Bibelkommentare

CHAPTER 3

1 Thessalonians 3:1. Elz. has διό. Διότι, found in B, is a mere error of the transcriber, occasioned by the following μηκέτι.—1 Thessalonians 3:2. After τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν the Receptus has καὶ διάκονον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ συνεργὸν ἡμῶν. Defended by Bouman (Chartae theol. Lib. I. p. 63 f.) and Reiche. But instead of this, Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. 2 and 7, and Alford, after D* Clar. Germ. Ambrosiast., have correctly received into the text καὶ συνεργὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, from which all variations are explained. In order to remove the objectionable character which the expression συνεργὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ appeared to have, sometimes τοῦ Θεοῦ was suppressed (so the reading received by Tisch. 1, καὶ συνεργόν, in B, Arm.), at other times συνεργόν was changed into διάκονον (καὶ διάκονον τοῦ Θεοῦ, A א, 67** 71, et al., Copt. Aeth. Vulg. Bas. Pel. [in textu]; approved by Scholz), from which further grew, by blending with the original wording, διάκονον καὶ συνεργὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, F G, Boern., and καὶ διάκ. καὶ συνεργὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ in E 17; lastly, there was interpolated καὶ διάκονον καὶ συνεργὸν ἡμῶν (Sahid.), or διάκονον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ συνεργὸν ἡμῶν (Syr. ed. Erp.), or καὶ διάκονον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ συνεργόν (87).

Instead of the Receptus παρακαλέσαι ὑμᾶς, only παρακαλέσαι is to be read, with Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, according to A B D* F G א, min. Copt. Sahid. Baschm. Arm. Slav. ant. Vulg. It. Chrys. Theodoret (alic.) Damasc. Ambrosiast. Pelag.

ὑπὲρ τῆς πίστεως] Elz. has περὶ τῆς πίστεως. Against A B D* E* F G K א, 17, 31, et al., Bas. Chrys. Theodoret (alic.).—1 Thessalonians 3:3. Elz. has τῷ μηδένα. But A B D E K L א, min. plur. edd. Bas. Oecum. have τὸ μηδένα. Correctly accepted by Matth. Lachm. (in the stereotype edition; in his larger edition Lachm. writes τὸ μηδὲν ἀσαίνεσθαι!) Tischendorf, and Alford. Preferred also by Reiche. In the place of the misunderstood τό, τῷ of the Receptus was put (although this is impossible from grammatical considerations; see notes on passage), or τοῦ (67, 87, al.), or ἵνα (F G, 73).—1 Thessalonians 3:7. Elz. has θλίψει καὶ ἀνάγκῃ. According to the preponderating testimony of A B D E F G א, min. edd. Syr. utr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. Pel., to be transposed ἀνάγκῃ καὶ θλίψει.—1 Thessalonians 3:11. Instead of the Recept. Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, A B D** (in D* Ἰησοῦς is wanting) א, 3, 17, et al., Aeth. Vulg. ms. Ambr. al., Lachm. Tisch. Alford have Ἰησοῦς, which is to be preferred.—1 Thessalonians 3:12. Elz. has ὁ κύριος. This is wanting in Syr. Erp. Suspected by Mill. Apparently spurious, as in A, 73, et al., ὁ Θεός, and in D* E* F G, It. ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς is found. If Paul added no subject in 1 Thessalonians 3:12, but caused the same to be continued from 1 Thessalonians 3:11, the early insertion of additions as glosses was natural.—1 Thessalonians 3:13. Ἰησοῦ] Elz. has Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Against it A B D E K א, 37, 39, et al, Aeth. Germ. Vulg. ms. Damasc. Ambr.

After the Recept. ἁγίων αὐτοῦ, A D* E א* min. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. al. add ἀμήν. Bracketed by Lachm. But ἀμήν was inserted, as an ecclesiastical lection ended with 1 Thessalonians 3:13.

CONTENTS.

No longer the master of his longing and anxiety for his readers, Paul has sent Timotheus from Athens to them, to exhort them to endurance under persecutions, and to bring him exact information concerning their conduct. Timotheus has just returned, and by his message has comforted and calmed the apostle. He entreats God that he might soon be permitted to reach Thessalonica to assist the church in its remaining deficiencies, and that God might cause the Thessalonians so to abound in Christian excellence, that they may be blameless at the coming of Christ (1 Thessalonians 3:1-13).

1 Thessalonians 3:1 ff. are most closely connected with the preceding;[42] it is therefore to be regretted that a new chapter should commence here. On 1 Thessalonians 3:1-3, comp. the treatise of Rückert alluded to in comment on 1 Thessalonians 1:8.

[42] Strikingly, Calvin: Hac narratione, quae sequitur, desiderii illius sui fidem facit.

1 Thessalonians 3:1. Διό] Therefore, i.e. διὰ τὸ εἶναι ὑμᾶς τὴν δόξαν ἡμῶν καὶ τὴν χαράν (1 Thessalonians 2:20).

μηκέτι στέγοντες] no longer bearing it, i.e. incapable of mastering our longing for you any longer (comp. 1 Corinthians 9:12; 1 Corinthians 13:7; Philo, in Flacc. p. 974, Opp. Lut. Par. 1640, fol.: μηκέτι στέγειν δυνάμενοι τὰς ἐνδείας). So Erasmus, Vorstius, Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, Pelt, de Wette, only the latter conjoins with the idea of longing, that of anxiety for the Thessalonians, which, indeed, is in accordance with fact, but anticipates the representation, as the idea of anxiety on the part of the apostle is first added in what follows.

μηκέτι] is not here instead of οὐκέτι, as Rückert thinks, appealing to an abusus of the later Greek, which abusus we should be cautious in recognising (see Winer, p. 431 [E. T. 609]), but as spoken from a subjective standpoint: as those who, etc. Moreover, to take the participle στέγοντες in the sense of occultantes, to which Wolf and Baumgarten are inclined: “no longer concealing my longing,” i.e. no longer observing a silence concerning it, would be flat, and contrary to the context.

εὐδοκήσαμεν] as well as ἐπέμψαμεν, 1 Thessalonians 3:2, and ἔπεμψα 1 Thessalonians 3:5, is a simple historical statement of a fact belonging to the past. Grotius and Pelt erroneously take the aorists in the sense of the pluperfect. εὐδοκήσαμεν does not denote a mere promptam animi inclinationem (Calvin, Pelt); also not acting gladly (Grotius: Triste hoc, sed tamen hoc libenter feceramus), but the freely formed resolution of the will: accordingly we resolved. Nicolas Lyrencis, Hunnius, Grotius, Calovius, Turretin, Whitby, Bengel, Michaelis, Wurm,[43] Hofmann, consider Paul and Silas as the subjects of εὐδοκήσαμεν; that κἀγώ (1 Thessalonians 3:5), I also, is a proof of this, for it contains in itself the reference to a wider subject, so that from a plurality of the subject in 1 Thessalonians 3:1, a single individual was, in 1 Thessalonians 3:5, brought forward. However, this view cannot be the correct one. By the insertion of ἐγὼ μὲν Παῦλος, 1 Thessalonians 2:18, the subject of 1 Thessalonians 2:17-20 is expressly restricted to Paul himself; and, as chap. 3 is most closely connected with 1 Thessalonians 2:17-19, the subject here must be the same as there, εὐδοκήσαμεν must therefore, with Calvin, Hemming, Estius, Fromond., Koppe, Pelt, Schott, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Alford, Riggenbach (in J. P. Lange’s Bibelwerk, Part X., Bielef. 1864), and others, be referred to Paul only, to which κἀγώ, 1 Thessalonians 3:5, is no objection (see below).

καταλειφθῆναι ἐν Ἀθήναις μόνοι] Zachariae, Koppe, Hug, Hemsen, also Wieseler (Chronologie des apost. Zeitalters, p. 249) and Alford (Proleg. p. 45), understand this of Paul’s being left alone at Athens, Timotheus not having been previously there with the apostle. They assume that Timotheus, left behind at Berea (Acts 17:14), either at the time of his being left behind, or at some later period, received the direction from the apostle, countermanding the charge given in Acts 17:15, that before proceeding to Athens, he should return from Berea to Thessalonica to strengthen the church there. This view is brought forward from a desire of reconciling our passage with the narrative in the Acts of the Apostles. Acts 17:16 informs us only of a waiting for Timotheus at Athens, but not of his arrival there; on the contrary, it is stated that Silas and Timotheus did not return from Macedonia until the residence of the apostle at Corinth (Acts 18:5). But this view does not correspond with the natural wording of our passage, as καταλειφθῆναι, to be left behind, to remain behind, evidently presupposes the previous presence of Timotheus. We must therefore, with Zanchius, Piscator, Cornelius a Lapide, Beza, Wolf, Benson, Macknight, Eichhorn, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, Koch, Hofmann, and others, suppose that Timotheus actually came from Berea to Athens, and was sent from it by the apostle to Thessalonica. To this interpretation we appear constrained by ἐπέμψαμεν, 1 Thessalonians 3:2, and ἔπεμψα, 1 Thessalonians 3:5, as hardly anything else can be denoted with these words than a commission given directly by Paul to one present.

[43] In the strange interpretation: “We resolved that one of us should go to Thessalonica, accordingly we two remained behind at Athens, and sent Timotheus.” As an analogy to this, the form should be οἱ περὶ τὸν Παῦλον. Comp. Tüb. Zeitschr. 1833, 1, p. 76.

1 Thessalonians 3:2. Τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν καὶ συνεργὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν τ. εὐαγγ. τοῦ Χριστοῦ] our brother (Christian brother) and fellow-labourer of God in the gospel of Christ. The συν in συνεργὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ refers not to man, but to God, the chief ruler of the church; comp. Meyer on 1 Corinthians 3:9. In this apposition attached to Τιμόθεον, Theophylact, Musculus, and most critics (comp. already Chrysostom) discover the design, that Paul wished thereby to indicate what a great sacrifice he put himself to for the sake of the Thessalonians, as he surrendered to them at once his faithful assistant, whom he himself so much required, in order that he might minister to their wants.[44] Such a view is remote from the apostle. The epithets which he gives to Timotheus are nothing more than a commendation of his apostolic associate, which the apostle felt himself constrained spontaneously to express, on account of the faithfulness and zeal which he displayed for the sake of the gospel; and we are the less to look for any ulterior design, as it was the constant practice of the apostle, when he had occasion specially to mention his faithful associates, to designate them by some honourable appellation.

ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ] Statement of the sphere in which he was a συνεργός. Comp. Romans 1:9; Php 4:3.

εἰς τὸ στηρίξαι ὑμᾶς] not that we (the senders) might (by the instrumentality of Timotheus) strengthen you (Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius), but that he (Timotheus) might strengthen you. But erroneously (comp. already Chrysostom) Oecumenius, whom Theophylact, Estius, Luc. Osiander, Fromond., Nat. Alexander, Macknight, and others follow: ὡς σαλευομένους, ἐφʼ οἷς ἦν ὁ διδάσκαλος ἐν πειρασμοῖς· μέγας γὰρ ὄντως θόρυβος τοῖς μαθηταῖς τὸ εἶναι τὸν διδάσκαλον ἐν πειρασμοῖς.

Grotius and others understand παρακαλέσαι in the sense of to comfort. More correctly (on account of 1 Thessalonians 3:3), it is to be taken in the meaning of to exhort or encourage. Schott erroneously unites both ideas. Also, arbitrarily separating the words, Olshausen refers στηρίξαι to patience in persecution, and παρακαλέσαι to growth in faith.

ὑπὲρ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν] not equivalent to περὶ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν (de Wette and others), as if it were a mere statement of the object, but: for the good of your faith, i.e. in order that you might preserve it.[45]

[44] Thus also Hofmann, only he finds the reason of the honourable appellation in this: “that the Christians of Thessalonica who longed for the apostle himself might be tempted to undervalue this mission of a subordinate associate!”

[45] That Calvin here speaks of a fides Pauli ubique adversus Satanam et mundum victrix, is because, in the oldest Greek editions of the N. T., τίστεως ἡμῶν was put in place of πίστεως ὑμῶν.

1 Thessalonians 3:3. Σαίνειν] related to σείειν,—only here in the N. T.,—means, to shake, to swing hither and thither. It is used specially of dogs who wag their tails (comp. Hom. Od. xvi. 4 ff., x. 217; Arist. Eq. 1031), from which the wider acceptation of fawning or caressing is derived. Then the verb stands generally for any act of shaking, passing from the sphere of sense to that of mind. Comp. Diog. Laert. viii. 41: οἱ δὲ σαινόμενοι τοῖς λεγομένοις ἐδάκρυόν τε καὶ ᾤμοζον.

Sophocl. Antig. 1214: παιδός με σαίνει φθόγγος. (Other proofs in Wetstein.) Thus here σαίνεσθαι denotes a being disquieted, becoming wavering in the faith. Chrysostom correctly explains it by θορυβεῖσθαι καὶ ταράττεσθαι. With unnecessary harshness Faber Stapulensis, to whom also Beza (adblandiri, adversariis videlicet evangelii) is inclined, Elsner, Observ. sacr. II. p. 275 f., Wolf, and Tittmann, de synonym. in N. T. p. 189, think to preserve the meaning fawning (and alluring), giving the sense: that they should not permit themselves, by “adulationes et illicitamenta carnis” (Faber Stapulensis), to apostatize from Christianity, and relapse into heathenism or Judaism. Also Rückert, whom Koch follows, adopts this view, as he will not acknowledge the meaning θορυβεῖσθαι in the verb: he thinks, rather, that from the meaning to fawn, the meaning blanditiis corrumpi in the passive is formed; and from that, in consequence of the toning down of the meaning, the general idea of corrumpi arose. Hofmann explains σαίνειν directly by to delude, a meaning which the word never has.

ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσιν ταύταις] in these afflictions, ἐν, is purely temporal, not instrumental, although, in regard to the subject in hand, it cannot be doubted that it was the θλίψεις to whose influence the possibility of a σαίνεσθαι is attributed. ταύταις is δεικτικῶς, indicative, denoting the afflictions which both the Thessalonians and Paul (so Calixtus, Flatt, Schott, and others; Oecumenius, Theophylact, Estius, Osiander, Nat. Alexander, Benson, Macknight, erroneously refer the θλίψεις to Paul only) have just experienced, and which are here considered as belonging to the present, since a renewed outbreak of them was every instant to be feared. The first part of 1 Thessalonians 3:3, accordingly, contains the warning not to suffer themselves to apostatize from the faith in Christ in the time of trouble and of need.

But it is asked how 1 Thessalonians 3:3 is to be connected with the preceding. Those who read, with the Receptus, τῷ μηδένα σαίνεσθαι (see critical note), regard τῷ as the Dativus commodi, which, as the Hebrew לְ placed before an infinitive, serves for the statement of the object; thus τῷ would be equivalent to εἰς τό (Grotius, Turretin, Benson, Koppe, Pelt, Olshausen). But τῷ with the infinitive is used exclusively to denote the reason or the inducing cause, never to denote the design; comp. 2 Corinthians 2:12, and Winer, p. 293 [E. T. 413]. Rückert, indeed, retaining this grammatical use of τῷ, makes it denote: “unde nascituram τὴν παράκλησιν speraverat, quum Timotheum misit, apostolus;” and, although he does not decide positively, prefers the reading τῷ, in order that he may find expressed therein a twofold object in sending Timotheus, in conformity with the longing of the apostle previously stated: (1) in respect to the readers, and (2) in respect to himself. Timotheus, Paul intends to say, is sent “fratres ut firmaret, sibi ut afferret ex bona illorum conditione solatium.” But this interpretation is simply impossible, as, in referring παρακαλέσαι to the apostle, it would be indispensably necessary, on account of the preceding ὑμᾶς, to subjoin ἡμᾶς. Accordingly, even from internal reasons, criticism requires us to read τὸ μηδένα σαίνεσθαι. But here, also, a different view is conceivable:—(1) We might, with Matthaei, supply a second εἰς to τὸ μηδένα σαίνεσθαι from the preceding εἰς τὸ στηρίξαι. But in this case we cannot understand why the second εἰς has been suppressed by Paul, as elsewhere he does not avoid the repetition of the form εἰς τό; comp. e.g. Romans 4:11. Or (2) with Schott, Koch, and Bisping, we might take τὸ μηδένα σαίνεσθαι as an absolute accusative, in the sense of quod attinet ad. But, considering the rarity of this construction, and the misuse which is practised with its assumption (comp. Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 132 f.; also Php 4:10, on which Schott founds, is no analogy, as there τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν is the usual objective accusative to ἀνεθάλετε, used transitively), this shift should only be resorted to when no other expedient presents itself. (3) Winer, 5th ed. p. 375 [E. T. 413], whom de Wette, Reiche, Buttmann, Gramm. des neutestam. Sprachgebrauchs, p. 226 [E. T. 263f.], Hofmann, and Riggenbach follow, makes τὸ μηδένα σαίνεσθαι dependent on παρακαλέσαι, and considers it as a further explanation of ὑπὲρ τῆς πίστεως, namely, to exhort that none should become wavering. But if τὸ μηδένα σαίνεσθαι depended on παρακαλέσαι, then παρακαλεῖν, in the sense of to exhort, would be construed with the simple accusative of the thing, an assumption the possibility of which is to be absolutely denied. (The passages on which Reiche supports the opposite view are without force. In Luke 3:18 both accusatives are not governed by παρακαλῶν, but, in agreement with Acts 13:32, by εὐηγγελίζετο; in 1 Timothy 6:2, ταῦτα depends on δίδασκε, and καὶ παρακάλει is annexed only in a loose manner to ταῦτα δίδασκε; so also in Titus 2:15 ταῦτα belongs only to λάλει, but not also to the following verbs; further, in Mark 5:23 πολλά does not depend on παρακαλεῖ, but is the adverbial much, very; lastly, Mark 5:17 and Acts 8:31 are not analogous, as there παρακαλεῖν is put with the accusative of the person, to which a simple infinitive, but not an infinitive with the article τό, follows.) Besides, if τὸ μηδένα σαίν. were a further explanation or epexegesis of ὑπὲρ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν, then not the accusative τὸ μηδένα σαίνεσθαι would have been put, but the genitive τοῦ μηδένα σαίν., in agreement with ὑπὲρ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν. Accordingly, this interpretation is also to be rejected. There consequently remains only (4) to consider τὸ μηδένα σαίνεσθαι ἐν ταῖς θλ. ταύταις as an apposition to the whole preceding sentence εἰς τὸ στηρίξαι ὑμᾶς καὶ παρακαλέσαι ὑπὲρ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν, so that τὸ μηδένα σαίν. serves only to repeat the same thought which was before positively expressed in a negative but better defined form; thus, instead of τό, τουτέστι might have been written. Thus the sense is: to strengthen you and to exhort you on behalf of your faith—that is, that no one may be shaken in these troubles; or, to strengthen and exhort you on account of your faith, particularly on one point, which is contained in one requirement: that no one may be shaken, etc.[46] Accordingly, ΤῸ ΜΗΔΈΝΑ ΣΑΊΝΕΣΘΑΙ certainly depends on the preceding ΕἸς; but our interpretation is entirely different from that adduced in (1), as no second ΕἸς can be inserted before ΤῸ ΜΗΔΈΝΑ ΣΑΊΝΕΣΘΑΙ without injuring the indissoluble unity which combines ΤῸ ΜΗΔΈΝΑ ΣΑΊΝ. Κ.Τ.Λ. with what precedes.

ΑὐΤΟῚ ΓᾺΡ ΟἼΔ.… ΚΑῚ ΟἼΔΑΤΕ, 1 Thessalonians 3:4, is not, with Moldenhauer, Griesbach, Vater, Flatt, to be included in a parenthesis, as ΔΙᾺ ΤΟῦΤΟ, 1 Thessalonians 3:5, is connected with what directly precedes.

ΓΆΡ] proves the legitimacy of the demand ΜΗΔΈΝΑ ΣΑΊΝΕΣΘΑΙ.

ΟἼΔΑΤΕ] 1 Thessalonians 3:4, explains whence they knew it,—namely, partly from previous definite intimations of the apostle, and partly from their own experience. Contrary to the text, Theodoret: from the previous intimation of Christ.

ὍΤΙ ΕἸς ΤΟῦΤΟ ΚΕΊΜΕΘΑ] that we were appointed thereto. Comp. Php 1:17; Luke 2:34. εἰς τοῦτο, i.e. not εἰς τὸ μηδένα σαίνεσθαι, but ΕἸς ΤῸ ΘΛΊΒΕΣΘΑΙ (comp. 1 Thessalonians 3:4), in connection with ΘΛΊΨΕΣΙΝ. Moreover, ΚΕΊΜΕΘΑ refers not only to Paul (Oecumenius, Estius, Osiander, and others), or to Paul and his companions (Hofmann), nor also to Paul and the Thessalonians (Koppe), but to Christians in general.

[46] Alford accedes to this interpretation. Bouman (Chartae theolog. I. p. 79 ff.) assumes a middle position between this view and that adopted by Winer, de Wette, and Reiche: Ego … ita de Wettium sequor ac Winerum, ut μηδένα σαίνεσθαι cum proxime praecedente Infinitivo παρακαλέσαι connectendum existimem. Verum toto tertiae hujus sectionis dicto: μηδένα … κείμεθα, illius, quam Timothei ministerio ad Thessalonicenses perferendam curabat Apostolus, παρακλήσεως praecipuum argumentum ac summa contineri mihi videtur. Cujus rei, ni fallor, indicium est dictumque adeo acuit et a caeteris distinguit praemissus ille articulus τό. Quem ibi ponere Graecos, ubi nos signa, citationis vulgo notum est. Veluti postmodum, chap. 1 Thessalonians 4:1 : τὸ πῶς δεῖ κ.τ.λ.

1 Thessalonians 3:4. Reason of αὐτοὶ γὰρ οἴδατε.

πρὸς ὑμᾶς] The accusative, as in Galatians 1:18; Galatians 2:5; 1 Corinthians 16:7, etc.

Also μέλλομεν is neither to be restricted to Paul (Oecumenius, Estius, Osiander, Nat. Alexander, Macknight), nor to Paul and his companions (Hofmann), nor to Paul and the Thessalonians (Grotius, Koppe); but, as κείμεθα 1 Thessalonians 3:3, to be taken generally: we Christians in general. Μέλλομεν θλίβεσθαι however, is distinguished from the simple future—it characterizes the sufferings as inevitable, as predetermined in the counsels of God.

οἴδατε] from your own experience. Baumgarten-Crusius incorrectly refers it to προελέγομεν.

1 Thessalonians 3:5. Διὰ τοῦτο] on this account, i.e. on account of the actual commencement of trouble. But, incorrectly, Fromond.: ne tribulationibus meis turbaremini.

The καί in κἀγώ does not belong to the whole sentence: “therefore also, no longer forbearing, I sent” (de Wette, Koch, Bisping), for then διὰ καὶ τοῦτο would have been written (the passages adduced by de Wette to the contrary do not prove what is designed); rather καί impressively gives prominence to the person of the ἐγώ: therefore I also. Thus a relation must be contained in it to other persons. Schott, whom Olshausen follows, supposes these others the Thessalonians, finding the thought expressed: “as ye, in consequence of the troubles which befell me, were anxious for me, so I also could no longer bear to be without information concerning you.” But, according to the connection (καὶ ἐγένετο καὶ οἴδατε, 1 Thessalonians 3:4), a relation must be contained in κἀγώ to others, of whom, as of Paul, a μηκέτι στέγειν in respect of the Thessalonians is asserted.[47] These others are the Christian circle with the apostle in Athens (Acts 17:34), including Timotheus sent from it to Thessalonica. Events such as befell the Thessalonians must have awakened lively sympathy in every Christian who heard of them. Entirely perverted is the view of Hofmann, who takes the singular, 1 Thessalonians 3:5, as a contrast to the plural, 1 Thessalonians 3:1. In 1 Thessalonians 3:5 only Paul is spoken of, whereas in 1 Thessalonians 3:1 Paul and Silvanus are referred to. He accordingly infers, that besides Timotheus, sent by Paul and Silvanus jointly to Thessalonica, there was another sent specially by Paul. After Timotheus was on his journey to strengthen the Thessalonian Church against the persecution which had broken out upon them, Paul, at a time when Silvanus was also absent, sent a second, this time for his own sake; his own troubled condition making the want of news from Thessalonica insupportable, lest perhaps the fruit of his labours among them might be entirely lost. Yet before the return of this unknown messenger Silvanus and also Timotheus had rejoined the apostle!

εἰς τὸ γνῶναι] in order to learn, belongs to the subject of the verb ἔπεμψα; thus: “in order that I, the sender, might learn;” not: in order that he (Timotheus) might learn (Pelt, Olshausen, and others).

τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν] your faith, i.e. how it is with it, how it stands.

μήπως] depends on γνῶναι, not on ἔπεμψα, and is the introductory particle of an indirect question: whether perhaps the tempter has tempted you. So Wahl, Schott, and de Wette; also Bouman, Chartae theolog. I. p. 80. Without reason, Beza, Grotius, Turretin, Benson, Koppe, Flatt, Pelt, Winer, p. 448 [E. T. 633 f.], supply φοβούμενος before μήπως: “filled with anxiety lest the tempter should have tempted you.”

ὁ πειράζων] another expression for ὁ σατανᾶς, 1 Thessalonians 2:18. Comp. Matthew 4:3.

εἰς κενόν] see Meyer on Galatians 2:2.

ἐπείρασεν … γένηται] correctly, Schott: ut cognoscerem, quomodo se haberet persuasio vestra, num forte tentator vos tentaverit, adeo ut (quod deus avertat!) labor meus irritus fieri possit. The aorist indicative refers to a fact which possibly may have already happened; but the conjunctive γένηται refers to a fact which belongs to the future, and is conceived as a consequence of the first fact. Fritzsche (Opusc. Fritzschiorum, p. 176), to whom de Wette and Koch adhere, explains it: ut … cognoscerem, an forte Satanas vos tentasset et ne forte labores mei irriti essent. He thus takes μήπως in the first clause as an interrogative particle, and in the second clause as an expression of fear; an explanation which Winer rightly designates as harsh.

Moreover, incorrectly, Whitby, Macknight, Baumgarten-Crusius: in ἐπείρασεν is implied “tempted with success,” “seduced.” The idea of seduction exists only by the addition of εἰς κενὸν γένηται.

[47] It might otherwise be assumed that Paul here anticipates what he first, in ver. 6, observes of the Thessalonians, namely, that they also had a longing for him; and thus κἀγώ, which belongs to μηκέτι στέγων, not to ἔπεμψα, is explained. But this is an expedient which is artificial, and is to be rejected because μηκέτι στέγειν, ver. 5, and ἐπιποθεῖν, ver. 6, are not co-extensive ideas.

1 Thessalonians 3:6. Ἄρτι δέ] but now, belongs not to ἐλθόντος (Grotius, Pelt, Schott, Alford, Ewald, Hofmann, Riggenbach), but is to be separated from it by a comma, and belongs to παρεκλήθημεν, 1 Thessalonians 3:7. For (1) not the mission of Timotheus and his return, but the mission and the consolation obtained from his return, is the main point on which it depends; (2) If Paul would connect ἄρτι δὲ ἐλθόντος, διὰ τοῦτο would scarcely be inserted in 1 Thessalonians 3:7 for the recapitulation of 1 Thessalonians 3:6; (3) ἄρτι δέ emphatically opposes the present to the past, to ἔπεμψα (1 Thessalonians 3:5); but ἄρτι would be flat if we referred it to ἐλθόντος, and that whether it was to be understood in its temporal or in its logical sense; (4) Lastly, we would expect παρακεκλήμεθα (which certainly is found in A and some minusculi), but not παρεκλήθημεν, in 1 Thessalonians 3:7.

ἐλθόντος κ.τ.λ.] not after, but because; διὰ τοῦτο requires this. The joyful message which Timotheus brought (Chrysostom: Ὁρᾷς τὴν περιχάρειαν Παύλου; οὐκ εἶπεν ἀπαγγείλαντος ἀλλʼ εὐαγγελισαμένου· τοσοῦτον ἀγαθὸν ἡγεῖτο τὴν ἐκείνων βεβαίωσιν καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην. Comp. also Luke 1:19, and Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 266 ff.) refers (1) to the Christian condition of the Thessalonian Church generally (τὴν πίστιν καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην ὑμῶν), and (2) to the personal relation of the Thessalonians to the apostle (καὶ ὅτι ἔχετε κ.τ.λ.). Theodoret: Δηλοῖ ἡ μὲν πίστις τῆς εὐσεβείας τὸ βέβαιον· ἡ δὲ ἀγάπη τὴν παρακτικὴν ἀρετήν· ἡ δὲ τοῦ διδασκάλου μνήμη καὶ ὁ περὶ αὐτὸν πόθος μαρτυρεῖ τῇ περὶ τὴν διδασκαλίαν στοργῇ. Hammond incorrectly understands ἀγάπην of love to God.

καὶ ὅτι ἔχετε μνείαν ἡμῶν ἀγαθήν] and that ye have us in good remembrance. Arbitrarily Grotius: Est μετωνυμία, nam per memoriam intelligit mentionem, et bonam intelligit, in bonam partem, i.e. honorificam. For then ποιεῖσθαι must be put instead of ἔχειν.

πάντοτε] belongs to the foregoing, not, as Koch and Hofmann suppose, to what follows.

ἐπιποθοῦντες] Comp. Romans 1:11; Php 1:8; Php 2:26; 2 Corinthians 9:14.

Strikingly Musculus (also Bengel): Non modo amoris hoc erat indicium, sed et bonae conscientiae. The compound verb, however, makes prominent the direction, not the intensity, of ποθεῖν. Comp. Fritzsche on Röm. 1:11.

καθάπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς ὑμᾶς] sc. ἰδεῖν ἐπιποθοῦμεν.

1 Thessalonians 3:7. Διὰ τοῦτο] is added in consequence of the preceding long participial sentence, and as its recapitulation. But Paul says διὰ τοῦτο, not διὰ ταῦτα, as we would naturally expect, because he here regards the joyful message of Timotheus as a whole or in its unity, but does not think on the separate points enumerated above.

παρεκλήθημεν] the aorist, in connection with ἄρτι, 1 Thessalonians 3:6, proves that this Epistle was composed immediately after the return of Timotheus.

ἐφʼ ὑμῖν] in reference to you (comp. 2 Corinthians 7:7), is not superfluous on account of the following διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν πίστεως (Koppe, Pelt), but puts the personal object first in regard to whom the consolation of the apostle occurred, whilst διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν πίστεως brings in afterwards the actual circumstances, by which the consolation was called forth.[48]

ἘΠῚ ΠΆΣῌ Τῇ ἉΝΆΓΚῌ ΚΑῚ ΘΛΊΨΕΙ ἩΜῶΝ] on (or in) all our necessity and tribulation. ἐπὶ is not a causal, but a temporal statement. Comp. 2 Corinthians 7:4; Winer, p. 350 [E. T. 489]. Erroneously Schott, in every necessity and tribulation which we endure; this would be expressed by ἐπὶ πάσῃ ἀνάγκῃ κ.τ.λ. (without an article). By ΘΛΊΨΙς Schott understands the tribulation caused by the Corinthian adversaries of the apostle; and by ἈΝΆΓΚΗ, either sickness or (so also Macknight) pecuniary indigence, combined with hard labour; whilst Bouman (Chartae theolog. I. p. 80) considers “ἀνάγκην vocabulum generale esse, quod nullum non calamitatum genus contineat; θλίψιν de oppressionibus singulatim dici ac persecutionibus, quibus Christianos vel Ethnici vexarent vel Judaei.” These special determinations or limitations are certainly precarious; still so much is certain, that ἀνάγκη and ΘΛΊΨΙς cannot here be interpreted, with de Wette and Koch, of care and anxiety, but are to be understood of external necessity and tribulation. For the care and anxiety of the apostle could only, according to the context, refer to the Thessalonians, and must have been removed by the message of Timotheus. But ἐπί imports that the ἈΝΆΓΚΗ and ΘΛΊΨΙς of the apostle continued in spite of the glad message of Timotheus; on the other hand, by reason of it they were no longer esteemed or felt by the apostle as an evil (comp. 1 Thessalonians 3:8). For the thought can only be: We were comforted during, or in spite of, the heavy burden of necessity and tribulation which weighs upon us, consequently still rests upon us. With this interpretation what follows in 1 Thessalonians 3:8 must suitably agree.

[48] The opinion of Hofmann, that διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν πίστεως is to be combined with ὅτι νῦν ζῶμεν, ver. 8, whilst with the emphasis on ὑμῶν it must be translated: “because it is your faith by which we now live,” is so monstrous that it requires no refutation.