1 Thessalonians 2

CHAPTER II

The Spirit in which Paul and Silvanus Worked in Thessalonica

1 Thessalonians 2:1

1 “For” continues the elucidation; we note that γάρ continues on through v. 1, 3, 5, 9. Αὐτοὶγάρ matches the αὐτοὶγάρ occurring in 1:9: the people themselves report what Paul states—the Thessalonians themselves know what the facts are. This paragraph, then, presents what the Thessalonians themselves well know about the spirit in which Paul and Silvanus worked in their midst when they were founding the congregation.

We have already stated why Paul finds it necessary to remind the Thessalonians of all this. The news which Timothy brought from Thessalonica evidently reported the slanders that the opponents were resorting to in order to damage the faith of the congregation by depicting Paul and Silvanus as religious mountebanks who had come into the city and had gone out again, who were neither pagan nor Jewish, who had a quack doctrine of their own, who deserved to be driven out because they only upset people (Acts 17:6). So Paul follows the method he uses so effectively against the Judaizers in Galatians 1 and 2: he lets the facts speak by showing first that people in the entire two provinces of Macedonia and Achaia talk about the entering in of these missionaries in Thessalonica, and that the Thessalonians left their idols and turned to God and his Son Jesus (1:8–10), next, that the Thessalonians themselves know how Paul and Silvanus entered in, how despite all persecution they preached the gospel with a spirit that was faithful to God, with motives that were pure, unselfish, full of tender love. Religious quacks do not operate in this way. The Thessalonians know the facts in the case better than anybody else, they know that what disinterested people in the entire provinces report is true indeed; they know even more than all these people relate. The opponents in Thessalonica may continue to rave, the church will laugh at them.

For you yourselves, brethren, know our entering in unto you (the entering in to you already mentioned in 1:9), that it has not been an empty one. On the contrary, although having suffered before and having been outraged as you know in Phillippi, we were free and open in our God to speak to you the gospel of God with much agonizing.

Yes, this was the one side of “our entering in unto you”; εἴσοδος refers not to the first arrival in Thessalonica but to the whole work of Paul and Silvanus by which they won the hearts of the Thessalonians. The emphasis is on “you yourselves know, brethren,” you are the ones who experienced it. The people in the provinces talk about it far and wide, they have only heard the story, you are the ones who know.

What you know is that this our entrance unto you “has not been an empty one,” κενή, hollow, like a vessel that has nothing in it. This is a litotes which states the matter negatively but intends it positively: “not an empty one” = one filled to the brim with most blessed effects. The perfect “has been” = and still remains so to this day. We place a period here, for not only v. 2 shows how full and rich the entering in was for the Thessalonians. Verse 2 shows only the preliminary part of it so that all that follows sets forth what “not empty” means.

1 Thessalonians 2:2

2 Ἀλλά, “on the contrary,” our entering in to you has been the absolute opposite of empty. You Thessalonians know how we came to Thessalonica. “You know” continues the appeal to the facts. We came to you Thessalonians from Philippi where we had suffered severely (explicative καί) by having been outraged in the most shameful way. Paul refers to Acts 16:19–40: he and Silvanus, Roman citizens, had been dragged before the authorities who had allowed them to be beaten by their lictors and had thrown them into the deepest dungeon as though they were the worst criminals. Instead of bringing these authorities to account for their criminal violation of the rights of Roman citizenship Paul and Silvanus had suffered the outrage. This showed their spiritual character, their motives, and their purposes. Men of this kind (1:5, 9, οἷος and ὁποῖος) were not engaged in empty work.

We regard the participles as concessive as does the A. V.: “although having suffered before, etc., in Phillippi.” In spite of this, when Paul and Silvanus came to Thessalonica, “we were free and open in our God to speak the gospel of God to you,” etc. As “our entering in” covers the whole work in Thessalonica, so this aorist ἐπαρρησιασάμεθα is constative and, therefore, covers the whole free and open procedure in Thessalonica; hence also λαλῆσαι is an aorist, again constative to indicate all the speaking done in Thessalonica.

The R. V. and R., W. P. makes the aorist ingressive: “waxed bold.” Uncowed by the fearful experience in Philippi, Paul and Silvanus freely and openly did their work in Thessalonica. They hid nothing of what they had suffered in Philippi, only the Philippian authorities had reasons for hiding the matter. This does not imply that the fearless courage of Paul and Silvanus was due to themselves as being men who were naturally strong and brave. That would really have been an emptiness in their spirit; Paul writes: “we were free and open in our God,” in our blessed connection with him.

They were preaching God’s gospel as men sent by God, under God’s protection; whatever they might suffer happened under God’s direction. This is the connection indicated by ἐν. There is certainly no emptiness to be found here. Religious quacks, as the Eoman world of that day knew them in plenty, would have operated very carefully after an experience such as that of Paul and Silvanus, would have kept it secret, and, when it was brought to light, would have lied about it.

“The gospel of God” = the one emanating from God, ordered to be proclaimed by God. Twice Paul writes the word “God,” and it refers to the “God living and real” of 1:9, the absolute opposite of empty idols. Twice also Paul writes πρὸςὑμᾶς, the same “face-to-face preposition” which he twice used in 1:9. It is well not to overlook these little details. The final phrase ἐνπολλῷἀγῶνι is certainly emphatic. It excludes the idea that, when Paul and Silvanus came to Thessalonica, they merely put on a bold front as charlatans who had been defeated elsewhere would try to do—an empty pretense.

Paul and Silvanus spoke the gospel of God “in much agonizing,” straining like athletes who try to run so as to gain the coveted prize. This agonizing was undergone in order to obtain the prize of success for the gospel in Thessalonica. Paul and Silvanus strained in their heart and their soul with fervent prayer and with utmost devotion, ever thinking only of this one thing.

The phrase is not incidental. Some would regard it as expressing a fear of a repetition of the experience met in Philippi, of a battle against opposition in Thessalonica, or in general of difficult and trying circumstances. Likewise, the phrase is thought to express more fully the “joyfulness” of the preachers although free and open speaking is not the same as joy. These ideas disregard the figure back of the phrase. The ardor, the strenuous effort of Paul and Silvanus was not in the least relaxed in Thessalonica after the reward it had met in Philippi. The Thessalonians saw this beyond question, they still know it. This is the same spirit as that shown in Acts 5:40–42, the absolute opposite of emptiness.

1 Thessalonians 2:3

3 “For” adds further significant elucidation as to how Paul and Silvanus preach the gospel of God. For our urging (is) not (does not flow) out of error, nor out of uncleanness, nor (is it) in connection with cunning. On the contrary, just as we have been tested by God so as to be entrusted with the gospel, just so we speak, not as pleasing men, but (as pleasing) God, the One (ever) testing our hearts.

Paul is describing how he and his assistants ever do their gospel work, which includes how they did it in Thessalonica. The context always indicates what παράκλησις means; here it is the “urging” with which the gospel of God (v. 2) is pressed upon people; “our exhortation” (our versions) seems less proper.

Paul denies three things regarding his urging: 1) it is not due to error, 2) not due to uncleanness, 3) not connected with cunning. The objective source is not error; the subjective source is not uncleanness; the means employed is not cunning. The R. V., which translates πλάνη “error,” is correct; the A. V., which translates it “deceit” (M.-M. 516), is incorrect. Paul says that our zeal in urging the gospel does not spring from error.

So many of the greatest religious lies are propagated with fanatical urging. The fanatics themselves believe the error; but the way in which this word is used in the New Testament shows that it implies the gravest guilt for those who hold to error. If Paul and his helpers were enamored of error and thus propagated it they would eo ipso stand condemned. This is where the opponents in Thessalonica classed him. Self-deceived, he deceived all who followed him.

“Nor out of uncleanness” denies impure motives. The word is broad; it covers covetousness (v. 5) but also seeking glory from men (v. 6). Sexual uncleanness does not lie in the present connection. The opponents in Thessalonica classed Paul and his helpers with the selfish deceivers who were so numerous in the empire, whose secret motives were anything but clean. This mode of attack is especially difficult to meet, but Paul could and did meet it in the most crushing way, not by swearing that his motives were clean, but by letting incontrovertible facts speak. The unclean motives were those of his opponents and their efforts to support the vain errors they held.

The two ἐκ (source) are followed by ἐν (mode or method): “nor in connection with cunning,” the German List, which is attributed to Elymas in Acts 13:10 and denied with regard to Christ in 1 Pet. 2:22. Luther says of the devil: Gross’ Macht und viel’ List sein’ grausam’ Ruestung ist. The effort to discredit Paul as being one who used cunning tricks to lead people by the nose was easily met.

1 Thessalonians 2:4

4 Over against all three slanders Paul sets another strong ἀλλά which he then expands by a further array of facts. “On the contrary,” the fact is that “just as we have been tested by God so as to be entrusted with the gospel, just so we (ever) continue to speak,” namely “not as pleasing (perhaps conative: trying to please) men, but (as pleasing) God, the One (ever) testing our hearts.” “We have been approved” (R. V.) is inexact and necessitates “proveth” as a translation of the same word in the participial form. Δοκιμάζω and its derivatives are favorites with Paul. Here he twice uses the simplex, a perfect passive and an active participle: to test as metals and coins are tested for genuineness and for weight.

It is impossible to believe that the God who is living and real (1:9) would entrust his precious gospel to men whom he had not himself tested. This testing by God, Paul claims for himself and his assistants: “just as we have been tested by God” and now stand as thus tested (perfect tense). There is no need to insert more into the verb, for the context implies that God’s testing did not find Paul, etc., unfit. The infinitive denotes result: “so as to be entrusted with the gospel,” the usual accusative with the passive.

But how can the Thessalonians know that Paul and his helpers have been tested by God and were thus entrusted with the gospel by God? May not any errorist or fake religionist set up the same claim? He may, but he will be exposed at once. If he does not bring the gospel, and that the pure gospel, that already exposes him as not being attested by God, as not being entrusted with the gospel by God. With this goes the fact that he must ever speak exactly as he is tested and entrusted, not as trying to please men, but as pleasing God alone irrespective of men, the God who ever continues to test our hearts, yes, our very hearts. This will always show whether the claim is true or fictitious.

Of course, pagan and Jewish opponents of the gospel, who know neither the true God and his Son (1:9, 10) nor his gospel, cannot judge God’s tested and entrusted preachers. They are the very ones who want preachers to please them and not the true God. But true Christians are always able to judge the claims of preachers. All they need to do is to listen how the preachers speak, to note whether they seek to please men with their religious notions, and especially also to please themselves and their unclean hunger for gain and glory, or whether they aim to please God alone and have the constant consciousness that God ever tests them to the very bottom of their hearts. It will never take long until true Christians can be quite sure. Paul is writing to the Thessalonians as being such Christians, people who have had the fullest opportunity to hear just how Paul and his helpers speak, not to please men, but ever only to please God.

1 Thessalonians 2:5

5 Another γάρ specifies and makes the matter clearer than ever. This connective often introduces elucidative specification. For we were not at any time in connection with speech of flattery as you know, nor in connection with pretext for covetous-ness—God a witness!—nor seeking glory of men, neither from you nor from others, as being able to appear with weight as Christ’s apostles. On the contrary, we were gentle in your midst as when a nurse warms her own children; thus, as being affectionately anxious about you, we were pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God but also our own souls because you were beloved to us. So far, says Paul, were we from even a trace of selfishness. The passive form ἐγενήθημεν (also found in v. 8) does not have a passive meaning; in the Koine this form is often preferred to the aorist middle. The aorist states the simple historical fact.

At no time, as the Thessalonians know, did Paul and Silvanus descend to a word of flattery (qualitative genitive) in order to ingratiate themselves. They were above that. They likewise never used a pretext for covetousness (either objective genitive: to cover up secret covetousness; or subjective: covetousness using a pretext). “Cloak of covetousness” in our versions is a good translation although “cloak” is figurative while πρόφασις, “pretext,” is literal. They never put on a fair front to hide their covetousness while they sought to satisfy it by mulcting the Thessalonians. Paul cannot here say, “as you know,” for covetousness is hidden in the heart of the greedy man, and it might be there even when we are unable to see any evidence of it. So Paul adds the nominative absolute: “God a witness!” Paul repeatedly appeals to God when he makes statements about things hidden in the heart. It is extravagant to call this an oath; it is the natural assurance of a Christian who constantly lives under Cod’s eye.

1 Thessalonians 2:6

6 The trio of expressions is completed by a participle: “nor seeking out of men glory,” honor, acclaim, reverence, “neither from you” Thessalonians when you came to faith, “nor from others,” no matter who they may be. The participial addition indicates in what manner Paul and Silvanus might have sought glory, literally, “as being able to be in weight as Christ’s apostles” = as able to impress people with the dignity of being Christ’s apostles. Paul and Silvanus put on no grand apostolic airs in order thereby to obtain glory from men (ἐκ and ἀπό are used with little distinction). They were not after such glory. As far as they were concerned, they were, indeed, “Christ’s apostles” and not a whit less; but that very fact implied making no show of it, in no way capitalizing their office for the least personal end. Accountable to Christ as his commissioned representatives (ἀπόστολοι), their one aim was to carry out what Christ, through their commission, intended to bestow on men.

Paul puts himself, Silvanus, and Timothy on the same level. The view that this plural refers to himself alone is not tenable. The very heading of this epistle (1:1) makes no distinction between these three men. The fact that Paul alone was called immediately while the other two were called mediately is immaterial for the purpose of this epistle. “Apostles” is here used in a broader sense as it is in Acts 14:14 where also Barnabas bears this title. The very fact that Paul here classes Silvanus and Timothy as “apostles” together with himself shows the unselfish spirit which animated him.

Βάρος = gravitas and thus auctoritas. Some think that Paul is speaking of the financial support that he might have demanded as an apostle. Our versions seem to have this idea in mind. Their translation: “when we might have been burdensome,” is inexact, for the participle is not potential. As regards money and support, ἐνβάρειεἶναι, without a pronoun referring to the Thessalonians, is far too broad to express something so narrow especially in a connection that speaks of seeking glory.

1 Thessalonians 2:7

7 We decline to construe the clause beginning with δυνάμενοι with v. 7. This ἀλλά is like the two that precede, and it is best to regard it as introducing a new sentence. “On the contrary,” etc. The question is asked whether this contrary conduct is the opposite of all three preceding items (flattery, covetousness, seeking glory) or of only the last of these, or the opposite of the desire to be honored as apostles. The question really answers itself. It would be strange, indeed, if Paul linked three negatives together as he does and then offered a contrary positive to only one of them; still stranger if he offered no contrasting opposite to the three negatives but one only to the subordinate participial modifier. Is not flattery used for selfish ends?

Does not covetousness use its cloak for selfish ends? Is not all seeking of glory selfish throughout? Over against all three Paul places the pure unselfishness with which he and his assistants worked as apostles.

We consider the reading νήπιοι incongruous although Origen, Augustine, and a few others seek to justify it. The reading ἤπιοι is much rarer, hence it was easy to repeat the ν of the preceding word and change ἤπιοι into νήπιοι. R., W. P., is uncertain. Wohlenberg thinks that Paul used the progression: Paul and his helpers were “infants” among the Thessalonians—infants that acted as “a nurse” (this is changed into “a mother”)—next, infants who acted as “a father” (v. 11). Now, little ones may play mama and papa; but it cannot be imagined that the apostles ever used such a figure.

A few commentators call this mixing of figures: “infants in your midst as a nurse warms her own children,” typically Pauline, but such a statement is not just to the apostle; it is typical of him to avoid all incongruities especially also in the use of figures. He may use closely allied figures, but babies who need care and a nurse who bestows care are opposites.

Moreover, here the ὡς clause completes the sense of the main clause. Does a nurse warming her own children complete the idea that some persons were infants? Can we think of accepting such an idea in place of the beautiful thought Paul expresses: “We were gentle in your midst as when a nurse warms her own children”? To say that a nurse would not treat children placed in her care so tenderly, that only a mother would do so, and that, therefore, Paul has a mother in mind, is a slander on all faithful nurses. A nurse even feeds, guards, and otherwise tends her own children, she dearly loves them as “her own.” Committed to her care, they are in a very real sense “her own.”

Ἐγενήθημεν = “we were” (as in 1:5; 2:5); in 2:9; 1:6, “you were,” not “became”; and ὡςἄν = “as when.” Θάλπειν is used in Eph. 5:29; “to warm” is more definite than “to cherish” (our versions). When the Thessalonians came to faith they were like τέκνα, “dear children” who needed unselfish gentleness. Paul says we treated you thus, we did not exploit you by means of flattering talk, with cloaked covetousness, seeking glory from you as men who were able to put on the high dignity of Christ’s ambassadors.

1 Thessalonians 2:8

8 “Thus, as being affectionately anxious about you (ὁμειρόμενοι, the etymology is still in dispute, see R. 198, 206, 225, W. P., also M.-M.), we continued to take pleasure (εὐδοκοῦμεν, present) in imparting to you not only the gospel of God but also our own souls because you were (historical fact, aorist) beloved to us.” Οὕτως resumes v. 7 and emphasizes it. The figure is dropped and the reality substituted. Instead of any selfish motive that might have been lurking in the hearts of Paul and his companions there was the very opposite, namely tender solicitude for you (ὑμῶν, genitive after a verb of emotion, R. 508). In εὐδοκοῦμεν there lies the thought of freely willing to do something good, the tense is descriptive: “we continued to take pleasure” in imparting to you. The infinitive is an aorist: actually and completely to impart. Instead of wanting to get something the apostles wanted to share something; and since they were true apostles they shared the greatest thing they had, “the gospel of God,” in order to enrich the Thessalonians for time and for eternity.

This alone would have been sufficient. Paul, however, says: “not only the gospel of God,” which we had from him, “but also our own souls.” Lightfoot translates “lives,” which does not fit the next clause: “because (διότι for the reason that) you were beloved to us,” i.e., because we loved you so dearly. This explains what sharing our own souls with you means, namely becoming one heart and soul with the Thessalonians (Acts 4:32). The aorist “you were” beloved to us again states the fact. Here we have the true missionary, pastoral, and Christian spirit: voluntary and happy desire to bestow the divine gospel and all the love in our souls upon others. When soul goes out to soul, the gospel so offered will be the more readily accepted.

Then soul will also be bound together with soul by the bond of love that reaches out to embrace the other’s soul. Here there is a part of the secret of Paul’s great missionary success. He offered the gospel and his own soul in love.

1 Thessalonians 2:9

9 Γάρ again (as in v. 5) specifies but now adds a positive feature. For you remember, brethren, our toil and hardship: working by night and by day so as not to be a burden upon anyone of you, we preached for you the gospel of God. You yourselves (are) witnesses, also God, how holily and righteously and blamelessly we showed ourselves in the judgment of you, the believers, just as you know how each one of you, as a father his own children, (we were) admonishing you and encouraging and testifying for you to walk worthily of God, the One calling you into his own kingdom and glory.

The specification carries forward the idea of a nurse doing everything for her children and thus shows the apostles imparting everything. Neither a nurse nor the apostles expect anything from their charges. So Paul says: “You remember that we earned our own living while preaching the gospel for you; we did not make ourselves a burden to anyone of you.” “You remember” is only a variation for “you know” (used in 1:5; 2:1, 11).

Κόπος and μόχθος are close synonyms, “toil” that induces fatigue, the second term, toil as a hardship. The genitives νυκτὸςκαὶἡμέρας denote time within which, thus a part of the night, a part of the day, and not all night and all day long (accusatives of extent). Πρὸςτό to with the aorist infinitive denotes either purpose or result: “working in order not to be burdensome,” or, “working so that we were not burdensome.” The aorist infinitive (historical) leads us to prefer the latter.

Paul here says what some would insert into ἐνβάρει in v. 6. The infinitive ἐπιβαρῆσαι is derived from the same root as the noun but is a compound and is used in a totally different context and in no way affects the sense of the phrase used in v. 6. Paul and Silvanus had a rather hard time of it in Thessalonica. We see what moved the Philippians to send two gifts to Paul at this time (Phil. 4:16). These were gifts of love, which for that reason Paul could not refuse; they were not pay, wages, support, not a violation of Paul’s principle ever to preach the gospel gratis. Paul says: working thus for our own support and burdening not one of you, “we preached for you the gospel of God” (the same expression that was used in v. 8).

Κηρύσσειν = to act as a herald, to herald something, to proclaim it aloud and publicly as having been commissioned to do so by authority (king, government, general of an army, etc.). When we translate “to preach,” the latter thought should not be forgotten, for a herald dare announce only what he is ordered to announce, no more and no less; he must also word it just so and not otherwise. The herald is only the loudspeaker of the radio. Many preachers want to be more. But they always become less. Whoever does not sound forth “the gospel of God,” this whole gospel and nothing but this gospel, is no true herald. God wants heralds, he supplies the grand announcement to be made, and no herald can improve upon it.

Εἰςὑμᾶς does not mean: we heralded “into you” as has been thought; “unto or for you” is correct. The whole expression harmonizes. This God who sends his heralds with his announcement and the people to whom he sends his heralds are not expected to pay those heralds. When we today send missionary heralds we do not expect the people to whom we send them to pay them. When we as congregations appoint heralds for ourselves, we, who appoint them, pay them.

The great wisdom of Paul in preaching the gospel gratis appears very clearly here in Thessalonica just as it does in Corinth. The opponents tried to class Paul and his assistants with the roving charlatans of that time, who were out for what they could get from the people. Every Christian saw at once that the apostles were the very opposite: wholly unselfish, asking and desiring nothing, heart and soul being bent only on bestowing upon others. Slander to the contrary fell flat. Paul had a still higher reason for preaching the gospel gratis (see the exposition of 2 Cor. 9:15–18).

1 Thessalonians 2:10

10 “You yourselves (are) witnesses, also God,” is stronger than “you remember” occurring in v. 9; for what is now added is much more important than preaching the gospel without pay, asking nothing for self, only enriching others. Acceptance of the gospel means henceforth to walk “in a way worthy of God” (v. 12). Preaching the gospel means to induce people to live an entirely new life. The preachers of this gospel must thus themselves exhibit this new life. How can they ask others to be sanctified when they themselves lack this sanctification? The preacher’s life shouts louder than his words. A preacher was once told that his unsanctified life “hollered so that no one could hear what he was saying in the pulpit.”

The Thessalonians themselves are witnesses, as also is God, in what a holy, righteous, blameless way the apostles conducted themselves just as the Thessalonians know how the apostles admonished them to walk in the same way. This is the simple meaning of v. 10–12. The wording ἐγενήθημεν (the same verb that was used in 1:6; 2:5, 7; the second person in 1:6) with a dative of persons and with adverbs (in v. 7 with an adjective) is highly idiomatic and cannot be adequately reproduced in English. The passive form is not passive in meaning; nor is the meaning, “we became.” R. 545 is probably right when he states that this verb is here not a mere copula; this is due to the adverbs and the dative.

The aorist is plainly historical: the Thessalonians are witnesses of a past fact. The adverbs are not equal to adjectives; ὡς speaks of a degree of manner: “in what a holy and righteous and blameless way” we were. Grammars and dictionaries are unsatisfactory with regard to the adverbs and with regard to the dative. The latter is not “among you,” which = εἰςὑμᾶς (R. V.). The idea of the dativus commodi has the first adverb against it: “how holily—for your benefit.” The thought that the apostles acted in the way in which they did only as regards “the believers” and not as regards others is manifestly not Paul’s meaning. Yet, why does he add this apposition?

Some of the ancient commentators who are followed by Alford and Meyer solve the dative; it is “the dative of opinion or judgment” (Meyer), we prefer to say the dative to indicate the persons whose judgment as witnesses is of value in regard to how holily, etc., they saw the apostles conducting themselves. “You yourselves witnesses” explains “you, the believers.” The judgment of nonbelievers is valueless; men who do not know what true holiness, etc., are, cannot testify regarding the presence of these qualities in other men; only believers can do this, only they can testify “how holily, etc.,” a man lives and acts. One can have “a good report from those without” (1 Tim. 3:7), but this is not a testimony in regard to one’s holiness, etc. Only “those within,” i.e., “the believers,” are able to offer competent witness regarding this.

Since Paul’s meaning is clear, we translate the idiomatic Greek as best we can. The verb does not mean, “we showed ourselves,” “we behaved ourselves” (R. and A. V.); the German wir traten auf is the best (in John 1:6 ἐγένετο is thus used regarding the Baptist). “Holy and righteous” are often combined; here they are amplified by “blameless” (all three are adverbs). The view that “holy” refers to God and “righteous” to men cannot be maintained. All three terms refer to God’s judgment even as God is here made one of the witnesses.

“How holily” = how we shunned sin, how we kept ourselves separate unto God. “How righteously” = how we obeyed God’s norm of right, his judgment approving and vindicating us. The former is not to indicate what is in the heart in contrast to the latter which indicates what lies in the outward acts; both apply to heart and to conduct. “How blamelessly” rounds out and = in consequence no one could justly cast blame or reproach upon us. Paul says ὡς, “how,” and thus does not claim for himself and for Silvanus perfect holiness, complete moral perfection (in the sense of perfectionism); he does claim a high degree of holiness, etc.

This makes plain why he here again makes God a witness; see the explanation of v. 5. The Thessalonians are able to bear witness to a degree; they judge what is in a man by what they see of a man just as we do. Their witness is competent to that degree. God sees the whole heart directly; his witness is still more competent and valuable. We should not object that God’s witness cannot be obtained in this life; we have his witness in his Word, for there we hear whom he judges to be holy, righteous, and blameless. That is why Jesus spoke John 12:48b.

We thus see how the two witnesses agree, you Thessalonians and God. All true believers are guided by God’s Word in their judgment and testimony and have the fullest intent to judge only as God himself does and as he already judges and testifies in his Word.

1 Thessalonians 2:11

11 Καθάπερ = “according to the very things which,” i.e., “just as” you know, how, etc. This ὡς does not repeat the substance of the preceding ὡς but advances to what the apostles as men who lived in a holy, righteous, and blameless way did to make the Thessalonian believers live in the same way. Καθάπερ expresses this correspondence between the two ὡς. “You know” (see 1:5; 2:1) continues the appeal to what the Thessalonians know about this corresponding fact: “how each single one of you, as a father his own children, (we were) admonishing you and encouraging and testifying for you to walk in a way worthy of God,” etc. The participles are not equal to finite verbs as some assume; nor are they anacoluthic. The verb ἐγενήθημεν, used in the preceding ὡς clause, is also to be construed with this second ὡς clause. The present participles unfold descriptively what the aorist verb simply states as the succinct historical fact.

The personal object is placed forward for the sake of emphasis, which makes also the participles emphatic, the more so since they are again a trio. To add another “you” after saying “each single one of you,” seems pleonastic, but it seems far less so in the Greek than in the English. Paul purposely stresses “each single one of you” and then combines all of them in ὑμᾶς, “you.” He does this regularly with the singular and the plural, with individuals and with the whole group. He always has a view which takes in all sides. He dealt with every single person, he dealt with all of them as a body. Individual pastoral work, public admonitory preaching.

Especially the former was “as a father his own children.” The Thessalonians were, indeed, the spiritual children of Paul and Silvanus, and τέκνα connotes dearness as well as immaturity. They needed a nurse (v. 7) for one purpose; they needed a father for another. “Father” is the proper word to be used with these participles, “mother” would not be. In Gal. 4:19 the figure of the mother is highly effective. This fatherly action is a part of v. 10, “how holily,” etc.

“Admonishing you,” as Bengel states it = moving you to do freely; παραμυθούμενοι, to do with pleasure (ut cum gaudio); μαρτυρόμενοι, to do with fear (ut cum timore). The second is best taken in the sense of “encouraging”; some, like the A. V., prefer comforting since affliction seems to be involved. But one is comforted after affliction: to face it he needs to be strongly encouraged. Some think the third participle means “adjuring you,” which, indeed, makes it the climax. Neither C.-K. nor B.-P. list this meaning.

The word is not used in this sense in Eph. 4:17 where the context is the same. We retain the meaning “testifying,” which affords even a better climax, for to the two subjective participles it adds a third that points to something objective. Paul and Silvanus testified to God’s will and Word in order thereby to move the Thessalonians. As Bengel states it: “as with fear”; the Thessalonians would not want to go against God’s will and Word. So these participles also reflect v. 10.

1 Thessalonians 2:12

12 We do not think that εἰςτό expresses purpose because it plainly states the contents of the admonition, encouragement, and testimony: “for you to walk in a way worthy of God, the One calling you into his own kingdom and glory.” We might have had ἵνα. The sense would be the same, it would be an object clause. R., W. P., regards the expression as being one of purpose, some find in it an expression of result; only a few regard it as introducing an object clause although ἵνα as the equivalent of εἰςτό introduces many object clauses. Moulton, Einleitung, 347, is correct: “contents of a command or request,” “purpose is so far away that it is practically disappearing.”

We should read the whole of v. 12 as a unit. But τοῦκαλοῦντος is timeless: God is “the Caller” into his own kingdom irrespective of when and where and whom he calls. The present tense should thus not be translated: “who ever keeps calling you.” The participle is really an apposition: “the God, the One calling you.” Some texts have the aorist: “the One who did call you,” but the present tense seems textually assured.

“His own kingdom and (his own) glory” are not hendiadys; καί is epexegetical, for “his own kingdom” would mean the kingdom in general, “and glory” narrows down to the consummation of the kingdom when all the heavenly glory shall be ours. We should not conceive the kingdom in the common, earthly manner of kingdoms. This King makes his kingdom, it is not the kingdom which makes him. Where he is and rules, there eo ipso is his kingdom. In the kingdom to come, the kingdom of glory, he rules with all his glory, the radiant effulgence of all his attributes. Those called into his kingdom and his glory are not made subjects under this King.

The very word καλεῖν excludes this idea which is drawn from poor, earthly kingdoms; nobody is ever called into an earthly kingdom. We are called to be partakers of God’s kingdom and glory, to inherit both, to share in the rule of God’s glory, to be kings in this subjectless kingdom. See the author’s volume Kings and Priests.

To walk ἀξίως, “worthily,” is a common expression in Paul’s writings and is also found elsewhere. Paul writes “worthily of the Lord” (Col. 1:10), “of the calling with which you were called” (Eph. 4:1), “of the gospel” (Phil. 1:27). The force of the adverb is that of weight: our whole walk from day to day is to be of equal weight with God as the One who calls us, etc. Place the way in which we live into one pan of the scales and God with his call into the other pan, then the two ought to balance, the one that has our conduct in it ought not to scale upward because of the heavy weight in the other. For the Thessalonians this ἀξίως = v. 10.

“Worthily” has nothing to do with work-righteousness. Our call makes us princes and kings; we should act as such. Where shall we get this weight? From him who calls us. What if we still sin? His grace removes our sin, gives us Christ’s righteousness, and ever renews our life. If we are day by day replenished with newness (Rom. 6:4), the weight will be there. We must never take this matter lightly and become indifferent; the three participles take care of that.

The Spirit in which the Thessalonians Responded to the Work of Paul and Silvanus

1 Thessalonians 2:13

13 After describing the spirit in which Paul and Silvanus brought the gospel to the Thessalonians and worked among them so as to excite them to walk worthily Paul speaks of the way in which the Thessalonians responded to the gospel. And for this we, too, on our part are thankful to God without ceasing that, on getting to receive God’s Word by a hearing (of it) from us, you obtained, not man’s word, but, as it truly is, God’s Word, which also is effective in you, the believers.

This still describes the spirit in which Paul and Silvanus labored among the Thessalonians. But the thought now progresses. In the first place, “we are thankful to God unceasingly” reaches to the present moment, to the constant thankfulness of Paul and his assistants. To what the Thessalonians know (v. 1), remember (v. 9), and testify (v. 10) about them when they were in Thessalonica is added what Paul and his assistants feel to this day, namely unceasing gratitude to God. This advance is joined with another: from the way in which Paul and his assistants acted in Thessalonica the thought advances to what they brought to the Thessalonians, to what the Thessalonians thus received, and thus to what they were (v. 14). It is essential to note this advance, otherwise we shall not keep step with Paul’s thought.

Some commentators think that διὰτοῦτο refers to what precedes, either to the last verse or two, or to the whole of v. 1–12. They translate accordingly: “for this reason … because,” etc. Τοῦτο, however = ὅτι (explicative). To be sure, this is the same thankfulness of which Paul speaks in 1:2, yet the object of the gratitude is not the same. Compare the object as stated in 1:3 and the object here stated by the ὅτι clause. Here it is the Word of God which was obtained from the apostles by the Thessalonians and not, as in 1:3, what had appeared in the Thessalonians in the way of faith, love, and hope. Paul now goes back to the ultimate basis of faith, love, and hope, namely to the Word of God imparted to the Thessalonians.

The observation is correct that in the preceding Paul speaks of the gospel in various ways (1:6, “the Word”; 1:7, “the Word of the Lord”; 2:2, “the gospel of God”; 2:4, “the gospel”; 2:8, 9, “the gospel of God”); Paul has also touched on bringing this gospel to the Thessalonians and on their receiving it: we spoke it, imparted it, preached it to you (2:2, 8, 9), it came to you (1:5), you received it (1:6). While this observation is correct as regards the connection with what precedes, we should note that all this is now brought to its great focus: λόγονἀκοῆςπαρʼ ἡμῶντοῦΘεοῦ, οὐλόγονἀνθρώπων, ἀλλὰκαθώςἐστινἀληθῶςλόγονΘεοῦ, ὅςκτλ. The preceding terms: “Word of God, of the Lord,” are now made to stand out in all their greatness and power: Word of God, not word of men, but, as it truly is, Word of GOD, effective in you believers as such. This, this is what all the preceding references mean!

The Thessalonians have full assurance about the kind of men who brought this Word to them (this is the burden of 1:5–2:12), and they are still the same men (in their thankfulness to God); the Thessalonians have the still greater assurance about the Word itself which these men brought to them. Let the Thessalonians look at this Word itself, at what it truly is! The two, of course, go together: this Word would be brought by such men; such men would bring a Word like this. But now the entire stress is on this Word and on its Author.

The opponents in Thessalonica would turn the Thessalonians from the Word of God by attacking the character of the men who brought that Word. The Thessalonians have the double answer: they know the true character of these men, know it from their most intimate contact with them, from their inside view of the absolute unselfishness and devotion of these men; they know the nature of the Word these men have brought them, what this Word is in truth and thus has effectively wrought in them. This double assurance fortifies the Thessalonians against all attacks from no matter what opponents.

So much, we see, depends on the kind of men who preach the gospel. Let all preachers keep this in mind! In the last analysis, however, the decisive assurance for all believers is the Word itself with its divine effects. see Gal. 1:8. In Thessalonians, too, the ultimate ground of assurance is the Word.

The idea that both καί belong to διὰτοῦτο is not tenable; the second καί is to be construed with ἡμεῖς. And this pronoun is emphatic; if it were not, the “we” in the verb suffix would suffice. Paul says and means: “we, too, on our part are thankful to God without ceasing” just as you Thessalonians are on your part. Who should be more constantly thankful to God than the Thessalonians themselves, for what they received was God’s own Word? Those who brought that Word to them are “also” thankful. With a verb such as this διὰτοῦτο and its explicative ὅτι might be conceived as cause or reason: “for this cause” (our versions), “that” (R.

V.), “because” (A. V.). Yet it seems better to let the phrase and its ὅτι express only the object of the thankfulness: “for this we thank God that,” etc. Here the verb is general: “ceaselessly we are thankful”; in 1:2 prayers are mentioned in which the thankfulness becomes thanksgiving uttered in words. Here no prayers are mentioned, and the verb thus denotes the constant feeling of gratitude to God.

The aorists παραλαβόντες and ἐδέξασθε (the participle in 1:6) express simultaneous action, both are ingressive and closely synonymous. The synergistic ideas of some commentators become evident when they distinguish between the two verbs and stress the human willingness and activity found in the second verb. But C.-K. 279 defines the verb in the present connection: Anerkennung der evangelischen Verkuendigung und das Sichbestimmenlassen durch dieselbe, acknowledging the evangelical proclamation and being determined thereby. Neither verb contains even a trace of synergism as little as does the verb πιστεύειν, “to believe or trust.” We see this when we consider the object. Nothing in the word of mere men deserves reception, acceptance, or even consideration for our soul’s salvation even as this word is totally ineffective in those who do receive it. But the Word of God, so blessed and mighty to produce saving effects, deserves the promptest and the completest acceptance and ever and ever by its own nature and its own power produces this acceptance just as truth produces conviction despite the fact that many men love lies more than truth (John 8:45; 3:19), just as blessings produce joyful acceptance despite the fact that many men want what they know will be a curse to them.

“On getting to receive … you obtained” = by taking the Word of God you accepted and got what is, indeed, the Word of God; we, too, we apostles, are thankful to God for this. Regard as one concept: λόγονἀκοῆςπαρʼ ἡμῶντοῦΘεοῦ, which the flexibility of the Greek is able to express as a unit object while the English finds it difficult to do this. The two anarthrous nouns are qualitative and yet are made definite by the phrase and by the genitive: “God’s Word of hearing from us,” the genitive is placed last in the Greek and is thus emphatic: a Word that you heard from us apostles (2:6), whose author is God himself.

Ἀκοή is much like a technical term which is used, not to indicate the actus audiendi, but to designate the κήρυγμα, the proclamation as it is actually heard. The R. V. tries to retain the qualifying genitive: “word of message” (although “message” is not exact) while the A. V. frankly paraphrases: “word Which ye heard.” Instead of using another genitive, ἡμῶν, to indicate the source of the Word heard and thus to bring together three genitives Paul uses the phrase “from us”; yet this is to be construed with the noun and not the participle. The ultimate source or author is expressed by τοῦΘεοῦ, which genitive modifies the whole expression: “Word of hearing from us.” Since it is “God’s” Word, its nature, power, and effect are thereby also indicated.

When the Thessalonians got to receive this they got to obtain (two ingressive aorists) “not man’s Word.” Not “word of men” like the teaching of the religious quacks and charlatans that appeared in the entire empire to exploit people for their own selfish ends (v. 5, 6) but the very opposite, “Word of God” with all that this source implies. It is the assurance of the writers (1:1) that this is truly “God’s Word,” but the relative clause: “which is also effective in you, the believers,” adds the evidence in support of the fact that this is truly God’s Word, namely its divine effectiveness in the Thessalonian believers.

This Word works in the Thessalonians what Paul states in 1:3; it came to them with the power of the Holy Spirit and much assurance (1:5); it turned them from the idols to the living God, to him who raised up Jesus from the dead, the Savior from the wrath to come (1:9, 10). This effect, wrought by the Word, convinces all believers, all who experience this blessed effect, that this is, indeed, God’s Word.

Ὅς does not refer to “God” it refers to “Word” because the middle voice ἐνεργεῖται is never used with reference to God, only the active is so used. The apposition τοῖςπιστεύουσιν is the same as that found in v. 10: only “those believing” experience the effects of the Word and are thus able to know of a certainty that it is “God’s Word” and not the word of men although God uses men to bring it as an ἀκοή, something heard.

Our versions regard οὐλόγον, ἀλλὰλόγον as predicative accusatives: “not as men’s word but as God’s Word.” But if this were Paul’s meaning, he would have Written, οὐὡςλόγονἀνθρώπων, ἀλλὰὡςλόγονΘεοῦ. To regard these as being only predicative accusatives is to reduce Paul’s meaning. He tells the Thessalonians that they did not receive men’s word but did receive God’s Word; he does not tell them merely that they regarded it as God’s and not as men’s. What Paul states is objective; he is not referring to what the Thessalonians subjectively thought about the Word they heard.

1 Thessalonians 2:14

14 “For” points to some of the plain evidence, not merely in support of the fact that this divine Word works in the Thessalonian believers (relative clause, v. 13), but that this Word is, indeed, not man’s but God’s own. For you on your part were imitators, brethren, of the churches of God that are in Judea in Christ Jesus because you yourselves also suffered the same things at the hands of (ὑπό) your own countrymen as also they at the hands of (ὑπό) the Jews, they who both killed off the Lord Jesus and the prophets and drove out us, both not pleasing God and contrary to all men by trying to prevent us from speaking to the Gentiles in order that they be saved; so that they fill up their sins alway; moreover, there did come upon them the wrath to the uttermost.

Ὑμεῖς is emphatic because it resumes the subject of the object clause used in v. 13: you, the ones who received not man’s but God’s Word, the Word that works in you, the believers, you have this plain evidence that what you received is no less than God’s own most effective Word, you were imitators of the churches of God in Judea. On ἐγενήθητε, “you were,” see 1:5, 6; 2:5, 7, 8, 9, the aorist states the past fact. In 1:6 Paul has already said that the Thessalonians were “imitators of us and of the Lord” when they received the Word “in much affliction.” This is now amplified. For not only we, the Lord’s apostles (2:6), are like the Lord who sent them to suffer affliction because of the Word; all of the churches of God are alike in this respect. The very first ones, those that were organized in Judea, had to suffer because of the Word. They received the Word of God and thus are churches of God, and thus men hate and persecute them, namely men who want only the word of men and refuse to believe the Word of God.

Some think that it would be enough to say “the churches of God that are in Judea,” that the addition “in Christ Jesus” is really not needed. Paul does not think so, for Judea is the Jewish land which always had the Word of God and professed to believe that Word, yet when Christ Jesus, the very embodiment of that Word came, the nation of the Jews rejected him and showed that they did not in reality believe God’s own Word. These churches in Judea, however, of which Paul speaks are true churches of God because of their connection with (ἐν) Christ Jesus (office and person). The ἐν phrase is by no means unnecessary especially when there is a reference to Jews and to God. It differentiates the Jewish believers from all other Jews. Paul inserts the address, “brethren,” in order to express the Herzlichkeit with which he writes and to voice the spiritual connection between himself and the Thessalonians in all that he writes.

Ὅτι states the evidential reason for the fact that the Thessalonians were imitators of the Judean churches. This ground of likeness is striking. The Thessalonians suffered the very same thing from their own countrymen which the Judean believers suffered from theirs, namely the Jews: “also you—as also they.”

The question is asked as to why Paul makes the comparison with the Judean churches, and the answers offered are often strange: Paul wanted to vent his wrath upon the wicked Jews, the Jews in Corinth where he is writing had roused his ire, the opponents in Thessalonica had pointed out that the Thessalonian believers were becoming embroiled in Jewish controversies, and other ideas of this kind. Paul’s idea is plain and to the point. He does not say, “You Thessalonians are like other Gentile churches who had to suffer persecution for the Word of God.” Persecution is not a special mark of Gentile churches. Hostility against God’s Word and Christ Jesus is not a special mark of Gentile unbelievers.

This hostility goes back to the unbelieving Jews, not only to those in Thessalonica and in the Diaspora, but to those in Judea itself, and not to those who are now living in Judea, but to those who lived in the days of the Lord Jesus himself (1:6). The Jews themselves started the fires of persecution, started them against their own believing countrymen; these fires have burned ever since. These unbelieving Jews keep them burning in the Diaspora; Thessalonica has also seen the fire (Acts 17:5, etc.), the Jews in Thessalonica raged just as they originally did in Judea against the Lord Jesus and against the churches of God in Christ Jesus.

“The same things” always happen: you at the hands of your own countrymen, your Gentile fellow citizens; the Judean believers at the hands of their countrymen, the Jews, the latter being the very first ones in this hostility, yea, the ones who fire others in this opposition. Paul states it in a striking way when he says that the Thessalonians were “imitators,” as if they copied the Judean Jewish believers in the matter of getting themselves persecuted. One might expect Paul to state it in the opposite way, namely that the Gentile persecutors copied the Judean Jewish persecutors. Yet the main point is that the Thessalonian believers accepted the Word of God (v. 13), that they thus entered the fellowship of the Judean churches, and thus “suffered the same things,” suffered them also “at the hands of their own countrymen.” Paul sees all of it in its true inner relation and not in a superficial light only.

1 Thessalonians 2:15

15 That is why the whole guilt of the Jews is unrolled. We translate καί—καί “both—and”: “both killed off—and drove out.” The one act was not enough, they must needs add the other in order to make the measure overflow. Paul combines “the Lord Jesus and the prophets” and yet names Jesus first because killing him off is the greatest of the Jewish crimes. The Greek can separate τὸνΚύριον from Ἰησοῦν and place a strong emphasis on the former: “the Lord they killed, Jesus,” him who is the divine Lord himself. The Jews did that; so the Scriptures constantly testify. All modern Jewish efforts to cast the chief blame upon the Gentile Pilate are futile. As the Jews forced the Gentile Pilate to act as their tool, so the Jews in Thessalonica made the Gentile rabble of Thessalonica their tools and stirred up the Thessalonian Gentile authorities (Acts 17:5–9).

From Jesus, Paul reaches back to the prophets; Stephen states these two in reverse order (Acts 7:52) although he also combines Jesus and the prophets. The Jewish persecution extends far beyond the time of Jesus. Jesus himself mentions the killing of the prophets (Matt. 23:37), the Jewish prelude to the killing off of Jesus himself (Matt. 21:34–39). The fact that some of the prophets of old were not literally killed off was not due to the love of the Jews for them. “And us they drove out,” this verb with ἐκ is used to designate the exiling of fugitives. With “prophets” Paul reaches backward, with “us” forward. As far as Paul is concerned, Acts 9:29, 30 is sufficient.

Some think that “us” refers also to the other apostles (Peter in Acts 12:17). This is a direct reference to Paul and Silas (not to Timothy), but this “us” names Paul and Silas as representatives of a class so that those who know the whole story naturally think also of the other apostles. Yet Paul does not write the word “apostles” (see v. 6); the Thessalonians will think also of other preachers in Judea, who were persecuted and even driven out. When Paul comes to “us” he does not mention Stephen and the Apostle James who were actually killed in Jerusalem as the prophets and Jesus had been (Matt. 23:34, 35), “drove out” is enough; those who know will think of the rest which this participle and the pronoun “us” merely touch. With “us” Paul reverts to this same pronoun which he employed in 1:6.

Again we translate καί—καί “both—and”: “both to God not pleasing and to all men contrary by trying to prevent,” etc. “Not to be pleasing to God” is a strong case of litotes and meiosis. The matter is stated negatively whereas the thought is decidedly positive; the matter is purposely understated, and yet the effect is the stronger for that very reason. To call this hyperbole (overstatement) confuses matters. In both clauses the datives are placed emphatically forward.

1 Thessalonians 2:16

16 “To all men contrary” has no relation to the charge which Tacitus (Hist. V, 5) makes against the Jews, of whom he says that they were filled with adversus omnes alios hostile odium, hostile hatred against all other people, despising all non-Jews as dogs. Paul himself explains in what way the Jews were ἐναντίων to all men: “by trying to prevent us from speaking to the Gentiles in order that they be saved.” Jesus makes a similar statement in Matt. 23:13. This is the same “us” that was used in v. 15.

The present participle κωλυόντων is conative: the Jews were trying to prevent, they did not succeed. Paul states it briefly: “to speak (aorist, effective) to the Gentiles in order that they be saved.” The Jews wanted to silence him and all others. See the first unsuccessful effort of this kind in Acts 4:17, 18 and the next in Acts 5:40. The enormity of this crime against all men is touched upon in the purpose clause “in order that they be saved,” this is, of course, the purpose of the speakers, “us.” By preventing the speaking these Jews were set on frustrating the purpose of the speaker, were determined to rob the whole Gentile world of the heavenly salvation which they, the Jews themselves, scorned. The worst feature of unbelief is not its own damnation but its effort to frustrate the salvation of others.

Unbelief in salvation through Christ is the height of unreason for the unbeliever himself; for when a man who is lost and doomed in sin and guilt spurns divine salvation, this is the opposite of intelligence and saneness (2 Cor. 4:3, 4). This unreason is multiplied when it demands that all other men should also be prevented from obtaining divine salvation. Why can unbelievers not let other men alone? The devil rides them. They must doubly damn themselves. They must come with the blood of other men upon their hands. Note the passive; the Savior implied is God. To this day the delight of some Jewish professors in our great universities is to poison the minds of their students, to prevent their being saved; many Gentile teachers ape their destructive work.

Εἰςτό with the infinitive denotes result. Those who regard it as expressing purpose find God’s purpose in it: God wants the Jews to fill up their sins. This is true as John 2:19 and other passages show. When the sinner casts off all restraint, God lets him fill up the measure of his sins until his doom sweeps him to destruction. Is this what Paul wants to express? Paul generally uses εἰςτό to indicate a result. The next clause about the wrath surely states result. The result which the Jews always attained most exactly fits all that Paul says about the damnable crimes of the Jews against God; this would not be true of a statement that God wanted them to fill up their sins alway.

“To fill up their sins” is a concentrated expression for filling up a measure with their sins; the sins themselves are said to be made full. Πάντοτε means “alway” and not “in every way,” πάντως or παντελής. This adverb is more than a lax addition which denotes only “completely fill up,” it has the emphasis: always, always the result is that these Jews fill up their sins. That does not mean that they are ever engaged in this filling up and will finally fill them up and then receive the wrath. Every time they persecuted and killed a prophet the measure was full. It was so when they killed off Christ, when they drove out the apostles. To this day the Jews keep their sins full. “As your fathers, so you,” Acts 7:52.

Hence also the statement with δέ (not “but”): “moreover, there did come upon them the wrath to the uttermost.” It would be strange and incongruous to regard this verb as a prophetic aorist that amounts to “will come” it is likewise not a timeless aorist. This is a historical aorist like “you obtained” in v. 13; “you were,” “you suffered” in v. 14. The wrath is not waiting, and it is not coming timelessly—nothing arrives timelessly. The Jews ever filled up their sins, thus the wrath arrived. The two statements correspond; δέ shows that the second belongs to the first and is only somewhat different. The English would use the perfect (R. 842, etc.): “has arrived,” φθάνω being understood in its later sense “to arrive” (we have the earlier sense in 4:15).

The adverbial phrase εἰςτέλος (no article) = fuer immer, unablaessig, in Ewigkeit (B.-P. 1299), or voll-staendig, das ist bis zu dem Ziel hin, das in dem betreff-enden Subjekt gegeben ist (C.-K. 1045) = completely, with finality, for good and all. The comment that the phrase refers to the end of the world, or to the end which God makes (or will make) of the Jews, or to the end of the wrath itself when it has consumed the Jews, is not in keeping with the context. The Jews as a mass have been petrified (Rom. 11:7, 25, ἐπωρώθησαν, πώρωσις) and shall remain so until the last day. “The wrath” is terse and concentrated and needs no further modifier than the article. Long, long ago this punitive, retributive wrath arrived upon the Jews. Among the notable manifestations of this wrath is the deportation and the total disappearance of the ten tribes in the Assyrian captivity, also the Babylonian captivity of the other two tribes. Paul tells us why God did not abolish the Jews once for all in Rom. 9:22, etc., (see the exposition) and in a number of other places.

The fact that God had rejected the Jews (save for a remnant) Isaiah already proclaimed, for he was sent for this very purpose (Isa. 6:1–13). Thus Isa. 64:1–12 with its heart-rending cry for the Jews and then the divine answer of doom for the Jews in Isa. 65:1–7 (see the author’s Eisenach Old Testament Selections, 118, etc.).

Some critics refer this verse to the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 and thus deny that Paul wrote this epistle. Others suppose that this verse is a gloss or an interpolation by a later hand. But the wrath arrived long centuries before Paul wrote. It did so with finality because always the unbelieving nation filled up its sins, these awful sins to which Paul points. Other nations plunged into vice and corruption and were thus simply wiped out; but the Jews, chosen as God’s own nation, spurned his covenant and gospel, killed his prophets, finally God’s own Son (their history as sketched by Jesus in Matt. 21:33–46, to which add 23:34–39). Hence the wrath that made them “with finality” what they are to this day and will be to the end of time: the one outcast nation of the world, without country, capital, ruler, scattered over all the world, yet never absorbed—they constitute a sign of the wrath that is visible before the eyes of all the ages until time shall cease.

Here we have no final conversion of the Jewish nation as we have no millennium. God, indeed, has great plans for this nation, but only the plan of his wrath εἰςτέλος, with finality. When this wrath would be done with the unbelieving nation Paul does not say; ἔφθασε reaches only into the distant past. Comment such as that Paul expects the Parousia very soon is out of place. The comment that Paul was angry when he wrote this letter because the Jews at Corinth had opposed him makes the great apostle a petulant fellow who is unable to control his temper. This epistle was written before Acts 17:5, etc., occurred.

The Vain Endeavors to Return to Thessalonica

1 Thessalonians 2:17

17 All that precedes in this chapter deals with the time Paul spent in Thessalonica: v. 1–12 with the kind of men he and his companions showed themselves to be; v. 13–16 with the kind of a church the Thessalonians were. Then came the forced separation (Acts 17:10). Now Paul speaks of the time following this separation. This is the obvious connection of thought. The motive for writing this chapter as well as the next is one and the same and not a complex of several motives. The kind of men Paul and his helpers were while they were in Thessalonica, that kind of men they were after they left; all insinuations of the opponents that were made to disturb the faith of the Thessalonian believers are thus shown to be false.

Wholly unselfish and solicitous only for the Thessalonians (v. 1–12) who from the start had to suffer like the very first churches in Judea (v. 13–16), the one thought of Paul and his helpers was to get back to Thessalonica (v. 17–20), and Timothy was sent back for a while (3:1–10), all three hoped to return (3:11–13). The reason for this strong desire is evidently the fact that Paul and Silvanus had been forced to leave Thessalonica after only a month’s work, which was too short a time for all that Paul felt should be done in Thessalonica.

Two thoughts underlie these two chapters: 1) they answer the insinuations of the opponents and reassure the members of the congregation; 2) they tighten the bond between the apostles (1:6) and the newly founded church.

Δέ is continuative and not adversative; ἡμεῖς is without contrast. Paul passes on to the time after he and Silvanus had been compelled to leave and thus speaks of their desire to get back and hence uses ἡμεῖς. Now we, brethren, orphaned from you for a period of time as regards face, not as regards heart, made more diligent effort to see your face in great desire, for we resolved to come to you, I, Paul, in particular both once and again, and Satan cut us off. For who is our hope or joy or crown of boasting; or are not also you in the presence of our Lord Jesus in connection with his Parousia? Indeed, you are our glory and (our) joy!

The affectionate “brethren” is never inserted lightly even as it here marks the intimate character of what Paul is stating. One wants to get back to “brethren” with whom one is as closely connected as were Paul and the Thessalonians, Silvanus and Timothy likewise, who shared all Paul’s feelings. It is a bit unfair to Paul to have “nurse” in v. 7 mean “mother” and to prefer the reading “babes” instead of “gentle” and thus to cause Paul to mix his figures so that he makes himself a babe, a mother, a father (v. 11), and now an orphan for the Thessalonians (R., W. P.). As far as the passive participle “orphaned from you” is concerned, this is also used with reference to a father or to parents who are separated from children. It thus occasionally has a non-literal sense. The more common χωρισθέντες means “separated from you in space”; “orphaned from you” connotes the love that is affected, the pain of the separation, the desire to get back.

We read together: “orphaned from you for a period of time as regards face, not as regards heart,” for Paul cannot believe that this separation will be longer than a period of time, and even during this period it is only a matter of not seeing each other and not a matter of inward separation. He is still with the Thessalonians in heart. The two datives refer to relation. Only in this passage the two nouns are combined: πρὸςκαιρὸνὥρας; elsewhere we have either πρὸςκαιρὸν or πρὸςὥραν; ὥρα does not mean “hour” but is to be understood in the wider sense of “time.”

“A period of time” says nothing about its length, whether immediately after the separation or after a longer wait diligent efforts were made to see the Thessalonians again. The aorist participle refers only to the fact that the separation preceded the efforts to get back. The passive states that the separation was a forced one as Acts 17:5–10 describe, the Thessalonians themselves sending Paul and Silvanus away. Paul and Silvanus yielded for the time being. The fact that this was a longer period of time goes without saying, for they could not hope to go back immediately; in due time, when they thought it safe, they made repeated efforts.

Paul tells the Thessalonians this: “We made more diligent effort to see your face in great desire.” If Paul had not written the comparative περισσοτέρως he would have spared the commentators some trouble. We need not review the different interpretations. R. 664, etc., is right in holding to the comparative idea, which must be drawn from the context. Here this is furnished by the passive participle: they used diligence “more abundantly” because the separation was enforced, because Paul and Silvanus felt orphaned, i.e., driven away from their charges in untimely haste when they felt that they were still greatly needed. Hence also we have the phrase that they made efforts to get back “in great desire,” the desire to do for the Thessalonians what they still needed. Ἐπιθυμία, often used with regard to sinful desire, is here to be taken in the good sense. The second πρόσωπον seems due to the first; Paul might have written “to see you.”

The kind of men that Paul and his helpers were when they worked in Thessalonica the Thessalonians know (1:5); they remained that kind of men after they were forced to leave, a fact which the Thessalonians must also know. Paul and Silvanus would encounter danger by returning to Thessalonica, nevertheless, disregarding such danger to themselves and thinking only of their beloved brethren in the great city and what might yet be done for them, they sought to return. The imperfect might have been used here because the efforts did not succeed; instead of expressing this thought the aorist is used to express the fact: “we did use diligence to see your face.” Who frustrated these efforts is stated in a moment.

1 Thessalonians 2:18

18 Διότι has the force of ὅτι the German denn (B.-P. 310), our “for.” The Thessalonians, of course, know that Paul and Silvanus did not return to their city, that only Timothy was sent to them to strengthen them and then to return in order to report to Paul. Thus they also know what has just been said, namely that Paul and Silvanus themselves wanted very much to come and made diligent effort to do so. What is written here and in 3:1, etc., is not new information to the Thessalonians but is similar to what the writers say about themselves in 1:5–2:12, a reminder of the kind of men the writers are, men who were prompted only by unselfish love and zeal for their converts, let opponents say what they will. We were diligent to see you with much desire, “for we resolved to come to you, I, Paul, in particular both once and again, and (the only reason this resolution was not carried out was that) Satan cut us off.” The verb means “we willed,” i.e., we had the plans made; “would (A. V.) and “would fain” (R. V.) are too potential; the idea is: “we actually resolved,” we had it all arranged.

“I, Paul, in particular, both once and again” says that the plan resolved on twice included Paul. We know that no more could be carried out than to let Timothy go alone for a brief stay (3:1, etc.). We conclude that their other plans were to have Silvanus and Timothy go, perhaps also Silvanus alone. But twice the plan was made so that all three were to go, including Paul in particular (the idea was not, of course, that he should go alone).

Here there is a beautiful instance of μέν solitarium. Μέν is construed with ἐγώ and is pointedly restrictive (as Robertson puts it): “I in particular, Paul.” Paul has been using the plural “we”; the Thessalonians know that Timothy came alone (3:1, etc.) and also that Silvanus was Paul’s assistant in Thessalonica. The relation of the three men, the fact that all three united in sending this epistle (1:1), is perfectly plain to the Thessalonians. The main personage of the three is Paul whose return to Thessalonica was desired most of all. The parenthetical insertion: “I in particular, Paul,” thus lifts Paul out of the “we” subject of the verb, a common practice with all writers. Yet R., W. P., thinks that we here have a clear example of the literary plural, i.e., that Paul speaks of himself as “we.” Robertson’s grammar offers more of these editorial or majestic plurals from the pen of Paul. Yet Paul never uses “we” when he is referring to himself.

Καὶἅπαξκαὶδίς (Phil. 4:16) = “both once and again” and draws attention to each of the two times the resolve was made. When the first plan went by the board, the matter was not dropped; plans were made a second time, and these two plans could not be carried cut. The second clause: “and Satan cut us off,” also depends on διότι so that καί does not add an adversative thought as it sometimes does (A. V. “but”). It completes the explanation made by “for.” The supposition that the Jews blamed everything of an adversative character onto Satan, and that Paul adopts this Jewish view, really implies that Satan was not to blame, that circumstances alone frustrated the plans. Paul never adopts mistaken Jewish views. Satan was back of the riotous proceeding that drove Paul and Silvanus out of Thessalonica, and he was also back of the hindrances that frustrated the two plans to return to Thessalonica.

This by no means excludes divine providence which rules in the midst of our enemies. Satan entered the heart of Judas so that he made plans to betray Jesus, and God permitted the betrayal for his own divine and blessed ends. So Satan succeeded in frustrating Paul’s two plans to return to Thessalonica, but only because this accorded with God’s own plans regarding the work Paul was to do. Satan has brought many a martyr to his death, and God permitted it. The death of these martyrs was more blessed for them and for the cause of the gospel than their life would have been. It is ever so with Satan’s successes.

No thanks to Satan! His guilt is the greater. It was due to Satan that the Thessalonians suffered just as the original churches in Judea had to suffer (v. 14) although God permitted this suffering. Here Paul touches only Satan’s activity and does not need to say more, for the Thessalonians understand. The verb means that Satan “cut in on us,” i.e., stopped us. “Us” means “us” and not “me” (literary plural). All three planned to go together to Thessalonica; they were prevented both times.

We do not know the details. Timothy (3:1, etc.) reported them to the Thessalonians so that Paul needs to say no more. Supposition leads to nothing definite: the supposition that Paul became ill and could not travel as planned, that stormy weather spoiled the plans, that troubles beset Paul and detained him, and Ramsay’s idea that Jason’s bond given to the Thessalonian authorities was still valid (Acts 17:9). Dobschuetz is right: When we do not know, it is scientific not to surmise but to confess that we do not know.

1 Thessalonians 2:19

19 Opponents in Thessalonica may well have said that Paul and Silvanus were only too willing to be rushed away from Thessalonica when the riot took place (Acts 17:10), that the believers would not see them again, and that they were men who cared only for themselves, were like the religious deceivers that were so numerous in the entire empire. The answer to this statement is not only Paul’s strenuous effort to return with his assistants but his effort combined with his motive, and that not merely the motive to do something for the Thessalonians in unselfish love but the still higher motive that the Thessalonians were everything to Paul and to his companions. These insinuations are met, not indirectly, but head on, directly. The charge: “These men are self-seekers!” is made a boomerang: “We are self-seekers—you Thessalonians are everything to us!” Paul states it in dramatic question-and-answer form: “For who is our hope or joy or crown of boasting; are not also you in the presence of our Lord Jesus in connection with his Parousia?” All the hope that we have as ministers of Christ, all our joy, all our crown of boasting, i.e., all that means success to us in our work when we at last stand in Christ’s glorious presence at the last day centers in you Thessalonians! In whom else could it center?

“Who,” not “what,” because persons constitute the hope, the joy, and the crown. Christ’s apostles (v. 6) must win souls; for that purpose they are sent out and not for anything less than that. “Our hope” is placed first and thus makes the joy and the crown likewise reach forward to the last day: our hope for the day of Christ’s Parousia. You Thessalonians constitute “our hope” means that all we hope for at that great day when the Lord will reward his ministers as he has promised in Luke 19:12–19 is that we may present you Thessalonians to him as people who have been won for the gospel (2 Cor. 11:2). All of the “or” are conjunctive and not disjunctive: call it our hope, or call it our joy, or call it our crown of boasting, whichever way you look at it, the hope we now have regarding what shall be at the last day, or the joy we now anticipate regarding that final joy, or the crown of which we boast as being ours already now and to be placed upon our heads at that day. Who is any one, yea, all three of these?

“Or are not also you,” etc., repeats the question in an alternative form. Instead of repeating “who” it advances and asks directly: “Are not also you?” The criticism that this extension of the dramatic question is stoerend and “a confused construction” does not note the effective thing Paul is doing, does not note that “or” means: “or to put it directly about you.” “Also (καί) you” includes the other churches that had been founded by Paul and his assistants. Οὐχί (the strong form of οὐ) implies a decided affirmative answer.

If the alternative question is reduced to the words “or not also you” and then made a parenthesis, it would be an awkward insert and a break in the thought. But no ordinary reader would note such a parenthesis. Nor is there a reason for referring the two final phrases across these words so as to join them to the first question. “Or are not also you?” means all that the preceding contains: “Are not also you our hope,” etc.?

“In the presence of our Lord Jesus in connection with his Parousia” conveys one thought: the great day when Paul and his fellow workers shall stand in the glorious presence of the Lord Jesus at his return to judgment. He and his assistants did all of their work in the light of that day. They taught all their converts to do the same: “to await the Son of God from the heavens.… Jesus, the One who saves us from the wrath to come” (1:10). They had but one interest, namely at that day to stand crowned before the all-glorious Lord.

Much may be said about Παρουσίααὐτοῦ, “his Parousia” or “Presence.” Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 372, etc., finds that in the papyri the word denotes the arrival and the visit of the Roman emperor in some city, the inhabitants dating a new era from such a parousia. He leaves the impression that the readers of Paul’s epistles had this Hellenistic use of the term in mind, that Paul also adopted the word from this its pagan use. M.-M. 497 also adopts this view. But the apostles use “thine own Parousia and the completion of the eon” even before Christ’s death, cf., Matt. 24:3, where Christ also describes his Parousia at length. C.-K. 406, etc., is right when he states that the Biblical use of the word does not go back to paganism but to the Old Testament. Its synonym is ἡἀποκάλυψιςτοῦΚυρίουἸησοῦἀπʼ οὐρανοῦ (2 Thess. 1:7), “the revelation,” etc.

In the Scriptures Christ’s Parousia is not the date for a new era but the consummation of the old (Matt. 24:3, “the completion of the eon”). We speak of the Second Advent and of Christ’s Return; C.-K. points out that Parousia is not Wiederkunft or return but the supreme apocalyptic presence, the climax of all Christian faith and certainty. There are not two Parousiai but only one: the Parousia. The coming of Christ in the flesh is not the consummation. “Our Lord Jesus” is probably usesd in view of Acts 1:11: “this same Jesus” and “Christ” is not added.

1 Thessalonians 2:20

20 We regard γάρ as confirmatory: “Indeed, you are our glory and (our) joy!” That is why we labored as we did in Thessalonica, that is why we are so determined to return. In the question “our hope, joy, and crown of boasting” are subjective; in the answer “our glory” is objective and thus is an advance while “our joy” summarizes the subjective feature of what the Thessalonians are for Paul and for his assistants. One has joy in his heart when he has glory for his head. “Our glory” is not the same as “our crown of boasting,” i.e., the acme of our boasting, in which not “crown” but “boasting” is the fundamental concept.

M.-M The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and other non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.

R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition..

C.-K Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

B.-P Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.