C. Brotherly Love (4:9-10)
3 It is God's will that you should be holy; that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should learn to control his own bodya in a way that is holy and honorable, 5 not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; 6 and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. 7 For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. 8 Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.
a4 Or learn to live with his own wife or learn to acquire a wife
It comes as something of a surprise to modern people to find an exhortation to sexual purity in the forefront of practical directions to a Christian church. This, however, was very much in place in writing to the inhabitants of a first-century Greek city, for among the Greeks sexual sin was but lightly condemned.) I Continence was regarded as an unreasonable demand on a man. In society at large it was taken for granted that men would naturally seek the satisfaction of their sexual desires outside the marriage bond. The pressure to conform to the easy standards accepted throughout society must have been strong on the early church12-especially so since so large a proportion of its membership consisted of men and women of limited ability and circumscribed outlook, men and women, moreover, who of necessity were imperfectly instructed in the Christian faith. Yet the leaders of the church did not compromise for one moment. They knew that God required of them the highest standard, and they had no authority to lower that standard. Thus they refused to allow the practice of the Christian church to be determined by the ideas of contemporary society.
What Paul is saying is not to be understood as no more than a useful regulation applicable to first-century Christians only. It is of continuing relevance. Just as much in the twentieth century as in the first it must be insisted that Christian standards are to be taken from God and not from the low ideals of contemporary society. This is true of all of life, but we must not overlook its relevance in the sphere of sexual morality. Paul does not mention any specific sin of this kind as having taken place among the Thessalonians (contrast 1 Cor. 5:lff.), and there is no reason for thinking that the Thessalonians had actually given way to the temptation. The strong warning is probably to be understood in the light of the prevalence of low standards. It is meant to prevent rather than to rebuke sin. Had a definite case occurred we must think that Paul would have been much more direct. But he takes no risks with his beloved Thessalonians and so he warns them.
3 The apostle puts chastity before his readers as "God's will." "Will" is without the article in the Greek, the force of which is that this is not the whole of God's will for them. God's will includes many things,'3 but of great importance for them is the one of which Paul speaks. Paul's direction, then, is on the very highest plane. He does not speak on the level of ethics or prudence or ecclesiastical regulations. This is what God wants his people to do and there could be no higher sanction.
This is Paul's point also in referring to sanctification ("that you should be holy"), which is "at once a gift and a demand" (Wilson). We have already noticed the consistent New Testament doctrine that everyone who believes is holy, that is, set apart for God (see on 3:13). We come to Christ in all our sin, and we receive cleansing by his atoning death. Then day by day we become more and more what God would have us to be. We increasingly experience the reality of being set apart for him. Sanctification is the name given to this process, as holiness is to the final state. When Paul speaks here of sanctification as God's will for the Thessalonian converts, he is reminding them of the implications of their having been purchased by the blood of Christ. Henceforth they belong to God and their lives must reflect this. But Paul is not here concerned with a general dissertation on the dedicated Christian life. He is dealing with the particular aspect of sexual purity. So he proceeds to the point "that you should avoid14 sexual immorality." His verb is a strong one, and it is reinforced by a preposition that emphasizes the separation. The Christian must have no truck with this evil thing. The noun strictly means fornication, but it is used of all forms of illicit sexual intercourse.15 These are incompatible with the sanctification required of a Christian. The whole question of sex relationships has to be viewed in the light of the fact that the body of the Christian belongs to God (cf. I Cor. 6:19-20).
4 Having said negatively that one should abstain from certain forms of conduct, Paul now puts the positive side of the same truth, namely, that people should live continently. He says, "that each of you should learn ..." (the verb means "know"), as though it would be impossible for any believer who knows what this sin really is to engage in it. The big problem in this verse is to know exactly what he had in mind in the expression NIV translates "to control his own body" (so REB), but there are some ancient and many more recent commentators (e.g., Best, Moore) who maintain that in this passage it signifies "wife" (so RSV). In favor of the former are the facts that the early Greek commentators usually understand it this way. The word literally means "vessel," and this word without qualification does not often mean "body," though it certainly has this meaning on some occasions.16 This, for example, is the way it is to be understood in the incident in which David asked Ahimelech for bread and was told that there was holy bread "if only the young men have kept themselves from women" and included in his reply the words "when I came out, the vessels of the young men were holy ... how much more then today shall their vessels be holy?" (1 Sam. 21:4-5; Bruce draws attention to this passage and sees it as referring to the body).17 There are also partial parallels, such as the reference to treasure "in earthen vessels" (2 Cor. 4:7). Moreover, in Greek writers generally, the body is often thought of as the instrument or vessel of the soul. The big difficulty in the way of accepting "body" as the meaning is the verb, which really means "to acquire," and it is not easy to see how a man can "acquire" his own body. There is, however, evidence from the papyri that it could be used in the sense "possess,"18 so this difficulty is not insuperable.19
A few early commentators like Theodore of Mopsuestia and Augustine held that the word means "wife," and a good number of modern writers follow them. The strongest argument for this view appears to be that there are a few passages where this verb, in combination with "woman," means "to marry."2° This is said to be supported by the reference to the wife as "the weaker vessel" (1 Pet. 3:7). This latter argument must, however, be discounted, for the wife is not spoken of as the husband's "vessel" at all. Both are "vessels" of the Holy Spirit, the wife being the weaker. Thus the passage does not really bear on our problem. Among the rabbis the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek word here is used of the wife,2' and this may have influenced Paul.
It is not easy to decide the point, but it does seem that it would not be very natural for a Greek writer to speak of a wife as a "vessel." And in this case it would be the less likely since Paul is inculcating a high view of marriage, whereas it is a very low view that sees the wife as no more than a vessel for gratifying the husband's sexual desires. We should also bear in mind that this comes in a letter addressed to the whole church, women as well as men, and it is impossible for a woman (married or single) to acquire a wife. This, taken in conjunction with the positive evidence above, inclines me to the view that "body" is meant. Paul then is exhorting his Thessalonian friends to keep their bodies pure. He does not use the term "pure," but prefers to use the idea of sanctification again, and with it he joins honor. There is a right use for a body that is set apart for the service of God. Sanctification excludes impurity. Again, impurity dishonors the body, so that Paul's linking of honor with sanctification is much in point.22 Lightfoot well remarks: "The honour due to the body as such is one of the great contrasts which Christianity offers to the loftiest systems of heathen philosophy (e.g., Platonism and Stoicism)."23
5 The positive state of sanctification and honor is further defined, the absence of a connecting particle showing that the same idea carries on. The God-empowered person rules his body and is not caught in the grip of uncontrollable sexual desires, what Paul here calls "the passion of lust"24 (for the combination cf. Gal. 5:24; Col. 3:5). The word "passion" is always used by Paul in a bad sense. It denotes not so much a violent desire, which the English "passion" suggests, as an overmastering desire. The root connects with the thought of suffering, and the noun expresses the feeling that anyone suffers. It expresses the passive side of the vice. "Lust," on the other hand, is the active, aggressive word.25 It is used of strong desire of any kind. Occasionally it is used of some good desire, as in 2:17 (where see note), but more characteristically it denotes an evil desire, and that a very strong one. Paul is picturing people who give themeselves over to their lusts.
This conduct, Paul says, is typical of "the heathen" (perhaps better "the Gentiles"). The word is a very general one, and means "the nations." As used by the Jews in its normal sense it denotes the entire non-Jewish world, and we become accustomed to it as signifying non-Jews. It is not usual to find it in the sense "non-Christians," but that is quite plainly the meaning here. This does not mean that Paul is including the Jews among those who succumbed to impurity, for their high moral standards were well known. Rather, he is thinking of Christians (who at Thessalonica were predominantly non-Jewish in origin, as we see from 1:9) as nonGentiles. He is dividing the world into Christians and Gentiles. It is an eloquent commentary on the lax standards of sexual morality that were prevalent that Paul speaks of sexual vice as so entirely characteristic of the world of his day.
He puts it all down to people's ignorance of God. They are "Gentiles who do not know God." His thought on this matter is more fully developed in the first chapter of Romans, where he points out that they rejected the knowledge of God that was afforded them: "they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God" (Rom. 1:28). Because of this, God delivered them up to unnatural lusts (Rom. 1:24, 26, 28). It is a solemn thought that those who reject the knowledge of God that has been afforded them thereby make it inevitable that they will be given over to evil passions. Though his thought here is condensed, there is no doubt that Paul has in mind the sort of thing he has expressed more fully in Romans 1.
6 There are many ways of viewing sexual license. The way Paul chooses here is one that sees it as involving defrauding another of his rights.26 "You cannot break this rule without in some way cheating your fellow-men" (Phillips). The verb rendered "wrong"27 means "to go beyond," that is, "beyond what is right," and thus "transgress." But where it has an object it means something like "to overreach." If we are to understand it here as being closely joined with the following verb and governing "brother," 28 the meaning will be something like "defraud" (so Moffatt).29 Joined with "take advantage of him," it reminds us that all sexual looseness represents an act of injustice to someone other than the two parties concerned. Adultery is an obvious violation of the rights of another. But promiscuity before marriage represents the robbing of the other of that virginity which ought to be brought to a marriage. The future partner of such a one has been defrauded. And, of course, if a child is born as the result of this sin, the little one bears the stigma of illegitimacy. Some interpreters have thought that this verse does not refer to sexual morality at all, taking "this matter" (literally, "the matter") to refer to conduct generally (e.g., KJV, "that no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter"), or to business affairs (Denney and Bicknell note this view but reject it). However, the article with "matter" points to the issue under discussion,30 and the fact that impurity is mentioned again in the next verse indicates that the thought is being continued throughout the whole passage.
Paul now gives reasons why this sort of conduct should be eschewed. His first point is that God will take action against people who sin like this, as he had already warned them. It is noteworthy how often he comes back to the point that he had told them of this matter or that. It is clear that his instruction of the converts had been thorough, and had embraced the important matters that he felt called on to emphasize in his letter.
The form in which this particular warning is cast is that of a reminder that the Lord is "an avenger" (NIV, "will punish"). It is possible to take "the Lord" here to signify the Lord Jesus (as it usually does in the New Testament). But that God is the avenger is a frequent thought in the Old Testament (e.g., Dent. 32:35), and, with somewhat different terminology, in the New also. This is probably the way we should take it here. We must not understand vengeance in the sense of settling private scores, but rather of the administration of an evenhanded justice. People are required to live in accordance with moral law. If they do not, unpleasant consequences follow. These consequences are inevitable, for the hand of God is in them. Since he is the avenger, no one can reckon on escaping the consequences of evil deeds. "All such sins" is more exactly "all these things," but NIV probably gives the sense of it; Paul is referring primarily to the sins of which he has just been speaking and says people who commit them will render account to God in due course. There is a sense in which this happens here and now, for the sinner is less a person because of his sin (cf. also the process described so solemnly in Rom. 1:18-31). In another sense the full requital for wrong will not be exacted until the last day. It is likely that Paul is glancing at the great Assize.
7 A second reason3 i for purity is the whole character of the Christian life. In verse 4 Paul has spoken of "sanctification and honor," and it is this sort of thing that he has in mind now. Indeed, he uses the same term "sanctification," and adds to it the thought of the divine call, a call that involves the rejection of "uncleanness" (NIV, "to be impure"). This last word can theoretically be used in various senses. In one passage it refers to the uncleanness inside a tomb (Matt. 23:27), but everywhere else in the New Testament (and especially in Paul) it seems to refer to moral impurity, as is the case here.
Paul looks for his converts to live wholesome and pure lives. He bases his demand for the renunciation of all uncleanness on the priority of the divine in the Christian way of life. God has called believers, and called them "in sanctification." The priority of God's call is a major point in Pauline theology. Everywhere the apostle insists that our salvation is brought about not because we have taken action, but because God has. He goes further. When the natural man learns that he cannot remove the burden of his sins but must rely on Christ's atoning work for it all, he may try to save some shreds of self-respect by claiming at least the credit for turning from sin to God. But that, too, is ruled out. People come to God only because of God's effectual call. In this place it is not so much the fact that God called the Thessalonians initially that is in mind as the kind of living to which he has called them. He has called them to be set apart for him, that is, to live in sanctification (see on v. 3). The change of preposition from "for" with uncleanness to "in" with sanctification is interesting 32 The former expresses purpose (cf. its use in Gal. 5:13; Eph. 2:10). When God called the Thessalonians it was not an aimless procedure. He had a very definite purpose, and that purpose was not uncleanness. "In" gives us rather the thought of atmosphere, of the settled condition in which he required them to live out their lives. This atmosphere for the believer is sanctification. This is the very air he breathes.
8 We come to a third reason for chastity, namely, that impurity represents a sin against the Holy Spirit. This thought arises out of what has just been said, and the "therefore" that introduces the verse should not be overlooked. Impurity must be seen in the light of the fact that God has called us to live in sanctification. A failure to obey this call is thus more than simply a failure to keep some human rule. It is a sin against the living presence of God. The heinousness of this sin is brought out by the contrast between rejecting people and rejecting God33 in the first part of the verse. The verb is not an easy one to translate,34 and it is rendered in various ways in its various occurrences in the New Testament. Basically it means something like "to hold as null and void" (cf. its use for annulling a will, Gal. 3:15). From this various meanings arise. Here the significance is that anyone who holds sexual sin as a thing indifferent thereby treats God (not simply another person, Paul himself?) as of no account. Such a sinner thinks of God as One who can be neglected with impunity, this God who has just been spoken of as "an Avenger" (v. 6), and is about to be described as the continual Giver of his Holy Spirit.
The seriousness of this sin is further emphasized by an unusual word order ("his Spirit, the holy"), which has the effect of emphasizing "holy" (and also that the Spirit is none less than God's). The conduct in question outrages the Spirit, who is not only mighty but holy. This sin is understood in its true light only when it is seen as a preference for impurity rather than the Spirit who is holy. This is brought out by referring to God as him "who gives35 you his Holy Spirit."36 The verb is in the present,37 which is unusual for Paul; he generally thinks of the Spirit as given once for all (though cf. Gal. 3:5). But in this passage there is a profound truth in the use of the present. Anyone who carries on an act of impurity is not simply breaking a human code, nor even sinning against the God who at some time in the past gave him the gift of the Spirit. He is sinning against the God who is present at that moment, against the One who continually gives the Spirit. The impure act is an act of despite against God's good gift at the very moment it is being proffered.338