Mga Komentaryo sa Bibliya

CHAPTER 4

1 Thessalonians 4:1. Λοιπόν] Elz. Matth. read Τὸ λοιπόν. Correctly rejected, according to overwhelming testimony (A B* D E F G K L א, min. Chrys. cod. Damasc.), by Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. and Alford. Τό arose from the last syllable of the preceding αὐτοῦ.

οὖν in the Receptus after λοιπόν is erased by Tisch. 1. But the omission is only attested by B* some min. Copt. Chrys. and Theoph., and might easily have been occasioned by the preceding ον.

After Ἰησοῦ Elz. has καθὼς παρελάβετε παρʼ ἡμῶν τὸ τῶς δεῖ ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀρέσκειν Θεῶ, ἵνα περισσεύητε μᾶλλον. Defended by Reiche. But ἵνα is to be inserted before καθὼς παρελάβετε, with Lachm. Tisch 1 and 7, and Alford (after B D* E* F G, 17, 37, al., Arm. Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. Pel.), and the parenthesis καθὼς καὶ περιπατεῖτε is to be inserted before ἵνα περισσεύητε (after A B D E F G א, min. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Syr. p. Slav. ed. Vulg. ms. It. Harl. Ambrosiast.). Internal criticism also requires this. For ἵνα περισσεύητε presupposes the earlier mention of a prior commencement (comp. 1 Thessalonians 4:10), and such a commencement would not be implied in the preceding text without καθὼς καὶ περιπατεῖτε. Evidently the apostle would originally have written ἵνα, καθὼς παρελάβετε παρʼ ἡμῶν τὸ πῶς κ.τ.λ., οὕτως καὶ περιπατῆτε; but, while writing, altered this his intended expression, that he might not say too little, wishing to notice the good beginning already made by the Thessalonians. The repetition of ἵνα after so long an intervening clause was too natural, so that it might excite suspicion—1 Thessalonians 4:6. προείπομεν. So Griesbach and Schott, after A K L, most min. (as it appears) Clem. Chrys. Theodoret, al.; whilst Elz. Matth. Lachm. Tisch. Alford, after B (e sil.) D E F G א, al. read προείπαμεν.—1 Thessalonians 4:8. Elz. has τὸν καὶ δόντα. καί is wanting in A B D*** E, min. edd. Syr. Arr. al., Ath. Chrys. al. Erased by Lachm. and Tisch. 1. However, it might easily have been omitted, the eye of the translator passing from τόν to δόντα.

Instead of δόντα, B D E F G, א* 67* et al., mult. edd. Ath. Didym. have διδόντα. Preferred by Lachm. and Tisch. 1. But διδόντα appears to be a correction from a dogmatic point of view, in order, instead of the objectionable preterite, to obtain the statement that the Holy Spirit is permanently communicated to believers.

ὑμᾶς] Elz. has ἡμᾶς. Against B D E F G K L א, min. plur. edd. Syr. Arr. Arm. Syr. p. in m. It. al. Didym. Ambrosiast. An alteration in conformity with a reference to the apostle himself implied in the preceding ἄνθρωπον.—1 Thessalonians 4:9. Instead of the meaningless Rec. ἔχετε (comp. commentary on 1 Thessalonians 4:9), ἔχομεν is to be received, after B [εἴχομεν] D* F G א**** min. Vulg. It. Chrys. Theoph. Ambrosiast. Recommended by Griesbach. Received by Lachm. and Tisch. 1. Ἔχετε is taken from 1 Thessalonians 5:1.—1 Thessalonians 4:11. ταῖς χερσίν] Elz. has ταῖς ἰδίαις χερσίν. Ἰδίαις, defended by Schutz, suspected by Griesb., and erased by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, after B D* E? F G א**** 31, 46, al., Aeth. Arm. Vulg. It. Bas. Chrys. Theoph. Ambrosiast. Pel. Gloss for the sake of strengthening, arising from τὰ ἴδια.—1 Thessalonians 4:13. θέλομεν] Elz. has θέλω. Against preponderating testimonies (A B D E F G L א, min. pl. vss. [also It. and Vulg.] and Fathers).

Instead of the Receptus κεκοιμημένων, A B א, 39, al., Or. Damasc. Chrys. ms. (alic.) have κοιμωμένων. So Lachm. Tisch. 1, 2, and Alford.—1 Thessalonians 4:16. Elz. has πρῶτον. D* F G, Vulg. It. Cyr. Theoph. ed. Tert. Ambrosiast. al. read πρῶτοι.—1 Thessalonians 4:17. Elz. has ἀπάντησιν. D* E*? F G read ὑπάντησιν.

Elz. has τοῦ κυρίου. D* E*? F G, Vulg. It. Tert. al. read τῷ Χριστῷ.

CONTENTS.

The apostle entreats and exhorts his readers to progress with the greatest earnestness in the Christian life, which they had begun, according to the instructions and commandments which they had received. God desires holiness; they should therefore abstain from fornication, covetousness, and overreaching their neighbours (1 Thessalonians 4:1-8). He has no necessity to exhort them to active brotherly love; they practise this already far and wide; but he exhorts them to increase therein, and to seek honour in distinguishing themselves by a quiet and busy life (1 Thessalonians 4:9-12). With regard to their anxiety for the fate of their fellow-Christians who had fallen asleep before the commencement of the advent, it may serve for their information and comfort that those who are then alive would receive no preference over those who are already asleep; Christ will descend from heaven; then will the dead rise first, and afterwards the living also will be uplifted with them to eternal fellowship with the Lord (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).

1 Thessalonians 4:1. Τὸ λοιπόν (see critical remark) would now directly oppose what follows with what precedes: “for the rest,” “what is yet besides to be said;” whereas λοιπόν is a less prominent particle of transition—“besides.” Both forms, however, introduce something different from what precedes, and serve properly to introduce the concluding remarks of an Epistle; comp. 2 Corinthians 13:11; Php 4:8; Ephesians 6:10; 2 Thessalonians 3:1. Here λοιπόν introduces the second portion of the Epistle, and that in an entirely natural and usual manner, as this second portion is the concluding portion of the Epistle.—(Τὸ) λοιπόν is incorrectly explained by Chrysostom, Theophylact: ἀεὶ μὲν καὶ εἰς τὸ διηνεκές; Theodoret, to whom Oecumenius, though wavering, adheres: ἀποχρώντως; Luther: “furthermore;” Baumgarten-Crusius: “generally, what is the main thing.”

οὖν] therefore, represents what follows as an inference from the preceding, and especially from 1 Thessalonians 3:13. As it is the final destination of Christians to be ἄμεμπτοι ἐν ἁγιωσύνῃ, in order to reach this end prayer directed to God does not suffice, but also man’s own striving is requisite; so the apostle beseeches and exhorts his readers to increase in striving after a holy walk. Comp. Theodoret: Τούτῳ κεχρημένοι τῷ σκοπῷ προσφέρομεν ὑμῖν τὴν παραίνεσιν. Calixtus refers οὖν to the idea of the judgment taken from 1 Thessalonians 3:13 : Ergo, … quum sciates non stare res nostras fine temporali aut terreno, sed exspectari adventum domini a coelis ad judicium, precamur vos et obtestamur, etc. Incorrectly Musculus: Quum igitur gratiam hanc acceperitis a domino, ut in fide illius firmi persistatis, quemadmodum ex relatione Timothei cum ingenti gaudio accepi: quod jam reliquum est, rogo et hortor, etc.

ἐρωτᾶν] in the classics is used only in the sense of to inquire (see the Lexicons); here, as in 1 Thessalonians 5:12, 2 Thessalonians 2:1, Php 4:3, John 4:40; John 14:16, Acts 23:20, etc., in the sense of to request, to beseech, analogous to the Hebrew שָׁאַל (so also the English to ask), which unites both meanings. Ἐρῶτωμεν denotes the entreating address of a friend to a friend; παρακαλοῦμεν ἐν κυρίῳ, the exhortation in virtue of the apostolic office, thus the exhortation of a superior to subordinates.

ἐν κυρίῳ] in the Lord, belongs only to παρακαλοῦμεν (against Hofmann), and means, as in Romans 9:1, 2 Corinthians 2:17; 2 Corinthians 12:19, Ephesians 4:17, as found in Christ, by means of life-fellowship with Him, Paul being only the organ of Christ; not for the sake of the Lord (Flatt), which would require διὰ τὸν κύριον; also not per dominum Jesum, as a form of oath (Estius, Grotius, and others), against which is the Greek usage; comp. Fritzsche on Romans 9:1; Kühner, II. p. 307. Falsely, moreover, Theophylact: ὅρα δὲ ταπεινοφροσύνην, ὅπως οὐδὲ πρὸς τὸ παρακαλεῖν ἀξιόπιστον ἑαυτὸν εἶναί φησιν, ἀλλὰ τὸν Χριστὸν παραλαμβάνει κ.τ.λ.

ἵνα] the contents of the request and exhortation in the form of its purpose.

παρελάβετε] see on 1 Thessalonians 2:13. Oecumenius, after Chrysostom (and so also Theophylact, also Pelt): τὸ παρελάβετε οὐχὶ ῥημάτων μόνον ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πραγμάτων· ἐξ ὧν γὰρ αὑτὸς ἐβίου, τύπος τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἐγίνετο. But this extension of the idea is arbitrarily inserted against the natural meaning of the word, and against 1 Thessalonians 4:2.

τό] is not superfluous (Grotius), but specifies in a substantive sense the following words, in order to collect them into one idea, as in Romans 4:13; Romans 8:26; Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14; Php 4:10; Luke 1:62. Comp. Winer, p. 99 [E. T. 134]; Bremi, ad Demosth. de Cherson. p. 236.

καὶ ἀρέσκειν Θεῷ] and (thereby) to please God, is co-ordinate to περιπατεῖν, although logically considered it is the consequence of περιπατεῖν; περιπατεῖν can only be the means of ἀρέσκειν.

περισσεύητε] sc. ἐν τῷ οὕτως περιπατεῖν. Falsely Theophylact, adhering to Chrysostom: ἵνα πλέον τι τῆς ἐντολῆς φιλοτιμῆσθε ποιεῖν καὶ ὑπερβαίνητε τὰ ἐπιτάγματα.

μᾶλλον] a further intensification, as is a favourite custom with Paul; comp. 1 Thessalonians 4:10; Php 1:23; 2 Corinthians 7:13, etc.

1 Thessalonians 4:2. A strengthening of παρελάβετε παρʼ ἡμῶν, 1 Thessalonians 4:1, by appealing to the knowledge of the readers: for it is well known to you, ye will thus be the more willing to περισσεύειν. This appeal to their own knowledge is accordingly by no means useless, and still less un-Pauline (Schrader, Baur), as it is elsewhere not rare with Paul; comp. Galatians 4:13; 1 Corinthians 15:1 ff., etc.

παραγγελίαι] not evangelii praedicatio, in qua singula praecepta semine quasi inclusa latitant (Pelt), against which is the context and the plural form; but commands (comp. Acts 5:28; Acts 16:24; 1 Timothy 1:5; 1 Timothy 1:18), and that to a Christian life. The stress is on τίνας, to which τοῦτο, 1 Thessalonians 4:3, corresponds.

διὰ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ] through the Lord Jesus, by means of Him, i.e. Paul did not command διʼ ἑαυτοῦ, but Christ Himself was represented by him as the Giver of the παραγγελίαι. Comp. Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 235 f. Schott blends the ideas in a strange manner: Auxilio sive beneficio Christi, siquidem Paulus, ab ipso domino ad provinciam apostoli obeundam vocatus, διʼ ἁποκαλύψεως Χριστοῦ inter illos docuerat. So also de Wette: by means of the revelation given in the Lord, so that the general divine truth is communicated through Him. Falsely Pelt, διά is equivalent to ἐν; and Grotius, accepta is to be supplied.

1 Thessalonians 4:3. Further specification of τίνας παραγγελίας, according to its contents. τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ] for this (the following) is the will of God.

τοῦτο] not the predicate (de Wette, 2d ed.), but the subject (comp. Romans 9:8; Galatians 3:7; Winer, 5th ed. p. 130 [E. T. 199]), is emphatically placed first, accordingly not superfluous (Pelt).

θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ] without the article, as the will of God is not exhausted with what is afterwards adduced. The words are without emphasis; they resume only the idea already expressed in 1 Thessalonians 4:2, although in another form. For a command given διὰ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ is nothing else than θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ.

ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν] namely, your sanctification, in apposition to τοῦτο and the subject-matter, whereas τοῦτο was only a preliminary and nominal subject. ἁγιασμός has an active meaning, your sanctification (ὑμῶν, the genitive of the object), i.e. that you sanctify yourselves, not passive (Estius, Koppe, Usteri, p. 236; Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius), so that it would be identical with ἁγιωσύνη, 1 Thessalonians 3:13. Calovius, Wolf, Flatt, de Wette, Koch, Alford, and others take ἁγιασμός as a “quite general” idea, under which not only ἀπέχεσθαι κ.τ.λ., but also 1 Thessalonians 4:6, are specified as particulars. This view, in itself entirely suitable, becomes impossible by the article τό before ὑπερβαίνειν, 1 Thessalonians 4:6. This does not permit us to consider 1 Thessalonians 4:6 as a parallel statement to ἀπέχεσθαι, 1 Thessalonians 4:3, and εἰδέναι, 1 Thessalonians 4:4, but places the statement τὸ μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν κ.τ.λ. evidently on the same level with ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν. Accordingly τοῦτο receives a double specification of the subject-matter in the form of apposition—(1) in ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν, and (2) in τὸ μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν, 1 Thessalonians 4:6. Thus the meaning is: For the following is the will of God, first, that ye sanctify yourselves, and then that ye overreach not, etc. But from this relation of the sentences it follows that ἁγιασμός must denote holiness in a special sense, i.e. must be considered in special reference to sins of lust, thus must be used of striving after chastity (Turretin, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, Bloomfield, and others).

ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν is further epexegetically explained—(1) negatively by ἀπέχεσθαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τῆς πορνείας, and (2) positively by εἰδέναι κ.τ.λ., 1 Thessalonians 4:4. In an entirely erroneous manner by Hofmann, according to whom the stress is to be laid on θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοῦτο is to indicate ἀπέχεσθαι κ.τ.λ., and ὁ ἁγιασμός is a parenthetic apposition. Moreover, “a contradiction” to the praise of the church, expressed elsewhere in the Epistle, is not contained in the exhortation, 1 Thessalonians 4:3 ff. (Schrader), as the reception of Christianity never delivers, as with the stroke of a magician, from the wickedness and lusts of the heathen world which have become habitual; rather a long and constant fight is necessary for vanquishing them.

1 Thessalonians 4:4. That every one of you may know (understand, be capable; comp. Colossians 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 Luke 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, 1 Thessalonians 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 2 Corinthians 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. 1 Corinthians 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 (כלי שאני משתמש בו), 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. Ruth 4:10; Sir 36:24.

ἝΚΑΣΤΟΝ ὙΜῶΝ] every one of you, sc. who does not possess the gift of continence; comp. 1 Corinthians 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 1 Thessalonians 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.”

1 Thessalonians 4:5 brings forward the prescription ἐν ἁγιασμῷ καὶ τιμῇ once more on account of its importance, but now in a negative form.

μὴ ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας] not in the passion of desire. Accordingly, Paul does not here forbid ἐπιθυμία, for this in itself, as a natural impulse, rests on the holy ordinance of God, but a πάθος ἐπιθυμίας, that is, a condition where sense has been converted into the ruling principle or into passion. Theodore Mopsuestius (ed. Fritzsche, p. 165): ὡσὰν τοῦτο ποιοῦντος οὐκέτι ταύτῃ ὡς γυναικὶ συνόντος ἀλλὰ διὰ μίξιν μόνην ἁπλῶς, ὅπερ πάθος ἐπιθυμίας ἐκάλεσεν.

καί] after καθάπερ is not added for the sake of elegance (Pelt), but is the usual καί after particles of comparison; see 1 Thessalonians 2:14, 1 Thessalonians 3:6; 1 Thessalonians 3:12, 1 Thessalonians 4:6; 1 Thessalonians 4:13; Romans 4:6, etc.; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 126.

τὰ μὴ εἰδότα τὸν Θεόν] of whom nothing better is to be expected. Comp. on the expression, Galatians 4:8; 2 Thessalonians 1:8.

1 Thessalonians 4:6. The second chief point which the apostle subordinates to the θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ (1 Thessalonians 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 Ephesians 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 1 Thessalonians 4:4-5, whilst they find in 1 Thessalonians 4:6 a particular form of it designated, namely, adultery, and consider the sentence as dependent on εἰδέναι (Pelt), or as in apposition to 1 Thessalonians 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, 1 Thessalonians 4:3, and, accordingly, as a second object different from the first. If Pelt objects against our view that a mention of covetousness (1 Thessalonians 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. Ephesians 4:19; Ephesians 5:3; Ephesians 5:5; Colossians 3:5. Also, the further objection which is insisted on, that on account of 1 Thessalonians 4:7 an exhortation to chastity must be contained in 1 Thessalonians 4:6, is not convincing, as there is nothing to prevent us taking ἀκαθαρσία and ἁγιασμός, 1 Thessalonians 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 (1 Thessalonians 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 1 Thessalonians 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. 2 Corinthians 7:2; 2 Corinthians 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. 1 Thessalonians 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. Romans 13:4. The same reason for prohibition in Ephesians 5:5-6; Colossians 3:6; Galatians 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.

1 Thessalonians 4:7. Reason of ἔκδικος ὁ κύριος περὶ πάντων τούτων.

ἐκάλεσεν] the fuller form in 1 Thessalonians 2:12.

ἐπὶ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ] on condition of, or for the purpose of uncleanness; comp. Galatians 5:13; Ephesians 2:10; Winer, p. 351 [E. T. 492]; Erasmus: Non vocavit nos hac lege, ut essemus immundi, siquidem causa et conditio vocationis erat, ut desineremus esse, quod eramus.

ἀκαθαρσίᾳ] is uncleanness, moral impurity generally (comp. 1 Thessalonians 2:3), and thus includes covetousness as well as lust.

ἀλλʼ ἐν ἁγιασμῷ] gives, by means of an abbreviation (comp. Kühner, II. p. 316), instead of the purpose, the result of the calling: but in holiness, i.e. so that complete holiness of life has become a characteristic property of us Christians. Comp. 1 Corinthians 7:15; Galatians 1:6; Ephesians 4:4. But ἁγιασμός, as it forms the counterpart to ἀκαθαρσίᾳ, must denote moral holiness in its entire compass, and is accordingly here taken in a wider sense than in 1 Thessalonians 4:3.