Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - 1 Thessalonians 4:1 - 4:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
IV. EXHORTATIONS (4:1-5:22)
Formally speaking, Paul passes from the superscription (1:1), thanksgiving (1:2-3:10), and prayer (3:11-13) to the exhortations (4:1-5:22); materially speaking, he passes from the defence of his visit (1:2-2:16) and of his failure to return (2:17-3:13) to a tactful (cf. 4:1, 10, 5:11) treatment of the shortcomings of the faith of the readers (3:10; cf. 3:8, 12-13). These exhortations are not haphazard, but are designed to meet the specific needs of the community made known to Paul by Timothy and by a letter which Timothy brought. In fact, it would appear from 4:9, 13, 5:1 (πρ δ; cf. 1Co_7:1, 1Co_7:25, 1Co_7:8:1, 1Co_7:12:1, etc.) that the Thessalonians had written specifically for advice concerning love of the brethren, the dead in Christ, and the times and seasons. Three classes of persons are chiefly in mind in 4:1-5:22: (1) The weak (4:3-8; cf. ο ἀθνῖ5:14); (2) the idlers (ο ἄατ 5:14) who have been the main instruments in disturbing the peace of the brotherhood (4:9-12, 5:12-13; cf. 5:19-22); and (3) the faint-hearted (ο ὀιόυο5:14) who were anxious both about their dead (4:13-18) and about their own salvation (5:1-11). The only distinctly new point, not touched upon in the previous oral teaching of Paul, is the discussion of “the dead in Christ” (4:13-18).
For convenience, we may subdivide the Exhortations as follows: (1) Introduction (4:1-2); (2) True Consecration (4:3-8); (3) Brotherly Love (4:9-10a); (4) Idleness (4:10b-12); (5) The Dead in Christ (4:13-18); (6) Times and Seasons (5:1-11); (7) Spiritual Labourers (5:12-13); (8) The Idlers, The Faint-hearted, and The Weak (5:14a-c); (9) Love (5:14d-15); (10) Joy, Prayer, and Thanksgiving (5:16-18); and (II) Spiritual Gifts (5:19-22).
(1) Introduction to the Exhortations (4:1-2)
In his introductory words, Paul appeals, in justification of his exhortations, not to his own authority but to the authority which both he and his readers recognise as valid, the indwelling Christ (ἐ κρῳ δὰκρο He insists that he is asking of them nothing new, and that what he urges conforms to the instructions which they have already received and which they know. Finally, in emphasising that they are living in a manner pleasing to God, he can only ask and urge them to abound the more. These opening verses are general; the meaning of τ πςδιand τνςπργεί becomes specific in 4:3 ff.
1Finally brothers we ask you and urge in the Lord Jesus that, as you have received from us instructions as to how you ought to walk and please God, as in fact you are walking, that you abound the more. 2For you know what instructins we gave you, prompted by the Lord Jesus.
1. λιό, ἀεφιWith λιό “finally,” a particle of transition often found toward the end of a letter (Grot.: locutioest properantis ad finem), and with an affectionate ἀεφι(cf. 2Co_13:11: λιό, ἀεφι Paul turns from the epistolary thanksgiving and prayer to the epistolary exhortation, from the more personal considerations to what remains to be said (Ambst quod superest) about the deficiencies of the converts.
The reading is uncertain. The prefixed τ may be disregarded (Zim); but as P in 2Co_13:11 so most uncials here (א WH.mg. Tisch Zim Weiss, Dob.) read λιὸ ο Weiss (121) thinks that the omission of ο in B and in many minuscules and versions is due to a scribal error. Elsewhere, however, Paul uses both λιό(1Co_1:16, 1Co_1:4:2, 2Co_13:11) and τ λιό(1Co_7:29; plus ἀεφι II 3:1, Php_4:8; or plus ἀεφίμ, Php_3:1). Epictetus prefers λιόto τ λιό(cf. Bultman, Der Stil der Paulinischen Predigt, 1910, 101). If ο is read, the reference may still be in general to what has preceded (Lft.; cf. Dob. who notes the ο in Rom_12:1, Eph_4:1, etc.) and not specifically to 3:13, as many prefer (Ell.; cf. Lillie who remarks: “as working together with God to the same end”). For λιὸ ο in papyri, see Mill. ad loc. On the interpretation of vv. 1-12, see also Bahnsen, ZWT 1904, 332-358.
ἐωῶε ὑᾶ κλ “In the Lord Jesus we ask and urge you.” On the analogy of πργέλμνκὶπρκλῦε ἐ κρῳἸ (II 3:12; cf. Rom_14:14, Eph_4:17), both verbs are to be construed with ἐ κπῳἸσυIn fact, ἐωᾶand πρκλῖare virtually synonymous (Œ apud Lillie: τυό ἐτνκὶἰουαε), as the usage in papyri shows (cf. also Php_4:2 f. Luk_7:3 f. Act_16:39). The position of ὑᾶ after the first, not after the second verb, suggests not that the converts are in the Lord, which on other grounds is true, but that the apostles are in the Lord, the point being that the exhortation is based not on personal authority but on the authority of the indwelling Christ, which is reognised as valid by both readers and writers.
On the phrase, cf. P. Oxy. 744 (Witk., 97): ἐωῶσ κὶπρκλ ς and P Oxy. 294 (Mill. Greek Papyri, 36): ἐωῶδ σ κὶπρκλ Like δῖθι πρκλῖis used of prayer to Christ (2Co_12:8); cf. P. Leid. K (Witk., 89): πρκλ δ κὶατςτὺ θο ἐωᾶlike our “ask” and the Hebrew שלis used in later Gk. for both “ask a question,” “interrogare,” and “ask a favour,” “rogare” (cf. 2 Ezr_5:10, Psa_136:3). The construction ἐωᾶ ἵ, only here in Paul but quite common elsewhere (cf. Mar_7:26, Luk_7:36; P. Oxy. 744:13 f.), is analogous to πρκλῖ ἵ (II 3:12, 1Co_1:10, 1Co_1:16:12, 2Co_9:5, 2Co_12:8). On the ἐin ἐ(א insert τ) κρῳἸσυ cf. Rom_14:14, Php_2:19, Eph_1:15, and see on 1:1.
ἵ …ἵ. With ἵ, Paul starts to introduce the object of the verbs of exhorting (BMT 201); but before he gets to the goal he reminds the readers tactfully (1) that what he has to say is conformable to what they received from him when he was with them; and (2) that they are in fact walking according to instructions received. When then he comes to the object of the verbs and repeats the ἵ, he can only ask and urge them to abound the more.
Precisely what Paul intended to say when he began with the first ἵ, whether πρπτεκὶἀέκτ θῷ we do not know. Dob. observes that the Clementine Vulgate and Pelagius (but Souter thinks not) read sic et ambuletis = οτςκὶπρπττ and take the second ἵ in subordination to the first; a reading due to a corruption, within the Latin versions, of ambulatis. To avoid the pleonasm (Zim), אAKL, et al., omit the first ἵ; KL, et al;, further soften by omitting κθςκὶπρπτῖε
κθςπρλβτ κλThe first κθ clause reminds them tactfully that what he has to say is not new but strictly conformable (κθ) to the traditions and instructions which they had received (πρλβτ cf. Gal_1:9, 1Co_15:1; II 3:6, Php_4:9, Col_2:6), those, namely, as v. 2 notes explicitly, that he had previously commanded δὰτῦκρο The teachings are here referred to generally and in the form of an indirect question: “As to how (τ π) you ought to walk and so (κι please God” (cf. Col_1:10). The κιis consecutive and “marks the ἀέκιas the result of the πρπτῖ (Ell.; cf. Bl 77:6).
Paul as a Pharisee (Gal_1:14) and as a Christian has his πρδσι(II 2:15, 3:6, 1Co_11:2) or τπςδδχ (Rom_6:17; cf. 16:17, 1Co_4:17, Col_2:7, Eph_4:21). Although he attributes his gospel to the immediate inspiration of the indwelling Christ or Spirit, yet the contents of the gospel are mediated by the Old Testament (e.g. Rom_3:21, Rom_13:9), late Judaism, words of Jesus (4:15), and by the teaching of the primitive church (1Co_11:23, 1Co_15:3). On π, see 1:9; on τ introducing indirect questions, cf. Rom_8:26 and Bl 47:5; on τ π, Act_4:21; on πςδι II 3:7, Col_4:6.
κθςΚὶπρπτῖ. This second tactful reminder, introduced by κθςκι(cf. 3:4), is thoroughly in keeping with v. 10, 5:11, II 3:4, and indicates of itself that the actual exhortation can only be for more such conduct. Hence the object of ἐωῶε κὶπρκλῦεis, as expected: ἵαπρσεηεμλο “that you abound even more in walking according to the intsructions received.”
On ἀέκι see 2:4 and Deiss. NBS. 51; on πρσεενμλο see v. 10 and cf. 2Co_3:9, Php_1:9. Paul uses regularly the present subj. of πρσεε (1Co_14:12, 2Co_8:7, 2Co_9:8, Php_1:26); but B, et al., here and BD, et al., in Php_1:9 read the aorist subj. as in 2Co_4:15.
2. οδτ γρκλ “For you know what instructions we gave you.” γ strengthens and confirms the point already made in the first clause with κθ (v. 1). This explicit appeal to the knowledge of the readers shows how concerned Paul is in insisting that he is making no new requests.
“The emphasis, as Lü observes, rests on τν, and prepares the readers for the following τῦ, v. 3” (Ell.). Not until we come to ἀέεθ do we learn the content of τ πςδι(v. 1) and τν (v. 2).—For γ, cursive 33 reads δ (cf. Gal_4:13). οδτ γ reminds us of the apologetic appeals in 1:5, 2:1, 2, 5, 11, 3:3, 4; here also the reference is apologetic, but in a different sense; Paul would have his converts feel that he is not issuing new and arbitrary orders, but orders already given and prompted by the indwelling Christ (δὰτῦκρο πργείis a military word occurring rarely in Gk. Bib. (literally in Act_5:28, Act_5:16:24; of ethical orders, 1Ti_1:5. 1Ti_1:18 1Ti_1:1 Clem. 42:3). δδνιπρ is a late Gk. periphrasis for πργέλι(a common word in Gk. Bib.; cf. v. 11, II 3:4 ff.) similar to δδνιἐτλ for ἐτλεθ (cf., in Joh_14:31, Bl with א
δὰτῦκρο Ἰσῦ“Prompted by the Lord Jesus” (Lft.); loquente in nobis Spiritu Christi (Vatablus, apud Poole). The δαdesignates the Lord “as the causa medians through which the πργεί were declared; they were not the Apostle’s own commands, but Christ’s (οκἐὰγρ φσν ἃπργελ, ἀλ ἐενυτῦ Theophylact), by whose influence he was moved to deliver them” (Ell.). δὰκροis grammatically different from but essentially identical with ἐ κρῳthe former is dynamic both in form and in meaning; the latter is static in form but dynamic in force (see on 1:1). Christians are “in” Christ or the Spirit because Christ or the Spirit is in them as a permanent energising activity. Since the divine is in them, it is “through” (δα the divine as a mediating cause that they are empowered to do all things (Php_4:13). The presence of both ἐκρῳ(v. 1) and δὰκροis here designed not to emphasise the apostolic authority of the writers but to point the readers to the divine source of authority which both readers and writers recognise as legitimate, the indwelling Christ. To be sure, Paul recognises his apostolic authority (2:6, II 3:9); no doubt it had of itself immense weight with the Thessalonians; but here he insists that just as when he was with them (2:7) so now as he writes he is but one of them, relying as they do on Christ in them as the common source of divine authority.
Schettler, Die paulinische Formel, “Durch Christus,” 1907, gives an exhaustive study of δαwith Χιτυand its synonyms, θο and πεμτ While pressing his point somewhat rigorously, he succeeds in showing that δαindicates causal agency, and that the phrase “through Christ” denotes the activity of the spiritual Christ as agent in creation and salvation, and as an influence either in general or specifically in the life of prayer and the official legitimation of Paul (cf. AJT 1907, 690 f.). For this δα cf. 4:14, 5:9, II 2:2. A few minuscules (69. 441-2. 462) read here ἐ χρῳἸ(cf. II 3:12 where for ἐ κ Ἰ Χ א Dc KL, et al., read δὰκ Ἰ Χ on this interchange of ἐand δα see further Rom_5:9 f. 2Co_1:20, 2Co_5:18 f. Col_1:16. Col_1:19 f. On ἐ ὀόα (II 3:6, Col_3:17) and δὰτῦὀόαο(1Co_1:10), see below on II 3:6.
(2) True Consecration (4:3-8)
The divine exhortation (ἐ κρῳv. 1) and the divine command (δὰκρο v. 2) now becomes the divine will (θλμ τῦθο, v. 3). The meaning of τ π (v. 1) and τν (v. 2) which are resumed by τῦ (v. 3) is first stated generally as “your consecration,” that is, “that you be consecrated.” This general statement is then rendered specific by two pairs of infinitives in apposition to ὁἁισὸ ὑῶ namely, ἀέεθ and εδνι κᾶθ and ὑεβίε The principle is that true consecration being moral as well as religious demands sexual purity. Along with the principle, a practical remedy is suggested: The prevention of fornication by having respect for one’s wife; and the prevention of adultery by marrying not in lust but in the spirit of holiness and honour. As a sanction for obedience, Paul adds (vv. 6b-8) that Christ punishes impurity; that God calls Christians not for impurity but for holiness; and that the Spirit, the gift of God unto consecration, is a permanent divine power resident in the individual Christian (5:23) so that disobedience is directed not against the human but against the divine.
The appeal to the Spirit as the highest sanction in every problem of the moral life is characteristic of Paul; cf. 1Co_6:19 and McGiffert. Apostolic Age, 263 ff. The reason for presenting the Christian view of consecration involving a Christian view of marriage is to be found not simply in the fact that the converts had as pagans looked upon sexual immorality as a matter of indifference, but also in the fact that such immorality had been sanctioned by their own religious rites (see on ἀαασ, 2:3). The temptation was thus particularly severe and some of the converts may have been on the point of yielding. The group as a whole, however, was pure, as 1:3, 3:6 and χθςκὶπρπτῖ (v. 2) make plain.
3God’s will is this, that you be consecrated, that is, that you abstain from fornication, 4that each of you respect his own wife; that each of you get his own wife in the spirit of consecration and honour 5not in the passion of lust, as is the case with the Gentiles who know not God, 6to prevent any one of you from disregarding or taking advantage of his brother in the matter. For the Lord is an avenger for all these matters, as indeed we have predicted and solemnly affirmed; 7for God has not called us Christians for impurity but to be consecrated; 8consequently the rejecter rejects not man but God who puts his Spirit, the consecrating Spirit, into you.
3. τῦογρκλ“Well, to be explicit, God’s will is this.” With the explanatory γρ τ π and τν (v. 2) are resumed by τῦ, a predicate probably, placed for emphasis before the subject θλμ τῦθο; and are further explained in ὁἁισὸ ὑῶBy saying “God’s will,” Paul lays stress once more on the divine sanction already evident in the introduction (vv. 1-2), “in” and “through” the Lord Jesus.
Though ἁισὸ ὑῶand ἀέεθ are in apposition with τῦ, it is yet uncertain whether τῦ is subject (Lft. and most comm.) or predicate (De W., Dob.). Since τῦ resumes the objects τ π and τν, and since the prompting subject is Christ (δὰτῦκρο who expresses the will of God, it is perhaps better to take θλμ τῦθο as subject and τῦ as predicate. On τῦογ, cf. especially 5:18; also 4:15, 2Co_8:10, Col_3:20, etc. In Paul regularly (except 1Co_7:37, Eph_2:3) and in Lxx frequently, θλμrefers to the divine will. In Paul we have either τ θλμ τῦθο(Rom_12:2, Eph_6:6; with κτ, Gal_1:4 (cf. 1 Ezr_8:16); or ἐ Rom_1:10); or θλμ θο (5:18; with δα Rom_15:32, 1Co_1:1, etc.) like εαγλο θο (Rom_1:1). We expect here either τ θλμ τῦθο (A) or θλμ θο (D; so BD in 5:18 where אhas θλμ τῦθο). The omission of only one article here may be due to the influence of the Hebrew construct state (Bl 46:9). But neither here nor in 5:18 is the total will of God in mind; multae sunt voluntates (Bengel). Paul does not use θλσ; cf. ἡθλσςτῦθο (Tob. 12:18, 2 Mac. 12:16).
ὁἁισὸ ὑῶ= τ ὑᾶ ἁιζσα God’s will is “your consecration”; that is, either that you may be consecrated or better that you consecrate yourselves. The word ἁισόdenotes both the process of consecration (as here) and the state of the consecrated (as vv. 4. 7; see SH on Rom_6:19). The consecrating power is God (5:23), Christ (1Co_1:2, 1Co_1:30), or the Spirit (v. 8, II 2:13; cf. Rom_15:16). Though in itself, as Vorstius (apud Poole) observes, ἁισόis a general term, yet the immediate context, ἀέεθ …πρεα and the contrasts between αισόand πθςἐιυί (vv. 4-5) and between ἁισόand ἀαασ (v. 7) suggest the restriction to impurity.
In the N. T. ἁισόis chiefly in Paul; but only here do we have the article or the personal pronoun (cf. Eze_45:4). On ἐ ἁισῷ cf. vv. 4, 7 Test. xii, Benj. 10:11 Ps. Sol. 17:33 1 Clem. 35:2; on ἐ ἁισῷπεμτ II 2:13, 1Pe_1:2; on εςἁισό Rom_6:19. Rom_6:22, Amo_2:11. For ἁισό= ἁισν cf. Test. xii, Lev_18:7 (πεμ ἁισο) with 18:11 and Rom_1:4 (πεμ ἁισν).
ἀέεθ …πρεα“That you hold aloof from fornication”; for true consecration to God is moral as well as religious. Every kind of impurity is a sin not simply against man but against God (cf. v. 8 and Psa_50:6: σὶμν ἥατ).
What was unclear in τ π (v. 1), τα(v. 2), and τῦ (v. 3) and what was still general in ὁἁισὸ ὑῶ now (vv. 3b-6a) becomes clear and specific in the two pairs of infinitives, ἀέεθ and εδν, κᾶθ and ὑεβίε, placed in asyndetical apposition with ὁἁισὸ ὑῶDibelius thinks it unnecessary to take the infin. as appositive, “since the infinitive often appears in such hortatory enumerations (see Pseudophokylides)”; on such infinitives, but without subject, cf. Rom_12:15, Php_3:16 and Bl 69:1. In the Lxx ἀέεθ takes either the genitive alone or the gen, with ἁο (both constructions in Sap. 2:16); classic Gk. prefers the former, Paul the latter (5:22). Paul uses the plural πρεα(1Co_7:2) but not πσ πρε (so F here); the word itself suggests all forms of sexual immorality. On the generic τ, cf. 1Co_6:13, 1Co_6:18.
4. εδν …σεο “That each of you respect his own wife.” Usually εδν is understood in the sense of “learn how to,” “savoir” (Php_4:12) and so is construed with κᾶθ as its complement: “that each one of you learn how to get (or ‘possess’) his own vessel (‘wife’ or ‘body’) in holiness and honour”; in the light, however, of 5:12 where εδν = “respect,” it is tempting to take it also here = “regard,” “appreciate the worth of.” In this case a comma is to be put after σεοto indicate the separation of κᾶθ from εδν With this punctuation, the parallelism of ἀέεθ and εδνι κᾶθ and τ μ ὑεβίε becomes at once obvious.
εδν here and 5:12, like ἐιιώκιin 1Co_16:18, Mat_17:12, is employed in a sense akin to that in the common Lxx phrase εδν (v. 5, II 1:8, Gal_4:8) or γνσε (Gal_4:9) θό the knowledge involving intelligent reverence and obedience; cf. Ign. Smyr. 9:1: θὸ κὶἐίκπνεδν For ἕατ, B2 or B3, the Latins, et al. read ἕαἕατ as 2:11, II 1:3.—(1) In the usual view which takes εδν with κᾶθ and which rightly sees in vv. 3b-8 a reference solely to ἀαασ, the point is that “first πρε is prohibited; then a holy use of its natural remedy affirmatively inculcated; and lastly the heinous sin of μιε, especially as regarded in its social aspects, formally denounced” (Ell.). (2) In favour of the alternative view which takes εδν = “respect” and so separates it from κᾶθ is the position of κᾶθ not before τ ευο σεοas we should expect from Php_4:12, and as DG, et al., here actually have it, but after; the apparent parallelism of the four infinitives; the fact that εδα…σεοis complete in itself, balancing ἀέεθ …πρεα and the fact that εδν in 5:12 = “to respect,” “appreciate.” In this alternative view we have two pairs of parallel infinitives, ἀέεθ and εδνι κᾶθ and τ μ ὑεβίε In the first pair, ἀέεθ, though first in order, is really subordinate to εδν, the point being: “abstain from fornication by appreciating the worth of your wife.” In the second pair, ὑεβίε, as τ μ (v. infra) intimates, is explicitly subordinate to κᾶθ, the thought being: “marry in the spirit of holiness and thus prevent adultery with a brother’s wife.” The arrangement of the four infinitives is chaiastic; in each pair a practical remedy for temptation is provided.
Spitta (Zur Geschichte und Litteratur, I, 1893, 131:2) was evidently the first to suggest the separation of κᾶθ from εδν; but his own view that εδν = יע(Gen_4:17, etc.) is apparently untenable, for יע= “know carnally” is rendered in Lxx not by εδν but by γνσε (Jdg_21:11 is not an exception). Born and Vincent rightly take εδν here as in 5:12 to mean “respect,” but assume for κᾶθ the improbable sense (v. infra): “to do business.” Wohl., after taking the position that both impurity and dishonesty in business are discussed in vv. 3b-8, suggests for consideration in a foot-note (90:2) an interpretation similar to the alternative view here proposed, but does not elaborate it.
τ ἑνο σεο “His own vessel,” that is, “his own wife.” Paul has in mind married men and the temptation to unholy and dishonourable relations with women. The ἑυο intimates a contrast between a σεο πρεαand a σεο γμντμοAs εδνικλ parallel to and explanatory of ἀέεθικλshows, the way of escape from πρε is the appreciation of the worth of the wife. This estimate of marriage is essential to true consecration and is God’s will.
σεοis rare in Paul; it is used literally of a utensil in the household (Rom_9:21), and metaphorically, with some qualifying description, of an implement for some purpose (e.g. Rom_9:22 f. σεηὀγς ἐέυ 2Co_4:7 ὀτάιασε—“a metaphor from money stored in earthen jars,” as Bigg (ICC on 1Pe_3:7) notes). The absolute τ σεοin a metaphorical sense appears to be unique in the Gk. Bib. (1) On the analogy of the other Pauline passages, the reference here is to a vessel adapted to a purpose; and the emphasis on ἑυο and the contrast with πρε suggest the woman as the vessel, not, however, for fornication but for honourable marriage. This meaning for σεοhas a parallel not in 1Pe_3:7 (where both the man and the woman are vessels), but in rabbinical literature (cf. Schö Horae Hebraicae, I, 827), where כי= σεο= woman. This interpretation of σεοis taken by the Greek Th. Mops. as well as by Augustine and most modern commentators. (2) On the other hand, many commentators (e.g. Tertullian, Chrys., Theodoret, Calv., Grot., Mill., Dibelius) understand σεοas = “body.” In support of this opinion, passages are frequently adduced (see Lü and cf. Barn. 7:3, 11:19) in which the context rather than the word itself (σεο, ἀγῖ, vas) indicates that the vessel of the spirit or soul is the body. But even if σεοof itself is a metaphor for body (cf. Barn. 21:8), it is difficult so to understand it here, if κᾶθ and ἑυο have their usual meaning. (1) κᾶθ in the Gk. Bib. as in classic Gk. means “to get” a wife (Sir. 36:29), children (Gen_4:1), friends (Sir. 6:7), enemies (Sir. 20:23, 29:6), gold (Mat_10:19), etc.; also “to buy” (Act_1:18, Act_8:20, Act_22:28). The sense “dem Erwerb nachgehen” (Born), “pursue gain-getting” (Vincent) is doubtful, although we have the absolute ὁκώεο“the buyer” (Deu_28:68, Eze_7:12 f., Eze_8:3); κκηθ (not in N. T.) in Lxx as in classic Gk. means “to have gotten” (a wife, Rth_4:10), “possess” (Pro_16:22), “own” (ὁκκηέο “the owner,” Ep. Jer. 58***). “Cum κᾶθ significat acquirere non potest σεοsignificare corpus suum sed uxorem” (Wetstein). This conclusion, however, is bereft of its force if in Hellenistic Gk. κᾶθ = κκηθ (so Mill. who quotes P. Tebt. 5:241 ff. and P. Oxy. 259:6; and, following him Dibelius). (2) But the difficulty with ἑυο remains: “to possess his own body.” This may be obviated by assuming that here, as often in later Gk., ἑυο like ἴι (cf. 1Co_7:2) has “lost much of its emphatic force” (Mill. on ἑυῆ 2:7; and Moult I, 87 ff.). If, however, κᾶθ and ἑυο retain here their normal meaning, then σεοprobably = “woman,” “wife.”
κᾶθ. “That each of you get in marriage his own wife” (sc. τ ἑυο σεο Wetstein notes Sir. 36:29: ὁκώεο γνῖαἐάχτικήε (cf. also Rth_4:10). Paul has now in mind unmarried men and the temptation especially to adultery. The ἑυο is contrasted with the brother’s wife implied in v. 6. True consecration, which is God’s will, is not simply that a man should marry in order to avoid adultery (cf. 1Co_7:2: δὰὰ πρεα ἕατςτνἑυο γνῖαἐέ), but, as the ἐ ἁισῷκὶτμ prescribes, should marry in purity and respect for his wife, and not in the passion of lust. As the clause with εδν explained that the married man is to appreciate his wife and so be kept from fornication, so the clause with τ μὑεβίε indicates that the unmarried man is to marry in holiness and honour and so be kept from invading the sanctity of his brother’s home.
The subject ἕατ and the object τ ἑυο σεοhold over; cf. Sir. 51:25 (κήαθ ατῖ ἄε ἀγρο where ατ is to be supplied.
ἐ ἁισῷκὶτμ. “In holiness and honour.” The ἐdesignates the atmosphere in which the union of the man and woman takes place (Ell.). ἁισόis here equivalent to ἁισν the state of those who are consecrated to God. Religious feeling is to pervade marriage; but whether this feeling is to be expressed in prayer is not stated. Wohl. notes Ignatius to Polycarp 5:2: “It is fitting for men who marry and women who are married to unite themselves (τνἕωι πιῖθ) with the consent of the bishop ἵαὁγμςᾖκτ κρο κὶμ κτ ἐιυί” The marriage is likewise to be “in honour”; that is, the woman is not a σεο πρεαbut a σεο γμυτμο and honour is due her as a person of worth (εδν).
Paul’s statement touches only the principles; Tobit 8:1 ff. is more specific. “Even were κᾶθ taken as = ‘possess,’ a usage not quite impossible for later Greek, it would only extend the idea to the duties of a Christian husband” (Moff.).
5. μ ἐ πθιἐιυίςκλ Without connecting particle, the positive statement is further elucidated by a negative and the contrast between Pauline and pagan ideals of marriage sharply set forth: “not in the passion of lust as is the case with the Gentiles who do not recognise and obey the moral requirements of God.” That pagan marriage was marked by the absence of holiness and respect for the wife and by the presence of passionate lust is the testimony of one familiar with the facts, one who is “as good a source for the life of the people as any satirist” (Dob.).
πθ signifies any feeling; to 4 Mac. it consists of ἡοηand πν; in Paul it is always used in a bad sense (Rom_1:26, Col_3:5). ἐιυίin Paul has usually a bad sense, but sometimes a good sense (2:17, Php_1:23; cf. κκ ἐιυί Col_3:5). On κθπρκι see 3:6. Ellicott, with his wonted exactness, notes the κιas having here “its comparative force and instituting a comparison between the Gentiles and the class implied in ἕατνὑῶ” On τ μ εδτ τνθό a Lxx phrase (Jer_10:25, Psa_78:6), cf. II 1:8, Gal_4:8, 1Co_1:21, and contrast Rom_1:21. If the Thessalonians in their pagan state had held πρε to be sanctioned by religion, and had also considered πθςἐιυί to be compatible with honourable marriage, the clause with κθπ would be particularly telling. See Jowett, II, 70 ff. “On the Connexion of Immorality and Idolatry.”
6. τ μ ὑεβίενκὶπενκε. “To prevent (τ μ) any one of you (sc. τν ὑῶfrom ἕατνὑῶ v. 4) from disregarding and taking advantage of his brother in the matter.” Just as appreciation of the wife (εδν) is tacitly regarded as a preventive of fornication (ἀέεθ), so pure and honourable marriage (κᾶθ) is expressly (τ μ) regarded as preventing the invasion (ὑεβίε) of the sanctity of the brother’s home.
The meaning of τ μ is uncertain. Many take it as final in the sense of τῦμ (Schmiedel) or ὥτ(Lft.); others regard it as not merely parallel to the anarthrous εδν but as reverting “to the preceding ἁισό of which it presents a specific exemplification more immediately suggested by the second part of v. 4” (Ell.); Dob., who inclines to the view of Ell., concludes that the article indicates the beginning of a new and second main point, the matter of dishonesty in business; Dibelius suggests that the article is merely a cæ in delivery, designed to show that the μ is not parallel to the μ in v. 5, but the beginning of a new clause. On the other hand, τ μ (cf. 3:3) may be due to the idea of hindering implied in the clause with κᾶθ, a clause thus to be closely connected with τ μ ὑεβίενκλ as indeed the asyndetical construction itself suggests. In classical Greek, τ μ is used with many verbs and expressions which denote or even imply hindrance or prevention (GMT 811, where inter alia the following are noted: Æ Agam. 15: φβςπρσαε τ μ βέφρ σμαενὕν (“stands by to prevent my closing my eyes in sleep”); and Soph. Antig. 544: μτι μ ἀιάη τ μ ο θνῖ In this case there is no reason for assuming a change of subject in v. 6.—ὑεβίε, only here in N. T., is used in the Lxx literally, “cross over” (2 Reg. 22:30, Pro_9:18 A), “pass by” (2 Reg. 18:23, Job_9:11); and metaphorically “surpass” (3 Mac. 6:24), “leave unnoticed,” “disregard” (Mic_7:18: ἐαρνἀοίςκὶὑεβίω ἀεεα Since the meaning “disregard” suits perfectly here (cf. Ell. who notes Isæ 38:6 43:34 and other passages), it is unnecessary to take ὑεβίε absolutely, or to supply, instead of the natural object τνἀεφνατυ either ὅι or νμ or (see Wetstein, who also quotes Jerome: concessos fines praetergrediens nuptiarum). πενκε occurs elsewhere in Gk. Bib. apart from Paul (2Co_2:11, 2Co_7:2, 2Co_12:17 f.) only Jdg_4:11, Eze_22:27, Hab_2:9; it means “get the advantage of,” “defraud,” the context not the word itself indicating the nature of the advantage taken, whether in money, as usually in Paul, or not (2Co_2:11). Here the object of greediness (cf. πενξ, 2:5) is the brother’s wife as the context as a whole and ἐ τ πάμτparticularly suggest.
ἐ τπάμτ “In the matter,” “the meaning of which is sufficiently defined by the context” (Lft.), as in 2Co_7:11. It is probable that the phrase is not a specific reference either to πρε, as if the article were anaphoristic, or to μιε, as if the article referred to the matter immediately in hand, but is “a euphemistic generalisation for all sorts of uncleanness” (Lillie), as πρ πνω τύωin this clause and ἀαασ in v. 7 suggest.
τ not the enclitic τ, which is without parallel in the N. T., is to be read.—πᾶμlike res and ורis a euphemism for anything abominable. Wetstein cites in point not only 2Co_7:11, but also Æ Timarch, 132 ff. and Isæ de haered. Cironis, 44; cf. also Pirque Aboth 5:23 and Taylor’s note.—In this connection it may be noted that many commentators (e. g. Calv., Grot., De W., Lü Born, Vincent, Wohl., Dob.) deny the view of Chrys., Th. Mops., Bengel, and most English interpreters (see the names in Lillie) that Paul in vv. 3b-8 is referring solely to impurity, and assert, either on the ground that Vulg translates ἐ τ πάμτby in negotio or that Paul frequently associates uncleanness with avarice (cf. Test. xii, Benj. 5:1 ἄωοand ο πενκονε that with τ μ a new point begins, dishonesty in business (cf. especially Dob. Die urchristlichen Gemeinden, 1902, 283). In this view, πᾶμ= “business”; and the article is either anaphoristic, if with Born and Vincent κᾶθ = “to do business,” or generic, business in general. Against this opinion is the consideration that “no other adequate example of πᾶμin this sense in the singular has been produced” (Mill.). To obviate this consideration, Dibelius looks beyond 1Co_6:1 (πᾶμ ἔε) to the papyri for πᾶμin the sense of “case” at court, without explaining τ, and refers v. 6 to disputes: “nicht Uebergriffe machen und beim Zwist den Bruder ü”—To interpret v. 6 of sexual immorality is considered forced exegesis by Calv. and Dob. On the other hand, Ell. pertinently remarks: “To regard the verse as referring to fraud and covetousness in the general affairs of life is to infringe on the plain meaning of τ πάμτ to obscure the reference to the key-word of the paragraph ἀαασ (v. 7); to mar the contextual symmetry of the verses; and to introduce an exegesis so frigid and unnatural as to make us wonder that such good names should be associated with an interpretation seemingly so improbable.”
τνἀεφνατυ Not neighbour in general, not both neighbour and Christian brother, but simply the Christian brother is meant. Obviously the point is not that it is permissible thus to wrong an outsider, but that it is unspeakable thus to wrong a brother in Christ. Zanchius (apud Poole) compares aptly 1Co_6:8: ἀιετ κὶτῦοἀεφύ
6b-8. With δόι γρ(v. 7) and τιαο (v. 8), Paul passes to motives for obeying these commands, not his but God’s commands. First he appeals, as he had done before when he was with them, to the sanction of the judgment when Christ will punish all these sins of the flesh (v. 6b). Next he reminds them that God’s call had a moral end in view, holiness (v. 7). Finally he points out that the indwelling, consecrating Spirit, the gift of God, is the resident divine power in the individual, so that disobedience strikes not at the human but at the divine (v. 8).
δόιἔδκςκλ δό = “because” as in 2:8. As a sanction for present obedience to the will of God as specified in vv. 3b-6a, Paul points to the future judgment (2Co_5:10, Rom_14:10). κροis not θό(GF) but Christ (3:12), as the emphatic ὁθό(vv. 7-8) intimates. He is the one who inflicts punishment directly or indirectly (cf. II 1:8), the avenger (ἔδκ) “for all these things,” that is, for fornication, adultery, and all such uncleanness.
ἔδκ means here, as always in Gk. Bib. (Rom_13:4, Sir. 30:6 Sap. 12:12, 4 Mac. 15:29; cf. ἐδκτ Psa_8:3), “avenger.” This characterisation of God is so common in the Lxx (ἐδκ or πινἐδκσ, Psa_98:8, Nah_1:2, Mic_5:15, etc.), that the phrase ἔδκςκροhere need not be a literary allusion to Psa_93:1<