Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Thessalonians 4:4 - 4:4
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Th_4:4. That every one of you may know (understand, be capable; comp. Col_4:6; Php_4:12) to acquire his own vessel in sanctification and honour. By σκεῦος , Chrysostom, Theodoret, John Damascenus, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Tertullian, Pelagius, Haimo, Calvin, Zeger, Musculus, Hemming, Bullinger, Zanchius, Hunnius, Drusius, Piscator, Gomarus, Aretius, Vorstius, Cornelius a Lapide, Beza, Grotius, Calixt, Calovius, Hammond, Turretin, Benson, Bengel, Macknight, Zacharius, Flatt, Pelt, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bloomfield, Meyer (Romans 4 th ed. p. 74), and others, understand the body ( τὸ σῶμα ).[50] But—(1) κτᾶσθαι cannot in any way be reconciled with this interpretation. For that can only denote to gain, to acquire, but not to own, to possess (for which one in vain appeals to Luk_21:19; Sir_6:7; Sir_22:23; Sir_51:20). If one would, with Olshausen (comp. also Chrysostom), retain the idea of acquiring, and then find the sense: “to guide and master his body as the true instrument of the soul,” yet, as de Wette remarks, the contrast μὴ ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας , 1Th_4:5, which likewise belongs to κτᾶσθαι , would be irreconcilable with it. (2) The body may be compared with a σκεῦος , or, when the context points to it, may be figuratively so called, but σκεῦος by itself can hardly be put in the sense of σῶμα . All the passages which are usually brought forward do not prove the contrary; e.g. Barnabas, Ep. vii. and xi.: τὸ σκεῦος τοῦ πνεύματος ( αὐτοῦ ), where σκεῦος has its usual meaning, and only the full expression serves as a circumlocution for the body of Christ. Philo, quod deter. pot. ins. p. 186: τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀγγεῖον τὸ σῶμα , and de migr. Abrah. p. 418: τοῖς ἀγγείοις τῆς ψυχῆς σώματι καὶ αἰσθήσει . Cicero, disput. Tusc. i. 22: corpus quidem quasi vas est aut aliquod animi receptaculum. Lucretius, iii. 441: corpus, quod vas quasi constitit ejus (sc. animae). How different also from our passage is 2Co_4:7, by the addition ὀστρακίνοις , according to which the σῶμα is only compared with a σκεῦος ὀστράκινον ! (3) The position of the words τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος is against it. For ἑαυτοῦ can only be placed first, because the emphasis rests on it; but a reference to the body of an individual cannot be emphatic; it would require to be written τὸ σκεῦος ἑαυτοῦ . Olshausen certainly finds in ἑαυτοῦ a support for the opposite view; but how arbitrary is his assertion, that by the genitive “the subjectivity, the ψυχή , is distinguished from the σκεῦος ,” as only the belonging, the private possession, can be designated by ἑαυτοῦ ! (4) The context also does not lead us to understand σκεῦος of the body. Paul, namely, has brought forward the ἁγιασμός of his readers as the will of God, and has further explained this ἁγιασμός , first, negatively as an abstinence from fornication. If, now, this negative specification is still further explained by a positive one, this further positive addition can only contain the reverse, that is, the requirement to satisfy the sexual impulse in chastity and honour. The words import this, if σκεῦος is understood in its original meaning, “retain a vessel,” and the expression as a figurative designation of wife. So, in essentials, Theodore Mopsuestius (ed. Fritzsche, p. 145: Σκεῦος τὴν ἰδίαν ἑκάστου γαμετὴν ὀνομάζει ); τίνες in Theodoret ( τὴν ὁμόζυγα ); Augustin, contra Julian, iv. 10, v. 9; de nupt. et concup. i. 8; Thomas Aquinas, Zwingli, Estius, Balduin, Heinsius, Seb. Schmid, Wetstein, Schoettgen, Michaelis, Koppe, Schott, de Wette, Koch, Bisping, Ewald, Alford, Hofmann, Riggenbach, and others. How suitably does the emphatic ἑαυτοῦ become through this interpretation, the apostle, in contrast to the πορνεία , the Venus vulgivaga, urging that every one should acquire his own vessel or means to appease the sexual impulse—that is, should enter into marriage, ordained by God for the regulation of fleshly lusts; comp. 1Co_7:2, where the same principle is expressed. To regard the expression σκεῦος as a figurative designation of wife is the less objectionable, as this figurative designation is besides supported by Jewish usage. Thus it is said in Megilla Esther, i. 11: In convivio illius impii aliqui dixerunt: mulieres Medicae sunt pulchriores, alii vero: Persicae sunt pulchriores. Dixit ad eos Ahasverus: vas meum, quo ego utor ( ëìé ùàðé îùúîù áå ), neque Medicum neque Persicum est, sed Chaldaicum. Comp. Sohar Levit. fol. 38, col. 152: Quicunque enim semen suum immittit in vas non bonum, ille semen suum deturpat. See Schoettgen, Hor. hebr. p. 827. Lastly, add to this that the expression κτᾶσθαι γυναῖκα , in the sense of ducere uxorem, is usual; comp. Xenoph. Conviv. ii. 10: ΤΑΎΤΗΝ ( ΞΑΝΘΊΠΠΗΝ ) ΚΈΚΤΗΜΑΙ ; LXX. Rth_4:10; Sir_36:24.
ἝΚΑΣΤΟΝ ὙΜῶΝ ] every one of you, sc. who does not possess the gift of continence; comp. 1Co_7:1-2.
ἐν ἁγιασμῷ καὶ τιμῇ ] in chastity and honour, belongs not to ἝΚΑΣΤΟΝ , so that ὌΝΤΑ would require to be supplied (Koppe, Schott), but to ΚΤᾶΣΘΑΙ , and is an epexegesis to ἙΑΥΤΟῦ , so that after ΚΤᾶΣΘΑΙ a comma is to be put. In ΤῸ ἙΑΥΤΟῦ ΣΚΕῦΟς ΚΤᾶΣΘΑΙ there is contained ΚΤᾶΣΘΑΙ ἘΝ ἉΓΙΑΣΜῷ Κ . Τ . Λ . already implicitly included. Accordingly, by this addition there is by no means expressed in what way one should marry, which, as a too special prescription, would certainly be unsuitable; but 1Th_4:4 contains only the general prescription, instead of giving oneself up to fornication, to marry, and this is opposed as honourable and sanctified to what is dishonourable and unsanctified.
[50] In a special manner Ernest Schmid explains it: Suum vas i. e. suum corpus et in specie sua membra, quibus ad ἀκαθαρσίαν homo abuti potest. So also Majus, Observat. sacr. III. p. 75. Schomer, Woken, and Triller (comp. Wolf in loc,). Bolten, entirely contrary to the context: τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος is “his means, his vessels, or singularis pro plurali, his goods, his utensils.”