Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Thessalonians 1:5 - 1:5
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Th_1:5. Bengel, Schott, Hofmann, and others unite 1Th_1:5 by a simple comma to the preceding, understanding ὅτι in the sense of “that,” or “namely that,” and thus the further analysis or explication of ἐκλογή , i.e. the statement wherein ἐκλογή consists. But evidently 1Th_1:5-6 are not a statement wherein ἐκλογή consists, but of the historical facts from which it may be inferred. Accordingly, ὅτι (if one will not understand it with most interpreters as quia, which has little to recommend it) is to be separated from 1Th_1:4 by a colon, and to be taken in the sense of for, introducing the reason on which the apostle grounds his own conviction of the ἐκλογή of his readers. This reason is twofold—(1) The power and confidence by which the gospel was preached by him and his companions in Thessalonica (1Th_1:5); and (2) The eagerness and joy with which it was embraced by the Thessalonians (1Th_1:6 ff.). Both are proofs of grace, attestations of the ἐκλογή of the Thessalonians on the part of God.
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν ] our gospel, i.e. our evangelical preaching.
οὐκ ἐγενήθη πρὸς ὑμᾶς ] was not carried into effect among you, i.e. when it was brought to you. The passive form ἐγενήθη , alien to the Attic, and originally Doric, but common in the κοινή (see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 108 ff.; Kühner, I. 193; Winer’s Grammar, p. 80 [E. T. 102]), characterizes the being carried into effect as something effected by divine grace, and the additions with ἐν following indicate the form and manner in which the apostolic preaching was carried into effect. From this it follows how erroneous it is with Koppe, Pelt, and others to refer ἐν λόγῳ … πολλῇ to the qualities of the Thessalonians which resulted from the preaching of the apostle. According to Koppe, the meaning is “quantam enim mea apud vos doctrina in animos vestros vim habuerit, non ore tantum sed facto declaravistis.” That the concluding words of 1Th_1:5, καθὼς οἴδατε … ὑμᾶς , which apparently treats of the manner of the apostle’s entrance, contains only a recapitulatory statement of ἐν λόγῳ … πολλῇ , appealing to the testimony of the Thessalonians, is a sufficient condemnation of this strange and artificial explanation.
ἐν λόγῳ μόνον ] in word only, i.e. not that it was a bare announcement, a bare communication in human words, which so easily fade away. Grotius: Non stetit intra verba. But the apostle says οὐ μόνον , because human speech was the necessary instrument of communication.
ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν δυνάμει κ . τ . λ .] By δύναμις is not to be understood miracles by which the power of the preached gospel was attested (Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Natalis Alexander, Turretine, etc.); for if so, the plural would have been necessary. Nor is the gospel denoted as a miraculous power (Benson), which meaning in itself is possible. Nor is the efficacy of the preached word among the Thessalonians indicated (Bullinger: Per virtutem intellexit efficaciam et vim agentem in cordibus fidelium). But it forms simply the contrast to λόγος , and denotes the impressive power accompanying the entrance of Paul and his followers.
ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ ] Theodoret, Musculus, Cornelius a Lapide, Fromond, B. a Piconius, Natalis Alexander, Benson, Macknight interpret this of the communication of the Holy Spirit to the readers. But the communication of the Holy Spirit is beyond the power of the apostles, as being only possible on the part of God. Besides, ἐν πνεύματι can only contain a statement of the manner in which Paul and his assistants preached the gospel. Accordingly, the meaning is: our preaching of the gospel was carried on among you in the Holy Ghost, that is, in a manner which could only be ascribed to the operation of the Holy Ghost. ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ serves, therefore, not only for the further amplification, but also for the intensification of the idea ἐν δυνάμει . It is therefore incompetent to consider ἐν δυνάμει καὶ ἐν πνεύμ . ἁγίῳ as a ἓν διὰ δυοῖν instead of ἐν δυνάμει πνεύμ . ἁγίου (Calvin, Piscator, Turretine, Bloomfield, and others).
πληροφορία ] (comp. Col_2:2; Rom_4:21; Rom_14:5) denotes neither the fulness of spiritual gifts which were imparted to the Thessalonians (Lombard, Cornelius a Lapide, Turretine), nor the completeness of the apostolic instruction (Thomasius), nor the completeness with which Paul performed his duty (Estius), nor the proofs combined with his instructions, giving complete certainty (Fromond, Michaelis), nor generally “certitudo, qua Thessalonicenses certi de veritate evangelii ac salute sua redditi fuerant” (Musculus, Benson, Macknight); but the fulness and certainty of conviction, i.e. the inward confidence of faith with which Paul and his assistants appeared preaching at Thessalonica.
καθὼς οἴδατε κ . τ . λ .] a strengthening of ὅτι … πολλῇ by an appeal to the knowledge of his readers (Oecum.: καὶ τί , φησι , μακρηγορῶ ; αὐτοὶ ὑμεῖς μάρτυρές ἐστε , οἷοι ἐγενήθημεν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ). Pelt, entirely perverting the meaning, thinks that the apostle in these concluding words would hold forth his example for the emulation of his readers. This view could only claim indulgence if Koppe’s connection, which, however, Pelt rejects, were correct. Koppe begins a new sentence with καθώς , considering καθὼς οἴδατε as the protasis and καὶ ὑμεῖς as the apodosis, and gives the sense: qualem me vidistis, quum apud vos essem … tales etiam vos nunc estis. But this connection is impossible—(1) Because οἴδατε cannot mean me vidistis, but has a purely present signification—ye know. (2) Because if there were such an emphatic contrast of persons (qualem me … tales etiam vos), then, instead of the simple ἐγενήθημεν , ἡμεῖς ἐγενήθημεν would necessarily be put. (3) Because ἐγενήθητε does not mean nunc estis, but facti estis. (4) Instead of the asyndeton καθὼς οἴδατε , we would expect a connection with the preceding by some particle added to καθώς . (5) And lastly, the apodosis would not be introduced by καὶ ὑμεῖς , but by οὕτως ὑμεῖς (comp. 2Co_1:5; 2Co_8:6; 2Co_10:7). Pelt’s assertion is also erroneous, that instead of καθὼς οἴδατε οἷοι ἐγενήθημεν , the more correct Greek phrase would have been οἵους οἴδατε ἡμᾶς γεγονότας . For the greatest emphasis is put on οἷοι ἐγενήθημεν , but this emphasis would have been lost by the substitution of the above construction.
οἷοι ἐγενήθημεν ] recapitulates the preceding τὸ εὐαγγ .… πολλῇ , but with this difference, that what was before said of the act of preaching is here predicated of the preachers. οἷοι ἐγενήθημεν does not denote the privations which Paul imposed upon himself when he preached the gospel, as Pelagius, Estius, Macknight, Pelt, and others think, making an arbitrary comparison of 1Th_2:7; 1Th_2:9; 2Th_3:8-9; also not κινδύνους , οὓς ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ὑπέστησαν , τὸ σωτήριον αὐτοῖς προσφέροντες κήρυγμα (Theodoret), nor both together (Natal. Alexander). It also does not mean quales fuerimus (so de Wette, Hofmann, and others), but can only denote the being made for some purpose. It thus contains the indication that the emphatic element in the preaching of the gospel at Thessalonica was a work of divine appointment—of divine grace. Accordingly, διʼ ὑμᾶς , for your sake, that is, in order to gain you for the kingdom of Christ, is to be understood not of the purpose of the apostle and his assistants, but of the purpose of God.