ἐγενήθημεν
ἐν
] we proved ourselves in, or we appeared as of such a character. The passive form
ἐγενήθημεν
(see on 1Th_1:5) denotes here also that the mode of appearance mentioned lay in the plan of God, was something appointed by Him.
κολακεία
] comp. Theophrast. charact. c. 1 Thessalonians 2 :
Τὴν
δὲ
κολακείαν
ὑπολάβοι
ἄν
τις
ὁμιλίαν
αἰσχρὰν
εἶναι
,
συμφέρουσαν
δὲ
τῷ
κολακεύοντι
. The word is not again found in the N. T.
ἐν
λόγῳ
κολακείας
cannot denote in a rumour (report) of flattery, according to which the sense would be: for never has one blamed us of flattery (so Heinsius, Hammond, Clericus, Michaelis). Against this is the context, for the point here is not what others said of the apostle’s conduct, but what it was in reality. Also it is inadmissible to take
ἐν
λόγῳ
κολακείας
, according to the analogy of the Hebrew
ãÌÈáÈø
with the following substantive, as a circumlocution for
ἐν
κολακείᾳ
(so Pelt, who, however, when he renders the clause: in assentationis crimen incurri, involuntarily falls into the afore-mentioned explanation). For—(1) the Hebrew use of
ãÌÈáÈø
is foreign to the N. T.; (2) it is overlooked that
λόγος
κολακείας
finds in the context its full import and reference, inasmuch as the apostle, in complete conformity to the contents of the preceding verses (comp.
λαλῆσαι
1Th_2:2;
παράκλησις
, 1Th_2:3;
λαλοῦμεν
, 1Th_2:4), in the beginning of 1Th_2:5 still speaks of a quality of his discourse, and only in 1Th_2:6 passes to describe his conduct in Thessalonica in general. Accordingly, the apostle denies that he appeared in Thessalonica with a mode of speech whose nature or contents was flattery (Schott falsely takes
κολακείας
as the genitive of origin), or that he showed himself infected with it. In Thessalonica, for this limitation of
οὐ
…
ποτέ
is demanded by the accessory appeal to the actual knowledge of the readers
καθὼς
οἴδατε
, as ye know.
οὔτε
ἐν
προφάσει
πλεονεξίας
] sc.
ἐγενήθημεν
.
πρόφασις
, from
προφαίνω
(not from
πρόφημι
), denotes that which one puts on for appearance, and with the definite design to colour or to cloak something else It therefore denotes pretext, the outward show, and has its contrast (comp. Php_1:18) in
ἀλήθεια
. See proofs in Raphel, Polyb. p. 354. The meaning accordingly is: we appeared not in a pretext for covetousness, i.e. our gospel preaching was not of this nature, that it was only a pretext or cloak to conceal our proper design, namely, covetousness. Without linguistic reason, and against the context, Heinsius and Hammond understand
πρόφασις
as accusatio; Pelt, weakening the idea, and not exhausting the fundamental import of
πρόφασις
(see below), nunquam ostendi avaritiam; Wolf also unsatisfactorily considers
πρόφασις
as equivalent to species; similarly Ewald, “even in an appearance of covetousness;” for the emphatic even (by which that interpretation is at all suitable, and by means of which there would be a reference to a supplementary clause, “to say nothing of its being really covetousness”) is interpolated, and the question at issue is not whether Paul and his associates avoided the appearance of
πλεονεξία
, but whether they actually kept themselves at a distance from
πλεονεξία
. Lastly, erroneously Clericus (so also the Vulg.): in occasione avaritiae, ita ut velit apostolus se nullam unquam occasionem praebuisse, ob quam posset insimulari avaritiae.
Θεὸς
μάρτυς
] comp. Rom_1:9; Php_1:8. Paul having just now appealed to the testimony of his readers that he was removed from
κολακεία
, now takes God for witness that the motive of his behaviour was not
πλεονεξία
. Naturally and rightly; for man can only judge of the character of an action when externally manifested, but God only knows the internal motives of acting.