581 . See, e.g., Findlay (166-67), Milligan (63).
509
. Gk. περισσεύειν μα
λλoν, which is a redundancy in Greek, “to abound ‘more’ ” = “to a still greater degree.”
λλoν, which is a redundancy in Greek, “to abound ‘more’ ” = “to a still greater degree.”510
. Gk. ϕιλoτιμεĩσθαι, the present middle infinitive (the verb is deponent), which in indirect discourse, following the verb παρακαλoυμεν, functions as an imperative. The verb itself is formed from the words “love” and “honor,” and thus has the sense of “consider it an honor,” thus “make it your ambition.”
μεν, functions as an imperative. The verb itself is formed from the words “love” and “honor,” and thus has the sense of “consider it an honor,” thus “make it your ambition.”511
. Noted by most interpreters, and is so whether intentional or not; Gk. ϕιλoτιμεĩσθαι ἡσυχάζειν (lit. “strive hard to live quietly”).
512
. Indeed, one can only wonder what a person might think for whom English is a second language, where “business” is more commonly understood as one’s occupation. The present meaning turns up in the Random House Collegiate Dictionary as no. 6.
513
. One of the less convincing aspects of scholarship on this passage is the tendency to see this as being related to manual labor as over against other kinds of work. It seems much more likely that Paul, picking up on his own manual labor (2:9), used this as an idiom for work of any and all kinds. More questionable yet is the suggestion by Richard (212), who sees it as relating to the “biblical idiom ‘work of one’s hands’ and refers not to manual labor but to trades deemed proper by outsiders.” Whether Paul’s phrase is related to the OT one is moot at best, but that it did not refer to manual labor is simply wrong, since the OT usage refers specifically to manual labor in each of its positive uses (Deut 2:7; Job 1:10; Ps 90:17) and to the outcome of such “labor,” namely the creating of idols, when used negatively (Isa 2:8-9; Jer 1:16).
514
. Thus the later scribes who added “your own” to Paul’s clause (see n. 3 above) were probably moving Paul’s sentence in the right direction in terms of understanding.
515
. A few later manuscripts (104 614 630 1505 l846), plus the Syriac tradition, changed Paul’s plural θέλoμεν to a singular θέλω here. It is of passing interest to note that this has occurred only at this singular point, where new instruction is being given.
516
. The present tense participle (κoιμωμένων) is read by all the early and best of the textual tradition (
A B 0278 33 81 326 1175 1739 l846 pc; Origen); the perfect κεκoικημένων appears only in the West (in bilinguals D F G) and, finally, in most of the later Byzantine tradition. Among English translations only the wooden NKJV makes a distinction here (“those who have fallen asleep), where the KJV had simply “them which are asleep.” The Douai-Rheims version (earliest Roman Catholic English translation and based on the Latin) has “them who have slept,” which makes for an especially odd reading of the sentence.
A B 0278 33 81 326 1175 1739 l846 pc; Origen); the perfect κεκoικημένων appears only in the West (in bilinguals D F G) and, finally, in most of the later Byzantine tradition. Among English translations only the wooden NKJV makes a distinction here (“those who have fallen asleep), where the KJV had simply “them which are asleep.” The Douai-Rheims version (earliest Roman Catholic English translation and based on the Latin) has “them who have slept,” which makes for an especially odd reading of the sentence.517
. In one of its rare idiosyncratic moments, Codex Vaticanus (B) reads IY (“Jesus”) here instead of KY (“Lord”).
518
. Several witnesses from the Latin tradition (F G ar b Tert Ambst Spec) omit Paul’s oἱ περιλειπόμενoι in this second instance. This removal of an apparently unnecessary redundancy is most likely a translational, rather than transcriptional, phenomenon; but see Metzger, Textual Commentary (565), who suggests “by some accidental oversight.”
519
. Whether this passage is also related to the immediately preceding issue, as some think (e.g., Lightfoot, 62), is possible but moot. Paul himself makes no explicit connection between them (cf. Best, 180). What is explicit is that some are “grieving like the rest, who have no hope.” Whether some are not working because of “feverish expectation” is moot, and, in any case, results from one’s own reading of the text, not from anything Paul himself says. Indeed, the whole passage has an air of comforting by informing, not correction of behavior as such.
520
. Lightfoot (62) thinks otherwise, that “the indirect way in which the subject is introduced [suggests that] it does not seem to have been formally propounded to him by the Thessalonians.” Perhaps so, but this view puts the onus on Timothy altogether. Green (213) thinks this is in response to a second question from the Thessalonians (vv. 9-12 being in response to the first). But that is to put too much stock in Paul’s use of περὶ δέ in 4:9 and 5:1, which is not only not found here, but also the whole of this passage makes more sense as Paul’s response to something reported to him than an answer to a question from them.
521
. I say “appears to be” because there has been an extraordinary amount of diversity in the literature on this passage. Calvin (362), e.g., suggested, “The main thing is that we must not grieve inordinately for the dead, because we will be raised again”; while Ellicott’s “feverish anxiety” (p. 60) and Lightfoot’s “feverish anticipations of the immediate coming of Christ” (p. 62) seem to go far beyond anything Paul says explicitly here. His language is “grief,” which is related to the issue of “hope.” One can find “feverish expectation” here only by being told so by others, not by anything Paul himself says about them. For an overview of more recent views, see Wanamaker (164-66) and esp. Green (213-15). Much of this conversation involves considerable speculation about what Paul did or did not teach beforehand, as well as often suggesting shifts in Paul’s own thinking between this passage and 1 Cor 15. But in fact one has to “stare” at the text extremely hard to find the “problem” that is alleged to exist, esp. one that can be reconstructed in so many different ways! This is surely a case where the very high level of shared information between Paul and the Thessalonians leaves us very much on the outside looking in.
522
. How they have died is not told us; therefore, speculation seems quite useless in this case. K. Donfried (“The Imperial Cults and Political Conflict in 1 Thessalonians,” in Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Eschatology [ed. R. A. Horsley; Harrisburg: Trinity, 1997], 158-66) has raised the interesting possibility that the deaths were the result of persecutions that seem to be alluded to elsewhere in the letter, but there is no suggestion of such in any express way in the letter itself. That this passage is in response to the imperial cult in Thessalonica has been advocated by J. R. Harrison, “Paul and the Imperial Cult at Thessaloniki,” JSNT 25 (2002), 71-96.
523
. “Relatively,” because one can get two different mental pictures from this passage. In v. 14 God will bring “the sleeping” with Jesus when he comes; thus the imagery places them “in heaven” with him. But in v. 16 the language is altogether that of resurrection from the grave; thus the imagery places them, their bodies at least, on earth. This is further complicated by statements elsewhere to the effect that to “be absent from the body” means to “be present with the Lord” (2 Cor 5:8). Most likely this latter passage, along with our present v. 14, means that believers who have died are in God’s safe-keeping, as it were; but their final destiny awaits the resurrection of the body, hence the larger picture puts their being ultimately present with the Lord still in the future.
524
. So also Best (183), although he would not use the qualifier “relative.”
525
. As often happens with passages in Paul where he makes declarations without further elaboration, there is a long history of NT scholarship that considers Paul to have changed perspective on the matter of the Parousia in his later letters. For a convenient overview of this discussion from one who argues for a minimalist position, see B. F. Meyer, “Did Paul’s View of the Resurrection of the Dead Undergo Development?” TS 47 (1986), 363-87.
526
. For a reading of this passage in the context of practices regarding the dead in other associations, see R. S. Ascough, “A Question of Death: Paul’s Community-Building Language in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18,” JBL 123 (2004), 509-30.
527
. For a helpful overview of this passage in the larger context of Christ’s own resurrection, see N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 213-19.
528
. Which is a considerable improvement over the NIV’s “those who fall asleep,” which was not only imprecise (i.e., it has to do with “those who are already ‘sleeping’ ”) but also misleading, since Paul is not here dealing with any and all who eventually die, as implied by the NIV (even though that is ultimately true as well). The NRSV has chosen to go the other route — give the plain sense of the euphemism (“who have died”) and put Paul’s own language in a note. The euphemism itself is a recurring biblical one (2 Sam 7:12; 1 Kings 2:10; 11:43; 22:50; Job 14:12; Ps 13:3; Matt 9:24; Acts 7:60; 1 Cor 15:51); it is also found throughout the Greco-Roman world (see BDAG 2 for several nonbiblical occurrences).
529
. See 1 Cor 10:1; 12:1; 2 Cor 1:8; Rom 1:3; 11:25. These cover a broad range: correcting a false impression (Rom 1:13); solving difficult questions (1 Cor 12:1; Rom 11:25); as the heading for much-needed correction (1 Cor 10:1); and instruction about personal matters (2 Cor 1:8).
530
. There has been an inordinate amount of speculation as to why the Thessalonians did not know about what Paul here sets out to explain; but in the end it is all speculative and adds very little to the actual understanding of the passage. For the primary views, see Marshall, 120-22.
531
. Holmes (149) objects to this restrictive comma. But it seems necessary, since otherwise the grief is restricted only to those who have no hope. It seems much more likely that this is a typical Pauline blanket thrown over the whole Gentile world. The defining word here, after all, is “hope,” and for Paul that has to do only with Christian hope regarding the future that has been guaranteed by Christ and his resurrection.
532
. This is not to say, as Best, e.g., points out (185-86), that there were not some who believed in an afterlife of some sort; but as Marshall notes (119), they “lacked the certainty of life after death that was worthy to be called such and hence a reunion between the living and the dead.” For the full survey of the ancient world, in which nothing remotely close to Christian belief in a future bodily resurrection can be found, see Wright, Resurrection, 32-206.
533
. E.g., Frame, 167. After all, God’s mercy in restoring Epaphroditus, who by all ancient standards was expected to die, allowed Paul himself not to have “sorrow piled upon sorrow” (Phil 2:27).
534
. On this question, see the long discussion in Wright, Resurrection (n. 13 above). For a second-c. Christian expression of this lack of hope among pagans see Aristides (ANF 10:272-78).
535
. Gk. εἰ, which ordinarily begins a conditional sentence but in this case expresses an actual, not hypothetical, condition; therefore, the sense is “since we believe,” not “if we do so.” The TNIV made this plain by eliminating the protasis as such, and starting the apodosis with “and so.”
536
. For a different resolution of this perceived tension, see P. Ellingworth, “Which Way Are We Going? A Verb of Movement, Especially in 1 Thess 4:14b,” BT 25 (1974), 426-31, who suggests “will take to himself” as a possible rendering of Paul’s ἄξει.
537
. One dare not use the word “translation” for what follows, since by definition that word has to do with transferring not just words, but meaning, from the original language into the receptor language. The present rendering should illustrate the folly of imagining that one can keep Paul’s own word order and say anything meaningful in English.
538
. Cf. J. Plevnik, “The Destination of the Apostle and of the Faithful: Second Corinthians 4:13b-14 and First Thessalonians 4:14,” CBQ 62 (2000), 83-95.
539
. See Calvin (363), who is among the many who have turned Paul’s διὰ τoυ ’Iησoυ into an ἐν ’Iησoυ and then comments on the phrase as though it were in fact the latter, a view which Witherington (131) asserts without evidence as being a legitimate option; cf. also the NASU, NKJB (“sleep in Jesus”!). The REB and GNB actually change the direction of things: “God will bring those who died to be with Jesus” (REB!). Findlay (97), at least, tries to take the διά seriously, although I find it unconvincing (having fallen asleep through Jesus means that death has been robbed of its terrors). A different approach is taken by P. Nepper-Christensen, who would interpret the phrase as having to do with martyrs who died because of their loyalty to Christ (“Das verborgene Herrnwort: Eine Untersuchung über 1. Thess 4,13-18,” ST 19 [1965], 136-54). But despite the difficulties with giving the preposition a meaning it is not otherwise known to have, this is easily the majority view; see Rigaux (535-37), Bruce (97), Morris (139 [who strangely calls the other view tautologous]), Wanamaker (169), Gaventa (64), and Green (221), who appeals to C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), 57.
’Iησoυ into an ἐν ’Iησoυ and then comments on the phrase as though it were in fact the latter, a view which Witherington (131) asserts without evidence as being a legitimate option; cf. also the NASU, NKJB (“sleep in Jesus”!). The REB and GNB actually change the direction of things: “God will bring those who died to be with Jesus” (REB!). Findlay (97), at least, tries to take the διά seriously, although I find it unconvincing (having fallen asleep through Jesus means that death has been robbed of its terrors). A different approach is taken by P. Nepper-Christensen, who would interpret the phrase as having to do with martyrs who died because of their loyalty to Christ (“Das verborgene Herrnwort: Eine Untersuchung über 1. Thess 4,13-18,” ST 19 [1965], 136-54). But despite the difficulties with giving the preposition a meaning it is not otherwise known to have, this is easily the majority view; see Rigaux (535-37), Bruce (97), Morris (139 [who strangely calls the other view tautologous]), Wanamaker (169), Gaventa (64), and Green (221), who appeals to C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), 57.540
. Note, e.g., Paul’s clear and significant use of prepositions in a key text like 1 Cor 8:6, where God the Father is the ultimate origin and goal of all things, of which Christ the Son is the active agent: All things are from and for the one God, the Father; likewise all things, both creation and redemption, are through Christ the Son. It is of considerable interest that BDAG does not have a single heading or subheading under διά that could remotely carry this frequently assumed/asserted meaning, yet on the basis of what is variable (Greek word order) so many are wedded to this otherwise unknown meaning for the preposition.
541
. On this feature of Pauline theology, see esp. what he does in 1 Cor 8:6 with the basic Jewish “confession” expressed in the Shema of Deut 6:4, “Listen, Israel, Yahweh your God, Yahweh is One,” which in the LXX became “the Lord your God, the Lord is One.” By means of this Greek translation, Paul can include Christ as “Lord” in the divine identity without ever using the word θεός as such (on this matter see my Pauline Christology [Peabody, Mass.,: Hendrickson, 2007], 88-94).
542
. It should thus be noted that this understanding involves only a simple reversal of word order; and given that word order is not predictable in Greek, it also means that all of Paul’s words and phrases keep their ordinary meaning. This “solution” was seen as early as Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia, two of the better exegetes in the early church; among commentaries see Best (reluctantly), 189; Richard, 226; and Malherbe, 266, who correctly makes the point that all other interpretations are forced readings of what is otherwise straightforward affirmation. It can also be found in the NAB and NRSV, and thus the ESV. What amazes one is how often it has been rejected — on the basis of word order only(!), where Paul’s own word order is already “nonnormal” through his fronting the direct object before the verb. Such rejection is all the more striking when one considers that most who go this route tend to “fumble around” with Paul’s preposition and give it an otherwise unknown meaning, so as to maintain the one thing not necessary to maintain — Paul’s word order as having a “normal” expected sense to it. It is of interest, therefore, that Ellicott (62; cf. Lightfoot [64]) would argue that understanding the preposition to go with “the sleeping” is “the simple and logical connexion” (perhaps for the preposition, but not for this sentence nor for Pauline theology as a whole!). For commentators who have gone this traditional route see n. 25 above.
543
. For these data see the convenient chart on usage in my Pauline Christology, p. 26.
544
. Omitted in the T/NIV as unnecessary, since the sentence itself carries the sense of “explanation.”
545
. An exception is J. R. Michaels, who argues that it is limited to “we, the living, . . . will not precede those who have fallen asleep” (in “Everything That Rises Must Converge: Paul’s Word from the Lord,” in To Tell the Mystery: Essays on New Testament Eschatology in Honor of Robert H. Gundry (ed. T. F. Schmidt and M. Silva; JSNTSS 100; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 182-95.
546
. The only exceptions are twelve citations of the LXX (1 Cor 3:20; 14:21; 2 Cor 6:17, 18; Rom 4:8; 9:28, 29; 10:16; 11:3, 34; 12:19; 15:11), where the divine referent is irrelevant to Paul’s citation of the passage (for this discussion see 87 n. 7 in Pauline Christology ). For the two instances where many evangelical scholars think that Paul has used θεός to refer to Christ (Rom 9:5; Tit 2:13), see Pauline Christology, 272-77 and 442-46.
547
. So most commentaries: Calvin (364); Ellicott (62); Lightfoot (65); Findlay (98); Milligan (58); Rigaux (538-39); Marshall (125-26); Morris (141); Wanamaker (171); Holmes (150); Green (222); Beale (136); cf. J. Jeremias, Unknown Sayings of Jesus (London: SPCK, 1964), 80-83 — although there has been recent debate as to whether this is a saying otherwise unknown or a “midrashic” expression of sayings that are known to us through the Gospels.
548
. Which, nonetheless, is the kind of material that holds high interest for some scholars. For a helpful overview of this issue in 1 Thessalonians see C. M. Tuckett, “Synoptic Tradition in 1 Thessalonians?” in Collins, ed, The Thessalonians Correspondence, 160-82.
549
. Cf. the discussion in L. W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 150-51. K. P. Donfried (The Theology of the Shorter Pauline Letters [Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993], 39-40) thinks it is the latter; so also Lightfoot, 65; Milligan, 58; Best, 191- 93; Bruce, 98-99; Richard, 226. This view has been esp. popular among German scholars (see Marshall, 267). Witherington (135) would have it both ways: “Perhaps the least problematic solution . . . [is] that Paul saw himself as a prophetic interpreter of both the sayings of the historical Jesus and of the OT and also as one who received direct messages from the risen Lord himself.” The most helpful recent overview of the two (sometimes seen as three) options is Malherbe (267-70), who himself thinks that “Paul spoke as a prophet” (270). For a helpful analysis of the “parallel” materials in the Gospel of Matthew, see G. H. Waterman (“The Sources of Paul’s Teaching on the 2nd Coming of Christ in 1 and 2 Thessalonians,” JETS 18 [1975], 105-13), who argues for a written source pre-dating our Gospels.
550
. On this passage itself, see my Pauline Christology, 45.
551
. The TNIV chooses “still alive” here, which is tendentious; it may work well for later generations, but it is doubtful whether Paul would have thought in this way.
552
. Gk. περιλειπόμενoι, a verb that occurs only six times in the LXX (with some textual variation, so that some MSS have it only four or five). In two instances (only) it refers to those who “still remained” (NRSV) in Israel after the exile (2 Chron 34:21; Hag 2:3); but in no case does it ever mean “left behind.” After all, “those who remain” are still living in the Promised Land, since they are the “remnant” who have not been taken into exile.
553
. An unfortunately disproportionate amount of attention in the literature has focused on Paul’s “expectation” here in light of what he says a few years later in 1 and 2 Corinthians. For a useful overview and satisfactory resolution of the issue, see R. H. Stein, “Did Paul’s Theology Develop? (1 Thess. 4:13-18),” in Difficult Passages in the Epistles (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 82-88. An especially extreme position is taken by C. L. Mearns (“Early Eschatological Development in Paul: The Evidence of I and II Thessalonians,” NTS 27 [1980/81], 137-57), who argues that the real development takes place in these letters, from an earlier “realized eschatology” to the “future eschatology” in evidence here.
554
. As many earlier interpreters would have it; see 165 n. 7 above.
555
. But see the objections in M. R. Cosby, “Hellenistic Formal Receptions and Paul’s Use of AΠANTHΣIΣ in 1 Thessalonians 4:17,” BBR 4 (1994), 15-34. My point, however, is not that all of this language can be found in such “comings,” but that they will have background enough for such a coming to recognize what Paul is doing here.
556
. This is amazingly seldom noted in the commentaries; but see J. Dupont, “ ‘Avec le Seigneur’ a la Parousie,” in ΣYN XPIΣTOY: L’union avec le Christ suivant Saint Paul (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1952), 39-79.
557
. Although this echo is seldom noted in the literature, it was in fact well known in the early church. For details on this matter see Pauline Christology, 44-45; cf. C. A. Evans, “Ascending and Descending with a Shout: Psalm 47.6 and 1 Thessalonians 4.16,” in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (ed. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders; JSNTSS 83; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 238-53. The use of Psalm 47 in this way was recognized by C. F. D. Moule (The Origin of Christology [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977], 42), but it has otherwise been taken up by none of the commentaries in English.
558
. So also Findlay (100), “the second and third particulars, apparently, explicate the first”; cf. Milligan, 59; Bruce, 101; Richard, 229; Wanamaker, 173 (as an alternative); Malherbe, 274; L. Schmid, TDNT 3:658.
559
. This is also the opinion of BDAG (“probably”). This is based on Dan 12:1, which in the LXX reads Mιχαηλ ὁ ἄγγελoς ὁ μέγας (cf. Theod. Mιχαηλ ὁ ἄρχων ὁ μέγας, which more closely reflects Daniel’s Aramaic).
560
. On this matter see M. N. A. Bockmuehl, “ ‘The Trumpet Shall Sound’: Shofar Symbolism and Its Reception in Early Christianity,” in Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel (ed. W. Horbury; JSNTSS 48; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 199-225.
561
. It should be pointed out that the trumpet can also function as a signal for coming disaster, as in Jer 6:1, 17.
562
. Which many think is also the end of the “saying” of Jesus, mentioned in v. 15, that Paul has been “citing” (or “rephrasing”) or that has been given him by revelation. As with so many such things, no definitive conclusions are available, since the “saying” itself is not known to exist anywhere else. Since key elements of the “saying” reappear in 1 Cor 15:51-52, it is certainly part of Paul’s own eschatological understanding.
563
. Gk. ἅμα σὺν αὐτoĩς, a phrase which in this case must be taken as a single grammatical component.
564
. So, e.g., Best (198); Bruce (102); Morris (145); Wanamaker (175, “implies . . . a force outside the individual”); Gaventa (66-67); cf. Jude 23 (“save some by ‘snatching’ them from the fire”), or Matt 11:12 (“violent people have been ‘raiding’ [the kingdom of heaven]”; cf. 12:29; 13:19). But its three uses in Paul lack both the strength and/or violence often attached to the word. Cf., similarly, Acts 8:39; 23:10, and probably Rev 12:5. So also Rigaux (545). Malherbe (276) has pointed out that this verb is common in the Greek “consolation tradition” regarding death, which Paul is now using “in a neat twist.”
565
. The NET Bible is a notable exception; their note suggests that Paul is intentionally more forceful here, so they have “suddenly caught up.” But since they do not do so in 2 Corinthians, their suggestion here has all the markings of a theological agenda getting in the way of translation.
566
. This common view had its origins in an article by E. Petersen (“Die Einholung des Kyrios,” ZST 7 [1930], 682-702), but it had been called into serious question by J. Dupont (“ ‘Avec le Seigneur’ a la Parousie,” in ΣYN XPIΣTΩI, 39-79), and more recently by M. Cosby (“Hellenistic Formal Receptions,” BBR 4 [1994], 15-34), who has demonstrated that it is not a technical term at all, and that all the “formal” elements of such Hellenistic receptions are otherwise missing from the present passage — although it should be noted that not all are convinced by Cosby; see esp. R. Gundry (“A Brief Note on ‘Hellenistic Formal Receptions and Paul’s Use of AΠANTHΣIΣ in 1 Thessalonians 4:17,’ ” BBR 6 [1996], 39-41), who suggests that other contextual matters continue to support this view, which he had previously espoused in “The Hellenization of Dominical Tradition and Christianization of Jewish Tradition in the Eschatology of 1-2 Thessalonians,” NTS 33 (1987), 161-78.
567
. One could imply such a locational understanding from other passages, such as Phil 3:20 (“our citizenship is in heaven”), or the promise of our being “with him,” whose present “location” is understood to be in heaven, but these are the only two where such an understanding is expressed explicitly.
568
. On this matter, see S. Kim, “The Jesus Tradition in 1 Thess 4.13-5.11,” NTS 48 (2002), 225-42, who argues that both passages arose out of a failure on the part of the Thessalonians to understand correctly the eschatological sayings of Jesus which Paul had passed on to them. This, of course, can be neither proved nor disproved; but what Kim has demonstrated is that Paul had knowledge of the teaching of Jesus in some form.
569
. In this regard see v. 1 (“no need to be written to”), v. 2 (“you know very well”), and v. 11 (“even as you are doing”).
570
. It is a matter of some interest that interpreters tend to show a great deal of commonality in their overall understanding of the text and its parts, while at the same time they reveal considerable variety in how they perceive the issue, its origins, and the nature of Paul’s response. Thus, e.g., Holmes (165) refers to “fear and concern about the fate of the living believers at the time of the Parousia”; Best (203) speaks of the Thessalonians’ being “worried about [the Parousia], not only in respect of the position of the dead, but seemingly also about the time when it would take place”; Malherbe (287) thinks of it as a “matter requiring attention [because of] the promises of some Christian prophets in Thessalonica of peace and security”; while Green (229) regards it as “the third question the Thessalonians addressed to him, . . . When would the day of the Lord arrive?” All of this should remind one that there is still a considerable degree of guesswork in the scholarly enterprise.
571
. Many see this as dealing with an issue of anxiety on the part of the Thessalonians (e.g., Findlay, 166-67; Milligan, 63; Frame, 178; Best, 203). But there is scarcely a hint of such in the passage itself; and it is surely too much weight to place on a single adverb (ἀκριβως in v. 2); see the discussion below.
ς in v. 2); see the discussion below.572
. As with so many other things, some see this as a later interpolation into the letter, thus denying Pauline authorship; but in this case that is a counsel of despair. See the rebuttal by J. Plevnik, “1 Thess 5,1-11: Its Authenticity, Intention, and Message,” Bib 60 (1979), 71-90.
573
. To be sure, “clear” is often in the eye of the beholder. The NA27 Greek text (apparently alone) divides it into two parts (vv. 1-6, 7-11); and some interpreters (e.g., Beale, Witherington) prefer three parts (vv. 1-3, 4-7, 8-10/11).
574
. Paul’s phrase here is anarthrous (ἡμέρα κυρίoυ), as most often in the LXX (e.g., Joel 1:15; 2:1; 2:31 [LXX 3:4]; 3:14 [LXX 4:14]). This is the certain evidence that Paul is using this familiar phrase from the prophets, but now “the LORD” = YHWH is “the Lord” = the Risen Christ. See the discussion on v. 2 below. Some later Christian scribes (A Ψ 0278
) apparently had a measure of difficulty with this anarthrous usage and added the article.
) apparently had a measure of difficulty with this anarthrous usage and added the article.575
. Paul’s own text, found in
* A F G 33 it vg Tert, lacks an expected conjunctive signal, which was variously “corrected” by early scribes (+ δε
2 B D 0226 6 104 1505 1739 1881 pc; + γαρ Ψ 0278
). The split nature of the “correction” serves as rather certain evidence for a sentence without the conjunction. If either of the latter were original, one would be hard pressed to account for either an omission or a change to the alternative conjunction.
* A F G 33 it vg Tert, lacks an expected conjunctive signal, which was variously “corrected” by early scribes (+ δε2 B D 0226 6 104 1505 1739 1881 pc; + γαρ Ψ 0278). The split nature of the “correction” serves as rather certain evidence for a sentence without the conjunction. If either of the latter were original, one would be hard pressed to account for either an omission or a change to the alternative conjunction.576
. Some “Western” witnesses (F G) have ϕανήσεται (“will be manifest”); since this is also the reading of b d Augpt, one wonders whether it derives from a poor translation into Latin.
577
. Gk. περὶ δέ; see the discussion on 4:9 above (pp. 158-59, n. 8).
578
. This is the more common view, although Green (230) thinks it comes by way of a letter from them to him.
579
. Gk. των χρόνων καὶ των καιρων; it occurs elsewhere in the NT only in Acts 1:7, in our Lord’s response to the disciples’ query about “restoring the kingdom to Israel.” For OT usage see Dan 2:21 (LXX); cf. Wis 8:8, as one of the things personified Wisdom knows (“the outcome of seasons and times,” NRSV). Given what appears to be a clear pickup of this language from Daniel (NIV, “times and seasons”), the NIV translators’ choice of “times and dates” here (unchanged in the TNIV) seems an especially unfortunate modernizing of the text. E. Lucchesi thinks we should look outside Scripture for this phrase, and settles on Philo (see “Précédents non bibliques à l’expression néo-testamentaire: ‘Les temps et les moments,’” JTS 28 [1977], 537-40), but that is most highly unlikely.
ν χρόνων καὶ των καιρων; it occurs elsewhere in the NT only in Acts 1:7, in our Lord’s response to the disciples’ query about “restoring the kingdom to Israel.” For OT usage see Dan 2:21 (LXX); cf. Wis 8:8, as one of the things personified Wisdom knows (“the outcome of seasons and times,” NRSV). Given what appears to be a clear pickup of this language from Daniel (NIV, “times and seasons”), the NIV translators’ choice of “times and dates” here (unchanged in the TNIV) seems an especially unfortunate modernizing of the text. E. Lucchesi thinks we should look outside Scripture for this phrase, and settles on Philo (see “Précédents non bibliques à l’expression néo-testamentaire: ‘Les temps et les moments,’” JTS 28 [1977], 537-40), but that is most highly unlikely.580
. One is therefore surprised to see how much time was given to the fine-tuning of the two words by earlier interpreters; see, e.g., Ellicott (67), Lightfoot (70-71), Milligan (63); among more recent interpreters only Morris (149) goes this way.
581
. See, e.g., Findlay (166-67), Milligan (63).
582
. Gk. αὐτoὶ γὰρ ἀκριβως oἴδατε (lit. “for you yourselves accurately know”), where the adverb sits in the emphatic first position. This is the fourth use of the intensive pronoun in this letter; see on 2:1 above (n. 13).
ς oἴδατε (lit. “for you yourselves accurately know”), where the adverb sits in the emphatic first position. This is the fourth use of the intensive pronoun in this letter; see on 2:1 above (n. 13).583
. Gk. ἀκριβως, which occurs only this once in the Pauline corpus; its usage here is perhaps a reflection of the cognate adjective that recurs in Daniel, beginning at 2:45. Richard (250) would see this as “ironic,” based on what he perceives as “temporal speculations” on their part. The problem with this view is that the positive dimension of the passage (5:4-11) does not emphasize readiness, but sober Christian living in a context of the certainty of the future.
ς, which occurs only this once in the Pauline corpus; its usage here is perhaps a reflection of the cognate adjective that recurs in Daniel, beginning at 2:45. Richard (250) would see this as “ironic,” based on what he perceives as “temporal speculations” on their part. The problem with this view is that the positive dimension of the passage (5:4-11) does not emphasize readiness, but sober Christian living in a context of the certainty of the future.584
. So also Findlay, 108; Best, 205; Marshall, 132; Richard, 249; Holmes, 165; Green, 229. Malherbe (289) allows it as a likely option.
585
. Cf. Malherbe (290): “what you accurately know is that you cannot know what you seek to know.”
586
. See 1 Cor 1:8 (cf. 3:13); 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14; cf. Rom 2:5; 13:12, where “the Day” appears without the genitive qualifier. In a later letter the phrase becomes “the day of Christ” (Phil 1:6, 10; 2:16).
587
. Cf. further Joel 2:32; 3:18; Obad 15-17; Zechariah 14.
588
. This understanding of the origins of this motif is supported by its further use in the NT; see 2 Pet 3:10 and Rev 3:3 and 16:5.
589
. Marshall (133) suggests that it “probably” also had “an element of uncertain-ness”; but that seems to move beyond Paul’s concern with the imagery here.
590
. For the full discussion of this phenomenon in Paul see my Pauline Christology (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007); this phrase is discussed on pp. 68-69.
591
. As noted in n. 8 above, the sentence begins without the usual conjunctive signal. One cannot be sure what to make of this in the present case. Of the scribes who supply a conjunction, those who add γάρ (“for”) were most likely on the right track (contra Malherbe [291], who thinks this is more contrastive than explanatory).
592
. Beale, 142 n., points out other possible allusions to this chapter of Jeremiah in the present context; note esp. Jer 6:24 (“pain like that of a woman in labor”); 6:26 (“suddenly the destroyer will come upon us”); and 6:4-5, where the enemy says, “Let us attack at night.”
593
. Malherbe (293) makes the intriguing suggestion that the (unexpressed) “they” in this sentence refers to false prophets within the Thessalonian community. This, of course, cannot be known, but it would help to explain the (otherwise unexpected) admonitions in 5:19-22. The difficulty with this view is that the “people” who say, “Peace and safety,” appear to be outside the community altogether, since they are destined for destruction. Moreover, when the (apparently) opposite of this emerges soon after this (see 2 Thess 2:1-2), Paul expresses uncertainty as to its source, although “prophetic utterance” is one of the clear options. What seems ultimately to stand against this view is Paul’s unwavering affirmation of the eternal destruction of those who are saying, “Peace and safety.” All of this is to note again that, as with many other matters in Paul’s letters, we stand on the outside looking in, as it were, and lack the degree of certainty that we would like.
594
. See, e.g., Green (234): “The Thessalonian population enjoyed both of these [peace and safety] during the mid-first century AD.”
595
. The language of this clause (αἰϕνίδιoς ἐϕίσταται ὄλεθρoς αὐτoĩς) seems to be Paul’s own, since it occurs nowhere else in the biblical tradition, except for his having αἰϕνίδιoς (“sudden”) in common with Luke 21:34.
596
. That is, Jesus is urging watchfulness on the part of his disciples; thus the imagery is expressed in such a way as to warn the disciples: “If the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into.” It is the unique nature of the imagery, in a context of the “Coming” of the Lord, which suggests that Paul knows and is alluding to this tradition.
597
. Findlay (109), following a suggestion by Lightfoot (72), thinks that Paul is here using an otherwise unknown saying of Jesus, which, of course, cannot be known.
598
. In a world of sanitized hospital delivery, the mute evidence of ancient inscriptions reminds us that in the Greco-Roman world many women died in the course of delivery. So this may have a subtly ominous note to it that most moderns would not suspect (cf. G. Bertram, TDNT 9:668, “the word denotes a physical process, a shattering which can bring close to death or cause death”).
599
. See esp. 2:14-16 and 3:3-4 above.
600
. Some early witnesses (A B bopt) have turned Paul’s singular into a plural here, resulting, as Metzger (Textual Commentary, 565) points out, “in near nonsense.” Nonetheless, it was preferred by Westcott-Hort; Lightfoot (73); and Frame (184); and allowed by Best (209); cf. G. Förster (“1 Thessalonicher 5,1-10,” ZNW 17 [1916], 169-77). Lightfoot suggested the improbable idea that Paul intended, “as though you were thieves.”
601
. The entire Western tradition (D* F G it vgmss syp Ambrosiaster [but not the Douay-Rheims Vulgate]) changes this ἐσμέν to ἔστε (“you are”), thus conforming it to the preceding second plurals.
602
. In the interest of clear English, the NIV translators (kept in the TNIV) chose to rearrange Paul’s order somewhat here, but at the same time they chose to translate his oἱ λoιπoί (= the rest [of humankind]) as simply “others.” But Paul’s contrast is not with some others, as implied by this English rendition, but with all others.
603
. A few witnesses (P30vid B b sa m vgmss), some of them early, omit Xριστoυ here, almost certainly as the result of homoioteleuton (ΣOY/TOY).
here, almost certainly as the result of homoioteleuton (ΣOY/TOY).604
. The italics here emphasize what appears to be the perspective of the entire passage, as vis-à-vis those who see the whole as urging “readiness” for the Lord’s return (e.g., Richard, 249-66). The latter seems to put far too much emphasis on v. 6 and not enough on the passage as a whole. As occurs regularly in Paul, indicatives (vv. 4-5) are followed by imperatives (vv. 6-8); but first person imperatives that include the apostle as well (see on v. 5b) seem to be a part of his renewed instruction over against the suggestion that he is warning them to be ready for Christ’s coming.
605
. This is one of many Pauline γάρs that is omitted in functionally equivalent translations, such as the TNIV (cf. NEB, NJB), as unnecessary in English, since the explanatory sense of the conjunction is inherent in the English contrast itself.
606
. As is often pointed out, Paul is here using a common Hebrew idiom, “sons [= children] of,” as a way of identifying people; see, e.g., Matt 8:12; 9:15; 13:38; Luke 5:34 et al. Because this is the only appearance of this Hebraism in the Pauline corpus, some scholars have used that to deny Pauline authorship here, but that is to remove Paul from his own heritage.
607
. Cf., e.g., Gal 3:22-25, where Paul moves easily from believers’ being held “in custody under the law” (a prison metaphor) to the law serving as “pedagogue” until we “came of age.” As here, this shift of metaphors allows Paul to shift emphases and thus go on to address his real concern for the Galatians.
608
. C. Foucant (“Les Fils du Jour [1 Thess 5,5],” in The Thessalonians Correspondence [ed. R. F. Collins], 348-55) argues that the eschatological sense of “day” from v. 2 is still at work here. Perhaps so, but at this point it will have become so distant as to be unnoticeable.
609
. See, e.g., Col 1:10-13; 2:13; 3:3-4; Eph 2:2-3, 13-14; 4:31-32.
610
. Gk. ἄρα o
ν, where “the ἄρα expresses the inference and o
ν the transition” (BDAG 2b [under ἄρα]); cf. 2 Thess 2:15; Gal 6:10; Rom 7:3, 25; 8:12; 9:16, 18; 14:12, 19; Eph 2:19.
ν, where “the ἄρα expresses the inference and oν the transition” (BDAG 2b [under ἄρα]); cf. 2 Thess 2:15; Gal 6:10; Rom 7:3, 25; 8:12; 9:16, 18; 14:12, 19; Eph 2:19.611
. Whatever else, contemporary readers should not press Paul’s own application beyond his immediate intent. Or if one does do so, at least acknowledge as much and not strap Paul with ideas quite beyond his immediate concern to comfort these believers, not threaten them.
612
. For their meaning in Paul see the discussion on pp. 22-24 above.
613
. Gk. καὶ ἐνεδύσατo δικαιoσύνην ὡς θ ώρ ακα καὶ περιέθετo περ ικεϕ αλαίαν σωτη ρ ίoυ ἐπὶ της κεϕαλης (“And he put on righteousness as a breastplate and placed the helmet of salvation on his head”). Paul will pick up this imagery again in Eph 6:14 and 17. This echo of the Isaiah passage seems so certain that one is surprised at how easily it was overlooked in earlier commentaries (e.g., Calvin, Ellicott). Although Bruce (112) is cautious here, its certainty is further indicated, as Best (214) points out, by the fact that Paul limits himself to two pieces of armor for the triad of “faith, love, and hope.”
ς κεϕαλης (“And he put on righteousness as a breastplate and placed the helmet of salvation on his head”). Paul will pick up this imagery again in Eph 6:14 and 17. This echo of the Isaiah passage seems so certain that one is surprised at how easily it was overlooked in earlier commentaries (e.g., Calvin, Ellicott). Although Bruce (112) is cautious here, its certainty is further indicated, as Best (214) points out, by the fact that Paul limits himself to two pieces of armor for the triad of “faith, love, and hope.”614
. See, e.g., Milligan, 68; Best, 215; Malherbe, 297.
615
. Gk. ἔθετo, the aorist middle of τίθημι, one of the more flexible verbs in terms of meaning (cf. BDAG 1b, under which they offer a broad range of eight different “meanings,” but which does not include the present passage). As with “put” or “place” in English, its sense is finally determined by context, which here takes on the sense of “consigning someone to something” (5b).
616
. Gk. εἰς ὀργήν (cf. 1:10 and 2:16), a term used by Paul and the other NT writers to refer primarily to the final retributive judgment on those who reject God and his love for them; see the discussion on 2:16 above. Best (216) chooses “anger” for this word, but in English that picks up an emotion that does not seem to be present in Paul’s view of God.
617
. One of the unfortunate dimensions of historic Dispensationalism was its failure to distinguish between God’s (always punitive) “wrath” and the ongoing experience of “tribulation” (Gk. θλĩΨις) as such, esp. since Paul and others make it clear that God’s people are appointed/destined for the latter, but not the former.
618
. That is, Paul’s sentence is so arranged that these two phrases stand in immediate contrast to each other (εἰς ὀργὴν ἀλλὰ εἰς περιπoίησιν), which most English translations have been able successfully to keep together.
619
. Gk. περιπoίησις, which occurs elsewhere in Paul’s letters only in Eph 1:14. Lightfoot (76) wished to make this verbal noun function in the other direction, “for adoption (by God) to salvation.” But that seems to be far more subtle and altogether theologically driven than the Thessalonians would likely have been able to understand.
620
. The NIV, kept by the TNIV, rightly broke up Paul’s long sentence into three sentences (vv. 8, 9, and 10). Translation, after all, is to put into English what Paul says in Greek. The causal connection between vv. 8 and 9 and the purposive intention of v. 10 are made clear in the TNIV, without the unnecessary (and burdensome in English) long sentence which works fine in Paul’s Greek. See further G. D. Fee and M. L. Strauss, How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007).
621
. That is, whether one believes that this or Galatians is Paul’s first preserved letter, this is the first occurrence of this actual language, “died for us/our sins,” which otherwise occurs surprisingly seldom in Paul’s letters, given how foundational it is to his understanding of salvation. This is a clear case where the “quality” of the several occurrences is far more significant than their quantity.
622
. Cf. elsewhere 1 Cor 15:3; 2 Cor 5:14, 15; Rom 5:6, 8; 14:15; see the discussion by H. J. de Jonge, “The Original Setting of the Xριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπέρ Formula,” in Collins, ed., Thessalonians Correspondence, 229-35.
623
. In recent years there have been several (varying) attempts to make the metaphor “sleeping” refer to Thessalonian believers who are actually “sleeping” at the time of the Parousia (Edgar) or living below Paul’s expectations of holiness urged on them in 4:1- 8 (Lautenschlager and Heil). See T. R. Edgar, “The Meaning of ‘Sleep’ in 1 Thessalonians 5:10,” JETS 22 (1979), 345-49 (“sleep” is literal, not metaphorical; responded to by T. L. Howard, “The Meaning of ‘Sleep’ in 1 Thessalonians 5:10 — A Reappraisal,” GTJ 6 [1985], 337-48); M. Lautenschlager, “Eἴτε γρηγoρωμεν εἴτε καθεύδωμεν: Zum Verhältnis von Heiligung und Heil in 1 Thess 5,10,” ZNW 81 (1990), 39-59; J. H. Heil, “Those Now ‘Asleep’ (Not Dead) Must Be ‘Awakened’ for the Day of the Lord in 1 Thess 5.9-10,” NTS 46 (2000), 464-71. The inherent problem with this perspective is its failure to take seriously the eschatological perspective that begins in v. 9 and concludes with “that we might live together with him,” not to mention that the same metaphor has already been used to refer to “death” in 4:14-15 (and will appear again in 1 Cor 15:20).
μεν εἴτε καθεύδωμεν: Zum Verhältnis von Heiligung und Heil in 1 Thess 5,10,” ZNW 81 (1990), 39-59; J. H. Heil, “Those Now ‘Asleep’ (Not Dead) Must Be ‘Awakened’ for the Day of the Lord in 1 Thess 5.9-10,” NTS 46 (2000), 464-71. The inherent problem with this perspective is its failure to take seriously the eschatological perspective that begins in v. 9 and concludes with “that we might live together with him,” not to mention that the same metaphor has already been used to refer to “death” in 4:14-15 (and will appear again in 1 Cor 15:20).624
. Gk. διό, used earlier in this letter in 3:1, and 25 times elsewhere in the corpus, nine of them in 2 Corinthians.
625
. There is also a change of direct object with this second verb; the first one is the common reciprocal pronoun ἀλλήλoυς, the second the much less frequent ες τὸν ἕνα (lit. “one the other”), which occurs only here in the NT (cf. T. Job 27:3). This is almost certainly an instance of “elegant variation,” where there is no difference in meaning at all.
626
See 1 Cor 8:1, 10; 10:23; 14:4 (2x), 17.
627
. See, e.g., 1 Cor 16:13-14 (15-18?), 2 Cor 13:11, and Rom 16:17-19.
628
. See the discussion of 2 Thess 3:17-18 below (pp. 341-43).
629
. See, e.g., R. Jewett, The Thessalonian Correspondence (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986).
630
. See 4:4 (“rejoice”); and 4:6 (with “prayer” and “thanksgiving”). Although these are not precise parallels, the three “imperatives” occur at the same point in both letters.
631
. Gk. εἰδέναι, one of the two Greek verbs for “knowing.” This one has the larger number of options in terms of breadth of meaning. It was translated “know” in the KJV, whose intentionally “literal” offspring, the NASB, rendered it “appreciate”! The NRSV, ESV, NIV, and NAB have “respect,” which has all the markings of being uniquely late- twentieth century; after all, this is what is more specifically said in v. 13a. The TNIV appears to have cut a fine line between all of these with the less loaded term “acknowledge,” while at the same time keeping the basic “know” language and sense of the verb intact.
632
. Gk. τoὺς κoπιωντας, the only appearance of this verb in the two Thessalonian letters; the pickup noun in v. 13 is ἔργoν.
ντας, the only appearance of this verb in the two Thessalonian letters; the pickup noun in v. 13 is ἔργoν.633
. See further Phil 2:16; Col 1:29; 1 Tim 4:10; cf. 1 Cor 3:8; 2 Cor 10:15.
634
. See v. 6 (Mary); v. 9 (Urbanus); v. 12 (Tryphena and Tryphosa); v. 12 (Persis), four of whom, interestingly, are women.
635
. Given the illogic of the order, “work hard, are over you, and admonish you,” one is somewhat taken aback by the large number of English translations that have chosen to continue this translational tradition; besides the TNIV only GNB (“who guide you”) goes the way argued for here. Among English commentaries over the past century plus who go this way, see Milligan (71-72), Best (224), Bruce (118), Holmes (179), Malherbe (310), Witherington (160); but decidedly not so Beale (160). W. A. Meeks offered a slightly different perspective on this second option, “who stand before you as protectors” (The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983], 134), indicating that these leaders served as the “patrons” of the community; this view was adopted by Wanamaker (193); cf. Richard (268), “who are your benefactors.” This is a sociological fine-tuning of the option argued for here. It should be pointed out that this is not a modern democratization of first-c. culture, but an attempt to get the emphasis where Paul does, on the “benefaction” of these people, not on their “being over them” in some way.
636
. See, among others, NASB (“he who leads”); NRSV (“the leader”); NAB (“if one is over others”!); NJB (“if you are put in charge”).
637
. It is of further interest in this regard that the corresponding noun πρoστάτις is used of Phoebe in Rom 16:2, where it is universally agreed to mean something like “patron” or “benefactor.”
638
. Gk. νoυθετέω, the first of three occurrences of this word in the two letters (here, v. 14, and 2 Thess 3:15, where Paul returns to this issue with much more vigor and detail).
639
. The TNIV has tried to capture the slight distinction between the two Greek words for “work” (the verb κoπιάω and the noun ἔργoν) by rendering them “work hard” and “work.”
640
. Regarding this concern, see G. D. Fee, “Laos and Leadership under the New Covenant: Some Exegetical and Hermeneutical Observations on Church Order,” in Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 120-43.
641
. In this regard see 2 Cor 13:11; Gal 6:6; Rom 15:33; Eph 6:23; Phil 4:9. One is therefore caught a bit by surprise that Beale would make this imperative serve as a sort of “heading” for those that follow in vv. 13-22. The attempt for the most part seems especially forced.
642
. This was argued for in particular by Findlay, 124, following Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia; for a considerable refutation see Best, 228-29.
643
. This seems so clearly to be the case, esp. in light of 2 Thessalonians, that one is surprised by Malherbe’s rejection of it in favor of traditions derived from the moral philosophers; see “ ‘Pastoral Care’ in the Thessalonian Church,” NTS 36 (1990), 375-91.
644
. The rendering “the idle” apparently first appeared in the RSV (NT 1948); for reasons that are difficult to fathom, that meaning tended to take over among NT scholars, despite total lack of evidence for it.
645
. See the two entries in BDAG (ἀτακτέω / ἀτάκτως), who, regarding the verb, note that “the trans[lation] be idle, lazy does not take adequate account of Gr[eco]-Rom [an] social history.” In fact, there is no known evidence of any kind in its favor; cf. Gaventa, 81-82.
646
. Gk. παραμυθεĩσθε; see the discussion on 2:12 above (p. 82). The present usage tends to modify Green’s argument noted there (n. 108) that the verb more likely means something like “persuade.”
647
. This view is the one most frequently suggested; see Ellicott, 77; Best, 230 (as one option); cf. Marshall, 151; Wanamaker, 197.
648
. This option is altogether discounted by most commentators (e.g., Ellicott, 77; Milligan, 73 [“can only be the spiritually weak”]); but it has recently been put forward by Beale (166), and seconded by Witherington (163).
649
. Frame (198) identifies them with those “tempted to impurity” (4:3-8); Best (231) suggests that, “coming from paganism,” they are people who feel the need for rules. D. A. Black argues for a connection with those who are exhorted to watchfulness in 5:1- 11 (“The Weak in Thessalonica: A Study in Pauline Lexicography,” JETS 25 [1982], 307-21). From our distance, and with only this brief imperative to inform us, wisdom would suggest we simply admit that we cannot know who they are; cf. Morris (169). For a discussion of the concept of “weakness” as a philosophical category, see Malherbe (318-20), whose use of “clearly” is perhaps a bit strong in this case (our way as scholars of saying, “Shout loud, point weak here”?)
650
. See further the helpful comments by Green, who regards them as “those who had no social status or power since they were slaves or liberati (former slaves) or because of their economic situation” (p. 254).
651
. See Malherbe (320) for one who is willing to throw the net more widely here so as to include those on the outside as well.
652
. Gk. ὅρατε μή; only here in Paul; elsewhere he uses βλέπετε (1 Cor 8:9; Gal 5:14). The colloquial “see to it” is the American equivalent of Paul’s language here.
653
. For this same kind of admonition elsewhere cf. Rom 12:17-19 (“Do not repay anyone evil for evil. . . . Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath”).
654
. Here the TNIV has corrected a most unfortunate rendering in the NIV, “but always try to be kind.” This is simply not the same thing as “doing what is good” to others, and has a terribly saccharine ring to it. Cf. the objection by Holmes, 181, whose commentary was based on the NIV.
655
. Cf. Gaventa (83): “What Paul encourages exceeds the conventions of ‘making nice’ to these people; it is active involvement that seeks their good because their good is that of the whole body of Christ.”
656
. Malherbe (321) would limit this final καὶ εἰς πάντας to those within the believing community, but that seems unnecessary and creates an awkward redundancy (“to each other and to all of you”).
657
. Except in the final instance, where the “evil” that stands in contrast to “the good” that precedes it is itself preceded by a prepositional phrase, which the Greek itself requires with the verb ἀπέχεσθε (i.e., ἀπέχεσθε ἀπό . . .). Gaventa (84) makes the further significant observation that each of the imperatives, except for those in v. 17, either begins with the letter π or one is found in the word immediately following the preposition or Greek article. Thus, πάντoτε, ἐν παντί, τὸ πνευμα, πρoϕητείας, πάντα, ἀπὸ παντός. And in the adverb in v. 17 the π is found in the middle: ἀδιαλείπτως πρoσεύχεσθε.
μα, πρoϕητείας, πάντα, ἀπὸ παντός. And in the adverb in v. 17 the π is found in the middle: ἀδιαλείπτως πρoσεύχεσθε.658
. See Malherbe (328) and most commentaries, contra Thomas (290), e.g., who seems to reflect Western individualism more than Paul by entitling these verses, “Responsibilities to Oneself.”
659
. So Ellicott (80); cf. Findlay (128): “From joy, prayer, and thanksgiving it is a natural transition to the Spirit and prophecy.”
660
. Cf. Wanamaker (199-200) and Richard (271), who also make this point.
661
. As, e.g., is emphasized by Green (250), who actually translates the verb “be joyful”(!), and then uses only the noun “joy” in his two paragraphs of comment.
662
. The traditional translation “without ceasing” has been rightly challenged by C. Smith (“’Aδιαλείπτως Πρoσεύχεσθε: Is Paul Serious?” Presbyterion 22 [1996], 113-20), who offers “persistently” or “constantly” as more viable options in the present setting.
663
. Contra Ellicott (81) and Malherbe (330), who challenge this view on the basis of the singular “this.” But Paul is not setting forth three things that they must continue to do in worship, but a threefold expression of their worship, which together constitutes the “will of God” in this case.
664
. Gk. πάντoτε (“always, at all times”), ἀδιαλείπτως (“constantly, unceasingly”), ἐν παντί (“in every [circumstance]”).
665
. The omission of this δέ in the textus receptus (supported by
* A 33 81 104 614 629 630 945 pm), along with the fact that each of these imperatives was assigned a verse number, has tended to destroy altogether the meaning of this series of imperatives as a set — and to cause untold harm in separatist churches. The δέ in this case was almost certainly an early scribal omission (in conformity to the whole series, all of which lack conjunctions), rather than added early and often by such a wide range of early witnesses (incl. B D G K P J 181 326 436 1241 1739 pm it vg cop goth eth). Metzger (Textual Commentary, 633, following Lightfoot, 84) suggests that the omission may have resulted from its being “absorbed by the following syllable,” but it is hard to see how that could have happened in this case (since it is followed by the δoκ-, not the -τε, of δoκιμάζετε).
* A 33 81 104 614 629 630 945 pm), along with the fact that each of these imperatives was assigned a verse number, has tended to destroy altogether the meaning of this series of imperatives as a set — and to cause untold harm in separatist churches. The δέ in this case was almost certainly an early scribal omission (in conformity to the whole series, all of which lack conjunctions), rather than added early and often by such a wide range of early witnesses (incl. B D G K P J 181 326 436 1241 1739 pm it vg cop goth eth). Metzger (Textual Commentary, 633, following Lightfoot, 84) suggests that the omission may have resulted from its being “absorbed by the following syllable,” but it is hard to see how that could have happened in this case (since it is followed by the δoκ-, not the -τε, of δoκιμάζετε).666
. The genitive πoνηρoυ is ambiguous, and may be either a substantive (“every form of evil”), as most understand it, or an adjective, as in the TNIV (cf. Lightfoot [86], Frame [208], J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975], 236). For the argument in favor of going against the majority here, see the discussion below. Richard (272) opts for the substantive, but interprets it to refer “to questionable charismatic activity.”
is ambiguous, and may be either a substantive (“every form of evil”), as most understand it, or an adjective, as in the TNIV (cf. Lightfoot [86], Frame [208], J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975], 236). For the argument in favor of going against the majority here, see the discussion below. Richard (272) opts for the substantive, but interprets it to refer “to questionable charismatic activity.”667
. I use this word in this way with some misgivings, because there is a sense in which everything that is of the Spirit is “charismatic,” not simply the more visible manifestations of phenomena such as prophecy. Nonetheless, one of the current possibilities of meaning is this one — to refer to Christian communities (or people) who are open to, and experiencing, these kinds of Spirit activity. That the present passage presupposes this is self-evident, hence the use of the term “charismatic” in this sense to describe them — and the rest of the early church. On this matter, though somewhat overstated, see H. Gunkel, The Influence of the Holy Spirit (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979 [Ger. original, 1888]), 30-42.
668
. Morris (175-79), therefore, sees the whole of vv. 19-22 not as referring to prophetic utterances, but to general prohibitions, including one (v. 20) against despising prophecies. But this does not seem to take seriously enough either (1) the fact that the preceding three are a package of imperatives, (2) the structure of this particular series, or (3) the appearance and contrastive force of the δέ in v. 21, which is related specifically to prophecies.
669
. As is also the case, e.g., in 1 Cor 16:13-18; 2 Cor 13:11; Rom 16:17-19; cf. G. D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 825-26.
670
. Some interpreters have made it the basis for all the troubles Paul addresses in Thessalonica. But that is probably to read too much into too little evidence. See esp. Jewett, Correspondence, 161-78.
671
. See Fee, 1 Corinthians, 574-82 (on 1 Cor 12:1-3).
672
. Cf. Wanamaker (201), who suggests that “Paul wished to encourage pneumatic activity as a sign of the eschatological times in which the Thessalonians found themselves.” This passage seems to imply that the phenomena are more integral to early Christian initiation and experience than Wanamaker allows. Paul hardly needs to “encourage” what would have been presuppositional in the Pauline churches.
673
. E.g., Green, 261, who refers to them as “two exhortations that arrest attempts to impede the use of this gift within the church.”
674
. The negative μή with the present imperative often has the force of “stop doing something,” implying the forbidden action as already taking place. This is argued, e.g., by Hiebert (243) and Moore (83); but see Bruce (125), who correctly notes that, “like the positive imperatives in vv. 16-18 and 21-22, [these negative imperatives] indicate what they must habitually do (or refrain from doing).”
675
. For “fan into flame” see 2 Tim 1:6-7; for “earnestly desire” see 1 Cor 14:1.
676
. But see Gunkel (Influence, 30-31), who believes glossolalia to be “the Spirit’s most striking and characteristic activity,” and therefore considers πνευμα in this sentence to be “set next to πρoϕητεία as the capacity for speaking in tongues.” Others see this first prohibition as referring to Spirit-gifting in general (Ellicott [81], Frame [205], Best [238], Wanamaker [202]), but as Malherbe (331) notes, “The context as well as the verb used . . . indicate that Paul is already referring to prophecy.”
μα in this sentence to be “set next to πρoϕητεία as the capacity for speaking in tongues.” Others see this first prohibition as referring to Spirit-gifting in general (Ellicott [81], Frame [205], Best [238], Wanamaker [202]), but as Malherbe (331) notes, “The context as well as the verb used . . . indicate that Paul is already referring to prophecy.”677
. Since τὸ πνευμα holds first place in the sentence, one might argue that the emphasis lies here; however, this word order seems less emphatic than merely formal, since in each case the verb is the last member of the sentence (as was also true in the preceding set of “staccato imperatives,” vv. 16-18). More significantly, the definite article with πνευμα assures us that Paul is here referring to the Spirit, that is, the Spirit of the living God, whom each of them had come to experience at conversion (1:5-6).
μα holds first place in the sentence, one might argue that the emphasis lies here; however, this word order seems less emphatic than merely formal, since in each case the verb is the last member of the sentence (as was also true in the preceding set of “staccato imperatives,” vv. 16-18). More significantly, the definite article with πνευμα assures us that Paul is here referring to the Spirit, that is, the Spirit of the living God, whom each of them had come to experience at conversion (1:5-6).678
. Gk. σβέννυμι. Moulton-Milligan offer a similar metaphorical usage from the first century (“you quenched the sunlight in us both”).
679
. But in the Pauline corpus only here and in 2 Tim 1:6-7 (“fan into flame the gift”).
680
. On this see esp. W. C. van Unnik, “ ‘Den Geist löschet nicht aus’ (1 Thessalonicher v 19),” NovT 10 (1968), 255-69.
681
. As over against a prohibition of an individual’s stifling the Spirit within oneself (as, e.g., Ellicott, 82; Bruce, 125).
682
. The language is from von Dobschütz (225) and is cited favorably by van Unnik (see n. 54 above) — although his distinction between v. 19 as referring to oneself and v. 20 to others is perhaps too neatly drawn.
683
. This can be seen most clearly in 1 Corinthians 12-14. Even after some rather strong words of correction about the Spirit’s activity among them, Paul refuses to allow these correctives to become a form of “quenching the Spirit’s fire.” Thus he concludes the whole by repeating the command that they “be zealous for prophecy, and not forbid speaking in tongues.” The corrective is to be found in their doing so “decently and in order.”
684
. Besides this passage see Rom 12:6; 1 Cor 12:10; 13:2, 8; 14:6, 22; 1 Tim 1:18; 4:14. The verb, which speaks of the activity itself, occurs 11 further times, and includes the participation of women in 1 Cor 11:5.
685
. See D. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 23-88.
686
. Gk. ἐξoυθενεĩτε, which here, as often in the NT, implies to “reject disdainfully” (BDAG; see Acts 4:11; Gal 4:14).
687
. As, e.g., Best, 239.
688
. Gk. δoκιμάζετε, which here means to “put to the test,” in the sense of “examine” as to its trustworthiness. Cf. Luke 14:19, where a man excuses himself from the banquet so that he may go and “test/examine” a purchase of oxen.
689
. From a very early time this saying was related to an agraphon of Jesus, “Be approved money changers.” Cf. esp. the form in which it is cited by Clement: “Be ye approved money changers, who reject much, but retain the good.” As Jeremias points out, this is probably how the logion itself was originally to be understood (J. Jeremias, Unknown Sayings of Jesus [London: SPCK, 1958], 89-93). But despite this Clementine form, which has some obvious linguistic overtones with Paul, there is no reason to believe that Paul either knew or used the saying; and, in any case, Paul’s concern moves in a considerably different direction.
690
. Among the “criteria” passages, one might add 1 Cor 12:3, but, as noted in my commentary (1 Corinthians, 581), “Paul’s point in context is not to establish a means of ‘testing the spirits,’ but to remind them that ‘inspired utterance’ as such is not evidence of being ‘led of the Spirit.’ ”
691
. Gk. ἀπέχεσθε; cf. 4:3: ἀπέχεσθε ὑμας ἀπὸ της πoρνείας (“that you abstain from sexual immorality”); and 1 Tim 4:3 (where false teachers command “abstinence from foods, etc.”).
ς ἀπὸ της πoρνείας (“that you abstain from sexual immorality”); and 1 Tim 4:3 (where false teachers command “abstinence from foods, etc.”).692
. This possibility has also been entertained by some commentators (e.g., Ellicott, Moore, Hiebert, and Green), although the latter sees it as including the issue of false prophecy.
693
. The still greater misfortune is that this practice has been maintained by some recent English versions; see esp. the NASB/U, whose adherence to this practice seems inexcusable.
694
. See 2 Thess 2:11; 2 Cor 9:8; Col 1:10; 1 Tim 5:10; Tit 1:16; 3:1; 2 Tim 2:21; 3:17.
695
. The Greek is quite close:
Paul: ἀπὸ παντὸς εἴδoυς πoνηρoυ ἀπέχεσθε LXX Job: ἀπεχόμενoς ἀπὸ παντὸς πoνηρoυ πράγματoς
ἀπέχεσθε LXX Job: ἀπεχόμενoς ἀπὸ παντὸς πoνηρoυ πράγματoς696
. The choice of verbs seems especially perplexing to some, since Paul has an ample vocabulary to express “reject.” Even more difficult is the modifier πoνερoυ, which does not seem to balance the simple object, “the good,” in the preceding clause. But all of this can be explained by Paul’s choice of language from the LXX, where he has substituted εἴδoυς for πράγματoς.
, which does not seem to balance the simple object, “the good,” in the preceding clause. But all of this can be explained by Paul’s choice of language from the LXX, where he has substituted εἴδoυς for πράγματoς.697
. In the middle voice, which is the only form of ἀπέχoμαι that means “to avoid” or “keep distant from,” it naturally takes the preposition ἀπό to complete its meaning.
698
. As BDAG; see, e.g., its use in Sir 23:16; 24:2; cf. Josephus, Ant. 10.07, who uses a similar expression: παν εἴδoυς πoνηρίας (“every form/kind of wickedness”). One wonders whether lying behind this usage is a correlation of “sin” with “idolatry” in the Jewish mind?
ν εἴδoυς πoνηρίας (“every form/kind of wickedness”). One wonders whether lying behind this usage is a correlation of “sin” with “idolatry” in the Jewish mind?699
. This is my own terminology; Paul is in fact praying for them, but its form and placement at the end of the letter indicates that it serves as a kind of benediction as well. Cf. R. Jewett, who styles it a “homiletic benediction” (“The Form and Function of the Pauline Benediction,” ATR 51 [1969] 18-34; Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings [Leiden: Brill, 1971], 175-83). For the most thorough study of these “closings” in Paul’s letters, see J. A. D. Weima, Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1994), 174-86. On Wiles’s (Paul’s Intercessory Prayers [SNTSMS; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974]) less-than-helpful use of the language “wish-prayer” for this and all the prayers in the optative in the Pauline corpus, see n. 5 on 3:11-13 above.
700
. Cf. P.-É. Langevin, “L’intervention de Dieu, selon 1 Thess 5,23-24: Déja le salut par grâce,” in The Thessalonians Correspondence (ed. R. F. Collins), 236-56. Weima (preceding note) sees it as picking up a third item as well (“comfort in the face of persecution” [p. 181]), but that is less clear to me.
701
. Gk. ὁλoτελεĩς (NT hapax legomenon), an adjective in the predicate position that here probably functions adverbially; it is a quantitative (or “collective”; Milligan [78], Rigaux [596]) term for which BAGD offered “through and through” as a possible translation, but which BDAG changed to “in every way complete, quite perfect,” for which Danker then offers “make you completely holy in every way” for this passage. Lightfoot (87) considers the predicate usage preferable (“as proleptic, . . . ‘may he sanctify you so that ye be entire’ ”). Cf. Jewett (Terms, 176), who considers the adverbial use “indefensible” here, since Paul could have used the corresponding adverb ὁλoτελως. The adverbial understanding, however, which seems demanded by the emphasis and context, goes back as far as the Vulgate (per omnia). Moreover, it is not at all clear how “being entire” or “integral” (Jewett) makes much sense of the clearly ethical intent of ἁγιάσαι.
ς. The adverbial understanding, however, which seems demanded by the emphasis and context, goes back as far as the Vulgate (per omnia). Moreover, it is not at all clear how “being entire” or “integral” (Jewett) makes much sense of the clearly ethical intent of ἁγιάσαι.702
. Gk. ὁλόκληρoν, according to BDAG, pertains to “being complete and meeting all expectation,” thus “with integrity, whole, complete, undamaged, intact, blameless.” It is difficult to see much essential difference in meaning from ὁλoτελεĩς. The best solution seems to be that of Milligan and Rigaux (preceding note), who, on the basis of derivation, see ὁλoτελεĩς as collective and ὁλόκληρoν as distributive (i.e., “completely” and “in every part”).
703
. Indeed, the literature on this passage, besides the commentaries, is considerable. For a review of much of the Continental literature up through 1990, in several European languages, see R. F. Collins, Studies in the First Letter to the Thessalonians (BETL 66; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1984), 68-89.
704
. Even a casual look at the literature indicates that precision is difficult to come by; for a similar judgment regarding the three terms see Green, 268-69. For the concern of an earlier day over these matters, see A. McCaig (“Thoughts on the Tripartite Theory of Human Nature,” EQ 3 [1931], 121-38), who presents seven reasons why “trichotomy” is not a correct understanding of Paul.
705
. On the possible distinctions, see BDAG under πνευμα (3a). Although it is somewhat dated, see also the two entries in TDNT (E. Schweizer, “πνευμα,” 6:415-37; idem, “Ψυχή,” 9:648-56). What seems to be “clear” about this usage, and the possible distinctions, is that there is not much clarity in the literature itself. And in any case, Paul is not trying to be precise regarding the makeup of the human person, but all-inclusive in terms of what God will do for his people by means of the Spirit. What this seems to be, in fact, is a Pauline reworking of the familiar Shema of Deut 6:4.
μα (3a). Although it is somewhat dated, see also the two entries in TDNT (E. Schweizer, “πνευμα,” 6:415-37; idem, “Ψυχή,” 9:648-56). What seems to be “clear” about this usage, and the possible distinctions, is that there is not much clarity in the literature itself. And in any case, Paul is not trying to be precise regarding the makeup of the human person, but all-inclusive in terms of what God will do for his people by means of the Spirit. What this seems to be, in fact, is a Pauline reworking of the familiar Shema of Deut 6:4.706
. See, e.g., Frame (211-13), following von Dobschütz. This view, which has been generally rejected (e.g., Hendriksen, 147) or disregarded, has been recently revived by Jewett (Terms, 175-83) as a significant part of his understanding of this letter and of Paul’s usage of πνευμα in general. According to Jewett, the occasion of 1 Thessalonians can best be explained in terms of a “radical millenarism,” in which an ardent expectation of Christ’s return combined with unbridled ecstasy to produce the various troubles in Thessalonica. The issue in 4:3-8 would then have been a “spiritual” separation of spirit and body, so that in “Spirit” one can do as one wills with the body, including illicit sexuality. That is because in their view they have been taken over by the divine Spirit. Hence, Paul urges that God’s sanctifying activity excludes the notion that only “Spirit” will be redeemed (πνευμα = “the apportioned Spirit,” i.e., the Spirit of God that has been severally apportioned to individual believers and more or less assumes the role of the human πνευμα) and that it includes “the whole person — not just the pneumatic inner man” (181). But it is not at all clear that the problem in Thessalonica is with “opponents” rather than simply with a lack of understanding and growth on the part of Gentile converts fresh out of paganism. Jewett probably reads a bit too much into only a few snippets of material from these two letters and, in the case of this verse, takes the additional step of seeing Paul as taking over the language of his opponents and reforming it. This seems too much to ask of the prayer, since one can make good sense of it by taking it in a more straightforward way.
μα in general. According to Jewett, the occasion of 1 Thessalonians can best be explained in terms of a “radical millenarism,” in which an ardent expectation of Christ’s return combined with unbridled ecstasy to produce the various troubles in Thessalonica. The issue in 4:3-8 would then have been a “spiritual” separation of spirit and body, so that in “Spirit” one can do as one wills with the body, including illicit sexuality. That is because in their view they have been taken over by the divine Spirit. Hence, Paul urges that God’s sanctifying activity excludes the notion that only “Spirit” will be redeemed (πνευμα = “the apportioned Spirit,” i.e., the Spirit of God that has been severally apportioned to individual believers and more or less assumes the role of the human πνευμα) and that it includes “the whole person — not just the pneumatic inner man” (181). But it is not at all clear that the problem in Thessalonica is with “opponents” rather than simply with a lack of understanding and growth on the part of Gentile converts fresh out of paganism. Jewett probably reads a bit too much into only a few snippets of material from these two letters and, in the case of this verse, takes the additional step of seeing Paul as taking over the language of his opponents and reforming it. This seems too much to ask of the prayer, since one can make good sense of it by taking it in a more straightforward way.707
. Many also see in the two lines a kind of chiasmus. In its barest form the sentence reads: ἁγιάσαι ὑμας ὁλoτελεĩς . . . ὁλόκληρoν ὑμων τὸ πνευμα . . . τηρηθείη. Thus there is an ABC CBA order to (A) the verb, (B) the “you” and “your spirit etc.,” and (C) the predicate adjective modifier of “you” and “your spirit.” Understood in this way, the sentence is most often read: “May the God of peace sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit, soul, and body be preserved complete [or ‘sound’].”
ς ὁλoτελεĩς . . . ὁλόκληρoν ὑμων τὸ πνευμα . . . τηρηθείη. Thus there is an ABC CBA order to (A) the verb, (B) the “you” and “your spirit etc.,” and (C) the predicate adjective modifier of “you” and “your spirit.” Understood in this way, the sentence is most often read: “May the God of peace sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit, soul, and body be preserved complete [or ‘sound’].”But this seems to make very little sense of Paul’s sentence, especially when one comes to the adverb “blamelessly,” which is usually turned into another adjective, resulting in (as the RSV): “May your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The problem here is that the first adjective (ὁλoτελεĩς) is treated as an adverb, but the second (ὁλόκληρoν) as an adjective, while the one true adverb (ἀμέμπτως) in the sentence becomes a predicate adjective. Paul’s concern does not seem to be on the “wholeness” or “soundness” of one’s spirit, soul, and body at the Parousia, but on the “whole” person (i.e., spirit, soul, and body, and any other part of one’s being) being blamelessly preserved for the coming.
708
. Thus, even though not quite precise as to the meaning of ὁλόκληρoν and its grammatically being a predicate adjective, the TNIV seems to have Paul’s sense right by rendering “sanctify” as a verb and the adjective as “blameless.” Richard (285) seems to miss Paul by too much in suggesting that “Paul is not here speaking of holiness as an ethical process or as social community activity. . . . Instead, he is referring to that soteriological activity which was begun by God in the Christ-event.” Making these mutually exclusive seems quite unnecessary.
709
. See 1:3, 10; 2:12, 19; 3:13; 4:13-17; and 5:1-10.
710
. Cf. Malherbe (339), who notes that “despite frequent claims to the contrary, Paul is writing rhetorically, and it is unnecessary to posit some liturgical tradition . . . or popular psychology . . . behind his words.”
711
. Cf. the usage in the similarly expressed love command in Mark 12:30 (par.), where “heart, soul, mind, and strength” function in the same way.
712
. There seem to be only 14 certain instances in which πνευμα refers to the human spirit; see GEP, ch. 2, n. 7.
μα refers to the human spirit; see GEP, ch. 2, n. 7.713
. Despite Jewett to the contrary. Thus, e.g., Findlay (133): “for with man’s spirit the Holy Spirit directly associates Himself (Rom. viii.16).”
714
. On yet another front Juel’s point (250) is well taken: that sanctification here is not to be understood as a gradual progress toward a goal, but as a living out of the gift that has already been bestowed by grace. “Discipleship is life between the times, for God has not yet finished what he began. But the life of faith is not a striving for more; it is living more fully in what has already been given, knowing that even efforts to live more appropriately as ‘saints’ (4:1-3) depend upon God who sanctifies.”
715
. The TNIV here reflects the reading of P30 B D* 0278 6 33 81 104 326 1505 1739 1881 2462 pc b syh sa Ambst;
A D1 F G Ivid Ψ
lat syp bo have a καί here, which is most likely a secondary addition in response to the prayer for them that immediately precedes this request. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine the circumstances in which a scribe might have deleted it, had it been original. It is of some surprise, therefore, that Malherbe (340) apparently considers the “addition” to be original.
A D1 F G Ivid Ψlat syp bo have a καί here, which is most likely a secondary addition in response to the prayer for them that immediately precedes this request. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine the circumstances in which a scribe might have deleted it, had it been original. It is of some surprise, therefore, that Malherbe (340) apparently considers the “addition” to be original.716
. See 2 Cor 13:12; Phil 4:21; cf. Rom 16:3-16.
717
. The “kiss” in this case would not have been on the mouth, but on both cheeks, as it still is in some Eastern European countries.
718
. See further W. Klassen, “The Sacred Kiss in the New Testament: An Example of Social Boundary Lines,” NTS 39 (1993), 122-35.
719
. See n. 15 on 2:18 for the five instances of this phenomenon in the two letters.
720
. Although in Ephesians it takes the form, “Grace to all who love the Lord Jesus Christ.”
721
. The designation “Christ” is missing from 1 Corinthians and Romans.
722
. I put this in quotes because I do not intend for “second” to be a sequential number at this point — although I believe that to be so as well — but a numerical indicator only.
723
. That by Earl Richard in the Sacra Pagina series (see bibliography for details).
724
. NT scholars tend to be offended by this term; but what other term, one wonders, is appropriate for someone’s palming off as authentic a letter written in that person’s name without his or her approval?
725
. In any case, my own experience over many years is that the only people who read these “Introductions” are other scholars or teachers, not the pastors or students who are the primary audience for this series of commentaries.
726
. In the commentary it is pointed out that in the second instance Paul has used the exact language of the blessing of Benjamin from Deut 33:12, Paul’s own family “crest,” as it were. How could a forger have known and done this? And to have done so by luck would seem to border on one chance in several billion.
727
. All one need do in this regard is to examine the cross-references in the margins of Nestle-Aland27 to see how thoroughgoing this phenomenon actually is. At the end of such an examination the only cross-reference that would seem to have any substance at all in terms of use of similar language is the ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ ἀγαθῳ (“in every good deed and word”) in 2:17, which is echoed again by Paul himself in 2 Cor 9:8, εἰς παν ἔργoν ἀγαθόν (“unto every good deed”). And this is precisely the kind of “echo” that reflects an author’s own usage, rather than someone else’s trying hard to look like Paul with such limited knowledge of the rest of the corpus.
(“in every good deed and word”) in 2:17, which is echoed again by Paul himself in 2 Cor 9:8, εἰς παν ἔργoν ἀγαθόν (“unto every good deed”). And this is precisely the kind of “echo” that reflects an author’s own usage, rather than someone else’s trying hard to look like Paul with such limited knowledge of the rest of the corpus.728
. This is a feature that in particular would seem most highly improbable for a forger to have been able to imitate; for the larger question of the authenticity of this letter, see the Introduction, pp. 238-41.
729
. Such a prayer occurs in 1 Thessalonians, of course (3:11-13), but not upfront as this one and the rest do.
730
1 Greek Silvanus, a variant of Silas
731
. In what appears to be one of the UBSGNT committee’s lesser moments, they chose to include the redundant ἡμων (“our” [KJV/NKJV]) in brackets and give it a [C] rating; indeed, Metzger (Textual Commentary, 567) indicates that it was included in the text in brackets “in order to represent the balance of probabilities.” The TNIV, and most other modern versions, have rightly omitted it. Three matters indicate that it is plainly secondary: (a) the external evidence is strongly in favor of exclusion; it is not found in B D P 0111 33 1739 1881 1985 itd e mon, a combination of early evidence East and West that would be especially difficult to account for had it been original; (b) the variant found in the Majority Text (includingA G and the later Old Latin) would have required no thinking at all on the part of a scribe, while an “omission” would have; and scribes were notoriously not “thinkers” of a kind who would deliberately “omit” this word as a redundancy; (c) it was a scribal commonplace to conform in such moments both to what immediately precedes (v. 1) and to what is found elsewhere in these two letters (1 Thess 1:3; 3:11, 13; 2 Thess 1:12; 2:16). For the inclusion of the pronoun, which seems to lack text-critical acumen, see Richard, 296.
ν (“our” [KJV/NKJV]) in brackets and give it a [C] rating; indeed, Metzger (Textual Commentary, 567) indicates that it was included in the text in brackets “in order to represent the balance of probabilities.” The TNIV, and most other modern versions, have rightly omitted it. Three matters indicate that it is plainly secondary: (a) the external evidence is strongly in favor of exclusion; it is not found in B D P 0111 33 1739 1881 1985 itd e mon, a combination of early evidence East and West that would be especially difficult to account for had it been original; (b) the variant found in the Majority Text (includingA G and the later Old Latin) would have required no thinking at all on the part of a scribe, while an “omission” would have; and scribes were notoriously not “thinkers” of a kind who would deliberately “omit” this word as a redundancy; (c) it was a scribal commonplace to conform in such moments both to what immediately precedes (v. 1) and to what is found elsewhere in these two letters (1 Thess 1:3; 3:11, 13; 2 Thess 1:12; 2:16). For the inclusion of the pronoun, which seems to lack text-critical acumen, see Richard, 296.732
. See on 1 Thess 3:1-5 for these details.
733
At this point, then, Paul is simply doing what is natural for him, whereas one would expect a forger who is trying to palm this letter off as Pauline to have followed the salutation of the first letter more slavishly.
734
That is, a forger who apparently knew only 1 Thessalonians would at this point seem to betray knowledge of Paul’s later letters as well.
735
It is difficult to imagine how a pseudepigrapher could have allowed himself such a redundancy, especially given that the only letter of Paul that is demonstrably known to him is our 1 Thessalonians. This kind of thing can be shown to be somewhat “typical” of Paul, whereas it is precisely the kind of faux pas a forger would want to avoid at all costs. Those who argue for forgery are thus caught on the horns of their own dilemma. On the one hand, they argue that all of this is too much like 1 Thessalonians to be authentic (“such repetition occurs in the prescript of no other Pauline letter” [J. A. Bailey, “Who Wrote II Thessalonians?” NTS 25 (1979), 131-45]); on the other hand, it is also argued that this repetition is not enough like that in Paul’s other letters to be authentic. But this view fails to note that the compounding of “God our Father” and “the Lord Jesus Christ” is a common feature of these two letters in a way that is less so in all the subsequent letters. Indeed, how a forger would have been able to pull this off creates enormous difficulties for the theory, especially since the addition of the source in v. 2 requires knowledge of the other Pauline letters, yet there is nothing else in this letter to suggest that the writer (even if Paul himself!) knew the rest of the corpus. The difficulty for the theory of “forgery” comes especially to the fore in the author’s inclusion of the source of the grace and peace, which is nearly impossible to account for without his having had knowledge of the other Pauline letters, yet nowhere else does the “forger” exhibit any knowledge of them.
736
As with all the arguments against authenticity, this feature cuts both ways. Some argue that it is so unlike Paul that he could not have written it. On the other hand, one can argue, how could a forger have gotten away with something so “unlike Paul.” Such arguments against authenticity are ultimately convincing only to those previously committed to such a view, since they are basically unsubstantial on their own merit.
737
For the second thanksgiving see on 2:13-14 below, pp. 299-304.
738
At least the actual content seems to suggest as much. Wanamaker (215), who sees all of this in rhetorical terms, suggests that one of its purposes is (“clearly”) to “introduce the theme of the day of the Lord and the fact that it still remains in the future.” Perhaps so, but it seems debatable whether the content itself actually does so. It would seem to take a lot of reading with that view in hand in order for one to perceive it in that way, since at no point is that emphasis actually articulated.
739
For an earlier attempt to shorten Paul’s sentences into something more manageable, which in some ways anticipates the punctuation of the TNIV, see D. A. Dunham, “2 Thessalonians 1:3-10: A Study in Sentence Structure,” JETS 24 (1981), 39-46.
740
By all counts this “verse” serves as the transition from the thanksgiving proper to the assurance of God’s judgment on their persecutors. For those commentaries (e.g., Malherbe) and translations that prefer smaller paragraphs, the placement of this verse appears to be a matter of personal judgment. Those who see it as “concluding” the thanksgiving proper (e.g., NJB) include it with vv. 4-5; those who see it as “introducing” the rest of the sentence begin a new paragraph here (TNIV, NRSV, NAB; Malherbe). The former would have been my personal preference, but this is a judgment call, pure and simple.
741
This is used by many as condemning Pauline authorship, which is a puzzling view, to be sure, since one would have expected a forger to do exactly the opposite — namely, to adhere absolutely to 1 Thessalonians, since it would have been the only Pauline letter he knew. On the other hand, it has also engendered considerable discussion among those who affirm Pauline authorship; cf., e.g., Best (249-50), who suggests that “the obligation . . . is [in part] forced on Paul by what he sees in the Thessalonians; they deserve this thanksgiving.” For a sane (and helpful) discussion of this language, see R. D. Aus, “The Liturgical Background of the Necessity and Propriety of Giving Thanks according to 2 Thes 1:3,” JBL 92 (1973), 432-38.
742
Indeed, had Paul intended the former, the more appropriate expression would have been δεĩ (cf. Milligan, 86).
743
Cf. Marshall (170), “The thought is . . . of the obligation imposed by joyfulness and relief ”; and Holmes (211), “. . . [obligation] is not driven by duty but by gratitude to God for the divinely inspired growth experienced by the Thessalonians.”
744
This is a feature that is especially damning for the theory of forgery, since the alleged author apparently knows nothing at all of the rest of the corpus, yet writes with the kind of “instincts” that will emerge in later letters.
745
The appearance of this vocative in the thanksgiving is unique to this letter in the corpus; it will occur again in the thanksgiving in 2:13, in this latter case with the modifier “loved by the Lord.” Although this is another item that is used to argue against Pauline authorship, it is equally a feature that can cut both ways. After all, why would an imitator do this at all, let alone do it twice, since he would have no model for it? Whereas, given the frequency of this vocative in these two letters (see on 1 Thess 1:4), this is a feature that a forger would be expected to imitate more closely in keeping with the earlier letter, and thus not include it in the two thanksgiving reports.
746
Gk. ἄξιoν, an adjective whose basic sense is “worthy,” but is also used, as here, in an impersonal sense of “what is fitting or proper.” The TNIV’s “rightly so” has nicely captured its meaning. Lightfoot (97) observes that this phrase serves to balance the obligatory nature of the thanksgiving — the divine obligation in the “we must”; the human with this “it is fitting.” But Aus (n. 13) has shown that this language has deep roots in Jewish liturgical prayers, especially so in contexts of suffering.
747
Gk. ὅτι, which in this case can be either causal or explanatory (= “that”); cause seems preferable here, as in most English versions and commentaries (cf. Best, 250).
748
It should be noted that these two nouns occurred twice together in the first letter (1 Thess 3:6; 5:8), and that they also express the major concerns of the first letter. But it should be further noted that in this letter only the matter of their “faith” gets picked up explicitly; the only further mention of “love” has to do with God’s love (2:16; 3:5).
749
The two verbs are near synonyms; the first (ὑπεραυξάνει) occurs only here in the NT, but it reflects Paul’s love of ὑπέρ- compounds (see comments on Phil 2:9 in my Philippians). On the second verb, πλεoνάζει, see the comments that follow.
750
On this question see the comments on 1 Thess 3:2 and 5 above (pp. 116-17, 20). Note also the title of C. H. Giblin’s study of 2:1-12 (The Threat to Faith: An Exegetical and Theological Re-examination of 2 Thessalonians 2 [AnBib 31; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967]). Morris (195; cf. P. T. O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul [NovTSup 49; Leiden: Brill, 1977], 175) takes strong exception to this understanding, but his concern seems to be theologically driven. One might note, e.g., that in the letter most singularly driven by “faith” thus understood, Paul also uses the noun in this “un-Pauline” way to refer to what is believed in common (Gal 1:23: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy”). Paul is not so easily boxed in as some in the Protestant tradition would wish to do.
751
As is usual for Paul; see 1 Thess 1:2; 1 Cor 1:4; Rom 1:8; Col 1:3; Phlm 4; Phil 1:3.
752
As O’Brien (Introductory Thanksgivings, 174) has pointed out, this increase is “diffusive rather than organic”; i.e., it does not mean that each of them has “more” love, but that the love they do have is increasingly evident among them.
753
Gk. αὐτoὺς ἡμας; although the αὐτoύς would ordinarily be emphatic, here it most likely simply expresses contrast to the preceding “all of you” in v. 3. For other options see Best, 252.
ς; although the αὐτoύς would ordinarily be emphatic, here it most likely simply expresses contrast to the preceding “all of you” in v. 3. For other options see Best, 252.754
In light of 3:6-15, their “increase of love” continues to be a matter that will need constant attention.
755
Gk. διωγμoĩς, a word that occurs five times in Paul (2 Cor 12:10; Rom 8:35; 2 Tim 3:11 [2x]) of the ten times in the NT. It is a term that refers specifically to external persecution inflicted by others.
756
Gk. τoĩς θλίΨεσιν; see the discussion of this word in n. 41 on 1 Thess 3:3. The rendering “trials” is unique to the T/NIV among the English versions. The word has to do rather with oppression or afflictions of various kinds.
757
Gk. ἀνέχεσθε, which here carries the sense of “undergoing something onerous
. . . without giving in” (BDAG); cf. the similar usage in 1 Cor 4:12.
758
This phrase (ἐν πυρὶ ϕλoγός) appears at the end of the present clause, from which it was separated when verse numbers were added. This created the unfortunate rendition of the KJV (kept in the NKJV) in which this phrase is understood to go with the participle δίδoντες (“give” = “pay back,” thus “in flaming fire taking vengeance”). The TNIV has nicely collapsed the participle into the verb with its rendering, “will punish.”
759
The other two are found in 2:1-12 (an apparently misguided prophetic word that the day of the Lord is already at hand) and 3:6-15 (the continuing problem of the disruptive-idle).
760
Gk. ἀνταπoδίδωμι; the verb actually “encloses” the Isaianic oracle. I do not mean to suggest that Paul is necessarily consciously picking up this verb. But the fact that language from Isaiah 66 plays a significant role in our current vv. 8 and 12 suggests that this passage is in his head, as it were. On the possible influence of Isaiah 66 on this whole passage, see R. Aus, “The Relevance of Isaiah 66:7 to Revelation 12 and 2 Thessalonians 2,” ZNW 67 (1976), 252-68. This view is picked up esp. by Beale, 186-91, who sees it as Paul’s deliberately setting the believing Thessalonians in sharp contrast to their persecutors, who do not obey the gospel — just as in Isaiah 66 the “humble and contrite” stand in equally sharp contrast to those “who have chosen their own ways” (66:3).
761
Although this matter is still a debated issue in biblical scholarship, this phenomenon seems to support rather strongly that the oral substitution of Adonai (“Lord”) for Yahweh — lest the divine name itself be taken in vain — was well fixed in Jewish circles by the first Christian century. For the significance of this transfer of the κύριoς = Yahweh to Christ in the Pauline churches, see my Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007), 41-55 et passim.
762
Although seldom noted by earlier commentators (e.g., Ellicott), this phenomenon has long been recognized by English commentators, beginning with Findlay (1904), and taken up more extensively by Frame (1912), who notes (correctly) that although “the description abounds in reminiscences from the LXX, there is but one approximately exact citation [v. 9 citing Isa 2:10].” Since Best (1972), this has been more or less standard fare in the commentaries, some more cautiously than others. The christological implications have also often been noted, starting with Findlay (on v. 8, “Διδόντoς transfers to the Lord Jesus the dread prerogative reserved in the O.T. for God alone,” 148); cf. Marshall, 1983 (on v. 9, “it is significant that language originally used of Yahweh is here applied to Jesus,” 179-80), and Wanamaker, 1990 (“The appropriation of texts originally written about God to describe Jesus as Lord was one of the most important developments of early christology and eventually led to the near-total identification of Christ with the nature and activities of God,” 229).
763
Probably slightly less than two decades from the date of the crucifixion/ resurrection.
764
See further the discussion of 1 Thess 3:11-13 above.