Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Thessalonians 3:1 - 3:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Th_3:1 ff. are most closely connected with the preceding;[42] it is therefore to be regretted that a new chapter should commence here. On 1Th_3:1-3, comp. the treatise of Rückert alluded to in comment on 1Th_1:8.
[42] Strikingly, Calvin: Hac narratione, quae sequitur, desiderii illius sui fidem facit.
1Th_3:1. Διό ] Therefore, i.e. διὰ τὸ εἶναι ὑμᾶς τὴν δόξαν ἡμῶν καὶ τὴν χαράν (1Th_2:20).
μηκέτι στέγοντες ] no longer bearing it, i.e. incapable of mastering our longing for you any longer (comp. 1Co_9:12; 1Co_13:7; Philo, in Flacc. p. 974, Opp. Lut. Par. 1640, fol.: μηκέτι στέγειν δυνάμενοι τὰς ἐνδείας ). So Erasmus, Vorstius, Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, Pelt, de Wette, only the latter conjoins with the idea of longing, that of anxiety for the Thessalonians, which, indeed, is in accordance with fact, but anticipates the representation, as the idea of anxiety on the part of the apostle is first added in what follows.
μηκέτι ] is not here instead of οὐκέτι , as Rückert thinks, appealing to an abusus of the later Greek, which abusus we should be cautious in recognising (see Winer, p. 431 [E. T. 609]), but as spoken from a subjective standpoint: as those who, etc. Moreover, to take the participle στέγοντες in the sense of occultantes, to which Wolf and Baumgarten are inclined: “no longer concealing my longing,” i.e. no longer observing a silence concerning it, would be flat, and contrary to the context.
εὐδοκήσαμεν ] as well as ἐπέμψαμεν , 1Th_3:2, and ἔπεμψα 1Th_3:5, is a simple historical statement of a fact belonging to the past. Grotius and Pelt erroneously take the aorists in the sense of the pluperfect. εὐδοκήσαμεν does not denote a mere promptam animi inclinationem (Calvin, Pelt); also not acting gladly (Grotius: Triste hoc, sed tamen hoc libenter feceramus), but the freely formed resolution of the will: accordingly we resolved. Nicolas Lyrencis, Hunnius, Grotius, Calovius, Turretin, Whitby, Bengel, Michaelis, Wurm,[43] Hofmann, consider Paul and Silas as the subjects of εὐδοκήσαμεν ; that κἀγώ (1Th_3:5), I also, is a proof of this, for it contains in itself the reference to a wider subject, so that from a plurality of the subject in 1Th_3:1, a single individual was, in 1Th_3:5, brought forward. However, this view cannot be the correct one. By the insertion of ἐγὼ μὲν Παῦλος , 1Th_2:18, the subject of 1Th_2:17-20 is expressly restricted to Paul himself; and, as chap. 3 is most closely connected with 1Th_2:17-19, the subject here must be the same as there, εὐδοκήσαμεν must therefore, with Calvin, Hemming, Estius, Fromond., Koppe, Pelt, Schott, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Alford, Riggenbach (in J. P. Lange’s Bibelwerk, Part X., Bielef. 1864), and others, be referred to Paul only, to which κἀγώ , 1Th_3:5, is no objection (see below).
καταλειφθῆναι ἐν Ἀθήναις μόνοι ] Zachariae, Koppe, Hug, Hemsen, also Wieseler (Chronologie des apost. Zeitalters, p. 249) and Alford (Proleg. p. 45), understand this of Paul’s being left alone at Athens, Timotheus not having been previously there with the apostle. They assume that Timotheus, left behind at Berea (Act_17:14), either at the time of his being left behind, or at some later period, received the direction from the apostle, countermanding the charge given in Act_17:15, that before proceeding to Athens, he should return from Berea to Thessalonica to strengthen the church there. This view is brought forward from a desire of reconciling our passage with the narrative in the Acts of the Apostles. Act_17:16 informs us only of a waiting for Timotheus at Athens, but not of his arrival there; on the contrary, it is stated that Silas and Timotheus did not return from Macedonia until the residence of the apostle at Corinth (Act_18:5). But this view does not correspond with the natural wording of our passage, as καταλειφθῆναι , to be left behind, to remain behind, evidently presupposes the previous presence of Timotheus. We must therefore, with Zanchius, Piscator, Cornelius a Lapide, Beza, Wolf, Benson, Macknight, Eichhorn, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, Koch, Hofmann, and others, suppose that Timotheus actually came from Berea to Athens, and was sent from it by the apostle to Thessalonica. To this interpretation we appear constrained by ἐπέμψαμεν , 1Th_3:2, and ἔπεμψα , 1Th_3:5, as hardly anything else can be denoted with these words than a commission given directly by Paul to one present.
[43] In the strange interpretation: “We resolved that one of us should go to Thessalonica, accordingly we two remained behind at Athens, and sent Timotheus.” As an analogy to this, the form should be οἱ περὶ τὸν Παῦλον . Comp. Tüb. Zeitschr. 1833, 1, p. 76.