Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Thessalonians 2:15 - 2:16
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Th_2:15-16. As to the occasion of this invective, see on 1Th_2:14.
καί ] not signifying even; also not to be connected with the next καί , both … and; but τῶν καί means who also, and proves the propriety of the preceding statement from the analogous conduct in 1Th_2:15. Grotius (comp. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Pelagius): Quid mirum est, si in nos saeviunt, qui dominum nostrum interfecerunt …?… Non debent discipuli meliorem sortem exspectare quam magistri fuit.
Moreover, τὸν κύριον emphatically precedes, and is separated from Ἰησοῦν in order to enhance the enormity of the deed.
καὶ τοὺς προφήτας ] De Wette and Koch unite this with ἐκδιωξάντων ; Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, Musculus, Bengel, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bloomfield, Alford, Hofmann, Auberlen, and most critics, more correctly refer it to ἀποκτεινάντων . In the catalogue of the sins of the Jews which Paul here adduces, he begins directly with that deed which formed the climax of their wickedness—the murder of the Son of God, of Jesus the Messiah. In order to cut off all excuses for this atrocious deed of the Jews, as that they had done it in ignorance, not recognising Jesus as the Son of God, Paul adds, going backwards in time, that they had already done the same to the Old Testament prophets, whom, in like manner, they had murdered against their better knowledge and conscience. Christ Himself accuses the Jews of the murder of the prophets, Mat_23:31; Mat_23:37, Luk_11:47 ff; Luk_13:34; and Stephen does the same, Act_7:52; with which passages comp. 1Ki_19:10; 1Ki_19:14 (see Rom_11:3); Jer_2:30; Neh_9:26.
καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐκδιωξάντων ] and have persecuted us. ἡμᾶς refers not to Paul only (Calvin), also not to Paul and Silas only (de Wette, Koch, Alford), or to Paul and the companions who happened to be with him at Thessalonica (Auberlen); but to Paul and the apostles generally (Estius, Aretius, Bengel, Koppe, Flatt, Pelt, Schott). The preposition ἐκ in ἐκδιωξάντων strengthens the verbal idea. In an unjustifiable manner, Koppe and de Wette (the latter appealing to Luk_11:49 and Ps. 118:157, LXX.) make it stand for the simple verb.
καὶ Θεῷ μὴ ἀρεσκόντων ] and please not God. Erroneously Wieseler on Gal_1:10, p. 41, note, and Hofmann: live not to please God; similarly Bengel, Koppe, Flatt, and Baumgarten-Crusius: placere non quaerentium; for after the preceding strong expressions that would be flat. Rather the result is inferred from the two preceding statements, namely, the consequences of the obstinacy of the Jews, with which they persecute the messengers of God, is that they please not God, that is, are hateful to Him ( Θεοστυγεῖς , Meiosis).
καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἐναντίων ] and are hostile to all men. Grotius, Turretin, Michaelis, Koppe, Olshausen, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Koch, Bloomfield, Jowett, and others, erroneously find here expressed the narrow exclusiveness, by means of which the Jews strictly separated themselves from all other nations, and about which Tacit. Hist. v. 5 (“adversus omnes alios hostile odium”); Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 103 ff.; Diod. Sic. xxxiv. p. 524; Philostr. Apollon. v. 33; Joseph, c. Apion. ii. 10, 14, wrote. For (1) that hostile odium and desire of separation among the Jews was nothing else than a shrinking from staining themselves and their monotheistic worship by contact with idolaters. But Paul would certainly not have blamed such a shrinking, which was only a fruit of their strict observance of their ancestral religion. (2) If 1Th_2:16 begins with an independent assertion, κωλυόντων … σωθῶσιν would denote nothing essentially new, but would only repeat what was already expressed in ἡμᾶς ἐκδιωξάντων , 1Th_2:15. (3) It is grammatically inadmissible to understand the words καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἐναντίων as an independent assertion, and thus to be considered as a general truth. For the participle κωλυόντων (1Th_2:16) must contain a causal statement, as it is neither united with καί , nor by an article ( καὶ κωλυόντων κ . τ . λ . or τῶν κωλυόντων κ . τ . λ ., or τῶν καὶ κωλυόντων κ . τ . λ .), and thus is closely and directly connected with the preceding, and giving a reason for it, i.e. explaining wherefore or in what relation the Jews are to be considered as πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἐναντίοι . Thus the thought necessarily is: And who actually proved themselves to be hostilely disposed to all men since they hindered us from publishing the gospel to the Gentiles, and thus leading them to salvation. That is to say, the gospel offers salvation to every one, without distinction, who will surrender himself to it. But the Jews, in opposing themselves with all their might to the publication of this free and universal gospel, prove themselves, in point of fact, as enemies to the whole human race, in so far as they will not suffer the gospel, which alone can save men, to reach them. So Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calovius, Bern. a Piconio, Schott, Alford, Hofmann, and others correctly interpret the words; also Wieseler on Gal_1:10, p. 49, note, and Auberlen, only that he would incorrectly unite καὶ Θεῷ μὴ ἀρεσκόντων with κωλυόντων , which would only be tenable if, instead of the simple connected clause καὶ Θεῷ μὴ ἀρεσκόντων , the more definitely separating form τῶν Θεῷ κ . τ . λ . had been put.[38]
ΚΩΛΥΌΝΤΩΝ ἩΜᾶς ] hindering us, namely, by contradictions, calumnies, laying snares for our life, etc. Comp. Act_9:23 ff; Act_13:45; Act_17:5; Act_17:13; Act_22:22. Unnecessarily, Pelt, Schott, de Wette, Koch, seeking to hinder; for the intrigues of the Jews are an actual hindrance to the preaching of the apostle,—certainly not an absolute, but a partial hindrance, conditioned by opportunity of place and influence.
ἡμᾶς ] as above, us the apostles.
τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ] to the Gentiles, with emphasis; for it was the preaching to the Gentiles that enraged the Jews. τοῖς ἔθνεσιν resumes the previous ΠᾶΣΙΝ ἈΝΘΡΏΠΟΙς , as that expression comprehended the non-Jewish humanity, i.e. the Gentile world.
λαλῆσαι ] is not to be taken absolutely, so that it would be equivalent to docere (Koppe, Flatt), or would require τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ for its completion (Piscator), but is to be conjoined with ἽΝΑ ΣΩΘῶΣΙΝ in one idea, and the whole is then another expression for εὐαγγελίζεσθαι , but in a more impressive form.
ΕἸς ΤῸ ἈΝΑΠΛΗΡῶΣΑΙ Κ . Τ . Λ .] to fill up their sins always. εἰς does not denote the result = ὭΣΤΕ or quo fit ut (Musculus, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Koppe, Flatt, Pelt, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, Koch, Bloomfield), but the object, the design; and that not of κωλυόντων (Hofmann), as this is a dependent clause, but of the whole description. But it expresses not the ultimate design which the Jews themselves, in their so acting, had either consciously (Oecumenius: φησὶ γάρ , ὅτι πάντα ἃ ἐποίησαν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι , σκοπῷ τοῦ ἁμαρτάνειν ἐποίουν , τουτέστιν ἤδεισαν , ὅτι ἁμαρτάνουσι καὶ ἡμάρτανον ) or unconsciously (de Wette: they do it, though unconsciously, to the end, etc.; Auberlen), so that an ironical expression would have to be assumed (Schott). But in entire conformity with the Pauline mode of thought, which delights to dive into the eternal and secret counsels of God, it expresses the design which God has with this sinfulness of the Jews. So, correctly, Piscator. God’s counsel was to make the Jews reach in their hardness even to the extreme point of their sinfulness, and then, instead of the past long-suffering and patience, the severity of anger and punishment was to commence.
ἀναπληρῶσαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας ] to fill up their sins, i.e. to fill up the measure destined for them, to bring them to the prescribed point; comp. LXX. Gen_15:16; 2Ma_6:14.
αὐτῶν ] refers to the subject of the preceding verses—the Jews.
ΠΆΝΤΟΤΕ ] emphatically placed at the end, is not equivalent to ΠΆΝΤΩς or ΠΑΝΤΕΛῦς (Bretschneider, Olshausen), on all sides, in every way (Baumgarten-Crusius), but merely involves the notion of time, always, that is, the Jews before Christ, at the time of Christ, and after Christ, have opposed themselves to the divine truth, and thus have been always engaged in filling up the measure of their iniquities. (Oecumenius: Ταῦτα δὲ καὶ πάλαι ἐπὶ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ νῦν ἐπὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἐφʼ ἡμῶν ἔπραξαν , ἵνα πάντοτε ἀναπληρωθῶσιν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι αὐτῶν .) When, however, the apostle says that this ἈΝΑΠΛΗΡΟῦΝ ΤᾺς ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς is practised by the Jews ΠΆΝΤΟΤΕ , at all times, his meaning cannot be that the Jews had at any given moment, thus already repeatedly, filled up the measure of their sins (Musculus), but he intends to say that at every division of time the conduct of the Jews was of such a nature that the general tendency of this continued sinful conduct was the filling up of the measure of their sins. Paul thus conceives that the Jews, at every renewed obstinate rejection of the truth, approached a step nearer to the complete measure of their sinfulness, ἜΦΘΑΣΕ ΔῈ ἘΠʼ ΑὐΤΟῪς Ἡ ὈΡΓῊ ΕἸς ΤΈΛΟς ] but the wrath has come upon them even to the end. The Vulgate, Luther, Beza, Wolf, erroneously take δέ in the sense of ΓΆΡ . Rather, ΔΈ forms the contrast to ἈΝΑΠΛΗΡῶΣΑΙ ΠΆΝΤΟΤΕ (not to the whole preceding description), in so far as the increase of the divine wrath is contrasted to the continued wicked conduct of the Jews.
ΦΘΆΝΕΙΝ ] contains, in classical usage, the idea of priority in time. Schott thinks that this idea must also be here preserved, whilst he finds indicated therein the ὈΡΓΉ breaking forth upon the Jews citius quam exspectaverint vel omnino praeter opinionem eorum. Incorrectly; for when ΦΘΆΝΕΙΝ is united not with the accusative of the person (comp. 1Th_4:15), but with prepositions ( ΦΘΆΝΕΙΝ ΕἼς ΤΙ , Rom_9:31 [see Fritzsche in loco]; Php_3:16; φθάνειν ἄχρι τινός , 2Co_9:14; ΦΘΆΝ . ἘΠΊ ΤΙΝΑ , Mat_12:28; Dan_4:25), then, in the later Greek, the meaning of the verb “to anticipate” is softened into the general meaning of reaching the intended end. The aorist ἜΦΘΑΣΕ is not here to be taken in the sense of the present (Grotius, Pelt), also not prophetically instead of the future (Koppe: mox eveniet iis; Flatt: it will certainly befall them, and also it will soon befall them; and so also Schott, Bloomfield, Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol., Halle 1862, p. 239), but reports in quite a usual manner a fact which already belongs to the past.
ἡ ὀργή ] sc. Θεοῦ , does not mean the divine punishment, which certainly in itself it may denote (Erasmus, Musculus, Cornelius a Lapide, Flatt, Schott, de Wette, Ewald), but the divine wrath. The article ἡ denotes either the wrath predicted by the prophets (Theophylact, Schott), or generally the wrath which is merited (Oecumenius).
ΕἸς ΤΈΛΟς ] belongs to the whole sentence ἜΦΘΑΣΕ … ὈΡΓΉ , and denotes even to its (the wrath’s) end, i.e. the wrath of God has reached its extreme limits, so that it must now discharge itself,—now, in the place of hitherto long-suffering and patience, punishment must step in. The actual outbreak of the wrath, the punishment itself, has thus not yet occurred at the composition of this Epistle. To interpret the words of the destruction of Jerusalem as already happened, would be contrary to the context. On the other hand, it is to be assumed that Paul, from the by no means dark signs of the times, had by presentiment foreseen the impending catastrophe of the Jewish people, and by means of this foresight had expressed the concluding words of this verse. It is accordingly an unnecessary arbitrariness when Ritschl (Hall. A. Lit. Z. 1847, No. 126) explains the words ἔφθ .… τέλος as a gloss. Incorrectly, Camerarius, Er. Schmid, Homberg, Koch, and Hofmann understand ΕἸς ΤΈΛΟς in the sense of ΤΕΛΈΩς , penitus. Also incorrectly, Heinsius, Michaelis, Bolten, Wahl: postremo, tandem. Others erroneously unite εἰς τέλος with Ἡ ὈΡΓΉ , whilst they supply ΟὖΣΑ , and then either explain it: the wrath which will endure eternally or to the end of the world (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Theodoret, Fab. Stapulens., Hunnius, Seb. Schmid, and others); or: the wrath which will continue to work until its full manifestation (Olshausen); or lastly: the wrath which shall end with their (the Jews’) destruction (Flatt). In all these suppositions the article Ἡ must be repeated before ΕἸς ΤΈΛΟς . Erroneously, moreover, de Wette refers ΕἸς ΤΈΛΟς to the Jews, although he unites it with the verb: “so as to make an end of them.” So also Bloomfield and Ewald: “even to complete eradication.” The apostle rather preserves the figure used in ἈΝΑΠΛΗΡῶΣΑΙ ; namely, as there is a definite measure for the sins of the Jews, at the filling up of which the divine wrath must discharge itself; so also there exists a definite measure for the long-suffering patience of God, whose fulness provokes divine punishment. Comp. also Rom_2:5.
[38] The article τῶν , wanting before καὶ Θεῷ μὴ ἀρεσκόντων , makes it likewise impossible to make the two last καί in ver. 15 to signify, with Hofmann, “both … and.”
REMARK.
In 1Th_2:14-16, Baur (see Introd. § 4) finds a “particularly noticeable” criterion for the spuriousness of the Epistle. “The description has a thoroughly un-Pauline stamp,” and, besides, betrays a dependence on the Acts. First of all, the comparison of the Thessalonian church with the Palestinian churches is “far-fetched,” although nothing is more simple, more natural, and more unforced than these very parallels, since the tertium comparationis consists simply in this, that both were persecuted by their own countrymen, and both endured their persecutions with similar heroic courage. The parallels are further “inappropriate” to Paul, as he does not elsewhere hold up the Jewish-Christians as a pattern to the Gentile-Christians. As if the repeated collections which the apostle undertook for the poor churches of Palestine had not demonstrated by fact that his love extended itself equally to the Jewish as to the Gentile churches! As if the words of the apostle, in 2Co_8:13-15, did not express a high esteem for the Palestinian Jewish-Christians! As if, in Rom_15:27, the Gentile churches are not called debtors to the Jewish-Christians, because the spiritual blessings of Christianity reached the Gentiles only from the mother church of Jerusalem! As if Paul himself, after the fiercest persecutions, and after openly manifested obstinacy, did not always cleave to his people with such unselfish and solicitous love, that he could wish in his own person to be banished and driven from Christ, who was his all in all, in order by such an exchange to make his hardened and always resisting fellow-countrymen partakers of salvation in Christ! But if such were his feelings toward the unconverted among his people, why should he not have been proud of those among them who believed? Why should he not have recognised the heroic faith of the Palestinian brethren, and recognised and praised the stedfastness of a Gentile church as an imitation and emulation of the pattern given by these?
Further, the mention of the persecutions of the Palestinian Christians was inappropriate, because Paul could not speak of them “without thinking of himself as the person principally concerned in the only persecution which can have come properly into consideration.” But how little importance there is in such an inference is evident from this, that Paul elsewhere does not shun openly to confess his share in the persecutions of the Christians, although with a sorrowful heart (comp. 1Co_15:9; Gal_1:13); and, besides, this very participation in the persecution was for him the occasion that, from being the bitterest enemy of Christianity, he became its most unwearied promoter and the greatest apostle of Christ. If, further, “the apostle unites his own sufferings for the sake of the gospel with the misdeeds of the Jews against Jesus and the prophets,” this serves strikingly to represent the continuation of Jewish perversity.
Baur may be right when he asserts that we could not expect from the apostle “a polemic against the Jews so general and vague, that he knew not how to characterize the enmity of the Jews against the gospel than by the well-known charge brought against them by the Gentiles, the odium generis humani;” only it is a pity that this odium generis humani is an abortion of false exegesis.
Baur infers a dependence upon the Acts from “the expressions: ἐκδιώκειν , κωλύειν , etc., which correspond accurately with the incidents described in Act_17:5 ff. and elsewhere;” likewise from the verb λαλεῖν , which “elsewhere is never used by Paul of his own preaching of the gospel, but is quite after the manner of the Acts (Act_14:1, Act_16:6; Act_16:32, Act_18:9).” But that the expressions: ἐκδιώκειν , κωλύειν , etc., cannot be borrowed from Act_17:5 ff. is evident enough, as they are not even found there; that, moreover, the circumstances of the persecution itself are narrated in both writings, is only a proof of its actual occurrence; also there is nothing objectionable in λαλεῖν , as it is so used by Paul in 2Co_2:17; 2Co_4:13; Col_4:4; Eph_6:20, and elsewhere.
Lastly, if Baur, in ἔφθασε δὲ ἐπʼ αὐτοὺς ἡ ὀργὴ εἰς τέλος (so also Schrader on 1Th_3:13), finds the destruction of Jerusalem denoted as an event that has already occurred, this is only the result of an interpretation contrary to the context.