Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Thessalonians 1:1 - 1:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Th_1:1. It is a mark of the very early composition of the Epistle, and consequently of its authenticity, that Paul does not call himself ἀπόστολος . For it was very natural that Paul, in regard to the first Christian churches to whom he wrote, whom he had recently left, and who had attached themselves with devoted love to him and his preaching, did not feel constrained to indicate himself more definitely by an official title, as the simple mention of his name must have been perfectly sufficient. It was otherwise in his later life. With reference to the Galatians and Corinthians, in consequence of the actual opposition to his apostolic authority in these churches, Paul felt himself constrained to vindicate his full official dignity at the commencement of his Epistles. And so the addition ἀπόστολος , occasioned at first by imperative circumstances, became at a later period a usual designation, especially to those churches which were personally unknown to the apostle (Epistles to Rom. Col. Eph.), among whom, even without any existing opposition, such a designation was necessary in reference to the future. An exception was only natural where, as with the Philippians and with Philemon, the closest and most tried love and attachment united the apostle with the recipients of his Epistles. The supposition of Chrysostom, whom Oecumenius and Theophylact follow, is accordingly to be rejected, that the apostolic title was suppressed διὰ τὸ νεοκατηχήτους εἶναι τοὺς ἄνδρας καὶ μηδέπω αὐτοῦ πεῖραν εἰληφέναι , for then it ought not to be found in the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians. Further, the view of Zwingli, Estius, Pelt, and others is to be rejected, that Paul omitted his apostolic title out of modesty, as the same title could not be assigned to Silvanus (and Timotheus); for, not to mention that this reason is founded on a distorted view of the Pauline character, and that the two companions of the apostle would hardly lay claim to his apostolic rank, such a supposition is contradicted by 2Co_1:1; Col_1:1.
καὶ Σιλουνανὸς καὶ Τιμόθεος ] Both are associated with Paul in the address, not to testify their agreement in the contents of the Epistle, and thereby to confer on it so much greater authority (Zanchius, Hunnius, Piscator, Pelt), or to testify that the contents were communicated to the apostle by the Holy Ghost (Macknight), but simply because they had assisted the apostle in preaching the gospel at Thessalonica. The simple mention of their names, without any addition, was sufficient on account of their being personally known. By being included in the address, they are represented as joint-authors of the Epistle, although they were so only in name. It is possible, but not certain, that Paul dictated the Epistle to one of them. (According to Berthold, they translated the letter conceived in Aramaic into Greek, and shared in the work.)
Silvanus (as in 2Co_1:19) is placed before Timotheus, not perhaps because Timotheus was the amanuensis, and from modesty placed his name last (Zanchius), but because Silvanus was older and had been longer with Paul.
Ἐν Θεῷ πατρὶ … Χριστῷ is to be closely united with τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ Θεσσαλονικέων : to the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ,—that is, whose being, whose characteristic peculiarity, consists in fellowship with God the Father (by which they are distinguished from heathen ἐκκλησίαι ) and with the Lord Jesus Christ (by which they are distinguished from the Jewish ἐκκλησία ). Erroneously, Grotius: quae exstitit, id agente Deo Patre et Christo. The article τῇ is neither to be repeated before ἐν Θεῷ , nor is τῇ οὔσῃ to be supplied (Olshausen, de Wette, and Bloomfield erroneously supply οὔσῃ by itself, without the article; this could not be the construction, as it would contain a causal statement), because the words are blended together in the unity of the idea of the Christian church (see Winer’s Grammar, p. 128 [E. T. 170]). Schott arbitrarily refers ἐν Θεῷ κ . τ . λ . to χαίρειν λέγουσιν , to be supplied before χάρις ὑμῖν ; for χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρ . takes the place of the usual Greek salutation χαίρειν λέγουσιν . Hofmann’s view (Die h. Schrift neuen Testaments zusammenhängend untersucht, Part I. Nördl. 1862) amounts to the same as Schott’s, when he finds in ἐν Θεῷ κ . τ . λ . “a Christian extension of the usual epistolary address,” importing that it is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ that the writers address themselves by letter to the churches. Still more arbitrarily Ambrosiaster (not Theophylact) and Koppe, who erase the concluding words: ἀπὸ Θεοῦ κ . τ . λ . (see critical note), have placed a point after Θεσσαλονικέων , and united ἐν Θεῷ … Χριστῷ with χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη . For (1) the thought: χάρις ὑμῖν ( ἔστω ) ἐν Θεῷ κ . τ . λ ., instead of ἀπὸ Θεοῦ κ . τ . λ ., is entirely un-Pauline; (2) the placing of ἐν Θεῷ κ . τ . λ . first in so calm a writing as the address of the Epistle, and without any special reason, is inconceivable; (3) 2Th_1:1-2 contradicts the idea.
χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ] See Meyer on Rom_1:7. As a Christian transformation of the heathen form of salutation, the words, grammatically considered, should properly be conjoined with the preceding in a single sentence: Παῦλος καὶ Σ … τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ Θ … χάριν καὶ εἰρήνην (sc. λέγουσιν ).