Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Thessalonians 2:11 - 2:12
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
are not a mere further digression into particulars, which we can scarcely assume after the general concluding words in 1Th_2:10, without blaming the author, notwithstanding the freedom of epistolary composition, of great logical arbitrariness and looseness, but are a proof of the general concluding sentence 1Th_2:10, ex analogia
1Th_2:11-12 are not a mere further digression into particulars, which we can scarcely assume after the general concluding words in 1Th_2:10, without blaming the author, notwithstanding the freedom of epistolary composition, of great logical arbitrariness and looseness, but are a proof of the general concluding sentence 1Th_2:10, ex analogia. As in all that has hitherto been said the twofold reference to the apostle and his two associates on the one hand, and to the readers on the other, has predominated, so is this also the case in 1Th_2:10-12. The circumstance that he has anxiously and earnestly exhorted his readers to a similar conduct in ὁσιότης , δικαιοσύνη , and ἀμεμψία , is asserted by the apostle as a proof that he himself behaved in the most perfect manner ( ὡς ) among the Thessalonians ὁσίως καὶ δικαίως καὶ ἀμέμπτως . For if any one be truly desirous that others walk virtuously, this presupposes the endeavour after virtue in himself. It is thus erroneous when de Wette and Koch, p. 172, think that the apostle in 1Th_2:10 speaks of his conduct generally, and in 1Th_2:11-12 of his ministerial conduct particularly. In 1Th_2:11-12 Paul does not speak wholly of his ministerial conduct, for the participles παρακαλοῦντες , παραμυθούμενοι , and μαρτυρόμενοι are not to be taken independently, but receive their full sense only in union with εἰς τὸ περιπατεῖν κ . τ . λ ., so that the chief stress in the sentence rests on εἰς τὸ κ . τ . λ ., and the accumulation of participles serves only to bring vividly forward the earnestness and urgency of the apostle’s exhortation to περιπατεῖν . Entirely erroneous, therefore, is Pelt’s idea of the connection: Redit P. ad amorem, quo eos amplectatur, iterum profitendum; for the attestation of love, in the conduct described in 1Th_2:11-12, is only expressed by the addition: ὡς πατὴρ τέκνα ἑαυτοῦ , and is thus only subsidiary to the main thought.
καθάπερ ] as then, denotes the conformity of what follows to what precedes. As regards the construction: οἴδατε ὡς κ . τ . λ ., we miss a finite tense.[35] Koppe considers that the participles are put instead of the finite tenses, ὡς παρεκαλέσαμεν καὶ παρεμυθησάμεθα καὶ ἐμαρτυρησάμεθα , an assertion which we can in the present day the less accept, as it is of itself self-evident that the participles of the present must have another meaning than that which could have been expressed by the finite forms of the aorist, i.e. of the purely historical tense. Others, objecting to the two accusatives, ἕνα ἕκαστον and ὙΜᾶς , have united ὙΜᾶς with the participle, and suggested a finite tense to ἕνα ἕκαστον , which, at the beginning of the period, must have been in Paul’s mind, but which he forgot to add when dictating to his amanuensis. Vatablus, Er. Schmid, Ostermann would supply to ἝΝΑ ἝΚΑΣΤΟΝ , ἨΓΑΠΉΣΑΜΕΝ ; Whitby, ἘΦΙΛΉΣΑΜΕΝ , or ἨΓΑΠΉΣΑΜΕΝ , or ἘΘΆΛΨΑΜΕΝ , from 1Th_2:7; Pelt, ΟὐΧ ἈΦΉΚΑΜΕΝ (?); Schott, a verb containing the “notio curandi sive tractandi sive educandi.”[36] But (1) the two accusatives do not at all justify supplying a special verb to ἝΝΑ ἝΚΑΣΤΟΝ , as not only among the classics is the twofold use of personal determinations not rare (see Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 275), but also in Paul’s Epistles there are similar repetitions of the personal object (comp. Col_2:13; Eph_2:1; Eph_2:5). (2) To supply ἠγαπήσαμεν , or a similar idea, is in contradiction with the design and contents of 1Th_2:11-12, as the chief point in these verses is to be sought in the recollection of the impressive exhortations addressed to the Thessalonians to aim at a conduct similar to that of the apostle. Not only the simplest, but the only correct method, is, with Musculus, Wolf, Turretin, Bengel, Alford, and Hofmann, to supply ἐγενήθημεν , which has just preceded 1Th_2:10, to Ὡς … ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛΟῦΝΤΕς Κ . Τ . Λ . And just because ἘΓΕΝΉΘΗΜΕΝ precedes, the supplying of ἮΜΕΝ , which Beza, Grotius, Flatt, and others assume, and which otherwise would be the most natural word, is to be rejected. Accordingly, there is no anacoluthon in 1Th_2:11-12, but ἘΓΕΝΉΘΗΜΕΝ to be supplied in thought is designedly suppressed by the apostle in order to put the greater emphasis on the verbal ideas, παρακαλεῖν , παραμυθεῖσθαι , and ΜΑΡΤΎΡΕΣΘΑΙ . The circumlocutionary form, ἘΓΕΝΉΘΗΜΕΝ ΠΑΡΑΚ . Κ . Τ . Λ ., has this in common with the form ἮΜΕΝ ΠΑΡΑΚ . Κ . Τ . Λ ., that it denotes duration in the past, but it is distinguished from it by this, that it does not refer the action of the verb simply as something actually done, and which has had duration in the past; but this action, enduring in the past (and effected by God), is described in its process of completion, i.e. in the phase of its self-development.
ἕνα ἕκαστον ὑμῶν ὡς πατὴρ τέκνα ἑαυτοῦ ] The thought, according to Flatt, consists in this: the apostle has exhorted and charged, “with a view to the special wants of each, just as a father gives heed to the individual wants of his children.” But ἝΝΑ ἝΚΑΣΤΟΝ ὙΜῶΝ denotes only the carefulness of the exhortation which is addressed to each individual without distinction (of rank, endowment, Chrysostom: Βαβαὶ ἐν τοσούτῳ πλήθει μηδένα παραλιπεῖν , μὴ μικρόν , μὴ μέγαν , μὴ πλούσιον , μὴ πένητα ), and the addition Ὡς ΠΑΤῊΡ ΤΈΚΝΑ ἙΑΥΤΟῦ denotes only paternal love (in contrast to the severity of a taskmaster) as the disposition from which the exhortations proceeded. But in a fitting manner Paul changes the image formerly used of a mother and her children into that of a father and his children, because in the context the point insisted on is not so much that of tender love, which finds its satisfaction in itself, as that of educating love; for the apostle, by his exhortation, would educate the Thessalonians for the heavenly kingdom. That the apostle resided a long time in Thessalonica (Calovius) does not follow from ἕνα ἕκαστον .
παρακαλεῖν ] to exhort by direct address. Erroneously Chrysostom, Theophylact: ΠΡῸς ΤῸ ΦΈΡΕΙΝ ΠΆΝΤΑ .
ὙΜᾶς ] resumes ἝΝΑ ἝΚΑΣΤΟΝ ὙΜῶΝ ; but whilst that emphatically precedes, this is placed after παρακαλοῦντες , because here the verb ΠΑΡΑΚ . has the emphasis (comp. Col_2:13). Paul adds ὙΜᾶς , which certainly might be omitted, not so much from carelessness or from inadvertence, but for the sake of perspicuity, in order to express the personal object belonging to the participles in immediate connection with them.
Also ΠΑΡΑΜΥΘΕῖΣΘΑΙ does not mean here to comfort (Wolf, Schott, and others), but to address, to exhort, to encourage; yet not to encourage to stedfastness, to exhort to moral courage (Oecumenius, Theophylact, de Wette), for the object of ΠΑΡΑΜΥΘΟΎΜΕΝΟΙ does not follow until 1Th_2:12.
[35] Certainly otherwise Schrader, who regards καθάπερ οἴδατε as “a mere parenthesis which refers to what goes before and what follows,” so that then ὡς παρακαλοῦντες καὶ παραμ . καὶ μαρτ ., vv. 11, 12, would be only parallel to ὡς ὁσίως καὶ δικ . καὶ ἀμέμπτ ., ver. 10. So recently also Auberlen. But this construction is impossible, because καθάπερ οἴδατε is not a complete repetition of the preceding ὑμεῖς μάρτυρες καὶ ὁ Θεός , but only of its first part ( ὑμεῖς μάρτυρες ), and thus can in no wise be considered as a meaningless addition.
[36] Erasmus completes the clause: complexi fuerimus, and finds in the double accusatives a “balbuties apostolicae charitatis, quae se verbis humanis seu temulenta non explicat.”