Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Thessalonians 1:4 - 1:4
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Th_1:4. The progress of the Thessalonians in Christianity so rejoiced the heart of the apostle, that he expresses this joy not only in thanksgiving before God, but also in praises before men.
ὥστε ] refers back to ὑπεραυξάνει … ἀλλήλους .
ἡμᾶς αὐτούς ] This emphatic designation of the subject might be thus explained, that otherwise such praise was not the usual custom of the speakers, but that the glorious success of the gospel in Thessalonica caused them to forget the usual limits of moderation and reserve. This opinion is, however, to be rejected, because it would then without any reason be supposed that Paul had inaccurately written ἡμᾶς αὐτούς (we ourselves) instead of αὐτοὺς ἡμᾶς (even we).[34] It is therefore more correct to see in ἡμᾶς αὐτούς , that although it was true that the praise of the Thessalonians was already sufficiently spread abroad by others, yet that they themselves, the writers of the Epistle, in the fulness of their joy could not forbear to glory in their spiritual offspring. A reference to 1Th_1:8 (de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius) is not to be assumed. Schott erroneously attempts to justify the emphasis on ἩΜᾶς ΑὐΤΟΎς , by understanding the same of Paul only in contrast to Silvanus and Timotheus, the subjects along with Paul of the verb ὀφείλομεν , 2Th_1:3; for to maintain such a change of subject between 2Th_1:3 and 2Th_1:4 is impossible. Equally incorrect is also the notion of Hofmann, that αὐτούς added to ἡμᾶς denotes “of ourselves” “unprompted.” For it is absurd to attempt to deny that ἡμᾶς αὐτούς must at all events contain a contrast to others.
ἐν ὑμῖν ἐγκαυχᾶσθαι ] boast of you. ἘΝ ὙΜῖΝ is a preliminary object to ἘΓΚΑΥΧᾶΣΘΑΙ , which is then more completely unfolded in ὙΠῈΡ Τῆς ὙΠΟΜΟΝῆς Κ . Τ . Λ .
ἘΝ ΤΑῖς ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑΙς ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ ] in Corinth and its filiated churches. The cause which gave occasion to Paul’s boasting of his readers is more specially expressed, being what was formerly represented as the motive of the apostolic thanksgiving; whilst formerly faith in Christ and brotherly love were mentioned (2Th_1:4), the latter is here left entirely unmentioned, whilst the first is named in its special operation as Christian stedfastness under persecution.
ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑπομονῆς ὑμῶν καὶ πίστεως ] is not, with Grotius, Pelt, and others, to be understood as a ἓν διὰ δυοῖν , in the sense of ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑπομονῆς ὑμῶν ἐν πίστει , or ὑπὲρ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν ὑπομενούσης . Nor is stedfastness, as Calvin, Hemming, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bouman, Chartae theol. Lib. I. p. 83 ff.,[35] Alford, and others think, particularly brought forward by the ΠΊΣΤΙς mentioned in 2Th_1:3; and then, in addition, ΠΊΣΤΙς is once more insisted on as the foundation on which ὙΠΟΜΟΝΉ rests, which would indeed be a strange proceeding, and would greatly interfere with the clearness of thought. But ΠΊΣΤΙς is here used in a different sense from that in 2Th_1:3. Whilst πίστις in 2Th_1:3 denoted faith in Christ, the expression here, as the article Τῆς only placed once proves, is of a similar nature with ὙΠΟΜΟΝΉ ; whilst the reference to Christ as the object of faith steps into the background, and the idea of “faith” is transformed into the idea of “fidelity.” This rendering is the less objectionable as Paul elsewhere undoubtedly uses πίστις in the sense of fidelity (comp. Gal_5:22; Rom_3:3; Tit_2:10; comp. also the adjective πιστός , 1Th_5:24; 2Th_3:3; 1Co_1:9; 1Co_10:13; 2Co_1:18; 2Ti_2:13); and, besides, the notion of fidelity in this passage implies the more general notion of faith in Christ; πίστις here denoting nothing else than faith in Christ standing in a special and concrete relation, i.e. proving itself under persecutions and trials.
πᾶσιν ] belongs only to ΔΙΩΓΜΟῖς ὙΜῶΝ . This is shown by the article repeated before ΘΛΊΨΕΣΙΝ , and by the additional clause ΑἿς ἈΝΈΧΕΣΘΕ , which is parallel with ὙΜῶΝ .
Clearer distinctions between ΔΙΩΓΜΟΊ and ΘΛΊΨΕΙς (as “pericula, quae totum coetum concernunt” and “singulorum privata infortunia,” Aretius; or “open and hidden distress,” Baumgarten-Crusius) are precarious. Only so much is certain that ΔΙΩΓΜΟΊ is speciale nomen, θλίψεις generalius (Zanchius).
αἶς ἀνέχεσθε ] an attraction for ὯΝ ἈΝΈΧΕΣΘΕ (so, correctly, also Buttmann, Gramm. des neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 140 [E. T. 161]),—not, as Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, and Hofmann maintain, instead of ἃς ἀνέχεσθαι ; for ἈΝΈΧΟΜΑΙ always governs the genitive in the N. T., never the accusative; comp. Mat_17:17; Mar_9:19; Luk_9:41; Act_18:14; 2Co_11:1; 2Co_11:19; Eph_4:2; Col_3:13; 2Ti_4:3; Heb_13:22. Fritzsche’s opinion (on 2 Cor. diss. II. p. 53 ff.), that there is no attraction at all, and that ἀνέχεσθαι is here (as in Eurip. Androm. 981, συμφοραῖς ἠνειχόμην ) construed with the dative, and denotes “sustinendo premi calamitatibus h. e. preferre mala,” is contradicted by the above N. T. usage.
The present ἈΝΈΧΕΣΘΕ represents the persecutions and the trials as belonging to the present. Accordingly a new outbreak of persecution must be meant, as the First Epistle describes the persecutions as past.[36]
[34] The latter, however, is actually found in B à and some min.
[35] But Bouman ultimately adds (p. 85): “Cujus (sc. dicti Paulini) intacta vulgari utriusque substantivi significatione, explicandi alia etiam in promptu est, ab illa, quam memoravimus, paullo diversa via ac ratio. Etenim optimis quibusque scriptoribus non raro placuisse novimus, ut a singularibus ad generaliora nuncupanda progrederentur. Quidni igitur primum singularem ὑπομονῆς constantiae, virtutem celebrare potuit apostolus, atque hinc ad universae vitae Christianae moderatricem fidem, Domino habitam, praedicandam gressum facere? But also against this the non-repetition of the article before πίστεως ; decides.
[36] That a critic such as Baur knows how to convert this deviation from the First Epistle into a dependence upon it is not strange (see Apostel Paulus, p. 488). “This present tense evidently shows how the author transfers what had been said in 1 Thess. to his own time.” Also Schrader draws from ver. 4 an objection against the authenticity of the Epistle, but for this reason: “because later in the course of the Epistle the writer appears to have forgotten that at that instant the Thessalonians were in great tribulation.” But Paul dwells on this subject throughout the whole of the first chapter. Why should he tarry longer on it, or recur to it anew, since it referred to a virtue of the Thessalonians already proved, whereas the chief object of his Epistle consisted in supplying the actual and considerable wants of the church in knowledge and conduct?