269 On this matter see my Pauline Christology, 249-51.
255
On Paul’s use of paternal imagery in this letter, see T. J. Burke, “Pauline Paternity in 1 Thessalonians,” TynB 51 (2000), 59-80.
256
Gk. ἑαυτoυ
, rather than the simple possessive αὐτoυ (cf. v. 8 above). While in some contexts the reflexive and possessive pronouns can be used interchangeably, such is hardly the case here. This is a deliberate reminder that they are his own converts, whatever else.
, rather than the simple possessive αὐτoυ (cf. v. 8 above). While in some contexts the reflexive and possessive pronouns can be used interchangeably, such is hardly the case here. This is a deliberate reminder that they are his own converts, whatever else.257
Modern readers should exhibit due caution about reading their own cultural values back into the first-century world. But evidence from Greek literature indicates that at least one view of “correction” is that “a father should not use beatings but rather reason, exhortation, counsel, and praise of good conduct to instruct his children to follow virtue and shun vices” (Green, 134, citing Plutarch).
258
See 1 Cor 4:7; Phil 2:22; 1 Tim 1:2, 18; 2 Tim 1:2; 2:1. These latter four instances serve as quiet evidence of the genuinely Pauline nature of the Pastoral Epistles, whoever the actual “writer” may have been.
259
Gk. παρακαλoυντες; Paul will use it again in further appeals in this letter (4:1, 10; 5:14) — not to mention that he urges them to do the same with one another (4:18 and 5:11).
ντες; Paul will use it again in further appeals in this letter (4:1, 10; 5:14) — not to mention that he urges them to do the same with one another (4:18 and 5:11).260
Indeed, 60 percent of the occurrences in his extant letters (32 of 54) occur in these three.
261
Gk. παραμυθoύμενoι; its cognate noun in 1 Cor 14:3 is usually rendered “comfort.”
262
Green (136) thinks otherwise, offering extrabiblical evidence that the verb was used in these kinds of contexts with the view of persuading someone toward a certain kind of conduct.
263
Gk. μαρτυρόμενoι, for which BDAG offer two basic options: “to affirm something with solemnity,” or “to urge something as a matter of great importance.” They place the present usage under the second option.
264
They include “urging” (TNIV, GNB, REB), “charge” (RSV, ESV [whose translators were “revising” the RSV]), “pleading” (NRSV, NAB), “imploring” (NASB), “insisting” (NAB, NET), and “appealing” (NJB).
265
Paul is here picking up a common deuteronomic metaphor for living righteously (i.e., in keeping with Torah); see, among others, Deut 5:33 (“Walk in obedience to all the LORD your God has commanded you”). It is of some interest that the LXX translators tended to translate out the metaphor and replace it with a simple “go (πoρεύεσθαι) in the ways of the Lord,” but the metaphor is an obviously live one for Paul, who uses it some 17 times in his letters. The present expression occurs again in Col 1:10, except that “God” is there replaced with “the Lord” (= Christ). At the time of the writing of this commentary this is a metaphor in transition from a live to a dead one. The American black community can say, “Walk the talk,” most likely because of the deeply religious (biblical) roots of this culture. But I am assured that most North American young people would not understand it as a metaphor, which probably says something about the lack of biblical roots for the present generation.
266
This is the first of ten instances where Paul uses “kingdom of God” language, which is common in the Gospels as characterizing the ministry/teaching of Jesus himself. Not all see the present instance as reflecting the “already/not yet” aspect of the kingdom that characterized Jesus’ own proclamation, but both the context as a whole and the way the phrase sits in the present clause, especially with the present tense of the verb, suggest as much. On Paul’s use of the phrase see, K. Donfried, “The Kingdom of God in Paul,” in The Kingdom of God in 20th-Century Interpretation (ed. W. L. Willis; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1987), 175-90.
267
Cf. Best (108), “. . . denotes the continuous and effective call of God . . . which can reassure his readers that they will attain to the kingdom and the glory even though their walk is not always worthy of God.”
268
Rigaux (432-33) and Marshall (74) have pointed out that this idea can also be found in some expressions of Greek religion. Since one ultimately becomes like the God one worships, the differences between Paul and the philosophers on this point is immense indeed.
269
On this matter see my Pauline Christology, 249-51.
270
The καί represented by this “and” is found in the earliest and best of the MS tradition:
A B P Ψ 6 81 1739 1881 pc m syh. It is lacking in D F G H 0278 33
lat syr, omitted almost certainly for stylistic reasons, since Paul’s sentence reads καὶ διὰ τoυτo καὶ (“and for this reason also”), which can be as awkward in Greek as in English; and it is hard to imagine anyone’s adding this καί to Paul’s sentence, despite H. Koester (“The Text of First Thessalonians,” in The Living Text [Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1985]), who thinks this one can be disputed.
A B P Ψ 6 81 1739 1881 pc m syh. It is lacking in D F G H 0278 33lat syr, omitted almost certainly for stylistic reasons, since Paul’s sentence reads καὶ διὰ τoυτo καὶ (“and for this reason also”), which can be as awkward in Greek as in English; and it is hard to imagine anyone’s adding this καί to Paul’s sentence, despite H. Koester (“The Text of First Thessalonians,” in The Living Text [Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1985]), who thinks this one can be disputed.271
See pp. 7-8 above.
272
On the issue of the authenticity of vv. 14-16, where some would also include this verse, see n. 21 below.
273
Gk. διὰ τoυτo, a phrase which functions in a variety of ways in Paul’s letters. It is often transitional (= in light of all this; e.g., 2 Cor 4:1); and at times (as here, arguably) it tends to point forward (always in light of what has been said), as in 1 Cor 4:17; 2 Cor 13:10; Rom 4:16; Phlm 15. The difficulty here with making it pick up something that has preceded can be seen in the variety of suggestions that have been forthcoming, the most logical of which would seem to be the immediately preceding reference to God’s “calling you into his kingdom and glory”; but that does not seem to offer an adequate reason for the present thanksgiving, which emphasizes the Thessalonians’ hearing and receiving Paul’s preaching as God’s own word.
τo, a phrase which functions in a variety of ways in Paul’s letters. It is often transitional (= in light of all this; e.g., 2 Cor 4:1); and at times (as here, arguably) it tends to point forward (always in light of what has been said), as in 1 Cor 4:17; 2 Cor 13:10; Rom 4:16; Phlm 15. The difficulty here with making it pick up something that has preceded can be seen in the variety of suggestions that have been forthcoming, the most logical of which would seem to be the immediately preceding reference to God’s “calling you into his kingdom and glory”; but that does not seem to offer an adequate reason for the present thanksgiving, which emphasizes the Thessalonians’ hearing and receiving Paul’s preaching as God’s own word.274
For this meaning of the ὅτι cf. Best (110); Bruce (44, who also notes support from BDF 442.12); Marshall (77); Morris (80); and P. T. O’Brien (Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul [NovTSup 49; Leiden: Brill, 1977], 154). It should be pointed out that the T/NIV has helped the English reader by eliminating the causes of confusion, while at the same time making clear that what follows is the reason for the thanksgiving.
275
So also O’Brien (preceding note); Wanamaker (110), which he also argues points forward to the ὅτι (but as causal rather than offering the content of the thanksgiving). Frame (106) reads this as “we as well as you,” which seems most highly unlikely, given Pauline usage elsewhere.
276
The eschatological conclusion to v. 12 is suggested by some, but that makes little sense at all, since at that point Paul is not so much affirming the Thessalonians as he is concluding the reminder of his former exhortations.
277
Gk. παραλαβόντες, which by this time had become semitechnical language in the church for “teaching that had been handed down,” thus, “tradition” in its proper sense. This becomes especially clear in two passages in 1 Corinthians, first regarding the Lord’s Supper, “I received [παρέλαβoν] from the Lord what I ‘handed down’ [παρέδωκα] to you” (11:23), and second, regarding the gospel itself, and especially the role of the resurrection in that gospel, in 15:3 (“For I ‘handed down’ [παρέδωκα] . . . what also I had received [παρέλαβoν]”). In both of these cases Paul is concerned that the Corinthians recognize the “traditional” nature of what he had “handed down” to them. In this earlier instance the emphasis is solely on the Thessalonians’ “having received” the word.
278
BDAG list it only under the rubric “that which is heard,” rendering the present passage as “the word of proclamation that goes out from us.” But that seems to miss the emphasis on the “enclosed” genitive construction itself.
279
As with the preceding verb (see n. 8), this one (ἐδέξασθε [δέχoμαι]) also moves close to a semitechnical term for “receiving by approval” what was “handed down” (cf. BDAG 5, “to indicate approval or conviction by accepting”).
280
In the phrase λόγoν θεoυ the genitive can only be subjective (= functions as the subject of the verbal idea in the qualified noun), not objective (= “the message about God”).
the genitive can only be subjective (= functions as the subject of the verbal idea in the qualified noun), not objective (= “the message about God”).281
The TNIV translators chose to make this καί intensive rather than progressive; it had been unfortunately omitted altogether in the NIV (and NET). The concept of “currently” for this adverbial use of καί is expressed in the NAB as “now at work.”
282
See e.g., Richard, 113-25.
283
For this early way of designating Christians, see n. 56 on 1:7 above (cf. 2:10).
284
The English Bible tradition has been heavily influenced by the KJV in this case and has gone predominantly with “in you,” as have most commentators, the majority of whom do not note the matter at all. More recently both the NJB and NET have rendered it “among you,” probably because this phrase in Paul most often means that, rather than something at work in the individual believers; cf. Col 3:16, where the TNIV (correcting the NIV) has, “may the message of Christ dwell among you.”
285
16 Or them fully
286
The TNIV, along with most English translations, put a nonrestrictive comma here. But there are good reasons to pause on this matter; see esp. F. D. Gilliard, “The Problem of the Antisemitic Comma between 1 Thessalonians 2.14 and 15,” NTS 35 (1989), 481-502; and more recently, C. B. Amphoux, “1 Th 2,14-16: Quel Juifs sont-ils mis en cause par Paul?” FilolNT 16 (2003), 85-101. The entire sentence, in fact, makes far more sense if the “who” is understood as restrictive, despite the rejection by E. Verhoef, “Die Bedeutung des Artikels των in 1 Thess 2.15,” Biblische Notizen 80 (1995), 41-46. See the discussion below.
ν in 1 Thess 2.15,” Biblische Notizen 80 (1995), 41-46. See the discussion below.287
Related to the nonrestrictive comma (see preceding note), the majority of later witnesses (D1 Ψ
sy) added an interpretive ἰδίoυς (“their own”) to distinguish these as the OT, not early Christian, prophets; thus the KJV: “and their own prophets.” But it is highly doubtful whether this early interpretation is the correct one. See the discussion below.
sy) added an interpretive ἰδίoυς (“their own”) to distinguish these as the OT, not early Christian, prophets; thus the KJV: “and their own prophets.” But it is highly doubtful whether this early interpretation is the correct one. See the discussion below.288
The words “of God” are not in the Greek text, but for most scholars they seem to be implied from the context. Several witnesses in the Western textual tradition (D F G 629 latt) certainly thought so, or they would not have added these words to their texts. See the discussion below (p. 102).
289
The first sentence goes through to the clause about “heaping up their sins to the limit” (v. 16b). The final sentence in Greek is as the TNIV has it.
290
The bibliography is esp. large, most of it dealing with the “anti-Judaic” polemic; in chronological order see O. Michel, “Fragen zu 1 Thessalonicher 2,14-16: Antijüdische Polemik bei Paulus,” in Antijüdäismus im Neuen Testament? Exegetische und systematische Beitrage (ed. W. P. Eckert, N. P. Levison, and Martin Stöhr; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1967), 50-59; P. Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church (London: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 102-11; N. Hyldahl, “Jesus og joderne ifolge 1 Tess 2, 14-16,” SEÅ 37/38 (1972/73), 238-54; J. Coppens, “Une diatribe antijuive dans I Thess. II,13-16,” ETL 51 (1975), 90-95; K. L. Donfried, “Paul and Judaism: I Thessalonians 2:13-16 as a Test Case,” Int 38 (1984), 242-53; G. Geiger, “1 Thess 2,13-16: Der Initiationstext des christlichen Antisemitismus?” BL 59 (1986), 154-60; J. C. Hurd, “Paul ahead of His Time: 1 Thess. 2:13-16,” in Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, vol. 1: Paul and the Gospels (ed. P. Richardson and D. Granskou; Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1986), 21-36; K. Haacker, “Elemente des heidnischen Antijudaismus im Neuen Testament,” Evangelische Theologie 48 (1988), 404-18; P.-G. Müller, “The Human Paul of the New Testament: Anti-Judaism in I Thess 2:14-16,” BK 44 (1989), 58-65; T. Holtz, “The Judgement on the Jews and the Salvation of All Israel: 1 Thes 2,15-16 and Rom 11,25-26,” in The Thessalonians Correspondence (ed. R. F. Collins, 1990), 284-94; J. W. Simpson Jr., “The Problems Posed by 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16 and a Solution,” HBT 12 (1990), 42-72; N. S. Murrell, “The Human Paul of the New Testament: Anti-Judaism in I Thess 2:14-16,” PEGLMBS 14 (1994), 169-86; R. A. Wortham, “The Problem of Anti-Judaism in 1 Thess 2:14-16 and Related Pauline Texts,” BTB 25 (1995), 37-44; S. Légasse, “Paul et les Juifs d’après 1 Thessaloniciens 2,13-16,” RB 104 (1997), 527-91.
291
This was first argued by B. A. Pearson, “1 Thessalonians 2:13-16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation,” HTR 64 (1971), 79-94; it was later seconded by H. Boers, “The Form-Critical Study of Paul’s Letters: 1 Thessalonians as a Case Study,” NTS 22 (1976), 140-58; N. A. Beck, “Anti-Jewish Polemic in the Epistles of Paul,” in Mature Christianity: The Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-Jewish Polemic in the New Testament (London: Associated University Press, 1981), 39-50; D. D. Schmidt, “1 Thess 2:13-16: Linguistic Evidence for an Interpolation,” JBL 102 (1983), 269-79; and L. E. Keck, “Images of Paul in the New Testament,” Int 43 (1989), 341-51. The only commentator in English to take this position is Richard, 119-27; but the very difficulty he has in offering a commentary on such a view should speak for itself. Pearson’s article also set off a series of responses arguing for authenticity: see esp. Carol J. Schlueter, Filling Up the Measure: Polemical Hyperbole in 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16 (JSNTSS 98: Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), who also discusses earlier responses to Pearson; cf. now M. Bockmuehl, “1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 and the Church in Jerusalem,” TynB 52 (2001), 1-31, who offers solid historical evidence for placing these references within known events in the latter part of the fifth decade of the first Christian century, and J. A. Weatherly, “The Authenticity of 1 Thessalonians 2.13-16: Additional Evidence,” JSNT 42 (1991), 79-98.
292
Indeed, one wonders whether any of this misguided reading of the text could have happened before the holocaust.
293
Another inherent difficulty with the passage for some is to square it with Paul’s attitude toward his own people expressed in Romans 11. For a cogent analysis and solution to this issue see R. Hoppe, “Der Topos der Prophetenverfolgung,” NTS 50 (2004), 535-49.
294
Gk. γάρ, here a “marker of clarification” (BDAG 2).
295
Luke’s point seems clear enough: The agitation was begun by Thessalonian Jews, who were apparently distressed by Paul’s success in their synagogue. But the actual foment took on a decidedly Gentile character once the disturbance got seriously under way.
296
In a later letter (Gal 1:22) Paul claims to be unknown to these churches in a personal way; thus these two passages together attest to the fact that knowledge about fellow believers spread rather widely in these earliest communities of believers.
297
Although a view suggested by Calvin (348), and seconded by Frame (109), has much to commend it — that Paul is responding to a “thought that might have entered their minds, ‘If this is the true religion, why do the Jews, who are the holy people of God, oppose it with such hostility?’ ” Best (113) offers five other options without choosing one.
298
Gk. των ἰδίων συμϕυλετων, a NT hapax legomenon, which refers to “members of the same tribe or people group” (BDAG, who offer “compatriot”) as its basic meaning.
ν ἰδίων συμϕυλετων, a NT hapax legomenon, which refers to “members of the same tribe or people group” (BDAG, who offer “compatriot”) as its basic meaning.299
E.g., Marshall (78-79), on the basis of the outburst against Jewish opposition that follows (vv. 15-16), which, he suggests, is otherwise “quite tangential and unnoticed”; cf. N. H. Taylor, “Who Persecuted the Thessalonian Christians?” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 58 (2002), 784-801. But Lightfoot (32) seems to have had it right, that “the opposition to the Gospel instigated by the Jews was taken up by the native population, without whose cooperation the Jews would have been powerless.” Thus, this phrase stands in marked opposition to the ὑπὸ των ’Ioυδαίων that follows, further reinforced as it is by the ἰδίων (your own fellow citizens). At issue, after all, is not who instigated the original persecution, but who is currently carrying it on in Thessalonica. And for Jews to be harassing in this way what is now a predominantly Gentile community (1:9) seems historically to be most highly unlikely. For an esp. helpful analysis of the possible source and nature of this harassment, see J. M. G. Barclay, “Conflict in Thessalonica,” CBQ 55 (1993), 512-30.
ν ’Ioυδαίων that follows, further reinforced as it is by the ἰδίων (your own fellow citizens). At issue, after all, is not who instigated the original persecution, but who is currently carrying it on in Thessalonica. And for Jews to be harassing in this way what is now a predominantly Gentile community (1:9) seems historically to be most highly unlikely. For an esp. helpful analysis of the possible source and nature of this harassment, see J. M. G. Barclay, “Conflict in Thessalonica,” CBQ 55 (1993), 512-30.300
As is made certain in 1:9: “You turned from idols to serve the living and true God.” See the Introduction, pp. 6-7.
301
See further the discussion on v. 15 below.
302
Not as a native Judean, of course, but as one who had emigrated to Jerusalem to be trained as a rabbi.
303
This passage is often seen as “anti-Semitic”; but comma or no comma (see n. 16), such a view reflects a radical misunderstanding of both Paul and this passage.
304
That is, does it mean “the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and who . . .” (nonrestrictive), or “the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and who . . .” (restrictive). The former would mean, as most do understand it, that “the Jews” in general are responsible for the dreadful deeds that follow; the latter refers specifically and only to the Jews actually responsible for those deeds.
305
See 1:7 (πασιν τoĩς πιστεύoυσιν ἐν [“all who believe, (living) in . . .”]); 1:10 (’Iησoυν τὸν ῥυόμενoν ἡμας [“Jesus who rescues us”]); 2:4 (θεῳ τῳ δoκιμάζoντι [“(the) God who tests”]); 2:10 (ὑμĩν τoĩς πιστεύoυσιν [“you who believe”]); 2:12 (τoυ θεoυ τoυ καλoυντoς ὑμας [“the God who calls you”]); 2:14 (των ἐκκλησιων τoυ θεoυ των oὐσων ἐν τ
’Ioυδαίᾳ [“the churches of God which are in Judea”]). The next instance in the letter (4:5) is much more ambiguous, and is treated variously in the translations. Is it “the Gentiles who do not know God” (NASU) or “the pagans, who do not know God” (TNIV)? In light of Paul’s ordinary usage it is probably the former (see the discussion ad loc.). This is followed in 4:8 with τὸν θεὸν τὸν καὶ διδόντα τὸ πνευμα αὐτoυ τὸ ἅγιoν (“the God who also gives you his Holy Spirit”); cf. 4:15 and 17 (“we the living who remain”). All of these are best understood as restrictive. To make this one nonrestrictive thus makes it an “orphan” in terms of Pauline usage in this letter. Indeed, one wonders whether this comma could ever have happened if it were not for the (unfortunate) verse numbers that have been inserted into the text.
σιν τoĩς πιστεύoυσιν ἐν [“all who believe, (living) in . . .”]); 1:10 (’Iησoυν τὸν ῥυόμενoν ἡμας [“Jesus who rescues us”]); 2:4 (θεῳ τῳ δoκιμάζoντι [“(the) God who tests”]); 2:10 (ὑμĩν τoĩς πιστεύoυσιν [“you who believe”]); 2:12 (τoυ θεoυ τoυ καλoυντoς ὑμας [“the God who calls you”]); 2:14 (των ἐκκλησιων τoυ θεoυ των oὐσων ἐν τ’Ioυδαίᾳ [“the churches of God which are in Judea”]). The next instance in the letter (4:5) is much more ambiguous, and is treated variously in the translations. Is it “the Gentiles who do not know God” (NASU) or “the pagans, who do not know God” (TNIV)? In light of Paul’s ordinary usage it is probably the former (see the discussion ad loc.). This is followed in 4:8 with τὸν θεὸν τὸν καὶ διδόντα τὸ πνευμα αὐτoυ τὸ ἅγιoν (“the God who also gives you his Holy Spirit”); cf. 4:15 and 17 (“we the living who remain”). All of these are best understood as restrictive. To make this one nonrestrictive thus makes it an “orphan” in terms of Pauline usage in this letter. Indeed, one wonders whether this comma could ever have happened if it were not for the (unfortunate) verse numbers that have been inserted into the text.306
For this proposal and its proponents, see n. 16 above.
307
That is, Paul’s sentence has four distinct modifiers of the phrase ὑπὸ των ’Ioυδαίων (“by the Jews”), while the first one has a compound object of the verb “killed” and the last one has a participial modifier explaining how they have been “hostile to everyone.”
ν ’Ioυδαίων (“by the Jews”), while the first one has a compound object of the verb “killed” and the last one has a participial modifier explaining how they have been “hostile to everyone.”308
The (rather thoroughgoing) tendency to treat this καί as an adverb seems to miss Paul’s own sentence structure by far too much. His clause reads: των καὶ τὸν κύριoν ἀπoκτεινάντων ’Iησoυν καὶ τoὺς πρoϕήτας . . . (who both the Lord Jesus killed and the prophets . . .). Under all normal circumstances — and these do appear to be “normal” — this should be the only way anyone would read this Greek clause. This grammatical note in itself, not to mention this visual “display” of the clause, should thus lead one to the proper understanding of who “the Jews” are in this clause.
ν καὶ τὸν κύριoν ἀπoκτεινάντων ’Iησoυν καὶ τoὺς πρoϕήτας . . . (who both the Lord Jesus killed and the prophets . . .). Under all normal circumstances — and these do appear to be “normal” — this should be the only way anyone would read this Greek clause. This grammatical note in itself, not to mention this visual “display” of the clause, should thus lead one to the proper understanding of who “the Jews” are in this clause.309
Because of the unusual word order των καὶ τὸν κύριoν ἀπoκτεινάντων ’Iησoυν καὶ τoὺς πρoϕήτας (“who both the Lord killed Jesus and the prophets”), some have argued that “and the prophets” should go with what follows (= who killed the Lord Jesus, and who persecuted the prophets and us”); see esp. Milligan (30). But this has rightly been rejected by subsequent interpreters.
ν καὶ τὸν κύριoν ἀπoκτεινάντων ’Iησoυν καὶ τoὺς πρoϕήτας (“who both the Lord killed Jesus and the prophets”), some have argued that “and the prophets” should go with what follows (= who killed the Lord Jesus, and who persecuted the prophets and us”); see esp. Milligan (30). But this has rightly been rejected by subsequent interpreters.310
This is easily the majority view; see, among others, Ellicott, Lightfoot, Milligan, Frame, Best, and Bruce. The reasons for going this route seem to be two: (a) a long-standing tendency on the part of NT scholarship to set aside the NT evidence for prophecy and prophets in the early church (despite Paul’s own affirmation that “God has set in the church first apostles, second prophets” (1 Cor 12:28); (b) an equally long-standing tendency to think immediately of the OT when someone uses the term “the prophets.” But as Rigaux (447) has pointed out, this particular word order has already occurred twice in this letter (1:6, ὑμεĩς μιμηταὶ ἡμων ἐγενήθητε καὶ τoυ κυρίoυ [“you imitators of us became and of the Lord”]; 2:10, ὑμεĩς μάρτυρες καὶ ὁ θεός [“you are witnesses as is God”]). Thus, besides its reflecting a thoroughly Pauline worldview, this view makes far more sense of the present passage itself. For further argumentation in favor of his understanding, see F. D. Gilliard, “Paul and the Killing of the Prophets in 1 Thess. 2:15,” NovT 36 (1994), 259-70, who also makes a strong case for translating the definite article as “his prophets.” He notes Kirsopp Lake (The Early Epistles of St. Paul [London: Rivingtons, 1911], 87) and John Koenig (Jews and Christians in Dialogue: New Testament Foundations [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979], 47) as also supporting this view.
ν ἐγενήθητε καὶ τoυ κυρίoυ [“you imitators of us became and of the Lord”]; 2:10, ὑμεĩς μάρτυρες καὶ ὁ θεός [“you are witnesses as is God”]). Thus, besides its reflecting a thoroughly Pauline worldview, this view makes far more sense of the present passage itself. For further argumentation in favor of his understanding, see F. D. Gilliard, “Paul and the Killing of the Prophets in 1 Thess. 2:15,” NovT 36 (1994), 259-70, who also makes a strong case for translating the definite article as “his prophets.” He notes Kirsopp Lake (The Early Epistles of St. Paul [London: Rivingtons, 1911], 87) and John Koenig (Jews and Christians in Dialogue: New Testament Foundations [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979], 47) as also supporting this view.311
Morris (84 n. 76) is one of the few commentators who even acknowledge this option, but dismisses it as “having no sufficient reason.” But it seems to me that the opposite view ought to be the one that is challenged, since to take “and the prophets” as pointing backward not only interrupts the chronological sequence of Paul’s sentence but offers no adequate understanding of the subject “the Jews,” which then is simply a generic designation.
312
As T. D. Still, e.g., argues (Conflict at Thessalonica [JSNTSS; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999], 64-66).
313
Still’s view (preceding note) that Paul is here referring to some Jews in Thessalonica as responsible for this action seems ultimately untenable, both as a historical improbability and as unnecessary.
314
Best (114) points out that the positive dimension of this phrase is one of Paul’s favorite expressions; see 2:4 and 4:1 in this letter; cf. 1 Cor 7:32; Gal 1:10; Col 1:10; 2 Tim 2:4.
315
This last contrast is unfortunately blunted in the TNIV’s “hostile to everyone.” While that is something of a truism, it misses the striking θεός / ἀνθρώπoυς (God and human beings) contrast involved here.
316
These words are not in the Greek text itself, but have been supplied by the translators in order to make for a smoother and more immediately understandable sentence (cf. NLT, “by trying to keep us from”).
317
Gk. εἰς τὸ ἀναπληρωσαι αὐτων τὰς ἁμαρτίας πάντoτε. The awkwardness comes from the aorist infinitive (usually punctiliar) accompanied by the adverb “always.” For similar language, but without the “always,” cf. Gen 15:16 LXX, oὔπω γὰρ ἀναπεπλήρωνται αἱ ἁμαρτίαι των Aμoρραίων ἕως τoυ νυν (“for the sins of the Amorites have not yet reached their full measure”; it is more distantly echoed in Dan 8:23 and 2 Macc 6:14-15). Whether intentional or not, Paul is using language found in the Genesis passage to suggest that the opposite is now true of “the Jews.”
σαι αὐτων τὰς ἁμαρτίας πάντoτε. The awkwardness comes from the aorist infinitive (usually punctiliar) accompanied by the adverb “always.” For similar language, but without the “always,” cf. Gen 15:16 LXX, oὔπω γὰρ ἀναπεπλήρωνται αἱ ἁμαρτίαι των Aμoρραίων ἕως τoυ νυν (“for the sins of the Amorites have not yet reached their full measure”; it is more distantly echoed in Dan 8:23 and 2 Macc 6:14-15). Whether intentional or not, Paul is using language found in the Genesis passage to suggest that the opposite is now true of “the Jews.”318
Marshall (80) suggests that Paul is here “using an idea which was current in apocalyptic thinking and in early Christianity,” a view advanced first by E. Bammel, “Judenverfolgung und Naherwartung: Zur Eschatologie des Ersten Thessalonicherbriefs,” ZTK 56 (1959), 294-315. But Marshall’s alleged parallels (Rev 6:11; 2 Esdr 2:41; 4:36- 37) have to do with the “full number” of martyrs, an idea that is only distantly related to this one, if at all.
319
Cf. T. Levi 6:11, ἔϕθασε δὲ ἐπ’ αὐτoὺς ἡ ὀργὴ τoυ θεoυ εἰς τέλoς, wording that is identical to Paul’s except for the τoυ θεoυ (which was eventually added to Paul’s text as well). It is hard to know what to make of this phenomenon. It is altogether unlikely that Paul knew this work; moreover, there is good evidence for some Christian interpolations into the Testaments. And since our earliest MSS for this work date only from the tenth Christian century, it is more likely that this is an interpolation from Paul into the Testament of Levi than that the two authors should have independently landed on this identical wording — especially since the “of God” in Testament of Levi reflects a later scribal addition within the Christian community, which was already available to the interpolator of the Testaments.
θεoυ εἰς τέλoς, wording that is identical to Paul’s except for the τoυ θεoυ (which was eventually added to Paul’s text as well). It is hard to know what to make of this phenomenon. It is altogether unlikely that Paul knew this work; moreover, there is good evidence for some Christian interpolations into the Testaments. And since our earliest MSS for this work date only from the tenth Christian century, it is more likely that this is an interpolation from Paul into the Testament of Levi than that the two authors should have independently landed on this identical wording — especially since the “of God” in Testament of Levi reflects a later scribal addition within the Christian community, which was already available to the interpolator of the Testaments.On the larger question of this passage and Paul’s alleged anti-Semitism, see J. S. Lamp, “Is Paul Anti-Jewish? Testament of Levi 6 in the Interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16,” CBQ 65 (2003), 408-27, who demonstrates quite convincingly in light of the Testament of Levi passage that Paul is here making a reasonable — though admittedly passionate — assessment of the generally negative Jewish response to God’s work in Christ Jesus.
320
The full term (wrath of God) occurs only three times (see Rom 1:18; Col 3:6; Eph 5:6) and in each case points to God’s eschatological judgment on the wicked.
321
Indeed, had this sentence occurred in 2 Thessalonians rather than here, it would have been used rather universally to condemn that letter as post-AD 70 and therefore not by Paul. See further the Introduction, pp. 4-5.
322
Cf. Findlay (57) and Frame (114), “proleptic.”
323
See, e.g., Best (122), “It must be allowed that 1 Th. 2.16c shows Paul holding an unacceptable anti-Semitic position.” That seems to be similar to the suggestion that open public disapproval of a sitting American president makes that person anti-American!
324
See the discussion of this word in 3:2 below, where the reason for putting it in quotes is given.
325
R. W. Funk includes this passage in his discussion of Paul’s “presence” being felt through his letters (see “The Apostolic Presence: Paul,” in Parables and Presence: Forms of the New Testament Tradition [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982], 81-102), a slightly revised edition of the study that first appeared in the John Knox Festschrift (Christian History and Interpretation [ed. W. R. Farmer, J. Knox, and C. F. D. Moule; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967], 249-68).
326
Indeed, Gaventa (40) suggests, “perhaps the most outstanding feature of this text is the way it interweaves a straighforward account of events with highly emotional interpretative remarks and asides.”
327
Translators are divided on the force of this δέ. It occurs so frequently in Greek as a simple connective that it is frequently not translated at all (esp. in the NIV, some of which have been restored in the TNIV). In the present case many translations have perceived it as an adversative to what has preceded (T/NIV, NASU, ESV). But since the narrative that follows does not easily stand in an adversative relationship to vv. 14-16, the NRSV’s “as for us” has perhaps best captured the sense of the relationship between the two paragraphs.
328
See also Morris (86); many think otherwise, tending to see it as simply picking up the narrative without any special contrast to what has immediately preceded (e.g., Rigaux, 457; Best, 124; Wanamaker, 120).
329
Gk. ἀπoρϕανίζω, a compound (ἀπό + ὀρϕανίζω) which means “to make an orphan of” — a rare, but understandable, metaphor. Although some have doubted this as an intentional metaphor, understanding it as such goes back as far as Chrysostom (Homilies on 1 Thessalonians, 334), who contrasts it to four other words Paul might possibly have used instead of this one.
330
Gk. πρὸς καιρὸν ὥρας, a combination of πρὸς καιρός (“for a time”) and πρὸς ὥρας (“for an hour”), which works like our English idiom, “for a short space of time.”
331
Indeed, one wonders whether such a text can be understood at all in current North American culture where e-mail and/or the cell phone have come to serve as an umbilical cord for many college students with regard to friends and family. The present college generation (some of our own grandchildren at the time of writing) have lost almost all sense of time and distance with regard to communication with others. Will it be possible for them to have any genuine “feel” for Paul’s anxiety here?
332
Gk. περισσoτέρως, which has elative force here (implying intensity), rather than comparative.
333
Gk. ἐπιθυμία, which is used in this positive sense in Paul only here and in Phil 1:23; otherwise it is totally negative and seen by Paul in Romans 7 as the primary sin, which disallows a view that one can keep the law without sinning.
334
In this case, however, it is expressed with a διότι (combined form of διά + ὅτι; lit. “because of this” = “for this reason”).
335
Gk. καί; some earlier interpreters (e.g., Ellicott [34], Findlay [59]) rejected any adversative force here; but see BDAG 1bη.
336
Gk. ἐνέκoΨεν, a word which, as the combination ἐν + κόπτω implies, apparently originated as a military term for “cutting up” a road to make it impassable; see 3:11 below for Paul’s response to it in prayer.
337
On this usage see L. Morris, “KAI AΠA
KAI ΔIΣ,” NovT 1 (1956), 205-8; cf. the discussion in Rigaux (461). In the LXX see Deut 9:13; 1 Sam 17:39; Neh 13:20; 1 Macc 3:30. Earlier interpreters understood this locution to mean “not only once, but twice” (e.g., Ellicott, 34; Milligan, 34).
KAI ΔIΣ,” NovT 1 (1956), 205-8; cf. the discussion in Rigaux (461). In the LXX see Deut 9:13; 1 Sam 17:39; Neh 13:20; 1 Macc 3:30. Earlier interpreters understood this locution to mean “not only once, but twice” (e.g., Ellicott, 34; Milligan, 34).338
The singular “I” occurs four more times in the two letters (1 Thess 3:5; 5:27; 2 Thess 2:5; 3:17); this singular phenomenon is an especially weighty argument for the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians. How could a forger have done this, one wonders.
339
That is, the emphasis is not on Paul in contrast to others (so Ellicott, 34), but on Paul himself as especially having this desire.
340
Paul had none of the modern proclivities with regard to a personal Enemy to God and his work. He was, after all, well acquainted with the scriptural data and, with Jesus, was a man of his times who took such a reality with full seriousness; see further on 3:5.
341
The most plausible would seem to be that of Marshall (86), followed by Wanamaker (122), who ties it to the “thorn in the flesh” in 2 Cor 12:7, which he likewise attributes to Satan. For a list of other speculations, see Frame, 121.
342
Which in itself is a remarkable moment, given our human tendency to elaborate on our “failures” to make sure the second party understands fully why and how it happened.
343
Paul’s Greek sentence is broken at this point, and its intensity probably accounts for its being verbless (but legitimately so in Greek); but his meaning seems clear. Putting his sentence into English, but keeping his word order, we read: “For who [is] our hope or joy or victor’s wreath of boasting — or [is it] not even you — in the presence of our Lord, Jesus, at his coming?” The punctuation, of course, is mine. Frame (122), followed by Best (129), makes a most unlikely suggestion that the καὶ ὑμεĩς implies, “you as well as others.” That is surely to throw a red herring into the middle of Paul’s perfectly understandable phrase.
344
As found, e.g., in the frequently used “I hope so,” which means something may or may not happen.
345
These are entries 2 and 3 respectively in BDAG, who place our passage under number 2 along with Col 1:27 (Christ Jesus, our hope of glory). Although this makes good sense regarding the latter, which almost certainly means “Christ Jesus, who through his death and resurrection has secured for us our hope [= certainty] about our future glory,” it seems far less likely here.
346
As in the RSV, NRSV, and ESV. The phrase itself occurs in the LXX of Prov 16:31, where it is said that “grey [or white] hair is a στέϕανoς καυχήσεως [crown of honour (NJB)]”; cf. Ezek 16:12. Wanamaker (124) suggests that these OT texts have no bearing here, which may be true in terms of Paul’s intent here, but surely not in wording.
347
See 1 Thess 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thess 2:1, 8 (2:9); cf. 1 Cor 11:26 (“until he comes”). Elsewhere in the NT it is used in the Gospels exclusively by Matthew and only in ch. 24 (vv. 3, 27, 37, 39); Jas 5:7, 8; and 2 Pet 3:4. On the Parousia itself, see further A. L. Moore, The Parousia in the New Testament (NovTSup 13; Leiden: Brill, 1966); and C. Brown, “The Parousia and Eschatology in the NT,” NIDNTT 2:901-35.
Elsewhere Paul speaks of this event as the ἀπoκάλυΨις (“revelation”) of the Lord (2 Thess 1:7; 1 Cor 1:7); the “ἐπιϕανείας (“manifestation”) of the Lord” (1 Tim 6:14; cf. 2 Tim 4:8; Tit 2:13); or “the day of the Lord” (1 Cor 1:8; 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14; Phil 1:6, 10; 2:16 [the latter two “of Christ”]).
348
With the meaning “coming” (as over against “presence”), see 1 Cor 16:17 (Stephanas and Fortunatus); 2 Cor 7:6 (Titus); Phil 1:26 (Paul).
349
For the full statistical data, see G. D. Fee, Pauline Christology (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007), 26.
350
This illustration came to mind because in the three weeks prior to the time of writing two sets of parents in our church house group had newborn girls. One can hardly miss the sheer delight such an event has been for them, and for those of us who have weekly been with them during the months of pregnancy, from the initial announcement to the actual birth. And that delight is what also enables the mothers to endure the early months of weariness, which is visible to the eye but seems minimal in comparison with the joy.
351
The TNIV here reflects what is almost certainly Paul’s original text (τὸν ἀδελϕὸν ἡμων καὶ συνεργὸν τoυ θεoυ [D* 33 b Ambrosiaster, read also by B, but without the τoυ θεoυ]), since it is the only one that can adequately explain the great diversity in the tradition. The problem, of course, even for ancient scribes, is that it looks as if Paul had said “our brother and God’s co-worker” (which in fact is the wording of the ESV!), which borders on nonsense in terms of Pauline usage and theology. The earliest, and primary, option was to substitute διάκoνoν for συνεργόν (“our brother and God’s servant”; so
A P Ψ 0278 6 81 629* 1241 1739 pc lat co; Basil). Although this reading is preferred by some (RSV, Morris [94-95]), if it were original it would be nearly impossible to explain how the other variations came about (as Marshall, 90, correctly recognizes). The later (Majority) text conflated the two early texts, reading τὸν ἀδελϕὸν ἡμων καὶ διάκoνoν τoυ θεoυ καὶ συνεργὸν ἡμων (“our brother, and minister of God, and our fellow labourer,” KJV, NKJV).
ν καὶ συνεργὸν τoυ θεoυ [D* 33 b Ambrosiaster, read also by B, but without the τoυ θεoυ]), since it is the only one that can adequately explain the great diversity in the tradition. The problem, of course, even for ancient scribes, is that it looks as if Paul had said “our brother and God’s co-worker” (which in fact is the wording of the ESV!), which borders on nonsense in terms of Pauline usage and theology. The earliest, and primary, option was to substitute διάκoνoν for συνεργόν (“our brother and God’s servant”; soA P Ψ 0278 6 81 629* 1241 1739 pc lat co; Basil). Although this reading is preferred by some (RSV, Morris [94-95]), if it were original it would be nearly impossible to explain how the other variations came about (as Marshall, 90, correctly recognizes). The later (Majority) text conflated the two early texts, reading τὸν ἀδελϕὸν ἡμων καὶ διάκoνoν τoυ θεoυ καὶ συνεργὸν ἡμων (“our brother, and minister of God, and our fellow labourer,” KJV, NKJV).352
Paul’s Greek sentence has the ὑμας (“you”) immediately after στηρίξαι (“to strengthen”), which the TNIV has chosen to put with the second word, “encourage,” and thus making it do double duty. Later scribes chose to repeat the ὑμας after the second infinitive, thus the KJV’s “to establish you, and to comfort you.” Although a bit awkward to put into good English, Paul’s own sentence appears to intend the ὑμας to be the object of the first verb (στηρίξαι) only, with the phrase “about your faith” as the object of the verb “to encourage.” Thus: “to strengthen you and to encourage regarding your faith.”
ς (“you”) immediately after στηρίξαι (“to strengthen”), which the TNIV has chosen to put with the second word, “encourage,” and thus making it do double duty. Later scribes chose to repeat the ὑμας after the second infinitive, thus the KJV’s “to establish you, and to comfort you.” Although a bit awkward to put into good English, Paul’s own sentence appears to intend the ὑμας to be the object of the first verb (στηρίξαι) only, with the phrase “about your faith” as the object of the verb “to encourage.” Thus: “to strengthen you and to encourage regarding your faith.”353
Gk. διό, which appears again in 5:11, and frequently in 2 Corinthians.
354
Gk στέγω, a verb that occurs again in v. 5, and elsewhere only twice more in Paul (1 Cor 9:12 and 13:7 [Love “endures” all things]).
355
On the issue of “alone,” as to whether it refers to Paul only or to Paul and Silas, see K. P. Donfried, “Was Timothy in Athens? Some Exegetical Reflections on 1 Thess. 3.1-3,” in Paul, Thessalonica, and Early Christianity (London: T&T Clark, 2002), 209-19 (which appeared first in German in the Knoch Festschrift [Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1991], 189-96), who argues for “Paul only”; cf. Malherbe, 190. See also A. Wainwright, “Where Did Silas Go? (And What Was His Connection with Galatians?),” JSNT 8 (1980), 66-70, who conjectures that Silas had also been sent off somewhere (perhaps to Galatia). On the usage itself see C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 119.
356
Richard (152) is an exception. He rejects Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians and assumes that the mention of Athens here means that Paul was in Athens at the time of writing — which simply cannot be known.
357
This is not to say it cannot be done (cf. the preceding note), but rather that we are left with only possibilities and conjectures.
358
As with the recurring plural vocative “brothers [and sisters],” this designation at least includes Timothy as a fellow member of the Christian community; but the “our” in this case is probably intended to emphasize the closer, nearly familial bond that he has with Timothy. On the other hand, when Timothy’s name is joined to that of Paul in later salutations, this is the regular way of referring to him (2 Cor 1:1; Col 1:1; Phlm 1). E. E. Ellis (“Paul and His Co-Workers,” NTS 17 [1971], 437-52) is willing to include this as a “title” for Paul’s co-workers, but that seems a bit of a stretch and is rejected by most NT scholars, although Wanamaker (128) is willing to allow that “it clearly designates Timothy as Paul’s co-worker in this passage.” Perhaps, but not necessarily, since that is what the next word is intended to do.
359
And this despite the aorist ἐπέμΨαμεν, which would then have been understood as an “epistolary aorist,” meaning something put into the past tense from the perspective not of the writer but from that of the recipients in their having received the letter.
360
Although this passage (1 Cor 3:9) has sometimes been used to justify the wrong meaning here (e.g., Frame, 127; Bruce, 61), that totally misses Paul’s grammar in that case, where he uses the vernacular possessive (where the possessive is fronted) three times to emphasize that everyone (Paul, Apollos, the Corinthians) belongs to God and not to mere human beings. See the full argumentation in G. D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 134. It is this clear passage in 1 Corinthians that dictates how the combination should be understood in this earlier one.
361
This misunderstanding is put boldly in the ESV (“our brother and God’s co-worker”); it was also so understood by Ellicott (37), Lightfoot (41), Milligan (37), Frame (127), and now by Wanamaker (128), Richard (150), Holmes (97), Malherbe (191); Witherington (92), and W.-H. Ollrog, Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979), 68-71. It is properly rejected by Green (159-60) and Beale (96). See the discussion in B. M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (rev. ed. with Bart Ehrman; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 240-42; and G. D. Fee and M. L. Strauss, How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 79-80. Thus those who who make a great deal out of human beings’ working together with God are involved in modern wishfulness rather than an exposition of Paul! Indeed, it is precisely the possibility of such misunderstanding that caused early scribes to tinker with the text in the first place.
362
Gk. στηρίζεσθαι; see further 3:13; 2 Thess 2:17; 3:3, the next two of which (3:13; 2 Thess 2:17) appear in his two major prayer reports in these two letters, and the final one (2 Thess 3:3) as a promissory note as to what the Lord will do for them.
363
Cf. Best (137, on v. 5): “. . . faith is a many-sided and complex conception.”
364
Gk. θλίΨεσιν (θλĩΨις); cf. 1:6, where the T/NIV rendered it “[severe] suffering.” This is one of the more difficult words to represent with adequate English; in fact, of its 45 occurrences in the NT the NIV rendered it 15 different ways. Nonetheless, “trials” is unique to the T/NIV among the English translations (as is the thoroughly inadequate “trouble” in 2 Thess 1:6), since the English word “trials” seldom picks up the sense of “oppression, affliction, tribulation” (BDAG [“trouble that inflicts distress”]) that is inherent in the Greek word. A person may bring “trials” upon oneself; this word implies “affliction” that is not of one’s own doing, but comes from an outside source or sources.
365
See, e.g., Frame (127) and Hiebert (133-35).
366
Gk. σαίνω, a NT hapax legomenon (once-only word), and an otherwise rare verb in Greek, for which there had been very little external evidence until a 1941 papyrus discovery that contained the word with the present meaning; see H. Chadwick, “1 Thess. 3:3: σαίνεσθαι,” JTS 1 (1950), 156-58; and now Malherbe, 192-93.
367
Among commentaries in English see Lightfoot (42), Milligan (38), Frame (128), Morris (96), Richard (141-42), and Hiebert (133-35), a view that has led to a number of interesting conjectures as to how it might work at this point in Paul’s argument! The implication is that of the “tail-wagging dog” who is “trying to win favor by an ingratiating manner, fawn upon, flatter” (BDAG 1), a view that was also argued for by N. Baumert, “ ‘Wir lassen uns nicht beirren’: Semantische Fragen in 1 Thess 3,2f,” FilolNT 5 (1992), 45-60; cf. J. A. Heikel, “1. Thess. 3,2,” TSK 106 (1935), 316 (“deluded”). For those who favor the TNIV reading, see Malherbe (192-93), Green (161), H. Chadwick (previous note), and E. Bammel, “Preparation for the Perils of the Last Days: 1 Thessalonians 3:3,” in Suffering and Martrydom in the New Testament: Studies Presented to G. M. Styler by the Cambridge New Testament Seminar (ed. W. Horbury and B. McNeil; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 91-100. Others have chosen to emend the text: R. Perdelwitz, “Zu σαίνεσθαι ἐν ταĩς θλĩΨεσιν ταύταις, 1 Thess. 3,3,” TSK 86 (1913), 613- 15 [δειλαίνεσθαι, “not be cowardly”]; A. D. Knox, “Tὸ μηδένα σαίνεσθαι ἐν ταĩς θλίΨεσιν ταύταις (1 Thess. iii.3),” JTS 25 (1924), 290-91 (παθαίνεσθαι, “be filled with emotion”); and E. Nestle, “I Thess. iii.3,” ExpTim 18 (1907), 361-62, and St. John R. Parry, “σαίνεσθαι, I Thess. iii 3,” JTS 25 (1923/24), 405, who both opt for σιαίνεσθαι (“to be disheartened”), a view then picked up by Louw and Nida (1:374), Richard (141-42), and Beale (97) — although the lexical evidence for this view is especially thin. Rigaux has a full two-page discussion of these alternatives (470-71) before rejecting all of them.
368
Gk. θλĩΨις (cf. n. 49 on 1:6); see further BDAG 1, whose first meaning is “trouble that inflicts distress,” hence “oppression, affliction, tribulation.” There seems to be no adequate reason for an understanding of this word, used always in this sense in Paul, as having in this one instance to do with being deceived by an ingratiating attitude toward them.
369
The contrast is thus between στηρίξαι (to strengthen) and σαίνεσθαι (to unsettle); cf. Findlay, 66.
370
For this emphasis see n. 13 on 2:1 above.
371
Gk. κείμεθα, whose primary meaning is to “lie” or “recline”; but it has taken on a considerable number of extended meanings such as this one, which, with the addition of διὰ τoυτo (for this reason), means “to be there for this cause,” thus “to be destined” for something.
τo (for this reason), means “to be there for this cause,” thus “to be destined” for something.372
This nicely represents Paul’s καὶ γάρ, a combination that in cases like this means something close to “for even/also.”
373
Gk. πρoελέγoμεν, which in the imperfect adds the “kept telling you” dimension to the verb.
374
Gk. καθὼς καὶ ἐγένετo καὶ oἴδατε, (lit.) “just as it both happened and you know.” The T/NIV has nicely handled this awkwardness. Although the NRSV (“so it turned out”) has moved away from the “came to pass” language of the KJV tradition (ASV, RSV), it can still be found in the NASU and ESV, even though such “biblish” no longer has meaning in English.
375
Both the NLT and ESV translators have chosen to make this sentence begin a new paragraph. Thus rather than seeing it as forming an inclusio with v. 1, as both the Greek and English traditions have had it, they apparently see Paul as starting up again. But in both translations it appears to fit quite awkwardly as an “introduction” to what follows.
376
This is the second of the five occurrences of the first singular in these letters; see n. 15 above (on 2:18).
377
But see 2 Cor 4:4, which is the notable exception (“The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers so that they cannot see the light of the gospel”).
378
Besides 2 Cor 4:4 (see the previous note), see, e.g., 1 Cor 7:5 and 2 Cor 2:11.
379
See further my discussion of this issue regarding Phil 2:16 in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 250: “[Paul’s] answer seems to be twofold. On the one hand, such an expression as this makes sense only if such a potential really exists; on the other hand, Paul has such confidence in God regarding his converts that it would be unthinkable to him that the potential would ever be realized.”
380
In place of Paul’s θεῳ (“God”), several early manuscripts have κυρίῳ (
* D* F G a b vgmss), probably under the influence of the κυρίῳ that concludes the preceding sentence (our v. 8). The same phenomenon is repeated by the scribe of
for the next occurrence of “God” in this sentence.
(“God”), several early manuscripts have κυρίῳ (* D* F G a b vgmss), probably under the influence of the κυρίῳ that concludes the preceding sentence (our v. 8). The same phenomenon is repeated by the scribe offor the next occurrence of “God” in this sentence.381
See my commentary on Philippians in this series (pp. 2-7) for the larger discussion of friendship in the Greco-Roman world.
382
See further M. M. Mitchell, “New Testament Envoys in the Context of Greco-Roman Diplomatic and Epistolary Convention: The Example of Timothy and Titus,” JBL 111 (1992), 641-62.
383
So also BDAG, who do not even offer the alternative understanding for this passage — for good reason, since there is no analogy in Paul for it, and the two analogies to this passage that do exist clearly intend a temporal “now” (Gal 1:10; 1 Cor 13:12b). The view adopted by the NIV (and kept in the TNIV; cf. now NRSV, NAB) can be traced back to Lightfoot (44); it was then picked up by Findlay (70), Milligan (40), Frame (131), Bruce (66), and Richard (158); but in this case it tends to miss what Paul is doing by too much.
384
A construction in Greek that has no English equivalent. It is in fact an adverbial clause (dependent on the main verb, v. 7), whose subject and verb are different from those in the main clause, to which it stands in a normally (as here) temporal relationship. Thus, “But now, since Timothy has come . . . , we have been greatly comforted. . . .”
385
Richard (157) sees this double prepositional phrase as emphasizing both “to us” and “from you,” thus suggesting that Timothy’s return had a semimissional aspect to it as well. He is now their envoy back to Paul. But that seems to be a bit of a stretch, since nothing further in the passage either reflects or emphasizes such a perspective.
386
Gk. εὐαγγελισαμένoυ, its only occurrence in these two letters, and the only place in the corpus where it is not about “preaching the gospel”; here Paul is reflecting LXX usage (e.g., 2 Sam 18:19; Isa 60:6). Apart from two occurrences in Ephesians, its later usage is otherwise limited to the four major letters of the third missionary journey (1- 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans). Some would make the present usage also refer to a form of “proclaiming the gospel” (e.g., Masson [41], Best [139-40], Marshall [94], Beale [103]), but that seems to go quite beyond present concerns — although Wanamaker (133) surmises that it might be a kind of wordplay on the ultimate good news of the gospel.
387
So also Gaventa, 44. Some see this as internal to the Thessalonian community of believers (Ellicott, 41; Wanamaker, 134), others as “love” in general (Findlay, 70; Best, 140 [although he suggests that it thus includes love for Paul], Morris, 101). Green (167) sees it as twofold (“mutual love” and “love for God”). It is of some interest that so few see the word as related to the immediate situation — as though Paul were suddenly “spiritualizing” in some way. Since “faith” in this phrase is not “in general” but is especially case specific, why, one wonders, does “love” suddenly lose that same specificity?
388
Gk. ἐπιπoθoυντες, the first of seven occurrences in Paul’s letters, once regarding the future bodily state (2 Cor 5:2); otherwise simply as a “longing for” someone (Phil 2:8; 2:26; cf. 2 Cor 9:14 between believers); but also, as here, “to see” someone (cf. Rom 1:11; 2 Tim 1:4). See further C. Spicq, “’Eπιπoθεĩν, Désirer ou chérir?” RB 64 (1957), 184-95.
ντες, the first of seven occurrences in Paul’s letters, once regarding the future bodily state (2 Cor 5:2); otherwise simply as a “longing for” someone (Phil 2:8; 2:26; cf. 2 Cor 9:14 between believers); but also, as here, “to see” someone (cf. Rom 1:11; 2 Tim 1:4). See further C. Spicq, “’Eπιπoθεĩν, Désirer ou chérir?” RB 64 (1957), 184-95.389
Gk. διὰ τoυτo (lit. “because of this” = “for this reason,” referring to the content of v. 6), which is slightly stronger than the ordinary o
ν.
τo (lit. “because of this” = “for this reason,” referring to the content of v. 6), which is slightly stronger than the ordinary oν.390
Gk. διὰ της ὑμων πίστεως, where διά with the genitive expresses “effective cause,” not the basis for something, as with διά with the accusative. The enclosed ὑμων, rare enough in Paul so as always to be attention-getting, in its own way puts the emphasis on the Thessalonians’ own continuing to be faithful in their faith.
ς ὑμων πίστεως, where διά with the genitive expresses “effective cause,” not the basis for something, as with διά with the accusative. The enclosed ὑμων, rare enough in Paul so as always to be attention-getting, in its own way puts the emphasis on the Thessalonians’ own continuing to be faithful in their faith.391
Paul’s Greek here takes the unusual form of ἐάν with the indicative, instead of the normal subjunctive, as all first-year Greek students dutifully learn. For its usage here see the comments below.
392
Cf. Marshall (96), “. . . it emphasises its factuality and at the same time contains an implicit admonition to them to continue to stand fast and not be moved by their afflictions.”
393
When the verb “to give thanks” is turned into a noun, as here, this would seem to be the only proper word to use in English. As Morris rightly observes: “not ‘thanks’ but the expression of thanks is meant.”
394
Gk. ἀνταπoδoυναι, a verb which can be either positive or negative depending on the circumstances. When used again in 2 Thess 1:6, it will have to do with God’s just retribution on the rebellious.
ναι, a verb which can be either positive or negative depending on the circumstances. When used again in 2 Thess 1:6, it will have to do with God’s just retribution on the rebellious.395
It occurs here in the genitive case, which = “time within which”; thus in the present clause it probably means something like “whenever praying during the night and day.”
396
Gk. ὑπερεκπερισσoυ, which will recur again in 5:13 (cf. Eph 3:20).
, which will recur again in 5:13 (cf. Eph 3:20).397
Cf., e.g., how this clause is handled by such diverse translations as the NRSV (“restore whatever is lacking”), NAB (“remedy the deficiencies”); REB (“make good whatever is lacking”); NJB (“make up any shortcomings”).
398
Cf. Best, 144-45.
399
Several Greek MSS (D G 6 81 104 326 1175 pc) and early versions (Vulgate, Bohairic) added Xριστός here, so that it made its way into the KJV. See also the next two notes. Because this one is so poorly attested, it was not even included in the apparatus of the Nestle-Aland Greek text.
400
A few MSS (D* [but not d] G syr) add ’Iησoυς but not Xριστός, thus conforming it to v. 11 (and at a earlier stage the addition of Xριστός to the latter phrase, but not here).
ς but not Xριστός, thus conforming it to v. 11 (and at a earlier stage the addition of Xριστός to the latter phrase, but not here).401
As in v. 1, several MSS add Xριστός here as well (G Ψ 16 104 319 321 1912 1738 al). H. Koester, “The Text of the New Testament,” in The Living Text (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1985), is ready to argue for it as original, but that seems most highly unlikely here.
402
Many manuscripts have added an ἀμήν to this prayer (
* A D2 33 MajT); it is missing in
2 B D* F G Ψ 0278 6 104 365 1175 1505 1739 1881 pc syh. It is hard to imagine the circumstances in which so many early and excellent witnesses would have omitted it had it been original.
* A D2 33 MajT); it is missing in2 B D* F G Ψ 0278 6 104 365 1175 1505 1739 1881 pc syh. It is hard to imagine the circumstances in which so many early and excellent witnesses would have omitted it had it been original.403
Since all the verbs in this and the following prayer are in the optative mood, G. P. Wiles calls them “wish-prayers,” to distinguish them from more direct prayers (Paul’s Intercessory Prayers: The Significance of the Intercessory Prayer Passages in the Letters of Paul [SNTSMS 24; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974]). He defines “wish-prayer” as “the expression of a desire that God take action regarding the person (s) mentioned in the wish” (p. 22). But as Bruce (70-71) points out, that is a somewhat artificial distinction, since there is little difference between the imperative (“Arise, Lord”) in Num 10:35 and the “Let God arise” in Ps 68:1. Wiles’s study also has the misfortune of limiting the “letters of Paul” to the seven accepted by all (and therefore excluding 2 Thessalonians), and unfortunately downplays the role of Christ in the prayer altogether (as belonging to “conventional language”). But how so, one wonders, when this phenomenon exists only in 1 and 2 Thessalonians in the NT — although such “wish-prayers” continue to be found in Paul’s letters. Indeed, this is such an incredible lapse, especially in light of vv. 12-13 that follow, that one can only wonder how it got past editors.
404
This begins in 2 Thess 1:11-12; cf. Col 1:9-11; Eph 1:17-23; Phil 1:9-11. The relatively brief number of these, and the quite different ways they find expression, should probably cause NT scholars to be a bit more cautious in the way they make some pronouncements about “what Paul ordinarily does.”
405
Thus the language “benediction” seems to be a misnomer for this prayer, as in R. Jewett, “The Form and Function of the Homiletic Benediction,” ATR 51 (1969), 18-34.
406
So that the prayer in 3:12-13 and the first two items in ch. 4, where he “supplies what is lacking,” end up in a chiastic form (AB BA). The emphasis in both cases (coming last and then first) is on their holiness.
407
Paul’s own word order is αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ ἡμων, which the KJV rendered rather woodenly as “now God himself and our Father,” which might have worked had the καί been treated as ascensive: “May God himself, even our Father.” But the word order here is typical for these two letters, where a modifier (αὐτός and ἡμων in this case) stands on either side of compound nouns and both modifiers are intended to go with the compound. Lock (136) would see the αὐτός as going with both Father and Son, but v. 12 suggests otherwise. Lightfoot (50) doubts whether the αὐτός is emphatic, since it is a stylistic pattern in these earliest two letters (5:23; 2 Thess 2:16; 3:16 and elsewhere on 2 Cor 10:1). But when Paul uses it of himself in the latter passage, it has all the earmarks of emphasis.
ν, which the KJV rendered rather woodenly as “now God himself and our Father,” which might have worked had the καί been treated as ascensive: “May God himself, even our Father.” But the word order here is typical for these two letters, where a modifier (αὐτός and ἡμων in this case) stands on either side of compound nouns and both modifiers are intended to go with the compound. Lock (136) would see the αὐτός as going with both Father and Son, but v. 12 suggests otherwise. Lightfoot (50) doubts whether the αὐτός is emphatic, since it is a stylistic pattern in these earliest two letters (5:23; 2 Thess 2:16; 3:16 and elsewhere on 2 Cor 10:1). But when Paul uses it of himself in the latter passage, it has all the earmarks of emphasis.408
Gk. κατευθύναι τὴν ὁδὸν ἡμων, aorist optative, ordinarily used in a prayer-wish. The verb has to do with “making/creating a straight path” for some one to walk in.
ν, aorist optative, ordinarily used in a prayer-wish. The verb has to do with “making/creating a straight path” for some one to walk in.409
Also rather consistently it was rendered κύριoς without the article, probably as a way of distinguishing it from the rendering of Adonai itself as ὁ κύριoς (“the Lord”).
410
This is made clear by the fact that Paul assumes these matters without any explanation, including not even a reminder of what they have been taught.
411
The christological significance of this passage has had a long history in the church, appearing as early as in Athanasius’s Contra Arian 3.11.
412
Some have tried to get around the clear implications of this grammatical point, but that will hardly work. Since the emphatic αὐτός is intended to go with only the Father, and therefore the verb must include him, the singular verb can scarcely be thought of as now referring only to Christ, the second divine “person” mentioned.
413
This is the language of Wiles, Prayers, 30.
414
As Wiles does by implication in his discussion of this prayer (Prayers, 54-55). Indeed, he only begrudgingly allows a place for Christ in the prayer at all — despite the fact that Christ is explicitly called upon in vv. 12-13. Christ’s role in fact is limited to a single note, in which it is suggested that “perhaps Jesus was regarded as the divine agent of the requested action, as in the following verse [v. 12!]” (55 n. 3). That hardly takes seriously what Paul himself says. Cf. Calvin (356): “When . . . [Paul] speaks of both in the same terms, he teaches us that Christ possesses divinity and power in common with the Father.”
415
Gk. ὑμας δέ (“but as for you”), which is nearly impossible to put into good English, as the more rigid “literal” translations (NASU, ESV) demonstrate.
ς δέ (“but as for you”), which is nearly impossible to put into good English, as the more rigid “literal” translations (NASU, ESV) demonstrate.416
The two verbs are characterized by assonance (πλεoνάσαι / περισσεύσαι) and are near synonyms (“cause to increase” / “cause to abound”). The dative modifier in this case (τ
ἀγάπῃ, “with love”) probably expresses “manner,” having to do with the way in which he wants them to abound. Cf. Phil 1:9.
ἀγάπῃ, “with love”) probably expresses “manner,” having to do with the way in which he wants them to abound. Cf. Phil 1:9.417
The clause reads (lit.) “so that he may strengthen your hearts blamelessly in holiness in the presence of our God and Father at the Parousia of our Lord, Jesus, with his holy ones.” The problem ultimately is with the verb “he may strengthen,” which is a strongly transitive verb and thus does not seem to fit the sentence well, as the “result” of what he prays in v. 12. On the other hand, that for which Paul prays will happen only as the “heart” has been “strengthened.”
418
Gk. στηρίξαι (third singular optative of στηρίζω); see n. 39 on v. 2 above. It is perhaps noteworthy here that Paul will refer to this need of the Thessalonians to be “strengthened” two further times in 2 Thessalonians, in the prayer in 2:17 and as a word of encouragement in 3:3. The first is directed toward God the Father, the second is with regard to Christ the Son, thus reflecting again the easy interchange Paul can make between Father and Son in terms of both prayer and expectation of fulfillment.
419
For this combination (“strengthen your heart”) see Ps 104:14 (LXX 103:15) and Sir 6:37 (cf. Jas 5:8).
420
See on 2:10 above regarding Paul’s and his companions’ own conduct among these believers.
421
The primary differences are the case and word order of “all” and “the holy ones.” But this is an echo, after all, not a citation; thus Paul has adapted it to his own sentence. The adaptation includes the article with κυρίoυ, in this case caused by his addition of the possessive pronoun “our.”
422
This can be seen more easily in the Greek text itself: Paul — ἐν τ
παρoυσίᾳ τoυ κυρίoυ ἡμων ’Iησoυ
μετὰ πάντων των ἁγίων αὐτoυ. Zech — καὶ ἥξει κύριoς ὁ θεός μoυ καὶ πάντες oἱ ἅγιoι μετ’ αὐτoυ For further discussion see Fee, Pauline Christology, 43-44.
παρoυσίᾳ τoυ κυρίoυ ἡμων ’Iησoυ
μετὰ πάντων των ἁγίων αὐτoυ. Zech — καὶ ἥξει κύριoς ὁ θεός μoυ καὶ πάντες oἱ ἅγιoι μετ’ αὐτoυ For further discussion see Fee, Pauline Christology, 43-44.423
For this usage as referring to believers, but without taking the intertextual use of Zechariah with seriousness, see, among others, Calvin (357), Ellicott (47), Findlay (77); for those who understand it as expounded here see Best (152-53), Marshall (102-3), Wanamaker (145), Richard (177-78), Malherbe (214), Green (181), Witherington (104); cf. J. M. Ross, “1 Thessalonians 3:13,” BT 26 (1975), 444, and R. L. Omanson, “Comings and Goings in the Bible,” BT 46 (1995), 112-19. Lightfoot (50), Milligan (45), Bruce (73- 74), Morris (111-12), and Holmes (116) suggest that it might include both angels and God’s people. Beale (110-11) remains ambivalent.
424
On the usage in 2 Thess 1:10, see the discussion ad loc.
425
This strong statement tends regularly to raise the question of whether the Thessalonians themselves would have picked up the echo. But that is raised by people who know their Bibles far less well than these early believers would have. After all, since the vast majority of them could not read (only between 15 to 20 percent would have been literate), but were read to, their memories of the written word by and large would have been infinitely better than those of a generation raised on television! The best analogy would be the parent (or grandparent, etc.) who reads a favorite book aloud (for the umpteenth time?) to a three-year-old who knows the tale practically by heart. When one either by accident or deliberately changes any of the words, the universal, and usually indignant, response by the “illiterate” child is, “Grandpa, that’s not how the story goes!” The point is that persons such as these early Thessalonian believers, who could not read for themselves but were regularly read to, would have known these biblical texts far better than most contemporary Christians do.
426
For the sake of seeing these data more clearly, I have chosen a more concordant rendering of the various passages.
427
Apparently because of the complexity of the present sentence, the original NIV translators chose not to have Paul’s o
ν explicitly represented in English. In doing so they followed a tradition that can be traced back to Codex Vaticanus (B), which was reflected later in the loosely related minuscules 33 629 630 1175 1739, and in parts of several versions (Latin [Vulgate], Syriac [Peshitta], Coptic [Bohairic]).
ν explicitly represented in English. In doing so they followed a tradition that can be traced back to Codex Vaticanus (B), which was reflected later in the loosely related minuscules 33 629 630 1175 1739, and in parts of several versions (Latin [Vulgate], Syriac [Peshitta], Coptic [Bohairic]).428
In rearranging Paul’s sentence so as to make sense of it in contemporary English, the NIV translators of necessity also dropped the redundant ἵνα with which this clause begins. This was anticipated throughout much of the copying and translating tradition (
A D2 Ψ 1739 1881
syh). To keep the ἵνα one must resort to very cumbersome English, as found in the NASU (“we request and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that [ἵνα], just as you received instruction as to how you ought to walk and please God, . . . that [ἵνα] you may excel still more.”
A D2 Ψ 1739 1881syh). To keep the ἵνα one must resort to very cumbersome English, as found in the NASU (“we request and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that [ἵνα], just as you received instruction as to how you ought to walk and please God, . . . that [ἵνα] you may excel still more.”429
A third way ancient scribes tried to alleviate this sentence was by omitting this (for us, as well as for them) awkward repetition of καθὼς καὶ περιπατεĩτε (“just as you are walking”); modern “literal” translations (NASU, NRSV) resort to parentheses to make it work in English (ESV has commas). The omission was a very late move (D2 Ψ
) that nonetheless found its way into the Majority Text that lies behind the KJV and NKJV.
) that nonetheless found its way into the Majority Text that lies behind the KJV and NKJV.430
On this whole question see G. D. Fee and M. L. Strauss, How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007). In this case the TNIV has made the text more readable, and thus understandable, in English by a slight rearrangement of Paul’s word order. The goal of good translation, after all, is meaning, not a wooden reproduction of the Greek into unnatural English.
431
Especially the so-called “literal” translations (ASV, N/RSV, NASB/U, ESV), since it is a false conception of “literal” to imply that this adverb means “finally” in the present context. What is more surprising is that the same adverb appears in “dynamic equivalent” translations (e.g., NAB, NJB, GNB, NLT), including the NIV, which has been rightly corrected in the TNIV with its “as for other matters.”
432
Cf. Bruce (78): “for the rest, then.” Others recognize this intent, but are satisfied to leave “finally” in their text and to interpret it more broadly (e.g., Green, 182).
433
E.g., P. Oxy. 744 (ἐρωτω σε καὶ παρακαλω σε); P. Oxy. 294 (ἐρωτω δέ σε καὶ παρακαλω); for others see the list in Rigaux (497).
σε καὶ παρακαλω σε); P. Oxy. 294 (ἐρωτω δέ σε καὶ παρακαλω); for others see the list in Rigaux (497).434
Gk. ἐρωτωμεν, the ordinary verb for “asking,” but which in contexts like these is most likely intended to take on a bit stronger sense than the milder English word “ask.”
μεν, the ordinary verb for “asking,” but which in contexts like these is most likely intended to take on a bit stronger sense than the milder English word “ask.”435
Gk. παρακαλoυμεν, Paul’s most common verb for exhortation or appeal with regard to proper conduct. See above on 2:12 and 3:12; cf. 4:10, 18; 5:11, 14 below. The verb occurs some 55 times in the corpus, usually with this sense, but see 3:7 above, where in the passive it takes on the extended meaning of being “comforted.” The TNIV’s “urge” works nicely here.
μεν, Paul’s most common verb for exhortation or appeal with regard to proper conduct. See above on 2:12 and 3:12; cf. 4:10, 18; 5:11, 14 below. The verb occurs some 55 times in the corpus, usually with this sense, but see 3:7 above, where in the passive it takes on the extended meaning of being “comforted.” The TNIV’s “urge” works nicely here.436
Cf. Best (156), “[The phrase] connects writers and readers; both are related to Christ; both are within the church; it is only because of this that Paul can ask and request them and that they will accept his instruction.”
437
The GNB renders it, “in the name of the Lord Jesus,” which adds an element (the authority of the name) not intended by Paul, whose emphasis is on their common existence in Christ. The REB pushes the meaning a bit with its “as fellow-Christians.” The phrase, it should perhaps be noted, goes with both verbs, “ask” and “appeal” (so also Frame, 142).
438
Gk. περιπατεĩν, the verb for “walking”; for Pauline usage see n. 112 on 2:12 above.
439
On the reasons for putting “faith” in quotation marks, see the comments above on 3:2b-3a.
440
Cf. Frame (143), “second tactful reminder.”
441
For this language see the TNIV on 5:14, and the comments on pp. 209-10 below.
442
On the larger issue of the relationship of this passage to Pauline ethics in general, see ch. 7 in B. Rosner, Understanding Paul’s Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 351-60, entitled “Seven Questions for Paul’s Ethics: 1 Thessalonians 4:1-12 as a Case Study.” For other studies on this passage see J. A. D. Weima, “ ‘How You Must Walk to Please God’: Holiness and Discipleship in 1 Thessalonians 4:1-12,” in Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament (ed. R. N. Longenecker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 98-119; and O. L. Yarbrough, “The Precepts of Marriage and Sexual Morality in 1 Thess 4:3-8,” in Not like the Gentiles: Marriage Rules in the Letters of Paul (SBLDS 80; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 65-87.
443
The TNIV has put into proper English Paul’s Greek, which comes by way of a verb and a prepositional phrase: ἀπέχεσθ ε ὑμας ἀπὸ της πoρνείας (“that you stay away from sexual immorality”). Some later scribes turned Paul’s της into πάσης (“every” [
2 Ψ 104 365 1149 syp]) or else simply added it (F G), thus “that you stay away from every kind of sexual immorality.”
ς ἀπὸ της πoρνείας (“that you stay away from sexual immorality”). Some later scribes turned Paul’s της into πάσης (“every” [2 Ψ 104 365 1149 syp]) or else simply added it (F G), thus “that you stay away from every kind of sexual immorality.”444
This is the TNIV’s way of including Paul’s καί, which is bracketed in NA27, but is almost surely Paul’s original text (with
D* F G MajT lat Clement). Although its absence is supported by good manuscripts (A B I 33 1739* b pc), in the final analysis it seems far more likely that scribes omitted it as unnecessary than that it was added (precisely because it is difficult to imagine why they would have done so); cf. the similar expression in 2:12, where no such “addition” exists in the textual evidence. The presence of this καί is especially telling against the various commentators who think the emphasis here is on the substantival idea of “God the giver” rather than on the verbal, “the one who gives.” See the discussion below.
D* F G MajT lat Clement). Although its absence is supported by good manuscripts (A B I 33 1739* b pc), in the final analysis it seems far more likely that scribes omitted it as unnecessary than that it was added (precisely because it is difficult to imagine why they would have done so); cf. the similar expression in 2:12, where no such “addition” exists in the textual evidence. The presence of this καί is especially telling against the various commentators who think the emphasis here is on the substantival idea of “God the giver” rather than on the verbal, “the one who gives.” See the discussion below.445
Gk. δίδoντα (
* B D F G I 365 2464 pc); later witnesses (A J
sy co) changed it to the aorist δόντα, on the pattern of Paul’s usage elsewhere (Rom 5:5; 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; cf. Gal 3:2: 4:6; Rom 8:15). Rigaux (514) adopts it on the pattern of the preceding oὐ ἐκάλεσεν (v. 7; cf. H. Koester, “The Text of the New Testament,” in The Living Text [Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1985], 263), but as Frame (156) had pointed out many years earlier, this is but another reason for later scribes to make the change. As to whether the present tense is significant, see the discussion below.
* B D F G I 365 2464 pc); later witnesses (A Jsy co) changed it to the aorist δόντα, on the pattern of Paul’s usage elsewhere (Rom 5:5; 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; cf. Gal 3:2: 4:6; Rom 8:15). Rigaux (514) adopts it on the pattern of the preceding oὐ ἐκάλεσεν (v. 7; cf. H. Koester, “The Text of the New Testament,” in The Living Text [Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1985], 263), but as Frame (156) had pointed out many years earlier, this is but another reason for later scribes to make the change. As to whether the present tense is significant, see the discussion below.446
The ἡμας (“us”) found in A 6 365 1739 1881 a f m t pc is probably a secondary conformation to the ἡμας found in v. 7. An earlier generation of Catholic scholars adopted this reading and used it as support for the apostolic succession; i.e., to reject Paul’s teaching is the same as to reject God, who gave his Spirit to Paul in order to teach authoritatively. But even if ἡμας were the original reading, it would mean “us Christians collectively” (Frame), as elsewhere in Paul where in semicreedal formulations he changes from the second plural to the all-inclusive first plural (e.g., Gal 4:6).
ς (“us”) found in A 6 365 1739 1881 a f m t pc is probably a secondary conformation to the ἡμας found in v. 7. An earlier generation of Catholic scholars adopted this reading and used it as support for the apostolic succession; i.e., to reject Paul’s teaching is the same as to reject God, who gave his Spirit to Paul in order to teach authoritatively. But even if ἡμας were the original reading, it would mean “us Christians collectively” (Frame), as elsewhere in Paul where in semicreedal formulations he changes from the second plural to the all-inclusive first plural (e.g., Gal 4:6).447
Ps.-Demosthenes, Against Neaera 122 (LCL), 444-47.
448
By the very nature of the argument, and the way it plays out in the whole paragraph, one should probably assume that there was a degree of consent on the part of the woman involved. C. C. Caragounis (“Parainesis on ἁγιασμός (1 Th 4:3-8),” FilolNT 15 [2002], 133-51) has argued that this entire passage should be understood as general paraenesis with no case-specific referent. But that seems especially difficult to maintain in light of the present verse.
449
G. P. Carras (“Jewish Ethics and Gentile Converts: Remarks on 1 Thes 4.3-8,” in R. F. Collins, The Thessalonians Correspondence [BETL 87; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990], 306-15) puts emphasis on the Jewish character of these instructions, but for Paul they have become especially Christian, as the whole argument of the passage indicates.
450
Paul’s sentence reads without this definite article (θέλημα τoυ θεoυ), which apparently was absorbed by the emphatic o
τoς with which the clause began (cf. Bruce, 82). Frame (146) suggests that the present construction may reflect that Paul does not intend to imply that all of God’s will is to be found in what follows; it is God’s will, to be sure, but not the whole of it.
θεoυ), which apparently was absorbed by the emphatic oτoς with which the clause began (cf. Bruce, 82). Frame (146) suggests that the present construction may reflect that Paul does not intend to imply that all of God’s will is to be found in what follows; it is God’s will, to be sure, but not the whole of it.451
Gk. ἁγιασμός, a word that occurs three times in this passage and only five other times in the Pauline corpus (2 Thess 2:13; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 6:19, 22; 1 Tim 2:15); it also occurs only ten times in the LXX.
452
This is not to say that the moralist philosophers were not concerned with moral behavior, but that this concern was never expressed with the language of “holiness.” For this language Paul is altogether indebted to his Jewish roots and the use of the LXX in Diaspora synagogues.
453
Gk. ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμων, a combination found only here in the NT.
ν, a combination found only here in the NT.454
Gk. πoρνεία, which in the Greek world had to do with prostitution, but without pejorative overtones.
455
This was disputed by B. Malina (“Does Porneia Mean Fornication?” NovT 14 [1972], 10-17), who was properly refuted by J. Jensen (“Does Porneia Mean Fornication? A Critique of Bruce Malina,” NovT 20 [1978], 161-84).
456
Frame (147-48) preferred to pick up the meaning of the verb in 5:12 (TNIV, “acknowledge”), which he wanted to extend to the idea of “respect.” But he did so only because he assumes that τὸ ἑαυτoυ σκευoς refers to the man’s “own wife,” which is most highly doubtful. See the discussion below.
σκευoς refers to the man’s “own wife,” which is most highly doubtful. See the discussion below.457
Some would object here that Peter uses this metaphor in 1 Pet 3:7 to refer to one’s wife. But that usage is of very little help in the present case, since “vessel” is used not as a substitute for “wife,” as it would be here, but as a contrast between the “wife” as the weaker “vessel” and the husband, who would be understood as the stronger “vessel”; as such it is almost certainly an indirect reference to her physically. So in the end Peter’s reference could be argued to favor “body” rather than “wife”!
458
Three other options have been offered. (1) For a different take on the option of σκευoς = wife, see H. Baltensweiler, “Erwägungen zu 1 Thess 4.3-8,” TZ 19 (1963), 1-13, who argues that it has to do with a distinctive Greek custom, related to the rights of a daughter who had inherited her father’s property when there were no surviving sons. But this seems not only foreign to the present context, but makes the altogether unlikely assumption that the paragraph is responding to a query from them rather than a matter that has been brought to him by Timothy. See the refutation in Best, 163-64, who thereby also gives it far more time than it would seem to deserve, in terms of its being a live option. (2) J. M. Bassler suggested that Paul is advocating “spiritual marriages,” a view that has found neither takers nor respondents (see “Σκευoς: A Modest Proposal for Illuminating Paul’s Use of Metaphor in 1 Thessalonians 4:4,” in The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks [ed. L. M. White and O. L. Yarbrough; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995], 53- 66). (3) D. Fredrickson argued that Paul is here promoting “passionless sex” (see “Passionless Sex in 1 Thessalonians 4:4-5,” Word & World 23 [2003], 23-30).
oς = wife, see H. Baltensweiler, “Erwägungen zu 1 Thess 4.3-8,” TZ 19 (1963), 1-13, who argues that it has to do with a distinctive Greek custom, related to the rights of a daughter who had inherited her father’s property when there were no surviving sons. But this seems not only foreign to the present context, but makes the altogether unlikely assumption that the paragraph is responding to a query from them rather than a matter that has been brought to him by Timothy. See the refutation in Best, 163-64, who thereby also gives it far more time than it would seem to deserve, in terms of its being a live option. (2) J. M. Bassler suggested that Paul is advocating “spiritual marriages,” a view that has found neither takers nor respondents (see “Σκευoς: A Modest Proposal for Illuminating Paul’s Use of Metaphor in 1 Thessalonians 4:4,” in The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks [ed. L. M. White and O. L. Yarbrough; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995], 53- 66). (3) D. Fredrickson argued that Paul is here promoting “passionless sex” (see “Passionless Sex in 1 Thessalonians 4:4-5,” Word & World 23 [2003], 23-30).459
In his significant and influential article in TDNT (7:358-67), C. Maurer has posited evidence for this usage from the LXX, a view that has been more recently championed in German scholarship by M. Konradt (“Eἰδέναι ἕκαστoν ὑμων τὸ ἑαυτoυ σκευoς κτασθαι . . . : Zu Paulus’ sexualethischer Weisung in 1 Thess 4,4f.,” ZNW 92 [2001], 128- 35); cf. also R. F. Collins, Studies in the First Letter to the Thessalonians (BETL 66; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1984), 299-325. But this represents a highly questionable use of evidence that needs to be recognized for what it is.
ν τὸ ἑαυτoυ σκευoς κτασθαι . . . : Zu Paulus’ sexualethischer Weisung in 1 Thess 4,4f.,” ZNW 92 [2001], 128- 35); cf. also R. F. Collins, Studies in the First Letter to the Thessalonians (BETL 66; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1984), 299-325. But this represents a highly questionable use of evidence that needs to be recognized for what it is.460
This is ambiguous evidence at best, however, since Sirach had no difficulty with using “wife” with this verb, without resorting to a metaphor. There would seem to be a world of difference between saying, as Paul does, τὸ ἑαυτoυ σκευoς κτασθαι (“to ‘acquire’ his own vessel”) and ὁ κτώμενoς γυναĩκα (“he who acquires a wife”).
σκευoς κτασθαι (“to ‘acquire’ his own vessel”) and ὁ κτώμενoς γυναĩκα (“he who acquires a wife”).461
Found only in the NAB and GNB among contemporary English translations. Among older commentaries see Ellicott (52); Lightfoot (54-55); Findlay (81, who noted it as the majority opinion in his day); Frame (149). Among more recent ones see Best (163- 64), Malherbe (226-28), and Witherington (114). C. Maurer gives the most significant argument for this view (TDNT 7:365-67); see also R. F. Collins, “This Is the Will of God: Your Sanctification (1 Thess 4:3),” LTP 39 (1983), 27-53; and O. L. Yarbrough, Not like the Gentiles: Marriage Rules in the Letters of Paul (SBLDS 80; Atlanta: Scholars, 1985), 65-87. But see the rebuttal to Collins and Yarbrough by M. McGehee, “A Rejoinder to Two Recent Studies Dealing with 1 Thess 4:4,” CBQ 51 (1989), 82-89.
462
Some interpreters would object to this on the basis of 1 Pet 3:7; but, as noted, the alleged “parallel” is inexact. So the problem remains that as a metaphor for marriage this usage is otherwise unknown in the ancient world. The appeals to much later rabbinic uses, such as one finds in Maurer, are simply too late to be of use regarding Pauline usage, not to mention the fact (as Wanamaker, 152, points out) that the Thessalonians could not be expected to know Hebrew!
463
Best (162) circumvents this problem by taking the verb in the same durative sense necessary for the next two options.
464
The papyrus evidence from Egypt indicates that the average age of the man at marriage was in his early thirties, while his wife was in her middle/late teens; thus she went directly from the home of her father into that of a husband who had been sexually active for many years.
465
Among translations besides the T/NIV see NRSV, REB, NJB, ESV, NET. Commentators include Milligan (49), Rigaux (504-5), Morris (121), Richard (198), Holmes (126), Green (193-94), and Beale (119).
466
Richard (198) suggests that “Paul employs a metaphorical term to underscore the human being’s function as creature destined to reflect the holiness of the Creator.” But that is surely too sophisticated for the Thessalonians themselves to have caught.
467
This was first suggested by J. Whitton (“A Neglected Meaning for σκευoς in 1 Thessalonians 4:4,” NTS 28 [1982], 142-43), and apparently favored by Bruce (83). I argued strongly for it in GEP, 51 n. 59; cf. now T. Elgvin, “ ‘To Master His Own Vessel’: 1 Thess 4:4 in Light of New Qumran Evidence,” NTS 43 (1997), 604-19; S. Légasse, “Vas suum possidere (1 Th 4,4),” FilolNT 10 (1997), 105-15; R. W. Yarbrough, “Sexual Gratification in 1 Thess 4:1-8,” TrinJ 20 (1999), 215-32; J. E. Smith, “1 Thess 4:4 — Breaking the Impasse,” BBR 11 (2001), 65-105; idem, “Another Look at 4Q416 2 ii.21: A Critical Parallel to First Thessalonians 4:4,” CBQ 63 (2001), 499-504. It is adopted also by Wanamaker (152); Marshall (108-9) leans this way by suggesting “the body in its sexual aspects.”
oς in 1 Thessalonians 4:4,” NTS 28 [1982], 142-43), and apparently favored by Bruce (83). I argued strongly for it in GEP, 51 n. 59; cf. now T. Elgvin, “ ‘To Master His Own Vessel’: 1 Thess 4:4 in Light of New Qumran Evidence,” NTS 43 (1997), 604-19; S. Légasse, “Vas suum possidere (1 Th 4,4),” FilolNT 10 (1997), 105-15; R. W. Yarbrough, “Sexual Gratification in 1 Thess 4:1-8,” TrinJ 20 (1999), 215-32; J. E. Smith, “1 Thess 4:4 — Breaking the Impasse,” BBR 11 (2001), 65-105; idem, “Another Look at 4Q416 2 ii.21: A Critical Parallel to First Thessalonians 4:4,” CBQ 63 (2001), 499-504. It is adopted also by Wanamaker (152); Marshall (108-9) leans this way by suggesting “the body in its sexual aspects.”468
It is of some interest that this understanding was already in place some four centuries ago and appears in both the KJV and Rheims (“how to possess”).
469
This is an OT term used as a way of distinguishing Gentiles from Jews (e.g., Ps 79:6; Jer 10:25). It is possible, given Paul’s later argument in Rom 1:24-27, that “not knowing God” implied idolatry as well.
470
Lightfoot (56) saw this as a result clause, but very few have followed him in this.
471
At least one would think so; but in fact those who see v. 4 as referring to one’s own wife are hard pressed to make sense of this clause. Some in fact have argued for a change of subject matter here; see, e.g., R. Beauvery, “Πλεoνεκτεĩν in 1 Thess 4.6a,” VD 33 (1955), 78-85, a view taken up in commentaries only by Holtzmann and Richard. Even less likely is the suggestion by H. Baltensweiler (“Erwägungen zu I Thess 4.3-8,” TZ 19 [1963], 1-13) that it refers to the Greek law of inheritance, where an only daughter would be required to marry a near kin in order to preserve the family line (see the rebuttal in Best, 163-64). For a refutation, see Collins, Studies, 299-325.
472
Gk. ὑπερβαίνειν, a NT hapax legomenon, which means to “transgress” by “going beyond proper limits in behavior” (BDAG), thus “overstep the boundaries.”
473
Gk. πλεoνεκτεĩν, otherwise in Paul only in 2 Corinthians, where Paul defines Satan in this way (2:11) or where he defends himself against such charges from within the community (7:2; 12:17, 18).
474
Lightfoot (57) would expand this to mean “his neighbor,” but Paul’s own use of familial language seems to preclude such a view. Paul’s concern is similar to that expressed by the moral philosopher Musonius Rufus (frag. 12): “But of all sexual relations those involving adultery are most unlawful.”
475
Gk. ἐν τῳ πράγματι, which Calvin (359-60) and others, picking up on the verb πλεoνεκτεĩν, see as greed. But the further explanation in verse 7 seems to preclude such an understanding. Marshall (111), perhaps correctly, sees it as yet another euphemism for sexual relations.
πράγματι, which Calvin (359-60) and others, picking up on the verb πλεoνεκτεĩν, see as greed. But the further explanation in verse 7 seems to preclude such an understanding. Marshall (111), perhaps correctly, sees it as yet another euphemism for sexual relations.476
Paul concludes his clause with περὶ πάντων τoύτων = “regarding all these things,” where one surmises that he intends “regarding all such matters as the present one.”
477
See, e.g., Morris, 124; Richard, 204; Malherbe, 233 — although the latter admits that Paul sees Christ as “judge” (185-86, 212 on 1 Thess 2:19). Most others correctly see that Paul’s otherwise exclusive use of κύριoς to refer to Christ should determine its meaning here, especially (as Frame, 158; Best, 166; and Marshall, 112, point out) in light of the emphatic ὁ θεός that follows in v. 7. So also E. S. Steele, “Jewish Scripture in 1 Thessalonians,” BTB 14 (1984), 15. Marshall, 112; Wanamaker, 156; and Beale, 122 (following Marshall), are the few who note that Paul is here using the language of Ps 94:1 (LXX). Richard (204) makes the remarkable comment that it must refer to God because Paul is using OT language here — a comment that seems insensitive to Paul’s regular application of OT (LXX) κύριoς language to Christ; on this larger question see my Pauline Christology (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007), passim.
478
Gk. ἐπί, which with the dative (as here) is a “marker of object or purpose.”
479
On the distinctions between the prepositions here, see N. Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1965), 121 — although his conclusions are probably a bit overstated.
480
Gk. τoιγαρoυν, a combination of τoί (emphazing the reliability of what follows), γάρ (usually a marker of “cause”), and o
ν (the ordinary inferential conjunction).
ν, a combination of τoί (emphazing the reliability of what follows), γάρ (usually a marker of “cause”), and oν (the ordinary inferential conjunction).481
Some have seen a verbal correspondence (through the use of ἀθετων) between this sentence and the saying of Jesus found in Luke 10:16 (noted in the margin of NA27); see, e.g., A. W. Argyle, “Parallels between the Pauline Epistles and Q,” ExpTim 60 (1948/ 49), 318-20. But this seems far more coincidental than purposeful on Paul’s part.
ν) between this sentence and the saying of Jesus found in Luke 10:16 (noted in the margin of NA27); see, e.g., A. W. Argyle, “Parallels between the Pauline Epistles and Q,” ExpTim 60 (1948/ 49), 318-20. But this seems far more coincidental than purposeful on Paul’s part.482
What follows is a condensed version of the discussion that first appeared in GEP, 50-53.
483
Thus Paul has it, τὸν θεὸν τὸν καὶ διδόντα τὸ πνευμα αὐτoυ τὸ ἅγιoν εἰς ὑμας (“the God who also gives the Spirit of him, the Holy, unto you”).
μα αὐτoυ τὸ ἅγιoν εἰς ὑμας (“the God who also gives the Spirit of him, the Holy, unto you”).484
Jesus of Nazareth is none other than Lord (= the LXX designation for God himself) and Messiah (= the fulfillment of Jewish eschatological hopes).
485
This is made emphatic in this case by the word order, τὸ πνευμα αὐτoυ τὸ ἅγιoν (“the Spirit of him, the Holy”), where not only is there emphasis on the fact that God gives them his Spirit, but that that Spirit is also designated holy.
μα αὐτoυ τὸ ἅγιoν (“the Spirit of him, the Holy”), where not only is there emphasis on the fact that God gives them his Spirit, but that that Spirit is also designated holy.486
Although he also makes this point, Collins (Studies, 292) considers the addition of “Holy” to be Paul’s way of making it “clear that it is to the Holy Spirit of Christian faith that the prophet [Ezekiel] was making reference.”
487
Cf. Frame (156), “the εἰς is for dative or for ἐν; ‘give to be in,’ ‘put in.’ ”
488
See 2 Cor 1:22; Gal 4:6; cf. the emphatic statement in 1 Cor 6:19, “the temple of the in you Holy Spirit.”
489
Those who think otherwise (e.g., Marshall, Wanamaker, Green) see it as a “timeless reference,” but at least some scribes thought otherwise and changed it to the aorist (see n. 20 above), in part perhaps so as not to allow the interpretation offered here; see further n. 66 below.
490
As Hiebert (176), e.g., explicitly says.
491
Apparently to avoid the implication of the present participle, some suggest that the emphasis is substantival, “God the Giver of the Holy Spirit” (e.g., Moffatt [35]; Findlay [90]; Hiebert [176]; J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit [SBT 2nd ser. 15; London: SCM, 1970], 106) and therefore at least as referring to conversion. The expressed concern here is to avoid the concept of “continuous or successive impartation” (Moffatt). But that is to avoid “second blessing theology” by an unnecessary expedient. Paul’s concern is not on “successive gifts” of the Spirit, but on the present, ongoing work of the Spirit in their lives.
492
One cannot be sure here whether the T/NIV was following the critical text of NA26/27 and translating according to sense or following the reading found in the apparatus. The very fact that it could be either of these possibilities indicates the nature — and difficulty — of the textual problem. The original text is almost certainly ἔχετε γράϕειν ὑμĩν (“you have no need to write to you”), since such a reading could hardly have been deliberate on the part of a copyist (it is simply too unwieldy to have been so), and it is equally difficult to see how it could have been accidental. Rather, at some point copyists simply “corrected” Paul and thus wrote what he almost surely intended: either “we have no need to write to you” (ἔχoμεν γράϕειν ὑμĩν [
c D* Ψ G Y 88 104 142 216 927 1311 1611 1739 2005 itd.g vg goth]) or “you have no need to be written to” (ἔχετε γράϕεσθαι ὑμĩν [H 81 257 424* 1319 1518 1837 2127]). What is missing in the original is the pronoun ἡμας (“for us”), which all English versions that follow Paul’s original must insert in the text, either as the subject of the clause (as T/NIV) or as a prepositional phrase (“for us” — although most English translations that go this route have “for anyone”).
c D* Ψ G Y 88 104 142 216 927 1311 1611 1739 2005 itd.g vg goth]) or “you have no need to be written to” (ἔχετε γράϕεσθαι ὑμĩν [H 81 257 424* 1319 1518 1837 2127]). What is missing in the original is the pronoun ἡμας (“for us”), which all English versions that follow Paul’s original must insert in the text, either as the subject of the clause (as T/NIV) or as a prepositional phrase (“for us” — although most English translations that go this route have “for anyone”).493
In place of Paul’s (somewhat redundant) εἰς πάντας τoὺς ἀδελϕoὺς τo ὺς ἐν (“all the brothers and sisters who are in”), read by the majority of MSS, some early manuscripts do not have the τoύς, either as the result of haplography [ϕoυς, τoυς] (
A) or under the influence of Latin, which would not need it (D* F G 629 lat).
A) or under the influence of Latin, which would not need it (D* F G 629 lat).494
It is not easy to decide textually here whether Paul wrote ταĩς ἰδίαις χερσίν ὑμων (“your own hands” [
* A D2 33
]) or simply ταĩς χερσίν ὑμων (“your hands” [
2 B D* F G Ψ 0278 6 104 365 1175 1505 1739 1881 pc]). This issue is complicated by three factors: (a) the possibility of haplography, that an original ἰδίαις was omitted because of the preceding ταĩς; however, (b) the better manuscript evidence leans toward the text without this definite article; and (c) that quite apart from these first two matters, one can easily explain how either of the two readings came about: either it could have been added by a scribe for the sake of emphasis, or it could have been omitted as unnecessary. On the whole, the TNIV (and most other English translations) probably has the better of it here, by not including what is unnecessary in any case. So also H. Koester, “The Text of the New Testament,” in The Living Text (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1985), 221.
ν (“your own hands” [* A D2 33]) or simply ταĩς χερσίν ὑμων (“your hands” [2 B D* F G Ψ 0278 6 104 365 1175 1505 1739 1881 pc]). This issue is complicated by three factors: (a) the possibility of haplography, that an original ἰδίαις was omitted because of the preceding ταĩς; however, (b) the better manuscript evidence leans toward the text without this definite article; and (c) that quite apart from these first two matters, one can easily explain how either of the two readings came about: either it could have been added by a scribe for the sake of emphasis, or it could have been omitted as unnecessary. On the whole, the TNIV (and most other English translations) probably has the better of it here, by not including what is unnecessary in any case. So also H. Koester, “The Text of the New Testament,” in The Living Text (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1985), 221.495
Including the suggestion by J. Kloppenborg that the Thessalonians were well-acquainted with the Dioscuri (divine brothers who were well known for familial affection and self-sacrificing love), whom Paul is here indicating that it was all right for them to imitate (“ΦIΛAΔEΛΦIA, ΘEOΔIΔAKTOΣ and the Dioscuri: Rhetorical Engagement in 1 Thessalonians 4.9-12,” NTS 39 [1993], 265-89). Part of the difficulty in determining what lay behind this matter in Thessalonica has to do with determining from our distance how, or how much, vv. 9-10a are related to vv. 10b-12. See below.
496
The two most common views have to do with (a) their having such eager expectation for the coming of the Lord, much like nineteenth-c. adventists, that they were simply waiting for Christ’s return, and/or (b) their having imbibed a (admittedly not universal) Greek distaste for manual labor, so that, because they were members of “God’s new family,” work was beneath them. The first of these is especially common, given the instruction that follows immediately (so Ellicott [58], Lightfoot [60], Findlay [92, hesitantly], Milligan [53], Best [175-76], Marshall [117], Bruce [91], Morris [130], Beale [128]); but that is much more likely a coincidental collocation, since Paul himself does not explicitly make such a connection. This is especially so in light of 2 Thess 3:6-14, where Paul returns to this problem in considerable detail but makes not the slightest hint of the cause per se. So caution would seem to be the better part of wisdom on this matter. I am of the opinion that the reasons were much more sociological than eschatological, but as to what nuance of Greek sociology I am far less certain than some. On the whole question, see the especially helpful excursus in Witherington, 122-24.
497
See, e.g., Calvin (361); Frame (157-63); Morris (130). Frame, e.g., thinks that the first matter has to with “brotherly love” (vv. 9-10a), and the other with some slackers who need “to work with their own hands” (vv. 10b-12). This view was furthered by the NIV, which not only broke it into two paragraphs, but made the second one start in the middle of Paul’s own sentence (thus vv. 9-10 and 11-12)! The real problem with this view is that vv. 9-10a make very little sense without vv. 10b-12, nor do the latter make much sense without the former.
498
One of the more unusual “guesses” in this regard is that by A. J. Malherbe (first in “Exhortation in First Thessalonians,” NovT 25 [1983], 484-502, and more recently in his commentary, 246-50), who sees Paul here as responding to the possibility of his converts’ lapsing into Epicureanism. But for all of the learning Malherbe has brought to this discussion, he has for good reason not found many takers, if any.
A more plausible, but not necessarily more convincing, suggestion is that by Green (206-12), that Paul is dealing with the two sides of a patron-client relationship. But to get there he must treat v. 11 as unrelated grammatically to v. 10b, suggesting that it is “a second point in his exhortation” (209). But that is especially difficult to sustain grammatically, since the sentence structure itself seems to demand that the three infinitive phrases in v. 11 are in apposition to the first one at the end of v. 10, which in turn refers back to what God has taught them about the need “to love one another.”
499
Gk. περὶ δέ; because the phrase is picked up again in 5:1 and in light of its repeated occurrences in 1 Corinthians, there are some who would argue that Paul is here also responding to a letter (or oral question) from Thessalonica that had been sent to him through Timothy (see, among others, Milligan [126], Frame [140], Green [202], J. R. Harris, “A Study in Letter-Writing,” Expositor 5, no. 8 [1898], 161-80], and esp. C. E. Faw, “On the Writing of First Thessalonians,” JBL 71 [1952], 217-32). Although this might have worked well for 5:1, it is highly doubtful here. What, one wonders, regarding ϕιλαδελϕία might the majority have asked Paul (cf. Bruce, 89); whereas it makes perfectly good sense as Paul’s choice of words with which to confront them regarding this issue.
500
It occurs elsewhere in Paul in Rom 12:10; and further in the NT in Heb 13:1; 1 Pet 1:22; and 2 Pet 1:7 (2x), always to refer to those in the community of faith, because through Christ the Son they have a common Abba in heaven (in Paul see esp. Gal 4:4-7).
501
On Paul’s use of παρακαλoυμεν (“exhort, urge, appeal to”) see on v. 10b below.
μεν (“exhort, urge, appeal to”) see on v. 10b below.502
This is the third (of four) instances of this emphatic pronoun in 1 Thessalonians (see also 2 Thess 3:3), a usage unique to these two letters in the corpus; cf. n. 13 on 2:1 above.
503
Gk. θεoδίδακτoι, a word that is otherwise unknown before this, its first appearance in Greek writings; nor is it, nor should it be expected to be, a word that appears in inscriptions. Whether Paul coined it or not cannot be known; in any case, its meaning is so plain that it scarcely matters. John 6:45, citing the LXX of Isa 54:13, has πάντες διδακτoὶ θεoυ (“all [are] taught by God”). For a recent discussion see S. E. Witmer, “Θεoδίδακτoι in 1 Thessalonians 4:9: A Pauline Theologism,” NTS 52 (2006), 239-50.
(“all [are] taught by God”). For a recent discussion see S. E. Witmer, “Θεoδίδακτoι in 1 Thessalonians 4:9: A Pauline Theologism,” NTS 52 (2006), 239-50.504
“All of your ‘sons’ [will be] taught by God” (καὶ πάντας τoὺς υἱoύς σoυ διδακτoὺς θεoυ). While the concept is here, to be sure, the language itself is quite dissimilar.
). While the concept is here, to be sure, the language itself is quite dissimilar.505
On this matter see ch. 2 in my Pauline Christology (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007); cf. also pp. 20-25 in the introductory ch. 1.
506
Contra Best (173), who altogether downplays their knowledge of the LXX, which seems strange, given that the evidence of Acts indicates that the original nucleus of believers came from Gentiles who were part of the Jewish synagogue.
507
On this matter, cf. Marshall, 115.
508
. This is now the eighth of these vocatives. Some might object to “and sisters” in this case, but at this point in his sentence Paul has not yet narrowed his focus; that comes in the next clause, which is joined to this one by a καί (“and”).