Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - 1 Thessalonians 4:1 - 4:8
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
DIDACTIC AND HORTATORY
Ch. 4, 5
___________
I
Warning against Fornication and Covetousness
1Th_4:1-8.
2. (1Th_4:3.) For this is God’s will, &c. (1Th_5:18); [Webster and Wilkinson: “The art. with Èåïῦ draws attention to the circumstance that God had just been spoken of as one to whose will it should be our main object to conform, ‘our God,’ the God we serve.”—J. L.] ;with this begins the special detail of the ðáñáããåëßáé . The subject is ôïῦôï ; the predicate èÝëçìá (according to the best authorities, without the article). What follows does not embrace the entire will of God on all its sides; multæ sunt voluntates, Act_13:22; Bengel.—In apposition to ôïῦôï , and substantially the subject of the statement, is ὁ ἁãéáóìüò , which differs from ἁãéùóýíç , 1Th_3:13, in that the latter denotes the religious and moral character, but ἁãéáóìüò the religious and moral process, the work of sanctification. Not materially different is Hofmann’s view, according to which ὁ ἁã were merely appositional (to èÝëçìá ?), and the proper definition of the ôïῦôï would be first given by the following infinitives. In our Epistle Paul has as yet no occasion, as in Romans 3-6, to develop, in polemic opposition to Jewish legality, justification as the basis of sanctification; nor is that the case in the Corinthian Epistles; Paul has no set form; but the soul of his thought and action is this: “By the grace of God I am what I am” (1Co_15:10). Olshausen, like some of the older interpreters, would understand ἁã . as opposed to the immediately following ðïñíåßá , in the special sense of chastity. But that is ἁãíåßá . Not even in Rom_6:19; 1Ti_2:15, is the narrower sense found. And ἀêáèáñóßá likewise, 1Th_4:7, is more comprehensive, including also covetousness, as in 1Th_2:3; 1Th_2:5. Though ãÜñ of 1Th_4:7 shows indeed that 1Th_4:6 must come under the contrast between uncleanness and sanctification, yet it does not at all follow from that, that the idea of the former is here limited to unchastity (see on 1Th_4:6). Rather, abstinence from fornication is merely one (chief) instance of the sanctification which he recommends.
3. (1Th_4:3-5.) That ye abstain, &c.—The (accusative with) infinitive is epexegetical or appositional to ἁãéáóìüò . On the subduing of fornication, comp. 1 Corinthians 6, 7. Chrysostom: When he says, “from all fornication,” he leaves it to those who know, to think of the various kinds of lewdness. With the negative Paul couples the positive in the form of a coördinate accusative with infinitive: that every one of you know, åἰäÝíáé as scire, understand how to, be able to—(we only properly know, what we can also do)—acquire, get, not possess, which must have been expressed by the perfect êåêôῆóèáé ; no other tense means to possess, not even Sir_6:1; Sir_51:20. By óêåῦïò , however, vessel, utensil, tool, ëְּìִé , some (Tertullian, Chrysostom [and the other more eminent Greek commentators, Theodoret, Theophylact, Œcumenius.—J. L.], Calvin, Grotius [Bishops Hall and Wilson, Hammond, Whitby, &c.—J. L.], Bengel, Olshausen, Pelt [Wordsworth, Webster and Wilkinson] understand the body; others (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Zwingli, Wetstein, Schott, De Wette, Lünemann, Ewald, Hofmann [Jowett, Alford, Ellicott]), the wife. The former say that Scripture in still other places speaks of the body in this sense—does not treat it contemptuously as the prison of the soul—recognizes indeed the trouble that it makes for us as the seat, not the origin, of sin—but requires that it stand in the Lord’s service as a sanctified organ of the Spirit (1Co_6:13); comp. 2Co_4:1 (where, it is true, the epithet ὀóôñÜêéíá is not to be overlooked); the Rabbins, moreover, use ëּåֹñ of the body; Philo says repeatedly: ôὸ ôῆò øõ÷ῆò ἀããåῖïí ôὸ óῶìá ; Barnabas, 7. 1Th 11: óêåῦïò ôïῦ ðíåýìáôïò ; but also, 1Th 21, simply: ôὸ êáëὸí óêåῦïò . In our text ἑáõôïῦ might, if necessary, take the place of ðíåýìáôïò . But how does êôᾶóèáé , to get, to obtain, suit with this? For to possess is not the meaning of the word, but acquirere—an argument already employed by Wetstein. Accordingly êôᾶóèáé would have to signify to get the mastery over; Chrysostom: Only through sanctification do we gain the body for a óêåῦïò ; sin, on the contrary, gains it, when we are impure. As this is of itself somewhat artificial, so it is entirely at variance (De Wette, Lünemann [Koch, Alford, Ellicott]) with the fact, that to êôᾶóèáé really belongs also the negative definition (1Th_4:5), ìὴ ἐí ðÜèåé ἐðéèõìßáò (the genitive as in 1Th_1:3; passion peculiar to lust, concupiscence; ἐðéè . is the natural element of sin (Rom_7:7), which swells to passion; comp. ðÜèç ἀôéìßáò , Rom_1:24; Rom_1:26). So then: You are to acquire the óêåῦïò in sanctification, not in passionate lust; this does not suit the assumed meaning of óêåῦïò ; for, in truth, it is only by sanctification that the mastery over the body is gained; by lust comes the opposite, the loss of the mastery. Gain the mastery over the body, not in passion, were to give an absurd turn to the prohibition.
We are thus driven to the other explanation, for which, it is true, Scripture furnishes as little as for the first any perfectly exact parallel. For passages where man is described generally as a figure of clay (Isa_45:9, and often), or expressions as óêåýç ἐëÝïõò Rom_9:23, and such like, are too dissimilar. The one that comes nearest seems to be 1Pe_3:7; but even there the wife is described as the weaker vessel, to wit of the Divine grace, merely in the relation of contrast, over against the stronger vessel, but not as the vessel or instrument of the man. Among the Rabbins, however, the latter idea is found (with the blunt explanation: cui immittitur semen): vas meum quo ego utor, Megill. Esth. I. 11; and, besides, êôᾶóèáé is used of taking a wife (Rth_4:10, Septuagint; Sir. 36:29 [Sir_36:24]).
It is objected, 1. that this would be to speak too meanly of the wife, as of a dependent instrument of the man, contrary to the reciprocity of 1Co_7:4; 1 Corinthians 2. that the opposition to ðïñí . would be taken somewhat too narrowly, especially if we understand the matter thus: You are to contract marriage in sanctification, not in lust; in this way the exhortation would be, not for such as still remain single, or for widowers, and for others, even only in regard to the formation of the marriage tie; 3. (a point made by Olshausen, and also by Calvin before him), that the exhortation would thus not at all apply to the woman. It may be replied (with De Wette and Lünemann), 1. that the wife is not in every respect viewed as the instrument of the man, but only in the special relation suggested by the opposition to ðïñí . Keep yourselves from vaga libido; procure rather every one his own instrument, to wit, for the instinct in question, not as one in ðïñí . procures a óêåýïò , not his own, in passionate lust. Here, as in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul speaks plainly and undisguisedly, but yet briefly and decently. 2. This exhortation is generally applicable; that is to say, those who do not possess the gift of continence (1Co_7:2; 1Co_7:9) are, for the sake of avoiding ðïñí , to take to themselves every one his own regular wife (if they are still single or widowers), and not use a óêåýïò that is not their own; but neither are they to marry in a merely fleshly way, and just so they are not to lead their married life in that spirit. It concerns both the formation of the marriage relation and the subsequent life therein, when it is said: Obtain your óêåýïò (at first and ever afterwards) in sanctification and honor. 3. This exhortation Paul directs with perfect propriety to the men as the specially active parties, who readily allow themselves greater liberty in this thing. The inference as regards Christian women was self-evident.
Lünemann thinks that in sanctification and honor is merely an explanation of what is implied in the expression, his own vessel. But the sense is richer, if we thus distinguish: 1. Let every one acquire his own vessel, and that, indeed, 2. in the proper way, as it should be acquired (and then also kept accordingly). It is not enough that one have a wife; it is likewise important, in what way he has got and now holds her. “For a man may be drunk even on his own wines.” The proper mode of the êôᾶóèáé is therefore described: in sanctification inwardly, before God, so that there is an imitation of the love of Christ (Ephesians 5) and a mutual furtherance in the service of God and in the rule of the spirit; whence follows in the relation between man and man: and in honor (Col_2:23; 1Pe_3:1); in maintaining one’s own honor, and in the respect or manifestation of honor that is shown to the wife; as opposed to the ἀôéìßá of him who sinks himself below the beasts, desecrating and degrading the óêåýïò by a sinful abuse through ðáè . ἐðéè . in fornication, or even in carnal excesses within the limits of marriage.
Even as also the Gentiles; êáß in comparisons, 1Th_4:13; Rom_4:6; ἔèíç , as frequently for ἐèíéêïß .
4. (1Th_4:6). That no one go beyond, &c., is added by asyndeton, with this variation, that now ôü stands with the infinitive. Ôὸ ìὴ ὑðåñâáßíåéí ; cannot depend on åἰäÝíáé if on account of the article it could not be parallel to ἀðÝ÷åóèáé and åἰäÝíáé , then neither is it parallel to êôᾶóèáé , which without the article depends on åἰäÝíáé . Bengel sees in the asyndeton a proof that Paul is proceeding with the same topic, the ôü bringing confirmation and climax to what was last said. It is, on the whole, supposed by many (Chrysostom: the subversion of marriage is worse than the robbery of treasures, Jerome, Erasmus [Bishop Wilson], Wetstein, Olshausen, Pelt, Von Gerlach [Jowett, Alford, Ellicott, Vaughan, Wordsworth, Webster and Wilkinson, and most others]), that ðëåïíåêôåῖí (to overreach, injure) stands here, not in its ordinary meaning, but figuratively of violated marriage, as Pro_6:29-32 compares the thief and the adulterer (that, however, is not to describe the adulterer figuratively as a thief); comp. 2 Samuel 12 (but that is an express parable), and the tenth commandment (of the Reformed division), which embraces both kinds of sins. Paul (they think), having said before that fornication is contrary to sanctification, and therefore to God, now goes on to say that it wounds also brotherly love—is, so to speak, a greedy grasping at conjugal property, an injury to the rights of a brother. The specification, ἐí ôῷ ðñÜãìáôé , would then be used euphemistically: “in the matter” (that mentioned in 1Th_4:4; 1Th_4:8; 2Co_7:11). On any other view, it is thought, there would be a quite abrupt introduction by asyndeton of a new subject, whereas even the ãÜñ of 1Th_4:7 shows that 1Th_4:6 speaks of the uncleanness of lewdness.
Against the last remark, see Exeg. Note 2 (on 1Th_4:3); ἀêáèáñóßá is all impurity of the natural man, the dominion of the flesh over against the spirit; covetousness also belongs to it. On the other hand, there is no example (for a parable like that of Nathan is not one) of the asserted figurative use of ðëåïíåêôåῖí ; and even the asyndeton does not prove what these interpreters wish. Indeed, closely viewed, something even false would be the result of this. That is to say, were ôὸ ìÞ &c. of 1Th_4:6 merely appositional to 1Th_4:4-5—if nothing but a new side of ðïñíåßá were to come out of it—then the adulterous ðëåïíåîßá must be a characteristic of all ðïñíåßá ; a man, in other words, must thereby invade the rights of his brethren; which yet is not the case, for there is many an instance of ðïñí . which violates no brother’s right of possession; that is the case only in a single definite relation, and must consequently have been mentioned as something new, not simply as an apposition to what precedes. Even Lünemann is here too punctilious, when on account of the ôü he would take ìὴ ὑðåñâ . as coördinate, not with ἀðÝ÷ , and åἰäÝíáé , but with ὁ ἁãéáóìüò : The will of God Isaiah 1. your sanctification, abstinence from fornication, and so forth; and 2. the ìὴ ὑðåñâáßíåéí . But in this way there results the awkwardness of understanding ἁãéáóìüò of 1Th_4:3 in the narrower sense of chastity, whereas in 1Th_4:7 it is understood by Lünemann himself (who takes 1Th_4:6 as an exhortation against covetousness) in the wider sense. We cannot be driven to this by that article.
Even if we had to acknowledge in this a slight ruggedness of style, we should yet say with Hofmann, that the very article shows that something new, and of a different nature, now comes in. The difficulty disappears, as soon as (in reading) we punctuate somewhat more strongly after ἁãéáóìὸò ὑìῶí , and again after ìὴ åἰäüôá ôὸí èåüí . Thus (with Origen, Calvin, Zwingli, Grotius, De Wette, Lünemann, Ewald, Hofmann, and others) we recognize in 1Th_4:6 a new exhortation to a second evidence of sanctification (along with chastity as the first) in honesty of dealing, instead of a reckless and covetous overreaching. Many take ὑðåñâáßíåéí absolutely, without an object, modum excedere; Luther: to grasp too far; II. 9. 501; Plato, Rep. 366. A. But since the one ôὸ ìÞ takes the two verbs close together, we shall do better by referring also, with Hofmann, the addition ὲí ôῷ ðñ . and the object to both verbs; and then ὑðåñâ , to go beyond, is the same thing as to take no notice of, recklessly to disregard; in what? even in ðëåïíåîßá , the desire to have more. The verb is transitive also in 2Co_12:17-18; ôῷ enclitic, for ôéíé , as Grotius explains it, is not according to New Testament use—not even in 1Co_15:8; ἐí ôῷ ðñ . means: in the business (Rom_16:2), or even lawsuit (1Co_6:1), on hand at any particular time.
His brother—is this to be understood of brother in the widest sense, as equivalent to ðëçóßïí ? That, however, is contrary to the usage. Even àָç denotes a member of the people of God. But should the limitation, as in Deu_23:19 sq., indicate a difference in the treatment of brethren and of strangers? By no means; it does not consist with the context, that those who are not brethren should be otherwise treated (comp. 1Th_3:12); Paul, looking simply at the intercourse of Christians with one another, requires that the same should be fraternal, and he uses the name of brother as an argument against unbrotherly overreaching; ætiologia fugiendæ transgressionis, Bengel; just as in 1 Corinthians 6, where in like manner the transition from fornication (1 Thessalonians 5) to covetousness is by asyndeton, hurried and abrupt. In other places also Paul puts close together these two capital vices, Eph_4:19; Eph_5:3; Eph_5:5; Col_3:5.
Confirmation of the warning: Because that (Rom_1:19; Rom_1:21) the Lord (Bengel: Christus judex) is an avenger (vindex, Rom_13:4) for all these things; the most diverse sins (suits better, if the previous discourse was at least of two kinds of sin, and not merely of two forms of the same sin); comp. 1Co_5:11; 1Co_6:9-10; Gal_5:19 sqq.
Even as we also told you before, not merely before this Epistle; that idea lies simply in the aorist (when we were with yon, even then our oral teaching was to no other effect); but the ðñï (comp, ðñïëÝãù with ðñïåῖðïí , Gal_5:21) contains a reference to the coming of Christ to judgment: “before it happens;” and (by way of corroboration) fully testified (1Th_2:12 [11]). Calvin: tanta enim est hominum tarditas, ut nisi acriter perculsi nullo divini judicii sensu tangantur.
5. (1Th_4:7-8.) For God did not call, &c.—What prompted the exhortation, a return to the fundamental idea of 1Th_4:3. The change from ἐðß to ἐí is not without design. The former might possibly mark the condition: on the ground of. But to specify a ground, even in a negative way, does not accord with the free grace of the call. But, since the purpose of an action is the motive of it, ἐðß may also express for the purpose of, hac lege ut essemus, Gal_5:13; Eph_2:10; Winer, § 48, C. [Webster and Wilkinson: “on the understanding of.”—J. L,]). Ἐí , on the contrary, is internal; it may be understood by breviloquence (in order to be in) as equivalent to åἰò (Winer, § 50, 5; 1Co_7:15 with Col_3:15); but also of the essential nature of the êáëåῖí (Bengel, Hofmann): in the offer and operation of sanctification the êáëåῖí existed; that was the element in which the êáëåῖí moved. The Apostle does not think so specially as we do of sanctification as a gradual subdual of the flesh, but it is for him separation from the world for God, the being made partakers of His Spirit; ἐí as Gal_1:6; Eph_6:4.
Wherefore then he that despiseth [rejecteth];— ἀèåôåῖí , to invalidate, treat as null; more rarely with a personal object: to reject (Luk_10:16); in the Septuagint frequently for áָּâַã . Isa_21:2; Isa_24:16. To the participle some supply ἐìÝ , others ôïῦôï , ôἡí ἐí ἁãéáóìῷ êëῆóéí , ôὰò ðáñáããåëßáò (1Th_4:2), not incorrectly as regards the sense, but grammatically it is better to take it (with De Wette, Lünemann, Hofmann [Jowett, Alford, Ellicott]) as without an object, substantively: the despiser [rejecter]. In what follows we must not take ïὐê for ïὐ ìüíïí , which weakens the force of the statement, but thus: The man, through whom the commands were conveyed to him, does not even come into view by the side of the despising of God, from whom they spring. In the case of ἄíèñùðïí , to think with Œcumenius, Pelt, of the overreached brother, 1Th_4:6, or even with Hofmann of the misused woman, and the brother injured through covetousness, is still more out of the way.
In the addition: who (also, together with the calling) giveth (continuously), or gave (once) His Holy Spirit unto you, lies the climax of the exhortation. With the reading, unto us, one might think of the Apostles, who speak from the Spirit (1Co_7:40), whose word therefore is not to be despised, or again (since this apologetic assurance is here uncalled for) of Christians generally. The better attested ὑìᾶò , however, is for the readers: He giveth (or gave) into you [in euch hinein, for åἰò ὑìᾶò ] His Spirit, the Holy Spirit, who incites to sanctification, to dwell in you; and thus (De Wette, Olshausen), along with the commandment, the gift also of discernment, illumination through the prophets among you (1Th_5:20), and the spirit of discernment in yourselves (1Th_5:21), so that ye are able to judge whether I speak from myself—so that ye are èåïäßäáêôïé (1Th_4:9); and thus to you, moreover, sanctification is made a possible thing, for surely ye have not in vain received His Holy Spirit (Ewald); ye are, therefore, also the more inexcusable, if ye despise His commandments, grieve the Holy Spirit, and resist His discipline (Eph_4:30; Lünemann, Hofmann).
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. (1Th_4:1.) There is danger in knowing the way, and not going forward (Jam_1:22). Standing still tends to backsliding. The point is, to walk continually, step by step, even to the mark. Chrysostom: The earth returns more than is given to it.—But this as fruit, from the living force of the seed; no opera supererogationis. The true ðåñéóóåýåéí is not any acting over and above the commandments (1Th_4:2), but a more and more willing fulfilment of the commandments. Zwingli: No one can here be perfect, and he that standeth, let him take heed lest he fall. Daily we fall and sin; let us also daily arise.—That requires an ever fresh exhortation and admonition in the midst of the frivolity of an age, which heedlessly despises the judgment of God.—Rieger: When one has once received from another something pertaining to instruction in the matter of salvation, this forms a tie between hearts, such that one may hope to effect a still further advance. A word received with love into the heart communicates to us also an impulse to become ever more perfect. [Matthew Henry: The Apostle taught them how to walk, not how to talk.—Adam Clarke: God sets no bounds to the communications of His grace and Spirit to them that are faithful. And as there are no bounds to the graces, so there should be none to the exercise of those graces.—J. L.]
2. (1Th_4:2). Bengel remarks, that in the Epistles to the only recently founded church at Thessalonica the Apostle speaks frequently of his commands; but seldom in Epistles to churches of longer standing. Evangelical freedom is no antinomianism. The ordinances of God require the obedience of faith. Absolute autonomy and creaturehood are mutually irreconcilable. The way to true Christian freedom lies through the obedience of faith.
3. (1Th_4:3.) Sanctification is separation from the things of the world, purification from the pollution of the flesh, the surrender of ourselves to the service of God, to the dominion of the spirit over the flesh, for a pure offering to God who is holy, that is, who abides like Himself, asserting Himself in His spirituality, and therefore with an absolute superiority, not only to everything impure, but to all that is created. Lev_19:2, Ye shall be holy, for I am holy.—Rieger: Under the impulse of His Spirit it pervades the whole man, so that all his powers and members are occupied in the service of righteousness. To this points even the emotion of shame, wherein is proclaimed a consciousness of the fall, and a longing after original innocence.—The same; We must not regard sanctification as such a lofty virtue, that only a very few are required to strive after it (comp. Heb_12:14).
4. (1Th_4:3-6.) We need not be surprised at this warning against gross sins. The gospel does not out off magically at one blow all danger of seduction. Gross sins on one side, great workings of the Spirit on the other—such is the mighty contrast in the primitive churches. Nowadays everything is brought much nearer to a level. Besides, the lust of the flesh and the thirst for gain are the capital vices, not merely of heathenism, but to this very day especially of so many a rich commercial town.
5. (3–5.) Sensuality is a peculiarly powerful lust of the natural man, and strives against sanctification. Heathen laxity accounts it a matter of indifference, unless some right of wedlock is infringed; nay, by a reciprocal influence of error and lusts (Eph_4:22), and in consequence of a wicked ignorance of the holy God, heathenism, while deifying the natural instinct, sanctions even a “holy” debauchery, and that even to the most unnatural abominations (comp. my Discourse on the calling of the prophet Hosea, Basel). Even the nobler heathens, e. g. Plato in the Symposium, sometimes commend in the wise man as a sublime continence that without which a Christian were no Christian, while they speak of shameful things without any holy abhorrence. How feeble is their protest even against pederasty! And, sure enough, what a state of things was that of the Roman world at that time! A quite different spirit of earnest opposition was shown already even by the law of the Old Covenant (Lev_18:30; Deu_22:21; Deu_23:17); and the gospel thoroughly enforces the demand for resistance even to the secrecy of the thoughts (Mat_5:28). On one occasion the Apostle appeals to the Christian sense of honor: Ye will not, surely, take the members of Christ, and make them the members of a harlot (1Co_6:15)? and then again as here: Ye will not be willing, I hope, to live as do the heathen? Such admonitions are still needed by us. For the prevailing tendency is to think far too lightly of the fleshly lusts, which yet war against the soul.—Rieger: When a stale Christianity is ever anew reviving all heathenish vanities in operas, plays, novels, shameful pictures and images, it falls again likewise, along with heathenish unbelief, into heathenish fornication.—To subdue it is not an affair of a single resolution, but of continuous practice.—Chrysostom: of an earnest discipline—grounded in a knowledge of one’s own bodily and mental disposition, and showing itself by caution in intercourse, avoidance of all temptations, of all impurity in look, gesture, touch, of all seductive reading, whereby the evil treasure of the heart is enlarged, by laying hold of the Divine help, turning to account past experiences, perseverance in prayer, serious contemplation of the shortness of life and the preciousness of the faculties vouchsafed, by exerting the same with faithful diligence, and, above all, by overcoming in the blood of Jesus (Rev_12:11).
A principal means, and one of Divine appointment, is the holy and honorable use of marriage; “incontinentiæ medicina et continentia ipsa,” C. Hel 4:29. But it must not be contracted in a way of carnal frivolity, nor carried on in a spirit of carnal license. Paul speaks of these things without any absurd prudery or spurious spirituality; what belongs to nature he mentions without disguise, does not dispute what is due to a natural necessity, but insists on discipline and a hallowed method in the satisfaction of this instinct. We ought to be thankful for this sober teaching, equally remote as it is from a false burdening of the conscience through monkish perverseness (comp. 1Co_7:3-5, in opposition to a merely nominal marriage), and from a privileged explanation of immoderate fleshly lust. Nor are we at liberty to decline even the humiliation implied in the assignment of motive, 1Co_7:2.
Zwingli: Paul does not altogether forbid the affection—quis enim sine affectu cohabitat uxori suæ?—but whatever in that regard is immoderate and disorderly.—What is essential in holy wedlock is the helping of one another to grow in the rule of the spirit (Rieger: sanctification with reference to God and His service); this Divine aim in connection with what is humanly noble, to be mindful of one’s own honor, and not less of the honor and dignity of the woman in a due regard to her personality. This requires a constant modesty; for the Divinely ordained instinct (Gen_1:28; Gen_2:24) is no longer since the fall to be regarded as uninjured (Gen_3:7). Whoever abandons himself without reserve to lust, in his case it degenerates for his punishment into a ruling passion, of which he becomes the slave.
6. (1Th_4:5.) That the Gentiles know not God (Gal_4:8; Eph_2:12; Eph_4:17 sqq.); this statement seems to be contradicted, not merely by so many beautiful expressions of the heathen respecting Divine things, but by the Apostle’s own words, when he pronounces them inexcusable, Rom_1:19 sqq., for the very reason that they know God by His creation. But the principle of reconciliation is found in the last mentioned passage itself. When they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, and thus their thoughts became vain and their foolish heart was darkened. They held down the truth in unrighteousness. They consequently do not know God as the God before whom we stand, the Holy One with eyes of flame, who is Spirit and not flesh; whom we know only in proportion to our sanctification; for it is only when we are willing to strive after that which is the will of God, that we receive also the witness of the Spirit, and attain to the full knowledge of Him as the Searcher of our life. Even of men, whom we know merely by sight or from hearsay, not from personal intercourse, we do not say that we know them. In this full, living sense, therefore, the heathen know not God ( ôὸí èåüí , the one, true God). This is a guilty ignorance, of which the general and the individual guilt are in an inverse proportion. But even the better views—how fragmentary are they, and how little do they amount to an undoubting, salutary, popularly pervasive knowledge!
7. (1Th_4:6.) Paul frequently brings together the two capital vices, lust and covetousness; comp. also Heb_13:4-5. Between these two diverging sins, there is affinity and contrast. Both are characterized by unfaithfulness, unbelief, as if God did not see or avenge—as if He were not a Spirit, nor holy. The man who is unfaithful to God in regard to his body, that nearest of possessions, is easily so likewise in reference to property of every kind, and vice versa. Or perhaps sin develops itself in a one-sided way. Libertines may be loyal and generous in money matters; honest people are frequently covetous, niggardly, bent on their own advantage. Indeed, covetousness is the vice of upright people, and is often joined to a pharisaic religionism; it is also much more rarely confessed than other sins. Binet gives us the statement of a Catholic confessor, that in twenty years innumerable sins had been confessed to him, but not in a single instance covetousness. Then perhaps, in circumstances of special temptation, the mischief breaks out also in the other direction. Not being thoroughly faithful, they have no power of resistance.
8. (1Th_4:7-8.) The Divine call, and, along with that, the communication of the Holy Spirit, enhance responsibility (Luk_12:48). And indeed the final measure of all sin is not the injury done to our neighbors, but the contempt put upon God (Exo_16:7; 1Sa_8:7). People are fain to put forward as an excuse their dislike to men.—Zwingli: The parson I will not listen to, the false teacher, the heretic;—such is the talk of those who do not dare openly to reject God.—To what extent may the cause of the teacher be identified with that of God? A wicked, hierarchical abuse is certainly possible, and occurs when the privilege of the teacher’s position is throughout, and without question, asserted as infallible; contrary to Mat_16:17; Mat_16:23; Gal_2:11 sqq.; 1Co_10:15; 2Co_1:24. Nevertheless, Luk_10:16 remains in force, in so far as the servants of Christ take upon themselves, above all things, the obligation implied in this promise. And all penitential confession is complete only in the direct personal reference to God (B. li. 6 [4]); when the sinner begins clearly to perceive, that God’s commandments are no human fancies. The more light a man has received, so much the more heinous is his transgression. To grieve the Holy Spirit, with an ever-increasing constancy to do Him despite, may grow into the sin that is never forgiven. Comp. on this point my Discourse in the apologetische Beiträge von Gess und Riggenbach, Basel, 1863. For this reason the exhortation, which began with beseeching in Christ, becomes at the close a menace pointing to the vengeance of the Judge. The gospel knows nothing of the idea, that the fear of God’s judgment is an inadmissible motive. Its preaching is throughout two-edged.
1Th_4:3. Stähelin: First holy, then peaceable; this will of God thou wilt not be able to annul.—Heubner: All commandments have one object, sanctification. The special Christian motives to sanctification: 1. It is an obligation of gratitude; 2. it is the sign of the reconciliation received [Rom_5:11]; 3. Christ is made unto us sanctification [1Co_1:30]; 4. we owe it to the world; without it, we do the world an injury, and dishonor Christ.—The same: The call of Christianity, a call to sanctification.—Burlenburger Bibel: To this point is the sum and substance of all Holy Writ directed, that the people of God should also live godly. It is not possible that an unholy person should come into fellowship with God, the Holy One.—[ For this is the will of God, your sanctification;—the text of Massillon’s third Sermon pour une profession religieuse.—J. L.]
Heubner: Christ the Guardian of our chastity.—Chrysostom: Men are led to fornication by luxury, wealth, levity, idleness, leisure. These occasions must be cut off. In particular, he gives an impressive warning against adultery, as the consequence of the early practice of fornication. “Bear with me, if I seem to speak what is impure, as if I had laid aside shame and blushing; for it is with reluctance that I submit to this, but for their sakes, who are not ashamed of the deeds, am I compelled to utter the words. You are ashamed to hear of it? It is, however, the deeds that you are ashamed of, not of the words.” He speaks of these things, he says, as a surgeon probes a festering wound. “It is not youth that is responsible for them, otherwise all young men must be licentious; but we fling ourselves into the funeral pile.”—Burlenburger Bibel: A man may restrain himself from all outward eruptions of evil lust, and yet be inwardly full of the stench of the filthiest thoughts and desires.
1Th_4:2. Who is allowed to say that he knows God? The man who loves Him, keeps His commandments, stands in sanctification.
1Th_4:3-6. The similarity and difference of the two capital vices mentioned by the Apostle.—Covetousness itself is an uncleanness.
[1Th_4:7. Leighton: It is sacrilege for you to dispose of yourselves after the impure manner of the world, and to apply yourselves to any profane use, whom God hath consecrated to Himself—J. L.]
1Th_4:6-8. Dread of the Judge and Avenger is not set aside even by the gospel, 1. Servile fear, indeed (Rom_8:15), hath torment and is not in love (1Jn_4:18); but every one who does not fear is not therefore a child of God; better than careless or insolent frivolity, the fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom 2. Nay, within the sphere of grace, it is needful to use it with fear and trembling, that it be not turned into lasciviousness (2Co_5:11;Php_2:12 [Judges 4]). 3. But the fear of God, the only Judge, is identical with trust in Him, the only Saviour and Protector (Mat_10:28-31).—[Leighton: Men are ready to find out poor shifts to deceive themselves, when they have some way deceived their brother, and to stop the mouth of their own conscience with some quibble and some slight excuse, and force themselves at length to believe they have done no wrong. Therefore the Apostle, to fright them out of their shifts, sets before them an exacter Judge, who cannot be deceived nor mocked, who shall one day unveil the conscience, and blow away these vain self-excuses as smoke; and that just Lord will punish all injustice.—J. L.]—Berlenburger Bibel: The despising [rejecting] occurs also through a hypocritical faith, when the way of sanctification is refused as savoring of legalism. The flesh makes ever-fresh trials, whether it may be able to regain its old ascendency.
1Th_4:1-8. Stockmeyer (in a series of manuscript Sermons, of which he has most kindly allowed us the use): Exhortation to sanctification: 1. Why is it still a necessity for a church even of true Christians? Their standing is already in sanctification, but they need to become ever more perfect: a. they are still far from having attained to the measure of Christ’s example; it behooves them to strive against the temptation to a self-satisfied stationariness; b. the tendencies to sin are powerful; earlier habits of sin still retain an influence; whereas no department of life is to remain unsanctified, and no toleration is to be given to stubbornness, indolence, excuses, or palliations; otherwise sanctification gradually expires, 2. What are the particular points made prominent by the Apostle according to the special need of his readers? the two capital sins of the heathen world, fleshly lust and greed of gain. a. To offer wanton apologies for the former is to sink back into heathenism, which knows nothing of God. b. The second is a reckless encroaching on one’s neighbor. Against this Paul warns, at the same time that he fully recognizes brotherly love (1Th_4:9-10); for a man may contribute to charitable objects, and yet all the while seek advantages in trade, that are an overreaching of his neighbors. But he who on these points is free from reproach, let him try himself whether there are not others, in which his sanctification is still defective. 3. What is the serious admonition with which the Apostle confirms and strengthens his word of exhortation? The pro-claimer of evangelical grace speaks of punishment from an avenging God. On all ungodliness of men rests God’s wrath; he, therefore, who scorns the way prepared by God’s grace for escaping that wrath, forsakes the way of grace, and must be overtaken by the wrath; yea, he is worthy of a far sorer condemnation than heathens and Jews, just because to him the Spirit was given. Yes, help to achieve the victory is proffered to him in the strength of the Spirit.
1Th_4:1-7 is the Epistle for the Sunday Reminiscere.
Footnotes:
So at least in the text of the American reprint. But, as the Commentary gives the first aorist,— áìåí , this is perhaps one of the too numerous errors in these otherwise comely editions of Ellicott.—J. L.]
1Th_4:1.—[ Ôὸ ëïéðὸí (comp. E. 1 Thessalonians 4 :2Th_3:1; 2Co_13:11; Eph_6:10; Php_3:1; Php_4:8, and see Exegetical Notes, 1. In this case nearly all the uncial manuscripts, including Sin., and modern editors omit the ôü , as at 2Co_13:11) ïῦ ̓ í , ἀäåëöïὶ , ἐñùôῶìåí ὑìᾶò êáὶ ðáñáêáëïῦìåí .—J. L.]
1Th_4:1.—B. D.1 and others give ἵíá êáèþò , and resume at the end of the verse: ἵíá ðåñéóó . [Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, Ellicott].—Sin. A. and others omit the first ἵíá .
1Th_4:1.—[ êáèὼò ðáñåëÜâåôå (when we were with you) ðáñÜ .—J. L.]
1Th_4:1.— Êáèὼò êáὶ ðåñéðáôåῖôå is given by a large number of the oldest authorities [Sin. A. B. D. E. F. G., Vulgate, &c.; and so Wells, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, Wordsworth, Ellicott, Am. Bible Union.—J. L.]; it was probably omitted as cumbrous.
1Th_4:1.—[ ðåñéóóåýçôå ìᾶëëïí . German: noch mehr; Wakefield, Conybeare at 1Th_4:10, Ellicott: still more; Sharpe, Alford: yet more.—In 1Th_4:2, for ἐäþêáìåí , Sin. reads äåäþê ., with one or two cursives.—J. L.]
1Th_4:4.—[ ἐéäÝíáé ἕêáóôïí ὑìῶí ôὸ ἑáõôïῦ óêåῦïò êôᾶóèáé . See the Exegetical Notes, 3.—Sin.1 repeats ἐí before ôéìῇ .—J. L.]
1Th_4:6.—[ êáὶ ðñïåßðáìåí —again referring to the time of his personal ministry at Thessalonica.—The form of the second aorist, ðñïåéð ï ìåí is given by Griesbach, Scholz, Ellicott* (?).—J. L.]
1Th_4:6.—[ äéåìáñôõñÜìåèá . The äéÜ is recognized as intensive by many of the commentaries and versions. Beza asseveranter; Benson, Ellicott: solemnly; Macknight, Peile: fully; Alford: constantly; &c.—The ὁ before êýñéïò in this verse is wanting in Sin.1 A. B. D.,1 and is cancelled by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, Ellicott.—J. L.]
1Th_4:7.—[ ἐðὶ ἀêáèáñóßá