Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Thessalonians 4:3 - 4:3
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Th_4:3. Further specification of τίνας παραγγελίας , according to its contents. τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ ] for this (the following) is the will of God.
τοῦτο ] not the predicate (de Wette, 2d ed.), but the subject (comp. Rom_9:8; Gal_3:7; Winer, 5th ed. p. 130 [E. T. 199]), is emphatically placed first, accordingly not superfluous (Pelt).
θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ ] without the article, as the will of God is not exhausted with what is afterwards adduced. The words are without emphasis; they resume only the idea already expressed in 1Th_4:2, although in another form. For a command given διὰ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ is nothing else than θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ .
ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν ] namely, your sanctification, in apposition to τοῦτο and the subject-matter, whereas τοῦτο was only a preliminary and nominal subject. ἁγιασμός has an active meaning, your sanctification ( ὑμῶν , the genitive of the object), i.e. that you sanctify yourselves, not passive (Estius, Koppe, Usteri, p. 236; Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius), so that it would be identical with ἁγιωσύνη , 1Th_3:13. Calovius, Wolf, Flatt, de Wette, Koch, Alford, and others take ἁγιασμός as a “quite general” idea, under which not only ἀπέχεσθαι κ . τ . λ ., but also 1Th_4:6, are specified as particulars. This view, in itself entirely suitable, becomes impossible by the article τό before ὑπερβαίνειν , 1Th_4:6. This does not permit us to consider 1Th_4:6 as a parallel statement to ἀπέχεσθαι , 1Th_4:3, and εἰδέναι , 1Th_4:4, but places the statement τὸ μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν κ . τ . λ . evidently on the same level with ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν . Accordingly τοῦτο receives a double specification of the subject-matter in the form of apposition—(1) in ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν , and (2) in τὸ μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν , 1Th_4:6. Thus the meaning is: For the following is the will of God, first, that ye sanctify yourselves, and then that ye overreach not, etc. But from this relation of the sentences it follows that ἁγιασμός must denote holiness in a special sense, i.e. must be considered in special reference to sins of lust, thus must be used of striving after chastity (Turretin, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, Bloomfield, and others).
ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν is further epexegetically explained—(1) negatively by ἀπέχεσθαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τῆς πορνείας , and (2) positively by εἰδέναι κ . τ . λ ., 1Th_4:4. In an entirely erroneous manner by Hofmann, according to whom the stress is to be laid on θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ , τοῦτο is to indicate ἀπέχεσθαι κ . τ . λ ., and ὁ ἁγιασμός is a parenthetic apposition. Moreover, “a contradiction” to the praise of the church, expressed elsewhere in the Epistle, is not contained in the exhortation, 1Th_4:3 ff. (Schrader), as the reception of Christianity never delivers, as with the stroke of a magician, from the wickedness and lusts of the heathen world which have become habitual; rather a long and constant fight is necessary for vanquishing them.