Heinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Thessalonians 2

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Heinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Thessalonians 2

Verse Commentaries:

Chapter Level Commentary: CHAPTER 2

1Th_2:2. προπαθόντες ] Elz. has καὶ προπαθόντες . Against A B C D E F G L à , min. plur. vss. and Fathers. Καί is a gloss for the sake of strengthening.—1Th_2:3. Elz. has οὔτε ἐν δόλῳ . So also Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Alford. But it is to be read οὐδὲ ἐν δόλῳ , with Lachm. and Tisch. 1, after A B C D* F G à , min., which also the gradation of the language requires (see exposition).—1Th_2:4. Instead of the Receptus τῷ Θεῷ , B C D* à ** 67** 114, et al., Clem. Bas. Oecum. require Θεῷ . The article is erased by Tisch. and Alford, bracketed by Lachmann. The omission is not sufficiently attested. Opposed to this omission are the weighty authorities of A D*** E F G K L à **** min. and many Fathers. The article might easily have been omitted, on account of the similarity of sound with the two following words.—1Th_2:7. B C* D* F G à * min. vss. (also Vulg. and It.) Orig. (once) Cyr. et al. have νήπιοι , instead of the Receptus ἤπιοι . Received by Lachm. But against the unity of the figure, and arisen from attaching the ν of the preceding word ἐγενήθημεν .—1Th_2:8. ὁμειρόμενοι ] Elz. has ἱμειρόμενοι . Against A B C D E F G K L à , min. plur. edd. Chrys. (alic.) Damasc. MS. Theophyl. dis. Reiche, I. 1, p. 326 ff., indeed, recognises ὁμειρόμενοι as primitiva scriptura; but he thinks that ἱμειρόμενοι was the word designed to be written by Paul, whilst ὁμειρόμενοι owed its origin to an error in dictation—to a mistake of the amanuensis in hearing or in writing.

γεγένησθε ] A B C D E F G L à , min. plur. Bas. al. read ἐγενήθητε . Recommended by Griesbach. Rightly received by Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. Bloomfield, Alford. The Receptus γεγένησθε is a correction, from erroneously imagining εὐδοκοῦμεν to be in the present.—1Th_2:9. νυκτός ] Elz. Matth. have νυκτὸς γάρ . But γάρ is rightly erased by Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. Alford, according to A B D* F G à , 23, 71, et al. perm. Syr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. It. Chrys. (comm.) Theophyl. Ambrosiast. Aug. An explanatory correction.—1Th_2:12. Instead of the Receptus μαρτυρούμενοι , B D*** (also D**?) E (?) K L à , min. plur. Chrys. Damasc. Oec. have μαρτυρόμενοι . Rejected by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. 1. Correctly approved by Matth. Fritzsche (de conform. N. T. critica, quam Lachm. edidit, comment. I., Giessen 1841, p. 38), de Wette, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Alford, and Reiche, as μαρτυρεῖσθαι is everywhere used only in a passive sense (see Meyer on Act_26:22, and Rinck, lucubr. crit. p. 95), so that μαρτυρούμενοι would be without meaning. Also μαρτυρόμενοι by a careless scribe might easily have been formed into μαρτυρούμενοι , on account of the preceding παραμυθούμενοι , as the similarity of termination gave occasion to the entire omission of καὶ μαρτυρ . in A.

Instead of the Rec. περιπατῆσαι is, with Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. Alford, to be read περιπατεῖν , according to A B D* F G à , min. Recommended to consideration by Griesb.—1Th_2:13. Instead of the Receptus διὰ τοῦτο , Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, according to A B à , Copt. Syr. p. al. Theodoret (cd.) Ambrosiast. read καὶ διὰ τοῦτο , which, as the more unusual reading, merits the preference.—1Th_2:15. τοὺς προφήτας ] Elz. Matth. Bloomfield, Reiche read τοὺς ἰδίους προφήτας . Against A B D* E* F G à , min. vss. (also It. and Vulg.) and Fathers. A gloss from 1Th_2:14 for the sake of strengthening.—1Th_2:16. ἔφθασεν ] Lachm. and Tisch. 1 read ἔφθακεν , which is only attested by B D*, whilst the Receptus has the important authority of A C D** and *** E F G K L à , and as it appears of all min. of Orig. (twice) Chrys. Theodoret, Dam. et al.

Instead of the Receptus ἡ ὀργή , D E F G, Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. Pel. Sedul. have ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ ; an explanatory addition.—1Th_2:18. Διότι ] Elz. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. 2, Bloomfield, Reiche have διό . Against preponderating testimonies (A B D* F G à , al.). Suspected also by Griesbach.—1Th_2:19. Ἰησοῦ ] Elz. Matth. Scholz have Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ . Χριστοῦ is doubted by Griesb., correctly erased by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, according to A B D E K à , min. plur. Syr. utr. al. Theodoret, Damasc. Oec. Ambrosiast. ed.

CONTENTS.

The readers themselves know that the apostle’s entrance among them was not without effect: although he had just been maltreated at Philippi, yet he has the courage to preach the gospel at Thessalonica amid contentions and dangers; for God Himself has called him to preach the gospel. It is accordingly solely and entirely the approval of God which he seeks; impure motives for preaching the gospel, such as vanity, covetousness, desire of honour, are far removed from him; he has, full of love, interested himself for the Thessalonians; he himself day and night worked for his maintenance, that he might not be burdensome to them; he then, in a paternal manner, exhorts and beseeches every one of them to show themselves worthy in their life of the call to eternal blessedness, which had been brought to them (1Th_2:1-12). He then thanks God that the Thessalonians had actually received the gospel as the word of God, which it really is, and that it had already been so mighty in them, that they shunned not to endure sufferings for its sake (1Th_2:13-16). Hereupon the apostle testifies to his readers how he, full of longing toward them, who are no less than other Christian churches his hope, his praise, and his joy, had wished twice to return to them, but had been hindered by the devil (1Th_2:17-20).