7 Noticeably absent in Galatians, 1 Timothy, and Titus.
1
I will also here assume the historical tradition to have it right that the numbers before each letter represent their proper chronological order; the one commentator who thinks otherwise (C. A. Wanamaker) has found few followers — for good reasons, I am convinced.
2
This assumes, contrary to a large body of evangelical scholars, that Galatians is not Paul’s first letter, but was written after 2 Corinthians and before Romans. See the Introduction to my Galatians: A Pentecostal Commentary (Blandford Forum: Deo Publishing, 2007), 4-5.
3
The outside chronological “peg” for all of this calculation is the reference in Acts 18:12 to Paul’s appearing before Gallio, whose tenure in Corinth can be accurately dated either 51-52 or 52-53 CE.
4
See esp. 2 Thess 2:5, where Paul’s “Don’t you remember that I used to tell you these things?” implies teaching on certain aspects of Christian eschatology that would seem to require more time than just two weeks.
5
For helpful studies of letter writing in the Greco-Roman period, see J. L. White, Light from Ancient Letters (FFNT; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), whose analysis is based on the Greek papyri, and S. K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (LEC 5; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), who throws the net more widely. Either (or both) of these is essential reading for the serious exegesis of one of the NT letters. Along with the useful collection of such letters in Stowers and White, see also A. S. Hunt and C. C. Edgar, eds., Select Papyri I (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1932), for further examples from the Greek papyri.
6
All the true “letters” in the NT follow this pattern (including the letter from James in Acts 15:23-29), except for 3 John, which lacks the standard greeting. For a collection of examples from the papyri, see F. X. J. Exler, The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter of the Epistolary Papyri (3rd c. B.C.-3rd c. A.D.) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1923), 23-68; for a further collection and detailed study, see F. Schnider and W. Stenger, Studien zum neutestamentlichen Briefformular (NTTS 11; Leiden: Brill, 1987).
7
Noticeably absent in Galatians, 1 Timothy, and Titus.
8
See 1 Thess 3:11-13 and 2 Thess 1:11-12; cf. Col 1:9-11 and Phil 1:9-11.
9
For the judgment that this is Paul’s first extant letter, see the Introduction to my commentary on Galatians (Galatians: [A] Pentecostal Commentary [Blandford Forum: Deo Publishing, 2007], 4-5); cf. the present Introduction, pp. 4-5.
10
While this has always been true for this letter (cf. any two commentaries from an earlier period), it has become even more so for 1 Thessalonians with the advent of rhetorical analyses.
11
This would be true, it should be noted, even if we did not have Paul’s later letters with which to compare this one. Whatever else, Paul is here breaking every known mold regarding letter writing, including — to use an anachronism — his own habits that begin in 2 Thessalonians and basically carry on thereafter.
12
This view is rejected by G. Lyons, Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding (SBLDS 73; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 177-201, in an argument that I find not wholly convincing. Part of his reason for rejection is the failure of scholarship to establish a polemical context for the letter, which assumes some opposition to Paul in the church community. On this matter I quite agree; but the opposition is not against Paul — and therefore within the Christian community — but most likely is pagan opposition to the Thessalonian believers (as 2:14-16 suggests), and Paul’s role in their conversion is very likely a part of that opposition.
13
That the situation in Thessalonica may well be related to the charge against Paul in Acts 17:7 has been suggested by E. A. Judge, “The Decrees of Caesar at Thessalonica,” RTR 30 (1971), 1-7; cf. K. P. Donfried, “The Cults of Thessalonica and the Thessalonian Correspondence,” NTS 31 (1985), 342-52; and Wanamaker, 113-14.
14
This assumes that the picture in Acts 17:1-10 is a generally accurate one. Several matters join to give credence to that account: Paul’s obvious anxiety over their welfare, which had led to repeated attempts to return (2:18), to Timothy’s being sent in his
15
Greek Silvanus, a variant of Silas
16
Some early manuscripts you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ place (3:1-2), and finally to his great relief in finding out that they were in fact persevering in their faith (3:6-8). It also seems to be corroborated by the need to defend his ministry among them (2:1-12; anticipated in the present passage [vv. 5-6, 9]), since the (probably Greek) persecutors of these new believers most likely knew of his sudden departure in the dead of night — from their point of view to “protect his own skin.”
17
See esp. 2:17-3:10, where his concern over their faith(fulness) is almost certainly the basic reason for his trying over and again to return (2:18) and his sending Timothy instead (3:1-2). Note also his genuine relief that they are in fact standing fast in their faith (3:8), yet his awareness that there are “deficiencies” (3:10).
18
There is no definite article in the Greek text, which causes the secondary ἡμω
ν (“our”) to appear early on and eventually to become the Majority Text — influenced by the more standard form found elsewhere in Paul.
ν (“our”) to appear early on and eventually to become the Majority Text — influenced by the more standard form found elsewhere in Paul.19
Although the addition found in the TNIV note is found as early as
(4th c.), and becomes the standard in the later manuscript tradition, it is secondary on every count: (1) it is missing in all the earliest and best evidence across the board, both East and West; (2) these words are found in 2 Thessalonians in all known manuscripts without variation; thus (3) there is no way to account for such an early and widespread “omission” in this letter alone in the Pauline corpus.
(4th c.), and becomes the standard in the later manuscript tradition, it is secondary on every count: (1) it is missing in all the earliest and best evidence across the board, both East and West; (2) these words are found in 2 Thessalonians in all known manuscripts without variation; thus (3) there is no way to account for such an early and widespread “omission” in this letter alone in the Pauline corpus.20
He does so in seven letters in the corpus: 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Timothy and Silas), 1 Corinthians (Sosthenes), 2 Corinthians (Timothy), Colossians (Timothy), Philemon (Timothy), and Philippians (Timothy). There are no known examples outside the Pauline corpus. The only known reference to co-authorship is in Cicero, Att. 11.15.1: “For my part I have gathered from your letters — both that which you wrote in conjunction with others and the one you wrote in your own name . . .” (LCL 2:363). See the discussion in G. J. Bahr, “Paul and Letter Writing in the First Century,” CBQ 28 (1966), 465-77.
21
Otherwise he designates himself an “apostle” or “prisoner” (Philemon); he includes his companion (Timothy) in the designation only once (Philippians), where he calls the two of them “servants of Christ Jesus.”
22
In one of the truly idiosyncratic moments in NT scholarship, M. D. Goulder (“Silas in Thessalonica,” JSNT 48 [1992], 87-106) suggests that Silas actually became Paul’s opponent and is responsible for the “false teachings” circulating in Thessalonica.
23
Although one cannot be certain, he is very likely the Silvanus/Silas who was responsible for the actual writing of 1 Peter (1 Pet 5:12; lit. “through Silvanus I have written briefly”), which was written from Rome.
24
On this issue for these two letters see, further, S. Byrskog, “Co-senders, Co-authors and Paul’s Use of the First Person Plural,” ZNW 87 (1996), 230-50. Cf. also J. C. M. Laurent, “Der Pluralis maiestaticus in den Thessalonicherbriefen,” STK 41 (1868), 159-66; and W. F. Lofthouse, “ ‘I’ and ‘We’ in the Pauline Letters,” BT 6 (1955), 72-80.
25
Because Paul clearly took the lead (cf. 2:18 and 2 Thess 3:17), for the sake of convenience, and because he is almost certainly responsible for the primary dictation of it, I will throughout this commentary regularly designate Paul as the “writer,” always meaning, of course, in the qualified sense discussed here.
26
For a useful discussion of this phrase, see R. F. Collins, Studies in the First Letter to the Thessalonians (BETL 66; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1984), 285-97.
27
On this see BDAG 2.
28
The myth that because its origins centuries earlier was a combination of the Greek ἐκ (“out”) and καλέω (“call”), so that Christians are “the called out ones,” should be laid to rest. The word was already in use by the time of Paul, both in the Greek world and in the Greek Bible, and had nothing to do with being “called out.” It simply meant “an assembly.” See my New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors (3rd ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 79-80.
29
See further on 2:14, where the plural is used to designate the many communities of believers in the province of Judea; cf. Gal 1:2.
30
On the sociological question of the early churches as a religious “society” in the Greco-Roman world, see esp. W. A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 74-80; J. E. Stambaugh and D. L. Balch, The New Testament in Its Social Environment (LEC; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 124-26, 140-41; and E. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 131-36.
31
This has recently been called into question; for a brief rebuttal see G. D. Fee, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007), 20-25.
32
In fact this phenomenon occurs only in these two instances out of 62 occurrences of the word ἐκκλησία in the Pauline corpus.
33
In Col 3:3, Paul does speak of believers as “having died,” and their present life as now “hidden with Christ in God”; but that is quite different from this usage, which hereafter is “in Christ (Jesus).” For this reason, Best (62) sees the present usage as primarily instrumental (“salvation lies in what God accomplished” through Christ); but that is especially unlikely here. See 2:14 below.
34
See Fee, Pauline Christology, 36-38.
35
See esp. 2 Cor 1:3; 11:31; Gal 4:4-6; Rom 15:6; Eph 1:3.
36
That is, by the first Christian century the divine name (Yahweh) was no longer pronounced and had been replaced orally with Adonai (“Lord”), which then appeared at some early point in time in the Septuagint as κύριoς. The LXX of Deut 6:4 thus reads: κύριoς (Yahweh) ὁ θεὸς ἡμων κύριoς (Yahweh) ες ἐστιν. What Paul has done in 1 Cor 8:6 is to attribute the κύριoς to Christ the Son and the θεός to God the Father. See the full discussion in Pauline Christology, 89-94.
ν κύριoς (Yahweh) ες ἐστιν. What Paul has done in 1 Cor 8:6 is to attribute the κύριoς to Christ the Son and the θεός to God the Father. See the full discussion in Pauline Christology, 89-94.37
And all of this, it should be pointed out, because such an understanding of Psalm 110:1 was already common stock in the early church. It will also be pointed out how throughout these two letters the designation κύριoς (“Lord”) has become the exclusive designation for the exalted Jesus Christ, so that Christ is understood as the “Lord” in all of the OT echoes where that title occurs. See below on 3:12.
38
R. F. Collins (Studies, 139-40) argues (unconvincingly) that Paul has here taken over an earlier formula and adapted it to his own purposes. While all things are possible, not all possible things are equally probable. Indeed, it is of considerable interest that the most creative theologian in the early church is seen as not capable of being creative at points like this, but must be assumed to be borrowing from others — and that without evidence. See further n. 74 on 1:9-10 below.
39
Gk. εἰρήνη; on this word see V. Hasler, EDNT, 1:394-97; and H. Beck and C. Brown, NIDNTT, 2:780-82. It is just possible that, since this Hebrew word had connotations of “well-being” inherent to it, Paul is here using this Jewish greeting as an equivalent of the “health wish” found in many of the papyrus letters; but one should perhaps also remember that the English “hello” is derived from “health to you”! Whether the greeting “shalom” carried with it a wish for health by the time of Paul seems moot, though possible.
40
At the same time, he may also be modifying a Jewish blessing formula (ἔλεoς καὶ εἰρήνη, “mercy and peace”) found, e.g., in 2 Bar. 78:2 and echoed (in reverse order) in Gal 6:16. This cannot be demonstrated, of course, since Paul could very easily have made his theological point by adopting the blessing without modification. More likely the blessing formula lies in the background, but the modification is the result of his being a man of two worlds, as suggested here.
41
It should perhaps be noted that one cannot be sure that Paul himself is responsible for this “transformation into gospel” of traditional formulas. But his is the earliest evidence for it, and it is quite in keeping with what he does elsewhere.
42
Thus the letter also signs off with “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.”
43
In Paul “peace” can refer in turn to (1) peace with God (= cessation of hostilities), (2) peace within the believing community, (3) inner peace in place of turmoil, and (4) rest or order within a context of worship. Other commentaries express more confidence than I could muster that one can isolate any of these nuances in the Pauline salutations. In the context of greetings to a community it at least includes (1) and (2), and perhaps (3).
44
On the probable eschatological dimension of this word in Paul, see C. H. Giblin, In Hope of God’s Glory: Pauline Theological Perspectives (New York: Herder and Herder, 1970), 96.
45
On this matter see P. Schubert, Form and Function in the Pauline Thanksgivings (BZNW 20; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1939), whose interests were, as the title indicates, on form and function; and P. T. O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul (NovTSup 49; Leiden: Brill, 1977), whose discussion of this thanksgiving appears on pp. 141-66.
46
For this reason, both Schubert and O’Brien (preceding note) are prepared to argue that the thanksgiving itself extends through 3:10. In this they are followed by Malherbe and Beale, but this seems to be a clear case where “form” and “function” are at odds. Although structurally the fact that the prayer report begins in 3:11 could mean that the thanksgiving ends at 3:10, in fact the narrative of Paul’s and their past relationship (1:5-2:12; 2:17-3:10) has very little to do with thanksgiving for them and everything to do with a narrative relating his own past relationship with them. What stands against such a view are the double realities that (a) Paul himself in 2:13-14 picks up the lost thread and thus repeats himself, including the theme of imitatio; and that (b) all the rest (1:4-2:12; 2:17-3:10) is an extended, consecutive narrative regarding his and their past relationships, right up to the time of this writing — which is not the stuff of thanksgivings. Others see the thanksgiving as extending through 1:10 (e.g., Findlay, Best, Bruce, Marshall, Richard, and Green), while Holmes takes it as going through v. 6. One can at least justify these latter on the basis of grammar; but in terms of content vv. 5-10 move far beyond thanksgiving to narrative as such.
47
And this is so, despite those who would perceive rhetorical features here as well (e.g., Wanamaker, Witherington; R. Jewett, The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986]). If this is a rhetorical device, it is so by fiat, not because there is any analogy to it in the rhetoricians. For a critique of the contemporary enamorment with Greek rhetoric on the part of many NT scholars, see P. H. Kern, Rhetoric and Galatians: Assessing an Approach to Paul’s Epistle (SNTSMS 101; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
48
See, among others, the KJV, NIV, NASB, NAB, JB, NRSV, REB; cf. Ellicott, Lightfoot, Findlay, Frame, von Dobschütz, Holtzmann, Bruce, Holmes, Green, Beale; O’Brien, Thanksgivings. Among those who take it with μνείαν πoιoύμενoι ἐπὶ των πρoσευχων ἡμων (“mentioning you in our prayers”), as the TNIV; see RSV, NEB, GNB, NET, ESV, NLT, NJB; cf. Milligan, Moffatt, Rigaux, Best, Wanamaker, Morris, Richard, Malherbe. Marshall and Witherington are ambivalent.
ν πρoσευχων ἡμων (“mentioning you in our prayers”), as the TNIV; see RSV, NEB, GNB, NET, ESV, NLT, NJB; cf. Milligan, Moffatt, Rigaux, Best, Wanamaker, Morris, Richard, Malherbe. Marshall and Witherington are ambivalent.49
Three times in this letter (here; 2:13; 5:17) and once in Romans (1:9). The word order in the next occurrence (2:13) would seem to be decisive (εὐχαριστoυμεν τῳ θεῳ ἀδιαλείπτως). For those who are troubled by the “distance from the verb,” see 1 Cor 15:58 (περισσεύoντες ἐν τῳ ἔργῳ τoυ θεoυ πάντoτε).
μεν τῳ θεῳ ἀδιαλείπτως). For those who are troubled by the “distance from the verb,” see 1 Cor 15:58 (περισσεύoντες ἐν τῳ ἔργῳ τoυ θεoυ πάντoτε).50
On the significance of this designation in the present letter, see the discussion of vocative ἀδελϕoί (“brothers and sisters”) in its first occurrence in 2:1 below.
51
Indeed, this is a place where so-called “literal” translations (e.g., KJV, ASV, NASU), by keeping Paul’s word order intact, create considerable difficulty for the reader. Thus the NASU has it, “. . . steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the presence of our God and Father.” The KJV and ASV at least tried to alleviate some of the difficulty by placing a comma after “Christ.” The ESV, on the other hand, follows the RSV and most other contemporary translations by changing the word order in the same way as the T/NIV.
52
See, e.g., 2 Thess 2:17, where most English translations recognize that the “every” connected to “deed” and “good” connected to “word” go with both nouns (“every good deed and word”).
53
They are best known from their next occurrence, in 1 Cor 13:13, where the order “faith, hope, love” is conditioned by that context; thereafter they occur in a variety of ways and contexts (Gal 5:5-6; Rom 5:1-5; Col 1:4-5; Eph 4:2-5). Outside Paul see 1 Pet 1:21-22 and Heb 6:10-12. Because of the latter two instances, A. M. Hunter (Paul and His Predecessors [2nd ed.; London: SCM, 1961], 33-35) argued that the phrases reflect a pre-Pauline formula that may go back to Jesus himself. For a full discussion of the triad in this letter see W. Weiss, “Glaube — Liebe — Hoffnung: Zu der Trias bei Paulus,” ZNW 84 (1993), 196-217, who also tends to find them where they are not.
54
One should also note, whether intended by Paul or not, that in the case of both sets of nouns, there is an ascending order. One’s life in Christ begins with “faith,” manifests itself in “love,” and lives in expectant “hope” of the future consummation. Thus faith “works,” while love “toils,” and hope “endures” (cf. Rev 2:2, regarding the church in Ephesus); on the latter three cf. Lightfoot, 11.
55
Although the second word (κόπoς) leans heavily toward the “toiling” nature of work, it can also be used in some instances almost interchangeably with ἔργoν, the catchall word for “work, deeds, actions” of all kinds. Thus in Rom 16:5, Mary πoλλὰ ἐκoπίασεν εἰς ὑμας (“worked very hard for you”), apparently referring to manual toil of some kind, while in v. 12, three women (Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis) ἐκoπιάσεν ἐν κυρίῳ (“worked hard in the Lord”), apparently referring to “doing the gospel” in some form or another (the ἔργoν word group does not appear at all in Romans 16). Apart from the use in v. 5 Paul rarely uses the κόπoς word group for work in general, and of all kinds, for which he ordinarily uses the ἔργoν word group, especially for “doing the law,” or “doing good” in general. The fine distinction between the two words can perhaps best be seen in Paul’s use of them in 1 Corinthians 15:58: περισσεύoντες ἐν τῳ ἔργῳ τoυ κυρίoυ πάντoτε, εἰδότες ὅτι ὁ κόπoς ὑμων oὐκ ἔστιν κενὸς ἐν κυρίῳ (“always abounding in the ‘work’ of the Lord, knowing that your ‘labor’ is not in vain in the Lord”).
ς (“worked very hard for you”), apparently referring to manual toil of some kind, while in v. 12, three women (Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis) ἐκoπιάσεν ἐν κυρίῳ (“worked hard in the Lord”), apparently referring to “doing the gospel” in some form or another (the ἔργoν word group does not appear at all in Romans 16). Apart from the use in v. 5 Paul rarely uses the κόπoς word group for work in general, and of all kinds, for which he ordinarily uses the ἔργoν word group, especially for “doing the law,” or “doing good” in general. The fine distinction between the two words can perhaps best be seen in Paul’s use of them in 1 Corinthians 15:58: περισσεύoντες ἐν τῳ ἔργῳ τoυ κυρίoυ πάντoτε, εἰδότες ὅτι ὁ κόπoς ὑμων oὐκ ἔστιν κενὸς ἐν κυρίῳ (“always abounding in the ‘work’ of the Lord, knowing that your ‘labor’ is not in vain in the Lord”).56
See, e.g., 1 Cor 1:5, “you have been enriched with all kinds of speech and with all knowledge” (TNIV), in light of chs. 8 and 12; cf. Phil 1:4, “for your partnership in the gospel,” in light of 4:10-20.
57
See, e.g., NJB, REB, GNB, and the note in NET (“These phrases denote Christian virtues in action: the work produced by faith, labor motivated by love, and endurance that stems from hope in Christ”). Cf. Lightfoot (10), who renders the phrases, “the work that comes of faith, the labour which springs from love, the patience that is born of hope”; cf. Milligan, 6; Frame, 76.
58
Although it should be pointed out that not all think so. BDAG (κόπoς 2) suggests that they are descriptive/adjectival; thus “faithful work, loving deeds, hopeful endurance” (cf. NLT); but such a rendering is to lose sight of the uniquely Christian triad altogether.
59
In this regard see esp. 5:6 (what counts is “faith that ‘works’ through love”) and 6:9-10. One is not saved by “doing what is good,” but truly “saved” people will express their salvation through the fruit of the Spirit.
60
Collins (Studies, 212-13) would see the phrase as referring to “active faith”; but that seems to miss Paul considerably, esp. in light of the next phrase (“working love”?), not to mention Pauline usage elsewhere. Similarly, Best’s rendition (68), “achievement of faith,” seems to put the emphasis altogether in the wrong place.
61
And even in these letters it is not so narrowly constricted as some expressions of Protestantism would have it; note, e.g., Paul’s phrase “he is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy” in Gal 1:23, where “the faith” is nearly equivalent to the gospel, just as its several occurrences in 3:1-10 in the present letter border very much on the sense of “faithfulness.” See further the discussion by Collins, “The Faith of the Thessalonians,” in Studies, 209-29.
62
The exceptions are rare. Frame (76) notes both possibilities, but considers the one option to mean “manual labour necessary to support missionary propaganda,” rather than love within the Christian community that causes one to “work with one’s own hands” and thus does not lean on the largesse of others for food; but in the end he leaves the decision itself open-ended (similarly Best, 67). Witherington (59) hints at the possibility argued for here, but without specific application.
63
Similarly, in the first of the next series of letters, Paul also reminds the Corinthians that “up to this very hour we labor (kopiōmen), working (ergazomenoi) with our own hands” (1 Cor 4:12).
64
For the first two participles (“mentioning” and “remembering”), see pp. 20-21 above.
65
There have been occasional objections to the language of “conversion” regarding people becoming followers of Christ in the Pauline churches, since many of the original “converts” would have been attending the Jewish synagogue in Thessalonica and became followers of Christ from within that context. Moreover, in contemporary English “conversion” is often related to an “experience” of some kind. But in this case this seems to be exactly what Paul is narrating — their “experience” of conversion, given that it was accompanied by a powerful working of the Holy Spirit (vv. 4-6). Thus “conversion” seems to be the only proper language for what happened to these early believers; after all, it is the very experiential nature of it to which Paul here appeals!
66
At least that is what appears to have happened. The difficulties one has in isolating the “parts” of this opening passage are evidenced by both the NA27 and UBS4 Greek New Testaments, both of which have the same text, but are formatted somewhat differently. The UBS4 was designed for translators, and thus appears with “headings” — of a kind also found in the T/NIV. Thus they have “headings” at 1:3 (“The Thessalonians’ Faith and Example”) and 2:1 (“Paul’s Ministry in Thessalonica”). Although these do tend to capture the essence of each section, the headings themselves and the choice not to include the explanatory γάρ (“for”) in 2:1 set the reader up for a major break at 2:1, which is quite unjustifiable in light of Paul’s own usage and the pickup of the three key words from vv. 9-10 (see the introduction to 2:1-12 below).
67
One (pious?) scribe (C) changed Paul’s “our” to “God’s,” while the original scribe of
simply added the word θεoυ (thus “the gospel of our God”).
simply added the word θεoυ (thus “the gospel of our God”).68
The TNIV here (correctly) follows
B 33 r vgmss, which do not have the ἐν before πληρoϕoρίᾳ; see the discussion below; cf. the judgment of H. Koester, “The Text of First Thessalonians,” in The Living Text: Essays in Honor of Ernest W. Saunders (ed. D. E. Groh and R. Jewett; Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1985), 219-27.
B 33 r vgmss, which do not have the ἐν before πληρoϕoρίᾳ; see the discussion below; cf. the judgment of H. Koester, “The Text of First Thessalonians,” in The Living Text: Essays in Honor of Ernest W. Saunders (ed. D. E. Groh and R. Jewett; Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1985), 219-27.69
The TNIV here reflects the text of UBS4, which reads ἐν ὑμĩν with B D F G Ψ 0278
it; all of B’s close companions (
A C 33 1739) and others (P 048 81 104 1881 pc) do not have the ἐν, thus reading “we came to you.” The error is most likely a case of either haplography (so Best, 76) or dittography related to the ending of the immediately preceding verb ἐγενήθημεν. If the change was deliberate, then a good case can be made for either reading. In GEP I argued for the shorter reading as original; but now I am less sure. At issue is why a scribe (or scribes) would have deliberately changed either reading, since one can make perfectly good sense of either of them. At issue, then, is whether the Thessalonians are being reminded of Paul’s and his companions’ relationship toward (or before; so Frame) them; or of the apostles’ conduct while among them. The argument of 2:1-12, which emphasizes Paul’s relationship with the Thessalonians while there, would seem to favor the former reading (contra Koester, “Text,” 223).
it; all of B’s close companions (A C 33 1739) and others (P 048 81 104 1881 pc) do not have the ἐν, thus reading “we came to you.” The error is most likely a case of either haplography (so Best, 76) or dittography related to the ending of the immediately preceding verb ἐγενήθημεν. If the change was deliberate, then a good case can be made for either reading. In GEP I argued for the shorter reading as original; but now I am less sure. At issue is why a scribe (or scribes) would have deliberately changed either reading, since one can make perfectly good sense of either of them. At issue, then, is whether the Thessalonians are being reminded of Paul’s and his companions’ relationship toward (or before; so Frame) them; or of the apostles’ conduct while among them. The argument of 2:1-12, which emphasizes Paul’s relationship with the Thessalonians while there, would seem to favor the former reading (contra Koester, “Text,” 223).70
Codex Vaticanus (B) and some Vulgate MSS add a καί (“and”) between “joy” and “Holy Spirit,” thus producing a text that translates “with joy and the Holy Spirit.” This looks like a mistaken understanding of Paul’s view of the relationship of joy to the Holy Spirit.
71
The singular τύπoν, read by the best MSS from both Egypt and the West (B D 6 33 81 104 1739 1881 pc lat), is much to be preferred to the plural found in the Majority Text (
) . Paul is thinking of the church collectively, not of believers individually.
) . Paul is thinking of the church collectively, not of believers individually.72
That is, their salvation is an objective reality based on their “position” in Christ.
73
See Gal 3:1-6, where Paul’s first appeal is to their experience of the Spirit, which is then grounded in the blessing of Abraham, where the concern is with the inclusion of Gentiles in that blessing and promise. See, further, G. D. Fee, Galatians: [A] Pentecostal Commentary (Blandford Forum: Deo Publishing, 2007), 103-13.
74
This seems to be the ultimate reason for this recall, even though it is expressed in terms of his (and Silas’s and Timothy’s) being reminded of their conversion when giving thanks in prayer.
75
That the two italicized phrases, ἐξελέξατo ὑμάς / τὸ ἀγαπαν ὑμας, are echoed in Paul’s phrases τὴν ἐκλoγὴν ὑμων / ἠγαπημένoι seems certain, since the language is both significant and unique to these two passages.
ν ὑμας, are echoed in Paul’s phrases τὴν ἐκλoγὴν ὑμων / ἠγαπημένoι seems certain, since the language is both significant and unique to these two passages.76
That is, it is proportionately the highest number. The highest actual number of occurrences are the 20 in 1 Corinthians, but the latter is a full four times longer than 1 Thessalonians — and two and one half times longer than 1 and 2 Thessalonians together.
77
See, e.g., Ps 22:23 (LXX 21:23); Zech 7:9, et al., which are almost always translated out in modern English versions, turning the language into “one’s people,” which is the meaning, to be sure, but lacks the punch of the metaphor.
78
Thus Mark 3:34: “Behold, my mother and my brothers (ἀδελϕoί μoυ); . . . whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”
79
Gk. ἐκλoγήν; see Rom 9:11; 11:5, 7, 28. Paul more often uses the (synonymous) adjective, ἐκλεκτός.
80
Only four times with reference to people as “elect”: Rom 16:13 (the only instance where it refers to a single individual); Col 3:12 (again referring to Gentiles); Tit 1:1, and 2 Tim 2:10, the latter two with reference to Christian believers.
81
One should perhaps note finally that those outside of Christ are non-elect by logical extension, not by Pauline affirmation. The idea of “double predestination” belongs to Western logic, not to biblical revelation.
82
So also K. P. Donfried, Paul, Thessalonica, and Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 39 n. 80, 129-30.
83
This takes the combination εἰδότες . . . ὅτι in its normal sense (as in the nearly identical construction in 2:1 below; cf. 1 Cor 16:15; Rom 13:11), “knowing . . . that,” over against the majority of scholars and translators, who see the ὅτι in this instance as causal. But the only reason for this, it would seem, is the distance of the ὅτι from the verb, which was brought about by the long vocative. It seems to make far more sense of Paul’s sentence (now without the vocative) to mean, “we know your election, how that our gospel etc.” rather than “we know your election, because. . . .” So also Lightfoot (12), Milligan (8), Best (73), Malherbe (110).
84
Gk. ἐν λόγῳ μόνoν, which has been put into the plural by TNIV, REB, NJB, NET, et al. The latter has a note, “Or ‘speech,’ or ‘an act of speaking,’ ” to clarify — or justify — the plural.
85
On these as “twin phrases” and not a “triad,” see the discussion below (including n. 24).
86
On this point Kemmler’s critique of much of the exegesis of this text is well taken. But his own solution, which sees the “but with” phrases as “additional testimonies” to the effectiveness of Paul’s “word,” seems to miss Paul’s concern and argument by too much (see D. W. Kemmler, Faith and Human Reason: A Study of Paul’s Method of Preaching as Illustrated by 1-2 Thessalonians and Acts 17,2-4 [NovTSup 40; Leiden: Brill, 1975], 149-68).
87
This will have been said a bit strongly for some, but the lack of the ἐν before πληρoϕoρίᾳ with
B 33 lat (the earliest and best evidence) is almost certainly the original text, since one can offer no reasonable explanation for its omission by scribes (esp. in light of its certain presence before the two preceding nouns, “power” and “Holy Spirit”), whereas that very fact easily explains why subsequent scribes would have added an ἐν before πληρoϕoρίᾳ as well — to make all three nouns coordinate (so also Rigaux, 374, followed by Koester, “Text,” 220). What this means, therefore, is that we are not here dealing with a “triad” (R. F. Collins, Studies in the First Letter to the Thessalonians (BETL 66; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1984], 192 n. 95; Thomas, 244), but with epexegesis, where the second (compound) phrase further qualifies the first (cf. Moffatt, 24).
B 33 lat (the earliest and best evidence) is almost certainly the original text, since one can offer no reasonable explanation for its omission by scribes (esp. in light of its certain presence before the two preceding nouns, “power” and “Holy Spirit”), whereas that very fact easily explains why subsequent scribes would have added an ἐν before πληρoϕoρίᾳ as well — to make all three nouns coordinate (so also Rigaux, 374, followed by Koester, “Text,” 220). What this means, therefore, is that we are not here dealing with a “triad” (R. F. Collins, Studies in the First Letter to the Thessalonians (BETL 66; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1984], 192 n. 95; Thomas, 244), but with epexegesis, where the second (compound) phrase further qualifies the first (cf. Moffatt, 24).88
As most commentaries.
89
As, e.g., C. H. Giblin, The Threat to Faith: An Exegetical-Theological Re-examination of 2 Thessalonians 2 (AnBib 31; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967), 45: “Paul’s teaching was given in the power of the Spirit in that it was attended with miracles (1 Thes 1,5 . . .).” Cf. Marshall, 53-54; Wanamaker, 79; Grundmann, TDNT 2.311.
90
On this matter see the discussion in my commentary on 1 Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 94-96.
91
As, e.g., Whiteley, 36: “The power associated with the gospel was . . . the power to work the ‘miracle’ of causing the heathen to believe.”
92
Contra Frame 81, among others.
93
For example, P. T. O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul (NovT 49; Leiden: Brill, 1977), 132, who argues that “ἐν δυνάμει does not so much refer to the outward signs of the presence of the Holy Spirit, as to the sense the preachers had that their message was striking home.” That seems to miss Paul’s own emphasis, which throughout is on the Thessalonians’ own recall of their conversion, including their remembering Paul’s preaching as Spirit-empowered — and thus effectual on their behalf.
94
Gk. ἐγενήθη εἰς ὑμας. The idiom basically means “to come to someone.”
ς. The idiom basically means “to come to someone.”95
As, e.g., in 1 Cor 2:4 (“with the demonstration of the Spirit and power”) and Rom 15:19 (“with the power of the Spirit”).
96
In one of the more idiosyncratic moments in NT scholarship, H.-W. Kuhn has argued that Paul is here reflecting the language of a Qumran text (see “Die Bedeutung der Qumrantexte für Verstandnis des Ersten Thessalonicherbriefes. Vorstellung des Münchener Projekts: Qumran und das Neue Testament,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls [ed. J. T. Baretta and L. V. Montauer; Leiden: Brill, 1992], 1:339-53). This is idiosyncratic in part because Paul’s own usage is so distant from that of Qumran, and in part because this combination is such a thoroughly Pauline perspective that even knowledge of the Qumran texts at this point would be irrelevant.
97
For example, Rigaux (377); for others, see Collins, Studies, 59 n. 350.
98
Gk. πληρoϕoρία, a noun that does not appear in classical Greek authors. In fact, apart from P. Giess. 87 (see MM), it is used only by Christian authors. It derives from the verb πληρoϕoρέω (“to fill [completely]” or “to fulfill”), and means either “fullness” or “full assurance, certainty.”
99
For example, Masson, Moore, Bruce, Findlay, and Dunn (Jesus and the Spirit [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975], 226, 417 n. 138); for his earlier position see the next note.
100
This is the majority view, held, among others, by Ellicott, Lightfoot, Frame, Moffatt, Whiteley, Hendriksen, Best, Morris, Hiebert, Marshall, O’Brien (Introductory Thanksgivings), and Dunn (Baptism in the Holy Spirit [SBT 2/15; London: SCM, 1970], 105).
101
In an idiosyncratic moment in NT scholarship, N. Turner, followed by Best (75), argues that the lack of the definite article with πνεύματι ἁγίῳ indicates that Paul had only a “divine spirit” in view (Grammatical Insights into the New Testament [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1965], 17-22). That this is manifestly wrong see Fee, GEP, 15-16.
102
On the textual choice of “among you,” see p. 28 n. 6 above.
103
See 2:1, 2, 5, 11; 3:4; 4:1-2; 5:2; 2 Thess 2:5-6 and 3:7; cf. “you are witnesses” in 1 Thess 2:10.
104
Parataxis (beginning sentences with καί [“and”] in the Semitic fashion) is unusual for Paul; in most cases it can be shown to be intentionally linking sentences that are coordinate in some way.
105
So much so, that in 2:13 he resumes the thanksgiving (“and for this reason also we give thanks”) which by 2:12 had rather totally gotten away from him; significantly, what he thanks God for once more is their reception of his preaching as the very word of God.
106
Cf. Rigaux, 380, “vous de votre coté” (but you, on your side).
107
Collins (Studies, 204 n. 142) would make something of the passive form of this verb; but what is inherent in meaning in such a common verb will hardly carry such force.
108
Gk. λόγoς, i.e., the message of the gospel, which is further defined in v. 8 as ὁ λόγoς τoυ κυρίoυ (“the word about the Lord”).
κυρίoυ (“the word about the Lord”).109
The genitive in this case is most likely to be understood as an ablative of source. The joy has come from the Spirit whom they had received. R. Jewett (The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986], 100), as partial support for his historical reconstruction, asserts that this joy is thus “from a supernatural force manifesting itself in an ecstatic manner.” Perhaps so, but this text neither says nor implies as much, and the exhortation to “rejoice always” in 5:16 suggests that they need to be reminded to keep alive in worship what they had experienced in conversion.
110
It has been noted that Paul’s language here, both δεξάμενoι τὸν λόγoν (“received the word”) and μετὰ χαρας (“with joy”), is used in the Lukan version of the parable of the Sower; see G. P. Benson, “Note on 1 Thessalonians 1.6,” ExpTim 107 (1996), 143- 44. While this is a remarkable collocation of language, one cannot be sure whether there is some kind of “intertextuality” going on or not. Nonetheless, it is especially noteworthy that every certain allusion to the Gospel materials in Paul reflects the version later found in Luke’s Gospel.
ς (“with joy”), is used in the Lukan version of the parable of the Sower; see G. P. Benson, “Note on 1 Thessalonians 1.6,” ExpTim 107 (1996), 143- 44. While this is a remarkable collocation of language, one cannot be sure whether there is some kind of “intertextuality” going on or not. Nonetheless, it is especially noteworthy that every certain allusion to the Gospel materials in Paul reflects the version later found in Luke’s Gospel.111
On this matter, see Fee, 1 Corinthians, 187-88, 490 (on 4:16 and 11:1), and the bibliography noted there. Cf. Adele Reinhartz, “On the Meaning of the Pauline Exhortation: ‘mimētai mou ginesthe — become imitators of me,’ ” SR 16 (1987), 393-403; and W. Martin, “ ‘Example’ and ‘Imitation’ in the Thessalonian Correspondence,” SwJT 42 (1999), 39-49.
112
Gk. θλĩΨις, a word that occurs at least once in every letter in the church corpus except Philemon (24x in all), always carrying the sense of burdensome suffering, thus “tribulation” or “affliction.”
113
It is worth noting that in this second reference to Christ in the letter, Paul picks up the title/name which, according to Phil 2:9-10, became Christ’s at his exaltation. That is especially striking here, since this title that became his by divine investiture is here being used to refer to his earthly life. Thus they became imitators of “the Lord,” not of “Jesus, the Messiah [Christ]” — although that is assumed. Paul has already identified the Lord as Jesus the Messiah in the salutation. This will become the predominant usage throughout the letter — perhaps unself-consciously, but at least reminding them constantly that the crucified One is now the risen, reigning Lord on high.
114
Despite E. A. Judge (“The Decrees of Caesar at Thessalonica,” RTR 30 [1971], 1-7) et al. to the contrary; on this matter see the discussion in Fee, 1 Corinthians, 80-82.
115
Cf. e.g. 2 Cor 8:2; Rom 5:3-5; Acts 5:41; Jas 1:2; 1 Pet 1:6.
116
As Rom 14:17 demonstrates, believers in Christ have indeed become subjects of a new kingdom, whose consummation they eagerly awaited, but whose present manifestation is joy in the Holy Spirit. Wanamaker (82) is therefore probably right that this experience of joy is in part related to their confidence in their imminent salvation by the return of Christ, to which Paul explicitly refers in vv. 9-10.
117
Gk. τύπoς, a word that Paul uses similarly elsewhere to express the idea of someone’s serving as an “example” or “pattern” for others to follow; see esp. 2 Thess 3:9 below; cf. Phil 3:17; 1 Tim 4:12; Tit 2:7. The clear difference in this case, indicated by the singular τύπoν, is that Paul has the whole community in mind, not any individual as such.
118
Paul’s sentence actually repeats the “in” (ἐν) before “Achaia,” thus including both provinces as individually thought of, and therefore of the whole of Greece.
119
This is the first occurrence in Paul’s letters of the verb “to believe” (πιστεύω), or, more properly in most cases in his letters, “to put one’s trust in.” The very offhanded way it occurs here is certain evidence that it had become a primary theme for him when proclaiming Christ among the Gentiles, and thus well before the battles that emerge in Galatians in particular had begun. Here, and elsewhere in these two letters (see esp. 2 Thess 2:11-12), the word has its primary sense of “believing” something, rather than its more frequent later sense of “trusting,” by putting one’s full confidence in, someone or something. The same is true of the noun πίστις, which in these two letters points to “belief in” just as often as it does “trust in” (see the discussion of 3:1-10 below). Indeed, in these earlier letters, “believers” is basically a name for Christians; cf. 2:10, 13; 2 Thess 1:10; 1 Cor 14:22. Thereafter it falls out of use as a way of designating followers of Jesus, due to the faith/works of law issue that emerges in Galatians and Romans.
120
In a textual variation that can be carried over into English only awkwardly, several MSS repeat the second ἐν τ
before ’Aχα
ᾳ, thus keeping the provinces separated in this second instance, whereas Paul intentionally puts them together as one in his broadening the geographical scope of what has been noised abroad. The decidedly original text (found in B K 6 33 365 614 630 1505 1739 al r vgmss) would be very difficult to account for as a deliberate omission.
before ’Aχαᾳ, thus keeping the provinces separated in this second instance, whereas Paul intentionally puts them together as one in his broadening the geographical scope of what has been noised abroad. The decidedly original text (found in B K 6 33 365 614 630 1505 1739 al r vgmss) would be very difficult to account for as a deliberate omission.121
The TNIV has chosen (correctly) to collapse Paul’s prepositional phrase περὶ ἡμων (“about us”) into the verb “we” at the end of the clause. Several MSS (B 81 323 614 629 630 945 a d al) read περὶ ὑμων (“about you”), thus creating a text that reads (literally): “They themselves report about you, what manner of entry we had to you.” That seems to be secondary on all counts, esp. since the preposition is otherwise totally redundant; whereas the original text at this point shifts the emphasis momentarily back to Paul and his companions.
ν (“about us”) into the verb “we” at the end of the clause. Several MSS (B 81 323 614 629 630 945 a d al) read περὶ ὑμων (“about you”), thus creating a text that reads (literally): “They themselves report about you, what manner of entry we had to you.” That seems to be secondary on all counts, esp. since the preposition is otherwise totally redundant; whereas the original text at this point shifts the emphasis momentarily back to Paul and his companions.122
In a textual variation that makes no difference for translating into English, the MS tradition is split between ἐκ νεκρων (P46vid ACK33 629 945 1881* 2464 al) and ἐκ των νεκρων (
B D F G I Ψ 0278 33 1739 1881 MajT). In later letters Paul regularly has ἐκ νεκρων (1 Cor 15:12, 20; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:20; Phil 3:11; 2 Tim 2:8), but not in Eph 5:14 and Col 1:18.
ν (P46vid ACK33 629 945 1881* 2464 al) and ἐκ των νεκρων (B D F G I Ψ 0278 33 1739 1881 MajT). In later letters Paul regularly has ἐκ νεκρων (1 Cor 15:12, 20; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:20; Phil 3:11; 2 Tim 2:8), but not in Eph 5:14 and Col 1:18.123
Typically, later scribes (0278
) “help Paul out” grammatically by supplying the expected καί (“also”), which therefore can be found in the KJV — and surprisingly so in the “literal” NASU, whose translators were using a critical text without it.
) “help Paul out” grammatically by supplying the expected καί (“also”), which therefore can be found in the KJV — and surprisingly so in the “literal” NASU, whose translators were using a critical text without it.124
In fact, one could make perfectly good sense of Paul’s concerns if the sentence were read as two sentences with a full stop after “Lord.” Thus, “For from you has rung out the word of the Lord. Not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but everywhere, your faith toward God has gone out.” But that seems less likely than Milligan’s suggestion (12) that it is “another ex[ample] of St Paul’s impetuous style.”
125
Gk. ἐξήχηται, which literally means to “ring out” as a bell, but metaphorically, as here, simply to something’s being “noised abroad.” The English word “echo” is a borrowed word from its cognate noun ἤχω.
126
This is a common view; see, e.g., J. Ware, “The Thessalonians as a Missionary Congregation: 1 Thessalonians 1,5-8,” ZNW 83 (1992), 126-31; cf. Bruce (16), Richard (72), Green (101), Beale (60-61). However, such a view puts considerable grammatical pressure on the phrase ἀϕ’ ὑμων, and it does not fit well with the historical circumstances as we know about them elsewhere.
ν, and it does not fit well with the historical circumstances as we know about them elsewhere.127
So BDAG ἀπό, 2a.
128
See the discussion of these two phrases in my Pauline Christology, 45. The TNIV’s “the Lord’s message” is much too ambiguous for the average English reader, where it would tend to mean “the message that has come from the Lord.”
129
For this view see Lightfoot, 15; Findlay (“definitely”), 26.
130
So, e.g., Morris (51 n. 45); Wanamaker (83).
131
As Ellicott, 11; Milligan, 12; Best, 80 (“a synonym for the gospel”); Bruce, 17; Marshall, 55; Malherbe, 117; and most interpreters.
132
According to Acts 17, the Jewish community in Thessalonica was the source of the suffering, a reality that is noted in a secondary way in 1 Thess 2:14-15. But the language in Paul’s “defense” of his preaching in 2:2-5 implies opposition from Gentile sources, there having to do with the unsavory itinerants well known in the Greek world.
133
Gk. ὥστε, which introduces a result clause, just as it did at the beginning of v. 7.
134
Thus Paul’s unusual use of ἡ πρὸς τὸν θεόν (“which is toward God”) is not a substitute way of speaking about putting one’s trust in God; rather, the phrase here is anticipating the contrast in v. 9, “how you turned to [πρός] God from idols, to serve the living and true God.”
135
For the textual variant “about you,” see n. 58 above.
136
For affirmation of this perspective see, e.g., Collins, “Paul’s Early Christology,” in Studies, 253-84, who states matter-of-factly: “The pre-Pauline character of the creedal formula found [here] . . . is now almost universally recognized.” While some are prepared to make a great deal of this possibility, the plain fact is that what occurs here has been dictated by Paul as a concluding sentence in this opening narrative and thus has become Pauline, whatever else may be true of it.
137
For a similar sentiment, see J. Munck, “I Thess. 1:9-10 and the Missionary Preaching of Paul: Textual Exegesis and Hermeneutical Reflections,” NTS 9 (1963), 95- 110. An enormous amount of energy has been poured into isolating and interpreting Paul’s alleged “source” for this creedal moment; and much of this without due caution or proper controls. One can only wonder how scholarship might have reconstructed Isa 45:23 on the basis of the “creedal statement” in Phil 2:10, had they not had the source in this case.
138
C. Blumenthal (“Was sagt 1 Thess 1.9b-10 über die Adressaten des 1 Thess? Literarische und historische Erwägungen,” NTS 51 [2005], 96-105) raises the question, unnecessarily it would seem, as to whether even the “God-fearers” had remained polytheistic. This seems to be contrary to their very reason for attaching themselves to the Jewish synagogue.
139
But see also Jos. Asen. 11:9-10.
140
For “the living God,” see, among other things, the oath formula in Num 14:21, 28 (“as [surely as] I live”); cf. Hos 2:1 (cited by Paul in Rom 9:26). It became a standard formula in the polemics of Second Temple Judaism (Dan 5:23 [LXX] ; Bel 5 [Theod]; Sir 18:1; Jub. 21:3-4; Jos. Asen. 11:9-10). In the NT see esp. Acts 14:15, where the wording of conversion is just as it appears here; cf. 1 Tim 4:10; Heb 3:12; 9:14; 10:31; 1 Pet 1:23; Rev 7:2; 15:7. For “the true God,” see Wis 12:27; Josephus, Ant. 11:55; and in the NT esp. the Johannine literature (e.g., John 7:18; 8:26).
141
On Being a Christian (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1976), 361; besides the present text, see 1 Cor 6:14; 2 Cor 4:4; Gal 1:1; Rom 4:24; (6:4); 8:11(2x); 10:9; Col 2:12; Eph 1:20; cf. 1 Pet 1:21. Wanamaker (87) seems quite wrong, therefore, to refer to this phrase as an “afterthought.”
142
A considerable literature has suggested that the “background” to this usage is Daniel’s “son of man” (Dan 7:13). Understandable as this might be, given (1) Paul’s language “await . . . from heaven,” and (2) the fact that Jesus almost certainly used this Danielic “title” with reference to himself, there is nonetheless scarcely a hint of any kind in the Pauline corpus that Paul is influenced by this language. What can be demonstrated is that he associates “Son of God” with the Davidic kingship (see Fee, Pauline Christology, ch. 14).
143
For a full discussion of the significance, and absolute uniqueness, of this reality for the earliest Christians, see N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), whose title reflects this earliest mention of the resurrection in the NT documents.
144
Gk. τὸν ῥυόμενoν; the present tense here is probably not so much trying to say something about the “time” of the rescue — which in 5:9-10 is expressed in the past tense to refer to the saving event itself — as it is to put emphasis on the now exalted Son as the “Rescuer.”
145
This is the case in every mention of the resurrection in the NT outside the Gospels; moreover, it lies behind the earliest known prayer among the early Christians, the Aramaic Marana tha (“Lord, come”) used by Paul in 1 Cor 16:22.
146
And only 17 times in all, 11 of which occur in Galatians (4x) and Romans (7x). In the latter it appears as the first thing up (1:3-4), where it has both messianic and eternal implications; cf. Col 1:13-17. See the discussions in Fee, Pauline Christology, 240-44 and 293-303.
147
One of the disappointing features of M. Hengel’s otherwise especially useful study of this title (The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976]) is his rather complete disregard of the use of this title for the Davidic king of Israel, which all the NT evidence together points to as the basic source of early Christian understanding. See esp. the discussion in Pauline Christology, ch. 14.
148
See esp. the discussion of 1 Cor 15:23-28; Gal 4:4; and Rom 8:3 in my Pauline Christology. See also D. Juel, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 174-75.
149
It is worth noting here that Acts 17 records Paul as entering the synagogue and for three sabbaths reasoning with them “from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead, saying ‘This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah.’ ” The content of this “reasoning” had been presented earlier in Acts 13:16-47. There is no justifiable historical reason to doubt the essential accuracy of these pictures. Paul’s own letters, including this one, are full verification that these earliest converts are well acquainted with the arguments that the crucified and risen Jesus is indeed the promised Jewish Messiah, God’s exalted Son.
150
I say “especially” here, because the emphasis on the “Coming” is found throughout the letter (1:3; 2:12, 19-20; 3:13; 5:1-11, 23).
151
This noticeable shift from second person plural to first person plural is the first of many in Paul’s letters when, in speaking about what God has done — or has in store — for the recipients of his letter, he changes pronouns from “you” (pl.) to “us,” so as to include himself with them in God’s activity on their behalf; see, e.g., Gal 3:14; Eph 1:18-19.
152
Failing to distinguish between these two words, ὀργή (wrath) and θλĩΨις (tribulation, affliction, suffering), the former having always and only to do with God’s judgment on the wicked and the latter with present trials (of believers themselves), was one of the great failings of historic Dispensationalism, where these two terms were at times rather cavalierly interchanged in the presentation of the system.
153
Cf. J. H. Roberts, “The Eschatological Transitions to the Pauline Letter Body,” NovT 20 (1986), 29-35, who discusses this one in conjunction with 1 Cor 1:7-8; Phil 1:10; and 2 Thess 1:6-10, where in each case the thanksgiving concludes on a similar eschatological note. One may rightly question, however, whether this one concludes Paul’s “thanksgiving,” since it is followed immediately by a γάρ, thus suggesting a continuation of the narrative that began in v. 5.
154
While these aid in “finding” things, they are unfortunate in that they cause people to read the Bible differently from the way they would read anything else; and, as here, they often create false divisions of thought. Even the language “chapter and verse” unwittingly advocates a kind of gnomic approach to Scripture that gets in the way of good reading. By taking out the numbers, one can easily see what Paul is concerned with.
155
Gk. γάρ, unfortunately omitted in the T/NIV and other English translations (e.g., NEB, GNB, NRSV).
156
Gk. εἴσoδoν, literally “entrance,” thus “our coming” to you, or “our visit/time” with you; for the significance of this word and cognate ideas see S. Kim, “Paul’s Entry (εἴσoδoς) and the Thessalonians’ Faith (1 Thessalonians 1-3),” NTS 51 (2005), 37-47.
157
This is the basic paragraphing of NA27, except that they have all of vv. 1-4 as one paragraph.
158
Which also accounts for the fact that these two letters (1 Thessalonians and Romans) have in common that God is explicitly mentioned more often than Christ (which happens elsewhere in the church corpus only in 2 Corinthians); see the data in my Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007), 26.
159
For the sake of the commentary that follows I have retained Paul’s “for” (γάρ) in brackets here and in v. 5.
160
Somewhere in the transmissional process of the TNIV, either in the translational, editing, or printing process, this verse number was transferred (logically) to the beginning of the next sentence. For the sake of the user of the Greek text — and every other English translation — I have chosen to go with the numbering found in all other sources, and have taken the liberty to change the TNIV accordingly.
161
The TNIV here (correctly) translates the νήπιoι of the UBS4/NA27 Greek text, which is the reading of all the early and widespread evidence, except the fifth century A (P65
* B C* D* F G I Ψ 104* 326c 2495 pc it vgww samss bo Clement, Origen); ἤπιoι (“gentle”) is read by the fifth-c. A (its earliest support) and the Majority Text (
), as well as by the later correctors of
C D Ψ and some MSS of the Sahidic. Historically, this has proven to be a very difficult textual choice. The external evidence, it should be noted, is overwhelmingly in support of νήπιoι, being read by all the significant early evidence both East and West (and is at least recognized as such by the ASV note, “most of the ancient authorities read babes,” which the NRSV watered down to “other ancient authorities read infants”). Transcriptionally, the issue is, first, whether the variant was the result of a copying accident or was intentional, and, second, which variant best explains how the other came about. For the full argument in favor of νήπιoι as the original reading, see the commentary below.
* B C* D* F G I Ψ 104* 326c 2495 pc it vgww samss bo Clement, Origen); ἤπιoι (“gentle”) is read by the fifth-c. A (its earliest support) and the Majority Text (), as well as by the later correctors ofC D Ψ and some MSS of the Sahidic. Historically, this has proven to be a very difficult textual choice. The external evidence, it should be noted, is overwhelmingly in support of νήπιoι, being read by all the significant early evidence both East and West (and is at least recognized as such by the ASV note, “most of the ancient authorities read babes,” which the NRSV watered down to “other ancient authorities read infants”). Transcriptionally, the issue is, first, whether the variant was the result of a copying accident or was intentional, and, second, which variant best explains how the other came about. For the full argument in favor of νήπιoι as the original reading, see the commentary below.162
See esp. A. J. Malherbe, “‘Gentle as a Nurse’: The Cynic Background to 1 Thess. ii,” NovT 12 (1970), 203-17; repr. in Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 35-48. This is a particularly helpful article; its problem is that Malherbe assumes, and thus weighs in against, those who see this as a “defense” directed toward some disgruntled people within the believing community itself. But the whole of 1 and 2 Thessalonians indicates that the problem had outside origins, where the believers were being shamed for following such a “charlatan” as Paul. Although moderating this latter point some, in his commentary Malherbe continues to see the whole of 2:1-12 as intentionally exemplary.
163
So also J. A. D. Weima, “An Apology for the Apologetic Function of 1 Thessalonians 2:1-12,” JSNT 68 (1997), 73-99; and Kim, “Paul’s Entry.”
164
Paul’s whole phrase reads, τὴν εἴσoδoν ἡμων τὴν πρὸς ὑμας (“our ‘entrance’ to you”). Malherbe (135) cites a single philosopher (Lucian) who uses this verb “as the entrance to philosophy.” Because so much of the language found in vv. 3-5 can also be found in the philosophical tradition, he then offers a considerable list of the philosophers who use a different phrase, εἰσιέναι πρός . . . , to speak of such an entrance. But it seems doubtful in the extreme whether Paul either intended such an allusion or that the Thessalonians would have so understood it; after all, this is a pickup from the preceding v. 9, which is narrative, pure and simple.
ν τὴν πρὸς ὑμας (“our ‘entrance’ to you”). Malherbe (135) cites a single philosopher (Lucian) who uses this verb “as the entrance to philosophy.” Because so much of the language found in vv. 3-5 can also be found in the philosophical tradition, he then offers a considerable list of the philosophers who use a different phrase, εἰσιέναι πρός . . . , to speak of such an entrance. But it seems doubtful in the extreme whether Paul either intended such an allusion or that the Thessalonians would have so understood it; after all, this is a pickup from the preceding v. 9, which is narrative, pure and simple.165
Gk. κενή = “empty” or “in vain.” See further nn. 16 and 17 below.
166
This is the first of five instances in these two letters of the intensive αὐτoί with a second plural subject (see 1 Thess 3:3; 4:9; 5:2; 2 Thess 3:7), a phenomenon that is unique to these letters in the Pauline corpus.
167
Besides this one, see vv. 2, 5, 11 (“you know”), 9 (“you remember”), and 10 (“you are witnesses”).
168
See 1 Cor 15:58; Gal 2:2; Phil 2:16.
169
Which reads oἱ δὲ ἐκλεκτoί μoυ oὐ κoπιάσoυσιν εἰς κενόν (“but my chosen ones will not labor in vain”). Since this precise language (oὐ κoπιάσoυσιν εἰς κενόν) occurs in Phil 2:16 and the equivalent noun κόπoς in 1 Cor 15:58, it seems likely that for Paul this is a biblical phrase he has picked up and used on several occasions.
170
Especially so when one observes the eschatological context of the Isaianic oracle — the great vision of the “new heavens and new earth” (Isa 65:17-25), which in turn is the eschatological response to the oracle in 49:4, when the Servant feels as though he “has labored in vain” (κενως ἐκoπίασα).
ς ἐκoπίασα).171
So BDAG for this word (ὑβρίζω), which occurs only here in the Pauline corpus, but four times in the Gospels and Acts (Matt 22:6; Luke 11:45; 18:32; Acts 14:5).
172
Gk. ἐπαρρησιασάμεθα, a verb that has to do with “speaking openly or fearlessly,” which, when followed by an infinitive, as here, = “have the courage to” or “dare to.” The verb occurs elsewhere in Paul only in Eph 6:20, but more frequently in the narrative of Acts, all but one (18:26 of Apollos) in relationship to Paul (9:27-28; 13:46; 14:3; 19:8; 26:26).
173
Gk. λαλησαι; for this usage of λαλέω see BDAG 2b, which in such cases as this one means “speak and thereby assert, proclaim, say . . . something.” In this case it borders on the concept of “make an appeal” to you regarding the gospel.
σαι; for this usage of λαλέω see BDAG 2b, which in such cases as this one means “speak and thereby assert, proclaim, say . . . something.” In this case it borders on the concept of “make an appeal” to you regarding the gospel.174
That this is almost certainly the grammatical sense of the genitive, see, among others, Ellicott, 16; Lightfoot, 20; Rigaux, 404; Best, 91; Bruce, 25; Wanamaker, 93; Richard, 78; Malherbe, 137; Green, 117.
175
Indeed, this passage (vv. 1-12) is dominated by references to God (9x in all); noted also by Malherbe, 137; cf. n. 5 above.
176
Gk. ἐν πoλλῳ ἀγωνι (lit., “in great conflict”), which some (Rigaux, Malherbe; Ellicott and Frame are ambivalent) would see as referring to internal anxiety on Paul’s part (as in Col 2:1). But despite Malherbe to the contrary, nothing in the context supports such an understanding of the word ἀγων here (vv. 3-6 deal not with internal concerns in Paul, but public abuse; cf. the critique in Witherington, 72, and T. D. Still, Conflict at Thessalonica: A Pauline Church and Its Neighbors [JSNTSS 183; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999], 128-30), which is used in the NT only figuratively, with reference to “the contest” in which believers find themselves (see Phil 1:30); cf. Lightfoot (20), “beset by much opposition.” For the use of this word in Paul, see V. C. Pfitzner, Paul and the Agon Motif (NovTSup 16; Leiden: Brill, 1962).
ἀγωνι (lit., “in great conflict”), which some (Rigaux, Malherbe; Ellicott and Frame are ambivalent) would see as referring to internal anxiety on Paul’s part (as in Col 2:1). But despite Malherbe to the contrary, nothing in the context supports such an understanding of the word ἀγων here (vv. 3-6 deal not with internal concerns in Paul, but public abuse; cf. the critique in Witherington, 72, and T. D. Still, Conflict at Thessalonica: A Pauline Church and Its Neighbors [JSNTSS 183; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999], 128-30), which is used in the NT only figuratively, with reference to “the contest” in which believers find themselves (see Phil 1:30); cf. Lightfoot (20), “beset by much opposition.” For the use of this word in Paul, see V. C. Pfitzner, Paul and the Agon Motif (NovTSup 16; Leiden: Brill, 1962).177
This phrase should thus be understood in light of 1:6, where Paul speaks of the Thessalonians’ becoming believers ἐν θλίΨει πoλλ
(“in a context of much affliction,” perhaps referring esp. to verbal abuse), as over against the suggestion by Richard (79), that it involved “a public contest vying for the attention and allegiance of urban crowds.”
(“in a context of much affliction,” perhaps referring esp. to verbal abuse), as over against the suggestion by Richard (79), that it involved “a public contest vying for the attention and allegiance of urban crowds.”178
Gk. παράκλησις, a term that implies an appeal to the hearers’ emotions as well as intellects. The point of such language by way of reminder is that these believers had not been persuaded merely by argumentation as such, but by an “appeal” that at the same time reached out to the emotional side of their being. On this usage see Kemmler, “1 Th 2,2f,” in Faith and Human Reason, 168-77.
179
Meaning a clause consisting primarily of nouns, with the verb “was” to be understood, which, because of the repeated oὐκ/oὐδὲ ἐκ, should be understood in this case as “coming from” (Ellicott, 17; Lightfoot, 20; Findlay, 36; Milligan, 17; Frame, 95; Rigaux, 406; Best, 93; Marshall, 64; Morris, 61; Wanamaker, 94; Richard, 79; Green, 118; Beale, 67; Witherington, 78), hence the TNIV’s “does not spring from,” which the KJV had rendered literally (“was [italicized because it is not in the Greek] not of”), and which the NASU, with similar italics, rendered “does not come from.” The alternative is to see it as the basis of his proclamation; as GNB (“is not based on”).
180
But on this see W. Horbury (“1 Thessalonians ii.3 as Rebutting the Charge of False Prophecy,” JTS 33 [1982], 492-508), who sees the language as combatting charges of false prophecy.
181
Gk. ἐκ πλάνης. Some (e.g., Bruce, 26) argue for “deceit” here, thus making it simultaneously both active and passive (“not deceived, nor deceiving”). But since “truth and error” were part of the philosophical background, and since the “truthfulness” of the gospel is repeated in v. 13 below, “error” seems more likely here.
182
See, e.g., Gal 2:5, 14 (cf. 4:16); Col 1:5; cf. Eph 1:13; 4:21; expressed in Romans as “God’s truth” (1:25; 3:7; 15:8).
183
Gk. ἐξ ἀκαθαρσίας; see its later usage in 4:7; cf. Rom 1:24; 6:19; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 4:19; 5:3; Col 3:5.
184
This was especially true of many earlier interpreters (e.g., Lightfoot, 20-21; Milligan, 19; Frame, 95; Rigaux, 407; Bruce, 26; Morris, 71; but not Ellicott, 17); but this view has been generally abandoned (Beale, 66, is an exception) since Malherbe’s demonstration (see n. 9 above) of the connection of this passage with ancient rhetors.
185
See, e.g., Demosthenes 21,119.
186
In fact this understanding can be traced as far back as Chrysostom, Homily 2 on 1 Thessalonians
187
It is of some interest, therefore, that both of its primary meanings appear in this first occurrence of the verb δoκιμάζω in the Pauline corpus, which sometimes refers to the procedure itself (as in 5:21 below) and other times to the result of the examination (as, e.g., in 1 Cor 16:3).
188
But even here there is some difference of opinion as to whether it is positive or negative; see my commentary on Galatians for the reasons for seeing it as negative there (Galatians [Blandford Forum: Deo Publishing, 2007], 32-34).
189
See Jer 11:20 LXX (κύριε κρίνων δίκαια δo κιμ άζων νεϕρoὺς καὶ καρ δίας [“Lord, judging righteously, testing minds and hearts”]); cf. 20:12. As for the phrase itself, the “our” is still plural here, not a “literary singular”; and “heart” in such a phrase has to do with the “center and source of the whole inner life, w[ith] its thinking, feeling, and volition” (BDAG 1 b a).
190
Gk. γάρ; see the introductory discussion of this section and the comments on vv. 1 and 3 above. Ellicott (16) perceptively noted that the γάρ in v. 3 introduces “a reference to Paul’s regular habit,” while the one here refers “to that habit as specially evinced among the Thessalonians.” For the sake of smoother English, it has been omitted in the TNIV as implied in the logic of the sentence itself.
191
This word (the enclitic τoτε) is assumed in the TNIV’s “never,” in comparison with its “not” for the conjunction oὔδε by itself in v. 3. This simply puts into one word what Paul says in two. Our two-word idiom would be “not once”; thus “never.”
192
Gk. ἐγενήθημεν, that most flexible of Greek verbs, whose basic meaning is “come to be,” which here means something like “we were among you,” hence “lived among you” (cf. NAB, “nor did we ever appear”; similarly NET). The KJV interestingly abandoned its “literal” posture here and rendered it “used” (cf. REB “resorted to”), thus putting the emphasis (correctly) on the prepositional phrases alone. The more recent English versions (N/RSV, T/NIV, NASU, ESV) have rendered it “came,” which seems to put more emphasis on his “showing up” in Thessalonica than on the way he “conducted himself” while among them.
193
Gk. κoλακεία, a word which, according to Lightfoot (23), is “flattery not merely for the sake of giving pleasure to others but for the sake of self-interest,” a truly disgusting expression of humanity.
194
See Dio Chrysostom, Orat. 4.33, 35; 48.10.
195
Gk. δόξα, ordinarily “glory,” but in this context meaning “honor as enhancement or recognition of status or performance” (BDAG 3).
196
This somewhat rare use of the “vernacular possessive,” where in Greek the possessive precedes the thing possessed (the normal way of expressing possession in English), deliberately puts the emphasis on the possessor, “Christ” in this case. Thus his text reads, “as Christ’s apostles” we could have exerted the authority that comes from him. For this usage elsewhere (where a “vernacular possessive” puts emphasis on the possessive) see 1 Cor 1:24, where the crucified Messiah is called “God’s wisdom, God’s power”; cf. 1 Cor 3:9 (God’s co-workers, God’s field, God’s building).
197
Bruce (31) thinks otherwise, strangely so, given the way it appears in context; he “suggests” instead that the word “is used in a rather general sense,” and thus translates it “as Christ’s messengers.” His apparent reason for going this way is the plural, which here would include Timothy. But the very point being made here is that of “authority not being used,” so context seems to demand the more “technical” use of the term.
198
The reason for thinking that it probably does not include Timothy is the way Paul regularly excludes him from this title in the opening addresses of later letters, beginning with 2 Corinthians (“Paul, an apostle . . . and Timothy, our brother”); see also Col 1:1; Phlm 1; and Phil 1:1.
199
See Rom 16:7 (Andronicus and Junia); Gal 1:19 (James). Moreover, the idea that there were only twelve apostles arose from Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels, where they indicate that Jesus himself designated “the Twelve” as apostles (Matt 10:1-2; Luke 6:13), but in neither case does either of them use the title “the Twelve Apostles.”
200
Morris (69), who also accepts “infants” as the Pauline original, apparently saw it as referring only to “babies” — although Paul’s use in 1 Cor 13:11 seems clearly to point otherwise. He then makes the unusual suggestion as to its point: that “the apostles spoke as simply as possible, as simply as babies. It is a strong expression for the extreme lengths to which they went to meet the needs of their hearers.” Perhaps it is this kind of misguided understanding of the metaphor that has led so many to adopt the secondary reading!
201
See, among others, KJV, ASV, RSV, NASU, ESV, GNB, NAB, REB; only NET, NJB (“lived unassumingly”), and TNIV go with the NA27/ UBSGNT4, whose editors considered it to be the original text (see the textual discussion in n. 8 above). For commentaries and further studies, see n. 53 below.
202
That is, it begins with a threefold “neither, neither, neither,” with an added concessive participle (“even though”), but has no main verb. The translations have found different ways of handling their (now ungrammatical) sentence: The NRSV and ESV add the verb “we [never] came” (cf. the NASU, but without italics in this case, which they always use for added words!); cf. REB, “we never resorted to”; NAB, “nor did we ever appear with”; NJB “never acted.”
203
The compound is so rare that one must take it seriously rather than to act as if it did not exist and thus simply to ignore the ἐάν. But neither its rarity nor its difficulty justifies ignoring it. The options seem to be two: (a) that it is a longer form of ὡς ἅν, and thus serves as a “marker indicating perspective or point of view,” and thus = “as though” (BDAG, on ὡς ἅν); or (b) that it be taken quite literally to mean “as if,” with an implied “we” as the ultimate point of reference; thus = “as if a nursing mother caring for her own infants, so we, deeply caring for you, were willing. . . .” For usage, cf. the Majority Text of Mark 4:26: oὕτως ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τoυ θεoυ ὡς (ε)ὰν ἄνθρωπoς βάλῃ τὸν σπόρoν ἐπὶ της γης (“So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground,” KJV; cf. NKJV).
θεoυ ὡς (ε)ὰν ἄνθρωπoς βάλῃ τὸν σπόρoν ἐπὶ της γης (“So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground,” KJV; cf. NKJV).204
The ESV translators at least recognized the extreme difficulty with this and turned it into an adverbial “so” = “thus,” and thereby returned to the KJV (cf. NASU).
205
Since this is clearly a metaphor, just as “nursing mother” is in the next clause, Paul’s most likely intent with the metaphor is to stress their total “innocence” of any of the skulduggery that he has disdained, a metaphor that S. Fowl considers to be “strained,” since even very young children are not among the “innocents” (see “A Metaphor in Distress: A Reading of NHΠIOI in 1 Thessalonians 2.7,” NTS 36 [1990], 469-73). But that seems to be something of a quibble, since Paul’s contrast here is with the itinerant charlatans. It should be further noted that Paul’s own use of this word in his discussion of acting like “small children” in 1 Cor 13:11 indicates that the language “babies” that most commentators rightly resist here is not necessary to the context; thus the TNIV has rightly rendered it here as “young children,” just as it is universally recognized to be intended by Paul in the later passage in 1 Corinthians.
206
Contra B. M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (rev. ed. with B. Ehrman; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 328-30; cf. his minority report in B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.; London/ New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 561-62; so also Best, Bruce, Ellicott, Hendriksen, Holmes, Marshall, Moffatt, Richard, Rigaux, Thomas, Wanamaker, Witherington. Cf. Koester (“The Text of First Thessalonians,” in The Living Text [Lanham, Md.: The University Press of America, 1985]), 225, who is characteristically bold: “There cannot be the slightest doubt that nēpioi is wrong.” For a similar judgment, see J. Delobel, “One Letter Too Many in Paul’s First Letter? A Study of (ν)ηπιoι in 1 Thess 2:7,” LS 20 (1995), 126-33.
In fact, of course, there is every kind of doubt, since all the purely textual arguments are quite in its favor. It is also favored, among others, by Westcott-Hort, Beale, Frame, Green, Lightfoot, Milligan, and Morris. So also J. Gribomont, “Facti sumus parvuli: La charge apostolique (1 Th 2,1-12),” in Paul de Tarse: Apôtre de notre temps (ed. A.-L. Descamps et al.; Série monographique de ‘Benedictina’; Section Paulinienne 1;
Rome: Abbaye de S. Paolo [1979]), 311-38; S. Fowl (note 52 above); F. J. J. van Rensberg, “An Argument for Reading νήπιoι in 1 Thessalonians 2:7,” in A South African Perspective on the New Testament: Essays by South African New Testament Scholars Presented to Bruce M. Metzger (ed. J. H. Petzer and P. T. Hartin; Leiden: Brill, 1986), 252-59; B. Gaventa, “Apostles as Babes and Nurses in 1 Thessalonians 2:7,” in Faith and History: Essays in Honor of Paul W. Meyer (ed. J. T. Carroll, C. H. Cosgrove, and E. E. Johnson; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 193-207; S. Cortozzi, “1 Thes 2:7 — A Review,” FilolNT 12 (1999), 155-60; T. B. Sailors, “Wedding Textual and Rhetorical Criticism to Understand the Text of 1 Thessalonians 2.7,” JSNT 80 (2000), 81-98; J. A. D. Weima, “But We Became Infants among You,” NTS 46 (2000), 547-64; cf. G. D. Fee, “On Text and Commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians,” in SBL 1992 Seminar Papers (ed. Eugene H. Lovering Jr.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 165-83; repr. in To What End Exegesis?, 70-74 (much of what follows has been excerpted from that study). So also C. Crawford, “The ‘Tiny’ Problem of 1 Thessalonians 2,7: The Case of the Curious Vocative,” Bib 54 (1973), 69-72, who opts for a solution offered by Daniel Whitby in 1727, that the νήπιoι should be read as a vocative.
207
See, e.g., Metzger’s dissenting argument in his Textual Commentary.
208
In fairness it must be pointed out that Metzger, Text, 231, acknowledges this reality — although not all commentators do so.
209
It must be noted that the inclusion of Clement in the UBS apparatus offers no substantial evidence at all, since the reading ἤπιoι in his case is almost certainly due to corruptions in the later transmission of his text.
210
The language is Jean Duplacy’s (“Histoire des manuscrits et histoire du texte du N. T.: Quelques réflexions méthodologiques,” NTS 12 [1965/66], 125).
211
Everyone points out that ἤπιoι makes perfectly good sense here. But rather than favoring ἤπιoι as the original reading (as Wanamaker [100] and Richard [82, boldly so] argue), it is a particularly strong reason for rejecting it as secondary. After all, this is precisely the case with the vast majority of secondary readings that fill the apparatuses of our Greek testaments. These readings exist primarily — and precisely — because for scribes they made more sense!
212
It has sometimes been argued that this makes ἤπιoι the “more difficult” reading in this case. But that implies, quite incorrectly in a case like this one, that a scribe was more conscious of how many times Paul used each word rather than he was of the sense of the immediate context. Scribes, after all, did not carry concordances with them, and ἤπιoς is a common enough word, even if found only once in the NT.
213
See G. D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 679 n. 15. This point has also been made recently by Gaventa, “Apostles as Babes and Nurses,” p. 196.
214
This in fact is often cited as the primary reason for adopting the secondary reading (e.g., Wanamaker [100]: “this fact alone weighs against νήπιoι”). But a century earlier Lightfoot (24-25) had already pointed out the weakness of such argumentation, since Paul is given to occasional sudden shifts of metaphor.
215
It has often been pointed out to me that “infants” are not always so “innocent”; but they are certainly innocent of the kind of skulduggery Paul is here dealing with.
216
Gk ἐγενήθητε (aorist passive), found in all the early witnesses and the best later ones (
A B C D F C L P 0278 33 81 104 365 1241 1739 1881 2464), which most later MSS changed to what was perceived as the more grammatically correct perfect (γεγένησθε). This kind of “imprecision” occurs throughout the koine period; it has been regularly translated into English by the necessary perfect (T/NIV, NASB/U, N/RSV, ESV, etc.).
A B C D F C L P 0278 33 81 104 365 1241 1739 1881 2464), which most later MSS changed to what was perceived as the more grammatically correct perfect (γεγένησθε). This kind of “imprecision” occurs throughout the koine period; it has been regularly translated into English by the necessary perfect (T/NIV, NASB/U, N/RSV, ESV, etc.).217
For reasons that are not altogether clear, but in keeping with what Paul himself does elsewhere (see, e.g., Gal 1:10-13), a later scribe (or scribes) added yet another explanatory γάρ to this clause, which eventually became the Majority Text and accordingly made its way into the KJV.
218
The TNIV presently has a new paragraph here, thus retaining the paragraphing of the NIV, which hopefully might change in a next edition.
219
This unexpected present tense was changed by several early witnesses to an expected aorist (
A 104 326 945 1505 2464) and, although perhaps not in their exemplars, was translated thus into Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. It was so translated also in the KJV, but not in most of its progeny (ASV, NASB, N/RSV, ESV).
A 104 326 945 1505 2464) and, although perhaps not in their exemplars, was translated thus into Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. It was so translated also in the KJV, but not in most of its progeny (ASV, NASB, N/RSV, ESV).220
Cf. Frame (100): “The change from νήπιoι to τρoϕός is due to a natural association of ideas.”
221
Gk. τρoϕός, a NT hapax legomenon whose meaning here is not quite as certain as the English translations suggest. It at least refers to one who nurses; but there is a masculine form of the word which Paul does not use here. Although it could be a metaphor for a mother who nurses her infants, it could also refer to a wet nurse who does the same. If the latter, then the ἑαυτης (“her own”) is metaphorical, wherein a wet nurse treats the child as if it were “her own.” Indeed, Chrysostom asks rhetorically, “Are they [the nurses] not more kindly disposed to them than mothers?” Best (101), on the other hand, expresses a more modern worldview: “a nurse could hardly be expected to show as much care for the children in her charge as their mother.” But in either case (nursing mother or wet nurse) it is a particularly striking metaphor to follow “infants.”
ς (“her own”) is metaphorical, wherein a wet nurse treats the child as if it were “her own.” Indeed, Chrysostom asks rhetorically, “Are they [the nurses] not more kindly disposed to them than mothers?” Best (101), on the other hand, expresses a more modern worldview: “a nurse could hardly be expected to show as much care for the children in her charge as their mother.” But in either case (nursing mother or wet nurse) it is a particularly striking metaphor to follow “infants.”222
Although probably not intentional on Paul’s part, this affirmation stands in sharp contrast to Moses’s complaint to Yahweh in Num 11:12, that Yahweh should not expect him to “take them [Yahweh’s people] into [his] bosom as a nurse would carry her infant.”
223
Gk. τὰ ἑαυτη ς τέκνα, an emphasis that plays the lie to the slanders of vv. 3 and 5-6. This emphatic (by way of word order) reflexive pronoun was unfortunately moderated in the NIV (followed by the TNIV) to a simple possessive; so also the KJV, REB, NJB, and NAB.
ς τέκνα, an emphasis that plays the lie to the slanders of vv. 3 and 5-6. This emphatic (by way of word order) reflexive pronoun was unfortunately moderated in the NIV (followed by the TNIV) to a simple possessive; so also the KJV, REB, NJB, and NAB.224
Gk. ὁμειρόμενoι, another NT hapax, which means to “long for” someone with deep yearning (cf. N. Baumert, “ ‘Oμειρόμενoι in 1 Thess 2,8,” Bib 68 [1987], 552-63). It seems likely that it has double entendre at this point. Grammatically it functions as part of Paul’s reminding them of the past, but relationally it is equally true in the present. The causal implication of the clause is inherent in the participle itself.
225
Gk. εὐδoκoυμεν, a verb whose primary meaning is “to take pleasure in something,” but which in some contexts can also mean “to resolve” or “to consent.” It is of some interest that BDAG put the former meaning in first position when discussing the noun, but in second position regarding the verb. Moreover, in what seems to be a rather arbitrary analysis based on whether or not the verb is followed by an infinitive, they offer for this idiom only the meaning “resolve, consent.” But a careful look at each of their entries indicates that in several cases, including this one, the meaning “to take pleasure in” fits better than the more brusque “to determine to” (contra Green [128], “an act of the will”).
μεν, a verb whose primary meaning is “to take pleasure in something,” but which in some contexts can also mean “to resolve” or “to consent.” It is of some interest that BDAG put the former meaning in first position when discussing the noun, but in second position regarding the verb. Moreover, in what seems to be a rather arbitrary analysis based on whether or not the verb is followed by an infinitive, they offer for this idiom only the meaning “resolve, consent.” But a careful look at each of their entries indicates that in several cases, including this one, the meaning “to take pleasure in” fits better than the more brusque “to determine to” (contra Green [128], “an act of the will”).In form the verb can be either present or imperfect, but in context it can be only imperfect (see the ἐγενήθητε [aorist passive] in the final clause [but brought forward in the TNIV for clearer English]); thus it refers to their past visit, not at this point to a yearning to be with them now.
226
Gk. μεταδoυναι, a basically Pauline word in the NT (here; Rom 1:11; 12:8; Eph 4:28); elsewhere only Luke 3:11. Although it is remotely possible that Paul might have had self-sacrifice in view, such an understanding goes far beyond what Paul seems to be saying here.
ναι, a basically Pauline word in the NT (here; Rom 1:11; 12:8; Eph 4:28); elsewhere only Luke 3:11. Although it is remotely possible that Paul might have had self-sacrifice in view, such an understanding goes far beyond what Paul seems to be saying here.227
Gk. Ψυχάς, which the KJV, in its own concordant way, rendered as “souls.” Contemporary so-called “literal” translations render it “lives” (NASU!), or “selves” (NRSV, ESV), the latter also appearing in REB and NAB, while the NJB and NET use “lives” as in the present text (cf. Best, “our own being”). The Greek word itself covers a lot of ground, from “soul, life, life-principle” to “earthly life” to “person” (BDAG); interestingly, Bauer had placed the present usage under the heading “the inner human life [= soul],” and under the subheading “of feelings and emotions,” which was retained by Danker. But that seems doubtful here (despite, e.g., Marshall, Morris, Bruce, Wanamaker), where the emphasis is on the whole person rather than just the inner feelings (thus Richard [84], “psychē designates the whole person and that person’s behavior”; cf. Green, 129).
228
See J. Gillman, “Paul’s Eἴσoδoς: The Proclaimed and the Proclaimer (1 Thess 2,8),” in Collins, Thessalonians Correspondence, pp. 62-70.
229
Paul’s Greek has διότι ἀγαπητoὶ ἡμĩν ἐγενήθητε (lit. “because beloved to us you had become”), where the dative “to us” has the functional equivalence of a possessive.
230
Omitted for stylistic reasons in the NIV/TNIV, NRSV, REB, NAB, NJB, et al.; but kept in others such as NASU, ESV, NET et al. Best (103) thinks it has a “weakened sense” here and renders it “and,” but that seems unnecessary. An explanatory γάρ is still explanatory, even if in a less argumentative sense.
231
This is now the third time in this section — and the only times in the two letters — that Paul recalls the “event” of preaching/sharing the gospel in Thessalonica; and each of them is expressed differently (in Gal 1:8-12 the concern is with the content of what was preached, not the event as such). Thus in v. 2 (cf. v. 4) it is “tell (λαλησαι) you the gospel”; in v. 8 it is “share (μεταδoυναι) the gospel”; and here it is “preach (ἐκηρύξαμεν) the gospel.” In no case in either of these two letters does he use the verb εὐαγγελίζεσθαι itself, which has the activity of preaching the gospel inherent in it. This will begin in his next letter (1 Corinthians) and carry on through the rest of the church corpus (excepting Colossians and Philemon). It occurs in this letter in 3:6 in its nontechnical sense of “bringing good news.”
σαι) you the gospel”; in v. 8 it is “share (μεταδoυναι) the gospel”; and here it is “preach (ἐκηρύξαμεν) the gospel.” In no case in either of these two letters does he use the verb εὐαγγελίζεσθαι itself, which has the activity of preaching the gospel inherent in it. This will begin in his next letter (1 Corinthians) and carry on through the rest of the church corpus (excepting Colossians and Philemon). It occurs in this letter in 3:6 in its nontechnical sense of “bringing good news.”232
What cannot be known by this imagery is the venue of such “preaching.” R. F. Hock (The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980], 32-42) has rightly pointed out that much of it may have taken place in the context of the “tent-making,” in keeping with one dimension of the philosophical tradition. But the verb “preached” (ἐκηρύξαμεν) is simply much too strong for the “shop talk” kind of evangelism.
233
Gk. νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας, genitive of time = “during the night as well as the day,” rather than “all night and all day.”
234
Cf. R. F. Hock, “Paul’s Tentmaking and the Problem of His Social Class,” JBL 97 (1978), 555-64.
235
Gk. τὸν κόπoν καὶ τὸν μόχθoν. The same doublet occurs again in 2 Thess 3:8 and 2 Cor 11:27. This is the only instance in Paul where the verb μνημoνευ- takes the accusative rather than the normal genitive; it is doubtful that there is any subtle meaning to it. When Paul picks up this theme later, but in passing, in 1 Cor 4:12, he adds ταĩς ἰδίαις χέρσιν (“with our own hands”), which is the giveaway that his “labor” was in fact “manual.”
236
See, e.g., 1:3 above regarding the Thessalonians themselves, and 3:3 below about himself; cf. 1 Cor 3:8; 15:58, among others.
237
Gk. μόχθoν, used only by Paul in the NT and only in this combination; see n. 82 above.
238
At points like these Paul’s plural “we” and the actual content of the sentence are ambiguous for later readers. Did all three of them work at manual labor? We know only of Paul’s occupation — and that from the account in Acts. In such moments, of course, the Thessalonians had no need to read between the lines.
239
See Phil 4:13-19; for this understanding of the relationship between Paul and this community, see Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 2-7, 436-48.
240
Thus the suggestion by Hock (Social Context), that Paul made this choice so that it might serve in an exemplary way (thus emulating the philosophers), is a conjecture that could well be supported by the double reasons given in 2 Thess 3:8-9: “so that we would not be a burden to any of you”; and “to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate.” But only the former concern is expressed in the present passage.
241
On the matter of how itinerants were maintained in the Greco-Roman world, see esp. the study by Hock (preceding note).
242
Translated by J. Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 675. The “Gamaliel” cited is from the third century, but he is here echoing the first-century Hillel, “Thus you have learned: Whoever derives worldly benefit from teachings of Torah takes his life from the world” (Aboth 4:5).
243
Because English is so unlike Greek in this regard, the asyndeton here is seldom noted in the commentaries. But Malherbe (149) observes, probably correctly, that the
244
Otherwise Lightfoot (28-29) and others (Malherbe, Witherington), who see the sentence as broken; for the view taken here cf. Best (109); it is recognized at least as an option by Green (133). Wanamaker (105), however, mistakenly identifies “as you are witnesses” as the main verb, which in turn means “double duty” is out of the question. Cf. also Richard (86), who suggests that the accusative (ἕνα ἕκαστoν ὑμων) also “seems to rule this out”; but that is to miss the force of the accusative, which has been fronted by Paul as the direct object of the participles that follow. It also creates some awkwardness in his interpretation of v. 11.
ν) also “seems to rule this out”; but that is to miss the force of the accusative, which has been fronted by Paul as the direct object of the participles that follow. It also creates some awkwardness in his interpretation of v. 11.245
Lightfoot (27) sees this appeal as referring to what is outward and observable by the Thessalonians and what is inward and thus observable only to God. But that seems doubtful, since motive is not emphasized here in any way. A generation later than Paul, Josephus (War 1.595) reports that the wife of Pheroras, one of those who plotted to assassinate Herod, pled her case with Herod in these terms: “O king, and may God hear me too, as witness to the truth of my words, for he cannot be deceived” (Cornfield edition, p. 115).
246
Thus most English translations have done as the TNIV; see the following note.
247
The difficulty with translating adverbs into a second language is that the range of meanings is broad enough so that translations tend to cover the gamut of possibilities. Here one finds “holy” (T/NIV, ESV), “pure” (NRSV, GNB), “devout” (REB), and “impeccably fair” (REB), the latter having joined the first two adverbs together.
248
Ant. 6.87 (LCL 5.310).
249
See Republic 1, p. 331A (LCL 5.18).
250
Indeed, these two ways of putting it (blameless, without fault) occur in most of the English translations.
251
In this case it occurs as an adjective, which in some of the Greek MSS (B L 0278 33 81 1241 et al.) was changed into the adverb.
252
Paul’s Greek is a straight dative, which Rigaux interprets as referring to his comportment when “among them,” a view reflected in the T/NIV. But as Best (105) points out, that view could have been expressed more easily with a preposition, as it is in 2:13 below.
253
For this usage see n. 56 on 1:7 above; for reasons that are not at all clear, the NIV translators (unchanged in the TNIV) turned this present tense participle into a past tense. While one may grant that the overall perspective of the narrative refers to the past, this participle brings their believing into the present (cf. the following participle in v. 12 [“who calls you”]).
254
Gk. ἐγενήθημεν, which implies more than just “being,” but carries the sense “proving to be” or “turning out to be” (see BDAG 7). For those who think otherwise, that a verb is “missing” here, see n. 91.