8. Conclusion (5:23–28)
8. Conclusion (5:23–28)
Paul concluded the first main section of the letter with a prayer referring to the parousia (3:11–13), and he does the same now.
23. De (omitted in NIV) has adversative force‚ ‘but’. The conduct Paul has been advocating is impossible in human strength, but Paul’s prayer directs the readers to the source of the power that would alone enable them to live in this way. He speaks of God as the God of peace‚ as he often does towards the end of his letters (cf. Rom. 15:33; 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:11; Phil. 4:9; 2 Thess. 3:16). Peace (see on 1:1) is spiritual prosperity in the widest sense; it is so characteristic of God to bestow this gift that he is called the God of peace.
The prayer is that this God will sanctify you through and through. There is a manward aspect of sanctification‚ in that we are called on to consecrate ourselves to the doing of God’s will. But the power manifest in the sanctified life is not human but divine, and Paul’s prayer reflects this truth. In the deepest sense our sanctification is the work of God in us; it may be ascribed to the Son (Eph. 5:26)‚ or to the Spirit (Rom. 15:16)‚ but in any case it is divine. Through and through (holoteleis‚ here only in the New Testament) combines the ideas of wholeness and completeness; Lightfoot sees the meaning, ‘may He sanctify you so that ye be entire’.
The second part of the prayer runs‚ May your whole spirit‚ soul and body be kept blameless … This is sometimes used as an argument for a trichotomous view of man (e.g. Thomas), as against a dichotomous view, but this is probably unjustified (cf. Mark 12:30 for a fourfold division and 1 Cor. 7:34 for a twofold one). Paul is not analysing the nature of man, but uttering a fervent prayer that the entire man be preserved. Cf. Milligan‚ the threefold petition is ‘for man’s whole being‚ whether on its immortal‚ its personal‚ or its bodily side’.
That the unity of man is being emphasized is indicated by the fact that both the verb and the adjective whole are singular‚ though they apply to all three. Whole (holoklēron) is in the predicate and not the attributive position‚ and strictly means ‘may your spirit etc. be preserved whole’ (cf. RSV ‘be kept sound’). The word means ‘complete in all its parts’. It is used in LXX of stone for the altar (Deut. 27:6)‚ and Philo and Josephus use it of sacrificial victims. It is thus possible that Paul is thinking of the presentation of the whole man as a living sacrifice (as in Rom. 12:1). The prayer is that the whole person be kept blameless‚ the latter word being found in this epistle only in the New Testament. It is found also in the inscriptions on some tombs at Thessalonica (Milligan).
These epistles have a deep interest in the second coming and fittingly the prayer concludes with a reference to it. The prayer is not only that they may be kept until the coming, but that at (en) the coming they may be preserved, i.e. in all that will then happen, including the judgment with all that that implies.
24. The prayer is offered in the certainty that it will be answered‚ a certainty that arises because God is faithful (cf. 1 Cor. 1:9; 10:13; 2 Cor. 1:18; 2 Thess. 3:3; 2 Tim. 2:13; Heb. 10:23; 11:11). Cf. Chrysostom: ‘This happens not from my prayers, he says‚ but from the purpose with which he called you’ (cited in Frame). God is the one who calls you, where the timeless present participle (not ‘called’) draws attention to God in his capacity as Caller. This is followed by an unusual absolute use of the verb do (there is no it in the Greek). This puts the emphasis on action, on ‘doing’, and this is strengthened by the ‘also’. The faithful Caller will also act.
25. We see a very human Paul in this request to his friends (he calls them Brothers) for prayer (see also Rom. 15:30; Eph. 6:19; Col. 4:3–4; 2 Thess. 3:1–2, and cf. Phil. 1:19; Heb. 13:18). Although he had great gifts and was of undoubted eminence in the church‚ he needed the prayers of his friends.
26. ‘In the ancient world one kissed the hand‚ breast, knee‚ or foot of a superior‚ and the cheek of a friend. Herodotus mentions kissing the lips as a custom of the Persians. Possibly from them it came to the Jews.‘29 In New Testament times it might be expected from a host to a guest (Luke 7:45), and it was a gesture of goodwill which made Judas’s kiss so heinous (Luke 22:48). Not much is known of kissing in the early church, but it is usually held that men kissed men and women women, and that the kiss was on the cheek. But Tertullian (at the end of the second century) speaks of a wife exchanging a kiss with ‘any one of the brothers’ (To His Wife, ii. 4). The New Testament does not connect it with liturgical practices‚ but the kiss would naturally be exchanged when Christians came together to worship‚ and it is not surprising that in time it came to be included in the service of Holy Communion (though not confined to this). Clement of Alexandria complains of those who ‘make the churches resound’ with their kissing, and goes on to say, ‘the shameless use of a kiss … occasions foul suspicions and evil reports’ (Instructor iii. 12). Such abuses led to restriction and‚ for example, the Apostolic Constitutions (4th century, but containing older material) direct men to kiss men and women women.
Paul means ‘Give all the brothers a kiss from me’ (cf. ‘My love to all of you in Christ Jesus’, 1 Cor. 16:24); it is his warm greeting to his Thessalonian friends. There are other references to such a ‘holy kiss’ (Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12)‚ and to a ‘kiss of love’ (1 Pet. 5:14).
Much is sometimes made of the fact that Paul says Greet all the brothers and not simply ‘Greet one another’ (Introduction, p. 33). But probably no great emphasis should be laid on all‚ for the word is not in an emphatic position. If Paul is not directing them how to greet one another but sending his own greeting to the church‚ it is natural for him to refer to all the brothers.
27. The strength of the language here is surprising. I charge you before the Lord means ‘I put you on your oath as Christians’, the verb being enorkizō, apparently a strengthened form of horkizō (we would expect something like ‘See that this letter is read to all’). The use of ‘I’ (not ‘we’ may also be significant, though it perhaps means no more than at this point Paul took up the pen to add a few words himself.
It is not easy to explain such a strong charge. Some see in it a reference to a divided church‚ with some members not wishing to have others hear the letter, or perhaps not wanting to hear it themselves. But, while there were some tensions in the church (as we have noted in the commentary)‚ there is nothing to indicate that the church was as seriously divided as this. We cannot imagine Paul praising it so highly if it were so seriously split. It is much the same with the suggestion that this is one of the earliest epistles and the custom of reading it to all was not yet established. If this were all, there seems no need of ‘I adjure’! Lightfoot suggests that Paul may have had a presentiment ‘that a wrong use might be made of his name and authority. Such a suspicion was entirely justified by subsequent occurrences (2 Thess. 2:2).’ Perhaps. But it is dangerous to appeal to possible presentiments to explain passages we find difficult.
The best explanation seems to lie in the intense desire of Paul and the Thessalonians to see each other again, together with the impossibility of that happening in the prevailing circumstances. Paul uses strong words to make sure that his message comes before everybody and is plainly seen to be meant to come before everybody. This makes clear that his continued absence was not his fault. Possibly also he is moved by special concern for the bereaved who might be absent when the letter was read. He makes it certain that they will not miss the comfort he is sending them.
The word read (anagnōsthēnai) means ‘read’ or ‘read aloud’. Some hold that reading was always aloud in antiquity‚ but Lake and Cadbury maintain that it is ‘surely incredible that educated Greeks and Romans had not learned to read silently’ (on Acts 8:30). Milligan cites examples of the use of the word in the sense of reading as well as of reading aloud. Here it clearly means ‘read aloud’. Reading during public worship is not implied, though in time this became usual, and Paul’s letters were read in church as sacred Scripture.
28. Instead of the customary secular ending ‘Farewell’ (errōso, errōsthe)‚ Paul always has a prayer for grace. This verse is the typical form, which was sometimes expanded (e.g. the trinitarian form, 2 Cor. 13:14), sometimes shortened (Col. 4:18; and the Pastorals). It was Paul’s habit to pen the concluding portion himself after an amanuensis had written the main body of the letter (2 Thess. 3:17). The precise point at which he took the pen seems to have varied (cf. Gal. 6:11); the use of the first person singular makes it likely that in this letter it was by verse 27 at any rate.