Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Thessalonians 2:2 - 2:2
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Th_2:2. A statement of the object of the whole sentence, 2Th_2:1.
σαλεύεσθαι ] from σάλος , which is especially used of the sea agitated by a storm (comp. Luk_21:25), denotes being placed in a state of commotion and vacillation. It is spoken both in a natural sense of circumstances in the external world (comp. Mat_11:7; Act_4:31; Act_16:26; Heb_12:26, etc.), and also transferred to mental conditions (comp. Act_17:13). σαλευθῆναι ἀπὸ τοῦ νοός is a pregnant construction, including two ideas: to be put in a state of mental commotion away from the νοῦς , i.e. so that the νοῦς goes astray, does not attain to its proper function. Comp. Rom_9:3 : ἀνάθεμα εἶναι ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ .
νοῦς ] is to be taken quite generally. It denotes the reasonable, sober, and considerate state of mind, mentis tranquillitas (Turretin). Others, contrary to the meaning of the word, understand by νοῦς the more correct view or conviction, received by the personal instruction of the apostle concerning the advent, from which the Thessalonians were not to suffer themselves to be removed. So Hemming, Bullinger, Estius, Lucius Osiander, Piscator, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Fromond., Bern. a Piconius, Nat. Alexander, Moldenhauer, Flatt, Heydenreich, and many others; whilst, in an equally erroneous manner, Wolf interprets the expression of the “sensus verborum Pauli, de hoc argumento in superiore epistola traditorum.”
μὴ ταχέως ] not suddenly. This does not import, “so soon after my departure” (Joachim Lange), or so shortly after the instructions received from us (Piscator, Calovius, Olshausen, and others), but: suddenly, so soon after the matter in question was spoken of.
μηδὲ θροεῖσθαι ] nor yet be frightened. A new and stronger point, which is more definitely described or divided by the following μήτε , according to a threefold statement of the cause. See on this distinction between μηδέ and μήτε , Winer, p. 432 [E. T. 611].
μήτε διὰ πνεύματος ] neither by inspiration. Falsely-understood prophecies of the O. T. (Krause), or signa quasi per spiritum facta (Pelagius), or deceitful revelations by spiritual appearances (Ernest Schmid, Schrader), or by dreams (Schrader), are not meant; but inspired prophetical discourses, delivered by the members of the church in Christian assemblies, and whose contents were falsely given out as divine revelations. To understand, with Chrysostom, Bugenhagen, Vatablus, Koppe, Storr, Bolten, Heydenreich, and others (Flatt and de Wette give the alternative), πνεῦμα as an abstract noun, instead of the concrete πνευματικός , so that the persons who delivered the inspired discourses are to be understood, although not without analogy, is yet objectionable in itself, and has the want of harmony occasioned by it with the following λόγου and ἐπιστολῆς against it.
μήτε διὰ λόγου ] is by Baumgarten-Crusius referred to a traditional (falsified) word of Jesus, more specifically by Noesselt to the prophecy of Christ in Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21. But if Paul had in view a saying of Christ, he would have indicated it (perhaps by μήτε διὰ λόγου ὡς κυρίου , or something similar). Others, as Michaelis and Tychsen, translate λόγος by “reckoning,” and suppose that one made a reckoning of the times on the ground of the Book of Daniel, and in consequence inferred that the advent of Christ was directly at hand. But λόγου by itself certainly does not justify such an artificial hypothesis. Lastly, others, in distinction from prophecy delivered by inspiration, take λόγος in the sense of a calm and didactic discourse, whether aiming at conviction or seduction. So, after the example of Chrysostom, Oecumenius ( διὰ πιθανολογίας ), Theophylact ( διὰ διδασκαλίας ζώσῃ φωνῇ γινομένης ), Clarius (oratione persuasoria), Zeger (per doctrinam viva voce prolatam), Ewald (“by word; that is, by discourse and doctrine [ διδαχή , 1Co_14:26]; whilst one sought to prove the error in a learned manner by a clever discourse, perhaps from the Holy Scriptures”), Hofmann, Riggenbach, and many others. However, from the parallel arrangement in 2Th_2:15, which opposes the true to the false expressed in 2Th_2:2, it is evident that διὰ λόγου and διʼ ἐπιστολῆς are closely connected ideas, of which the first denotes the oral, and the second the written statement. It is accordingly most natural to construe διὰ λόγου not by itself, but to unite ὡς διʼ ἡμῶν , as proceeding from us, both with διὰ λόγου and with διʼ ἐπιστολῆς ; and to understand the first of oral expressions which were imputed to the apostle,[43] and the latter of written expressions which were imputed to him by means of a forged epistle. On the other hand, with Erasmus, to refer ὡς διʼ ἡμῶν also to ΔΙᾺ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς is impossible; as, although ΛΌΓΟΙ and ἘΠΙΣΤΟΛΑΊ may be placed in the category of those things which proceed from one absent, yet this cannot be the case with inspired prophetical discourses, as with these the personal presence of the speaker was requisite. Correctly Theodoret: ΠΑΡΕΓΓΥᾷ ΤΟΊΝΥΝ Ὁ ΘΕῖΟς ἈΠΌΣΤΟΛΟς , ΜῊ ΠΙΣΤΕΎΕΙΝ ΤΟῖς ΛΈΓΟΥΣΙΝ ἘΝΕΣΤΗΚΈΝΑΙ ΤῸΝ Τῆς ΣΥΝΤΕΛΕΊΑς ΚΑΙΡΌΝ , ΚΑῚ ΠΑΡΑΥΤΊΚΑ ΤῸΝ ΚΎΡΙΟΝ ἘΠΙΦΑΝΉΣΕΣΘΑΙ , ΜΉΤΕ ΕἸ ΠΡΟΣΠΟΙΟῖΝΤΟ ΧΡΗΣΜῼΔΕῖΝ ΚΑῚ ΠΡΟΦΗΤΕΎΕΙΝ · ΤΟῦΤΟ ΓᾺΡ ΛΈΓΕΙ ΜΉΤΕ ΔΙᾺ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς · ΜΉΤΕ ΕἸ ΠΛΑΣΆΜΕΝΟΙ Ὡς ἘΞ ΑὐΤΟῦ ΓΡΑΦΕῖΣΑΝ ἘΠΙΣΤΟΛῊΝ ΠΡΟΦΈΡΟΙΕΝ , ΜΉΤΕ ΕἸ ἈΓΡΆΦΩς ΑὐΤῸΝ ΕἸΡΗΚΈΝΑΙ ΛΈΓΟΙΕΝ .
Ὡς ΔΙʼ ἩΜῶΝ ] simply denies that such a saying or letter, containing such an assertion, arose from Paul and his two companions, or proceeded from them. The apostle accordingly supposes, that as there were actually in Thessalonica prophetical announcements ( πνεῦμα ) which had the assertion which follows as their contents, so there were also actually present a λόγος and an ἘΠΙΣΤΟΛΉ containing the contents here stated. Accordingly, it is a completely arbitrary assumption when Kern, p. 149 f.; Reuss, Gesch. der heil. Schriften N. T., 4th edit., Braunschw. 1864, p. 71; Bleek, Einleit. in d. N. T., Ber. 1862, p. 385 f.; and Hilgenfeld, in d. Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol., Halle 1862, p. 249, after the example of Beza (but he not decidedly), Hammond, and Krause, refer the ἐπιστολή to the apostle’s First Epistle to the Thessalonians, which was wrongly understood, or, as Hilgenfeld thinks, from which an inference suggested by it was drawn.
ὡς ὅτι ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου ] as if, or, like as if the day of the Lord is already present, or, is even on the point of commencing[44] (comp. Rom_8:38; 1Co_3:22; 1Co_7:26; Gal_1:4), gives the contents of the communications unsettling and terrifying them. ὡς placed before ὍΤΙ brings into prominence the fact that this notion was completely unfounded and purely imaginary. Comp. also 2Co_11:21, and Winer, p. 544 [E. T. 771]. Completely erroneous Hofmann: Ὡς ὍΤΙ is equivalent to Ὡς ἘΆΝ , 1Th_2:7.
When, moreover, the apostle says that these illusions unsettled and terrified the Thessalonians, this effect might be produced both on those who regarded the advent with longing desire and on those who regarded it with fear. For what is eagerly expected puts a man in a state of excitement, and if it is something decisive of his fate, into a state of fear, as soon as he believes that the moment of its realization has come.
[43] But not, as Macknight (comp. also Bloomfield) thinks, of a pretended oral message of the apostle to his readers; nor, as Grotius explains it, of “rumores de nobis, quasi aliud nunc diceremus, quam antehac diximus.”
[44] Incorrectly Hoelemann, Die Stellung St. Pauli zu der Frage um die Zeit der Wiederkunft Christi, Leipz. 1858, p. 14: “as if the day of the Lord was at hand.”