Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Thessalonians 3:5 - 3:5
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Th_3:5. Διὰ τοῦτο ] on this account, i.e. on account of the actual commencement of trouble. But, incorrectly, Fromond.: ne tribulationibus meis turbaremini.
The καί in κἀγώ does not belong to the whole sentence: “therefore also, no longer forbearing, I sent” (de Wette, Koch, Bisping), for then διὰ καὶ τοῦτο would have been written (the passages adduced by de Wette to the contrary do not prove what is designed); rather καί impressively gives prominence to the person of the ἐγώ : therefore I also. Thus a relation must be contained in it to other persons. Schott, whom Olshausen follows, supposes these others the Thessalonians, finding the thought expressed: “as ye, in consequence of the troubles which befell me, were anxious for me, so I also could no longer bear to be without information concerning you.” But, according to the connection ( καὶ ἐγένετο καὶ οἴδατε , 1Th_3:4), a relation must be contained in κἀγώ to others, of whom, as of Paul, a μηκέτι στέγειν in respect of the Thessalonians is asserted.[47] These others are the Christian circle with the apostle in Athens (Act_17:34), including Timotheus sent from it to Thessalonica. Events such as befell the Thessalonians must have awakened lively sympathy in every Christian who heard of them. Entirely perverted is the view of Hofmann, who takes the singular, 1Th_3:5, as a contrast to the plural, 1Th_3:1. In 1Th_3:5 only Paul is spoken of, whereas in 1Th_3:1 Paul and Silvanus are referred to. He accordingly infers, that besides Timotheus, sent by Paul and Silvanus jointly to Thessalonica, there was another sent specially by Paul. After Timotheus was on his journey to strengthen the Thessalonian Church against the persecution which had broken out upon them, Paul, at a time when Silvanus was also absent, sent a second, this time for his own sake; his own troubled condition making the want of news from Thessalonica insupportable, lest perhaps the fruit of his labours among them might be entirely lost. Yet before the return of this unknown messenger Silvanus and also Timotheus had rejoined the apostle!
εἰς τὸ γνῶναι ] in order to learn, belongs to the subject of the verb ἔπεμψα ; thus: “in order that I, the sender, might learn;” not: in order that he (Timotheus) might learn (Pelt, Olshausen, and others).
τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν ] your faith, i.e. how it is with it, how it stands.
μήπως ] depends on γνῶναι , not on ἔπεμψα , and is the introductory particle of an indirect question: whether perhaps the tempter has tempted you. So Wahl, Schott, and de Wette; also Bouman, Chartae theolog. I. p. 80. Without reason, Beza, Grotius, Turretin, Benson, Koppe, Flatt, Pelt, Winer, p. 448 [E. T. 633 f.], supply φοβούμενος before μήπως : “filled with anxiety lest the tempter should have tempted you.”
ὁ πειράζων ] another expression for ὁ σατανᾶς , 1Th_2:18. Comp. Mat_4:3.
εἰς κενόν ] see Meyer on Gal_2:2.
ἐπείρασεν … γένηται ] correctly, Schott: ut cognoscerem, quomodo se haberet persuasio vestra, num forte tentator vos tentaverit, adeo ut (quod deus avertat!) labor meus irritus fieri possit. The aorist indicative refers to a fact which possibly may have already happened; but the conjunctive γένηται refers to a fact which belongs to the future, and is conceived as a consequence of the first fact. Fritzsche (Opusc. Fritzschiorum, p. 176), to whom de Wette and Koch adhere, explains it: ut … cognoscerem, an forte Satanas vos tentasset et ne forte labores mei irriti essent. He thus takes μήπως in the first clause as an interrogative particle, and in the second clause as an expression of fear; an explanation which Winer rightly designates as harsh.
Moreover, incorrectly, Whitby, Macknight, Baumgarten-Crusius: in ἐπείρασεν is implied “tempted with success,” “seduced.” The idea of seduction exists only by the addition of εἰς κενὸν γένηται .
[47] It might otherwise be assumed that Paul here anticipates what he first, in ver. 6, observes of the Thessalonians, namely, that they also had a longing for him; and thus κἀγώ , which belongs to μηκέτι στέγων , not to ἔπεμψα , is explained. But this is an expedient which is artificial, and is to be rejected because μηκέτι στέγειν , ver. 5, and ἐπιποθεῖν , ver. 6, are not co-extensive ideas.