1Th_3:13. The final aim is derived from the wish, 1Th_3:12, because love is the fulfilling of the law (Rom_13:10), and the band of perfection (Col_3:14).
εἰς
τὸ
στηρίξαι
] not so that (Pelt, Baumgarten-Crusius); also, not so much as
καὶ
στηρίξαι
(Koppe), by which the words would only annex a new wish to the preceding. It is designed to introduce a majus, a greater, specifying the higher or final aim to which
πλεονάζειν
and
περισσεύειν
are to conduct. But the subject in
στηρίξαι
is not
τὴν
ἀγάπην
(Oecumenius), but
τὸν
κύριον
(which, however, is not, with Theophylact and Schrader, to be converted into the idea
τὸ
πνεῦμα
), or, with the contingent spuriousness of
ὁ
κύριος
in 1Th_3:12 : God and Christ, 1Th_3:11.
στηρίξαι
denotes confirming, strengthening generally, not confirming in the faith (Flatt, Pelt), against which is the context.
ἀμέμπτους
] proleptic: so that you will be blameless. Comp. 1Co_1:8; Php_3:21 (according to the correct reading); Winer, p. 549 [E. T. 779]; Kühner, II. p. 121.
ἐν
ἁγιωσύνῃ
] belongs not to
στηρίξαι
, but to
ἀμέμπτους
, specifying the sphere in which the blamelessness is to be shown. The expression denotes the condition of holiness, comp. Rom_1:4; 2Co_7:1; erroneously Koppe: alias
ἁγιασμός
, and Olshausen:
ἁγιωσύνη
is the process of becoming holy, the result of which is
ἁγιασμός
.
ἔμπροσθεν
τοῦ
Θεοῦ
] before God, according to His judgment, His judicial sentence, belongs neither to
ἁγιωσύνῃ
(Koppe, Pelt), nor to
ἀμέμπτους
(de Wette, Koch), but to the whole
ἀμέμπτους
ἐν
ἁγιωσύνῃ
.
μετὰ
πάντων
τῶν
ἁγίων
αὐτοῦ
] Flatt, with whom Hofmann, in his Schriftbeweis, II. 2, ed. 1, p. 595, agrees (he construes the passage differently in ed. 2, p. 649, and in his H. Schr. N. T., without altering his interpretation of
οἱ
ἅγιοι
), unites the clause with
ἀμέμπτους
ἐν
ἁγιωσύνῃ
: “in order that ye may appear blameless on that day with all who are consecrated to God, who are the genuine members of His people, who truly honour God and Christ.” So also Musculus; and also Benson and Olshausen (comp. also Bouman, Chartae theol. I. p. 81 ff.), although they do not construe with Musculus and Flatt, understand by
ἅγιοι
the earlier perfected believers. But the difficulty which impelled Flatt to this interpretation (and in which Schrader finds even an objection against the authenticity of the Epistle), namely, that
ἅγιοι
in the New Testament never denotes the angels when it is by itself, that is, without the addition of
ἄγγελοι
, vanishes, as—(1) The advent is considered as glorified by the appearance of angels; comp. 2Th_1:7; Mat_16:27; Mat_25:31; Mar_8:38; Luk_9:26. (2) In the Old Testament without any further addition
÷ÀãÉùÑÄéí
, and in the LXX.
οἱ
ἅγιοι
, is a designation of the angels; comp. e.g. Zec_14:5; Dan_4:10; and therefore this current designation cannot surprise us in Paul. Also, what Hofmann in the above-mentioned place urges in favour of Flatt’s interpretation is without force. For to “the probability of the three prepositions
ἔμπροσθεν
,
ἐν
, and
μετά
being used in a similar connection,” is opposed the greater naturalness and easiness of the connection of
μετὰ
πάντων
τῶν
ἁγίων
αὐτοῦ
with the directly preceding
ἐν
τῇ
παρουσίᾳ
τοῦ
κυρίου
ἡμῶν
Ἰησοῦ
. “And that also the connection” supports Flatt’s explanation, “since the brotherly love in which the Thessalonians are to grow finds its suitable reward in sharing at length the blessed fellowship of all the saints of God,” so that hereby is already introduced “what the apostle has particularly to teach the Christians of Thessalonica for their comfort, that those believers who fell asleep before the Advent of the Lord will not be wanting at it,” can only be maintained without arbitrariness, if not only the explanation in 1Th_4:1-12, but the section 1Th_4:13 ff., be directly joined to 1Th_3:13; and then this section would be introduced with
Οὐ
θέλομεν
γὰρ
ὑμᾶς
ἀγνοεῖν
, instead of with
Οὐ
θέλομεν
δὲ
ὑμᾶς
ἀγνοεῖν
.
Moreover, the concluding word
αὐτοῦ
is more correctly referred to
τοῦ
Θεοῦ
, than, with Pelt, Riggenbach, and others, to
τοῦ
κυρίου
ἡμῶν
Ἰησοῦ
.