1 Thessalonians 4
LenskiCHAPTER IV
The Hortatory and Instructive Section of the Epistle
Living a Clean and Respectable Life
1 Thessalonians 4:1
1 The incision which marks a new section of the epistle after the prayerful wishes of 3:12, 13 is indicated by λοιπόν; we now have hortation and instruction which is based on the report Timothy brought back from Thessalonica. While the writers thank God for what had been accomplished (1:2, etc., plus other statements in the first three chapters) they are also intent on removing the moral faults and weaknesses that remain and on correcting wrong ideas that have begun to spread. We should remember that Paul and Silvanus had labored only about four weeks when they were founding the church. Then came Timothy’s visit (3:1, etc.) which was also all too brief. Great things had, indeed, been accomplished, yet much remained to be added. The main things are now taken up.
As for the rest then, brethren, we request and admonish you in the Lord Jesus that, as you received from us how it is necessary for you to walk and to be pleasing to God as also you are walking, that you abound more and more.
Λοιπόν is the adverbial accusative and points to all that remains to be said. Thus the affectionate “brethren” is in place; this is matched by the two fraternal verbs, “we request and admonish you in the Lord,” two verbs instead of just one in order to make a deeper impression. Paul uses the second verb παρακαλῶ, “to admonish,” often; when he now adds ἐρωτῶ, bitten, “to ask or request,” the idea of fraternal appeal is made prominent in the admonition. The writers speak as the dearest friends of the Thessalonians who have already shown their deepest love and affection (compare 2:7, 8) and have already heretofore admonished them as a father his own children (compare 2:11, 12).
The request and the admonition are made ἐνΚυρίῳἸησοῦ, “in connection with the Lord Jesus.” Both the writers and the readers acknowledge this Lord who has saved and made them his own and has sent out these apostles (1:5). His authority as well as his grace are back of this fraternal request and admonition. No statement that is made in the following comes only from men.
Nor is the present admonition new and strange; the Thessalonians have already received it from the writers, they have been told before how they must walk and be pleasing to God. Τό before the indirect question makes a noun of it; it is the object of “you received,” and this is done in the fashion of the classics (R. 1046): “as to how it is necessary,” etc. The one question for all followers of the Lord Jesus is: “How must we walk and please God?” All the ministers of the Lord must help the believers to answer this question even in detail. This the writers did for the Thessalonians in the very beginning, and they now repeat their instruction. Δεῖ may denote any type of necessity, it is like our “must”; here moral and spiritual necessity is referred to.
Paul coordinates: “that you walk and be pleasing to God,” and stresses both verbs as though a question might be asked about each one: “How shall we walk? How shall we be pleasing to God?” Yet by combining them the two become one: “How shall all that we do in our daily life and walk be pleasing to God?” The thought is not only that we constantly test ourselves as to whether we are pleasing to God but in addition that we walk as constantly being under God’s eyes.
The force of “pleasing to God” is sometimes overlooked. Paul has used this expression in 2:4 regarding himself and Silvanus and the way in which they speak God’s gospel. To be pleasing to God appeals to the gospel motive for believers, their love for God in the Lord Jesus, and not to the motive of law, the fear of punishment. The verb includes the work of the Spirit who moves our hearts to please God by sincere obedience to God’s will. The appeal is directed wholly to voluntary activity. Moreover, to be pleasing to God adds also the thought that he is above us; to please ourselves in sin is to turn from God, and this involves a serious calamity; the heathen do not even know God (v. 5), we do.
To the first καθώς clause a second is added: “as also you are walking.” This excludes the implication that the Thessalonians have not as yet been walking as they ought to walk. It brings out the force of the aorist παρελάβετε: “you did receive effectively” what we taught you Thessalonians, you are, indeed, walking in a manner that pleases God. In this second clause the one verb is sufficient, there is no need to add “and are pleasing to God.” For all that had been attained in the Thessalonians the writers thank God as they have already stated. Their admonition is: “that you may abound more and more,” μᾶλλον meaning “more and more” or “still more.” Non-final ἵνα is repeated because of what intervenes; it states the contents of the request and the admonition.
The Thessalonians already abound. When one compares how they once walked and how they now walk, the change is great indeed, thank God! Yet there is room for still more of this blessed abundance of holiness of life. The Thessalonians are to please God in a still higher degree. Not only is perfection still unattained, there are faults that are of a kind that ought to disappear completely. The Thessalonians have for the greater part come out of rank paganism and have not at once shaken off all pagan ideas and practices. They have succeeded in varying degrees, but some of them still have plain ὑστερήματα, things in which they are behind, and all of them should continue their blessed advance.
The opening statement of the admonition is psychologically perfect. It acknowledges all that the Thessalonians have hitherto achieved and makes this the ground for achieving still more. It in no wise discourages the Thessalonians, it encourages them in the strongest manner. Paul still deals with them as a nurse does with her own children (2:7), as a father with his own children (2:8). He directs his appeal to the highest motives and states it in the most effective way. There is no call, as far as the Thessalonians are concerned, to smite their sins with full apostolic authority, the Thessalonians are not rebellious but willing to heed and follow. Paul stimulates their willingness most strongly. We may well learn from him.
1 Thessalonians 4:2
2 Explanatory γάρ adds “we gave to you” to the preceding “you received from us”: For you know what orders we gave to you through the Lord Jesus. The admonitions now given are repetitions of the orders already given and received. The point that the orders are not new is thus emphasized. Those orders still stand. The Thessalonians know them, have begun to act on them, and have done well as far as they have gone; they are to go on still farther under these orders, to carry them out still more completely. While “we gave” is the other side of “you received,” the whole thought is amplified. The Thessalonians “know,” the orders need not be given anew, they have not been forgotten, and they, of course, still stand.
In place of the indirect question used in v. 1, “how it is necessary that you walk,” etc., we now have “what orders,” and this, too, is an indirect question. But these are really “orders,” παραγγελίαι, the word to designate military commands passed along from the commander through his captains to the troops. The word thus points to divine authority. This does not turn from gospel to law, for Jesus himself speaks of his ἐντολαί, (John 15:10, 12, 17), the sum of which is that we love him and thus obey and also that we love each other (John 13:34; 15:12), all of which belongs to the gospel. The motive is ever gospel love.
The following states what orders Paul has especially in mind. They are and remain “orders” or “commands,” for they come from “the Lord Jesus” who is our divine Lord, whom we are pledged to obey most fully because we love him as our Savior-Lord. Paul has used “the Lord Jesus” repeatedly; he has at times combined it with “our God and Father.” But Paul seems to reverse things here: instead of saying that the Lord Jesus gave the orders through us he says we gave them through him. This does not, of course, mean that Paul, etc., issued the orders by their authority and conveyed them through the Lord as their subordinate agent.
Yet “through the Lord Jesus” puzzles the commentators who offer a number of inadequate explanations. The one that διά really = ἐν (v. 1, for instance) is linguistically untenable. Διά is used by Jesus himself in John 14:6; we meet it elsewhere even with reference to God, and it always means “through.” Here the matter is quite simple: Paul means that we gave the orders, not “through our own selves” (διʼ ἑαυτῶν), but wholly and altogether “through the Lord Jesus.” For although we gave you the orders, and you saw and heard only us, they were really given to you “through the Lord.”
We need not adopt the view of B.-D. 223, 2, who remark that the originator is at times spoken of as the mediator, for Paul and his helpers always transmitted all orders “through the Lord,” i.e., let all orders come to their hearers through this divine channel, the Lord alone. That this is true because these orders originate with the Lord alone is not said by διά; it does not need to be. From whom else could they originate? In v. 1 of this very chapter and elsewhere Paul gives the orders “through the Lord Jesus,” for he says: “we admonish you in connection with the Lord Jesus.” He keeps this connection, and that is transmitting the orders “through the Lord.”
1 Thessalonians 4:3
3 Γάρ specifies. For this is God’s will, your sanctification, that you hold yourselves away from the fornication, that each of you know to acquire his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in passion of lust like also the pagans who do not know God; etc.
We decline to render: “For God’s will is this, your sanctification,” etc. Nothing is gained by this reversal, this making the subject the predicate, and the predicate the subject. Paul has spoken of what the Thessalonians have received and what makes them pleasing to God, of what commandments the Thessalonians know Paul, etc., have given them through the Lord. He now specifies (γάρ): “This is God’s will,” etc., τοῦτο points to what he says at length. The absence of the article marks the predicate as such: θέληματοῦΘεοῦ, “God’s will,” the thing God wants. To say that what follows is “God’s will” matches what has just been said about the Thessalonians’ “pleasing God,” in order to please him they must know and do his will. This correspondence in expression is all that is said here; nothing is to be inserted.
The apposition to the deictic τοῦτο is “your sanctification” plus the epexegetical infinitives. The word employed is not ἁγιωσύνη (3:13), the quality of “holiness,” but ἁγιασμός, “sanctification,” not, however, the middle sense, that the Thessalonians sanctify themselves, but the passive sense: the condition brought about when the Thessalonians are sanctified and set apart by God (C.-K. 59); ὑμῶν is thus not the subjective but the possessive genitive.
This word appears only in Biblical Greek. There is no stress on “your sanctification” as though this were opposed to some pagan consecration to some god who requires less than the true God does. Paganism offered nothing comparable to Christian sanctification. The word is to be understood in the narrow sense: sanctification of life and conduct. It is not like ἅγιοι, “saints,” which is understood in the wider sense and therefore includes also justification. While ἁγιασμός is in direct apposition to the subject τοῦτο, it is also in apposition to the predicate θέληματοῦΘεοῦ: this thing that God wills is the condition of the Thessalonians in which they are set wholly apart for God and are separated in life and conduct from the world which is not thus set apart and does not even know God.
Ἁγιασμός covers this entire condition. The epexegetical infinitives point out only two sides of the whole: sexual purity and honesty in business, the opposites of two common, ugly vices of paganism. First: “that you hold yourselves away from the fornication, that each of you know to acquire his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in passion of lust like also the pagans who do not know God.” All of this belongs together. The first infinitive is properly a durative present: “ever to stay aloof (to abstain) from the fornication.” Πορνεία is used in the widest sense to indicate anything that can be called “fornication,” hence we have the Greek article, some texts offer “from all fornication.”
Wohlenberg supplies a survey of the Greek terms pertinent in this connection: πόρνη = die Kaeufliche, Feile, the purchasable one (feminine), the whore in this sense; πορνεύειν, the filthy business of making a living by prostitution; μοιχός, an adulterer, frequently one who has intercourse with a person who is married to another or with the daughter of an honorable family; ἐταῖραι, mistresses, intercourse with whom was allowed to unmarried young men as long as the daughters were not daughters of families that had full citizenship rights. To this list we may add the prostitutes who were kept at pagan temples for the men who came to worship the god or the goddess of the temple. “The fornication” covers all these types of whoredom.
1 Thessalonians 4:4
4 The second infinitive is positive, is an epexegesis of the preceding negative infinitive: “that each of you know to acquire,” etc.; εἰδέναι is a second perfect form used as a present tense, its object, κτᾶσθαι, is also present. Both tenses are iterative as also the subject “each one of you” indicates. Every man is to have his own wife, every woman her own husband as Paul says in so many words in 1 Cor. 7:2. Κτᾶσθαι means “to acquire” and not, as our versions translate it, “to possess.” Nor is this acquisition sufficient: “acquire in sanctification and honor, not in passion of lust.” Paul even adds: “like also the pagans (Gentiles) who do not know God.” This last “know” (εἰδότα) explains the first “know” (εἰδέναι). It is God’s will that every Christian is to know how to act in the matter of sex so as to be pleasing to God (v. 1). He is to know that God instituted marriage, that each man is to have his own wife, each woman her own husband (monogamy), that every type of fornication is excluded as being contrary to God’s will. This is what pagans do not know, they do not even know God and thus run wild in all manner of sexual excess.
Εἰδέναι is not γινώσκω, “to know sexually,” it is never used in this sense; the object is also an infinitive. “His own vessel” does not mean “his own body” or the male organ because neither can be acquired. It is plain that the infinitive does not mean “to possess” save only as this is implied in the perfect: “having acquired and thus now possessing.” The expression κτᾶσθαιγυναῖκα occurs in Xenophon and elsewhere in the sense of acquiring a wife; 1 Pet. 3:7 uses σκεῦος in the sense of wife. The present tense “to acquire” has already been explained as a present iterative which matches “each one of you” and thus is not durative. Paul speaks of acquiring a wife, i.e., entering upon marriage, and not of the conduct of marriage; when it is entered into in the right way, marriage will be conducted in the right way.
The objection that Paul’s words would then apply only to unmarried men, and that some of these might not even need marriage, is pointless; for Paul is opposing all fornication by urging a legitimate monogamic marriage that is entered upon in the true Christian manner. His readers understand perfectly that if marriage is purified at its inception, this purity is not to be lost later on. Is it necessary that he add at length what those should do who had married as pagans before their conversion? By writing τὸἑαυτοῦσκεῦος the reflexive pronoun is made emphatic, which also indicates that “vessel” refers to the wife.
The main stress rests on the modifiers which are thus also expanded, the positive being followed by an even longer negative. “In sanctification and honor” = in a condition of having been set apart for God so as to please him (the same word that was used before) and in a way that is accounted honorable or worthy of honor among men. The one is wrought by God, the other is bestowed by men, especially by Christians.
Von Hofmann’s peculiar spiritualization misunderstands Paul’s simple thought: by acquiring a wife the Christian husband sanctifies the wife and the order of nature created by God and honors the vessel that he acquires. To acquire a wife “in sanctification” is to go about the whole matter as a Christian should, who knows God’s will and would in no way displease him. To do this “in honor” is to do it so that men see that it is done honorably, in a clean, commendable way, without the least cause for scandal.
Equally strange is the idea that Paul intends to oppose family interference in Christian marriages, betrothals in extreme youth, which also adds that later even Christian congregations felt that they must arrange the marriages. Is this the reason that Paul says, “That each one know to acquire his own vessel”? He does not intend to imply that each man is to be free to choose his own wife without family or other interference. This is not his point, in fact, parental advice and consent are most valuable to this day. The point is that Christians must go about the whole matter “in sanctification and in honor.”
1 Thessalonians 4:5
5 Therefore also “not in passion of lust as also the pagans who do not know God” and let passion alone guide them. Paul is not dependent on the Stoics for his use of πάθος. This was wider in force than ἐπιθυμία and included a variety of passions, among which ἐπιθυμία was only one. To Paul πάθος means sexual passion in the passive sense, an ungovernable desire like a fire that starts by itself; while ἐπιθυμία is “desire,” active; it is not always used in the evil sense, it is like a fire that one encourages and feeds. Hence the combination: “in passion of lust,” carried away by passion to which “desire” (here in the evil sense of “lust”) eagerly consents.
The genitive is qualitative so that Luther translates Lustseuche, and the revised German Bible, Brunst der Lust. The doubling of terms matches the two positive terms. The objection that not all pagan marriages were prompted by lustful passion overlooks the fact that Paul knew at firsthand what paganism exhibited regarding marriage, it may be seen today even among our American pagans and pagan moralists. In their case passion governs, and when this ceases, the marriage is wrecked, or the passion finds another woman (or man).
When Paul points to the ἔθνη who do not know God, this is strong motivation, for the Thessalonians have left paganism and do, indeed, know God and his “orders” (v. 2) and how they should walk and be pleasing to God. No verb form is needed whether finite or infinitive. As “saints” who have experienced God’s ἁγιασμός the Thessalonians are separated unto God, are his peculiar people (1 Pet. 2:9) who do not run with the pagans (1 Pet. 4:4) but ever follow God’s guidance.
1 Thessalonians 4:6
6 The writers continue: that (he) do not go too far and overreach his brother in the matter of business because the Lord is an avenger in all these things even as also we told you in advance and testified.
We side with the majority of the commentators who contend that in this verse Paul admonishes to honest and unselfish business dealing and does not continue the admonition against sexual sins. The commentators generally note that the infinitives are introduced by τό, but some do not note that this τό points to an appositional construction, and that this appositional connection is with ὁἁγιασμὸςὑμῶν and is thus a second appositional specification of “your sanctification” and “God’s will”; the first is abstaining from all fornication; the second, abstaining from all greed in business dealing. To mark this new sin the subject of the infinitives is not ὑμᾶς which is the subject of ἀπέχεσθαι but, as “his brother” indicates, a singular, either “he” understood or ἕκαστονὑμῶν supplied from v. 4. It is scarcely necessary to remark that the two outstanding vices of paganism were sexual and commercial vileness and greed. It has been well said that Thessalonica was a great trade center which was busy with all sorts of mercantile dealings. The fact that Paul speaks of more than one kind of sin is indicated by the plural phrase περὶπάντωντούτων, “concerning all these things.”
Robertson, W. P., is, is among those who find an admonition against the sin of adultery in this verse and thus construes the infinitives with τό as being final, probably meaning final to the εἰδέναι clause: “that each one of you know to acquire his own vessel … in order not to go too far and overreach,” etc. But this purpose clause would not cover the purpose to be covered if Paul has purpose in mind. Is each one to marry only in order not to seduce a brother’s wife? Has Paul not said much more already, namely that the Thessalonians are “to hold themselves away from all fornication”? Does that not include adultery with a brother’s wife?
Is there any reason for mentioning adultery separately at the end, and this only in a purpose clause? The real danger was the seduction of girls and not of wives. And why mention “his brother” when adultery would violate the wife and cause her to disrupt her marriage? Others who find a reference to adultery in this passage make the infinitives parallel to εἰδέναι and, like this infinitive, appositional to ἀπέχεσθαι; but this does not explain τό nor remove the other incongruities.
We do not regard ὑπερβαίνειν as transitive nor “his brother” as the object of the two infinitives instead of just the one. There is no need for a modified meaning, for ὑπέρ in the verb means “beyond,” thus the sense is: “to go too far.” This limit is at times indicated by an object accusative which makes the verb transitive: “to go beyond the law,” etc.; a personal object is naturally rare. The τὸμή does combine the infinitives but only as constituting their appositional relation as shown above and not, as some extend this relation, also the object, “his brother.” For the second infinitive is epexegetical: going beyond is specified as overreaching his brother in the matter of business; it is this going too far that the writers have in mind.
Πλεονεκτεῖν has the same meaning as πλεονεξία, “covetousness”: the act of coveting or being greedy. The marginal translation of our versions: “overreach,” may be accepted, also “defraud” (A. V.); “to oppress” (A. V. margin) is a different verb just as is “to wrong” (R. V.), which would be ἀδικεῖν. Πράγμα is a regular commercial term: “business” or “matter of business.” The article is the same as that in the phrase ἀπὸτῆςπορνείας, generic and comprehensive: the whole matter of business, and not the enclitic “in some matter of business,” nor the demonstrative “in this matter” (i.e., the one mentioned in v. 3, fornication).
Covetous greed is to be impossible for the Thessalonians in their business dealing. This applies not only to merchants, for the phrase is broader and includes any transaction in which one man may covetously get the advantage of the other. Honesty is referred to, and more than that, also fairness in dealing, concern for the profit and the interests of others. When Paul writes “his brother” he may have in mind Lev. 25:14, 17 where we have “neighbor” and “one another,” and uses “his brother” as an equivalent. This does not make “brother” = fellow man; on the other hand, Paul is not advocating a double standard such as the Jews had who often still think that, while cheating a Jew is wrong, cheating a Gentile is quite in order. Paul’s admonition is the same as when he bids us love the brethren, which never means only the brethren.
All holy virtues that are exercised in regard to the brethren and commanded with reference to them cannot and do not stop there but reach out to all others in all such ways as are possible. Christian ethics treat a Christian brother as a clear example of how to treat other people and thus differ from all worldly ethics (Mohammedan, Masonic, and other mere humanly arranged brotherhoods).
As an antidote against sin the Scriptures use the positive motive of love to God and Christ, which seeks ever to please God (v. 1) and thus shrinks from all sin; but also the negative motive of fear lest God punish us. Sin disregards God in two ways: it ignores his love, grace, and blessings by refusing to respond in gratitude and obedience; it sets aside his warnings and threats by regarding them as idle words. Paul has appealed to the gospel motive in v. 1; he now adds the motive of law. For when the former fails to be effective, the latter must always step in (Matt. 10:28). It does so here: “because the Lord is an avenger regarding all these things even as also we told you in advance and testified.” The predicate is placed forward for the sake of emphasis: “an avenger the Lord,” etc., nothing less, an ἔκδικος (also in the papyri), one who exacts legal justice from a culprit. Chrysostom remarks: “God does not avenge the persons who have been wronged but himself,” let us rather say his δίκη or norm of right.
This appeal to God’s legal justice is supported by the conviction of the natural conscience as Acts 28:4 so plainly indicates: ἡδίκη did not let him live. It is made much stronger by the knowledge of the true God, of his justice coupled with his omniscience. Κύριος, without the article, refers to Christ in his divine lordship; if God were referred to, we should have Θεός. Paul is not citing the Old Testament so that Κύριος might be regarded as = Jehovah. “All these things” implies at least two kinds of sins and then requires that we think of various transgressions, such repetitions showing that no repentance has set in.
“As we have told you before” when we were with you founding the church. All that the writers state is elementary Christian instruction which is given to the converts at once. We need no πρό with the second verb. The addition “and testified” adds the note of solemnity to that of the telling, the compound is even stronger than the simplex occurring in 2:11. Impressively as well as with genuine testimony the Thessalonians had been warned of God’s justice upon all these sins in which they had lived with unconcern before their conversion. The Thessalonians know it well but, as we today, need constant reminders.
It would be uncharitable to conclude that Timothy had found that these sins were still rife among the Thessalonians. These admonitions intend to deepen their fear of God regarding the danger of viewing such sins lightly and thus perhaps yielding to temptation.
1 Thessalonians 4:7
7 When the writers add: For God called you not on the basis of uncleanness but in connection with sanctification, this explains (γάρ) why these admonitions and reminders are necessary. Paul again sounds the full gospel note. The aorist “God called you” refers to the historical fact and, as always in the epistles, to the efficacious and successful call. The call is generally ascribed to God, but this in no wise excludes Christ. By stating it actively: “God called you,” and not passively: “you were called,” Paul emphasizes the new relation to God which brought the Thessalonians into blessed union with him; for in καλεῖν there lies the whole gospel of unmerited grace which drew the Thessalonians out of paganism and into God’s blessed kingdom.
The force of the preposition is lost in the A. V.; these are not two εἰς, “unto.” The R. V. misunderstands ἐπί by translating it “for” (the Greek for this would be εἰς). “Not on the basis of uncleanness” (ἐπί) = not with this understanding; “but in connection with sanctification” means in the connection indicated by the context, i.e., by the act that called the Thessalonians. It is true that “uncleanness” is the opposite of “sanctification,” the one is as broad as the other, and “uncleanness” does not refer only to sexual sins just as “sanctification” includes far more than sexual purity. “Uncleanness” describes the whole former pagan life; “sanctification,” the new Christian life.
More must be said, and this is also in line with the prepositions: “on the basis of uncleanness” describes a state or condition while “in connection with sanctification” describes an action, namely God’s sanctifying action which separated the Thessalonians more and more from all sin and in all their life and activity drew them to him (see this meaning in v. 3). The word used is not ἁγιωσύνη (3:13), “holiness,” the state or quality, which would be the formal opposite of ἁκαθαρσία and would permit the use of the same preposition with both nouns. Here the contrast is between the former filthy pagan state in which the pagan Thessalonians were and the new divine work which set in when the divine call won them, which they are constantly to experience in their hearts and their lives. God’s call cannot possibly let the Thessalonians rest on the old unclean basis; that call at once connected them with God’s sanctifying action. Prepositions and nouns are most exact.
1 Thessalonians 4:8
8 With τοιγαροῦν (found only here and in Heb. 12:1), the re-enforced οὖν, the summary conclusion is drawn. Therefore, he who sets aside, not man does he set aside but God, him who gives his Holy Spirit to you. 1 Sam. 8:7; Matt. 10:40; Luke 10:16; John 13:20. Ἀθετέω = “to annul.” “He who cancels” and thus sets aside as if the thing were finally disposed of and could be disregarded needs no object, for the reference is plain in its brevity: he who rejects this divine sanctification and thinks he may remain in his former unclean state. The present participle is qualitative and describes this man. With equal terseness Paul states what this man does: “he sets aside” (annuls, rejects); Paul does not say: “let him know that he sets aside,” nor does he use some longer expression. The present tense states the simple fact as is done in any general (often doctrinal) statement. “Not man but God” not us but God; = not a mere human being but no less a one than God himself. Compare 2:13. Here the entire emphasis is once again placed on God.
Yet the gospel note continues: “God, him who gives his Holy Spirit to you,” τὸνδιδόντα, again qualitative and an apposition. Now we hear how the sanctification which has been mentioned three times is wrought, namely by God’s giving us τὸΠνεῦμααὐτοῦτὸἍγιον. Thus this paragraph presents all three divine persons. By placing the adjective after a second article and even after “his” this is made a kind of appositional climax (R. 776): “his Spirit, the Holy One,” who is called “holy” for the very reason that he sanctifies and makes us holy. To reject God who does this for us poor sinners is to remain in our uncleanness, to sink ever more deeply into it. “He who gives” contains all that God’s grace means, and we should not overlook this precious participle. The A. V. has translated the inferior reading εἰςἡμᾶς which should be ὑμᾶς; for “us” would mean “us writers,” but Paul beyond question refers to the Thessalonians.
1 Thessalonians 4:9
9 These verses (9–12) still belong to what the writers had taught the Thessalonians (v. 1) as the will of God, their sanctification (v. 3), transitional δέ introducing them. Now concerning the brotherly love you have no need that (we) write you, for you yourselves are God-taught so that you love each other; indeed, you also do this toward all the brethren in all Macedonia.
Timothy had brought the report, and the writers are informed about the brotherly love of the Thessalonians; περί introduces the subject and not an inquiry made by the Thessalonians. In the classics φιλαδελφία is used to designate the love of relatives, in our literature it expresses the love and affection of spiritual brethren. Already in 1:3 this love has been acknowledged with thanks to God; it is now acknowledged to the Thessalonians themselves: “you have no need that (we) write you.” When B.-D. 393, 5 finds the simple active infinitive “incorrect,” we think this is saying too much, for it is evident that “we” is the implied subject.
It is saying a good deal to assert that there is no need to dwell on this subject as far as the Thessalonians are concerned; but it is saying even more to claim that the Thessalonians are “God-taught” so that they love each other. Θεοδιδακτοί appears only here and in later ecclesiastical writers, but the compound is quite regular, it is a passive verbal adjective (compare John 6:45). Εἰςτό denotes result and does not introduce an object clause as it did in 3:10, nor is it epexegetical (R. 1003, 1072). “God-taught” refers to v. 8: taught by the Holy Spirit, yet not immediately by direct revelation but mediately through Paul and Silvanus and the Word the Thessalonians had received from them. On ἀγαπᾶν see the noun as used in 1:3. True teaching produces results, and the Thessalonians showed the results as the writers are happy to say.
1 Thessalonians 4:10
10 We regard γάρ as confirmatory: “yea” or “indeed” and not “for.” The Thessalonians had not only a parochial love but one that took in all the brethren in the whole of Macedonia. Thessalonica was a great seaport which carried on much trade with the entire province. Believers from the other Macedonian cities thus had cause to come to Thessalonica and there found the Thessalonian brethren full of true love for them, willing to lend them any assistance they needed. Some think of charity sent to brethren in other cities, but we have no hint of charity; v. 6 speaks of business with brethren, and business is transacted by people with means, and to have brethren full of love in a strange city where one transacts business is a great help.
Δέ is slightly adversative: Yet we admonish you, brethren, to abound more and more (the same expression found in v. 1). It has been asked why this subject is mentioned since the Thessalonians exercised true Christian love as they did. The answer is twofold: 1) such love deserves commendatory mention and receives it here; 2) when the writers are commending this love, these young believers are not to think that their love is already perfect, it is to increase and abound still more. It is to grow like a living plant and to bear still more fruit. The address “brethren” is proper because the admonition includes more than the one point of abounding in the love already manifested, and because the Thessalonians were treating other brethren as they should (in all Macedonia).
1 Thessalonians 4:11
11 Instead of making a separate item of this second admonition Paul simply adds it to the brief one about abounding still more in love. This has been criticized as being laxity in expressing thought. But Paul’s further admonition is entirely in line with this abounding in love toward the brethren near and far. Verse 12 makes this plain, for “those without” are to be considered alongside of “the brethren.” These two hang together, “the brethren” and “those without.” It is thus that Paul adds: And to be ambitious to be quiet and to attend to your own business and to work with your hands even as we gave you orders that you should walk in seemly fashion toward those without and should have need of nothing.
It is the last clause that makes this second admonition plain because it is a second one and yet is related to the first. Fervent love to the brethren cannot possibly disregard our conduct toward those without. The infinitive means “to seek honor in something,” which needs an addition to explain how and in what the honor is sought; we have this explanation in the next infinitive: “to be quiet.” But this is still incomplete, for it leaves the question as to what is meant by being quiet. The answer is found in the following infinitives plus the καθώς clause which includes also v. 12. We may translate καί “namely”: “namely to attend to your own business and to work with your hands even as,” etc.
Πράσσειντὰἴδια, which is followed by ἐργάζεσθαιταῖςχερσὶνὑμῶν, refers to two groups of members, businessmen and ordinary laborers. We have heard of businessmen in v. 6; they are not to cheat in their business dealing. Here they are to attend to τὰἴδια, “their own affairs,” business affairs. Those who depend on labor that is to be done with their own hands are to be satisfied with that. This is what being ambitious to be quiet means. This is again not a new thought but only what Paul and Silvanus ordered when they first brought the Thessalonians to faith (v. 2).
The usual view of this verse does not find a reference to two groups, businessmen and those who work with their own hands, it considers that τὰἴδια refers only to “one’s own affairs,” the opposite of mixing in with other people’s affairs, being busybodies (2 Thess. 3:11). This view regards “to work with your hands” as being explicative of “to attend to your own things.” The fact that nearly all of the Thessalonians were manual toilers, dock workers, who did heavy work, cannot be established. They were businessmen as we see them today who sold things in Oriental bazaars and craftsmen who often work in little shops as we can see them to this day working by hand at their trades, many of which require great skill of hand. This is a truer picture as those know who have traveled in Oriental countries. The contrast here intended is not one of attending to public affairs in the state and city, and still less ambition to inaugurate a public program that is in line with unsound Christian eschatological ideas; nor the idea that common labor is the affair of slaves while free men should devote themselves to politics in the Agora, to public celebrations in the theatre, and to relaxation in the public baths.
We should not introduce 2 Thess. 3:6–15 as though this were a part of First Thessalonians. The neglect of business and labor is here considered only briefly and from the angle of its effect on those outside. This neglect was in its incipiency. Second Thessalonians sheds light on it only as being something that Timothy had reported as having begun and as causing comment among outsiders. The best we are able to say is that the ardent expectation of Christ’s Parousia, which was regarded as being certain to occur in the near future, caused a few of the Thessalonians to give up their ordinary occupations and earnings. Examples of like fanatical expectations on a large scale have occurred at various times.
See below on v. 13, etc. In First Thessalonians we have no more than a small beginning in this direction.
1 Thessalonians 4:12
12 We regard the ἵνα clause as the object of παρηγγείλαμεν: “even as we gave you orders (παρά, passed the order along to you) that you should walk in seemly fashion toward those without and should have need of nothing.” Our versions and the older commentators were not acquainted with this expanded use of ἵνα and thus regard this statement as a purpose clause; some of the later commentators still cling to this idea of purpose although the papyri have taught us a good deal on this subject. Paul’s original instruction to the Thessalonians was: always to walk as regards those without εὐσχημόνως, in a manner that is anstaendig, “in good form” (not: “honestly” as in our versions), but so as to cause no offense. Those who regard this as a purpose clause make the original orders given to the Thessalonians the contents of at least the two preceding infinitives. But this would mean that when Paul and Silvanus were in Thessalonica the Thessalonians were beginning to neglect business and labor, which was not the case. This fault appeared later and was reported by Timothy.
Paul adds: “and should have need of nothing” (neuter, not masculine: “no man,” A. V. margin), in an applicatory way. By attending to business and daily work in a quiet, sober, steady fashion each Christian would earn his own living and escape need so that no outsider could point to him with slurring remarks. Verse 6 takes care of honesty in business dealings. Poorer members would soon get into need if they stopped work.
Instruction regarding Those who Die before the Parousia
1 Thessalonians 4:13
13 Δέ introduces a new subject. Efforts are made to discover a close connection with something that precedes in v. 9–12 such as that the φιλαδελφία of v. 9 extended to the dead and caused this grief that Paul is allaying. But this and other suggestions of a close connection are not convincing. Of more merit is the observation that this entire epistle has an eschatological tone (see 1:10; 2:12; 2:19; 3:13). The reason for this is the fact that Paul intended to write these two sections (4:13–18 and 5:1–11) to furnish the Thessalonians the instruction they needed according to the reports Timothy had brought. Timothy had, no doubt, done what he could to clear up this whole subject, but now all three writers put the instruction down black on white.
These two paragraphs thus form the burden of the second part of the epistle. The church has always considered them of the greatest value. The first paragraph is closely allied to 1 Cor. 15:51, 52.
Now we do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those that fall asleep in order that you may not grieve as also the rest, those who have no hope.
The plural “we” refers to the three writers (1:1), and “we do not want you to be ignorant” (similar formulas are used a number of times by Paul himself) introduces additional information, here on the subject mentioned by περί, “those who fall asleep,” (note περί in v. 9). “Brethren” helps to mark the new subject. The present participle: “those who fall asleep,” is passive (it is far better attested than the perfect passive). Κοιμάω = “to put to sleep,” the passive, “to be put to sleep,” i.e., to fall asleep. In our literature we find only the passive (B.-P. 685). The question of the Thessalonians dealt not only with those who had already died but equally with any others who might die before the Parousia.
During the four weeks that Paul and Silvanus were founding the congregation this specific question had not arisen and hence had not been answered in a direct and specific way. Probably no deaths had occurred during those four weeks. A number of believers had died since that time, and the prospect was that more would die while the church was waiting earnestly for God’s Son from the heavens (1:10). We know what disturbed the Thessalonians only from what is written here; we ought not to be influenced by those commentators who add material that is borrowed from Jewish and pagan sources. The negative purpose clause at once helps to show us what troubled the Thessalonians regarding these deaths. The instruction here offered is to stop them from grieving over these deaths as the rest grieve who have no hope. “The rest” are “those outside” (v. 12), pagans, who are devoid of hope.
Their grief is not assuaged by hope; that of Christians is. The claim that the pagans have no hope is an objective statement that is made by the writers. There is only one hope for those who die, the hope based on the sure promises of God and Christ; all who do not have this hope are without hope whatever they may think of death and the hereafter, whatever hope or hopes they may manufacture for themselves.
Interesting collections have been made especially from pagan inscriptions which show what paganism thought about death, the hereafter, immortality, etc. See the works listed by Dobschuetz, Thessalonicher-Brief, 189. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 164 presents the facsimile of a letter of condolence that was written by Irene, an Egyptian, to a family that has lost a son, which tells how everything that was fitting was done. “But, nevertheless, against such things one can do nothing. Therefore comfort ye one another. Fare ye well!” Nothing that is more bare of real hope and comfort can be imagined. see v. 18 of this chapter! Well may Deissmann exclaim in discussing this letter: “Poor Irene!”
Here we, however, see what troubled the Thessalonians: they were grieving over these deaths like those who have no hope, they thought that these dead were lost. Do you ask how this was possible? Was not the doctrine of the resurrection a part of the gospel, and had Paul and Silvanus not taught the blessed resurrection to the Thessalonians at the very start? Surely, but the Thessalonians were unable to apply this teaching to the deaths that had occurred. They were bginners, had come mostly from paganism, and constantly looked for the Son of God from heaven, the Deliverer from the wrath to come (1:10). They applied this deliverance only to the believers whom Christ would find alive at his coming.
They failed to see that it applied to the dead believers as well. Hence their grieving without hope for these dead. The sad feature was not too much grieving on the part of the Thesalonians such as sometimes occurs in the case of Christians even today but grieving like pagans who have no hope although the Thessalonians had the one genuine hope but did not realize its great range.
It is quite true that also paganism called death a sleep. But when the Christian and the pagan use of the word are placed on the same level, or when the Christian use is said to have been drawn from the pagan, and both are called a euphemism, we offer objections. Behind this word sleep and sleeping the pagan sees nothing but his pagan conception of death, to him the word is a mere euphemism. Behind the Christian word lies all the Christian knowledge of the saving facts which actually make death a mere sleep. This is not altered by 1 Kings 22:40 where the Hebrew phrase “slept with his fathers” is used regarding wicked Ahab. When Paul uses the word he employs it as it is used in 1 Cor. 15:18; and it is not a mere pious homiletical idea that the word “to fall asleep” implies the awakening in the blessed resurrection.
This sleep applies only to the body of the dead believer and not to his soul. This, too, is correct, that the Scriptures say regarding Christ that he died and not that he fell asleep (Stephen, Acts 7:60). His death was a death that expiated our guilt and thus made our death a sweet sleep because all our deadly guilt had been expiated. This, too, is not mere homiletical language. The view which is widely held today is without foundation, that Paul’s conception of death was that, on separating from the body, the soul “leads a shadowy existence in the chambers of sheol, which cannot be called life until the reawakening, i.e., the reunion with the (then glorified) body; and that this intermediate state of body and soul is here designated by κοιμᾶσθαι.” We quote Dobschuetz as a sample of this idea of sheol. It is answered by Acts 7:59, by Phil. 1:23, by Luke 23:43, 44, by all that the Old Testament says regarding sheol, by all that the New Testament adds.
No intermediate place between heaven and hell exists. In no sense do the souls of the dead “sleep.” Were Abraham and Lazarus asleep in Luke 16:22, etc.? Lazarus lay on Abraham’s bosom as John lay on the bosom of Jesus (John 13:25).
Similar to this idea of the soul’s existing in a shadowy, sleeplike state in an intermediate (Romanistic) “realm of the dead” is the other that is built on the millennium. Some think that Paul taught the Thessalonians that there would be a millennium, and that they imagined that those who died before the Parousia would not enter this millennium. The further supposition of two resurrections is introduced, one that occurred at the beginning of the millennium, the other at its end. But this results in a difficulty; for millennialists usually believe that the former includes all believers so that the dead Thessalonian believers would, after all, enter the millennium. To obviate this we are told that the first resurrection applies to the martyrs only and not to those who die a natural death. Accordingly, these dead Thessalonians would have to wait for the second resurrection, and this caused all of their grieving.
This structure crumbles before the clause: “as the rest, those who have no hope.” Waiting for the second resurrection cannot mean having no hope. The Scriptures know of only one resurrection; see John 5:28, 29 in The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel, 382, etc., also the author’s St. John, 189; Rev. 20:6; also the complete exposition in The Interpretation of Revelation. The Scriptures know of no millennium. The Old Testament passages used in support of the millennium are treated in the author’s Eisenach Old Testament Selections. The present passage is a fair sample of the method employed by chiliasts to find chiliasm in certain passages.
1 Thessalonians 4:14
14 “For” is expository. For if we believe that Jesus died and arose, thus also those who fell asleep will God through this Jesus bring with him.
The condition of reality: “if we believe,” implies: we do, indeed, believe. Here we have the second “we” (compare 1:10) in which the writers combine themselves and their readers. What they jointly believe is stated in the briefest form and is one great objective fact: “that Jesus died and arose.” The name “Jesus” brings to mind the Savior as a man who was like unto us men, who “died” as such, died as the Thessalonian dead had died. Yet concerning Jesus the writers do not say that he “fell asleep”; in a marked way they say that Jesus “died,” and they do that in a context in which they twice say of believers that they fall asleep. The difference is too marked to be accidental; we have already stated what this difference implies.
Here, however, the fact that Jesus died is stated only because it is involved in the fact that he “arose.” Only one who died can arise. The second verb calls for the first. Paul does not say that Jesus “was raised” (passive), that God raised him from the dead. Neither does he say that Jesus “was put to death” (passive). Such passives would make Jesus only the object upon whom others acted. This is proper in other connections such as Acts 4:10 and 5:30 but not in this connection in which the effective greatness of Jesus is to stand out.
It was he who stepped into death and then stepped out of it again; he had power to lay down his life and to take it up again (John 10:17). One thought is expressed by two verbs which center on what Jesus did, but because of its very terseness it speaks volumes in regard to this Jesus who died for our advantage and rose again to make this advantage ours when we believe, when we embrace him in complete reliance by faith.
What is said of Jesus lends significance to the following phrases: διὰτοῦἸησοῦ and ἐναὐτῷ. We should note well that τοῦ is the article of previous reference which is made distinct by Ἰησοῦς in the ὅτι clause which has no article, so that we translate: “through this Jesus,” the one who died and arose, and “with him,” the one who died and arose thus. Both phrases contain what is said of “the (this) Jesus.” Commentators are divided regarding the first phrase and ask, “Does it belong to the substantivized participle or to the main verb?” Is it: “those who fell asleep through Jesus,” or is it: “God will bring through Jesus”? It must be the latter. How anyone can fall asleep “through Jesus” has never been adequately explained.
This διά is not = ἐν in 1 Cor. 15:18 although some have thought so. It denotes mediation and not union as “in” does. We are pointed to v. 2 and similar expressions with διά, but none of them fit the intransitive idea which we have in falling asleep. Some point us to the martyrs as those who fell asleep “through Jesus”; but even with regard to martyrs the phrase to be used should be either “in Jesus” or “because of Jesus” (διά with the accusative). If martyrs are here referred to, the whole point would be lost. These dead Thessalonians were not martyrs, they had died a natural death.
We have no trace of bloody martyrdom in the whole epistle, and still less can we assume that all who had died in Thessalonica were martyrs. It is urged that the main verb cannot have two phrases as modifiers, but, pray, why not?
Paul says: “through the Jesus (who died and rose again) God will bring those who fell asleep with him” (i.e., this Jesus), with him because through him, through his mediation, this with (associative σύν) could not be without this through (saving mediation, διά). The two phrases regarding Jesus get their full meaning when it is remembered that both belong to the verb. The mediation of Jesus did not stop when these believers fell asleep, it continues and will continue until the Parousia when it will show itself in the glorious association with this Jesus. In other words, the power of Jesus’ death and resurrection does not stop when we fall asleep, its efficacy will show itself in all its glory at the Parousia. These dead in Thessalonica only “fell asleep.” Why should their sleeping interfere with the mediation of Jesus? The aorist passive participle refers to those who had actually fallen asleep; it is not like the present passive used in v. 13 which refers to any and to all who may yet fall asleep. This aorist is intended especially for the bereaved in Thessalonica who each think of the dear one whom they have lost and not just in general of Christians who die.
God will bring them with Jesus, through Jesus, this Jesus who by his death and rising up wrought out our eternal salvation. We have already seen in v. 1–8 how everything is referred back to God, the living and genuine God, to whom the Thessalonians turned from their idols (1:9). What is here said could, of course, be-worded so as to make Christ the great subject even as Christ says in John 6:39, 40, 44: “I will raise him up at the last day,” in v. 44 even using the emphatic ἐγώ, “I myself.” But when God is made the subject, the mediation of Jesus in his death and rising again is made to stand out so that the brief statement is greatly enriched. “God will bring or lead with him” puts all into one statement, which is then expanded in the following (v. 15–17): the Lord will descend from heaven—the dead will arise—the living will join them—together they will meet the Lord—and thus we shall ever bewith the Lord. All this lies in ἄξεισὺναὐτῷ, God will bring with Jesus. Those who fell asleep refers to the bodies in the graves; these shall arise (v. 16) and be glorified, united with their souls, thus forever to be “with him” who died and arose for their eternal salvation.
Commentators wrestle with εἰ … οὕτω, and Winer alone among the grammarians seems to come to their rescue. “If … thus” really do not match, they are not intended to match. Οὕτω does not mean “then,” nor εἰ “when.” So also “if we believe” does not match what God will do with other people, i.e., with those who fell asleep in Thessalonica, those who are already dead. In order to match, the statement should read: “If we believe”, God will do something for us.” Οὕτω has nothing to do with εἰ, nor is it pleonastic (an older explanation); the adverb does not introduce the apodosis after a protasis as some think, nor is there “inexactness, a shift of thought” as others assume. “Thus” refers only to the ὅτι clause: thus as Jesus died and rose, thus God shall bring those who fell asleep through this Jesus with this Jesus. This, too, is why the verb in v. 16 is “shall rise” (like “he rose,” Jesus) and not passive, “shall be raised.” “Thus” = with Jesus dead and risen, the very thing involved in the act of bringing these sleepers along with Jesus.
1 Thessalonians 4:15
15 “For” ushers in the explanation or elucidation. For (in order that you may fully understand) this we tell you in connection with the Lord’s Word that we, those that remain alive, those that are left for the Parousia of the Lord, shall in no way be ahead of those who fell asleep.
So little is there a reason to grieve over those who have fallen asleep. Those who are alive at Christ’s Parousia shall not even precede those who have died, to say nothing of the fear that there is no hope for them. The living and those who fell asleep shall together be joined in glory to the glorious Lord.
When the writers say “we” and add the appositions “those who remain alive, those who are left for the Parousia of the Lord,” they do not assert that they and the Thessalonian readers will be alive, will not also fall asleep before the Parousia; 5:1, etc., is plain as to that. No one could know when the Parousia would occur, whether it would come in a short time or after a long delay; no one could know how few or how many would yet fall asleep just as we today do not know. Yet we now know that almost two millenniums have passed since Paul wrote, and thus our expectation of the last day has been greatly dulled. In Paul’s day this expectation was keener.
We do not translate: “We tell you by the word of the Lord” (ἐν is not “by”) but “in connection with the Lord’s Word.” This is not a quotation, nor the substance of a quotation, nor a reference to some single statement of the Lord’s, whether this is recorded in the Gospels or not recorded, but a reference to all that the Lord said about his Parousia, all of it being to the effect that those who live at that time will in no way be ahead of those who died. ἘνλόγῳΚυρίου may well accord with 1 Cor. 15:51, 52 where Paul calls what he says about this matter “a mystery,” from which fact it is generally concluded that Paul had received further specific revelation regarding the instantaneous transformation of the living without their first dying, and that this added revelation connected with all that the Lord had said regarding his Parousia in his discourses while he was on earth.
1 Thessalonians 4:16
16 Our versions and others obtain a smooth translation by rendering this second ὅτι as the causal “for”; they regard it as giving the reason that the living shall not precede the dead. Yet, the more the writer looks at these verses, the more their contents appear to him as facts that are told the Thessalonians; this ὅτι is like the ὅτι of fact that occurs in v. 15. These verses offer further information that is to enlighten and not reasons that are to convince the Thessalonians. The two ὅτι are alike, both are declarative after “we tell you”: That the Lord himself in connection witv a command, in connection with an archangel’s voice, and in connection with God’s trumpet will descend from heaven; and the dead in Christ shall arise first, then we, those that remain alive, those that are left, shall together with them be snatched in clouds for meeting the Lord, into the air; and thus shall we be evermore with the Lord.
Here the Thessalonians have an exact record of what shall happen; this removes all cause for grief regarding their dead. Not only is there hope, but they can have the greatest possible hope, one that is equal to the hope they have for those who will be alive at the Parousia.
“The Lord himself will come down from heaven” = 1:10: “to await God’s Son out of the heavens, Jesus, the One saving us from the wrath to come.” This verb means literally herniederschreiten; αὐτός fixes the entire attention upon him in this grand act; this word does not contrast him with others. “Lord” is to be taken in its full soteriological sense, the Lord who has made us his own, he who at his Parousia will receive all his own unto himself, John 12:26; 14:3; 17:24. Also these passages are parts of “the Lord’s Word” (v. 15).
The ἐν phrases are placed forward for the sake of emphasis. They, of course, show the greatness of the Lord’s descent from heaven, but they also elucidate the very point here at issue, namely what shall happen with regard to the dead at the Parousia: the Lord shall descend ἐνκελεύσματι, “in connection with an order.” While it occurs only here in the New Testament this word is common to designate a loud military command, the shout of a charioteer to his horses, of a hunter to his hounds, of a shipmaster to the rowers. John 5:28: “All that are in the graves shall hear his voice,” namely that of the Son of man. This is then the Lord’s “command” to all the dead to arise and not the Father’s command to Christ to descend, nor Christ’s command to his angel host. “Shout” in our versions is inexact; the word means a shouted order or command.
The next two phrases are connected with καί. Some regard them as appositions to the first phrase, but this construction would make the command one that is issued through the voice of an archangel, which angel would use God’s trumpet. John 5:28 shows that the command comes through the Lord’s own voice; the Lord’s command is not issued to the archangel to blow the grand signal with God’s trumpet. The archangel’s voice and God’s trumpet are distinct; both shall sound forth in connection with (ἐν) the Lord’s command.
Note the absence of the article in the phrases, which stresses the quality of the nouns. Scripture mentions only one archangel, namely Michael (Jude 9; Rev. 12:7; compare Dan. 10:13, 21; 12:1). We take it that only this one exists. To talk about Gabriel’s trumpet is unscriptural. The greatest of the angels shall sound the trumpet. It has been well said that when the Lord, the King, comes in all his glory with all his holy angels the greatest of them all shall sound forth his majesty.
Φωνή is not a second “command” that is uttered by the archangel but the sound this angel sends through “God’s trumpet,” 1 Cor. 15:22: “the last trumpet” (compare Matt. 24:31: “with a great voice, φωνή, of a trumpet”). Here καί connects φωνή and σάλπιγξ, sound (or voice) and trumpet. This is also “God’s trumpet,” the blast of which comes with God’s power and penetrates to all the dead. It is idle to ask why there will be this trumpet blast in addition to the Lord’s command. All of us will know when we hear both.
As to the last day, all that we can do is to combine what the Scriptures say regarding it and to remember that all of it is beyond human imagination. This record is intended for our hope and our comfort and not for speculation and rationalization. It is folly to introduce our conceptions of time and of space; for then time shall cease (Rev. 10:6), a thought no human mind can conceive, and we may add that the same will be true regarding space as we know it (the two always go together).
Here the writers are concerned only with what shall occur with regard to the dead and the living saints at the Parousia for the hope and the comfort of the Thessalonians. Nothing is, therefore, said about the wicked, about the judgment, or about other details that some of us would like to know.
Καί may be translated “and so,” i.e., as indicating the result, “the dead in Christ shall arise first,” the active voice of this verb was explained in v. 14. Here νεκροί is used but with “in Christ” (1 Cor. 15:18: “those fallen asleep in Christ”), they are called “the dead” in 1 Cor. 15:52. On Christ and “them that are his” compare 1 Cor. 15:23. Because of the thought “in Christ” cannot be construed with the verb. Πρῶτον is placed last in order to abut it with ἔπειτα: “first” what shall happen with regard to the dead saints, “thereupon” what shall happen with regard to the saints still living. “First” refers to “thereupon” as “thereupon” refers to “first.”
This is so plain that one is surprised to note that a man like Wohlenberg finds an indication of two resurrections: first, that of the saints only; then, after 1, 000 years, that of the wicked. To quote John 5:28, 29 in support of two widely separated resurrections is to misunderstand Jesus’ words: “All that are in their graves shall hear his voice,” the command of which Paul speaks, all shall hear when it is uttered in that “coming hour”; “and shall come forth”—all of them—“they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation.” This is also “the last trumpet” (1 Cor. 15:52) as this is “the last day” (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24) when time shall be no more. In the face of all this chiliasts add 1, 000 years and a second resurrection.
“Shall arise” = John 5:28, the bodies shall come forth out of their graves. There is no such thing as a resurrection of souls, the very idea is impossible. In Rev. 20:6 the word resurrection is used symbolically. First Corinthians 15:12, etc., also v. 23, speak of the dead body of Christ and of the dead bodies of believers which are raised by the resurrection. To deny the bodily resurrection is to reject Scripture. We need scarcely add that the bodies are glorified in the resurrection (Phil. 3:20, 21), and that all of this is an incomprehensible miracle.
The claim is often advanced that the idea of a ressurrection is only a late Jewish conception which was adopted by Paul who developed it and also changed his own ideas about it. But what about Jesus (“the Lord’s Word”)? Did he, too, pick up an idea of late Judaism? “The Word of God they shall let stand, nor any thanks have for it.” Luther.
1 Thessalonians 4:17
17 Now regarding the living that are left (the same terms that were used in v. 15): “together with them (σύν associative: with the risen dead) they shall be snatched in clouds (the Lord’s chariots on which he himself shall come in glory, Matt. 24:30; Mark 13:26; Rev. 1:7) for meeting the Lord, into the air.” The main point is the union of the dead and the living believers who form one joint host that is lifted in a divine raptus to meet their heavenly Lord as he descends. First Corinthians 15:51, 52 supplies the thought that the living will be changed without passing through death, in the twinkling of an eye. Glorified in body and soul like the risen dead, they will be swept up “into the air” and thus rise to meet the Lord at his descent. We take this to mean that they will meet the Lord in welcome and will descend to the earth with him and all his angels for the purpose of judgment.
“Snatched into the air” does not mean into heaven. The Lord will descend to the earth (Job 19:25; Acts 1:11) where the judgment shall take place. It shall not take place in the air; nor shall the wicked, after being raised, be taken into the air. Revelation 21:1, 2 unites the new heaven and the new earth with the holy city; and the judgment will exclude the wicked from it. We read nowhere that the Lord will return to heaven after the Parousia, but rather that heaven and earth shall be one. Εἰςἀπάντησιν is an idiom (it is also found in the papyri) that always occurs in this form and is like a compound preposition with the genitive, it is the German entgegen.
“And thus shall we be evermore with the Lord”; the adverb is emphatic, the “we” suffix refers to the writers and their readers; this “we” includes also those Thessalonian Christians who are already dead. Regardless of the fact whether they shall live until the Parousia or not they shall all “thus” (in the way described) be with (in association with) the Lord (the same phrase that is used in Phil. 1:23). This is the hope the Thessalonians have with regard to their dead, they have the same hope for themselves. This is the answer that removes all the grief that their doubts and their questions about the dead had caused them. This paragraph is of inestimable value to all Christians when they stand beside their dead.
1 Thessalonians 4:18
18 So the writers close: Wherefore comfort one another with these words. Ὥστε = “and so” (R. 999), it is inferential also in paratactic sentences. The context gives the imperative the meaning “comfort” (cheer, encourage) rather than “admonish” or “exhort” (R. V. margin) although the verb itself may have either meaning. “One another” is stronger than the reflexive “yourselves.” The grief (v. 13) naturally affected the bereaved Thessalonians most of all; the others would want to comfort them. They have genuine comfort to offer which is not one like the comfortless comfort of the Egyptian Irene quoted in connection with v. 13. The Christian faith is the one faith which has the true facts that overflow with real hope and thus comfort.
R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition..
B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.
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.