born in man, the dominion over the body is not, and by this domin-
ion the body is first made a true oicevoc;, a serviceable organ for the
eoiil. We may, therefore, aptly take the expressions thus : " let
VOL. V. 18
274 FIRST THESSALONIANS IV. 6, 7.
each know, i. e., let each learn, by practice and experience, to guide
and to master his body as a true instrument of the soul, and not
abandon it to a fierce violence of the passions." Thus Chrysostom,
on this passage, has already quite correctly interpreted in the words
dpa rjfiEis avro (TO aKevog) Kr^sda, orav fievg Kadapbv, ical eanv KV dyi-
anuil). orav <5e dicddaprov, a\iapria scil. urarai avro. To this sole ad-
missible interpretation of the passage other acceptations of it must
decidedly give way. First, that defended by Erasmus Schmid, that
oiievos stands, like the Latin vas, for the male organ of generation.
For, although OKEVW; occurs in that sense in profane writers (see
JElian hist. anim. xvii. 11), the holy Scriptures are not acquainted
with it, and nothing in the context justifies us in such an assump-
tion. But, secondly, very distinguished interpreters, after the ex-
ample of Augustine, viz., Schottgen, Wetstein, Koppe, and Schott,
understand oicevog of the woman, who, in the Oriental mode of contem-
plation, is looked on as the instrument of the man, as Vs, or Chald.
as ies, Dan. v. 2, 3, 23 According to this, then, the woman is
called, 1 Pet. iii. 7, <JKKVO$ daOeveorepov. But the altogether general
character of the exhortation is against the application of that mean-
ing in this passage. To abstain from rropveia refers not to men only,
but equally to women ; but if OKEVOS is interpreted of the woman,
KKOOTOS vp&v would refer to men only, and even among them only
to those living in wedlock, with the exclusion of the unmarried and
of widowers, which clearly does not suit the general nature of the
expression. Nor can this view find support in the use of urao-
0ot, for Kraadai yvvaiaa means, it is true, " to marry" (Ruth iv. 10 ;
Sir. xxxvi. 24), but not " to be married, to live in wedlock," which
meaning the context here would require. (In ver. 4, n\if\ forms the
antithesis to arista. It answers here to our " honourableness." The
reading drifdaq for tm6vnia$ has probably only come into the text
here from the parallel passage Rom. i. 26. In ver. 5 nai after itaQd-
Trep is, similarly as at iv. 13, to be explained by the assumption that
Paul is thinking of those Jews or Christians who allow wicked lusts
to reign in them ; these, continues he, act as the Gentiles also do ;
they thus place themselves on an equality with the Gentiles, deny
the knowledge imparted to them of the true God, which the Gentiles
do not even possess, and are plainly, so far, still more amenable to
punishment than they.)
Vers. 6, 7. That in the two verses here there cannot by any
means be contained an entirely fresh precept and warning, different
from the previous one, as would be that against covetousness, is
clearly shewn by the connexion of ver. 7 with ver. 6, by which the
calling of the Christians to chastity (ayiaapoS) as at ver. 3), not to
dicaOapoia, is joined by means of -yap to what precedes. To under-
stand duaOapaia here otherwise than of sexual uncleanness is de-
FIRST THESSALONIANS IV. 6, 7. 275
cidedlj unallowable; and then ver. 6 cannot well come in between
with something heterogeneous, the less that the infinitives v
veiv and TrAeove/creZv plainly unite themselves to the TOVTO yap
rov Qeov } and thus stand co-ordinate with the a-ns^oQai and
ardcdaL. The idea in vnepftaivetv is so general that it forms
no difficulty in the reference of ver. 6 to sexual relations ; it de-
notes, with or without vofioc, " the sinful transgressing of the law,"
in Hebrew nay and lagtin^ which Symmachus, Aquila, and Theodo-
tion, in Prov. xx. 2, render by vTrepftaiveiv, whereas the LXX. trans-
late it TTapo^vveiv. But certainly the second verb fr^eoveicTelv seems,
according to the primary meaning of the word, to favour the suppo-
sition of Origen, to which G-rotius also, Rosenmiiller, Koppe, and
Flatt, have adhered, viz., that ver. 6 contains a warning against
covetousness, and especially against over-reaching in trade. How-
ever, KV TO! 7rpayj<m forms in its turn a great obstacle to this inter-
pretation, apart from the above-mentioned difficulties resulting
from the connexion of ver. 7 with ver. 6. For -rrpdyiM is not some-
thing like " bargain and sale," as Grotius insists, but npaynareia.
Another serious difficulty is created by the article. True, it has
been proposed to conjecture TW, i. e., rivi } but the circumstance that
no MS. leaves out the article is sufficient evidence for its original
existence. But all becomes intelligible if we, with the Greek Fathers,
Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others, afterwards Wetstein, Baum-
garten, Pelt, and Schott, take -rrheovsKTElv in the figurative sense,
and understand the whole of adultery, of the greedy invasion of the
property of a brother, thus of the seduction of his wife, for there is no
ground at all for thinking of unnatural sins of lust. The words ev
TW TTpdynart are then simply " in the matter which is here in ques-
tion." This mode of taking nXeoveK-elv is the more probable, as we
saw at Eph. iv. 19, v. 3, 5, Paul uses Trkeove&a elsewhere too of sins
of the flesh. The second half of ver. 6 contains a further enforce-
ment of the exhortation to chastity through the admonition that
God punishes all sins of lust, a remark by no means superfluous for
the Greeks, who treated those relations very lightly. Hence also
Paul remarks, that he has already set before them previously the
guilt of those acts. (Ver. 6. "E/c&KOf, avenger. Sir. xxx. 6 ; Rom.
xiii. 4. The form TrpoeiTrafj^v of the text. rec. is certainly unusual in
the compound ; but it deserves the preference for that very reason,
especially as the critical authorities also favour it pre-eminently.
&ia;.ia.QTvpeadat = fj,aprvpeadat : see ii. 12. In ver. 7 em and iv are to
be so taken that em " unto" denotes the object of the obligation, sv }
on the other hand, the permanent state of chastity in which Chris-
tians are to live, so that the words may be thus paraphrased, " the
holy God called us not to uncleanness, i. e. } that we should serve
276 FIRST THESSALONIANS IV. 8-10.
uncleanness with his will, but that we might be and continue in
chastity.")
Ver. 8. Paul closes this serious exhortation with the remark, by
which ver. 7 is completed, that every one that despiseth this de-
spiseth God himself, because it emanates from him, in that he not
only works by means of the apostle, but also gives to all Christians
the Holy Ghost, who urges to chastity. ^loiyapovv is the strengthened
rot-yap. Heb. xii. 1. 'AOerelv has rarely an accusative of the per-
son, but usually one of the thing [Mark vii. 9 ; 1 Tim. v. 12].
Joined with the former, it is " to despise," Gal. ii. 21. On the strict
mode of taking ovn <UAo see Winer's Gr. 55, 8, p. 440, upon this
passage ; it is not to be translated, "not so much men, as God," all
the emphasis is rather to be laid on God and the despising him
alone. Lachmann reads rbv didovra for rbv nal 66vra } but it is ex-
tremely improbable that icai would have been added, if it were
originally wanting. On the other hand, the omission of it is easily
explained, especially with the reading el$ r//za$-, which it will not suit
at all. However, the reading d$ v/iaf is to be preferred on extrinsic
and intrinsic grounds, for the idea of the verse is considerably
heightened by it, if the sense is this, " whoever despiseth this com-
mandment unto chastity, despiseth God himself, for he giveth it not
merely by means of us the apostles, who are filled with the Spirit,
but also in that he gave to you yourselves the Holy Spirit, i. e., the
gift of examination and insight into Divine things, along with the
strength to keep God's commandments" they are thus in this re-
spect, also, QeodidaKToi, as they are directly (in ver. 9) called with
reference to brotherly love.)
Vers. 9, 10. To the first exhortation to chastity (vers. 3-8) the
second to love is now (vers. 9-12) annexed, as well to brotherly love,
as also to universal love. It is true, there seems in ver. 11 to be some-
thing quite different introduced, viz., the exhortation to industry ;
this, however, does not appear independently, but only indirectly,
" for," says Paul, " they are to work, in order to give no cause of
offence to the non-Christians." It is love, therefore, which is in the
whole paragraph (vers. 9-12) recommended to be practised towards
Christians and non-Christians. In reference now to brotherly love,
Paul entirely acknowledges the position of the Thessalonians, and
therefore alludes to what they have done to all the brethren in
Macedonia. What sort of service of love is hereby meant is not
more accurately known to us. Paul gives, as the inner foundation
of this their faithful practice of love, which renders all further in-
struction as to it needless, that they are QeodidaK-oi } i. e. (according
to ver. 8), that the Holy Ghost has been given them ; for where he
is, there he also teaches, and where he teaches, there he also creates
the practice. (In ver. 9 we prefer, with Lachmann, txpnev to
FIKST THESSALONIANS IV. 11-13. 277
after A.C.E. and other critical authorities ; for the first person forms
a clearer antithesis to Qeodidaicroi " where God teaches," Paul
means to say, " there I can be silent." [See at John vi. 45, where
l TOV Qeov is found, and John xiv. 26.] Et^ TO dya-nav aAA?/-
involves the intimation that God, who is love, also teaches all
to love.)
Vers. 11, 12. This one thing alone Paul beseeches of them, not
to stand still at that point to which they had already attained, but
to increase in love, especially to let their brotherly love expand into
universal love, -rrpbg rov$ eoo. (See on 1 Cor. v. 12 ; Col. iv. 5.) Now
this universal love they are, according to the representation given
here, to practise not so much positively which the separation of be-
lievers and unbelievers admits of in a less degree as negatively, viz.,
by avoiding all cause of offence, and giving no occasion to the non-
Christians to blame anything in the professors of the gospel. Now
it is to be supposed that such had even at that time occurred in
Thessalonica, although as it seems (see at v. 1), on other grounds
than afterwards, when Paul wrote the second epistle (2 Thess. iii.
10, seq.) ; Paul, therefore, in his wisdom, takes up this specially
with reference to his oral directions, and thus admonishes his read-
ers in the most conciliatory form. (Ver. 11. On (fnXori^daBai see at
Eom. xv. 20 ; 2 Cor. v. 9. It is " zealously to strive after anything."
The t'la-vxd&iv receives its explanation from the parallel passage 2
Thess. iii. 11, 12. It forms the antithesis to the unquiet religious
bustle into which the Thessalonians had fallen through their super-
ficial conception of the doctrine of the second coming of Christ. It
is therefore to be taken, " to keep one's-self quiet ; to continue in
the prescribed circle of one's calling." The Trpdaoecv rd Idta (= rd
which follows, expresses the same idea positively which
declares negatively, for it stands in opposition to the mix-
ing one's-self up with other people's affairs. The idiaig, which fol-
lows, is to be cancelled, with Lachmann, on the authority of B.D.E.
F.G. From the exhortation to work with their hands we see that
at least the majority of the Christians in Thessalonica belonged to
the class of mechanics. Ver. 12. Evax^ovug, koneste, decently, with-
out giving just cause of offence, Rom. xiii. 13 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 40. MTJ-
devog is to be taken as masculine, in the sense, " that others may not
be obliged to work for you.")
5. INSTRUCTIONS AS TO THE ADVENT OF CHRIST.
(iv. 13 v. 11.)
As we have already remarked in the Introduction to the Epistles
to the Thessalonians, the doctrine of the second coming of Christ to
278 FIEST THESSALONIANS IV. 13.
the kingdom of God had become especially important to the Chris-
tians there. To them, as being previously Gentiles, this circle of
ideas might till then have been entirely unknown. Their new and
striking nature took possession, therefore, of their excitable Greek
fancy, and threatened to hurry them into fanatical vagaries. As to
the rest, it was only during the composition of the first epistle that
Paul had notice of a misunderstanding, which he here, vers. 13-18,
rectifies. The expressions in v. 1-3 do not as yet indicate that Paul
feared the Thessalonians might also engage in fixing the time of the
second coming of the Lord, which, notwithstanding, occurred at a
later date, as the second epistle shews. But the misapprehension
which comes primarily under discussion, consisted in their supposing
at Thessalonica that those only who were living on earth at Christ's
coming again would have part in the kingdom of God. This ex-
cited anxiety on account of the departed, us if they were debarred
the kingdom of God. Not, as Koppe thinks, that they altogether
doubted the resurrection of the dead ; this was the case with Gnos-
tics alone, of whom we find no trace in Thessalonica. They rather
seem not to have been duly informed of the^r^ resurrection and its
relation to the universal one. They thought (as Paul's communi-
cation, which follows, shews) that those only who were found alive at
Christ's second coming would enter with him into his kingdom.
The dead they therefore thought, would not return to life till at the
general resurrection of the dead after the kingdom of God, and would
therefore be debarred from the bliss in the kingdom of God. To this
error Paul now opposes the information that those dead in the faith
would arise before the general resurrection, and accordingly those
living at Christ's coming could not possibly anticipate the former.
From this, then, it follows that Paul in his eschatologic views has
appropriated the two fundamental views of the Jewish theology, just
as the other writings of the New Testament do, which 2 Thess. ii.
establishes even still more, viz., first, the distinction of a double res-
urrection, one of the just or faithful, and the general one, on which
the remarks in the Comm. on Luke xiv. 14 ; John v. 25, seq. ; Acts
xxiv. 15 ; 1 Cor. xv. 22, 23, and, above all, Rev. xx. 5, seq., xxi. 1,
seq., are to be compared ; secondly, the supposition of a kingdom of
God on earth, the so-called Millennium. True, nothing certain can
be concluded from the phrase fiamkeia rov Qeov or Xpiorov in Paul,
for he uses it in such a comprehensive manner, as is done also in the
gospels (see on Matth. iii. 2) and the other books of the New Tes-
tament, as always to comprise in it at the same time with the
earthly kingdom eternity also, as indeed it is understood at once
that whoever has a part in the kingdom of God also enjoys eternal
happiness, because no falling away again can happen in the kingdom
of God ; but vice versa, not every one that attains eternal happiness
FIRST THESSALONIANS IV. 14. 279
has also a part in the kingdom of God. (Compare Horn. xiv. 17 ; 1
Cor. iv. 11, 20, vi. 9, 10, xv. 24, 50 ; Gal. v. 21 ; Eph. v. 5 ; Col.
i. 13 ; 1 Thess. ii. 12 ; 2 Thess. i. 5 ; 2 Tim. iv. 1, 18.) But Paul
never uses the phrase Paoi/teia r. Q. for eternity alone with an ex-
clusion of the earthly kingdom ; for this he employs the words CTWTT/-
pm, ou&oBat,. The only passage in Paul's epistles, in which fiaotkeia
r. 6. could seem to denote eternity alone without the kingdom of
God, is 2 Tim. iv. 18, where the epithet enovpdvios is used. But the
kingdom of God is not called heavenly here as being conceived by
Paul as in heaven, but as being of heavenly nature, as making
earthly relations heavenly. The expression Kniyeiog of course does
not occur, because it would inevitably give rise to misapprehensions.
The Jews erred in their otherwise correct doctrine in that very point
that they deemed the Messiah's kingdom earthly, and that in place of
the Gentiles, who reigned at that time, the Jews would reign in it, and
the Gentiles serve. If the better-minded among them, who followed
the pure instructions of the Old Testament rather than the per-
verted views of the Rabbins, willingly acknowledged the moral
transformations also, the reign of justice, truth, and love, in the
kingdom of God ; still even among them the external view predom-
inated too decidedly. Therefore it was that so few were able to
recognize in Christ and his followers the germ of the kingdom of
God. (Ver. 13. See as to ov Oeko^ev v^dg dyvodv Rom. i. 13 ; 1 Cor.
x. 1, xii. 1 ; 2 Cor. i. 8.' Lachmann has, on the authority of A.B.,
preferred the reading Kotjuo^evow, which in fact is favoured by the
circumstance that the form of the perfect KeKo^rjuevuv is so pre-
dominant in the New Testament that we may easily suppose it
substituted where it was not found. The very name points to a
future awakening from the slumber of death. "Iva p/ hv-rrijode scil.
nepl avr&v, as if they were debarred from the kingdom of God. On
Kai after icadug see at iv. 5.) Ol XOLTTOL ol prj e^ovrsg ikirida, i. e., the
Gentiles ; certainly these mourn in another sense over their relations
that are fallen asleep, viz., as those who consider death as annihila-
tion ; but Paul means precisely by this forcible comparison to ren-
der prominent the total inadmissibility of such sorrow.
Ver. 14. Now, first of all, Paul declares, for the comfort of his
readers, that the great events of the life of Jesus, the representa-
tive of entire humanity, also afforded security for the belief that
God would awaken them that sleep ; for they too are surely his like
the living. This line of argument has clearly the force of demon-
stration only when the Kotpupevoi (ver. 13) are believers. He that
died without faith in Christ had of course in no case a claim to par-
ticipation in the kingdom of God ; but Christ's whole work, even
the blessing of his death, as well as that of his resurrection, passes
over to those dead in the faith. Now this could certainly, in the
280 FIRST THESSALONIANS IV. 15.
letter, be understood as by Koppe, as implying that the Thessalonians
had doubted of the resurrection altogether. But if we take this pas-
sage in connexion with the whole chain of argument, especially the
transition from ver. 16 to ver. 17, it cannot but be confessed that the
first resurrection alone, that of the just, which is, in the fullest sense
of the words, an dvdaraaig eif farfv is meant. Paul takes no account
at all in his words of such a possible misapprehension of them, be-
cause he knew what a lively faith his readers had in the resurrection
generally. (The construction d OUTW? is unusual and harsh. To
join, with Storr and Flatt, otSro) to K.oi[ir)devTa(; } in the sense " those
thus [i. e., in the faith] asleep," is, of course, quite inadmissible.
Ovrw stands pleonastically at the beginning of the apodosis.* Winer's
Gr. GO, 5, p. 478. In Rev. xi. 5 OVTCM; is used just so in the
apodobis after el. The connexion of did rov 'Irjaov with Kotpfj&vraf,
either in the sense " those asleep in the faith in dhrist," or, " at the
time of Christ," is justly given up as entirely contrary to grammar
by the latest interpreters Pelt and Schott ; it can only be joined
with . True, we then expect ovv avroj, but avru explains itself
quite well too. According to the usual representation of the New
Testament [John v. 28, vi. 39, xiv. 3 ; 2 Cor. iv. 14 ; Phil. iii. 21],
God awakes men through Christ and then lets them ever be with
the Lord, as it is immediately said in what follows, ver. 17. But
djei embraces more than the mere act of awakening, viz., this in
conjunction with the dpTrd&odat, which subjoins itself to the former
in ver. 17, on which see the particulars.)
Ver. 15. Paul now announces more explicitly to his readers the
progress of the occurrences as certain revealed truth. At first he
expresses himself in ver. 15 only negatively, the living will not
come before the dead, i. e., they will not go into the kingdom of God
alone, nay not even earlier than the latter ; then in vers. 16, 17, he
gives the positive steps in the sequence of occurrences. But the
most important thing in this verse is the 'ijfj-elg before ol &v~eg ol
TrepiXsi-rropevoi, which is repeated ver. 17. It is unmistakably clear
from this that Paul deemed it possible that he and his contempora-
ries might live to see the coming again of Christ. But this suppo-
sition need not excite the slightest apprehension. That it has
continue^ unfulfilled, this hope of Paul's, is, no doubt, true ; but
Paul himself, with all the apostles, acknowledges also in terms that
no one knows the time or hour (see on v. 2), not even the angels,
nor the Son (Mark xiii. 32); the Lord himself declares that man
may not know them (Acts i. 7), but that still the second coming is
to be at all times expected as near (see on Luke xii. 34, seq.,
Matth. xxiv. 1). Therefore this passage would be a stumbling-
* Ouru is not strictly pleonastic, nor does Winer (p. 478) thus regard it. It points to
the common fortunes shared with Christ by believers. [K.
FIKST THESSALONIANS IV. 15. 281
block only in case the TOVTO Aeyo/zev ev Adyoj icvpiov were also to be re-
ferred to the subordinate point which is couched in the rj^elg ol tiv-
reg. For, had Paul said, " I know by a communication of the
Lord that we shall witness the advent of Christ even in our own
life-time," then a disparaging conclusion might with justice be
drawn from the non-fulfilment of that saying ; but here the saying
of the Lord refers merely to the chief idea, that those remaining
will not prevent them that are asleep, and not to the subordi-
nate designation of the r^elg. Paul supposes the hope of living to
see the advent of Christ as generally diffused, and finishes speaking
of it without declaring anything at all about it itself; the sense of
the words is therefore only, " we, who hope to continue to live until
the advent of Christ." A misapprehension could not take place
in this relation, because it is immediately explained in what fol-
lows (v. 1, seq.) that the time is not known. Certainly, the pro-
ceeding of the older interpreters, who thought Paul spoke in the
plural only conversationally, without really meaning to say that they
themselves, he and his readers, might be still living at the occur-
rence of that catastrophe, is decidedly to be rejected. For this
passage does not stand isolated, but all the writers of the New
Testament consider Christ's advent as near (1 Cor. xv. 51, 52 ; 1
Pet. iv. 7 ; 1 Johnii. 18 ; James v. 8); in fact, the whole doctrine
would not have the slightest practical significance, unless the long-
ing after the second coming of Christ were each moment alive,
and therefore continually deemed possible. It was only towards
the end of his life (Phil. i. 23) that Christ's advent retreated in
Paul's mind to a remoter distance. (The Aeyo^ev iv Aoyw ( 15^21)
is to be explained, " we express our ideas in a word of the Lord's/'
and this stands then in opposition to the mere subjective yvw/^
of Paul. [See on 1 Cor. vii. 10, 12, 25.] But it is a question,
does Paul mean by " word of the Lord" an immediate revelation
which was bestowed on him, or a declaration of Christ's which had
come down to him. by tradition, and which, in that case, either
may or may not be preserved, to us in the gospels ? Pelt insists
on it that Matth. xxiv. 31, seq., was in Paul's mind ; but the special
idea of this verse occurs neither there nor anywhere else. The ap-
peal to a lost expression of Christ's has a very arbitrary charac-
ter ; I decide, therefore, for an immediate revelation, as Paul
elsewhere also claims for himself, ex. gr. 1 Cor. xi. 23, in reference
to peculiar points. The mpikeiTTopEvoi is to be explained by the no-
tion of death snatching the majority away, leaving but few remain-
ing ; et, which connects itself immediately with that, expresses
then the terminus up to which the living are left. Upon ov pr} }
which occurs v. 3 also, in the meaning neutiquam, see Winer's Gr.
56, 3, p. 472, and upon the form of the aorist, which follows,
282 FIRST THESSALONIANS IV. 16.
ib., 56, 3, p. 450. Had the Thessalonians believed in no resur-
rection at all, then there could have been no talk of a QOdveiv of
the living : in that case too their dead must have been called venpoi,
not KoifirjdKVTeg.)
Ver. 16. To this the positive side is then subjoined, from which
follows the groundlessness of the anxiety of the Thessalonians for