Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Thessalonians 3:3 - 3:3
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Th_3:3. Σαίνειν ] related to σείειν ,—only here in the N. T.,—means, to shake, to swing hither and thither. It is used specially of dogs who wag their tails (comp. Hom. Od. xvi. 4 ff., x. 217; Arist. Eq. 1031), from which the wider acceptation of fawning or caressing is derived. Then the verb stands generally for any act of shaking, passing from the sphere of sense to that of mind. Comp. Diog. Laert. viii. 41: οἱ δὲ σαινόμενοι τοῖς λεγομένοις ἐδάκρυόν τε καὶ ᾤμοζον .
Sophocl. Antig. 1214: παιδός με σαίνει φθόγγος . (Other proofs in Wetstein.) Thus here σαίνεσθαι denotes a being disquieted, becoming wavering in the faith. Chrysostom correctly explains it by θορυβεῖσθαι καὶ ταράττεσθαι . With unnecessary harshness Faber Stapulensis, to whom also Beza (adblandiri, adversariis videlicet evangelii) is inclined, Elsner, Observ. sacr. II. p. 275 f., Wolf, and Tittmann, de synonym. in N. T. p. 189, think to preserve the meaning fawning (and alluring), giving the sense: that they should not permit themselves, by “adulationes et illicitamenta carnis” (Faber Stapulensis), to apostatize from Christianity, and relapse into heathenism or Judaism. Also Rückert, whom Koch follows, adopts this view, as he will not acknowledge the meaning θορυβεῖσθαι in the verb: he thinks, rather, that from the meaning to fawn, the meaning blanditiis corrumpi in the passive is formed; and from that, in consequence of the toning down of the meaning, the general idea of corrumpi arose. Hofmann explains σαίνειν directly by to delude, a meaning which the word never has.
ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσιν ταύταις ] in these afflictions, ἐν , is purely temporal, not instrumental, although, in regard to the subject in hand, it cannot be doubted that it was the θλίψεις to whose influence the possibility of a σαίνεσθαι is attributed. ταύταις is δεικτικῶς , indicative, denoting the afflictions which both the Thessalonians and Paul (so Calixtus, Flatt, Schott, and others; Oecumenius, Theophylact, Estius, Osiander, Nat. Alexander, Benson, Macknight, erroneously refer the θλίψεις to Paul only) have just experienced, and which are here considered as belonging to the present, since a renewed outbreak of them was every instant to be feared. The first part of 1Th_3:3, accordingly, contains the warning not to suffer themselves to apostatize from the faith in Christ in the time of trouble and of need.
But it is asked how 1Th_3:3 is to be connected with the preceding. Those who read, with the Receptus, τῷ μηδένα σαίνεσθαι (see critical note), regard τῷ as the Dativus commodi, which, as the Hebrew ìÀ placed before an infinitive, serves for the statement of the object; thus τῷ would be equivalent to εἰς τό (Grotius, Turretin, Benson, Koppe, Pelt, Olshausen). But τῷ with the infinitive is used exclusively to denote the reason or the inducing cause, never to denote the design; comp. 2Co_2:12, and Winer, p. 293 [E. T. 413]. Rückert, indeed, retaining this grammatical use of τῷ , makes it denote: “unde nascituram τὴν παράκλησιν speraverat, quum Timotheum misit, apostolus;” and, although he does not decide positively, prefers the reading τῷ , in order that he may find expressed therein a twofold object in sending Timotheus, in conformity with the longing of the apostle previously stated: (1) in respect to the readers, and (2) in respect to himself. Timotheus, Paul intends to say, is sent “fratres ut firmaret, sibi ut afferret ex bona illorum conditione solatium.” But this interpretation is simply impossible, as, in referring παρακαλέσαι to the apostle, it would be indispensably necessary, on account of the preceding ὑμᾶς , to subjoin ἡμᾶς . Accordingly, even from internal reasons, criticism requires us to read τὸ μηδένα σαίνεσθαι . But here, also, a different view is conceivable:—(1) We might, with Matthaei, supply a second εἰς to τὸ μηδένα σαίνεσθαι from the preceding εἰς τὸ στηρίξαι . But in this case we cannot understand why the second εἰς has been suppressed by Paul, as elsewhere he does not avoid the repetition of the form εἰς τό ; comp. e.g. Rom_4:11. Or (2) with Schott, Koch, and Bisping, we might take τὸ μηδένα σαίνεσθαι as an absolute accusative, in the sense of quod attinet ad. But, considering the rarity of this construction, and the misuse which is practised with its assumption (comp. Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 132 f.; also Php_4:10, on which Schott founds, is no analogy, as there τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν is the usual objective accusative to ἀνεθάλετε , used transitively), this shift should only be resorted to when no other expedient presents itself. (3) Winer, 5th ed. p. 375 [E. T. 413], whom de Wette, Reiche, Buttmann, Gramm. des neutestam. Sprachgebrauchs, p. 226 [E. T. 263f.], Hofmann, and Riggenbach follow, makes τὸ μηδένα σαίνεσθαι dependent on παρακαλέσαι , and considers it as a further explanation of ὑπὲρ τῆς πίστεως , namely, to exhort that none should become wavering. But if τὸ μηδένα σαίνεσθαι depended on παρακαλέσαι , then παρακαλεῖν , in the sense of to exhort, would be construed with the simple accusative of the thing, an assumption the possibility of which is to be absolutely denied. (The passages on which Reiche supports the opposite view are without force. In Luk_3:18 both accusatives are not governed by παρακαλῶν , but, in agreement with Act_13:32, by εὐηγγελίζετο ; in 1Ti_6:2, ταῦτα depends on δίδασκε , and καὶ παρακάλει is annexed only in a loose manner to ταῦτα δίδασκε ; so also in Tit_2:15 ταῦτα belongs only to λάλει , but not also to the following verbs; further, in Mar_5:23 πολλά does not depend on παρακαλεῖ , but is the adverbial much, very; lastly, Mar_5:17 and Act_8:31 are not analogous, as there παρακαλεῖν is put with the accusative of the person, to which a simple infinitive, but not an infinitive with the article τό , follows.) Besides, if τὸ μηδένα σαίν . were a further explanation or epexegesis of ὑπὲρ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν , then not the accusative τὸ μηδένα σαίνεσθαι would have been put, but the genitive τοῦ μηδένα σαίν ., in agreement with ὑπὲρ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν . Accordingly, this interpretation is also to be rejected. There consequently remains only (4) to consider τὸ μηδένα σαίνεσθαι ἐν ταῖς θλ . ταύταις as an apposition to the whole preceding sentence εἰς τὸ στηρίξαι ὑμᾶς καὶ παρακαλέσαι ὑπὲρ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν , so that τὸ μηδένα σαίν . serves only to repeat the same thought which was before positively expressed in a negative but better defined form; thus, instead of τό , τουτέστι might have been written. Thus the sense is: to strengthen you and to exhort you on behalf of your faith—that is, that no one may be shaken in these troubles; or, to strengthen and exhort you on account of your faith, particularly on one point, which is contained in one requirement: that no one may be shaken, etc.[46] Accordingly, ΤῸ ΜΗΔΈΝΑ ΣΑΊΝΕΣΘΑΙ certainly depends on the preceding ΕἸς ; but our interpretation is entirely different from that adduced in (1), as no second ΕἸς can be inserted before ΤῸ ΜΗΔΈΝΑ ΣΑΊΝΕΣΘΑΙ without injuring the indissoluble unity which combines ΤῸ ΜΗΔΈΝΑ ΣΑΊΝ . Κ . Τ . Λ . with what precedes.
ΑὐΤΟῚ ΓᾺΡ ΟἼΔ .… ΚΑῚ ΟἼΔΑΤΕ , 1Th_3:4, is not, with Moldenhauer, Griesbach, Vater, Flatt, to be included in a parenthesis, as ΔΙᾺ ΤΟῦΤΟ , 1Th_3:5, is connected with what directly precedes.
ΓΆΡ ] proves the legitimacy of the demand ΜΗΔΈΝΑ ΣΑΊΝΕΣΘΑΙ .
ΟἼΔΑΤΕ ] 1Th_3:4, explains whence they knew it,—namely, partly from previous definite intimations of the apostle, and partly from their own experience. Contrary to the text, Theodoret: from the previous intimation of Christ.
ὍΤΙ ΕἸς ΤΟῦΤΟ ΚΕΊΜΕΘΑ ] that we were appointed thereto. Comp. Php_1:17; Luk_2:34. εἰς τοῦτο , i.e. not εἰς τὸ μηδένα σαίνεσθαι , but ΕἸς ΤῸ ΘΛΊΒΕΣΘΑΙ (comp. 1Th_3:4), in connection with ΘΛΊΨΕΣΙΝ . Moreover, ΚΕΊΜΕΘΑ refers not only to Paul (Oecumenius, Estius, Osiander, and others), or to Paul and his companions (Hofmann), nor also to Paul and the Thessalonians (Koppe), but to Christians in general.
[46] Alford accedes to this interpretation. Bouman (Chartae theolog. I. p. 79 ff.) assumes a middle position between this view and that adopted by Winer, de Wette, and Reiche: Ego … ita de Wettium sequor ac Winerum, ut μηδένα σαίνεσθαι cum proxime praecedente Infinitivo παρακαλέσαι connectendum existimem. Verum toto tertiae hujus sectionis dicto: μηδένα … κείμεθα , illius, quam Timothei ministerio ad Thessalonicenses perferendam curabat Apostolus, παρακλήσεως praecipuum argumentum ac summa contineri mihi videtur. Cujus rei, ni fallor, indicium est dictumque adeo acuit et a caeteris distinguit praemissus ille articulus τό . Quem ibi ponere Graecos, ubi nos signa, citationis vulgo notum est. Veluti postmodum, chap. 1Th_4:1 : τὸ πῶς δεῖ κ . τ . λ .