Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Thessalonians 4:6 - 4:6
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Th_4:6. The second chief point which the apostle subordinates to the θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ (1Th_4:3), adding to the prohibition of unchastity the further prohibition of covetousness and overreaching our neighbour (Nicolas Lyrensis, Faber Stapulus, Zwingli, Calvin, Bullinger, Zanchius, Hunnius, Luc. Osiander, Balduin, Aretius, Vorstius, Gomarus, Grotius, Calovius, Clericus, Wolf, Koppe, Flatt, de Wette, Koch, Bouman, supra, p. 82; Bisping, Ewald, Hofmann, Riggenbach, and others). It is true Chrysostom, Theodoret, John Damascenus, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Jerome on Eph_5:5, Erasmus, Clarius, Zeger, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Heinsius, Whitby, Benson, Wetstein, Kypke, Bengel, Baumgarten, Zachar., Michaelis, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, Bloomfield, Alford, and others, refer it still to the prohibition of unchastity given in 1Th_4:4-5, whilst they find in 1Th_4:6 a particular form of it designated, namely, adultery, and consider the sentence as dependent on εἰδέναι (Pelt), or as in apposition to 1Th_4:4-5. But this is without justification. For—(1) the expressions ὑπερβαίνειν and πλεονεκτεῖν most naturally denote a covetous, deceitful conduct in common social intercourse. (2) If the discourse had been only of πορνεία , the words περὶ πάντων τούτων would scarcely have been put. Different kinds of πορνεία must at least have been previously enumerated. But not even this could be the case, as then to the dissuasion from πορνεία in general, the dissuasion from a special kind of πορνεία would be united. (3) Lastly, the article imperatively requires us to consider τὸ … αὐτοῦ as parallel to ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν , 1Th_4:3, and, accordingly, as a second object different from the first. If Pelt objects against our view that a mention of covetousness (1Th_4:6) would occur “plane inexspectato,” he does not consider that lust and covetousness were the two cardinal vices of the heathen world, and that Paul was accustomed elsewhere to mention them together; comp. Eph_4:19; Eph_5:3; Eph_5:5; Col_3:5. Also, the further objection which is insisted on, that on account of 1Th_4:7 an exhortation to chastity must be contained in 1Th_4:6, is not convincing, as there is nothing to prevent us taking ἀκαθαρσία and ἁγιασμός , 1Th_4:7 (see on passage), in the wider sense.
τό ] not equivalent to ὥστε (Baumgarten-Crusius), but a second exponent of the object-matter of θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ (1Th_4:3).
ὑπερβαίνειν ] here only in the N. T., stands absolutely: justos fines migrare, to grasp too far (Luther). Comp. Eurip. Alc. 1077: μὴ νῦν ὑπέρβαινʼ , ἀλλʼ ἐναισίμως φέρε , Il. ix. 501: ὅτε κέν τις ὑπερβήῃ καὶ ἁμάρτῃ . The idea of an “oppressio violenti, qualis tyrannorum et potentium est, qui inferiores injustis exactionibus aut aliis illicitis modis premunt” (Hemming) is inserted, and every supplement, as that of Piscator, “excedere mordum in augendis rerum pretiis,” is to be rejected. What Paul particularly understood by the entirely general μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν he himself indicates by καὶ πλεονεκτεῖν … αὐτοῦ , which latter words, as μή is not repeated before πλεονεκτεῖν , can contain no independent requirement, but must be an explanatory specification of ὑπερβαίνειν . καί is accordingly to be understood in the sense of “and indeed.” Others, as Beza, Koppe, Pelt, Baumgarten-Crusius, Alford, Hofmann, Riggenbach, have united both verbs with τὸν ἀδελφόν . But the union of ὑπερβαίνειν with a personal object is objectionable, and also in the two passages adduced for it by Kypke (Plutarch, de amore prolis, p. 496, and Demosthenes, adv. Aristocrat. p. 439) the meaning opprimere is at least not demonstrable. Moreover, not ἕκαστον , from 1Th_4:4 (Baumgarten-Crusius, Alford), but τινά , is to be considered as the subject to τὸ μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν κ . τ . λ .
πλεονεκτεῖν ] expresses the overreaching, the fraudulent pursuit of our own gain springing from covetousness (comp. 2Co_7:2; 2Co_12:17-18), not the covetous encroaching upon the possession of a brother, as a figurative expression for adultery.
ἐν τῷ πράγματι ] is not verecunde pro concubitu (Estius and those mentioned above), but means in the business (now, or at any time in hand). Too narrow a sense, Piscator: in emendo et vendendo. Rittershus. Polyc. Leyser (in Wolf), and Koppe consider the article as enclitic ( ἔν τῳ instead of ἔν τινι ); unnecessary, and without any analogy in the New Testament. Comp. Winer, p. 50 [E. T. 61]. But also erroneously, Macknight, Schott, Olshausen, and others, ἐν τῷ πράγματι is equivalent to ἐν τούτῳ τῷ πράγματι .
τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ] is not equivalent to τὸν πλησίον (Schott, Koch, and others), but denotes fellow-Christians; comp. 1Th_4:10. This limitation of the prohibition to Christians is not surprising (Schrader), as there is no emphasis on τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ (for otherwise it must have been written τὸ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ μὴ κ . τ . λ .), and accordingly the misinterpretation that the conduct of Christians to those who are not Christians is to be different, could not possibly arise. Paul simply names the circle which stood nearest to the Christians, but without intending to exclude thereby the wider circles.
ἔκδικος ] an avenger; comp. Rom_13:4. The same reason for prohibition in Eph_5:5-6; Col_3:6; Gal_5:21. Compare the saying: ἔχει Θεὸς ἔκδικον ὄμμα (Homer, Batrachom.), which has become a proverb.
καθὼς καί ] refers back to διότι .
προείπομεν ] foretold; the προ refers to the time preceding the future judgment, and the preterite to the time of the apostle’s presence among the Thessalonians.
διεμαρτυράμεθα ] an intensifying of προείπομεν .