict. ltr. (or techyngis)|, RoEM. The
other Vv. vary; ordinaunces, TYND.,
Cov. (both), CRAN., BISH. ; instructions,

GEN.: see note on ch. iii. 6 (Zransl.).
Were taught] Have been taught, AUTH.:
no Version preserves the correct force
of the Aorist. By our] So
Wict., Cov. Test., GeEn., BIsH.,
Ruem.: our, AutTH.; by, Tynr., Cov.,
CRAN., all expressing ἡμῶν with λόγου.
16. But may] Now, AUTH.
God our Father] God *even our Father,
ΑΥΤΗ.: see especially notes ὧν loc. ;
and on the transl. of ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ
ἡμῶν, notes on Gal. i. 4 (Transi.).
Loved] So Wict.: hath loved, AUTH.
and remaining Vv. Gave] So
Wict.: hath given, AUTH. and remain-
ing Vv. [Cov. (both) however omit
the second hath, see previous note].
Eternal] So RHEx.: everlasting, AUTH.
and remaining Vv. ; see notes on ch.
i. 9 (Transl.). Comfort] Conso-
lation, AuTH. The change is only
made to preserve the same rendering
for παράκλησιν... παρακαλέσαι, and in-
deed is given by AUTH. in 2 Cor. i.
va 4. In grace] So Wict., Cov.
Test., ΒΙΒΗ., Ruem.: through gr.,
ΑΥΤΗ. and the four remaining Vv.
17. Stablish you] AUTH. retains
you in ordinary type, but contrary to
the best authorities; see notes.
Work and word] *Word and work,
AUTH. |

164
IU.

2 THESSALONIANS.

Finally pray ye for us, brethren, that the word of the

Lord may have free course and be glorified, even as %t is
2 also with you: and that we may be delivered from perverse
3 and wicked men; for i is not all that have Faith. But

faithful is the Lord, who shall stablish you and keep you

4 from the Wicked One.

Yea we have confidence in the

Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things
5 which we command. But may the Lord direct your
hearts into the love of God and into the patience of

Christ.

6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of the
Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every
brother walking disorderly, and not after the tradition

Cuapter III. 1. Pray ye for us,

brethren] Brethren, pray for us, AUTH.
Perhaps this changed order better re-
presents the prominent position of
προσεύχεσθε. Free course] In the
earliest copies of AUTH. ‘free’ is marked
as an insertion, but it may fairly be
considered as involved in τρέχῃ.
Even as tt is also] Even as it is, AUTH.
The change gives a juster equivalent
to καθὼς καί. See however notes on
1 Thess. i. 5 (Transl.).

2. Perverse] Vncouenable (or noyous),

Wict.; importune, Cov. Test.; im-
portunate, RHEM.;—representing Vulg.
importunis ; disordered, BISH.; unrea-
sonable, AUTH. and 4 remaining Vv.
It is not all, &c.] All. men have not
faith, AuTH. and the other Vv. except
Wicu., ferth is not of alle men; and
Cov., faith is not euery mas.

3. Faithful is the Lord] The
Lord is faithful, AuTH. and the other
Vv. (our Z., Roem.) except WIcL.
(the 1. is trewe). Independently of the
change of order agreeing better with
that of the original, the paronomasia
caused by the juxtaposition of πίστις
and πιστὸς is more distinctly pre-
‘served, The Wicked One] Evil,
Aurtu. and all Vv.; see notes zn loc.

It is of no moment whether πονηροῦ
be translated ‘evil’ or ‘wicked’ but
the rendering should be kept that is
given in ver. 2.

4. Yea] And, Auru., GEn., BIsH.,
RueEM.; sothely, Wuict.; the rest,
TynD., Cov. (both), Cran., omit δὲ in

translation. Command] Com-
mand *you, AUTH,
5. But may] Forsothe, Wict.;

and, AuTH. and the other Vv. except
Cov., which omits δὲ in translation.
Patience of Christ] So AuTH. Marg.,
Wict., Tynp., Cov. (both), RHEm.:
patient waiting for Christ, AUTH.,
CRAN., BIsH.; weating for of Christ,
GEN.

6. The Lord] *Our Lord, Autu.
Walking] So Ruem.; sim. WIct.
(wandrynge): AUTH. (that walketh)
and remaining Vv. insert the relative.
Though the meaning is practically the
same, it still seems desirable in trans-
lation, when consistent with our idiom,
to mark the anarthrous participle.
Tradition] So AutH., Wict., RHEM.:
institucion, TYND., Cov., CRAN., BISH.;
ordinaunce, Cov. Test.; instruction,
Gen. If any change be thought ne-
cessary, the last of these translations
is perhaps to be preferred.

Cuap. III. 1—1 3.

165

which they received of us. For yourselves know how ye 7°
ought to follow us; in that we behaved not disorderly
among you, neither ate we bread from any man for 8
naught, but with toil and travail, working night and day
that we might not be burdensome to any of you: not that ο.
we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample

to you that ye should follow us.

For also when we were Io

with you, this we commanded you, that if any will not

work, neither let him eat.

For we hear that there are 11

some walking among you disorderly, working at no busi-

ness, but being busy-bodies.

Now them that are such we 12

command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ that with
quietness they work, and eat their own bread. But ye, 13

They received] * He received, AUTH.

7. In that] For, AuTH. and all Vv.;

see notes in loc. Behaved not]
Behaved not ourselves, AUTH., TYND.,
Cov., CRAN., GEN., BISH.
- 8. Ate we bread from any man] Did
we eat any mans bread, AvuTH. It
seems desirable here, with all Vv. ex-
cept WICL., to invert the order of the
Greek, that δωρεὰν which occupies the
emphatic place in Greek may occupy
the same place in the English,—that
place being not uncommonly in our
language the last. But with toil
...working| But wrought with labour,
AvtTH.: the present transl. preserves
the true connection, and avoids the
incorrect rendering of ἐργαζόμενοι by
the finite verb. That we...any]
Similarly, lest vve should burden any,
Ruem.: that we might not be charge-
able to any, AUTH.; lest we shulde be
c. to eny, Cov. (both); because we
wolde not be c. to eny, CRAN., GEN.,
Bisu.; that we greueden none, WICL. ;
because we wolde not be grevous to eny,
TYND.

9. Not that] Not because, AuTH.;
not as, WIcL.; not as though, Cov.
Test., RHEM. That ye should]

For to, Wict., RuEM.; to, AUTH, and
remaining Vv.

10. For also} So Cov. Test., RHEM.:
for even, AUTH., GEN.; and, Cov.; for,
ΤΎΝΡ., CRAN., BISH., omitting «alin
translation. Will not] So Wicu.
(wole not), RHEM.: would not, AUTH.
and remaining Vv. Neither
let him] So RuEM. ; and sim. (nether ete
he) WIcL.: neither should he eat, AUTH.;
that the same shuld not eate, TYND.,
and Coy. (both), CRAN., BisH.,— these
four omitting that; that he shulde not
eat, GEN.

11. Walking] Which walk, AuTH.
No Version gives a participial ren-
dering: see notes on ver. 6.

Working at no business] Working not
at all, AuTH. This is perhaps the
only way in which the paronomasia
épyafouévous...meprepyafouévous can be
maintained. The word ‘business’ is
supplied by ΑΥΤΗ. in 1 Thess. iv. 11.
Being busybodies] So CRAN.: are busy-
bodies, AUTH., TyND., Cov. (both),
GEN., BisH. (be b.); doinge curiously,
WICL.; curiously meddling, RHEM.

12. In the Lord] *By our Lord,
AUTH.

166

2 THESSALONIANS.

14 brethren, lose not heart in well doing. But if any man
obey not our word by the epistle, mark this man, and
keep no company with him, that he may be shamed.

15 And count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as

16 a brother.

But may the Lord of peace Himself give

you peace continually, in every way. The Lord be with

you all.

17 The salutation by the hand of me Paul, which is a

13. Lose not heart] Be not* weary,
AUTH.

14. But if] So Cov.: and ζῇ,
AutuH., Roem. If ‘but’ be objected
to in consequence of the ‘ but’ in ver.
13, it would then seem better with
Tynp., Cov. Test., CRAN., GEN., BISH.,
to omit δὲ in translation.

Obey not] So AuTH. and the other Vv.
except WICcL., schal not obeye; and
Cov. Test., doth not obey. At first
sight the latter translation might seem
preferable, but considered strictly, it
would seem to imply that such would
probably be the case (see Latham, Lng.
Lang. ὃ 537, ed. 4), whereas the Greek
el with the indic. ‘per se nihil signifi-
cat preter conditionem’ (Klotz, Devar.
Vol. If. p. 455). It may thus be best
asa general rule, only to adopt the
indicative in English where either (a)
the context or circumstances of the
case corroborate the likelihood of the
assumed case, or (b) where the speaker
appears to regard it as a matter of
fact. The possibility of inserting after
‘if’ the words ‘ as is matter of fact,’
or ‘as seems to be matter of fact,’
will commonly facilitate decision.

The epistle] This Epistle, AutH. All
the other Vv. except WICcL. (oure
worde bi epistle) join διὰ τῆς ἐπεστολῆς
with σημειοῦσθε, and translate τῆς by
the English indefinite article. This
perhaps, with 1 Thess. v. 27, might be
considered as one of the few cases in

which idiom and euphony may justify
us in retaining the pronominal trans-
lation: as however τοῦτον occurs di-
rectly after, it would involve the
necessity of translating it that man,
as AUTH., or hym, as WIcL. and all
other Vv. Scholefield (Hints, p. 118,
ed. 4) proposes ‘our epistle,’ but this
is scarcely suitable after the preceding
‘our word’ where the ‘our’ is a trans-
lation of ἡμῶν, as it would seem to
imply that it was repeated with διὰ
τῆς ἐπιστολῆς. Mark] So Wict.:
note, AUTH., GEN., RHEM.; sende vs
worde of, TYND., Cov., CRAN.; shewe vs
of, Cov. Test.; signifie, Bisu.

This man] That man, AutH.: hym,
WIcL. and remaining Vv.

Keep no company] So AUTH. in t Cor.
v. 11: comyne yee not, WicL.; do not
companie, RHEM.; haue nothinge to do,
Cov. (both); have no company, AUTH.
and four remaining Vv.

Shamed] Ashamed, AvTH.: the slight
change brings to notice the passive
sense.

15. And] So WIct., TYND., Cov.
Test., CRAN., RHEM.: yet, AUTH., Cov.,
GEN., BIsH.

16. But may] Now, AuTH., GEN.,
Bisu.; forsothe, WicL.; and, RHEM.;
Tynv., Cov. (both), CRAN., omit δὲ
in translation. Peace continually,
in every way] Euerlastynge pees in al
place, Wict., and Cov. Test., RHEM.,
giving ewery place; always, by all

Cuap. III. 14—18. 167

j sign in every epistle: so I write. The grace of our Lord 18

i means, AUTH. and remaining Vv.
; 17. By the hand of me Paul] So

Auta. in Col. iv. 18: of Paul, with

mine own hand, AUTH.; of me Paul

Jesus Christ be with you all. [Amen.]

with myne awne honde, TYND., Cov.
(both), CRAN., GEN., BIsH. A sign]
So WIcL. (om. a), RHEM.: the token,
AUTH. and remaining Vv.

THE END.

ἌΣ ΡΨ

4

Cambridge:
PRINTED BY ©. J. CLAY MA.
AT THE UNIVERSITY

ἔνα ἃ ae ee ον

ΎΌΥ oa oo Coe See ἡ

wal
ἢ

ἄν δώ ἰὼ

|
|
|

4
+
ys
“
am

δ κ᾽ ὩῳΚ᾿.
peey aa

§
χὰ
"ἂν
;

. 2 . av ἦν .} ὁ ἐν - τ’ a ἮΝ ι > ᾿
. . i ' an 4 Ὁ . . i)
ὶ ᾿ fa «αὶ 7 ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ + 4s ν Β
Ν 32 Ἔ ἢ ᾿ ᾿ 4. : ;
< ᾿ : P = ν᾿ i ay ΩΣ a IA 143 : br
: ᾿ : " ᾿ ry ᾿Ξ - Ae a
. 2 ͵ Ἢ ͵ 5 ἢ Ν
᾿ a ᾿ # ὁ ὁ δῷ s : 3 ' ἃ ᾿
: : . - »» 4 . Ἂ ‘ ἢ
; ὃ Ἷ ᾿ ΄ . ar δ
᾿ : εν “"" ; . :
Ὰ ἌΝ, . . ὁ is Z
᾿ 5 ‘ ᾿ .ὦ 5 ᾿
; ‘ . sf . ‘ Ῥ ae ᾿
5 ᾿ ΄ ᾿ ; - εν ᾿
- ᾿ ' ἢ . ‘ ζ ᾿Ν . no < ᾿ ' Wy ‘
- e ΄ P a te ᾿ ᾿
᾿ : zi F i
: , : φ ᾿ Ξ 7 ᾿ ; " . ᾿ Β
δὲ ὃ “ 7 ‘ a .
. * - ΄ εν ‘ ᾿
5 . Fa - : Ἢ ͵ - ὃ τ
Φ ; ᾿ ᾿ Ε ᾿ . » ᾿ ' ᾿ ᾿ ᾿
5 " = ᾿ ' Ss Η ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ ; * . . ᾿ Ῥ . -
: Re 35 δ - ͵ ἃ Ὁ ᾿ 7 Ὁ
Σὰ ; ΨΨῚ ὃ, ἃ ὥν ᾿ ‘ τ , μ 7 . δ
- . 34 aos ον. ᾿ . : ΄ ᾿ ’ : ἢ ᾿
᾿ é a 7 ᾿ . ΕἾ : ἢ δ Β μ ᾿ i δ
Ἐς (ἃ = - .t ᾿ =o - : :
ψ καὶ te Ἢ 7 - τ »
2a ξ sos : pat Se ῳ Η τς 3 . 34
ae - ᾿ τον - . $56 ea é "eves . wit errr
ar 7 : : : ᾿ - ᾷ Ἢ " as ;
ae: ᾿ a : ὃ “ ιν ὦν .- . οι ς Ἦν δὰ ᾿
ke εἰ "- 3; ἐς é 7 aoe ᾿
᾿ ΟΝ ᾿ Ρ' i ᾿ : r ᾿
ee OS ons Py 5 yea ᾿ ᾿ a 5 4 -
Fx, δὲ ᾿ <3 a0 oy wes -¢ δον ‘ τ -
IIS wy aT) - og ἐπ ΤΕΣ ee ς a 2 7 ᾿
me ae ee, Ἃ ae Σ Ἐξ Ate t, ce
Η ee, Sie aK Cake aes ᾿ς
a 5 ᾿ : bite aa 5 oe τ
Pe ΝΥ “as pbuh, εΞ Ψ eer a4
Η Mea. g Sing tte Se Ape ΠΟ pe, *
αν fe? rig? ete a So ey .
Ν Rt τ ck” AES 7 φε δν 24 ne ay τ :
seas ἢ εἰ ΡΝ Ὡν “3 ᾿ tote
a coe | ᾿ ze . . ᾿ : ‘ es eS ;
Lika chant δι sda : A fey : ; ; ; Pew ale walngendl
ibe tit Ebb Ay a7 tat ἐν ary ‘ ὃ * : Ὰ
ie ae ea id Oe 4
oe a it ῳ ᾿ fs ᾿ he