= 
 
 Se 
 
 ee 
 
 7 
 
 tent 
 Pee 
 
 pity 
 
 Muy 
 ey 
 
 iy "} ih 
 ates 
 
 iit i 
 hii) gsi ( u 
 a cis 
 
 a} 
 HUY 
 
 phat 
 ma 
 
 ‘i Peakh 
 rth a i 
 Te att 
 
 ' 
 wiley 
 
 4 
 
 uy 
 4 
 
 ein 
 
 eee 
 
 Seti ee 
 2S SS 
 ee 
 
 a 
 
 “f} 
 ys i 
 
 oe. 
 op i 
 
 = ——— 
 Soe ae eS 
 
 Hi 
 
 Hi UE 
 
 ‘ i val 
 
 ; iH a 
 
 Hat st lonse 
 ‘ 
 me ! 
 i ie ; 
 Sty bad pone nls 7 
 ny a 
 
 i) 
 
 ‘ 
 / 
 Hy 
 
 Pa aa 
 s+ SS 
 
 Sa 
 = 
 
 
 

 
aL RR 
 
 BN Hh iN + 
 
 NR 
 a 
 
 
 
rae 4 
 
 PAI 4 
 
 
 
ake gs 
 +4 hs ay } 
 
 ay KPA Me 
 SANS bar Rac i as a 
 
 Bs RC RG ech Og 
 
 Phir 
 
 a 
 SBI ys haha 
 
 
 

 
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 
 
 COMMENTARY 
 
 ON 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tu.D., 
 
 OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. 
 
 From the German, with the Sanction of the Author. 
 
 THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 BY 
 
 Proressor GOTTLIEB LUNEMANN. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 Rite =f CLARK 38 GHOBGE STREET. 
 MDCCCLXXX. 
 
PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB, 
 FOR 
 T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. 
 LONDON, . . . . HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO, 
 
 DUBLIN,. . . . . ROBERTSON AND CO. 
 
 NEW YORK, - +. . SCRIBNER AND WELFORD. 
 
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 
 
 HANDBOOK 
 
 TO THE 
 
 EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL 
 
 TO 
 
 THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 BY 
 
 v4 
 _ Dr. GOTTLIEB LUNEMANN, 
 
 PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GOTTINGEN. 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY 
 
 REV. PATON J. GLOAG, D.D. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 Tf < T CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. 
 MDCCCLXXxX. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2009 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/criticalexegeticOOIn 
 

 
 
 
 aati LE modern school of exegesis had its rise in 
 #) Germany. Its excellence and peculiarity con- 
 sisted in a rigid adherence to the philological 
 
 
 
 characteristics of the sacred text, and its sole aim 
 was to reproduce the exact meaning of the original, unbiassed 
 by preconceived views. Among modern exegetes, Meyer 
 undoubtedly holds the first place. His peculiar excellences, 
 his profound learning, his unrivalled knowledge of Hellenistic 
 Greek, his exegetical tact, his philological precision, his clear 
 and almost intuitive insight into the meaning of the passage 
 commented on, and his deep reverential spirit, all qualified 
 him for being an exegete of the first order. Indeed, for the 
 ascertainment of the meaning of the sacred text his com- 
 mentaries are, and we believe will long continue to be, 
 unrivalled. These qualifications and acquirements of the 
 ereat exegete are well stated by Dr. Dickson, the general 
 editor of this series, in the general preface affixed to the first 
 volume of the Epistle to the Romans. The similar com- 
 mentaries of de Wette are certainly of very high merit, and 
 have their peculiar excellences; but I do not think that 
 there can be any hesitation among Biblical scholars in 
 affirming the superiority of those of Meyer. Perhaps the 
 constant reference to the opinions of others inserted in the 
 text, the long lists of names of theologians who agree or 
 disagree in certain explanations, and the consequent necessity 
 
 9 
 
x PREFATORY NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR. 
 
 of the breaking up of sentences by means of parenthetic 
 clauses, are to the English reader a disadvantage as inter- 
 rupting the sense of the passage. Much is inserted into the 
 text which in English works would be attached as footnotes. 
 Still, however, it has been judged proper by the general 
 editor to make as little change in the form of the original 
 as possible, 
 
 Meyer himself wrote and published the Commentaries on 
 the Gospels, on the Acts, and on the Pauline Epistles to the 
 Romans, the Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 
 Colossians, and Philemon in ten volumes——a monument of 
 gigantic industry and immense erudition. Indeed, the treat- 
 ment of each of these volumes is so thorough, so exhaustive, 
 and so satisfactory, that its composition would be regarded as 
 sufficient work for the life of an ordinary man; what, then, 
 must we think of the labours and learning of the man who 
 wrote these ten volumes? The other books of the New 
 Testament in the series were undertaken by able coadjutors. 
 Dr. Liinemann wrote the Commentaries on the Epistles to the 
 Thessalonians and Hebrews, Dr. Huther on the Pastoral and 
 Catholic Epistles, and Dr. Diisterdieck on the Apocalypse. 
 At one time the Messrs. Clark intended merely to publish 
 the translations of those commentaries which were written by 
 Meyer himself; but, urged by numerous requests, they have 
 wisely agreed to complete the whole work, with the possible 
 exception of Diisterdieck’s Commentary on the Apocalypse. 
 Although the translations of these commentaries are deprived 
 of the able and scholarly editorship of Dr. Dickson and his 
 colleagues, yet the general method in its broad outlines has 
 been carefully retained; the same abbreviations have been 
 adopted, and references have been made throughout to the 
 English translation of Winer’s Grammar of the New Testament, 
 by Professor Moulton, 8th edition, and to the American 
 translation of the similar work of Alexander Buttmann. 
 
PREFATORY NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR. x1 
 
 The commentaries of Liinemann, Huther, and Diisterdieck 
 are undeniably inferior to those of Meyer. We feel the want 
 of that undefinable spiritual insight into the meaning of the 
 passage which is so characteristic of all that Meyer has 
 written, and, accordingly, we do not place the same reliance 
 on the interpretations given. But still the exegetical acumen 
 and learning of these commentators are of a very high order, 
 and will bear no unfavourable comparison with other writers 
 on the same books of the New Testament. Indeed, in this 
 Commentary on the Epistles to the Thessalonians, by Dr. 
 Liinemann, with which we are at present concerned, its 
 inferiority to the writings of Meyer is not very sensibly felt ; 
 there is here ample evidence of profound learning, sound 
 exegesis, sober reasoning, and a power of discrimination 
 among various opinions. The style also is remarkably clear 
 for a German exegete; and although there is often difficulty 
 in finding out the exact meaning of those whose opinions he 
 states, there is no difficulty in discovering his own views. 
 Occasionally there is a tedious minuteness, but this is 
 referable to the thoroughness with which the work is 
 executed. Of course, in these translations the same caveat 
 has to be made that was made in regard to Meyer’s Com- 
 mentaries, that the translators are not to be held as con- 
 curring with the opinions given; at the same time, in this 
 Commentary there is little which one who is bound to the 
 most confessional views can find fault with. The first edition 
 of this Commentary was published in 1850, the second in 
 1859, and the third, from which this translation is made, in 
 1867. 
 
 We have, in conformity with the other volumes, attempted 
 to give a list of the exegetical literature of the Epistles to the 
 Thessalonians. For commentaries and collections of notes 
 embracing the New Testament, see the preface to the Com- 
 mentary on the Gospel of Matthew; and for commentaries on 
 
xii PREFATORY NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR. 
 
 the Pauline Epistles, see the preface to the Commentary on 
 the Epistle to the Romans. The literature restricted to the 
 Epistles to the Thessalonians is somewhat meagre. Articles 
 and monographs on chapters or sections are noticed by Dr. 
 Liinemann in the places to which they refer; and especially 
 a list of the monographs on the celebrated passage concerning 
 “the Man of Sin” (2 Thess. ii. 1-12), as given by Dr. Liine- 
 mann, is to be found in p. 203 of this translation. The 
 reader is also referred to Alford’s Greek Testament as being 
 peculiarly full on these Epistles, and as following the same 
 track as Dr. Liinemann. I would only further observe that 
 the remarks made in this Commentary on the Schriftbeweis 
 of the late von Hofmann of Erlangen appear to be too severe. 
 Hofmann is certainly often guilty of arbitrary criticism, and 
 introduces into the sacred text his own fancied interpretations ; 
 but the Schriftbeweis is a work of great learning and ingenuity, 
 and may be read with advantage by every scholar. 
 
 PATON J. GLOAG. 
 
 GALASHIELS, November 1880. 
 
EXEGHTICAL LITERATURE, 
 
 Aretius (Benedictus), | 1574: Commentarius in utramque Pauli 
 
 Epistolam ad Thessalonicenses. 1580. 
 AUBERLEN (Karl August), f 1864, and Riagensacu (C. J.): Lange’s 
 Bibelwerk N. T. Thessalonicher. Bielefeld, 1859-73. 
 
 Translated from the German by John Lillie, D.D. 
 New York, 1869. 
 
 BavumGarTEN-Crusius (Ludwig Friedrich Otto), ¢ 1843: Commentar 
 
 iiber d. Philipper- u. Thessalonicherbriefe. Jena, 1848. 
 Brapsuaw (W.): Exposition of the Second Epistle to the Thessa- 
 lonians. London, 1620. 
 
 CasE (Thomas): Exposition of the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. 
 1670. 
 
 CHANDLER (Samuel), | 1766: A critical and practical commentary 
 on First and Second Thessalonians. London, 1777. 
 CRELLIUS (Joannes), | 1633: Commentarius in utramque ad Thessa- 
 lonicenses Epistolam. Opera I. 1636. 
 
 Crocius (Joannes), | 1659: In Epistolas ad Thessalonicenses. 
 
 Diepricu: Die Briefe St. Pauli an die Eph. Phil. Koloss. und Thess. 
 1858. 
 
 Eapire (John, D.D.), ¢ 1877, of Glasgow: A commentary on the 
 Greek text of the Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians. 
 
 London, 1877. 
 
 Exuicorr (Charles J.), Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol: St. Paul’s 
 
 Epistles to the Thessalonians. London, 1858, 3d ed. 1866. 
 
 Fereuson (James), ¢ 1667, Minister at Kilwinning: Exposition of 
 First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 1674. 
 Fiatr (Johann Friedrich von), | 1821, Prof. Theol. at Tiibingen: 
 Vorlesungen in die Brief Pauli. Tiibingen, 1829. 
 
 18 
 
XiV EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 
 
 Hormann (Christopher): Commentarius in posteriorem Epistolam ad 
 Thessalonicenses. Frankfurt, 1545. 
 Hormann (Johann Christian Konrad von), ¢ 1878, Prof. Theol. at 
 Erlangen: Die heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments zusammen- 
 hiingend untersucht. I. Theil Thessalonicherbriefe. 
 Nordlingen, 1869. 
 Hunnius (Aegilius), ¢ 1603: Expositio epistolarum ad Thessaloni- 
 censes. Frankfurt, 1603. 
 
 Jackson: Exposition on the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. 
 London, 1621. 
 JEWELL (John), + 1571, Bishop of Salisbury: An exposition of the 
 two Epistles to the Thessalonians. London, 1583. 
 Jowett (Benjamin), Master of Balliol College, Oxford: The Epistles 
 of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians, and Romans, 
 with critical notes and dissertations. London, 1855. 
 
 Kocu (A.): Commentar iiber d. 1 Thessalonicherbrief. 
 Berlin, 1869. 
 Krause (Friedrich August Wilhelm), ¢ 1827, Tutor at Vienna: Die 
 Briefe an die Philipper und Thessalonicher iibersetzt und 
 mit Anmerkungen begleitet. Frankfurt, 1790. 
 
 LaNnpDREBEN (Arnold): Erkliirung iiber d. zwei Briefe an die Thess. 
 Frankfurt, 1707. 
 Lituiz (John, D.D.): Revised version, with notes of the Epistles of 
 Paul to the Thessalonians. New York, 1856. 
 
 Mason (A. J.), Cambridge: First and Second Thessalonians and First 
 Peter: Ellicott’s New Testament commentary. 1879. 
 Motter (J. A.): De Wette’s Exeget. Handbuch z. N. T. Galater- u. 
 Thessalonicherbriefe. 3d Aufl. v. Moller. Leipsic, 1864. 
 Muscutuvs [or Mevussiin] (Wolfgang), ¢ 1563, Prof. Theol. in Berne: 
 In Epist. ad Thessalonicenses ambas commentarii. 
 
 Basil. 1565. 
 
 OusnAusEN (Hermann), f 1839: Biblischer Commentar ii. d. N. T. 
 Theil IV. Galater, Epheser, Colosser u. Thessalon. 
 Konigsberg, 1840. 
 Translated by a clergyman of the Church of England. 
 T. & T. Clark, Edin, 1851. 
 
 Paterson (Alexander S., D.D.), of Glasgow: Commentary, expository 
 and practical, on First Thessalonians. Edinburgh, 1857. 
 
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE, XV 
 
 Pett (Anton Friedrich Ludwig), ¢ 1861: Pauli Epist. ad Thess. 
 Gryphiswaldiae, 1829. 
 Puiturs (John): The Greek of the First Epistle of Paul to the 
 Thessalonians explained. London, 1751. 
 
 Reicue (Johann Georg): Authentiae posteris ad Thessalonicenses 
 
 Epistolae vindiciae. Gottingen, 1830. 
 Rotiock (Robert): In Epistolam Paulo ad Thess. priorem comm. 
 In Epistolam posteriorem comm. Edin. 1598. 
 
 Lectures upon First and Second Thessalonians. 
 Edinburgh, 1606. 
 
 SCHLEIERMACHER (Friedrich Daniel Ernest), | 1834: Pauli Epistolae 
 
 ad 'Thessalonicenses. Berlin, 1823. 
 Scuticutine (Jonas), | 1564: In Epistolas ad Thessalonicenses Com- 
 mentaria. 1656. 
 Scumip (Sebastian), f 1696, Prof. Theol. at Strasburg: Paraphrasis 
 
 utriusque Epist. ad Thess. Hamburg, 1691. 
 Scnorr (Heinrich August), | 1835, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Epistolae 
 
 Pauli ad Thess. et Gal. Leipsic, 1834. 
 SctaTeR (Dr. W.): A brief exposition, with notes on First and 
 
 Second Thessalonians. London, 1629. 
 
 Turretini (Jean Alphonse), Prof. Theol. at Geneva: Commentarius 
 theoretico-practicus in Ep. ad Thess. Opera II. 
 Basil. 1739. 
 
 WELLERus (Hieronymus), | 1572: Commentarius in Epistolas Pauli 
 
 ad Phil. et ad Thess. Noribergae, 1561. 
 Wituicuivus (Iodicus): Commentarius in utramque Epistolam ad 
 Thessalonicenses. Argentorati, 1545. 
 
 ZacuariaE (Gotthilf Traugott), | 1777, Prof. Theol. at Kiel: Para- 
 phrastische Erkliirung der Briefe Pauli an die Galater, Ephes., 
 
 Phil., Col., und Thess. Gottingen [1771], 1787. 
 Zancuius (Hieronymus), f 1590: Commentarius in D, Pauli 1 et 
 2 Thessalonicenses Epist. Opera VI. 1595. 
 
 Zuixauius (Ulricus), | 1531: Annotationes ad 1 Thessalonicenses. 
 Opera IV. 
 

 
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION: 
 
 SEC. 1.—THE CHURCH. 
 
 HESSALONICA,’ the ancient Oépyn (Herod. vii. 121; 
 Thue. i. 61, al.), the Salneck celebrated by the 
 German poets of the Middle Ages, now Saloniki, 
 situated in the form of an amphitheatre on the 
 slope of a hill at the north-east corner of the Thermaic gulf, 
 was in the time of Christ the capital of the second district of 
 the Roman province of Macedonia (Liv. xlv. 29), and the seat 
 of a Roman praetor and questor (Cic. Planc. 41). The city 
 was rebuilt, embellished, and peopled by the settlement of the 
 inhabitants of the surrounding districts by Cassandra, who 
 called it Thessalonica (first mentioned among the Greeks by 
 Polybius), in honour of his wife Thessalonica, the daughter of 
 the elder Philip. So we are informed in Dionys. Halicarn. 
 Antig. Rom. 1. 49 ; Strabo, vii. fin. vol. i. p. 480, ed. Falconer ; 
 Zonaras, Annal. xii. 26, vol. i. p. 635, ed. Du Fresne. Their 
 account is more credible than the statement given by Stephan. 
 Byzant. de wrb. et popul. s.v. Oecoanrovixn, Tzetza, chil. x. 174 ff. 
 (yet with both along with the above view), and the emperor 
 Julian (Oratio i. p. 200; Opp. Par. 1630, 4), that the 
 change of name proceeded from Philip of Macedon to per- 
 
 
 
 
 'See Burgerhoudt, de coetus Christianorum Thessalonicensis ortu fatisque et 
 prioris Pauli tis scriptae epistolae consilio atque argumento, Lugd. Bat. 1825. 
 
 ? See Tafel, de Thessalonica ejusque agro dissertatio geographica, Berol. 1839. 
 Cousinéry, voyaye dans la Macédoine, vol. I. Par. 1831, p. 23 ff. 
 
 MeEyrER—1 THEss. A 
 
2 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 petuate his victory over the Thessalians (Occcaddv ... vikn). 
 By its situation on the Thermaic gulf, and on the great com- 
 mercial road (the so-called via Ignatia) which led from Dyrra- 
 chium, traversed Macedonia, extended to Thrace to the mouth 
 of the Hebrus (Strabo, vii. vol. 1 p. 467), and accordingly 
 united Italy with Asia, Thessalonica became a flourishing 
 commercial town,—ereat, rich, and populous by its trade 
 (Strabo, vii. vol. i. p. 468: 4) viv padriota TOV GdAXwY evavdpet), 
 luxurious and licentious by its riches. Greeks formed the 
 stock of its inhabitants; next in number were the Roman 
 colonists; and there was also a considerable Jewish popula- 
 tion, who had been attracted by the briskness of trade, and 
 were so considerable that, instead of a mere mpocevyy (see 
 Meyer on Acts xvi. 13), they possessed a synagogue proper 
 (Acts xvii. 1). Already in the time of Christ Thessalonica was 
 named by Antipater pajtnp 4... mdaons Maxedovins (comp. 
 Anthol. gr., ed Jacobs, vol. IL., Lips. 1794, p. 98) ; in the fifth 
 century it was the metropolis of Thessaly, Achaia, and other 
 provinces which were under the praefectus praetorio of Ily- 
 ricum, who resided at Thessalonica. Many wars in subsequent 
 ages oppressed the city; but as often as it was conquered and 
 destroyed by the barbarians, it always rose to new greatness 
 and power. Its union with the Venetians—to whom, on the 
 weakness of the Greek empire, the Thessalonians sold their 
 city—was at length the occasion of its becoming, in the year 
 1430, a prey to the Turks. Even at this day Thessalonica, 
 after Constantinople, is one of the most flourishing cities of 
 European Turkey. 
 
 Paul reached Thessalonica, so peculiarly favourable for a 
 rapid and wide diffusion of Christianity, on his second great 
 missionary journey (see Meyer on Rom, ed. iv. p. 8 f.), when 
 for the first time he came into Europe, in the year 53. He 
 journeyed thither from Philippi by Amphipolis and Apollonia 
 (Acts xvii. 1), accompanied by two apostolic assistants, Silas 
 (Silvanus) and Timotheus (see Acts xvii. 4, comp. with xvi. 3 
 and xvii. 14; see also Phil. ii, 22 comp. with Acts xvi. 
 3,12 ff). Paul, faithful to his custom, first turned himself 
 
 1 At present there are about 22,000 Jews in Saloniki. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 3 
 
 to the Jews, but of them he gained only a few converts for 
 the gospel. He found greater access among the proselytes 
 and Gentiles (Acts xvi. 4). There arose, after the lapse of a 
 few weeks (comp. also Phil. iv. 16), a mixed Christian con- 
 eregation in Thessalonica, composed of Jews and Gentiles, but 
 the latter much more numerous (i. 9 and Acts xvii. 4, accord- 
 ing to Lachmann’s correct reading). The Jews, embittered by 
 this success among the Gentiles, raised a tumult, in conse- 
 quence of which the apostle was forced to forsake Thessalonica 
 (Acts xvii. 5 ff). Conducted by night to the neighbouring 
 Macedonian city of Berea, Paul found there, among Jews and 
 Gentiles, the most ready reception for the gospel. But scarcely 
 had the news of this reached his opponents in Thessalonica 
 than they hastened to Berea, and, stirring up the multitude, 
 expelled the apostle from that city also. Yet Silas and 
 Timotheus remained behind, for the confirmation and further 
 instruction of the church at Berea. Paul himself directed his 
 steps to Athens, and from thence, after a short residence, to 
 Corinth, where he remained more than a year and a half 
 (Acts xvii. 10 ff, xviii.). At a later period, the third great 
 missionary journey of the apostle led him repeatedly back to 
 Thessalonica (Acts xx. 1 ff.). 
 
 SEC. 2.— OCCASION, DESIGN, AND CONTENTS, 
 
 The persecution which had driven the apostle from Thessa- 
 lonica soon also broke out against the church (ii. 14, iii. 3, 
 1,6). Thus it was not the mere yearning of personal love 
 and attachment (ii. 17 ff.), but also care and anxiety (iii. 5) 
 that urged him to hasten back to Thessalonica. Twice he 
 resolved to do so, but circumstances prevented him (ii. 18). 
 Accordingly, no longer able to master his anxiety, he sent 
 Timotheus, who had not suffered in the earlier persecution, 
 from Athens (see on iii. 1, 2), in order to receive from him 
 information concerning the state of the church, and to 
 strengthen the Thessalonians by exhortation, and encourage 
 them to faithful endurance. The return of Timotheus (iii. 6), 
 and the message which he brought, were the occasion of the 
 
4 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 Epistle. This message was in the main consolatory. The 
 church, in spite of persecution and trial, continued stedfast and 
 unshaken in the faith (i. 6, ii. 14), so that its members could 
 be named as examples for Christians in all Macedonia and 
 Achaia (i. 7), and their heroic faith was everywhere spread 
 abroad (i. 8). They were also distinguished by their active 
 brotherly love (i. 3, iv. 9, 10), and, upon the whole, by their 
 faithful adherence to those rules of conduct pointed out to 
 them by the apostle (iv. 1). Moreover, they had an affectionate 
 remembrance of the apostle (iii. 6), and their congregational 
 life had so flourished that the gifts of the Holy Spirit (v. 19) 
 and prophecy (v. 20) were manifested among them. But 
 Timotheus had also to tell of defect and incompleteness 
 (iii. 10). The church had not yet succeeded in preserving 
 itself unstained by the two cardinal vices of heathenism— 
 sensuality and covetousness (iv. 3 ff); they had not every- 
 where shown to the presbyters due respect and obedience 
 (v. 12); and in consequence of their thought and feeling 
 being inordinately directed to the advent of Christ, an un- 
 settled and excited habit prevailed, which led to the neglect 
 of the duties of their earthly calling, and to idleness (iv. 11 ff.). 
 Lastly, the church was in great perplexity concerning the 
 fate of their deceased Christian friends, being uncertain 
 whether only those who were then alive, or whether also 
 deceased Christians, participated in the blessings of the advent 
 (iv. 13 ff.). Concerning this subject, it would appear, to judge 
 from the introductory words of iv. 13, that the Thessalonians 
 had requested information from the apostle. 
 
 The design of the Epistle accordingly was threefold. 1. The 
 apostle, whilst testifying his joy for their conduct hitherto, 
 would strengthen and encourage the church to persevering 
 stedfastness in the confession of Christianity. 2. He would 
 exhort them to relinquish those moral weaknesses by which 
 they were still enfeebled. 3. He would calm and console 
 them concerning the fate of the deceased by a more minute 
 instruction in reference to the advent. 
 
 Remark. — The opinion of Lipsius (Zheol. Stud. u. Krit. 
 
INTRODUCTION. ) 
 
 1854, 4, p. 905 ff.), that the design of the Epistle is to be sought 
 for in considering it as a polemic directed against Sudaistic 
 opponents, is to be rejected as entirely erroneous. The supposed 
 traces indicating this, which the Epistle is made to contain in 
 rich abundance, are only forcibly pressed into the service. 
 From i. 4—ii. 12, Lipsius infers that the apostolical dignity of 
 Paul had been attacked, or at least threatened, in Thessalonica ; 
 for it must have been for reasons of a personal nature that Paul 
 so repeatedly and designedly puts stress upon Ais mode of 
 preaching the gospel, Ais personal relation to the Thessalonians, 
 the reception and entrance which he had found among them. 
 But such an inference is wholly inadmissible, as everything 
 that Paul says concerning himself and his conduct has in the 
 context its express counterpart—its express correlate. In the 
 whole section, i. 2-ii. 16 (for the whole, and not merely 1. 4- 
 ii. 12, according to Lipsius, is closely connected together), the 
 corresponding conduct of the Thessalonians is placed over 
 against the conduct of Paul and his companions. There is 
 therefore no room for the supposition, that in what Paul 
 remarks concerning himself there is a tacit polemical reference 
 to third persons, namely, to Judaistic opponents ; rather the 
 apostle’s design in the section 1. 2-1. 16 is to bring vividly 
 before the Thessalonians the facts of their conversion, in order to 
 encourage them to stedfastness in Christianity by the repre- 
 sentation of the grace of God, which was abundantly manifested 
 amid those troubles and persecutions which had broken out 
 upon them. Besides, the opinion of Lipsius, if we are to measure 
 it according to the standard of his own suppositions, must 
 appear unfounded. According to Lipsius, the opponents, with 
 whom the apostle had to do in Thessalonica, were wncon- 
 verted Jews, and only as a later effect of their machinations Paul 
 was afraid of the formation of a Judaizing Christian party at 
 Thessalonica, so that his labour was only directed to prevent 
 and to make the attempt while yet there was time, whether the 
 formation of a Jewish-Christian faction could not be suppressed 
 in its first germs. But where in early Christianity is there any 
 example of the apostolical dignity of Paul being disputed by 
 the unconverted Jews? Such attacks, in the nature of the case, 
 were raised against Paul only by the Jewish Christians ; 
 whereas the wnconverted Jews naturally laboured only to hinder 
 _ him in the diffusion of the gospel, and accordingly manifested 
 their hostility by acts of external violence, by opposition to his 
 preaching, by laying snares for his life, etc. Comp. Acts 
 ix, 23 ff., xiii. 45, xvii. 5, 13, xxii. 22, al. — From what has been 
 
6 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 said it follows how arbitrary it is when Lipsius further makes a 
 selection from the account in ii. 3 ff., that the mention of +2.dyz, 
 axabapoia, dér0c, avdpumorg aptonei, Abyogs xorAaxslas, TpIPacIg TAE0- 
 ve¥ing, and (nreiv 2& dvdpwrwv dav, was designed to defend the 
 apostle from the reproaches which, in point of fact, had been 
 raised against him, on the part of the Jews, at Thessalonica ; 
 that, according to ii. 7 ff., the purity of his motives was doubted ; 
 and that, according to ii. 13, it had been contended from a 
 Judaistic point of view that his word was a human ordinance, 
 and not founded on divine truth. Everything there adduced is 
 explained simply and without any violence from the specified 
 design of the apostle, without our being constrained to think 
 on any polemical subsidiary references. Where do we find 
 a similar polemic in Paul, in which everything is veiled in 
 mysterious darkness, and what is really intended never openly 
 and decidedly brought forward? For no unprejudiced reader 
 would maintain that the passage li. 14-16, which Lipsius, 
 entirely mistaking the whole plan of the Epistle, calls its most 
 characteristic section, warrants, on account of the violent out- 
 burst against the Jews contained in it, the inferences which he 
 deduces from it. — Further, when Lipsius makes the yearning 
 of the apostle after the Thessalonians expressed in ii. 17-20, 
 and his twofold resolution to return to them, occasioned because 
 he saw in spirit the church perverted and distracted by the 
 same hateful Judaistic opponents who caused him so much 
 grief in Galatia, so that he wished to be personally present in 
 Thessalonica in order to baffle the attacks of those enemies, all 
 that he would here prove is forcibly introduced into the text. 
 Paul himself, in iii. 1 ff., states the reason of his anxiety and 
 twofold proposed journey quite differently. Certainly what Paul 
 himself here says has little authority for Lipsius. He thinks that 
 only a “slight power of combination” (!) is requisite in order 
 to perceive that it is not here only the effect of external trials 
 that Paul feared; certainly it is only of this that the apostle 
 directly speaks, but surely the confirmation and encouragement 
 in the faith was a yet deeper reason, namely, the reason given 
 by Lipsius (!).—When, further, Lipsius refers sipéZe, i. 5, to 
 “the machinations of the Judaists,” this is a violence done to 
 iii. 3; when, in fine, he discovers in vy. 21, “an exhortation to 
 caution in reference to those teachers who—to obtain for them- 
 selves an undisturbed entrance under the pretext of the free 
 Christian xépioux of prophecy—might aim at the subversion of 
 the faith planted by Paul,” and in v. 22a reference to “ Judaistic 
 machinations,” these special explanations are nothing else than 
 
INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 the vagaries of the imagination, which are not able to stand 
 before a pure and thoughtful interpretation. 
 
 The same remark, moreover, holds good of the opinion 
 recently advanced by Hofmann (Mie heil.. Schrift neuen Testa- 
 ments zusammenhdngend untersucht, part 1, Nordl. 1862, p. 270 f.), 
 that the first part of the Epistle was occasioned by the news 
 brought by Timotheus to the apostle, that the Christians in 
 Thessalonica had been persuaded by their heathen countrymen 
 that they had become the prey of self-interested and crafty 
 men, been involved by them in their Jewish machinations, and 
 then given up to the misery occasioned thereby ; and also that 
 the Thessalonians could not understand why, during the whole 
 time of their distress, Paul remained at a distance from them, 
 and on this account they felt their distress the more severely. To 
 all this the contents of the first three chapters were an answer. 
 They were designed to deliver the church from their depressed 
 frame of mind, to meet the suspicions they entertained of their 
 teachers and founders, and to efface the evil impression which 
 their, and especially Paul’s absence, made on them. This three- 
 fold design was sufficiently satisfied by the three sections, 
 1, 2-10, i. 1-12, i. 13-111. 13. 
 
 According to its contents, the Epistle is divided into two 
 parts. After the salutation (i. 1) in the first or historical 
 part, taken up with personal references (i. 2-111. 13), Paul 
 declares first, in general terms, his joy, expressed in thanks- 
 giving, for the Christian soundness of the church (i. 2, 3) ; 
 and then in separate particulars,in an impressive and eloquent 
 description, he asserts the operation of the grace of God mani- 
 fested in their conversion to Christianity; whilst the gospel 
 had been preached by him, the apostle, with energy and con- 
 fidence, with undaunted, pure, and self-sacrificing love to his 
 divine calling, and had been received by them, the Thessalonians, 
 with eager desire, and stedfastly maintained amid suffering 
 and persecution (i. 4—i1. 16). Paul then speaks of the long- 
 ing which came upon him, of the mission of Timotheus, and 
 of the consolation which the return of Timotheus had now 
 imparted to him (ii. 17—iii. 13). In the second or ethical- 
 dogmatic part (iv. 1—v. 28) the apostle beseeches and exhorts 
 the Thessalonians to make progress in holiness, to renounce 
 fornication and covetousness (iv. 1-8), to increase yet more 
 
8 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 and more in brotherly love (iv. 9, 10), and, instead of sur- 
 rendering themselves to an unsettled disposition and to 
 excitement, to be diligent and laborious in their worldly 
 business (iv. 11, 12). The apostle then comforts them con- 
 cerning the fate of their friends who had died before the 
 advent, and exhorts them to be ever watchful and prepared 
 for the coming of the Lord (iv. 13-v. 11). Then follow 
 divers exhortations, and the wish that God would sanctify 
 the Thessalonians wholly for the coming of Christ (v. 12-24). 
 Concluding remarks succeed (v. 25-27), and the usual 
 benediction (v. 28) 
 
 SEC. 3.—TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION, 
 
 When Paul composed this Epistle a long time could not 
 have elapsed since the founding of the church of Thessalonica. 
 The apostle is as yet entirely full of the impression which his 
 residence in: Thessalonica had made upon him; he lives and 
 moves so entirely in the facts of the conversion of the Thes- 
 salonians and of his personal conduct to them, that only events 
 can be here described which belong to the recent past. To 
 this also points the fact that the longing after the Thessalonians 
 which came over the apostle soon after his separation from them 
 (ii. 17), still endures at the moment when he is composing 
 this Epistle (iii. 11). And lastly, the whole second or moral- 
 dogmatic portion of the Epistle shows that the Thessalonian 
 Church, although in many respects already eminent and 
 flourishing, as yet consisted only of novices in Christianity. 
 Moreover, when Paul composed this Epistle, according to 
 i. 7, 8, he had already preached the gospel in Achaia. 
 According to iii. 6 (apte), the Epistle was written dmme- 
 diately after the return of Timotheus from Thessalonica. But 
 from Acts xviii. 5, 6, we learn that Timotheus and Silas, 
 returning from Macedonia, rejoined Paul at Corinth at a time 
 when he had not long sojourned there; as until then the gospel 
 was preached by him chiefly to the Jews. Thus, then, there 
 can exist no reason to doubt that the composition of this 
 Epistle is to be assigned to the commencement of Paul's 
 
INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 residence at Corinth, thus in the year 53, perhaps half a year 
 after the arrival of the apostle in Macedonia, or after his 
 flight from Thessalonica (comp. Wieseler’s Chronologie des 
 apostolischen Zeitalter, Gottingen 1848, p. 40 ff.). 
 
 The subscription of the Epistle: éypddy aro ’AOnvar, is con- 
 sequently erroneous, arising from a careless inference drawn 
 from i. 1. Not only the modification of this view by 
 Theodoret, followed by Hemming, Bullinger, Baldwin, and 
 Aretius, that the jirst visit of the apostle to Athens (Acts 
 xvii. 15 ff.) is here to be thought of, is to be rejected; but 
 also the suppositions of others, differing among themselves, 
 according to which a /ater residence of the apostle at Athens 
 is referred to. According to Calovius and Bottger (Beitr. zur 
 hist.-krit. EHinleit. in die Paulin. Br., Gott. 1837, Part III. 
 p. 18 ff.), our Epistle was written at Athens on a subsequent 
 excursion which Paul made to that city during his first resi- 
 dence at Corinth (against Bottger, see Wieseler’s Chron. p. 
 247); according to Wurm (Tiibing. Zeitschr. f. Theologie, 1833, 
 Part I. p. 73 ff.), on a journey which Paul undertook at the 
 time indicated in Acts xviii. 22 from Antioch to Greece 
 (see against him Schneckenburger in the Studien der ev. Geist- 
 lichkeit Wiirtembergs, 1834, vol. VII. Part I. p. 137 ff.); accord- 
 ing to Schrader (Apostel Paulus, Part I. p. 90 ff., p. 162 ff.), at 
 the time indicated in Acts xx. 2,3, after a third(?) visit of the 
 apostle to the Thessalonians (see against him Schneckenburger, 
 Bett. zur Hintert. in’s N. T. p. 165 ff.; Schott, proleg. p. 14 ff.); 
 according to Kohler (Ueber die Abfassungzeit der epistolischen 
 Schriften in N. T. p. 112 f.) and Whiston (Primitive Chris- 
 tuantty Revived, vol. III., Lond. 1711, p. 46 f., p. 110), at a 
 residence in Athens at a period beyond the history contained 
 in the Acts, Kohler assuming the year 66, and Whiston the 
 year 67 after Christ as the period of composition (see against 
 
 1 Euthalius (in Zacagn. Collectan. monument. vet. t. I. p. 650), and Oecu- 
 menius following him verbatim, do not judge so. For although they assume 
 the place of composition to be Athens, yet they must have thought on a later 
 residence in Athens than Acts xvii. 15 ff. For after the words : Tadrny tmirrtaacs 
 aro Aézyay, in giving the occasion of the Epistle, they add: ‘O axéerovcs ronrds 
 
 brives rabay tv Bepois xal ty Pidiaoros ris Maxedaviag xual ty Kopivdo, ... arorrkAats 
 Tiabcoy xpos avrods pir ris tmioroANs Taverns. 
 
10 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 the former, Schott, proleg. p. 21 ff; and against the latter, 
 Benson’s Paraphrase and Notes, 2d ed. p. 9 ff.). 
 
 SEC. 4.—GENUINENESS.' 
 
 The historical attestation of the Epistle, although there are 
 no sure indications of it found in the apostolic Fathers,’ is yet 
 so old, continuous, and universal (Iren. Haer. v. 6. 1; Clem. 
 Al. Paedag. i. p. 88 D, ed. Sylb.; Tertull. de reswrr. carn. 24; 
 Orig. c. Cels. 1. 65; Canon Murat., Peschito, Marcion [in Tert. 
 adv. Mare. v. 15, and Epiph. Haer. xlii. 9], ete., see van Manen, 
 lc. pp. 5-21), that a justifiable reason for doubting its authen- 
 ticity from external grounds is inconceivable. 
 
 Schrader was the first to call in question the genuineness 
 from internal grounds (Apostel Paulus, Part V., Leipz. 1836, 
 p. 23 ff). In his paraphrase on i. 13, iv. 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 14, 
 17, v. 8, 10, 19, 23, 26, 27, he thought that he had dis- 
 covered suspicious abnormal expressions (see exposition of 
 these passages). Baur (Paulus der Apostel Jesu Christi, Stuttg. 
 1845, p. 480 ff; see against him, W. Grimm in den Stud. 
 wu. Krit. 1850, Part IV. p. 753 ff.; J. P. Lange, das apost. 
 Zeitalter, vol. I., Braunschw. 1853, p. 108 ff.), in a detailed 
 justification of his formerly cherished doubts (see Baur, die 
 sogen. Pastoralbriefe des Ap. P., Stuttg. u. Tiib. 1835), but until 
 then only merely asserted, questions the genuineness of the 
 Epistle. At a still later period he has maintained its spurious- 
 ness in his and Zeller’s Theolog. Jahrbiichern, 1855, Part I. 
 p. 141 ff? 
 
 1See W. C. van Manen, Onderzock naar de echtheid van Paulus’ eersten brief 
 aan de T'hessalonicensen (De echtheid van Paulus’ brieven aan de Thess. onder- 
 zocht. I.), Weesp. 1865. 
 
 2 Such references are erroneously supposed to be found in Clem. Rom. ep. I. 
 ad Corinth. 38. Ignat. ad Polyc. I. Polye. ad Philipp. ii. 4. 
 
 3 The difference of Baur’s views in reference to the First Epistle in this last- 
 mentioned place consists in this:—1. That the presumed dependence of our 
 Epistle on the Corinthian Epistles is more emphatically stated and supported by 
 some further parallels forcibly brought together ; 2. Not, as formerly (comp. 
 Baur’s Apost. Paulus, p. 488), the First, but the Second Epistle to the Thessa- 
 lonians, is regarded as having been written first ; and from its spuriousness, as it was 
 not composed until the death of Nero, the spuriousness of our Epistle is inferred. 
 
INTRODUCTION. Ei 
 
 The arguments insisted upon by Baur in his Apostel Paulus 
 are the following:—1. In the whole collection of Pauline 
 Epistles there is none so inferior in the character and im- 
 portance of its contents as 1 Thessalonians; with the excep- 
 tion of the view contained in iv. 13-18, no dogmatic idea 
 whatever is brought into prominence. The whole Epistle 
 consists of general instructions, exhortations, wishes, such as 
 are in the other Epistles mere adjuncts to the principal con- 
 tents; but here what is in other cases only an accessory is 
 converted into the principal matter. This insignificance of 
 contents, the want of any special aim and of any definite 
 occasion, is a mark of un-Pauline origin. 2. The Epistle 
 betrays a dependence on the Acts of the Apostles and on the 
 other Pauline Epistles, especially those to the Corinthians. 
 3. The Epistle professes to have been written only a few 
 months after the apostle’s first visit to Thessalonica, and yet 
 there is a description of the condition of the church which 
 evidently only suits a church already existing for a con- 
 siderable time. 4. What the Epistle in iv. 14-18 contains 
 concerning the resurrection of the dead, and the relation of 
 the departed and the living to the advent of Christ, seems to 
 agree very well with 1 Cor. xv. 22; but it goes farther, and 
 gives such a concrete representation of those transcendent: 
 matters as we never elsewhere find with the apostle. 
 
 As to the jirst objection, according to Baur’s view, our 
 Epistle “ arose from the same interest in the advent, which 
 is still more decidedly expressed in the second Epistle.” 
 Baur, then, must have considered all the other contents of the 
 Epistle only as a foil for this one idea; and as in his 
 representation of the Pauline doctrine (p. 507 ff.) he judged 
 the eschatology of Paul not worth an explanation, it is not to 
 be wondered at that he considered it impossible that Paul could 
 have made the advent the chief subject of a whole Epistle. 
 But apart from this, that, according to other testimonies of the 
 Pauline Epistles, the idea of an impending advent had a great 
 practical weight with the apostle ; that, further, the expectation 
 of it and of the end of the world in connection with it, was 
 well fitted to produce the greatest excitement in a church the 
 
12 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 majority of which consisted of converted heathens, so that it 
 was necessary to calm them concerning it; that, lastly, the 
 explanation concerning the advent in so many special points, 
 as, for example, concerning the relation of unbelievers, etc., is 
 left entirely untouched, so that the interest in the advent in 
 and for itself cannot have been the reason for this instruction, 
 but only a peculiar want of the church: apart from all these 
 considerations, the disorder existing among the Thessalonians 
 on account of the advent does not form the chief contents of 
 the Epistle, but only one point along with others which gave 
 occasion to its composition, Add to this, that all the further 
 circumstances, which were the occasion of our Epistle, present 
 themselves before us in it, united together with such clearness 
 and in so living a character, as to form a distinct general 
 picture of the Thessalonian church, so that it cannot be 
 asserted that there is a want of a definite exciting occasion 
 (comp. sec. 2). It is admitted that the didactic and dogmatic 
 element in our Epistle recedes before the hortatory, and 
 generally before the many personal references of the apostle’s 
 love and care for the church; but the amount more or less 
 of dogmatic explanations can never decide whether an epistle 
 belongs to Paul or not. The Epistles of the apostle are not 
 the products of Christian learning in the study, but were 
 called forth by the urgency of circumstances, and thus are 
 always the products of historical necessity. We have then 
 only to inquire whether our Epistle corresponds to the rela- 
 tions of the church, which it presupposes; if it does corre- 
 spond with the relations and wants of the church, as is 
 evident to every unprejudiced mind, its contents receive 
 thereby the importance and special interest which Baur misses. 
 Lastly, it is not true that the instructions, exhortations, and 
 wishes in our Epistle are of so general a nature, that what is 
 elsewhere a mere accessory is here raised into an essential. 
 Rather an exhortation is never found in our Epistle, which 
 had not a special reference to the peculiar condition of the 
 Thessalonian church. 
 
 As regards the second argument, a use of the Acts of the 
 Apostles by the author of the Epistle is inferred chiefly from 
 
INTRODUCTION. ia 
 
 the fact that the Epistle is nothing else than an extended 
 statement, reminding the Thessalonians of what was already 
 well known to them, of the history of their conversion, known 
 to us from the Acts. Thus i. 4 ff. merely states how the 
 apostle preached the gospel to them, and how they received 
 it; ii. 1 ff. points more distinctly to the circumstances of the 
 apostle’s coming to Thessalonica, and the way in which he 
 laboured among them; iii. 1 ff. relates only what happened a 
 short time before, and what the Thessalonians already knew. 
 Everywhere (comp. already Schrader, supra, p. 24) only such 
 things are spoken of as the readers knew well already, as the 
 writer himself admits by the perpetually recurring eiddtes 
 (i. 4), adrol yap oldate (ii. 1), Kaas oldaTe (ii. 2), uvnpwovevere 
 yap (ii. 9), naOdrep oldate (ii. 11), adrot yap oidate (ili. 3), 
 Kalas Kal éyéveto Kal oldate (iii. 4), oldate ydp (iv. 2). In 
 answer to this objection, it is to be observed: (1) Apart 
 from the inconsistency that what, according to Baur, should 
 be only a foil is here converted into the chief contents, the 
 history of the conversion of the Thessalonians does not form 
 the chief contents of the Epistle, but only the contents of a 
 portion of the first or historical half. (2) The remembrance 
 of the founding of the church was not useless, nor a mere 
 effusion of the heart (de Wette), but an essential part of the 
 design of the apostle, serving as it did to strengthen and 
 invigorate the church in stedfastness in the faith. (8) The 
 often repeated appeal to the consciousness of the readers is 
 so much the more natural as it refers to facts which happened 
 during the apostle’s recent visit to Thessalonica, and with 
 which his mind was completely occupied. (4) The supposed 
 lengthiness is only the fulness and inspirited liveliness of the 
 discourse. (5) If the account of the conversion of the 
 Thessalonians as described in the Epistle is in agreement with 
 the narrative in the Acts, this circumstance is not a point against, 
 but for the authenticity of our Epistle, inasmuch as Baur’s 
 view that the Acts is a patched work of the second century, 
 ransacking Christian history for a definite purpose, and accord- 
 ingly designedly altering it (see Baur, Ap. Paulus, p. 180), 
 merits no respect on account of its arbitrariness and want of 
 
14 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 consistency. (6) Lastly, the harmony between the Acts and 
 our Epistle is so free, so unforced, and so slightly pervading 
 (comp. ili. 1, 2, with Acts xvii. 15, xvii 5), that a literary 
 use of the one by the other is absolutely inconceivable-—The 
 passage 11. 14-16, on which Baur lays peculiar stress, is 
 neither dependent on the Acts nor un-Pauline (see Commen- 
 tary). 
 
 It is also asserted that there are evident reminiscences more 
 or less of other Pauline Epistles, especially of the Epistles to the 
 Corinthians. Thus i. 5 is manifestly an imitation of 1 Cor. 
 ii. 4; i. 6 is taken from 1 Cor. xi. 1, andi. 8 from Rom. i. 8 ; 
 the passage il. 4 ff. briefly condenses the principles enunciated 
 in 1 Cor. ii. 4, iv. 3 f, ix. 15 f,, and especially 2 Cor. ii. 17, 
 v. 11. Besides wdcove&(a, ii. 5, points to 2 Cor. vii. 2, 
 Suvapevot ev Paper eivar, ii. 6, and pr émtBaphom, ii. 9, to 
 2 Cor. xi. 9, and ii. 7 to 1 Cor. iii, 2. A simple comparison 
 of these passages suffices to show the worthlessness of the 
 inferences derived from them. Verbal similarities of so 
 trifling and harmless a nature as those adduced might easily 
 be discerned between the Epistles to the Romans and Gala- 
 tians, both of which Baur regards as genuine. Besides, the 
 circumstances of the Thessalonian and Corinthian churches, 
 as well as the history of their founding, were in many respects 
 similar ; but similar thoughts in the same writer clothe them- 
 selves easily in a certain similarity of expression. 
 
 Baur supports his third argument on i. 7, 8, ii. 18, iii. 10, 
 iv. 9f, 11 f But these passages do not prove what is 
 intended (see exposition). 
 
 Lastly, in reference to the fowrth argument, Baur himself 
 confesses that the section iv. 14-18 can only be made valid 
 against the authenticity of the Epistle, provided its spurious- 
 ness is already proved on other-grounds. But as such other 
 crounds do not exist, and as Baur has not explained himself 
 further on the subject, we might dismiss this argument, were 
 it not that it might be turned into a sharp weapon against 
 himself. For, according to iv. 15, 17, the author of the 
 Epistle regards the advent of Christ as so near that he himself 
 hopes to survive (comp. v. 1 ff). What a foolish and indeed 
 
INTRODUCTION. 15 
 
 inconceivable proceeding would it be, if a forger of the second 
 century were to put into the mouth of the Apostle Paul a 
 prophetic expression concerning himself, the erroncousness of 
 which facts had long since demonstrated! Moreover, it 
 necessarily follows from 2 Thess. i. 4 (see on passage) that 
 the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians at least, and, as this 
 (see sec. 2 of the Introduction to 2 Thess.) was composed later 
 than the first, our Epistle also were written before the destruction 
 of Jerusalem. 
 
16 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 Ilavnov mpos Oeccadrovixets eriatod TPOTN. 
 
 A B K,X8, 3, 37, 80, e al. pler. Copt. Damasc. have Ipis 
 Occourovine?: «, the shortest and apparently the oldest title. 
 It is also found in D E, but prefixing” Apyeras. 
 
 CHAPTER L 
 
 Ver. 1. After cipjvn, Elz. Matth. Scholz, Bloomfield (The Greek 
 Testament, with English notes, 9th edit. vol. IL, London 1855) 
 add: dri 20d raurpic jut nal xvpiov Inood Xpiorod. Bracketed by 
 Lachm. Correctly erased by Tisch. and Alford (The Greek 
 Testament, with a critically revised text, ete., vol. I1I., London 
 1856), according to B F G 47, 73, 115, et al. Syr. Baschm. Aeth. 
 Arm. Vulg. Or. lat. seu Ruf. (dis.) Chrys. (comm.) Theoph. 
 Ambrosiast. Pel. An interpolation, for the sake of comple- 
 tion, taken from the usual commencement of Paul’s Epistles. 
 Recently the addition: dri cod sarpig judy nal xupiov "Ijo08 
 Xpiorod, is defended by Bouman (Chartae theologicae, lib. i., Tra}. 
 ad Rhen. 1858, p. 61) and Reiche (Commentar. criticus in N. T. 
 tom. II. p. 321 sqq.), but on insufficient grounds. For that the 
 addition might easily have been erroneously overlooked by 
 scribes, on account of the similar preceding words: é» Os% sarpi 
 zai xupip “Inood Xpiorg, is very improbable on account of the 
 difference in the prepositions and cases of the two forms; that 
 it might have been erased as an inelegant repetition has 2 Thess. 
 i. 2 against it, for then there also traces of similar corrections 
 in the critical testimonies would appear; and lastly, thac the 
 bare ydpis tui xu? eipqvn, without any further definition, is not 
 elsewhere found in any of Paul’s writings, would only occasion 
 « doubt, were it in itself unsuitable; but this is not the case 
 here, as, from the directly preceding words év @z@ carpi xal xupip 
 "Inood Xprorgi, the specific Christian sense of the formula is self- 
 apparent. — Ver. 2. iué», in the Receptus, after wreiav, is wanting 
 in AB s*17, ct al. Itisfound.inC DEF GK L&**** in 
 almost all min., as well as in many Greek and Latin Fathers. 
 Lachm. and Tisch. 1st ed. erroneously erase it. How easily might 
 
CHAT. I. 17 
 
 imayv after wreiav be overlooked on account of sway before preiay! 
 Comp. Eph. i. 16, where, in a similar case, there is the same 
 uncertainty of mss. — Ver. 5. Elz. has ipa rod epyou rig riorews. 
 Instead of this, D E F G, Syr. Arr. Aeth. Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. 
 have rod zpyou rH¢ ciorsws tway An interpretation from mis- 
 understanding. — Ver. 5. pis tu&s] Elz. Griesb. Matth. Scholz, 
 Tisch. 2 and 7, Alford, Reiche have «is iwés. Against A C** 
 D E F G, min. Copt. Chrys. ed. Theoph. ed. — Instead of the 
 Receptus 2 ivn, A C8, min. Vulg. Ms. have iu; but év was 
 absorbed by the last syllable of éyevjdnuev.— Ver. 7. rizov] 
 recommended to consideration by Griesb., received by Lachm. 
 Tisch. and Alford, according to B D* min. Syr. Erp. Copt. 
 Sahid. Baschm. Aeth. Slav. Vulg. Clar. Germ. Ambrosiast. Pel. 
 The Elz. Matth. Scholz, Reiche, read the plural rivoug (from 
 which rivos, in D** E 49, proceed, which Mill takes for a neuter 
 form, as vAocdros), according to AC F G K L®&, most min. and 
 many Gr. vss.; but it is a correction the better to adapt the predi- 
 cate to the collective subject, and thus apparently to strengthen 
 the expressed praise; whilst the plural transfers to individual 
 members of the church what the singular predicates of them 
 in general, considered as a unity. Otherwise Bouman (/.c. p. 
 62 f.), according to whom rious of the Receptus is the original, 
 from which sivos was erroneously formed, and from it rioy 
 proceeded, being regarded as an error of the nom. sing, and it 
 was considered the easiest method to correct the mistake by 
 changing the nominative singular into the accusative singular. 
 — zai éy rj is to be received, according tt ABC DEFGx, 
 min. Vule. It. Syr. utr. Theodoret, Ambrosiast. Pel., instead of 
 the Receptus zai 7; so Lachm. Scholz (with whom it has been 
 omitted by an error of the press), Tisch. — Ver. 8. Elz. has zai 
 “Axaig. So also Tisch. Bloomfield, and Alford. But Griesb. 
 Matth. Lachm. and Scholz have zai év r% ’Ayaig, according to 
 CDEFG K L®, min. plur. Syr. Slav. ms. Vulg. It. Cyr. 
 Damasc. Oec. Ambrosiast. Pelag. Correctly ; for the repetition 
 of the preposition and the article is necessary, as Macedonia and 
 Achaia were to be distinguished as separate provinces. — The 
 nai of the Receptus before 2v ruvri rérw (defended by Matth. and 
 Scholz, suspected by Griesb.) is to be erased, according to A B 
 C D* F Gx, 17, 37, e¢ al. mult. Syr. utr. Copt. Sahid. Baschm. 
 It. Ambrosiast. ed.; so Lachm. Tisch. and Alford. Because, 
 being. usually after od wd . a&AAd, it was easily inserted. — 
 nués exew] correctly changed by Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. and 
 Alford into éyev juz, according to A B C D EF GX, min. 
 perm. Theodoret. The Aeceptus is an alteration, for emphasis, 
 Meyrer—1 TuEss. B 
 
18 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 to contrast yas, ver. 8, and adro/, ver. 9.— Ver. 9. eovousv] 
 Elz. has yous against preponderating evidence, and devoid 
 of meaning. On account of the similar form with < in uncial 
 MSS., omight easily be omitted.— Ver. 10. é rév vexpiv] Elz. 
 has é vexpav, against B DE F G L®&, min. plur. and Fathers. 
 The article ray was lost in the last syllable of vexpav. 
 
 Contents.—After the address and salutation (ver. 1), Paul 
 testifies to his readers how in his prayers he constantly 
 thanks God for them all, mentioning without ceasing their 
 faith, love, and hope, being firmly convinced of their election ; 
 for, on the one hand, the gospel was preached to them with 
 power and much confidence; and, on the other hand, they, 
 amid many trials, had received it with joyfulness, so that 
 they had become examples to all believers in Macedonia and 
 Achaia: for from them the word of the Lord had spread, and 
 the knowledge of their faith had penetrated everywhere, so 
 that he had not to relate anything about it, but, on the 
 contrary, he hears it mentioned by others what manner of 
 entrance he had to them, and how they had turned from idols 
 to the living and true God (vv. 2—10). 
 
 Ver. 1. It is a mark of the very early composition of the 
 Epistle, and consequently of its authenticity, that Paul does 
 not call himself aédotodos. For it was very natural that 
 Paul, in regard to the first Christian churches to whom he 
 wrote, whom he had recently left, and who had attached 
 themselves with devoted love to him and his preaching, did 
 not feel constrained to indicate himself more definitely by an 
 official title, as the simple mention of his name must have 
 been perfectly sufficient. It was otherwise in his later life. 
 With reference to the Galatians and Corinthians, in conse- 
 quence of the actual opposition to his apostolic authority in 
 these churches, Paul felt himself constrained to vindicate his 
 full official dignity at the commencement of his Epistles. And 
 so the addition dzrocroXos, occasioned at first by imperative 
 circumstances, became at a later period a usual designation, 
 especially to those churches which were personally unknown 
 to the apostle (Epistles to Rom. Col. Eph.), among whom, 
 even without any existing opposition, such a designation was 
 
CuAr. (1, i. 19 
 
 necessary in reference to the future. An exception was only 
 natural where, as with the Philippians and with Philemon, 
 the closest and most tried love and attachment united the 
 apostle with the recipients of his Epistles. The supposition of 
 Chrysostom, whom Oecumenius and Theophylact follow, is 
 accordingly to be rejected, that the apostolic title was sup- 
 pressed Sia TO veoxatnyijtous civas tovs dvdpas Kal pndéra 
 avtod Telpav etAnpévat, for then it ought not to be found in 
 the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians. Further, the 
 view of Zwingli, Estius, Pelt, and others is to be rejected, 
 that Paul omitted his apostolic title out of modesty, as the 
 same title could not be assigned to Silvanus (and Timotheus); 
 for, not to mention that this reason is founded on a distorted 
 view of the Pauline character, and that the two companions 
 of the apostle would hardly lay claim to his apostolic rank, 
 such a supposition is contradicted by 2 Cor. i. 1; Col. 1. 1..— 
 Kal Sirovaves Kal TyudGeos| Both are associated with Paul in 
 the address, not to testify their agreement in the contents of 
 the Epistle, and thereby to confer on it so much greater 
 authority (Zanchius, Hunnius, Piscator, Pelt), or to testify 
 that the contents were communicated to the apostle by the 
 Holy Ghost (Macknight), but simply because they had assisted 
 the apostle in preaching the gospel at Thessalonica. The 
 simple mention of their names, without any addition, was 
 sufficient on account of their being personally known. By 
 being included in the address, they are represented as joint- 
 authors of the Epistle, although they were so only in name. 
 It is possible, but not certain, that Paul dictated the Epistle 
 to one of them. (According to Berthold, they translated the 
 letter conceived in Aramaic into Greek, and shared in the 
 work.) — Silvanus. (as in 2 Cor. i. 19) is placed before Timo- 
 theus, not perhaps because Timotheus was the amanuensis, and 
 from modesty placed his name last (Zanchius), but because 
 Silvanus was older and had been longer with Paul. —’Ev 
 Oo watpi ... Xpiot@ is to be closely united with 79 éxxry- 
 cia Ococarovxéwv: to the church of the Thessalonians in God 
 the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ—that is, whose being, 
 whose characteristic peculiarity, consists in fellowship with 
 
20 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 God the Father (by which they are distinguished from heathen 
 éxkAnolat) and with the Lord Jesus Christ (by which they 
 are distinguished from the Jewish ékxdnofa). Erroneously, 
 Grotius: quae exstitit, id agente Deo Patre et Christo. The 
 article 77 is neither to be repeated before év Oe@, nor is TH 
 oven to be supplied (Olshausen, de Wette, and Bloomfield 
 erroneously supply oven by itself, without the article; this 
 could not be the construction, as it would contain a causal 
 statement), because the wcrds are blended together in the wnity 
 of the idea of the Christian church (see Winer’s Grammar, 
 p. 128 [E. T.170]). Schott arbitrarily refers €v Oe@ x.7.X. to 
 xalpew A€youvow, to be supplied before yapis buiv; for xapus 
 bpiv xa eip. takes the place of the usual Greek salutation 
 xalpey éyovow. Hofmann’s view (Die h. Schrift neuen 
 Testaments zusammenhingend untersucht, Part I. Nordl. 1862) 
 amounts to the same as Schott’s, when he finds in €v Oe@ «.7.2. 
 “a Christian extension of the usual epistolary address,” im- 
 porting that it is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus 
 Christ that the writers address themselves by letter to the 
 churches. Still more arbitrarily Ambrosiaster (not Theophy- 
 lact) and Koppe, who erase the concluding words: amo Oc«od 
 k.T.X. (see critical note), have placed a point after Oeccadouv- 
 xéwv, and united €v Oed... Xpict@ with ydpis tpiy kai 
 eipyjvn. For (1) the thought: yapus tui (Eotw) &v Oc@ «7X, 
 instead of advo Ocod x.7.X., is entirely un-Pauline; (2) the 
 placing of €v Oe@ «.7.r. first in so calm a writing as the 
 address of the Epistle, and without any special reason, is 
 inconceivable; (3) 2 Thess. i. 1, 2 contradicts the idea. — 
 xdpis tuiv Kal eipyvn] See Meyer on Rom. i. 7. As a 
 Christian transformation of the heathen form of salutation, the 
 words, grammatically considered, should properly be conjoined 
 with the preceding in a single sentence: IIaidos wai 3... 
 TH exxdnola ©... xapw Kal eipryny (sc. Neyovew). 
 
 Ver. 2. Evyapicrodpev] The plural, which Koppe, Pelt, 
 Koch, Jowett, and others refer to Paul only, is most naturally 
 to be understood of Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus, on account 
 of ver. 1 compared with ii. 18, where the apostle, to obviate a 
 mistaken conception of the plural, expressly distinguishes him- 
 
CHAPS 1.3: py I 
 
 self from his apostolic helpers. —7@ Oe@] Thanks is rendered 
 to God, because Paul in his piety recognises only His appoint- 
 ment as the first cause of the good which he has to celebrate. 
 —tavtote] even if tudy after pvelav (see critical note) is 
 omitted, belongs to edyapiotodpuev, not to pvelay trovovp., as 
 the expression: pvelav mrovetc Pas Trept Tivos, instead of Teves, is 
 un-Pauline. It is not to be weakened (with Koppe) in the 
 sense of 7oAAdxus, certainly also not (with Zanchius and Pelt) 
 to be limited to the feelings of the apostle, that the edyapuc- 
 tev took place “ non actu sed affectu” (comp. already Nicholas 
 de Lyra: semper in habitu, etsi non semper in actu), but to 
 be understood absolutely always ; certainly, according to the 
 nature of the case, hyperbolically. Moreover, not without 
 emphasis does Paul say: wept mavtwv buev,in order emphati- 
 cally to declare that his thanksgiving to God referred to all 
 the members of the Thessalonian church without exception. — 
 pvelav tpov Tovovp. eTl TOV Tpocevyav Hav] These words 
 are conjoined, and to be separated from the preceding by a 
 comma. The clause is no limitation of evyapictotpev Tavtote: 
 when, or as often as we make mention of you (Flatt, Baum- 
 garten-Crusius, Bisping; on é7i, see Meyer on Rom. i. 10); 
 but the statement of the manner of evyap.: whilst we, ete. 
 Only by the addition of this participial clause is the statement 
 of his thanks and prayer for the Thessalonians completed. 
 Ver. 3. As the apostle has first stated the personal object 
 of his thanksgiving, so now follows a further statement of 
 its material object. Ver. 3 is therefore a parallel clause to 
 pvelav ... ypov (ver. 2), in which pynpovevortes corresponds 
 
 tO pvEelay Trolovpevol, tuav Tod epyou ... Xpictod to tuav 
 after pveay, and lastly, éumpocbev . . . tyuav to emt Tav 
 
 mpocevyav nuov. Schott, Koch, and Auberlen (in Lange’s 
 Libelwerk, Th. X., Bielef. 1864) incorrectly understand ver. 3 
 as causal; the statement of the cause follows in ver. 4. — 
 abiareirTws| unceasingly does not belong to the preceding 
 pvelay Trovovmevoe (Luther, Bullinger, Balduin, Er. Schmid, 
 Harduin, Benson, Moldenhauer, Koch, Bloomfield, Alford, 
 Ewald, Hofmann, Auberlen), for, as an addition inserted after- 
 wards, it would drag, but to pvnuovevovtes (Calvin and others), 
 
to 
 
 2 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 so that it begins the new clause with emphasis. — pvnpuoveverw 
 is not intransitive: to be mindful of (Er. Schmid: memoria 
 repetentes ; Fromond: memores non tam in orationibus sed 
 ubique; Auberlen), but transitive, referring to the making 
 mention of them in prayer. — tpov] is, by Oecumenius, 
 Erasmus (undecidedly), Vatablus, Calvin, Zwingli, Musculus, 
 Hemming, Bullinger, Hunnius, Balduin, regarded as the 
 object of pvnmovevovtes standing alone, whilst évexa is to be 
 supplied before the genitives tod Epyou Tis mict. w.7.r. But 
 this union is artificial, and the supposed ellipsis without gram- 
 matical justification. It would be better to regard rod Epyou 
 KT. as a development of tjuav in apposition; but neither 
 is this in itself nor in relation to ver. 2 to be commended. 
 Accordingly, tua@v is to be joined to the following substan- 
 tives, so that its force extends to all the three following 
 points. What Paul approvingly mentions in his prayers are 
 the three Christian cardinal virtues, faith, love, and hope, in 
 which his readers were distinguished, see v. 8; Col. 1.4, 4; 
 1 Cor. xiii, 13. But Paul does not praise them simply in 
 and for themselves, but a peculiar quality of each—each 
 according to a special potency. First their mio7is, and that 
 their épyov ths miotews. iors is faith subjectively. That 
 TO €pyov Ths miotTews is not to be understood periphrastically 
 for tis mictews' (Koppe), nor does it correspond with the 
 pleonastic use of the Hebrew 135, is evident, as (1) such a use 
 of the Greek épyov is not demonstrable (see Winer’s Grammar, 
 p. 541 [E. T. 768]); and (2) é&pyov ris wictews must be 
 similarly understood as the two following double expressions, 
 but in them the additions xédvov and trouovis are by no 
 means devoid of import. Also Kypke’s explanation, according 
 to which épyov wictews denotes veritas fidei, is to be rejected, 
 as this meaning proceeds from the contrast of épyov and 
 Novos, of which there is no trace in the passage. Not less 
 erroneous is it, with Calvin, Wolf, and others, to take épyov 
 THs mlotews absolutely as faith wrought, ic. wrought by the 
 
 1So in essentials Hofmann, who considers ris wiersws as an epexegetical 
 
 genitive, and converts the double expression into the unimportant saying: ‘‘Their 
 doing or conduct consists in this, that they believed.” 
 
CHAP. I. 3 2a 
 
 Holy Ghost or by God. An addition for this purpose would 
 be requisite ; besides, in the parallel expressions (ver. 3) it is 
 the self-activity of the readers that is spoken of. In a spirit- 
 less manner Flatt and others render épyov as an adjective: 
 your active faith. Similarly, but with a more correct appre- 
 ciation of the substantive, Estius, Grotius, Schott, Koch, 
 Bloomfield, and others: operis, quod ex fide proficiscitur ; 
 according to which, however, the words would naturally be 
 replaced by miotis évepyoupévn (Gal. v. 6). So also de 
 Wette: your moral working proceeding from faith. Hardly 
 correct, as—(1) To épyov can only denote work, not working. 
 (2) The moral working proceeding from faith, according to 
 Paul, is Jove, so that there would here be a tautology with 
 what follows. Clericus refers to épyov tis wictews to the 
 acceptance of the gospel (Opus... erat, ethnicismo abdicato 
 mutatoque prorsus vivendi instituto, christianam religionem 
 profiteri: atque ad ejusdem normam vitam in posterum insti- 
 tuere ; quae non poterant fieri nisi a credentibus, Jesum vere 
 a Deo missum atque ab eo mandata accepisse apostolos, ideoque 
 veram esse universam evangelii doctrinam); so also Mac- 
 knight, according to whom the acceptance of the gospel is 
 called an épyov on account of the victory over the prejudices 
 in which the Thessalonians were nourished, and on account of 
 the dangers to which they were exposed by their acceptance 
 of Christianity. But this reason is remote from the context. 
 Chrysostom (Tv éote tod Epyou tis wictews ; OTe oddév buav 
 Tapéxdive THY évetacw* TovTO yap epyov miatews. Ei 
 TuoTeves, TavTa Tdoxe’ eb OE pr) TdoxeELs, OV TLTTEvELS), 
 Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calovius, Bisping, and 
 others understand the words of the verification of faith by 
 stedfastness under persecution. This meaning underlying the 
 words appears to come nearest to the correct sense. vtyov 
 Tov épyou THs wiotews denotes your work of faith; but as 
 épyov has the emphasis (not wictews, as Hofmann thinks), it 
 is accordingly best explained: the work which is peculiar to 
 your faith—by which it is characterized, inasmuch as your 
 faith is something begun with energy, and held fast with 
 resoluteness, in spite of all obstacles and oppositions. This 
 
24 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIE TITESSALONIANS. 
 
 meaning strikingly suits the circumstances of the Epistle. — 
 Kai tod Kxorov tis aydrns] the second point of the apostle’s 
 thanksgiving. “Aydzn is not love to God, or to God and our 
 neighbour (Nicol. Lyr.), also not to Christ, as if tod xupiou 
 np. I, X. belonged to a@yamns (Cornelius a Lapide), still less 
 love to the apostle and his companions (Natal. Alexander : 
 labores charitatis vestrae, quibus nos ex Judaeorum seditione 
 et insidiis eripuistis, quum apud vos evangelium praedicare- 
 mus; Estius, Benson), but love to fellow-Christians (comp. 
 Col. i. 4). Kézros tis aydmns denotes the active labour of 
 love, which shuns no toil or sacrifice, in order to minister to 
 the wants of our neighbours: not a forbearing love which 
 bears with the faults and weaknesses of others (Theodoret) ; 
 nor is the genitive the genitive of origin, the work which pro- 
 ceeds from love (so Clericus, Schott, de Wette, Koch, Bloom- 
 field, and most critics); but the genitive of possession, the 
 work which is peculiar to love, by which it is characterized. 
 According to de Wette, xomos Ths ayamns might refer also to 
 the labour of rulers and teachers (v. 12). Contrary to the con- 
 text, as ver. 3 contains only the further exposition of ver. 2 ; 
 but according to ver. 2, the apostle’s thanksgiving extends to 
 all the members of the church (epi wavtav vor), not 
 merely to individuals among them. — The third point of the 
 apostle’s thanksgiving is the éAzris of his readers, and this also 
 not in and for itself, but in its property of topo). t7ro- 
 wovyn is not the patient waiting which precedes fulfilment 
 (Vatablus), but the constancy which suffers not itself to be over- 
 come by obstacles and oppositions (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
 Theophylact). The genitive here also is not the genitive of 
 origin (Clericus, Schott, de Wette, Koch, Bloomfield), but of 
 possession: your endurance of hope; that endurance which 
 belongs to your hope, by which hope is characterized. Aris 
 is here as usual subjective: hoping (otherwise, Col. i. 5). — 
 tod Kupiov Huav “I. X.| does not refer to all the three above- 
 mentioned virtues, “in order to show that they are one and 
 all derived from Christ, and instilled into man by the Holy 
 Spirit ” (Olshausen), or are directed to Christ as their object 
 (Cornelius a Lapide, Hofmann), but is the object only of 
 
CILIAP. I. 4. 25 
 
 édridos. The hope refers to Christ, that is, to His advent, 
 because the judgment and retribution will then take place, 
 and the divine kingdom completed in all its glory will com- 
 mence. — €umpocbev tod Ocod Kai ratpos adv] belongs not 
 to efdotes (ver. 4), which Musculus thinks possible, and as 
 little to tod xupiov my. I. X.; for—(1) the article tod before 
 éumpocfev must then have been omitted, and (2) an entire 
 abnormal representation of Christ would occur; also not to Tijs 
 wromovys THs éAmidos, or to all the three ideas, to indicate 
 thereby these three virtues as existing before the eyes and 
 according to the judgment of God, and thus as true and 
 genuine (Theodoret, Oecumenius, Aretius, Fromond, Cornelius 
 a Lapide, Baumgarten-Crusius, Auberlen), for in this case the 
 repetition of the article would be expected, and _ besides, 
 é€vwettov tov Oeov and similar expressions have, in the above 
 sense, always an adjective or corresponding clause; but it 
 belongs—which only is grammatically correct—to pynpovev- 
 ovtes, SO that prnuovevovtes Eutrpocbey x.7.d. corresponds to 
 pvelay Trovetobar emi TOV Tpocevyay (ver. 2). — Tod Ocod Kal 
 TaTpos »uov} may mean Him, who is our God and our 
 Father ; or Him, who is God, and likewise our Father. 
 
 Ver. 4. Eidores is incorrectly referred by many (thus Baur) 
 to the Thessalonians, either as the nominative absolute in 
 the sense of oidate yap (Erasmus), or eidotes éoré (Homberg, 
 Baumegarten-Crusius) ; or (Grotius) as the beginning of a new 
 sentence which has its tempus jinit. in éyeviOnte (ver. 6), 
 “knowing that ye became followers of us.” Rather, the sub- 
 ject of vv. 2 and 3, thus Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus, is 
 continued in e¢édo7es. It is further erroneous to supply «ai 
 before efdores (Flatt), as this participle is by no means 
 similar to the two preceding. Lastly, it is erroneous to make 
 eldotes dependent on pveiav rrovovpevor (Pelt). Evdores is only 
 correctly joined to the principal verb evyapiotobper (ver. 2), 
 and adduces the reason of the apostle’s thanksgiving, whilst 
 the preceding participles state only the mode of evyapiotoduev. 
 —t7o Ocod cannot be conjoined with etédcres (scientes a deo, ze. 
 ex dei revelatione), which Estius thinks possible, against which 
 vo instead of mapa is decisive. Nor does it belong to tv 
 
26 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 éxroynv Luar, so that elvae would require to be supplied, and 
 aderpot yyaTnpévot to be taken by itself (Oecumenius, Theo- 
 phylact, Calvin, Musculus, Hemming, Zanchius, Justinian, Vors- 
 tius, Calixtus, Clericus), but to #yamnpévor. For—(1) this 
 union is grammatically the most natural (see 2 Thess. ii. 13, 
 the Hebrew. 37) Y), 2 Chron. xx. 7, and dyamntol Oeod, 
 Rom. i. 7). (2) By the union of 7rd Ocod tv éexroynv tbper, 
 a peculiar stress would be put on two Ocod; but such an 
 emphasis is inadmissible, as another éxAoy7 than by God is in 
 Paul’s view a nonentity, and therefore the addition tid Ocod 
 would be idle. — Moreover, adeAgot syyarnpévoe td Ocod is 
 a pure address, and not the statement of the cause of tv 
 exdoyny tuav (Estius).— ékroyn] election or choice, denotes 
 the action of God, according to which He has predetermined 
 from eternity individuals to be believers in Christ. «Azjous is 
 related to €xAoy) as the subsequent realization to the pre- 
 ceding determination. Erroneously Pelt: é«doy} is electorum 
 illa innovatio, qua per spiritum divinum mutatur interna 
 hominem conditio; and still more arbitrarily Baumgarten- 
 Crusius: éxdoy7 is not “ choice among others (church election), 
 but owt of the world, with Paul equivalent to «Arjous, and 
 exactly here as in 1 Cor. i.26; not being elected, but the 
 mode or condition of the election ” (!), so that the sense would 
 be: “ Ye know how ye have become Christians” (!!). — tpav] 
 the objective genitive to éxAoyyv: the election of you. 
 
 Ver. 5. Bengel, Schott, Hofmann, and others unite ver. 5 
 by a simple comma to the preceding, understanding 67s in 
 the sense of “ that,” or “namely that,’ and thus the further 
 analysis or explication of éxAoy7, i.e. the statement wherein 
 éxXoyyn consists. But evidently vv. 5, 6 are not a state- 
 ment wherein éxroyn consists, but of the historical facts from 
 which it may be inferred. Accordingly, ove (if one will not 
 understand it with most interpreters as quia, which has little 
 to recommend it) is to be separated from ver. 4 by a colon, 
 and to be taken in the sense of for, introducing the reason on 
 which the apostle grounds his own conviction of the é«doyr; 
 of his readers. This reason is twofold—(1) The power and 
 confidence by which the gospel was preached by him and his 
 
* CRAP. I. 3. 2% 
 
 companions in Thessalonica (ver. 5); and (2) The eagerness 
 and joy with which it was embraced by the Thessalonians 
 (ver. 6 ff). Both are proofs of grace, attestations of the 
 éxroyn of the Thessalonians on the part of God.— 70 evay- 
 yédwov Hav] our gospel, i.c. our evangelical preaching. — ov« 
 eyevnOn pos twas] was not carried into effect among you, ie. 
 when it was brought to you. The passive form éyev7On, alien 
 to the Attic, and originally Doric, but common in the xowy 
 (see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 108 ff; Kiihner, I. 193; Winer’s 
 Grammar, p. 80 [E. T. 102]), characterizes the being carried 
 into effect as something effected by divine grace, and the 
 additions with ev following indicate the form and manner in 
 which the apostolic preaching was carried into effect. From 
 this it follows how erroneous it is with Koppe, Pelt, and 
 others to refer é€v Aoyw . . . ToAAH to the qualities of the Thes- 
 salonians which resulted from the preaching of the apostle. 
 According to Koppe, the meaning is “quantam enim mea 
 apud vos doctrina in animos vestros vim habuerit, non ore 
 tantum sed facto declaravistis.” That the concluding words 
 of ver. 5, ea@ws oidate... vuds, which apparently treats of 
 the manner of the apostle’s entrance, contains only a recapitu- 
 latory statement of év Aoyw . . . TOAAH, appealing to the testi- 
 mony of the Thessalonians, is a sufficient condemnation of this 
 strange and artificial explanation. — év Aoyw povor] in word 
 only, 2.¢. not that it was a bare announcement, a bare com- 
 munication in human words, which so easily fade away. 
 Grotius: Non stetit intra verba. But the apostle says ov 
 povoy, because human speech was the necessary instrument 
 of communication. — adra Kal év duvdper x.7.r.] By dvvapus 
 is not to be understood miracles by which the power of 
 the preached gospel was attested (Theodoret, Oecumenius, 
 Theophylact, Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Natalis 
 Alexander, Turretine, etc.); for if so, the plural would have 
 been necessary. Nor is the gospel denoted as a miraculous 
 power (Benson), which meaning in itself is possible. Nor is 
 the efficacy of the preached word among the Thessalonians 
 indicated (Bullinger: Per virtutem intellexit efficaciam et 
 vim agentem in cordibus fidelium). But it forms simply the 
 
28 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 contrast to Aoyos, and denotes the impressive power accompany- 
 ing the entrance of Paul and his followers. — év mvedpare 
 ayiw]| Theodoret, Musculus, Cornelius a Lapide, Fromond, B. 
 a Piconius, Natalis Alexander, Benson, Macknight interpret 
 this of the communication of the Holy Spirit to the readers. 
 But the communication of the Holy Spirit is beyond the 
 power of the apostles, as being only possible on the part ot 
 God. Besides, év wvedvuwate can only contain a statement of 
 the manner in which Paul and his assistants preached the 
 gospel. Accordingly, the meaning is: our preaching of the 
 sospel was carried on among you in the Holy Ghost, that is, 
 in a manner which could only be ascribed to the operation of 
 the Holy Ghost. év mvevpate dyiw serves, therefore, not only 
 for the further amplification, but also for the intensification of 
 the idea év duvdyer. It is therefore incompetent to consider 
 év Suvaper cal év mrevp. ayiw as a év bia Svoty instead of év 
 duvaper Tvevp, ayiov (Calvin, Piscator, Turretine, Bloomfield, 
 and others).— wAnpogopia] (comp. Col. ii, 2; Rom. iv. 21, 
 xiv. 5) denotes neither the fulness of spiritual gifts which were 
 imparted to the Thessalonians (Lombard, Cornelius a Lapide, 
 Turretine), nor the completeness of the apostolic instruction 
 (Thomasius), nor the completeness with which Paul performed 
 his duty (Estius), nor the proofs combined with his instruc- 
 tions, giving complete certainty (Fromond, Michaelis), nor 
 generally “certitudo, qua Thessalonicenses certi de veritate 
 evangelii ac salute sua redditi fuerant” (Musculus, Benson, 
 Macknight) ; but the fulness and certainty of conviction, «e. 
 the inward confidence of faith with which Paul and his 
 assistants appeared preaching at Thessalonica. — xaOas oldare 
 «.7.r.] a strengthening of 67v... odAH by an appeal to the 
 knowledge of his readers (Oecum.: xal ti, not, waxpnyopa ; 
 avtol vyeis waptupés eae, olor éyevniOnuev mpos duds). Pelt, 
 entirely perverting the meaning, thinks that the apostle in 
 these concluding words would hold forth his example for the 
 emulation of his readers. This view could only claim in- 
 dulgence if Koppe’s connection, which, however, Pelt rejects, 
 were correct. Koppe begins a new sentence with xa@as, 
 considering xa@as oléate as the protasis and Kal vpeis as the 
 
CHAP. I. 6. 29 
 
 apodosis, and gives the sense: qualem me vidistis, quum 
 apud vos essem .. . tales etiam vos nunc estis. But this 
 connection is impossible—(1) Because oiéate cannot mean 
 me vidistis, but has a purely present signification—ye know. 
 (2) Because if there were such an emphatic contrast of per- 
 sons (qualem me... tales etiam vos), then, instead of the 
 simple éyevnOnuev, juels éyevnOnwev would necessarily be put. 
 (3) Because éyevn@nre does not mean nune estis, but facti estis. 
 (4) Instead of the asyndeton xaos oidate, we would expect a 
 connection with the preceding by some particle added to 
 KaQos. (5) And lastly, the apodosis would not be introduced 
 by «ai dpets, but by o¥tws tueis (comp. 2 Cor. i. 5, viii. 6, 
 x. 7). Pelt’s assertion is also erroneous, that instead of xafas 
 oldate oboe éyevnOnpev, the more correct Greek phrase would 
 have been ofovs oldate iis yeyovoras. For the greatest 
 emphasis is put on ofos éyer7Onyev, but this emphasis would 
 have been lost by the substitution of the above construction. 
 —oiot éyevnOnuer] recapitulates the preceding 76 evayy. . . 
 moAAy, but with this difference, that what was before said of 
 the act of preaching is here predicated of the preachers. otou 
 éyevnOnwev does not denote the privations which Paul im- 
 posed upon himself when he preached the gospel, as Pelagius, 
 Estius, Macknight, Pelt, and others think, making an arbitrary 
 comparison of ii. 7,9; 2 Thess. iii. 8, 9; also not xuvdvvous, 
 ods Urép avTOV UTéoTHTAY, TO TWTIPLOY avTOIS TpoapépovTES 
 kypuvywa (Theodoret), nor both together (Natal. Alexander). 
 It also does not mean quales fucrimus (so de Wette, Hof- 
 mann, and others), but can only denote the being made for some 
 purpose. It thus contains the indication that the emphatic 
 element in the preaching of the gospel at Thessalonica was a 
 work of divine appointment—of divine grace. . Accordingly, 
 dv vas, for your sake, that is, in order to gain you for the 
 kingdom of Christ, is to be understood not of the purpose of 
 the apostle and his assistants, but of the purpose of God. 
 
 Ver. 6 contains the other side of the proof for the é«doyi) 
 of the Thessalonians, namely, their receptivity for the preach- 
 ing of the gospel demonstrated by facts. Ver. 6 may either 
 be separated by a point from the preceding (then the proof of 
 
30 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 ver. 6, in relation to ver. 4, lies only in thought, without 
 being actually expressed), or it may be made to depend on 
 67e in ver. 5 (provided this be translated by for, as it ought). 
 In this latter case kaOas oldate .. . &v’ duds, ver. 5, is a par- 
 enthesis. This latter view is to be preferred, because vv. 
 5 and 6 appear more evidently to be internally connected, 
 and, accordingly, the twofold division of the argument, 
 adduced for the éxAoy7 of the readers, is more clearly brought 
 forward. — pipntai] See 1 Cor. iv. 16, xi. 1; Phil. iii. 17; 
 Eph. v. 1; Gal. iv. 12. — éyev7j@nre denotes here also the 
 having become as a having been made, ze. effected by the 
 agency of God.— «at tod xvpiov is for the sake of climax. 
 Erroneously Bullinger: Veluti correctione subjecta addit: et 
 domini. Eatenus enim apostolorum imitatores esse debemus, 
 quatenus illi Christi imitatores sunt.—The Thessalonians 
 became imitators of the apostle and of Christ, not in 8vvayus, 
 in wvedua dyvov, and in wAnpogopia, as Koppe thinks ; but 
 because they received the evangelical preaching (Tov Aodyor, 
 comp. Gal. vi. 6, equivalent to xypuvyya), allowed it an 
 entrance among them, in much affliction, with joy of the 
 Holy Ghost, ae. not merely that they received the Adyos 
 (here the tertiwm comparationis would be wanting), but that 
 they received it év Ortaper TOAAH peTa Yapas Tvevp. ayiov.— 
 SeEapwevor Tov AOyov] The reception of the gospel corresponds 
 to its announcement brought to the readers (ver. 5), whilst 
 piunows is explained by év OrAtpe...dyiov. The chief 
 emphasis is on the concluding words: pera yapads mvevpatos 
 ayiov, containing in themselves the proper tertiwm compara- 
 tionis between Christ and the apostle on the one hand, and 
 the Thessalonians on the other; but év @dAper moddp is 
 placed first to strengthen it, and for the sake of contrast, 
 inasmuch as SéyecOar Tov Aoyov peta yapas Tv. ay. is 
 something high and sublime, but it is something far higher 
 and more sublime when this joy is neither disturbed nor 
 weakened by the trials and sufferings which have been 
 brought upon believers on account of their faith in Christ. 
 — év Order 7oddH] Erroneously Clericus: Subintelligendum 
 dvTa, quum acceperitis verbum, quod erat in afflictione multa, 
 
CHAP. I. 7. = Sid 
 
 h. e. cujus praecones graviter affligebantur. The O@Mus 
 of the Thessalonians had already begun during the presence 
 of the apostle among them (Acts xvii. 6 ff), but after his 
 expulsion it had greatly increased (ii. 14, iii. 2, 3,5). The 
 apostle has in view both the commencement and the continuance 
 of the persecution (comp. ver. 7, and the adjective woddAq 
 attached to @AAper), against which Se€dwevor is no objection, 
 as the two points of time are united as the spring-time of the 
 Christian church. — yapa mvevpatos ayiov| is not joy in the 
 Holy Ghost, but a joy or joyfulness which proceeds from the 
 Holy Ghost, is produced by Him (comp. Rom. xiv. 17; Gal. 
 v. 22; Acts v.41). In reality, it is not to be distinguished 
 from yalpew év xupio (see Meyer on Phil. iii. 1). 
 
 Ver. 7. The Thessalonians had so far advanced that they 
 who were formerly imitators had now become a model and an 
 example to others. — tvzrov] The singular is regular, as the 
 apostle considers the church as a unity (see Winer’s Grammar, 
 p. 164 [E. T. 218]; Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 60; Kiihner, 
 IL. p. 27). — waow tots mictevovaw] not to all believers (de 
 Wette), but to the whole body of believers. See Winer, p. 105 
 [E. T. 137]. maov augments the praise given. ot mictev- 
 ovtes are believers, Christians (comp. Eph. i. 19). Chrysostom, 
 whom Oecumenius, Theophylact, and most interpreters (also 
 Pelt and Schott) follow, takes mucrevovow in the sense of 
 muotevoaowy, finding in ver. 7 the idea that the Thessalonians 
 converted at a later period were further advanced in the 
 intensity of their faith than those who had been earlier 
 believers: Kat pay év totépe AOE mpos adtovs’ aA ovTwS 
 éraprbate, pnclv, as TOV TportaBovTav yevécOar SidacKdrovs 
 ... Ob yap citer, doTE TUTOUS yevérfar Tpos TO TLATEDCAL, 
 ana Tos HON mia Tevovat TUTOS éyéveoOe. But this view would 
 contain a historical untruth. For in Europe, according to the 
 Acts (comp. also 1 Thess. ii. 2), only the Philippians were 
 believers before the Thessalonians; all the other churches of 
 Macedonia and Achaia were formed afterwards. The present 
 participle is rather to be understood from the standpoint of the 
 apostle, so that all Christians then present in Macedonia and 
 Achaia, that is, all Christians actually existing there at the 
 
32 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 time of the composition of the Epistle, are to be understood. — 
 év tT) Maxedovia xai €v th ’Ayaia] Comp. Rom. xv. 26; Acts 
 xix. 21: the twofold division of Greece usually made after 
 its subjection to the Romans (comp. Winer, Realwirterb. 
 2d ed. vol. I. p. 21). The emphasis which Theodoret puts on 
 the words (HiEnce tHv ebdnuiar, apyétuTa attods evocBelas 
 yeyevrjcOat pycas EOvect peyictols Kai eri copia Oavpafoue- 
 volts) is not contained in it. Baur’s (p. 484) assertion, that 
 what is said in ver. 7 is only suitable for a church already 
 existing for a longer time, is without any justification. For to 
 be an example to others depends on the behaviour; the idea of 
 duration is entirely indifferent. 
 
 Ver. 8. Proof of the praise in ver. 7. See on the verse, 
 Storr, Opuse. III. p. 317 ff.; Riickert, locorum Paulinorum 
 1 Thess. i. 8 et 1 Thess. 113, 1-3, explanatio, Jen. 1844,— 
 Baumgarten - Crusius arbitrarily assumes in ver. 8 ff. an 
 address, not only to the Thessalonians, but also to the 
 Philippians, in short, to “the first converts in Macedonia.” 
 For tuay (ver. 8) can have no further extension than tpas 
 (ver. 7).— aq’ dyav] does not import vestra opera, so that 
 a missionary activity was attributed to the Thessalonians 
 (Riickert), also not per vos, ope consilioque vestro, so that the 
 sense would be: that the gospel might be preached by me in 
 other parts of Macedonia and Achaia, has been effected by 
 your advice and co-operation, inasmuch as, when in imminent 
 danger, my life and that of Silvanus was rescued by you 
 (Schott, Flatt). For in the first case if tuady would be 
 required, and in the second case 6’ tue@yv, not to mention 
 that the entire occasion of the last interpretation is invented 
 and artificially introduced. Rather ad’ tdueay is purely local 
 (Schott and Bloomfield erroneously unite the local import 
 with the instrumental), and denotes: out from you, forth from 
 you, comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 36. Yet this cannot be referred, with 
 Koppe and Krause, to Paul: from you, that is, when I left 
 Thessalonica, I found in the other cities of Macedonia and 
 Achaia a favourable opportunity for preaching the gospel. 
 For (1) this would have been otherwise grammatically 
 expressed, perhaps by ad’ tuav yap aredOdvte Opa joe 
 
: 
 | 
 
 
 
 CHAP. L 8. I) 
 
 dvéwye peyadn eis TO Knpvocew TOV oyov Tod Kupiov; 
 add to this (2), which is the chief point, that the logical 
 relation of ver. 8 to ver. 7 (ydp) does not permit our seeking 
 in ver. 8 a reference to the conduct of the apostle, but 
 indicates that a further praise of the Thessalonians is con- 
 tained in it.— éEjynztac] Comp. Sir. xl. 13; Joel iii, 14; 
 an ama& Xeyouevoy in N. T. is sownded out, like the tone 
 of some far-sounding instrument, ze. without a figure: was 
 made known with power.—o doyos Tod Kuplov] is not the 
 word from the Lord, or the report of what the Lord has done 
 to you (so, as it seems, Theodore Mopsuest. [in WW. Z. com- 
 mentariorum, quac reperivi potuerunt. Colleg., Fritzsche, Turici 
 1847, p. 145]: Adyov xupiov évtadéa ob tHhv wictw réyeL, 
 ov yap % wiotis am avTav ~dXaBe THY apyyv, GAN aytl 
 Tod wavtTes éyvwoav dca trép Ths wlotews emdete, Kal 
 mavtes tuav TO BeBaiov Oavpatover THs TicTews, WaTE Kai 
 mpotpoTiy éTEpoars yevécOar TA bweTepa), but the word of the 
 Lord which He caused to be preached (subjective genitive), 
 a2.¢. the gospel (comp. 2 Thess, i. 1; Col. ui. 16); thus 
 similar to the more usual expression of Paul: 6 Adyos Tod 
 Ocov. But the meaning is not: The report of the gospel, 
 that it was embraced by you, went forth from you, and made 
 a favourable impression upon others (de Wette); but the 
 knowledge of the gospel itself spread from you, so that the 
 power and the eclat which was displayed at the conversion of 
 the Thessalonians directed attention to the gospel, and gained 
 friends for it. — The words ov povov have given much trouble 
 to interpreters. According to their position they evidently 
 belong to €v 77 Makxedovia nai év th ’Ayxaia, and form a 
 contrast to év mavti torw. But it does not agree with this 
 view that a new subject and predicate are found in the con- 
 trast introduced with adAa, because the emphasis lies (as the 
 position of od povoy ... dAXd appears to demand) only on the 
 two local statements, so that only a¢’ duav ... Tow@ should 
 have been written, and date pun) «.7.r. should have been directly 
 connected with them. This double subject and predicate could 
 only be permissible provided the phrases: é&jynTat 6 Noyos 
 Tov Kupiov, and: 17 wlaTis bud 1 mpos T. Ocov éFedduGev 
 Meyrer—1 Tuess, C 
 
34 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 were equivalent, as de Wette (also Olshausen and Koch) 
 assumes (“the fame of your acceptance of the gospel sounded 
 forth not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place 
 the fame of your faith in God is spread abroad”); but, as is 
 remarked above, de Wette does not correctly translate the 
 first member of the sentence. Zanchius, Piscator, Vorstius, 
 Beza, Grotius, Koppe, Storr, Flatt, Schrader, Schott, Baum- 
 garten-Crusius, and others have felt themselves obliged to 
 assume a trajection, uniting od povoy not with év rn Make- 
 Sovig kat év tH ’Ayxaia, but with éEjynrav, and thus explain 
 it as if the words stood: ad’ tuav yap od povov éEjyntar K.7.r. 
 But this ¢rajection is a grammatical impossibility. Bloomfield 
 has understood the words as a mingling of two different forms 
 of expression. According to him, it is to be analyzed: “For 
 from you sounded the word of the Lord over all Macedonia 
 and Achaia; and not only has your faith in God been well 
 known. there, but the report of it has been disseminated 
 everywhere else.” But that which is united by Paul is thus 
 forcibly severed, and arbitrarily moulded into an entirely new 
 form. Lastly, Riickert has attempted another expedient. 
 According to him, the apostle, after having written the 
 greater part of the sentence, was led by the desire of making 
 a forcible climax so to alter the originally intended form of 
 the thought that the conclusion no longer corresponded with 
 the announcement. Thus, then, the sense would be: Vestra 
 opera factum est, ut domini sermo propagaretur non solum in 
 Macedonia et Achaja, sed etiam—immo amplius quid, ipsa 
 vestra fides ita per famam sparsa est, ut nullus jam sit locus, 
 quem ejus nulla dum notitia attigerit. But against this is 
 —(1) that 7 ictus vuav, on account of its position after év 
 mavtt Tome, cannot have the principal accent; on the contrary, 
 to preserve the meaning maintained by Riickert, it ought to 
 have been written? XV’ adr 1) wictis Uuev 4 Tpos Tov Ocov 
 év mavtl Tomm é&edjAvver ; (2) that the wide extension of the 
 report of the wiotis of the readers is not appropriate to form 
 a climax to their supposed missionary activity expressed in 
 the first clause of the sentence. However, to give od povov 
 ... Ada its proper force, and thereby to avoid the objec- 
 

 
 CHAP. L 8. 35 
 
 tion of the double subject and predicate, there is a very 
 simple expedient (now adopted by Hofmann and Auberlen), 
 namely, another punctuation; to put a colon after «up/ov, and 
 to take together all that follows. According to this, ver. 8 is 
 divided into two parts, of which the first part (af tuav... 
 xupiov), in which ad’ tuav and é&)yntav have the emphasis, 
 contains the reason of ver. 7, and of which the second part 
 (ov povoy ... Aadety 71) takes up the preceding éfjynras, and 
 works it out according to its locality——From the fact that 
 ov povoy , -. adda serves to contrast the local designations, it 
 follows that év wavti ro7@ is not to be limited (with Koppe, 
 Storr, Flatt, Schott, and others) to Macedonia and Achaia 
 (vy mavtl tor@ Ths Maxedovias cal ths ’Ayxaias), but must 
 denote every place outside of Macedonia and Achaia, entirely 
 apart from the consideration whether Paul and his com- 
 panions had already come in contact with those places or not 
 (against Hofmann), thus the whole known world (Chrysostom : 
 THY olKovpéevny ; Oecumenius: dzavtTa Tov Koopov); by which 
 it is to be conceded that Paul here, as in Rom. i. 8, Col. i. 6, 23, 
 expresses himself in a popular hyperbolical manner.—7 iotes 
 buav % pos Tov Oeov] your faith, that is, your believing 
 or becoming believers in God (aioris thus subjective); the 
 unusual preposition zpos instead of es is also found in 
 Philem. 5. That here God, and not Christ, is named as the 
 object of faith does not alter the case, because God is the 
 Father of Christ and the Author of the salvation contained in 
 Him. But the unusual form % wpos tov Ocdv is designedly 
 chosen, in order to bring prominently forward the monotheistic 
 faith to which the Thessalonians had turned, in contrast to 
 
 their former idolatry.— é£ednAvbev] has gone forth, has 
 spread forth, namely, as a report. Comp. on é&épyeoOar 
 in this sense, Matt. ix. 26; Luke viii. 17, etc. Probably 
 the report had spread particularly by means of Christian 
 merchants (Zanchius, Grotius, Joach. Lange, Baumgarten, de 
 Wette), and the apostle might easily have learned it in the 
 great commercial city of Corinth, where there was a constant 
 influx of strangers. Possibly also Aquila and Priscilla, who 
 had lately come from Rome (Acts xviii. 2), brought with 
 
36 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 them such a report (Wieseler, p. 42). At all events, neither 
 a longer existence of the Thessalonian church follows from 
 this passage (Schrader, Baur), nor that Paul had in the 
 interval been in far distant places (Wurm). As, moreover, 
 efednAvGev is construed not with eés, but with év, so not only 
 the arrival of the report in those regions is represented, but 
 its permanence after its arrival (see Winer, p. 385 [E. T, 
 514]; Bernhardy, Synt. p. 208).—dote pn ypeiav éyew 
 nas Nareiv TL] so that we have no need to say anything of it 
 (se. of your miotis; erroneously Michaelis, “of the gospel ;” 
 erroneously also Koch, “something considerable”’), because we 
 have been already instructed concerning it by its report ; 
 although this is contained in é&eA7jAvGev, yet it is impressively 
 brought forward and explained in what follows. 
 
 Ver. 9. Avrof] not: sponte, adrowalas, of themselves (Pelt), 
 but emphatically opposed to the preceding 7uas: not we, nay 
 they themselves, that is, according to the well-known constructio 
 ad sensum (comp. Gal. ii. 2): of év 7H Maxedovia nat ev Th 
 "Ayaia Kai év wavtt tom@. See Bernhardy, Syntaz, p. 288 ; 
 Winer, p. 137 [E. T. 181]. Beza erroneously (though un- 
 decidedly) refers adrot to mavtes of muatevovtes (ver. 7). — 
 mept nav] is not equivalent to drép juar, in our stead (Koppe), 
 but means: concerning us, de nobis ; and, indeed, rept 7uav is 
 the general introductory object of dmayyé\Xovew, which is 
 afterwards more definitely expressed by o7oéay «.7.\. — mar, 
 however, refers not only to the apostle and his assistants, 
 but also to the Thessalonians, because otherwise cal was érre- 
 otpéware in relation to ev would be inappropriate. This 
 twofold nature of the subject may be already contained in 7 
 miotis Umar 1 Tpos Tov Oeov (ver. 8); as, on the one hand, the 
 producing of wars by the labours of the apostle is expressed, 
 and, on the other hand, its acceptance on the part of the 
 Thessalonians. — o7ro/av elcodov Exxopmev Tpos buds] what sort 
 of entrance we had to you, namely, with the preaching of the 
 gospel, ae. (comp. ver. 5) with what power and fulness of 
 the Holy Spirit, with what inward conviction and contempt 
 of external dangers (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact 
 erroneously limit ovoéav to danger), we preached the gospel 
 
CHAP. I. 10. are 
 
 to you. Most understand ozro/ay etcodov (led astray by the 
 German Hingang) of the friendly reception, which Paul and 
 his companions found among the Thessalonians (indeed, 
 according to Pelt, elcodos in itself without omola denotes 
 facilem aditum); and accordingly some (Schott, Hofmann) 
 think of the eager reception of the gospel, or of its entrance 
 into the hearts of the Thessalonians (Olshausen). The first 
 view is against linguistic usage, as eloodov éxew Tpos Twa can 
 only have an active sense, can only denote the coming to one, 
 the entrance (comp. i. 1); as also in the classics e/codos is 
 particularly used of the entrance of the chorus into the 
 orchestra (comp. Passow on the word). The latter view is 
 against the context, as in mas émeotpéwWate x.7.r. the effect of 
 the apostle’s preaching is first referred to. — was] how, that is, 
 how joyfully and energetically. — émuctpépew] to turn from 
 the false way to the true. — mpds tov Ocdv] to be converted 
 to God: a well-known biblical figure. It can also denote to 
 return to God; for although this is spoken of those who once 
 were Gentiles, yet their idolatry was only an apostasy from 
 God (comp. Rom. i. 19 ff.).— dovreverv] the infinitive of 
 design. See Winer, p. 298 [E. T. 408].— Oc«@ Cave] the 
 living God (comp. ‘0 OYON, 2 Kings xix. 4, 16, and Acts 
 xiv. 15), in contrast to dead idols (Hab. ii. 19). — adrnAcvos] 
 true, real (comp. N28 TDN, 2 Chron. xv. 3; John xvii. 3; 
 1 John v. 20), in contrast to idols, which are vain and unreal. 
 The design intended by Sovrevev Ocd CovTe Kai adynbwed 
 contains as yet nothing specifically Christian; it is rather 
 SovAefa consecrated to the living and true God, common to 
 Christians and Jews. The specific Christian mark, that which 
 distinguishes Christians also from Jews, is added in what 
 immediately follows. 
 
 Ver. 10. It may surprise us that this characteristic mark 
 is given not as faith in Christ (comp. Acts xx. 21; also John 
 Xvil. 3), but the hope of His advent. But, on the one hand, 
 this hope of the returning Christ presupposes faith in Him, as 
 also puouevoy clearly points to faith as its necessary condition 
 and presupposition; and, on the other hand, in the circum- 
 stances which occasioned the composition of this Epistle, the 
 
38 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 apostle must have been already led to touch in a preliminary 
 manner upon the question, whose more express discussion was 
 reserved to a later portion of his Epistle. — avayévew] here 
 only in the N. T.; in 1 Cor. i. 7, Phil iii. 30, ete, dmexdéy- 
 eoOav stands for it. Erroneously Flatt: to expect with joy. 
 The idea of the nearness of the advent as an event, whose 
 coming the church might hope to live to see, is contained 
 in dvapévew, —éx Tov ovpavdv] belongs to dvapévew. A 
 brachyology, in the sense of dvapéverw éx Tov ovpavav 
 épxopuevov, see Winer, p. 547 [E. T. 775]. — dv ajyecpev én 
 Tév vexpov] is emphatically placed before ’Incody, as God by 
 the resurrection declared Christ to be His vies (comp. Rom. 
 i. 4). Hofmann strangely perverts the passage, that Paul by 
 ov Hryelpev EK TOY vexpOv assigns a reason for €« Tay ovpavar, 
 because “ the coming of the man Jesus from where He is with 
 God to the world where His saints are, has for its supposition 
 that He has risen from where He was with the dead.” There 
 is no emphasis on €« Tov ovpaver, its only purpose is for 
 completing the idea of avapévew. — tov pvopevov| The present 
 participle does not stand for tov pucopevoy (Grotius, Pelt); it 
 serves to show that pvec@ax is not begun only at the judgment, 
 but already here, on earth, inasmuch as the inward conviction 
 resides in the believer that he, by means of his fellowship 
 with Christ, the cwrnp, is delivered from all fears of a future 
 judgment. — Tov pvouevov] stands therefore as a substantive. 
 See Winer, p. 331 [E. T. 443].— dpyy] wrath, then the 
 activity of wrath, punishment. It has also this meaning 
 among classical writers. See Kypke, im den Obss. sacr., on Rom. 
 ii, 5. — Also ris épyouévys] is not equivalent to édevoowévns 
 (Grot., Pelt, and others), but refers to the certain coming of 
 the wrath at the judgment, which Christ will hold at His 
 advent (comp. Col. iii. 6). 
 
CHAP. II. ; 39 
 
 CHAPTER If. 
 
 VER. 2. sporadévres] Elz. has zai sporaddvree. Against A BC D 
 EF GLX, min. plur. vss. and Fathers. Kae/ is a gloss for the 
 sake of strengthening. — Ver. 3. Elz. has oire év abr So also 
 Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Alford. But 
 it is to be read odd: & d¢Aw, with Lachm. and Tisch. 1, after 
 A BC D* F G8, min., which also the gradation of the language 
 requires (see exposition). — Ver. 4. Instead of the Receptus rw 
 Oc, B C D* x* 67** 114, e¢ al., Clem. Bas. Oecum. require @ewi. 
 The article is erased by Tisch. and Alford, bracketed by Lach- 
 mann. The omission is not sufficiently attested. Opposed to this 
 omission are the weighty authorities of A D*** EF GK L x**** 
 min. and many Fathers. The article might easily have been 
 omitted, on account of the similarity of sound with the two fol- 
 lowing words. — Ver. 7. B C* D* F G s* min. vss. (also Vulg. 
 and It.) Orig. (once) Cyr. e¢ al. have vz, instead of the 
 Receptus jx. Received by Lachm. But against the unity of 
 the figure, and arisen from attaching the » of the preceding 
 word yevhOnuscy. — Ver. 8. éuerpomevor] Elz, has j imespomevor. Against 
 ABCDEFGKLY, min. plur. edd. Chrys. (alic.) Damasce. 
 ms. Theophyl. dis. Reiche, I. 1, p. 326 ff, indeed, recognises 
 dmerpouevos AS primitiva scriptura; but he thinks that iwespéwevor 
 was the word designed to be written by Paul, whilst émespéuevor 
 owed its origin to an error in dictation—to a mistake of the 
 amanuensis in hearing or in writing. — yeyévyode] A BC D E 
 F G Lx, min. plur. Bas. al. read éyevqdyre. Recommended by 
 Griesbach. Rightly received by Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. Bloom- 
 field, Alford. The Receptus yeyévycte is a correction, from 
 erroneously imagining <déoxoduev to be in the present. — Ver. 9. 
 wr6¢| Elz. Matth. have wxris yép. But yep is rightly erased 
 by Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. Alford, according to A B D* 
 F Gk, 23, 71, e al. perm. Syr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. It. Chrys. 
 (comm.) Theophyl. Ambrosiast. Aug. An explanatory correction. 
 — Ver. 12. Instead of the Receptus pwuprupoduevor, B D*** (also 
 D** ?) E (?) K L8, min. plur. Chrys. Damase. Oec. have pap- 
 supouevor. Rejected by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. 1. Correctly 
 approved by Matth. Fritzsche (de conform. N. T. critica, quam 
 
40 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 Lachm. edidit, comment. I., Giessen 1841, p. 38), de Wette, 
 Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Alford, and Reiche, as paprupe?odas 
 is everywhere used only in a passive sense (see Meyer on Acts 
 xxvi. 22, and Rinck, lueubr. crit. p. 95), so that pwaprupodwevor 
 would be without meaning. Also paprupéwevs by a careless 
 scribe might easily have been formed into japrupoduevor, on 
 account of the preceding rapauuloduevor, as the similarity of 
 termination gave occasion to the entire omission of zai waprup. 
 in A. — Instead of the Ree. cepirurjoas is, with Lachm. Scholz, 
 Tisch. Alford, to be read vepirareiv, according to A B D* F Gr, 
 min. Jecommended to consideration by Griesb,— Ver. 13. 
 Instead of the Receptus bia rotro, Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, 
 according to A Bs, Copt. Syr. p. al. Theodoret (cd.) Ambrosiast. 
 read zai d:& rotro, which, as the more unusual reading, merits 
 the preference. — Ver. 15, rods xpopyraus] Elz. Matth. Bloom- 
 field, Reiche read rovg id/ovs zpopjras. Against A B D* E* F Gx, 
 min. vss. (also It. and Vulg.) and Fathers. A gloss from ver. 14 
 for the sake of strengthening. — Ver. 16. ¢9éae:v] Lachm. and 
 Tisch. 1 read épéuzxev, which is only attested by B D*, whilst 
 the Receptus has the important authority of A C D** and *** E 
 F G K L®, and as it appears of all min. of Orig. (twice) Chrys. 
 Theodoret, Dam. e¢ al. — Instead of the Receptus 4 ipy4, D EF 
 G, Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. Pel. Sedul. have 7 épy7 rod Oo; an 
 explanatory addition. — Ver. 18. Ad] Elz. Matth. Scholz, 
 Tisch. 2, Bloomfield, Reiche have 6. Against preponde- 
 rating testimonies (A B D* F Gx, al.). Suspected also by 
 Griesbach. — Ver. 19. *Inood] Elz. Matth. Scholz have *Ino0d 
 Xpiorod. Xpicrod is doubted by Griesb., correctly erased by 
 Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, according to A B D E Kx, min. 
 plur. Syr. utr. a/. Theodoret, Damasc. Oec. Ambrosiast. ed. 
 
 ConTENTS.—The readers themselves know that the apostle’s 
 entrance among them was not without effect: although he 
 had just been maltreated at Philippi, yet he has the courage 
 to preach the gospel at Thessalonica amid contentions and 
 dangers ; for God Himself has called him to preach the gospel. 
 It is accordingly solely and entirely the approval of God which 
 he seeks; impure motives for preaching the gospel, such as 
 vanity, covetousness, desire of honour, are far removed from 
 him; he has, full of love, interested himself for the Thes- 
 salonians; he himself day and night worked for his main- 
 tenance, that he might not be burdensome to them; he then, 
 
CHAP? Il. 1; 41 
 
 in a paternal manner, exhorts and beseeches every one of them 
 to show themselves worthy in their life of the call to eternal 
 blessedness, which had been brought to them (vv. 1-12). He 
 then thanks God that the Thessalonians had actually received 
 the gospel as the word of God, which it really is, and that it 
 had already been so mighty in them, that they shunned not to 
 endure sufferings for its sake (vv. 13-16). Hereupon the 
 apostle testifies to his readers how he, full of longing toward 
 them, who are no less than other Christian churches his hope, 
 his praise, and his joy, had wished twice to return to them, 
 but had been hindered by the devil (vv. 17-20). 
 
 Ver. 1 is referred by Grotius to a thought to be supplied 
 after i. 10: Merito illam spem vitae aeternae retinetis. Vera 
 enim sunt, quae vobis annuntiavimus. Arbitrarily, as avtoi 
 yap, emphatically placed first, yea, you yourselves, must contain 
 a contrast of the readers to other persons; and, besides, this 
 view is founded on a false interpretation of od Kevi yéyovev 
 (see below). Also ver. 1 cannot, with Bengel, Flatt (who, 
 besides, will consider 1. 8-10 as a parenthesis), Pelt, Schott, 
 and others, be referred to i. 5, 6; nor, with Hofmann, “ extend- 
 ing over edotes THY éxdoynv tuav” (i. 4) to evyapicTotuev TO 
 Oe@ (i. 2), the thought being now developed, “ what justifica- 
 tion the apostle had for making the election of his readers 
 the special object of thanksgiving to God.” But must, with 
 Zanchius, Balduin, Turretin, de Wette, Bloomfield, Alford, and 
 others, be referred back toi. 9. For to i. 9 points—(1) adrol 
 yap oldate, by which the Thessalonians themselves are contrasted 
 to the strangers who reported their praise; (2) tiv elcodov 
 OV THY Tpos vwas, even by its similarity of sound refers 
 to omotay elcodoy éxyouev mpos buds (i. 9); (3) the greater 
 naturalness of referring ydp (ii. 1) to the preceding Jast inde- 
 pendent sentence. The relation of this reference is as follows: 
 in chap. ii. 1 the apostle refers to i. 9, in order to develope the 
 thought expressed there—which certainly was already con- 
 tained in i. 5, 6—by an appeal to the consciousness of the 
 readers. But the thought expressed in i. 9 was twofold— 
 (1) a statement concerning Paul and his assistants, namely, 
 with what energy they preached the gospel at Thessalonica 
 
42 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 (orolav elcodov goyopev pos tyas); and (2) a statement 
 concerning the Thessalonians, namely, with “hat eagerness 
 they received the gospel («ai mas «.7.X.). Both circumstances 
 the apostle further developes in chap. ii.: first, and most circum- 
 stantially, the manner in which he and his assistants appeared 
 in Thessalonica (ii. 1-12); and, secondly, the corresponding 
 conduct of his readers (ii. 13-16). But the description of 
 himself (vv. 1-12) was not occasioned by the calumniations of 
 the apostle, and a diminution of confidence in him occasioned 
 thereby (Benson, Ritschl, Hall. A. Lit. Z. 1847, No. 125; 
 Auberlen) ; also, not so much by the heartfelt gratitude for 
 the great blessings which God had conferred on his ministry 
 at Thessalonica, as by the definite design of strengthening and 
 confirming, in the way of life on which they had entered, the 
 Christian church. at Thessalonica,—which, notwithstanding 
 their exemplary faith, yet consisted only of novices,—by a 
 vivid representation of the circumstances of their conversion. 
 How entirely appropriate was the courageous, unselfish, self- 
 sacrificing, and unwearied preaching of the apcstle to exhibit 
 the high value of the gospel itself, seeing it was capable of 
 inspiring such a conduct as Paul and his companions had 
 exhibited ! — yap] yea, or indecd. See Hartung, Partikellehre, 
 I. p. 463 ff.— The construction: ofate thy elcodov, 6T~— 
 where we, according to our idiom, would expect ofdare, 67u 7 
 elgodos x.T.A.—is not only, as Schott and others say, “not 
 unknown” to classical writers, but is a regular construction 
 among the Greeks. See Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 466.—7 
 elcod0s % pos wuads] denotes here nothing more than our 
 entrance among you. — Kevos] is the opposite of wArjpns, and 
 denotes empty, void of contents, null.—od Kevyn yéyover] 
 Grotius (whom Hammond follows) translates this by mendaa, 
 fallax (SW), and gives the sense: non decepturi ad vos veni- 
 mus. But although xevds often forms the contrast to adnOHs 
 (see also Eph. v. 6), yet it obtains only thereby the meaning 
 falsus, never the meaning fallax; also ver. 2 would not suit 
 to the meaning fallax, because then the idea of uprightness 
 would be expected as a contrast. Oecumenius finds in 
 vy. 1, 2 the contrast of ¢ruth and falsehood: ob Kev yéeyovev" 
 
CHAP. II. 2. 43 
 
 TouTéaTW ov pataia ov pdor yap revdets Kal Aipor Ta 
 nuetepa xnpvypata. But he obtains this meaning only by 
 incorrectly laying the chief stress in ver. 2 on To evayyédov 
 Tov Ocod (ovdé apets avOpemwov te éexnpvEauev eis twas 
 ava Ocovd Aoyous). Similarly to Grotius, but equally erro- 
 neously, Koppe (veni ad vos eo consilio et studio, ut vobis 
 prodessem, non ut otiose inter vos viverem) and Rosenmiiller 
 (vani honoris vel opum acquirendarum studio) refer od Kev) 
 yéyovev to the design of the apostle, interpretations which are 
 rendered impossible by the perfect yéyovev. With a more 
 correct appreciation of yéyovey, Estius, Piscator, Vorstius, 
 Turretin, Flatt, and others give the meaning inutilis, fructu 
 carens, appealing to the Hebrew ~P™. This meaning is in itself 
 not untenable, but it becomes so in our passage by the con- 
 trast in ver. 2; for ver. 2 does not speak of the result or effect 
 of the apostle’s preaching at Thessalonica, but of the character 
 of that preaching itself. For the sake of this contrast, there- 
 fore, od Kevyn is equivalent to dvvatH, Sew (Chrys.: ovK 
 avOpwrivn ovdé 4 TvXovca), and the meaning is: the apostle’s 
 elcodos, entrance, among the Thessalonians was not weak, 
 powerless, but mighty and energetic. Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, 
 de Wette, and Bloomfield erroneously wnite with this idea of 
 ov Kxevy the idea of the success of the apostle’s evrodos, which is 
 first spoken of in u. 15 ff. : 
 
 Ver. 2. Calvin makes ver. 2 still dependent on 67s of 
 ver. 1; but without grammatical justification. — rpotafovres] 
 although we suffered before. mpowacyew in the N. T., an 
 arat Xeyomevor, denotes the sufferings previous to the time 
 spoken of (comp. Thucyd. iii. 67; Herod. vii. 11). As, how- 
 ever, the compound as well as the simple verb is a vox media, 
 and so may denote the experience of something good (comp. 
 Xen. Mem. ii. 2. 5), Paul fitly adds cat w8picévtes, and were 
 insolently treated (comp. Demosth. adv. Phil. iii., ed. Reisk, 
 p. 126; Matt. xxii. 6; Acts xiv. 5), by which tpoma@ovtes 
 is converted in malam partem, and likewise the idea of 
 maoyew strengthened. (For the circumstance, see Acts xvi.) 
 — xa0es oidate] although a’rol yap oléare had just preceded, 
 is involuntarily added by Paul, by reason of the lively feeling 
 
++ THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 with which he places himself, in thought, in the time whereof 
 he speaks, — érappnovacdpe8a] is not, with de Wette, to be 
 referred to the bold preaching of the gospel, and to be trans- 
 lated: “ we appeared with boldness,” but is to be rendered: 
 “we had confidence.” mappnovafec Oat, indeed, primarily denotes 
 speaking with boldness (Eph. vi. 20), then, also, acting with 
 boldness and confidence. — é€v T@# Oe@ jar] in our God, by 
 means of fellowship and union with Him, belongs to érappy- 
 ovatecOat, and indicates wherein this confidence was founded 
 —in what it had its ground. Occum.: dua Tov évduvapodvta 
 Ocdv Todto Towjcat TeOappyKapev. Hua@v does not denote: 
 eundem ipsis, idolorum quondam cultoribus, deum esse ac ipsi 
 (Pelt), but is the involuntary expression of the internal bond 
 which unites the speakers with God, with their God; comp. 
 Rom. i. 8; 1 Cor. i. 4; Phil.i. 3,iv. 19; Philem. 4. — rAaAjeaz] 
 cannot be united with érappnovacdpeOa in the sense of pera 
 mappnolas éhadodmev (Koppe, Flatt, Pelt); nor is it the state- 
 ment of design (Schott : summa dicendi libertate usi sumus, ut 
 vobis traderemus doctrinam divinam laeta nuntiantem) ; nor 
 is it an epexegetical infinitive (Ambrosiaster: exerta libertate 
 usi sumus in deo nostro, loguendo ad vos evangelium dei in 
 magno certamine; Fritzsche, ad 2 Cor. diss. II. p. 102: non 
 frustra vos adii (ver. 1), sed... libere deo fretus doctrinam 
 div. tradidi, ut vel magnis cum aerumnis conflictans evangelium 
 apud vos docerem ; de Wette: “ so that we preached the gospel 
 to you amid much contention;” Koch); but it is the state- 
 ment of the object attached to érappynovacduea, as this gives 
 to our passage a dependent sense, and only introduces the 
 infinitive clause, thus: we had the confidence to preach to you 
 the gospel of God amid much contention. From this it follows 
 that the chief stress is not to be laid on érappnovacdpela 
 (ver. 2); and thus the unbroken boldness of the apostle does 
 not form the contrast to od Kev? yéyovev, as de Wette thinks, 
 but od Kev) yéyovey has its contrast in AaAjoae TO ev. év 
 TOAN® ayavt. It is only thus that a real relation exists 
 between the thoughts in vy. 1 and 2 (and also only thus a 
 real relation of ver. 3 to ver. 2; see below); for that the 
 preaching of the apostle in Thessalonica was so powerful and 
 
CHAP. II. 3, 4. 45 
 
 energetic (od xevy), was by no means proved by the boldness 
 of his preaching at Thessalonica, though a boldness unbroken 
 by the persecutions which he suffered elsewhere shortly before ; 
 but rather ¢hzs was something great, and demonstrated the 
 power and energy of the apostle’s preaching, that he and his 
 companions, though they had just undergone suffering and 
 persecution at Philippi, nevertheless had the courage and 
 confidence even in Thessalonica to preach the gospel amid 
 sufferings and persecutions. — evayyédov Tod Ocod] The geni- 
 tive denotes not the object of the gospel, but its author; comp. 
 Rom. i. 1. Moreover, evayyédvov tod Ocod is the usual form ; 
 and therefore, although @e@ precedes, evayyéXov avTod is not 
 put. — év 7oAXN@ aya] in much contention. ayeyv is to be 
 understood neither of the cares and anxieties of the apostle 
 (Fritzsche), nor of his diligence and zeal (Moldenhauer), but 
 of external conflicts and dangers. 
 
 Vv. 3, 4 explain what enables and obliges the apostle to 
 preach the gospel in sufferings and trials. The objective and 
 subjective truth of his preaching enables him, and the apostolic 
 eall with which God had entrusted him obliges him. yap, 
 ver. 3, accordingly does not refer to 7d evayyédvov Tod Ocod 
 (Moldenhauer, Flatt), nor to érappynoiacdpeba (Olshausen, de 
 Wette, Koch), but to Aadjoas €v TOA ayo. — 1 yap 
 TapaKkAnols auov ovK ek TAdYNS K.T.r.] sc. éoTiv, Not Fv 
 (Bloomfield), for Paul establishes (vv. 3, 4) the manner of his 
 entrance in Thessalonica (as the present AaXoduev proves) by 
 qualities which were habitual to him ; and not until ver. 5 does 
 he return to the special manifestation of those general qualities 
 during his residence in Thessalonica. — trapaxdnots] denotes 
 exhortation, address. The meaning of this word is modified 
 according to the different circumstances of those to whom the 
 address is directed. If the address is made to a sufferer or 
 mourner, then it is naturally consolatory, and wapd«dnots 
 denotes comfort, consolation; but if it is directed to-a moral 
 or intellectual want, then tapdxAyous is to be translated 
 exhortation, admonition. Now the first evangelical preaching 
 naturally consists in exhortation and admonition—namely, in 
 a demand to put away their sins, and to lay hold on the 
 
46 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 salvation offered by God through the mission of His Son 
 (comp. 2 Cor. v. 20). Accordingly, mapaxAnois might be 
 used to denote the preaching of the gospel generally. So 
 here, where to adhere to the meaning consolatio, with Zwingli, 
 would be unsuitable. Yet it is erroneous to replace mapa- 
 Krnows with dvdax7n (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, de 
 Wette) or with dvdaccaria (Theodoret) ; for, according to the 
 above, more is contained in wapd«Anovs than in these ideas. 
 Pelt explains mapdxAnots erroneously by docendi ratio. But 
 Tapaxdnous, understood as an exhortative address, or as the 
 preaching of the gospel, may be taken either in an objective 
 or subjective meaning: in the first case, it denotes the contents 
 or subject of the preaching; in the second case, the preaching 
 itself. The latter meaning is to be preferred on account of 
 ver. 4.—The wapdxdyous of the apostle and his assistants had 
 its origin not €« wAdvns. wAavn, error, is used in a transitive 
 and intransitive sense. In the former case it denotes deceit- 
 fulness (Matt. xxvii. 64) or seduction (Eph. iv. 14); in the 
 latter, which is the more usual meaning, delusion. In both 
 cases 7Advy is the contrast of d\j@ea (1 John iv. 6): in the 
 former case, of dd7Meva in a subjective sense, truthfulness; in 
 the latter, of ad7j@ea in an objective sense, truth (thus in 
 Rom. i. 27, where wAdvy refers to the idolatrous perversion of 
 Monotheistic worship). Also, here wAdvn (on account of the 
 succeeding €v d0d@) is best rendered not impostura (Erasmus, 
 Calvin, Hemming, Estius, Beza, Turretin) or seducendi studiwmr 
 (Vorstius, Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius), but delusion. Accord- 
 ingly the sense is: the apostle and his associates avoided not 
 sufferings and trials in the preaching of the gospel, because 
 their preaching rested not on a fiction, a whim, a dream, a 
 delusion,—consequently it had not such as these for its object 
 and contents; but it is founded on reality,—that is to say, it 
 has divine truth as its source. — oddé €& dxafapoias] a second 
 reason different from the first, and heightening it. Paul turns 
 from the objective side of the origin of his preaching to its sub- 
 jective side,—that is, to the motive which lay at the foundation 
 of the gospel preaching of himself and his assistants. This 
 motive is not dxa@apoia (see Tittmann, de synonym. in N. I. 
 
od 
 
 CHAP, II. 4. 47 
 
 I. p. 150 f.), wneleanness, z.e. impurity of sentiment, as would be 
 the case were the apostle to preach the gospel from covet- 
 ousness, vanity, or similar reasons. — ovdé €v d0A@] nor also 
 (does it consist or realize itself) in guile or deceit (contrast 
 to eiduxpivera, 2 Cor. ii. 17); a new emphasis, as it was 
 something still worse, if not only an impure purpose lay at 
 the foundation of a transaction, but also reprehensible means 
 (e.g. KoNaxelia, ver. 5) were employed for the attainment of 
 that purpose. 
 
 Ver. 4. The contrast.— xa@ws]+not equivalent to because, 
 quoniam (Flatt), but according as, or in conformity with this. 
 — doxipafev] denotes to prove, to try, then to esteem worthy, 
 so that it corresponds to the verb afvov, 2 Thess. i. 11. 
 Comp. Plut. Thes. 12: "Ed@av ody 6 Onoeds eri Td apictov 
 ove édokipate dpdfev avttov, ootis ein. — Sedoxipacpela 
 denotes, accordingly, not the divine act of the purification of 
 the human character (Moldenhauer), but the being esteemed 
 worthy on the part of God; not, however, as a reward of 
 human merit, or a recognition of a disposition not taken up 
 with earthly things (Chrysostom: e2 pa) ede mavTds amn\ray- 
 pevous Biwtixod, ovk av nuds eideTo; Theophylact: ov« av 
 e&eneEaTto, eb pur) aEious éyivwoxe) ; also, not as an anticipation 
 that Paul and his associates would preach the gospel without 
 pleasing men (Oecumenius: 0 Ocds edoxipacev mas undev Tpos 
 dofav Aareiv avOpérav pédAXovTas), but as a manifestation of 
 the free and gracious counsel of God (Theodoret, Grotius, Pelt). 
 The chief idea, however, is not dedoxiuacpela (so Hofmann), 
 but wuotevOjvat TO evaryyédtov.—The passive form: mie tevOjvat 
 TO evayyédvov, is according to the well-known Greek idiom, of 
 using in the passive the nominative_of the person, even in 
 verbs which in the active govern the genitive or dative. 
 Comp. Rom. ni. 2; 1 Cor. ix. 17; Gal: i 7. Kihner, II: 
 p. 34; Winer, p. 205 [E. T. 286]. — ottws] emphatically: 
 even in this condition, even according to this rule. It does not 
 refer to the following @s (Flatt), but to the preceding cadas, 
 and denotes that the gospel preaching of the apostle and his 
 associates was in correspondence with the grace and obliga- 
 tion imparted to them, — ovy ws «.7.4.] explains and defines 
 
48 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 the whole preceding sentence: xaOws ... otTws Nadodpmev. — 
 dpécxew] is here, on account of the concluding words a\Xa 
 T® Oc@ x«.7.X., not to please, to find approbation, but to seek to 
 please. For, in reference to God, the apostle, according to his 
 whole religious views and habits of thought, could only predi- 
 cate of himself an endeavour to please, but not the actual fact 
 that he pleased Him. It would, however, be erroneous to put 
 this meaning into the verb itself ;' it arises only when the 
 present or imperfect is employed, because these tenses may be 
 used de conatu. See Pflugk, ad Eur. Hel. V. 1085; Stallb. 
 ad Plat. Gorg. p. 185, and ad Protag. p. 46 ; Kiihner, II. 
 p. 67.— @s] may either be—(1) a pure particle of compari- 
 son: not as men-pleasers, but as such who seek to please God ; 
 or (2) may mark the condition: not as such who, ete.; or 
 lastly, (3) may emphasize the perversity which would exist, if 
 the apostle was accused of avOparois apéoxew: not as if we 
 sought to please men. In the two first cases ms extends over 
 the second member of the sentence: dAAa 7H Oc «.7.X., in the 
 last only over dvO@pérois apéoxovtes. The second meaning is 
 to be preferred, as according to it ody ws «.7.d. corresponds 
 best to the qualifying words expressive of the apostle’s mode 
 of preaching (ver. 3).—7@ Soxiyuafovte tas Kapdias jpov) 
 who proves, searches our hearts. pov refers to the speaker. 
 To understand it generally, with Koppe, Pelt, Koch, and 
 Bloomfield, is indeed possible, but not to be commended, as 
 the general form To Soxiyafovte tas Kxapdias, without the 
 addition of #uév, would be expected. Comp. Rom. viii. 27 ; 
 Rev. ii. 23; Ps. vii. 10. Moreover, Paul speaks neither 
 here nor in ver. 7 ff. of himself only, as de Wette thinks 
 “very probable” in vv. 3, 4, but “certain” in ver. 7, but 
 includes his associates mentioned in i. 1. If the apostle 
 spoke only of himself, he would not have put tds xapdias 
 joa (ver. 4) and tas éavtay ~uyds (ver. 8), but would have 
 written both times the singular, tiv capdiav juav and rv 
 Wuxny Her. 
 
 1 So Wieseler on Gal. i. 10, who, however, explains it not ‘‘ to seek to please,” 
 but ‘‘ to live to please ;” and after him, Hofmann and Mohler in the 8d ed. of 
 de Wette’s Commentary. 
 
CHAP, II. 5. 49 
 
 Ver. 5. Proof of the habitual character of the gospel 
 preaching by an appeal to the character which it specially had 
 in Thessalonica. — yap] refers to ody ws avOpdrois apé- 
 oKoVTes GAA TO Ocw. — eyeviOnuev ev] we proved ourselves 
 in, or we appeared as of such a character. The passive form 
 éyevnOnwev (see on i. 5) denotes here also that the mode of 
 appearance mentioned lay in the plan of God, was something 
 appointed by Him. — codaxeia] comp. Theophrast. charact. 
 c. 2: Tyv &€ Kodakelay troddBor dv Tis opidlay aioypav 
 evar, suppépovaay S€ TH KoAaKevovTt, The word is not 
 again found in the N. T. év XOyw Kodaxefas cannot denote 
 in a rumour (report) of flattery, according to which the sense 
 would be: for never has one blamed us of flattery (so 
 Heinsius, Hammond, Clericus, Michaelis). Against this is the 
 context, for the point here is not what others said of the 
 apostle’s conduct, but what it was in reality. Also it is 
 inadmissible to take év Adyw KodaKelas, according to the 
 analogy of the Hebrew 133 with the following substantive, as 
 a circumlocution for év codaxeia (so Pelt, who, however, when 
 he renders the clause: in assentationis erimen incurri, involun- 
 tarily falls into the afore-mentioned explanation). For—(1) 
 the Hebrew use of 725 is foreign to the N. T.; (2) it is over- 
 looked that Adyos codNaxelas finds in the context its full import 
 and reference, inasmuch as the apostle, in complete conformity 
 to the contents of the preceding verses (comp. AaAjoat, ver. 2 ; 
 TapaKAnots, ver. 3; Aadovpev, ver. 4), in the beginning of 
 ver. 5 still speaks of a quality of his discowrse, and only in 
 ver. 6 passes to describe his conduct in Thessalonica in general. 
 Accordingly, the apostle denies that he appeared in Thessa- 
 lonica with a mode of speech whose natwre or contents was 
 flattery (Schott falsely takes xoNaxevas as the genitive of 
 origin), or that he showed himself infected with it. Jn 
 Thessalonica, for this limitation of ov... moré is demanded 
 by the accessory appeal to the actual knowledge of the 
 readers—xa0es oidate, as ye know. — ote év mpopaces TeEo- 
 veElas| sc, éyevnOnuev. mpodacis, from tpodaivw (not from 
 mpodnut), denotes that which one puts on for appearance, and 
 with the definite design to colour or to cloak something else 
 
 Mryer—1 Tuzss. D 
 
50 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 It therefore denotes pretext, the outward show, and has its 
 contrast (comp. Phil. i. 18) in adja. See proofs in 
 Raphel, Polyb. p. 354. The meaning accordingly is: we 
 appeared not in a pretext for covetousness, ic. our gospel 
 preaching was not of this nature, that it was only a pretext or 
 cloak to conceal our proper design, namely, covetousness. 
 Without linguistic reason, and against the context, Heinsius 
 and Hammond understand mpodacis as accusatio; Pelt, 
 weakening the idea, and not exhausting the fundamental 
 import of mpogacus (see below), nunquam ostendi avaritiam ; 
 Wolf also unsatisfactorily considers tpodacis as equivalent to 
 species ; similarly Ewald, “even in an appearance of covetous- 
 ness ;” for the emphatic even (by which that interpretation 
 is at all suitable, and by means of which there would be a 
 reference to a supplementary clause, “to say nothing of its 
 being really covetousness ”) is interpolated, and the question 
 at issue is not whether Paul and his associates avoided the 
 appearance of maAeoveEia, but whether they actually kept 
 themselves at a distance from wAeoveEia. Lastly, erroneously 
 Clericus (so also the Vulg.) : in occasione avaritiae, ita ut velit 
 apostolus se nullam unquam occasionem praebuisse, ob quam 
 posset insimulari avaritiae. — Ocds dptus] comp. Rom. i. 9 ; 
 Phil. i. 8. Paul having just now appealed to the testimony 
 of his readers that he was removed from koXaxela, now takes 
 God for witness that the motive of his behaviour was not 
 mreoveéia. Naturally and rightly ; for man can only judge of 
 the character of an action when externally manifested, but 
 God only knows the internal motives of acting. 
 
 Ver. 6. Nor have the apostle and his associates had to do 
 in the publication of the gospel with external honour and 
 distinction. Comp. John v. 41, 44. — rodvtes] se. éyevjOn- 
 pev. — €& avOpwrewv] emphatic. Oecumenius: kadads dé €& 
 avOporrav’ tv yap €K Ocod (sc. SoEav) Kal é&jrovv Kal éXap- 
 Bavov. — According to Schott and Bloomfield, the preposition 
 éx refers to the direct and dzo to the indirect origin —a 
 distinction in our passage impossible, as é£ dv@pe#ay is the 
 general expression which is by ovre...ovre divided into 
 subordinate members, or specialized. See Winer, p. 365 
 
CIIAP, Il. 6. 51 
 
 [E. T. 512]..—A new sentence is not to be begun with duvd- 
 pevot, so that either, with Flatt, jer would have to be 
 supplied; or, with Calvin, Koppe, and others, duvdpevor «.7.d. 
 would have to be considered as the protasis, and aA’ éyevr- 
 Onpev (ver. 7) as the apodosis belonging to it; or, with 
 Hofmann, dAX éyevnOnpev rrvoe év péow bwov as an exclama- 
 tory interruption of the discourse in its progress, distinctions 
 chiefly occasioned by the misunderstanding of év Bape. But 
 duvapevot is subordinate to f&ntodvres (sc. éyevnOnuev) and 
 limits it, on account of which it is inappropriate to enclose 
 duvdpevot ... aTocToAoL, With Schottgen and Griesbach, in a 
 parenthesis. The meaning is: Also in our entrance to you 
 our motive was not in anywise to be honoured or distinguished 
 by men, although we certainly might have demanded external 
 honour. Theodoret, Musculus, Camerarius, Estius, Beza, 
 Grotius, Calixtus, Calovius, Clericus, Turretin, Whitby, 
 Baumgarten, Koppe, Flatt, Ewald, Hofmann, and others take 
 év Bdpet eivas in the sense of being burdensome (sc. by a 
 demand of maintenance from the church), and thus equivalent 
 to emBapeiy (ver. 9; 2 Thess, iii. 8; and cataBapety, 2 Cor. 
 xii. 16; comp. aBaph éuavtov éethnpnoa, 2 Cor. xi. 9); but this 
 is an arbitrary assumption from ver. 9—arbitrary, because 
 Entobvres So€av and év Bape eivas must correspond; but in 
 the first half of ver. 6 Paul’s custom of not suffering himself 
 to be supported by the church, but gaining his maintenance 
 by working with his own hands, is not indicated by a single 
 syllable. On account of this correspondence of év Bapes with 
 dofav, the explanation of Lipsius (Stud. wu. Krit. 1854, 4, 
 p. 912) is wholly untenable: “ As the apostles of Christ we 
 did not at all need glory among men, but were rather in a 
 position to endure trouble and burden,—that is, to endure with 
 equanimity persecutions and trials of all kinds which men 
 inflict upon us,” not to mention that the idea of “not at all 
 
 1 If a distinction between the two prepositions is to be assumed, we can only 
 say, with Bouman (Charact. theolog. I. p. 78): ‘deze 22 dvépirwv universe est 
 avbpurivn, quae humanam originem habet, ex hominibus exsistit : doa 2¢ suay, 
 quae singulatim a vobis, vestro ab ore manat ac proficiscitur;” or, with Alford, 
 **tx belongs to the abstract ground of the deZ«, axe to the concrete olject, from 
 which it was in each case to accrue.”’ 
 
52 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 needing,” and the emphatic “ rather,” are first arbitrarily inter- 
 polated. Heinsius, after the example of Piscator (who, however, 
 wavers), understands év Bdpeu elvas of severitas apostolica: Se 
 igitur, év Bdpe elvar Svvdwevoy, quum severitatem exercere 
 apostolicam posset, lenem fuisse, eo fere modo, quo ev padBdw 
 eNOciv Kal ev ayatn mvevpati Te TpaitnTos, 1 Cor. iv. 21, 
 opponit. But thus €y Bdpes and rrvoe will be erroneously 
 opposed to each other. (See on ver. 7.) Pdpos, heaviness, 
 weight, occurs even among classical writers, as the Latin 
 gravitas, in the sense of distinction, dignity (see Wesseling, ad 
 Diodor. Sicul. lV. 61). é&v Bapes etvar accordingly means to be 
 of weight, to be of importance, zc. to be deserving of outward 
 honour and distinction. Thus Chrysostom, Oecumenius and 
 Theophylact (both, however, undecidedly), Ambrosiaster, Eras- 
 mus, Calvin, Hunnius, Wolf, Moldenhauer, Pelt, Schott, 
 Olshausen, de Wette, Koch, Bisping, Alford, Auberlen, and 
 others. — Paul annexes the justification of such an év Bapeu 
 elvat by the words @: Xpiotod arocrodor] ic. not sicut apos- 
 toli alii faciunt (1 Cor. ix. 6; Grotius), but in virtue of our 
 character as the apostles of Christ. amocroXou is, however, to 
 be used in its wider sense, as Paul not only speaks of him- 
 self, but also of Silvanus and Timotheus, as in Acts xiv. 14. 
 Ver. 7. Paul begins in this verse the positive description 
 of his appearance and conduct in Thessalonica. — aA’ éyev?- 
 Onpev 7reov| a contrast not to Suvdwevor ev Baper eivar (Hein- 
 sius, Turretin, and others), but to the principal idea of ver. 6. 
 The apostle’s conduct is not that of one dcfav é& dvOparav 
 fntav, but of one who was 7710s; God had made him show 
 himself (eyev7Onyev) not as master, but as servant. Occu- 
 menius: @s els && tuav éyevnOnuev. — Hrvos| mild, kindly, is 
 used of an amiable disposition or conduct of a higher toward 
 a lower, ze. of a prince to his subjects, of a judge to the 
 accused, of a father to his children. Comp. Hom. Od. ii. 47; 
 Herodian, ii. 4, init. ; Pausan. Eliac. ii. 18.— ev péow tyav] in 
 your midst, t.e.in intercourse with you. Erroneously Calovius, 
 it denotes: erga omnes pariter. Non erga hos blandi, ergo 
 illos morosi. There is, however, no emphasis on tpav; the 
 apostle does not indicate that he behaved otherwise in other 
 
 — 
 
3 
 
 ou 
 
 CHAP. II. 8. 
 
 places. — A colon is to be put after év péow tudy, so that os 
 . oUTws are connected as protasis and apodosis, and describe 
 the intensity of Paul’s love to the Thessalonians; whilst in 
 évyevnOnwev . . . Yuov this love only in and for itself, or accord- 
 ing to its general nature, was stated as a feature of the apostle’s 
 Ta éavtis téxva, the suckling mother herself. Under the 
 image of a mother Paul represents himself also, in Gal. iv. 19, 
 as elsewhere, under the image of a father; see ver. 11; 
 1 Cor. iv. 15; Philem. 10.— @dd7revy] originally to warm, of 
 birds which cover and warm their young with their feathers : 
 (see Deut. xxii. 6); consequently an image of protecting love 
 and anxious care generally, our cherishing ; see Eph. v. 29. 
 Ver. 8. ‘Opeipec@ar] occurs, besides LXX. Job iii. 21, and 
 Symmachus, Ps. lxii. 2 (yet even in these two places Mss. 
 differ), only in the glossaries. Hesychius, Phavorinus, and 
 Photius explain it by émi@upety. -Theophylact derives it from 
 ouod and eipew; and corresponding to this, Photius explains 
 it by ouod HpuccGa. Accordingly, operpopevos tudv would 
 denote bound with you, attached to you. Fritzsche, ad Mare. 
 p. 792 f., Schott, and others agree. But this is questionable— 
 (1) Because the verb is here construed with the genitive, and 
 not with the dative; (2) because there is no instance of a 
 similar verb compounded with ood or ouos; see Winer, p. 92 
 [E. T. 125]. Now, as in Nicander (Theriaca, ver. 402) the 
 simple form peipeo ax occurs in the sense of (uelper@az, it can 
 hardly be doubted that pefpec@as is the original root to which 
 inetpecOar and opeipecOar (having the same meaning) are 
 related, having a syllable prefixed for euphony. Compare the 
 analogous forms of «KéAd\w and oxédAdw, S¥pouat and dédv- 
 pomat, préw and odrAéw, at’w and favw, and see Kiihner, 
 Ip. 27. Accordingly, as (weiper@ac tivos denotes primarily 
 the yearning love, the yearning desire for union with an absent 
 friend, and secondarily is, according to the testimony of Hesy- 
 chius, synonymous with épav, ouerpouevoe budv receives here 
 the suitable meaning of filled with love to you. Beza unneces- 
 sarily, and against the context (because the word is a verbunr 
 €pwtixov), supplies: videlicet vos ad Christum tanquam sponsam 
 
54 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE TIESSAT.ONIANS. 
 
 ad sponsum adducendi. — otras] belongs not to operpopevoe 
 (Schrader), but to evdoxoduev; thus it is not intensifying so 
 much, but a simple particle of comparison : thus, in this manner. 
 — evdoxodpev] not present, but imperfect with the augment 
 omitted. See Winer, p. 66 [E. T. 83]. evddoxetv, to esteem 
 good, here, to be willing, denotes that what took place was from 
 a free determination of will) Thus it is used both of the 
 eternal, gracious, and free counsels of God (Col. 1.19; Gal. 
 i. 15; 1 Cor. i. 21), and of the free determination of men 
 (Rom. xv. 26; 2 Cor. v. 8).— tas éavtadyv wouyds] not a 
 Hebraism in the sense of nosmet ipsos (Koppe, Flatt), but 
 our lives (Hom. Od. iii. 74; Aristoph. Plut. 524); the plural 
 wuyds proves that Paul thinks not of himself only, but also 
 of Silvanus and Timotheus.— On éavtdv, comp. Bernhardy, 
 Syntax, p. 272; Winer, p. 136 [E. T. 187]. However, the 
 verb petadodvas does not strictly apply to tas éavtav Wouyas, 
 as the idea of zmparting is here transformed into that of offer- 
 ing up, devoting. (Erroneously Bengel: anima nostra cupiebat 
 quasi immeare in animam vestram. Hofmann: In the word 
 preached, which Paul and his companions imparted to the 
 Thessalonians even to the exhaustion of their vital power, this 
 as it were passed over to them, just as the vital power of the 
 mother passes over to the child, whom she is not content with 
 nourishing generally, but, from the longings of love to it, 
 desires to nourish it by suckling.) From the compound verb 
 petadodvar the idea of the simple verb Sodvas is accordingly 
 to be extracted (a zeugma; see Kiihner, II. 606).— The 
 thought contained in @s ... otTws is accordingly: As a mother 
 not only nourishes her new-born child with her milk, but also 
 cherishes and shelters it, yea, is ready to sacrifice her life for 
 its preservation, so has the apostle not merely nourished his 
 spiritual child, the Thessalonian church, with the milk of the 
 gospel, but has been also ready, in order to preserve it in the 
 newly begun life, to sacrifice his own life-—The inducement 
 to such a conduct was love, which the apostle, although he 
 had already mentioned it, again definitely states in the words 
 SuoTe ayarrntor Huiv éyernOnre, because ye were dear and valuable 
 to us. 
 
CHAP, IL 9. 55 
 
 Ver. 9. Tap refers not to duvduevor év Bape elvas, ver. 6 
 (Flatt), but either to éyevOnwev Arcot (ver. 7), or to evdoxodpev 
 petadodvat, or, finally, to dyamntol juiv éyernOnte (ver. 8). 
 For the first reference (éyevjOnpev Arcot), it may be argued that 
 éyevnOnuev Hmeot is the chief idea, the theme as it were, of 
 vv. 7 and 8; but against this is, that the same thought which 
 was expressed in éyevnOnwev Hor is repeated and more defi- 
 nitely developed in a much more vivid and special manner 
 by means of the parallel sentence, attached without a copula, 
 and thus complete. -In such a case a causal conjunction 
 following refers rather to the more vivid and concrete ex- 
 pression than to the more general and abstract. Accordingly, 
 we are referred to the connection with eddoxodpuev petadodvat. 
 Neither can this, however, be the correct connection ; for then 
 must ver. 9 have proved the readiness of the apostle when at 
 Thessalonica to sacrifice his own life for the Thessalonians, as 
 is expressed in ver. 8. But this is not the case, for in ver. 9 
 Paul speaks indeed of his self-sacrificing love, but not of the 
 danger of his life which arose from it. Also Auberlen, who 
 récently has maintained a reference to evdoxoduev petadodvat, 
 can only support this meaning, that Paul has adduced his 
 manual labour mentioned in ver. 9 as a “risking of his health 
 and life.’ But how forced is this idea of the context, and 
 how arbitrarily is the idea of the sacrifice of life, supposed to 
 be expressed therein, contorted and softened down! It is 
 best, therefore, to unite yap with dots dyamnrtol juiv éyevy- 
 @nre, a union which, besides, is recommended by the direct 
 proximity of the words. — pvypovevete] as yap proves, is 
 indicative, not imperative. — xd7os and poy0os] labour and 
 pains: placed together also in 2 Thess. ili. 8 and 2 Cor. 
 xi. 27. Musculus: Significat se haud leviter et obiter, sed 
 ad fatigationem usque incubuisse laboribus. Arbitrarily sepa- 
 rating and mixing the gradation, Balduin interprets «ozros 
 “de spirituali labore, qui consistebat in praedicatione evan- 
 gelii ;” and uoyGos “ de manuario labore scenopegiae.” — vueros 
 Kat uépas] a concrete and proverbial circumlocution of the 
 abstract ddvaXetrtws. But vueros, as usual (Acts ix. 24 is 
 an exception), is placed first, because the Jews (as also the 
 
56 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 Athenians, see Plin. Nat. Hist. ii. 79; Funke, Real-Schullex. 
 II. p. 132) reckoned the civil day from sunset to sunset 
 (see Winer’s bibl. Realwirterb. 2d ed. vol. Il. p. 650). 
 Pelagius, Faber, Stapulensis, Hemming, Balduin, and Aretius 
 arbitrarily limit vuetos to épyafouevor, and muépas to éxn- 
 pvEapuev.— épyafeo Par] (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 6 ; 2 Thess. iii, 10, 12; 
 Acts xviii, 13) the usual word also among the classics (comp. 
 Xen. Mem. i. 2. 57) to denote working for wages, especially 
 manual labour or working by means of a trade (therefore the 
 addition tats yepot, 1 Cor. iv. 12; Eph. iv. 28). Paul means 
 his working as a tent-cloth maker, Acts xviii. 3.— mpods to 
 py emeBaphoat twa tuav] in order not to be burdensome to any, 
 sc. by a demand of maintenance. Incorrectly, Chrysostom, 
 Theophylact, Pelt, and others infer from this that the converted 
 Thessalonians were poor. Evidently this unselfish conduct of 
 the apostle had its ultimate reason in an endeavour that there 
 should be no hindrance on his part to the diffusion of the 
 gospel, — e’s buds] represents the readers as the local objects 
 of enptocew ; comp. Mark xiii. 10; Luke xxiv. 47. There- 
 fore, according to the general sense, it is true that eds das 
 and duty do not differ, but the mode of looking at it is some- 
 what different. See Winer, p. 191 [E. T. 266]. 
 
 Ver. 10. This verse is designed to represent in a summary 
 manner the conduct of the apostle among the Thessalonians, 
 which was hitherto only represented by special features; but 
 as thereby not merely what was patent to external observa- 
 tion, that is, the visible action on which man can pronounce 
 a judgment, but likewise the internal disposition, which is the 
 source of that action, was to be emphasized; so Paul naturally 
 appeals for the truth of his assertion not only to his readers, 
 but to God. The apostle, however, proceeds without a particle 
 of transition, on account of the warmth of emotion with 
 which he speaks. — as] how very. — oolws kai dixatws] (comp. 
 Eph. iv. 24; Luke i. 75; Wisd. ix. 3, oovorns and dixavocvvn) 
 is put entirely in accordance with classical usage; the first 
 denotes dutiful conduct toward God, and the latter toward 
 our neighbour. Comp. Plat. Gory. p. 507: kal pay epi pév 
 avOpaous Ta TpoojKovTa mpattwv Sika’ dv TpaTToL, mEpt 
 
CHAP. IL. 10. 57 
 
 5é Beovs dora; Polyb. xxxiii. 10. 8; Schol. ad Lurip. Hee. 788. 
 —-dpéurrtas| unblameably. Turretin, Bengel, Moldenhauer 
 interpret this of dutiful conduct toward oneself, evidently from 
 the desire of a logical division of love, in order to obtain a 
 sharply marked threefold division of the idea. Flacius refers 
 it to the reliqgui mores besides justitia, that is, to castitas, 
 sobrietas, and moderatio in omnibus; but this is without 
 any reason. It is the general negative designation, com- 
 prehending the two preceding more special and_ positive 
 expressions, thus to be understood of a dutiful conduct 
 toward God and man. Too narrowly Olshausen: that it is 
 the negative expression of the positive dccaiws. — duly Tots 
 meatevovawv] belongs not only to duéumras, but to the whole 
 sentence: 5 ooiws Kal Sux. Kal ap. eyevjO. It is not dat. 
 commodi: “to your, the believers’, behoof;” so that it would 
 be identical with 6¢ das teds muctevovtas. Nor does it 
 mean toward you believers (de Wette: “This, his conduct, 
 had believers for its object with whom he came into contact ;” 
 Hofmann, Auberlen), for (1) ociws does not suit this 
 meaning; (2) as wtpiv tois mictevovow is not without 
 emphasis, the unsuitable contrast would arise, that in reference 
 to others the apostle did not esteem the upright conduct 
 necessary. For, with Hammond, to apply tpiv trois meorev- 
 ovotv, in contrast to the ¢ime when those addressed had not 
 yet been brought to the faith, is grammatically impossible, as 
 then the participle of the aorist without the article must be 
 used; (3) éyer7Onuev does not obtain its due force, as the 
 passive form cannot denote pure self-activity. tiv rots 
 muttTevovow is, as already Oecumenius and Theophylact (and 
 recently Alford) explain it, the dative of opinion or judgment 
 (see Winer, p. 190 [E. T. 265]; Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 83): 
 Jor you, believers, so that this was the character, the light in 
 which we appeared to you. Thus an appropriate limitation 
 arises by this addition. For the hostility raised against the 
 apostle, and his expulsion from Thessalonica, clearly showed 
 how far from being general was the recognition that God had 
 enabled the apostle to behave ociws kal Sdixalws Kai 
 ayéeuTtos. Moreover, as ociws x.7.r. éyev. is not equivalent 
 
58 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 to @s Govor «.7.r. eyev. (Schott). The adverbs bring promi- 
 nently forward the mode and manner, thé condition of yevy- 
 Ojvat. See Winer, p. 413 [E. T. 582]; Bernhardy, Syntaz, 
 p. 337 ff. 
 
 Vv. 11, 12 are not a mere further digression into par- 
 ticulars, which we can scarcely assume after the general 
 concluding words in ver. 10, without blaming the author, 
 notwithstanding the freedom of epistolary composition, of 
 great logical arbitrariness and looseness, but are a proof of the 
 general concluding sentence ver. 10, ex analogia. As in all that 
 has hitherto been said the twofold reference to the apostle 
 and his two associates on the one hand, and to the readers 
 on the other, has predominated, so is this also the case in 
 vv. 10-12. The circumstance that he has anxiously and 
 earnestly exhorted his readers to a similar conduct in dcvTys, 
 Sixacocvvn, and apeurpia, is asserted by the apostle as a proof 
 that he himself behaved in the most perfect manner (@s) among 
 the Thessalonians ociws cal Sixaiws cal duéurtos. For if 
 any one be truly desirous that others walk virtuously, this 
 presupposes the endeavour after virtue in himself. It is thus 
 erroneous when de Wette and Koch, p. 172, think that the 
 apostle in ver. 10 speaks of his conduct generally, and in 
 vv. 11, 12 of his ministerial conduct particularly. In 
 vv. 11, 12 Paul does not speak wholly of his ministerial 
 conduct, for the participles wapaxadodvtes, tapapv0ovpevot, 
 and paptupomevoe are not to be taken independently, but 
 receive their full sense only in union with e’s To wepimrareiy 
 x.7.r., so that the chief stress in the sentence rests on eis 
 TO «.7T.X., and the accumulation of participles serves only to 
 bring vividly forward the earnestness and urgency of the 
 apostle’s exhortation to mepivateiv. Entirely erroneous, 
 therefore, is Pelt’s idea of the connection: Redit P. ad 
 amorem, quo eos amplectatur, iterum profitendum; for the 
 attestation of love, in the conduct described in vv. 11, 12, 
 is only expressed by the addition: @s warhp téxva éavTod, 
 and is thus only subsidiary to the main thought. — «a@dzrep] 
 as then, denotes the conformity of what follows to what pre- 
 cedes. As regards the construction: o/Sate @s «.7.d., We miss 
 
CHAP. II. 11, 12. 59 
 
 a finite tense." Koppe considers that the participles are put 
 instead of the jinite tenses, @s Twapexadécapev Kal Tapepv- 
 Onodpeba Kal euaptupnodeOa, an assertion which we can in 
 the present day the less accept, as it is of itself self-evident 
 that the participles of the present must have another meaning 
 than that which could have been expressed by the finite 
 forms of the aorist, i.e. of the purely historical tense. Others, 
 objecting to the two accusatives, €va éxactov and tmas, have 
 united twas with the participle, and suggested a jinite tense 
 to €va éxaotov, which, at the beginning of the period, must 
 have been in Paul’s mind, but which he forgot to add when 
 dictating to his amanuensis. Vatablus, Er. Schmid, Oster- 
 mann would supply to &va &kactov, nyarncapev; Whitby, 
 epiryoapev, or jryaTnoapey, or €Oddpapuev, from ver. 7; Pelt, 
 ovy adiyxapev(?) ; Schott, a verb containing the “notio curandi 
 sive tractandi sive educandi.”* But (1) the two accusatives 
 do not at all justify supplying a special verb to €va Exactor, 
 as not only among the classics is the twofold use of personal 
 determinations not rare (see Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 275), but 
 also in Paul’s Epistles there are similar repetitions of the 
 personal object (comp. Col. ii. 13; Eph. 11, 1, 5). (2) To supply 
 nyaTnoapev, or a similar idea, is in contradiction with the 
 design and contents of vv. 11, 12, as the chief point in these 
 verses is to be sought in the recollection of the impressive 
 exhortations addressed to the Thessalonians to aim at a con- 
 duct similar to that of the apostle. Not only the simplest, 
 but the only correct method, is, with Musculus, Wolf, 
 Turretin, Bengel, Alford, and Hofmann, to supply éyev7- 
 Onuev, which has just preceded ver. 10, to os... mapaxa- 
 
 1 Certainly otherwise Schrader, who regards xaédwep oldars as ‘‘a mere paren- 
 thesis which refers to what goes before and what follows,” so that then. ds 
 Tupaxarovyrss xual wepap, xal mwapr., VV. 11, 12, would be only parallel to as 
 éciws nat dix, xal &uturr., ver. 10. So recently also Auberlen. But this con- 
 struction is impossible, because xaédéersp o/dace is not a complete repetition of 
 the preceding tusis wdprupes xa) 6 Ozes, but only of its first part (Sucis pwaprupes), 
 and thus can in no wise be considered as a meaningless addition. 
 
 * Erasmus completes the clause : complexi fuerimus, and finds in the double 
 accusatives a “‘balbuties apostolicae charitatis, quae se verbis humanis seu 
 temulenta non explicat.” 
 
60 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 AovvTes «.7.A. And just because éyernOnuev precedes, the 
 supplying of mer, which Beza, Grotius, Flatt, and others 
 assume, and which otherwise would be the most natural 
 word, is to be rejected. Accordingly, there is no anacoluthon 
 in vv. 11, 12, but éyevn@npwev to be supplied in thought is 
 designedly suppressed by the apostle in order to put the 
 greater emphasis on the verbal ideas, wapaxanely, wapapu- 
 OeicOat, and paptvpecOar. The circumlocutionary form, 
 eyevnOnwev Tapaxk, x.7.r., has this in common with the form 
 qywev Tapax. «.7.r., that it denotes duration in the past, but it 
 is distinguished from it by this, that it does not refer the 
 action of the verb simply as something actually done, and 
 which has had duration in the past; but this action, 
 enduring in the past (and effected by God), is described in 
 its process of completion, ze. in the phase of its self- 
 development. — va éxactov tudv ws Tatip Téxva éavTod] 
 The thought, according to Flatt, consists in this: the apostle 
 has exhorted and charged, “with a view to the special wants 
 of each, just as a father gives heed to the individual wants 
 of his children.” But éva &kaotov tuav denotes only the 
 carefulness of the exhortation which is addressed to each 
 individual without distinction (of rank, endowment, Chrysos- _ 
 tom: BaBai év tocovtT@ AiO pndéva tapadiTreiy, py 
 MLKpOV, M2) MEeyaV, fn TWAOVoLOY, 2) TévNTa), and the addition 
 @s TaT)p Téxva EavTod denotes only paternal love (in contrast 
 to the severity of a taskmaster) as the disposition from which 
 the exhortations proceeded. But in a fitting manner Paul 
 changes the image formerly used of a mother and her 
 children into that of a father and his children, because in the 
 context the point insisted on is not so much that of tender 
 love, which finds its satisfaction in itself, as that of educating 
 love; for the apostle, by his exhortation, would educate the 
 Thessalonians for the heavenly kingdom. That the apostle 
 resided a dong time in Thessalonica (Calovius) does not follow 
 from éva éxactov.— Tapaxaneiv] to exhort by direct address. 
 Erroneously Chrysostom, Theophylact: mpos To hépew mavra. 
 — wtpas] resumes éva Exacrov tueav; but whilst that em- 
 phatically precedes, this is placed after mapaxanodytes, because 
 
CHAP, II. 12 61 
 
 here the verb wapax. has the emphasis (comp. Col. ii. 13). 
 Paul adds tyas, which certainly might be omitted, not so 
 much from carelessness or from inadvertence, but for the sake 
 of perspicuity, in order to express the personal object belong- 
 ing to the participles in immediate connection with them.— 
 Also trapauv0etcOar does not mean here to comfort (Wolf, 
 Schott, and others), but to address, to exhort, to encourage ; 
 yet not to encourage to stedfastness, to exhort to moral 
 courage (Oecumenius, Theophylact, de Wette), for the object 
 of wapapvOovpevor does not follow until ver. 12. 
 
 Ver. 12. Maptipec@a:] (comp. Eph. iv. 17) in the sense 
 of Stayaptipec@as (1 Tim. v. 21; 2 Tim. ii. 14, iv. 1), 
 earnestly conjuring ; comp. also Thueyd. vi. 80: dedue8a dé Kal 
 paptupoucda dma, and vill. 53: paptupopévwv Kal ériberafov- 
 Tov wn KaTtayew, Which later passage is peculiarly interesting 
 on this account, because there (as in our verse, see critical 
 notes) most MSs. read the meaningless paptupovpévay. pap- 
 tupopevoe strengthens the two former participles. — eis 70 
 TepiTatey was K.T.A.| contains not the design (de Wette, 
 Koch), also not the design and effect of the exhortation (Schott), 
 but is the object to all three preceding participles. The 
 meaning is: Calling on you, and exhorting, and adjuring you 
 to a walk worthy of God, ze. to make such a walk yours. 
 But Christians walk a&iws tod Ocod (comp. Col. i. 10; Eph. 
 iy ees Omer Xvie 2s) Phil. i273) 3. John °6); “when they 
 actually prove by their conduct and behaviour that they are 
 mindful of those blessings, which the grace of God has 
 vouchsafed to them, and of the undisturbed blessedness which 
 He promises them in the future. — tov xadodvtos| The pre- 
 sent occurs, because the call already indeed made to the 
 Thessalonians is uninterruptedly continued, until the completion 
 succeeds to the call and invitation, namely, at Christ’s return. 
 The meaning of Hofmann is wide of the mark: that by the 
 present, the call is indicated as such that would become 
 wholly in vain for those who walk unworthily. — Bacirelav 
 kai S0€av]| not an év dia dvoty; to the kingdom of His glory, 
 or to the glory of His kingdom (Turretin, Benson, Bolten, 
 Koppe, Olshausen). Both substantives have the same rank 
 
62 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 and the same emphasis. Baumgarten -Crusius erroneously 
 distinguishes Bacwea and Sofa as the earthly and heavenly 
 kingdom of God. Further, d0£a is not the glory of the 
 Messianic kingdom, which is specially brought forward after 
 the general Bacidelav (de Wette); but God calls the readers 
 to participate in His kingdom (7c. the Messianic) and in His 
 (God’s) glory, for Christians are destined to enter upon the 
 joint possession of the ddfa which God Himself has; comp. 
 Rom. v. 2; Eph. iii. 19. 
 
 Ver. 13. Paul in ver. 13 passes from the earnest and 
 self-sacrificing publication of the gospel to the earnest and 
 self-sacrificing reception of the gospel. Erroneously Baum- 
 garten-Crusius: Paul, having taught in what manner he has 
 been among the Thessalonians, shows in vv. 13-16 what he 
 has given to them, namely, a divine thing. — Kai é1a todo] 
 And even,in this account. Kai, being placed first, connects 
 the more closely what follows with what precedes. Comp. 
 2 Thess. ii, 11.— dsa@ todTo] not: “ quoniam tam felici suc- 
 cessu apud vos evangelium praedicavimus ” (Pelt, Bloomfield) ; 
 for (1) from ver. 1 and onwards the subject spoken of is not 
 the success or effect, but only the character of the’ apostle’s 
 preaching; (2) the intolerable tautology would arise, as we 
 have preached to you the gospel with such happy success, so 
 we thank God for the happy success of our ministry; (3) 
 lastly, if Paul wished to indicate a reference of ver. 13 to the 
 whole preceding description, he would perhaps have written 
 dia tavra, though certainly ia rodro might be justified, as 
 vy. 1-12 may be taken together as one idea. According to 
 Schott, da todro refers back to e’s TO wepurateiv: “ Quum haec 
 opera in animis vestris ad vitam divina invitatione dignam 
 impellendis minime frustra fuerit collocata, quam vos ejusmodi 
 vitam exhibueritis, ego vicissim cum sociis deo gratias ago 
 assiduas, 67s ff.” But still a tautology remains, which Schott 
 himself appears to have felt, since he takes cal 7ets in sharp 
 contrast to duds, ver. 12; besides, the ground of this explana- 
 tion gives way, inasmuch as e/s To vrepurrateiv can only denote 
 the object, but in no way the result of the exhortations. 
 Also de Wette refers dua rodto to els TO wepirarety, but 
 
CHAP. II. 13. 63 
 
 explains it thus: Therefore, because it was so important an 
 object for us (so already Flatt, but who unites what is incapable 
 of being united) to exhort you to a worthy walk. But there 
 is in the preceding no mention of the importance of the object 
 of the apostle’s exhortations. Accordingly there remains for 
 da TodTo only two connections of thought possible, namely, 
 either to refer to the earnestness and zeal described in vv. 11, 
 12, with which the exhortations of the apostle were enforced. 
 Then the thought would be: because we have so much applied 
 ourselves to exhort you to walk worthy (Flatt), so we thank 
 God for the blessed result of our endeavours. Or dia TodTo 
 may be referred to the concluding words of ver. 12: tow 
 KadovvTos buds els THY EavToD Bacirelay Kal So£€av, so that 
 the meaning is: Because God calls you to such a glorious goal, 
 so we thank God continually that you have wnderstood this 
 call of God which has come to you, and that you have obeyed 
 it. Evidently.this last reference, which is found in Zanchius, 
 Balduin, and Olshausen, is to be preferred as the nearest and 
 simplest. So recently also Alford and Auberlen. — kal *jpets | 
 to be taken together, we also. For not only Paul and his 
 companions, but every true Christian who hears’ of the con- 
 duct of the Thessalonians, must be induced to thankfulness to 
 God. Comp. Eph.i.15. Hardly correctly, Zanchius, whom 
 Balduin follows, places «av in contrast to the Thessalonians: 
 non solum vos propter hance vocationem debetis agere gratias, 
 sed etiam nos. Erroneously also de Wette; «ai belongs to 
 the whole clause: therefore also, which would require Sa 
 Kal TOUTO. — evyaptoToDu“EeY TH Oecd] For although the spon- 
 taneous conduct of the readers is here spoken of, yet thanks is 
 due to God, who has ordained this spontaneous conduct. — 6tu 
 mapanaBovtes Adyov x.7.r.] The object of evyapsotodper, 
 because that when ye received, etc. — taparxayBavew] which 
 Baumgarten -Crusius erroneously considers as equivalent to 
 déxecOar, indicates the objective reception — the obtaining 
 (comp. Col. ii. 6; Gal. i. 9); déyeoc@as, on the other hand, is 
 the subjective reception—the acceptance (comp. i. 6; 2 Cor. 
 
 ‘So specially Alford: We as well as wravres of airredovrcs tv ri Maxedovia xa} ty 
 wh Axate, i. 7. 
 
O+4 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 viii. 17), — axon] is used in a passive sense, that which is 
 heard, i.e. the preaching, the message (comp. Rom. x. 16; Gal. 
 iii. 2; John xii. 38). Arbitrarily Pelt; it is that to which 
 one at once shows obedience. trap’ hyav is to be closely 
 connected with axojs (Estius, Aretius, Beza, Calixtus, Koppe, 
 Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, Alford, Hofmann, and others), and to 
 the whole idea Acyov dxofs map’ yyadv is added the more 
 definite characteristic tod Ocod. Thus: the word of God 
 which ye have heard of us, the word of God preached by us. 
 We must not, with Musculus, Piscator, Er. Schmid, Turretin, 
 Fritzsche (on 2 Cor. diss. I. p. 3), de Wette, Koch, and 
 Auberlen, unite wap’ juov with wapadaPovtes; for against 
 this is not only the order of the words, as we would expect 
 TaparaBovres Tap uav Noyov aKons Tod Oeovd, whereas in 
 the passage there exists no reason for the separation of the 
 natural connection; but also chiefly the addition of dxojs 
 would be strange, as along with tapadraBovtes rap’ judy it 
 would be superfluous. It is otherwise with our interpretation, 
 in which an important contrast exists, Paul contrasting him- 
 self as the mere publisher to the proper author of the gospel ; 
 and in which also the construction is unobjectionable (against 
 de Wette), as dxovew mapa tivos (see John i. 41) is used, 
 substantives and adjectives often retaining the construction of 
 verbs from which they are derived. See Kiihner, IT. pp. 217, 
 245.— tod Ocod] not the objective genitive, the word preached 
 by us which treats of God, ae. of His purposes of salvation 
 (Erasmus, Vatablus, Musculus, Hunnius, Balduin, Er. Schmid, 
 Grotius), against which the following od Aoyor avOpérar ... 
 GANA Aoyov Ocod is decisive; but the word which proceeds 
 from God, whose author is God Himself. — édeEacbe] ye have 
 received it, sc. the word of God preached. — od Adyor «.7.r.] 
 not as the word of man. The addition of a @s (ody ws NOyov 
 avOp. Ga... @S Oyov Ocod), dispensable in itself (see 
 Kiihner, II. p. 226), is here the rather left out, because the 
 apostle would not only express what the preaching of the 
 word was in the estimation of the Thessalonians, but likewise 
 what it was in point of fact, on which account the parenthesis 
 Kaws éotw arnOas, according as it is in truth, is emphatically 
 
CHAP. II. 14 65 
 
 added. — The Thessalonians received Adyos Oeod as the word 
 of God, seeing they believed it, and were zealous for it. — 6s] 
 is not to be referred to Ocod (Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, 
 Koppe, Flatt, Auberlen, and others), but to Xeyov Oeod (Syr. 
 Ambrose, Erasmus, Estius, Balduin, Aretius, Wolf, Turretin, 
 Benson, Fritzsche, de Wette, Baumgarten - Crusius, Koch, 
 Hofmann); for (1) in what immediately precedes, the subject 
 is not @eds, but Acyos Ocod. (2) Paul uses always the active 
 évepyety of God (comp. 1 Cor. xi. 6; Gal. ii. 8, ii. 5; Eph. 
 i. 11; Phil. ii. 13), and of things the middle évepyetc ar (comp. 
 Gal. v. 6; Eph. iii. 20; Col. i. 29).— evepyetrar is middle 
 (which zs active), not passive (which zs made active), as Estius, 
 Hammond, Schulthess, Schott, Bloomfield, and others think. 
 — év tpiv Tots mictevovow] does not mean: “ ex quo tempore 
 religionem suscepistis ” (Koppe) ; for then év tyiv mictevoacw 
 would have to be put. Also not: “ quum susceperitis” (Pelt), 
 or “propterea quod fidem habetis” (Schott), because or in so 
 far as, ye believe and continue believing (Olsh. Koch) ; for if 
 it were a causal statement, the participle mueTevovow without 
 the addition of the article would be put. tols muctevovow 
 rather serves only for the more precise definition of wiv, thus 
 indicating that mzorevev belongs to the Thessalonians, 
 
 Ver. 14 is not designed, as Oecumenius, Calvin, and Pelt 
 think, to prove the sincerity with which the Thessalonians 
 received the gospel, but is a proof of 6s Kal évepyetran, 
 ver. 13. In not shunning to endure sufferings for the sake 
 of the gospel, the Thessalonians had demonstrated that the 
 word of God had already manifested its activity among them, 
 had already become a life-power, a moving principle in them. 
 — tpets yap] an emphatic resumption of the previous dpiv 
 Tos TeocTevovow. — pipntal] iitators, certainly not in i- 
 tention or design, but in actual fact or result. — adergot] The 
 frequent repetition of this address (comp. i. 4, ii. 1, 9, 17) is 
 significant of the ardent love of Paul toward the church. That 
 Paul compares the conduct of the Thessalonians with that of 
 the Palestinian churches is, according to Calvin, whom Calixtus 
 follows, designed to remove the objection which might easily 
 arise to his readers. As the Jews were the only worshippers 
 
 MeEyYER—1 TuHEss. E 
 
66 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 of the true God outside of Christianity, so the attack on 
 Christianity by the Jews might give rise to a doubt whether 
 it were actually the true religion. For the removal of this 
 doubt, the apostle, in the first place, shows that the same fate 
 which had at an earlier period befallen the Palestinian 
 churches had happened to the Thessalonians; and then, that 
 the Jews were the hardened enemies of God and of all sound 
 doctrine. But evidently such a design of the apostle is 
 indicated by nothing, and its supposition is entirely super- 
 fluous, as every Christian must with admiration recognise the 
 heroism of Christian resistance to persecution with which the 
 Palestinian churches had distinguished themselves. Accord- 
 ingly, it was a great commendation of the Thessalonians if the 
 same heroic Christian stedfastness could be predicated of them. 
 This holds good against the much more arbitrary and visionary 
 opinion of Hofmann, that Paul, by the mention of the Pales- 
 tinian churches, and the expression concerning the Jews there- 
 with connected, designed to meet the erroneous notion or 
 representation of what happened to the readers. As the 
 conversion of the Thessalonians might in an intelligible manner 
 appear in the eyes of their countrymen as a capture of them 
 in the net of a Jewish doctrine, and hence on that side the 
 reproach might be raised that, on account of this strange 
 matter, they had become hostile to their own people; so it 
 was entirely in keeping to show that the apostolic doctrine 
 was anything but an affair of the Jewish people, that, on the 
 contrary, the Jews were its bitterest enemies! Grotius would 
 understand the present participle tév ovcdy in the sense of 
 the participle of the preterite ; whilst, appealing to Acts viii. 
 4, xi. 19, he thinks that the Palestinian churches had by 
 persecutions ceased to exist as such, only a few members 
 remaining. But neither do the Acts justify such an opinion, 
 nor is it in accordance with the words of Paul in Gal. 1. 22. 
 The further supposition which Grotius adds is strange and — 
 unhistorical, that some Christians expelled from Palestine had 
 betaken themselves to Thessalonica, and that to them mainly 
 a reference in our passage is made. — év Xpiot@ “Incod] 
 Oecumenius: edpuds Sietrev" erred) yap Kal ai ovvaywyat 
 
| 
 
 
 
 CHAP, II, 14. 67 
 
 tov LIovoaiwv év Oc@ civar Soxodot, Tas TAY TICTaV exKANT Las 
 Kal év TO Oc cal ev TO Vid avTod Eyer elvat, — 670] for. — 
 Ta avta| the like things, denotes the general similarity of the 
 sufferings endured. Grotius precariously specifies them by 
 res vestras amisistis, pars fuistis ejecti. — cuppvrérns] of 
 the same gvA7, belonging to the same natural stock, conéri- 
 bulis, then generally countryman, fellow-countryman, ouocOvys 
 (Hesychius). Comp. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 172, 471. By 
 cupdvrétas we are naturally not to understand the Jews 
 (Cornelius a Lapide, Hammond, Joachim Lange); for that 
 the expression is best suited to them, as Braun (with Wolf) 
 thinks, whilst possibly Jews of a particular tribe (perhaps of 
 the tribe of Juda or Benjamin) were resident in Thessalonica, 
 only merits to be mentioned on account of its curiosity. Also 
 ovppurétrae is not, with Calvin, Piscator, Bengel, and others, 
 to be understood both of Jews and Gentiles, but can only be 
 understood of Gentiles. To this we are foreed—(1) by the 
 sharp contrast of cumvreTav and ’Iovdaiwv, which must be con- 
 sidered as excluding each other; (2) by the addition of ¢évav to 
 ovpdureTov, as the great majority of the Thessalonian church 
 consisted of Gentiles; comp. 1. 9. However, although Paul 
 in the expression cuppvreTav speaks only of Gentiles as 
 persecutors, yet the strong invective against the Jews which 
 immediately follows (vv. 15, 16) constrains us to assume that 
 the apostle in ver. 14 had more in his avind than he expressed 
 in words. As we learn from the Acts, it was, indeed, the 
 heathen magistrates by whose authority the persecutions 
 against the Christian church at Thessalonica proceeded, but 
 the proper originators and instigators were here also the Jews; 
 only they could not excite the persecution of the Christians 
 directly, as the Jews in Palestine, but, hemmed in by the 
 existing laws, could only do so indirectly, namely, by stirring 
 up the heathen mob. This circumstance, united with the 
 repeated experience of the inveterate spirit of opposition of 
 the Jews, which Paul had in Asia at a period directly pre- 
 ceding this Epistle (perhaps also shortly before its composi- 
 tion at Corinth), is the natural and easily psychologically ex- 
 planatory occasion of the polemic in vy.15,16. Erroneously 
 
68 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 Olshausen gives the reason; he thinks it added in order to 
 turn the attention of the Christians in Thessalonica to the 
 intrigues of those men with whom the Judaizing Christians 
 stood on a level, as it was to be foreseen that they would not 
 leave this church also undisturbed; against which view de 
 Wette correctly remarks, that there is no trace of such a 
 warning, and that the Thessalonians did not require it, as 
 they had learned sufficiently to know the enmity of the Jews 
 against the gospel.— «a@as] Instead of this, properly & or 
 dep should have been put, corresponding to ta avra (comp. 
 Phil. i. 30, tov adtov ... olov). However, even in the 
 classics such inexact connections are very frequently found. 
 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 426 f.; Bremi, ad Demosth. adv. 
 Phil. I. p. 137; Kiihner, II. p. 571. The double «ai (kal 
 ipets . . . kal adtoi) brings out the comparison. — avroi] 
 denotes not the apostle and his assistants (Erasmus, Musculus, 
 Er. Schmid), as such a prominent incongruity in the compari- 
 son is inconceivable; but the masculine as a recognised free 
 construction (comp. Gal. i. 22, 23) refers to tav éxxAnolov 
 tov @eod, thus denotes the Palestinian Christians. 
 
 Vv. 15, 16. As to the occasion of this invective, see on 
 ver. 14.— xai] not signifying even ; also not to be connected 
 with the next Kai, both ...and; but tév cai means who also, 
 and proves the propriety of the preceding statement from the 
 analogous conduct in ver. 15. Grotius (comp. Chrysostom, 
 Oecumenius, Theophylact, Pelagius): Quid mirum est, si in 
 
 nos saeviunt, qui dominum nostrum interfecerunt...?... 
 Non debent discipuli meliorem sortem exspectare quam 
 magistri fuit.— Moreover, tov xvpiov emphatically pre- 
 
 cedes, and is separated from “Incody in order to enhance the 
 enormity of the deed. — «al rods mpofyjtas] De Wette and 
 Koch unite this with éxdvwEavtwy ; Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
 Theophylact, Calvin, Musculus, Bengel, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, 
 Baumgarten-Crusius, Bloomfield, Alford, Hofmann, Auberlen, 
 and most critics, more correctly refer it to awoxtevavTwv. In 
 the catalogue of the sins of the Jews which Paul here adduces, 
 he begins directly with that deed which formed the climax of 
 their wickedness—the murder of the Son of God, of Jesus 
 
 eee 
 
CHAP, IL 15, 16, 69 
 
 the Messiah. In order to cut off all excuses for this atrocious 
 deed of the Jews, as that they had done it in ignorance, not 
 recognising Jesus as the Son of God, Paul adds, going back- 
 wards in time, that they had already done the same to the 
 Old Testament prophets, whom, in like manner, they had 
 murdered against their better knowledge and conscience. 
 Christ Himself accuses the Jews of the murder of the prophets, 
 Matt. xxiii. 31, 37, Luke xi. 47 ff, xiii 34; and Stephen 
 does the same, Acts vii. 52; with which passages comp. 
 1 Kings xix. 10, 14 (see Rom. xi.3); Jer. i. 30; Neh. ix. 
 26.— Kal nuds éxdiwEdvTwv] and have persecuted us. nmas 
 refers not to Paul only (Calvin), also not to Paul and Silas 
 only (de Wette, Koch, Alford), or to Paul and the companions 
 who happened to be with him at Thessalonica (Auberlen) ; 
 but to Paul and the apostles generally (Estius, Aretius, Bengel, 
 Koppe, Flatt, Pelt, Schott). The preposition é« in é«dsEav- 
 tov strengthens the verbal idea. In an unjustifiable manner, 
 Koppe and de Wette (the latter appealing to Luke xi. 49 
 and Ps. exix. 157, LXX.) make it stand for the simple verb. 
 — kal Ocd pun apeckdvtwr] and please not God. Erroneously 
 Wieseler on Gal. i. 10, p. 41, note, and Hofmann: live not to 
 please God ; similarly Bengel, Koppe, Flatt, and Baumgarten- 
 Crusius: placere non quaerentium; for after the preceding 
 strong expressions that would be flat. Rather the reswlé is 
 inferred from the two preceding statements, namely, the con- 
 sequences of the obstinacy of the Jews, with which they 
 persecute the messengers of God, is that they please not God, 
 that is, are hateful to Him (Qeootuyels, Meiosis). — kai maow 
 avOparos évavtiov] and are hostile to all men.  Grotius, 
 Turretin, Michaelis, Koppe, Olshausen, de Wette, Baumgarten- 
 Crusius, Koch, Bloomfield, Jowett, and others, erroneously find 
 here expressed the narrow exclusiveness, by means of which 
 the Jews strictly separated themselves from all other nations, 
 and about which Tacit. Hist. v. 5 (“adversus omnes alios hostile 
 odium ”); Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 103 ff.; Diod. Sic. xxxiv. p. 524; 
 Philostr. Apollon. v. 33; Joseph. c. Apion. ii. 10, 14, wrote. 
 For (1) that hostile odiwm and desire of separation among the 
 Jews was nothing else than a shrinking from staining them- 
 
70 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 selves and their monotheistic worship by contact with idolaters. 
 But Paul would certainly not have blamed such a shrinking, 
 which was only a fruit of their strict observance of their 
 ancestral religion. (2) If ver. 16 begins with an independent 
 assertion, KoAvovTwY ... cwOGow would denote nothing essen- 
 tially new, but would only repeat what was already expressed 
 in %as éxdvwEavtwy, ver. 15. (3) It is grammatically in- 
 admissible to understand the words cat racw avOpwrois 
 evaytiov as an independent assertion, and thus to be considered 
 as a general truth. For the participle cwAvdvtwy (ver. 16) 
 must contain a causal statement, as it is neither united with 
 cai, nor by an article (kal KwAvovt@y K.7.r. Or TOY KwAVOV- 
 TOV K.T.., OY TOV Kal KoAVOYT@Y K.T.r.), and thus is closely 
 and directly connected with the preceding, and giving a 
 reason for it, 2c. explaining wherefore or in what relation the 
 Jews are to be considered as raow avOpwrros evavtiot. Thus 
 the thought necessarily is: And who actually proved them- 
 selves to be hostilely disposed to all men since they hindered us 
 from publishing the gospel to the Gentiles, and thus leading 
 them to salvation. That is to say, the gospel offers salvation 
 to every one, without distinction, who will surrender himself 
 to it. But the Jews, in opposing themselves with all their 
 might to the publication of this free and universal gospel, 
 prove themselves, in point of fact, as enemies to the whole 
 human race, in so far as they will not suffer the gospel, which 
 alone can save men, toreach them. ‘So Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
 Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calovius, Bern. a Piconio, Schott, 
 Alford, Hofmann, and others correctly interpret the words; 
 also Wieseler on Gal. i. 10, p. 49, note, and Auberlen, only 
 that he would incorrectly unite cal Ocd pr) apecxovt@y with 
 KwAvovTov, Which would only be tenable if, instead of the 
 simple connected clause cal Qed fur) dpecxovtwy, the more 
 definitely separating form tay Océ «.7.A. had been put.*— 
 KoAvovTov Huas| hindering us, namely, by contradictions, 
 calumnies, laying snares for our life, ete. Comp. Acts ix. 
 
 1 The article ray, wanting before xai @:@ uh apscxsvrwy, Makes it likewise im- 
 
 possible to make the two last xa/ in ver. 15 to signify, with Hofmann, “‘ both 
 os. and.” 
 
CHAP, II. 15, 16. ral 
 
 23 ff., xiii. 45, xvii. 5, 13, xxii, 22. Unnecessarily, Pelt, 
 Schott, de Wette, Koch, seeking to hinder; for the intrigues 
 of the Jews are an actual hindrance to the preaching of the 
 apostle,—certainly not an absolute, but a partial hindrance, 
 conditioned by opportunity of place and influence. — judas] as 
 above, us the apostles. — tots €Ovecw| to the Gentiles, with em- 
 phasis; for it was the preaching to the Gentiles that enraged the 
 Jews. otis €Ovecw resumes the previous taow avOpatro:s, 
 as that expression comprehended the non-Jewish humanity, 
 4c. the Gentile world. —Aarjoat] is not to be taken abso- 
 lutely, so that it would be equivalent to docere (Koppe, Flatt), 
 or would require tov Adyov tod Oeod for its completion 
 (Piscator), but is to be conjoined with ta cwbdcw in one 
 idea, and the whole is then another expression for evayrye- 
 Aifec Oa, but in a more impressive form.— els Td avaTAn- 
 pacat x.7.r.| to fill wp their sins always. ets does not denote 
 the result = @oTe or guo fit ut (Musculus, Estius, Cornelius 
 a Lapide, Grotius, Koppe, Flatt, Pelt, Schott, Baumgarten- 
 Crusius, Koch, Bloomfield), but the object, the design; and 
 that not of cwAvovtwy (Hofmann), as this is a dependent 
 clause, but of the whole description. But it expresses not the 
 ultimate design which the Jews themselves, in their so acting, 
 had either consciously (Oecumenius: dynol yap, OTe TavTa & 
 érroincav of “Iovdaior, cxoTd Tov duaptaveww érrolovy, Tov- 
 Téoti nocvcav, Ste dpaptdvover Kal yudpTavoyv) or wncon- 
 sciously (de Wette: they do it, though unconsciously, to the 
 end, etc.; Auberlen), so that an ironical expression would have 
 to be assumed (Schott). But in entire conformity with the 
 Pauline mode of thought, which delights to dive into the 
 eternal and secret counsels of God, it expresses the design 
 which God has with this sinfulness of the Jews. So, correctly, 
 Piscator. God’s counsel was to make the Jews reach in their 
 hardness even to the extreme point of their sinfulness, and 
 then, instead of the past long-suffering and patience, the 
 severity of anger and punishment was to commence. — 
 avaTAnpacat Tas auaptias] to fill up their sins, ic. to fill up 
 the measure destined for them, to bring them to the prescribed 
 point ; comp. LXX. Gen. xv. 16; 2 Mace. vi. 14. — adrov] 
 
72 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 refers to the subject of the preceding verses—the Jews. — 
 mavtote] emphatically placed at the end, is not equivalent to 
 TavTws oY tavTedds (Bretschneider, Olshausen), on all sides, 
 in every way (Baumgarten-Crusius), but merely involves the 
 notion of time, always, that is, the Jews before Christ, at the 
 time of Christ, and after Christ, have opposed themselves to 
 the divine truth, and thus have been always engaged in filling 
 up the measure of their iniquities. (Oecumenius: Taira 6é 
 kal Tadat ert TaY Tpopytav Kal viv érl tod Xpictod Kal ep’ 
 wav erpagtay, iva wavtote avaTAnpwbdcw ai duaptiat avTav.) 
 When, however, the apostle says that this avawAnpody tas 
 apaptias is practised by the Jews mayvtore, at all times, his 
 meaning cannot be that the Jews had at any given moment, 
 thus already repeatedly, filled up the measure of their sins 
 (Musculus), but he intends to say that at every division of 
 time the conduct of the Jews was of such a nature that the 
 general tendency of this continued sinful conduct was the 
 filling up of the measure of their sins. Paul thus conceives 
 that the Jews, at every renewed obstinate rejection of the 
 truth, approached a step nearer to the complete measure of 
 their sinfulness, €pOace Sé ém’ adtovs 7 dpyn eis TéXos] but 
 the wrath has come upon them even to the end. The Vulgate, 
 Luther, Beza, Wolf, erroneously take 6€ in the sense of yap. 
 Rather, 5é forms the contrast to dvarAnpdcat wavToTe (not to 
 the whole preceding description), in so far as the increase of 
 the divine wrath is contrasted to the continued wicked conduct 
 of the Jews. — ¢@avew] contains, in classical usage, the idea 
 of priority in time. Schott thinks that this idea must also 
 be here preserved, whilst he finds indicated therein the opy7 
 breaking forth upon the Jews citius quam exspectaverint vel 
 omnino praeter opinionem eorum. Incorrectly; for when 
 ¢@davev is united not with the accusative of the person 
 (comp. iv. 15), but with prepositions (¢@dvew eis tt, Rom. 
 ix. 31 [see Fritzsche in loco]; Phil. iii. 16 ; POdvew aype twes, 
 2 Cor. ix. 14; POav. emi twa, Matt. xii. 28; Dan. iv. 25), 
 then, in the later Greek, the meaning of the verb “ to antici- 
 pate” is softened into the general meaning of reaching the 
 intended end. The aorist &f@ace is not here to be taken in 
 
CHAP, II. 15, 16. te 
 
 the sense of the present (Grotius, Pelt), also not prophetically — 
 instead of the future (Koppe: mox eveniet lis; Flatt: it will 
 certainly befall them, and also it will soon befall them ; and so 
 also Schott, Bloomfield, Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol., 
 Halle 1862, p. 239), but reports in quite a usual manner a 
 fact which already belongs to the past. — 1) dpy7] sc. Qeod, does 
 not mean the divine punishment, which certainly in itself it 
 may denote (Erasmus, Musculus, Cornelius a Lapide, Flatt, | 
 Schott, de Wette, Ewald), but the divine wrath. The article 
 % denotes either the wrath predicted by the prophets (Theo- 
 phylact, Schott), or generally the wrath which is merited 
 (Oecumenius).— ets téAos] belongs to the whole sentence 
 épOace ... dpy7, and denotes even to its (the wrath’s) end, i. 
 the wrath of God has reached its extreme limits, so that it 
 must now discharge itself,—now, in the place of hitherto long- 
 suffering and patience, punishment must step in. The actual 
 outbreak of the wrath, the punishment itself, has thus not yet 
 occurred at the composition of this Epistle. To interpret the 
 words of the destruction of Jerusalem as already happened, 
 would be contrary to the context. On the other hand, it is 
 to be assumed that Paul, from the by no means dark signs of 
 the times, had by presentiment foreseen the cmpending catas- 
 trophe of the Jewish people, and by means of this foresight 
 had expressed the concluding words of this verse. It is 
 accordingly an unnecessary arbitrariness when Ritschl (Hail. 
 A. Lit. Z. 1847, No. 126) explains the words &@60. ... TéXos 
 as a gloss. Incorrectly, Camerarius, Er. Schmid, Homberg, 
 Koch, and Hofmann understand eis téAXos in the sense of 
 Tehéws, penitus. Also incorrectly, Heinsius, Michaelis, Bolten, 
 Wahl: postremo, tandem. Others erroneously unite es Tédos 
 with 7) opy7, whilst they supply odca, and then either explain 
 it: the wrath which will endure eternally or to the end of the 
 world (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Theodoret, Fab. 
 Stapulens., Hunnius, Seb. Schmid, and others); or: the wrath 
 which will continue to work until its full manifestation (Ols- 
 hausen); or lastly: the wrath which shall end with their (the 
 Jews’) destruction (Flatt). In all these suppositions the article 
 7 must be repeated before eis téAos. Erroneously, moreover, 
 
74 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS,. 
 
 de Wette refers e’s réXos to the Jews, although he unites it with | 
 
 the verb: “so as to make an end of them.” So also Bloomfield 
 and Ewald: “even to complete eradication.” The apostle rather 
 preserves the figure used in dvamAnpOcar; namely, as there is 
 a definite measure for the sins of the Jews, at the filling up of 
 which the divine wrath must discharge itself; so also there exists 
 a definite measure for the long-suffering patience of God, whose 
 fulness provokes divine punishment. Comp. also Rom. ii. 5. 
 
 ReMARK.—In vv. 14-16, Baur (see Introd. § 4) finds a “ parti- 
 cularly noticeable” criterion for the spuriousness of the Epistle. 
 “The description has a thoroughly un-Pauline stamp,” and, be- 
 sides, betrays a dependence on the Acts. First of all, the com- 
 parison of the Thessalonian church with the Palestinian churches 
 is “far-fetched,” although nothing is more simple, more natural, 
 and more unforced than these very parallels, since the tertiwm 
 comparationis consists simply in this, that both were persecuted 
 by their own countrymen, and both endured their persecutions 
 with similar heroic courage. The parallels are further “inappro- 
 priate” to Paul, as he does not elsewhere hold up the Jewish- 
 Christians as a pattern to the Gentile-Christians. As if the 
 repeated collections which the apostle undertook for the poor 
 churches of Palestine had not demonstrated by fact that his 
 love extended itself equally to the Jewish as to the Gentile 
 churches! Asif the words of the apostle, in 2 Cor. viii. 13-15, 
 did not express a high esteem for the Palestinian Jewish-Chris- 
 tians! As if, in Rom. xv. 27, the Gentile churches are not 
 called debtors to the Jewish-Christians, because the spiritual 
 blessings of Christianity reached the Gentiles only from the 
 mother church of Jerusalem! As if Paul himself, after the 
 fiercest persecutions, and after openly manifested obstinacy, did 
 not always cleave to his people with such unselfish and solicitous 
 love, that he could wish in his own person to be banished and 
 driven from Christ, who was his all in all, in order by such an 
 exchange to make his hardened and always resisting fellow- 
 countrymen partakers of salvation in Christ! But if such were 
 his feelings toward the unconverted among his people, why 
 should he not have been proud of those among them who be- 
 lieved? Why should he not have recognised the heroic faith of 
 the Palestinian brethren, and recognised and praised the sted- 
 fastness of a Gentile church as an imitation and emulation of 
 the pattern given by these ?—Further, the mention of the per- 
 secutions of the Palestinian Christians was inappropriate, be- 
 
 eee 
 
CHAP. II. 17. 75 
 
 cause Paul could not speak of them “ without thinking of himself 
 as the person principally concerned in the only persecution 
 which can have come properly into consideration.” But how 
 little importance there is in such an inference is evident from 
 this, that Paul elsewhere does not shun openly to confess his 
 share in the persecutions of the Christians, although with a 
 sorrowful heart (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 9; Gal. i. 13); and, besides, 
 this very participation in the persecution was for him the occa- 
 sion that, from being the bitterest enemy of Christianity, he 
 became its most unwearied promoter and the greatest apostle 
 of Christ. If, further, “the apostle unites his own sufferings for 
 the sake of the gospel with the misdeeds of the Jews against 
 Jesus and the prophets,” this serves strikingly to represent the 
 continuation of Jewish perversity.—Baur may be right when he 
 asserts that we could not expect from the apostle “a polemic 
 against the Jews so general and vague, that he knew not how 
 to characterize the enmity of the Jews against the gospel than 
 by the well-known charge brought against them by the Gentiles, 
 the odiwm generis humani;” only it is a pity that this odiwm 
 generis humani is an abortion of false exegesis.—Baur infers a 
 dependence upon the Acts from “the expressions: éxdséixen, 
 zwarvey, etc., which correspond accurately with the incidents de- 
 scribed in Acts xvii. 5 ff. and elsewhere;” likewise from the 
 verb Awe, which “elsewhere is never used by Paul of his own 
 preaching of the gospel, but is quite after the manner of the 
 Acts (xiv. 1, xvi. 6, 32, xviii. 9).” But that the expressions: 
 exdiumxze, xwave, etc., cannot be borrowed from Acts xvi. 5 ff. 
 is evident enough, as they are not even found there; that, more- 
 over, the circumstances of the persecution itself are narrated in 
 both writings, is only a proof of its actual occurrence ; also there 
 is nothing objectionable in Awd, as it is so used by Paul in 
 2 Cor. 1. 17, iv. 13; Col. iv. 4; Eph. vi. 20, and elsewhere.— 
 Lastly, if Baur, in ZQbacs Of é& abrode 7 épyn sis réAos (SO also 
 Schrader on iii. 13), finds the destruction of Jerusalem denoted 
 as an event that has already occurred, this is only the result of 
 an interpretation contrary to the context. 
 
 Ver. 17 begins a new section of the Epistle. — ‘Hyeis 8é] 
 is not in contrast to duels, ver. 14 (de Wette, Koch, Hof- 
 mann); for ver. 14 is only an explanation of the main thought 
 in ver. 13, and, besides, the invective against the Jews given 
 in vv. 15, 16 is too marked and detailed, that 5é passing over 
 it could be referred to dmets in ver. 14. It is therefore best 
 
76 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 to assume that »ets dé, whilst it contrasts the writer to the 
 Jews whose machinations have just been described, and 
 accordingly breaks off the polemic against the Jews, refers to 
 ver. 13 as the preceding mein thought, and accordingly reswmes 
 the ets in ver. 13. To the attestation of his thanksgiving 
 to God on account of the earnest acceptance of the gospel on 
 the part of the Thessalonians, the apostle joins the attestation 
 of his longing for his readers, and his repeatedly formed 
 resolution to return to them. The view of Calvin, which 
 Musculus, Zanchius, Hunnius, Piscator, Vorstius, Gomarus, 
 Benson, Macknight, Pelt, Hofmann, and Auberlen maintain, is 
 erroneous, that vv. 17 ff. were added by Paul as an excusatio 
 “ne se a Paulo desertos esse putarent Thessalonicenses, quum 
 tanta necessitas ejus praesentiam flagitaret.” For evidently in 
 the circumstances that constrained the apostle to depart from 
 Thessalonica, such a suspicion could not arise, especially as, 
 according to Acts xvii. 10, the Thessalonians themselves had 
 arranged the departure of the apostle. Accordingly no justi- 
 fication was requisite. The explanation has rather its origin 
 only in the fulness of the apostolic Christian love, which cared 
 and laboured for the salvation of these recent disciples of 
 Christ.— admopdavic betes] bereaved. opdavifer Oar is originally 
 used of children who are deprived of their parents by death. 
 It is however used, even by the classics, in a wider sense, 
 expressing in a figurative and vivid manner the deprivation 
 of an object, or the distance, the separation from a person or 
 thing. Thus the adjective dpdaves occurs in Pindar (see 
 Passow) in a wider sense (eg. opd. éralpwv, Isthm. vii. 16) ; 
 also of parents, oppavol yeveds, childless, Ol. ix. 92; comp. 
 Hesych.: dpdavos 6 yovéwy éotepnuévos Kal téxvov. Here 
 also atroppavic GévTes expresses the idea of distance, of separa- 
 tion, but is not exhausted by this idea. We would accordingly 
 err, if we were to find nothing further in it than is expressed 
 by xwpiobertes; for the verb, in union with the feeling of 
 tender love which pervades the whole passage, vividly describes 
 the feeling of emptiness and solitude which by the separation 
 came over the apostle—a feeling of solitude, such as _ befalls 
 children when they are placed in a condition of orphanage. — 
 
 
 

 
 CHAP. IL. 17. te 
 
 ag’ tuav] away from you. The apostle repeats the preposi- 
 tion do, instead of putting the simple genitive tue after the 
 participle, in order to give prominence to the idea of local 
 severance, which was already expressed in amopdavicbévtes, 
 here once more specified by itself.— mpds Katpov spas] 
 not subito (Balduin, Turretin), literally, for the space of 
 an hour; but as an hour is relatively only a short space, 
 generally “for the space of an instant,” ae for a very short 
 period: It is a more definite expression for the simple pds 
 @pav, Gal. ii. 5, 2 Cor. vii. 8, Philem. 15, John v. 35, or 
 mpos Katpov, 1 Cor. vii. 5, Luke viii. 13, and corresponds to 
 the Latin horae momentum. Comp. Hor. Sat. I. 1. 7, 8: 
 “horae | momento aut cita mors venit aut victoria laeta.” Plin. 
 Nat. Hist. vii. 52: “ Hidem (se. Maecenati) triennio supremo 
 nullo horae momento contigit somnus.” The expression does 
 not import that the apostle even now hopes soon to return to 
 the Thessalonians (Flatt; and appealing to iii. 10, de Wette 
 and Koch). This is forbidden by the grammatical relation of 
 atroppavicbévtes to the preterite éomovddcapmer, according to 
 which mpds Karpov @pas can only be the time indicated by the 
 participle. Thus the sense is: After we were separated from 
 you for scarcely an instant, that is, for a very short season, 
 our longing to return to you commenced. — mpocdém@ ov 
 kapdia|] comp. 2 Cor. v. 12, in presence, not in heart, for the 
 severance refers only to our bodies; but love is not bound in 
 the fetters of place or time; comp. Col. ii. 5. — repiccorépas 
 éoTrovddcapmev | we endeavoured so much the more. amovdateu, 
 to show diligence to reach something, implies in itself that 
 the apostle had already taken steps to realize his resolution to 
 return, and thus proves the earnestness of the design. repic- 
 cotépws is not to be referred to od xapdia, “ more than if I 
 had been separated from you in heart” (de Wette, Koch), 
 for then there could have been no mention of a omovdafeuv 
 
 '1The assertion of Hofmann, that zpis xaspoy dpas ‘cannot possibly denote 
 how long it was since Paul had been separated from the Thessalonians, but only 
 how long this was to happen : as he was obliged to be separated from them, yet 
 this separation was not for ever,” etc., could only have a meaning if instead of 
 the passive form zxopgavebivecs a participle had been put, which denoted the free 
 action of the apostle. 
 
78 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 at all;? but is, with Schott, to be referred to mpds xacpov 
 @pas, so much the more, as the separation has only recently 
 occurred. For it is a matter of universal experience, that the 
 pain of separation from friends, and the desire to return to 
 them, are more vivid, the more freshly the remembrance of the 
 parting works in the spirit, z.c. the less time has elapsed since 
 the parting. Therefore the explanation of Oecumenius and 
 Theophylact, after Chrysostom, is unpsychological: repurcorépws 
 éaTrovodcapev 7) Ws elKos Hw TOs Tpos @pav amrodepOErtas. 
 Winer’s view (Gram. p. 217 [E. T. 305]) is also inappro- 
 priate, because without support in the context: The loss of 
 their personal intercourse for a time had made his longing 
 creater than it would have been, if he had stood with them 
 in no such relation. Further, arbitrarily, because the proximate 
 reference of mwepscootépws can only result from the directly 
 preceding participial sentence, but not from ver. 14, Fromond. : 
 “magis et ardentius conati sumus, quum sciremus pericula, 
 in quibus versaremini;” and Hofmann: “ for the readers the 
 time after their conversion is a time of trouble; for their 
 teachers it is on that account a time of so much the more 
 anxious endeavour to see them again.” Lastly, grammatically 
 incorrect Turretin, Olshausen, and de Wette, ed. 1, more than 
 usual, ie. very earnestly. — Schott discovers an elegance and 
 force in Paul, not having written duds defy, but the fuller 
 form 7d rpdcwroy tuar ideiv, with reference to the preceding 
 mpocwmy ; but hardly correct, as TO mpdcwror ide is a usual 
 form with Paul: Comp. iii. 10; Col. ii, 1.— & wordy 
 érOupia| with much desire (longing). A statement of manner 
 added to és7ovddcapev, for the sake of strengthening, 
 
 Ver. 18, Avore] on which account, that is, on account of this 
 great longing for you (Sia ro év moddAH eriOupig omovdateww 
 7 mpocwrov vy. idetv). — 7O0edjoapev] Paul uses Oédew in 
 agreement with éc7rovddcapev (ver. 17), not Bovrec@as, as the 
 latter word expresses only the wish, the inclination to some- 
 
 1 This reference is in a positive form expressed logically more correctly by 
 Musculus: ‘quo magis corde praesens vobiscum fui, hoc abundantius faciem 
 vestram videre studui ;” and Baumgarten-Crusius : with so much the greater 
 desire, because I was sincere with you. 
 
 
 
CHAP. II. 18 79 
 
 thing; but the former the active will, the definite purpose. 
 See Meyer on Philem. 13 f, and Tittm. Synon. p. 124 ff. 
 But whether this purpose was already formed at Berea 
 (Fromond., Baumgarten -Crusius), or elsewhere, cannot be 
 determined. — éy@ pév Iadnos] a restriction of the subject 
 contained in 7@eA7jcapev, as the apostle in this section intends 
 only to speak of himself. But that he considered the addition 
 éy@ pev ITatnXos here necessary, whilst he omitted it in what 
 preceded, is a proof that he there regarded what was said as 
 spoken likewise in the name of his two associates. Moreover, 
 éy@ pev IIaddos is an actual parenthesis, and is not to be 
 connected with cai dmaé cai 6s, as Hofmann thinks, from the 
 insufficient reason, because otherwise éyw pev IlatXos must 
 have stood after 7@eAjocapev (!); and as we find also with 
 Grotius, who makes a suppressed 6é correspond to the pev, in 
 the sense : “ nempe Timotheus et Silas semel.” *—- Mév] serves 
 only to bring the subject into prominence. See Hartung, 
 Partikell. II. p. 413.— kat dra al dis] both once and twice, 
 a definite expression for twice (comp. Phil. iv. 16); not in the 
 general sense of saepiuws (Grotius, Joachim Lange, Turretin, 
 Koppe, Pelt), for then &ma£& «at d/s would have been written. 
 Calvin: “Quum dicit semel et bis voluimus, testatur non 
 subitum fuisse fervorem, qui statim refrixerit, sed hujus pro- 
 positi se fuisse tenacem.” A longer continuance of the church 
 (Baur) is not to be assumed from this expression, as the 
 interval of probably half a year, which is to be assumed 
 between the departure of Paul from Thessalonica and the 
 composition of this Epistle (see Introd. § 3), was a period 
 sufficiently long to give rise to the twice formed resolution to 
 return. — Kal évéxorev tds 0 catavas| and Satan hindered 
 us. Kal, not equivalent with 5é, by which certainly this new 
 sentence might have been introduced (Vorstius, Grotius, Ben- 
 son, Koppe, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, Koch, Bloomfield), 
 mentions simply the result of the apostle’s resolution in the 
 form of juxtaposition. In an unnatural and forced manner 
 
 1 Comp. also Wurm, Jib. Zeitschr. 1833, 1, p. 75 f., éya xat Madaes is to be 
 united directly with «ai dxa% xa? d/s. All three had resolved to visit the Thes- 
 salonians, but Paul particularly more than once. 
 
80 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 Hofmann subordinates 70eA7jcapev édOeiv mpds tuas as the 
 antecedent to Kal évéxowrev as 6 catavas as the principal 
 sentence, whilst Svore denotes while, and év moddH eriOupia 
 (ver. 17) is “in intention added to the sentence introduced 
 by Svoru.” Accordingly the sense would be: Therefore the 
 anxiety to visit the church became so strong, that when it 
 came to the intention to go to Thessalonica, Satan hindering 
 prevented it (!). — On éyxorrew, comp. Rom. xv. 22; Gal. v. 7; 
 1 Pet. iii) 7.— 06 caravas] denotes not “the opponents of 
 Christianity, the enemies of God and men” (Schrader), but, 
 according to the Pauline view, the personal author of evil, the 
 devil, who, as he is the author of all hindrances in the king- 
 dom of God, has brought about the circumstances which pre- 
 vented the apostle from carrying out his purpose. But whether, 
 under these preventive circumstances occasioned by the devil, 
 are to be understood the wickedness of the Thessalonian Jews 
 (Fromond., Schott, de Wette, Bisping), “ qui insidias apostolo 
 in itinere struebant” (Quistorp and, though wavering, Zan- 
 chius), or the contentions of the church where Paul was, and 
 which prevented his leaving them (Musculus), or even the 
 “ injecta ei necessitas disputandi saepius cum Stoicis et 
 Epicureis, qui Athenis erant ” (Grotius), or what else, must be 
 left unexplained, as Paul himself has given no explanation. 
 Ver. 19. A reason not for wepiccotépws éorrovdacapev TO 
 mpocwtov tuav dev, ver. 17 (Hofmann), but of the twice 
 formed resolution of the apostle to return to Thessalonica, 
 ver. 18. This earnest desire to return is founded on the 
 esteem of the apostle for his readers, on account of their 
 promising Christian qualities. Grotius: Construi haec sic 
 debent: tis yap juav édmls ... Eutrpocbev Tod Kupiov.. . 7 
 ovyl Kat vers; Certainly correct as regards the matter and 
 the thought, as €umpocbev ... mapovoia is to be referred to 
 the preceding predicates, but ought not to be connected with 
 i) ovxt Kai vpeis, as a second independent question. So also 
 Olshausen, who renders it thus: “or do not ye also (as I 
 myself and all the rest of the faithful) appear before Christ at 
 His coming, 7.¢. without hesitation, without any doubt, ye will 
 surely be also recognised by Christ as His, and therefore will 
 
 
 
CHAP. II. 19. 81 
 
 not fall away again at any time from the faith.’ But the 
 reason and justification for this strange position of the words 
 consist in this, that Paul originally conjoined the words ris 
 yap... wets in thought, and originally wrote them by them- 
 selves ; but then to present the predicates already put down as 
 considered not in a worldly, but in a specifically Christian 
 sense, he introduces, as a closer definition and explanation of 
 the whole clause tis .. . duets, the words éumpocbev.. . 
 mapouvcia. There is, accordingly, no need for the supposition 
 of Laurent (Weutestam. Studien, Gotha 1866, p. 28 f.), that 
 Paul only at a later period, after he had read through the 
 whole Epistle once, placed these words in the margin, or 
 ordered them to be inserted. Accordingly, the apostle says: 
 For who is our hope or joy or crown of rejoicing, or are not even 
 ye this ? before our Lord Jesus at His coming ; we. if any one 
 deserves to be called our hope, etc., ye deserve it. As the 
 addition ¢umpooGev x.7.r. proves that the apostle thinks on the 
 judgment connected with the coming of Christ. — Paul, how- 
 ever, calls the Thessalonians éAzis %uav (comp. Liv. xxviii. 39), 
 not because he anticipates a reward for himself on account of 
 the conversion of the Thessalonians effected by him (Kstius, 
 Fromond., Joachim Lange, Hofmann, and most critics), or at 
 least a remission of the punishment for his early persecution of 
 the Christian church (for the emphasis rests not on 7u@v, but 
 on the predicates éAmis «.7.X.), but because he has the confi- 
 dent hope that the Thessalonians will not be put to shame at 
 the trial to be expected at the advent, but will rather be 
 found pure and blameless, as those who embraced the faith 
 with eagerness, and heroically persevered in it in spite of all 
 contentions. — 7) yapd] or joy, as by the conversion and Chris- 
 tian conduct of the Thessalonians the kingdom of God has 
 been promoted. — 7 oréfavos Kavyijoews| or crown of glory 
 (comp. Man Mby, Ezek. xvi. 12, xxiii. 42; Prov. xvi. 31, 
 and also the LXX.; Phil. iv. 1; Soph. 47, 460; Macrob. i 
 somn. Scip.i. 1), inasmuch as this greatness and glory, occa- 
 sioned by the labours of the apostle for the church, is, as it 
 were, the victorious reward of his strivings. —7) odxé] not 
 nonne (Erasmus, Schott, and others), but an non, for 7 here 
 Mryrer—1 TuEss. F 
 
82 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 introduces the second member of a double question. — «al 
 vets] also ye: for, besides the Thessalonians, there were other 
 churches planted by Paul worthy of the same praise. Accord- 
 ing to de Wette, to whom Koch and Bisping attach them- 
 selves, 7) duets should properly have followed oré. kavyye. : 
 “no one is more our hope than you;” but with xa’ the apostle 
 corrects himself, not to say too much, and not to offend other 
 churches. But just because 7) tpets imports too much, why 
 should not the apostle have designed to put % ody! Kal tpeis 
 from the very first! — év tH adtod mapovala] at his coming 
 (return) to establish the Messianic kingdom (comp. ii. 13, 
 iv. 15, v. 23, e¢ al. ; Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 341 ff.) ; an epexegesis 
 to umpocbev Tod Kupiov juav ’Incod. 
 
 Ver. 20. An impassioned answer to the question in ver. 19. 
 Thus yap is not causal, but confirmatory, you or truly ye are 
 (dpets e€oré, emphatic) owr glory and our joy. Comp. Winer, 
 p. 396 [E. T. 558]; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 473. Flatt and 
 Hofmann refer ver. 19 to the future, to the zapovela Xpictod, 
 and ver. 20 to the present: “Ye are now our glory and our 
 joy, therefore I hope that ye will be yet more,” ete. Without 
 justification, as this distinction of time would have been 
 marked by Paul. 
 
 
 
CHAP. III. 83 
 
 CHAPTER: I1iI. 
 
 Ver. 1. Elz. has 6. Asézs, found in B, is a mere error of the tran- 
 scriber, occasioned by the following pyxér.— Ver. 2. After riv 
 adeApiv nway the Receptus has xa dicxovoy rot Oxod nal cuvepyiv qudv. 
 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 zai cuvepytv rod cod, from which all varia- 
 tions are explained. In order to remove the objectionable 
 character which the expression cvvepyis rod @zod appeared to have, 
 sometimes rot Oz} was suppressed (so the reading received by 
 Tisch. 1, xa? cuvepyév, in B, Arm.), at other times ouvepyov WaS 
 changed into didéxovey (nal adeitor cov Ocov, AN, 67** 71, e¢ al., 
 
 Copt. Aeth. Vulg. Bas. Pel. [in textu]; approved by Scholz), 
 from which further grew, by blending with the original word- 
 Ing, Sdnovoyv xal ovvepydy rod Ozod, F G, Boern., and zal didn. nai 
 ouvepyey tov @zod In E 17; lastly, there was interpolated zai 
 dsnovoy nai ouvepyivy quay (Sahid.), or dséxovay rod Ocod xe! cuvepyiv 
 qwov (Syr. ed. Erp.), or xa? dsdnovov ro sod xai cuvepydv (87). — 
 Instead of the Receptus rapaxurétcus iwes, only rapaxarzous is to 
 be read, with Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, according to A B D* 
 i G&, min. Copt. Sahid. Baschm. Arm. Slav. ant. Vulg. It. 
 Chrys. Theodoret (alic.) Damasc. Ambrosiast. Pelag. — istp rij 
 wiorewc| Hlz. has wepi rig ricrewe. Against A-B D* E* FG Kx, 
 17, 31, e al., Bas. Chrys. Theodoret (alic.).— Ver. 3. Elz. has 
 a@ ndéve. But A BD EK L®&, min. plur. edd. Bas. Oecum. 
 have ri yuydzve, Correctly accepted by Matth. Lachm. (in the 
 stereotype edition ; in his larger edition Lachm. writes +i wd: 
 aoalveodos!) Tischendorf, and Alford. Preferred also by Reiche. 
 In the place of the misunderstood +é, ra of the Receptus was put 
 (although this is impossible from grammatical considerations ; 
 
 see notes on passage), or rod (67, 87, al.), or va (F G, 73).— 
 Ver. 7. Elz. has dame xai avayxy. According to the pre- 
 ponderating testimony of ABD EF Gx, min. “edd. Syr. utr. 
 Copt. Arm. Vulg. It. Ambrosiast. Pel., to be transposed dvdyxn 
 nod OrirLEs. — Ver, 11. Instead of the Recept. "Inoots Xpiorés, A B 
 D** (in D* *Ijoods is wanting) 8, 3, 17, e¢ al., Aeth. Vule. ms, 
 
84 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 Ambr. al., Lachm. Tisch. Alford have Ijec%s, which is to be 
 preferred. — Ver. 12. Elz. has é xJps. This is wanting in Syr. 
 Erp. Suspected by Mill. Apparently spurious, as in A, 73, e¢ 
 al., 6 @eés, and in D* E* FG, It. 6 xdpis “Inoots is found. If 
 Paul added no subject in ver. 12, but caused the same to be 
 continued from ver. 11, the early insertion of additions as 
 closses was natural.— Ver. 13. *Ijoot] Elz. has “Inood Xprorod. 
 Against it A BD EK, 37, 39, e¢ al., Aeth. Germ. Vulg. ms. 
 Damasc. Ambr.— After the Recept. ayiwv airot, A D* E x* 
 min. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. al. add dujv. Bracketed by Lachm. 
 But du was inserted, as an ecclesiastical lection ended with 
 ver, 13. 
 
 CoNnTENTS.— 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 com- 
 forted 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 (vv. 1-13). 
 
 Vv. 1 ff. are most closely connected with the preceding ;? 
 it is therefore to be regretted that a new chapter should com- 
 mence here. On vv. 1-3, comp. the treatise of Riickert 
 alluded to in comment on i. 8. 
 
 Ver. 1. 410] Therefore, ic. Sua TO elvar buds tHv So€av 
 Hav Kal tTHv yapdy (ii. 20).— pnKéte otéyovtes] no longer 
 bearing wt, ae. incapable of mastering our longing for you any 
 longer (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 12, xiii. 7; Philo, in Flace. p. 974 
 Opp. Lut. Par. 1640, fol.: pnnéte oréyew Suvdpevoe tas 
 évdetas). So Erasmus, Vorstius, Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, 
 Pelt, de Wette, only the latter conjoins with the idea of long- 
 ing, that of anxiety for the Thessalonians, which, indeed, is in 
 accordance with jact, but anticipates the representation, as the 
 idea of anxiety on the part of the apostle is first added in 
 what follows. — pnxéte] is not here instead of ovxérs, as 
 
 1 Strikingly, Calvin : Hac narratione, quae sequitur, desiderii illius sui fidem 
 facit. 
 
 
 

 
 CHAP. III. 1. 85d 
 
 Niickert thinks, appealing to an abusus of the later Greek, 
 which abusws we should be cautious in recognising (see Winer, 
 p. 451 [E. T. 609]), but as spoken from a subjective stand- 
 point: as those who, etc. Moreover, to take the participle 
 otéyovtes in the sense of occultantes, to which Wolf and 
 Baumgarten are inclined: “no longer concealing my longing,” 
 ze. no longer observing a silence concerning it, would be flat, 
 and contrary to the context.— eddoxjocapev] as well as 
 érréurpapev, ver. 2, and émeurpa, ver. 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. 
 evdoxnoapev does not denote a mere promptam animi in- 
 clinationem (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,’ Hofmann, consider 
 Paul and Silas as the subjects of evdoxjoapuev; that kayo 
 (ver. 5), J 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 ver. 1, a single individual was, in ver. 5, brought 
 forward. However, this view cannot be the correct one. By 
 the insertion of éy® pév IIatnos, ii. 18, the subject of 
 ii. 17-20 is expressly restricted to Paul himself; and, as 
 chap. ili. is most closely connected with ii. 17-19, the subject 
 here must be the same as there. evdoxrjcapev must there- 
 fore, 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 kayo, ver. 5, is no objection 
 (see below).— KatarerpOfvat év *AOnvais povor] 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 
 
 1 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 of epi ray Mataov. 
 Comp. Tiib. Zeitschr. 1833, 1, p. 76. 
 
&6 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 been previously there with the apostle. They assume that 
 Timotheus, left behind at Berea (Acts xvii. 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 xvii. 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 xvii. 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 xviii. 5). But this view does not correspond with the 
 natural wording of our passage, as KatarerpOivar, 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 éméuaper, 
 ver. 2, and émepurpa, ver. 5, as hardly anything else can be 
 denoted with these words than a commission given directly by 
 Paul to one present. 
 
 Ver. 2. Tov adedhov jydv Kat ouvepyov tod Ocod ev . 
 evayy. Tod Xpicrov] our brother (Christian brother) and fellow- 
 labourer of God in the gospel of Christ. The ovy in cuvepyov 
 Tov Ocod refers not to man, but to God, the chief ruler of the 
 church; comp. Meyer on 1 Cor. iii. 9. In this apposition 
 attached to Tipo8eov, Theophylact, Musculus, and most critics 
 (comp. already Chrysostom) discover the design, that Paul 
 wished thereby to indicate what a great sacrifice he put him- 
 self 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.’ 
 
 ?Thus also Hofmann, only he finds the reason of the honourable appellation 
 
 in this : ‘*that the Christians of Thessalonica who longed for the apostle him- 
 self might be tempted to undervalue this mission of a subordinate associate ! ” 
 
CHAP. Ill. 3. 87 
 
 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 con- 
 strained spontaneously to express, on account of the faithful- 
 ness 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. — év 7@ evayyedio] State- 
 ment of the sphere in which he was a ovvepyés. Comp. Rom. 
 i. 9; Phil. iv. 3.— els ro ornpi~as duds] 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 Chry- 
 sostom) Oecumenius, whom Theophylact, Estius, Luc. Osiander, 
 Fromond., Nat. Alexander, Macknight, and others follow: os 
 cadevopévous, ed ois iv 0 SuddoKaros ev Tetpacpols’ péyas 
 yap dvtas OopuBos Tois wabyntais TO elvat Tov SudacKarov év 
 metpacmots. — Grotius and others understand wapaxadécac in 
 the sense of to comfort. More correctly (on account of ver. 3), 
 it is to be taken in the meaning of to exhort or encourage. 
 Schott erroneously unites both ideas. Also, arbitrarily sepa- 
 rating the words, Olshausen refers otypi€ar to patience in 
 persecution, and zrapaxadécas to growth in faith. — trép tijs 
 mictews vuav] not equivalent to wept ths mictews tpuov (de 
 Wette and others), as if it were a mere statement of the 
 object, but: for the good of your faith, 7c. in order that you 
 might preserve it.’ 
 
 Ver. 3. Saivew] related to cevecv—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. Hy. 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: o¢ dé 
 
 1 That Calvin here speaks of a fides Pauli ubique adversus Satanam et mun- 
 
 dum victrix, is because, in the oldest Greek editions of the N. 1., cicrews tay 
 was put in place of zicr:ws tuay, 
 
88 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 calvopevor Tols Aeyouévors EddKpucy Te Kal @®uofov. — Sophocl. 
 Antig. 1214: mados pe calves POoyyos. (Other proofs in 
 Wetstein.) Thus here ca(vec@as denotes a being disquieted, 
 becoming wavering in the faith. Chrysostom correctly ex- 
 plains it by OopuSeic@at Kat tapattec@ar. With unneces- 
 sary 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 Riickert, whom Koch follows, 
 adopts this view, as he will not acknowledge the mean- 
 ing @opvSetc@ar in the verb: he thinks, rather, that from 
 the meaning to fawn, the meaning Ulanditiis 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 caivew directly by to delude, a 
 meaning which the word never has. — év tats OAipeow Tav- 
 tais| in these afflictions. év is purely temporal, not instru- 
 mental, although, in regard to the subject in hand, it cannot 
 be doubted that it was the @rfes to whose influence the 
 possibility of a caivec@az is attributed. tavrais is SexTixds, 
 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 @XAfes 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 ver. 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 ver. 3 is to be connected with the preced- 
 ing. Those who read, with the Receptus, rd undéva caivecBar 
 (see critical note), regard 7@ as the Dativus commodi, which, 
 as the Hebrew 2 placed before an infinitive, serves for the 
 statement of the object; thus 7@ would be equivalent to eds 
 
CHAP. III. 3. 89 
 
 zo (Grotius, Turretin, Benson, Koppe, Pelt, Olshausen). But 
 te with the infinitive is used exclusively to denote the reason 
 or the inducing cause, never to denote the design; comp. 
 2 Cor. ii. 12, and Winer, p. 293 [E. T. 413]. Riickert, indeed, 
 retaining this grammatical use of t#, makes it denote: “unde 
 nascituram Thy TapakXnow speraverat, quum Timotheum 
 misit, apostolus ;” and, although he does not decide positively, 
 prefers the reading 7, 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 “/ratres ut firmaret, sibi ut afferret ex 
 bona illorum conditione solatium.” But this interpretation is 
 simply impossible, as, in referring wapaxadécar to the apostle, 
 it would be indispensably necessary, on account of the preced- 
 ing vuas, to subjoin 7uads. Accordingly, even from internal 
 reasons, criticism requires us to read TO pndéva calvecOar. 
 But here, also, a different view is conceivable:—(1) We 
 might, with Matthaei, supply a second eds to 70 pndéva caiv- 
 ecOat from the preceding eis to ornpi~as. But in this case we 
 cannot understand why the second eés has been suppressed by 
 Paul, as elsewhere he does not avoid the repetition of the 
 form eis 76; comp. eg. Rom. iv. 11. Or (2) with Schott, 
 Koch, and Bisping, we might take 70 pndéva caiver Oar as an 
 absolute accusative, in the sense of quod attinet ad. But, con- 
 sidering the rarity of this construction, and the misuse which 
 is practised with its assumption (comp. Bernhardy, Syntaz, 
 p. 132 f.; also Phil. iv. 10, on which Schott founds, is no 
 analogy, as there to tmép ewod dpoveiv is the usual objective 
 accusative to dve@areTe, 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. 
 263 f.], Hofmann, and Riggenbach follow, makes 76 undéva caiv- 
 ea@ar dependent on mapaxadécaz, and considers it as a further 
 explanation of w7ép Ths miotews, namely, to exhort that none 
 should become wavering. But if ro wndéva caivecOar depended 
 on. Tapaxanécat, then wapaxanely, in the sense of to exhort, 
 
90 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 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 iii. 18 both accusatives are 
 not governed by apaxaday, but, in agreement with Acts 
 xiii. 32, by edmyyertfero; in 1 Tim. vi. 2, radrta depends on 
 diSacKke, and Kai mapaxdde is annexed only in a loose manner 
 to tadra didacke; so also in Tit. ii. 15 radra belongs only 
 to AdAev, but not also to the following verbs ; further, in Mark 
 v. 23 mond does not depend on trapaxane?, but is the ad- 
 verbial much, very; lastly, Mark v.17 and Acts viii. 31 are 
 not analogous, as there rapaxaneiv is put with the accusative 
 of the person, to which a simple infinitive, but not an infinitive 
 with the article 70, follows.) Besides, if rd undéva caiv. were 
 a further explanation or epexegesis of i7rép tis wicTews Umar, 
 then not the accusative 7d pndéva caiverOar would have been 
 put, but the genitive tod pndéva caiv., in agreement with imep 
 Tis wictews Uuov. Accordingly, this interpretation is also to 
 be rejected. There consequently remains only (4) to consider 
 To pndéva caiverbar év tais OX. TavTats as an apposition to the 
 whole preceding sentence eis Td otnpiEar buds Kal TapaKané- 
 cat iTép THY TicTews Dudy, so that To pndéva caty, serves 
 only to repeat the same thought which was before positively 
 expressed in a negative but better defined form; thus, instead 
 of To, rovréote 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 
 strenethen and exhort you on account of your faith, particularly 
 on one point, which is contained in one requirement: that no 
 one may be shaken, ete.’ - Accordingly, 76 pndéva caiverOae 
 certainly depends on the preceding eés; but our interpretation 
 is entirely different from that adduced in (1), as no second ets 
 can be inserted before TO pundéva caivecOar without injuring 
 
 1 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 pendivae 
 caivecéas cum proxime praecedente Infinitivo wrapexarice: connectendum ex- 
 istimem. Verum toto tertiae hujus sectionis dicto: pmdiva... xtiusta, illius, 
 
 i 
 
 os 
 
CHAP. II. 4, 5. 91 
 
 the indissoluble unity which combines 7d pndéva caiy, K.7.2. 
 with what precedes. — avrot yap oid. .... xat oldare, ver. 4, is 
 not, with Moldenhauer, Griesbach, Vater, Flatt, to be included 
 in a parenthesis, as 6sa todo, ver. 5, is connected with what 
 directly precedes. — yap] proves the legitimacy of the demand 
 pndéva caiver Pat. — oidate] ver. 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. — ére 
 eis ToUTO KeipueOa] that we were appointed thereto. Comp. Phil. 
 1.17; Lukeii. 34. eds rodro, 1. not ets TO pndéva caivecbat, 
 but efs to OAiBecOac (comp. ver. 4), in connection with 
 Oripecwv. Moreover, ceiuePa refers not only to Paul (Oecu- 
 menius, Estius, Osiander, and others), or to Paul and his com- 
 panions (Hofmann), nor also to Paul and the Thessalonians 
 (Koppe), but to Christians in general. 
 
 Ver. 4. Reason of adtoi yap oldate.— mpos tyas] The 
 accusative, as in Gal. 1. 18, 11.5; 1 Cor. xvi. 7, etc. — Also 
 féAXomev 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 xeyweOa, ver. 3, to be taken generally : 
 we Christians in general. Ménddopev OriBec@ar, however, is 
 distinguished from the simple future—it characterizes the 
 sufferings as inevitable, as predetermined in the counsels of 
 God. — oiéare] from your own experience. Baumgarten- 
 Crusius incorrectly refers it to mpoedéyopev. 
 
 Ver. 5. Ava todro] on this account, i.e. on account of the 
 actual commencement of trouble. But, incorrectly, Fromond. : 
 ne tribulationibus meis turbaremini. — The cai in cay does 
 not belong to the whole sentence: “therefore also, no longer 
 forbearing, I sent” (de Wette, Koch, Bisping), for then dia Kat | 
 tovTo would have been written (the passages adduced by de 
 
 quam Timothei ministerio ad Thessalonicenses perferendam curabat Apostolus, 
 Tapaxricews praccipuum argumentum ac summa contineri mihi videtur. Cujus 
 rei, ni fallor, indicium est dictumque adeo acuit et a caeteris distinguit prae- 
 missus ille articulus +4. Quem ibi ponere Graecos, ubi nos signa citationis vulgo 
 notum est. Veluti postmodum, chap. iv. 1: 0 was def x.7.A. 
 
92 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 Wette to the contrary do not prove what is designed) ; rather 
 «at impressively gives prominence to the person of the éyo: 
 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 
 (kal éyéveto xal oldate, ver. 4), a relation must be contained 
 in xay# to others, of whom, as of Paul, a wnkéte oréyev in 
 respect of the Thessalonians is asserted.’ These others are the 
 Christian circle with the apostle in Athens (Acts xvii. 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, 
 ver. 5, as a contrast to the plural, ver. 1. In ver. 5 only Paul 
 is spoken of, whereas in ver. 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 ! — eis TO yvavat] in order to learn, 
 belongs to the subject of the verb émeuwa; thus: “in order 
 that I, the sender, might learn;” not: in order that he 
 (Timotheus) might learn (Pelt, Olshausen, and others). — ta 
 miotw wmov] your faith, ie. how it is with it, how it stands. 
 
 1Jt 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 xazya#, which belongs to pnxics eriyay, not to ixsua, is 
 explained. But this is an expedient which is artificial, and is to be rejected 
 because uenxics oriysy, ver. 5, and ixirodsiv, ver. 6, are not co-extensive ideas. 
 
CHAP, III. 6. 93 
 
 — patos] depends on yvévat, not on éreurpa, and is the intro- 
 ductory 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 doBovpevos before wnmas: “ filled with 
 anxiety lest the tempter should have tempted you.” —o e- 
 patwv] another expression for 6 catavds, ii. 18. Comp. Matt. 
 iv. 3.— els xevov] see Meyer on Gal. ii. 2. — évetpacev... 
 yévntat] correctly, Schott : ut cognoscerem, quomodo se haberet 
 persuasio vestra, num forte tentator vos tentaverit, adeo ut 
 (quod deus avertat !) labor meus irritus fier? possit. The aorist 
 indicative refers to a fact which possibly may have already 
 happened ; but the conjunctive yévynrae 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 pes in the first clause as an inter- 
 rogative 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 éze/pacev is implied “tempted with success,” 
 “seduced.” The idea of seduction exists only by the addition 
 of els Kevov yevntat. 
 
 Ver. 6. "Aprz &€] but now, belongs not to éX@ovTos (Grotius, 
 Pelt, Schott, Alford, Ewald, Hofmann, Riggenbach), but is to 
 be separated from it by a comma, and belongs to wapexd- 
 @nuev, ver. 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 dpte dé éXovtos, Sua TodTo would scarcely be 
 inserted in ver. 7 for the recapitulation of ver. 6; (3) apru 
 dé emphatically opposes the present to the past, to éreurba 
 (ver. 5); but apre would be flat if we referred it to éX@ovros, 
 and that whether it was to be understood in its temporal or 
 in its logical sense; (4) Lastly, we would expect vapa- 
 kexAnpeOa (which certainly is found in A and some minus- 
 
94 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 culi), but not apexAnOnuev, in ver. 7.— édOovtos x.7.r.] 
 not after, but because ; Sia rodro requires this, The joyful 
 message which Timotheus brought (Chrysostom: “Opdas rv 
 meptydpecav IIavdov; ovx eirev amayyeihavtos aN evbay- 
 yeducapévov' TocodToy ayaboy iyeito THY éxelwwv BeBaloow 
 Kal THhv ayarnv. Comp. also Luke i. 19, and Lobeck, 
 ad Phryn. p. 266 ff.) refers (1) to the Christian condition of 
 the Thessalonian Church generally (tv twiotw Kat Ti ayamrnv 
 tuo@v), and (2) to the personal relation of the Thessalonians to 
 the apostle («ai dru éyete «.7.r.). Theodoret: Anrot 4 pev 
 mots THs evoeBelas TO BéEBatov 7) SE ayatrn Tiv TapaKTiKHY 
 apetnv’ 4 88 Tod SiSacKdrov prjun Kal oO Trepl adtov TdOos 
 faptupel TH Tepl tHv SidacKadiay otopy7. Hammond 
 incorrectly understands dyadmrnv of love to God.— kal ére 
 éxyete pvelav tyav ayabyv] and that ye have us in good 
 remembrance. Arbitrarily Grotius: Est wetwvupia, nam per 
 memoriam intelligit mentionem, et bonam intelligit, in bonam 
 partem, ze. honorificam. For then zroveioAac must be put 
 instead of éyew.— wdvtote] belongs to the foregoing, not, as 
 Koch and Hofmann suppose, to what follows. — ésemofobvtes| 
 Comp. Rom. i. 11; Phil. i. 8, ii. 26; 2 Cor. ix. 14.—Strikingly 
 Musculus (also Bengel): Non modo amoris hoc erat indicium, 
 sed et bonae conscientiac. The compound verb, however, makes 
 prominent the direction, not the intensity, of mo@ety. Comp. 
 Fritzsche on Rim. i, 11.—KxaOarep kai rpets duds] sc. ety 
 emritro0odpev. 
 
 Ver. 7. Mia Todro] is added in consequence of the preceding 
 long participial sentence, and as its recapitulation. But Paul 
 says 6sa todTo, not dua tadra, 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.— aapexdAjOnuer] the aorist, in 
 connection with apts, ver. 6, proves that this Epistle was 
 composed immediately after the return of Timotheus. — 颒 
 ipiv] in reference to you (comp. 2 Cor. vii. 7), is not 
 superfluous on account of the following 8:a tis tuav wictews 
 (Koppe, Pelt), but puts the personal object first in regard to 
 whom the consolation of the apostle occurred, whilst Sia tijs 
 
CHAP. III. & 95 
 
 vyeav miatews brings in afterwards the actual circumstances, 
 by which the consolation was called forth..— ért mdon Th 
 avaykn Kal Orirer Huav] on (or in) all our necessity and 
 tribulation. émt is not a causal, but a temporal statement. 
 Comp. 2 Cor. vii. 4; Winer, p. 350 [E. T. 489]. Erroneously 
 Schott, in every necessity and tribulation which we endure ; 
 this would be expressed by ért mdoyn avayen «.7.r. (without 
 an article). By @dafis Schott understands the tribulation 
 caused by the Corinthian adversaries of the apostle; and by 
 avaykn, either sickness or (so also Macknight) pecuniary 
 indigence, combined with hard labour; whilst Bouman 
 (Chartae theolog. I. p. 80) considers “dvayeny vocabulum 
 generale esse, quod nullum non calamitatum genus contineat ; 
 Orupw 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 avdyxn and Oris cannot here 
 be interpreted, with de Wette and Koch, of care and anxiety, 
 but are to be understood of eaternal 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 éé imports 
 that the dvayxn and OAAfis 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. ver. 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 ver. 8 must suitably agree. 
 
 Ver. 8. Paul considers the dvdyxn and OAfus which lay 
 upon him as a @avartos, but he does not feel this evil; the 
 @dvatos is converted to him into f#7, when he learns how 
 the churches which he had founded cleave to the Lord. 
 
 ? The opinion of Hofmann, that 32 ris tuay xierews is to be combined with 
 ors voy Camev, ver. 8, whilst with the emphasis on suey it must be translated: 
 “because it is your faith by which we now live,” is so monstrous that it 
 requizes no refutation. 
 
96 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 External matters are, in general, indifferent to the apostle, 
 provided he reaches his life-aim, to lead souls to Christ; 
 every success in reference to this imparts strength and fulness 
 of life to him. — viv] is not to be understood in contrast to 
 the pre-Christian life of the apostle, when his thought and 
 aim were entirely different; whereby a thought entirely 
 foreign to the context would be introduced. The force of 
 vov as an adverb of time, at present, is not to be too greatly 
 pressed (Marloratus: Sub adverbio nunc repetit, quod prius 
 dixerat, se afflictione et necessitate graviter fuisse oppressum), 
 but has here (on account of édy) a causal reference; now, 
 serving as an introduction to what follows: éav tyes orijKnte 
 év xupio. Comp. Kiihner, II. p. 385; Hartung, Partikell. 
 II. p. 25. — feuev] not to be referred, with Chrysostom, to 
 the future, eternal life, nor weakened to “we are happy” 
 (Pelt and others), or “satisfied” (Grotius, Moldenhauer), but 
 the meaning is: For now we live, zc. we are in full strength 
 and freshness of life, we do not feel the sorrows and tribula- 
 tions which the outer world prepares for us.— éav twpeis 
 oTnKnTe ev Kupiw] when, or so soon as ye stand fast in the 
 Lord, hold fast to His fellowship. — duets] applies specially to 
 the Thessalonians what holds good of Christians generally. — 
 éav] makes the fact of the stedfastness of the readers appear 
 as a well-grounded supposition (see Schmalfeld, Syntax des 
 Griech. Verbums, p. 201). But the hypothetical form of the 
 sentence includes, indirectly, the exhortation to hold fast to 
 the Lord for the future. 
 
 Ver. 9. Reason of Gémev, ver. 8; ydp, consequently, is 
 not “mera particula transeundi” (Koppe, Pelt). In a truly 
 monstrous construction, Hofmann, with a renunciation of all 
 exegetical tact, pulls to pieces the simple and clear structure 
 of the words, taking tiva yap ebyapiotiay Suvdpeba TO OO 
 aytaTododvat Trepl vuay (ver. 9) as a parenthetic clause, the 
 object of which is to give beforehand the reason of Sedpevor 
 (ver. 10), referring ér! don 7h yapa, 7 xalpomev Ov vpas 
 to Sedpuevor “as a statement of what he joined to his request;” 
 considering Seopevor, which is “a participle of the imperfect,” 
 as an apodosis, which, passing over the parenthesis, is annexed 
 
CHAP. III. 10. 97 
 
 to mapexAjOnuev (ver. 7), and to which ova tis tbuav wictews 
 éte viv Cemev (vv. 7, 8) forms the protasis! —tiva yap 
 evyapictiav x.7.d.] for what thanks can we give in return to 
 God on behalf of you for all the joy we feel for your sakes 
 before our God? «e., What expression of thanks can be suffi- 
 ciently great to be an equivalent for the fulness and super- 
 abundance of our joy? Theophylact: Tooadtn, dnciv, 7 ov 
 tmas yapd, te ovdé evyapiothoas TO Ocw nat akiav Suva- 
 pela vrép tov. Cod has brought about and arranged this joy 
 by His higher guidance; therefore to Him belongs the thanks; 
 therefore is this thanks a return for the proof of His grace 
 (avtatrobobvat). — Taca 7 xapa] cannot denote joy of every 
 kind; accordingly, cannot indicate the multiplicity of objects 
 which the joy for the Thessalonians has (which Schott thinks 
 possible). It means, as the article added requires, the whole 
 joy—joy in its sum total. See Winer, p. 101 [E. T. 137]. 
 A joy in its totality is certainly the greatest conceivable joy ; 
 so that it may be said that waca 7 yapa denotes laetitia 
 maxima (Flatt, Pelt, Schott).— 4 yatpouer] by attraction 
 instead of jy yalpoweyv; comp. Matt. i. 10.— eumpocbev 
 tov Ocovd nuay| belongs not to the following (Ewald, Hof- 
 mann), but to the preceding; but not to yapa (Koppe, Pelt, 
 Bloomfield), but to yatpowev. The addition serves to bring 
 forward the purity of this joy, to which nothing earthly 
 cleaves. Erroneously Oecumenius and Bloomfield: “ Paul 
 would think on God as the Author of the joy.” — On yar, 
 comp. on il. 2. 
 
 Ver. 10. Aedpevor] is not used absolutely instead of Sedue0a 
 or éopéev Sedpevot, which Cornelius a Lapide and Baumgarten- 
 Crusius assume, and Flatt thinks possible, but neither is it to 
 be united with yaipowev (Schott, de Wette, Koch, Riggen- 
 bach), but belongs to the main thought tiva... avtavrodovvat, 
 and assigns the reason for it by the fervent Jonging for the 
 readers, and anaiety for their Christian character: What 
 sufficient thanks are we able to give to God for our joy over you, 
 as we (cleaving to you with such paternal love that we), 
 without ceasing, pray to see you again, and complete the defects 
 of your faith ?— vuxtos] See on ii. 9. Erroneously Fromond. : 
 
 MrEYER—1 THEss. G 
 
98 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 it is placed first, quia nocte praecipue propter solitudinem et 
 silentium sancti se orationi dare solent.—The accumulation of 
 expressions vuxTds Kal iépas tirepextepiocod, is the natural 
 outflow of the strength of his feeling; comp. Phil. i 23. — 
 Umepextrepicaov| above measure, is found only in vy. 13, Eph. 
 iii. 20, and Theodoton, ad Daniel. iii, 22. Erroneously— 
 because grammatically impossible—Clericus insists on referring 
 it by means of a ftrajection not to Sedpuevor, but to tdetv, 
 defending his opinion on the ground that wzrepexmep. denotes 
 something not strictly necessary, whereas prayer is a duty, a 
 necessity: orantes ut videamus vultum vestrum, quasi cumulum 
 laetitiae nostrae. Non satis erat Paulo scire Thessalonicenses 
 constanter evangelio adhaerere, quamvis summam laetitiam ex 
 eo nuntio perciperit, volebat u7epexmepiccod, ex abundanti, 
 eos videre. — eis 70 x.7.X.] the design of Sedpevor: praying to 
 this end, in order by means of prayer (by the answer to it) 
 to attain the ide? and Katapticar. — xataptifew] is to place 
 in the condition of perfectness, of completeness. Thus xatap- 
 ‘tile Ta toTepjypata Tihs mlotews signifies: to render com- 
 plete the défects of faith, that is, in order to make perfect that 
 which is wanting in faith (Theodoret: ta édXdelrovta 
 mAnpacat). By this torepiypata ths miotews Paul under- 
 stands partly defects of faith as regards insight (particularly 
 in respect of the impending advent; comp. iv. 13 ff); partly 
 defects of faith as regards its practical verification in the 
 Christian life (comp. iv. 1 ff). It follows, moreover, from 
 Katapticar Ta voTepypata, with what inconsiderate arbitrari- 
 ness Baur misuses even this passage in support of his 
 assertion that the Thessalonian church had already existed 
 for a long time. 
 
 Ver. 11. Adrés] is not a general introductory subject to 
 which the special designations are annexed as an apposition : 
 “but He, God our Father,” etc. (Luther, de Wette, Hofmann, 
 Riggenbach. According to de Wette, whom Koch and Bisping 
 follow, adros serves for bringing forward the contrast with 
 the petitioner). But the whole designation of the subject 
 Airés ...’Incods is most closely connected: But God Himself, 
 our Father and our Lord Jesus. It has its contrast in reference 
 
 
 
CHAP, III. 12. 99 
 
 to xatevOvvew tHv odov. Paul thinks on a KatevOdvew thy 
 odov, both on his (man’s) side and on the side of God. The 
 first does not conduct certainly to the end, as in reference to 
 it the power of éyxomrew is given to the devil (comp. ii. 18). 
 Only when the catevOivew is undertaken by God Himself and 
 Christ is its success assured, for then the hindrances of the 
 devil are without power. Thus Paul contrasts simply and 
 naturally God and Christ to himself. — uv] may be referred 
 both to Oeds and to watyp (Hofmann, Riggenbach), so that 
 God is called our (the Christians’) God and our Father : but it 
 is best to restrict it to warp, so that God is first considered 
 in His existence as God simply, and then afterwards in refer- 
 ence to us as our Father. — kcal 6 kdpios yav Incods| This 
 addition (comp. 2 Thess. ii. 16, 17), particularly with the 
 following catev@vvar, which is to be understood as the third 
 person singular optative aorist, not as the infinitive (see 
 Winer, ed. 5, p. 383), might appear strange. But, according 
 to the Pauline view (comp. Usteri, LZehrbegr. p. 301), Christ, 
 exalted to the right hand of the Father, takes part in the 
 government of the world, and orders everything for the pro- 
 motion of His kingdom. And, inasmuch as His will is not 
 different from the will of God, but identical with it, the verb 
 in the singular is suitable. — xatevOvvat] make straight, plain, 
 so in order that it can be trod. Without a figure: may cause 
 it to be realized. — pds vuas] belongs not to tiv oddv quar, 
 but to KatevOvvas. 
 
 Ver. 12. To the wish as regards himself, Paul adds a further 
 wish as regards his readers.’ — dyads dé] Bengel puts it well: 
 sive nos viniemus, sive minus. — If 6 kvpuos (see critical note) 
 is genuine, it may grammatically refer either to God or to 
 Christ (although the latter is the more usual) ; also éwmpooOev 
 Tov Oeov, ver. 13, instead of avdtovd, is no objection to the 
 reference to God, as the repetition of the name in full shortly 
 after its mention is not rare; comp. ii. 2; Eph. iv. 12, 16; 
 Winer, p. 130 [E. T. 180]. — The opiatives (not infinitives, as 
 Bretschneider thinks, who without justification supplies den 
 
 1 Entirely erroneously, Piscator begins with this verse the second or exhorta- 
 tive portion of the Epistle. 
 
100 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 ipiv) wreovacar and repiccevoas are in a transitive sense: 
 but the Lord make you to become rich and abound in love. On 
 mreovatery, comp. LXX. Num. xxvi. 54; Ps. lxxi, 21; on 
 mepisoevery, comp. Eph. i. 8; 2 Cor. ix. 8, ete. Erroneously 
 Theodoret, whom Cornelius a Lapide follows, takes mdeovacar 
 by itself, of the external increase of the church: evyetar Tolvuv 
 avTovs Kal TO aplOu@ Treovdoat Kal TH ayaTn Tepiocedoat, 
 toutéote Terelav adtiy KTHcacOaL, Wore pwndev EArElTrELY AUTH. 
 So also Olshausen and Koch erroneously distinguish wAeova few 
 and repiccevery as cause and effect: to increase, and arising 
 from this increase, abundance. Similarly Fromond. as extensio 
 and intensio charitatis. — e’s add17jAovs] towards fellow-Chris- 
 tians. — eds 7ravtas] is not an explication of ets addArjAous: erga 
 vos invicem et quidem omnes, which Koppe thinks possible, but 
 means toward all men generally. Estius: etiam infideles et 
 vestrae salutis inimicos. Theodoret, without reason, limits it 
 to fellow-Christians of all places; whilst he interprets eds 
 adXjrous of fellow-Christians in Thessalonica. — xaOarep cat 
 pets els buds] sc. TH Gyan TrEovafopev Kal TrepiacevomeD, MS 
 we also are rich in love and abound toward you. Only this 
 completion of the ellipsis corresponds to the context, and the 
 objection to it, that mAeovdferv and epicoevew is used first 
 in a transitive and then in an intransitive sense, is of no force, 
 as the passage of the one into the other here is so insensible 
 and easy, that no reader could take objection to it. Arbitrary 
 are the completions of Calvin: affecti sumus ; Nésselt: animati 
 sumus; Baumgarten - Crusius: €yowev (?); Pelt and Schott: 
 TOAnY ayarny Exouev; Wolf (and so essentially already 
 Musculus): repuooevoas, abundare nos in vos faciat; in which 
 latter case the accusative das (as certainly Laurent, Neutes- 
 tam. Studien, Gotha 1866, p. 188, actually reads, but without 
 justification) must be put in place of the nominative eis. 
 Also, supplying the simple copula swmus (Grotius) is to be 
 rejected, which would suppose a form of speech entirely 
 un-Grecian. Correctly, according to the sense, Theophylact : 
 ExeTe yap méTpov Kal Tapddevypa THs ayarns Nuas. 
 
 Ver. 13. The final aim is derived from the wish, ver. 12, 
 because love is the fulfilling of the law (Rom. xiii 10), and 
 
CHAP. III. 13. LO} 
 
 the band of perfection (Col. iii. 14).— ets 7d ornpiEac] not 
 so that (Pelt, Baumgarten-Crusius) ; also, not so much as «ai 
 otnpiéat (Koppe), by which the words would only annex a new 
 wish to the preceding. It is designed to introduce a majus, a 
 greater, specifying the higher or final aim to which wAeovagew 
 and mepiocevew are to conduct. But the subject in ornpigas 
 is not Tv ayarnv (Oecumenius), but tov xvptov (which, how- 
 ever, is not, with Theophylact and Schrader, to be converted 
 into the idea To mvedua), or, with the contingent spuriousness 
 of o xvpios in ver. 12: God and Christ, ver. 11.— ornpigac 
 denotes confirming, strengthening generally, not confirming in 
 the faith (Flatt, Pelt), against which is the context. — tds 
 xapolas| Chrysostom: ov« elmev buds otnpi—as, ddda Tas Kap- 
 dias tuav. “Ex yap ths Kapdias é&épyovtar Svadoyiopol 
 qovnpol, — auéumrous] proleptic: so that you will be blameless. 
 Comp. 1 Cor. i. 8; Phil. i. 21 (according to the correct read- 
 ing); Winer, p. 549 [E. T. 779]; Kiihner, II. p. 121. — & 
 aytwavvn| belongs not to ornpi~as, but to auéumrous, specify- 
 ing the sphere in which the blamelessness is to be shown. 
 The expression denotes the condition of holiness, comp. Rom. 
 1.4; 2 Cor. vii. I; erroneously Koppe: alias dyacpos, and 
 Olshausen: dyswotvvn is the process of becoming holy, the 
 result of which is dysacuos. —éumpoobev tod Ocod] before 
 God, according to His judgment, His judicial sentence, belongs 
 neither to aywwovvy (Koppe, Pelt), nor to duéusrous (de Wette, 
 Koch), but to the whole auéurtous ev aywaotvyn. — peta Tdv- 
 Tov Tov ayiwv avtod] Flatt, with whom Hofmann, in his 
 Schriftbeweis, II. 2, ed. 1, p. 595, agrees (he construes the 
 passage differently in ed. 2, p. 649, and in his H. Schr. N. T., 
 without altering his interpretation of of dysov), unites the 
 clause with duéumrovs év aywotvy: “in order that ye may 
 appear blameless on that day with all who are consecrated to 
 God, who are the genuine members of His people, who truly 
 honour God and Christ.” So also Musculus; and also Benson 
 and Olshausen (comp. also Bouman, Chartae theol. I. p. 81 ff), 
 although they do not construe with Musculus and Flatt, under- 
 stand by d&yvou the earlier perfected believers. But the difficulty 
 which impelled Flatt to this interpretation (and in which 
 
102 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 Schrader finds even an objection against the authenticity of 
 the Epistle), namely, that dy:or in the New Testament never 
 denotes the angels when it is by itself, that is, without the 
 addition of dyyedos, vanishes, as——(1) The advent is con- 
 sidered as glorified by the appearance of angels ; comp. 2 Thess. 
 i. '7; Matt. xvi. 27, xxv. 31; Mark viii. 38; Luke ix 26, 
 (2) In the Old Testament without any further addition DP, 
 and in the LXX. of dyvou, is a designation of the angels ; comp. 
 eg. Zech. xiv. 5; Dan. iv. 10; and therefore this ewrrent 
 designation cannot surprise us in Paul. Also, what Hofmann 
 in the above-mentioned place urges in favour of Flatt’s inter- 
 pretation is without force. For to “ the probability of the three 
 prepositions €upooev, év, and peta being used in a similar 
 connection,” is opposed the greater naturalness and easiness 
 of the connection of peta Tavtwv Tév ayi@v avTod with the 
 directly preceding é€v TH tapovoia tod kupiov ijuav ’Incod. 
 “And that also the connection” supports Flatt’s explanation, 
 “since the brotherly love in which the Thessalonians are to 
 erow finds its suitable reward in sharing at length the blessed 
 fellowship of all the saints of God,” so that hereby is already 
 introduced “ what the apostle has particularly to teach the 
 Christians of Thessalonica for their comfort, that those believers 
 who fell asleep before the Advent of the Lord will not be 
 wanting at it,” can only be maintained without arbitrariness, 
 if not only the explanation in iv. 1-12, but the section iv. 
 13 ff., be directly joined to iii. 13; and then this section 
 would be introduced with Ov @éropev yap buds ayvoeir, 
 instead of with Od OédXowey Sé buds ayvoeiv.— Moreover, 
 the concluding word avrod is more correctly referred to Tod 
 Oeod, than, with Pelt, Riggenbach, and others, to tod «uplov 
 nav *Incod. . 
 
 — Se 
 
 —-= es} 
 
 
 
CHAP, IV, 103° 
 
 CHAPTER: FY. 
 
 Ver. 1. Aorrév] Elz. Matth. read Td Acmév. Correctly rejected, 
 according to overwhelming testimony (A B* DEF GK Lx, 
 min. Chrys. cod. Damasc.), by Griesb. Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. 
 and Alford. 1é arose from the last syllable of the preceding 
 avrov.— ov in the Leceptus after rouzdv 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 ov.— After “Ijood Elz. has xadag raperdBere cup justi 
 To wag Os Uuas TEpimarely nal aptoxey Os, la ceproosinrs WADOV. 
 Defended by Reiche. But iva is to be inserted before xzudds 
 wapena Bere, 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 xadas xa! sepiraureire is to be inserted before iva 
 aepiooeunre (after A B D E F GX, min. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Syr. 
 p. Slav. ed. Vulg. ms. It. Harl. Ambrosiast.). Internal criticism 
 also requires this. For ta zpiocedyre presupposes the earlier 
 mention of a prior commencement (comp. ver. 10), and such a 
 commencement would not be implied in the preceding text 
 Without xadag xal weprarsire. Evidently the apostle would 
 originally have written iva, xadae wupenaBire cap quay ro Tas x.7.d., 
 olrws zai repizarjre; 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 iva after so long an intervening clause was too 
 natural, so that it might excite suspicion. — Ver. 6. sposirouey. 
 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 (¢ sd.) DEF G 8, al. read cpoeirapev.— Ver. 8. Elz. 
 has riv xai dévra. xaéis wanting in A B D*** E, min. edd. Syr. 
 Arr. al., Ath. Chrys. al. Erased by Lachm. and Tisch.1. How- 
 ever, it might easily have been omitted, the eye of the translator 
 passing from rév to dév7a.— Instead of dévra, B D E F G, 8* 67* 
 et al., mult. edd. Ath. Didym. have d:dévra. Preferred by Lachm. 
 and Tisch. 1. But 6:dé7% 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 per- 
 
U4 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE, THESSALONIANS. 
 
 manently communicated to believers. — juz] Elz. has juke. 
 Against BD EF G K LX, min. plur. edd. Syr. Arr. Arm. Syr. 
 p. in m. It. al. Didym. Ambrosiast. An alteration in con- 
 formity with a reference to the apostle himself implied in the 
 preceding dvdpwrov.— Ver. 9. Instead of the meaningless Rec. 
 eyere (Comp. commentary on ver. 9), éouev is to be received, after 
 B [eouev] D* F G 8**** min, Vulg. It. Chrys. Theoph. Ambro- 
 siast. Recommended by Griesbach. Received by Lachm. and 
 Tisch. 1. ”“Eyere is taken from v. 1.— Ver. 11. raig xepoiv] Elz. 
 has raig idfais yepoiv. “Idiers, defended by Schutz, suspected by 
 Griesb., and erased by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, after B D* 
 E? F G x**** 31, 46, al, Aeth. Arm. Vulg. It. Bas. Chrys. 
 Theoph. Ambrosiast. Pel. Gloss for the sake of strengthening, 
 arising from ré 7é:a.— Ver. 13. dzrouev] Elz. has é,. Against 
 preponderating testimonies (A B D E F GLX, min. pl. vss. 
 [also It. and Vulg.] and Fathers). — Instead of the Receptus xexo- 
 pnutvov, A BRS, 39, al., Or. mpeg Chrys. ms. (alic.) have xojuw- 
 wévov. So Lachm. Tisch. 1, 2, and Alford.— Ver. 14 Elz. has 
 apurov. D* F G, Vulg. It. Gyr. Theoph. ed. Tert. Ambrosiast. a. 
 read TpaTOor, — Ver. 17. Elz. has a&sdvrynow, D* E*? F G read 
 iadvrnow. — Elz. has rod xupiov. D* E*? F G, Vulg. It. Tert. al. 
 read rw Xpiorg. 
 
 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, covet- 
 
 ousness, and overreaching their _neighbours.(vv. 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 them- 
 selves by a quiet and busy life (vv. 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 (vv. 13-18). 
 Ver. 1. To Xovzop (see critical remark) weuld now directly 
 
' CHAP. IV. 1. 105 
 
 oppose what follows with what precedes: “ for the rest,” “ what 
 is yet besides to be said;” whereas Aovov is a less promi- 
 nent 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 Cor. xiii. 11; Phil. iv. 8; Eph. vi. 10; 2 Thess. 
 iii. 1. Here Xovmov 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. — (To) 
 Xowrov is incorrectly explained by Chrysostom, Theophylact : 
 aet pev Kab els TO Sunvexés ; Theodoret, to whom Oecumenius, 
 though wavering, adheres: dzroypévtws; Luther: “ further- 
 more ;” Baumgarten-Crusius: “generally, what is the main 
 thing.” — ody] therefore, represents what follows as an inference 
 from the preceding, and especially from ii. 13. As it is the 
 final destination of Christians to be dweumroe év aywwovrn, 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: Todt xeypnuévor TO cxoT® Tpoc- 
 hépopev tpiv THY Tapaiveow. Calixtus refers ody to the idea 
 of the judgment taken from ii. 13: Ergo,...quum sciates 
 non stare res nostras fine temporali aut terreno, sed exspectari 
 adventum domini a coelis ad judicium, precamur vos et obtes- 
 tamur, etc. Incorrectly Musculus: Quum igitur gratiam hance 
 acceperitis a domino, ut in fide illius firmi persistatis, quem- 
 admodum ex relatione Timothei cum ingenti gaudio accepi: quod 
 jam reliquum est, rogo et hortor, etc. — €pwray] in the classics 
 is used only in the sense of to inquire (see the Lexicons) ; here, 
 as in’ v. 12, 2 Thess. u. 1, Phil. iv. 3, John iv. 40, xiv. 16, 
 Acts xxiii. 20, etc., a ie sense of to request, to beseech, sualos 
 gous to the Hebrew ? Y (so also the English ¢o ask), which 
 unites both arene "Epadtapev denotes the entreating 
 address of a friend to a friend ; mapaxanrodpuev év xupie, the 
 exhortation in virtue of the apostolic office, thus the exhortation 
 of a superior to subordinates. — €v xupiw] in the Lord, belongs 
 only to mapaxadoipey (against Hofmann), and means, as in 
 fom acre 2) Cor: i V7) x19. Eph. ‘iv; 17, ‘as found in 
 
106 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 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 da tov xvpiy; also not per dominum Jesum, 
 as a form of oath (Estius, Grotius, and others), against which 
 is the Greek usage; comp. Fritzsche on Rom. ix. 1; Kiihner, 
 II. p. 307. Falsely, moreover, Theophylact: dpa 5é tamewwo- 
 dpocvyny, Saws ovde mpcs TO mapakarely akvorictov éavTov 
 elval pnow, ara Tov Xpiotov wapadapBave x.7.r. — wa] the 
 contents of the request and exhortation in the form of its pur- 
 pose. — mrapedaBere] see on ii, 13. Oecumenius, after Chry- 
 sostom (and so also Theophylact, also Pelt): 7d mapeddBere 
 ovxl pnudtwv povoy éotiv, ANA Kal Tpayudtav’ 退 dv yap 
 autos €Biov, TUTros Tois waOntais éyivero. But this extension 
 of the idea is arbitrarily inserted against the natural meaning 
 of the word, and against ver. 2.— 70] is not superfluous 
 (Grotius), but specifies in a substantive sense the following 
 words, in order to collect them into one idea, as in Rom. iy. 13, 
 viii. 26, xiii. 9; Gal. v.14; Phil. iv. 10; Luke i.62. Comp. 
 Winer, p. 99 [E. T. 134]; Bremi, ad Demosth. de Cherson. 
 p. 236.— Kai dpécxeww Oecd] and (thereby) to please God, is 
 co-ordinate to vepiarety, although logically considered it is 
 the consequence of wepuratety ; wepimatetv can only be the 
 means of apécxew.— Tepiccetnte] sc. ev TO OUTWS TrEpt- 
 mateiv. Falsely Theophylact, adhering to Chrysostom: wa 
 Tréov TL THS EvTOARS PirotihcOe Troveiy Kai vTepBaivyre 
 Ta émitdypwata,— wadrrov] a further intensification, as is.a 
 favourite custom with Paul; comp.iv.10; Phil.i.23; 2 Cor. 
 vii. 13, etc. . 
 
 Ver. 2. A strengthening of wapedaBere rap’ ov, ver. 1, 
 by appealing to the knowledge of the readers: for 2 is well - 
 known to you, ye will thus be the more willing to mepurceveuw. 
 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. Gal. iv. 13; 1 Cor. 
 xv. 1 ff, etc. — rapayyediac] 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 v. 28, xvi. 24; 1 Tim. i. 5, 18), and that to a Christian 
 
CHAP. IV. 3. LOZ 
 
 life. The stress is on tivas, to which rodro, ver. 3, corre- 
 sponds. — 61a tod xupiov *Incod] through the Lord. Jesus, by 
 means of Him, zc. Paul did not command 8’ éavtod, but.Christ— 
 Himself was represented by him as the-Giver of the Tapay- 
 yeriat. 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 obeun- 
 dam vocatus, 6c’ dmoxadivews Xpiotod 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, 6:4 is equivalent to év; and Grotius, 
 accepta is to be supplied. 
 
 Ver. 3. Further specification of tivas tapayyeXias, accord- 
 ing to its contents. TovTo yap é€otw OédrAnua Tod Ocod] for 
 this (the following) 7s the will of God.— rodro] not the pre- 
 dicate (de Wette, 2d ed.), but the subject (comp. Rom. ix. 8 ; 
 Gal. iii. 7 ; Winer, 5th ed. p. 130 [E. T. 199]), is emphatically 
 placed first, accordingly not superfluous (Pelt). — 0éAnywa Tod 
 Ocod] 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 
 ver. 2, although in another form. For a command given 6a 
 tov xuplov ‘Incod is nothing else than @éAnua tod Ocod, — 
 0 adylacpos tuav] namely, your sanctification, in apposition to 
 TovTo and the subject-matter, whereas Tovto was only a pre- 
 liminary and nominal subject. cytac 0s has an active mean- 
 Ing, your sanctification (spar, the genitive of the object), Zz. 
 that you sanctify yourselves, not passive (Estius, Koppe, Usteri, 
 p. 236; Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius), so that it would be 
 ientical with adywwovvn, iii. 13.  Calovius, Wolf, Flatt, de 
 Wette, Koch, Alford, and others take dysacpos as a “ quite 
 general” idea, under which not only dréyeoOau «.7.r., but 
 also ver. 6, are specified as particulars. This view, in itself 
 entirely suitable, becomes impossible by the article 7é before 
 vmepBaivev, ver. 6. This does not permit us to consider 
 ver. 6 as a parallel statement to améyeoOas, ver. 3, and eidévat, 
 ver. 4, but places the statement to yu) bmepRaivew «k.T.Xr. 
 evidently on the same level with 0 dyacpos tay. Accord- 
 
108 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 ingly tovto receives a double specification of the subject-matter 
 in the form of apposition—(1) in 6 dyiacpos tuor, and (2) 
 in TO wy brepBaiverv, ver. 6. Thus the meaning is: For the 
 following is the will of God, jirst, that ye sanctify yourselves, 
 and then that ye overreach not, ete. But from this relation 
 of the sentences it follows that dyvacpos must denote holiness 
 in a special sense, z.c. 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), — 
 0 ayiacpuos tov _is further epexegeti explained — (1) 
 negatively by améyeo@ar tpas amo tis mopveias, and (2) 
 positively by eidévac x«.7.0., ver. 4. In an entirely erroneous 
 manner by Hofmann, according to whom the stress is to be 
 laid on O€Anuwa Tod Oeod, TodTo is to indicate dwéyer Oar K.7.X., 
 and 6 dyiacuos is a parenthetic apposition. Moreover, “a, 
 contradiction” to the praise of the church, expressed elsewhere 
 in the Epistle, is not contained in the exhortation, ver. 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.’ 
 Ver. 4. That every one of you may know (understand, be 
 capable; comp. Col. iv. 6; Phil. iv. 12) to acquire his own 
 vessel in sanctification and honour. By cxevdos, Chrysostom, 
 Theodoret, John Damascenus, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Ter- 
 tullian, 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, Bloom- 
 field, Meyer (Rom. 4th ed. p. 74), and others, understand the 
 body (76 o@pa).' But—(1) xr&c@ac cannot in any way be 
 reconciled with this interpretation. For that can only denote 
 
 1 In a special manner Ernest Schmid explains it : Suum vas i. e, suum corpus 
 et in specie sua membra, quibus ad dxaéapeiay 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: +é faurod exsos is “his means, 
 his vessels, or singularis pro plurali, his goods, his utensils.” 
 
CIIAP. IV. 4. 109 
 
 to gain, to acquire, but not to own, to possess (for which one in 
 vain appeals to Luke xxi. 19; Sir. vi. 7, xxii. 23, li. 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 mx év waQec ériOvpias, ver. 5, which 
 likewise belongs to «r@c@at, would be irreconcilable with it. 
 (2) The body may be compared with a oxevos, or, when the 
 context points to it, may be figuratively so called, but oxedos 
 by itself can hardly be put in the sense of capa. All the 
 passages which are usually brought forward do not prove the 
 contrary ; ¢g. Barnabas, Ep. vil. and xi.: Td oxetos Tod mvev- 
 patos (avTov), where oxevos has its usual meaning, and only 
 the full expression serves as a circumlocution for ihe body of 
 Christ. Philo, quod deter. pot. ins. p. 186: 70 Ths w>uyts 
 ayyeiov TO cama, and de migr. Abrah. p. 418: tots ayyelous 
 THs Wuyhs copate Kal aicOjce. Cicero, disput. Tuse. i. 22: 
 corpus quidem quast vas est aut aliquod animi receptaculum. 
 Lucretius, ili. 441: corpus, quod vas quasi constitit ejus (se. 
 
 by the addition dctpaxivois, according to which the_cépa is 
 
 only compared with acxefos darpdxwvoy (3) The position of 
 the words 7d éavtod cxebos is against it. For éavrod 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 7d oxedos éavtod. Olshausen 
 certainly finds in éavtod a support for the opposite view ; but 
 how arbitrary is his assertion, that by the genitive “the sub- 
 jectivity, the yvy7, is distinguished from the cxetos,” as only 
 the belonging, the private possession, can be designated by éavtov! 
 (4) The context also does not lead us to understand cxedos of 
 the body. Paul, namely, has brought forward the dysacpos 
 of his readers as the will of God, and has further explained 
 this ayacos, 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 
 
 animae). How different also from our passage is 2 Cor. iv. ®) 
 
110 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 oxevos 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: 
 Seedos tiv iSiav éxadotov yauethv dvomater); tives in Theo- 
 doret (7)v opofuya); Augustin, contra Julian. iv. 10, v. 9; 
 de nupt. et concup. 1.8; Thomas Aquinas, Zwingli, Estius, 
 Balduin, Heinsius, Seb. Schmid, Wetstein, Schoettgen, Michaelis, 
 Koppe, Schott, de Wette, Koch, Bisping, Ewald, Alford, Hof- 
 mann, Riggenbach, and others. How suitably does the em- 
 phatic éavrod become through this interpretation, the apostle, 
 in contrast to the wopveia, 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 Cor. vii. 2, 
 where the same principle is expressed. To regard the expres- 
 sion oxedos 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: muleres Medicae 
 sunt pulchriores, alii vero: Persicae sunt pulchriores. Dixit 
 ad eos Ahasverus: vas meum, quo ego utor (12 wonwo ‘xv %3), 
 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 xTac0ai yuvaixa, in the sense of ducere uxorem, 
 is usual ; comp. Xenoph. Conviv. ii. 10: tavrny (BavOlarny) 
 KéxTnwat; LXX. Ruth iv. 10; Sir. xxxvi. 24.— &eacTov 
 tpav] every one of you, sc. who does not possess the gift of 
 continence; comp. 1 Cor. vii. 1, 2.—év dyiacpe Kai Tipp] 
 in chastity and honour, belongs not to éxacrov, so that ovra 
 would require to be supplied (Koppe, Schott), but to «rac@ar, 
 and is an epexegesis to éavrod, so that after «racPar a comma 
 is to be put. In 76 éavtod cxedos xtac@ae there is contained 
 KTaoOat éy ayvacpe K.7.r. already implicitly included. Accord- 
 ingly, by this addition there is by no means expressed in what 
 way oue should marry, which, as a too special prescription, 
 would certainly be unsuitable; but ver. 4 contains only the 
 
CHAP, IV. 5, 6. WIE 
 
 general prescription, instead of giving oneself up to fornication, 
 to marry, and this is opposed as honourable and sanctified to 
 what is dishonowrable and unsanctified. 
 
 Ver. 5 brings forward the prescription €v adyiacued Kab Tih 
 once more on account of its importance, but now in a negative 
 form. — wn év wader éwiOupias] not in the passion of desire. 
 Accordingly, Paul does not here forbid ém@up/a, for this in 
 itself, as a natural impulse, rests on the holy ordinance of 
 God, but a waOos érOupias, that is, a condition where sense 
 has been converted into the ruling principle or into passion. 
 Theodore Mopsuestius (ed. Fritzsche, p. 165): @cav robdto 
 ToLobvTos OvKETL TAUTN WS YyuVaLKL cUVOVTOS GAA Sid plEW 
 povny amA@s, Omep TaBos ériPvulas éxddecev.— Kai] after 
 KaOarep is not added for the sake of elegance (Pelt), but is 
 the usual cai after particles of comparison; see ii. 14, iii. 6, 
 12, iv. 6,13; Rom. iv. 6, etc.; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 126. 
 —Ta pn eidota tov Oedv] of whom nothing better is to be 
 expected. Comp. on the expression, Gal. iv. 8; 2 Thess. i. 8. 
 
 Ver. 6. The second chief point which the apostle sub- 
 ordinates to the @éAnwa tod Ocod (ver. 3), adding to the pro- 
 hibition of unchastity the further prohibition of covetousness 
 and overreaching our neighbour (Nicolas Lyrensis, Faber 
 Stapulus, Zwingli, Calvin, Bullinger, Zanchius, Hunnius, Lue. 
 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. v. 5, 
 Erasmus, Clarius, Zeger, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Hein- 
 sius, 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 vy. 4, 5, whilst they find in ver. 6 a particular form of it 
 designated, namely, adultery, and consider the sentence as 
 dependent on eédévax (Pelt), or as in apposition to vv. 4, 5. 
 But this is without justification. For—(1) the expressions 
 vmepBaivery and wAcovextetv most naturally denote a covetous, 
 deceitful conduct in common social intercourse. (2) If the 
 
112 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE TIESSALONIANS. 
 
 discourse had been only of wopve/a, the words wept rdavtwv 
 Trovtwy would scarcely have been put. Different kinds of 
 mopveia must at least have been previously enumerated. But 
 not even this could be the case, as then to the dissuasion from 
 mopvela in general, the dissuasion from a@ special kind of 
 mopveia would be united. (3) Lastly, the article imperatively 
 requires us to consider 7d... avtod as parallel to 6 dyvacpos 
 ipov, ver. 3, and, accordingly, as a second object different from 
 the first. If Pelt objects against our view that a mention of 
 covetousness (ver. 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 accus- 
 tomed elsewhere to mention them together; comp. Eph. iv. 19, 
 v. 3,5; Col. iii. 5. Also, the further objection which is in- 
 sisted on, that on account of ver. 7 an exhortation to chastity 
 must be contained in ver. 6, is not convincing, as there is 
 nothing to prevent us taking dxa@apola and dyvacpos, ver. 7 
 (see on passage), in the wider sense. — ro] not equivalent to 
 @ore (Baumegarten-Crusius), but a second exponent of the 
 object-matter of @énwa tod Oeod (ver. 3).— vrepBaiver] 
 here only in the N. T., stands absolutely: justos fines migrare, 
 to grasp too far (Luther). Comp. Eurip. Ale. 1077: gy viv 
 imépBaw’, aA evaroipas pépe; Il. ix. 501: bre xév tis brepByn 
 kat dudptn. The idea of an “ oppressio violenti, qualis tyran- 
 norum 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 2) drepBaivey he himself 
 indicates by xal wdeovexrelv . . . avtod, which latter words, as 
 uy is not repeated before wAeovexteiv, can contain no inde- 
 pendent requirement, but must be an explanatory specification 
 of tepBaivew, xat is accordingly to be understood in the 
 sense of “and indeed.” Others, as Beza, Koppe, Pelt, Baum- 
 garten - Crusius, Alford, Hofmann, Riggenbach, have united 
 both verbs with rov adekpov. But the union of drepSaivew 
 with a personal object is objectionable, and also in the two 
 passages adduced for it by Kypke (Plutarch, de amore prolis, 
 
CHAP. IV. 7. TS 
 
 p. 496, and Demosthenes, adv. Aristocrat. p. 439) the meaning 
 opprimere is at least not demonstrable. Moreover, not éxacror, 
 from ver. 4 (Baumgarten-Crusius, Alford), but tuvd, is to be 
 considered as the subject to 70 yu brepBaivew x.7.X. — Teo- 
 vextely| expresses the overreaching, the fraudulent pursuit of 
 our own gain springing from covetousness (comp. 2 Cor. vii. 2, 
 xii. 17, 18), not the covetous encroaching upon the possession 
 of a brother, as a figurative expression for adultery. — év To 
 mpaywate] 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 (€ tw instead of év Tuc); un- 
 necessary, and without any analogy in the New Testament. 
 Comp. Winer, p. 50 [E. T. 61]. But also erroneously, 
 Macknight, Schott, Olshausen, and others, év T@ mpdypate is 
 equivalent to év tovTm TO TpayuaTt.— Tov adeApov avTod] 
 is not equivalent to tov wAnaiov (Schott, Koch, and others), 
 but denotes fellow-Christians ; comp. ver. 10. This limitation 
 of the prohibition to Christians is not surprising (Schrader), as 
 there is no emphasis on rov adeAdov avtod (for otherwise it 
 must have been written 7d tov adeApov adtod pi) «.7.r.), and 
 accordingly the misinterpretation that the conduct of Chris- 
 tians 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. — éxdixos] an avenger ; comp. Rom. 
 xii. 4, The same reason for prohibition in Eph. v. 5, 6; 
 Col. iii. 6; Gal. v. 21. Compare the saying: éyer Oeds 
 éxdsxov Opa (Homer, Batrachom.), which has become a proverb. 
 — xa0es kat] refers back to d:67t. — mpoetroper] foretold; the 
 mpo refers to the time preceding the future judgment, and 
 the preterite to the time of the apostle’s presence among the 
 Thessalonians. — dvewaptupaueOa] an intensifying of spoei- 
 TrOMED. 
 
 Ver. 7. Reason of &xdvxos 0 Kvpios wep) mavTwy TovTwY. — 
 
 éxdnecev] the fuller form in ii, 12. — émt dxaSapcia] on con- 
 dition of, or for the purpose of uncleanness ; comp. Gal. v. 13; 
 Mryer—1 TuEss. H 
 
114 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 Eph. ii, 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. 
 —adxa0apoiq] is uncleanness, moral impurity generally 
 (comp. ii. 3), and thus includes covetousness as well as lust. 
 —adW ev ayiacue] gives, by means of an abbreviation 
 
 (comp. Kiihner, II. p. 316), instead of the purpose, the result 
 
 of the calling: but in holiness, i.c. so that complete holiness of 
 life has become a characteristic property of us Christians. 
 Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 15; Gal. i. 6; Eph. iv. 4. But dysacpos, 
 as it forms the counterpart to axafapoia, must denote moral 
 holiness in its entire compass, and is accordingly here taken 
 in a wider sense than in ver. 3. 
 
 Ver. 8. An inference from ver. 7 (not likewise from ver. 3, 
 Flatt), and thereby the conclusion of the matter treated of 
 from ver. 3 and onwards. — tovyapovy] (Heb. xii. 1) therefore: 
 not atgui (Koppe, Pelt). See Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 354. 
 —o aberar] the rejecter (Gal. ii, 21, iii, 15; 1 Cor. i 19), 
 stands absolutely (used as a substantive). Comp. Winer, 
 p. 316 [E. T. 444]. What is rejected by him is evident 
 from the context, namely, the above exhortations to chastity 
 and disinterestedness. So already Beza. But the rejection of 
 these exhortations is actual and practical, manifesting itself by 
 the transgression of them. To o a@etav Koppe erroneously 
 supplies: istam Tod ayracpod legem, ver. 7; Pelt and Bloom- 
 field: thy Tod dysaocpod KXAow ; Ernest Schmid: tov toradta 
 mapayyéANovta ; Flatt: éwé Tov tapaxadrodyta. It is decisive 
 against the last two supplements, that hitherto not the person 
 
 who gave the exhortations to the Thessalonians, but only the © 
 
 contents of those eahortations themselves, are emphatically brought 
 forward (even on 0 Q@eo0s, ver. 7, there is no emphasis). To 
 seek to determine more definitely 0 a@erév from the following 
 ovx« avOpwrov aberet were arbitrary, as the course of thought 
 in ver. 8 would be interfered with. — ov« dvOpwrov aderet 
 GAA Tov Oeor] rejecteth not man (this may be excused) but 
 (fod, inasmuch as he who enjoins the readers to avoid lust and 
 covetousness, impresses on them not his own human opinion, 
 accordingly not a mere arbitrary command of man, but delivers 
 
 —— 
 
 
 
CHAP. IV. 8. L15 
 
 to them the solemn and unchangeable will of God.—ovx«... 
 adnra] is here, as always, an absolute contrast, therefore not to 
 be weakened into “not, but especially,” or, “not only, but 
 also” (Macknight, Flatt, and others). Comp. 1 Cor. i. 17; 
 Acts v. 4; Winer, p. 440 [E. T. 623]; Klotz, ad Devar. 
 p. 9f. In the anarthrous singular av@pw7ov, moreover, Paul 
 expresses not merely the general idea man in contrast to 6 
 @cos, but there is likewise contained therein an (untranslat- 
 able) subsidiary reference to himself, as the person from whose 
 mouth the Thessalonians have heard these commandments. 
 Others incorrectly understand by dvOpwros the defrauded 
 brother (ver. 6); so Oecumenius: tovyapoty 6 Tapa Ti 
 “KMjow mpatrav (odTos yap 0 abeToY) Tov KadécavTa UBpice 
 paddov 7) Tov TAEoverTnOeVTA’ ToUTO Sé ElTre, SeLKVYUS WS Ov 
 povov, &v0a o abdedds 6 abdiKovpevos 7, Set evyew Thy 
 powyeiav, GNAa Kav amioTos 7 «K.7.r.; and Pelt: Vestrum 
 igitur quicunque vocationem suam spernit fratremque laedit, 
 quem diligere potius debuisset, is sane non hominem con- 
 temnit, sed, etc.; also Alford. In a manner still more mis- 
 taken, Hofmann, referring to the whole section vv. 3—6, makes 
 av@perov denote humanity, against which’ he sins who 
 misuses the woman for the sake of lust, or injures his brother 
 for the sake of gain; whilst with an entirely inadmissible 
 comparison of the Hebrew 743, he arbitrarily inserts into 
 aeretv the idea of an “act of sin which is a breach of peace, 
 a violation of a holy or righteous relation,” and finds in 
 ver. 8 the impossible and wholly abstract thought expressed, 
 that every action which treats man as if there were no duty 
 towards man as such, will accordingly be esteemed as having 
 not man, but God for its object. — rdv cal Sovta TO Tvedpua 
 avTov TO ay. eis buds] who besides, etc., an emphatic repre- 
 sentation of the greatness of the crime which the Thessalonians 
 would commit, were they to disobey these exhortations. In 
 such a case they would not only set at nought the eternal 
 will of God, but also repay the great grace which God had 
 shown to them with shameful ingratitude. «ai has an 
 intensifying force, and brings prominently forward, by an 
 appeal to the conscience of the readers, the inexcusableness of 
 
116 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 such conduct.— 76 mvedua attod td ayo] is the Holy 
 Spirit proceeding from God, who transforms the believer into 
 a new personality, and produces extraordinary capabilities and 
 gifts (v. 19f.; 1 Cor. xii—xiv.),— eis duds] is not precisely 
 equivalent to duty (Koppe, Flatt, Pelt), but denotes, instead of 
 the mere logical relation which the dative expresses, the com- 
 munication under the form of locality ; accordingly, wnto you. 
 
 ReMARK.—If the present tense édévra is read, the communi- 
 cation of the Holy Spirit is represented as something continuing 
 in the present. If, along with dé:dévra, the reading of the 
 Receptus, cis jués, is retained, this may be either taken in a wide 
 sense, aS judas in ver. 7, “to us, Christians ;” or, in a narrow 
 sense, “to us (me) the apostle.” In the first case, the addition 
 on account of its generality would be somewhat aimless. In 
 the second case, the following thought might be found therein : 
 “but God, who not only commissions us to utter such exhorta- 
 tions, but who has also imparted to us His Holy Spirit, put us 
 in a position to speak every moment the correct thing;” comp. 
 1 Cor. vii. 40. — But (1) this view is objectionable on account 
 of the many additions and supplements which it requires ; (2) 
 riy zai did6vre Would introduce no new thought which is not 
 already contained in the contrast odz dvdpwrov... GAA Thy Oedy; 
 for, being commissioned by God to give such exhortations, 
 speaking in His name is one and the same with being qualified 
 for this purpose by God’s Holy Spirit ; (3) Lastly, it is generally 
 improbable that the addition riv x«/ z.r.A. should contain a state- 
 ment concerning the apostle, as such a statement is too little 
 occasioned by the preceding. For, in the contrast odx dvdparoy 
 
 . arr& rv Ody, the general idea not man is contained in 
 dvipwzov as the main point, whilst the reference to the apostle’s 
 own person in dépwrov is very slight, and forms only a sub- 
 sidiary point. — If, on the other hand, <is iudés be received 
 along with the present participle, this might be explained with 
 de Wette, whom Koch follows, that the apostle for the sake of 
 strengthening his words reminds the Thessalonians how God 
 still continues to communicate to them His Holy Spirit ; how 
 this communicated Holy Spirit, partly by inspired persons, 
 partly by the voice of conscience, gives the same exhortations 
 which he, Paul, now enforces. But who does not see that here 
 also the chief matter, by which the addition becomes appropriate, 
 must first be introduced and supplied ? 
 
 Ver. 9. 4é] introduces a new requirement. — firadergia} 
 
CHAP. IV. 9. 27 
 
 brotherly love, ae. love to fellow-Christians; Rom. xii. 10; 
 Heb. xiii. 1; 1 Pet. i 22; 2 Pet. i 7. But the apostle 
 thinks on this not only as a disposition, but also as verifying 
 itself by action, that is to say, as liberality toward needy 
 companions in the faith (comp. zrove?re .. . ets, ver. 10). It 
 is self-evident that this brotherly love does not exclude love 
 to man in general, comp. Gal. vi. 10; 2 Pet. i. 7, — When, 
 moreover, the apostle says that he has no need to exhort the 
 Thessalonians to brotherly love, as they practise this already, 
 but nevertheless requires them to increase in it, this is a 
 
 touch of delicate rhetoric (praeteritio, wapddeunfis, see Wilke, 
  neutestamentliche Rhetoric, p. 365), not unusual to Paul (comp. 
 v. 1; 2 Cor. ix. 1; Philem. 19), in order to gain willing 
 hearts for the fulfilment of an exhortation whose necessity 
 was evident. Chrysostom: Od ypelav éyouev ypddew vpiv. 
 "Exphy obv ciwirijcat Kai pndev eiretv, e un xpela jv. Nov 
 Sé TO eiteiv, ov xpela eoti, peifov eroincey 7) et elmrev. 
 Erroneously Estius, to whom Benson assents: Tacite signi- 
 ficat, eos omnino opus habuisse admonitione swperiori, quae 
 erat de sanctimonia seu munditia vitae; difficile enim erat, 
 homines gentiles immunditiae peccatis assuetos a talibus 
 subito revocare. — avtoi] not equivalent to sponte (Schott), 
 which would not suit AeodiSaxror, but adtol yap tdpeis are to 
 be taken together, and form the contrast to the person of the 
 writer formerly named (however without further emphasis). — 
 Gcodidaxtor] an dmra£ Neyopuevov in the N. T., but analogous to 
 didaxtot Ocod, John vi. 45 (Isa. liv. 13), and by no means 
 un-Pauline, because Paul elsewhere uses wvevyatixoé in this 
 sense (Schrader) ; for mvevpatixo’ could not here have been 
 put. The expression is not to be taken absolutely in the 
 sense of Oedmvevatot, according to which eis To dyamav adX27- 
 Aous would only be a more definite epexegesis of it—‘“so that 
 ye, in consequence of this theopneustia, love one another ; ” 
 but it contains a blending of two ideas, as properly only 
 didaxtot éote is expected, but now the source of this instruc- 
 tion is immediately united with the word (without any one 
 exhorting you, you yourselves know, namely, being taught of 
 God, ete.). The knowledge or the instruction is not theo- 
 
118 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 retical, not a knowledge from the Old Testament, not a 
 knowledge from a word of the Lord (John xiii. 34; Baum- 
 garten-Crusius), also not a knowledge from the instructions of 
 the prophets, such as actually were, according to v. 20, among 
 the Thessalonians (Zachariae), but a practical knowledge 
 which has its ground and origin in the purified conscience of 
 the inner man, effected by God through the communication 
 of the Holy Spirit ; consequently a knowledge or istruction 
 of the heart. Moreover, incorrectly Olshausen: “ where God 
 teaches, there, the apostle says, J may be silent.” For the 
 stress lies not on the first, but on the second half of @eodc- 
 daxTou.— eis TO ayaTay Gddndovs| is dependent on the 
 dvdaxtot in Oeodidaxtos, and denotes, under the form of the 
 design at which that instruction aims, its object. Incorrectly 
 Flatt, ets denotes quod attinet ad. 
 
 REMARK.—Pelt, Schott, de Wette, Hofmann, also Winer, 
 p. 303 [E. T. 426], and Buttmann, Grammatik des neutest. 
 Sprachgebr., Berlin 1859, p. 223 [E. T. 259], consider the reading 
 of the Receptus : ob ypeiay tyere ypagew buiv (see critical remark), 
 as correct Greek, appealing to the frequent use of the infinitive 
 active, where one would expect the infinitive passive (see 
 Kiihner, II. p. 339). I cannot agree with this; on the con- 
 trary, most decidedly deny the applicability of that use to 
 our passage. For, in the instances given, the characteristic 
 distinction is throughout observable, that the infinitive active 
 expresses the verbal idea in a vague generality, entirely free 
 from any personal reference, so that this active infinitive, im its 
 import and value, can scarcely be distinguished from an 
 absolute accusative. Comp. for example, Sophocles, Oed. 
 Col. 37 : e&er0"* eyes yap xaipov ody c&yvov rare. — Thucydides, 
 1.38: "Hy... 6 Ocwsoronarys . . . &Es0g davucoas— Euripides, 
 Med. 318: réyerg axotou: warddx’.— Comp. also Heb. v. 11: 
 réyos duczpugvevros AZyew. Entirely different from these is our 
 passage, where ypags, by means of iva, instead of forming an 
 absolute statement, is put in a special personal reference to the 
 readers; indeed, as the subject of yg&gew can only be the apostle, 
 in a special personal reciprocal reference to Paul and the 
 Thessalonians, and accordingly the whole expression acquires 
 an individual concrete form. If iyere is not to be without 
 meaning, it would require accordingly either éuz ypages, or, as 
 in v. 1, the passive ypdégeota: to be written. For that, as 
 
CHAP. IV.. 10: 119 
 
 Bouman, Chartae theolog. I. p. 65, and Reiche, p. 339, think, éué 
 or 7ués, or rather the indefinite rmé, readily suggest themselves 
 to be supplied, and that the more so, as the necessity of some 
 such supplement is obvious from the following Jéeodidaxro 
 (Bouman), can hardly be maintained. Also Heb. v. 12, to 
 which an appeal is made, proves nothing, for here from a 
 similar reason swé is to be accented (with Lachmann) instead 
 of ria; whereby the reference and the relation of the words are 
 entirely transformed. Comp. my commentary on the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews, 3d ed. p. 188 f. 
 
 Ver. 10. An explanatory confirmation of the statement 
 Oeodidaxtot é€ate «is TO dyamay addjdovs by an actual 
 historical instance. Calvin finds in ver. 10 an argumentum 
 a majore ad minus: “nam quum eorum caritas per totam 
 Macedoniam se diffundat, colligit non esse dubitandum, quin 
 ipsi mutuo inter se ament.” But the emphasis rests not 
 on GAAnAous and Tors adeApodvs Tors ev 6Ayn TH Maxedovia, 
 but on dayamav and qoveire. Also the opinion of de Wette, 
 whom Koch follows, that an additional reason is here adduced 
 why the Thessalonians require no further exhortation, is to be 
 rejected, as then «ai moveire would require to be written 
 instead of kai yap trovetre, because ydp cannot be co-ordinate 
 with the preceding yap. — Kai yap] not equivalent to simple 
 yap (so most critics), and also not quin etian, or imo (Calvin), 
 but for also; comp. Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 137 f Whilst 
 yap is a justification of ayarav, the idea of dudayOjvas is 
 carried on to the idea of ovety by means of the corresponding 
 Kat. — Toetre| has the chief accent; it denotes the actual 
 practice. — avro] scilicet, Tro ayarav, not To Ths piraderdias 
 (Baumgarten - Crusius and Koch).—epiccevew paddov | 
 to wnerease yet more, scilicet, in brotherly love. Musculus, 
 appealing to Phil. iv. 12, arbitrarily takes epsuccevew 
 absolutely, whilst he makes a new train of thought commence 
 with wapaxanroduev: “qua eos redigat in ordinem, qui 
 doctrina charitatis ad ignaviae suae, desidiei, curiositatis et 
 quaestus occasionem abutebantur, nihil operis facientes, sed 
 otiose ac curiose circumeundo ex aliorum laboribus victitantes,” 
 and finds the meaning: “ut abwndetis magis, h. e. ut magis in 
 eo sitis, ut copiam eorum, quae ad vitae hujus sunt sustenta- 
 
120 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 tionem necessaria, Aabeatis, quam ut penuriam patientes 
 fratribus sitis oneri.” Equally erroneously, because unnatural, 
 Ewald thinks that as the following diAoTipeto Par, so also even 
 Tepircevew padrdov, is to be included in the unity of idea 
 with ovydfew «.7.r., ver. 11: “to keep quiet still more, 
 and zealously,” etc. Besides, the construction of zrepicceveuy, 
 with a simple infinitive following, would be wholly without 
 example."— padXov] The same intensification as in iv. 1. 
 
 ReMARK.—After the example of Schrader, Baur (p. 484) finds 
 also vv. 9, 10 only suitable for a church which had already 
 existed for a considerable time. How otherwise could the 
 brotherly love of the Thessalonians, which they showed to all 
 the brethren in all Macedonia, be praised as a virtue already so 
 generally proved? Certainly Paul recognises the brotherly love 
 of the Thessalonians as a “virtue already proved ;” but Baur, 
 no less than Schrader, overlooks (1) that not eis rdévrag rods 
 wyious, but cig ravras rods GOEADOVS sv GAn +H Maxedovicz, is written; 
 consequently, the exercise of that virtue is limited to the 
 Christian circle nearest to the Thessalonians; (2) that Paul 
 yet desires an increase in that virtue, thus indicating that the 
 exercise of it had only shortly before commenced. An interval 
 of half a year (see Introduction, § 3) was accordingly a sufficient 
 time for the Thessalonians to make themselves worthy of a 
 praise restricted within such bounds. 
 
 Ver. 11 is attached to the preceding in the loosest gram- 
 matical connection. It has been thought that ver. 11 is only 
 a further development of the preceding exhortation. So 
 Olshausen, who finds in the whole section, vv. 9-12, only an 
 exhortation to love, and in such a manner that vv. 9, 10 
 refer to love to fellow-Christians, and vv. 11, 12 to love to 
 man in general. To the latter in particular, inasmuch as the 
 
 1 Ewald in vain endeavours anew to defend the above construction of the 
 words in his Jahrb. d. bibl. Wissenschaft, 10 Jahrb. Gott. 1860, p. 241 ff. : 
 That the apostle, after he had before said that it was not necessary to write to 
 the Thessalonians concerning brotherly love, because they sufficiently practised 
 it, could not, without self-contradiction, proceed to say, but we exhort you yet 
 to increase in brotherly love. In this Ewald is certainly right. But Paul only 
 declared before that the Thessalonians practised brotherly love —that they 
 already practised it sufficiently we do not read; this, on the contrary, is only 
 arbitrarily introduced by Ewald. 
 
CHAP. IV. 11. A Ie | 
 
 Thessalonians were required to give no occasion to those who 
 were not Christians to blame anything in the professors of 
 the gospel. But evidently the apostle, when he exhorts his 
 readers to give no offence by their conduct to those who were 
 not Christians, considers this not as the fulfilment of the 
 commandment of love to man in general, but as a matter 
 of prudence and discretion, in order in such a manner to 
 counteract the prejudices against Christianity, and so to pave 
 the way for its diffusion in wider circles. Comp. also 
 Col. iv. 5, 6. Others suppose that to the exhortation to 
 piraderdpia a warning against its abuse is attached; as some 
 in the church practised liberality, so others made use of this 
 liberality as an occasion of leading an idle life. So already 
 Theodoret: Ov« évavtia ois mpoppnbetow eérraivois 4 
 Tapaivecis’ cuvéBawe yap, Tos pév hirotimws yopnyety Tots 
 Seouévors THv xpelav, Tos S& Sia Thy TovTov dirotTysiav 
 apereiv THS epyacias’ eikdtTws Toivuy Kakelvous éeTNVETE Kal 
 TovTols Ta Tpoopopa auveBovrevce; and after him Estius 
 (“Hac eorum liberalitate quidam pauperiores abutentes, otio 
 et inertiae vacabant, discurrentes per domos et inhiantes 
 mensis divitum atque in res alienas curiosi, adeo ut hoc 
 nomine etiam apud infideles male audirent”’), Benson, Flatt, 
 Schott, de Wette (wavering), and Koch. But against this 
 view is decisive—(1) That such a sharp division of the church 
 into two different classes is not justified by the context; for, 
 on account of the close connection of ver. 11 with the pre- 
 ceding, those of whom mrepiccevety wadAov is required are the 
 same with those to whom the exhortation to iAoTipetcBas 
 novyatew «.7.r. is addressed. It accordingly follows, that as 
 the church as such was distinguished by active brotherly love, 
 so also the church as such (not a mere fraction of it) did not 
 possess the qualities mentioned in ver. 11. (2) According to 
 this view, the stress is placed only on épydfeoOar tats yepotv 
 tpov, whereas the demand to jovydfew and mpdocev ra 
 iéca is entirely left out of consideration. And yet it apparently 
 follows, from iArotietcbar jovyale Kal tpdocew Ta idva 
 being placed first, that the main point lies on these, whilst 
 the idleness blamed in the readers is evidently described 
 
122 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 only as a consequence or result of the neglected jovydtew Kad 
 mpaccew ta idva.— Accordingly, as a closer connection of 
 ideas, than that which the form of the grammatical con- 
 struction appears to indicate, is not without force demon- 
 strable, we must, mindful of the rapid transitions which are 
 peculiar to the Apostle Paul, especially in the practical parts 
 of his Epistles, consider vv. 11, 12 as a new exhortation, 
 internally distinct from that in vv. 9, 10, and which only 
 happens to be united with it, as both refer to the moral 
 furtherance of the Christian life. — diroTipeicOar jovydtew] 
 is to be taken together: to make it your ambition to live 
 quietly, and the juxtaposition of the two verbs is an oxymoron, 
 as in the usual course of things every iAotipia is properly 
 an impulse to shine by actions.’ Calvin takes fiAoTipetoac 
 by itself, referring it back to the command to brotherly love: 
 Postquam enim admonuit, ut crescant in caritate, sanctam 
 aemulationem ilis commendat, ut mutuo inter se amore 
 certent, vel (?) certe praecipit, ut se ipsum unusquisque vincere 
 contendat, atque hoc posterius magis amplector. Ergo ut 
 perfecta sit eorum caritas, contentionem in illis requirit. So 
 also Hemming; and already Theophylact, leave this and the 
 usual construction a matter of choice. But the omission of 
 kai before yovydfev would be harsh. On didrorTmeioPar, 
 comp. Rom. xv. 20; 2 Cor. v. 9; Kypke, II. p. 189. The 
 counterpart of youvydfeuw is trepiepydfec@as, 2 Thess. iii. 11, 
 and troAumpaypovetvy, Plat. Gorg. 526 C.—The disquiet or 
 unsteadiness which prevailed in the church is not to be 
 sought for in the political (so Zwingli: Nemo tumultuetus, 
 nemo motum excitet; and, but undecidedly, Koppe: seditioner 
 adversus magistratus Romanos; comp. also Schott, p. 121), 
 but in the religious sphere. It was, as it appears, an excite- 
 ment of mind which had been called forth by the new world 
 of thought produced by Christianity; but an excitement, on 
 the one hand, risen to such an unnatural height that worldly 
 business was neglected, and idleness stepped into the place of 
 a regular laborious life; and, on the other hand, manifesting 
 itself by such a fanatical spiritual zeal that the Christians by 
 
 ' Bengel: Qsrormeia politica erubescit euyaFuy, 
 
CHAP. IV. 11. 123 
 
 such a line of conduct must fall into discredit with those who 
 are not Christians. It is not improbable that the thought of 
 the impending advent of Christ formed the centre part of 
 this excitement. At least this, by a natural association of 
 ideas, would give the reason why Paul after vv. 11, 12 
 suddenly interrupts the course of his admonitions, in order, 
 exactly at this place, to attach instructions concerning the 
 advent, whilst v. 12 ff. shows that he intended to give 
 various other admonitions—The exhortation of the apostle 
 in v. 6, 8, to be prepared for the unexpected entrance of the 
 advent, which might be abused in favour of such an excite- 
 ment, is not decisive against the reference to an apocalyptic 
 fanaticism (against de Wette, who for this reason supposes 
 only “pious excitement in general”), because that exhorta- 
 tion intervenes between preceding (v. 4, 5) and succeeding 
 (v. 9 ff) consolatory expressions, and, accordingly, loses all 
 that is alarming about it; the addition of that exhortation 
 was too naturally and necessarily required by the explanation 
 of the circumstance itself, that Paul should have suppressed it 
 from mere fear of a possible abuse. — mpdocev ta idva] same 
 as idvorparyety, to be mindful of one’s own concerns, without 
 wishing to take the oversight of the concerns of our neighbour. 
 If the above remarks are not incorrect, Paul thinks on the 
 unauthorized zeal, by which they had used the advent as a 
 means of terror, in order to draw before their tribunal what 
 was a matter of individual conscience, and by which a care 
 for the salvation of their neighbour was assumed with an 
 objectionable curiosity. ta éavtod mpaccev would be more 
 correct Greek than ta idva mpdocew. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
 p. 441 f.; Kypke, II. p. 338 f Comp. Dio Cass. lx. 27: 
 tiv dé 8 Havylay dyov Kal Ta éavTod TpdtTav éswfeTo. — 
 épyateo@ar] means nothing else than to work. Incorrectly, 
 Flatt: to gain one’s maintenance by work; Baumgarten- 
 Crusius: not to be ashamed of work. From the addition 
 Tals xepolv vpov, it follows that the Thessalonian church was 
 mostly composed of the working class. Comp. also 1 Cor. 
 1.26. Calixt, Pelt, Schott, Hofmann, and others erroneously 
 find expressed in the words any imaginable business. Paul 
 
124 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 mentions only the business of hand labour, and to apply this 
 to regular business of any form or kind is entirely to sever it 
 from this meaning of the expression. — xa@as tyuiv mapnyyel- 
 Aapev] refers not only to épyafecPar, but to the whole of 
 ver. 11. It would seem from this that these disorders 
 already prevailed in their beginnings during the apostle’s 
 personal residence in Thessalonica. There is nothing objec- 
 tionable in this inference, as (1) from 2 Thess. ii. 5 it appears 
 that at the publication of the gospel in Thessalonica the 
 advent had been the subject of very special explanations; and 
 (2) the effect of such explanations on the minds of Gentiles 
 anxious about salvation must have been overwhelming. Baur, 
 p. 484, therefore is entirely mistaken when he maintains that 
 exhortations, such as those given in vv. 11, 12, could not 
 have been necessary for a church recently founded. 
 
 Ver. 12 is not the statement of an inference (Baumgarten- 
 Crusius), but of a purpose: dependent, however, neither on 
 mapnyyetAapev, nor on what has hitherto been said, including 
 the precept to giAaderdia, ver. 10 (Flatt), but on ver. 11, 
 and in such a manner that the first half of ver. 12 refers to 
 pirotimetabar iovyalev Kai tpdcoey ta idva, and the second 
 half to épyaecOar tats yepoly tuav. — eboxnudvas] well- 
 becoming, honourably, Rom. xiii. 13; 1 Cor. vil. 35, xiv. 40. 
 The opposite is ataxtws, 2 Thess. iii, 6.— pos] not coram 
 (Flatt, Schott, Koch), but in relation to, or in reference to those 
 who are éw. Comp. Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 265. — ot a] 
 those who are without (sc. the Christian community), those who 
 are not Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles. Comp. Col. 
 iv. 5; 1 Cor. v. 12,13; 1 Tim. iii. 7. Already among the 
 Jews of é& (o'nN'n) was the usual designation of Gentiles. 
 See Meyer on 1 Cor. v. 12.—pnéevds] is by most con- 
 sidered as masculine, being understood partly of Christians 
 only (so Flatt), partly of unbelievers only (Luther, Camerarius, 
 Ernest Schmid, Wolf, Moldenhauer, Pelt), partly both of 
 Christians and unbelievers (Schott, de Wette,—who, however, 
 along with Koch, thinks that there is a chief reference to 
 Christians Hofmann, Riggenbach). But to stand in need 
 of no man, is for man an impossibility. It is better therefore, 
 
CHAP. IV. 13-18. 
 
 with Calvin, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, Baumgarten - ( 
 Alford, to take pndevos as neuter, so that a further pur, 
 given, whose attainment is to be the motive for fulfilling 
 exhortations in ver. 10: to have need of nothing, inasmuch 
 labour leads to the possession of all that is necessary for life, 
 whereas idleness has as its inevitable consequence, want and 
 need. 
 
 Ver. 13-yv. 11. A comforting instruction concerning the 
 advent. This is divided into three sections—(1) iv. 13-18 
 removes an objection or a doubt; (2) v. 1-3 reminds them 
 of the sudden and unexpected entrance of the advent; and 
 lastly, in consequence of this, v. 4-11 is an exhortation to be 
 ready and prepared for the entrance of the advent. 
 
 (1) Vv. 138-18. A removal of an objection. The painful 
 uneasiness, which had seized on the Thessalonians concerning 
 the fate of their deceased Christian friends, consisted not, as 
 Zachariae, Olshausen, de Wette, Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, 
 2d ed. p. 649 f., and in his H. Schr. N. 7.; Luthardt, die Lehre 
 von den letzten Dingen, Leipz. 1861, p. 138 f,, and others 
 assume, In anxiety lest the deceased should only be raised at 
 the general resurrection of the dead, and would thus forfeit 
 the blessedness of communion with the Lord in the interval 
 between the advent and this general resurrection (“the 
 so-called reign of a thousand years,’ Olshausen). There is no 
 trace in our section of a distinction between a first and a second 
 resurrection ; and the idea of a long interval of time between 
 the resurrection of believers and the resurrection of the rest of 
 mankind (Rev. xx.) is, moreover, entirely strange to the Apostle 
 Paul, as it is evident from 1 Cor. xv. 22 ff. correctly understood 
 that the resurrection of unbelievers takes place in immediate 
 connection with the resurrection of Christians. Rather it was 
 feared that those already dead, as they would no more be 
 found alive at the advent of Christ, would receive no share in 
 the blessedness of the advent," and accordingly would be 
 placed in irreparable disadvantage to those who are then alive. 
 See exposition of particulars, 
 
 1 ©alvin : Vitam aeternam ad eos solos pertinere imaginabantur, quos Christus 
 ultimo adventu vivos adhuc in terris deprehenderet. 
 
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 vy. 13-18, see von Zezschwitz in the Zeitschr. f. Pro- 
 
 ismus und Kirche, new series, Erlangen 1863, p. 88 ff. 
 
 er. 13. Ov Oédopev Sé twas ayvoetv] but we wish not that 
 
 be in ignorance. A recognised Pauline formula of transition 
 
 to new and important communications; comp. Rom. i 13, 
 xi. 25; 1 Cor. x. 1, xiii 1; 2 Cor. i 8. Im an analogous 
 manner, Paul uses also positive turns of expression: Oédo 
 twas, Col. ii. 1, 1 Cor. xi. 3, and yuwooxew tas Bovropat, 
 Phil. i. 12. — wept tav Kexoysnuéveor] concerning those that are 
 asleep, that is, by means of euphemism, “concerning the dead;” 
 comp. 1 Cor. xi. 30, xv. 6, 18, 20; Johm xi, 11; 2 Pet. 
 iii. 4; Sophocles, Electr. 509. The selection of the word is 
 the more appropriate, as the discourse in what follows is con- 
 cerning a vevivification. But not the dead generally are 
 meant, which Lipsius (Zheolog. Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 924), 
 with an arbitrary appeal to 1 Cor. xv. 29, considers possible, 
 but the dead members of the Thessalonian Christian church. 
 This is evident from all that follows, particularly from the 
 confirmatory proposition in ver. 14, and from the expression 
 of vexpol év Xpuor@, ver. 16.— After the example of Weizel 
 (Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 916 ff), de Wette (though in a 
 hesitating manner) finds in Kkexouunuév@y the idea indicated 
 “of an intermediate state, 7.c. of an imperfect and, as it were, 
 a slumbering continuance of life of the departed soul;” 
 whereas Zwingli, Calvin, Hemming, Zanchius, in express con- 
 tradiction to the idea of the sleep of the soul, insist on referring 
 this state of being asleep to the body exclusively. But neither, 
 according to the one side, nor according to the other, are we 
 justified in such a limitation, as of xexouwnpévor only denotes 
 those who are asleep as such, i.e. according to their whole 
 personality. — The article in wept rév Kexoywnuévor represents 
 the question, to the solution of which the apostle now passes, 
 as one well known to the readers, and discussed by them. 
 The brevity and generality of the statement of the subject, 
 combined with the solemn formula of transition od Oédopev 8€ 
 ipas ayvoety, renders it not improbable that a request was 
 directly made to Paul for explanation on the subject. — wa 
 pi) Autre Oe] sc, concerning those who are asleep. — Kaas wal 
 
 a, 
 
CHAP. IV. 13. 
 
 of Aowtroi | sc. AvrobvTat. Woken (in Wolf) gives the “y 
 opposite meaning to the words: Absit a vobis tristitia, quem- 
 admodum etiam abest a reliquis illis, qui nempe non tristantur 
 ob mortuos et tamen spem nullam certam habent de felicitate. 
 Erroneously, because then cafws Kai od AvTodVTaL of AoLTOL, 
 aay exovtes (instead of of wi éy.) édaida would require to have 
 
 been written: not to mention that Paul would hardly propose - 
 
 unbelievers as an example to Christians. — Theodoret, Calvin, 
 Hemming, Zanchius, Piscator, Cornelius a Lapide, Calovius, 
 Nat. Alexander, Benson, Flatt, Pelt, Koch, Bisping, Bloomfield, 
 Hofmann, Riggenbach find in wa pr AvThoOe Kabes KTR. 
 the thought that the Thessalonians should not mourn in the 
 same degree, not so excessively as ot Novrroi, because the apostle 
 could not possibly forbid every mourning for the dead. 
 
 Incorrectly ; for then tva pn dAvTAcHe TocodTOY ws Kal of 
 
 Aorrot would require to have been written. x«afes is only a 
 particle of comparison, but never a statement of gradation. 
 The apostle forbids AvretoGar altogether. Naturally; for 
 death has no more any sting for the Christian. He does not 
 see in it annihilation, but only the transition to an eternal 
 and blessed fellowship with the Lord. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 54 fi. 
 —ot dovrrot| the others, that is, the Gentiles; comp. Eph. 
 i. 3. It is, however, possible that Paul may also have 
 thought on a portion of the Jews, namely, the sect of the 
 Sadducees, who denied the resurrection. — oi pi éyovTes 
 édida} namely, of an eternal life of blessedness. Comp. 
 Theocrit. Zdyll. iv. 42: "Edmides ev Gwotow, avérricto Sé 
 Oavovtes. Aeschyl. Humenid. 638: adraé Oavoytos ovtis éo7 
 avaotacis. Catull. v. 4 ff: Soles occidere et redire possunt. | 
 Nobis quum semel occidit brevet lux, | Nox est perpetua una 
 dormienda. lLucret. iii. 942 f.: Nec quisquam expergitus 
 exstat, | Frigida quem semel est vitae pausa secuta. — From 
 this comparison with those who do not believe in a future life 
 im general, it inevitably follows that also the Thessalonians 
 feared for their deceased Christian friends, not merely a 
 temporary deprivation of the eternal life of bliss to be revealed 
 at the advent, but an entire exclusion from it. If the com- 
 parison is to have any meaning (which Hofmann with great 
 
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS., 
 
 te iness denies), the blessing for whose loss the Gentiles 
 mourn must be the same as the blessing for whose loss the 
 Christians are not to mourn. The solution of the theme 
 mept Tav Kexouwnuévwy is therefore already indicated by the 
 objective sentence, and what follows has only the purpose of 
 further explaining this solution. 
 
 Ver. 14. Reason not of od OédXouev tuas ayvoetv, but of tva 
 1) AvTAoOe. The Thessalonians were not to mourn, for 
 Christ has risen from the dead; but if this fact be certain, 
 then it follows that they also who are fallen asleep, about 
 whom the Thessalonians were so troubled, will be raised. 
 There lies at the foundation of this proof, which Paul uses as 
 a supposition, the idea that Christ and believers form together 
 an organism of indissoluble unity, of which Christ is the Head 
 and Christians are the members; consequently what happens 
 to the Head must lkewise happen to the members; where 
 that is, there these must also be. Comp. already Pelagius : 
 Qui caput suscitavit, etiam caetera membra suscitaturum se 
 promittit. From the nature of this argument it is evident 
 (1) that those who are asleep, about whom the Thessalonians 
 grieved, must already have been Christians; (2) that their 
 complete exclusion from the blessed fellowship with Christ 
 was dreaded.! — ef yap muotevoper] for if we believe. e& is 
 not so much as “ guwm, since, because” (Flatt), also not equi- 
 valent to quodsi: “for as we believe” (Baumgarten-Crusius), 
 but is here, as always, hypothetical. But since Paul from the 
 hypothetical protasis, without further demonstrating it, imme- 
 diately draws the inference in question, it is clear that he 
 supposes the fact of the death and resurrection of Christ as an 
 absolute recognised truth, as, indeed, among the early Chris- 
 tians generally no doubt was raised concerning the reality of 
 
 1 Hofmann’s views are very distorted and perverted. He will not acknow- 
 ledge that from the fact of the resurrection of Christ, the resurrection of 
 those fallen asleep in Thessalonica is deduced ; and—against which the otrws 
 xai of the apodosis should have guarded him—he deduces the aimless platitude, 
 that ‘‘the apostle with the words: 6 Osés rods xomenbiveras dia rod “Incod ake cov 
 airg, gives an assurance which avails us in the case of our death, if we believe 
 on the death and resurrection of Jesus.” As Hofmann misinterprets the words, 
 so also does Luthardt, supra, p. 140 f. 
 
CHAPS EV,; 14; 129 
 
 this fact. For even in reference to the Corinthian church, 
 among whom doubts prevailed concerning the resurrection of 
 the dead, Paul, in combating this view, could appeal to 
 the resurrection of Christ as an actual recognised truth ; 
 comp. 1 Cor. xv. 12—23.— The apodosis, ver. 14, does not 
 exactly correspond with the protasis. Instead of ottws x.7.2. 
 we should expect xol mictevew Sei, bte woatvTws ot év 
 Xpicte KowunOévtes avactnoovtat, or 6te oVTws 6 Oeds Kal 
 Tous Kowunbévtas dia tov Xpictod éyepel. — ottTws] is not 
 pleonastic as the mere sign of the apodosis (Schott, Olshausen) ; 
 also not, with Flatt, to be referred to avéotn, and then to be 
 translated “ in such a condition, ze. raised, revived ;” or to be 
 interpreted as “ then under these circumstances, 7.c. in case we 
 have faith” (Koch, Hofmann), but denotes “even so,’ and, 
 strengthened by the following xa/, is designed to bring forward 
 the agreement of the fate of Christians with Christ; comp. 
 Winer, p. 478 [E. T. 679].— 8a tod “Inood] is (by Chry 
 sostom, Ambrosiaster, Calvin, Hemming, Zanchius, Estius, 
 Balduin, Vorstius, Cornelius a Lapide, Beza, Grotius, Calixt, 
 Calov, Wolf, Whitby, Benson, Bengel, Macknight, Koppe, 
 Jowett, Hilgenfeld (Zectschr. f. wissenschaftl. Theolog., Halle 
 1862, p. 239), Riggenbach, and others) connected with tovs 
 corunOévtas, and then the sense is given: “those who have 
 fallen asleep in Christ.”" But this would be expressed by év 
 76 “Inoovd, as ot Sta tod “Incod KowyunPévtes would at most 
 contain a designation of those whom Christ had brought to 
 death, consequently of the Christian martyrs. Salmeron, 
 Hammond, Joseph Mede, Opp. p. 519, and Thiersch (die 
 Kirche im apostol. Zeitalter, Frankf. u. Erlang. 1852, p. 138) 
 
 ' Also Alford connects 3 cod "Inood with xounéévras ; but then arbitrarily 
 (comp. of vzxpol éy Xpierw, ver. 16) pressing the expression zopunbiveus (of xoiun- 
 é:vrzs ar@distinguished from the merely ézvsyr:z. What makes this distinction ? 
 Why are they asleep and not dead? By whom have they been thus privileged ? 
 Certainly 3: od *Ineov), and inappropriately regarding the constructions 
 euxapioreiy dice “Inood Xpiorrov, Rom. i. 8; sipayny Exes diz “Incov, Rom. v. 1; xav- 
 uta dice Incod, Rom. v. 11, as analogous expressions, he brings out the follow- 
 ing grammatically impossible meaning : If we believe that Jesus died and rose 
 again, then even thus also those, of whom we say that they sleep just because of 
 Jesus, will God, ete. 
 
 Mryer—l Tuess, I 
 
130 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 actually interpret the words in this sense. Yet how contrary 
 to the apostle’s design such a mention of the martyrs would 
 be is evident, as according to it the resurrection and partici- 
 pation in the glory of the returning Christ would be most 
 inappropriately limited to a very small portion of Christians ; 
 not to mention that, first, the indications in both Epistles do 
 not afford the slightest justification of the idea of perse- 
 cutions, which ended in bloody death; and, secondly, the 
 formula xownOjvat dua twos would be much too weak to 
 express the idea of martyrdom. Also in the fact that, Paul 
 does not speak of the dead in general, but specially of the 
 Christian dead, there is no reason to unite Tods KouwnOévtas 
 with d:a tod "Incod; for the extent of the idea of of Kowun- 
 Gévres in our passage is understood from the relation of the 
 apodosis, ver. 14, to the protasis e¢ mucrevouev x.7.X. We are 
 accordingly constrained to unite dud tod “Incod with afer. — 
 Christ is elsewhere by Paul and in the New Testament 
 generally considered as the instrument by which the almighty 
 act of God, the resurrection of the dead, is effected; comp. 
 1 Cor. xv. 21; John v. 28, vi. 39, 44, 54. — dev] will bring 
 with Him, is a pregnant expression, whilst, instead of the act 
 of resuscitation, that which follows the act in time is given, 
 And, indeed, the further clause ody atta, ic. ctv *Incod 
 (incorrectly Zacharius and Koppe = #s avrov), is united in a 
 pregnant form with a@&e:. God will through Christ bring with 
 Him those who are asleep, that is, so that they are then united 
 with Christ, and have a complete share in the benefits of His 
 appearance. Hofmann arbitrarily transforms the words into 
 the thought: “that Jesus will not appear, God will not 
 introduce Him again into the world, without their deceased 
 brethren coming with Him.” For the words instruct us not 
 concerning Jesus, but concerning the xounOévres; it is not 
 expressed in what manner the return of Christ will take place, 
 but what will be the final fate of those who have fallen 
 asleep. The apostle selects this pregnant form of expression 
 instead of the simple éyepe?, because the thought of a separa- 
 tion of deceased Christians from Christ was that which so 
 greatly troubled the Thessalonians, and therefore it was his 
 
CHAP, IV. 15. 
 
 endeavour to remove this anxiety, this doubting u 
 as soon as possible.’ 
 
 Ver. 15. A solemn confirmation of the comforting ti. 
 Tovs KoiunOevtas afes oly avto, by bringing forward the 
 equality between those living at the advent and those already 
 asleep. Koppe, Flatt, and Koch erroneously assume a refer- 
 ence to ver. 13, making the yap in ver. 14 parallel to the 
 yap in ver. 15, and finding in ver. 15 a new reason for com- 
 fort. — Todo] refers not to the preceding, but is an emphatic 
 introduction to what follows the first 671: this, namely, we say 
 to you, €v Noyw Kupiou, that we, the living, etc.—év doy Kupiov| 
 in or by means of a word of the Lord (comp. 70 7273, Esth. 
 1,12; min’ 7273, 1 Kings xx. 35), that is, the following state- 
 ment on the relation of the living to those who are asleep at 
 the advent does not rest on my (the apostle’s) subjective 
 opinion, but on the infallible authority of Christ. Comp. 
 1 Cor. vi. 10, 12, 25.— Pelagins, Musculus, Bolten, Pelt, - 
 and others have regarded this Aoyos xupiov, to which Paul 
 appeals, as the words of Christ in Matt. xxiv. 31 (comp. 
 Mark xiii. 27); whereas Hofmann is of opinion that Paul 
 might have inferred it from the promises of Christ in Matt. 
 xxvi. 25 ff.; John vi.39f. But the expressions found there 
 are too general to be identified with the special thought in 
 our passage. Schott’s statement, that Paul might justly 
 appeal to the prophecy in Matt. xxiv. 31, because it contained 
 nothing of a prerogative of the living before the dead, but on 
 the contrary represents simply an assembling of believing 
 confessors with a view to the participation of the Messianic 
 kingdom, is subtle, and does not correspond to the expression 
 év oy@ Kupiov, which points to positive information con- 
 cerning the definite subject in question. Also Luthardt’s (Ae. 
 pp. 141, 57) view, that in Aeyos xupiov a reference is made to 
 the parable of the virgins who went out to meet the bride- 
 eroom (Matt. xxv.), and for which view eis amravtnow (ver. 17) 
 
 1 The idea of ‘‘ a general ascension of all Christians,” which Schrader finds in 
 this verse, and in which he perceives a mark of un-Pauline composition, because 
 Paul thought ‘‘ only on a kingdom of God on earth,” is, according to the above, 
 introduced by him into the passage. 
 
»I EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 _vitrarily appealed to, is evidently erroneous. Others, 
 
 vin and Koch, have thought that Paul referred to a 
 
 _sng of Christ not preserved in the Gospels, but trans- 
 uitted by tradition. (So, recently, also v. Zezschwitz, /.c. 
 p- 121, according to whom the apostle thought “on a word” 
 which is “to be sought for in the peculiar and intimate com- 
 munications of our Lord to His disciples, such as He would 
 have given them during the forty days, when He spoke with 
 them concerning the Bacirela tod Ocod.”) This supposition - 
 may certainly be supported by the analogy of Acts xx. 35; 
 but it must always remain precarious, the more so as there 
 was no inducement to Christ, in His intimations concerning 
 the period of the fulfilment of the Messianic kingdom, to 
 make such special questions, arising only in consequence of 
 concrete circumstances, the subject of an anticipated instruc- 
 tion. It is best, therefore, with Chrysostom, Theodoret,: 
 Hunnius, Piscator (who, however, arbitrarily supposes the 
 fact described in 2 Cor. xii. 2, 4), Aretius, Turretin, Benson, 
 Moldenhauer, Koppe, Olshausen, de Wette, Gess (die Lehre von 
 der Person Christi, Basel 1856, p. 69 f.), Alford, Riggenbach, 
 and others, to suppose that Paul appeals to information con- 
 cerning the matter in hand which had been communicated to 
 nim in a direct revelation by the heavenly Christ; comp. Gal. 
 i. 12, ii. 2; Eph. iii. 3; 2 Cor. xii. 1.— qpeis of Gavtes of 
 MepirerTromevot eis THY Tapovolay Tod Kuplov] we, the living, 
 who remain unto the presence (or return) of the Lord. From 
 the construction of these words it undoubtedly follows, that 
 Paul reckoned himself with those who would survive till the 
 commencement of the advent, as indeed the same expectation 
 is also expressed in 1 Cor. xv. 51 f. Comp. besides, 1 Cor. 
 vii. 26, 29-31, i..'7, 8; Rom. xiii. 11, 12; Phil. iv. 5. See 
 also Diihne, Entwichel. des Paulin. Lehrbegr. pp. 175 f., 190 ; 
 Usteri, Paulin. Lehrbegr. p. 355; Messner, Die Lehre der 
 Apostel, Leipz. 1856, p. 282. This expectation is not con- 
 firmed by history: Paul and all his contemporaries fell a prey 
 to death. What wonder, then, if from an early period of the 
 Christian church this plain meaning of the word was resisted, 
 and in its place the most artificial and distorted interpretations 
 
CHAP, IV. 15. 133 
 
 were substituted? For that Paul could be capable of error 
 was regarded as an objectionable concession, as an infringe- 
 ment upon the divine authority of the apostle. It has there- 
 fore almost universally } been maintained by interpreters, that 
 Paul speaks neither of himself nor of his contemporaries, but 
 of a later period of Christianity, So Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
 John Damascenus, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Castalio, 
 Calvin, Musculus, Bullinger, Zanchius, Hunnius, Balduin, 
 Vorstius, Cornelius a Lapide, Jac. Laurentius, Calixt, Calov, 
 Joach, Lange, Whitby, Benson, Bengel, Flatt, and many others. 
 Whilst Calvin and Cornelius a Lapide, in order to remove 
 difficulties, do not scruple to charge the apostle with a pious 
 fraud ; supposing that he, although he was convinced of the 
 distance of the advent, nevertheless represented himself as 
 surviving, in order in this way to stimulate believers to be in 
 a state of spiritual readiness at every instant ; Oecumenius, 
 after the example of Methodius, interprets ot Caves «.7.d. of 
 the souls, and of xowmnbévtes of the bodies of Christians: 
 Cavtas tas wuyds, Koyunbevta 5é Ta chpata héyer ovK av 
 ovv TpodkaBwow ai uyal’ TpwToV yap éyelpeTal TA ToHmaTa, 
 (va avTa aTordBwow ai yuxal, as Kal TepidiprravedOal dyoe 
 dua TO aOavatov’ ov yap av, ef un Tept Yruxav Edeyev, ele TO 
 npels of Caves of TepiAecTrOmEvoL, TENEUTHTELY MéEANOV™ DéEvEL 
 ovv, OTL of FavTEs at Wuyati ovK av Ta copaTa TpopOacwpev 
 €V TH AVATTAGEL, AANA PET AUTOY THS avactacews TevE@pmEOa. 
 Usually, however, in order to remove the objectionableness of 
 the words, an appeal is made to the fact that by means of an 
 “enallage personae,’ or an avaxolvwars, something is often said 
 of a collective body which, accurately taken, is only suited to a 
 part. Then the sense would be: we Christians, namely, those 
 of us who are alive at the commencement of the advent, 7.c. the 
 later generation of Christians who will survive the advent. But 
 however often 7juels or dyels is used in a communicative form, 
 yet in this passage such an interpretation is impossible, because 
 here pets ot Cavtes K.7.X., as a peculiar class of Christians, are 
 
 1 Exceptions in early times are very rare. They are found in Piscator (yet 
 
 even he hesitates), Grotius, and Moldenhauer. To bring the correct view to 
 more general recognition was reserved for recent times. 
 
134 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE TITESSALONIANS. 
 
 placed in sharp distinction from KxopnOéves, as a second class. 
 Accordingly, in order to obtain the sense assumed, the words 
 would require to have been written: O7v 7uev of CdvTes KT. 
 ov pr) POdcovrar Tods KoyunOevras, apart altogether from the 
 fact that also in v. 4 the possibility is expressed, that the day 
 of the Lord might break in upon the presently existing Thessa- 
 lonian church. Not less arbitrary is it, with Joachim Lange, 
 to explain the words: “we who live in our posterity,” for 
 which an additional clause would be necessary. Or, with 
 Turretin, Pelt, and others, to understand of Cavtes, of Tepidet- 
 mopuevot in a hypothetical sense: we, provided we are then 
 alive, provided we still remain. (So, in essentials, Hofmann : 
 by those who are alive are meant those who had not already 
 died.) For then, instead of seis of Cdvtes, of mepideropevot, 
 it would necessarily require pels CavTes, mepiheropevot 
 (without an article). The same also is valid against J. P. 
 Lange (Das apostol. Zeitalter, I., Braunschw. 1853, p. 113): 
 “The words, ‘ the living, the surviving, are for the purpose of 
 making the contrast a variable one, whilst they condition and 
 limit the sje? in the sense: we, so many of us (!), who yet 
 live and have survived; or (?) rather, we in so far as we tem- 
 porarily represent the living and remaining, in contrast to our 
 dead.” Lastly, the view of Hoelemann (Die Stellung St. Pauli 
 zu der Frage wm die Zeit der Wiederkunft Christi, Leipz. 
 1858, p. 29) is not less refuted by the article before Caves 
 and mepiNerropevor: “The discourse, starting from the wets 
 and rising more and more beyond this concrete beginning, by 
 forming, with the next two notions of faves, of TepteLTro- 
 pevot, always wider (!) and softer circles, strives to a generic (!) 
 thought—namely, to this, that Paul and the contemporary 
 Thessalonians, while in the changing state of wepirelrecOar 
 (being left behind), might be indeed personally taken away 
 beforehand; although the opposite possibility, that they them- 
 selves might yet be the surviving generation, is included in the 
 Auets of Cavtes with which the thought begins, and which 
 always echoes through it.” Every unprejudiced person must, 
 even from those dogmatic suppositions, recognise that Paul 
 here includes himself, along with the Thessalonians, among 
 
CIIAP, IV. 16. , 135 
 
 those who will be alive at the advent of Christ. Certainly 
 this can only have been a hope, only a subjective expectation 
 on the part of the apostle; as likewise, in the fifth chapter, 
 although he there considers the advent as impending and 
 coming suddenly, yet he supposes the indefiniteness of the 
 proper period of its commencement (comp. also Acts i. 7; 
 Mark xiii, 32). That the apostle here states his surviving 
 only as a supposition or a hope, is not nullified by the fact 
 that he imparts the information (ver. 15) év Xey@ Kxupiov. For 
 the Adyos Kupiov can, according to the context, only refer to 
 the relation of those who are asleep to the living; but does 
 not refer to the fact.who will belong to the one or to the 
 other class at the commencement of the advent. Only on the 
 first point was the comforting information contained which 
 the Thessalonians required. — The present participles Caves 
 and qepiAevrouevot are not to be taken as futures (Calvin, 
 Flatt, Pelt), but denote the condition as it exists in the pre- 
 sent, and stretches itself to the advent. — ov pn d0acwpev 
 tovs KownOévtas] shall by no means precede those who are 
 asleep, so that we would reach the end (the blessedness of the 
 advent), but they would be left behind us, and accordingly lose 
 the prize. The apostle speaks in the figure usual to him of a 
 race, in which no one obtained the prize who was forced half 
 way to interrupt his rmmning. — On the emphatic od 7, see 
 Winer, p. 449 [E. T. 634]. 
 
 Vv. 16,17. Proof of the truth of od pu» pOdcwpev Tods 
 Kounfévtas by a description of the particulars in which the 
 advent will be realized. 
 
 Ver. 16. Comp. Flatt, Opusc. acad. p. 411 ff. — 670] not 
 that, as Koch and Hofmann think, so that vv. 16 and 17 
 (according to Hofmann, only ver. 16 !) still depend on A¢yopuev 
 év Noy@ Kupiou, ver. 15; but for. — aditds 6 Kvptos] the Lord 
 Himself. avros is neither a mere introductory subject (« He, 
 the Lord,” de Wette, Hofmann) ; nor added with the design to 
 refer “ the coming of Christ expressly to His holy personality 
 and corporality,” accordingly designed to exclude “every 
 manifestation of Him by mere instruments,’ or by angels (so 
 Olshausen and Bisping, and already Musculus, Estius, and 
 
136 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 Fromond.') ; also is not inserted here “ for solemnity’s sake, 
 and to show that it will not be a mere gathering to Him, but 
 He Himself will descend, and we shall be summoned before 
 Him” (Alford) ;—but it represents Christ as the chief Person 
 and actor at the advent, emphatically opposed to His faithful 
 ones—both those already asleep (of vexpol év Xpiotod) and 
 those still living—as they who are acted upon. — «éXevopa] 
 in the N. T. an dra£ Xeyouevov, denotes an imperative call, 
 eg. of a commander to his host to exhort them to the conflict 
 or to warn them to decamp, of a driver to excite his horses to 
 greater speed, of a huntsman to encourage his hounds to the 
 pursuit of the prey, of sailors to excite themselves to vigorous 
 rowing, etc. Comp. Thucyd. ii. 92; Xen. de venat. vi. 20; 
 Lucian, Catapl. 19. Here the xé\evcpa might be referred to 
 God. Only then we must not, as Hunnius does, identify it 
 with the cddmvy& Ocod, and find represented in the two 
 expressions the “ horribilis fragor inclarescentium tonitruum ;” 
 but, in conjunction with the statement that God only knows 
 beforehand the time and hour of the advent (Matt. xxiv. 3), it 
 must refer to the imperative call to bring about the advent. 
 So recently Bisping. This interpretation is, however, to be 
 rejected, because the three sentences introduced with éy are 
 evidently similar, ze. all three are a statement of the mode of 
 kataBaive, accordingly contain the description of the cir- 
 cumstances with which the descent during the course of its 
 completion will be accompanied. But, understood in the 
 above manner, €v KeXevopate would denote an act preceding 
 the xataBaivew, and thus another preposition instead of épv 
 would necessarily be chosen. Others, as Theodoret, Oecu- 
 menius, Grotius, and Olshausen, refer év xeXevopate to Christ. 
 But in this case we would be puzzled so to define the contents 
 of the KéXevopa, as to prevent them coming into collision with 
 the dwvetv of the apydyyedos. For that we are not justified, 
 with Theodoret, in distinguishing the ceXevopa and the deavy 
 by a prius and post (6 xvpios... Kedevoer ev apyayyedov 
 
 
 
 ' Koch accepts both de Wette’s interpretation and the meaning of Olshausen, 
 and thus falls into the contradiction of making eirés at the same time un- 
 accented and emphatic. 
 
CHAP. IV. 16. 137 
 
 Boca) is evident, as both are simultaneous—Lboth in a similar 
 manner are represented as accompanying the xataBatvew. It 
 is accordingly most probable that Paul places év cerevopuarte 
 first as a primary, and on that account absolute expression, 
 and then, in an epexegetical manner, more fully developes it 
 by év dovh dpyayyénou Kat év oddrvyyt Oeod. If this is the 
 correct interpretation, the apostle considers the xcéXevopa as 
 eiven by the archangel,’ directly afterwards mentioned, who 
 for the publication of it uses partly his voice and partly a 
 trumpet; and, as the contents of the xéXevopa, the imperative 
 call which reaches the sleeping Christians to summon them 
 from their graves (comp. also the following Kai of vexpot 
 K.T.r.), consequently the resurrection - call (Theodoret, John 
 Damascenus, Calixt, and others). — év dwvy apyayyédou Kal 
 ev carmuyyt Oeov] with the call, namely, of an archangel, and 
 with (the sound) of the trumpet of God. Christ will return 
 surrounded by hosts of angels; comp. ili. 13; 2 Thess. i. 7; 
 Matt. xvi. 27, xxiv. 30 f, xxv. 31; Mark viii. 38, xiii, 26 f.; 
 Luke ix. 26. According to the post-exile Jewish notion, the 
 angels were distinguished into different orders and classes, over 
 each of which presided an apydyyedos. (See Winer’s didi. 
 Realworterb. 2d ed. vol. I. p. 386 f.) One of these apydyyerou 
 (an’) — whom Nicolas de Lyra, Hunnius, Estius (appealing 
 to Jude 9 and Rev. xii.), Bern. a Picon., Bisping suppose to be 
 the archangel Michael; and Cornelius a Lapide, Michael or 
 Gabriel ; whilst Ambrosiaster and Olshausen, as well as Alphen 
 aud Honert (in Wolf), understand no angel at all, but the two 
 first understand Christ (!), and the two last the Holy Ghost (!) 
 —is considered as the herald at the commencement of the 
 advent, who with a loud voice calls upon the dead, and arouses 
 them by the sound of a trumpet. The Jews used trumpets 
 for summoning the people together; comp. Num. x. 2, xxxi. 6, 
 Joel 11.1. Also the manifestations of God were considered as 
 
 1 Macknight incorrectly refers the xérevexe to the whole of the attendant 
 angelic host, and finds therein ‘‘the loud acclamation which the whole angelic 
 hosts will utter to express their joy at the advent of Christ to judge the world,” 
 —an interpretation which finds no support in the context, and militates against 
 the meaning of xtaruepa, 
 
138 TIE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 accompanied by the sound of a trumpet; comp. Ex. xix. 16; 
 Ps. xlvii. 6; Zech. ix. 14; Isa. xxvii. 13 ;—and as it was the 
 opinion of the later Jews that God will use a powerful and 
 far-sounding trumpet to raise the dead (comp. Eisenmenger’s 
 entdecktes Judenthum, II. p. 929 f.), so in the N. T. men- 
 tion is made of a oddmvyé in reference to Christ’s advent ; 
 comp. 1 Cor. xv. 52; Matt. xxiv. 31. The trumpet is called 
 aadvruvyE Ocod, either because it excels all human or earthly 
 trumpets in the power of its sound (so Cornelius a Lapide, 
 Calov, Wolf, Benson, Bengel, Baumgarten, Bolten, and several); 
 or because it will be blown at the command of God (so Balduin, 
 Jac. Laurentius, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, and others); or, 
 lastly, because it belongs to God and is used in His service 
 (so de Wette, who refers to the expression “harps of God,” 
 1 Chron. xvi. 42; Rev. xv. 2 [see also Winer, p. 221, E. T. 
 310], Koch, and Alford). — dz’ odpavod] down from heaven. 
 For the crucified and risen Christ is enthroned in heaven at 
 the right hand of God; comp. Rom. vill. 34; Eph. i. 20; 
 
 Col. iii, 1; Phil. iii, 20. — Kat ot vexpoi x.7.r.] a consequence 
 of év Kerevopate K.T.r. KaTaRHnoeTa. — év Xpiat@] is not to 
 
 be connected with dvaoricovtat (Pelt, Schott), but with of 
 vexpoi; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 18; Winer, p. 123 [E.T.169]. For 
 if connected with dvacrijcovrat, then év Xpro7@ would receive 
 an emphasis which, according to the context, it cannot have ; 
 as the apostle does not intend to bring forward the person by 
 whom the resurrection is effected, which is evident of itself, 
 but designs to show what relation it will have to those who 
 sleep on the one hand, and to those who are alive on the other. 
 Theodoret has arbitrarily inserted into the text: Nexpovds 
 TOUS TLTTODS AEYEL, OV MOVOY TOYS TH EvayyEedi@ TeTLATEVKOTAS, 
 GdAa Kal Tods ev voww Kal Tos mpo vomou SiadaprpavTas ; 
 and Musculus, that there are also to be reckoned among the 
 vexpot év Xpior@ the dead children of Christians before they 
 believed on Christ, and the “ patres priorum saeculorum qui 
 ante tempora Christi vixerunt. Nam et illi cum semine 
 ipsorum propter fidem venturi servatoris in Christo fuerunt.” 
 —Tp&rov] does not denote, as Oecumenius (of év Xpirt@, Tov- 
 réoTw of Tato, TPATOV avaoTycovTaL, of Sé NoLTOL EYaToL, 
 
CHAP, IV. 17. 139 
 
 ds ph) dprdfecOar pujte drravtav jéddovtes) and others main- 
 tain, the first resurrection,—the so-called resurrection of the 
 just—in contrast to the resurrection of all men following . 
 at a much later period; a distinction which is left entirely 
 unnoticed in our passage, and in the form stated would be 
 un-Pauline. Rather wp@rov is in contrast to ézevta, ver. 17, 
 and denotes that the jirst act of Christ at His reappearance 
 will be the resurrection of the Christian dead, and then the 
 apratecOas of the living, ver. 17, will follow as the second 
 act. 
 
 Ver. 17. Sdv avrois] ic. with the raised vexpot év Xpicra. 
 — dpraynoopeba] we will be snatched away. The expression 
 (comp. 2 Cor. xi. 4; Acts vill. 39) depicts the swiftness 
 and irresistible force with which believers will be caught up. 
 But, according to 1 Cor. xv. 50-53, the apostle must have 
 conceived this apmafeo@as as only occurring after a change 
 has taken place in their former earthly bodies into heavenly, 
 to qualify them for a participation in the eternal kingdom 
 of the Messiah. — év vedédars] not instead of els vedédras 
 (Moldenhauer), but either im clouds, ze. enveloped in clouds, 
 or better, on clouds, z.e. enthroned in their midst. According 
 to the Old Testament representation (Ps. civ. 3), God rides on 
 clouds as on a triumphal chariot. Also the Messiah appears 
 on clouds (Dan. vil. 15). According to Acts i. 9, Christ 
 ascended to heaven on a cloud; and according to Acts i. 11, 
 Matt. xxiv. 30, He will return on a cloud. Theodoret: "EdeEe 
 TO peyeBos THs Tins baTEp yap avTos 6 SeomoTys él vedEdijs 
 datewnhs avernpOn, otTw Kal of els avTOV TETLTTEVKOTES K.T.D. 
 — els ardvrnow Tod Kupiov] to the mecting of the Lord, we. in 
 order to be led towards the Lord. ets amdvtnow, correspond- 
 ing to the Hebrew MNP, is united both with the genitive 
 (Matt. xxv. 1, 6), as here, and with the dative (Acts xxviii. 15). 
 From the words it follows that the apostle did not think of 
 Christ descending completely down to the earth. — els dépa] 
 into the air, belongs to adpraynoopeda, and can as little be con- 
 sidered as equivalent to es tods ovpavovs (Flatt) as it can 
 denote through the air, z.e. through the air to the higher regions 
 (Flatt). Nor, on the other hand, can 7¢ be the apostle’s mean- 
 
140 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 ing—although Pelt, Usteri, Paulin. Lehrbegr. pp. 356, 359 (hesi- 
 tatingly), and Weizel in the 7'heol. Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 935 f. 
 assume it—that the Christian host would be caught up into 
 the air, in order to have their permanent abode with Christ 
 in the air. For, according to 2 Cor. v. 1, the future eternal 
 abode of Christians is év tots ovpavois.' Nevertheless the 
 apostle was constrained to express himself as he has done. 
 For when Christ descends down from heaven, and Christians 
 are caught up to meet Him, the place of meeting can only be 
 a space between heaven and earth, ic. the air. Comp. Augus- 
 tine, de civit. Det, xx. 20, 2: Quod enim ait... non sic 
 accipiendum est, tanquam in aére nos dixerit semper cum 
 domino esse mansuros ; quia nec ipse utique ibi manebit, quia 
 venens transiturus est. Venienti quippe ibitur obviam, non 
 manenti. But that Paul adds nothing concerning the removal 
 of the glorified Christian host to heaven, following their being 
 caught up with Christ, and of the resurrection of all men con- 
 nected with the advent, along with the judgment of the world, 
 is naturally explained, because the description of the advent 
 as such is not here his object, but his design is wholly and 
 entirely to satisfy the doubts raised by the Thessalonians in 
 respect of the advent.” But to effect this purpose it was per- 
 fectly sufficient that he now, specifying the result of the points 
 described, proceeds: cat odtws mavtote civ Kupiw écopeba] 
 and so shall we ever be united with the Lord. — ovtws] so, that is, 
 after that we have actually met with Him. It refers back to ets 
 atavTnow. — avy] imports more than petd. It expresses inti- 
 mate union, not mere companionship. — écouePa] comprehends 
 as its subject both vexpot év Xpict@ and the faves. 
 
 Ver. 18. A concluding exhortation. — wapaxadety] not to 
 
 1 Also on this account Paul cannot have thought on a permanent residence on 
 the glorified earth (Georgii in Zeller’s theol. Jahrb. 1845, I. p. 6, and Hilgen- 
 feld in the Zeitsch. f. wiss. Theol., Halle 1862, p. 240). 
 
 ? For the same reason also the silence concerning the change of believers who 
 happened to be alive at the advent is justified. Against Schrader, who thinks 
 on account of this silence that the author must have conceived the circumstances 
 of the advent ‘in an entirely sensible manner ;” “the incongruities of this 
 representation, if it is understood sensibly,” cannot be Pauline, because with 
 Paul the doctrine of the last things has a ‘‘ purely (?) spiritual character.” 
 
CHAP. IV. 18. Tse 
 
 exhort (Musculus), but to comfort; comp. ta py duTHobe, 
 ver. 13.—dyor] denotes nothing more than words. Erroneously 
 Aretius, Flatt, Pelt, Olshausen, and others: principles or 
 doctrines (of faith). And év toils Adyous TovTos denotes on 
 the ground of these or the above words, 
 
142 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 In ver. 2 Lachm. and Tisch., after B D E F Gx, 17, 67** e¢ al., 
 read only juipu. But the Receptus 7 yuépx is to be retained. The 
 article was omitted in consequence of the similar letter at the 
 beginning ‘of the following word. — Ver. 3. "Orcay Aéywow] Elz. 
 Matth. read "Oray yap r£ywouw. But yep is wanting in A F G s* 
 17, 44, al., m. Syr. It. Tert. Cypr. Ambrosiaster, ed., and instead 
 of it B D E s**** Copt. Syr. p. Chrys. Theodoret have 6é 
 (bracketed by Lachm.). This diversity of authorities makes it 
 highly probable that Paul wrote only Ora» (received by Griesb, 
 Scholz, Tisch, and Alford), but that at a later period, after the 
 relation of ideas was defined, a yép or a 62 was inserted for expla- 
 nation. — Ver. 4. Elz. has 7 juépa iwée. Instead of this Lachm. 
 and Tisch. 1 have twas 7 juépu. Correctly ; for this position is not 
 only required by predominant attestation (A D E F G, al., Vulg. 
 It. Chrys. in comm.), but also by the internal design of the dis- 
 course. — Elz. has as zréarng. we xraraus, accepted by Lachm. 
 (not Tisch.),is not sufficiently attested by A B, Copt., and 
 unsuitable by the change of the image without any reason. — 
 Ver. 5. wévreg yep] Elz. Matth. read cavree. Against A B D E 
 F G L8,17, 23, al., perm. edd. Syr. utr. Arr. Copt. Aeth. Arm. 
 Slav. ed. Vulg. It. Clem. Chrys. Theodoret, Theoph. Ambrosiast. 
 Aug. Pel. — Elz. has od éouév. ox éoré, found in D* F G, Syr. 
 It. Harl.** Marian, Ambrosiast., is a correction for the sake of 
 conformity with the preceding. — Ver. 6. Elz. has ag zai of Acros. 
 Lachm. and Tisch. 1 read ag of Acros, But the omission of za/ is 
 not sufficiently attested by A (B?) 8* 17, al., Syr. Arr. Aeth. 
 Vulg. ms. Clem. (bis) Antioch. According to Schott, za/is a 
 gloss from iv. 13 (?).— Ver. 13. Instead of the Receptus isepex- 
 xepiooov, B D* F G, al. have iwepexrepiootic. Preferred by Lachm. 
 Tisch. and Alford. Probably original: iepexrepootic, not occur- 
 ring elsewhere, being corrected according to iii. 10 and Eph. 
 iii. 20.— Instead of ¢ aidro%, which D* F Gx, 47, al. pl. edd. 
 Syr. Erp. Aeth. Slav. ms. Vulg. It. Chrys. Theodoret, Codd. ap. 
 Theophl. Ambrosiast. ed. Pelag. require, and Griesb. has com- 
 mended to special consideration, é& éavro7 of the Receptus is 
 to be retained, with Matth. Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. Bloomfield, 
 
 ae — 
 
CHAP. V. 143 
 
 Alford, and Reiche. °Ey aiso7% arose because sipnvevere év saurors 
 xvas not considered an independent exhortation (on which 
 acccunt a xa/is inserted by %* before sipyvedere), since these few 
 words are round inserted between two exhortations, of which 
 the first was introduced by the formula épwrausy 6: duds, and the 
 second by wapaxarodmev d& tu&s.— Ver. 15. xal sig &AAHAous| SO 
 Elz. Matth. Tisch. 2 and 7, and Alford. x«uf is disputed by 
 Griesb. Correctly erased by Lachm. Scholz, and Tisch. 1, after 
 A BEF Gs* min. perm. Syr. Arr. Copt. Vulg. ed. It. Ambrosi- 
 ast. ed. Pelag. — Ver. 18. Elz. has Totro yep déanua Ocod. Lachm. 
 reads Totro yap éorw béanua Ocot. Although éorf is found in 
 D* E* F G, 37, al., Vulg. It. Slav. Ambrosiast. Pel., yet the 
 change of its position (sometimes after yép, sometimes after 
 déAnuc, sometimes after @<ot) betrays it to be an insertion. — 
 Ver. 21. wdévra 62] Elz. Tisch. 2, Bloomfield read séra. But 
 &(BDEFG K Lxs**** min. plur. edd. Aeth. Slav. Vulg. 
 It. Clem. [bis] Bas. Chrys. [in textu] Damasc. Theoph. Ambro- 
 siast. ed. Pel, recommended by Griesb., received by Matth. 
 Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. 1 and 7, Alford, also preferred by Reiche) 
 was easily absorbed by the first syllable of the following word, 
 doxiaCere.— Ver. 27. Instead of the Receptus épxiZw, Lachm. Tisch. 
 and Alford have correctly accepted évopxiZw, after A B D* E, 71, 
 80, al., Auct. Synops. Euthal, (in hypoth.) Damasc.— ro7 ddsAgo7s] 
 Elz. Matth. Scholz, Bloomfield, Reiche, Tisch. 7, read rors kyiors 
 adergors. But ayios is wanting in B D E F Gs* min. Aeth. It. 
 Damasc. Ambrosiast. Cassiod. Suspected by Griesb. Correctly 
 erased by Lachm. Tisch. 1, 2, and Alford. ; 
 
 CoNTENTS. — Concerning the period of the commencement 
 of the advent the readers require no instruction. They them- 
 selves well knew that the day of the Lord will suddenly 
 break in, as a thief in the night. Therefore as children of the 
 light they are to be watchful, and to arm themselves with the 
 spiritual armour of faith, love, and hope, comforted with the 
 assurance that God has not appointed them to destruction, 
 but to eternal salvation through Jesus Christ who died for us, 
 that we, whether living or dead, may receive a share in His 
 glory. Therefore they are to comfort and edify one another 
 (vv. 1-11). They are to esteem those who had the rule over 
 them, to be peaceful among themselves, to admonish the 
 unruly, to encourage the faint-hearted, to assist the weak, and 
 to be forbearing toward all men. No one is to repay evil 
 
144 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE TIHESSALONIANS. 
 
 with evil. They are always to retain Christian joyfulness, to 
 pray continually, to thank God for all things. They are not 
 to quench the Spirit, nor to despise prophecy, but to prove all 
 things, and to preserve the good. May God sanctify them 
 thoroughly, in order that they may be blameless at the coming 
 of Christ (vv. 12-24). After an exhortation to the readers 
 to pray for him, to salute all the brethren, and to read the 
 Epistle to the whole assembled congregation (vv. 25-27), the 
 apostle concludes with a Christian benediction (ver. 28). 
 
 (2) Vv. 1-3. A reminder of the sudden and unexpected 
 entrance of the advent. 
 
 Ver. 1. ITep) 3& raév xpovwv kat THY Karpov] but con- 
 cerning the times and periods, ae. concerning the time and 
 hour, sc. of the advent. The conjunction of these two words 
 frequently occurs; comp. e.g. Acts i. 7; Dan. ii. 21; Eccles, iii. 1. 
 xpoves denotes time in general; «aipos, the definite point of 
 time (therefore usually the favourable moment for a transaction). 
 See Tittmann, de synonym. I. p. 39 ff. Paul puts the plural, 
 because he thinks on a plurality of acts or incidents, in which 
 partly preparation is made for the advent (2 Thess. ii. 3 ff), 
 and partly it is accomplished. That, moreover, the apostle, 
 although he has not treated of the advent in itself, but only of 
 an entirely special objection regarding it, feels necessitated also 
 to make the commencement of the advent a subject of explana- 
 tion, is an evident intimation that this point also formed the 
 subject of frequent discussion among the Thessalonians. Yet 
 on account of the relation of the second Epistle to the first, 
 the opinion that the return of Christ was imiediately to 
 be expected was not yet diffused.— od ypelav éyere] a 
 praeteritio, as in iv. 9. The reason why the readers did not 
 require instruction on the time and hour of the advent, is 
 neither because instruction concerning it would not be useful 
 to them (Oecumenius: @s dcvudopov 6 S€ ye IladXos icws 
 Hoel AUTO, EX TOV appyTwv Kai TodTo KaBwy, Theophylact, 
 and others), nor also because no instruction can be given con- 
 cerning it (Zwingli, Hunnius, Estius, Fromond., Flatt, Pelt, 
 Baumgarten-Crusius, Koch, and others), but because the 
 Thessalonians were already sufficiently acquainted with it from 
 
CHAP. V. 2 145 
 
 the oral instruction of the apostle. Accordingly the apostle 
 adds— 
 
 Ver. 2. Adtol ydp] For ye yourselves, emphatically con- 
 trasted with the person of the writer, as in iv. 9.— axpiBas] 
 exactly, ic. very well.— By the juépa xvpiov, Hammond, 
 Schoettgen, and Harduin arbitrarily understand the time of 
 the destruction of Jerusalem; Nicolas de Lyra, Bloomfield, 
 and others, the day of each man’s death ; Oecumenius, Theo- 
 phylact, and Zwingli, the death of the individual and the end 
 of everything earthly.  suépa xvpiov can only be another 
 éxpression for wapovcia tod xupiov, iv. 15, and denotes, as 
 everywhere else, the near impending period, when the present 
 order of the world will come to an end, and Christ in His 
 glory will return to the earth for the resurrection of the dead, 
 the general judgment, and the completion of the kingdom of 
 Ged: comp. 2. Thess. ih)2 3» 1) Cori? 8)... 5 3) 2) Cora L4; 
 Phil. i. 6, 10, ii 16. Besides, the corresponding expression 
 mim oO is used in the Old Testament to denote a time in 
 which God will manifest in a conspicuous manner His penal 
 justice, or also His power and goodness ; comp. Joel i. 15, 
 ii, 11; Ezek. xiii. 5; Isa. ii, 12.— @s Krértns ev vuKti] as 
 a thief in the night, sc. épyetat; comp. 2 Pet. ui-10. The 
 figure is designed to depict the suddenness and unexpected- 
 ness of the coming; comp. Matt. xxiv. 43; Luke xu. 39. 
 Others, as Flatt, Schott, and Alford (similarly also Hofmann 
 and Riggenhbach), find expressed therein the further reference 
 that the day of the Lord will also be terrible to all those who 
 are not properly prepared for it. But this further idea is not 
 contained in ver. 2, but only meets us in what follows. The 
 comparison ws KAémTns é€v vuxTi was undoubiedly the chief 
 reason of the opinion in the ancient church, that the advent is 
 to be expected at night (more specifically, on an Easter-eve), 
 which gave rise to the vigils, as one wished to be overtaken 
 in a waking condition by the return of Christ. Comp. 
 Lactantius, Jistitt. vil. 19 : “ Haec est nox, quae a nobis propter 
 adventum ‘regis ac Dei nostri pervigilio celebratur; cujus 
 noctis duplex ratio est, quod in ea et vitam tum recepit, quum 
 passus est, et postea orbis terrae regnum recepturus est.” 
 
 Meyern—1 "HEss. K 
 
146 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE TIIESSALONIANS. 
 
 Jerome on Matt. xxv. 6 (vol. vii. p. 203): “Traditio Judae- 
 orum est, Christum media nocte venturum in similitudinem 
 Aegyptii temporis, quando pascha celebratum est et exter- 
 minator venit, et dominus super tabernacula transiit. . .. Unde 
 reor et traditionem apostolicam permansisse, ut in die vigiliarum 
 paschae ante noctis dimidium populos dimittere non liceat, 
 exspectantes adventum Christi.” —- ottws] even so, a strong 
 resumption of the preceding as. — The present épyere is not 
 here used instead of the future éAevceTas (Vorstius, Koppe, 
 Flatt, Pelt), but is designed to characterize the coming thus 
 taking place as an absolute and certain truth. See Bern- 
 hardy, Syntax, p. 371; Winer, p. 237 [E. T. 331]. 
 
 Ver. 3. Paul carries on in a vivid manner (therefore 
 asyndetically) the description of the sudden and unexpected 
 nature in which the advent is to break in, whilst he indicates 
 that precisely at the time when man fancies himself in the 
 createst security, the advent will occur. But with this 
 thought is the wider and more special thought blended, that 
 they who dream of security and serve earthly things will reap 
 the fruit of their carelessness, namely, destruction. — érav 
 Aéywow] when they shall say, when it is said. As the subject 
 of the verb, the apostle naturally thinks not on the inhabitants 
 of Jerusalem (Harduin), but, as is evident from the nature of 
 the expression of opinion added, and from the apodosis, 
 unbelievers and merely nominal Christians, the children of 
 this world; comp. Matt. xxiv. 38 ffi; Luke xvii. 26 ff. For 
 the pious and true Christian never abandons himself to the 
 feeling of security, but is always mindful of his salvation with 
 fear and trembling; comp. Phil. ii. 12.— elpjvy Kal aodd- 
 rNeva] sc. €otiv; comp. Ezek. xiii. 10.— épicrarac] imminet, 
 or it surprises them. — éxdptvywow] stands absolutely. Came- 
 rarius and others unnecessarily supply tov 6AePpov. Moreover, 
 de Wette justly remarks, that in the comparison of the pangs 
 of a pregnant woman, the supposition is contained that the 
 advent is close at hand; for although the day anc. the hour, 
 indeed, is not known to her, yet the period of he bearing is | 
 proximately known. Comp. Theodoret: ofd8pa mpoadopov | 
 TO Tapdderypa* Kal yap } Kvovca oldev Te pépet ‘rd euBipvor, 
 
 } 
 
CHAP. V. 4. 147 
 
 dyvoet S& Tov THY wdivev Kalpov' oUTwW Kal tyels, STL pev 
 eTipaviceTat TOV OXov Oo KUpLOS, lopev, caps dé adTov Tov 
 Katpov ovdapas édidayOnuev. Oecumenivs: Kad@s Sé Td 
 broderypa Téeke THs év yaotpl éxovons’ Kal yap Kal atrn 
 onpueia pev exes Tod TOKOV TOANA, adTis Sé THs Opas } THs 
 Hmepas ove ere. 
 
 Remark.—If Gray 62 (see critical remark) is read, we might, 
 with Schott, whom Koch follows, find the following contrast 
 with wirof in ver. 2 expressed: ye indeed know certainly that 
 the day of the Lord will infallibly and suddenly arrive; but 
 the day of the Lord, bringing destruction, will surprise the 
 unbelieving and ungodly, who live in carelessness and security. 
 But were such an emphatic opposition of persons the intention 
 of the apostle, he would have attached to the simple verb éray 
 6: Azywov a particular personal designation. Besides, aidroi, 
 ver. 2, already forms a contrast with the person of the writer, 
 ver. 1; accordingly, it is improbable that airo/, ver. 2, should 
 be so emphatically placed first, in order at the same time to 
 introduce a contrast to third persons who are not mentioned 
 until ver. 3. Lastly, it is evident from the context that it is by 
 no means the design of the apostle to explain that the day of 
 the Lord will befall Christians prepared, but unbelievers wnpre- 
 pared ; but he purposes to remind them only of the sudden 
 and unexpected entrance of the advent rtself. 
 
 (3) Vv. 4-11. Exhortation to be ready and prepared for 
 the coming of the advent, occasioned and also softened by the 
 previous indication of their character as “ of the light,” which 
 the readers by reason of their peculiarity as Christians 
 possessed. 
 
 Ver. 4, “Ywets dé] but ye, in contrast to the unbelieving and 
 worldly-minded described in ver. 3.— éoré] indicative, not 
 imperative; for otherwise yu) éote would require to be 
 written instead of ov« éoré (see Schmalfeld, Syntax des Griech. 
 Verb. p. 143), not to mention that, according to the Pauline 
 view, Christians as such, 2c. in their ideas and principles, are 
 no more oKotos, but das ev xupiw; comp. Eph. v. 8; 2 Cor. 
 vi. 14; Col. i. 12. The expression oxotos, darkness, here 
 occasioned by the comparison ws xkXémr7ns év vuxTi, ver. 2, is 
 a designation of the ruined condition of the sinful and un- 
 ‘edeemed world, which in its estrangement from God is neither 
 
148 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 enlightened concerning the divine will, nor possesses power to 
 fulfil it. — ta tpas % rpépa x.7.r.] By dpas placed first the 
 readers are fittingly and emphatically brought forward in 
 opposition to those described in ver. 3. — iva is not é«Batixas 
 in the sense of so that (Flatt, Pelt, Olshausen, Baumgarten- 
 Crusius, Bisping, and others), but teAXuxa@s : that, or in order that. 
 But the design contained in wa is to be referred to God. 
 Paul intends to say: Ye are not among the unbelieving 
 world alienated from God, and thus the design which God 
 has in view in reference to that unbelieving and alienated 
 world, namely, to surprise them by the day of the Lord, can 
 have no application to you. Why this design of God can have 
 no application to the readers, the apostle accordingly states— 
 
 Ver. 5, first positively, and then negatively with a general 
 reference to all Christians. — viol dwres] sons of the light, and 
 viol Huépas, sons of the day, are Hebraisms: being a concrete 
 mode of expression, in order to represent “belonging to.” 
 Comp. Eph. ii. 2, 3, v. 8; Luke xvi. 8; 1 Pet. i. 14, and 
 other passages. See Winer, p. 213 [E. T. 298]. sépa is 
 here used as a synonym for ¢a@s. ‘The transition from the 
 notion of the day of the Lord to the notion of day generally, in 
 contrast to the darkness, was so much the more natural, inas- 
 much as the day of the Zord is according to its nature light, 
 before which no darkness can exist, or rather by which every 
 impurity of the darkness will be discovered and judged. An 
 entirely similar transition from the #uépa tod cupiov to 7épa 
 generally is found in Rom. xiii, 12, 13.—To ov« éopev 
 vuxTtos ovdé cxoTous, Estius, Pelt, Schott, and others incorrectly 
 again supply vio; for elvar, with the simple genitive, is the 
 genuine Greek mode of expressing the idea of a possessive 
 relation. See Kiihner, II. p. 167; Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 165. 
 
 Ver. 6 infers from the Christian’s character as children of 
 the light, the duty to behave conformably to it, ae. to be 
 watchful and sober, that they might not be taken unprepared 
 by the day of the Lord. — xcafevdev] denotes, under the 
 image of sleep, carelessness about the eternal salvation of the 
 soul. In Eph. v. 14 it is of the sleep of sin. — of Nowrot] the 
 others (comp. iv. 13; Eph. ii. 3), ce. the unbelievers. — ypy- 
 
CHAP. V. 7, 8 149 
 
 yopetv and vyjdew are also conjoined in 1 Pet. v. 8. vyjdeuv 
 is the opposite of peOicxec Oar, ver. 7. Oecumenius: éritacts 
 eypnyopaews TO une’ vt yap Kal éypnyopévas Kal pndev Sia- 
 pépey Kabevdortos. 
 
 Ver. 7. A reason for the exhortation in ver. 6 by a refer- 
 ence to the practice of the outward life. — vuxrds pePvovaew] 
 refers to the known custom of devoting the evening and the 
 night for debauchery. — weOvcxec@ar is entirely synonymous 
 with peOvew, It is not to be assumed that the change of the 
 verb is intentional, in order to denote with the first “ the act 
 of getting drunk,” and with the second “the state of being so” 
 (Macknight) ; since, as also the analogy of the first half of the 
 sentence proves, the progress of the discourse is contained in 
 the addition of vu«rds, and accordingly only the idea already 
 expressed in peOuvoxopuevos is again taken up by pe@vovow. 
 The view of Baumgarten-Crusius, repeated by Koch and 
 Hofmann, that ver. 7 is to be understood in a figurative sense 
 (comp. already Chrysostom and Oecumenius), and that Paul 
 intends to say: “A want of spiritual life (ca@evdew) and 
 immorality (uePvoKxec@ar) belong to the state of darkness 
 (vuxros), thus not to you,” is logically and grammatically 
 impossible, since vuxTds, on account of the same verbs as 
 subjects and predicates, can only contain a designation of tvme. 
 In order to justify the above interpretation, of yap KaOevdovTes 
 Kal (ol) peOvoKxopevos vuxtos eiowv would require to have been 
 written. 
 
 Ver. 8. The apostle passes over to a new image, whilst 
 he, as the proper preparation for watchfulness and sobriety, 
 requires the putting on of the Christians’ spiritual armour, 
 with the help of which they are in a condition victoriously to 
 repel all the assaults of internal and external enemies.‘ The 
 apostle delights to represent the Christian under the image of 
 a warrior; comp. 2 Cor. x. 4 ff.; Rom. vi. 13, xiii. 12; and 
 especially Eph. vi. 11 ff. Here the transition to this new 
 image was very easily occasioned either by the expression 
 
 ' This design of the armour is evident from the context. Schrader’s objection 
 
 to the words, that ‘‘ Paul elsewhere only speaks of an arming against evil in 
 order to overcome it,” is therefore without meaning. 
 
150 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 npépa, ver. 5, inasmuch as in the day one is not only watchful, 
 but also completely clothed ; or by the idea of ypnryopety, ver. 6, 
 inasmuch as whoever watches must also be provided with 
 weapons. Whilst in Eph. vi. 11 ff. not only weapons of 
 defence, but also of offence are mentioned, the apostle here 
 names only weapons of the first description. He designates 
 as weapons the three principal parts of the Christian life— 
 faith, love, and hope; comp. i. 3 and 1 Cor. xiii, 13.— 
 miaTews Kal aydrns] are genitives of apposition. miots and 
 aya7n do not import “trust in God and Christ, and in con- 
 nection with it love to Him and to our fellow-men and to our 
 Jellow-Christians” (Flatt); but the first is faith in Christ as the 
 Redeemer, and the latter love to our neighbour. The rictis 
 and the aydmn are a Oépa€, a coat of mail (comp. Isa. lix. 17 ; 
 Wisd. v. 19), ie. they protect the Christian’s heart against 
 the influences of evil, even as a coat of mail protects the breast 
 of the earthly warrior. — Kal wepixeparaiav éxrrida cwtnpias] 
 and as a@ helmet the hope of salvation. This hope of eternal 
 salvation is so much the more a powerful protection against 
 all the attacks and allurements to evil, as it by means of a 
 reference to a future better world sustains our courage amidst 
 trial and tribulation, and communicates strength to stedfast 
 endurance. — The helmet is already in Isa. lix. 17 represented 
 as a symbol of victory. 
 
 Ver. 9. In this verse does not follow a new reason for the 
 duty of watchfulness and sobriety (Musculus), but a confirma- 
 tion of the concluding words of ver. 8: €Awiéa owrnpias. 
 Hofmann strangely perverts the passage: Orv is to be translated 
 by that (not by for), and depends on éd7ida,—a construction 
 which is plainly impossible by the addition of cwrnpias to 
 éXrida, on account of which the passage Rom. viii. 21, which 
 Hofmann insists on as an alleged analogy, cannot be compared. 
 — The construction riOévae or TiPecPai twa ets TL, to appoint 
 one for a purpose, to destine one to something, is conformable 
 with the Hebrew DY, MY, or 02 with ? following ; comp. Acts 
 xiii. 47; 1 Pet. ii 8; 1 Tim. i. 12.— els dpyjv] to wrath, 
 ie. to be subject to it, to become its prey ; comp. i. 10.— add’ 
 eis TepiTomaw owrtnpias] but to the acquisition of salvation. 
 
CHAP. V. 10. L5l 
 
 mepimouey Means to cause something to remain, to save, to 
 acquire. The middle wepsmoceto Gas signifies to save for oneself. 
 Therefore trepi7roinows denotes the acquisition, and particularly 
 the possession of a people; comp. Eph.i.14; 1 Pet. 1. 9; 
 Acts xx. 28, corresponding to the Hebrew nbsp, by which the 
 people of Israel were denominated God’s holy property ; comp. 
 Ex. xix. 5; Deut. vil. 6, ete. Here as in 2 Thess. ii. 14 
 mepioinows has the meaning of acquisition generally. — dia 
 Tod Kuplov npav “Inood Xpictod] belongs to trepurroinewy, not 
 to Gero (Estius). Even by this grammatical relation of the 
 words, Hofmann’s opinion, that by 6ca tod Kupiov jpav “Inood 
 Xpiarov the pledge of salvation is prominently brought forward, 
 is refuted. But the meaning is not: per doctrinam eam, quam 
 Christus nobis attulit, non rabbini, non philosophi (Grotius), 
 but: by faith on Him. 
 
 Ver. 10. That by which the acquisition of salvation is 
 rendered objectively possible is the death of Christ for our 
 redemption. However, this objective reason of mepuroinous 
 caTnplas appears, according to the verbal expression, here not 
 in causal connection with the preceding ; for otherwise ver. 10 
 would have been attached with the simple participle ao@avov- 
 Tos without the article. Rather Paul adds in ver. 10 simply 
 the fact of the death of Christ for our redemption as an inde- 
 pendent expression, in order, by the addition of the final end of 
 His death, to return to the chief reason which led him to this 
 whole explanation concerning the advent, namely, to the com- 
 forting assurance that Christians who have already fallen asleep 
 at the entrance of the advent will, as well as those who are alive, 
 be partakers in Christ’s glory. — t7ép ajev] for our benefit, 
 not in our stead (Baumgarten-Crusius). See Meyer on Rom. 
 v. 6.—-ypnyopety and xadevdew cannot here, as formerly, be 
 taken in an ethical sense; for in what precedes ka@evderv was 
 represented as a mark of the unbelieving, of the children of 
 this world, something incompatible with Christians in their 
 character as children of the light. But to understand the 
 words in their literal sense, with Musculus, Aretius, and 
 Whitby, that is, to interpret them of day and night: “ whether 
 the advent happens in the day-time or at night,’ would be 
 
152 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIE TIIESSALONIANS. 
 
 feeble and trifling. It only remains that waking and sleeping 
 here is to be regarded as a figurative designation of life and 
 death, whether we are yet alive at the advent, or whether we 
 are already dead. Accordingly the same thought is expressed in 
 the sentence with ta, generally considered, which is contained 
 in the concluding words of Rom. xiv. 8 (€av te obv Sapev éeav 
 re dToOvnocKwpev, TOD Kupiov éopév).' — On cabevdew of death, 
 comp. LXX. Dan. xil. 2; 2 Sam. vii. 12; Ps. Ixxxvili. 5. — 
 On e’te...elre, with the conjunctive, see Winer, p. 263 
 [E. T. 368]. — dua] does not belong to ody adt@ (Hofmann, 
 Riggenbach), but to {jompev. It here corresponds to the 
 Hebrew 1%, altogether (Rom. iii. 12), so that it emphatically 
 brings forward the similar share in the jv odv Xpiot@ for 
 all Christians, whether living or dead. — {jcwpev] more 
 specific than écoueOa, iv. 17; for being united with the Lord 
 is a partaking of His glory. According to Hofmann (comp. 
 also Méller on de Wette), S&jowpev is designed to denote only 
 a state of life-fellowship with Christ, so that there is indicated 
 by it not something future, but the present condition of 
 Christians. But this weakening of the verbal idea militates 
 against the context of our passage, as it has for its contents 
 questions respecting the advent, and we are reminded of 
 the period of the advent by eds dpyyv and els mepuroinow 
 cwTnpias directly preceding. Besides, Paul, if he would have 
 expressed nothing more than “a fellowship of life with Christ, 
 for which the distinction of corporeal life and death is indit- 
 ferent,” would much more naturally have written adTod apev 
 (comp. Rom. xiv. 8) instead of ody atta Sjowper. 
 
 Ver. 11. 40] therefore, sc. because we will undoubtedly be 
 made partakers of the glory of Christ, brings the preceding 
 explanation to a conclusion; comp. date, iv. 18.— rapaka- 
 rev] Grotius, Turretin, Flatt, Pelt, de Wette, Koch, Hofmann, 
 
 1 By this parallel with Rom. xiv. 8, 9, the objections of Schrader against our 
 passage are settled, who thinks that ‘‘the manner in which the death of Christ 
 and His coming again are spoken of, is not similar to what is found elsewhere 
 in Paul, but rather to what Mark and Luke say concerning it. We do not find 
 here the words taught by the Holy Spirit as we are accustomed to hear from 
 Paul, but the words from tradition, such as were at a later period prevalent 
 among Christians !” 
 
CHAP. V. 12. 15a 
 
 and others interpret it as “to exhort.” More correctly, it is 
 to be taken, as in iv. 18, “to comfort.” For (1) the exhorta- 
 tion begun in ver. 6 has already, in vv. 9, 10, been changed 
 into words of comfort and consolation ; (2) vv. 10, 11 stand in 
 evident parallelism with chap. iv. 17, 18.— Kal olxodopeire 
 eis tov éva] and edify one the other. Paul considers the 
 Christian church, as also the individual Christian, as a holy 
 building, a holy temple of God which is in the course of con- 
 struction; comp. Eph. i. 20 ff.; 1 Cor. iii, 16; 2 Cor. vi. 16. 
 Accordingly ofxodopety is a figurative designation of Christian 
 progress generally; comp. 1 Cor. viii. 1, x. 23, xiv. 4. — els 
 Tov éva] equivalent to adAnAous, see Kypke, Odserv. sacr. II. 
 p. 339. Comp. of xa?’ &va, Eph. v. 33. Faber Stapulensis, 
 Whitby, and Riickert (Rémerbr. II. p. 249) read eis tov éva, 
 but differ from one another in their renderings. Faber 
 Stapulensis finds the thought: “ aedificate vos mutuo ad unum 
 usque, h. e. nullum omittendo;” Whitby explains it: “ edify 
 yourselves into one body ;” lastly, Riickert maintains o/«codopety 
 els Tov éva is used “in order to denote the One, Christ, as the 
 foundation on whom the building should be reared.” But in 
 the first case Paul would have written &s évés (comp. Rom. 
 iii. 12), in the second ets & (comp. Eph. ii. 14), and in the 
 third él to évi (comp. Eph. ii. 19).— cabws kai qoveire] a 
 laudatory recognition, that the otcodouety had already begun 
 with the readers; comp. iv. 1, 10. 
 
 Vv. 12—24. Miscellaneous exhortations, and the wish that 
 God would sanctify the Thessalonians completely for the 
 coming of Christ. 
 
 Ver. 12. The apostle commences with an exhortation to a 
 dutiful conduct toward the rulers of the church. — 6é] can only 
 be a particle of transition to a new subject. It were possible 
 that ver. 12 might be in the following closer connection with 
 ver. 11: Certainly I have praised you, because you seek to 
 edify one another ; but this by no means excludes the duty of 
 treating those who are appointed for the government of the 
 church with becoming esteem and respect.’ At all events, it 
 
 1 Already Chrysostom closely unites ver. 12 with ver. 11, but determines the 
 connection in the following form not much to be commended : ’Ewrsidn clrev 
 
154 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 appears from this that Paul considered this exhortation in 
 respect to the rulers of the church necessary, to prevent the 
 Thessalonians failing in any way in the respect due to them. 
 — eidévat] to recognise, sc. what they are, according to their 
 nature and position, 7c. in other words, highly to value, highly 
 to esteem. Comp. érvywookew, 1 Cor. xvi. 18, and Y', Prov. 
 xxvil. 23; Ps. exliv. 3; Nah. i. 7.— Paul does not by xomdv- 
 Tas, Tpoictapévous, and vovOerodytas indicate different classes 
 of persons (Bernard a Picon and others), for otherwise the 
 article tovs would have been repeated before the two last 
 predicates; but the same men, namely, the pecSvrepor, whom 
 the apostles were accustomed to place in newly founded 
 churches, and who in apostolic times were not different from 
 the érioxorot; comp. Tit. i 5,7; Acts xx. 17, 28; Winer, 
 bibl. Realworterb. 2d ed. vol. I. p. 217 f. These presbyters are 
 at first named generally komidvtas év vpiv] those who labour 
 among you, i.e. in your midst (Musculus, Zanchius, Flatt, Pelt, 
 Hofmann erroneously explain it: on you, in vobis se. docendis, 
 monendis, consolandis, aedificandis), in order to make it appear 
 beforehand that the e’dévai, the esteeming highly, was a cor- 
 responding duty due to the presbyters on account of their 
 labour for the church. The expression xori@vtas might, 
 on account of its generality, have been understood of any 
 member of the church they liked; therefore, in order with 
 xoTi@vTas to make them think definitely on presbyters, Paul 
 adds by way of explanation, cai mpoictapévous Kat vouleTovvTas, 
 by which presbyters are more particularly described, according 
 to the diversity of their official functions, namely, as such to 
 whom it belongs, first, to direct the general and external 
 concerns of the church; and to whom, secondly, the office of 
 teaching and exhortation is assigned. Incorrectly Theodoret : 
 TO O€ mpoictapévous tuav év Kupio avtl Tod irepevyopuévous 
 ipov kal TO Oc@ tiv iwép twav TpecBelav mpoodépovtas. — 
 év kupip] in the sphere of the Lord, a limitation of mpoieta- 
 pévous. Theophylact: ov« év tots xoopikois mpotatatai cov, 
 OIXODOMEITE S15 TY Lee, Ive MeN voMITwWOLY, OTI sis Td THY TaTKdAwY akina AUTOS aYiyays, 
 
 ~ ene. \ , o ee Ee ’ ~ 2 , 6 > * 
 TovTo tanyays, movovouxl Atywy, ors xas vuiv trtrpepa oixodopsiv aAANAOUS* ov yap 
 
 ~ 4 7 ‘ ») , , ~ 
 duvariy Tavera Tov ciaoxaAoy tire 
 
CHAP. V. 13. 155 
 
 GX’ év Tols Kata KvpLov, — vovOeretv] to lay to heart, then 
 generally to instruct and admonish. It refers particularly to 
 the management of Christian discipline, yet Christian instruc- 
 tion generally is not excluded from it. Comp. also Kypke, 
 Gos, Lh, p.i339'f. 
 
 Ver. 13. Kat sjyeic@at adtovs] is by Theodoret, Estius, 
 Grotius, Wolf, Baumgarten, Koppe, de Wette, Koch, Bloom- 
 field, and others, connected with wtepexrepicods, “and to 
 esteem very highly, to value much,” to which év dydty is 
 added as a supplementary statement, to express that this 
 esteem is not to be founded on fear, but on love, or is to 
 express itself in love. But the requirement to esteem highly 
 is already, ver. 12, expressed by eidévar. Add to this that 
 nyeto Pax, in order to denote the idea of high esteem or regard, 
 requires an additional clause, as mepl w)elovos, or mepl wreic- 
 tov; but the adverb tmepexrepicoes cannot represent that 
 additional clause. We must therefore, with Chrysostom, Oecu- 
 menius, Theophylact, Beza, Flatt, Pelt, Schott, Olshausen, 
 Alford, Hofmann, Riggenbach, and others, unite #yetoPae with 
 év ayarn, by which, along with the duty of high esteem, 
 ver. 12, the duty of love toward the rulers of the church is 
 specially brought forward. The formula 7yeiobas twa év 
 aydamn, to hold a person in love, to cherish toward him a 
 loving disposition, is not without harshness, but has its 
 analogy in the genuine Greek construction, éyew twa év dpyh 
 (Thucyd. ii. 18). Others less suitably compare 7ye@oOal tu év 
 kpioet, LXX. Job xxxv. 2.— dua 70 epyov adtav] for their 
 works’ (office) sake, 2.e. first, on account of the labour which is 
 connected with it; but secondly and chiefly, because it is an 
 office in the service of Christ. — eipnvevere év Eavtots] preserve 
 peace among yourselves, comp. Rom, xii. 18; 2 Cor. xiii. 11; 
 Mark ix. 50. éy éavtois is equivalent to év ddXXoxs, see 
 Kiihner, II. p. 325; Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 273. The words 
 contain an independent exhortation to be separated from the 
 preceding, the apostle passing from the conduct enjoined 
 respecting rulers, to the conduct enjoined generally of the 
 readers to one another. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Faber Stapu- 
 lensis, Zwingli, Calvin, Bullinger, Balduin, Cornelius a Lapide, 
 
156 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 Ernest Schmid, Fromond., and others, adopting the reading év 
 avrois (see critical note), have indeed explained it: “ preserve 
 peace with them, the presbyters,” but without grammatical 
 justification, because for this eipyvevere pet’ avtay would be 
 required, comp. Rom. xii. 18. 
 
 Ver. 14. “Ataxros] is especially said of the soldier who does 
 not remain in his rank and file (so inordinatus in Livy) ; then 
 of people who will not conform to civil regulations; then 
 generally disorderly. Here the apostle alludes to those mem- 
 bers of the Thessalonian church who, instead of applying 
 themselves to the duties of their calling, had given themselves 
 up to an unregulated and unsteady nature and to idleness, 
 comp. iv. 11; 2 Thess. iii. 6,11. We are not to understand, 
 with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Estius, Fromond., 
 Turretin, Benson, Bolten, Bloomfield, and others, the presby- 
 ters as the subject of vov@eretre, but, as is already evident 
 from the addition of adedgo/, and generally from the similarity 
 of the introductory words of ver. 14 with those of ver. 12, 
 the members of the church in their totality. Paul thus here 
 puts it out of the question that the church as such had fallen 
 into adta&ia (see on iv. 11). But it also follows from these 
 words that the apostle was far removed from all hierarchical 
 notions in regard to rulers (Olshausen).— Further, they were 
 to comfort, to calm tods ddvyodyxous] the faint-hearted, the 
 desponding. aul here thinks particularly on those who, 
 according to iv. 13 ff, were painfully agitated concerning their 
 deceased friends. Yet this does not prevent us from extending 
 the expression also to such who failed in endurance in perse- 
 cution, or who, conscious of some great sin, despaired of the 
 attainment of divine grace, etc.—The da@evets] the weak, 
 whom the church is to assist, are not the bodily sick, but 
 fellow-Christians who still cling to prejudices, and were more 
 imperfect than others in faith, in knowledge, or in reference to 
 a Christian life; comp. Rom. xiv. 1,2; 1 Cor. viii. 7, 11, 12. 
 — paxpoOvpeiv] to be long-suffering, denotes the disposition by 
 which we do not fly into a passion at injuries inflicted, but 
 bear them with patience and forbearance, comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 4; 
 Eph. iv. 2; Col. iii. 12.— pos mavras] to all, is not to be 
 
CHAP. V. 15, 16. Loy 
 
 limited to draxtot, ddvyoyuvyor, and adoGevets (Koppe), nor 
 to fellow-Christians (Riggenbach), but is to be understood 
 of all men generally; comp. e/g dAAnAovs Kal els TavTas, 
 wer./ LO: 
 
 Ver. 15. Prohibition of revenge. This is easily and fitly 
 added to the command of paxpoOupula. — opate] take care, take 
 heed. The apostle speaks thus, because man is only too ready 
 to gratify his natural inclination to revenge. Watchfulness, 
 struggle, and self-conquest are necessary to offer resistance to 
 it. — px tts] sc. buwv. Erroneously Fromond.: “ subditorum 
 vestrorum.” Also incorrectly de Wette: “Since revenge is 
 entirely unworthy of the Christian, so all are not warned 
 against it, but the better disposed are exhorted to watch that no 
 outbreaks of it should occur (among others).” For (1) the 
 prohibition of revenge is peculiarly Christian, corresponding 
 ueither to the spirit of heathenism (see Hermann, ad Sophocl. 
 Philoct. 679 ; Jacobs, ad Delect. Epigr. p. 144) nor to that of 
 Judaism (comp. Matt. v. 38, 43). But de Wette’s reason 
 makes the prohibition appear as if it were something long 
 known, something evident of itself. (2) Also the better 
 disposed are not free from momentary thoughts of revenge ; 
 accordingly also upon them was that prohibition to be pressed. 
 (3) The fulfilling of that command appertains to the individual 
 life of every one; whereas to guard against the outbreaks of 
 revenge among others is only rarely possible. — xaxdv dyti 
 kaKov Twvt amrododvat] to render to any one evil for evil, comp. 
 Rom. xii, 17; 1 Pet. iii. 9; Matt. v. 44. — 70 ayaOov] denotes 
 not the useful or agreeable (Koppe, Flatt, Schott, Olshausen, 
 and others), or “what is good to one” (Hofmann, Miller), nor 
 does it contain an exhortation to benevolence (Piscator, Beza, 
 Calixt, Pelt, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), but denotes 
 the moral good ; see Meyer on Gal. vi. 10.— Si@xew Te] to 
 pursue something, to seek to reach it in the race (Phil. iii. 
 12, 14), then generally a figurative expression for striving 
 after “a thing, comp. Rom, ix. 30; 31, xii. 13, xiv. 19; 1 Cor. 
 xiv. 1. 
 
 Ver. 16. Comp. Phil. iv. 4. Also this exhortation is closely 
 connected with the preceding. The readers are to be always 
 
158 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 joyfully inclined, even when the case indicated in ver. 15 
 occurs—that sufferings are prepared for them. The Christian 
 can always feel inspired and elevated with internal joy, as he 
 has the assured confidence that all things promote the good 
 of the children of God; comp. Rom. viii. 28; 2 Cor. vi. 10; 
 Rom. v. 3. In a forced manner Chrysostom, whom Theophy- 
 lact and others follow, refers ver. 16 to the disposition re- 
 quired in ver. 15: “Oray yap towavrny éyopev puynv, bore 
 pndéva aptverOat, dAXa TavTas evepyeTey, TOOEV, EiTé pot, TO 
 THs AUIS KéeVTpOV TrapeceNOely Suvyjcetat; — Also it deserves 
 to be mentioned as a curiosity that Koppe and Bolten hold it 
 possible to consider wavtote yaipere as a concluding salutation 
 (intended, but afterwards overlooked amid further additions) : 
 “ Semper bene valere vos jubeat deus!” (Koppe). “Farewell 
 always!” (Bolten). 
 
 Ver. 17. One means of promoting Christian joyfulness is 
 prayer. Theophylact: Tyv odov eee tod deb yalpew, tv 
 adidder tov Tpocevyiy Kal evyapiatiav’ 6 yap eOvcOels optreiv 
 TO Oc@ xal evyapiotely aiTd ert racw aos cupdepovTas 
 cupBaivovot, mpodnrov, btt yapav Eker Sunvexh. Paul also 
 exhorts to continued prayer in Eph. vi. 18, and to perseverance 
 in prayer in Col. iv. 2; Rom. xii. 12. 
 
 Ver. 18. Christians ought not only to pray to God, but also 
 to give thanks to Him, and that év wavri] in everything, i.e. 
 under every circumstance, in joy as well as in sorrow; which 
 is different only in form, but not in meaning, from 7repi 
 mavtos, for everything. Incorrectly Estius: in omnibus se. 
 bonis; and Flatt: €v mavti, sc. kaup@.— TodTo] sc. TO év TavTi 
 evyapioteiv. This is the most natural meaning. Yet it were 
 not incorrect, with Grotius, Scholt, and Bloomfield, to refer 
 Touro to ver. 17, as prayer and thanksgiving form a closely 
 connected unity; comp. Phil. iv. 6; Col. iv. 2. ~Also to 
 refer it even to ver. 16 (Cornelius a Lapide, Alford) may be 
 justitied from the same reason. On the contrary, there is no 
 reason to refer it to the whole passage from ver. 14 onwards 
 (Musculus, Calovius, and others), as then tadra would require 
 to have been written. — Oérnpa] (se. éoriv) denotes will, 
 requirement, as in iy. 3: the article is here wanting, because 
 
CHAP. V. 19. 159 
 
 the will of God comprehends more than evyapiotety: this is 
 only one requirement among many. Otherwise Schott, who 
 finds in @é\nwa Ocod the divine decree of salvation indicated. 
 According to him, the meaning is: “ Huc pertinet sive hoc 
 secum fert decretum divinum (de vobis captum, itemque in 
 Christo positum), ut gratias deo pro omnibus agere debeatis. 
 Vos enim, huic servatori addictos, latere amplius non potest, 
 quaecunque Christianis acciderint, deo volente, eorum saluti 
 consulere aeternae, Rom. viii. 28 ff.” But (1) the écriv to be 
 supplied cannot denote: huc pertinet or hoc secum fert ; 
 (2) the article ro would not be wanting either before 0éAnua 
 or before év Xpictm; (3) the reason alleged is introduced 
 contrary to the context, and so much the more arbitrarily, 
 as ToUTo yap Oédnua x.7:r. is a dependent clause which is 
 founded on the preceding, not an independent point which 
 requires a reason of its own. Storr also takes GéAnwa as the 
 decree of redemption, but he understands tovdro in the sense of 
 TovovTo, which is contrary to the Greek. — év Xpict@ "Incod] 
 Christ is, as it were, the vehicle of this requirement, inasmuch 
 as it is made known through Him. 
 
 Ver. 19. Comp. Noesselt, in locum P. ap. 1 Thess. v. 19- 
 22, disputatio (Kazercit. p. 255 ff.)—Lasch, de sententia atque 
 ratione verborum Pauli, ravra Sé Soxtp., TO Kadov Kat., 1 Thess. 
 vy. 19-22, Lips. 1854.—The prayer of the Christian is an 
 outflow of the Holy Spirit dwelling and working in him; 
 comp. Rom. vii. 16, 26. Accordingly the new admonition, 
 ver. 19, is united in a natural manner to the exhortations, 
 vy. 17,18. Schrader’s view requires no contradiction. He, 
 indeed, finds in this admonition a genuine Pauline reminis- 
 cence ; but also an objection against the composition of this 
 Epistle by Paul, because “if such an admonition had been 
 necessary for the Thessalonians, it is not elsewhere noticed in 
 the whole Epistle.” — 76 mvedpua] is the Holy Spirit, and that 
 as the source of extraordinary gifts—speaking with tongues, 
 prophecy, etc., as they are more fully described in 1 Cor. xii. 
 7 ff. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Oecumenius will have 
 To mvedua to indicate either spiritual illumination which fits 
 us for the exercise of Christian virtues, but may be lost by 
 
160 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 immoral living,’ or specially prophecy (so also Michaelis and 
 others). Both are erroneous on account of ver. 20.— yp 
 aBévyute] extinguish not, quench not. The mvedpa is conceived 
 as a flame, whilst there is particular reference to the strained 
 and inspired speech in which those who were seized by the 
 Spirit expressed themselves. On the figurative expression, 
 comp. Galen. ad Pison. de Ther. i. 17 (Opp. T. xiii. p. 956, 
 Lut. Par. 1639 fol.): éwt 8€ tév madiwv ravtarace Set 
 guratrecOar TO happaxor’ peifov yap éotw adtis ths duva- 
 pews TO péyeOos tod dapydkov Kal Siadver padiws TO cHpa 
 kal 70 éuputov rredpa Taxyéws aBévyvew, Borep 8) Kal Thy 
 Avyvaiay PrOYya TO EXaLov, TOD Tupos TWA€OV yevopuevor, EVKO- 
 Aws atroaBévyvaw. 
 
 Ver. 20. Paul passes from the genus to a species. — 7po- 
 gnteia] denotes prophetic discourse. Its nature consisted not 
 so much in the prediction of future events, although that 
 was not excluded, as in energetic, soul-captivating, and intel- 
 ligent expression of what was directly communicated by the 
 Holy Ghost to the speaker for the edification and moral eleva- 
 tion of the church. See Meyer on Acts xi. 27; Riickert on 
 1 Cor. p. 448 f.; Fritzsche on Rom. xii.6. The Thessalonians 
 were not to despise these prophetic utterances; they were 
 rather to value them as a form of the revelation of the Holy 
 Spirit; comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 5. The undervaluing of the gifts 
 of the Spirit, of which some members of the church must at 
 least have been guilty, had its reason probably in their abuse, 
 whilst partly deceivers who pursued impure designs under the 
 pretext of having received divine revelations, and partly self- 
 deceivers who considered the deceptions of their own fancy as 
 divine suggestions, appeared (see 2 Thess. ii. 2), and thus 
 spiritual gifts in general might have been brought into dis- 
 credit among discerning and calmer characters. 
 
 Ver. 21. The apostle therefore adds to the prescription, 
 “ Prove all things,” whether they have their origin from God or 
 not, and to retain the good. — wavra S€] but all things, namely, 
 what is brought forward in inspired discourse. — doxipagere } 
 
 1 Similarly Noesselt: vsjz« denotes ‘‘vim divinam, Christianis propriam, 
 h. e. quidquid rerum divinarum, deo ita providente, cognovissent,” 
 
CHAP. V. 22. 161 
 
 Paul expresses the same requirement of testing in 1 Cor. xiv. 
 29, and according to 1 Cor. xii, 10 there was a peculiar gift 
 of testing spirits, the Ssaxpicis tvevuatwv. That, moreover, 
 this testing can only proceed from those who are themselves 
 illuminated by the Holy Spirit was evident to the apostle. The 
 fundamental principle of rationalism, that the reason as such 
 is the judge of revelation, is not contained in these words. — 
 70 Kadov] the good, namely, that is found in the wavta. Hof- 
 mann arbitrarily thinks that “the good generally” is meant, 
 which the Thessalonians “as Christians already have, and do 
 not now merely seek or expect.” 
 
 Ver. 22. With ver. 22 the discourse again reverts to what 
 is general, whilst the requirement to hold fast that which is 
 good in the discourses of the inspired very naturally required 
 the transition to the further requirement to keep at a distance 
 from every kind of evil, accordingly also from that which was 
 perhaps intermixed in these discourses. Uswally ver. 22 is 
 referred exclusively to the discourses of the inspired, so that 
 mavta O€ dSoxia€ere contains the chief point which is then 
 unfolded according to its two sides, first positively (ro xadov 
 Katéyxere), and then negatively (ver. 22). But amo stavros 
 eldous movypov is against this view: amo Tov wovnpod would 
 require to have been written. Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, 
 Drusius, Piscator, Grotius, Calixt, Calovius, Seb. Schmid, 
 Michaelis, and others find in ver. 22 the meaning: avoid all 
 evil appearance... But (1) eidos never signifies appearance. 
 (2) A distorted thought would arise. For as the apostle has 
 required the holding fast not that which has the appearance 
 of good, but that which is actually good; so also in ver. 22, 
 on account of the close reference of zovnpod to the preceding 
 kanov, the discourse must also be of an abstinence from that 
 which is actually evil. (3) To preserve oneself from all 
 appearance of evil is not within the power of man. — Eidos 
 denotes very often the particular kind of a class (the species 
 of a genus). Comp. Porphyry, isayoge de quingque vocibus 2: 
 Aéyeras Se Eidos Kat TO bTd TO arrodobéev yévos’ Kab” 5 
 elobawev éyerv Tov pev avOpwrov cidos Tov fwou, yévous 
 ovtos Tod Sdou' Td Sé AevKdy Tod ypwmatos eldos' TO 8é 
 
 Meyer—1 TueEss. L 
 
162 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 tplyavov Tod axnpaTos eldos.— 7ovnpod] is not to be taken, 
 with Bengel, Pelt, Schott, and others, as an adjective (ab omni 
 mala specie), but as a substantive (ab omni specie mali). 
 What Bengel and Schott object against this meaning, that the 
 article tod would be required before zrovypod, would be correct 
 if the discourse were specially of the ovnpoy contained in the 
 wavra, ver. 21; but is erroneous, as 7ovnpov is taken in 
 abstract generality. See Kiihner, II. pp. 129, 141. Comp. 
 Heb. v. 14; Joseph. Ant. vii. 4. 2: way eidos pérous; ibid. 
 x. 8. 1: wav eidos movnpias—Ver. 22, as well as ver. 21, 
 is peculiarly interpreted by Hiinsel (Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 
 1836, Part 1, p. 170 ff). Vv. 21, 22 are repeatedly cited 
 by Cyril Alexandrinus as an expression of the Apostle Paul, 
 in such a manner that with this citation, and indeed as its 
 contents, the words yiveoOe Soxipor tpameftrar are united. 
 Also these words are elsewhere frequently by the Fathers 
 united with our passage, being quoted sometimes as a saying of 
 Christ, sometimes generally as a saying of Scripture, and some- 
 times specially as a saying of the Apostle Paul. See Suicer, 
 Thesaurus, II. p. 1281 ff. (Sacr. Observ. p. 140 ff); Fabricius, 
 Cod. Apocr. N. T. I. p. 330 ff., III. p. 524. On this Hansel 
 supports his opinion. He regards the words yiverOe S0xupor 
 tpateCirat as a saying of Christ, and thinks that this dictum 
 cypagov of the Lord was in the mind of the Apostle Paul, 
 and in consequence of this the expressions in vv. 21, 22 were 
 selected by him, which were usual in the money terms employed 
 by antiquity. So that the sense would be: “ Act as experienced 
 exchangers; everything which is presented to you as good 
 coin, that test ; preserve the good coin (what actually is divine 
 truth), but guard against every false coin (reject all false 
 doctrine).” But evidently only the expression doxyudfere was 
 the occasion for the Fathers uniting the dictum dypadoy of 
 Christ, handed down by tradition, with our passage. Paul, on 
 the contrary, could not have thought of it, even supposing it 
 to have been known to him. For although the verb Soxipma- 
 few would well suit, if otherwise the reference was to the 
 
 1 Baumgarten-Crusius accedes to the interpretation of Hiinsel ; Koch strangely 
 rejects it for ver. 22, but adopts it for ver. 23. 
 
CHAP. V. 22 163 
 
 figure of exchangers, yet in an actual reference to the same 
 the words To Kadov eidos Katéyete, amd S€ TOV ToVvNpOd 
 améxyeoOe would have been written. Lastly, add to this that 
 eioos cannot import in itself a coin, vowicpuatos must be added, 
 or money must have been spoken of in what goes before. 
 Ver. 23. If what the apostle requires in ver. 22 is to be 
 actually realized, God’s assistance must supervene. Accord- 
 ingly, this benediction is fitly added to the preceding. — adtos 
 dé 0 Ocos ths eipyvns] the God of peace Himself; an 
 emphatic contrast to the efforts of man.—o Ocds Ths 
 eipnvns] the God of peace, te. who communicates Christian 
 peace. Neither the connection with ver. 22 nor the contents 
 of the benediction itself will permit us to understand e¢pyjvy 
 of harmony. To refer to eipnvevere, ver. 13, for this meaning 
 is far-fetched. — ororeArs] here only in the N. T. spoken of 
 what is perfect, to which nothing belonging to its nature is 
 wanting. Jerome, ad Hedib. 12, Ambrosiaster, Koppe, Pelt, 
 and others understand oAoTeAeis in an ethical sense, as an 
 accusative of result: “so that ye be entire, that is, pure and 
 blameless.” But it is better, on account of what follows, to 
 take odoTeAe?s as an adverb of quantity, uniting it closely 
 with was, and finding the whole wersonality of the 
 Thessalonians denoted as if the simple @Xovs were written: 
 “in your entire extent, through and through.” —«al odo«Anpov 
 ... TNpHGetn]| a fuller repetition of the wish already expressed. 
 — kai] and indeed. — orOoxdnpos] means, as oroTEANS, perfectly, 
 consisting of all its parts. odoKAnpov refers not only to 76 
 mvevpa, although it is governed by it, as the nearest noun, in 
 respect of its gender, but also to Wvy7 and cauwa. Comp. 
 "Winer, p. 466 [E. T. 661]. The totality of man is here 
 divided into three parts: spirit, soul, and body. See 
 Olshausen, de naturae hum. trichotomia N. T. scriptoribus 
 recepta im s. Opusc. theol., Berol. 1834, p. 143 ff; Messner, 
 die Lehre der Apostel, Leipz. 1856, p. 207. We are not to 
 assume that this trichotomy has a purely rhetorical significa- 
 tion, as elsewhere Paul also definitely distinguishes mwvedpua 
 and wuyy (1 Cor. ii, 14, 15, xv. 44, 46). The twofold 
 division, which elsewhere occurs with Paul (1 Cor. vi. 34; 
 
164 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 2 Cor. vil. 1), is a popular form of representation. The 
 origin of the trichotomy is Platonic; but Paul has it not from 
 the writings of Plato and his scholars, but from the current 
 language of society, into which it had passed from the narrow 
 circle of the schools. — zrvedua denotes the higher and purely 
 spiritual side of the inner life, what is elsewhere called by 
 Paul vods (reason); yvy7 is the lower side, which comes in 
 contact with the region of the senses. The spirit is preserved 
 blameless in its totality at the advent, ze. so that it approves 
 itself blameless at the advent (duéwrtws is a more exact 
 definition of oAdKAnpoy typnOein), when the voice of truth 
 always rules in it; the sowl, when it strives against all the 
 charms of the senses; and, lastly, the body, when it is not 
 abused as the instrument of shameful actions.' 
 
 Ver. 24. Paul knows that he does not implore God in 
 vain. For God is faithful; He keeps what He promises; if 
 He has called the Thessalonians to a participation in His 
 kingdom, He will preserve them pure and faultless even to its 
 commencement. — mvoros] comp. 2 Thess. iii. 3; 1 Cor. i. 9, 
 x. 13. To motos avti tod adnOns, Theodoret.—o Kkadrov 
 buds] not equivalent to 6 xadécas tuads (Koppe and others), 
 but the present participle used as a substantive, and therefore 
 without regard to time: your Caller. See Winer, p. 316 
 [E. T. 444].— ds nal roimjoet] who also will perform it, 
 sc. TO apéuTrTos buas ThpnOhvat. 
 
 Vv. 25-27. Concluding exhortations of the Epistle. 
 
 Ver. 25. Comp. Rom. xv. 30; Eph. vi. 19; Col. iv. 3; 
 2 Thess. iii. 1.—-repi juov] for us, namely, that our apostolic 
 work may be successful. 
 
 Ver. 26. "Aordcacbe tods adedpovs wavtas] That here 
 
 1 According to Schrader, ver. 23 contains an un-Pauline thought, because 
 when Paul distinguishes the ~vx% from the spirit, the latter is considered as 
 something ‘‘divine,” as ‘“‘unutterably good,” as ‘‘ eternally opposed to every 
 perversity.” Paul, accordingly, could not have assumed, ‘‘ besides the soul in 
 man, a mutable spirit which must be preserved from blemish.” But the dis- 
 course is not of the holy Divine Spirit which rules in man, but of a part of 
 man, himself, of the vos; but the vod; may fall into warassrns (Eph. iv. 17), 
 may be adéximos (Rom. i. 28), wesacutvos (Tit. i. 15), xarsPbapmives (2 Tim. 
 ili. 8), cte. 
 
CHAP. V. 27. 165 
 
 individuals’ are exhorted to salute the other members of the 
 church, whilst in the parallel passages, Rom. xvi. 16, 1 Cor. 
 xvi. 20, 2 Cor. xiii, 12, it is dowacacfe addyXovs, is a 
 proof that this Epistle was to be received by the rulers of the 
 church. (So also Phil. iv. 21.) By them it was to be read 
 to the assembled church (ver. 27). Erroneously, because in 
 contradiction with the entire character of the Epistle, Schrader 
 infers from tovs adekgods mavtas that “the writer of the 
 Epistle wished to impart to it a general destination.” — év 
 hirypate ayio] with a holy kiss. Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 20; 
 2 Cor. xiii. 12; Rom. xvi. 16; also 1 Pet. v. 14 (f/Anpe 
 ayatns) ; Constit. ap. ii. 57 (70 év xupio hidnua); Tertullian, 
 de orat. 14 (osculum pacis). The brotherly kiss, the usual 
 salutation of Christians, proceeded from the custom of 
 antiquity, particularly in the East, to unite a salutation with 
 a kiss. But Paul calls it dysov, as a symbol of the holy 
 Christian fellowship. In the Greek church it is still used 
 at Easter. 
 
 Ver. 27. This command has not its reason in any distrust 
 of the rulers of the church; nor, as Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
 and Theophylact think, in the yearning love of the apostle, 
 who, in compensation of his bodily absence, wished this letter 
 read to all; nor, as Hofmann supposes, in the anxiety of the 
 apostle lest they should not properly value a mere epistle 
 which he sent, instead of coming in person to Thessalonica : 
 but simply because Paul regarded the contents of his Epistle 
 of importance for all without exception. How, moreover, 
 Schrader can infer from ver. 27 that the composition of the 
 Epistle belongs to a time when already a clerus presided in 
 the churches, surpasses comprehension. Completely ground- 
 less and untenable is also Baur’s opinion (p. 491), that “the 
 admonition so emphatically given in 1 Thess. v. 27 was 
 written from the opinions of a time which no longer saw in 
 the apostolic Epistles the natural means of spiritual communica- 
 tion, but regarded them as sacred objects, to which due reverence 
 
 1 Contrary to the sense, Hofmann, whom Riggenbach follows, makes the 
 
 whole church, the 2d:agoi xdévres, be addressed in aoxrécucbe; thus the church is 
 to salute itself. 
 
166 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 was to be shown by making their contents known as accurately 
 as possible, particularly by public reading. How could the 
 apostle himself have judged it necessary so solemnly to adjure 
 the churches, to which his Epistles were directed, not to leave 
 them unread? An author could only say this who did not 
 write from the natural pressure of existing circumstances, but 
 in writing placed himself in an imagined situation, and sought 
 to vindicate for his pretended apostolic Epistle the consideration 
 which the apostolic Epistles received in the practice of a later 
 age.” But does the author adjure the church to leave his 
 Epistle not unread 2 What amighty difference is there between 
 such a command and his urgent desire that the contents of 
 the Epistle should be made known to all the members of the 
 church! If the former were objectionable, the latter is 
 natural and unobjectionable. And further, how is it possible 
 that ver. 27 is the reflex of a time in which the apostolic 
 Epistles were valued as sacred objects, and to which due 
 honour must be paid by public reading, since avayvwabjvat is 
 in the aorist, and accordingly a single and exclusive act of 
 reading is referred to! And what a wrong method would the 
 post-apostolic author have employed to secure for his letter 
 the consideration of an apostolic Epistle, when he did not select 
 the infinitive of the present, and did not fail to add raciv! 
 — tov xvptov| Comp. Mark v. 7; Acts xix. 13; LXX. Gen. 
 xxiv. 3. See Matthiae, p.756. On the Greek idiom évopkige, 
 see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 360 ff. — avayvocOjvar] that it be 
 read to (Luke iv. 16; 2 Cor. iii. 15; Col. iv. 16), not that it 
 be read by. Incorrectly also Michaelis, appealing to 2 Thess. 
 ii. 2 (!): there is here intended the recognition of the Epistle 
 as a genuine Pauline Epistle, by means of a conclusion added 
 by his own hand. — ri émictodjv] comp. Rom. xvi. 22; 
 Col. iv. 16.—7aow ois adergots] to the whole of the 
 brethren, sc. in Thessalonica; not also in all Macedonia 
 (Bengel, Flatt); still less also in neighbouring Asia (Grotius), 
 or even the churches of all Christendom (Seb. Schmid). 
 
 Ver. 28. Paul concludes with the usual benediction. — 
 % yapis tod Kupiov nu. “I. Xp.] See Meyer on Gal. i. 6.— 
 ue” tay] se. ein. 
 
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 —— 
 
 INTREODUCTION. 
 
 SEC. 1.—OCCASION, DESIGN, CONTENTS. 
 
 
 
 
 ies) AUL, after having sent away his first Epistle, 
 | B62 received further information concerning the state 
 #43| of the Thessalonian church. The church had 
 actively progressed on the path of Christianity ; 
 their faith had been confirmed ; their brotherly love had gained 
 in extent and intensity; and gait enduring stedfastness ander 
 persecution, which had broken out afresh, had been anew 
 gloriously displayed (i. 3, 4). But along with this the thought 
 of the advent had given rise to new disquietnde and perpen 
 The question concerning this Christian article of faith had 
 advanced another stage. The former anxiety concerning the 
 fate of their Christian friends who were already asleep at the 
 time of the commencement of the advent had disappeared ; on 
 this point the instructions of the apostle had imparted com- 
 plete consolation. But the opinion now prevailed, that the 
 advent of the Lord was immediately at hand, that it might 
 daily, hourly be expected. Accordingly, on the one hand 
 fear and consternation, and on the other hand an impatient 
 and fanatical longing for the instant when by the coming of 
 the Lord the kingdom of God would be completed, had taken 
 possession of their spirits; and it was no wonder that in 
 consequence of this the unsteadiness. and excitement, which 
 at an earlier period had afflicted the church, and its result, 
 the neglect of their worldly business, had increased to an 
 167 
 
168 TIE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 alarming extent. This opinion, that the commencement of 
 the advent was close at hand, had seized upon them the more 
 readily, as men had arisen among them who maintained that 
 they had received divine revelations concerning it, and they 
 had even proceeded so far as to forge an epistle in the name of 
 the apostle, in order by its contents to establish the truth of 
 that doctrine (ii. 2). An appeal was also made to the alleged 
 oral statement of the apostle (11. 2), and it is not inconceivable 
 that even the explanations which the genuine Epistle of the 
 apostle contained concerning the advent may have promoted 
 that view. It is true that there nothing is expressly said 
 concerning the immediateness of the advent, but on the one 
 hand it is described as sudden and unexpected (1 Thess. v. 
 2, 4), and on the other hand it is so characterized as if Paul 
 himself, and his contemporaries, might hope still to survive 
 (1 Thess. iv. 15, 17). - 
 
 Such was the state of matters which gave occasion for the 
 composition of the second Epistle. Its design is threefold. First, 
 The apostle wished—and this is the chief point—to oppose 
 the disturbing and exciting error as if the advent of Christ was 
 even at the door, by further instructions. Secondly, He wished 
 strongly and emphatically to dissuade from that unsettled, dis- 
 orderly, and idle disposition into which the church had fallen. 
 Thirdly, He wished by a laudatory recognition of their progres- 
 sive goodness to encourage them to stedfast perseverance. 
 
 The Epistle is divided, according to its contents, after a 
 salutation (i. 1, 2) and introduction (i. 3-12), into a dogmatic 
 (ii. 1-12) and a hortative portion (ii. 13-111. 15). In the znéro- 
 duction the apostle thanks God for the great increase of the 
 church in faith and love, praises their endurance under fresh 
 persecutions, comforts them with the recompense to be expected 
 at the coming of Christ, and testifies that the progress and com- 
 pletion of the Thessalonians in Christianity was the constant 
 object of his prayer. In the dogmatic portion, for the refuta- 
 tion of the fancy that the day of the Lord already dawns, the 
 apostle directs attention to the historical pre-conditions of its 
 commencement. Christ cannot return until the power of evil, 
 which certainly already begins to develope itself, is consolidated 
 
INTRODUCTION. 169 
 
 and has attained to its maximum by the appearance of Anti- 
 christ. Lastly, In the hortative portion Paul exhorts his readers 
 to hold fast to the Christianity delivered to them (ii. 13-17), 
 claims their prayers for his apostolic work (iii. 1 ff.), earnestly 
 and decidedly warns them against unsteadiness and idleness 
 (iii, 6-15), and then the Epistle is closed with a salutation by 
 his own hand, and a twofold benediction (111. 16-18). 
 
 SEC, 2.—TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION. 
 
 Interpreters and chronologists agree that this so-called 
 Second Epistle was composed shortly after the First, with the 
 exceptions of Grotius, Ewald (Jahrb. d. bibl. Wissenschaft, Gott. 
 1851, p. 250; Die Sendschreiben des Ap. Paulus, Gott. 1857, 
 p. 17; Geschichte des apost. Zeitaiters, Gott. 1858, p. 455; 
 Jahrb. d. bibl. Wiss., Gott. 1860, p. 241), Baur (Theol. Jahrb, 
 Tiib. 1855, 2, p. 165), and Laurent (Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 
 1864, 3, p..497 ff; Meutest. Stud., Gotha 1866, p. 49 ff), 
 who hold that the Second Epistle was the first composed. 
 This view has nothing for it, but much against it. Grotius 
 relies chiefly on the following reason: that in ui. 17 a mark 
 is given by which the genuineness of the Epistles of Paul may 
 be recognised, but such a mark belongs properly to the first 
 Epistle, not to a second; and that ii. 1-12 is to be referred 
 to the Emperor Caius Caligula. But there is not the slightest 
 reason for the reference of ii. 1-12 to Caligula (see on passage), 
 entirely apart from the fact that on such an assumption, as 
 Caligula was already dead in the beginning of the year 41 
 after Christ, the Epistle must have been composed more than 
 ten years before Paul, according to the narrative of the Acts, 
 arrived at Thessalonica! The mark of authenticity in 2 Thess. 
 iii. 17 was not required until, as we learn from ii. 2, attempts 
 had occurred to forge epistles in the name of the apostle. 
 According to Ewald,’ the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians 
 was placed after the First “on account of its brevity.” He 
 
 1 Baur has not entered upon the reasons of his subsequent opinion. He judged 
 differently in his Paulus der Ap. Jesu Christi, p. 488. He only remarks that 
 there is no difficulty (!) in considering those passages in which the Second Epistle 
 
170 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 thinks that it is manifestly a first Epistle written to a church 
 which Paul had shortly before founded. It has indeed been 
 attempted to show that, according to ii. 2, Paul had previously 
 written an epistle to the church; but this might easily have 
 been possible in the number of letters which the apostle had 
 indisputably already then written; on the other hand, how- 
 ever, Paul for the first time directs them in this Epistle to 
 give heed to his actually genuine letters to them as to his 
 living word (ii. 15, iii. 17). Further, with regard to the 
 advent, the error as if it were close at hand—and this, accord- 
 ing to the existing state of matters and of doctrine generally, 
 would be the first error which would have arisen—had then 
 broken out in the church, and which was the chief occasion 
 of this Epistle. The very correction of it might easily have 
 given rise to a second error, that the fate of the many who 
 had died previously was sad, and which the following Epistle 
 corrects (1 Thess. iv. 18 ff). Also it would not at that time 
 have been necessary to send Timotheus to the church, in order 
 to correct the increasing disorders within it; this would only 
 happen in the interval between this and the larger Epistle, 
 which might be about four or six months.’ Lastly, 1 Thess. 
 iv. 10, 11 contains a reference to 2 Thess, iii. 6-11. Accord- 
 ingly Ewald makes the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians to 
 have been composed during the residence of Paul at Berea, 
 succeeding his residence at Thessalonica. 
 
 But that in the smaller compass of the Second Epistle a 
 definite reason is to be sought for its position after the First, 
 is historically completely undemonstrable, and not even 
 probable, because—just as with the Second Epistle to the 
 is regarded as dependent on the First, as marks of an opposite relationship. 
 Laurent in all essentials agrees with Ewald. The peculiarity of his view is so 
 manifestly erroneous, that it does not need a special refutation. 
 
 1 Otherwise Baur. According to him, the larger Epistle was not written shortly 
 after the lesser. On the supposition of the authenticity of the Epistle, taking 
 into consideration the church of Thessalonica scarcely founded, and the Epistle 
 of the apostle written only a few months after its founding, how many xsxen- 
 wivous—already deceased members of the church—could there be? The question 
 as regards the deceased Christians was naturally only then (?) an object of lively 
 
 interest the greater the number of the dead, perhaps after a whole generation 
 had passed away from the midst of Christendom. 
 
INTRODUCTION. ETE 
 
 Corinthians—the internal relation of the lesser Epistle to the 
 greater necessarily required that position. Ewald’s assertion, 
 that our Second Epistle manifestly declares itself to be a first 
 Epistle written by Paul to a church recently founded, is 
 thoroughly erroneous. On the contrary, our Second Epistle 
 undoubtedly and evidently refers back to the First, serves for 
 its completion, and makes known a progress from an earlier 
 condition to one partially more advanced. If the First Epistle 
 describes the eager desire of salvation with which the Thessa- 
 lonians received the publication of the gospel, and dwells in 
 vivid and detailed recollection of the facts of their conversion 
 belonging to the immediate past,—contents which are suitable 
 only for the Epistle composed first according to time; in the 
 Second Epistle, i. 3 ff, mention is made of a blessed progress 
 in their Christian life. If in the First Epistle the prowinity 
 of the advent is presupposed without anticipation of a possible 
 misunderstanding, in the Second Epistle the correction and 
 the further explanation in respect of this truth was necessary, 
 namely, that the advent was not to be expected in the imme- 
 diate present. So also the exhortation to a quiet and industri- 
 ous life, which was already contained in the First Epistle, was . 
 more strongly and categorically expressed in the Second. 
 Add to this, that the words xal judy émicvvaywyis éa 
 avrov, 2 Thess. ii. 1, are apparently to be referred to 1 Thess. 
 iv. 17; whereas to obtain, with Ewald, a reference in 1 Thess. 
 iv. 10, 11, to 2 Thess. 111. 6-16, you must first have recourse 
 to an ungrammatical and in the highest degree unnatural con- 
 struction (see commentary on 1 Thess. iv. 10,p.119): Lastly, 
 over and above, it follows from 11.15 that Paul before our 
 Second Epistle had already sent another letter to the Thessa- 
 lonians ; and thus to maintain that the Second Epistle to the 
 Thessalonians manifestly shows itself as a jirst epistle of Paul 
 to a church recently founded, is in contradiction with the 
 apostle’s own testimony. To explain the epistle to the Thessa- 
 lonians preceding our Second Epistle as not identical with 
 our First Epistle, but as having been lost, would be in the 
 controverted circumstances of the case a mere shift justified 
 by nothing. Moreover, it is not’even correct that the apostle 
 
172 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 in 2 Thess. ii. 15 “ for the first time directed the church to give 
 heed to his genuine letters written to them as to his living 
 word.” For only the exhortation is there given to hold fast the 
 instructions in Christianity, which Paul had already at an earlier 
 period given to his readers both orally and in-an epistle. A 
 direction how to recognise the genuineness of epistles written — 
 at a later period to the Thessalonians only follows from iii. 17. 
 But this notice has in the fact recorded in 2 Thess. ii. 2 its 
 sufficient explanation. Further, as regards the eschatological 
 explanations in both Epistles, the possibility of such a develop- 
 ment as Ewald assumes is not to be denied, but its necessity 
 is by no means to be proved. The actual fact that individual 
 instances of death—for there is no mention “of many dying 
 before the advent ”—had occurred within the church might 
 very well form the point of departure for the eschatological 
 discussions of the apostle; and then to it the refutation of the 
 error, that the advent was in the immediate present, might be 
 added, as the later form of error, especially as the apostle’s 
 own expressions in 1 Thess. v. 2 were so framed that they 
 might have contributed to the origin of that error. Lastly, 
 “increasing disorders” within the church are by no means 
 supposed in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. Timotheus 
 was not sent to Thessalonica “ to correct increasing disorders,” 
 but to exhort the Thessalonians to stedfastness in persecution. 
 Comp. 1 Thess. iii. 1 ff’ But even supposing that the “ correc- 
 tion of increasing disorders” was the reason for the mission 
 of Timotheus, yet nothing can be inferred from this regarding 
 the priority of the one Epistle to the other. For with the 
 same truth with which it might be said it was not yet neces- 
 sary to send Timotheus to the church, it might be affirmed 
 that it was no longer necessary to send him thither. 
 
 The following reasons prove that the Second Epistle was 
 composed not long after the sending away of the First. Silas 
 and Timotheus are still in the company of the apostle (i. 1), 
 but the Acts of the Apostles at least never inform us that 
 after Paul left Corinth (Acts xviii. 18) these two apostolic 
 assistants were again together with him. We find Timotheus 
 again in the apostle’s company, first at Ephesus (Acts xix. 22), 
 
INTRODUCTION. 173 
 
 whilst there is no further mention of Silas in the Acts of the 
 Apostles after his Corinthian residence. Besides, the relations 
 and wants of the church are throughout analogous to those 
 which are presupposed in the First Epistle. The same circle 
 of thought occupies the apostle; similar instructions, similar 
 praises, similar exhortations, warnings, and wishes are found 
 throughout in both Epistles. It is accordingly to be assumed 
 that also the Second Epistle was composed during the first 
 residence of the apostle at Corinth, but, according to iii. 2, at a 
 time when he had already suffered hostility on the part of the 
 Jews, and, according toi. 4 (rais éxxAnolats, comp. 1 Cor. 
 i. 2;* 2 Cor. ii. 1; Rom. xvi. 1), when branch churches had 
 already been founded from Corinth—probably at the com- 
 mencement of the year 54. 
 
 SEC. 3.—-GENUINENESS., 
 
 With respect to the caternal attestation of Christian 
 antiquity, the authenticity of the Epistle is completely un- 
 assailable. Polyc. ad Phil. 11 fin. ; Just. Mart. dial. ¢. Tryph. 
 Col. 1686, p. 336 E, p. 250 A; Iren. adv. Haer. iii. 7. 2; 
 Clem. Alex. Strom. v. p. 554, ed. Sylb.; Tertull. de resurr. 
 carn. @. xxiv.; Can. Murat., Peschito, Marcion, ete. Doubts 
 from internal grounds did not arise until the beginning of the 
 nineteenth century. The first who objected to the Epistle 
 was Christian Schmidt. In his Bibliothek f. Kritik und 
 Hxegese des N. T., Hadamar 1801, vol. Il. p. 380 ff, he con- 
 tests the genuineness of 2 Thess. ii. 1-12, and then in his 
 Einlett ws N. T., Giess. 1804, Part 2, p. 256 f., he proceeds 
 
 1 The words ody raow rois txinarovmtvos x.7.a., 1 Cor. i. 2, I take as a continua- 
 tion of the address of the Epistle, airay rz xa) 4uay as dependent on ty ravz} rérw, 
 and éy ravrl corw as closely connected with cod xupiou yuav "Incod Xp., “Jesus 
 Christ who is our (sc. Christians’) Lord in every place, both in theirs and 
 ours.” Only with this explanation—which is in itself so simple and unforced 
 that it is marvellous that it is not to be found in any interpretation—the 
 addition, otherwise entirely inexplicable, ty ravri riarw, abray +2 xual nay, receives 
 its full import and propriety, whilst the words obtain a suitable reference to the 
 Corinthian factions, by means of which Christ, who is everywhere the only and 
 the same Lord of Christianity, is divided ; comp. 1 Cor. i. 13. 
 
174 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 to call in question the authenticity of the whole Epistle. De 
 Wette, in the earlier editions of his Introduction to the New 
 Testament, assented to the adduced objections; but latterly, 
 in the first edition of his Commentary to the Thessalonian 
 Epistles, in the year 1841, and in the fourth edition of his 
 Introduction to the New Testament (1842), he withdrew them. 
 See against these objections, Heydenreich in the Neuen krit. 
 Journal der theol. Literatur, by Winer and Engelhardt, Sulzb. 
 1828, vol. viii. p. 129 ff.; Guerike, Beitr. zur historisch 
 krit. Einl. in’s N. T., Halle 1828, p. 92 ff.; Hemsen, der 
 Ap. Paulus, Gott. 1830, p. 175 ff.; and especially Reiche, 
 authentiae posterioris ad Thess. epistolae vindiciae, Gott. 1829. 
 The following reasons are chiefly insisted on:—1. The 
 Second Epistle contradicts the First, inasmuch as it disputes 
 the opinion of the nearness of the advent which is presup- 
 posed in the First Epistle. But the Second Epistle does not 
 dispute that opinion—it rather presupposes it,—whilst only 
 the view of the directly immediate nearness of the advent is 
 contested as erroneous. 2. When the author lays down, in 
 iii. 17, a mark of authenticity for the Pauline Epistles in 
 general, which yet is found neither in the First Epistle to 
 the Thessalonians nor elsewhere, he seems thereby to wish to 
 cast suspicions on the First Epistle as un-Pauline. But it is 
 entirely a mistake to find in iii. 17 a mark which Paul would 
 affix to all his Epistles generally; the meaning of these words 
 can only be, that in all those epistles which he would after- 
 wards write to the Thessalonians he would add a salutation by 
 his own hand as an attestation of genuineness. 3. The doc- 
 trine of Antichrist, ii. 3 ff, is un-Pauline; it points to a 
 Montanist as the author. But this idea is by no means 
 peculiar to the Montanists. It has its root already in Jewish 
 Christology (see Bertholdt, christologia Judacorum Jesu aposto- 
 lorumque aetate, p. 69 ff.; Gesenius in Ersch and Gruber’s 
 allg. Encyclop. vol. iv. p. 292 ff.), and is elsewhere not foreign 
 to the N. T.; comp. 1 John ii. 18, 22, iv. 3; 2 John 7; Rev. 
 xii, 13. Accordingly we are not entitled, because this view 
 does not occur elsewhere with Paul, to maintain that it is 
 un-Pauline, the less so as it neither contradicts the other 
 
INTRODUCTION. 175 
 
 statements of the apostle concerning the advent, nor did an 
 occasion occur to Paul in his other Epistles, as in this, to 
 describe it more minutely. 4. The Epistle is defective in 
 peculiar historical references. But, according to sections 1, 2, 
 the state of matters which the Second Epistle supposes was 
 throughout a more developed state, and consequently, of course, 
 a peculiar one. oO. The author carefully seeks to represent 
 himself as the Apostle Paul. But the personal references 
 which are contained in the Second Epistle do not make this 
 impression, as they are analogous to those in the First Epistle, 
 and the words, ii. 2, 15, iii. 17, are fully explained by the 
 actual abuse which occurred of the apostle’s name. 
 
 In more recent times the authenticity of the Epistle has 
 again been disputed, first by Schrader in scattered remarks 
 in his paraphrase to the Epistle (see the exposition), then by 
 Kern in the Ziibing. Zeitschr. f. Theol. 1829, Part 2, p. 145 ff. ; 
 further, by Baur in his Paulus der Ap. Jesu. Christi, Stuttg. 
 1845, p. 480 ff., and in his and Zeller’s Theol. Jahrbiicher, 
 1855, Part 2, p. 141 ff.; likewise by Hilgenfeld in his Zéschr. 
 fur wiss. Theol. 5th year, Halle 1862, p. 242 ff; and lastly, 
 by W. C. van Manen, Onderzock naar de echtherd van Paulus’ 
 tweeden brief aan de Thessalonicensen (De echtheid van Paulus’ 
 brieven aan de Thess, onderzocht, I1.), Utrecht 1865, whose 
 chief argument, however, that the opinion contested in 2 Thess. 
 i. 2, namely, that the advent was to be expected im the wm- 
 mediate present, was the opinion of the Apostle Paul himself, 
 evidently rests on an error.’ Against Kern, see Pelt in the 
 Theolog. Mitarbeiten, 4th year, Kiel 1841, Part 2, p. 74 ff; 
 against Baur, in the place first mentioned, see Wilibald Grimm 
 in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1850, Part 4, p. 780 ff.; J. P. 
 Lange, das apost. Zeital. vol. 1., Braunschw. 1853, p. 111 ff. 
 
 The reasons on which Kern relies are the following :— 
 
 1. From the section 2 Thess. ii, 1-12 it follows that the 
 
 1 Also Weiss (Philosophische Dogmatik oder Philosophie des Christenthums, 
 vol. I., Leipz. 1855, p. 146) has declared that the Second Epistle to the Thes- 
 salonians, with perhaps the exception of the conclusion, is throughout “‘un- 
 apostolic in its verbal construction,” without, however, entering into a justifica- 
 tion of this judgment. 
 
176 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS., 
 
 Epistle could not have been composed until after the death of 
 Paul. For even if it be not granted, what yet is most pro- 
 bable, that Paul perished in the Neronian persecution, during 
 the imprisonment recorded in the Acts, in the year 64,—even 
 if a second Roman imprisonment be maintained,—yet all the 
 traditions of antiquity agree on this point, that Paul suffered 
 martyrdom under Nero (p. 207). But the author of the 
 Epistle makes his announcement of Antichrist and its adjuncts 
 from the state of the world as it was immediately after the 
 overthrow of Nero, when Nero was believed to be still alive, 
 and a speedy return of him to the throne was expected, and 
 that from the East, or more precisely from Jerusalem (Tacit. 
 Hist. ii. 8 ; Sueton. Nero, c. 57, compared with c. 40). The 
 Antichrist whose appearance is described as impending, is 
 Nero ; that which withholdeth him are the existing cireum- 
 stances of the world; the withholder is Vespasian with his son 
 Titus, who then besieged Jerusalem; and what is said of the 
 apostasy is a reflection of the horrid wickedness which broke 
 out among the Jewish people in their war against the Romans 
 (p. 200). Accordingly the Epistle could not have been com- 
 posed about the year 53 or 54, but only between the years 
 68-70 (p. 270). Moreover, Kern thinks that “the Epistle 
 might be called Pauline in the wider sense ”—that a Paulinist 
 was its author. For in general the Epistle agrees with the 
 Pauline mode of thought. A Paulinist, affected with a view of 
 the present, that is, of the circumstances of the times between 
 the years 68—70, saw in spirit the apocalyptic picture which 
 he describes in ii, 1-12. In order to impart it to his Chris- 
 tian brethren, he has drawn it up in a letter to which he has 
 civen the form of a Pauline Epistle. As the already existing 
 Epistle to the Thessalonians was of such a nature that to 
 carry out that purpose a second could be attached to it, the 
 author of the second Epistle has presupposed the first. He 
 has surrounded his apocalyptic picture, ii. 1-12, the proper 
 germ of the whole, with a border which -he has formed from 
 what he has sketched from the genuine Pauline Epistle, so 
 that he has made the first part serve as an introduction to the 
 section chiefly intended by him (ii, 1-12), and the second 
 
INTRODUCTION. CCE 
 
 part as a continuation of his thoughts passing over into the 
 hortative (ii. p. 214). 
 
 This view of Kern, which is certainly carried out with 
 acuteness, falls into pieces of itself, as it proceeds on an entirely 
 mistaken interpretation of 11, 1-12. It is entirely erroneous 
 to seek the Antichrist, who belongs to the purely religious 
 sphere, in the political—among the number of the Roman 
 emperors. Accordingly ii. 1-12 contains nothing which in 
 any way transcended the circle of the Apostle Paul’s vision 
 (see the interpretation). 
 
 The additional arguments, which Kern insists on as marks 
 of the spuriousness of the Epistle, are sought by him only 
 in consequence of the result which to him followed from the 
 passage ii. 1-12; they would even to himself, were it not for 
 that first argument, have been of hardly any weight. They 
 are the following :— 
 
 2. The suspicion resulting from 2 Thess, iii. 17, as if by 
 the addition of 6 éote onpetov a safer reception was designed 
 to be procured for the spurious Epistle, arises from the fact 
 that Paul could not possibly have appealed to racav émictonjy, 
 especially if we consider the Second Epistle to the Thessa- 
 lonians as one of the earliest of his Epistles. But we have 
 already adverted to the correct meaning of é€v taon émuoTtonh, 
 and the addition 6 éote onpetoy is, moreover, sufficiently 
 occasioned by the notice in il. 2, which Kern, without right, 
 denies, understanding the éiotody ws 80’ nuar, ii, 2, entirely 
 arbitrarily, not of a forged epistle, but of the First Epistle of 
 Paul to the Thessalonians, which was only falsely interpreted. 
 
 3. The Second Epistle betrays an intentional imitation of 
 the First. The whole first chapter of the Second Epistle rests 
 on the groundwork of the First Epistle; its beginning corre- 
 sponds to the beginning of the First Epistle; what is said 
 concerning the @AApis for the sake of the gospel, has many 
 parallels in 1 Thess. ii. and ii1.; ver. 6 ff entirely depends on 
 1 Thess. iv. 13 ff. (); lastly, vv. 11, 12 are similar to 1 Thess. 
 li. 12 f., v. 23 ff. Also what follows the section 1. 1-12 
 (which is peculiar to the Second Epistle) is also dependent on 
 the First Epistle. Thus ii. 13-17 is dependent on 1 Thess. 
 
 Mryrr—2 THEss, M 
 
178 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 i. 4, 5, iii 11 ff The address: aderpoi myamnpuévor td 
 xupiov, ver. 13, is borrowed from 1 Thess, i. 4. Further, 
 2 Thess. iii. 1, 2 is an extension of 1 Thess. v. 25, but where 
 in ver. 2 an additional clause is added, which neither as 
 regards iva pucO@pev x.7.r., nor as regards ob yap TdavTwev 7 
 miotis, can properly be explained from the condition which 
 Paul was supposed at that time to be in, when he was thought 
 to have written the second Epistle soon after the first (!). 
 Vv. 3-5 point back to 1 Thess. v. 24, ii. 11-13; vv. 6-12 
 rest entirely on 1 Thess. in 6-12, iv. 11, 12, v.14; and 
 ver. 16 is borrowed from 1 Thess. v. 23. However, on a more 
 exact examination, a great diversity will be seen in many of 
 those compared passages ; and the resemblance and similarity 
 remaining—which, moreover, is not greater than that between 
 the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians, and between 
 many passages in the Epistles to the Galatians and the 
 Romans—has its complete explanation in the analogous cir- 
 cumstances of the church which occasioned both Epistles, and 
 in the short interval which intervened between their com- 
 position. 
 
 4, Lastly, much that is un-Pauline is seen in the Epistle. 
 To this belongs evyapioteiv ope’ oper, 1. 3, which is repeated 
 in ii, 13, and in the first passage, moreover, is the more 
 prominently brought forward by xaOws a&wy éotw; whilst 
 Paul elsewhere, out of the fulness of his Christian conscious- 
 ness, simply says: “we thank God.” Directly following 
 it imepavEdver % wiotis buadv is surprising, which does not 
 rightly agree with 1 Thess. iii. 10 (kataptica: ta borepypata 
 THs wioTews); and évds Exdotov TavTwy tuov, which agrees 
 not with what they are reminded of in the second Epistle 
 itself (iii. 11) (!). Ver. 6 reminds us not so much of Paul as 
 of Rev. vi. 9, 10. In ver. 10 the expression émuctevOn TO 
 paptupiov nav ep’ vuas is un-Pauline; in ver. 11 the phrase 
 maca evdokia ayaactrns, and still more épyov rictews, is 
 remarkable. In the section ii. 1-12, cal sa todro, which 
 never elsewhere occurs, is placed instead of dva todo, else- 
 where constantly used by Paul. In the same section, ver. 8, 
 éevupdvera THs mapovolas, and ver. 10, déyecOau Thy wydrnv 
 
INTRODUCTION. 179 
 
 Ths aAnOelas, instead of the simple SéyecPas Tov Aoyor, tiv 
 dAnOevav, are peculiar. The idea of election is entirely 
 Pauline, but it is never (?) otherwise expressed than by 
 éxroyy, éxréyerOas; but in ii, 13 aipeZo@ax is found for it. 
 In chap. iii. 18, caXozovety, not found elsewhere in the N. T., 
 is a transformation of the Pauline 76 xadov troeiv, Gal. vi. 9. 
 Lastly, the addition dua rijs émvoto js, in ver. 14, is remark- 
 able, as it purposely directs attention to the present Epistle. 
 —But these expressions partly have their analogies elsewhere 
 with Paul, partly they belong to those peculiarities which are 
 found in every Pauline Epistle blended with the general 
 fundamental type of Pauline diction, which this Epistle also 
 possesses ; and lastly, partly they are deviations so unim- 
 portant, that the reproach of being un-Pauline can in no 
 way be proved by them. 
 
 Further, as regards Baur’s objections to this Epistle, these, 
 in the first-mentioned place (Apostel Paulus), consist essen- 
 tially only in a repetition of those already made by Kern. 
 Only the assertion (p. 487) is peculiar to him, that the 
 representation of Antichrist given in 2 Thess. ii. directly con- 
 flicts with the expectation of the apostle in 1 Cor. xv. For in 
 1 Cor. xv. 52 the apostle supposes that he himself will be 
 alive at the advent, and will be changed with the living. In 
 2 Thess. ii., on the contrary, it is attempted by means of a 
 certain theory to give the reason why the advent cannot so 
 soon take place. Christ, according to that passage, cannot 
 appear until Antichrist has come, and Antichrist cannot come 
 so long as that continued which must precede the commence- 
 ment of the last epoch. How far is one thereby removed, not 
 only beyond the standpoint, but also beyond the time of the 
 apostle ! 
 
 The wantonness and superficiality of such an opinion is 
 evident. Even évéatnxev (ii. 2) suffices to show its worthless- 
 ness. For that by means of this expression “the day of the 
 Lord is only removed from the most immediate present, but 
 by no means from being near at hand; and that accordingly 
 he also could have thus expressed himself who expected the 
 day of the Lord as near, as very near, only not precisely as in 
 
180 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE TIIESSALONIANS. 
 
 the present,” Baur, already from the treatise of Kern (p. 151), 
 which he indeed elsewhere so carefully follows, might have 
 learned. Indeed, it inevitably follows from the emphatic posi- 
 tion of évéornxev, that not only also he, but rather only he, who 
 considered the advent as near could thus express himself as to 
 how it should take place. If the author had wished to refute 
 the error that the day of the Lord has dawned, whereas he 
 himself considered the circumstances preceding it, instead of 
 occurring in a short space of time and rapidly succeeding one 
 another, only developing themselves in long periods, he would 
 not have put the chief stress of the sentence on évéornxev, and 
 would have required to have written @s 67 1) t)uépa Tov 
 Kuplov évéotnxev instead of ws Oru évéotnxev % Huepa Tod 
 xuplov. And, only to mention one other particular, might not 
 one with the same argument of Baur call in question the 
 authenticity of the Lpistle to the Romans? For, according to 
 the Romans, the return of Christ was not to be expected until 
 the completion of the kingdom of God, until all Israel will be 
 converted (Rom. xi. 26); but all Israel cannot be converted 
 until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in (Rom. xi. 25). 
 “ How far is one thereby removed, not only from the stand- 
 point, but also from the time of the apostle!” 
 
 Moreover, whilst Baur in the first-mentioned place (Apostel 
 Paulus, p. 485), differing from Kern, had assumed that the 
 representation of Antichrist given in 2 Thess. ii. rested entirely 
 on Jewish ground, and contained only a repetition of the 
 thoughts which were already expressed in their chief points, 
 particularly according to the type of the prophecies of Daniel, 
 and that accordingly the author moved only in the sphere of 
 Jewish eschatology, and that even the Apostle Paul might have 
 shared these views; in the last-mentioned place (Baur and 
 Zeller’s Tiib. Jahrbiich. p. 151 ff.) he maintains, in agreement 
 with Kern, that in the section 2 Thess. ii. a representation of 
 Antichrist occurs as could only have been formed on the soil 
 of Christian ideas, and also on the ground of events which 
 belong to.a later period than that of the Apostle Paul. 
 According to Baur’s subsequent opinion, the author borrowed 
 the colours for his picture of Antichrist from the Apocalypse, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 181 
 
 and accordingly has imparted to the image of Antichrist 
 features which are evidently borrowed from the history and 
 person of Nero. But to think on the dependence of the 
 author on the Apocalypse is so much the more erroneous, as 
 the description in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, 
 compared with that in the Apocalypse, is one very simply and 
 slightly developed. The Apocalypse, therefore, can only have 
 been written at a period later than the Second Epistle to the 
 Thessalonians. So also Baur’s argument from 2 Thess, 1. 2 
 is destitute of any foundation. For it is manifestly an exe- 
 eetical impossibility to find, with Baur, in the expression eds 
 TO pa) TAXEwS candevOjvat an indication “of an historical cir- 
 cumstance,” such as that which most naturally presents itself, 
 the “ pseudo-Nero disturbances” mentioned by Tacitus, Hist. 
 u. 8. For the author himself expressly tells us, by the three 
 clauses commencing with pajze, by what this carevOfvar and 
 @poctc Gar of the readers was historically occasioned. There- 
 fore no place remains in the context for such a historical 
 reason of cadevOjvac and OpoeicPar as Baur demands. 
 
 Lastly, Hilgenfeld removes the origin of the Epistle still 
 farther than Kern and Baur. According to Hilgenfeld—who, 
 however, holds fast to the genuineness of the First Epistle— 
 it was not composed until the time of Trajan. The Epistle 
 is a clear monument of the progress of the primitive Christian 
 eschatology at the beginning of the second century. But his 
 reasons for this view are extremely weak. Exactly taken, 
 they are only the following :—(1) The first rise of the Gnostic 
 heresies falls to the time of Trajan; (2) The continued perse- 
 cution mentioned in 2 Thess. i. 4 ff. suits the time of Trajan ; 
 (3) Also to this time the prophetical announcement in 2 Thess. 
 i. 2, that the day of the Lord had already commenced, agrees. 
 But the opinion, that by the already working mystery of 
 iniquity, 2 Thess. il. 7, the rise of the Gnostic heresies is 
 meant, is entirely untenable, as it has elsewhere no support 
 in the Epistle ; it is as arbitrary as is the further assertion 
 of Hilgenfeld, that the expression: 6 advOpwrros Tis dpuaptias, 
 2 Thess. 1. 3, refers back to the blood-stained life of the 
 matricide Nero, as Antichrist who had already existed. The 
 
182 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 two additional arguments can only lay claim to respect, pro- 
 vided the new outbreak of persecution presupposed in chap. i, 
 and the opinion discussed in chap. ii. 2, that the advent was 
 in the immediate present, were not sufficiently explicable from 
 the natural development of the historical situation of the 
 First Epistle, or provided it could otherwise have been proved 
 that Paul could not be the author of the Epistle. But neither 
 of these is the case. Also the notion, preserved to us in 
 Hippolytus, refut. omin. haeres. ix. 13, p. 292, ix. 16, p. 296, 
 that the Elxai-book, in the third year of Trajan, proclaimed 
 the eschatological catastrophe as occurring after other three 
 years of this emperor, is, in reference to @s éTe évéotnKev 7) 
 hepa Tod Kuplov, 2 Thess, ii, 2, wholly without value. 
 
CHAP. I. L33 
 
 IIavnov mpos Occoanovixels eristoAy Sevtépa. 
 
 ABKxS, Copt. 80, 87 have only: Mpis Ozocuroune?s 8’. The 
 simplest and apparently oldest title. 
 
 CA PTE. 1. 
 
 Ver. 2. Elz. has zarpis juav. But 7uév is wanting in B D E, 
 17, 49, 71, al, Clar. Germ. Theophyl. Ambrosiast. ed. Pel. 
 Bracketed by Lachm. Rightly erased by Tischendorf and Alford. 
 An addition from the usual epistolary commencements of the 
 apostle. — Ver. 4. xavyéol«s:] So Elz. Griesb. Matt. and Scholz, 
 after D E K L, min. vers. But in the diversity of testimonies 
 (F G have zavyjouctus), éynavyeodaus, after A B®, 17 al., received 
 by Lachm. Tisch. 1, 2, and Alford (in the 7th ed. Tisch. writes 
 zvnauxcéoas), merits the preference as the best accredited and 
 the rarer form.— Ver. 8. Instead of the, Receptus supi proyés 
 (approved by Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Alford, and Reiche), 
 Scholz, Lachm. and Tisch. 1 read gaoy? zupés. For the latter 
 overwhelming authorities decide (B D* E F G, 71, Syr. utr. 
 Copt. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. It. Sen. ap. Iren. Macar. Theodoret 
 [in comm.], Theophyl. [in comm.] Oec. Tert. Aug. Pel.). —’Iyooi] 
 Elz. Matth. Scholz read *Ijood Xpioret. Against B D E K L, 
 min. plur. Copt. Aeth. Syr. p. Ar. pol. Theodoret, Damase. 
 Theophyl. Oec. Xporod is impugned by Griesb., bracketed 
 by Lachm., and rejected by Tischendorf and Alford. — Ver. 9. 
 Instead of the Receptus or¢bpov, Lachm., after A, 17, 73, al., 
 Slav. ms. Chrys. ms. Ephr. Tert., reads éaédpiov. But éaédpsov is 
 simply an error of the scribe, occasioned by the following aiuvov. 
 — rod of the Receptus before xupiov is wanting in D E F G, 
 3, 39, al., Chrys. (@m textu) Theoph. It was absorbed in the 
 last syllable of spoodicrov.— Ver. 10. evdavunod%jves, found in 
 D* E* F G, instead of the Receptus bavpwaodyjvas, is an error of the 
 scribe, occasioned by the two preceding and the following év.— 
 miorevouc| Elz. reads sioredovow, against A BD EF Ger. Lx, 31, 
 al., plur, edd. Syr. p. Slav. Vulg. It. Sen. ap. Iren. Ephr. Chrys. 
 
184 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 Theodoret, Damasc. Theoph. Oec. Ambrosiast. Pel. — Ver. 12. 
 rou xupiov ya Incod] Elz. Matth. have rod xupiou judy Inood Xpiorod. 
 But Xporod is wanting in B D EK LR, 37, al., plur. Copt. 
 Sahid. Aeth. Clar. Germ. Theodoret, ms. Oec. Doubted by 
 
 Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., and rightly erased by Tisch. and 
 Alford. 
 
 Vv. 1, 2. Address and salutation. See on 1 Thess. i. 1.— 
 amo Ocod matpos xal xupiov I. Xp.] from God the Father 
 and from the Lord Jesus Christ ; not: from God who is the 
 Father and Lord of Jesus Christ. For, according to the 
 Pauline custom, the fulness of Christian blessings is derived 
 in common from God and Christ. The absolute 7atpos (comp. 
 Gal. i. 3; 1 Tim. i. 2; 2 Tim. i 2; Tit. 1. 4) is equivalent to 
 maTpos Huov, more frequently used elsewhere in similar places ; 
 comp: Rom. i. 7; 1 Cor. i. 3; 2 Cor.i.2; Eph. 1.25 Phi 
 Col. i. 2; Philem. 3. 
 
 Vy. 3-12. Introduction of the Epistle. Commendatory 
 recognition of the progress of the church in faith and love, 
 as well as in the stedfastness which proved itself anew under 
 persecution (vv. 5, 4), a comforting and encouraging reference 
 to the recompense commencing at the advent of Christ 
 (vy. 5-10), and an assurance that the progress and com- 
 pletion of the Thessalonians in Christianity was continually 
 the subject of the apostle’s prayer (vv. 11, 12). 
 
 Ver. 3. "Odeirouev] namely, I Paul, together with Silvanus 
 and Timotheus. — cabs a&iov éotw] as it is meet, as it is 
 right and proper, is usually considered as a mere parenthesis, 
 resuming oge/Aowev, so that dru is considered in the sense of 
 that dependent on evyapiorety. However, as the discourse 
 afterwards follows quickly on 671, so ca@ws avy éorw would 
 sink into a mere entirely meaningless interjection and paren- 
 thesis; but as such, on account of the preceding odeiAoper, it 
 would be aimless and superfluous. In direct contrast to this 
 view, Schott places the chief emphasis on caOas akwv éotuy, 
 which he rightly refers back to evyapioteiv instead of to 
 odeiAouev. According to Schott, cafws is designed to denote 
 “modum eximium, quo animus gratus declarari debeat,” and 
 the thought to be expressed is “ oportet nos deo gratias agere, 
 
CHAP. I. 3 185 
 
 quales conveniant praestantiae beneficii, i. e. eximias.”' But 
 neither can this interpretation be the correct one. For (1) 
 Kalas is never used as a statement of gradation; (2) it is 
 hardly conceivable that Paul should have concentrated the 
 emphasis of the sentence on xa@as a&ov éotw. If he had 
 wished to do so, he would at least have written Evyapictety 
 opetAopev TO Oc@ wept dtuov, Kabws akiov éotiv, but would 
 not have inserted zravtote and déedgol. Taking this insertion 
 into consideration, we are obliged to decide that after adedgor 
 a certain pause in the discourse commences, so that Evyapio- 
 tely ... adedgot is placed first as an independent general 
 expression, to which xaos d&ov éotw is added as a connect- 
 ing clause, for the explanation and development of the pre- 
 ceding by what follows. But from this it follows that érz 
 belongs not to evyapioteiv, but to Kabos aéov éotiv, and 
 denotes not that, but because. The meaning is: We ought to 
 thank God always on your behalf, as it (sc. the edyapuoreiy) 
 is right and proper, because, etc. As by this interpretation 
 Kalas a&ov éotw is neither unduly brought forward nor 
 unduly placed in the shade, so also every appearance of 
 pleonasm vanishes. For ddeiAopev expresses the duty of 
 thanksgiving from its subjective side, as an internal conviction; 
 kabws a&iov éotwv, on the other hand, from the objective side, 
 as something answering to the state of circumstances, since it 
 is meet, since it is fit and proper, to give thanks to God for 
 the divine proof of His grace. — vmepavEave:] grows above 
 measure, exceedingly. The compound verb is an déra€ Xeryo- 
 Hevov in the N. T. But Paul loves such intensifying com- 
 pounds with iwép. They are an involuntary expression of his 
 overflowing feelings. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 351. 
 Olshausen certainly represents it otherwise. He finds in the 
 compound verb a forbearing allusion to the fact that the Thessa- 
 lonians were guilty of extravagance in their religious zeal,—an 
 
 
 
 1 Comp. already Ambrosiaster : ut non qualecumque esse debitum ostenderet, 
 sicut dignum est, ait, ut pro tam infinito dono magnas gratias referendas deo 
 testarentur.—Oecumenius : 4, O71 Quoi dixassy tors, vonoss’ 4 To wsydaws kaxoversiy, 
 ta 4 wsydrws xabos dev ro wseydra wrapioves.—Theophylact : 7 ors xai dice Adywy 
 al OV Epywr aicn yap n akia sdyaporia, Comp. also Erasmus’ paraphrase, and 
 Fromond. 
 
186 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 allusion which, as at all events it would contain a certain degree 
 of irony, it is impossible to assume ere, where Paul speaks of 
 the reasons of his thanksgiving to God. Such an interpretation 
 is not ingenious, as Baumgarten-Crusius judges, but meaning- 
 less. — év0s Exdo tov TavTe@v dyer] instead of the simple ipar, 
 emphatically strengthens the praise bestowed. Fromond.: non 
 tam totius ecclesiastici corporis, sed uniuscujusque membri, 
 quod mirum est et rarissimae laudis. But Hofmann, in a 
 strangely erroneous manner, thinks that qwavrwv tov does 
 not depend on évds éxdotov, but is in apposition to it. — eis 
 GXXjrovs] does not belong to wAeovdter, It is the further 
 oljective specification of ayain, as évds Ex. avr. Du. is the subjec- 
 tive. aAdjdovs denotes the fellow-Christians in Thessalonica. 
 Therefore erroneously, Pelt: Nec vero sine causa Paulus tam 
 multus est in commendanda eorum caritate in omnes effusa ; 
 quum enim sciret, quam facile tum temporis accideret, ut Chris- 
 tiani se invicem diligerent, exteros vero aspernarentur, hac potissi- 
 mum laude ad omnium hominum amorem eos excitare studuit.’ 
 
 Ver. 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, — @arte] refers back to brepavEaves . . . dAAHAOVS. — 
 judas adtovs] 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 judas adtovs (we 
 ourselves) instead of avdrovds yas (even we)” It is therefore 
 more correct to see in ds avrovs, 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 1 Thess. i. 8 
 
 1 So also arbitrarily Schrader: from the limitation of love to Christians is to 
 
 be inferred an abhorrence of Gentiles, 
 * The latter, however, is actually found in B 8 and some min. 
 
CHAP, L 4, 187 
 
 (de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius) is not to be assumed. Schott 
 erroneously attempts to justify the emphasis on yas adtous, 
 by understanding the same of Paul only in contrast to Sil- 
 vanus and Timotheus, the subjects along with Paul of the 
 verb ddeiNopev, ver. 3; for to maintain such a change of sub- 
 ject between ver. 3 and ver. 4 is impossible. Equally incorrect 
 is also the notion of Hofmann, that adtovs added to Apas 
 denotes “of ourselves” “unprompted.” For it is absurd to 
 attempt to deny that 7udas adrovs must at all events contain 
 a contrast to others,—év duly éyeavyac0ar| boast of you. 
 év vty is a preliminary object to éycavyaoGar, which is then 
 more completely unfolded in wrép tis trropovis K.7.A. — év 
 Tats éxkAnoiats Tov Oeod] 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 (ver. 4), the 
 latter is here left entirely unmentioned, whilst the first is named 
 in its special operation as Christian stedfastness under perse- 
 cution. — trép Tis tropovis tuav Kal wiotews] is not, with 
 Grotius, Pelt, and others, to be understood as a év dca dvoty, in 
 the sense of iép THs bropovas tuov év mliote, or UTEP THS 
 TloTEewsS Uuov Utropevovens, Nor is stedfastness, as Calvin, 
 Hemming, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bouman, Chartae 
 theol. Lib. I. p. 83 ff," Alford, and others think, particularly 
 brought forward by the wiéorus mentioned in ver. 3; and then, 
 in addition, ictus is once more insisted on as the foundation 
 on which dérouom) rests, which would indeed be a strange 
 proceeding, and would greatly interfere with the clearness of 
 thought. But wiotis is here used in a different sense from 
 that in ver. 3. Whilst wiotis in ver. 3 denoted faith in 
 
 1 But Bouman ultimately adds (p. 85): ‘‘Cujus (sc. dicti Paulini) intacta 
 vulgari utriusque substantivi significatione, explicandialia etiam in promptu est, 
 ab illa, quam memoravimus, paullo diversa via ac ratio. Etenim optimis qui- 
 busque scriptoribus non raro placuisse novimus, ut a singularibus ad generaliora 
 nuncupanda progrederentur. Quidniigitur primum singularem sxopovrs con- 
 stantiae, virtutem celebrare potuit apostolus, atque hine ad universae vitae 
 Christianae moderatricem jidem, Domino habitam, praedicandam gressum facere ? 
 But also against this the non-repetition of the article before ricr:ws decides. 
 
188 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 Christ, the expression here, as the article ts only placed 
 once proves, is of a similar nature with taopov7y; whilst the 
 reference to Christ as the object of faith steps into the back- 
 eround, and the idea of “faith” is transformed into the idea 
 of “ fidelity.” This rendering is the less objectionable as Paul 
 elsewhere undoubtedly uses miotis in the sense of fidelity 
 (comp. Gal. v. 22; Rom. ii. 3; Tit. ii. 10; comp. also the 
 adjective words, 1 Thess. v. 24; 2 Thess. iii. 3; 1 Cor. i. 9, 
 x. 13; 2 Cor. i. 18; 2 Tim. ii. 13); and, besides, the notion 
 of fidelity in this passage implies the more general notion of 
 faith in Christ ; miotis here denoting nothing else than faith in 
 Christ standing in a special and concrete relation, i.e. proving 
 itself under persecutions and trials. — dow] belongs only to 
 duwypois bua@y. This is shown by the article repeated before 
 Ortpeowv, and by the additional clause ais dvéyeoOe, which is 
 parallel with tudv.—Clearer distinctions between d:oyyot 
 and Odes (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 duwypolis speciale nomen, OrApers generalius 
 (Zanchius).— ais dvéyecOe] an attraction for dv davéiyerGe 
 (so, correctly, also Buttmann, Gramm. des neutest. Sprachgebr. 
 p. 140 [E. T. 161])—not, as Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, 
 and Hofmann maintain, instead of as avéyer@ar; for avéyouar 
 always governs the genitive in the N. T., never the accu- 
 sative; comp. Matt. xvii. 17; Mark ix. 19; Luke ix. 41; 
 Acts xviii. 14542 <Cor. x1, 195 ‘Eph. “av. °2; Col aie ae 
 2 Tim. iv. 3; Heb. xiii. 22. Fritzsche’s opinion (on 2 Cor. 
 diss. II. p. 58 ff.), that there is no attraction at all, and that 
 avéexec@at is here (as in Eurip. Androm. 981, cupdopais 
 nvevxyounv) construed with the dative, and denotes “ sustinendo 
 premi calamitatibus h. e. preferre mala,” is contradicted by the 
 above N. T. usage. —The present avéyeoGe 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.’ 
 
 ‘That a critic such as Baur knows how to convert ¢his deviation from the 
 First Epistle into a dependence upon it is not strange (see 4 postel Paulus, 
 
CHAP. I. 5. 189 
 
 Ver. 5. Judgment of the apostle concerning the conduct of 
 his readers described in ver. 4. Their stedfastness in the suf- 
 ferings of the present is a guarantee of future glory. Ver. 5 
 is a sentence in apposition, which is united to the preceding 
 in the nominative, not in the accusative, to which Buttmann, 
 Gramm. des neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 134 [E. T. 153], is inclined. 
 See Winer, p. 472 [E. T. 669]. But évdevyua refers not to 
 the subject of avéyeoOe, that is, to the Thessalonians, as if ais 
 avéxerGe, dvtes Evdevrypa were written (comp. Erasmus, Annot., 
 Camerarius, Estius); for however simple and easy such a 
 connection might be grammatically, yet logically it is objec- 
 tionable. Besides, Paul would hardly have put cataEwOjvar 
 vpas instead of the simple infinitive, if he thought on no 
 difference of subject in évdevywa and xatakwOjvar. But also 
 évoevywa is not to be referred to maou tots Suwypots... 
 avexeoOe (Ambrosiaster, Zwingli, Calvin, Bullinger, Aretius, 
 Wolf, Koppe, Pelt, Schrader, Ewald, Bisping, and others), but 
 to the whole preceding principal and collective idea, tirép Tijs 
 UTopovns ... avéyere. Accordingly it is to be analyzed as 
 follows: 6 (that is to say, Kat TodTo, Ore ev bvopovn Kal TlaTeL 
 TavToV TOY Siwypav vuav Kal TOV OrAYpewv avéeyerbe) éotuv 
 évoerypa THs Sixaias Kploews Tod Ocov. — évderypa] is found 
 here only in the N. T. It denotes a sign, guarantee, proof 
 (comp. the active évdeEis, Phil. i. 28); here, according to 
 the context, a prognostic.— ths Sixaias xpicews Tov Ocod] 
 cannot, with Olshausen and Riggenbach, be understood of the 
 present judgments executed on the earth, and which befall 
 believers in order to perfect them and to make them worthy 
 of the kingdom of God. Not only the article ris, pointing 
 to the judgment xat’ éfoynv, but also the explanation in 
 
 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? 
 
190 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 ver. 6 ff., decides against this view. The futwre judgment is 
 meant which God will execute by Christ at the advent. — eds 
 To KatakiwOivar tpas x.7.r.| whose result will be that ye will 
 be esteemed worthy of the kingdom of God, depends not on 
 ais dvéyeoOe, so that évderyya ris Suxatas Kpicews Tod Ocod 
 would become a parenthetic exclamation (Bengel, Zachariae, 
 Bisping, Hofmann, and others), nor does it also belong to the 
 whole sentence évderywa ... Oeod: in reference to which ye, 
 etc., but only to tis Suxaias xpicews. Accordingly eis Td 
 kataéwwO. «.7.r. is not a statement of purpose (thus Alford 
 and Ewald), but an epexegetical statement of result. is 70, 
 with the infinitive, also stands for the result in 2 Cor. viii. 6, 
 etc. Comp. Winer, p. 294 [E. T. 414].— The infinitive 
 aorist katakwwOfvat expresses the verbal idea simply, without 
 any regard to time. See Kiihner, II. p. 80.— dep fs kai 
 macxete] for striving to obtain which ye suffer, an additional 
 statement of the cause whose corresponding result will be 
 catatéiwOfvat. The Thessalonians, by their enduring stedfast- 
 ness, the motive of which was striving after the kingdom of 
 God, made themselves worthy of participation in this kingdom, 
 for they thereby showed how precious and dear Christ is to 
 them; it is thus certain that the judgment of God to be 
 expected at the return of Christ will recognise this worthi- 
 ness, and will exalt the Thessalonians to be fellow-citizens 
 of His kingdom. Comp. Phil. i. 28; Rom. viii. 17; 2 Tim. 
 ii 12. 
 
 Ver. 6. The suitableness and naturalness of this result to be 
 expected from the righteousness of God, the mention of which 
 was to comfort the Thessalonians and encowrage them to con- 
 tinued endurance, is further carried out by an intimation of the 
 retribution to be expected at the return of Christ. To assume 
 a parenthesis from ver. 6 to pe” uav, ver. 7 (Grotius), or 
 to ver. 10 inclusive (Moldenhauer), is unnecessary arbitrari- 
 ness.— el7rep] provided, does not express any doubt, but intro- 
 duces by means of an elegant expression, under the form of 
 suspense, a saying whose truth is fully acknowledged. Comp. 
 viii. 9,17. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 834; Hartung, Par- 
 tikellehre, I. p. 843; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 528.— Sixasov] 
 
CHAP. I. 7. EME 
 
 righteous, joined to dixaias xpicews, ver. 5. The apostle here 
 places himself upon the standpoint of the strict righteousness 
 of God, which is conceived according to the analogy of human 
 jus talionis, and is also so asserted in Rom. i. 5 ff.; 2 Cor. 
 v. 10; Eph. vi. 8, 9; Col. iii. 24, 25. - It is accordingly 
 inadmissible to interpret d/casov, with Pelt and others, of the 
 manifestation of divine grace. The idea that one may obtain 
 eternal salvation by his own merits, which recently Bisping 
 finds here expressed, is removed from the Pauline mode of 
 thought generally, and also from this passage. Certainly, as 
 all men are subject to sin as a ruling power, the possibility 
 of obtaining salvation can only be contained in Christ; and 
 that God revealed this possibility of salvation, and by the 
 mission of Christ invited us into His kingdom, is a pure con- 
 trivance of His free grace ; but with this grace His holiness and 
 righteousness are~not abolished. There remains room for the 
 exercise of the strict righteousness of God, as only he can enter 
 into His eternal kingdom who, with the desire of salvation, 
 accepts the call; whereas whoever closes himself against it, 
 or rises up in enmity against it, must incur righteous punish- 
 ment at the last day. 
 
 Ver. 7. OrcBouevors is passive. Bengel erroneously con- 
 siders it as middle. — avecus] from dvinuws, denotes the relaxing 
 which follows exertion, the ésitacus (Plat. Rep. i. p. 349 E: 
 év Th émitdces Kal avéces TOV yopdav. Plutarch, Lyc. 29: 
 OUK aveots WV AXN erritacts THs TodsTelas) passing over to 
 the idea comfort, refreshment, rest. Comp. 2 Cor. it 13, 
 vii. 5, viii. 13, and the analogous expression avdyuéis, Acts 
 iii. 19. Here aveows characterizes the glory of the kingdom 
 of God according to its negative side as freedom from earthly 
 affliction and trouble. — pe®” sav] along with us. From this 
 it follows that the apostle and his companions belonged to the 
 Orr Bopevot, uc” av accordingly contains a confirmation of 
 the notice contained in ii. 2. Others (as Turretin, comp. also 
 de Wette) understand pe suav entirely generally: with us 
 Christians in general. But the dveovs which will likewise be 
 imparted to the seis presupposes a preceding @dMus, that is, 
 according to the context, persecution by those who are not 
 
192 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE TIIESSALONIANS. 
 
 Christians. But such persecutions do not befall Christians 
 everywhere. Strangely, Bengel (and also Macknight), we? jpyav 
 denotes : “ nobiscum i. e. cum sanctis Israelitis.” Ewald: “ with 
 us, z.¢. with the apostles and other converted genuine Jews of 
 the Holy Land, so that they shall have no preference.” — év TH 
 atoxahvet Tov Kupiov ’Incod] a statement of the time when 
 avratrodovvat will take place, equivalent to 6tav atroxarkudOy 
 0 Kvpios “Incods. amoxddvyis (1 Cor. i. 7) is a more definite 
 expression for mapovoia. The return of Christ is the period 
 at which He, so long hitherto concealed, will as Ruler and 
 Judge be manifested, will publicly appear.'— am’ ovpavod 
 pet ayyédov Suvdpews avtod] a specification of the mode of 
 the dzoxadvwe. — az’ ovpavod] see on 1 Thess. iv. 16. — pe? 
 ayyékov Suvapews avtod] with the angels of His power, ie. 
 through whom His power manifests itself,inasmuch as the angels 
 are the executors of His commands, by their instrumentality 
 eg. the resurrection-call to the dead is issued (1 Thess. iv. 16), 
 Calvin: Angelos potentiae vocat, in quibus suam potentiam 
 exseret. Angelos enim secum adducet ad illustrandam regni 
 sui gloriam. Oecumenius, Theophylact, Piscator, Benson, 
 Flatt, and others erroneously explain it: “ with His mighty 
 angels;” still more erroneously Drusius, Michaelis, Krause, 
 Hofmann, and others: “with His angelic host.’ For this the 
 Hebrew 52% is appealed to. But dvvayss never occurs in this 
 sense in the N. T.; the proofs to the contrary, which Hofmann 
 finds in Luke x. 19, Matt. xxiv. 29, Mark xiii. 35, Luke 
 xxi. 26, are entirely inappropriate. It would then require to 
 have been written peta Suvapews ayyéAwv avdtod. It is a 
 wanton error, proceeding from a want of philological tact, 
 when Hofmann separates avrod from the words per ayyédov 
 duvdapews, refers this pronoun to God, and joins it with dvdovTos 
 exdixnow into a participial clause, of which év 7H amoxadvypec 
 x.T.. forms the commencement. Granted that per’ ayyéAov 
 duvapews, without the additional avrod, might denote with an 
 angelic host, yet Paul, in order to express the thought assigned 
 to him by Hofmann, if he would be at all understood, would 
 
 1 That also we are not here to think, with Hammond, on the destruction of 
 Jerusalem is evident. 
 
CHAP. I. & 193 
 
 at least have entirely omitted avrod, and would have put the 
 dative dvdovre instead of the genitive d:ddvTos. 
 
 Ver. 8. "Ev ¢doy! rupés] is not, as Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, 
 Seb. Schmid, Harduin, Moldenhauer, Macknight, Hilgenfeld 
 (Zeitsch. f. wissensch. Theol. 1862, Part 3, p. 245), Hofmann, 
 and others’ assume, a statement declaring the instrument of 
 diddvtos éxdixnow, but is a further specification of the mode 
 of droxadtnper, ver. 7: in flaming fire (WS 2703, Isa. xxix. 6, 
 xxx. 30, etc.). In the O. T. God is described as appearing 
 in flames of fire, and especially His coming to judgment is 
 described as a coming in fire; comp. Ex. ii. 2 ff., xix. 18; 
 Dan. vi. 9, 10, ete. What is there asserted of God is here 
 transferred to Christ. (Comp. also 1 Cor. iii. 13, where of 
 the day of Christ, zc. of His advent, it is said: év mupl dmoxa- 
 AvTTeTaL.) The additional clause accordingly serves for a 
 further exaltation of the majesty and glory in which Christ 
 will return. More special statements, that Paul thought on 
 thunder and lightning (Zachariae, Koppe, Bolten), on a fire 
 consuming the ungodly, or the world, or both together (Zwingli, 
 Hemming, Aretius, Cornelius a Lapide, Fromond., Sebastian 
 Schmid, and others), are to be discarded, from want of data to 
 decide on. — d:d0vTos] is joined, not to rupés, but to Tod Kupiou 
 *Inood, ver. 7. The formula dvddvar éxdienoiv tut, to impart 
 vengeance, that is, punishment, to any one, is only found here 
 in the N. T. But comp. the LXX. Ezek. xxv.14; Num. xxxi. 3 
 (79P2 {02). Paul does not mention only one class of persons 
 who are to be punished. (Calvin, Hemming, Turretin, Pelt, 
 Schott, de Wette, Riggenbach), but two classes of persons. This 
 is required by the article repeated before py) vraxovovouw. 
 These were the two classes of persons from whom the church of 
 Thessalonica had to suffer persecution—Gentiles and Jews. By 
 Tois pi) elddow Oecv Paul means the former, and by tois uy 
 vTaxovovow TH evaryy. K.T.r. the latter, so that the general tofs 
 OriBovow wpas, ver. 6, is now specialized. The correctness of 
 this interpretation is further evident from the fact that else- 
 
 1 Thus also Theodoret must have united the words. For although he does 
 not clearly express himself concerning this ‘union, yet he finds in acy? mupos 
 expressed : ris riwpias x0 tides, and adds: Qaoyi yap rupis rupadidovrar 
 
 MEYER—2 THEss, N 
 
194 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 where 7) eiSotes Ocov is with Paul a characteristic designation 
 of the Gentiles (1 Thess. iv. 5; Gal. iv. 8; comp. Rom. i. 28 ; 
 Eph. ii. 12); whereas the characteristic of the theocratic nation 
 of the Jews, as shown by experience, was disobedience to God and 
 His plan of salvation ; comp. Rom. x. 3,16, 21, ete. This refer- 
 ence to Gentiles and Jews is already found in Ambrosiaster, 
 Grotius, Quistorp, Benson, Bengel, Koppe, Baumgarten-Crusius ; 
 and also recently, in Alford, Ewald, and Bisping. On the other 
 hand, Harduin and Hofmann interpret the first clause of Gen- 
 tiles, and the second of Jews and Gentiles; Schrader, the first 
 of Gentiles, and the second of Christians; Aretius, the first of 
 “ manifesti Christi hostes, sive Judaei sint sive ethnici,’ and the 
 second of “pestes in sinu ecclesiae latitantes.” But with the first 
 view the division, which the article repeated requires, becomes 
 illusory ; and the context decides against the last two views. 
 For when, as here, Christians are comforted on account of the 
 afflictions which they suffer from those who are not Christians 
 by an intimation of a future retribution, the discourse cannot 
 possibly have reference to a punishment which is impending 
 on Christians. — Ted kupiov pev *Incod] a repetition of the 
 subject already contained in écddvros in a fuller form, on 
 account of the preceding OQeov. 
 
 Ver. 9. Paul names eternal destruction as the punishment 
 which those ungodly ones will have toendure.— vitwes] nimirum 
 qui, refers back to the characteristics of the two classes named 
 in ver. 8, and accordingly recapitulates the reason for diknv 
 tisovow. See Hermann, ad Soph. Oed. R. 688.— aro rpoce- 
 mou Tov Kupiov «.T.r.] has received a threefold interpretation. 
 Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Vatablus, Estius, 
 Fromond., and others interpret azo of time: immediately after. 
 the appearance of the rpocawrov Tod kupiov and of the d0&a rijs 
 toxvos avtod. The swiftness and facility of the punishment 
 are thereby described, inasmuch as it required Christ merely 
 to become visible. The artificialness of this interpretation is 
 evident. For however often a7d denotes the point of eom- 
 mencement of a period, yet the bare awd mpoowrov cannot 
 possibly be considered as parallel with such constructions as 
 ard Kticews Kocpov, Rom. i. 20; aro ths mpaTns 7)mépas, Phil. 
 
CIIAP. I. 10. 195 
 
 i. 5, and the like. At least adm’ amoxadvypews Tod Tpocwrrov 
 or something similar would require to have been written. 
 Add to this that dd mpocewmov x.7.X., on account of its posi- 
 tion at the end of the sentence, cannot have such an emphasis, 
 that the idea of the swiftness and facility of the punishment can 
 be derived from it. azro is understood as a statement of the 
 operating cwuse by Grotius, Harduin, Benson, Bengel, Molden- 
 hauer, Flatt, Pelt, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, and 
 Hofmann: “from the presence of the Lord, and from the 
 elory of His power” (comp. Acts iii. 19). Pelt (and so also 
 Castalio, Koppe, Bolten, and others) arbitrarily considers azo 
 apocwmouv Tod Kupiov as equivalent to the simple dmo tod 
 xupiov; and equally arbitrarily Harduin, Benson, and Mol- 
 denhauer (comp. also Hofmann) understand mpocwmoy of a 
 wrathful or gloomy countenance. But there is an essential 
 inconvenience to this second mode of interpretation, inasmuch 
 as by its assumption without the introduction of a new idea 
 there is only a repetition in other words of what has already 
 been said in vy. 7, 8 from év 7H amoxadvrper to SidovTos éxdi- 
 know ; the whole of the 9th verse would only contain aieviov 
 as a new point. Accordingly the third mode of explanation, 
 adopted by Piscator, Ernest Schmid, Beza, Calixt, Koppe, 
 Krause, Schott, Bloomfield, Alford, Bisping, and Riggenbach, 
 is decidedly to be preferred, according to which a7ro expresses 
 the idea of separation, of severance from something. Comp. il. 2 ; 
 ftom. ix. 3; 2 Cor. xi. 3; Gal. v. 4. According to Flatt and 
 de Wette, the expression éoyvos is opposed to this explanation, 
 which directly points to an operating cause. But tis toyvos 
 is to be rendered the genitive of origin, and the do£a is to be 
 understood, not of the glory of Christ, but of the glory which 
 is to be imparted to believers, The meaning is: apart or sepa- 
 vated from the face of the Lord, and apart from the glory which 
 is a creation of His power. By this explanation tpocwrov 
 receives its full import; “ to see the face of the Lord” is a 
 well-known biblical expression to denote blessedness (comp. 
 Peasi 7, xvii. 5; Matt. v. 8p xviii. 10; Heb. xit: 14: Rev. 
 xxi. 4), whereas distance from it is an expression of misery. 
 Ver. 10. Further, with this explanation ver. 10 agrees best, 
 
196 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 since in it, as the counterpart to ver. 9, the discourse is not so 
 much of a glorification of Christ as of a glorification of Christians 
 —a glorification certainly which necessarily reflects on Christ 
 Himself as its producer.— dray €\6n] when He shall have 
 come, a statement of the time of Séenv ticovew, ver. 9. Schott 
 less simply unites it with duddvtos éxdixnow, ver, 8. — évdoEac- 
 Oyjvac] the infinitive of design. See Winer, p. 284 [E. T. 
 399]. The Gyvoe are not the attending angels (Macknight, 
 Schrader), but Christians. €v Tots dylous avdtovd does not, how- 
 ever, Import through His saints (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
 Theophylact, Kypke, II. p. 341, Vater, Pelt, Schott, and others), 
 nor among them, but im them, so that the glorification of 
 Christians becomes a glorification of Christ Himself. So also 
 Christ is admired zn all believers, because the admiration of 
 the blessedness to which believers have been exalted has as 
 its consequence an admiration of Christ as the Creator of that 
 blessedness. — 67e émuctevOn ... éf duds] is a parenthesis :? 
 for our testimony brought to you has been believed. This is 
 occasioned by mictevcacwv. It is designed to bring forward 
 the certainty that also the Thessalonians belong to the muorev- 
 cavtes. In a peculiar—intermixing much that is strange— 
 and unnatural manner Ewald: “As the subject particularly 
 treats of the truth of the apostolic testimony concerning divine 
 things (!), or whether the gospel, as the apostles and first wit- 
 nesses proclaimed it, will or will not one day be confirmed in 
 its entire contents and promises by God Himself at the last 
 judgment (?), so Paul summarizes the chief contents (?) of that 
 glory and admiration in a lively reference to his immediate 
 readers directly in words which one might almost then exclaim : 
 ‘Our testimony among you was verified (?).’ And it is as if 
 the apostle had put here this somewhat strange short expres- 
 
 1 Certainly otherwise Hofmann. According to him, ¢@s iwiwrsdén 7d papripioy 
 nuavip suas is to be added as a reason to dvraredodvas Suiv avecw us? nuay, Ver. 
 6 f.(!). But this is not yet enough. Besides the statement of design, ive tuas 
 atiwon x.7.A., ver. 11, is made also to depend on imirsién od pwapripioy hua ig’ 
 twas; to this statement of design also iv 7% tytpa ixsivn belongs; this is placed 
 before ‘va for the sake of emphasis, and tis 3 xa) xporsuxousba wavrors wépl duay 
 forms a mere parenthesis—suppositions which are certainly worthy of an exegesis 
 like that of Hofmann, but are only possible to it. 
 
CHAP. I. 10. 197 
 
 sion, the rather because he has said directly before that God (?) 
 will be admired in those who believed, as if a verification or com- 
 plete confirmation (?) of the contents of faith must at last justly 
 correspond to the human faith regarding them.”—70 waptupuov 
 jpLov] our testimony, t.e. the testimony proclaimed by us. Really 
 different, neither from paptvpsov tod Xpiocrod, 1 Cor. i. 6: the 
 testimony whose subject is Christ; nor from papripsov tod 
 @eod, 1 Cor. ii. 1: the testimony which God published through 
 the apostles concerning Christ. To limit, with Bretschneider, 
 faptvpiov to the instructions of the apostle concerning the 
 advent of Christ contained in the First Epistle, instead of 
 taking it entirely generally in the sense of «ypuvyya or evay- 
 yéAuov, is rendered impossible by the relation of 6Tv émuarevOn 
 to muctevoacw, — 颒 tuas] is connected with To paptuprov 
 jpov into one idea; and hence the article 7d, whose repetition 
 before 颒 duds might have been expected, is omitted. See 
 Winer, p. 123 [E. T. 169]. Comp. on éé with papripior, 
 Luke ix. 5. Ingenuous, but erroneous, Bengel: éf tpas 
 denotes: ad vos usque, in occidente.— év TH nuépa éxeivy] 
 belongs not to €\@y (Zeger, Pelt, Olshausen), but to Qavpac- 
 Ojvas, whilst by it the indication of time, érav én, is resumed. 
 The Peshito, likewise Pelagius, John Damascenus, Estius, 
 Lucius Osiander, Menochius, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Har- 
 duin, Storr, Koppe, Krause, Rosenmiiller, Nésselt, Flatt, Baum- 
 garten-Crusius, and others, not assuming a parenthesis, unite 
 €v T tyépa éxetvyn with the directly preceding, either with 
 paptupiov or with émiotevOn, The interpretations resulting 
 from this mode of connection vary much from each other; but 
 are all arbitrary, inasmuch as, on the one hand, in order to 
 preserve the statement of time in év TH tywépa éxeivy, one feels 
 himself constrained to consider the aorist émuctevOn as placed 
 for the future, and thus to alter the import of the verb (will 
 be authenticated) ; or, on the other hand, in order to preserve 
 emtoTevOn in the sense of the aorist, one has recourse to the 
 expedient of construing év TH jyepa éxetvn as the objective 
 statement belonging to paptvpsov, in the sense of epi Tis 
 epas éxelvns. — But wherefore did Paul add év 7h mpépa 
 exeivy after the sentence beginning with 671? Perhaps only 
 
198 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 for the sake of parallelism. But possibly also Calvin is cor- 
 rect when he says: “ repetit in die ila . . . Ideo autem repetit, 
 ut fidelium vota cohibeat, ne ultra modum festinent.” 
 
 Ver. 11. Eis 6] in reference to which, namely, that such a 
 glorification of Christ in His people is to be expected. Comp. 
 Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 220; Kiihner, II. p. 279. Philologically 
 incorrect, Grotius, Flatt, Pelt, Baumgarten-Crusius take eis 6 
 as equivalent with guapropter, and Koppe as “mera particula 
 transeundi,” equivalent with dtaqgue. Logically incorrect, 
 de Wette, Bloomfield, Hofmann, and Riggenbach: “to which 
 end.” For, since ets 6 must refer to the chief thought in 
 ver. 10, this could only be analysed by: “in order that the 
 evdoEac@jvat and the OavyacOjvac of Christ may be realized 
 in believers.” But this fact in itself is clear to the apostle 
 as a settled truth; he cannot think on it as dependent on his 
 prayer; he can only have it in view in his prayers, that the 
 Thessalonians also may find themselves in the number of 
 those among whom Christ will be glorified. — xa] belongs not 
 to eis 6, so that the suitableness of this (supposed) design was 
 denoted (de Wette), but to mpocevyduefa. It imports that 
 the prayer of the apostle was added on behalf of the 
 Thessalonians to the fact of the évdofacOjvar.— iva] The 
 contents of the prayer in the form of a purpose. a&wobdv Tis 
 KNrcews is that to which Paul would attain through his 
 prayer. Comp. Meyer on Phil. i. 9.— afvodv] means to 
 judge worthy; comp. 1 Tim. v. 17; Heb. iii. 3, x. 29. It 
 never has the meaning to make worthy, which Luther, Grotius, 
 Flatt, Olshausen, Ewald attribute to it. From this it follows 
 that «Ajow cannot express the act’ of the divine calling, 
 already belonging to the past, but must denote something 
 future. «Ayjovs is accordingly to be understood, as in Phil. 
 ill. 14, in a passive sense, as the good thing to which we are 
 called, ze. the future heavenly blessedness of the children of 
 
 1 So also Meyer on Phil. iii. 14; likewise Grimm in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 
 1850, Part 4, p. 806f.: ‘‘The Christians are declared worthy of the call 
 already promulgated to them, or the xAjeis rod @sod may be in reference to 
 them déusrautanros (Rom. xi. 29), because the Christian can again make himself 
 
 unworthy of the divine grace which he has received (Rom. xi. 20 ff. ; 2 Cor, 
 Wi. 14 Gale yviiAe 
 
CHAP. I. 11 199 
 
 God.’ Col. i. 5 (see Meyer on that passage) is entirely 
 analogous, where é€Azris, elsewhere active, is used in a passive 
 or objective sense.— With kat wAnpoéon «.7.r., which is 
 grammatically subordinate to a&iéon, Paul adds, logically 
 considered, the means which is to lead to the result of being 
 judged worthy. — aAnpoty] to bring to completion or perfec- 
 tion. —wacav evookiay ayabwovvys|] cannot be referred to 
 God, as if it meant all His good pleasure, and denoted the 
 divine decree of election (Oecumenius, Zwingli, Calvin, Estius, 
 Justinian, Beza, Calixt, Wolf, Benson, Bengel, Macknight, 
 Koppe, Flatt, Pelt, Bisping, and others). It is against this 
 that épyov wictews, which forms an additional accusative to 
 TANpoOoY, is undoubtedly to be referred to the Thessalonians; 
 that aya@wouvrn is never used by Paul of God; and lastly, 
 that mwacav thv evdoxiav would require to have been written 
 instead of wacay evdokiav. Others refer wacav evdoxiav 
 partly to God and partly to the Thessalonians. Thus 
 Theophylact: wa waca eddoxia tod Ocov, Tovtécts maca 
 apécxera, TANPWOH ev tpiv Kal wav ayabov SiaTpdttyobe, 
 Kal oUTws ATE @S BovdeTat 0 Beds, pndevos Kulv NelrovTos. 
 Grotius: Omnem bonitatem sibi gratam .. . aya0wotvny, % 
 é€otw avtov evooxia, Olshausen,? with whom Bloomfield 
 agrees: May God fill you with all the good which is pleasing 
 to Him. This second explanation is even more inadmissible 
 than the first. It is not even supported by the appearance of 
 justification, as at least Tacav adyalwotvnv evdoxias must be 
 put, in order to afford a point of connection for it. The 
 exclusively correct meaning is to understand both evdoxiav 
 and aya0wovrns of the Thessalonians. But ayabwovvn does 
 
 1 Alford incorrectly objects to the passive interpretation adopted by me, that 
 the position of the words would require to be cis xAro:ws akaon. For the 
 emphasis rests on 2%aen placed first, whilst with cas xaveews the idea, already 
 supposed as well known by xarak:whnves tudes ris Bacirzias rod O:o¥, ver. 5, as well 
 as by the contents of ver. 10, is only resumed, although under a different form. 
 Alford, appealing to 1 Cor. vii. 20, understands xajas ‘‘not merely as the first 
 act of Ged, but as the enduring state produced by that act, the normal termina- 
 tion of which is glory.” 
 
 2 In an excess of arbitrariness, Olshausen besides takes idox/av and tpyov as 
 
 absolute accusatives, whilst he unites ¢zés not only with a%en, but likewise 
 with -ranpoog. 
 
200 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 not denote benevolence (Chandler, Moldenhauer, Nosselt, 
 Schott), but moral goodness generally. Comp. Rom. xv. 14; 
 Gal. v. 22; Eph. v. 9. Accordingly, with mwaca evdoxia 
 ayabwovrns is expressed every satisfaction in moral goodness. 
 —épyov tictews] here, as in 1 Thess. i 3, represents faith 
 as an épyov, we. as something begun: with energy, and 
 persevered in amid persecution. — év Suvayer] belongs to 
 mAnpocy, and takes the place of an adverb. See Bernhardy, 
 Syntax, p. 209. Comp. Rom. 1. 4; Col. i 29. Thus 
 powerfully. 
 
 Ver. 12. To dvopa tot Kuplov nu. Inood] The name of our 
 Lord Jesus, z.c. so far as He is the «vpsos, the Lord ; comp. 
 Phil. ii. 9 ff Arbitrarily, de Wette: Christ, so far as He 
 is recognised and known. Still more arbitrarily Turretin, 
 Moldenhauer, Koppe, and others: dvoua xvpiov is a mere 
 circumlocution for xvptos.— év avT@] refers not to ‘Incod 
 (so Alford), but to 7d dvoya; and the giving prominence to 
 the mutual reciprocity, é€v tiv Kat tpeis ev aito, is an 
 exhaustive representation. Comp. Gal. vi. 14; 1 Cor. vi. 13. 
 —KaTa THY xXdpw ToD Ocod Huav Kal Kupiov ‘Incod] 
 according to the grace of our God and of the (see Winer, 
 p. 113 [E. T. 154]) Lord Jesus. According to Hofmann 
 and Riggenbach, Christ is here named both our God and our 
 Lord,—an interpretation which, indeed, grammatically is no 
 less allowable than the interpretation of the doxology, o dy 
 érl mavtwv Oeds evroynTOs eis Tovs ai@vas, Rom. ix. 5, as 
 an apposition to 6 Xpucros, but is equally inadmissible, as it 
 would contain an un-Pauline thought; on account of which 
 also Hilgenfeld, Zéschr. f. d. wiss. Theol., Halle 1862, p. 264, 
 in the interest of the supposed spuriousness of the Epistle, 
 has forthwith appropriated to himself this discovery of 
 Hofmann. 
 
 —— 
 
CHAP, IL. 201 
 
 CHARTER, IIs 
 
 Ver. 2. Elz. has ard rod vods. Instead of it, D E 48, al., Syr. 
 Erp. Syr. p. c. ast. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. Clar. Germ. Ambrosiast. 
 Hier. Pel. have dvd rod vois tuav. An interpretation. — Instead 
 of the Receptus ware dpociodas, A B D* F G8, Or. require jade 
 époriodas, Correctly preferred by Lachm. Tisch. Bloomfield, and 
 Alford, for époe?odas contains a new point, intensifying the dis- 
 course. — xupiov] Elz. Matth. read Xprorod. Against the pre- 
 ponderating authority of A B D* E (?) F G L 8, min. plur. 
 vers. and Fathers. — Ver. 3. Instead of the Receptus &mupriuc, 
 B ®& 3, al., perm. Copt. Sahid. Slav. ed. Or. ms. (bis et in 
 edd. qu.) Cyr. hieros. Damase. Nicephor. Tert. Ambrosiast. ed. 
 Ambr. have dvouias. But dvowias is taken from dvousas, ver. 7, 
 and dvowos, ver. 8. — Ver. 4. Instead of the Receptus irzpaipsmevos, 
 F G, Or. (semel) Prosop. (ap. Niceph. semel) demand éraspéuevos. 
 But the directly following é7/ decides against its genuineness. — 
 Before xad/ou: Elz. Matth. add as Océ. A gloss for the sake of 
 strengthening. Correctly erased by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. 
 Tisch. and Alford, to whom also Reiche agrees, after A B D* x, 
 min. perm. Erp. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. Clar. Germ. 
 Or. (ter.) Hippol. Cyr. utr. Severus, Chrys. ms. Theodoret 
 (alic.) Polychronius, Methodius jun., Damase. Ir. Tert. Cypr. 
 Aug. Ambrosiast. Ruf. Primas. Cassiod. al.—-Instead of the 
 Receptus arodemiwra, A F G, 3, 23, al., edd. Or. (semel) Cyr. utr. 
 Theodoret (ter.) Damasc. (semel) have dodemvovra.— Ver. 8. 
 6 xUpiog ‘Inootg| Elz. Matth. Tisch. 2, Bloomfield, and Reiche read 
 only 6 xupios, after B (e sit.) D*** E** K L* min. pl. Arab. in 
 polygl. SL ms. Or. (semel vel bis) Macar. Cyr. hier. Theodoret 
 (sem.) Damase. (sem.) Oec. Vig. al. But é xdpiog Inoods (received 
 by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. 1 and 7, Alford) is required 
 by A D*. E* F G L** 8, 17, 31, al, perm. Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. 
 Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Slav. ed. Vulg. It. Or. (semel vel bis) Hippol. 
 Constitut. Ath. Bas. Cyr. Ephr. Chrys. Theodoret (saepe), 
 Damasc. Theoph. Ir. (semel) Tert. Hier. (saepe) Fulgent. Hilar. 
 Ambros. Aug. Rufin. Ambrosiast. Primas. Pelag.— Elz. has 
 dvarwos. Lachm. and Tisch. 1 read dvere7% after A B D* 17, 23, 
 al., mult. Or. (semel) Hipp. Macar. Method. jun., Andreas caesar. 
 
202 TIE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 Cyr. hieros. Chrys. ms. Damasc. Theophylact. But dvadrdeu is 
 the more unusual form, and adver? is taken from the LXX. 
 Isa. xi. 4. — Ver. 10. dédimiasg] Elz. Griesb. Matth. Scholz read 
 ris aéiaiag. The article is wanting in A B F G &* min. Or. 
 (sexies) Cyr. hieros. The last syllable of the preceding arary 
 gave occasion to this addition.—r07 dronruuévors| Elz. Griesbach, 
 Matth. Bloomfield read év ro7% cd&rorrumévors. Against A B D* F 
 G s* 17, 71, al., Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. It. Or. (quinquies) 
 Cyr. hieros. Damase. (semel) Ir. Tert. Aug. Ambrosiast. a/.— 
 Ver. 11. Instead of the Receptus vue, A B D* F G 8* 67** 
 al., Vulg. ms. Or. (bis vel ter) Bas. Cyr. hieros. Damase. I. 
 Ambrosiast. ed. require éume. Recommended by Griesb. 
 Received by Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. and Alford. Correctly. The 
 present only suits ver. 7, according to which the wickedness 
 had already begun to work. — Ver. 12. ry adixiga] Elz. Griesb. 
 Matth. Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Alford read # +7 
 adimig, after A D*** E K Ls**** min. pl. Copt. Syr. utr. al, 
 m. Or. (bis) Chrys. Theodoret (semel), Damasce. (semel) a/., Cypr. 
 Hier. Lachm. has bracketed ¢. It is wanting in B D* F G s* 
 min. perm. edd. Sahid. Vulg. It. Or. (bis) Hippol. Cyr. utr. 
 Theodoret (alic.), Damase. Ir. Tert. Aug. Ambrosiast. al. Erased 
 by Tisch. 1. But the addition was most natural for a N. T. 
 writer, on account of its agreement with the Hebrew, whilst at 
 a later period the parallel member in the first half of the verse 
 might easily have been the occasion of its omission. — Ver. 13. 
 ax apyis| BF G35, al., Didym. Damasc. (comm.) Vulg. Ambr. 
 Pel. read arupy7jv. So Lachm. and Tisch. 1. Not only do A D 
 E K 4x8, almost all min., many vers. and Fathers attest the 
 reading of the Receptus ax’ dpyis, but Paul could not possibly 
 have written dzapy7v, as the Thessalonians were not the first 
 who became believers, either generally or even in Macedonia. 
 — Ver. 17. ornpifa:] Elz. Matth. read ornpiza: twes. But twas 
 is wanting in A B D* E* FGS, min. mult. Syr. utr. Arm. Vulg. 
 It. Chrys. Oec. Ambrosiast. a/., and is a supplementary addition. 
 — Instead of tpyw xai Adyw, Elz. and Matth. have rAéyw xal tpyw. 
 Against decisive testimony (A B D E LX&, min. mult. Copt. 
 Aeth. Syr. p. Slav. ms. Vulg. It. Chrys. Theophyl. Theodoret, 
 Oec. Ambrosiast. Vigil. a/.). 
 
 Vv. 1-12. Dogmatic portion of the Epistle. Information, 
 by way of correction, concerning the commencement of the 
 advent. The day of the Lord is not yet. It will only then 
 occur when Antichrist, whom now a preventing power hinders 
 from appearing, will be manifested.—See on vy. 1-12, 
 
CHAP, II. 1. 203 
 
 Noesselt, Opusc. ad interpretationem sacrarum scriptur. fascic. 
 IL, Hal. 1787, p. 257 ff.; Seger, Diss. philol. ad locum 
 2 Thess. ii. 1-12, Hal. 1791; Tychsen in Henke’s Magazin 
 f. Religionsphilos., Exeges. und Kirchengesch. vol. V1., Helmst. 
 1796, p. 171 ff.; Storr, Opusc. acad. vol. III., Tiib. 1803, 
 p. 323 ff.; Nitzsch, De revelatione religionis externa eademque 
 publica, Lips. 1808, p. 223 ff.; Heydenreich in the Neuen 
 Krit. Journal der theol. Literatur, by Winer and Engelhardt, 
 Bd. 8, Sulzb. 1828; Kern in the Tiibing. Zeitschr. f. theol. 
 1839, Part 2, p. 145 ff; Wieseler, Chronologie des apost. 
 Zeitalters, Gott. 1848, p. 257 ff; Baumgarten, die <Apostel- 
 geschichte oder der Entwickelungsgang der Kirche von Jerusalem 
 bis Rom., 2d ed. vol. i., Braunschw. 1859, p. 603 ff.; Schnecken- 
 burger on the Lehre vom Antichrist. Treated of by Ed. Bohmer 
 in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. von Liebner, ete., Gotha 1859, 
 p. 420 ff.; v. Dollinger, Christenthum u. Kirche in der Zeit 
 der Grundlegung, Regensb. 1860, p. 277 ff., 422 ff. ; Luthardt, 
 die Lehre von den letzten Dingen, Leipz. 1861, p. 145 ff; older 
 literature in Wolf. 
 
 Ver. 1. “Epwtaépev &é] passing from what the apostle 
 prays for the Thessalonians (i. 11, 12) to what he requires 
 of them. On épwrav, see on 1 Thess. iv. 1. — adeddgo/] an 
 affectionate and winning address. — wzrép] is in the Vulgate, as 
 well as by Pelagius, Faber Stapulensis, Bugenhagen, Clarius, 
 Erasmus, Zwingli, Calvin, Hemming, Hunnius, Justinian, 
 Estius, Piscator, Balduin, Aretius, Cornelius a Lapide, Beza, 
 Fromond., Calixt, Bern. a Piconius, Nat. Alexander, and 
 many others, understood as a form of adjuration (per 
 adventum) ; and then the meaning attributed to it is either: 
 si vobis dies ille tremendus est... obtestor vos per illum 
 (Zwingli), or: si vobis animo carus est adventus domini, 
 si desiderabile est vobis ad ipsum dominum colligi, ete. 
 (Hemming), or lastly: quam vere exspectatis domini adven- 
 tum, etc. (Beza). Certainly t7ép, as elsewhere mpds, some- 
 times occurs in protestations with the genitive; comp. Hom. 
 Il. xxiv. 466 f. — Kai puv brrép ratpos Kal pntépos nixoporo | 
 Aliaceo Kat Ttéxeos, va ot ov Oupov dpivyns, Bernhardy, 
 Syntax, p. 244. But (1) such a usage is entirely foreign to 
 
204 TILE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 the N. T. (2) It is hardly conceivable that Paul should 
 have chosen that as an object of adjuration, concerning which 
 he was about to instruct them in what follows. Therefore 
 Zeger, Vorstius, Grotius, Hammond, Wolf, Noesselt, Koppe, 
 Storr, Heydenreich, Flatt, Pelt, Schott, de Wette, Winer 
 (p. 343 [E. T. 479]), Baumgarten-Crusius, Wieseler, Bloom- 
 field, Alford, Ewald, Bisping, Riggenbach, and others more 
 correctly take t7ép in the sense of wepi, in respect of. Comp. 
 Rom. ix. 27; 2 Cor.i. 8; Passow, A 3; Bernhardy, Syntaz, 
 p. 244; Kiihner, II. p. 288. Yet this does not prevent the 
 maintenance of the special import of the preposition also here. 
 The meaning is im the interest of the advent, namely, in order 
 to preserve it from everything that is erroneous. When, then, 
 the apostle says: we entreat you in the interest of the advent, 
 the meaning of this abbreviated form of expression is: we 
 entreat you in the interest of the advent, namely, to guard it 
 against all misrepresentations, not to deviate from the correct 
 view concerning it.— mapovoia tod xvpiov] here also, as 
 everywhere with Paul, is nothing else than the personal 
 coming (return) of Christ at the completion of the kingdom 
 of God. — éricvvaywyy| points back to 1 Thess. iv. 17, 
 denoting the act by which all believers are caught up to Christ, 
 or gathered together to Him, to be then eternally united to 
 Him, following the resurrection and change. — yur] is placed 
 first in order to obtain a more direct contrast to xuplov. — ém’ 
 avtov| up to Him. Incorrectly Grotius, Koppe, Heydenreich, 
 Pelt, Alford, and others, that it is equivalent to mpos adrov. 
 Ver. 2. A statement of the object of the whole sentence, 
 ver. 1. — canreverOar] from oddos, which is especially used 
 of the sea agitated by a storm (comp. Luke xxi. 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. Matt. xi. 7; Acts iv. 31, xvi 26; Heb. xii. 26, 
 etc.), and also transferred to mental conditions (comp. Acts 
 xvii. 13). cadrevOjvai ad tod vods is a pregnant construc- 
 tion, including two ideas: to be put in a state of mental 
 commotion away from the vods, ie. so that the vovds goes 
 astray, does not attain to its proper function. Comp. Rom. 
 
CHAP, II. 2. 20d 
 
 ix. 3: dvdOeua civat dro Tod Xpictod. — vovs] is to be taken 
 quite generally. It denotes the reasonable, sober, and con- 
 siderate state of mind, mentis tranquillitas (Turretin). Others, 
 contrary to the meaning of the word, understand by voids 
 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.” — yu tayéws] 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. — pndé 
 Opocicbat] nor yet be frightened. A new and stronger point, 
 which is more definitely described or divided by the following 
 pyre, according to a threefold statement of the cause. See on 
 this distinction between pndé and pte, Winer, p. 432 [E. T. 
 611]. — pyre 61a mvevpatos| 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), wvedua as an abstract noun, 
 instead of the concrete mvevpatixos, 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 Adyou and 
 emia OAs against it. — wnte dua Aoyou] isby Baumgarten-Crusius 
 _ referred to a traditional (falsified) word of Jesus, more specifi- 
 cally by Noesselt to the prophecy of Christ in Matt. xxiv., 
 
206 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 Mark xiii, Luke xxi. But if Paul had in view a saying of 
 Christ, he would have indicated it (perhaps by pate dua Adyou 
 @s xupiov, or something similar). Others, as Michaelis and 
 Tychsen, translate Adyos 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 Aoyou by itself certainly does not 
 justify such an artificial hypothesis. Lastly, others, in dis- 
 tinction from prophecy delivered by inspiration, take Adyos in 
 the sense of a calm and didactic discourse, whether aiming at 
 conviction or seduction. So, after the example of Chrysostom, 
 Oecumenius (61a 7ePavoroyias), Theophylact (dua dudacKxanrias 
 toon pwvy ywopévns), Clarius (oratione persuasoria), Zeger 
 (per doctrinam viva voce prolatam), Ewald (“‘ by word ; that is, 
 by discourse and doctrine [8:day7, 1 Cor. xiv. 26]; whilst one 
 sought to prove the error in a learned manner by a clever dis- 
 course, perhaps from the Holy Scriptures”), Hofmann, Riggen- 
 bach, and many others. However, from the parallel arrange- 
 ment in ver. 15, which opposes the true to the false expressed 
 in ver. 2, it is evident that dua Aoyou and & émucroAjs are 
 closely connected ideas, of which the first denotes the oral, 
 and the second the written statement. It is accordingly most 
 natural to construe da Adyou not by itself, but to unite as dv 
 nav, as proceeding from us, both with da Aeyov and with 6’ 
 émisToAns ; and to understand the first of oral expressions 
 which were imputed to the apostle, 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 os 60 
 jpov also to Sua mvevpatos is impossible; as, although Adyoe 
 and émicToXa’ 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 : 
 mapeyyva toivuy 0 Oelos aTOaTONOS, mi) TITTEVEW TOS éyoU- 
 ow éverTnkévat TOV THs cuvTEdelas Katpov, Kal TapauTixa TOV 
 
 1 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 nune diceremus, quam antehac diximus.” 
 
CHAP. II. 3, 4. 207 
 
 Kiplov éerupavncer Oar, unte ef TpooTo.otvtTa Xpnopmdelv Kai 
 mpodyntevew* TovTo yap Eyer pte Sia TvEevpaTOS’ pyTE Ee 
 Tracdmevor ws €& avTod ypapeicav éemictoNjy mTpodpépoter, 
 parte ef aypadws avdrov eipneévas Aéyouev.— @s Ov Hpdv] 
 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 (vedua) 
 which had the assertion which follows as their contents, 
 so there were also actually present a Xoyos and an émioToN) 
 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, Hinleit. in d. N. T., Ber. 1862, p. 385f.; 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 ésructod7 to the aposile’s First Epistle to the 
 Thessalonians, which was wrongly understood, or, as Hilgenfeld 
 thinks, from which an inference suggested by it was drawn. — 
 @s OTL évérTnKev 4 Huepa Tov Kupiou] as if, or, like as if the 
 day of the Lord is already present, or, 1s even on the point 
 of commencing’ (comp. Rom. viii. 38; 1 Cor. iii. 22, vil. 26; 
 Gal. i. 4), gives the contents of the communications unsettling 
 and terrifying them. s placed before érz brings into pro- 
 minence the fact that this notion was completely unfounded 
 and purely imaginary. Comp. also 2 Cor. xi. 21, and Winer, 
 p. 544 [E. T. 771]. Completely erroneous Hofmann: os ote 
 is equivalent to as éav, 1 Thess. ii. 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. 
 
 Vv. 3, 4. An emphatically-repeated exhortation, and the 
 
 1 Incorrectly Hoelemann, Die Stellung St. Pauli zu der Frage wm die Zeit der 
 “iederkunft Christi, Leipz. 1858, p. 14: ‘as if the day of the Lord was at hand.” 
 
208 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 reason of it. The readers were by no means to be misled into 
 the fancy, that the day of the Lord was now to dawn; for 
 the apostasy and the appearance of Antichrist must precede 
 it. — €Eavratav| does not precisely convey the idea of a deceit 
 occurring from wicked intention, whilst it may be correctly 
 imagined that nothing evil was seen in the mode of deception 
 mentioned in ver. 2—rather it was considered as an excusable 
 vehicle for the diffusion of views which were believed to be 
 recognised as true; only the idea of delusion, ie. of being 
 misled into a false and incorrect mode of contemplation, is 
 expressed by the verb.— When, then, the apostle says, Let 
 no man befool you, it is, similar to a form of representation 
 usual to him, in the meaning of suffer yourselves to be befooled 
 by no oue. Comp. Eph. v. 6; Col. ii. 16, 18. — cara pndéva 
 tporrov| not only recapitulates the three modes of misleading 
 mentioned in ver. 2 (Bengel, Baumgarten-Crusius), but is an 
 absolute expression, so that accordingly it may be supposed 
 that some other mode of deception might be employed. — The 
 sentence vv. 3, 4 is grammatically incomplete. The finite 
 verb to 67s is wanting, which Paul intended to accompany the 
 conjunction, but easily forgot as he added to 6 dvOpwros ris 
 dpaptias a longer description. It is perfectly clear from the 
 connection that ov« évéotnxer 1) uépa Tod Kvpiov from ver. 2 
 is to be supplied to 67. In a very forced manner Knatchbull 
 attempts to remove the incompleteness of the construction by 
 placing a comma after 67s, supplying évéotnxev to Stu, and 
 uniting it with yw Tis... Tpo7rov into one sentence. “ Suffer 
 yourselves to be deceived by no one that (the day of the Lord 
 is at the door), unless first there shall have come,” etc. To 
 maintain this meaning évéoTnxey must necessarily be added to 
 67. But still more arbitrary is the attempt of Storr and Flatt 
 to remove the ellipsis by explaining éay 7) as analogous (!) to 
 the Hebrew N? DX, in the sense of most certainly, most positively. 
 — 671] is to be separated from the preceding by a colon, and 
 does not denote indeed (Baumgarten-Crusius), but for. — azro- 
 otacia] a later Greek form for the older drdctacts. See 
 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 528. The expression is to be left in its 
 absoluteness, not, with Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, 
 
CHAP. II. 4. 209 
 
 Augustin (de civitate dei, xx. 21), and Bolten, to be taken as 
 abstractum pro concreto, so that Antichrist himself is to be under- 
 stood. But not apostasy in the political sense, but entirely 
 religious apostasy —that is, a falling away from God and true 
 religion—can have been meant by admoctacia. (1) What is 
 said of the av@pwtos THs auaprias in direct internal connection 
 with the apostasy, (2) the characteristic of the dmoctacia, 
 ver. 3, by avouia, ver. 7, and (3) the constant biblical usage, 
 constrain us to this view. Comp. LXX. 2 Chron. xxix. 19; 
 Jem 19; 1 Mace. nu. 15, ete.; Acts xxi, 21; 1 Tim. 1w1. 
 Accordingly, also, Kern’s view (comp. already Aretius and 
 Vorstius) is to be rejected as inadmissible, that we are to 
 think of a mixture of political and religious apostasy.— More- 
 over, the apostle speaks of 1) adrootacia (with the article), and 
 also 0 dvOpwmos THs auaptias K.T.X., either because the readers 
 had already been orally instructed concerning it (comp. ver. 5), 
 or because the Old Testament prophets had already foretold the 
 apostasy and the appearance of Antichrist. But the apostasy 
 is not the consequence of the appearance of Antichrist, so that 
 Paul by cat amoxadugO7 x.7.r. goes backwards from a state- 
 ment of its effect to a specification of its author (so Pelt and 
 de Wette, appealing to vv. 9, 10); but it precedes the appear- 
 ance of antichrist, so that this is the historical climax of the 
 atootacia, and serves for its completion (vv. 7—-10).— The 
 apostle considers Antichrist as a parallel to Christ; therefore 
 he here speaks of an azroxdduwis (comp. i. 7), a revelation of 
 what was hitherto concealed, as well as, in ver. 9, of an advent 
 of the same. — 0 dvOpwros Tihs apuaptias| the man of sin, ie. 
 in whom sin is the principal matter, and is, as it were, tncor- 
 porated—who thus forms the climax of wickedness. — 0 vios 
 Ths amwdelas] the son of perdition, i.e. who on account of his 
 wickedness falls a prey to perdition. Comp. John xvii. 12. 
 See Winer, p. 213 [E. T. 298]. Schleusner and Pelt erron- 
 eously take the expression as transitive: “who will be the 
 cause of perdition to:others.” Equally erroneously Theodoret, 
 Oecumenius, and others; also Heydenreich and Schott: the 
 transitive sense is to be wnited with the intransitive. 
 
 Ver. 4. ‘O avtixelwevos]| is not to be united by zevyma with 
 
 Meryer—2 THEss, 0 
 
210 TIE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 imreparpopevos, so that out of érl wdvra «.7.Xr. the dative ravi 
 Aeyouévp Oew 7) ceBdopate is to be taken (Benson, Koppe, 
 Krause, Rosenmiiller, Flat, Pelt, Bloomfield, Hofmann, Riggen- 
 bach), but is absolute, in the sense of a substantive—the 
 opposer. It has been erroneously maintained by Pelt, that the 
 article being only put once necessitates the assumption of a 
 zeugma. But all that follows from the single insertion of the 
 article is only that the two statements, dvtiKeto@ar and 
 UrepaiperOar, must contain something related to each other, 
 which is summed up in a common general idea. This general 
 idea is extremely evident from what follows. Accordingly, 
 the person of whom Paul speaks was designated according to 
 his internal nature by 6 avOpwros Tis apaptias, then charac- 
 terized according to his wltimate fate by o vios Ths awwnelas, 
 and now—whilst Paul in his delineation takes a step back- 
 ward (comp. ver. 8 and ver. 9)—the mode and manner of his 
 public external appearance and conduct is described. — But if 
 6 avttKeiwevos denotes simply and absolutely the opposer, the 
 question is asked, whom does he oppose? Baumgarten and 
 Michaelis erroneously answer: the human race; for this inter- 
 pretation has no point of contact in the context, and would 
 explain away the form so definitely brought before us by Paul 
 by a vague generality. De Wette and others more definitely 
 answer: God and Christ. And certainly the description that 
 immediately follows shows that the opposer opposes himself 
 in the highest degree to God. But this fact does not justify 
 such a wide meaning, if another is opposed to it in the context. 
 Now the context specially points to the opposer of Christ (thus 
 Heydenreich, Schott, and Kern). For the man of sin stands 
 in the closest and strictest parallelism with Christ. He is the 
 forerunner of Christ's advent, and has, as the caricature of 
 Christ, like Him an advent and a manifestation: he raises the 
 power of evil, which exalts itself in a hostile manner against 
 Christ and His kingdom, to the highest point; his working 
 is diametrically the opposite of the working of Christ, and it 
 is Christ’s appearance which destroys him. Accordingly, the 
 opponent can be none other than the Antichrist (0 avrixpiotos, 
 1 John ii, 18), This Antichrist is not the devil himself 
 
CIIAP..- IT. 4. 21k 
 
 (Pelagius and others), for he is distinguished from lim (ver. 9) ; 
 but according to ver. 9 he is an instrument of the devil. — 
 In cal vrrepatpopevos x.7.r. he is further described as he who, 
 in frivolous arrogance, exalts himself above all that is called 
 God. With this description the delineation of Antiochus 
 Epiphanes, in Dan. xi. 36, 37, was before the mind of the 
 apostle, where it is said: cal 0 Bacwredrs trrwOyjcetar Kai 
 peyaruvBynoetar él mavta Ocov, kal Nadjoe. bTEpOyKa... 
 Kal emt mavtas Oeods TOV TaTEépwY avToD ov auVycE... Kal 
 ért wav Ocov ov cuvnce, OTe emt TavtTas peyadvyOnoerat. 
 Comp. Dan. vii. 25: kat Adyous mpos Tov trioTov adijoet. 
 —éni ravta Xeyouevov Ocov] includes the true God as well 
 as the false gods worshipped by the heathen; but Aeyopevoy 
 is a natural addition from Christian caution, as wavta Oeov 
 would have been a senseless and indeed blasphemous ex- 
 pression for a Christian. — 7 céBacpua] serves for a genera- 
 lization of the idea Oedv. Accordingly the meaniny is: or 
 whatever else 4s an object of adoration, sc. of divine adoration 
 (= numen). — @ote x.7.r.] The arrogant wickedness of Anti- 
 christ proceeds so far that he claims divine adoration for himself. 
 — xaGicat] intransitive, seats himself; accordingly not atrov 
 (Grotius, Koppe, Pelt), but adrov is to be written. avdrov is 
 placed for the sake of emphasis: he, who has lost all reverence 
 for the divine, in whose form he wishes to appear. — 0 vads Tod 
 Ocov] is not, as Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, 
 Musculus, Hunnius, Estius, Lucius and Andrew Osiander, 
 Aretius, Vorstius, Calixt, Calovius, Wolf, Benson, Moldenhauer, 
 Bolten, and others, also Heydenreich, Pelt, Olshausen, Bloom- 
 field, Alford, Bisping, and Hilgenfeld (dc p. 253) assume, 
 a figurative representation of the Christian church, but, on 
 account of the definite expression xa@icat, cannot be other- 
 wise understood than in its proper sense. But on account of 
 the repetition of the article can only one definite temple of 
 one definite true God—that is, the temple of Jerusalem—be 
 meant (Grotius, Clericus, Schottgen, Whitby, Kern, de Wette, 
 Wieseler, v. Déllinger, /.c. p. 282).’ — amoderxvivta éavtov ote 
 
 2 Schrader certainly finds in 4 vases a heathen temple ; and by the addition rod 
 ©:ov its interior is denoted, the place where the god had its seat! 
 
212 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 €ativ Oecos] exhibiting himself that he is a god, i.e. whilst he 
 not only actwally takes possession of the temple of the only 
 true God as his own, as a dwelling-place belonging to him, but 
 also publicly predicates of himself divine dignity, and accord- 
 ingly requires to be adored. The interpretation of Chrysostom, 
 Oecumenius, Theophylact, and others, also Heydenreich, Schott, 
 Olshausen, de Wette, Bisping, and Riggenbach: “ who shows 
 himself or seeks to show himself as a god by deceitful 
 miracles” (ver. 9), agrees not with the preceding xa@ioau. 
 
 Ver. 5. Estius: “Est... tacita objurgatio, quasi dicat: 
 quum haec vobis praesens dixerim, non debebatis commoveri 
 rumoribus aliquorum dicentium instare diem domini.” — On 
 mpos wpas| see on 1 Thess. iii. 4. — tadra] namely, the con- 
 tents of vv. 3,4. To assume, however, a parenthesis from 
 ver. 5 to oidare in ver. 6 (so Heinsius) is arbitrary. 
 
 Ver. 6. To xatéyov] is that which keeps back, that which 
 hinders (TO kwdvov, Chrysostom). But it does not denote, as 
 Heinsius thinks (here and in ver. 7), that which hinders the 
 apostle from speaking freely of Antichrist ;+ also not that 
 which hinders the commencement of the advent of Christ 
 (Noack, der Ursprung des Christenthums, Bd. 2, Leipz. 1857, 
 p-. 315), but that which hinders the appearance of Antichrist. 
 This follows from the additional sentence eés To «.7.X., in which 
 (1) adrov can only be referred to the avOpwrros Tis awaprias, 
 and (2) adroxadudOjvar é€v T@ Eavtod Kaip@ forms a contrast 
 to the idea of keeping back contained in catéyov. 0 Katéyov 
 is therefore, according to its objective side, to be completed by 
 TO Tov avOpwrov THs duaptias Katéxov. What, on the other 
 hand, the apostle supposes to be the subject of this preventing 
 power can only be explained at the conclusion of this section. 
 — els TO x«.7.d.] not donec, usque dum, but in order that (the 
 aim of God in the catéyew).— év Té éavTod Kaip@] in his 
 time, ze. in the time appointed for him by God. More difficult 
 than these determinations is the solution of the question, In 
 what connection this verse is conjoined to the preceding by 
 
 1 «*Neque ignoratis, quid sit, quod me nunc aperte vetat loqui;” and on 
 
 ver. 7: ‘ille, qui nunc obstat, quo minus aperte loquar.” Heinsius makes the 
 words refer to the apostle’s fear of offending Nero! 
 
CHAP. II. 6. PRS 
 
 means of cat voy. Storr, with whom Flatt agrees, finds in viv 
 a contrast to érz, ver. 5. The thought would then be, that the 
 advent cannot commence until Antichrist appears, this I have 
 told you by word of mouth; but now, after my written declara- 
 tion (ver. 3), you know also why the appearance of Antichrist is 
 still delayed, namely, by the circumstance that the avroctacia 
 must precede his appearance. But if Paul had actually 
 wished to have expressed this contrast, he would have been 
 obliged to write in ver. 5, 67s tadtTa peév éts Ov mpos tpas 
 édeyov tuiv, and in ver. 6, viv dé Kal To KaTéyov oldate. 
 telated to Storr’s view is the interpretation of Kern, with 
 whom Hilgenfeld (lc. p. 247) agrees: “That the advent of 
 Christ does not take place until the man of sin be revealed, 
 is already known to you: and now, in reference to what the 
 present presents to you, ye know also that which hinders.” 
 The same objection is decisive against this view. Further, 
 according to Hofmann, who considers vv. 5, 6 as “two halves 
 of one question united with xai,’ vdv stands not, indeed, in 
 opposition to é7z, ver. 5, but must express “the present in 
 reference to that future which was known to the readers,” 
 that they know that in the present by which its commence- 
 ment is still hindered. But the temporal viv can never form 
 a contrast to TavTa in ver. 5; and to assume that the words 
 in ver. 6 are still contained in the question in ver. 5 is 
 entirely erroneous, because in this case Kai viv «.7.r. could 
 only be considered as dependent on 67,’ but it is not necessary 
 to recall to mind what is actually known in the present. — 
 vov is also understood as a particle of time, by Whitby, Mack- 
 night, Heydenreich, Schrader, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
 Wieseler, and Bisping, but they do not connect it with oléare, 
 but with ro xatéyov: “and ye know that which at present 
 hinders.” But only a grammatical impropriety would be 
 expressed thereby, as kat to viv xatéyov would be required. 
 For it is inconceivable that an adverb, whose proper place is 
 between the article and the participle, should by a hyperbaton 
 _ 1 For if in the presumed question, not o/dars and ¢atyov, but ofdere and uynuo- 
 
 yevere were to correspond, xal obx oldare viv rd xaréxoy Would require to have been 
 written, 
 
214 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 be placed first, because it has already in its natural position 
 the same emphasis which it would receive by its being placed 
 first. .The passages appealed to, as ver. 7, 1 Cor. vii. 17, 
 tom. xii. 3, etc, are not analogous. And as little do the 
 temporal particles dpte and %6n, ver. 7, decide for this con- 
 struction. For the emphasis lies not on dps, but on catéyor, 
 so that dpte might be omitted without injury to the sense; 
 and 767 is not put in exchange for viv, but for év r@ éavTod 
 xaip®. Likewise viv is understood by Schott as a temporal 
 and consecutive particle, but «aé is then taken in the sense of 
 also: “For ye know also now (not only have ye learned it at 
 that time when I was with you), why the appearance of Anti- 
 christ is still delayed.” But (1) 70 ody xatéyov oidate Kai 
 vov would require to have been written; (2) To catéyov must 
 refer to a point formerly already explained ; but it is entirely 
 a new point, as in what goes before what hindered the appear- 
 ance of Christ, but not what hindered the appearance of 
 Antichrist, was spoken of ; (3) lastly, to what an idle, dragging, 
 , and trivial addition would ver. 6 be degraded! The only 
 correct view is to take «ai voy in a logical sense, but not, with 
 Koppe and Krause, as an inferential particle (“and accord- 
 ingly ”), but with de Wette, Alford, and Ewald, as a particle 
 of transition to a new communication: and now, comp. Acts 
 vii. 34, x. 5, xiii. 11, xx. 25, ete.; Hartung, Partikellehre, II. 
 p. 26. Accordingly, the emphasis does not lie on viv, but on 
 xatéyov. The meaning is: and now—to pass on to a further 
 point—ye know what hindereth, namely, wherein it consists, 
 and why the appearance of Antichrist is still prevented, that it 
 should be revealed in its appointed time, marked out by God. 
 The Thessalonians knew this point from the apostle’s oral 
 
 instructions, so that they required only to be reminded of it. 
 Ver. 7.1 An explanatory justification of efs Td azoxa- 
 AudOfvat adtov €v TO éavTod Kaipo, but not a parenthesis 
 (Hemming). The mystery of wickedness is certainly even 
 now active, but Antichrist cannot be manifest until the power 
 1 Comp. C. Th. Beyer, de xariyovrs viv avouiav, 2 Thess. ii. 7, commentatio, 
 
 Lips. 1824.—J. Grimm, the x«rizw» of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians 
 (Regensburger Lyceal-Programm), 1861. 
 
~ 
 
 CHAP. II. 7. 285 
 
 preventing him be overcome. — pvetiptov] is contrasted with 
 aTvoxarupOjvar, and 76n with év 76 éavTod Kaipo. But the 
 chief emphasis of the sentence lies on pvatypiov, which on that 
 account is not only placed first, but is besides separated from 
 its further definition tis advoutas by the verb and adverb. 
 Comp. Gal. ii. 6, 9; Arrian, Zxp. Al. i. 7.16: Kat ebtpécOar 
 cuyyvounvy TO TANI TaY OnBalwy THs atortadcews. — 
 avouia| means lawlessness, then ungodliness or wickedness 
 generally. The expression corresponds to amoctacia, ver. 3. 
 For the dv@pwros tis dwaptias was mentioned in ver. 3 as 
 the historical crown of the a@moctacia; whilst here, in like 
 manner, avoyia appears as its forerunner (757). The genitive 
 Ths avoulas is not a genitive of the working cause—wicked- 
 ness, which lays its concealed snares (Theodoret), or which 
 works under the appearance of good intentions, but uses 
 secret unworthy means for its object (Flatt); or the plan of 
 ungodliness (Baumgarten-Crusius) ; or the secret cownsel of the 
 supernatural power of darkness (kat évépyecav Tod catava, 
 ver. 9), which is placed in parallelism with God’s eternal 
 counsel or wvoTnptov in reference to Christ and His kingdom 
 (Kern); but is the genitive of apposition. But neither is 
 Antichrist himself meant, who, as Christ, because God mani- 
 fest in the flesh, is called in 1 Tim. iii. 16: 70 THs edoeBetas 
 pvotypiov, is likewise named To puotyHpiov Tis avomias, 
 because he is an incarnation of the devil (Olshausen) ; nor is 
 pvoTHpiov a mere intensification of the idea avouia, so that 
 a hitherto unheard of, wnexampled godlessness was designated 
 (Krebs, Hofmann, comp. also Heydenreich, p. 41, and Schott, 
 p. 22)... Rather, taking into consideration the emphatic anti- 
 thesis which puorypiov forms to droxadvdOjvar, the natural 
 meaning of the words can only be the mystery of wickedness, 
 i.e. wickedness in so far as it is still a mystery, something 
 concealed, not yet publicly brought to light. Paul thinks on 
 the detached traces of wickedness, recognisable in their true 
 import only to a few as to himself, which already appeared, 
 but which only at a later period will concentrate themselves, 
 
 1 For this meaning an appeal is made to Joseph. de bello Jud. i. 24.1: xa} ray 
 "Avrimarpov Biov ox ay dudpros cis timay xaxias muoTipiov. 
 
216 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 and reach their climax in Antichrist. — évepyetrac] is not 
 passive, as Estius, Grotius, Kypke, Nosselt, Storr, Schott, 
 dloomfield, and others assume, but middle, is active, begins to 
 hestir itself or to develope its activity. The subject of évepryetras 
 is TO pvoTjpwov, not Antichrist, as Zeger thinks. — povov] is 
 still by Heinsius’ and Kypke connected with the preceding, 
 and separated from what follows by a comma. FErroneously, 
 as povoy is irreconcilable with 76y in the same clause. But 
 also povoy does not begin a protasis to which «al tote, ver. 8, 
 introduces the apodosis (Koppe). Iather a comma is to be 
 put after avouias, and a colon after yévntat. Accordingly 
 ver. 7 is divided into two halves, of which the first forms a 
 concession, and the second a limitation. The meaning is: as 
 a mystery wickedness certainly works even now, only, before 
 Antichrist can be manifested, we must wait until, etc. — éws| 
 until that, should properly stand before 0 Katéywv; but it is 
 placed after, in order to bring forward more emphatically 
 0 Katéyov as the chief idea. Comp. Gal. ii. 10: povov trav 
 mTwxyav wa pvnuovevmpev. See Winer, p. 485 [E. T. 688]. 
 Erroneously Tychsen: the construction is “somewhat dis- 
 torted ;” it should have been povoy 6 xatéywv éws apre. 
 Others, equally erroneously, assume that for the completion 
 of the sentence an additional verb is to be taken from the 
 participle 0 xatéywv. Thus, in conformity with the Vulgate 
 (tantum ut qui tenet nunc, teneat, donec de medio fiat), 
 Nicolas de Lyra, Erasmus, Zwingli, Zeger, Camerarius, Estius, 
 Lucius and Andrew Osiander, Balduin, Menochius, Cornelius a 
 Lapide, and others, who supply xateyérw ; Jac. Cappellus, Beza, 
 Calixt, Joachim Lange, Whitby, who supply «a@éfer; Bengel, 
 Storr, Pelt, who supply «atéyet. Not less arbitrarily do 
 Knatchbull, Benson, and Baumgarten proceed, who would add 
 éotiv after povov, For not the mere copula éoriv, but the 
 emphatie and independent €or, would warrant the sense 
 assumed by them; but a word which has the emphasis cannot 
 be left out.— 0 xatéywy] must be essentially the same as what 
 was designated in ver. 6 by the neuter To xatéyov. For the 
 
 ' Heinsius finds the thought expressed : what was only begun in the time of 
 Nero, Antichrist will at a later period bring to a conclusion, 
 
CHAP. II. 8. DAMN Fe 
 
 same function is ascribed to both, whilst in a similar manner 
 as 70 Katéyov formerly, so now also o xatéywy (comp. ver. 8) 
 appears as that by which the azroxaAvus of Antichrist is still 
 delayed. The restraining power, on which Paul thought, must 
 accordingly have been so constituted that it can be brought 
 under a twofold form of description, and be represented both as 
 a thing and as a person. To make o xatéywv denote the 
 ruling power (qui obtinet, i. e. rerum potitur, Beza, and so also 
 Whitby, Noesselt, and others) is as contrary to the context as 
 it would be to supply fidem as an accusative to it (Nicolas de 
 Lyra: “ qui tenet nunc fidem catholicam, teneat eam firmiter”), 
 or fidem atque caritatem (Zeger), or Christum et veram ejus 
 religionem (Estius), or Christi adventum (Vatablus), or tiv 
 avopiav (Flatt, Heydenreich, Schott), and the like. — dpe] is 
 closely connected with o catéywv, and brings specially forward 
 the reference already contained in the present participle to the 
 immediate present time of the writer. Schott, after Flatt and 
 Pelt, thinks that if apts is to be limited to the time of the 
 speaker, it 1s not suitable to the view of the apostle (see on 
 1 Thess, iv. 15); that it may accordingly be understood 
 generally: “tempus efficientiae tod xatéyovtos opportunum, 
 quod porro elapsurum sit ad initium usque temporis ili 
 oppositi i. e. donec, remoto 76 xatéyov7e, palam sit proditura 
 n atootacia.” —ék pécou yiverGar| is not necessarily to 
 be considered of death or violence (Olshausen, Baumgarten- 
 Crusius). It can denote any removal or being taken out of 
 the way, however it may happen. Comp. 1 Cor. v. 2; Col. ii. 
 14; Plutarch, Timol. p. 238: éyvo Shv nal éavrov éx pécov 
 yevopevos. The opposite of é« wécou yivec@ae or alperOar is 
 €v peo@ eivat, to be in the way, or to be obstructive. Comp. 
 Xenoph. Cyrop. v. 2. 26: nat ogodp dv et mn ye SvvawrTo 
 cuppi—ta. Ti & év péco, edn, éoti Tod cuppiéas ; “Aoouvptos, 
 épacay, TO avTo EOvos, du’ obtep viv Topevy. 
 
 Ver. 8. What was left to the readers themselves to supply 
 to povov, ver. 7, from the conclusion of ver. 6, is now, in its 
 essence, although in an altered form, expressly indicated by 
 kal TOTe aToKadvdOnjoeTat Oo avomos. — Kal Tote] and then, 
 namely, as soon as the catéywy is taken out of the way. The 
 
218 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 emphasis is on xal tote, not on 6 dvowos (Grotius), nor on 
 atroKkarugOijcetat. — 6 avopos] the lawless one, is not a different 
 person from av@pwros tis dwaptias (Grotius), but identical 
 with him. For xai tote dmoxadupOjcetar points back to 
 povov, ver. 7, and by this to dmroxaduOfvat adrov, ver. 6. 
 The expression avopia, just used, afforded the easily explained 
 occasion for calling Antichrist a@vouos.— With the relative 
 sentence Ov 6 KUpios . .. mapovaias adtod (which is incorrectly 
 enclosed in a parenthesis by Benson, Moldenhauer, Schott, 
 and Kern) the apostle immediately adds the ultimate fate which 
 Antichrist has to expect. That Paul so directly passes over to 
 this, although he has it yet in view to speak of the working 
 of Antichrist before his destruction (comp. vv. 9, 10), is an 
 involuntary impulse of his Christian heart which causes him 
 immediately to resolve the horror which the announcement of 
 such an event as the amoxdduis Tod avopuov has into comfort 
 and consolation, as a discord into harmony, comp. vv. 3, 4. — In 
 a soaring and poetical form of expression, the members of whicli 
 have their Hebrew parallels, Paul describes the fate of Antichrist. 
 Not improbably Isa. xi. 4 was present to his mind, where it is 
 declared of the promised Deliverer of the seed of Jesse: Kai 
 maraker yiv TO Oyo TOD STOpaTos avTod, Kal év TVEvpaTL dia 
 YEt€wv avedet aceBH. — avadicxerv] to consume, to destroy. 
 —T® Tvevpate TOU GTOMaTos avTov] describes the power and 
 irresistible might of the reappearing Christ, the breath of whose 
 mouth suffices to bring His opponents to nothing. More definite 
 interpretations, as the sentence of condemnation (Vatablus, Cor- 
 nelius a Lapide), or a command or address (Theodoret: pOéyEerat 
 povov ; Theodore Mopsuestia, ed. Fritzsche, p. 148 : wovov éru- 
 Bonoas ... TOUTO yap Eyer TO TO TVEVpaTL TOD OTOMATOS AUTOD 
 avtl Tov TH povh, aro Tod wap’ Hiv ado eipnKes, ErrELdy Tels 
 TO TvevpaTe cvvepy@® KeypnucOa Tpos Thy évapPpov ahiav), 
 are to be rejected; for they destroy or weaken the picturesque 
 directness and strength of the figure. Comp. moreover, Eurip. 
 Med. 588: &v yap obv Krevel a’ Eros. — katapyet] to overthrow, 
 to annihilate. On account of Rev. xix. 20, Calovius and 
 Olshausen interpret the verb of a mere “ rendering inefficient,” 
 depriving Antichrist of his influence ; but the parallel avadwoe 
 
CIIAP. II. 9, 10. 219 
 
 decides against this meaning, and a comparison of the Pauline 
 form of expression with that of the Apocalypse is useless 
 labour. — 7H émipavela tis Tapovoias avtov| by the appear- 
 ance of His presence. The majestic brightness of the advent is 
 not described by émupdveca (Musculus, Hemming, Bullinger, 
 Heinsius, Andrew Osiander, Cornelius a Lapide, Erasmus Schmid, 
 Calixt, Clericus, Bernard a Piconius, Sebastian Schmid, Schoett- 
 gen, Turretin, Whitby, Benson, Macknight, Koppe, Krause, 
 Bolten, Heydenreich, Pelt, Schott, Kern, Wieseler, and others); 
 also mapovoia and émipadvera are not to be distinguished, as 
 Olshausen strangely thinks, as objective and subjective, i.e. as 
 “the actual fact of the appearance of Christ,” and “the con- 
 templation of it on the part of man, the consciousness of His 
 presence ;” but the placing the two together has the same 
 design as formerly, T@ mvevpate ToD oTOmaTos avdTod, namely, 
 vividly to represent the power of Christ, inasmuch as the mere 
 advent of His presence suffices to annihilate His adversaries. 
 Comp. Bengel : “ apparitio adventus ipso adventw prior est, vel 
 certe prima ipsius adventus emicatio, uti émupdvera Ths nmepas.” 
 
 Vy. 9,10. The apostle has in ver. 8 not only said when Anti- 
 christ will appear, but he has also immediately added what fate 
 awaits him. He now goes backward in point of time, whilst 
 in addition he describes the character of the working which 
 Antichrist will develope before his destruction, brought about 
 by the appearance of Christ. — od] sc. tod dvopuov. Parallel 
 with 6v, ver. 8.— éativ] the present describes the ccrtainty of 
 the coming in the future. See Winer, p. 237 [E. T. 331]. 
 Incorrectly Koppe, it imports: “jam agit et mox apertius 
 majoreque cum vi aget.” —xat’ évépyesay Tod catava] does 
 not belong as an independent statement to éor/v (so Hofmann, 
 as before him already Georgii, in Zeller’s theol. Jahrb. 1845, 
 Part 1, p. 8, who gives the meaning that the act of the 
 appearing of the avoyos will itself be a work of Satan), but is 
 a subsidiary statement to the principal clause €otiv év «.7.X., 
 assigning the reason of it. It does not import “after the 
 example of the working of the devil” (similiter ae si satanas 
 ageret, Michaelis), but in conformity with it, that an évépyeva 
 Tov oatava is its characteristic, that is, that the devil works in 
 
220 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 and through him. — eivat év tw] to consist in something, to 
 prove or make itself known in something. Against Hofmann, 
 who arbitrarily denies this use of the phrase, comp. Winer, 
 p. 345 [E. T. 482]. — dvvaper nai onpelous Kal tépacw] a 
 rhetorical enumeration, as in Acts 11,22, for the exhaustion of 
 the idea. But as wdon (see Winer, p. 466 [E. T. 660]), so 
 also yevdous belongs to all three substantives. The genitive 
 may import: in every kind of power, and in all signs and 
 wonders whose nature is falsehood, or which proceed from 
 falsehood, or which lead to falsehood, whose aim is falsehood. 
 The last meaning is, with Aretius, de Wette, and others, to be 
 preferred, as Antichrist is indeed the first to bring evil to its 
 climax. — yeddos] falsehood, belongs to the essential nature of 
 the devil (comp. John viii, 44). It represents evil as the 
 counterpart of divine truth (the ade). 
 
 Ver. 10. Kai év raon aratn abdixias| and in every deceit 
 which leads to or advances unrighteousness, 2.e. ungodliness 
 (Estius, Aretius, Grotius, de Wette, and others).— But this 
 energetic working of Antichrist by no means describes his 
 power as irresistible; only the droAAvpevoe succumb under 
 it. Theodoret: Od yap mwavtwv Kparijcel, adda TOY aTo- 
 Aelas akiwv, of Kal Sixa Tis TovTOV i om odpas avrovs 
 Tis awtnplas éotépnoav. — Tols amoddvpEvors] is dativus 
 incommodi, and belongs not only to €vy macy amdty aéuKias 
 (Heydenreich, Flatt, Hofmann), but to the’ whole sentence 
 from ver. 9 onwards. — of doddvpevor] are they who perish, 
 who fall into eternal aw@deca (comp. 1 Cor. i 18; 2 Cor. 
 ii. 15, xiv. 3), and the present participle characterizes this 
 future fate as already decided. Comp. Bernhardy, Syntaz, p. 
 371. But the addition av@ oy x.7.r. denotes that this was 
 oceasioned by their own fuult.— av@ dv thy ayarny Ths 
 adnbeias ovx €déEavTo] in requital for this (comp. Luke i. 20, 
 xix. 44; Acts xii, 23; LXX. 1 Kings xi. 11; Joel iii 5; 
 Xen. Anab. i. 3. 4, ibid. v. 5. 14), that they have not received in 
 themselves the love of the truth. To interpret, with Bolten: 
 THY ayarnv THs adnOelas, “the loveable and true religion,” 
 is naturally as impossible as, with Chrysostom, Theodoret,! 
 
 l"Ayéirny aantsias viv xupiov xixAnxty, ws CAnbas Huds xual ywnciws ayarncurvTa, 
 
CHAP. IL. 11. oo 
 
 Oecumenius, and Theophylact, to find therein a circumlocution 
 for Christ Himself. 1 adAnGea denotes moral and religious 
 truth generally, not, as is usually supposed, Christian truth 
 specially. Thus every objection which Kern (p. 212) takes 
 to it vanishes, that tyv aydrnv Ths adnOeias ovK &déEavToO 
 was written instead of the simple tyv ddAnOevav ovK &déEarTo. 
 For in a similar manner, as the apostle in Gal. v. 4, instead of 
 the simple Sccarocvynv atrexdeyoueba, which one would expect, 
 put the apparently strange éAwiéda Sixavocvvns arrexdexopucba, 
 but did so designedly, in order to oppose to the arrogant feel- 
 ing of the legally righteous the humble feeling of the true 
 Christian ; so here the expression tiv ayamnv tis adnOeias 
 ov« édcEavto is designedly chosen to bring forward the high 
 degree of guilt. Not only have they not received the Christian 
 truth presented to them ; for it might be still conceivable that 
 they highly esteemed the truth «itself and felt themselves 
 drawn to it, although in consequence of spiritual blindness 
 they had not known and recognised Christianity as an embodi- 
 ment and full expression of the truth; but they have not 
 even received into their hearts the dove of the truth under 
 whatever form it may be presented to them; they have ren- 
 dered themselves entirely wnsusceptible of the truth, they have 
 hardened themselves against it. — eis TO cwOjvat adtovs] in 
 order that they might be saved, brings still more prominently 
 forward this hardness. They ought to have received that 
 ayatn Ths adnGeias, to the end that they might receive 
 owtTnpia, eternal salvation. But the attainment of such an 
 end did not trouble them, was something indifferent to them. 
 Ver. 11. Kat ova todto] and on this account, refers to av? 
 ov THY ayaTnv THS adnOelas ovk éd€é£avTo, Ver. 10, and Kai 
 serves to bring forward the reciprocal relation between cause 
 and effect. — méurret aitots 6 Ocds] the present is chosen, 
 because according to ver. 7 the beginnings of lawlessness even 
 now appeared. But the verbal idea is not, with Theodoret, 
 John Damascenus, Theodore Mopsuestius, p. 148, Oecumenius, 
 Theophylact, Pelagius, Nicolas de Lyra, Hunnius, Justinian, 
 Wolf, Turretin, Whitby, Moldenhauer, Koppe, Heydenreich, 
 Flatt, and others, to be weakened into the idea of the divine 
 
222 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 permission, but must be taken in its proper sense. For accord- 
 ing to the Pauline view it is a holy ordinance of God that the 
 wicked by their wickedness should lose themselves always 
 the more in wickedness, and thus sin is punished by sin. 
 But what is an ordinance of God is also accomplished by God 
 Himself. See Meyer on Rom. i. 24.— évépyecav wravns] 
 active power of seduction. On wdavn, see on 1 Thess, ii, 3. — 
 els TO miaTedoat «.T.r.] not a statement of the consequence 
 (Macknight and others), but of the design of God. In a forced 
 manner, Hofmann: es 7 muctedoas belongs to évépyevav. 
 
 Ver. 12. “Iva] dependent on eis 70 mictedoas K.7.r., not on 
 apret, as Hofmann thinks. A statement of the further or 
 higher design. —-tva xpi0ador| in order that they may be 
 judged, ae. according to the context, condemned. — The truth 
 is the Christian truth, and the wnbelie/, shown against it, is 
 the consequence of the love for the truth in general being 
 wanting (ver. 10). 
 
 CONCLUDING REMARKS ON CHAP. IL. 1-12. 
 
 The apocalyptic teaching of the apostle in chap. ii. 1-12 
 has occupied Christians of all times, and has been very vari- 
 ously interpreted. A chief distinction in the interpretations 
 consists in this, that this Pauline prediction may be considered 
 either as that which will be fulfilled in the near or more 
 distant future, or as having already received its fulfilment. 
 
 I. The Church Fathers belong to the representatives of 
 the first view (Irenaeus, adv. haer. v. 25, 29, 30; Tertullian, 
 d: resur. carn. c. 24; Chrysostom in loco; Cyril. Hierosolym. 
 Vatech. 15 ; Augustine, de civit. dei, xx. 19 ; Theodoret en Joco, 
 and epit. decret. div. c. 23 ; Theodorus Mopsuestius, and others). 
 They correctly agree in considering that by the advent 
 (vv. 1,8), or the day of the Lord (ver. 2), is to be understood 
 the personal advent of Christ for the last yudgment and for the 
 comoletion of the Messianic kingdom. Also it is correctly 
 
CHAP. II. 1-12. 223 
 
 regarded as proved, that the Antichrist here described is to be 
 considered as an individual person, in whom sin will embody 
 itself. Yet Augustin already remarks, that “nonnulli non 
 ipsum principem, sed universum quodam modo corpus ejus 
 i. c. ad eum pertinentem hominum multitudinem simul cum 
 ipso suo principe hoc loco intelligi Antichristum volunt.” The 
 restraining power by which the appearance of Antichrist is 
 delayed, is usually considered to be the continuance of the 
 Roman Empire (70 «areyov) and its representative the Roman 
 emperor (0 catéywv). Some, however, as Theodorus Mopsues- 
 tius and Theodoret, understand by it tod Ocod tov spor, ie. 
 more exactly, the counsel of God to keep back the appearance of 
 Antichrist wntil the gospel is proclaimed throughout the earth. 
 This latter interpretation is certainly unsuitable enough. For 
 although the difference of gender To xatéyov and o Katéywv 
 may be to distinguish God’s counsel and God Himself, yet 
 €x pecov yivecOar is not reconcilable with the masculine o 
 xatéyov. Chrysostom chooses a third interpretation, that by 
 the restraining power is meant the continuance of the extra- 
 ordinary gifts of the Spirit. But he directly refutes this 
 by the fact that if so, Antichrist must have already appeared, 
 as those gifts have long since disappeared in the Christian 
 church. The temple of God, in which Antichrist will place 
 himself, is referred either to the Christian church (so Chry- 
 sostom, Theodoret, Augustin), the expression being taken 
 figuratively, or to the actual temple of Jerusalem (so Irenaeus 
 and Cyril); in which latter case the objection, that this 
 temple was already destroyed, is met by the shift that a new 
 temple rebuilt in place of the old one by Antichrist is to be 
 thought on. Lastly, some, as Chrysostom,'—although in 
 contradiction to the chronology of the Epistle——interpret the 
 ‘ puoTHptov THs avowias, which already begins to work, of Nero, 
 the forerunner and type of Antichrist in St. Paul’s time; and 
 others, as Theodoret, of the outbreak of heresies. 
 
 I Nipwva tyravbd Onow, wouvel cirov dvr sod Aytixpicrou" xai yap ovros tBovarAero 
 vuilectas Osos. Kai xadws eire 7d pevornpiov’ ob yap Pavepws ws ixcivos, ovdt-canpu- 
 Cpr ptvos. Ei yap apo rod xpovou éxeivov aveupthn, Onciv, Os od FOAL Tov Avrixpicrou 
 tAcimETo HOTA Thy KaKiay, Ti buumaurrToy, bi dn LOTaL; 
 
224 TIE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 The common and grave error in the explanations of the 
 Fathers, by means of which they run counter to the Pauline 
 representation, consisted in their not doing sufficient justice to 
 the point of nearness of the event predicted by Paul. It is 
 incontestable, as the result of correct exegesis, that Paul not 
 only considered Antichrist as directly preceding the advent, but 
 also regarded the advent as so near, that he himself might then 
 be alive. It was natural that the Fathers, as the prophecy 
 of the apostle had not been fulfilled in their times, should 
 disregard this point; but they held that in this prophecy a 
 picture of the last things, fully corresponding to the reality in 
 the future, must have been given. They therefore satisfied 
 themselves with the consideration that the prediction had 
 already begun to be fulfilled in the apostolic times, but that the 
 apostle could not possibly give an exact statement of time, as he 
 only says that Antichrist will be revealed in his appointed time.’ 
 
 The view of the Fathers remained in the following ages the 
 prevalent one in the Christian church. It was necessary, 
 however, partially to change and transform it, the relation of 
 Christianity to the Roman state having altered, as the Chris- 
 tian church, instead of being exposed to renewed hostilities 
 from the secular power, had obtained the sovereignty of the 
 state, and, penetrating larger portions of the world, represented 
 itself as the kingdom of God on earth, and an imposing 
 hierarchy was placed at its head. Whilst, accordingly, the 
 idea of the advent stepped more and more into the back- 
 ground in the church generally, and especially with the 
 hierarchy, on the other hand, those who had placed them- 
 selves in opposition to the hierarchy believed themselves 
 obliged to apply to zt the description of the apostle, as well as 
 the figures in the Apocalypse of St. John. Thus arose— 
 whilst the early view concerning the wapovcia Tod Kupiov was 
 held with only the modification that its entrance was to be 
 expected in the distant future—the view, first in the eleventh 
 
 1 Comp. Augustin, Hpist. 80 (Zp. 199, ed. Bened.): ... ita sane obscure sunt 
 et mystice dicta, ut tamen appareat, eum nihil de statutis dixisse temporibus, 
 nullumque eorum intervallum spatiumque aperuisse. Ait enim: ut reveletur 
 in suo tempore, nee dixit, post quantum temporis hoc futurum sit. 
 
CHAP. Il. 1-12. 225 
 
 century, that the establishment and growing power of the Papacy 
 is to be considered as the Antichrist predicted by Paul. At 
 first this view was expressed in the conflict between the 
 emperors and the popes by the partisans of the imperial 
 power; but was then repeated by all those who had placed 
 themselves in opposition with the hierarchy, because they 
 wished, instead of the rigid ecclesiastical power, a freer spirit 
 of Christianity to rule; thus by the Waldenses, the Albigenses, 
 and the followers of Wickliffe and Huss. The empire—which 
 was regarded as nothing else than a revival and renewal of the 
 old Roman Empire—was considered as the restraining power 
 which still delayed the destruction of the Papacy. 
 
 This reference’ of Antichrist to the papal hierarchy became 
 specially prevalent toward the time of the Reformation, and 
 after that event was almost regarded as a dogma in the 
 evangelical church. It is found in Bugeuhagen, Zwingli, Calvin, 
 Victorin Strigel, Hemming, Hunnius, Lucius and Andrew 
 Osiander, Camero, Balduin, Aretius, Er. Schmid, Beza, Quistorp, 
 Calixt, Calovius, Newton, Wolf, Joachim Lange, Turretin, 
 Benson, Bengel, Macknight, Zachariae, Michaelis, and others. 
 Accordingly it is expressed in the LutheNan symbolical books; 
 comp. Articul. Smalcald. II. 4 (ed. Meyer, p. 189 f.): Haec 
 doctrina praeclare ostendit, papam esse ipsum verum <Anti- 
 christum, qui supra et contra Christum sese extulit et evexit, 
 quandoquidem Christianos non vult esse salvos sine sua potes- 
 tate, quae tamen nihil est, et a deo nec ordinata nec mandata 
 est. Hoc proprie loquendo est se efferre supra et contra 
 deum, sicut Paulus 2 Thess. i. loquitur. — De pot. et prim. 
 pap. (p. 210): Constat autem, Romanos pontifices cum suis 
 membris defendere impiam doctrinam et impios cultus. Ac 
 plane notae Antichristi competunt in regnum papae et sua 
 “membra. Paulus enim ad Thessalonicenses describens Anti- 
 christum, vocat eum adversarium Christi, extollentem se super 
 omne, quod dicitur aut colitur deus, sedentem in templo dei 
 tanquam deum. Also Luther’s powerful treatise against the 
 papal bull bore the title: “Adversus exsecrabilem bullam 
 Antichristi.”. It was thought that the Papacy would go on 
 
 1 See against this view, Koppe, Zxcurs. II. p. 120 ff. 
 
 Mryrr—2 TuHEss. is 
 
 — 
 Sy 
 
226 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 more and more developing what was anti-Christian in it, 
 and that then the last judgment would overtake it. The 
 atrootacia was the falling away from the pure gospel to the 
 traditions of men. The singular 6 dv@pwros tis dwaptias 
 x.T.r. is to be understood collectively as a series et successio 
 hominum, inasmuch as the question is concerning an imperium 
 monarchicum which remains one and the same, although its 
 temporal head may be changed. The godlessness of Anti- 
 christ, described in ver. 4, is historically proved by the pope 
 placing himself above all human and divine authority, the 
 words wavtTa Neyouevov Ocov x.7.r., in accordance to biblical 
 usage, being referred to the princes and great men of the 
 world, and an allusion being discovered in o€Pacya to the 
 Roman imperial title SeSacrds. The objection, that there 
 have been pious popes, is removed by the proverb: “ @ potiori 
 jit denominatio.” vads tod Oeod is referred to the Christian 
 church, and the ca@icar to the tyrannical power usurped over 
 it. By To xatéyov is nearly universally understood the 
 Roman Empire, and by 6 catéywv the Roman emperor, for 
 which proof is deduced from history, that the papal power 
 sprang from the ruins of the Roman Empire, whilst in refer- 
 ence to the continuation of the empire in Germany, it is 
 observed that praeter titulum nihil fere remains. The declara- 
 tion 7d pvotypiov dn evepyeitar THs avopias, ver. 7, is 
 considered as justified by the fact that at least the semina 
 erroris et ambitionis, which paved the way for the Papacy, were 
 present in the time of the apostle; for which Camero appeals 
 to Gal. i., ii, and others to other proofs. For an enumeration 
 of tépata wevdous, ver. 9, relics, transubstantiation, purgatory, 
 
 ~ ete., afford rich material The annihilation of Antichrist by 
 
 the mvedpa Tov otdpartos of the Lord, is understood to denote 
 the annihilation of his importance in the minds of men by the 
 divine word of Scripture being again opened up and diffused 
 in its purity by means of the Reformation ; whilst the xatap- 
 ynoe TH éemupavela Ths Tapovoias avtod denotes the final 
 and material destruction of Antichrist by the coming of 
 Christ to judgment. 
 
 In the presence of such polemics used against them, the 
 
CHAP. IL. 1—12. 297 
 
 Catholics are certainly not to be blamed that in retaliation 
 they interpreted dzoctacia as the defection from the Roman 
 church and from the pope, and Antichrist as the heretics, 
 especially Luther and the evangelical church. Comp. Estius, 
 Fromond., Bern. a Piconio. 
 
 Yet even before the reference of Antichrist to Popery was 
 maintained, Mohammed‘ was already regarded by the divines 
 of the Greek church (latterly by Faber Stapulensis and others) 
 as the Antichrist predicted by Paul, and in the aroctacia 
 was seen the defection of several Oriental and Greek churches 
 from Christianity to Mohammedanism. This interpretation at 
 least so far exercised an influence on the evangelical church, 
 that some of its theologians have assumed a double Antichrist 
 —one Oriental, viz. Mohammed and the Turkish power, and 
 the other Western, viz. the pope and his power. So Melanc- 
 thon, Bucer, Musculus, Bullinger, Piscator, and Vorstius. 
 
 Related to this whole method of interpretation is the 
 assumption,” made in our own century, that by the apostasy 
 is to be understood the enormities of the French Revolution ; 
 by Antichrist, Napoleon; and by him that restraineth, the 
 continuation of the German Empire—an interpretation which 
 the extinction of the German Empire in 1806 has already 
 condemned. 
 
 In recent times it has often been considered as objec- 
 tionable to determine exactly the individual traits of the 
 imagery used by Paul. Accordingly the representation of the 
 apostle has been interpreted in a general, ideal, or symbolical 
 sense. To this class of interpreters belongs Koppe, according 
 to whom Paul, founding on an old national Jewish oracle, 
 supported especially by Daniel, would describe the ungodli- 
 ness preceding the last day, which already worked, but whose 
 full outbreak was only to take place after the death of the 
 apostle; so that Paul himself was the catéywv.® Similarly | 
 
 1 See against this view, Turretin, p. 515 ff. 
 
 2 See Leutwein, das Thier war und ist nicht, und wird wiederkommen aus dem 
 Abgrunde. Hine Abhandlung fiir nachdenkende Leser, Ludwigsb. 1825. 
 
 3 To prove this view of the xara» by Koppe as the correct one by a closer 
 exposition, is the object of the above-mentioned treatise of Beyer (on II. 7). Also 
 
228 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE TIIESSALONIANS. 
 
 Storr (lc.), who understands by the dvOpwros tis dpap- 
 tias “ potestas aliqua, deo omnique religioni adversaria, quae 
 penitus incognita et futuro demum tempore se proditura sit,” 
 and by the preventing power the “ copia hominum verissimo 
 amore inflammatorum in christianam religionem.’—Further, 
 Nitzsch (l.c.) thinks on the power of atheism first come 
 to have public authority, or the contempt of all religion 
 generally. Further, the opinion of Pelt is entirely peculiar, 
 
 Heydenreich, Schott, and Grimm (Stud. u. Krit. 1850, Part 4, p. 790 ff.) so far 
 agree with Koppe, that they understand the neuter as the multitude of the 
 truly pious and believers (Heydenreich), or as the veri religionis doctores (Schott), 
 or as the apostolorum chorus (Grimm). For the removal of the objection, that 
 Paul hoped to survive the advent, and that accordingly tx wicov yiveréas would be 
 unsuitable, Schott and Grimm consider it probable that by this expression we 
 are to think not on death, but on ‘‘ alia res externa, e.g. captivitas dura.” Akin 
 to this interpretation of the xaréywy is Wieseler’s view (Chronologie des apost. 
 Zeitalt., Gotting. 1848, p. 272f.), that Paul would denote with it the pious 
 in Jerusalem, particularly the Christians, or in case xartywyv necessarily denoted 
 an individual, the Apostle James the Just. Comp. also Bohme, de spe messiana 
 apostolica, Hal. 1826, p. 30, according to whom the apostolic circle are denoted 
 in general, and in particular the most prominent member, perhaps the Apostle 
 James. Hofmann judges differently upon 7d xertzov and 6 xerixwy, Schrifibeweis, 
 Part 1, 2d ed. Nordling. 1857, p. 352 f., andinhish. Schr. N. 7., Part 1, p. 318 ff., 
 with whom Baumgarten, l.c. p. 609, Luthardt, l.c. p. 159 f., and Riggenbach 
 coincide. According to Hofmann, as throughout the whole passage 2 Thess. ii. 5-7 
 Paul refers apparently to the visions of Daniel, he must have spoken to the Thessa- 
 lonians of that which hinders the man of sin from coming sooner than his proper 
 time with reference to these prophecies of Daniel. Therefore, in agreement with 
 Daniel, a spiritual power is to be thought of which rules in the secular world and 
 in the various governments in agreement with the divine will, and opposes the 
 influences of the spirit of nations and kingdoms working contrary to the divine 
 will. This power may be designated both as neuter and as masculine, as xupirns 
 and as xvpios, and the words peavey 6 xariywy apr tws tx wicou yivnras xa) rors arona~ 
 aupbiosras 6 avowes are sufficiently similar to those of Daniel : 737) NYP UNI 
 
 wa py (Dan. x. 20), in order to be recognised as a transfer of the same to 
 
 those last times when the spiritual power which now preserves the earthly com- 
 monwealth in agreement with the kingdom of God entirely recedes, in order 
 that every form of secular power may enter which will allow no more place for 
 the church of God on earth. Still differently, Ewald, Jahrb. der bibl. Wissen- 
 schaft, Jahr. 3, Gott. 1851, p. 250 f. (comp. Sendschreien des Ap, Paulus, Gitt. 
 1857, p. 27): ‘‘ We have here a mystery before us which in the early apostolic 
 times only believers loved to talk over and to diffuse among themselves, so that 
 Paul may have been unwilling to speak openly upon it. The appearance of Anti- 
 christ was expected according to Matt. xxiv. 15 (?), and Paul here describes it, 
 ouly more openly and freely than it is there indicated in the prophecy of Christ ; 
 
CIIAP. II. 1—12. 229 
 
 who in his Commentary, p. 204,’ sums up his views in the 
 following words: “Mihi... adversarius ili principium esse 
 videtur sive vis spiritualis evangelio contraria, quae huc usque 
 tamen in Pontificiorum Romanorum operibus ac serie luculen- 
 tissime sese prodidit, ita tamen, ut omnia etiam mala, quae in 
 ecclesia compareant, ad eandem Antichristi évépyecav sint refer- 
 enda. Ejus vero vapovaia, i. e. summum fastigium, quod Christi 
 reditum qui nihil aliud est, nisi regni divini victoria, ante- 
 cedet, futurum adhuc esse videtur, quum illud tempus procul 
 etiamnuin abesse putemus, ubi omnes terrae incolae in eo erunt, 
 ut ad Christi sacra transeant. Karéyov vero cum Theodoreto 
 putarim esse dei voluntatem illud Satanae regnum cohibentem, 
 ne erumpat, et, si mediae spectantur causae, apostolorum tem- 
 pore maxime imperii Romani vis, et quovis aevo illa resistentia, 
 quam malis artibus, quae religionem subvertere student, pri- 
 vati commodi et honoris augendorum cupiditas opponere solet.” 
 Pelt thinks that the symptoms of the future corruption of 
 the Christian church were already present in the apostolic 
 age in the danger of falling away from Christian freedom into 
 
 but an opinion must have been formed in the bosom of the mother church at 
 Jerusalem why Antichrist had not as yet appeared, which was imparted only to 
 believers. We may, however, pretty nearly guess what it was from other signs. 
 If we reflect that, according to Rev. xi. 3 ff., Antichrist was not to be considered 
 as coming until the two martyrs of the old covenant had appeared, and their 
 destruction was the true beginning of his extreme rage ; further, that instead of 
 these two assumed martyrs, it was also, or rather originally, still more commonly 
 supposed that only Elijah must return before Christ, and accordingly also before 
 Antichrist.* Elijah’s return is not actually denied in that passage, where this 
 expectation is treated of in the freest manner (Matt. xvii. 11 f., comp. xi. 13 f.), 
 ‘so it is most probable that by that which hindereth the appearance of Antichrist 
 the coming of Elijah is meant (Sendschr. des Ap. Paulus, p. 27: the tarrying 
 \ of Elijah_in-heaven) ; and by him who hitherto hindered, and who must be 
 taken out of the way before the last atrocious wickedness of Antichrist, is meant 
 Ljiah himself.” Still otherwise Noack (Der Ursprung des Christenthums, vol. II., 
 Leipz. 1857, p. 313 ff.), who by him that hindereth—arbitrarily identifying the 
 same with the man of sin—understands Simon Magus and his machinations. 
 Still differently Jowett, according to whom (after the suggestion of Ewald, Jahrb. 
 X., Gott. 1860, p. 235) ro xaréyov is designed to indicate the Mosaic law. 
 
 1 Tn only an unessentially modified form Pelt has latterly maintained the same 
 view in the Theolog. Mitarbeiten. Jahrg. 4, Kiel 1841, H. 2, p. 114 ff. 
 
 2 Comp. Pelt, p. 185: .. . *‘tenentes, illum Christi adventum a Paulo non 
 visibilem habitum.” 
 
230 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 Jewish legalism, in the mingling of heathenism with Chris- 
 tianity, in the false gnosis and asceticism, in the worship of 
 angels, and in the fastus a religione Christiana omnino alienus. 
 To the same class belongs Olshausen,! who considers the 
 Pauline description only as a typical representation of future 
 events. According to him, the chief stress lies on To puorypiov 
 On €vepyettat THS avowias. Antichrist is a union of the 
 individuality and spiritual tendency in masses of individuals. 
 The revolt of the Jews from the Romans, and the fearful 
 divine punishment in the destruction of Jerusalem, Nero, 
 Mohammed and his spiritual devastating power, the develop- 
 ment of the Papacy in the Middle Ages, the French Revolution 
 of 1789, with the abrogation of Christianity, and the setting 
 up of prostitutes on altars for worship, 7 the external world, as 
 well as the constantly spreading denial of the fundamentals 
 of all religious truth and morality, of the doctrines of God, 
 freedom, and immortality, and likewise the self-deification of 
 the ego in the internal world,—all these phenomena are the 
 real precursors of Antichrist; but they contain only some of 
 his characteristics, not a// ; it is the union of ad these charac- 
 teristics which shall make the full Antichrist. The preventing 
 power is to be understood of the preponderance of the Chris- 
 tian world in its German and Roman constituents over the 
 earth ; ae. of the whole political condition of order, with which, 
 on the one hand, there is the constant repression of all azro- 
 otacia and avouia, and on the other hand, the continued and 
 peaceful development of Christianity. Of this condition the 
 toman Empire, as the strongest and most orderly secular 
 organization which history knows, is the natural type. Baum- 
 garten-Crusius is also here to be named. According to him, 
 the Pauline prediction contains no new teachings peculiar to 
 the apostle, but only representations from the old Messianic 
 pictures in the prophets, especially in Daniel. The apostle’s 
 design is practical, to make the Thessalonians calmly observant, 
 attentive to the times, prepared and strong for the future; the 
 passage has a permanent value in this reference, and in the 
 chief thought that the development and determination of these 
 
 1 Bisping follows him in all essential points. 
 
CHAP. II. 1—12. bse) | 
 
 things can only gradually take place. The passage is indeed 
 historical and for the near future, but Paul has no definite or 
 personal manifestations, whether present or future, in view, at 
 least not in avtiKe/wevos, which he describes as still entirely 
 concealed ; and it is even doubtful whether he understcod by 
 it an individual person. Only To xaréyov has a definite 
 reference, but not to a person; on the contrary, the new spirit 
 of Christianity is meant. The difference in gender, 0 xatéyov 
 and To xatéxov, is used either only to correspond with avt- 
 ke(uevos, or Paul thinks on Xpiotds év avrtois, Col. i. 27! 
 Lastly, to the same class belong Bloomfield and Alford.* Ac- 
 cording to the former, the puvotypiov Tis dvoulas is something 
 still continuing ; the prediction of the apostle will obtain its 
 complete fulfilment only at the end of time, when only then 
 the preventing power—which is most probably to be under- 
 stood, with Theodoret, of the council of divine Providence— 
 will be removed. According to the latter (see Proleg. p. 67 ff.), 
 
 
 
 1Comp. also Diisterdieck, die drei johanneischen Briefe, Bd. I., Gott. 1852, 
 p. 306: ‘‘ John, as Paul (2 Thess. ii. 1-12), in conformity to the instruction of 
 the Lord, recognises in the powerful errors of the present the signs of an approach- 
 ing decision. Tie last hour is present, the advent is at hand. The last hour is 
 the concluding period of aiay otros, the period of travail, which continues in an 
 unbroken connection from its commencement, the destruction of Jerusalem, even 
 to the end, to which the advent directly succeeds.”’ John has not erred in that he 
 soon expected the real commencement of the crisis, continually carried on 
 throughout the whole historical development of the kingdom of Christ ; for that 
 generation, as our Lord had predicted, survived the destruction of the holy 
 city, an event of whose importance in the history and judgment of the world 
 there can be no doubt. Moreover, in reference to 1 Thess. iv. 15 (“wets of Caveres 
 z.7.4.), Diisterdieck (/.c. p. 308) recognises that there Paul has shortened the 
 chronological perspective too much; but then he thinks, referring to 2 Thess. 
 ii. 1 ff, and Rom. xi. 25 ff., that this is an imperfection which was gradually 
 overcome in the apostle by the moral development of his life in God, and that 
 it was changed for the real truth. But it is assumed, without right, that an 
 entirely different view of things lies at the foundation of the section 2 Thess. 
 ii. 1-12 than of the section 1 Thess. iv. 13 ff., as the Second Epistle to the 
 Thessalonians was written only a few months after the First ; and besides, 
 2 Thess. ii. 5 points to the agreement of the written explanations there given 
 with the oral instructions to the Thessalonians given even previously to the 
 First Epistle. Further on, Diisterdieck (p. 330) concedes that because Paul in 
 1 Thess. iv. 13 ff. has abbreviated the interval to the advent, he was also in 
 2 Thess. ii. 1 ff. constrained to represent the personal appearance of the opponent 
 incorrectly in point of chronology. 
 
232 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 we stand, though 1800 years later, with regard to the dvopés 
 where the apostle stood; the day of the Lord not present, and 
 not to arrive until the man of sin be manifested; the puc- 
 THpiov THS avowias still working, and much advanced in his 
 working; the preventing power not yet taken out of the way. 
 All this points to a state in which the dvou/a is working on 
 underground, under the surface of things, gaining an expan- 
 sion and power, although still hidden and unconcentrated. It 
 has already partially embodied itself in Popery, in Nero and 
 every Christian persecutor, in Mohammed and Napoleon, in 
 Mormonism, and such like. The xaréyov and the xatéyov 
 are to be understood of the fabric of human polity and those 
 who rule that polity, by which hitherto all outbursts of godless- 
 ness have been suppressed and hindered in their course and 
 devastations. 
 
 It is evident that all these explanations are arbitrary. The 
 Pauline description is so definitely and sharply marked, and 
 has for its whole compass so much the idea of nearness for its 
 supposition, that it can by no means be taken generally, and 
 in this manner explained away. 
 
 II. Others have regarded the apocalyptic instruction of 
 the apostle as a prophecy already fulfilled. Thus Grotius, 
 Wetstein, Hammond, Clericus, Whitby, Schoettgen, Noesselt, 
 Krause, and Harduin.' The reference of the wapovola tod 
 xuptov to the coming of the Lord in judgment at the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem, is common to all these writers. In reference 
 
 1 What is necessary to be said on Kern’s view has already been observed in 
 the Introduction, sec. 3. Dollinger (/.c.), who like Kern understands by Anti- 
 christ Nero, thinks, however, that with this assumption the authenticity of 
 the Epistle, and even its composition in the year 53, are perfectly reconcilable. 
 According to Dollinger, the prophecy in all its essentials was fulfilled close upon 
 the apostle’s days, although a partial fulfilment at the end of time is not ex- 
 cluded by this assumption. Already Paul has recognised the youthful Nero as 
 the future Antichrist, whose public appearance was already prepared, but was 
 yet prevented by Claudius as the then possessor of the imperial throne. The 
 coming of Christ is His coming to execute judgment on Jerusalem. Nero, 
 although he personally undertook nothing against the temple of Jerusalem, yet 
 entrusted Vespasian with the guidance of the war, and accordingly brought— 
 certainly only after his death—the abomination of desolation into the holy city. 
 
 Lastly, the apostasy is the being led astray into the false doctrines of the 
 Gnostics. 
 
CHAP. II. 1-12. 233 
 
 to the other chief points of the Pauline representation they 
 differ as follows :— 
 
 Grotius' understands by Antichrist the Emperor Caius 
 Caligula, notorious for his ungodliness, who, according to 
 Suetonius, Caligul. xxii. 33, ordered universal supplication to 
 himself as the supreme God, and according to Joseph. Antig. 
 xviii. 8, and Philo, legat. ad Caj. p. 1022, wished to set up his 
 colossal statue in the temple of Jerusalem; by the xatéyar, L. 
 Vitellius, the proconsul of Syria and Judea, who dissuaded from 
 the erection of the statue; and by the dvopuos, Simon Magus. 
 — This opinion is sufficiently contradicted, partly by the 
 impossibility of distinguishing the dvopos from advOpwrros Tis 
 dpaptias as a separate person, and partly by its incongruity 
 with the period of the composition of the Epistle. See sec. 2 
 of the Introduction. 
 
 According to Wetstein, the av@pwros tis dwaptias is Titus, 
 whose army, according to Joseph. de bello Jud. vi. 6. 1, brought 
 idols into the captured temple of Jerusalem, sacrificed there, 
 and saluted Titus as imperator. The xcatéywv is Nero, whose 
 death must precede the rule of Titus; and the arootacia is 
 the rebellion and murder of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. But 
 how can Titus, the ornament of the Roman emperors, pass for 
 Antichrist ; and Nero, that monster in human form, the power 
 which hinders the outburst of Antichrist ? 
 
 Hammond’ understands by the man of sin Simon Magus and 
 the Gnostics, whose head he was. The éricvvaywyn ém’ avtor, 
 ver. 1, is the “ major libertas coeundi in ecclesiasticos coetus 
 ad‘colendum Christum ;” the dmooracia is the falling away 
 of Christians to the Gnostics (1 Tim. iv. 1); aoxaduvd@hvat 
 denotes the casting off the mask of Christianity ; ver. 4 refers 
 to the fact that Simon Magus “ se dictitaret summum patrem 
 omnium rerum, et qui ipsum Judaeorum deum creaverat.” To 
 xatéxov is the circumstance that the apostles and orthodox 
 Christians still preserved union with the Jews, and had not 
 yet turned themselves to the Gentiles. The neuter xatéyov 
 and the masculine catéywy are equivalent; or if a distinction 
 
 1 See against him, Turretin, p. 483 ff. 
 ? Comp. against him, Turretin, p. 493 ff. 
 
234 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 is to be maintained, 0 xatéywy must be regarded as the same 
 as 6 vopuos. The pvotypiov THs dvopias is the “ duplicis 
 generis scelera horum hominum, libidines nefariae et odium 
 in Christianos.” Ver. 8 refers to the contest of Peter and 
 Paul with Simon Magus in Rome, which ended in the death 
 of the latter.— The exegetical and historical monstrosity of 
 this interpretation is at present universally acknowledged. 
 
 The interpretations of Clericus, Whitby, Schoettgen, Noesselt, 
 Krause, and Harduin have a greater resemblance between 
 them. 
 
 According to Clericus,’ the apostasy is the rebellion of the 
 Jews against the Roman yoke; the man of sin is the rebel- 
 lious Jews, and especially their leader, Simon the son of Giora, 
 of whose atrocities Josephus informs us. ds Aeyopevos Oeds 
 k.7.r. denotes the government. To xatéyov is whatever 
 hindered the open outbreak of the rebellion, partly the fear of 
 the proceres Judaeae gentis, who mistrusted the war because 
 they expected no favourable result, partly the fear of the 
 Roman army ; 6 xatéxev on the one side “ praeses Romanus,” 
 on the other side “ gentis proceres, rex Agrippa et pontifices 
 plurimi.” The puvorypiov tis avouias which already works 
 consists in the rebellious ambition which conceals itself under 
 the pretext of the independence of the Jewish people, yea, 
 under the cloak of a careful observance of the Mosaic law, 
 until at length what strives in secret is openly manifested. 
 
 Whitby? considers the Jewish people as Antichrist, and finds 
 in the apostasy the rebellion against the Romans, or also the 
 falling away from the faith; and in the catéywv the Emperor 
 Claudius, during whose life the Jews could not possibly think 
 of a rebellion, as he had shown himself favourable to them. 
 
 According to Schoettgen, the Jewish Pharisees and Rabbis 
 are Antichrist. The dmocracia is the rebellion excited by 
 them, of the Jews against the Romans; was Aeyopevos Oeds 
 refers likewise to the rulers; ro catéyov and o KaTexwv are 
 probably the Christians who by their prayers effected a respite 
 from the catastrophe, until, in consequence of a divine oracle, 
 
 1 See against him, Turretin, p. 501 ff. 
 2 See against him, Turretin, p. 508 ff 
 
CITAP. IL 1-12. 255 
 
 they left Jerusalem, and betook themselves to Pella; puornpiov 
 THs avouias denotes ipsa doctrina perversa. 
 
 Noesselt, whom Krause follows, understands Antichrist of 
 the Jewish zealots, but interprets the preventing power, as 
 Whitby does, of the Emperor Claudius. 
 
 Lastly, Harduin explains the dzootacia of the falling off 
 of the Jews to heathenism. He considers the high priest 
 Ananias (Acts xxiii. 2) as the adv@pw7os Tis auaptias, and 
 his predecessor in office as the xatéyov, who must first 
 be removed by death in order to make place for Ananias. 
 At the beginning of his high-priesthood the av@pw7os Tis 
 dpaptias will appear as a deceitful prophet, and be destroyed 
 ~ at the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. 
 
 All these interpretations of the second class avoid, it is 
 true, the common error of the interpretations of the first class, 
 as they give due prominence to the point of the nearness of 
 the catastrophe described by Paul; but, apart from many and 
 strong objections which may be brought against each, they are 
 all exposed to this fatal objection, the impossibility of under- 
 standing the coming of the Lord, mentioned by Paul, of the 
 period of the destruction of Jerusalem. 
 
 Tychsen (/.c.) has endeavoured to divest the Pauline repre- 
 sentation of its prophetic character, by assuming that the 
 apostle follows step by step the course of an Epistle received 
 from Thessalonica, from which he perceived that the church 
 had been led astray into the erroneous notion that the advent of 
 Christ was already at hand. The apostle cites passages from 
 that: writing, and adds each time his refutation. For the 
 statement of this opinion, which only claims attention on 
 account of its strangeness, it will be sufficient to give the 
 translation from ver. 3 and onwards, in which Tychsen 
 (p. 184 f.) sums up the view he has already stated at length. 
 It is as follows: “ You certainly wrote to me, ‘This day 
 cannot come until the great apostasy will occur; when a 
 thoroughly lawless and corrupt man will publicly appear, who 
 in hostile pride exalts himself above all that man calls divine 
 
236 TIE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 and honourable, who also intrudes even into the temple of 
 God, and gives himself out as a god.” But do you not 
 remember that I, when I was with you, told you something of 
 this ? and besides, you know what is in the way of that 
 lawless one, so that he can only appear in his time, not yet 
 at present. ‘This wickedness, you say further, ‘even now 
 secretly works.” Only that hindrance must first be removed 
 out of the way! ‘And when this is removed, ye think, ‘the 
 wicked one will soon fearlessly show himself’ Now let him 
 do it! The Lord Jesus will annihilate him with His divine 
 power, and destroy him by His solemn appearance. ‘When 
 this lawless one comes,’ ye continue, ‘so will his appearance be 
 accompanied by the assistance of Satan with deceiving miracles, 
 delusions, and everything which can lead to blasphemy.’ Yet 
 all this cannot seduce you, but only those unhappy persons 
 who have no love for true religion, and accordingly are help- 
 lessly lost by their own fault. God for a punishment to 
 them permitted seducers to rise up, that they might believe 
 the lie. A merited punishment for all friends of vice who are 
 prepossessed against true doctrine !” 
 
 
 
 For a correct judgment of the apocalyptic instruction of 
 the apostle, it is firmly to be maintained that Paul could not 
 possibly wish to give a representation of the distant future. 
 On the contrary, the events which he predicted were for him 
 so near, that he himself even thought that he would survive 
 them. He hoped to survive even to the personal return of 
 the Lord for judgment and for the completion of His king- 
 dom; His return shall be preceded by the appearance of 
 Antichrist, whom he considered not as a collective idea, but 
 as an individual person, and not in the political, but in the 
 religious sphere, and specially as a caricature of Christ and 
 the culmination of ungodliness ; but Antichrist can only appear 
 when the preventing power, which at present hinders his 
 appearance, will be removed. As, now, these circumstances, 
 which Paul thinks were to be realized in the immediate future, 
 have not actually taken place, so it is completely arbitrary to 
 
CHAP, II. 1-12. Zo 
 
 expect the fulfilment of the prophecy only in a distant future ; 
 rather it is to be admitted, that although, as the very kernel 
 of Paul’s representation, the perfectly true idea lay at the 
 bottom, that the return of the Lord for the completion of the 
 kingdom of God was not to be expected until the moral process 
 of the world had reached its close by the complete separation 
 of the susceptible and the unsusceptible, and accordingly 
 also until the opposition to Christ had reached its climax, 
 yet Paul was mistaken concerning the nearness of the final 
 catastrophe, and, carried along by his idiosyncrasy, had wished 
 to settle more exactly concerning its circumstances and moral 
 conditions than is allotted to man in general to know, even 
 although he should be the apostle, the most filled with the 
 Spirit of Christ. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 36; Mark xii. 32; Acts 
 i. 7.— We can thus only determine the meaning and inter- 
 pretation which Paul himself connected with his prophecy, 
 and how he came to the assertion of such a prophecy. It 
 rests on the apocalyptic views of the Jews. It was a pre- 
 valent opinion of the Jews in the time of Christ, that a time 
 of tribulation and travail and an Antichrist were to precede 
 the appearance of the Messiah. Comp. Gfrorer, das Jahr- 
 hundert des Heits, Part 2, p. 256 ff, 300 ff, 405 ff’ The 
 description of Antiochus Epiphanes in Dan. vill. 23 ff, xi. 
 36 ff., and the apocalyptic representation of Gog and Magog in 
 Ezek. xxxviil. 39, were esteemed as types of Antichrist. From 
 these passages it is further explicable how Paul conceived 
 Antichrist as a personality, as an individual. 
 
 Accordingly, it remains only still to determine, for the 
 explication of the Pauline prophecy, what is to be understood 
 by the preventing power, which still delayed the appearance 
 of Antichrist. Without doubt, the Fathers have already 
 correctly recognised by To xatéyov the Roman Empire, and 
 —in another form of expression for it—by 6 xatéywv the 
 toman emperor, as the representative of the empire. This is 
 the more probable as, according to the Book of Daniel, the 
 whole history of the world was to fall within the four 
 monarchies of the world, but the fourth was by Josephus and 
 others regarded as the Roman Empire, whose impending ruin 
 
238 TIIE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 the apostle might not without reason think himself justified 
 in inferring from many symptoms. 
 
 
 
 Ver. 13-11. 15. Hortatory portion of the Epistle. 
 
 Vv. 13-17. Exhortation to the readers to hold fast to the 
 Christianity delivered to them (ver. 15), grounded on the 
 comfortable fact that they belonged not to those who perish, 
 but were fore-ordained by God to salvation, and called to it 
 by the gospel (vv. 13, 14), and united with a pious wish that 
 Christ and God Himself would comfort their minds, and 
 strengthen them to all goodness (vv. 16, 17). 
 
 Ver. 13. “Hyeis d€] but we, namely, I, Paul, together with 
 Silvanus and Timotheus, in contrast to the persons described 
 in vv. 10-12. — dge‘Aouev}| denotes here, as in i. X3, the 
 subjective obligation, an internal impulse. — adergol nyarnpévor 
 vid kupiov] comp. 1 Thess. i. 4. The xvpuos here is Christ, 
 because T@ Oe@ directly precedes and 6 Oeos directly follows, 
 consequently another subject was evidently thought on by 
 the apostle. — 6tc efAaTo buds x.7.r.] the material object of 
 evyaptore for the purpose of a further statement of the per- 
 sonal object rept tuov, that, namely, ete. — aipeto@ac} in the 
 sense of divine election (Deut. xxvi. 18, vii. 6, 7, x. 15), does 
 not elsewhere occur with Paul. He uses é«déyeo@ar (Eph. 
 i. 4; 1 Cor. i. 27, 28), or rpoywooxew (Rom. viii. 29, xi. 2), 
 or mpoopifew (Rom. viii. 29; Eph. i. 11). aipeto@ax is found 
 in Phil. i, 22 in the related sense of “ to choose between two 
 objects the preferable.” — am’ dpyijs] from the beginning, ze. 
 JSrom eternity, Comp. 1 John i. 1, in 13. The following 
 forms are analogous: amd tév aiwver, Eph. iii. 9; amo tév 
 aiovev Kat amd Tav yeveov, Col. i. 26; mpd Tdv aiwver, 
 1 Cor. ii. 7; mpd xataBorjjs xocpov, Eph. i. 4; mpd xpovev 
 aiwviov, 2 Tim. i. 9. Others, as Vorstius and Krause, inter- 
 pret am’ dpyis of the beginning of the publication of the 
 gospel, so that the Thessalonians were reckoned as the first 
 who embraced the gospel in Macedonia. But this does not 
 suit eiAaTo, for the election on the part of God belongs to the 
 region of eternity; the calling (ver. 14) is its realization in 
 
CHAP. Il. 13. 239 
 
 time. Besides, an addition would be necessary to az’ apyjs, 
 as Phil. iv. 15 proves, €v apyj tov evayyediov. Lastly, the 
 objection of Vorstius: “absurdum est, per principium intel- 
 ligere aeternitatem, quippe in qua nullum est principium,” 
 overlooks the fact that dm’ dpyfs is nothing more than a 
 popular expression.’ — eis owtnpiay] is by Flatt referred to 
 salvation in this life, whilst he considers included therein the 
 forgiveness of sins, the assurance of God’s peculiar love, and the 
 freedom from the dominion of sinful inclinations, Incorrect on 
 this account, because the cwtnpia of the Thessalonians is in un- 
 deniable contrast with the condemnation of the ungodly (ver. 12), 
 and thus likewise must be referred to the result to be expected 
 at the advent of Christ, accordingly must denote eternal salva- 
 tion. — €v dyiaspo mvevuwatos Kai Tiotet adnOelas| belongs 
 neither to owrnpiav alone (Koppe, Flatt, Schott, Baumegarten- 
 Crusius, Hofmann, Riggenbach), nor to efAato alone (de Wette), 
 but to the whole idea efAato eis cwtnpiav, and states the 
 means by which the election, which has taken place to eternal 
 salvation, was to be realized.” To assume, with de Wette, 
 that €v is placed for evs, and to find the neat aim denoted by 
 év ayvacu® «.T.r., is unmaintainable. For if e’s cwrnplav and 
 €v aywacu@ were co-ordinates, then (1) e’s cwrnpiav, because 
 the highest aim, would be put not in the first, but in the 
 second place; and (2) the sudden transition from a pre- 
 position of motion to one of rest would be inexplicable. 
 mvevpa is not the spirit of man, to which the being sanctified 
 was to be referred (genitive of the object: “ by the improve- 
 ment of the spirit,” Koppe, Krause, Schott), but the Holy 
 Spirit, from whom the sanctification of the whole man is to 
 proceed, or by whom it is to be effected (genitive of origin). 
 Accordingly it is also evident wherefore the apostle mentions 
 the belief in the Christian truth only after ayvacpos, although 
 
 1 Also Schrader’s assertion, that the author (the pseudo-Paul) betrays by é7’ 
 apxis “that he considered the time when the gospel was first preached in 
 Thessalonica as already long past,” has no meaning according to the above. 
 
 2 In a manner entirely incorrect, and with a mistake of the actual use of the 
 preposition ty narrowing its meaning, Hofmann objects—and Moller should not 
 
 have followed him—against the above interpretation, that then the means would 
 be taken for the act of the election itself. 
 
240 TIE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 otherwise the sanctification of man follows only on his recep- 
 tion of the divine word. For Paul considers a twofold means 
 of the realization of the divine election—/irst, the influence of 
 the Holy Spirit upon man, and secondly, man’s own reception. 
 Sut the former already precedes the latter. 
 
 Ver. 14. Eis 6] to which. Incorrectly, Olshausen : therefore. 
 Eis 6 does not refer to wiores (Aretius), also not to év 
 ayacn@ Kai tiote (Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Fromond., 
 Nat. Alexander, Moldenhauer, Koppe, Flatt, Schott, Schrader, 
 de Wette, Hofmann), still less to the “ electio” and the “ animus, 
 quo eadem digni evadimus” (Pelt), but to els owrnplav év 
 aylacue@ «.7.r.; whilst to the aim of the election, and to the 
 means by which it was to be realized according to God’s 
 eternal counsel, is added the actual call of the readers occurring 
 in time. Accordingly, eds 6 is to be completed by eis ro 
 cobivar twas be ayvacpod trvevpatos Kal Tictews adnbelas. 
 — bia Tod evayyeriou ynuov] through our publication of the 
 gospel. Comp. 1 Thess. i. 5. The historical condition of 
 mitts, — els TepiToinaw dons tod Kupiov] an appositional 
 resumption of e¢s owrnpiav, in order further to characterize 
 the salvation, whose reception God had predetermined to the 
 readers, as an acquisition (see on 1 Thess. v. 9) of the glory 
 which Christ possesses. So in essentials, Pelagius, Musculus, 
 Hunnius, Piscator, Vorstius, Grotius, Wolf, Schott, Olshausen, 
 de Wette, Alford, Ewald, Bisping, Riggenbach, and others. 
 Less suitably, because weakening the force and the important 
 contents of the expression, Lue. Osiander, Benson, Moldenhauer, 
 and Pelt explain d0£a tod xupiov of the glory, of which Christ 
 is the source or bestower. Against the reference to God as the 
 subject in tepitroinow, and to Christ as the receiver of the 
 doa (Oecumenius: wa do€av mepiroujon TO vid avTod; 
 Theophylact, Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide), is the cireum- 
 stance, that although eés vrepiroi(now might stand instead of 
 els TO with the infinitive, yet the dative T@ xupip av would 
 require to be placed instead of the genitive tod xuplou Amar. 
 Lastly, the passive signification of sepuroinows: “ut essetis 
 gloriosa possessio domini nostri Jesu Christi” (Menochius, 
 Harduin; also Luther: “to the glorious inheritance,” and 
 
CHAPIN. (i517: 241 
 
 Calvin), has against it the weakening of the substantive dofns 
 into an adjective, and the parallel passage in 1 Thess. v. 9. 
 Besides, the context decides against the two last-mentioned 
 views. For the object of vv. 13, 14 is to bring forward the 
 glory of the lot which is assigned to the Thessalonians, in 
 order thereby to lead to the exhortation in ver. 15. 
 
 Ver. 15. "Apa otv] wherefore then, as such an end awaits 
 you. — otyxeTe] stand fast, comp. 1 Thess. iii. 8. The opposite 
 of cadevOjvat, ver. 2.— Kal kpateite Tas Tapadoces]| and hold 
 Jast to the traditions, instructions in Christianity. As xpatety 
 
 @ here (comp. Mark vii. 3), so does xatéyew Tas mapadoces 
 stand in 1 Cor. xi, 2.— ds édvddy@nre] See Winer, p. 204 
 [E. T. 284]. — el’re d1a Aoyou] whether by oral discourse. — dv 
 emioToAns| refers to the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. 
 
 Vv. 16, 17. The apostle rises from fis evangelical activity 
 (ver. 15) up to Christ, the Lord and Ruler of the Christian 
 church, and concludes with the mention of God, who is the 
 final reason and contriver of the Christian salvation. The 
 unusual (2 Cor. xii. 13) naming of Christ first and of God 
 second, is sufficiently explained from the fact that Christ is the 
 Mediator between God and man.— On the union of the two 
 nominatives, Christ and God, with a verb in the singular, see 
 on 1 Thess. iii. 11. — 0 ayarnjoas jyds cai Sods TapaKn. K.T.A.] 
 a fittingly-selected characteristic, in order to mark the con- 
 fidence with which Paul Bue the hearing of his supplica- 
 tions. — 0 dryarfoas nas Kal dovs| oo exclusively to o 
 Ocods Kal tat}p 7uov. Baumgarten-Crusius incorrectly refers 
 only the second participle to God, and the first to Christ. 
 But the participle aorist ayamynoas must not be weakened into 
 “qui nos amat et quovis tempore amavit” (so Schott, after 
 Flatt and Pelt), but refers to the divine proof of love already 
 belonging to the past,—accomplished, i.e. to the fact by which 
 the love of God to mankind is kar’ é£oyyv proved,—to the 
 mission of His Son in order to rescue sinners from destruction. 
 —«al Sos] and has thereby communicated to us. — mapd- 
 kAnow] comfort. This is called eternal,’ not, perhaps, on 
 account of the blessings of eternal life which Christians have 
 
 1 The feminine form aiwvi« is found only here in the N. T. and in Heb. ix. 12. 
 
 MryYER—2 Tuxss, Q 
 
bo 
 
 432 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 to expect (Chrysostom, Estius, Vorstius, Grotius, Fromond., 
 and others), but because Christians have become the sons of 
 God, and as such are filled with indestructible confidence that 
 all things, even the severest affliction which may befall them, 
 infallibly serves for their good, because God has so ordained, 
 and that nothing in the world will be able to separate them 
 from the love of God in Christ; comp. Rom. viii. 28, 38 f. 
 The opposite of this eternal consolation is the fleeting and 
 deceptive consolation of the world (Olshausen). mapdadkdyors 
 accordingly refers to the present. On the other hand (vy. 
 13, 14), édrmls dyaOy refers to the blessedness and glory 
 to be expected in the future. — &v ydpute] in grace, ie. by 
 means of a gracious appointment, belongs not to éAziéa, but 
 to the participles. The opposite is man’s own merit. — 
 mapaxanécat] may comfort or calm, refers particularly to the 
 disquiet of the readers in reference to the advent (ii. 2).— 
 kal otnpiEac] sc. twas (see critical remarks), which is in itself 
 evident from the preceding tudv.— év ravtl épyw Kal ovo 
 ayabe| in every good work and word. (Grotius incorrectly 
 takes it in the sense of eds av épyov Kal mdavta NOyov ayabor. 
 3ut, with Chrysostom, Calvin, Turretin, Bolten, Flatt, and 
 others, to limit Aeyos to teaching is erroneous, on account of 
 the universal zavré and its being placed along with épyq. 
 The apostle rather wishes an establishment in every good 
 thing, whether manifested in works or in words. 
 
CHAP. III. 243 
 
 CHAPTER LIT, 
 
 Ver. 3. Instead of the Receptus 6 xitpios, A D* F G 71, Vulg. 
 It. Copt. Arm. in marg. and some Latin Fathers have 6 O2é¢. 
 Accepted by Lachm. But aiorig 62 gor 6 xvpiog does not else- 
 where occur, whilst sortg 6 ©zé¢ is a usual form. Comp. 1 Cor. 
 1. 9, x. 13; 2 Cor. i. 13. Therefore the former might have 
 been corrected according to the latter. 6 zips is attested by 
 B (e sil.) D*** E K LX, almost all min., most versions, many 
 Greek Fathers, and Hier. — Ver. 5. rjy izouovqv] The Elz. reads 
 irowovqy. Against all uncial Mss. (also x), most min., and many 
 Greek Fathers. — Ver. 6. Instead of rapéraSov (D** D*** E K 
 L x*¥*** 23, 31, al., pl. edd. Aeth. Syr. p. Slav. Vulg. Clar. Germ. 
 Bas. [alicubi] a/., Cypr. [ter] Lucif. Aug. Ambrosiast. ed. Pelag. 
 received by Matth. and Scholz, preferred also by Reiche), Elz. 
 reads sapéraS_e (very weakly attested, namely, only by 3, 49, 
 57, 71, Syr.); Lachm. reads raperdGere (after B F G 43, al., 
 Copt. Arm. Antonius, Theodoret [sem.], Ambrosiast. ed. Auct. 
 de sing. cler.) ; Griesbach, Tisch. and Alford read sapercBoouy 
 (after A x* Bas.; D* has for it the simple verb ¢AdBoows). 
 rauperAade and rauperdGere are corrections, and not so well attested 
 as the third person plural. But the Alexandrian form saper<- 
 Socay merits the preference before zapéAuov, as the less usual 
 form in the N. T., which on that account might easily have led 
 to an alteration. — Ver. 8. Instead of the Receptus vara xual 
 nucpav, BF G 817, al, Chrys. ms. Damasce. (sem.) have wazric 
 xa) nuepas. Received by Lachm. Against the preponderating 
 authority of A D E K L, the great majority of min., and many 
 Fathers, and the probable conformity to 1 Thess. ii. 9, iii. 10. 
 — Ver. 12. Elz. Tisch. 2 read did rod xupiov qua “Inood Xpiorod. 
 Lachm. Tisch. 1 and 7, and Alford read év xupiw “Inoot Xpiorh. 
 The latter is required by A B D* E* F G x* 17, 31, al., Vulg. 
 It. Goth. Copt. a/., Damasc. (sem.) Ambrosiast. Aug. Pel. — 
 Ver. 13. Elz. reads wu ixxaxjonre. Instead of this, Lachm. 
 Schott, Tisch. and Alford have preferred «7 éyxuxjonre, after 
 AB D* & (Tisch. 7: «4 évxaxjonre). But the latter is a pro- 
 bable correction, as the writing éxxaxe%, instead of éyxaxen, 
 never elsewhere occurs with certainty in the N. T., and is 
 
244 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 authenticated by the Fathers. Comp. Meyer on 2 Cor. iv, 1. 
 — Ver. 16. Elz. Tisch. 2 and 7 read rpérw. Lachm. and Tisch. 1 
 read rérw, after A* D* F G, 17, 49, Vulg. It. Goth. Chrys. 
 Ambrosiast. Pel. Commended to attention by Griesb.; already 
 preferred by Piscator, Beza, and Grotius. But rpérw (attested 
 by A** B [e sil.] D*** E K Lx, almost all min. Syr. utr. Copt. 
 al. m. Theodoret, Damase. al.) decidedly merits the preference 
 on account of the sense, and might, on account of the more 
 frequent form ¢ wavri rorw (1 Cor. 1.2; 2 Cor. i. 14; 1 Tim. 
 ii. 8), be easily transformed into réry. Also Bouman (Chartae 
 theologicae, lib. I. p. 67)i considers rpérw as the original; but 
 then he advances the following supposition for the origin of the 
 false reading rérw: “ Proxime cum praecessisset 61a ravrés omnt 
 tempore, dictionis elegantiam ac concinnitatem hoc requirere 
 putarunt librarii, ut nihil potius adjiceretur quam éy cuyr) rérw 
 omnt loco ; quippe qui temporis ac spatiz notiones frequentissime 
 conjungi, pro sua scilicet sapientia, optime novissent.” 
 
 Vv. 1-5. Paul requests the Thessalonians to pray that the 
 gospel may be more widely diffused, and that he himself (and 
 his companions) might be delivered from the persecutions to 
 which he was exposed. He then expresses his trust that the 
 Lord will assist the Thessalonians, and also declares his con- 
 fidence that they will obey Ais (the apostle’s) commandments, 
 and he unites therewith an additional benediction. 
 
 Ver. 1. To Aourov] see on 1 Thess. iv. 1.— rept pdr] 
 on our behalf. But the apostle’s wish is completely unselfish, 
 as he refers to the promotion of Christianity, and to himself 
 only so far as he stands in connection with that object. — wa] 
 comp. on i. 11.—oXoyos Tod Kupiov] Genitivus subjectivus ; 
 see on 1 Thess. i. 8.— tpéyy] may run. A representation of 
 quick and unimpeded advancing. — do0€a&nrax] is passive : may 
 be glorified. Pelt erroneously understands it as middle, But 
 the gospel is only glorified when it is recognised as what it is, 
 namely, as a dvvapus Ocod eis cwTnpiav TavTl TS micTEvovTt 
 (Rom. i. 16). Nicolas de Lyra arbitrarily limits the verb to 
 the “ miracula, veritatem ejus declarantia.” — xa@as Kal mpos 
 vas] even as it is among you. A laudatory recognition of the 
 eager desire for salvation, with which the Thessalonians sur- 
 rendered themselves to the preaching of the gospel. Comp. 
 1 Thess. i. 6 ff. The words are closely connected with xai 
 
CHAP. III. 2. 245 
 
 doE&afnrar. According to Hofmann, with whom Moller, although 
 wavering, coincides, the words are to be united with tpéyn, 
 passing over «at dofdfntat. Incorrectly, because Sofafnras 
 is a higher idea than zpéyy, whilst it adduces that point by 
 which the external act of tpéyeev can only receive its internal 
 value. Accordingly «ai do£afnzae is too important to be con- 
 sidered only as a subsidiary point “appended” to tpéyn. — 
 mpos uuas| see on 1 Thess, iil. 4. 
 
 Ver. 2. In deliverance from his adversaries lay the con- 
 dition that he, the apostle, could work the more effectively 
 for the diffusion of the gospel. Theodoret: Aur pév 7 
 aitnoss eivat Soxel, pia dé duws eotiv TOV yap Tovnpav avOpe- 
 TOV NTTOMEVOV, AKWAUTMS Kal O TOD KNpUYypaTOS oUVTPEXEL 
 Aoyos. — &To7ras] is used of that which is not in its right place. 
 Used of persons, it denotes one who does or says that which 
 is Inappropriate under the circumstances. Thus it is equiva- 
 lent to dineptus (Cic. de orat. ii. 4). From “ propriety” it 
 passes to its wider ethical meaning, and is used of men who 
 act contrary to human or divine laws. Thus it receives the 
 general signification of bad or godless. See examples in Kypke, 
 Observ. II. p. 145 f.; Loesner, and Wetstein. — But the Thes- 
 salonian Jews are not to be understood by the drome Kai 
 movnpot avOpwtrot, from whose persecution the apostle had 
 already, at an earlier period, frequently suffered (so, as it 
 would seem, Pelt), for their influence hardly extended to 
 Corinth. Persons must be meant who were then present 77 
 Corinth wtself. But we are not to think on Christians who 
 were only so in name (Zwingli, Musculus, Hemming, Flatt, 
 Schrader, and others), and particularly on false teachers among 
 the Jewish Christians (Schott), but on fanatical Jews." Comp. 
 Acts xvii. 6, 12 ff. That the adversaries of the apostle 
 could not have been already Christians, follows from the in- 
 ferential clause setting forth the naturalness of the existence 
 of such people, od yap wavtav 4 wictws, for faith is not an 
 affair of adl, 2c. it finds not a place among all, all have not a 
 susceptible heart for it. On the form of the expression, compare 
 the well-known proverb: Od wavtds avbpes és KépivOov eo 
 
 1 Hammond also finds here another reference to the Gnostics ! 
 
246 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 6 TAovs (Strabo, viii. 6. 20, ed. Siebenk.; Suidas, T. 2, p. 
 739.) — 1 wiotis] on account of the article, can only denote 
 the Christian faith simply and generally. To understand the 
 expression of fidelity or honesty, with Schoettgen, Moldenhauer, 
 Koppe, Bolten, Krause, Flatt, and others, is as incorrect as to 
 interpret it of ¢rwe faith, with Schott. For in the first case 
 ov yap mavtes miotoé would require to have been written, 
 and in the second case ov yap wavtwv 4 rictis adnOys. 
 
 Ver. 3. A contrast to od yap Tavtwv 1 iors, with a 
 play upon the word iors, and a return to the statement in 
 ii, 16, 17.—o «vpios] not a designation of God (Schott, 
 Schrader, Olshausen, and Hilgenfeld, Zéschr. f. wiss. Theol., 
 Halle 1862, p. 261), but of Christ. His faithfulness consists 
 in this, that He, as Protector of the church, watches over the 
 continuance of the faith, and effects its diffusion in spite of 
 all @rozroe and trovnpot. Strikingly, Calvin: “ Ceterum de aliis 
 magis quam de se anxium fuisse Paulum, ostendunt haec ipsa 
 verba. In eum maligni homines improbitatis suae aculeos 
 dirigebant, in eum totus impetus irruebat: curam interea 
 suam ad Thessalonicenses convertit.” — tod movnpod| is, by 
 Calvin, Musculus, Estius, Piscator, Menochius, Nat. Alex- 
 ander, Benson, Bengel, Baumgarten, Moldenhauer, Macknight, 
 Olshausen, Hofmann, also Cornelius a Lapide, Er. Schmid, and 
 Beza, though not decidedly held by the latter, understood as 
 masculine, accordingly as a designation of the devil. In itself 
 nothing can be objected against this interpretation, as in Matt. 
 xiii. 19 and elsewhere frequently in the N. T., also with Paul 
 in Eph. vi. 16, 6 wovnpos is found in this sense. But here 
 this interpretation is untenable, because 6s ornpifer buds Kai 
 gdurdéer aro Tod movnpod evidently resumes otnpi£as év Twavtt 
 Epyw Kal Ayo ayaa, ii. 17, and only arranges it positively 
 and negatively. But if tod wrovnpod corresponds to the 
 negation of the position év tavtl épyw Kal Aoyw ayale, it 
 must be neuter, and denote moral evil generally. But it would 
 be arbitrary to make this neuter equivalent to tov tovnpev 
 avOpeérev, to which Koppe and Flatt give their countenance. 
 
 Ver, 4. The apostle has confidence in Christ that He will 
 come to the assistance of the Thessalonians, promoting their 
 
CHAP. IIl. 5. DAs? 
 
 faith and protecting them; but he is likewise confident in 
 them, that they on their part will not fail in obedience to the 
 apostles commands. Thus the apostle paves the way for a 
 suitable transition to the exhortation in ver. 6 ff.— év xupio] 
 a statement of the element of his confidence annexed to vevroi- 
 Oapev éf vas, in order to express that the apostle’s confidence 
 in his readers was one fownded on Christ, caused by the partici- 
 pation of Christianity. Comp. Gal. v. 10; Phil. i. 24; Rom. 
 xiv. 14. — ég’ buds] see Meyer on 2 Cor. ii. 3. — cat rrovetre| 
 does not still belong to the protasis (see Erasmus on the 
 passage), but begins the apodosis. 
 
 Ver. 5. A fresh involuntary effusion of piety on the part 
 of the apostle, by means of which he calls down the divine 
 blessing on every action of man as a condition of its success. 
 Theodoret : “Audotépwr wiv ypela, Kat mpolécews ayabis Kal 
 THs dvwlev cuvepyeias. To assume that ver. 5 was added by 
 Paul, because he could not yet entirely trust the Thessa- 
 lonians (de Wette), is without foundation. — o xvpsos] Christ, 
 as in vv. 3, 4.—«KatevOdvas tuav Tas Kapdlas eis THY ayarnv 
 tov Oeod] direct your hearts to the love of God, namely, in order 
 to be filled and pervaded by it, not in order to remain con- 
 templating it (Koppe, Olshausen). — 1) dydarn tod Oeod] is not 
 “amor a deo praeceptus” (Clericus), or “amor, quem deus 
 hominum quasi infundit animis” (Pelt), also not the love of 
 God to men, which was to be the pattern for Christian 
 brotherly love (Macknight, Koppe), or, more specially, the 
 manifestation of the love of God in Christ and in His work 
 of redemption (Olshausen, Riggenbach) ; but love toward God 
 (Gen. object.). Paul wishes the Thessalonians to be inspired 
 with it, because it is the centre uniting all commandments ; 
 comp. Matt. xxii. 37 ff.— «al els tHv btromovny tod Xpiotod] 
 Oecumenius, Ambrose, Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus, Vatablus, 
 Cornelius a Lapide, Beza, Bernard a Piconio, and Benson, 
 to whom recently Hofmann has attached himself, understand 
 by this the patient waiting for Christ, that is, for His coming. 
 Erroneous, because — (1) dvayovny (comp. 1 Thess. i. 10) 
 would require to be written instead of trouovnv; and (2) the 
 idea of patient waiting, by which addition the. statement 
 
248 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TLE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 becomes only suitable, would require to be expressly brought 
 forward by an additional clause. The stedfastness of Christ 
 (Gen. possessiv.) is meant, inasmuch as the endurance which 
 the Christian manifests in tribulation for the sake of the 
 gospel is in its nature nothing else than the stedfastness 
 which was peculiar to Christ Himself in His sufferings. 
 Comp. the analogous expression ta ta@jpata tod Xpiorod, 
 2 Cor. i. 5, and Meyer in loco. The simple genitive cannot 
 express stedfastness for the sake of Christ, as it is usually 
 explained. 
 
 Vv. 6-15. Dehortation from a disorderly and idle life in 
 the church. Paul had already touched upon this subject in 
 his First Epistle (iv. 11, 12, v.14). But here it is more 
 expressly treated, and also with greater severity, because, 
 without doubt, in the restless and fanatical excitement of 
 spirits on account of the advent, this evil had greatly increased 
 instead of diminishing. Paul represents the core of the church 
 as free from this fault; he exhorts them to withdraw them- 
 selves from every Christian brother living disorderly, in order 
 to bring him to shame and amendment. Only in ver. 12 
 does he direct his apostolic word to the erring brethren 
 themselves. 
 
 Ver. 6. IIapayyéAXopev 5] An application of the general 
 & mapayyAdouer, ver. 4, to a special case. — év dvduate Tod 
 xuplov pov I, Xp.] belongs to wapayyédXopev, not to what 
 follows. A solemn reference to the high authority for this 
 injunction, Comp. 1 Cor. v. 4.—oréAXecbat aro Tivos] to 
 withdraw himself from every one, to avoid his company. Comp. 
 UrocréArew éavtov, Gal. ii. 12, and dtroctéAXNecOar, Heb. 
 x. 38.— ataxtws] see on 1 Thess. v. 14.— Kxata thv tapa- 
 Soc, iv «.T.r.] refers not to instruction by the example of the 
 apostle (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, 
 Hofmann), which is first mentioned in what follows, but to 
 the definite instruction which the apostle had given to them 
 orally, during his presence at Thessalonica (comp. ver. 10; 
 1 Thess. iv. 11), and then confirmed by writing (1 Thess. 
 iv. 11, 12).— wapedaBooav] A well-known constructio ad 
 sensum adapted to the collective form amo mavros adeddod. 
 
CHAP, III. 7—9. 249 
 
 See Kiihner, II. p. 42. On the verbal form, comp. Sturz, 
 de dial. Alex. p. 60; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 349. 
 
 Ver. 7. Confirmation of cata tiv tapdadocuy, iv mapeda- 
 Bocav. The instruction imparted was sufficiently known to 
 the readers: what Paul commanded, he practically exhibited 
 by his own conduct. — avtoi] ye yourselves, without it being 
 necessary for me to speak much about it. — mwas Set pipet Oar 
 as] a concise expression, meaning: What is your incumbent 
 walk, and how, in consequence of it, ye will be my imitators. 
 —6rt] for. Unnaturally, Hofmann: 67s is to be translated 
 by that, and is added as a parallel expression to 7a@s det 
 pyetoOat jas, in which also ver. 9 is absorbed. — ataxtety] 
 equal to atdxtws TrepiTratety, ver. 6. Only here in the N. T. 
 
 Ver. 8. See on 1 Thess. ii. 9.— dwpedv] by way of gift. — 
 dptov daryetv] to eat bread (Mark iii. 20; Luke xiv. 1; dprov 
 écOiey, Matt. xv. 2), has as the Hebrew pnp D2N (Gen. 
 xliii, 25; 2 Sam. ix. 7; Prov. xxiii. 6, etc.) the idea of eating 
 generally, so that it is not to be distinguished from the simple 
 gayeiv (Mark vi. 31) or éoOcew (ver. 10). adptov dayety Tapa 
 twos denotes: to have maintenance from any one, without 
 care on our part. — épyafopuevor] is not to be taken in the 
 sense of temp. jinit. (Flatt and others), but & kxomw... 
 épyafouevot is to be taken together, and forms a statement of 
 mode attached to dprov épdyouev in contrast to dwpedv. Yet 
 we may, with Winer, p. 314 [E. T. 442], de Wette, and 
 Hofmann, assume that to éfdyouer, as a contrast to Swpedr, 
 are added first év komm kal poy taking the place of an 
 adverb, and then to this vi«ra kal npuépav épyafouevos as a 
 parallel clause. 
 
 Ver. 9. Paul has indeed the right to be maintained by the 
 churches, but he freely renounces this right, in order to 
 present believers with a good example. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 4 ff. 
 — ovx 671] My meaning is by no means that; by no means 
 as if. A restriction of the previous statement, in order to 
 prevent a possible misunderstanding. Comp. 2 Cor. i. 24, 
 i, 5; Phil. ni 12, iv. 11;173 Hartung, Partikellehre, II. p. 
 
 153 f£.— é€ovciav] power or authority, sc. Tod Swpedv dharyeiv 
 dpTov.— adr’] sc. €v KoT@ Kal poxOm@ viKTa Kal ijucpav 
 
250 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 
 
 épyafopevor aprov éoOiowev.— On éavtovs, comp. Bernhardy, 
 Syntax, p. 272; Winer, p. 136 [E. T. 187]. 
 
 Ver. 10. A further reason, along with the example of the 
 apostle, which should preserve them from adtdxtws mepitarety. 
 — yap] co-ordinate with the yap in ver. 7. «ai cannot serve 
 to bring out 67e jer mpos vuas (so Hofmann), so that it 
 would be explained, with Theodoret: Ovddév xawov dtpiv 
 ypadopev, aXN’ Grrep €& dpyis buds édiddEapev. For 6te jpev 
 mpos tmas is no new additional idea, but only again resumes 
 what was at least already implied in vv. 7 and 8. Ka/é must 
 accordingly be taken with todto mapyyyédAopev vpiv, and the 
 emphasis lies on todro, which is placed first. The meaning 
 is: for even when we were with you, this we commanded you. 
 — tovTo] namely, what follows: 67 € Tus «.7.A.—e Tis ov 
 Oérer épyaferPat, pndé €cOérw] was a Jewish proverb; see 
 Schoettgen and Wetstein zz loco. It has its root in the 
 expression in Gen. iii. 19, that man in the sweat of his brow 
 shall eat his bread. — od @érex] Bengel: JVolle vitium est. 
 
 Ver. 11. The reason for reminding them of this saying, ver. 
 10. Arbitrarily, Hofmann: yap refers to the whole section 
 vv. 6-10. The verb wepuepyafeoPar is only found here in the 
 N. T. (but comp. wepiepyos, 1 Tim. v. 13, and ta tepiepya 
 mpdccew, Acts xix. 19). It denotes a bustling disposition, 
 busy in useless and superfluous things, about which one should 
 not trouble himself. Paul thinks on the fanatical excitement, 
 on account of which one busied himself about everything 
 except the fulfilment of the duties of his earthly calling. 
 mepvepyafouévous forms a paronomasia with pydev épya- 
 fouévovs.. Comp. Quintilian, inst. orat. vi. 8. 54: Afer enim 
 venuste Mallium Suram, multum in agendo discursantem, 
 salientem, manus jactantem, togam dejicientem et reponentem, 
 non agere Aixit sed satagere. 
 
 Ver. 12. Kal mapaxarodpuev] sc. adtovs.— peta ovylas 
 epyatopuevot] with quietness, i.e. applying yourself to your 
 earthly calling, subjectively with a quiet and collected mind, 
 and objectively with noiseless modesty. Contrast to pmdév 
 épyavec Oar adda Teptepyafeo@ar. Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 11.— 
 
 1 Ewald translates it: ‘‘ nicht Arbeit treibend, sondern sich herumtreibend.” 
 
CHAP. III. 13, 14. 251 
 
 éavtov] emphatic, their own bread, that is to say, their self- 
 earned sustenance, avoiding a maintenance which depends on 
 the charity of others. 
 
 Ver. 13. The apostle again turns himself to those who had 
 kept themselves free from this fault. — éxxaxeiy] with the 
 following participle (see Kiihner, II. p. 369) denotes to be 
 weary im doing something. — kanrotroveiv| cannot signify “to 
 be charitable” (Calvin, Estius, Flatt, Pelt, de Wette, Bloom- 
 field, Ewald, Bisping, and most critics), so that the sense 
 would be: But suffer not yourselves, through those who abuse 
 your charity, to be restrained from exercising charity in 
 general. The verb can only denote, so act as is right and 
 proper. Comp. Gal. vi. 9. As Paul still speaks, even in 
 vv. 14, 15, of the special matter which he treated of in the 
 preceding words, kaXozrovety cannot be understood in its most 
 general sense, but must be referred to the matter in question. 
 Accordingly, the apostle requires that those who had kept 
 themselves free trom this fault should not be weary in doing 
 what is right and proper, that is to say, that they should not 
 suffer themselves to be infected with the evil example given. 
 
 Ver. 14. Ava ths émtotors| is, by Nicolas de Lyra, Luther, 
 Calvin, Musculus, Hemming, Bullinger, Lucius Osiander, 
 Balduin, Grotius, Calovius, Clericus, Sebastian Schmid, Bengel, 
 Moldenhauer, Zachariae, Koppe, Krause, Pelt, Winer, p. 108 
 [E. T. 147], and others, united with what follows. It is 
 usually explained: If any obey not my word, note that man to 
 me in writing, se. in order that I may direct what punishment is 
 to be inflicted on him. But this interpretation is to be rejected 
 —(1) on account of the article ts, which, if unforced, can 
 only denote a definite epistle lying before them, not an epistle 
 to be written only at a later period; (2) as the inversion of 
 the words: dua Tis émteToAts TovUTOV onpueodabe, instead of the 
 natural order: todtov da THs erisTOAHs cnpeodcGe, would not 
 be justified; (3) lastly, because it is very improbable that 
 Paul should still have retained for himself a statement of the 
 
 1 Also Olshausen understands x«Asroziv only of doing good in general, but 
 
 arbitrarily refers it—because anticipating the contents of ver. 15—to the loving 
 and forbearing treatment of the brethren, 
 
252 TIIE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 punishment, as he has already in ver. 6 stated the mode of 
 punishment, and again repeated it in this verse, commanding 
 them to withdraw from the society of every brother acting 
 contrary to his admonitions. But interpretations in this 
 connection, as that of Bengel: “notate noté censorid, hane 
 epistolam, ejus admonendi causa, adhibentes eique inculcantes, 
 ut, aliorum judicio perspecto, se demittat,” or that of Pelt: 
 “eum hac epistola freti severius tractate,” alter the idea of the 
 verb onpecodobar. We are obliged to unite dua Tis émiuotorns 
 with 7@ Aoyw judv. So, correctly, Chrysostom, Clarius, Estius, 
 Piscator, Andrew Osiander, Aretius, Menochius, Vorstius, 
 Cornelius a Lapide, Beza, Fromond., Hammond, Nat. Alexander, 
 Joachim Lange, Harduin, Whitby, Benson, Bolten, Flatt, Schott, 
 Olshausen, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bloomfield, Alford, 
 Ewald, Bisping, Buttmann, Gramm. des neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 80 
 [E. T. 92]; Hofmann, Riggenbach, and others. It was not neces- 
 sary to repeat the article t® before dua THs éricToAHs, because 
 TO NOYo Huov Sia THs érrveTorNs is blended into the wnity of the 
 idea of a written command. Comp. Winer, p. 123 [E. T. 169]. 
 » €mictoAy denotes the definite Epistle, 7c. our Second Epistle 
 to the Thessalonians (comp. 1 Thess. v. 27; Rom. xvi. 22; 
 Col. iv. 16); and the command expressed by that Epistle is 
 the admonition in ver. 12. The meaning is: But if any one 
 acts contrary to my prohibition repeated in this Epistle, note 
 that man, i.e. mark him, sc. in order to avoid intercourse with 
 him (comp. 1 Cor. v. 9, 11), and thereby to bring him to 
 shame (and amendment); as Paul, explaining himself, ex- 
 pressly adds: Kat yu) cvvavaplyvucbe att, iva évtparh. This 
 meaning also remains, if, instead of the Receptus Kat ua cuv- 
 avautyvuabe, we read, with Lachmann and Tischendorf 1, after 
 A B D* x, the infinitive 4) cvvavaptyvveba, only the form 
 of expression being changed. — €vtpa7rj] is passive, not middle 
 (Pelt). Comp. Tit. ii. 8; 1 Cor. iv. 14, vi. 5, xv. 24. 
 
 Ver. 15. But no hostile feeling against the erring was to 
 be conjoined with this avoidance of social intercourse ; on the 
 contrary, as he is a Christian brother, advice and admoni- 
 tion are not to be omitted in order to convert him from his 
 error by convincing reasons. — @s] united with 7yeic@ar, 
 
CHAP. III. 16—18. PADD 
 
 otherwise unusual, brings still more prominently forward the 
 subjective notion or representation implied in the verb. In 
 a corresponding manner @o7ep occurs with syelo@ar in the 
 LXX. Comp. Job xix. 11, xxxii. 10. 
 
 Ver. 16. The apostle, hastening to a conclusion, annexes a 
 benediction to the exhortation. By o xvpios tis eipyvns is 
 meant not God, but Christ, and the genitive designates Him 
 as the Creator and Producer of etpyvn. — Ths eipyvns and 
 tiv eipyynv| are usually interpreted, either of mutual har- 
 mony or of peace of mind (or even, as eg. by Schott, of both 
 together, external and internal peace). The first-mentioned 
 interpretation is untenable, because there is in the Epistle not 
 the slightest trace of dissensions in the church; and the shift 
 that the fanatical excitement in the church, and the idleness 
 consequent upon it, might lead to external disquiet, and 
 accordingly the wish of the apostle was occasioned with a 
 view to the future, is far-fetched and arbitrary, because 
 Paul prays for what was immediately to occur. There is 
 nothing against the second interpretation, as calmness of mind 
 or peace of soul is undoubtedly indicated by edpxjvy (Phil. 
 iv. 7). See Meyer and Weiss in loco. Yet it is also admis- 
 sible to understand ecp7vn both times (corresponding to the 
 Hebrew Diny ; see Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 22 ff) in the sense 
 of salvation or blessing, and, indeed, on account of the article 
 Ths and tv, of the definite,—that is to say, the specifically 
 Christian blessing or salvation. This interpretation is also 
 supported by the fact, that as ydpus Kat eipiyn at the com- 
 mencement of the apostolic Epistles corresponds to the Sa/utem 
 or ev mpatrew of profane writers, so the apostolic benediction 
 at the conclusion of the Epistles is nothing else than the 
 Christian transformation of the usual Valete or éppwabe, — dia 
 mavtos| always, Rom. xi. 10; Matt. xviii. 10; Acts ii, 25. — 
 peta Tavtav tua] accordingly even with the ataxtws cept- 
 TATOUVTES. 
 
 Vy. 17, 18. Autographic salutation, with a repeated bene- 
 diction. Paul had not written the letter with his own hand, 
 but dictated it. Comp. Rom. xvi. 22; 1 Cor. xvi. 21; Col. 
 iv. 18.— 6] does not stand by attraction for 6s, nor also does 
 
254 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, 
 
 it bring forward a simple special point from the foregoing (so 
 Wieseler on Gal. vi. 11; and Laurent in the Stud. wu. Krit. 
 1864, p. 639 ; Neutestam. Studien, Gotha 1866, p. 5: “ which, 
 namely, the autographic writing”), but it refers to the whole 
 preceding idea: which circumstance of the salutation now 
 written, — onpetov] a sign, i.e. a mark of authenticity. Comp. 
 ii, 2. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Bullinger, Estius, 
 Piseator, Menochius, Cornelius a Lapide, Er. Schmid, Beza, 
 Joachim Lange, Harduin, Benson, Bengel, Moldenhauer, 
 Zachariae, Baur (Paulus, p. 489), Hofmann, Riggenbach, and 
 most critics, incorrectly find this mark in the addition of the 
 words following in ver. 18; for the autographic salutation is 
 expressly designated as this mark. But a salutation and a 
 benediction are different from each other. — év aon éoioton | 
 in every Epistle, can only be referred to all the Epistles which 
 the apostle has, perhaps, at a later period, still to write to the 
 Thessalonians. For only for the Thessalonians, who had already 
 been actually deceived by a false Pauline Epistle, and led into 
 error, was such a precaution of practical importance against a 
 new deception. Besides, if €v wdon émiotoAy is to be under- 
 stood absolutely instead of relatively, the autographic salutation 
 would be found in all the Epistles of the apostle. But it is 
 only found in 1 Cor, xvi, 21 and Col. iv. 18. — ottws ypada] 
 thus—that is to say, in such characters as are given in vv. 17 
 and 18—Z write. The handwriting of the apostle was accord- 
 ingly still unknown to the readers. From this it follows, that 
 also the First Epistle to the Thessalonians was not written by 
 the apostle’s own hand. Moreover, Zeltner (de monogrammate 
 Pauli, Altorfii 1721), Bengel, and Moldenhauer erroneously — 
 because transferring a modern custom into antiquity—consider 
 that we are here to think on characters artificially twisted into 
 a monogram by the apostle and rendered incapable of imitation. 
 Against Zeltner, see Wolf, p. 402 ff. 
 
 ' 
 
 OS AA 
 
 Lé,} 
 ( 
 
 MORRISON AND GIBB, EDINBURGH, 
 PRINTEbS TU HEK MAJbS1Y 8S STATIONERY OFFICE, 
 

 
vit ae et 
 
 iM ia? it eG 
 4 Ky 
 f 
 
 Sa 7) * 
 
 i 
 ey, 
 ‘ oe ia hi 
 | j 
 4 ‘ iy’¥ 
 dr BAR, | 
 7 
 i if \ « ‘ 
 haus, * iy 
 f, i 
 ayy 
 i 
 bib ; Yu ee ohh 
 “me 
 vy} 
 F f : 
 ’ ‘ oe 
 i i 
 Lele ye rae | eae 
 y) Siew a 
 f ‘ 
 yee 4 
 ‘ y , be 
 . ‘ 
 ei , 
 > } ‘ 
 A } ; 
 4 
 ' : 
 ‘, | ro 
 , J 
 oe tm 
 i ~~. 
 ‘ 
 ’ ° 
 ~ 
 Ai 4 
 * Bs 
 \ 
 ; 
 1 
 ‘ 
 v M4 
 | 
 i 
 ‘ re 
 
 mm) 
 vy 
 4) 
 
 hae a" 
 ee 
 my) 
 
 EA NY 
 foe 7 ahh 
 
 
 
 
 
 iJ 
 he ae ove 
 
 ee Col ae 
 

 
ACL, 
 SEITE 
 
 DEMCO 38-297 
 
 
 
 
 
i 
 Sy a" a 
 ti a Bye 
 
 ‘ 
 1 
 
 ey 
 Avy 
 
 
 
» .L94 
 -getical handbook to the 
 
 1 1012 00068 oa