1 Thessalonians 2

1 Thessalonians 2:1

1. γάρ refers back to ὁποίαν, ch. 1 Thessalonians 1:9; ‘not only do strangers report it, but you know it to be true.’ He makes use now of that knowledge to carry out the description of his preaching among them, with a view, by recapitulating these details, to confirm them, who were as yet but novices, in the faith.

κενή] It is evident from 1 Thessalonians 2:2 ff., that this does not here apply to the fruits, but to the character of his preaching: the result does not appear till 1 Thessalonians 2:13. And within this limitation, we may observe that the verb is γέγονεν, not ἐγένετο; to be understood therefore not of any mere intent of the Apostle at the time of his coming among them, but of some abiding character of his preaching. It cannot then be understood as Koppe,—‘veni ad vos eo consilio … ut vobis prodessem, non ut otiose inter vos viverem:’ and nearly so Rosenm. It probably expresses, that his εἴσοδος was and continued ‘no empty scheme’ (‘no light matter,’ as we say; οὐχἡτυχοῦσα, Chrys.), but an earnest, bold, self-denying endeavour for their good. This he proceeds to prove.

1 Thessalonians 2:2

2. προπαθόντες, having previously suffered: reff. On the fact, see Acts 16.

ἐπαῤῥησιασ.] Lünemann seems to be right (against De W.) in rendering it we were confident, not ‘we were free of speech.’ See however, on the other side, Ellic.’s note.

ἡμῶν, because all true confidence is in God as our God. This word reproduces the feeling with which Paul and Silas opened their ministry among them: διὰτὸνἐνδυναμοῦνταθεὸντοῦτοποιῆσαιτεθαῤῥήκαμεν. Œcum.

λαλῆσαι is infinitive of the object after ἐπαῤῥησ.—we had the confidence to speak: as E. V., were bold to speak. This seems more probable than with De W., Mey. on Ephesians 6:20, and Ellic., to regard it as the epexegetical inf. “defining still more clearly the oral nature of the boldness.” Chrys. can hardly be quoted on that side, as Ellic. doubtfully.

τοῦθεοῦ, for solemnity, to add to the weight of their εἴσοδος.

ἐνπολλῷἀγῶνι] in (amidst) much conflict, viz. under outward circumstances conflicting much with our work: and therefore that work could be no κενόν, which was thus maintained.

1 Thessalonians 2:3

3. παράκλησις] exhortation to you, viz. our whole course of preaching. Supply is, not ‘was;’ cf. λαλοῦμεν below. “The two senses of παράκλησις, exhortation and consolation, so easily passing into one another (compare 1 Thessalonians 2:11), are suggestive of the external state of the early church, sorrowing amid the evils of the world, and needing as its first lesson to be comforted; and not less suggestive of the first lesson of the Gospel to the individual soul, of peace in believing.” Jowett.

ἐκ] having its source in.

πλάνης] here probably error. “The word is used transitively and intransitively. In the former case, it is ‘imposture’ (Matthew 27:64) or ‘seduction’ (Ephesians 4:14): in the latter and more usual, error.” Lünem.

ἀκαθαρσίας] hardly, as Chrys., ὑπὲρμυσαρῶνπραγμάτωνοἷονγοήτωνκ. μάγων,—though such a reference is certainly possible, considering the vile degradation of that class at the period,—but here apparently of the impure desire of gain, cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:5, where ἐνπροφάσειπλεονεξίας seems to correspond with ἐξἀκαθαρσίας. Still such a meaning seems to want example. If it be correct, this represents (Lün.) the subjective side, the motive, as ἐκπλάνης the objective side, the ground.

ἐνδόλῳ] this of the manner, or perhaps, as Ellic., the ethical sphere, in which: ‘nor did we make use of deceit to win our way with our παράκλησις.’ See 2 Corinthians 2:17.

1 Thessalonians 2:4

4. καθώς, according as, in proportion as.

δεδοκιμ.] see reff.,—we have been approved,—thought fit: cf. πιστὸνἡγήσατο, 1 Timothy 1:12. Lünem. cites Plut. Thes. 12: ἐλθὼνοὖνὁΘησεὺςἐπὶτὸἄριστον, οὐκἐδοκίμαζεφράζειναὐτὸνὅστιςεἴη. We must not introduce any ascertained fitness of them in themselves into the idea (οὐκἂνἐξελέξατο, εἰμὴἀξίουςἐγίνωσκε Thl.: so Chr., Œc., Olsh.): it is only the free choice of God which is spoken of. On πιστευθ. τὸεὐαγγ. see reff., and Winer, edn. 6, § 32. 5.

οὕτως answers not to the following ὡς, but to the preceding καθώς, and is emphatic—‘even so.’

ἀρέσκοντες, in the strict sense of the present tense,—going about to please,—striving to please.

ὡς belongs to the whole sentence, not merely to ἀνθρ. ἀρέσκ. (as Lün.): for in that case the second member would involve almost too harsh an ellipsis.

ἡμῶν, of us,—not said generally, of all men: but of us, Paul and Silvanus and Timotheus. As Lünem. justly observes against De W., τὰςκαρδίας here and τὰςἑαυτ. ψυχάς below, are conclusive against imagining that St. Paul in this place is speaking of himself alone. Yet Conyb. renders it, ‘my heart,’ and τὰςἑ. ψ., ‘my own life.’

1 Thessalonians 2:5

5 ff.] Proofs again of the assertions of 1 Thessalonians 2:3-4. For neither did we become conversant (see reff. γενέσθαιἔντινι, in re quadam versari; so οἱμὲνἐντούτοιςτοῖςλόγοιςἦσαν, Xen. Cyr. iv. 3. 23. On the impracticability of maintaining a passive sense in the form ἐγενήθημεν, see above, on ch. 1 Thessalonians 1:5) in speech of (consisting of) flattery (not ‘incurring repute of flattery,’ as Hamm., Le Clerc, Michael., al. (similarly as to meaning, Pelt), which would be irrelevant, as he is not speaking of what others thought of their ministry, but of their own behaviour in it. On κολακ. Lün. quotes Theophrastus, Charr. 2,—τὴνδὲκολακείανὑπολάβοιἄντιςὁμιλίαναἰσχρὰνεἶναι, συμφέρουσανδὲτῷκολακεύοντι,—and Ellic. remarks, “It seems more specifically to illustrate the ἐνδόλῳ of 1 Thessalonians 2:3, and forms a natural transition to the next words, the essence of κολακεία being self-interest: ὁδὲὅπωςὠφέλειάτιςαὐτῷγίγνηταιεἰςχρήματακαὶὅσαδιἀχρημάτων, κόλαξ.

Aristot. Eth. Nic. iv. 12 ad fin.”) as ye know, nor (ἐγενήθημεν) in pretext (employed in that which was meant to be a pretext, not ‘in occasione avaritiæ,’ as vulg. and Le Clerc; nor is πρόφασις ‘species,’ as Wolf) of (serving to conceal) avarice; God is witness (τῆςμὲνκολακείαςαὐτοὺςἐκάλεσεμάρτυρας, δῆλαγὰρτοῖςἀκούουσιτῶνκολάκωντὰῥήματατῆςδὲπλεονεξίαςοὐκέτιαὐτούς, ἀλλὰτὸντῶνὅλωνἐπόπτην. Thdrt., and similarly Chrys. But perhaps it is simpler, seeing that no ὑμεῖς is expressed with οἴδατε, to refer θεὸςμάρ. to the whole).

1 Thessalonians 2:6

6. ζητοῦντες belongs to ἐγενήθημεν above.

ἐξἀνθρώπων, emphatic: τὴνγὰρἐκθεοῦκαὶἐζήτουνκ. ἐλάμβανον. Œc. The real distinction here between ἐκ and ἀπό seems to be, that ἐκ belongs more to the abstract ground of the δόξα, ἀπό to the concrete object from which it was in each case to accrue. This is strictly correct, not, as Ellic., who has misunderstood my distinction, ‘artificial and precarious:’ nor is it ever safe to assume identity of meaning, in St. Paul’s style, of different prepositions, except where the form of the sentence absolutely requires it. The glory which they sought was not at all to come out of human sources, whether actually from the Thessalonians or from any others.

δυνάμενοι] though we had the power.

ἐνβάρειεἶναι] Thdrt., Est., Grot., Calov., all., refer this to πλεονεξ. mentioned above, and understand it of using the power of living by the gospel, which St. Paul, &c. might have done, but did not: so ἐπιβαρεῖν, 1 Thessalonians 2:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:8; καταβαρεῖν, 2 Corinthians 12:16; ἀβαρῆἐμαυτὸνἐτήρησα, ib. 2 Corinthians 11:9. But the words are separated from the πλεονεξία by the new idea beginning at ζητοῦντες, to which, and not to the former clause, this is subordinated. I therefore take them with Chrys. (Œc., Thl., undecided), Ambrst., Erasm., Calv., &c., Olsh., De W., Lün.,—as equivalent to ἐντιμῇεἶναι—εἰκὸςγὰρτοὺςπαρὰθεοῦπρὸςἀνθρώπουςἀποσταλέντας, ὡσανεὶἀπὸτοῦοὐρανοῦνῦνἥκονταςπρέσβεις, πολλῆςἀπολαῦσαιτιμῆς. Chr.

βάρος is used of importance, dignity,—‘weight,’ as we say: e.g. Diod. Sic. iv. 61, ἀπὸτούτωντῶνχρόνωνἈθηναῖοι, διὰτὸβάροςτῆςπόλεως, φρονήματοςἐνεπίμπλαντο, κ. τῆςτῶνἙλλήνωνἡγεμονίαςὠρέχθησαν, and in this sense St. Paul’s Epistles were called βαρεῖαι, 2 Corinthians 10:10. Cf. also βάροςδόξης, where however βάρος is used sensu proprio, as opposed to ἐλαφρόν, 2 Corinthians 4:17. Render therefore, when we might have stood on our dignity. Heins., Pisc., Hamm., understand the words of ecclesiastical censures—‘quum severitatem exercere apostolicam posset,’—and oppose them to ἐγεν. ἤπιοι below: but see there.

ὡςχρ. ἀπ.] not: ‘as the other Apostles’ (Grot., Pelt, referring to 1 Corinthians 9:5, but ungrammatical), but as (being) Apostles of Christ. It is simpler to take ἀπόστολοι here in its wider sense, than to limit the sentence to St. Paul alone.

1 Thessalonians 2:7

7. ἀλλά contrasts, not with the mere subordinate clause of the last verse (δυνάμ. κ.τ.λ.), but with its whole sense, and introduces the positive side of their behaviour—q. d. ‘so far from being any of the aforesaid, we were …’

ἐγενήθ., as before, with a reference to God enabling us.

ἤπιοι, mild: so Od. β. 47, πατὴρδʼ ὡςἤπιοςἦεν: Herodian iv. 1, ἤπιονἄρχοντακ. πατέρα: Pausan. Eliac. ii. 18, βασιλέαγὰροὐτὰπάνταἤπιον, ἀλλὰκαὶτὰμάλισταθυμῷχρώμενονἈλέξανδροντοῦΦιλίππου (Wetst.): see also Herod. iii. 89: and Ellic.’s note here. Surely the reading νήπιοι, being (1) by far the commoner word, (2) so easily introduced by the final ν of the preceding word, can hardly, in the teeth of the sense, come under consideration: seeing too that the primary authorities are not unanimous.

ἐνμέσῳὑμ.] i.e. ‘in our converse with you;’ but with an allusion to our not lifting ourselves above you;—ὡςεἷςἐξὑμῶν, Œc. It is best to retain the comma after ὑμῶν, not as Lün., to place a colon: for though there is a break in the construction, it is one occasioned by the peculiar style of the Apostle, which should not be amended by punctuation. The emphasis on ἑαυτῆς should not be lost sight of—as when a nurse (a suckling mother) cherishes (reff.) her own children. See Galatians 4:19, for the same figure.

1 Thessalonians 2:8

8. οὕτως belongs to εὐδοκοῦμεν, and is the apodosis to ὡς above.

ὁμειρόμενοι] ὁμείρεσθαι is found in reff. only (and in both, the MSS. differ), except in the glossaries. Hesych., Phavor., and Phot. explain it by ἐπιθυμεῖν. Thl. says, τουτέστι, προσδεδεμένοιὑμῖν, κ. ἐχόμενοιὑμῶν, παρὰτὸὁμοῦκ. τὸεἴρω, τὸσυμπλέκω: and Phot. gives ὁμοῦἡρμόσθαι as its meaning. But as Lünem. observes after Winer, edn. 6, § 16, B.b), “This is suspicious, 1) because the verb here governs a genitive and not a dative, 2) because there is no instance of a similar verb compounded with ὁμοῦ or ὁμός. Now as in Nicander (Theriaca, 2:402) the simple form μείρεσθαι occurs in the sense of ἱμείρεσθαι, it can hardly be doubted that μείρεσθαι is the original root, to which ἱμείρεσθαι and ὁμείρεσθαι (having the same meaning) are related, having a syllable prefixed for euphony. Cf. the analogous forms κέλλω and ὀκέλλω,—δύρομαι and ὀδύρομαι,—φλέω and ὀφλέω,—αὔω, and ἰαύω, &c., and see Kühner, i. p. 27.”

It will thus perhaps be best rendered by loving you, earnestly desiring you.

εὐδοκ.] not present, but imperfect, without an augment, as is also generally the aorist εὐδόκησα in N. T.: see Winer, § 12. 3. a: we delighted; ‘it was my joy to …’ Conyb.

τὰςἑαυτ. ψυχάς, as remarked above, shews beyond doubt that he is including here Silas and Timotheus with himself.

μεταδοῦναι will not strictly apply to τὰςἑαυ. ψυχ., but we must borrow from the compound verb the idea of giving, or offering.

The comparison is exceedingly tender and beautiful: as the nursing-mother, cherishing her children, joys to give not only her milk, but her life, for them,—so we, bringing up you as spiritual children, delighted in giving, not only the milk of the word, but even (and here it was matter of fact) our own lives, for your nourishment in Christ. And that, because ye became (the passive form ἐγενήθητε must not be pressed to a passive meaning, as in my earlier editions: see on ch. 1 Thessalonians 1:5) very dear to us.

1 Thessalonians 2:9

9. Proof of the dearness of the Thessalonians to Paul and his companions: not of ἐγενήθ. ἤπιοι, to which it would be irrelevant,—nor of their readiness to give their lives, &c. (as Ellic.), for this verse does not refer to dangers undergone, but to labour, in order not to trouble any. It is no objection to this (Ellic.) that διότικ.τ.λ. is a subordinate causal member of the preceding sentence, seeing that it is precisely St. Paul’s habit to break the tenor of his style by inserting confirmations of such clauses.

μνημ. is indic. (γάρ).

τ. κόπονκ. τ. μόχθον] a repetition (reff.) to intensify—as we should say labour and pains: no distinction can be established.

νυκτός first, not merely because the Jews and Athenians (‘Athenienses inter duos occasus,’ Plin. N. H. ii. 77) so reckoned it, but for emphasis, being the most noteworthy, and the day following as matter of course. See besides reff. Acts 20:31.

ἐργαζόμενοι (reff.) in its strict meaning of manual labour—viz., at tent-cloth making, Acts 18:3.

πρ. τὸμὴἐπιβ.] in order not to burden any of you, viz. by accepting from you the means of sustenance. One can hardly say with Chrys., ἐνταῦθαδείκνυσινἐνπενίᾳὄνταςτοὺςἄνδρας: for we know St. Paul’s strong feeling on this point, 2 Corinthians 11:9-10.

εἰςὑμᾶς, to you—not quite = ὑμῖν: the latter represents the preaching more as a thing imparted, this as a thing diffused. On the supposed inconsistency of the statement here with the narrative in Acts 17, see Prolegomena, § ii. 3, and note.

1 Thessalonians 2:10

10. ὑμεῖςμάρτ., of the outward appearance.

ὁθεός, of the heart.

ὁσίωςκ. δικ.] Cf. Plato, Gorg. p 507 A, B,—καὶμὴνπερὶμὲνἀνθρώπουςτὰπροσήκονταπράττωνδίκαιʼ ἂνπράττοι, περὶδὲθεοὺςὅσια,—and Polyb. xxiii. 10. 8, παραβῆναικ. τὰπρὸςτοὺςἀνθρώπουςδίκαιακ. τὰπρὸςτ. θεοὺςὅσια. This distinction, perhaps “precarious” (Ellic.) where the words occur separately, or seem to require no very precise application, is requisite here where both divine and human testimony is appealed to.

ὑμῖντ. πιστ.] not the dat. commodi (Ellic.), nor ‘towards you believers,’ nor is it governed by ἀμέμπτως, but as Œc., Thl., Lünem., dat. of the judgment, as in 2 Peter 3:14, σπουδάσατεἄσπιλοικ. ἀμώμητοιαὐτῷεὑρεθῆναι. For otherwise we lose the force of the slight emphasis on ὑμ. τοῖςπιστ., q. d. ‘whatever we may have seemed to the unbelieving:’ “tametsi aliis non ita videremur,” Bengel. See Bernhardy, p. 337 f. The charge of want of point, brought by Jowett against the words to τοῖςπιστεύουσιν, hence appears to be unfounded. The former verse having referred to external occupation, in which he must have consorted with unbelievers, he here narrows the circle, to speak of his behaviour among the brethren themselves.

1 Thessalonians 2:11

11. καθάπερ refers what follows to what has gone before, as co-ordinate with it.

ὡςἕναἕκαστ … ὑμᾶς] The construction is that of nouns in apposition, in cases where the one designates the individuals of whom the other is the aggregate. In this case the noun of larger designation generally comes first. The simplest instance that can be given is ταῦταπάντα, where ταῦτα is the aggregate, πάντα the individualizing noun (whereas in πάνταταῦτα, ταῦτα is the individuals, and πάντα merely the adjective designation of their completeness): so here ἕναἕκαστονὑμῶν … ὑμᾶς differs very little from πάνταςὑμᾶς. As regards the participles, the simplest way of constructing them is to supply ἐγενήθημεν, which has just preceded. Ellicott would rather regard them as an instance of St. Paul’s common participial anacolutha, which may also be: but here the construction is simple without such a supposition.

Both παρακλ. and παραμυθ. seem here best taken, with Lünem., as applying to exhortation, but in a sense nearly allied to consolation: see note on 1 Thessalonians 2:3. The subject of the exhortation follows, εἰςτὸκ.τ.λ.: and this would be closely connected with their bearing up under trouble and persecution: cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:14 ff.

1 Thessalonians 2:12

12. μαρτυρόμ.] see reff.: it strengthens the two former participles; conjuring. This is the sense of the verb not only in later but in earlier writers also: see reff.

εἰςτὸ … belongs to all three participles preceding: the εἰς implying the direction, and, of course, in a subjective sentence, consequently the purpose of their action.

καλοῦντος, pres. because the action is extended on to the future by the following words.

βασιλείαν and δόξαν must not be incorporated by the silly ἓνδιὰδυοῖν: God calls us to His kingdom, the kingdom of our Lord Jesus, which He shall establish at His coming: and He calls us to His glory,—to partake of that glory in His presence, which our Lord Jesus had with Him before the world began; John 17:5; John 17:24. See Romans 5:2.

1 Thessalonians 2:13

13. διὰτοῦτο is best and most simply referred, with Lünem., to the fact announced in the preceding words—viz. that God καλεῖὑμᾶςεἰς, &c. Seeing that He is thus calling you, your thorough reception of His word is to us a cause of thanksgiving to Him. That διὰτοῦτο is made thus ‘to refer to a mere appended clause’ (Ellic.) is no objection: see above on 1 Thessalonians 2:9. It is surely not possible with Jowett, to refer διὰτοῦτο ‘to the verses both before and after.’

καὶἡμεῖς] We also, i.e. as well as πἀντεςοἱπιστεύοντεςἐντῇΜακεδ. κ. ἐντῇἈχ., ch. 1 Thessalonians 1:7.

παραλαβόντες … ἐδέξασθε] The former verb denotes only the hearing, as objective matter of fact: the latter, the receiving into their minds as subjective matter of belief: see reff.

ἀκοῆςπαρʼ ἡμῶν is perhaps to be taken together—of hearing (genitive of apposition) from us—i.e. ‘which you heard from us.’ So Est., Pelt, Olsh., Lünem., all. Or παραλ. παρʼ ἡμῶν may be taken together, as De W., strongly objecting to the construction ἀκοῆςπαρʼ ἡμῶν, and understanding by λόγοςἀκοῆς the preached word (Wort der Künde). Lünem. answers,—that the construction ἀκοῆςπαρʼ ἡμῶν is unobjectionable, as ἀκούεινπαράτινος occurs John 1:41, al., and substantives and adjectives often retain in construction the force of the verbs from which they are derived (Kühner, ii. 217, cites from Plato, Alcib. ii. p. 141, οἶμαιδὲοὐκἀνήκοονεἶναιἔνιάγεχθιζάτεκαὶπρώϊζαγεγενημένα):—that De W.’s rendering is objectionable, because thus no reason is given for separating παρʼ ἡμῶν from παραλ., and because ἀκοῆς is superfluous and vapid if the same is already expressed by παραλαβ. παρʼ ἡμῶν. On the other rendering, which is adopted and defended also by Ellicott, there is a significant contrast, St. Paul distinguishing himself and his companions, as mere publishers, from God, the great Source of the Gospel.

τ. θεοῦ] of (i.e. ‘belonging to,’ ‘coming from,’ not ‘speaking of,’ as Grot., al., see below) God (i.e. which is God’s. But we must not supply ‘as,’ with Jowett: no subjective view of theirs being implied in these words, but simply the objective fact of their reception of the word from Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus).

ἐδέξ.] See above on παραλ. Ye received it (being) not (no ‘as’ must be inserted: he is not speaking of the Thessalonians’ estimate of the word, but (see above) of the fact of their receiving it as it really was) the word of men (having man for its author), but as it is in reality, the word of God, which (Bengel, al., take ὅς as referring to θεός: but the Apostle uses always the active ἐνεργεῖν of God, cf. 1 Corinthians 12:6; Galatians 2:8; Galatians 3:5; Ephesians 1:11; Philippians 2:13 al.,—and (reff.) the middle (not passive) of things) is also (besides being merely heard) active in you that believe.

1 Thessalonians 2:14

14. Proof of this ἐνεργεῖται,—that they had imitated in endurance the Judæan churches.

ὑμεῖςγάρ resumes ὑμῖν above.

μιμηταί] not in intention, but in fact. (On ἐγενήθητε, see on ch. 1 Thessalonians 1:5.) Calvin suggests the following reason for his here introducing the conflict of the Judæan churches with the Jews: ‘Poterat illis hoc venire in mentem: Si hæc vera est religio, cur eam tam infestis animis oppugnant Judæi, qui sunt sacer Dei populus? Ut hoc offendiculum tollat, primum admonet, hoc eos commune habere cum primis Ecclesiis, quæ in Judæa erant: postea Judæos dicit obstinatos esse Dei et omnis sacræ doctrinæ hostes.’ But manifestly this is very far-fetched, and does not naturally lie in the context: as neither does Olsh.’s view, that he wishes to mark out the judaizing Christians, as persons likely to cause mischief in the Thessalonian church. The reason for introducing this character of the Jews here was because (Acts 17:5 ff.) they had been the stirrers up of the persecution against himself and Silas at Thessalonica, to which circumstance he refers below. By the mention of them as the adversaries of the Gospel in Judæa he is carried on to say that there, as well as at Thessalonica, they had ever been its chief enemies. And this is a remarkable concidence with the history in the Acts, where we find him at this time, in Corinth, in more than usual conflict with the Jews (Acts 18:5-6; Acts 18:12).

On ἐνχριστῷἸησοῦ Œc. remarks, εὐφυῶςδιεῖλενἐπειδὴγὰρκαὶαἱσυναγωγαὶτῶνἸουδαίωνἐνθεῷεἶναιδοκοῦσι, τὰςτῶνπιστῶνἐκκλησίαςκαὶἐντῷθεῷκαὶἐντῷυἱῷαὐτοῦλέγειεἶναι.

συμφυλέτης, ὁμοεθνής, Hesych. Herodian says, πολίτης, δημότης, φυλέτης, ἄνευτῆςσύν, συνέφηβοςδὲκαὶσυνθιασώτηςκ. συμπότηςμετὰτῆςσύνὅτικαὶπρόσκαιροςαὐτῶνἡκοινωνία, ἐπὶδὲτῶνπροτέρωνοὐχὁμοίως. And this criticism seems just: the Latins also using civis meus not concivis, of the enduring relation of fellow-citizen,—but commilito meus, not miles meus, of the temporary relation of fellow-soldier. See Scaliger, in Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 471 (also p. 172). Ellicott would regard these words merely as supererogatory compounds belonging to later Greek. These συμφυλέται were not Jews wholly nor in part, but Gentiles only. For they are set in distinct contrast here to οἱἸουδαῖοι.

τὰαὐτὰ … καθώς] The proper apodosis to τὰαὐτά would be ἅ, or ἅπερ. But such inaccuracies are found in the classics: Kühner (ii. 571) cites from Plato, Phæd. p. 86 A, εἴτιςδιϊσχυρίζοιτοτῷαὐτῷλόγῳὥσπερσύ: so also Legg. p. 671 C; Xen. An. i. 10. 10.

αὐτοί, not ‘we ourselves,’ as Erasm., al.: but the members of the Judæan churches mentioned above. The same construction occurs in Galatians 1:22-23.

1 Thessalonians 2:15

15. τῶνκαί] The repeated καί serves for enumeration.

τὸνκύρ. ἀποκτ. Ἰησ. is thus arranged to give prominence to τὸνκύρ., and thus enhance the enormity of the deed: it should be rendered who killed Jesus the Lord, τὸνκύρ. being in a position of emphasis.

κ. τοὺςπροφήτας] belongs to ἀποκτεινάντων (see Matthew 23:31-37; Acts 7:52), not to ἐκδιωξ. as De W. His objection, that all the prophets were not killed, is irrelevant: neither were they all persecuted. The ἰδίους of rec. appears to have been an early insertion: Tert. ascribes it to Marcion.

ἐκδιωξ.] drove out by persecution, viz. from among you, Acts 17:5 ff.,—not for the simple verb διωξ. (De W.), nor does the preposition merely strengthen the verb (Lünem.),—but it retains its proper meaning (ὁδῆμοςαὐτῶνἐξεδίωξετοὺςδυνατούς, οἱδὲἀπελθόντες … Thuc. i. 24), and the aorist refers it to a definite event, as in the case of ἀποκτεινάντων: when their habit is spoken of, the participles are present, e.g. ἀρεσκόντων and κωλυόντων below.

ἡμᾶς refers to Paul and Silas.

θεῷμὴἀρεσκ.] The μή gives a subjective sense: not exactly that of Bengel, al., ‘Deo placere non quærentium.’ For in strictness, as Ellicott, the shade of subjectivity is only to be found in the aspect in which the subject and the participle is presented to the reader: and therefore can hardly be reproduced in English. Compare on the usage, Winer, edn. 6, § 55. 5, g. β, and Ellicott’s note here. In πᾶσινἀνθρώποιςἐναντίων, most Commentators, and recently Jowett (see above), have seen the odium humani generis ascribed to the Jews by Tacitus (Hist. 1 Thessalonians 2:5), and by several other classic authors (Juv. Sat. xiv. 103 ff. Diod. Sic. xxxiv. p. 524, &c.).

But it is hardly possible that St. Paul, himself a Jew, should have blamed an exclusiveness which arose from the strict monotheism and legal purity of the Jew: and besides this, the construction having been hitherto carried on by copulæ, but now dropping them, most naturally goes on from ἐναντίων to κωλυόντων, in that they prevent, and thus κωλ. specifies wherein the ἐναντιότης consists, viz. in opposing the salvation of mankind by the Gospel. So that the other seems to be irrelevant (so nearly Lünem.).

1 Thessalonians 2:16

16. εἰςτό] not of the result merely, ‘so that,’—but of the intention, not of the Jews themselves, but of their course of conduct, viewed as having an intent in the divine purposes: as so often in St. Paul.

ἀναπλ.] to bring up the measure of their sins to the prescribed point.

πάντοτε] ταῦταδὲκαὶπάλαιἐπὶτῶνπροφητῶνκ. νῦνἐπὶτοῦχριστοῦκ. ἐφʼ ἡμῶνἔπραξαν, ἵναπάντοτεἀναπληρωθῶσιναἱἁμαρτίαιαὐτῶν, Œcum. The idea is, not of a new measure having to be filled πάντοτε, but of their being πάντοτε employed in filling up the measure.

But (this their opposition to God and men shall not avail them: for) the (predestined, or predicted, or merited) wrath (of God) came upon them (he looks back on the fact in the divine counsels as a thing in past time, q. d. ‘was appointed to come:’ not ‘has come.’ No sense of anticipation need be sought in ἔφθασεν in later Greek, except when it governs an accusative of the person, as ch. 1 Thessalonians 4:15; see reff.) to the utmost (to the end of it, i.e. the wrath: so that it shall exhaust all its force on them: not ‘at last’ Wahl, al.: nor to be taken with ἡὀργή, the wrath which shall endure to the end (ἡεἰςτ.?), as Thl., Œc., al.: nor to be referred to the Jews, ‘so as to make an end of them,’ De W.).

1 Thessalonians 2:17-3

17–3:13. He relates to them how he desired to return after his separation from them: and when that was impracticable, how he sent Timotheus: at whose good intelligence of them he was cheered, thanks God for them, and prays for their continuance in love and confirmation in the faith.

1 Thessalonians 2:18

18. Wherefore (as following up this earnest endeavour) we would have come (had a plan to come: “not ἐβουλόμεθα, which would indicate merely the disposition: see Philemon 1:13-14” (Lün.)) to you, even I Paul (the introduction of these words here, where he is about to speak of himself alone, is a strong confirmation of the view upheld above (on ch. 1 Thessalonians 1:9) that he has hitherto been speaking of himself and his companions. The μέν answers to a suppressed δέ, q. d. περὶδὲτῶνἄλλωνοὐνῦνὁλόγος, or the like. Grot., al., think the suppressed δέ refers to the rest having intended it once only, but the Apostle more times, taking κ. ἅπ. κ. δίς with ἐγ. μ. Παῦ.), not once only but twice (literally, ‘both once and twice:’ not used widely (ἅπ. κ. δίς), but meaning that on two special occasions he had such a plan: see ref. The words refer to ἐσπουδάσ., not to ἐγὼμ. Π.,—see above), and (not ‘but:’ the simple copula, as in Romans 1:13, gives the matter of fact, without raising the contrast between the intention and the hindrance) Satan (i.e. the devil: not any human adversary or set of adversaries, as De W., al.; whether Satan acted by the Thessalonian Jews or not, is unknown to us, but by whomsoever acting, the agency was his) hindered us (reff.).

1 Thessalonians 2:19

19. accounts for this his earnest desire to see them, by the esteem in which he held them. The words ἔμπρ. τ. κυρ. ἡμ. Ἰησ. κ.τ.λ. must not be transposed in the rendering (“construi hæc sic debent, τίςγ. ἡμ. ἐλπ … ἔμπρ. τ. κυρ … ἢοὐχὶκ. ὑμ.” Grot.): for the Apostle, after having asked and answered the question τίςγὰρκ.τ.λ., breaks off, and specifies that wherein this hope and joy mainly consisted, viz. the glorious prospect of their being found in the Lord at His appearing. But he does not look forward to this as anticipating a reward for the conversion of the Thessalonians (Est., al.), or that their conversion will compensate for his having persecuted the Church before, but from generous desire to be found at that day with the fruits of his labour, and that they might be his boast and he theirs before the Lord: see 2 Corinthians 1:14; Philippians 2:16.

On στέφ. καυχ., see reff. and Soph. Aj. 460.

ἢοὐχὶκαὶὑμεῖς] The ἤ, as Ellic., ‘introduces a second and negative interrogation, explanatory and confirmatory of what is implied in the first:’ see Winer, edn. 6, § 57. 1. b.

καί, ‘as well as others my converts.’

ἐντῇαὐτ. παρ, further specifies the ἔμπρ. τοῦκυρίου.

1 Thessalonians 2:20

20. γάρ sometimes serves to render a reason for a foregoing assertion, by asserting it even more strongly, q. d. ‘it must be so, for the fact is certain.’ So Soph. Philoct. 746, “δεινόνγετοὐπίσαγματοῦνοσήματος.” “δεινὸνγάρ, οὐδὲῥητόν:” see Hartung, Partikell. i. p. 474. I should be inclined to ascribe to 1 Thessalonians 2:20, on this very account, a wider range than 1 Thessalonians 2:19 embraces: q.d. you will be our joy in the day of the Lord: for ye are (at all times, ye are, abstractedly) our glory and joy. This seems to me far better than, with Ellic., to regard the γάρ as only ‘confirmatory and explicative.’