IAddress for the Consolation of the readers under the fresh outbreak of persecutions 2 Thessalonians 1:1-12 After the salutation (2 Thessalonians 1:1-2), the Apostle thanks God for their growth in faith (2 Thessalonians 1:3-4), cheers them by the prospect of judgment and salvation (2 Thessalonians 1:5-10), and prays that God would make them partakers of perfection (2 Thessalonians 1:11-12). 1Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus [Timothy], unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: 2Grace unto you, and peace, from God our1 Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 3We are bound to thank [give thanks to] God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity [love, ἀγάπη] of every one of you all2 toward each other aboundeth; 4so that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God, for your patience and faith in all 5your persecutions and tribulations [the afflictions]3 that ye endure: which is a manifest token [a token, ἕνδειγμα] of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer: 6seeing [if indeed] it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you [to those who afflict you affliction], 7and to you, who are troubled [afflicted], rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed [at the revelation of the Lord Jesus, ἐντῇ ἀποκαλύψειτοῦ Κ. Ἰ.] from heaven with His mighty angels [with the angels of His power, μετ’ ἀγγέλωνδυνάμεωςαὐτοῦ ?], 8in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that [rendering vengeance to those who, διδόντοςἐκδίκησιντοῖς] know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9who shall be punished with [shall suffer punishment, δίκηντίσουσιν,] everlasting destruction from the presence [face] of the Lord, and from the glory of His power; 10when He shall come to be glorified in His saints, and to be admired in all them that believe [those who believed] (because our testimony 11among you [to you, ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς] was believed), in that day. Wherefore [To which end, Εἰςὅ ?] also we pray always for you, that our God would count [may count, ἀξιώσῃ ?] you worthy of this [the, τῆς] calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of His goodness [every desire of goodness], and the work of faith with power; 12that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in Him, according to the grace of our God, and the Lord Jesus Christ. AND 1. (2 Thessalonians 1:1-2.) See the First Epistle. 2. (2 Thessalonians 1:3-4.) We are bound, &c.—As in 1 Thessalonians 1:2, only that he there says simply εὐχαριστοῦμεν, and here declares the obligation (2 Thessalonians 2:13), in the earnestness of his spirit, drawn from the greatness of the grace; urgente animi exultatione (Bengel): We are bound to do this, and it is a debt which we shall never be able fully to discharge. It is by no means obvious, why this should be unpauline! is it only because we do not so read in any other Epistle?! The words, as it is meet, are referred by some only to ὀφείλομεν, as confirmatory of the obligation, and, taken thus, they seem to be somewhat dull and pointless; better therefore: “so to give thanks, as the greatness of the unmerited favor deserves;” Bengel: ob rei magnitudinem; Hofmann: as the state of the case requires. Theophylact (along with another explanation): in a worthy manner, by word and deed; for this is true thanksgiving. Too subtle is Lόnemann’s interpretation; who, because καθώς does not mark the degree (though it does the way and manner), and because the insertion of ἀδελφοί forbids the close backward reference to εὐχαριστεῖν (but why?), would connect ἄξιον closely with what follows: “as it is meet, because.” But it is more natural to understand ὅτι thus: “We are bound to give thanks (for this), that.” Ὑπεραυξάνειν is such an emphatic expression of entire commendation as the Apostle is fond of; αὐξάνειν is used elsewhere transitively, but once also as intransitive, Acts 6:7; and so the compound here: “your faith groweth even beyond expectation; and love increaseth continually.” Paul thankfully acknowledges the fulfilment of his wishes and exhortations (1 Thessalonians 3:12; 1 Thessalonians 4:10); Rieger: the fruit of his exhortations and intercessions. Faith and love, of which Timothy (1 Thessalonians 3:6) had reported the existence among the Thessalonians, had only become stronger in the tempests; at 1 Thessalonians 1:3 he had added ὑπομονὴ τῆςἐλπίδος, and that follows here in another form.—Of every one of you all, he thus quite explicitly applies it to every individual; toward each other; he speaks therefore of brotherly love. How can Paul thus praise, when in chh. 2 and 3 he has yet to add reproof? Olshausen well: Even those excrescences (we add: which were found rather in individuals merely) were at least excrescences simply from a good stock. There is something of cordial encouragement in the fact, that Paul first recognizes the good that he finds in them, even though with some their faith and love are still lacking in wisdom.—So that we ourselves, not others merely, glory in you. Hofmann thinks this would require a καί, and prefers to understand it thus: we of our own accord, without being prompted; too artificial. De Wette (and Chrysostom before him) recalls 1 Thessalonians 1:8 : “We have no need to speak of it, since everywhere people are telling of it;” whereas here: “Not merely do others talk to us and speak of it everywhere, but we also (overcoming a modest reserve) must in our exceeding joy proclaim it.” To be sure, attention is not drawn to this contrast by any particle of time; it at once results, however, from a mere comparison of the two places. Paul not merely thanks God; he glories also before men. Instead of the Recepta καυχᾶσθαι, A. B. Sin. 17 [Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, Ellicott] give the rarer and on that account, perhaps, the preferable ἐγκαυχᾶσθαι (A. B., not Sin., write ἐνκ.), which at the most slightly strengthens the sense; κανχ. ἐν means to place one’s honor in something, to boast of a thing (1 Corinthians 1:31; 1 Corinthians 3:21); there Paul forbids to glory in any men whatever; does he not here do so himself? By no means; he means to boast, not of the Thessalonians as men, but only of the work of God in them (1 Thessalonians 2:19). The relation is the same as between the ἀνθρώποιςἀρέσκειν that is forbidden (Galatians 1:10, flattery of the old man) and that which is enjoined (1 Corinthians 10:33, the cherishing of the new man with tender fidelity). He boasts of them in the churches of God, those of Achaia, where he is sojourning; Lόnemann: Corinth and its branch churches (the plural points to the surrounding region, comp. Romans 16:1); an advance on 1 Thessalonians 1:8. Without any reason Hilgenfeld (p. 243) would detect a disagreement with 2 Corinthians 1:1, alleging that the genuine Paul does not at all describe the churches of Achaia as properly churches along with that of Corinth. The simple fact is, that in that place of the Corinthian Epistle he does not do so, it being surely equally possible for him to address a large number of saints, or to take them together as churches; but if one were disposed to extort from 2 Corinthians 1:1 the idea that the scattered Christians of Achaia had not yet been gathered into churches, we should then have to infer also from Romans 1:7; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:2, that no churches had yet been organized in Rome, Philippi, Colosse, when Paul wrote to the Christians of those places!—Bengel’s reference of the ὑπὲρ, &c. to the remote εὐχαριστεῖν is unnatural; it is rather a closer definition of ἐγκαυχ. ἐνὑμῖν: for your patience and (your) faith; their endurance stands first; the thing gloried in is, that they stood their ground not merely against a single attack; the root of genuine patience is faith, which is then again in its turn purified by patience. In faith everything is concentrated (1 Thessalonians 3:7); it is not of itself the same thing as hope [De Wette] (1 Thessalonians 1:3); nor, because πίστεως is connected with ὑπομονῆς by one article, are we required (as Olshausen and Lόnemann suppose) to assume for πίστις the meaning of fidelity. No doubt, by omitting the second article Paul comprehends patience and faith, so to speak, under one conception; faith, however, retains the sense which it commonly bears elsewhere (and for the Greeks that is certainly less remote from the idea of fidelity than for us). There may be an endurance that does not proceed from faith, that is, from holding fast by the invisible God; and this would have no value; but just as little would a faith, that did not approve itself by its own steadfastness in affliction. In Revelation 13:10 also the two are joined together. The manifestation of both takes place in all your persecutions and the afflictions that ye endure, patiently bear, Hofmann; the αἷςἀνέχεσθε in the second member answers to the ὑμῶν of the first. The persecutions proceed from hostile men; θλίψεσιν is more general, and presents the idea, how painful and distressing the suffering is in the experience of it; αἷς it is generally said, is an attraction for ἅς; Lόnemann, for ὧν; both constructions occur; in the New Testament elsewhere always the genitive (Colossians 3:13, and often). The present ἀνέχεσθε (over against the aorist of 1 Thessalonians 2:14) shows that there had been a fresh outbreak of persecutions. 3. (2 Thessalonians 1:5.) A token, &c.—ἔνδειγμα is not equivalent to εἰςἐνδ. (cod. 73) [slightly favored also by the Syriac, and the Vulgate in exemplum.—J. L.], nor does it belong appositionally to the ὑμεῖς concealed in ἀνέχεσθε (that would have required ὕντεςἕνδειγμα, besides yielding no good sense); but it is (similarly as in Romans 8:3) an apposition to the clause αἷςἀνέχεσθε, see Winer, § 59. 9; it is to be regarded as a nominative (De Wette, Lόnemann [Alford, Ellicott, Webster and Wilkinson, &c.]), not an accusative; hence: which is a proof; ἕνδειγμα does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, though ἕνδειξις does (Romans 3:25-26; Philippians 1:28). It is not the mere suffering of tribulation that is of itself an evidence of the judgment, as being perhaps an atonement for sins (Estius), or as an indication that the judgment must come; such is not the effect of mere suffering in itself, but of suffering in patience and faith, and accordingly αἷςἀνέχεσθε is said to those whose patience and faith can be boasted of; and ἀνέχεσθε itself implies the patient acceptance. This patient endurance, then, is a proof of the righteous judgment of God. But to what extent is it so? The great majority of interpreters (Calvin, Pelt, De Wette, Lόnemann, Hofmann, &c.) understand ἔνδειγμα (without warrant) as a presage of the future judgment, which has not yet appeared but is certainly impending; a token from which it may be inferred that it will come; so also Luther: which shows that God will judge rightly. They say that ἔνδειξις so stands in Philippians 1:28; but the perdition and salvation, whose evidence is there spoken of, are by no means impending merely in the future, but are already in progress at present, comp. 1 Corinthians 1:18; and the ἕνὃειξις of the righteousness of God, of which Romans 3:25 sq. speaks, is altogether meant as present. In behalf, however, of the view that our text speaks of a presage of the future judgment, there is alleged 1. the article, as indicating the judgment κατ’ ἐξοχήν, and 2. the connection with 2 Thessalonians 1:6-7, where there is very explicit mention of the future retribution. Granting the latter point, still, if ἕνδειγμα in 2 Thessalonians 1:5 by itself is to mean a presage, its relation to the following εἰςτὸ καταξ. is anything but clear. Estius, Bengel, Hofmann, and others, make the latter clause dependent on ἀνέχεσθε, and it is true that this would not necessarily lead to the Catholic doctrine of merit (just as little as Romans 8:17), but in the present connection it would have this inconvenience of depressing ἕνδειγμα, &c. into a subordinate parenthesis, whereas plainly in that word is to be seen the new principal thought, the beginning of the new line of thought, which is then carried forward in 2 Thessalonians 1:6 sqq. This is perceived by De Wette and Lόnemann, who are therefore essentially correct in assuming that εἰςτὸ καταξ. depends on δικ. κρίσεως; but how? shall it mean merely: with reference to the fact, that? or shall it be an epexegetical conclusion, like 2 Corinthians 8:6 : whose result will be, that (Lόnemann)? or shall it even express simply the substance of the judgment (De Wette)? Theophylact even takes it as an equivalent to ὅπερἐστὶ καταξ. De Wette gives this paraphrastic explanation of the connection: By their steadfastness in persecution the Thessalonians approve themselves as worthy of the kingdom of God, and from this subjective worthiness may be inferred the objective righteous judgment of God, by which it is realized. But this is a singular confounding of two different modes of viewing the causal relation, as it were thus: Which steadfast suffering, since it shows what sort of people you are, is also a presage of what we have to expect from the righteous judgment of God, in pronouncing you worthy;—evidently an artificial and forced thought, which would still be but very unintelligibly expressed. But on the whole it is always best, wherever it is possible, to hold fast in εἰςτό the idea of aim. Add to this the arbitrariness of understanding ἕνδειγμα as a foretoken of something future, as also Hilgenfeld remarks. The preference, therefore, is due to the interpretation, which we find not quite distinctly in Zwingli, and then in Olshausen, needing only a somewhat more rigorous confirmation; the interpretation, namely, according to which ἕνδειγμα denotes the evidence of God’s righteous judgment already at present in force. The article can be no obstacle to this, since the judgment of God, present and future, is one process (like eternal life, John 17:3); and 2 Thessalonians 1:6-7 also form no counter-argument, for there we are shown that coming issue of the judgment, of which the present judicial administration (2 Thessalonians 1:5) is the pioneer. But how, then, can the patient endurance of suffering be described as a manifestation of the already present judgment of God? Here it is of importance rightly to understand the scriptural conception of righteousness and judgment. Now since the righteousness of God is certainly not synonymous with grace, we must not confound these ideas; it is the self-consistent relation of His holy love to the free creature; dispensing on both sides, to the believer according to his faith, to the unbeliever according to his unbelief. A judgment awaits also the former; Olshausen refers to 1 Peter 4:17-18; likewise 1 Corinthians 11:32 points us to a judgment for discipline and purification; thus: God fulfils in you His righteous judgment, not for your destruction, but for your trial, that He may be able to declare you worthy of the kingdom; He proves your standing in faith, and there is a righteous requital also in this, that He rewards faith with patience; or as Stockmeyer beautifully and clearly carries out the idea on this one side (in an unprinted sermon; see the Homiletic hints on 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8): “First of all he represents to them the judgment of God as something, whereof they are now already permitted, in the midst of their tribulation, to have an experience in the highest degree joyful and comforting. That the Thessalonians were able to abide so patient in persecution, and so firm in faith, was already an evidence of the righteousness of God. Thereby God already proved Himself in their case to be the righteous rewarder of all that is good. For their obedience, in that they had received the gospel, God rewarded them by bestowing on them new grace, and new strength to suffer for the gospel’s sake, without becoming weary and faint-hearted (Matthew 13:12).” What one might find to be wanting in this statement is, at the most, that it would suit the expression, proof of the righteousness, better than it does the one before us, proof of the righteous judgment. It must therefore be supplemented by remarking, first, that for believers also the operation of the Divine righteousness comes indeed to be an effective judgment, but that it is a strong consolation to fall into the hand of God, and not into the hand of men; moreover, as Von Gerlach notes, that it is the most frightful token (not merely a presage) of bursting doom, when God so hardens the ungodly that they persecute His children. Even this, however, must redound to the advantage of the latter. The thought of our passage, therefore, would be this: Steadfastly and believingly ye endure your persecutions; that is a proof of God’s righteous judgment, of His inviolably self-consistent work of winnowing; which proof is to the end (εἰςτό) that ye should be deemed worthy, that He should be able to pronounce you worthy, of the kingdom of God. Toward this mark the judicial and sifting operation of God is working; it will prevail with those who allow His judgment to take effect on them to their purification. It is obvious that, taken thus, εἰςτὀςκαταξ. acquires a much better sense. Of course, as Stockmeyer goes on to say, this declaration of judgment, that already takes place at present, stands in closest connection with that last perfect demonstration of it, which is the hope of all believers. (The connection with 2 Thessalonians 1:6 sqq.: If it is a righteous thing that God should some day render a perfect retribution, there is already now a proof of His righteousness, in directing His judgments toward that end.)The kingdom of God, whereof we should be accounted worthy, is the holy dominion which, in distinction from the Church of the present time (the kingdom in the form of a servant), shall one day be revealed by the return of the King in victorious glory. Since flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom, what avails for that is the death of the old man, as the Apostle says: for which ye also suffer; he says also, to express the agreement that exists between their actual experience and God’s plan. The ὑπέρ is understood by most to mean: in order to its attainment; and this again would not express any legal meritoriousness, any more than Romans 8:17, but would amount to this: Ye suffer for your faith in it, your confession of it, your faithfulness to it, when grace had received you. Hilgenfeld insists on the meaning, not: in order to its attainment, but: in order to its promotion; similarly Hofmann: to introduce this state of things; and even so there would be no warrant for the assertion of the former, that there is here betrayed an unapostolic estimate of martyrdom. But ὑπέρ (as in Romans 1:5; Acts 5:41) means: in reference thereto, in behalf of the kingdom, and includes the two ideas of serving it and participating in it. 4. (2 Thessalonians 1:6-8) If indeed it is a righteous thing, &c.—The thought is expressed hypothetically, for the very purpose of strengthening its import, and to indicate that it is altogether incontestable, the writer appealing to his reader’s own judgment. Theophylact: The hearers cannot but say: ἀλλὰ μὴνδίκαιον. It is a righteous thing with God [Vulgate: apud Deum; Syriac—coram Deo.—J. L.], righteousness is therein fulfilled; to recompense, properly to render back (1 Thessalonians 3:9), to those who afflict you affliction, and to you who are afflicted relaxation, release, rest, refreshment (2 Corinthians 2:12-13); in opposition to θλῖψις, 2 Corinthians 7:5; 2 Corinthians 8:13; similarly ὰνάψυξις, Acts 3:19; comp. also the resting in Revelation 14:13. For the present, he exhibits merely that negative side of the δόξα, for which the afflicted person first longs, freedom from earth’s sorrows; the positive side comes afterward, 2 Thessalonians 1:10; 2 Thessalonians 1:12.—With us, says the Apostle in the assured joy of faith; without warrant is Bengel’s explanation (and Ewald’s): us, the saints in Israel; De Wette would understand it generally: with us, Christians at large; that may well be involved in the remoter deduction; but obviously the immediate suggestion of the actual phrase is: with us, the in like manner afflicted Apostles (2 Thessalonians 3:2), the foremost champions of the faith [Alford and Ellicott: the writers of the Epistle; Webster and Wilkinson: Paul.—J. L.]. Looking back from the final retribution (2 Thessalonians 1:6), we see that all the previous dealing also (2 Thessalonians 1:5) is righteous throughout. Of course, the θλίβεσθαι is not of itself meritorious, but 2 Thessalonians 1:7 likewise takes for granted θλιβομένους of steadfast faith (2 Thessalonians 1:4); so that Hilgenfeld’s censure of an unpauline thought falls to the ground.—Rest and refreshment will God give at the revelation of the Lord Jesus; it is a far more forced construction, when Grotius would refer this specification of time to the remote καταξιωθῆναι. Of the Lord Jesus is a genitive of. the object, though He is also the subject of it. Revelation is the same thing as παρουσία; only there is still more conveyed by ἀποκάλυψις; not merely that He will be present, but also that He will unveil Himself in His glory (1 Corinthians 1:7; Luke 17:30), whereas He is now hid in heaven (Colossians 3:3-4), and is only invisibly nigh to us (Matthew 28). The way and manner of His coming is shown by what is added: from heaven, comp. 1 Thessalonians 4:16; with the angels of His power, comp. 1 Thessalonians 3:13; the expression means that they belong to His power, therefore also form His power, are its servants and executors. Comp. the στρατεύματα of heaven, Revelation 19:14. Not: with His strong angels, mighty angels (Theophylact expressly, δυνατῶν), as if δυνάμεως were an adjectival definition of ἀγγ., and αὐτοῦ were to be connected with ἀγγ. Hofmann (because it is not said: μετὰ τῶνἀγγέλωντῆςδυν. αὐτοῦ) would understand it as meaning with a host of angels, ἀγγ. being put first emphatically, to distinguish the heavenly forces from all of an earthly kind (but for this there was no occasion), and δύναμις signifying an army-force likewise in Luke 10:19; Luke 21:26 (?), and in the Septuagint for φָ ?αָ ?δ; αὐτοῦ, finally, he refers to what follows. This whole view is too artificial; and when he takes the words αὐτοῦ ἐνπυρὶ φλογὸςδιδόντος together, and refers them to God, and at the same time regards ἐντῇ ἀποκ. &c. as the beginning of this participial construction, this is, to say the least, as cumbrous as the ordinary view, according to which ἐντῇ ἀπ. &c. more closely defines what goes before.—There might certainly be a doubt as to where ἐνπυρὶ φλογός belongs (the variation which we have noted meets us in like manner at Acts 7:30; the Recepta means flaming fire, glowing fire, not faintly burning). Too subtile is Theophylact’s remark, that the expression denotes fire that burns merely, and gives no light, it being merely consuming for sinners, and for the righteous merely luminous. It is possible to refer it to what follows as a specification of detail (Theodoret: τῆςτιμωρίαςτὸ εἶδος; Hilgenfeld: In point of fact the fiery flame belongs immediately to the punishment); but it may also be regarded as the last feature in the description of the revelation, and this is still simpler [and so Alford and Ellicott]. Theophylact recognizes both explanations, and refers for the second to Psalms 97:3. The Lord is revealed in flaming fire, as in the burning bush, or as on Sinai; His throne is [not, as in E. V., is like.—J. L.] glowing flame (Daniel 7:9); as in the Old Testament God, so here Christ comes in fire; thus shall His day also be revealed (1 Corinthians 3:13); this agrees with the δόξα at His coming (Matthew 25:31); somewhat more remote is the glowing flame of His eyes (Revelation 19:12); He Himself is a consuming fire (Hebrews 10:27; Hebrews 12:29); comp., moreover, in the Old Testament, Isaiah 29:6; Isaiah 30:30. The terrible splendor of His majesty, which consumes all opposition, is concisely, but powerfully, delineated. We are not to inquire curiously into what is physical in this manifestation; not till the last end will the fire that melts the elements come in power (2 Peter 3:7; 2 Peter 3:10); but at every epoch of judgment fire is also the figure of the purifying ardor of the Holy Ghost, consuming all impurity; comp. Matthew 3:11-12.—The reference of what follows, (Jesus) rendering vengeance, dispensing punishment, is by Hofmann without reason felt to be a difficulty. The Greek expression answers in the Septuagint to the Hebrew πָ ?ϊַ ?οπְ ?χָ ?ξָ ?δ, Ezekiel 25:14, and elsewhere; comp. ἕκδικος, 1 Thessalonians 4:6; ποιεῖνἐκδίκησιν, Luke 18:7; see also Luke 21:22-23. The Apostle now traces back to the general Divine administration what he had previously promised to the Thessalonians in particular. Jesus will execute the Divine judgment on those who know not God; that it is not simply a want of knowledge, but a criminal blindness, that is here intended, is evident; comp. 1 Thessalonians 4:5; instead of seeking God (Acts 17:27), many hold the truth down [κατεχόντων, depress, repress] in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18); in angry defiance, like Pharaoh (Exodus 5:2). In the First Epistle the Gentiles were expressly so described (comp. Psalms 79:6); here is described more generally the fundamental delinquency, ungodliness. It is further said: and to those, who obey not the gospel, &c.; the Lord Jesus has a right to claim obedience; faith is, after all, an affair of the will, the obedience of faith (Romans 1:5; Acts 6:7). The repetition of the article τοῖς in the second member appears to place the disobedient as a second class alongside the first; and so indeed many (Grotius, Bengel, Ewald, Lόnemann, Hofmann [Jowett, Alford, Ellicott, Webster and Wilkinson, &c]) distinguish, finding here the two classes of persecutors who vexed the Thessalonians; those who know not God would be the heathen, those who obey not the gospel the Jews (comp. Romans 10). But this same excessive strictness of historical reference is not at all advisable; Paul speaks generally of the judgment of the world. Moreover, Bengel himself says merely Judζis maxime, and Hofmann also [Estius, Cocceius, Whitby, Peile, Revision, &c.—J. L.] sees in the second class all who reject the gospel, whether heathens or Jews; in this we recognize the correct feeling, that to limit the second designation to the Jews is unjustifiable; but in that case the contrast is no longer clear, and there comes in the recollection of Christ’s reproach to the Jews, that they know not God (John 8:55; John 15:21; John 16:3; they are wanting in the knowledge described in John 17:3); with which the Apostle’s expressions are to be compared (Romans 3:11; Romans 10:2; Romans 11:8 sqq.). On the whole, since the antithesis here is different from that in Romans 2:12, one looks for a condemnation at last only on account of the rejection of Christ, in which alienation from God culminates. The οἵτινες also of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 comprehends in one the two seemingly different classes; so that we shall do better to find already in the eighth verse a description, not of two classes of men, but merely of the two poles of enmity against God: the fundamental aversion of men generally, and the consummation of their contumacy, when the opportunity of faith has been afforded them; so Calvin [Bishop Hall], Pelt, De Wette, Olshausen; the repetition of the τοῖς cannot force us to the opposite view, if we compare Romans 4:12 [see also my Revision of Rev 16:2, Note j. These two are much better examples than those which Ellicott cites, and objects to as questionable, viz. Matthew 27:3; Luke 22:4.—J. L.]. Moreover, the ἅγιοι and the πιστεύσαντες, 2 Thessalonians 1:10, are not two different classes (as Bengel consistently would have it), but two parallel designations of the same persons. At any rate, we see here that the θλίβοντες of 2 Thessalonians 1:6 come under the judgment, not as being merely human oppressors of men, but as enemies of God. [Wordsworth: μή implies that their ignorance and disobedience is the cause of their punishment.—J. L.] 5. (2 Thessalonians 1:9-10.) Who [οἵτινες, who, as such.—J. L.] shall suffer punishment, &c.: properly pay, discharge; but the etymology disappears, as the opposition would otherwise be incongruous: (namely) everlasting destruction; ὅλεθρος we had at 1 Thessalonians 5:3; ὀλέθριον [Lachmann] is given only by A.; this were an adjective to δίκην; but it is too feebly supported (the Sin. is also against it), and is unsuitable to ἀπό, &c., and to δίκην which already has an adjective [?]; the mistake was occasioned probably by αἰώνιον. The latter word might perhaps denote a long but still limited period; against this, however, is the parallel ζωὴ αἰώνιος, Matthew 25:41; Matthew 25:46; therefore without limits. Olshausen thinks that Paul has not another text of equally decided import; but, though he does not use this expression, he yet does say unconditionally: βασιλείανθεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσι (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). The ἀπό, &c. is variously understood; Chrysostom, Bengel, Pelt, De Wette, Ewald, Hofmann explain from the face as of the efficient cause (Acts 3:19, where, however, it is connected with ἐλδεῖν); προσώπου would be not simply equivalent to person, but more expressive: from His face, which will be turned toward them in a threatening, penal, terrible manner; that mere look destroys them; Chrysostom: He needs but to appear, and they are punished; Hofmann compares Jeremiah 4:26; Sept. De Wette supposes that the second member especially: from the glory of His power, compels us to think of the efficient cause; but of that too an explanation may be found, that agrees still better with δίκηντίσουσιν, ὅλεθροναἰώνιον, namely, as Beza, Lόnemann [Jowett, Alford, Ellicott], and others understand it, away from. Olshausen compares Isaiah 2:10; Isaiah 2:19; Isaiah 2:21, Sept.: They will hide themselves, fleeing ἀπὸ προσώπουτοῦ φόβουκυρίουκαὶ ἀπὸ τῆςδόξηςτῆςἰσχύοςαὐτοῦ, and finds in our text a breviloquence (as it were, hiding themselves from). But that is not at all necessary. We get the finest sense, and, as Lόnemann properly remarks, a real advance, and not still the same thing merely that was already implied ἐντῇ ἀποκ., when we understand it as destruction (away) from the face of the Lord (Jesus Christ); like ἀναθεμαἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Romans 9:3); comp. ἀπό also in Romans 7:2; 2 Corinthians 11:3; Galatians 5:4. This is destruction, to be separated from the blessed vision of His face, from the Source of light and life, from the influence of His gracious aspect; comp. Matthew 7:23; and from the glory (the effulgence) of His strength; there is the less need of understanding this in De Wette’s sense, that it is not said simply, from His strength, but from the δόξα of His strength. Lόnemann’s explanation indeed: from the glory which is the creation [Alford: visible localized result] of His power, is somewhat far-fetched; the parallelism leads us rather to understand by that something belonging to the Lord Himself; comp. also the Hebrew δֲ ?γַ ?ψπְּ ?ΰֹ ?πγ, Isaiah 2:10; Hofmann: from His strength appearing in its glory; Diedrich: the glory of His omnipotence, in its creation of a new heaven and a new earth, and in its entire communication of itself to the saved. And is not this a calamitous deprivation, to be separated from that glory of Christ’s power, which will glorify man into the likeness of the Lord? (Philippians 3:21); and so to remain without any share in that which follows in 2 Thessalonians 1:10 : When He shall come, more exactly, shall have come [Alford, Ellicott, Wordsworth]. And now the parallel members pour forth in the splendor of the prophetic strain, and bring the positive supplement to the ἅνεσις of 2 Thessalonians 1:7. To be glorified in His saints does not mean simply to be praised by or amongst them in words, but to be actually shown to be glorious in the glory that He effects in them, by letting His glory appear in the glorification of His saints, by dwelling in them, and imparting Himself to them; see 2 Thessalonians 1:12; John 17:10; John 17:22 sqq.; Romans 9:23. And so it is taken also by most expositors. The saints here are certainly Christians, not angels; the latter, indeed, were particularly named in 2 Thessalonians 1:7. Nor does Bengel succeed in proving, convincingly, that the believers are a different class from the saints; we rather recognize in this place merely the solemn parallelism of the members. But this does not exclude the climax implied in the πᾶσιν: in all, therefore also in you (2 Thessalonians 1:4; 2 Thessalonians 1:7). The being admired might be understood thus: In the hearts of His believers He will create for Himself an admiring adoration,; but the parallel member leads rather to this explanation: By that which He works in them He will show Himself wonderful; He will become the wonder and admiration of creation (especially perhaps of the angels, comp. Ephesians 3:10), when it is revealed, what He has known to make of His believers. Thus it is taken already by Chrysostom: δι’ ἐκείνωνθαυμαστὸςἀποδείκνυται; Theophylact [Webster and Wilkinson] thinks, in the presence of those who are now stiff-necked; Lόnemann: The blessedness of believers being admired, Christ also is therein admired as the Author of that blessedness; comp. θαυμασθῆναι, Isaiah 61:6, Sept. It is worthy of note, how delicately one member of the statement answers to the other; the glory reveals what despised holiness is, and when it becomes manifest to what faith attains, that is a matter of wonder (Hofmann).—Because our testimony to you was believed; μαρτύριον, equivalent to κήρυγμα, εὐαγγέλιον; ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς belongs even without an article to μαρτ. (according to Winer, §20. 2), that directed toward you (similarly Luke 9:5); were it to be referred to ἐπιστεύθη, πρός must have been used. Bengel seems to take ὅτι as that, for he says: motivum admirationis, as if the clause supplied the subject of θαυμασθῆναι; whereas its subject is still the Lord. The words ὅτι to ὑμᾶς are already rightly regarded as a parenthesis by Theodoret and Theophylact, and then by Zwingli and Calvin; ἐντῇ ἡμ. ἐκ. goes back beyond that, but not, as Bengel would have it, to the too remote ἕλθῃ; [still less, as Webster and Wilkinson would have it, to δίκηντίσουσιν.—J. L.], but to ἐνδοξ. and θαυμασθῆναι. Altogether untenable is Luther’s translation: Our testimony to you of that day ye believed; as little does it answer to take ἐπιστευθη for a future or (Grot.) a future perfect; to say nothing of other misinterpretations. The sense of the parenthesis with the verb put emphatically forward is this: Since our testimony to you was believed, therefore I can speak of πιστεύσασιν in application also to you (ὑμῖν, 2 Thessalonians 1:1); yes, you too belong to the believers; he would fill them with the comfortable assurance: Ye are of the number. The addition of in that day, on the other hand, says: It will not happen till then; till then, patience! Calvin: fidelium vota cohibet, ne ultra modum festinent. [Perhaps also the phrase, in that day, was intended strongly to suggest the thought, that the very same day, which brings terror and ruin to the ungodly and unbelievers, brings rest and glory to their former victims.—J. L.]—Hofmann understands the passage otherwise; to avoid the parenthesis, he supposes that with ὅτιἐπιστ. there is a new beginning; and that ἐντῇ ἡμ. ἐκ, belongs to what follows, namely, to ἵναὑμᾶςἀξιώσῃ, thus getting now in his turn εἰςὅ to ὑμῶν for a parenthesis;—intolerably harsh! For though the position of ἐντῇ ἡμ. ἑκ. before ἵνα might perhaps be justified by Acts 19:4 and similar texts, yet to add to the inversion the parenthesis also is too Much. 6. (2 Thessalonians 1:11-12) Darauf geht auch allezeit unser Beten fur euch (Thereunto tend also at all times our prayers for you); such was our German paraphrase; εἰςὅ is not the same thing as δι’ ὅ, quapropter (Grot.); it might mean, in reference to which (Romans 4:20; Lόnemann); but the final signification is to be preferred: aiming at which, to which end (Colossians 1:29; De Wette [Jowett, Revision, Webster and Wilkinson, Am. Bible Union, &c.]), and the objection to this, that the certain truth of the purpose of grace (2 Thessalonians 1:10) would thus be made dependent on the Apostle’s prayers, loses its force, so soon as we closely connect therewith περὶ ὑμῶν (with this view do we pray for you), and further perceive that ἵνα, &c. merely carries out what εἰςὅ at the forefront of the sentence indicates; at 1 Thessalonians 3:10 likewise the import of the prayer is expressed in the form of a design. Bengel: hoc orando nitimur; that what was promised in 2 Thessalonians 1:10 may fall also to your share. We also pray, he says; we too for our part, in harmony with the purpose of God. This we do besides giving thanks (2 Thessalonians 1:3).—That our God (says he, with devout appropriation) may count you worthy of the calling; § Grotius, Bengel, Olshausen, Ewald, and many understand it of making worthy; Von Gerlach: that He may bestow on you the necessary qualities, of which what follows would thus furnish the explanation. But ἀξιοῦν is always to deem worthy, pronounce [?] worthy; therefore: that He may count you worthy of being adjudged the κλῆσις. But were they not called long since? what should this still impending κλῆσις mean? One might think, as in the parable of the supper, of repeated calls: that He may count you worthy of the last, decisive, energetic call, which brings you to the object; or as Hofmann says (and this might be separated from his distorted construction of our passage): that He may count you worthy of a calling, which brings to completion what began with our testimony and your faith therein; of the call δεῦτε (Matthew 25:34), to which already Zwingli refers. But we may also with Lόnemann (without regarding Philippians 3:14, βραβεῖοντῆςκλήσεως, as quite parallel) understand κλῆσις as meaning that to which you are called: May He at last pronounce you worthy of that, the opposite of which might also, indeed, follow a want of fidelity comp. ἐλπίς, of the thing hoped for, Colossians 1:5. The difference, after all, is really unimportant; for he, who is finally thought worthy of the glory to which Christians are called, is thought worthy also of the last invitation: Come, then! The Apostle’s prayer is directed, moreover, to this point (in order that the ἀξιοῦν may be realized): that He may fulfil every desire of goodness, &c.; ὑμᾶς does not belong to this clause, πληροῦν not governing two accusatives, but the meaning is, in you. If we disregard obviously false interpretations (Grotius: your goodness, that is well-pleasing to Him; similarly Olshausen and others), the only question is, whether with Calvin, Bengel, Pelt, and others, we are to understand it thus: that He may fulfil all the good pleasure of His goodness, ex parte Dei, adds Bengel, and, at the second member, ex parte vestri. But that is not well here; De Wette, Lόnemann, Ewald, Hofmann properly hold that the second member, which denotes something wrought in the Thessalonians, compels us to understand the first also of ἀγαθωσύνη in the Thessalonians. Besides, Paul never uses this word of the Divine, but always of human goodness (Romans 15:14; Galatians 5:22; Ephesians 5:9). And again, if God’s goodness was to be spoken of, we must necessarily have had πᾶσαντὴνεὐδ., and αὑτοῦ after it. The correct view, therefore, is: that He may bring (in you) to fulfilment every good pleasure in, every inclination to, goodness [so Alford, Ellicott, Webster and Wilkinson: “better, grace in them than towards them,” &c. Alford errs, however, in making ἀγαθωσύνης a gen. of apposition.—J. L.]. God must fulfil this; otherwise we are prone to evil; εὐδοκία of the human disposition we find also at Romans 10:1. Delight in what is good is partly the first preparation for faith (John 7:17), and partly its fruit. But here the Apostle speaks, not merely of the furtherance of this disposition, but of its fulfilment. Thus we are not to think simply of a growing sanctification, nor, as regards the work of faith, simply, with Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, of the endurance of persecutions; but Paul has his eye on the final mark. On ἕργονπίστεως, comp. the exegetical explanation of 1 Thessalonians 1:3; for the completion and slight modification of that let it merely be added, that for the right understanding of that text it seems to us indispensable, 1. to take the three genitives in the same way, and 2. to avoid every interpretation, by which one member of the statement would be confounded with another. It is very clear that the κόποςτῆςἀγάπης is there the toil and labor springing from love, befitting love. This must guide us also in the first member; ἔργοντῆςπίστεως is the work springing from faith, befitting faith; not, however, the moral authentication of faith outwardly, which would encroach on the second or third member, but the fundamental inward work of faith in the soul; not the sum of the works which spring from faith, but that which is presupposed as the foundation of all moral activity, to wit, the primary act of breaking loose from self-confidence, and casting one’s self entirely on the living God. Instead of Gal 5:6, the text for comparison is rather Romans 4:20-21. This energetic groundwork of faith Paul sees existing in the Thessalonians; he notes it in 1 Thessalonians 1:9, whereas here his prayer for them is that God may fully accomplish it, and through faith bring to perfection the new man; ἐνδυνάμει, in power, with force (1 Thessalonians 1:5); Lόnemann: powerfully; resardua, says Calvin. It belongs to πληρώσῃ.—That the name of our Lord Jesus, &c. Compared with 2 Thessalonians 1:10, this word indicates that to Himself we can bring no glory, but His name is glorified in us, and we personally in Him. Yet is His (and in general the Divine) name itself something real, as is expressly shown by the present context, which in 2 Thessalonians 1:12 asserts of the name what 2 Thessalonians 1:10 says of Christ Himself. Hallowed be Thy name; in the name of Jesus we pray, and in the name of God the Father, &c. we are baptized; comp. Exodus 23:31; Deuteronomy 26:2; 1 Kings 8:29; Jeremiah 32:20; Psalms 48:11 [10]. What His name is in fact He Himself makes for Himself; it is not a name given by mere human invention and conception. He reveals Himself as he would be recognized and invoked, as He who is what He is called, and is effectively present wherever called upon. His name is glorified in us; and therefore this does not mean merely, that He is celebrated in the praises of our lips, but (as the second member shows) that He is in fact made glorious, when the Lord shows Himself in us true to His name, as the prayer-answering Saviour; when He prevails with us to have His name named upon us, as those who really belong to Him (Deuteronomy 28:10; Amos 9:12; James 2:7)—And ye in Him, that is, may be glorified; a reciprocity, as in John 17. Most understand this as in Him, the Lord; Lόnemann, Hofmann: in it, the name. As regards the meaning, the difference is unessential. This word likewise looks to the consummation; living in the Lord, we are to be made partakers of His glorified nature; in the name of the Lord: the power of that name, which is above every name. And all this, according to the grace of our God and Lord Jesus Christ. He thus quenches all human pride. Since the article stands before θεοῦ, and not before κυρίου, it is altogether most natural, with Hofmann, to refer θεοῦ also to Christ [but see Critical Note 13.—J. L.], without this being, as Hilgenfeld supposes (p. 264), a mark of spuriousness; for not merely Titus 2:13, but also Romans 9:5 speaks of Christ in loftier terms than are agreeable to our modern critics (comp. John 20:28; 2 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:11). The distinction between God and Christ is not to be sustained by an appeal to texts like 2 Thessalonians 1:1-2, since there the article is wanting also before θεῷ and θεοῦ. AND ETHICAL1. (2 Thessalonians 1:3.) It is important for all life, that it also grow; otherwise it stands still, or rather retrogrades. But growth in the kingdom of grace proceeds in part differently from what it does in the kingdom of nature. Even a tree, indeed, must grow as well below as above. But still more does that saying of Starke hold good of the Christian life: This growth takes place either openly and sensibly, when a man, after experiencing the sorrows of repentance, is sensibly comforted and quieted in his soul (Psalms 103:1-5); or it takes place in a secret, concealed, hidden manner in circumstances of trial, when a man perhaps makes the most powerful advance, but God does not yet allow Him to be clearly and properly sensible of in—Still more important is another distinction, to wit, that every being in nature, even every man and every people, reaches on the natural side a highest point, and then declines and goes toward death, whereas by Christ and His Holy Spirit is implanted in the individual and in humanity a germ of imperishable life, that does not decay, but ripens to perfection (2 Thessalonians 1:11), and is just then most powerfully matured, when tribulation even to death wastes the outer man. [Burkitt: As it is our duty, it will be our great wisdom and prudence, so to speak of the graces of God which we see and observe in others, as that they may not be puffed up with any conceit of their own excellencies, but see matter of praise and thanksgiving due unto God only, and nothing to themselves.—M. Henry: We may be tempted to think that, though when we were bad we could not make ourselves good, yet when we are good we can easily make ourselves better; but we have as much dependence on the grace of God for the increasing the grace we have, as for the planting of grace when we had it not.—J. L.] 2. (2 Thessalonians 1:4.) Are we at liberty even to glory in men? Not so as to foster our own ambition, or to flatter the ambition of others. Nor is all danger obviated by saying, that we extol God’s work in them; the old man seeks to catch his share also therein. Where faith is really put to the trial of patience (James 1:2-5), there is the least risk of pride, and in such a trial there is incentive for others. They, who are commended, are not allowed by God to want for secret checks. For them too that word holds good: noblesse oblige. 3. (2 Thessalonians 1:5.) God’s rule is a constant righteous judging and sifting with a gracious purpose; for righteousness stands in the service of grace; grace reigns through righteousness (Romans 5:21). But it is not always easy even for faith to keep track of this. Not merely are wilful, impatient persons offended, that it often seems to go ill with the good, and so well with the wicked; not merely do the frivolous and faint-hearted ask, Where is now the righteous God? but even Asaph had well-nigh slipped here. It is the triumph of faith, when it lays hold of the Apostle’s word, and in that very thing, which seems to conflict with all righteousness, learns to recognize the working out of righteous judgment. On one side it is a terribly earnest declaration of it, when God punishes sinners by giving them up to sin (Romans 1:24 sqq.; Romans 9:17; Romans 11:8 sqq., Romans 11:32); the Christian likewise may be sensibly visited with chastisement, and it is hard to stand beneath the judgment of God; nevertheless, in the severity itself there is comfort, since it lifts us above dependence on men. And to him, who yields to the humiliation, there is the further help vouchsafed, that his faith is strengthened in the impossibility of the righteous God allowing confidence in His promise to come to shame; and still more, in the very confusions of time he perceives evidence of the righteous judgment of God, which in sending afflictions and persecutions, in hardening the ungodly, in the chastisement and purification of the pious, in their separation from the world, and in their confirmation to a believing constancy, accomplishes itself from day to day, till in the final consummation (2 Thessalonians 1:6 sqq.) it reaches the end of righteous retribution. Until then the account is still open; then comes the settlement. 4. Rieger: A man becomes meet for the kingdom of God under suffering; not as if by suffering he could deserve it. For truly our affliction is not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us (Romans 8:18). The mercy of God in Christ alone makes us meet for this inheritance (Colossians 1:12). But God’s plan and order is, to try man’s intrinsic worth and value by their endurance in the fire of affliction, and whether they are possessed by a paramount delight in the invisible and eternal, or by an irredeemable tendency to vanity (2 Corinthians 4:17-18). The heirs of the kingdom must earn for themselves the witness, that they love not their lives unto the death (Revelation 12:11). In the judgment of the world, it is true, they suffer as evildoers, as wilful, unmanageable people; but the testimony of God in a good conscience bids them rejoice, and leap for joy, and glory in tribulation, because they suffer for the kingdom of God (Luke 6:23; 1 Peter 4:13; Romans 5:3; comp. Revelation 6:10 sq.; Revelation 7:14; Revelation 11:18).—We add, that a man cannot claim the reward, as if he had first given something to God (Romans 11:35); but when God has trained, proved, and tested a man, like gold in the fire, He crowns in him His own grace, and gives him the reward of his fidelity. [Lectures: “That ye may be counted worthy, &c.;—if indeed it is a righteous thing, &c.” In using such expressions—and there are very many of them in the New Testament—the inspired writers proceed upon the ground of that gracious covenant, in which, through their union with Chrst, believers stand, and whose merciful provisions, on God’s part absolutely sovereign and free, alone give them all the claim they have on the Divine favor here or hereafter. But that claim, though thus originating, and because thus originating, is an infinitely and eternally valid claim. It is deep and abiding, as the love of the Father for the Son; strong and sure, as the word and oath of Him who cannot lie—cannot deny Himself—or frustrate any hope which He himself has raised. In this respect, as in many others, the gospel salvation reveals God’s righteousness no less than it does His love.—J. L.] 5. (2 Thessalonians 1:6-7.) The jus talionis, “eye for eye, tooth for tooth,” or, “with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again,” would be improperly described as a human right of retaliation. It is rather just the inviolable Divine order, though in a sensible, allegorical form. Jesus Himself does not in Matthew 5:38 sqq. reject the principle (comp. Matthew 7:2), but merely the arbitrary Pharisaic abuse of it. A Divine order it remains, and as such is engraven on the human conscience, that guilt shall recoil on the head of the perpetrator. However much and however long justice may lie oppressed amongst men, with God it stands unshaken. All God’s long-suffering does not annul the fact, that His proceedings tend in the long run to a perfect retribution. For this reason even the purpose of God’s grace is not accomplished by means of an amnesty setting justice aside, but through the satisfaction of justice by an adequate atonement. Whoever rejects this, draws upon himself the final judgment; whoever in the sense of a living, penitent faith acquiesces in the economy of redemption, in that man the righteousness of God can work out salvation (1 John 1:9; Romans 3:26). On the wrath of God, comp. the Apologet. Beitrδge by Gess and Riggenbach, p. 89 sqq.—[Barnes: If it is right that the sinner should be punished, it will be done.—J. L.] 6. The eschatological excitement in Thessalonica, though it was known to the Apostle, does not at all hinder him from discussing these great truths. An abuse does not abrogate the proper use. And it is true that he speaks on the subject for the very express purpose of comforting those under persecution. But neither does he fail also to follow this up in 2 Thessalonians 2 with the needful sedatives. One chief mark of Scripture as originating with the Spirit of God is, that both in the teaching of doctrine and in the regulation of the life it speaks with so great depth and force, and yet at the same time also with so great moderation; never one-sidedly either in the way of exaggerating or in that of suppressing any truth. It is to be observed, moreover, that this expectation of rest at the return of Christ stands in distinct contradiction to the Irvingite doctrine of the translation; see the Doctrinal and Ethical Note on 1 Thessalonians 4:17.7. (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9.) But how should the prospect of the perdition of the ungodly serve to comfort the pious? This seems to savor of a malignant joy, or at least to express a strange longing for vengeance. To wait for the judgment of God, however, is something different from avenging ourselves (1 Peter 2:23). And the former should as little be wanting in the children of God, as God ever ceases to be holy. The oppressors spoken of here, as so often in the Psalms, are not at all opponents on trifling grounds of human quarrel, but they hate God’s servants and children, because they hate God’s truth. In our text 2 Thessalonians 1:8 especially shows that those are meant to whom salvation was offered, but they have trifled away their hour of grace. Respecting the violence and scorn of the ungodly the living sentiment of justice now cries to God. On this point no man can judge, who has no inward experience of zeal for God’s glory. Paul testifies with joyful faith, that now already the righteous judgment of God rules, but withal he holds fast, as a postulate, the final, complete separation between the pious and the ungodly, as in Malachi 3:18. Scripture generally is far from any abstract, idealistic surrender of the final and absolute triumph of the cause of God. If then we think of the Apostle’s fervent longing to be made a curse for his brethren (Romans 9:3), if they could thereby be helped, we shall give up entirely talking about vindictiveness. Yet how few have experienced the vehement desire, that right shall still be right, and God continue to be God, which must arise in a soul compelled to endure the harshest abuse and oppression of its faith! We need not wish to be more merciful than the eternal Mercy (Matthew 7:14). There is a point, at which the flaming majesty of the holiness of God advances in power against the obdurate despisers of His grace. Nevertheless, the love of enemies remains in force (1 Thessalonians 5:15), so long as there is still anything to be hoped for. Calvin’s admonition is, that, although Paul promises vengeance, yet we are not to wish for it against any man. It is quite possible that the honor of God’s cause, and the salvation of those exposed to seduction, might impel an Apostle to call down a sharp judgment on the adversaries (1 Corinthians 5:5; Acts 13:10-11); but the design always is, wherever it is still possible, correction in order to salvation; and human violence is never allowed to interfere (Matthew 13:29. Give place unto wrath (Romans 12:19), that is, to the wrath of God; where that is kindled, it becomes man, in the fulness of awe, and also of humble submission, as well as of sympathy towards those who are judged, to stand aside. There thus exists a fundamental likeness between the piety of the Old Testament and that of the New. The difference does not consist in the setting aside in the New Testament of the threatenings of judgment, but only in this, that in Christ’s redemptive work there is revealed an inconceivably larger grace than the Old Testament gave occasion to expect, whereby the uttermost is done to render possible a deliverance from judgment. While the revelation before Christ was to be altogether true—wholly that, and nothing more than that, which humanity before Christ was able to bear—yet, with all the glory of the words of grace even in the Old Testament, it was still impossible that the fulness of mercy should be made known as it was by Christ in word and deed. Comp. the essay on die Nδchstenliebe, Stud. und Krit., 1856, p. 117 sqq. 8. On not knowing God, see the Doctrinal and Ethical Note on 1 Thessalonians 4:5. The heathen also are guilty, when they do not even inquire after God; but there are still many amongst them, who, for their own part, are at least in some measure excused by the general degradation. This is recognized in the words of the Lord respecting Tyre and Sidon, Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15; Matthew 11:22; Matthew 11:24). The consummation of guilt is, when the original stupidity towards God develops itself into conscious rejection of His gracious counsel and work; and here again also blasphemy against the Holy Ghost marks the highest point. “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father” (1 John 2:23); this word is receiving an ever-growing fulfilment in our day. It is possible for one to pray to a God who yet is rather sought than known. But wherever Jesus, the highest revelation of the true God, is not merely still unknown, but is denied and rejected, there at last nothing more is retained than a power of nature, to which it is impossible to pray as to a Father. But as the denial of Jesus betrays the repugnance of the heart, so faith is a matter of the will. In the former case, the meaning is: So thou sayest, but I will not, and thus God is made a liar (1 John 1:10); here the Apostle speaks of the obedience of faith. For this very reason the principle stands firm also with Paul, that a man is judged according to his deeds (Romans 2:6-11; 2 Corinthians 5:10). But the innermost soul of right conduct is obedience to the command for the reception of grace; and that is just faith. 9. Holy Scripture knows nothing of the entire renunciation of all motives of fear and hope, such as is required by philosophic morality; nor is it known in actual life. Even the dullest indifferentism, even the haughtiest self-consciousness, cannot fully extinguish fear and hope; nor should it. The only point of importance is, that the living God become their object. 10. The eternity of punishment is to many a peculiar offence. But let us not forget that only those are threatened with this (especially in Matthew 12:31-32), on whom the merciful God, Father, Son, and Spirit, has brought to bear His entire work of grace, and has done so in vain. Through obdurate resistance to grace the state of inward desolation must have reached such a pass, that from a man in this condition even his neighbors necessarily become detached; whereas on the other hand we cannot think highly enough of the resources of the grace of God. Now since the grace of God Himself, being more fervent than a mother’s love, cannot forget, and therefore cannot, it would appear, cease to love, how is it possible that it should perpetuate the life of the damned, merely to subject them to perpetual torment? In the line of these thoughts we reach various attempts to set bounds to the eternity of the punishments of hell. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ II Instruction and Exhortation in regard to the antichristian consummation of evil 1. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 The warning, against allowing themselves to be easily misled into the notion of the day of the Lord being at the door (2 Thessalonians 2:1-2), is confirmed by reminding them that, as he had already told them orally, the Man of Sin must previously be revealed (2 Thessalonians 2:3-5), that the mystery of lawlessness is still for the present restrained by an obstructive power, and will only reach its height when this is removed, and will then also come to its end by the appearing of the Lord (2 Thessalonians 2:6-8); of what sort the lying power of the enemy will be, is then more exactly described 1Now [But] we beseech you, brethren, by [concerning, ὑπέρ] the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our [and our] gathering together unto Him, 2that ye be not soon [quickly] shaken in mind [from your mind], or [nor yet] be troubled [alarmed], neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from 3[by, διά] us, as that the day of Christ [the Lord] is at hand [is present]. Let no man [no one, μήτις] deceive you by any means [in any way]: for [because, ὅτι] that day shall not come, except there come a falling away [the apostasy, ἡ ἀποστασία] first, and that [the, ὁ ?] man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, 4who opposeth, and exalteth himself above [against] all that is called God or that is worshipped [every one called God or an object of worship], so that he as God sitteth [sitteth down, καθίσαι] in the temple of God, showing himself 5[showing himself forth] that he is God. Remember ye not that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6And now ye know what withholdeth, that he might be revealed [may be rev.] in his [his own] time. 7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work [For the m. is already working of lawlessness], only he who now letteth will let, until he [only until he, who with-holdeth for the present,] be taken out of the way; 8and then shall that Wicked be revealed [shall be rev. the lawless one], whom the Lord [Lord Jesus] shall consume with the spirit [breath] of His mouth, and shall destroy with the 9brightness [appearing] of His coming: even him, whose coming is after [according to] the working of Satan, with [in, ἐν] all power and signs and 10lying wonders [wonders of falsehood], and with [in, ἐν] all deceivableness [deceitfulness, ἀπάτῃ ?] of unrighteousness in them that perish [for those who are perishing]; because they received [accepted] not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11And for this cause God shall send [doth God send] them strong delusion [a working of delusion, ἐνέργειανπλάνης], that they should believe a lie [the falsehood, τῷ ψεύδει]; 12that they all might be damned [may be judged] who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. AND 1. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-2.) But we beseech you, &c.; as in 1 Thessalonians 4:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:12; over against the prayer of 2 Thessalonians 1:11-12 he now turns to his brethren; on account of, in regard to the coming, ὑπέρ, as in 2 Thessalonians 1:4; Romans 9:27; not an adjuration, per, as you dread or desire that day (so Zwingli, Calvin, and others); but this use of the preposition does not belong to the New Testament; Lόnemann, too artificially: in the interest of the coming [Jowett and Wordsworth: on behalf of; the former adding: “as though he were pleading in honor of that day, that the expectation of it might not be a source of disorder in the Church.”—J. L.], to obviate all mistakes on that subject; but certainly the coming itself has no such interest. He is speaking, as in 2 Thessalonians 2:8, of the coming of the Lord to judgment (2 Thessalonians 1:7-8), and the setting up of the kingdom; with Christ’s Advent he connects by means of one article our gathering together away (or upwards, Lόnemann) unto Him; the two together form one event, the first completing itself in the second. For the topic, 1 Thessalonians 4:17 may be compared; for the word likewise, Matthew 24:31 (the verb; the substantive is used in Hebrews 10:25 of assemblies for Divine service). The import of the entreaty is expressed in the form of a purpose; εἰςτό, as in 1 Thessalonians 2:12; 1 Thessalonians 3:10; that ye should not be quickly shaken; ταχέως does not stand here, as in Galatians 1:6, in opposition to a previous better condition; nor does it mean, as Olshausen supposes, so soon after my exhortations to you; but (De Wette, Lόnemann): so soon as any one tells you something of that sort, forthwith. Σαλευθῆναι, moreover, is the expression that denotes the heaving of the sea; then figuratively, to excite an uproar (Acts 17:13); connected with ἀπό it has a pregnant force (like καταργεῖσθαιἀπό, Romans 7:2; comp. also Romans 9:3 and 2 Thessalonians 1:9): shaken and thereby driven from [Wordsworth: drifted off from]; thrown out of your reason; for that is the meaning of the word, as in 1 Corinthians 14:14; 1 Corinthians 14:19; Romans 14:5; not sententia (Grotius), persuasio; that were γνώμη, or some such word. Accordingly: Hold fast a rational, sober thoughtfulness, which is required for your peaceful trial, and the due performance of your daily task. Attached to this, according to the best authorities, by μηδὲ (the manuscripts, indeed, vary exceedingly in the case of such particles), is θροεῖσθαι, which, again, is not simply synonymous with σαλευθ. (that would be implied in μήτε), but ascensive; θροεῖν signifies to cry aloud, make a noise, and then later, to frighten by uproar (Matthew 24:6). Zwingli: to perplex, confound; Bengel: moveamini, mente; turbemini, affectu; according to Hofmann, θροεῖσθαι also should signify merely to be discomposed; but then the climax would be destroyed. That a panic could not occur amongst the Thessalonians, it would be too much to assert. Even a crisis that is longed for, when it is one of so great and holy a sort, and so seriously searches the heart, can strike a momentary terror; whereas in σαλευθ. we think chiefly of being thrown from the track by an overpowering hope [?].—Neither by spirit, &c.; by this the Apostle intends a spiritual suggestion, pretended prediction, utterance of a prophet, comp. 1 Thessalonians 5:20 : Despise not prophesyings, but prove them, whether error is not intermingled. It is a mistake to understand thereby a false interpretation of Old Testament prophecy, or—which is still more absurd—delusive spiritual apparitions.—Nor by word nor by letter as by us; Theodoret, Grotius, Wetstein, De Wette, Lόnemann [Davidson, Revision, Ellicott] would refer ὡςδι’ ἡμῶν to the two preceding members, as in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 the Apostle’s word and epistle stand together; and then some should have carried round a pretended oral utterance of his, others even a spurious letter. But 2 Thessalonians 2:15 cannot determine for 2 Thessalonians 2:2; and, reading μήτε three times (the evidence for the various readings is very precarious and unequal), we must regard the three members as coφrdinate, and not take two of them in closer connection with each other. Unless, therefore, ὡςδι’ ἡμῶν is to be confined to the last member merely, it must be referred also to the first [so Erasmus, Reiche, Barnes, Webster and Wilkinson.—J. L.]. But that is not possible, since a prophetic appearance could not be invented for the Apostle like a word or a letter. We therefore adhere to Chrysostom, Theophylact, Zwingli, Calvin, Ewald, Hofmann, in not regarding λόγου as a word hawked around as apostolic, but in understanding it, alongside of πνεύματος, of a διδαχή that reasoned without prophetic rapture, rather perhaps with proofs from (Scripture; comp. 1 Corinthians 14:26; Chrysostom: πιθανολογία. There is no occasion to think of a calculation of Daniel’s weeks of years. The last member, finally, first Jerome, then Kern, Hilgenfeld [Hammond, Webster and Wilkinson] and others, would explain to the effect that the Apostle is speaking merely of a misinterpretation of his First Epistle: Be not disturbed by letter, as if we had taught so. But in that case δι’ ἐπιστολῆς would not stand without the article; 1 Corinthians 5:9; 1 Corinthians 5:11 and 2 Corinthians 7:8 show the style in which he appeals to an earlier epistle from his hand. The two members, πνεῦμα and λόγος, denote means of seduction that had actually occurred, and had come, indeed from people in Thessalonica (nothing suggests, as in Corinth, foreign intruders); the same thing must hold good also of a letter, that was falsely attributed to him; Paul would not of himself have thought of speaking of it [against Jowett]; 2 Thessalonians 3:17 also cannot be naturally explained otherwise than as a precaution against a repetition of the forgery. It is as surprising that such a thing occurred at that time, as that Paul speaks of it so gently. Hug thinks that the forger need, have had no evil design; he merely wished, perhaps, with apostolic authority to agitate the secure, and work a reformation. Still a pia fraus is none the less a fraus. It is possible, however, that the letter was written anonymously, and merely shown around as Pauline. Otherwise, it is probable, Paul would speak more sharply. The import of this deceptive pretence was: as that the day of the Lord is present [so Alford. Ellicott: is now come.—J. L.]. ὡς before ὅτι expresses what is supposed; 2 Corinthians 11:21; Winer, § 65. 9; ἐνέστηκεν denotes a standing at the door, immediate presence (Romans 8:38; 1 Corinthians 3:22; Galatians 1:4). The emphatic position of the verb in front shows, that the Apostle does not intend generally to put far away the expectation of the last day; we are merely not to let ourselves be surprised by the cry: Here it is now! Probably the fresh outbreak of singularly violent persecutions was explained in Thessalonica to this effect: Here is the beginning of the last day. 2. (2 Thessalonians 2:3-5.) Let no one deceive you in any way; be not deluded (Ephesians 5:6); in none of those three specified ways? or, in no other way? Both views are possible; at 1 Thessalonians 5:3 he had described the deception of a careless drowsiness, and now he points to the opposite snare, when a conscientious vigilance is perverted into an unwholesome excitement, which is then likely, in consequence of the exposure that follows, to threaten faith itself with shipwreck. Against this delusion, as against every other, they are to be on their guard.—Because, he thus confirms the warning. The protasis with ἐάν has no apodosis, as often happens with Paul; so Romans 2:17, according to the best reading; he lost sight of it in the course of the long description; sometimes also (Romans 9:22) there lies in the ellipsis a certain reserve of judgment. Here the very obvious supplement is οὐ μὴ πάρεσταιἡ ἡμέρα, or οὐ δύναταιἐλθεῖνδκύριος, or some such expression. [Webster and Wilkinson: “The omission arises from the fact that he is reminding them of communications previously made concerning two future events, and wishes to fix their attention upon that which must precede the other. It may also be regarded as rhetorical, supplied in the Apostle’s dictation by a solemn pause, a gesture, and the significant and emphatic delivery of the words ἐὰν … πρῶτον, or as suggesting the sentiment, I am sorry to have it to say it will not come before; and so Bengel, abstinet verbis quζ non libenter audiret amator adventus Christi.”—J. L.] Altogether unsuitable is any thought of the oath-formula, ΰִ ?νμֹ ?ΰ, certissime [Storr], besides that this also needs explanation as an ellipsis.—Except there come the apostasy first (ἀποστασία, later Greek for the older ἀπόστασις); this is erroneously applied by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Augustine, to Antichrist, as if it meant an apostasy in one individual, whereas the two verbs suffice to distinguish also the two subjects; nor yet is it to be understood politically or semi-politically, but according to universal biblical usage it denotes apostasy from the faith or from God [Acts 21:21. Comp. 1 Timothy 4:1; Sept. Jeremiah 29:32.—J. L.]. Hofmann, correctly: 2 Thessalonians 1 having commended their steadfastness in the faith, the apostasy can only be one from the faith in Christ; and this is acknowledged also by Calvin. Indeed, the article denotes that apostasy known to the Thessalonians by oral instruction from the prophets; comp. Daniel 8:23; Daniel 11:30; the spreading apostasy from the faith. Then in ἀνομία of 2 Thessalonians 2:1 we find an intimation of the further result, that the revolt from God leads to the rejection of all Divine order. Already in those times of fresh faith is this foreseen and foretold by Paul.—And the Man of Sin be revealed; frightful counterpart to the revelation from above (2 Thessalonians 1:7); when there is a disclosure of that which is maturing as the wicked consummation of the evil principle in humanity—of that which at present is still μυστήριον, the counterpart of the heavenly (2 Thessalonians 2:7), but shall one day have its παρουσία (2 Thessalonians 2:9). The Man of Sin, again with the article, the one already known to them; plainly a single personality; if Zwingli after some of the ancients explains it collectively, as if it stood for filii perditi, there is no warrant for this in the context. The complete opposite to Christ is not a spiritual tendency, but a person. Nor is he called merely ἁμαρτωλός, but the Man of Sin, in contrast with Jesus, the Man of obedience; so to speak, the incarnate Sin, wherein the entire nature of sin is concentrated, incorporated, culminates; just as what follows marks the opposite pole to Genesis 3. There the desire came up, but still in childish form, to wish to be their own God; what began there will here be fully ripened. Thus is his nature described; and in connection with that his final destiny: the son of perdition, like Judas, his type, John 17:12. With the fact, that he wholly belongs to sin, coheres as fruit the fact, that he falls a prey to perdition; out of perdition springs his life in death; εἰςἀπώλειανὑπάγει (Revelation 17:11). Others would take it actively, or at least unite the two ideas [Theodoret]: one who is a sinner and falls into perdition, and also drags others down into sin and perdition; according to 2 Thessalonians 2:9 sqq. he really does that; but in the phrase, son of perdition, there is rather a designation of the power to which he belongs; Estius: quasi ex perditione tanquam matre genitus; as if it were even said, a child of death. The mention of his fate is followed by a description of his manner of working (as 2 Thessalonians 2:8 by 2 Thessalonians 2:9); it is said of him: who opposeth, like Satan, Zechariah 3:1, Sept.; what the latter is for the world of spirits, that the Man of Sin is for the world of men; no incarnation, therefore, of Satan. We can take ὁ ἀντικείμενος absolutely, and in thought supply of God or of Christ; the former, because he assails not merely the redemptive work of Christ, but the foundation of all fear of God; and for the second it may be said, that in an altogether peculiar sense he will be the antagonist, adversary, caricature of Christ; according to John’s expression, the ἀντίχριστος (1 John 2:18), the Antichrist; fain would he destroy Christ’s kingdom, and opposes him, as Bengel says, corde, lingua, stilo, factis, per se, per suos. But considering that the article is not repeated before the second participle, and that thus the two predicates are combined into one idea (negative and positive), we might prefer to refer the ἐπί by an easy zeugma to both participles. Who exalteth himself above all that is [against every one] called God or an object of worship; against the true God, and every one so called, comp. 1 Corinthians 8:5; to this the Apostle adds (every) σέβασμα, that is, object of worship, numen; Luthardt: whatever is holy to men, and passes amongst them as an object of fearful reverence; comp. Acts 17:23. To think of the defamation of the imperial majesty (the Σεβαστός) is still more inappropriate, than of angels; it was done in the interest of the interpretation which saw in Antichrist the Pope, as the despiser of worldly sovereignty. We have rather to understand it thus: above all that is called God and is divinely honored. He will thus no longer act as the old kings, Pharaoh and Sennacherib, acted, who indeed blasphemed the God of Israel, but still worshipped their heathen gods; he will despise also the gods of the heathen. To adore these was a profound corruption; still even in that caricature the need of worship announced itself. But the Man of Sin, being the consummmate ἀντίθεος, as Chrysostom calls him, will worship nothing any more, bow before nothing any more. All religion he treads under his feet. Herein consists the ripe poisonous fruit of evil, that with full consciousness self sets up to be the centre of all power, wisdom, and glory. The Apostle’s brief picture reminds us of (though it still transcends) Daniel 7:8; Daniel 7:11; Daniel 7:20 sqq.: the horn with man’s eyes and a mouth speaking great things, which makes war with the saints and overcomes them till the judgment breaks forth. The modern interpreters see in this for the most part Antiochus Epiphanes; more correctly we shall recognize in this little horn of the 7th chapter the yet future adversary, of whom Antiochus, described in similar terms, is but a type (see Auberlen’s Daniel). Antiochus, the Old Testament Antichrist, is meant in Daniel 8:9 sqq., Daniel 8:23 sqq.; Daniel 11:36 sqq. The last passage, in particular, depicts him as speaking presumptuous things against the God of gods, and as despising also the gods of his fathers; only on the God of strongholds, that is, on military power, does he rely. Still, self-deification is not expressly asserted of him; Antiochus even turned the Temple of Jerusalem into a temple of the Olympian Zeus. Paul adheres to Daniel’s description, and can do so, just because Antiochus is a type of the last adversary. For the further stroke, with which he goes beyond Daniel, the self-deification of the Roman Emperor furnished him with a ready example.—So that he sitteth down in [εἰςτὸνναόν, pregnant: intrudes into, and sits down in, &c.—J. L.] the temple of God; καθίσαι is intransitive; αὺτόν (not αὑτόν) is not redundant (Pelt), but emphatic; he, the audacious; he in person sits down enthroned in the temple; does not merely have his image set up; in the temple of God, the article and the addition, of God, showing that at any rate no heathen temple is to be thought of, but, if one of stone, then no other than that of Jerusalem, which, if the Epistle is genuine, was not yet destroyed. That that one is not to be thought of in an Epistle to a church of Gentile Christians (Von Gerlach), is a groundless objection. The temple which Christ had cleansed, and in which the first Christians prayed, and likewise Paul himself, that house of prayer for all people was an object of interest to every Christian church. Still, one can just as little perceive, why the sitting in the temple must be interpreted with all the rigid literality that, amongst others, Wieseler (Chronol. des apostol. Zeitalters, p. 258) and Dφllinger (Christenthum und Kirche, p. 282) assert. We do not at once say with Chrysostom and others, that the temple signifies the Church in all lands, or with Hilgenfeld (p. 253), that the writer means figuratively the consummation of heresy establishing itself in the spiritual temple of Christendom (it then concerns him to show the feasibility of the Epistle having been composed under Trajan); but we suppose that, proceeding on a sensuous way of viewing the matter, and painting, as a prophet (Ezekiel 28:2), in colors of his own time, Paul depicts an act which, as a symbol of permanent spiritual significance, is confined to no locality, and means to say: He places himself in God’s room, and forces himself on mankind as a Divine ruler. See the Exegetical Note 3.—Showing himself forth that he is God, as described more at large in Revelation 2:13. What belongs to Christ, this impious person arrogates to himself, advancing the claim, that for those on the earth he is God; and thus wickedness becomes frantic. The self-exhibition we understand, with Chrysostom and most, not merely of assertions in words or proclamations, but of manifestations which should confirm the point by deeds; for the lying wonders, 2 Thessalonians 2:9 sqq., shall deceive many. We cannot see why Lόnemann finds in this a contradiction of καθίσαι.—Gently chiding them, the Apostle finally reminds them of the instruction which he had orally imparted to them. So far had he gone during the three weeks into the details of eschatology. But to the Apostle this same point of doctrine was of more importance than to our moderns; comp. Paul at Athens, Acts 17:31. [Notice here also the force of ἕλεγον, I was telling, used to tell.—J. L.] Even the mediζval missionaries laid very great stress on the judgment. As the Thessalonians had to endure peculiar afflictions, Paul would seem to have led them into a special acquaintance with Daniel. 3. (2 Thessalonians 2:6-8.) And now ye know what withholdeth; καὶ νῦν is taken by Bengel, Storr, Kern, Hilgenfeld and others as a temporal adverb in opposition to ἕτι of 2 Thessalonians 2:5. Lόnemann’s objection, that in that case it must have been said: ταῦταμένἔτι—νῦνδὲ καί, does not amount to a great deal, except, indeed, that one does not exactly know how the point in contrast should be conceived of. Are we to understand it thus: Now, since you have learned the beginning of that matter, you know it as you did not previously? But what, then, had occurred, that could give them such information, even without the Apostle’s explanation? Here Roos and Brandt think of the recent expulsion of the tumultuous Jews from Rome, and similar facts, which might show them how the pseudo-Messianic element was held down by the Roman power. But that would be at least very obscurely expressed, in a case especially where they needed a renewal of their earlier instruction; and now would he in such an altogether disguised manner announce the new topic, which present circumstances supplied in contrast with his oral instruction? This has little to recommend it. Still more arbitrary is Hilgenfeld’s inference, that in this opposition the later date of the Epistle betrays itself, as if καὶ νῦν could only be understood thus: and now, some 40 years after the Apostle’s death! De Wette, Lόnemann, Ewald [Alford, Ellicott] see in καὶ νῦν the indication of a logical advance to a new thought: And now ye know surely (Lόnemann: by way of passing on to a further point). They appeal to Acts 7:34; Acts 10:5; Acts 13:11; Acts 20:25; but in all these places νῦν may also be taken temporally, whereas in our text it is not apparent why the simple καί should not have been used. Olshausen, Wieseler, and others assume an inversion, as in the case of ἕτι in Romans 5:6 (various reading), Winer, § 61. 4. Of course, it would have been easy to write: καὶ τὸ νῦνκατέχον; but it is true that we most naturally expect in the first member of the verse an, offset to ἐντῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ. This Hofmann would obtain by taking also 2 Thessalonians 2:6 interrogatively, and the οὐ of 2 Thessalonians 2:5 as still operative: Remember ye not—, and know (ye not) now (when his time has not yet arrived), what withholdeth, &c.? This, however, is too artificial. On the contrary, we obtain a very simple explanation of νῦν as a particle of time, if we understand it thus: And now, when ye recall my oral instruction, ye know. And so it follows also, what must have been probable beforehand (against Hilgenfeld), that the oral instruction already extended to the κατέχον, on which account he can speak of it the more briefly in writing. The meaning of the latter word is not, as Dφllinger supposes, what possesses, controls, but, as in Romans 1:18, what restrains, hinders; Chrysostom: τὸ κωλύον; Calvin: impedimentum, causa morζ; but not: what hinders me from expressing myself freely; that were an altogether arbitrary interpretation, and is thoroughly confuted by 2 Thessalonians 2:7; but: what still retards the outbreak and manifestation of Antichrist. The neuter in 2 Thessalonians 2:6 denotes the power, the principle; the masculine in 2 Thessalonians 2:7, a personality at the head of that power; at least, this is a priori the most natural suggestion. Moreover, εἰςτό denotes, not so much the duration (until), as the purpose of God in the κατέχειν: that he may be revealed in his [own] time; he, none other than the Man of Sin, is to step forth from his concealment in his time, the time fixed for him, measured out to him as his own; a time will come, that belongs to him, as the present does not yet; measured out, indeed, to him also only by God; comp. Luke 22:53; the counterpart of the fulness of the time, Galatians 4:4. With the for that follows Paul accounts for his having spoken of the restraining of the Man of Sin, and of his revelation as still future. The ungodly element was really present already, and had a strong desire to break forth, but must still work as a dark mystery; not exactly in secret, but so that the wickedness does not yet expose its full nature. Μυστήριον forms an antithesis to ἀποκαλυφθῆναι of 2 Thessalonians 2:6; there is an emphasis in its being put first, and separated from its genitive, as in Galatians 2:6; Galatians 2:9. The latter is a genitive either of apposition [De Wette, Lόnemann, Alford]: the mystery which consists in lawlessness, or of possession: which belongs to it; ungodliness also having its mystery, the frightful counterpart to that of godliness, 1 Timothy 3:16; comp. the βάθητοῦ σατανᾶ, Revelation 2:24, over against the βάθητοῦ θεοῦ, 1 Corinthians 2:10. Hofmann would understand it merely thus: the confounding, incomprehensible, inconceivable extreme of wickedness; but the contrast with the revelation should not be set aside. Olshausen goes beyond Scripture, when on account of the antithesis he speaks of an incarnation of Satan, when it will be said: ὁ διάβολοςἐφανερώθηἐνσαρκί; there is nothing of that here, and even John 6:70 is rather against than for it. Estius correctly: non diabolus, sed diaboli prζcipuum organum est. Antichrist is, indeed, depicted as the caricature of Christ. But 2 Thessalonians 2:7 does not yet treat of his person, but of the principle of lawlessness now already in action privately. Thereby is denoted the profligacy which violates every Divine law, knows nothing but a complete autonomy, endures no will over it; Daniel 11:36 may be compared: He will do κατὰ τὸ θέλημααὑτοῦ. Here the remark is not convincing, that the expressions ἀνομία and, 2 Thessalonians 2:8, ἅνομος point us for Antichrist to the Gentile domain (Romans 2:12; 1 Corinthians 9:21); still more groundlessly others say, to the Jewish. When Hofmann, starting from Daniel, remarks that the faithless will fall a prey to Antichrist, as the apostate Jews did to Antiochus, that is no doubt true; only it does not necessarily follow that he himself will proceed from among the Gentiles. Rather we may say that the result of apostasy from the gospel will be a new and consummate heathenism, the rejection not merely of faith, but of every Divine ordinance. At the height of the Antichristian wickedness, however, the differences between Jews and Gentiles disappear, as they do on the other hand under the gospel. The mystery is already working (ἐνεργεῖται never passive, but middle); ἥδη is in opposition to 2 Thessalonians 2:6, in his [own] time, and then ἅρτι answers to ἥδη, and the τότε of 2 Thessalonians 2:8 to in his [own] time. Paul regards the phenomena of the time with the eyes of the Spirit; in the opposition to the moral order of things, but especially in resistance to Christ, he perceives the beginning of the final rebellion against final grace. This is to him the working of a terrible mystery, such as not many yet recognize. He sees before him (De Wette) the scattered, shapeless mass of ungodliness, which is first to gain form and personality in Antichrist, and by which his appearance is prepared and introduced, as is the case with every historical personage. In Thessalonica especially he had lived to see the fanatical hostility of the Jews prove false amongst the heathen to their Messianic hope (Acts 17:7). The self-deification of the Emperor, and perhaps also already the false Gnosis of a Simon, were other features of that depravity. In the sequel μόνον belongs not to what precedes [thus Jowett suggests as possible a connection with μυστήριον: only as a hidden mystery; Wordsworth connects with ἐνεργεῖται: worketh inwardly only;—both constructions equally untenable.—J. L.], which is already defined by ἥδη, but to what follows; the clause introduced by it limits in a certain way the preceding statement. As the Vulgate translates: tantum ut qui tenet nunc teneat, so many supply out of κατέχων a verb, κατέχει, καθέξει, κατεχέτω, or even (Bengel), from the following ἐκμέσουγένηται, an in medio est. [Many supply simply the verb of existence, and with that Webster and Wilkinson connect ἅρτι: is now.—J. L.] Zwingli understands it thus (an interpretation already known to Augustine): “only he, who now holds aught, should hold it fast (whatever he has apprehended of the truth), till he (Antichrist) is taken out of the way.” But all these supplements are arbitrary. Calvin, who construes correctly, is just as mistaken in his explanation: until he (Antichrist), who now (that is, in the future for a short time) holds sway, is removed; and then he must refer the τότε to 2 Thessalonians 2:6. This view has simply everything against it; I urge only the one point, that he thus takes ὁ κατέχων in a totally different sense from τὸ κατέχον, 2 Thessalonians 2:6; whereas the remark cannot be avoided, that the one must correspond to the other, only that the masculine indicates a personality standing at the head. If again there are not two clauses but one, we have merely to recognize an inversion, namely, that as regards the sense ἕως ought to be first, whereas ὁ κατ. is put first for the sake of emphasis; comp. Galatians 2:10 [and so the clause is now generally construed; see Revision.—J. L.]. Accordingly: The mystery is already working, only until (so long must it remain a mystery), only until he, who withholdeth for the present, is out of the way. That the latter phrase might denote a violent death, is not to be denied; that it must do so, is not to be asserted; indeed, comparing Colossians 2:14, and not even reading here αἴρεσθαι, but γενέσθαι (comp. 1 Corinthians 2:2; 1 Timothy 2:14), we perceive that as to the manner, in which the κατέχων gets out of the way, the expression says absolutely nothing; by a peaceful withdrawal on his part, we shall of course not say, since there is a judgment in his being called off. Who now is the κατέχων, is really the darkest point in the whole passage, now that we have no longer the oral interpretation; a proof, what oral tradition would amount to without a written record. Comp. the Doctrinal Note 3.—And then shall be revealed the Lawless one; the ἀνομία in person, the Head of wickedness in full expression; certainly none other than the Man of Sin, 2 Thessalonians 2:3.—From the mention of the revelation, 2 Thessalonians 2:3; 2 Thessalonians 2:6; 2 Thessalonians 2:8, and of the παρουσία, 2 Thessalonians 2:9, Hofmann finally infers (die Heilige Schrift neuen Testaments, I, p. 330 sqq.), that there is here described a counterpart of Christ, that cannot be fully understood unless we recognize Antichrist also as already in existence, so that he will enter into the world anew from the supermundane sphere. It is not said, he suggests, that the ἀνομία, but that the ἄνομος will be revealed. This is the reason why Hofmann was so bent on setting aside the antithesis between μυστήριον and ἀποκαλ. Antiochus Epiphanes himself, he thinks, may again be expected. This, however, is an exaggeration of the Scriptural statements, that lapses into extravagance. The Man of Sin will come (παρουσία) and be revealed (will discover himself to be what he is, and what from a child he was not taken for) in and by the complete disclosure of the ἀνομία, which previously kept working as μυστήριον;—this surely is sufficient for us to find in him the counterpart of Christ. Even Hofmann will not go so far as to assume an incarnation of Satan. Comp. Auberlen, Daniel , 2 d edition, p. 456 sq., and Luthardt, die Lehre von den letzten Dingen, p. 150. The latter properly refers to Mal. 3:23 [Malachi 4:5], where there is a promise of the sending of Elijah, which, however, is afterwards explained, in Luke 1:17; Matthew 11:14; Matthew 17:11-12, of John, the new Elijah, just as Revelation 11:6 holds out no prospect of the return of the former Elijah. It is not the Elijah of history, says Luthardt, that we have to expect, but the Elijah of prophecy; comp. also Ezekiel 34:23. Such literal interpretation as that practised by Hofmann should be left to the popular fancy of the Jews (Matthew 16:14).—Whom the Lord (Jesus) shall consume; he thus becomes νἱὸςἀπωλείας; the consolation that he is to be destroyed, is attached by Paul immediately to the mention of his appearance. The Godless one comes at the time appointed for him by God, and is consumed by Jesus; his tyranny, therefore, is no sign of weakness on the part of God. Isaiah 11:4 has not merely had an influence on the reading, but it is also a parallel for the subject matter.—With the spirit [breath] of His mouth, &c.; in German we do not have, as in Hebrew and Greek, the same word for spirit and breath. We must not with a coarse sensuousness think of a fiery wind, nor yet at once idealize the matter, as if what is meant were a word, shout, word of command; why in that case should not λόγος have been used? The explanation of the old Protestants was, that the word of God has inwardly, spiritually slain Antichrist (namely, the Pope), and the Advent will make a full end of him. The glowing parallelism of the clauses, however, intends not two acts, but only one. It is a counterpart to the description of creation in Psalms 33:6 Sept. The view proceeds on the ground of sense Nothing is required but the breath of the Lord, which has power, as being the spirit of life, quickening for them that are His (John 20:22), but, amongst His enemies, who can bear it? One breath of the Lord scatters haughty power. Comp. Revelation 19:15; Revelation 19:21, the sharp word out of His mouth; Grotius refers also to Hosea 13:3. Equally sublime is the second clause: and (shall) destroy (him) with the appearing of His coming; καταργεῖν, to destroy, abolish (1 Corinthians 2:6; 1 Corinthians 15:24), does not imply the utter annihilation of his personal existence, for indeed he is cast into the lake of fire (Revelation). Elsewhere the Lord’s coming is denoted either by παρουσία, or by ἐπιφάνεια, 2 Timothy 4:8; here the two are combined: by the appearing, the visibleness of His coming; He could, of course, come also invisibly. Zwingli’s application of this to the daily coming of His word into the hearts of believers must be rejected. Mere caprice also is the Irvingite distinction between the parousia [coming], by which believers from among the Gentiles shall be caught away to the Lord, and the subsequent appearing of the parousia [coming], in which the Jews are concerned (comp. the Doctrinal and Ethical Notes on 1 Thessalonians 4:17, and also Luthardt, p. 37 sqq., especially 43). Bengel’s remark might be more worthy of attention, that the expression denotes the first gleam of the Advent, as distinguished from the final judgment; though here also somewhat too great stress is put upon it. But this much is true, that there is needed merely the first outburst of the Advent, nothing but that He show Himself [Psalms 94:1], no organs for the exertion of His power; Bengel: prima ipsius adventus emicatio. An earnest of this in John 18:6.4. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12.) Whose coming is, &c.; οὗ, as well as the ὅν of 2 Thessalonians 2:8, referring again to the ἄνομος of that verse. Only now, after he has already by way of consolation shown the end of the wicked one, is the description of his agency resumed. It will be terrible and destructive, but for that very reason will end in a holy judgment, and therefore the description can again resolve itself into thanksgiving, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 sqq., that the Thessalonians do not belong to the apostates. Hofmann accordingly takes 2 Thessalonians 2:9-17 together, there being here shown, he thinks, as in 2 Thessalonians 1, that punishment of unbelief, in which the appearance of the Lawless One will issue, in opposition to the salvation which will be for the Church the result of the proclamation of the apostolic message. It is true that the theme of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 (the Lord comes not, till Antichrist has appeared) is discharged at 2 Thessalonians 2:8; but the description of his working, 2 Thessalonians 2:9 sqq., serves still for the completion of the picture, and indirectly for the warning of the readers: his power will be in the highest degree seductive; let every one, therefore, beware of the first beginnings of apostasy (2 Thessalonians 2:2-3); for whosoever believes the lie is lost (2 Thessalonians 2:10-11). But ye, thank God, are of those who believe the truth, and are chosen to salvation (2 Thessalonians 2:13); therefore abide therein, stand fast, and hold fast what ye have received (2 Thessalonians 2:15). The appearance of the Lawless is, takes place, says the Apostle in the present tense, doctrinally, without regard to the time; comp. 1 Corinthians 15:35.—According to the working of Satan, κατά, as in Colossians 1:29. Satan gives him power, as the Father does to Christ (Revelation 13:2); it is the most perfect mimicry of Christ: salvation (in wonders) without repentance and the cross. But it is asked, whether κατὰ, &c. is a definition of the ἐστίν, or of ἐστὶνἐν, &c.; whether his appearance is already of itself in the might of Satan, or rather his appearance with wonders. Hofmann prefers the former view; that his coming Isaiah 1. according to the working of Satan, and 2. a coming in wonders. But it is better, with Lόnemann and others, to understand his coming as attended with wonders to be that, the source of which is assigned by κατ’ ἐνέργ. There will be in it a putting forth of every power; πᾳσῃ without the article belonging by zeugma to all the three substantives. Δύναμις denotes the root of the operations; σημεῖα, signs, in their significance as indicating the divinity of him who performs them—here of course deceptive; lastly, τερατα, portenta, the marvelousness of these indications. The three terms are often used of the deeds of Christ and the Apostles. Here we have the caricature; comp. the wonders of the false prophets, Matthew 24:24, whereby even the elect would be deceived, were that possible. These prophets are, as it were, Antichrist’s apostles; in Revelation 13:13 sqq. it is the false prophet in the singular, who represents hypocritical, Godless wisdom, and by his signs procures homage for the first beast (the Godless despot). Paul does not yet say by whom (as distinct from the ἄνομος himself) the wonders shall be wrought.—The wonders are called wonders of falsehood (ψεύδους again belonging to all the three words) in opposition to the wonders of truth in the case of Christ and His Apostles (as Paul asserts that he had wrought wonders, 2 Corinthians 12:12). To find in the genitive ψεύδους a designation simply of the origin, or simply of the object, or simply of the quality of those wonders, is an unwarrantable separation of what belongs all together. Moreover, Augustine is already aware of a double interpretation, what is meant being either a deception of the senses by empty illusions without reality (so Theodoret), or real miracles misleading to a false belief in them as performed by Divine power. Augustine, referring to Job, prefers the second view, and so with reason most others. To this conclusion we are at once led by the emphatic description by means of three synonyms. We also expect as counterparts to the miracles of Christ real operations, which yet are called miracles of falsehood (Roos), because men who regard them as proofs of the divintity of the unrighteous One are thereby miserably deceived. Performed by dark, gloomy powers, they are indeed at bottom nothing really creative, but assumptions, imitations, manifestations of a sham strength which at last is a wretched impotence, monstrosities without any saving object, but not, therefore, mere juggleries. The Bible throughout treats sorcery in a more serious way than as if it were empty legerdemain.—What follows likewise: and in all deceitfulness of unrighteousness, &c., does not mean an idle illusion, but an agency which has the glittering show of righteousness, and yet is full of unrighteousness, proceeding from that, and leading to it; the absolute culmination of unrighteousness is in robbing God of His glory. (The oldest authorities omit the article at ἀδικίας, as well as at ψεύδους). The Apostle shows us as a mark of the Man of Sin, besides the false miracles, the profanity also of his spirit and walk, and, besides lying (which again is an intentional falsification of knowledge), the wickedness also of his will generally; both in contrast with the ἀλήθεια. This influence he has, however, only amongst those who are perishing, in their circle (if ἐν were genuine; comp. 2 Corinthians 2:15; 2 Corinthians 4:3); but the oldest authorities give simply the dative (incommodi): for the perishing (not a dative of judgment, as in 1 Corinthians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 9:2). It belongs also to what is said at 2 Thessalonians 2:9. The ἀπολλύμενοι (1 Corinthians 1:18) are not those who have already perished, nor yet those who deserve to perish, but such as are perishing, are actually on the way to perdition, and that through their own fault, as is said in the next clause: because they accepted not; ἀνθ’ ὧν, equivalent to ἀντὶ τούτωνὅτι, ϊַּ ?ηַ ?ϊּ ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ, Luke 1:20. He does not say: they received not the truth, but: the love of the truth. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact err in supposing that by this Christ is meant, who has truly loved us (in that case the phrase should rather have been, the truth of love). The Apostle rather gives us to understand, that the natural man by himself is not merely destitute of the truth, but has not so much as the love of the truth; even this must first be implanted in him. The sentence is to be understood comprehensively of all truth, wherever and however it comes to men. Its introductory stages are shown in Romans 1, 2, and in Christ it culminates. In like manner, the want of love for the truth reaches its consummation in obduracy against Christ, when clearly revealed to us by the Holy Spirit. For a long while a man may go along undecided; Antichrist will drive him to a decision. God does not force the truth on a man, who suffers it not to grow up in his heart. What hinders a man from receiving the truth? That is indicated by the profound opposition between truth and unrighteousness; comp. Romans 1:18, and the Doctrinal and Ethical Note, 5.—[That they might be saved; εἱςτὸ σωθῆναιαὐτούς, in order to their being saved; the end and result of a reception of the love of the truth, which reveals a Saviour, and brings His salvation near.—J. L.]—And for this cause doth God send them; (καί is wanting. only in D.1 67) for this cause—as a punishment—we refer rather to what precedes than to what follows (so that εἰςτὸ, &c. would be epexegetical). He sends it to them—according to the best authorities the present, like ἐστίν of 2 Thessalonians 2:9; but it does not signify already now, but is to be taken doctrinally, irrespective of time. Again, Luther’s translation is, strong errors [krδftige Irrthόmer]; more correctly: strength or working of delusion. Does God do that? Or does He merely permit it to come, as the Greek interpreters and others soften the expression? No, indeed; the Apostle describes the mighty act of the Judge, punishing evil by evil. Not to believe the truth is sin [to refuse the love of the truth, still darker sin.—J. L.]; to have to believe the lie is the punishment of sin, the exposure of nakedness, like the abandonment to vice in Romans 1:24; in the lusts (ἐν), wherein they are ensnared, He gives them up unto uncleanness (εἰς), lets them slide down on the sloping path of their own desires, and that because they would not have it otherwise. The object of the sending is, that they should believe the falsehood; not merely the error, but the conscious, wilful, God-defying untruth. The singular with the article denotes, not a single lie, but the entire force, the entire element of the devilish perversion of all truth (John 8:44). Grotius compares Proverbs 1:29-31.—That they may be judged, object of the πιστεῦσαι, that is, God’s purpose therein. God has this decision in view, that they may be condemned as those in whom evil has come to maturity; Chrysostom: convicted as without excuse. They all together, who believed not the truth, who at that time shall not have believed; but had pleasure in unrighteousness [Webster and Wilkinson: the ultimate and secret source of all the evil which results in condemnation.—J. L.]; over against the εὐδοκίαἀγαθωσύνης, 2 Thessalonians 1:11. A powerfully warning conclusion; Chrysostom: ἔρχεταιἐλέγξωναὐτούς. The Apostle has thus more exactly defined the nature of the judgment already spoken of in 2 Thessalonians 1 : The appearance of the Man of Sin must help to bring about the complete separation. It is true, therefore, that the matter does not proceed so swiftly and smoothly as you fancy; but yet with all terrible earnestness it will proceed gloriously. AND ETHICAL1. (2 Thessalonians 2:2.) The Apostle’s exhortations to the use of reason are far more frequent than Luther’s translation allows to be seen. It is its business to understand the manifestation of God in the creation (νοεῖν, Romans 1:20). The voice of conscience likewise is heard as the law of the reason (Romans 7:23). It is true that the power is not thus given to man, truly to overcome the law of sin in the members. That is possible only for the spirit which is renewed by the Spirit from God (Romans 8). Without this the spirit falls a prey to the carnality, vanity, pollution, which affect it and the conscience (Colossians 2:18; Ephesians 4:17; Titus 1:15). But even in the regenerate it has its work. Though the peace of God passeth all understanding, yet it too keeps the heart and thereby the thoughts (νοήματα, Philippians 4:7). The Spirit of God renews the reason, bringing it under obligation, and enabling it, to apply itself to a reasonable service of God (Romans 12:1-2), to attain a certainty of knowledge with full assurance (Romans 14:5), yea, to search into the mysteries of God (Revelation 13:18; Revelation 17:9). Whoever neglects to cherish it may, while standing himself in the Spirit of God, become unfruitful for others (1 Corinthians 14:14-19). The fulness of the Divine Spirit in the Apostle shows itself in this, that he does not so readily as we, on account of the abuse of which he too is aware, become distrustful towards the right use. The limits of the reason are indicated even in its German name [Vernunft]: it perceives [vernimmt] realities, which it does not itself originate. 2. Our chapter suggests a special instance of the sobriety required in 1 Thessalonians 5. At 1 Corinthians 15:34 the Apostle describes the denial of the resurrection as a case of intoxication [ἐκνήψατε, awake as from drunkenness]; here, on the contrary, he warns against an error in the opposite direction. For it is not merely the being overcharged with worldly pleasures and cares (Luke 21:34 sqq.) that hinders watchfulness; but the excitement also, which would anticipate the glory, is in danger of turning into so much the greater disappointment and lassitude, and is far from being that joyful uplifting of the head (Luke 21:28), which implies endurance to the end, literally an ὑπομένειν, a bearing up under (Matthew 24:13). An immoderate and presumptuous spiritualism easily ends in making shipwreck of faith. How many, who allowed themselves to be induced by a fantastic excitement to dispose of their goods and abandon their homes, sank down afterwards into a stupid worldliness! It is also very deserving of remark, that already in the apostolic age fanaticism was the fruitful mother of fraud. The man, who will carry out his nice favorite notions under the false pretence of an apostolic name, does not stand before God. The really pseudonymous Scriptures have a different character from those, which a perverse criticism would add to them. It is no good sign, when so many have no longer the sense for distinguishing an unwholesome, impure element from the truth of God. Moreover, as regards the warning of the Apostle, and the similar words of Christ: Go not forth! believe them not (Matthew 24:23; Matthew 24:26)! it may well seem strange, how often many have disregarded them. It is true, indeed, that a careless security goes not forth in advance, does not even believe that there is yet to be any Advent, and knows just nothing of the prayer, Come, Lord Jesus! Still, a bustling, eschatological excitement is merely a seeming faith, and in reality a self-willed precipitancy. When He actually comes, it will be as the lightning. Of the previous signs Paul says to his readers: “They will be severer than you think;” as Jesus likewise saddens the heart of His disciples, that He may then duly comfort them. Luthardt properly remarks (p. 54), in reference to the Irvingite doctrine of the translation, that to promise glory without the full experience of the cross is a sign, that the flesh has to do with these notions; and he describes (p. 49) as fanatical that expectation, in which the eye is held in mere searches into the future, and draws from it no genuine strength for work in the present. From experiences of his time, John George Mόller of Schaff hausen (as reported in Gelzer’s Monatsblδttern, October, 1863, p. 211), describes the reprehensible sect-spirit as of a denunciatory (or as Lavater calls it, a hangman) nature, delighting in strained inferences, the suppression of all reason, spiritual pride, superstition, the domination of a loud, talkative chief, &c. Apocalyptic study is of high importance, the more the mystery of lawlessness begins strongly to bestir itself; but it must throughout and constantly find its counterpoise in ethics. Indifference to the claims of the present, to the duties of the daily Christian walk, to one’s temporal calling, to the weal of our fatherland, and such like interests, is not Christianity. It is not she, that in the fulness of her truth turns Christians into unfruitful visionaries. The very remembrance, that they are but strangers and pilgrims on the earth (1 Peter 2:11), is expressly used to introduce those exhortations, which require from every one according to his position the greatest fidelity in details. 3. (2 Thessalonians 2:3-10.) The instruction concerning Antichrist is a highly important part of the prophetic word. The point, on which historically all are agreed, is the affinity of this section with the Book of Daniel; its dependence on the Jewish eschatology, say many; we express it more correctly by saying, that the Pauline prophecy has its root in that of the Old Testament. Let it be mentioned as a curiosity, that Tychsen would set aside the prophecy by the assumption, that Paul quotes sentence by sentence from a letter of the Thessalonians opinions which he then refutes. We need not prove that Paul is in earnest in delivering his doctrines. Besides the commentaries, we refer to Wieseler, Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters, 1848, p. 256 sqq.; Baumgarten, Apostelgeschichte, 2d ed., 1859, I. 603 sqq.; and especially the instructive excursus in Heubner, p. 168 sqq., and in Dφllinger, Christenthum und Kirche in der Zeit der Grundlegung, 1860, p. 277 sqq., 422 sqq. Consideration is due also to what Ed. Bφhmer has edited in Liebner’s Jahrbόcher fόr deutsche Theologie, i2 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 2:3, from Schneckenburger’s remains (zur Lehre vom Antichrist); and yet, however learnedly the Jewish opinions and those of the primitive Christians are here discussed, the essay presents not much that is satisfactory for the understanding of our passage. [Perhaps the best sketch in English of the history of opinion on this important section is that given by Alford in his Prolegomena to this Epistle, and mainly taken, as he intimates, from Lόnemann. See also the article Antichrist in Appendix B to Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, where will be found a list of the principal writers on the subject.—J. L.] We classify the interpretations as follows: I. The interpretation of the ancient Church. The Fathers are essentially agreed in expecting, immediately before the still future appearing of Christ, the appearance of the personal Antichrist; only Augustine (De Civ. Dei, 20, 19) already takes the idea in a collective sense, so as to embrace the prince with all his adherents. On the other hand, many understand the apostasy personally of the Antichrist. Theodoret [after Chrysostom] describes the adversary as a man who receives into himself the whole energy of the devil; if he even speaks of an imitation of the incarnation of Christ, he yet again restricts the idea to this, that Satan chooses for himself a man, who shall be possessed of all his own might. Some would also have it, that he shall be born of the tribe of Dan, and appear as a false Messiah of the Jews; but these are Jewish notions, which find acceptance only at a later period. Cyril of Jerusalem, for example, teaches likewise (Catech, x2 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 2:4-8), that he will be very skilful in magic arts, will at first appear with flatteries, but afterwards will rage against the Christians with exceeding cruelty, and that for three years and a half. Some of these traits are derived from Daniel and the Apocalypse. The sitting in the temple most explain as do Theodoret and Theophylact of his usurping the presidency or lordship in the Church, and giving himself out as Christ and God. Yet Irenζus (Adv. Hζr. 2:25) and Cyril of Jerusalem understand it literally of sitting in the temple at Jerusalem, which he is to display great zeal in rebuilding (Cyr.). The preparatory μυστήριονἐνεργούμενον, or, as we may even say, a strong type of Antichrist, Chrysostom (and many after him) sees in Nero (inconsistently with the date of composition); Theodoret, on the contrary, in the Gnostic heresies, wherein, he thinks, is hidden the snare of lawlessness. The most uncertain point is the explanation of the κατέχων. Most saw in that the Roman Emperor (in the neuter, the Empire). Chrysostom: As the Babylonian, the Persian, the Macedonian, the Roman empires followed one another, so shall Antichrist follow the rule of the Romans. He, like Augustine and Jerome, supposes that the Apostle speaks so obscurely of the end of the Roman Empire, in order not to draw on himself the reproach of seditious preaching. He acts thus, not from cowardice, but to teach us that we should not provoke needless hostility. Chrysostom is aware also of the explanation, that the κατέχον denotes the continuance of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit; but this he refutes. Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret propose another explanation to this effect: What is meant is not the grace of the Spirit, which cannot withdraw, since without that no one could overcome; nor yet the Roman power, since this is followed by no other; but what is meant is the purpose (ὅρος) of God to restrain the outbreak till the gospel be generally spread abroad, and idolatry destroyed. In this there is something aimed at that is correct as regards the thought; but the phraseology does not suit it. The ὅροςθεοῦ should not ἐκμέσουγενέσθαι but πληρωθῆναι, as indeed Theophylact expresses himself in explanation. On, the whole, the interpretation of the Fathers is simply textual. Only as to how the prophecy adjusts itself to the temporary horizon of the Apostle, on that point they have little to say. It is not till the third century that some (and first Commodian) adopt the idea, that Nero will come again as Antichrist. Then in the middle ages fantastic notions were propagated about Antichrist as an ungodly tyrant; all sorts of fables being told concerning the place and manner of his birth, and the nature and region of his operation (comp. Heubner, p. 170; Dφllinger, p. 432). But as the established Church and its hierarchy anticipated the glory of the kingdom, the coming of the Lord and also that of Antichrist retired more into the background. On the other hand, the way was preparing for II. The interpretation of the Reformers. The sects of the middle ages, which arose in opposition to the secularized Church (Wiclifites, Hussites, likewise Savonarola and Gailer of Kaisersberg) declared the Pope to be Antichrist, and the German Emperor (as being heir of the Roman Emperor) to be the κατέχων. This was also the prevailing interpretation of the Reformers, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin; amongst the Lutherans even a, doctrine of their standards, Artic. Smalc., II. 4, p. 314, and in the Appendix, p. 347 (Rechenberg’s ed.). It was said, that the removal of the κατέχων of the western Roman Empire cleared the way for Antichrist; and then the abominations of the papacy were enumerated: A falling away from the gospel to commandments of men, lust of power, oppression of the conscience, cruelty, insane pride, wicked assumption of power in heaven and on earth, and that reaching even into the life of eternity, the abuses of indulgences, charges to angels in certain bulls, the asserted power of the priest in transubstantiation, authority to change the faith and laws. In all this, it was thought, the Pope puts himself in the place of God, yea, arrogates to himself Divine attributes and idolatrous worship. One is amazed to see how much of this applies, and yet this interpretation must be rejected; that is to say, there is indeed no mistaking the fearfully antichristian features of the Papacy, and consequently its typical relation to Antichrist; but still one cannot affirm, that the Papacy is the Antichrist. In the first place, it should have been possible to show still more of the Popish μυστήριονἤδηἐνεργούμενον, already in Paul’s days. Appeal was made perhaps to Galatians 1, 2; Zwingli referred to the false apostles already existing at that time, who were still restrained by the great faithfulness and care of the Apostles; Bengel to Romans 16:17 sqq. and 1 Timothy 4:1 sqq. In all that, however, the Papal tendency did not yet reach a clear expression. The way, likewise, in which the κατέχων is explained, is by no means felicitous. The German Emperor, who took the place of the Roman, also fell, and Antichrist did not come. But even if that admitted of explanation, still the features of the prophecy are not at all fulfilled in the Papacy itself. In the first place, the word of the Apostle brings into view one personality. It is said, indeed, that the series et successio hominum are not inconsistent with that, since, as in a monarchy, there is still but one head; but perhaps that one may be a pious Pope? and besides our passage speaks of the one (without followers) who is swept away; which does not agree with the Papacy. And there are yet other points that do not suit. Whilst there have been wicked Popes (occasionally, also, those of a better character), still the Pope cannot be charged with utter apostasy from Christ. He confesses the Triune God, and does by no means despise σεβάσματα. Calvin tries in vain so to explain the Apostle’s description, as if it did not imply an express self-deification. If it is said with Bengel (and similarly Brandt), that the abomination of the Papacy will yet attain to the highest pitch, namely, to the casting away of the mask, and the open antichristianism of the Wicked One, then we really give up the interpretation of the Reformers, and reduce the Papacy to the rank of a (momentous) prognostic of that antichristianism. Of course, the Roman Catholic Dφllinger cannot consent even to that; he also thinks that the supposition of an apostasy of such universal prevalence contradicts the promises given to the Church; as if the word about the “little flock,” or about the “few that find” the strait gate, had no place in the gospel. Roos, going beyond Bengel, expressly remarks, that there is much that is antichristian in the Pope, but that there are still important deficiencies; since he still acknowledges the supremacy of God, nor does he deny the Son. The apostasy, he thinks, is here with us, but not yet the Man of Sin. In the latter Roos properly recognizes a single person; according to the Apocalypse, the last head of the beast; the false Messiah. He is of opinion, that that will be the highest pitch of the Papacy, and that it presupposes, not the destruction, but merely a great alteration, of the fourth Empire (of Daniel); the Pope, having seized all the Imperial rule that has hitherto stood in his way, will then have become Antichrist. To us it simply appears to be undemonstrated, that this consummation of evil is to be looked for as the highest pitch of the Papacy, and not rather of a Cζsaropapism. It is yet to be noticed, that already some Greek interpreters, and then Western Catholics, and also Protestants, pointed to Mohammed as the Antichrist. Calvin reckons him and sectarianism as belonging to the great apostasy; whereas Melanchthon, Bucer, Musculus, Bullinger and others distinguish the Eastern Antichrist from the Western. Our fathers knew why they sang: “The murderous violence of Pope and Turk restrain.”: In Mohammed also there are antichristian features; he too belongs to the “many Antichrists” (1 John 2:18); but neither is he the Antichrist, whom the Advent shall destroy. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ 2. 2 Thessalonians 2:13-17 Exhortation, growing out of the foregoing instruction: Christians, whom God has saved from the Antichristian ruin are the more encouraged to stand fast, and for them the Divine guardianship is besought 13But we are bound to give thanks always to God [Greet order: to God always] for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you [God chose you from the beginning] to salvation through 14[in] sanctification of the Spirit and belief [faith] of the truth; Whereunto He called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus 15Christ. Therefore [So then], brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions [instructions] which ye have been taught [were taught, ἐδιδάχθητε], whether by word, or our epistle [by our word or epistle]. 16Now our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and God, even our Father [But may He Himself, our Lord Jesus Christ and our God and Father], which hath loved us, and hath given [who loved us, and gave, ὁ ἀγαπήσαςἡμᾶς, καὶ δούς] us everlasting consolation and good hope through [in, ἐν] grace, 17Comfort your hearts, and stablish you [establish you] in every good word and work [work and word]. AND 1. (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14.) But we are bound, &c.—Paul concludes the section on the coming of Antichrist with thanksgiving for the election and salvation of the readers; with an exhortation to steadfastness; and finally with a prayer for their stability. After the serious and agitating topic, of which he had been speaking, he is the more inclined to utter a word of thanksgiving, exhortation, and comfort. Already Theophylact remarks: He now softens his address, after the words of terror. For even though the prospect of the final conflicts was of itself a matter of consolation for true believers, yet the grave question still presented itself: How shall we endure? We are bound to give thanks, he says, and so reverts to 2 Thessalonians 1:3. There he gave thanks for their steadfast faith amid persecutions from without. Now his thanksgiving is still further enlarged, the ground being salvation likewise in view of the afflictions of the last time; and he gives thanks, notwithstanding that he had to make mention of the apostasy within Christendom (2 Thessalonians 2:3). We, he writes, namely Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy [Jowett, Conybeare, Webster and Wilkinson: Paul alone]; most say: in opposition to the perishing, 2 Thessalonians 2:10, who fall away to Antichrist. But this antithesis does not come out right; a suitable contrast to the perishing would be the Thessalonians, not the preachers of the gospel. Theophylact perceives this, and therefore remarks: “If we give thanks for you, how much more are ye bound to do so!” It is better, therefore, to understand the matter with Hofmann, thus: Over against the Antichristian deception which God will send (and which, as an active mystery of iniquity, has already begun), we, the preachers of the gospel, give thanks for what He is now working by us, to save you from the coming judgment, and we the more give thanks, when we see how the way of this judgment is already preparing.—Brethren beloved of the Lord, this is his anchor-ground; here is his comforting assurance: Those grievous sinners cannot hurt you. In 1 Thessalonians 1:4 the word is ὑπὸ θεοῦ, which is given here only by D.1 Vulg.; Sin. and A., τοῦ καυρίου; most, κυρίου without the article; which is here distinguished from θεός before and after, and yet one with the Father: Christ; in opposition to Antichrist, to whom the others fall away. In the former place Paul gave thanks for their ἐκλογή, here in the same sense: ὅτιεἵλατοὑμᾶς (this Alexandrian form, instead of the Rec. εἵλετο is given by nearly all the uncials). For you, which is now more fully explained: to wit, that God chose you. Elsewhere Paul says ἐκλέγεσθαι, to select for one’s self; only here, αἱρεῖσθαι, to choose, that is, for something, here εἰςσωτηρίαν; in the Septuagint the word is not of rare occurrence; for example, Deuteronomy 21:18, of the choosing of the people of God. Instead of ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, Hofmann also prefers the reading ἀπαρχήν, which cannot be understood as in Romans 16:5 and 1 Corinthians 16:15. Lόnemann observes that the Thessalonians could not be so called, since they were neither generally, nor even in Macedonia merely, the first that believed. This reading is one of the considerations by which Grotius would support his strange hypothesis, that the Epistle was addressed to Christians from Judea. Hofmann, according the reference to earlier or later conversion, finds here simply the idea of firstfruits consecrated to God, in opposition to the mass of the profane, and compares Revelation 14:4. But the reading is too feebly supported. We therefore adhere to ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, from the beginning. Is this, however, to be taken relatively, or absolutely? Such as prefer the former idea understand it as Zwingli: ab initio prζdicationis, amongst you, or in Macedonia generally. Nor can it be positively required that in this case there should have been an addition like that in Philippians 4:15 (τοῦ εὐαγγελίου); for even without any addition the expression has this signification at 1 John 2:7; 1 John 2:24. But certainly the connection there favors this view, as it does not here; for even to say, that the phrase is to be explained in opposition to the last things, does not suggest this limitation: in the beginning of the gospel. Moreover, the expression so understood would imply that the time, when Paul wrote, was already considerably remote from the time when the church was founded. Calvin remarks still further, that he meant to furnish a ground of consolation, which should be available, not merely for those converted at the commencement of preaching, but for all the elect. But the decisive consideration is this, that that restriction does not suit εἵλατο. God’s election is eternal, and only the accomplishment of it by means of the call takes place in time. It is therefore equivalent to from eternity, as we men can form a conception of that; so far as we can go back in thought; or to πρὸ καταβολῆςκόσμου (Ephesians 1:4; comp. 2 Timothy 1:9). Ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς is similarly used in 1 John 1:1; 1 John 2:13; Isaiah 43:13 Sept.; and thus it is understood by Calvin, Bengel, and the moderns generally. He hath chosen us to salvation, in opposition to those who received not the truth that they might be saved (2 Thessalonians 2:10). In the subsequent ἐνἁγ. alongside of εἰς De Wette would find an indication of the nearest object (1 Thessalonians 4:7): to sanctification; but in this way the change of the preposition would be ill accounted for. The ἐν, &c. cannot belong to εἵλατο, since the objective purpose of free grace is not conditioned by the subjective process in us. Even Lόnemann’s view, that it belongs to the whole of εἵλατοεἰςσωτηρίαν, and denotes the means through which the past election to eternal salvation should be realized, is liable to the same objection: It is not the election, but the being saved, that is accomplished in sanctification; Hofmann: The choosing does not need this means. In is instrumental—equivalent to by means of, as already Chrysostom explains ἐν by διά, and has a close connection with εἰςσωτηρίαν, as Theophylact intimates: ἔσωσενὑμᾶς, ἁγιάσαςδιὰ τοῦ πνεύματος. Sanctification is now inwardly the aim of the Divine counsel towards us (1 Thessalonians 4:3), in opposition to the having pleasure in unrighteousness (2 Thessalonians 2:12); it is the way likewise to the future outward δόξα (2 Thessalonians 2:14). But how are the two following genitives to be understood? ἀληθείας must be a genitive of the object, as in Philippians 1:27; but πνεύματος is not essentially so co-ordinate as that the parallelism could force us to understand that genitive in the same way. Were πνεύματος also a genitive of the object, it would denote man’s own spirit, which is to be sanctified through the operation of the Holy Ghost, and then rule the whole man. It would be strange, however, and contrary to 1 Thessalonians 5:23, that the spirit alone should be designated as the object of sanctification. And since even so the parallelism would not be at all a conclusive one, it is better to give it up entirely, and regard πν. (with Theophylact, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, and most of the moderns) as a genitive of the author: in sanctification proceeding from the (Holy) Spirit (1 Peter 1:2); and faith of the (Divine) truth, the latter clause being opposed to belief of the lie (2 Thessalonians 2:11). It is unsuitable to explain ἀληθείας as an adjective: in true faith (Chrysostom, Pelt). Olshausen makes a great difficulty of the fact, that the first thing in order (faith) here follows after, and therefore thinks we must here understand that faith perfected in judgment, which already presupposes sanctification; similarly Chrysostom, Theophylact: Even after sanctification we require much faith, that we may not fall away from it. But it is simpler to understand with Lόnemann, that the objective, the working of the Holy Spirit (whose final aim in this world is sanctification), is followed by the subjective, the receptivity of faith for the Holy Spirit’s operation; faith following on ἁγιασμός, as the first thing that the Holy Spirit works, and as the way to the achievement of sanctification. [Webster and Wilkinson: No precedence of time, or sequence of cause and effect is to be inferred from the order of the clauses; cf. 1 Corinthians 6:11. Holiness which is ascribed and is due to the immediate action of the Holy Spirit, is also produced instrumentally by belief. And belief is the result of the Holy Spirit’s influence upon the heart, an influence which changes and sanctifies.—J. L.] The truth is to be understood here in its highest perfection, as in John 14:6; John 18:37; whoever is faithful in the first principles of truth, is then open to the voice of truth in its perfection. The contrast to this is, that ἀδικία, on the other hand, rushes into bondage under falsehood (2 Thessalonians 2:11).—Whereunto He called you; it is not said εἰςἣν (πίστιν, or some such word), but εἰςὅ, so as to embrace all that precedes; whereunto, namely, to this σωθῆναιἐνἁγ. καὶ πίστ. (Lόnemann). The γαλεῖν is the carrying out of the εἵλατο; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; 1 Thessalonians 4:17.—By our gospel, our preaching of the glad tidings (1 Thessalonians 1:5); the gospel which we proclaim (to that extent only, ours; Romans 2:16). [Burkitt: “It is also a word of esteem, love, and affection; what we love, we call ours.”—J. L.] This is the historic condition; how can they believe, if there be no preaching? (Romans 10:14.) Now follows a second εἰς, an explanatory apposition to εἰςὅ, or the final object of faith and sanctification—a distinction of no importance, and depending merely on whether we understand the σώζεσθαι, contained substantially in εἰςὅ, in a narrower or a comprehensive sense. At all events the Apostle is now speaking of the final consummation of the σωτηρία: to the obtaining, acquisition, taking possession, of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ; to a participation therein, to be glorified with Him. So we are to understand περιποίησις (comp. 1 Thessalonians 5:9), with Grotius, Olshausen, De Wette, Lόnemann, Ewald, Hofmann. Incorrectly Luther [Calvin, and others. See the Revision on this verse, Note e.—J. L.]: for a glorious possession of Christ, namely, that we should become so; but it is not well to sink δόξης to a merely adjectival idea, and in the explanation of περιπ. to vary from 1 Thessalonians 5:9. Paul does not mean merely: Thy purchased heritage, but: Thy purchased heir am I. Still more unsuitable is the explanation of Chrysostom, Theophylact [Vatablus, Corn, a Lapide], and others: to acquire glory for Christ, the glory of Christ, the Friend of man, consisting in the salvation of many. The thought would be a beautiful one, but in that case we must have had τῷ κυρίῳ. What Paul says is rather in substance the same as in Romans 5:2; Romans 8:17; Romans 8:29; Philippians 3:21; John 17:22 sqq. (participation in the life of Christ’s glorification). Such is the description of the final consummation of the redemptive work: the receiving of spiritual life, powerful, and exempt from death. That will be the crowning of the last stage—of sanctification, namely—that is aimed at in the unglorified, earthly life. The destiny thus promised to the Thessalonians is confirmed by the exhortation that follows. 2. (2 Thessalonians 2:15.) So then, brethren, stand [fast]; since such an end awaits you, and God overlooks nothing that concerns you, do you your part. Encouragement (by a thankful recognition of the good that exists) and exhortation stand always together in reciprocal relation. [Webster and Wilkinson: The most assured hope of salvation does not render exertion and admonition unnecessary; on the contrary, the exhortation to steadfastness and watchfulness here follows as an inference from the assertion of certain safety.—J. L.] Stand fast (1 Thessalonians 3:8) in the conflict; opposed to the σαλευθῆναι of 2 Thessalonians 2:2; and hold (the same word in Mark 7:3, of the Pharisees), nil addentes, nil detrahentes, Bengel; in order to personal steadfastness it is required to hold fast the traditions [instructions]; Luther: Satzungen [statutes]; Zwingli: institution; Calvin rightly: not merely external discipline, but whatever was offered to you in doctrine and precept for knowledge and practice. We are not to think so much of transmission from fathers to children, as of the delivery of that which the Apostle had received for them from God; comp. παρέδωκα of Christ’s death on the cross, 1 Corinthians 15:3; of the Lord’s Supper, 1 Corinthians 11:23; τὰςπαραδόσειςκατέχετε (as here κρατεῖτε), 1 Corinthians 11:2.—Which ye were taught (comp. Winer, § 32. 5); whether by word (at first, oral preaching) or by epistle (the subsequent confirmation) of us; ἡμῶν belongs to both substantives, word and epistle denoting merely two different forms for the same substance, and εἴτε—εἴτε showing the closeness of the connection (1 Corinthians 13:8); Zwingli: quζcunque docui sive prζsens, sive absens. By δι’ ἐπιστ. without the article is denoted not any single particular epistle, but the one method of instruction over against the other; not merely therefore the First Epistle, though, of course, the expression suits that in the first instance, but they should also hold what they were taught in this Second Epistle, and, should he follow it with a third, they were to lay that likewise to heart, and generally to give heed also to the epistolary instruction (comp. 1 Thessalonians 5:27), holding fast whatever in word or writing really comes from him, and is not merely ascribed to him falsely, as that letter of 2 Thessalonians 2:2. 3. (2 Thessalonians 2:16-17.) But may He Himself, &c.—The Apostle concludes the section with a benediction, as at 1 Thessalonians 3:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:23. He Himself, not merely we, who taught you; not merely you, whom we exhort: στήκετε.—Our Lord Jesus Christ and our God and Father; Father, that is, through Christ. Commmonly the Apostle follows the reverse order; but here he goes back from Christ (who is for us also possessor of the glory that was last spoken of) to the Father, the ultimate ground of all blessedness, the ultimate Source of all exhortation, comfort, and confirmation. Theodoret (in the interest of the controversy with Arius) finds herein a proof, that the sequence of the names is no indication of a difference of dignity—Who loved us (all Christians) and gave us everlasting consolation (flowing from this love). The root of all is the unmerited love of God; the aorist denotes the historical proof of love, the work of redemption (comp. Ephesians 2:4; John 3:16; 1 John 4:10); the same thing is said of Christ, Galatians 2:20 [Ephesians 5:2; Ephesians 5:25], The everlasting consolation is by Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others, improperly taken as synonymous with hope; Pelt interprets it of the everlasting blessedness (Luke 6:24; Luke 16:25 : to be comforted). The latter is no doubt the highest end, but too far from being a present attainment, and still too tautological with what follows. Properly to distinguish it from that, we understand by everlasting consolation something real, now already present, which makes us of good courage now under the distress of the present time; not so personal, as in Zwingli’s explanation: quζ est ista consolatio? Christus Jesus; but yet a benefit now already granted us in Christ, and showing itself to be an inexhaustible source of joy; namely, reconciliation with God as the foundation of all further hope. With this the hope of the consummation of glory is connected also in Romans 5:1-2; and the same truth in a somewhat different combination is expressed likewise in Romans 8:28 sqq.—And good hope; with which should be compared the blessed hope of Tit 2:13, in heaven, Colossians 1:5, which non-Christians, the heathen especially, do not have, 1 Thessalonians 4:13.—In grace, without merit of ours, is best referred to δούς, not so well (with De Wette, Lόnemann [Castalio, Estius]) to both participles (it being less suited to ἀγαπ.). This is the foundation of his confident intercession: Such a God is ours, and in accordance with this His disposition I am able to desire for you, that He may comfort your hearts; for the two subjects the verb stands only in the singular (1 Thessalonians 3:11); the two are one, even in the innermost and most glorious operations of grace. Herein shines the Divinity of Christ; it is not possible that the name of any man could be so often joined with the name of God. It is better here to understand the calling to [zusprechen, παρακαλέσαι] on the side of comforting encouragement, than on that of exhortation [as in 1 Thessalonians 3:2; see there Exegetical Note 5.—J. L.]; the question is about their holding faith, and being free from fear and anxiety (2 Thessalonians 2:2), even in view of the aggravation of their afflictions; comp. Psalms 119:32.—[ Ellicott: “The Apostle does not say merely ὑμᾶς, but ὑμῶντὰςκαρδίας (comp. Colossians 2:2); it was the καρδία, the seat of their feelings and affections, … the καρδία that was so full of hope and fear about the future, that the Apostle prayed might receive comfort.”—J. L.]—And establish, &c.; if we do not read ὑμᾶς, it is simplest to regard the preceding καρδίας as still the object; it is less natural to supply in thought, with Lόnemann [and most others; see Critical Note 10.—J. L.], a ὑμᾶς out of ὑμῶν. May He strengthen [establish] them, that your sanctification may be perfected, and ye be not entangled in the apostasy of Christendom.—In every good work and word; not by work and word [Chrysostom, Theophylact, Bengel], to wit, God’s work and God’s word; but with this παντί does not well agree, and ἀγαθῷ still less; since in that case no distinction would be necessary between good and bad. The adjective belongs to both substantives, not, as Luther translates, in every doctrine and good work. Nor is λόγος properly restricted to the idea of doctrine, as Calvin too would have it: sana doctrina, and Pelt, because, he says, it so stands at 2 Thessalonians 2:15. But there the connection is different, the parallel member in this instance being ἔργῳ, which comprehends every action, and so does λόγῳ likewise (especially with παντί) every good word; Zwingli: bonus sermo. Doctrine is a part of that. The order, word and work, would be ascensive; in the more strongly supported reading work has the precedence as being the main thing; that must speak first of all. May God strengthen you in every good work wherein you are engaged (in opposition to unrighteousness), and then also in every good word, of truth, faith, love (in opposition to falsehood); when it comes from the bottom of the heart, and corresponds to the work, it is itself a work, yea, the criterion of perfectness (James 3:2). AND ETHICAL1. (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14.) On election, see at 1 Thessalonians 1:4 and 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24. There is no question of a capricious preference of one, and disregard of another; such partial views are not taken by faith as faith; rather, in those who believe the consciousness prevails, that their salvation is not at all founded on their own merit. A faith even, which should be ever looking only at itself, would for that very reason be constantly threatened again with disturbance and agitation. Assurance is maintained only by going out from self, and casting one’s self on the everlasting love and grace, whose purpose from the beginning, before the creation of the world, was the salvation of believers. Excellently Rieger: In the description of the most formidable troubles eternal election is often introduced as the shelter of the saints, Matthew 24:22; Matthew 24:31; Revelation 13:8; Revelation 17:8. But that which comes first is not the triumphal song of Romans 8, but the way of righteousness (Romans 1-7). Election provides a secret deposit; sanctification is election disclosed; and the root of that is faith in the truth. But how does one become sure of his election? Rieger: The purpose is seen in its accomplishment; the building shows the plan.—Calvin: Because we are unable to penetrate into the secret counsel of God, that we may there become certain of our salvation, He gives us more accessible tokens and pledges of our election, to wit, in our sanctification by His Spirit, and our illumination in order to faith in His gospel,—Bφhl: The Second Helvetic Confession (Vienna, 1864), p. 2Th 19: It is in the way that we are to discover, whether we are on the way; we should not torment ourselves and others with the inquiry, whether even before the foundation of the world we were put on this way; we are rather to examine ourselves whether we have the way beneath our feet; and Christ is that way.—For the same reason we are not at liberty to place a false reliance on a donum perseverantiζ, as if we could be sure of any such thing out of Christ. The following admonition to steadfastness (comp. 2 Peter 1:10) is seriously meant, and so is the benediction with which the section concludes. 2. (2 Thessalonians 2:15.) This verse is one of the words, by which of old (as early as Chrysostom) it was proposed to show the equal authority of oral tradition alongside of Scripture. But when John Damascene with this amongst others defends the worship of images, we have a striking instance of pretended tradition in conflict with Scripture. It is indeed clear, and no one contests it, that Christ did and spake many things that are not recorded, and in like manner that the preaching of the Apostles was first of all oral, which was then fixed and ascertained by writing; of course, in a short Epistle like ours, only very partially, still so as to guard against misapprehension and deterioration of doctrine. If then it is said that we are to believe also oral tradition, we answer: Yes, when its apostolic origin and character are proved to us. But this very chapter shows us, how quickly the oral teaching was forgotten (2 Thessalonians 2:5), and was subjected to misconceptions or even falsifications (2 Thessalonians 2:2), so that it needed to be corrected and certified. The evangelist John also says (John 20:30-31), that Jesus truly did many things which are not written, but that the preceding selection was written for the confirmation of faith in the Son of God, and of life in that faith. For this, therefore, the written word is a sufficient source, and for whatever claims to be apostolic the only authentic rule. But can that be a genuine tradition, which contradicts the written gospel? Paul knows simply a double form for one and the same substance, nothing of additions that introduce a new and heterogeneous substance. In point of fact, there is beside the Bible no well-attested tradition. Zwingli: Paul, however, had taught nothing else but the gospel of Jesus Christ. Calvin: When Paul will cast no snare on the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 7:35), how do they pretend to give out all their self-made ordinances as of equal dignity with the Pauline? Heubner: Paul does not say, that the tenor of the oral teaching was different from that of the written. [Macknight: No doctrines merit the name of traditions in the Scripture sense of the word, but such as were taught by the Apostles of Christ, or by other spiritual men, who received them by immediate revelation from Him.—J. L.]—It must be considered, on the other hand, how emphatically the Apostle here asserts the authority of his written word. It is no dead letter, but a seed-corn that is quickened in every susceptible heart. We know also that generally the written word is still more carefully weighed than that which is spoken. Many have an unintelligent aversion to all authority. They confound it with coercion and bondage. But authority is such an ascendency as rests on intellectual preλminence, commends itself to rational conviction, and educates the obedient into true freedom. The mere fact that men are not self-created, implies that they cannot be absolutely autonomous; to say nothing of sinners, who need redemption. The true freedom is that with which the Son makes free (John 8:36), and the means to this emancipation is holding fast His word in the obedience of faith. The highest freedom and joy is to live and move in the word of truth. 3. (2 Thessalonians 2:16-17.) Evangelical comfort is something different from a transient and essentially vain feeding with illusions. Christ and His Apostles seem first to trouble the hearts of those whom they comfort, and show them that there may come a much severer experience than the frivolous mind imagines, but that all comes from God and for the promotion of His kingdom. To have God for ours, throughout even the hardest fortune, such is the everlasting consolation of the gospel. We must not at once think of the worst, that it will not turn out so bad; this is to comfort with unwholesome vanities, after the manner of the world. Such theoretical optimists readily become, when things go ill, practical pessimists, and in their despair disgracefully lay down their arms. It is better to be theoretically a pessimist, prepared for the worst, and practically through the grace of God an optimist, confident even in the worst.—[ Jowett: The Greek philosopher would have spoken of wisdom as an ἰάτρειαψυχῆς, as we speak of the gospel as remedial to the ills of human nature. St. Paul uses stronger language; with him the gospel is a consolation. Within and without, the Christian is suffering in this evil world. The gospel makes him sensible of this state, and at the same time turns his sorrow into joy.… Romans 15:5; 2 Corinthians 1:3.—J. L.] AND 2 Thessalonians 2:13. Rieger: With every contemplation of what the enemy has done and will yet do, the servants of God nevertheless lose not their joy in God’s husbandry [Matthew 13:25; Matthew 13:28; 1 Corinthians 3:9]; they are merely driven the more under the wings of God’s grace.—Heubner: The election of a man to salvation is for others also a subject of thanksgiving.—Diedrich: Allow thyself to be sanctified in faith, and it is certain that thou art eternally chosen.—Chrysostom: Not by works, not by righteous conduct, but by faith of the truth do we attain to salvation.—Stockmeyer: So we resist not this will of God, but yield ourselves to it, who shall be able to hinder its being carried through to a glorious issue?—Berlenb. Bibel: They who perish are ruined, not because they are absolutely rejected, but because they have no care for the truth. Believers are preserved, not because they deserve it, but because they cleave earnestly to God. Whoever concerns himself about the truth, so as to lay hold on God, is saved. But whoever meddles with God’s word, and that not rightly, is only made worse by it.—[ Burkitt: 1. Election is to the means as well as to the end. 2. Sanctification and holiness, not the cause of our election, but the effect and fruit of it. 3. Sanctification being the fruit, it is also the evidence of our election. 4. The necessary connection between the sanctification of the Spirit, and the belief of the truth.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 2:14. Zwingli: The gospel is God’s alone; but ofttimes God communicates to us what is His. Paul could say that the gospel was his, as regards service and office.—Diedrich: Whatever Jesus has, that according to the will of the Father is also to be wholly ours. 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Over against the Antichristian deception, it concerns us to abide the more firmly by the word; only by the word can we overcome, as Christ overcame; Matthew 4.—[M. Henry: He doth not say, Ye are chosen to salvation, and therefore ye may be careless and secure; but therefore stand fast. Comp. 1 John 2:27-28.—Lectures: An unwavering adherence to apostolic teaching is at once the great manifestation, and an essential condition, of Christian stability.—J. L.] [Whitby: How can she (the Church of Rome) be relied on as a sure preserver and true teacher of (unwritten) traditions, which hath confessedly (Anselm, Estius) lost one of great moment (2 Thessalonians 2:5-6), deposited with the Thessalonians, and the primitive Church?—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 2:15-17. Stockmeyer: There is no success without our own earnest willing and doing, nor without our own pains and labor; but the power which worketh in us both to will and to do is the Lord’s. For this reason also, the Apostle is able to express what he had on his heart, in behalf of those who had become believing Christians, in a twofold manner, as an exhortation, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and again as a benediction and intercession, 2 Thessalonians 2:16-17. The one does not exclude the other. The one is possible only through the other. 2 Thessalonians 2:16. There is mention of a good hope also in Proverbs 10:28; Proverbs 11:23.—[Lectures: Good, because of the preλminent excellence of the object of it, the impregnable basis on which it rests, and the purifying influence which it exerts in the heart and life.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 2:16-17. Roos: Whoever has no experience of the love of God, and has obtained no consolation reaching into eternity, and no good hope through grace, on that man no doctrine and no exhortation to good works has any hold. When God comforts, He strengthens the soul, and when He strengthens, He comforts it.—[M. Henry: 1. Comfort is a means of establishment; for the more pleasure we take in the word, and work, and ways of God, the more likely we shall be to persevere therein. And, 2. our establishment in the ways of God is a likely means in order to comfort; whereas if we are wavering in faith, and of a doubtful mind, or if we are halting and faltering in our duty, no wonder if we are strangers to the pleasures and joys of religion. What is it that lieth at the bottom of all our uneasiness, but our unsteadiness in religion?—J. L.]—Heubner: The consolation of Christianity is an everlasting consolation, true, certain, satisfying, a consolation of salvation; the consolation of the world is a spurious, pitiful consolation, which leads the deeper into perdition. God alone can put comfort into the heart, penetrating and abiding. Here is comfort: God loves thee, God chooses thee, God keeps thee.—Berlenb. Bibel: The everlasting consolation is a permanent, new-created life of the spirit, implanted amidst the anguish of suffering in truly following Jesus Christ, and so not liable to death or destruction. 2 Thessalonians 2:17. Word and walk must always go together. 2 Thessalonians 2:13-17. The good assurance of an evangelical preacher in behalf of his converts rests entirely, in its beginning, middle, and end, on God: 1. Eternal election, fulfilling itself in time in the call to faith and sanctification, makes the beginning; 2. the exhortation to steadfastness in apostolic truth forms the middle; 3. the end can be prosperous only by God carrying out in His everlasting faithfulness the work that He has begun. Footnotes: 2 Thessalonians 2:13.—[Sin.1 A.: ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 2:13.—[ εἵλατο—so nearly all the critical editors (on large uncial authority, including Sin.), instead of the Rec. εἵλετο—ὑμᾶςὁ θεὸςἀπ’ ἀρχῆς.—J. L.] We retain the Rec. ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, which, besides A. D. E. K. L. and most of the Fathers, is given also by the Sin. The reading ἀπαρχήν, B. F. G., Vulg. primitias [Lachmann], is an (unnecessary) attempt at alleviation; see the exposition.—[Sin.Ή D.Ή: εἵλ. ἡμᾶς.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 2:13.—[ἐν; comp. 1 Thessalonians 4:7, and see the exposition.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 2:13.—[ πίστει with the genitive of the object. Revision: “See E. V, Mark 11:22; Acts 3:16. Nowhere else, out of two or three hundred instances, does E. V. render πίστις, belief.”—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 2:14.—The connection requires ὑμᾶς, which, besides many other authorities, is retained also by Sin.; itacism led in A. B. D.Ή to the reading ἡμᾶς [Lachmann.—Sin. F. G.: εἰςὅ καὶ ἐκ.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 2:15.—[ ἄραοὖν. See 1 Thessalonians 5:6. Critical Note 9.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 2:15.—[ παραδόσεις; Riggenbach: Ueberlieferungen. Revision: “Campbell: ‘The word tradition with us imports, as the English lexicographer rightly explains it, “anything delivered orally from age to age;” whereas παράδοσις properly implies, “anything handed down from former ages, in whatever way it has been transmitted, whether by oral or by written testimony; or even any instruction conveyed to others, either by word or by writing.” In this last acceptation we find it used in … 2 Thessalonians 2:15.’ ”—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 2:15.—[ διὰ λόγουεἴτεδι’ ἐπιστολῆςἡμῶν=by word or by epistle of us. Ellicott (Am. Bible Union): by word, or by our epistle (letter). But the ἡμῶν belongs to both nouns.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 2:16.—[ αὐτὸςδὲ ὁ κύριοςἡμῶνἸησοῦςΧριστὸςκαὶ ὁ θεὸςκαὶ πατὴρἡμῶν. The grammatical construction is the same as in 1 Thessalonians 3:11, where see Critical Note 8, and Exegetical Notes 9, 10.—J. L.] The reading καὶ θεός without ὁ seems to connect θεός as another predicate for Christ with the previous κύριος; but the most important authorities that omit the article before θεός (B. D.Ή) read for it afterwards ὁ πατήρ instead of καὶ πατἠρ, so that even this reading gives no different sense from the Recepta. [Lachmann reads thus: ὁ χριστὸςκαὶ (ὁ) θεὸςὁ πατήρ; Sin.Ή thus: Ἰησ. Χρ. καὶ ὁ θεὸςὁ πατήρἡμῶν; and a correction cancels the letter ὁ.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 2:17.—The majority of the oldest codd. [including Sin.] versions and Fathers [and modern critics] omit ὑμᾶς after στηρίξαι, so that to this verb τὰςκαρδίας also belongs as object [to which Alford properly objects that these are not the agents in ἔργον and λόγος.—For ὑμῶντὰςκαρδίας, Sin., as A., reads τὰςκαρδίαςὑμῶν.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 2:17.—The preponderance of authorities (also Sin.) is in favor of the order, ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ [and so nearly all the critical editors], instead of the reverse order of the Recepta.[So Riggenbagh, with many others (as Luther, Lόnemann, De Wette, Ellicott, &c.), prefers to render the ὅτι.—J. L.] [Ellicott: “The prep. ἐν may be instrumental (Chrysost., Lόnem., al.) but is perhaps more naturally taken in its usual sense as denoting the spiritual state in which the εἵλατοεἰςσωτηρίαν was realized.” Webster and Wilkinson: “ἐνἁγ. following εἵλ. indicates that their present state, character, and qualification for future blessedness, are the effect of God’s choice, involved in it, as part of His original purpose of grace towards them. So in 2 Peter 1:1-2. And see Romans 8:29; Ephesians 1:4-6.”—J. L.] [Better this, than to call it with Ellicott “a more exact specification of the preceding εἰςσωτηρίαν.”—J. L.] [Chrysostom employs the same argument.—J. L.] [Lectures, p. 2Th 552: “Who laved us. This is sometimes restricted to God the Father” (Lόnemann, Ellicott), “and to His act of sending the Son to save us” (Lόnemann, Riggenbach). “I prefer to understand it of the eternal love—the love ‘from the beginning’ of both the Father and the Son. (To this the singular is no objection, since this very anomaly is admitted in the next verse.) And then the latter half of the verse refers to the manifestation and effects of that love in time: and gave us, in the finished redemption of the cross, in the forgiveness of sin, in the presence of the Comforter, &c.” The same distinction will be found applicable to nearly all the texts cited above.—J. L.] [Luther’s somewhat free translation of the latter clause of that verse being: Wenn du mein Herz trφstest, dost comfort, &c.”—J. L.] [In this is implied, what Scripture no doubt teaches, that election is the Divine root of faith. See 2 Thessalonians 2:13; John 6:37; Acts 13:48; Romans 8:28-30; Ephesians 2:8; 1 Peter 1:2; &c.—J. L.] [In things pertaining to God, on a Divine commission.—J. L.] [Luther’s version of the latter text: Der Gerechten Wansch muss doch wonl gerathen.—J. L.] III Closing Exhortations 1. 2 Thessalonians 3:1-5 The Apostle seeks their prayers, and commends to them generally a faithful perseverance in the true Christian spirit 1Finally, brethren, pray [Greek order: pray, brethren,] for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course [may run] and be glorified, even as it is with you [also with you]; 2And that we may be delivered from unreasonable [perverse] and wicked men: for all men have not faith [not all have faith]. 3But the Lord is faithful [faithful is the Lord], who shall stablish [establish] you, 4and keep you from evil [or: the evil one]. And [But] we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you. 5And the Lord direct [But may the Lord direct] your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ [the patience of Christ]. AND 1. (2 Thessalonians 3:1-2.) Finally, pray, &c.—Τὸ λοιπόν (here the article is wanting only in F. G.), equivalent to λοιπόν, 1 Thessalonians 4:1 [Ellicott: “but, owing to the article, slightly more specific.” Comp. 1 Thessalonians 4:1, Exeg. Note 1.—J. L.]. Grotius: Vox properantis ad finem. It might be understood temporally: henceforth; but here it is better to take it in the sense of furthermore, moreover, what I have still to say, after the leading instruction on the subject of the last things. Pray for us (see 1 Thessalonians 5:25, and the note there), as we for you. These words also show the conclusion to be near. The subject of the prayer is again expressed in the form of purpose. It is a thoroughly disinterested prayer that he contemplates; not for his own personal concern, but for a main object of his apostolic calling (comp. Ephesians 6:19); not, that God would strengthen him in faith;—Paul did not, indeed, assume any such lofty position, as that he himself could not be a castaway (1 Corinthians 9:27); yet it would have been contrary to decorum, to ask his children for their prayers in that regard [?];—but, that the word of the Lord may run; the word of the Lord (1 Thessalonians 1:8), or the word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13), is the gospel. At 1 Thessalonians 4:15 the phrase had a somewhat more specific meaning. To run is to fulfil its course swiftly and without hindrance; not bound (2 Timothy 2:9); to spread itself to where it is not yet; and, where it is already, to bestir itself, and come into proper circulation. [Comp. the Sept. Psalms 147:15 : ἕωςτάχουςδραμεῖταιὁ λόγοςαὑτοῦ.—J. L.]—And be glorified, not merely commended, and its glory recognized (Acts 13:48), but really glorified by its fruit, and actual demonstration of its Divine power and truth; Calvin: in the renewal of men into the image of Christ; whereby, certainly, are called forth many praises to God (comp. 2 Thessalonians 1:12; Romans 11:13).—Even as it is also with you (1 Thessalonians 3:4); be thus cheers them (comp. 1 Thessalonians 2:13). Your prayers are to help the missionary work. The two present tenses after ἵνα denoted something continuous; whereas the aorist subjunctive with the second ἵνα: and that we may he delivered, marks a single occasion, deliverance from an actually existing peril. Here now in the second instance is a question of personal preservation, but here also again with a view to his office, that he may be kept safe for that. We may mean I Paul, or else I and Silvanus and Timothy; but certainly not, I and you Thessalonians, since he reverts to them again at 2 Thessalonians 3:3. Theodoret remarks that the prayer seems to be twofold, and yet is but one; for when the ungodly are subdued, the word of the message also has unobstructed course. Theophylact: He prays thus, not that he may run no danger, for to that he was even appointed. But we cannot understand the deliverance as does Calvin: sive per mortem, sive per vitam; for his desire here is to be preserved to his earthly office. The ἄτοποι are properly such as are not in their place; the neuter denotes at Luke 23:41 a criminal act; the masculine is here rendered by the Vulgate, importunis; Cicero explains it once by ineptus; but here it signifies not merely people who act improperly, but such as hinder and resist Divine and human order; Wetstein: facinorosus, flagitiosus. Still there is rather couched in the expression a certain reserve, though it does denote perverse, base men; Berlenb. Bibel [Bengel]: ungereimte [absurd]; and then πονηρός has a more forcible import: bad, wicked. Paul has in his mind deliverance from snares, as at Romans 15:31; for it would be a mistake to think of the contradiction of heretics (Chrysostom, Theophylact: such as Hymenζus and Alexander; Zwingli thinks that Paul intends hypocrites and false brethren; Calvin: at least faithless Christians in name, along with furious Jewish zealots). The early date of the Epistle does not accord with the idea of false teachers, but very well with that of fanatical Jews, who expressly laid wait for the Apostle at Corinth (De Wette and the moderns generally); Acts 18:9-10 answering perfectly to our 2 Thessalonians 3:1, and Acts 18:12 sqq. (the accusation before Gallio) to our 2 Thessalonians 3:2. This again is a fine stroke of unstudied, artless coincidence with the apostolic history; a proof of genuineness.—For not all have faith. He thus gives the reason why he is compelled to speak of such men, from whose hands the point is to be delivered, and for whom one cannot simply pray: Convert them! (comp. John 17:9 with John 5:20). Some allege that Paul cannot be bringing forward the common-place: All do not believe, and thence infer that we must understand his meaning to be: It is not all who pass for Christians, that have true faith (so Calvin [Jowett] and others); they therefore think that the adversaries are (Calvin: at least in part) false Christians. But there is thus introduced what is not found in the expression, ἡ πίστις meaning Christian faith absolutely, not true faith in opposition to that which is merely pretended. However, the sentence is no bare commonplace; nor yet is it suitable, as the phrase is abused for a frivolous excuse; and as little is it an assertion of the absolute Divine decree, as if God were unwilling to give faith to all; but a grievous charge: There are even people too ἄτοποικαὶ πονηροί, treacherous and impure, to be susceptible of faith. It is a fine remark of Bengel, how appropriately Paul writes thus to those very Thessalonians who had been so prompt to believe: Be not surprised, if this is not the case with all. 2. (2 Thessalonians 3:3.) But faithful is the Lord.—Not in German, but in Greek [and English] there is observable an antithesis between πιστός and πίστις of 2 Thessalonians 3:2 (comp. 2 Timothy 2:13). But this is no reason for translating that πίστις by faithfulness; ἡ πίστις denotes Christian faith; but this is essentially faithfulness to God, trust in His faithfulness, whereas unbelief is faithlessness, distrust of His grace. There is peril in having to live amongst such unbelieving and therefore also faithless men. To this grief, therefore, he at once opposes the consolation—to man’s unfaithfulness the invariable faithfulness of God. The faithful Lord suffers not the ἀτόπουςκαὶ πονηρούς to get the upper hand. The Lord (according to the best reading) is Christ. That it can here, as in the Septuagint, mean only God (namely, the Father), is asserted by Hilgenfeld in the interest of the spuriousness of the Epistle, but without any valid reason (comp. 1 Corinthians 16:7 along with Romans 1:10). It is to be observed that Paul does not dwell on his own distresses, but the reflection, that the Thessalonians in their locality have the same experience of human wickedness as himself in Corinth, leads him at once back again to his own afflicted spiritual children, who are, indeed, as yet less experienced than he.—Who shall establish you (not simply may, 2 Thessalonians 2:17), so that such as have not faith shall not be able to drag you off with them; and keep you from the evil. How this last word is to be taken is doubtful, as in Matthew 6:13; John 17:15, and elsewhere. It may be that it is to be understood as neuter, as at Romans 12:9 : from the evil with which perhaps bad men threaten you; the Lord will keep you, so that whatever is done to you outwardly shall do you no inward hurt, and that which is properly πονηρόν shall not come to you, nor shall you be worsted in the conflict; and He will also so far avert outward harm, that the trial become not too severe (1 Corinthians 10:13). Possibly, however, it is to be regarded as masculine; ὁ πονηρός, the Prince of evil, whose instruments evil men are, dares not touch you (comp. Ephesians 6:16; 1 John 2:13; 1 John 5:18). It is at any rate improper to take the singular: the evil (man) as collective for evil men [the Dutch Annotations, Koppe, Rosenmόller, Flatt, allow this interpretation.—J. L.]. But Lόnemann’s assertion that it must be understood as neutral, on account of the opposition to 2 Thessalonians 2:17 [a point which Alford also makes.—J. L.], is groundless; especially after the separation made by τὸ λοιπόν (2 Thessalonians 3:1), of which, indeed, Lόnemann generally makes too little account (see the close of the Introduction). In favor of the masculine are Calvin, Bengel, Rieger, Von Gerlach, Olshausen [and very many others, from �cumenius and Theophylact to Ellicott and Wordsworth.—J. L.], also Hofmann: From the evil man he comes to the Evil One, who might rob him of the fruit of his labor; we add, by persuasion or else by seduction, and refer to 1 Thessalonians 2:18; 1 Thessalonians 3:5. Whether it be neuter or masculine, Paul’s promise is: God will establish you for the conflict, and protect you in it. 3. (2 Thessalonians 3:4-5.) But we have confidence in the Lord touching you.—After reliance on God, there now follows again (as in 2 Thessalonians 2:15) an exhortation, expressed in the delicate and winning form of confidence. Theodoret: For he is not forcing them, but seeking their free conviction: keep yourselves worthy of this good opinion. You can surely do so, since the Lord strengthens and guards you. This at once leads to, and prepares for, the special exhortation of 2 Thessalonians 3:6 sqq. In the Lord, the same expression as in Galatians 5:10; comp. Philippians 2:24; Romans 14:14. In Him our confidence in you has its strong foundation; we boast not of the flesh, and place not our hope in you as men, but only in the Lord; and yet in the Lord touching you; because ye stand in Him as we do; ye will thus receive the exhortation in the name of the Lord, and the Lord in whom ye stand will guide your hearts, and make you willing and able. The verb παραγγέλλειν is found also at 1 Thessalonians 4:11, and the substantive παραγγελλία at 1 Thessalonians 4:2; it is synonymous (at least on the practical side) with παράδοσις, 2 Thessalonians 2:15. As faith originated only in an act of obedience, so likewise it is only in this way that it can be maintained. Obedience is thus connected with preservation. By understanding the verse in this way: What we command and ye do, that ye will also do, we should rend asunder what belongs together. Far more natural is this: what we command you, ye both do and will do (henceforward and with a constant improvement). This exhortation he immediately seals again by a precatory benediction: But may the Lord direct, &c. Theodoret: We need both, purpose and strength, from above. The Lord alone can give you success. The Lord is, as always, Christ; not, as Hilgenfeld again decides, God (the Father). Basil the Great, Theodoret, Theophylact [Wordsworth], would have it, that Paul is speaking of the Holy Spirit, because it could not be said: May Christ direct your hearts into the patience of Christ (were this valid, it would hold still more strongly, inasmuch as it concerns the first member of the verse, that it could not be said: May God direct your hearts into the love of God). But the argument is not convincing. It were contrary to the whole usage of the New Testament, to understand by the Lord the Holy Spirit; 2 Corinthians 3:17 (to be explained by 2 Thessalonians 3:6) is of quite another sort. Rather, Christ is repeated at the end of the second member, because it is remote from the subject, and separated from it by θεοῦ (comp., moreover, 1 Corinthians 1:7-8). Thus Christ, the Faithful (2 Thessalonians 3:3), who alone can make you do what is right, in whom alone we have confidence in you (2 Thessalonians 3:4), may He plainly direct (1 Thessalonians 3:11, our way; here) your hearts (2 Chronicles 12:14, Septuagint), so that they reach out sincerely towards the mark. But the passage in Chronicles is not an irrefragable proof, that here also the mark of the κατευθύνειν must necessarily be a proceeding of the Thessalonians; the mark itself might be a Divine concernment, to which their hearts are to reach out in faith and trust. In the case of the first member, the love of God, it would no doubt be simplest to regard the genitive as a genitive of the object: love to God [De Wette, Lόnemann, Alford, Lectures, Ellicott, Webster and Wilkinson, &c.], not the love which God gives or prescribes, though, of course, our love is awakened by a discernment of the love which God has to us. But in the second member a similar explanation does not present itself as quite so natural. Calvin translates: expectationem Christi, and explains it still more distinctly to be the hope of the coming of Christ, under the constant endurance of the cross. Already Chrysostom proposes this view amongst others. And so Hofmann: It denotes the waiting, of him who holds to Christ as his hope; but what he alleges for this,—that, for example, in Jeremiah 14:8 Septuag. God is called the ὑπομονὴ Ἰσραήλ,—is a different expression from what we read here. Even the ἀναμένεινἸησοῦν (1 Thessalonians 1:10), or the ὑπομονὴ τῆςἐλπίδοςτοῦ κυρ. (2 Thessalonians 3:3 there), does not support the assumed sense of ὑπομονὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Proof is wanting, that the last phrase denotes a waiting for Christ. Revelation 3:10 likewise is probably to be understood differently. Moreover, patientia propter Christum prζstita (Bengel) goes beyond the simplest genitive. Nor can we well judge otherwise of the interpretation: “patient, steadfast adherence to Christ.” De Wette appeals on behalf of his explanation: “steadfastness in the cause of Christ,” to παθήματατοῦ Χριστοῦ (2 Corinthians 1:5, and similar phrases in Colossians 1:24; Hebrews 11:26), which, however, is by no means quite homogeneous with the expression before us. But if we explain, as Pelt would have us do (and as Calvin holds to be possible): patience as coming from Christ or as wrought by Him, or with Grotius: cujus causa est Christus, we then exchange the genitive of the object for the genitive of the author. Even the first member Pelt would actually understand in a corresponding way: love, which God infuses into our hearts; but such a sense of ἀγάπηθεοῦ he cannot establish even by his appeal to δικαιοσύνηθεοῦ. Is it necessary, then, that both genitives be taken in the same way? Lόnemann rids himself of the parallelism, and understands the matter thus: love to God (object) and the steadfastness of Christ (genitive of possession); the latter in the sense that it also is ours, in so far as the Christian’s endurance in affliction for the gospel’s sake is essentially the same with the steadfastness that was peculiar to Christ Himself in His sufferings. To this would belong the idea which Chrysostom also admits as possible: endurance as Christ endured. For our own part, we did not consider ourselves bound by the parallelism at 2 Thessalonians 2:13; but there πνεύματος and ἀληθείας were really more heterogeneous than the parallel genitives in our text. Inwardly, also, the latter are too strictly coφrdinate, for us to venture on quitting the parallelism. We should therefore prefer with Olshausen to understand both genitives as genitives of the subject. Nor indeed is it said: May the Lord fill your hearts with love, &c. (which could then be nothing but a dispositon of heart in the Thessalonians), but: May He direct them, according to our understanding, into the love which God has to us, and has especially manifested in the work of redemption, and into the patience of Christ, to wit, that with which He resigned Himself for us to suffering, and at all times supports us. May He direct your hearts to this centre, from which proceeds all the Christian’s strength: the love of God, as most fully revealed in the patience of Christ. This will be to you not merely an example, but a source of strength for withstanding the evil (2 Thessalonians 3:3). The Thessalonians particularly needed this admonition to humility in order to check their eschatological impatience, which showed itself practically in their ἀτάκτωςπεριπατεῖν and περιεργάζεσθαι (2 Thessalonians 3:6; 2 Thessalonians 3:11). The address thus introduces in the most natural way the exhortation that follows. AND ETHICAL1. (2 Thessalonians 3:1.) That the word of God have free course and be glorified is not a thing that happens of itself, but is in part committed also to our fidelity. Every praying person, even though he himself has not the teaching faculty, is on his part a co-worker therein, [Scott: The success of the gospel is as really promoted by fervent prayer, as by faithful preaching.—J. L.] We are not indeed to see life and movement in the Church only where extraordinary phenomena are making a stir. On the in-conspicuous advance of quiet, faithful labor there rests a constant blessing. And yet the drowsy state of nominal Christendom must weigh upon our hearts, and raise the question whether we have been as assiduous as we ought in that spiritual work, which the Apostle requires from Christians. 2. (2 Thessalonians 3:2.) Faith is not every man’s affair—this is a word which, like that other, prove all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21), is often enough subjected to frivolous abuse. Many an individual takes shelter in the subterfuge, that he is not at all organized for faith; for others faith may be the right thing, perhaps even honorable in them; but for him it is impossible to believe; nay, the Apostle himself says, &c. It is, however, of perverse and wicked men that he says, that faith is not for them (see the Verantwortung des christlichen Glaubens, 2d ed., p. 16 sq.). Roos: What is here spoken of is not that natural unaptness for faith, which exists in all men, but an unaptness which a man brings on himself by a prolonged departure from God, and by contracting a Satanic obduracy and wickedness. Stockmeyer: Faith is not a thing that a man has so completely in his own power, that he can say at any moment when he pleases: Now I will believe; there is required a certain preparation of soul, that is not found in every man. But it is a very perverse application of this, to say: “I too belong to the very class that has no concern with faith. What, then, can I do in that direction? And if faith is not every man’s affair, is it so, that so much really depends on faith? is it so, that one can be saved only by faith? Surely God will not be so unjust!” But the Apostle does not say that a man can do nothing in this direction, so that he is innocent in the matter. Whence comes it that the disposition of many men is unsusceptible of faith? Did God make them so? Is it God, who to some only will grant what is necessary to faith, while he refuses and withholds it from others, however earnestly desirous even they may be to obtain it? That be far from Him! The Apostle teaches us to derive all want of susceptibility from a quite different source, even men’s own fault (comp. 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12). He will by no means apologize for unbelief, as if it were an unmerited fate from which some men cannot at all escape. He rather refers us to their own guiltiness, namely, their destitution of love for the truth, and that from the pleasure they have in unrighteousness.—At the commencement especially of a living Christian state we readily suppose, as the truth has become too strong for us, that others also should in like manner yield to it. Or, if that does not happen, we readily fall to blaming our elders and teachers for not having testified the truth with sufficient fervor. They, indeed, are required earnestly to examine themselves, whether they are not chargeable with some neglect or mismanagement. But the example of the Apostles, yes, of Christ Himself, shows us, that even the most faithful preaching is resisted by the natural heart of man. To this fact we must learn, with whatever loving sorrow, to reconcile ourselves, and least of all are we to try by means of false concessions to make the truth plausible to the enemies of the faith. Roos: A preacher of the gospel tries with all fidelity to set such people right. But, if he has a clear insight into the state of their souls, he finds personal relief even when seeing no fruit of his labor. He knows that God will not require their blood at his hand. Such is the consolation of Jesus Himself, Matthew 13:14-15. 3. Roos: Deliverance from the wicked did take place, but not in such a way as the human sense might have desired; for Paul and other servants of God were often until their death harassed with such people; and yet God saved them from them by restraining their fury (frequently by means of the Roman authorities), by letting many, blasphemers die at the right time, by humbling the whole Jewish people through the destruction of Jerusalem, and lastly by so ordering all things, that the Apostles, harassed and persecuted by the Jews in a daily trial of their faith, were only the more widely driven around in the earth. 4. (2 Thessalonians 3:4.) Roos: Paul wrote and did everything in the Lord and by the Lord (comp. 2 Thessalonians 3:6; 2 Thessalonians 3:12; 1 Thessalonians 4:1-2; and elsewhere). These were not in Paul’s case mere customary pious phrases; he had the feeling of them, and was convinced that in nothing did his commands, hopes, and instructions go beyond the power, and at the same time the light and inward impulse, given him by the Lord Jesus. He knew that he was not left to his natural reason and discretion, but that, being in, Jesus, he saw by His light, worked in His strength, and by Him was held and controlled. Happy is he, of whom this is the experience. Whatsoever he doeth prospers [Psalms 1:3].—In the Lord we may also have confidence in others, who likewise stand in the Lord. To trust in men out of the Lord leads astray, and one must often learn, that all men are liars (Romans 3:4). The idealism of faith in humanity is then easily changed into that so-called knowledge of men, which looks for nothing but baseness in every one. Love, on the contrary, hopeth all things, and believeth all things (1 Corinthians 13:7), without being blind to the corruption of nature; but it knows God who is greater than our heart [1 John 3:20], and believes in His power to save and subdue. Relying on the Lord for everything, it believes also in the perfecting of His work in the hearts of His own, and throughout all interruptions still hopes for it. [Barnes: Not primarily in you, &c. He must be a stranger to the human heart, who puts much confidence in it even in its best state.—J. L.] 5. (2 Thessalonians 3:5.) Our heart must be directed to the love of God, as the foundation of all faith, and to the patience of Christ, as the chief manifestation of that love;—the latter, not merely in order to the contemplation of that greatest exemplar, but from this direction towards the character of God and Christ faith itself receives something of this Divine nature [2 Peter 1:4], participates in these primary forces of life, so that it now does everything according to this rule, and from this impulse. Love enkindles love in it; the patience which Christ learned and practised, yea, with which He continually bears with us, brings this seed into the heart of the believer and from this vine there grows as a branch the patience of the Christian (Rieger). Patience must not be wanting to love; otherwise the latter also would soon cease. AND 2 Thessalonians 3:1. Diedrich: He had brought them by means of the word to faith; a stream of blessing should now also through their prayers and love flow back again to him, so that he may be able to deliver his testimony with ever-growing efficiency.—Chrysostom: Let no one from an excessive humility defraud us of this assistance.—Starke: Since upright teachers carry the word of God amongst the people, it is reasonable that they be remembered in prayer; but, if they do not at once see fruit, they should labor on, and call to mind the Divine promises.—Heubner: The Christian Church should not be a motionless sea; stagnation brings corruption and death. The gospel must keep moving; it must run; this running produces everywhere, even where the gospel is not a stranger, new life and vivacity.—The missionary spirit knows no other goal than that described in Isaiah 11:9. 2 Thessalonians 3:2. Faith is not every man’s, though God offers faith to every man, Acts 17:31 (Berlenb. Bibel).—Grotius: Such as take pleasure in vice will not believe us; because they love the works of darkness, they hate the light.—Rieger: (We must have this told to us) partly that under a similar experience we may be less frightened, partly also that we may escape the frequently plausible temptation to refine and cut and carve at the doctrines of the faith, till every one should be able to find himself suited.—Paul strove to become all things to all men, but still he hoped for nothing more from it, than by all means to save some (1 Corinthians 9:22).—Starke: Patiently to undergo suffering for Christ’s sake, and yet to pray God for deliverance therefrom, are not inconsistent with each other; especially when the deliverance has for its object not so much our own ease as the glorification of the Divine name. [Lectures: ἀτόπωνκαὶ πονηρῶνἀνθρώπων· οὐ γὰρ, κ.τ.λ. So far, then, from there being any ground for exalting reason against faith, it is only faith that can either restore the dislocation, or rectify the depravity, of our fallen nature.—The Same: No man can reject the Divine testimony concerning Christ, when fairly and fully presented to him, without thereby inflicting immediate and serious damage on his whole inward life—without, in fact, becoming, whatever appearances there may be to the contrary, a worse man, as well as a guiltier man, than he was before.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 3:3. The faithfulness of the Lord is the only ever sure refuge. 2 Thessalonians 3:4. Chrysostom, Theophylact: We have confidence in the Lord, that is opposed to pride; touching you, that is opposed to indolence.—Bengel: Nulli homini per se fidas.—Calvin: Authority and obedience have here their limits: Nothing except in the Lord!—[ Burkitt: The character of that obedience which the gospel directs; it must be universal and perpetual.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 3:5. Diedrich: Truly Christ Himself is all patience with us, and so He teaches us in Him also to be all patience. 2 Thessalonians 3:1-5. Heubner: Exhortations to prayer and faithfulness. 2 Thessalonians 3:4-5. That heart is well disposed, and capable of all that is good, which through the grace of the Lord is directed into the love of God and into the patience of Christ. 1. The most natural thing for us would be, to abide with all love by the love of God, to which we owe ourselves and all things. But, as regards God, we are truly unnatural children, have little need of intercourse with Him, are frequently able to go a long time without Him, readily suffer ourselves to be withdrawn from Him by His gifts instead of being thereby led to Him, become altogether disheartened under the strokes of His discipline, do not love what He loves, His will, His commands. He gives effect to his love by sending His Son to save us from the fleshly temper of our heart. Not until our hearts allow themselves to be turned towards this love proceeding from God (1 John 4:10; Romans 5:8), does there rise in us also love to God. But, 2. that this spirit may take full possession of us, there is need of continual labor and effort; our hearts must allow themselves to be directed to Christ, the perfect pattern of patience, as He practised it throughout His whole life even to the cross towards His disciples, towards the people, towards His wicked foes. We must be thankful to Him, that He becomes not weary of bearing also with us. Thus we too learn patience, and receive strength for it out of His strength; thus do we learn to wait for His help, and patiently to hold fast the hope of His glorious coming (after Stockmeyer.) Footnotes: 2 Thessalonians 3:1.—[τρέχη. Revision: “E. V. margin, and everywhere else. Here it combines Tyndale, Geneva, Bishops’ Bible: have free passage, with the Rhemish: have course.”—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 3:1.—[καὶ πρὸςὑμᾶς. Ellicott: “The καί gently contrasting (?) them with others where a similar reception had taken place.” Rather, the καί compares them with—puts them alongside of—others, where, in answer to their prayers, a similar reception should yet take place.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 3:2.—[ἀτόπων. The English margin, Hammond, Wordsworth: absurd; Benson, Scott, Conybeare, Alford’s English Test., Ellicott, Am. Bible Union: perverse; Riggenbach: verkehrten. See the Exegetical Note.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 3:2.—[οὐ γὰρπάντωνἡ πίστις. Riggenbach, after De Wette and Lόnemann: nicht Alter (Sache) ist der Glaube; Ellicott: it is not all that have faith. See the Exegetical Note, and the Revision of this verse, Note e.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 3:3.—There is a preponderance of authority (including the Sin.) for ὁ κύριος; against the reading ὁ θεός [A. D.1 F. G. Vulg. Lachmann.—J. L.] is likewise the fact, that according to parallel passages, such as 1 Corinthians 1:9, it is the more obvious. [The Greek order should be retained in the translation, as it is by Riggenbach, Ellicott, Am. Bible Union, and others, making πιστός the instantaneous echo of πίστις.—Sin.2 Thessalonians 1 : ὁ κύριόςἐστιν; but corrected into ἐστ. ὁ κύρ.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 3:3.—[τοῦ πονηροῦ. See the Exegetical Note.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 3:4.—[δέ. Revision: “Not only do we rely on the faithfulness of the Lord, but we have a gracious confidence also in you; nor, indeed, can you expect the promised confirmation and security, apart from your own obedience, and patient continuance in well-doing, but only in and through that.”—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 3:4.—The reading varies between ποιεῖτε and καὶ ποιεῖτε [Riggenbach’s translation follows the former, which is that of Sin.1, while Sin.2 has the other.—J. L.]; the insertion of καὶ ἐποιήσατε before καὶ ποιεῖτε is too feebly supported (B. F. G., but not Sin.). 2 Thessalonians 3:4.—ὐμῖν is wanting in Sin. B. D.1 Vulg. [It is cancelled by Alford and Ellicott; Lachmann brackets it, as he does also the words καὶ ἐποιήσατεκαὶ.—The latter half of the verse is arranged in Greek thus: that the things which we command you ye both do and will do.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 3:5.—[ἁ δὲ κύριοςκατευθύναι. Ellicott: “A gentle anithesis (δέ) to what precedes;—‘I doubt you not, my confidence is in the Lord; may He, however, vouchsafe His blessed aid.’ ”—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 3:6.—Before ὑπομονήν all the uncials give the article τήν, which is omitted by the Elzevir after a few late authorities. The English Version translates ὑπομονή, patience, here in the margin, and always elsewhere, 31 times, except Romans 2:7 and 2 Corinthians 1:6. Here it follows the Bishops’ Bible.—J. L.] [fόr den Glauben empfδnglich—the expression employed also by De Wette and Lόnemann. It is not, however, of a want of susceptibility of faith in the most desperate class of sinners, that Paul speaks, hut of the actual destitution of faith in some to whom the gospel came. And the fact is “stated in general terms; not so much as something that had just transpired in the particular city or region where the Apostle was now laboring, but rather as something that holds good, as with the force and regularity of a law, wherever the gospel is preached” (Lectures, p. 560). Comp. Matthew 19:11.—J. L.] [Taken as neuter, τοῦ πονηροῦ might perhaps have “a special reference to the great current of evil which had already begun to flow, and which in the second chapter had been traced; onward to its fatal issue.” Lectures.—J. L.] [ἐφ̓ ὑμᾶς; towards and upon you, in regard to you; Germ, auf euch.—J. L.] [Wir bedόrfen beides, Vorsatz und Kraft, von oben—sound doctrine, but scarcely an accurate rendering of: ἀμφοτέρωνἡμῖνχρεία, καὶ προθέσεωςἀγαθῆςκαὶ τῆςἄνωθενσυνεργείας.—J. L.] [So—besides Lόnemann—Alford, Ellicott, Lectures, “patience such as Christ exhibited.”—J. L.] [See the foot-note to p. 156.—No doubt, there are degrees of wickedness in unrenewed men, as there are degrees of grace, faith, and holiness in Christian men. But in the case of every Christian man it is true, that his faith is “the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8); and of every unrenewed man to whom the gospel comes it is no less true, that his unbelief is the sinful product of a sinful and blinded heart (John 3:18-20; 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 : &c.—J. L.] [Das sei ferne!—the German version of μἡ γένοιτο, which in our English Testament is, God forbid! Comp. E. V. Genesis 18:25.—J. L.] [Luther’s version of πίστινπαραχῶνπᾶσιν: Jedermann vorhδlt den Glauben; English margin: offered faith.—J. L.] 2. 2 Thessalonians 3:6-16 He gives impressive directions as to the treatment of those, who will not desist from a pragmatical idleness 6Now [But] we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh [walking, περιπατοῦντος] disorderly, and not after the tradition [according to the instruction] which he [they] received of [from, παρά] us. 7For yourselves know how ye ought to follow [imitate] us; for we behaved not ourselves disorderly [were not disorderly, οὐκἠτακτήσαμεν] among you; 8Neither did we eat any man’s bread [bread from any one, ἄρτονπαράτινος] for nought, but wrought with labor and travail night and day [but in toil and travail, working night and day], that we might not be chargeable [burdensome] to any of you: 9Not because we have not power [authority], but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us [that we might give ourselves for a pattern unto you to imitate us]. 10For even [For also], when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any [any one] would [will, θέλει] not work, neither should he eat [let him eat, ἐσθιέτω]. 11For we hear that there are some which walk [hear of some walking, ἀκούομενγάρτιναςπεριπατοῦντας] among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies [being b., περιεργαζομένους]. 12Now them that are such [Now such, τοῖςδὲ τοιούτοις] we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ [or: in the L. J. C.], that with quietness they work, and eat [working with quietness, they eat, μετὰ ἡσυχίαςἐργαζόμενοι … ἐσθίωσιν] their own bread. 13But ye, brethren, be not weary in in well-doing. 14And if any man [But if any one, εἰ δέτις] obey not our word by this epistle [the ep.], note that man, and have no company 15with him, that he may be ashamed [shamed]. Yet [And] count him not as an enemy, but admonish him, as a brother. 16Now the Lord of peace Himself give [But may the Lord of peace Himself give, αὐτὸςδὲ ὁ Κύριος … δῴη] you peace always by all means [in every way]. The Lord be with you all. AND 1. (2 Thessalonians 3:6.) But we command you, &c.—An adequate foundation having been laid, he conies now to speak of the matter specially in hand. The order is addressed to all the brethren, not, as Olshausen supposes, to the presbyters; Theodoret says merely, that the leaders of the Church must follow this rule. But the meaning of the Apostle is, in regard to all who are not themselves ἄτακτοι—all on whom he can rely, ὅτιποιεῖτεκαὶ ποιήσετε, &c. (2 Thessalonians 3:4)—now to tell them what they have to do.—In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ is this command given; as representing Him, standing in Him, we command, have confidence to do so; Chrysostom: It is not we that say it, but the Lord speaks by us; He who has the right to enjoin, and the strength for execution; equivalent to 2 Thessalonians 3:12 : in the Lord, or by the Lord; for the Lord Himself and His name are inseparable. Again, ὑμᾶς is not the object of στέλλεσθαι (this would not suit the middle voice), but the subject in the case of an accusative and infinitive; this occurs elsewhere only when the infinitive has a different accusative from the accusative or dative governed by the finite verb [comp. Acts 1:4 with 1 Corinthians 7:10]; but here ὑμᾶς stands, because παραγγ. ὑμῖν is already somewhat too far removed from the infinitive. The expression στέλλεσθαι Hesychius explains by φοβεῖσθαι; Theodoret by χωρίζεσθαι. The idea starts from a sensuous point of view: timidly to withdraw; hence: to be afraid; 2 Corinthians 8:20, with τοῦτο; but in Malachi 2:5 Sept. with από, in the sense: to be in fear of. Here this meaning is not suitable, since he is not exhorting them to fear, but directing a course of proceeding, the breaking off of intimate intercourse; Galatians 2:12, ὑπέστελλενἑαυτόν (because in this case the middle is not used; the ὑπ implies secrecy); akin to Romans 16:17, ἐκκλίνατεἀπ’ αὐτῶν.—From every brother; no such discipline is to be exercised towards those without (1 Corinthians 5:11-12), but only towards those who desire to be called brethren. According to Matthew 18:15 sqq. likewise a brother only is the object of Church discipline.—Walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition [instruction] (2 Thessalonians 2:15) which they received from us, namely, the brethren, even those ἄτακτοι; comp. 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:1. The receiving was through the medium of oral instruction, and this was confirmed by example (2 Thessalonians 3:7). On the ἀτάκτωςπεριπ. see already at 1 Thessalonians 4:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:14, Here as little as there does it denote a life altogether unregulated by Divine law, and utterly vicious; 2 Thessalonians 3:11 shows that those are rather meant, who without any occupation bustled around in fanatical idleness. Before giving this more precise description of them, he prefixes a still more exact confirmation of his demands. Disorder, connected probably with eschatological excitement (2 Thessalonians 2:2), and with this Ewald would also join a mistaken appeal to a fraternal community of goods (1 Thessalonians 4:9-12), must with some at least have been on the increase, in spite of the Apostle’s exhortation. For this reason Paul, over against the tender, lenient words of the First Epistle, now applies a second and sharper course of discipline. The point is, to act vigorously against the unreformed, in order to arrest the contagion, preserve the church, and, if possible, exert by means of the stronger measures a saving influence on the obstinate offenders themselves. 2. (2 Thessalonians 3:7-9.) For ye yourselves know how ye ought to imitate us (1 Thessalonians 1:6); ye know it by word and deed on our part; he thus justifies the reproach which he makes against them in regard to the παραδόσεις, by setting forth what they themselves knew.—For we were not disorderly (without occupation) among you; he thus confirms the assertion: ye know; we might also connect this, as well as πῶς, &c., and as an explanation of that, with οἴδατε: that we (that is to say) were not disorderly; so [Am. Bible Union] Hofmann, who even (clumsily) makes 2 Thessalonians 3:9 still governed by ὅτι.—Neither did we eat bread from any one for nought; for nought, as a gift [Alford: there seems to be an allusion in the construction to the original sense of δωρεάν.—J. L.], without paying for it; he speaks humbly, as if labor in the gospel were no labor; that is the way, moreover, in which the worldly mind judges. It is a remark already of the Fathers, that it would not have been δωρεάν, had Paul even performed no manual labor. [See Matthew 10:10; 1 Corinthians 15:10.—J. L.] Bread is the plain and main article of food; to eat bread, a Hebraism, ΰλμμην (Genesis 43:25; Luke 14:1), equivalent to the simple ἐσθίειν (2 Thessalonians 3:10). Moreover, the German proverb also says: Whose bread I eat, &c.—But working in toil and travail night and day [But in toil and travail, working night and day], that is, we ate bread, De Wette would needlessly assume that the participle is used irregularly for the finite verb, or that ἦμεν is to be supplied, as at 2 Corinthians 7:5. Much more obvious in the present instance is the supplement ἐφάγομεν, so that ἐργαζόμ. form the antithesis to δωρεάν.—That we might not be burdensome to any of you; comp. 1 Thessalonians 2:9 sqq.—(What I mean is) not that, or still better: (We did this) not because we have not authority, that is, to live of the gospel, or here, τοῦ δωρεὰνἄρτονφαγεῖν, as in 1 Corinthians 9:6, τοῦ μὴ ἐργάζεσθαι; comp. the discussion in 1 Corinthians 9:4-14; Luke 10:7, the laborer is worthy of his hire.—That we might give ourselves for a pattern unto you (1 Thessalonians 1:7) to imitate us; such was his object, comp. Acts 20:35. Hilgenfeld will have it, that to give the churches in this way an example was merely the result of the apostolic labor, but could not be the original design, as the forger here asserts. But really one cannot see why the Apostle, who represents to us details of his life as providential, as in 1 Corinthians 1:14-15, might not much more readily say with perfect truth, that he had wished to train his churches also by his own example. 3. (2 Thessalonians 3:10.) For also when we were with you; in confirmation of the example he says: For indeed we also (καὶ γάρ [see Critical Note 10]), when we were with you, commanded you that which our example showed you; command and example were harmonious. Lόnemann [Alford] puts an improper emphasis on the τοῦτο, when he interprets thus: “For also this we commanded you”; with what other things? This distinction of several commands is here altogether an interpolation, and is besides contradicted by the verbal arrangement. Were we required by καί to seek for some other antithesis than the one indicated by us, it would be far more proper to understand the matter with Hofmann thus: For even when we were with you, already at that time, we commanded you; we do not now for the first time lay upon you a new yoke. At all events we perceive that already at his first visit Paul with keen pastoral insight saw the necessity of the warning. We commanded you, he speaks in the imperfect; this was our repeated order: that, if any one will not work, neither let him eat; if one would not work, as well as the Apostle who did double work, he did not at all deserve that food should be given him. If one will not, although he could; no reproach is cast on those unable to work; nolle vitium est, says Bengel. The word is a proverbial sentence, to which Grotivs and Wetstein adduce many parallels from the Greeks and Rabbins. We are not at ἐσθίειν to think in the first instance of the Holy Supper. 4. (2 Thessalonians 3:11-12). For we hear, &c.—Paul explains why the command (2 Thessalonians 3:10) was given.—Of some (not many, but even a few are a hurtful leaven, 1 Corinthians 5:6) walking among you disorderly; this is now explained, and that in an earnest word-play, already imitated, by Zwingli in the Swiss dialect: Sy thund nόt und thund zuvil [They do nothing, and do too much.—J. L.]; Calvin: nihil operis agentes, sed curiose satagentes; Ewald: nicht arbeit treibend, sondern sich herumtreibend. The περιεργάζεσθαι is, in fact, the phantom of a dutiful ἐργάζεσθαι; the giving up of one’s self to idle roving, to aimless bustle, to by-matters and other people’s concerns, with which we have properly nothing to do; instead of, as we ought, τὰ ἴδιαπράσσειν (1 Thessalonians 4:11). The adjective περίεργος is found 1 Timothy 5:13; comp. Acts 19:19, τὰ περίεργαπράσσειν. Thus already in that time of freshest life there appeared this frivolous humor under the pretext of activity for the kingdom of God. A further stage of degeneracy is afterwards described in Philippians 3:19; Romans 16:18.—Now such (those who are of this sort) we command; addressing himself, though indirectly and in the third person, to those very persons; it was to be expected that all would be present at the reading of the letter (1 Thessalonians 5:25), and that no one would avoid listening to it. He at once softens his language, and speaks still in a more kindly tone, as he also requires at 2 Thessalonians 3:15 : and exhort; αὐτούς is now to be taken out of the dative τοιούτοις, by an obvious zeugma: in the Lord Jesus Christ; in Him our exhortation has its strength. If we read διά, then it is: by means of Him, while we avail ourselves of His name, and by His sacred person give impressiveness to our words: as you love the Lord Jesus, and fellowship with Him. The subject of the exhortation is expressed in the form of the object: that working with quietness they eat their own bread; ἡσυχία, comp. ἡσυχάζειν, 1 Thessalonians 4:11, denotes rest, inward composure, retiredness, and avoidance of show, and stands opposed to περιεργάζεσθαι; their own bread, that is honestly earned, obtained by faithful and diligent labor with God’s blessing, not begged bread, implies therefore ἐργάζ., and stands in opposition to the δωρεάν of 2 Thessalonians 3:8. 5. (2 Thessalonians 3:13.) But ye, brethren; he thus turns once more to those free from blame, and them only he accosts with cordial address.—Be not weary, dispirited (2 Corinthians 4:1; 2 Corinthians 4:16); in all the New Testament instances we find the variation ἐγκακεῖν (written also ἐνκακεῖν) given by the oldest authorities, instead of ἐκκακεῖν. The sense, as developed by Passow, is at the most according to the etymological genesis slightly different (to be cowardly in anything, or to turn out cowardly), but in the end both come to the same thing; ἐκκακεῖν not being common elsewhere, the copyists probably introduced their familiar ἐγκ.—Become not disheartened in well-doing. Calvin, Estius, Pelt, De Wette, Ewald, Von Gerlach, and most others, refer the word to beneficence, and without question this thought would suit very well. That is to say, the Apostle, having in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 forbidden a mistaken almsgiving, now glances also at the opposite danger. After many disturbing, discouraging experiences of dishonesty, unworthiness, sloth, abuse of kindnesses, it is necessary to check the growth of displeasure and distrust, lest those who are in real distress should have to suffer innocently. Chrysostom even remarks particularly, that Paul’s meaning is that the idle should be punished, but not left to famish; Theodoret: Bodily support is not to be withdrawn from the delinquents, any more than from sick members; others: They should be dealt with patiently, till they are trained to self-dependence. But Grotius, Bengel, Rieger, Olshausen, Lόnemann, Hofmann [Alford, Wordsworth, Ellicott], properly object, that the meaning of καλοποιεῖν is wider and more comprehensive, namely, to act honorably; Lόnemann: as is right and proper; Bengel: bene facientes, etiam manuum industria; comp. Galatians 6:9; and in our Epistle substantially 2 Thessalonians 1:11; 2 Thessalonians 2:17. The same expositors, however, do again partially restrict the meaning in another way. Lόnemann thinks that, since 2 Thessalonians 3:14 shows that the discourse still turns on the same theme, we are to understand it thus: Be not discouraged, but persist in not allowing yourselves to be tainted by the evil example. Hofmann finds this too exclusively negative, and therefore takes the more exact definition this way: Become not weary in doing what is befitting, whatever, that is, conduces to the welfare of the moral community. To this we are able to assent, only with the remark, that we understand the phrase as comprehensively as possible—as including, therefore, both their own unblamable walk, steady, loving, earnest discipline (2 Thessalonians 3:14-15), and also a due beneficence. Suffer not yourselves by any means to become weary in the performance of your duty; act in every way as followers of God (Matthew 5:45; Starke). [Lectures: After the solemn command and exhortation in the 12th verse to the idlers, the Apostle immediately turns round again to the sound portion of the church, and seeks first, before proceeding with his disciplinary instructions, to confirm them in their more consistent course. But ye, brethren, whatever others may do, and great as are your discouragements within the church, as well as from without, be not weary in doing what is right. Unaffected by these examples of a restless fanaticism and ignoble indolence, do still as you have done hitherto. Lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty. And, in particular, see to it that nothing in your own opinions or sentiments be suffered to interrupt the diligent prosecution of your lawful callings.—J. L.] Wisely, plainly, in few words, Paul says whatever is needful in all directions. 6. (2 Thessalonians 3:14-15.) But if any one obey not, &c.—What has just been said is not to be understood in the sense of a spurious complaisance that does not do what is really good. Paul speaks with the authority of truth, though not so strongly moved, because the case is not so frightful, as in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5. The words διὰ τῆςἐπιστ. are annexed by [Erasmus] Calvin, Luther, Grotius, Bengel, Pelt [the English margin], and others, to what follows. Luther: Note that man by a letter; and Winer as late as the 6th edition (18. 9, Note 3) marks this as at least a possible interpretation. But Olshausen, De Wette, Lόnemann, Ewald, Hofmann [and most others] are with reason opposed to it, and connect the words (as is already done by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Beza) with what precedes. There are these objections to the first-mentioned interpretation: 1. The article, διὰ τῆςἐπ. (wanting only in F. G.) is not naturally explained; Winer’s account of it: in the letter which you have then to write, which I then hope to receive from you, is certainly too artificial; and this the more so, because 2. διὰ τῆςἐπ. from its prominent position would have an altogether unaccountable emphasis. But again, 3. the middle σημειοῦσθε would not be very suitable, since ἡμῖν might rather have been expected. And lastly, 4. as to the matter itself, it would be very strange, that Paul should have kept the churches in such a state of dependence, as to require an epistolary record of every offender, as if it were necessary that he should pronounce or at least sanction the punishment. Von Gerlach thinks that this happens only on account of the newness and inexperience of the church. Still what a paralysis of all self dependence would this have involved! How difficult also would it have been even to comply with the injunction, since Paul certainly was not stationary always in the same place. And having just told them how they were to proceed, is it to be supposed that he again takes the matter out of their hand? he, who in a far worse case reproaches the Corinthians for not having themselves interfered (1 Corinthians 5:2)? Everything, then, concurs against this explanation. But that of Bengel and Pelt is not tenable: By means of this letter (this very Second Epistle to the Thessalonians), relying on it, holding it forth to him, proceed against him; Bengel: notate (hunc) nota censoria; but this is not at all the import of σημειοῦσθε. Accordingly, διὰ τῆςἐπιστ. must be closely connected with τῷ λόγῳ ἡμῶν, although the article τῷ is not repeated; it might be omitted (Winer, § 20:2), because the whole from τῷ to ἐπιστ. forms together but one idea. Ἡ ἐπιστ. is the present Second Epistle, as in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 it is the First. Hence: If any one obey not our word announced to him by the reading of this Epistle (especially 2 Thessalonians 3:10; 2 Thessalonians 3:12); or (Lόnemann): my command renewed by means of this Epistle; that man σημειοῦσθε. This word in the middle signifies, to note for one’s self; it is used of physicians who mark the symptoms of disease; also of grammarians who make remarks: σεμείωσαι, note this. Hence: Note him for yourselves, mark him down, as one to be avoided. Bengel compares the synonymous παραδειγματίζειν; Chrysostom adds as a statement of the object: that he may not remain hidden. The meaning is not simply: “Make him known by all withdrawing from him;” but: “Point him out by an agreement in the church, in order that this may be done.” The sense is essentially the same, whether we read καὶ μὴ συναναμίγνυσθε, or μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι (the latter reading is perhaps to be explained by the influence of 1 Corinthians 5:9; 1 Corinthians 5:11). The passage runs more correctly, if we read: Mark him for yourselves in order μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι, &c., καὶ μὴ ὡςἐχθρὸνἡγεῖσθε, without αὐτόν, because here likewise belongs still the previous τοῦτον; whereas the omission is not so natural, if a separate imperative with the dative has intervened. Still this is far from being conclusive. With the other reading the inaccuracy is not greater than perhaps at 2 Thessalonians 3:12. The Apostle’s command is, not to mix themselves up, that is, to have no dealings, with such a one, to cultivate no fraternal intercourse with him. It is essentially the same as had already been enjoined in 2 Thessalonians 3:6, στέλλεσθαιὑμᾶςἀπό, &c.; except only that what was there indicated as the act of individuals appears in this instance to be a general proceeding of the great majority; if nearly all did so, and that by agreement, it was no longer an act merely of individual members, but of the church. The design of it was: that he may be shamed; Ewald: that he may repent and reform. The active is found at 1 Corinthians 4:14; here we have the passive (not middle), as in Titus 2:8; the middle with τινά (in classical Greek, πινός) signifies, to regard one, fear him (Luke 18:2). The passive, on the other hand, will mean: that he may be brought to the point of turning in upon himself; that he may be led by disapprobation to a knowledge of himself.—And count him not as an enemy; that is to say, as an enemy of God and the church; ὡς might be dispensed with; it makes more strongly prominent the subjective side of the conception [Ellicott: “ὡς being used (here almost pleonastically …) to mark the aspect in which he was not to be regarded.”—J. L.], and is indeed a Hebraism, comp. ηָ ?ωַׁ ?αλְּ, Sept. ἡγ. ὥσπερ (Job 19:11). The connection with what precedes is made by καί, not δέ. No doubt, καί like the Hebrew εְ frequently serves for a connection that is loose in form, while yet really marking opposition. But here it is still more simple to understand Paul as having in his eye as the main exhortation what follows ὰλλά, and as merely in the first instance removing with μὴ ὡς, &c. what might stand in the way of wholesome admonition. [Ellicott: “καί …, with its usual and proper force, subjoins to the previous exhortation a further one that was fully compatible with it, and in fact tended to show the real principle on which the command was given: it was not punitive, but corrective.” Revision: “That the moral result aimed at (ἵναἐντραπῇ) may not be hindered, this, of course, must be the spirit and style of your discipline: count him not,” &c.—J. L.] Accordingly: Admonish him as a brother; comp. 1 Thessalonians 5:12; properly: set his mind right. Theophylact: νουδετεῖν is not ὀνειδίζειν. The Apostle immediately repeats his warning against an excess of human severity. Due admonition belongs to brotherly love (Leviticus 19:17). Inconceivably capricious is the assertion of Hilgenfeld (p. 262), that disorderly idlers did not attain to this superior importance until the rise of Christian heresy, or that the later writer endows mere idlers with the features of error in Christian doctrine. But in truth there is not in the text a single hint of this sort. For it would be a groundless and arbitrary abuse of 2 Thessalonians 2:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:7, to regard it as a proof of the heretical character of the ἀτάκτωςπεριπατοῦντες. Thus too we lose the instructive fact, that Paul already expresses himself with wholesome rigor against things, which we perhaps judge too loosely. 7. (2 Thessalonians 3:16.) But may the Lord, &c.—This closing prayer is the fourth solemn desire in this short Epistle; Paul is full of prayer and supplication. The turn of the phrase is the same as in 1 Thessalonians 3:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:16. In opposition to your doing, the Lord Himself must show you and impart to you what is right. In 1 Thessalonians 5:23 the word is: ὁ θεὸςτῆςεἰρ.; but here: the Lord of peace; and that is not the Father, as Wetstein thinks, and Hilgenfeld, who sees therein a trace of spuriousness! but Christ, who has this peace, and authority to dispense it, the Prince of peace (Isaiah 9:5 [6]; John 14:21; John 20:19 sqq.) Why should it not have been just as possible for Paul to call Him so, as κύριοςτῆςδόξης (1 Corinthians 2:8)?—Give you peace; that is something greater than merely agreement amongst yourselves, though the taming of the refractory (Calvin) is included in it. But, in particular, the article shows that we are here to understand peace in the whole compass of its meaning—everything pertaining to it—above all, peace with God, inviolate life and salvation, and the full, joyful sense of that; finally, a peace that overspreads the entire world. Lόnemann remarks, as Theodoret before him, that to wish one peace at the conclusion of letters is the Christian modification of ἔῤῥωσθε.—May He give you this always (so διὰ παντός is to be understood likewise at Romans 11:10) in every way; comp. Philippians 1:18, παντὶ τρόπῳ without ἐν; the import of the last phrase is: in every sense, and therefore to a larger extent than simply in the last-mentioned relations; this thought is given with specifications in 1 Thessalonians 5:23. He concludes in the briefest style with the benediction: The Lord be with you all; therefore also with the erring. AND ETHICAL1. (2 Thessalonians 3:7-9.) On the manual labor of the Apostle, see at 1 Thessalonians 2:9, the Doctrinal and Ethical Note 6. There the question is primarily about obviating suspicion, as if he sought his own profit; here he completes what was there said with the positive consideration, that his aim in that matter had also been to train them by his example to Christian diligence. In the preacher everything preaches, says Harms; and many things are better taught by example than by word. Paul clearly recognizes the right of preachers of the gospel to be paid; but in his Gentile mission he ordinarily waived it, that he might be burdensome to no one, keep no one by it from the gospel, avoid even the appearance of selfishness (I seek not yours, but you, 2 Corinthians 12:14), and make the gospel without charge (1 Corinthians 9:18; 2 Corinthians 11:1), so that it should appear as really a gift of free grace. It is still in our day a surprise to the heathen, when missionaries do not like merchants seek for gain amongst them. The Apostle thus continued free from a dependence injurious to the gospel, kept under his body (1 Corinthians 9:27), and gave the churches an example of industry in union with godliness. His conduct formed a very marked contrast to the proud Roman contempt for manual labor, and is also a rare instance of a Divinely refreshed elasticity of spirit. It is a great thing so to walk, that the appeal can be made to the glory of God: Imitate us. It is important that the pastor and his house should in all respects preach also to the eye, and should feel a joy in setting an example. This requires a self discipline, before which arrogance disappears. The last and highest point no doubt is: “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1). 2. (2 Thessalonians 3:10-13.) Here the Apostle states the principles of a sound Christian support of the poor (comp. on 1 Thessalonians 4:10-12, Doctrinal and Ethical Notes 4–6). The rule in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 goes back to the primary command in Genesis 3:19, that curse which yet is equally a blessing (Psalms 128:2), and which is not to be nastily set aside under a pretence of spirituality, but in fact through fleshly indulgence and sloth. An excitement that does not go deep easily brings with it such disdain of outward activity, that a person fancies himself raised in heavenly rapture above labor, almost as if it were dishonorable. Here, then, the test is very soberly applied: Art thou raised also above eating? like the angels (Bengel)? In the Old Testament, especially the Proverbs (comp. also Psalms 37:21), industry is more largely spoken of; in the New Testament the heavenly calling preponderates, but this, wherever it is necessary, with a very plain and sober protest against misapprehension and abuse. The gospel Cannot be degraded into a mere hod-carrier for civil uses, but no less does it repel all such noxious perversity as would bring 1. an unmerited reproach on Divine truth, and 2. damage to the heart of the erring themselves, a sore recovery from a brief debauch. God, it is true, cares for the birds and the lilies, but for them according to the nature of birds and lilies, and for men, in the way that is good for men. In our text the sharpest discipline is appointed for idleness, even of the refined, seemingly pious sort: it is to reap its natural fruit, namely, want and hunger. So then, you are to work; not all with your hands; head-work also is work. Even those who give should observe the principle of 2 Thessalonians 3:10, and not by an improper bestowal of charity out of their own or the public means injure the recipient, and confirm him in his sin. Alms is ἐλεημοσύνη); but it is an evil tenderness, to foster an immoral mendicity. What a repudiation is there in our passage of the mendicant orders, who made their τάξις to consist in living ἀτάκτως! Bengel inquires: What would Paul have said to such vows? not to mention that such beggars affect to be the greatest saints. The dignity of the individual, and inevitably also his religious independence, are depressed and enslaved by the enjoyment of alms received in indolence. A different thing is innocent poverty; as a Divine humiliation, it may exert a salutary influence. Stockmeyer: The Apostle does not say that whoever does not work shall not eat. That were harsh and unmerciful. For many a man does not work, who yet should eat; the old, who have passed their life in labor, and whose strength for labor has thus been exhausted, these have an honorable place reserved for them at the table of the prosperous; those in like manner, who through bodily or mental infirmity are incapacitated for work, have a free seat at the table of love; and, lastly, such as would fain labor, but just at present they find no work; they themselves beg: “Give us not bread, give us work; we desire to eat our own bread;” to them work should be given, but, until that is found, they should not be left to perish. Only to those who will not work does the Apostle’s injunction apply. There is no reason to fear that any one will thus die of hunger. Before it comes to that, hunger will drive to labor, and for the idler that is the greatest kindness, indeed his salvation. To give blindly, wherever we are applied to, is frequently to do, not a favor, but an injury. It is true, however, that little is done by merely turning away from the idler, and regarding him as an enemy of society. He is still a brother, though an erring one, who deserves to be shamed and censured in earnest (2 Thessalonians 3:15), and, if we are not yet at liberty to open to him the liberal hand, we are not to refuse him the hand of brotherly compassion, that seeks to lead him in the right way.—Amongst those who are suffered to eat, without having to work, children also are to be numbered; not, however, the rich. Stockmeyer explains how the blessing of a quiet, orderly condition becomes ours only through faithful, unassuming labor. Many persons, indeed, are so burdened with work, that we might well desire for them more leisure for the tranquil culture of the inner man. Still, less depends on freedom in that respect, than on the right direction of the heart. And when labor itself exerts a whole some influence on the soul of man, it leads it from dissipation into a state of collectedness, from caprice to orderliness, from bustle to calmness, so that indeed during labor it finds time for self-introspection, and for sanctifying and strengthening itself in looking upwards to God. Idleness, on the other hand, has precisely the opposite effect. Though the body enjoys a lazy quiet, the spirit roves the more restlessly to and fro, and becomes the prey of the most unregulated thoughts and desires. And then there is work of the most various kinds, from the cultivation of the soil into fruitful fields, on through all the relations of life, to the culture of man’s spirit and heart itself. In this task every one should be interested, every one on his part by orderly activity contributing to the good of the whole. Those, therefore, to whose lot wealth has fallen, without their having needed to earn it, have before men a certain right to eat their bread even without labor; but not before God, if they would be His good stewards, nor yet before themselves, if they desire their own profit. This must be urgently impressed on their heart: Find work for yourselves along with your bread; if you have no need to work for yourselves, work for others, work for the general good; only then will the blessing rest on your bread.—Amidst the many disappointments which one experiences in intercourse with the indigent, it may become a difficult thing for the naturally selfish heart to preserve its love. It must be made a matter of earnest study, to be evermore a cheerful giver. But on the whole (Stockmeyer) there is so much to make us weary in well-doing. Sometimes it seems to us that the work required of us is really too much; sometimes it seems to be as it were in vain, and crowned with no result; sometimes even, instead of encouragement, we meet with nothing but misconception and ingratitude. But how is it that the Apostle can forbid us to become weary? We become so without wishing to do so. Yes, but one may wish to get the better of his weariness, and in this we are aided by the fountain of refreshment and strength, to which we are pointed in that reference to the love of God which appoints unto us an eternal Sabbath, and to the patience of Christ, who had to experience still greater ingratitude, and seemed to labor with even less result, than we (2 Thessalonians 3:5). 3. (2 Thessalonians 3:6; 2 Thessalonians 3:11; 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15.) The injunction here given by the Apostle is, after the extraordinary judgment on Ananias and Sapphira, and the penal sentence on Simon the sorcerer, the first example of Church discipline. It is the more worthy of notice on account of the Apostle’s subjecting to it an error, which we probably should not have regarded so seriously. With a keen spiritual insight he practises the principiis obsta, as in 1 Corinthians 11:3 sqq.; where he resists with such marked emphasis the first stirrings of a Women’s Emancipation. On Church discipline comp. Godet’s Report in the Swiss Reformed Preachers’ Association at Neuenburg, 1850, and Fabri on Kirchenzucht im Sinn und Geist des Evangdiums, Stuttgard, 1854. Both agree in proving Church discipline of a genuine and thoroughly evangelical kind to be an act of severity proceeding from love, and in recognizing in the historical development of excommunication a very unevangelical penalty, and one rather befitting the police. Both incline somewhat too much towards reducing all Church discipline to a cure of souls. The ground-text from which they properly start is Matthew 18:15 sqq. As we are to give no offence to our neighbors (Matthew 3:6 sqq.), so just as little are we to sin against them by neglecting to admonish them. It is a brother who is liable to censure. If he will be a Christian, and still persists in a sin that is inconsistent with his Christian profession, he should be convicted of this contradiction, first privately, and, if that does not avail, then by taking with us one or two witnesses. Neither in the case of the first complainant, nor of these further witnesses, is there any assertion of the need of an official character. Only they must be Christians, whose hearts are affected by the injury done to the Christtian calling. If again he hear not the two or three, then tell it to the Church,—her, namely, whose establishment and invincibleness were spoken of in Matthew 16:18. And if he hear not the Church also, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican. In the earlier stages a protest was made from his confession against his sin, but now it is from his sin, since he will not forsake it, against his confession. Let him be to thee as a heathen, that is, to thee, the first complainant; nor is this to be at once generalized. But certainly there is now further connected herewith a promise given by the Lord to His disciples, that whatever they bind or loose on earth shall be ratified likewise in heaven. They have made God’s cause theirs; God now makes their cause His; and, if they have no other weapons than the prayers of two or three gathered together in the name of Jesus, He will hear their prayers, and will cause the binding and loosing to act with power. In 1 Corinthians 5. we meet with a case, in which Paul reproaches the church for not having taken measures against a peculiarly grievous scandal. There too he by no means makes the office bearers especially responsible. There too the man, whom discipline should have reached, is one who desires to pass for a brother, and nevertheless holds fast stubbornly to his sin (2 Thessalonians 3:11). In that instance Paul omits the first and second exhortations, because in a notoriously bad case these were no longer admissible. But he insists that the church, to be free from participation in the guilt, should have broken off all intercourse with the impenitent sinner (2 Thessalonians 3:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:11); and he further declares, by virtue of his apostolic authority, yet in such a way that it appears to be the rule which the Corinthians should have executed, that he delivers that wicked person unto Satan; he does not mean, to damnation, but, if possible, for salvation, namely, for the destruction of the flesh, to a bodily disease, or some such trial, that the spirit may be saved (2 Thessalonians 3:5; comp. 1 Timothy 1:20 [1 Corinthians 11:30]). The suspension of intercourse answers to the word, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican; the delivery to Satan, on the other hand, is a special mode of binding, and is effected through the prayer of faith, invoking, when necessary, a terrible punishment as a means of salutary discipline. This, of course, can be imitated in a very evil and fleshly style; but however often fanatical priests may have practised such an abuse, this does not annul the legitimate use, that keeps within the limits of the word and spirit of Scripture. Men are required, who really have the Spirit (John 20:22-23), or who pray sincerely in the name of Jesus (Matthew 18:19-20); only such can practise especially this extreme measure. And then it is just as important, not to neglect a timely restoration; as the Apostle sets us the example, when he will not allow that the unhappy man be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow, and so destroyed by Satan (2 Corinthians 2:7; 2 Corinthians 2:11). In Thessalonica the question was not about anything so unusually wicked, as there in Corinth. For this reason, there is as yet in the meanwhile no mention of a delivery to Satan, but simply of the rupture of brotherly intimacy. As Bengel says, the affair was a labes quζ non nisi lautas animas tentat. And therefore the offenders here are not to be regarded as publicans and heathens, but as brethren who must be admonished, and who accordingly must even be told what there is against them. They must be dealt with as diseased, not as amputated, members. It has been asked whether in the suspension of brotherly intercourse, which according to 1 Corinthians 5:11 was a refusal to eat together, carried with it an exclusion from the Holy Supper. Godet will not admit of the inference, that, if not even ordinary fellowship at table was granted to him, then much less was the Supper; this he thinks not at all self-evident, the first being a matter of personal allowance, the second not so. But the distinction is perhaps too nice, and for the apostolic age especially untenable. A publican or a heathen might be present at the preaching of the word, but he had no part in the fraternal repast. The shrine of the covenant was for no one who was delivered unto Satan. Nor indeed was the Supper at that time observed as a separate act of worship; it formed the conclusion of the love-feast or agape, and the two together were called δεῖπνονκυριακόν. If the one half of this was refused, then, of course, so was the other. On this point, therefore, Fabri also does not agree with Godet. What most readily admits still of a doubt in our passage is, how far the discipline reached, since it is here said expressly: not as an enemy, but as a brother admonish him. At any rate, however, the apostolic writings do not anticipate an insolent demand for the Supper on the part of those under censure, but repentance unto life. Then as to the manner in which the church declares itself, that is not, it is true, clearly defined. When Jesus says: Should he not hear the church, the church must have found some way of expressing its mind. The mode is left undetermined; but our passage shows that, as soon as the church as a whole, or by a large majority, obeyed the word of the Apostle, the στέλλεσθαι, an individual affair in the first instance, came to be a σημειοῦσθαι on the part of the church. Because nowadays we do not generally have churches, that could in this way harmoniously express themselves in the Spirit of the Lord, we are not at liberty to deny the existence of such a state of things even in the apostolic age. At present there may be no possibility of anything much beyond the private care of souls; but this does not prove that church discipline is essentially nothing but the private care of souls. Nor is the design of it by any means solely the reformation of the offender. When the Basle Confession says: es bannet die christenliche Kylch nit dann umb Besserung willen [the Christian Church does not excommunicate for the sake of amendment], it also supplements this onesidedness by exhibiting the other object: damil die Kilch jr Gestalt sovil mφglich on Masen (ohne Flecken) behalte [that the Church may preserve its aspect as free from blemishes as possible). In other words, the restoration of the erring person is certainly the first thing aimed at by the genuine earnestness of love; but whether he repents or not, it is just as important to save the church from a spreading scandal, and the church conscience from moral stupefaction; and not less so, finally, is the removal of any such stain as would imperil the outward missionary calling of the church (1 Corinthians 5:1; 1 Corinthians 10:32). Discipline, therefore, contemplates something beyond the mere influence on individuals. It is, as Nitzsch says, a judicial act. So it is understood likewise in the Articles of Schmalkald, III. 9, where the lesser excommunication is very briefly spoken of, for the purpose, chiefly, of pressing the distinction between it and civil penalties; and just so in the Heidelberg Catechism, Quest. 85. How is it with us to-day? By a manifold unchristian banning and cursing; by an admixture of civil penalties, of such, in particular, as by disgracing exasperated; and by a wicked distinction of classes, there has so much damage been done to the practice of ecclesiastical discipline, that a zealous rigorism, which would reλstablish the old methods, has here the least possible prospect of any result whatever. But, while in our circumstances the setting aside of an unevangelical Church police merits the highest approval, it is not so with the widespread relaxation of all discipline, and the resentment of many against whatever looks like it. When an officer of Berne was required to see that his soldiers, after a night riotously passed in drinking and whoring, were on the next morning without any rebuke whatever ordered to the Holy Supper, it is conceivable that the wounded conscience might be driven even to separation. And yet it is not said that this expedient was the right one. But a private proceeding, which without arrogance testifies an unwillingness to be made a partaker of another’s guilt through intercourse with the sinner, as if we favored his sin (2 John 1:10-11), that is the duty incumbent first of all on the individual. It will be blessed, the more one is willing to suffer for the truth. The στέλλεσθαι, performed by one or a few, when many are not yet ripe for it, is an act of fidelity to the apostolic word; and a prayer of two or three has in this case a special promise from the Lord. Roos: The directions are left still standing in the Bible, if peradventure it may be possible for small societies here and there to make use of them; and we wait for better times, when their use will be more complete and general. 4. (2 Thessalonians 3:16.) Roos: When animosity was mingled with exhortation, or self-willed people despised it, it might produce discord. Paul therefore wishes for them peace in the heart, in the family, and the church; peace with the Lord, with their stumbling brethren, and also, so far as possible, with those without.—Not by covering up what is evil, but by overcoming it, is true peace to be obtained. The sin that troubles it must be extinguished. But that we should have to contend with our neighbors should not cease, however necessary it may be, to be painful to us. Peace must ever be our aim. A cheerful warfare in the spirit of peace only the Lord of peace can give. AND 2 Thessalonians 3:6 sqq. in connection with 2 Thessalonians 3:5. Roos: A directing of the heart into the love of God is necessary, when we are to denounce something that is opposed to the glory of God, and abolish it in ourselves or others; and a directing of the heart into the patience of Christ is necessary, if, according to the injunction in 2 Thessalonians 3:15, zeal is not to be carried too far. 2 Thessalonians 3:6. Disorder may arise in the best churches.—Berl. Bib.: To command in the name of Jesus Christ requires the humility and long-suffering of Jesus. Calvin: Those live disorderly, who reflect not on the end of their creation; those orderly, who walk according to the commandments of God.—Roos: These people were not idle, but they did not attend to their own business, but meddled with the affairs of others, and so did not maintain the necessary quietness. Their work, accordingly, was no work, but a restless occupation that was troublesome to others. They ran around (Diedrich) in restlessness, excitement, inaction, and eccentricity.—Calvin calls such sponging drones.—Heubner: If one found no companions, that of itself must be an end of his enjoyment. 2 Thessalonians 3:7-9. Calvin: Our teaching has much more weight, when we lay no burden on others but what we bear ourselves.—Chrysostom: Talking is easy for every one; the difficulty is in acting, when there is need for it.—Heubner: A position of high consideration often misleads into taking undue liberties.—Diedrich: (The Apostle acted thus) that they might see, that a Christian should work and earn his own bread.—Mental labor is by many not reckoned to be really labor.—Calvin: All men are not so reasonable, as to acknowledge what is due to a minister of the word; many grudge them their living, as if they were idlers.—Paul insists on the right, but shows them (Diedrich) that he would rather do double work, than accept of a gratuitous support.—Heubner: The common maxim is: I do not put myself to inconvenience for the sake of others.—The same: True freedom restricts itself. 2 Thessalonians 3:10. Heubner: Every morsel admonishes: Dost thou deserve to taste? 2 Thessalonians 3:11-12. Περιεργάζεσθαι is in French: faire des riens.—Diedrich: Such fanatical, labor-shirking folks fancy that they are beyond all others zealous, pious, and holy. At such fanaticism weak people are accustomed readily to stare.—Stδhelin: It is sinful indolence, when one does not Christianly labor in an honorable calling. But that calling is honorable, which in itself is not displeasing to God, nor scandalous to our neighbor, but in which we are led by God to stand, and to which we are permitted to ask His assistance. Idleness and Christianity do not agree. The more pious the Christian, the more diligent the worker.—Starke: He who without necessity eats other people’s bread is no better than a thief.—Diedrich: Our glory and our heavenly treasure we have within; we can therefore perform all outward labor, and should do so willingly, that we may serve our time by what is temporal. They who belong to the eternal Lord should not beg or steal what is temporal. Thus (in such a seemingly lowly way) will God perfect us for the highest glory. [Scott: A slothful man is a scandal to any society, but most to a religious society.—Lectures: What a practical, reasonable, orderly thing Christianity is! It would have every man at work—at work of some kind—and every man at his own work.—The same: And cat their own bread! How often has that one noble phrase quickened the pulse, and nerved the arm, of honest industry! It has done more for the, poor of Christendom, in Protestant countries at least, than all the devices of philanthropy and all the provisions of law.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 3:13. Zwingli: Many call those good works, which are not at all good. Nothing is good, but what comes from God.—Diedrich: Become not weary in this good way of a sober, discreet walk.—Roos: (Paul’s wish is that) they should not drive this precept (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12) too far, and, if those brethren should perhaps be unable fully to earn their own bread, they are not to be reluctant to help them.—Chrysostom: It is not the giving, but the misconduct of the beggar, that should cause us pain.—Berl. Bib.: Fret not thyself because of evil-doers (Psalms 37:1; Psalms 37:8).—Rieger: The Apostle had frequent occasion to warn against despondency (2 Corinthians 4:1; 2 Corinthians 4:16; Galatians 6:9; Ephesians 3:13). 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15. Apostolic Church discipline presupposes genuine churches, wherein the rule of God’s word is recognized, and those who have the Spirit decide. Chrysostom already bewails the decay of discipline.—Roos: Paul demands obedience, and hints at still greater severity. He writes at one time mildly, at another sharply, according to the exigencies of persons and cases as they occurred. He desires to draw the upright Thessalonians also into fellowship in his zeal.—Church discipline should not merely exclude gross scorners, but should also hold members living in the dissipation of inactivity to quietness and work.—Roos: Penitent shame makes all right again.—It looks well, when the few disorderly persons blush at being put to shame by the reserve of others.—Rieger: Many a man in his self-love and fond fancy supposes that he hits it far better than others; but by the withdrawal of confidence and intercourse he must be made to feel, that he has reason to be ashamed.—Calvin: Not flattery, but exhortation, is the true sign of love.—Roos: Matters stand ill in a Christian church, when we are not able and willing to shame disorderly persons by withdrawing from them, and treating them with reserve. In such a case love has not salt enough.—In how many places is the mass composed of the listless or the malevolent!—Roos: Who will make them blush, when they are defiant, and not ashamed of wickedness? 2 Thessalonians 3:16. Rieger: We need peace in the Church, in the commonwealth, in households, marriages, families, trades, in regard to eating one’s own bread, in regard to opinions, wherein one is often puffed up against another. But (Von Gerlach): Peace, not at the cost of the holy war against impurities, but just by means of such a conflict. 2 Thessalonians 3:6-16. Stockmeyer: The word of God would especially take under its discipline and care our inner man, and implant in us a heavenly mind, but not as if earthly relations were something altogether indifferent, or even something so low, that the Christian is not at all to meddle with them. Rather, the heavenly mind is to show itself in those very things (Luke 16:10). Footnotes: 2 Thessalonians 3:6.—[δέ. Revision: “So far is it from being true, however, that the love of God and the patience of Christ are incompatible with the maintenance of a proper discipline, &c.” Ordinarily, indeed, this δέ is regarded as merely μεταβατικόν. Webster and Wilkinson think it refers to ἅ παραγγ. in 2 Thessalonians 3:4=Now the command I have to give you is.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 3:6.—Only B. D.1 E.1 omit ἡμῶν; the great majority of authorities have it; also. Sin. [It is bracketed by Lachmann, and cancelled by Tischendorf, Alford, Ellicott.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 3:6.—[κατὰ τὴνπαράδοσιν. See 2 Thessalonians 2:9, Critical Note 22, and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Critical Note 7.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 3:6.—The third person plural, if not genuine, would least of all have come by correction presenting as it does a slight inaccuracy of style;—παντός points to a plurality, and so the sequel treats of the ἀτάκτοις in the plural. The Recepta παρέλαβε has scarcely any support at all; παρελάβετε [Lachmann] is given, indeed, by B. F. G., but obviously as a correction; we have therefore to read either παέλαβον (with Sin.2 D. E. K. L., &c. [approved by Mill, and edited by Bengel, Knapp, Scholz, Schott.—J. L.]), or still better παρελάβοσαν (with Sin.1 A. D.1 [Griesbach, Tischendorf, Alford, Wordsworth, Ellicott, &c.—J. L.]), the rarer (Alexandrian) form; see Winer, § 13. 2; Romans 3:13; and the Septuagint often. 2 Thessalonians 3:7.—[μιμεῖσθαι: comp. 1 Thessalonians 1:6.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 3:8.—[ἀλλ’ ἐν (Sin.: ἀλλὰ ἐνκόπῳ καἱ μόχθῳ, νύκτακαὶ ἡμέρανἐργαζόμενοι. See foot-note to p. 162.—Lachmann reads νυκτὸςκαὶ ἡμέρας, after Sin. B. F. G.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 3:8.—[As in 1 Thessalonians 2:9.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 3:9.—[ἐξουσίαν. This word is rendered authority 29 times in our Common Version, and so here in nearly all the older, and in many modern, English Versions. Others have right.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 3:9.—[ἵναἐαυτοὺςτύπον (see 1 Thessalonians 1:7, Critical Note 7) δῶμενὑμῖνεἰςτὸ μιμεῖσθαιἡμᾶς.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 3:10.—[καὶ γάρ. Revision: “And you cannot well doubt that such was our design. For not only by our example did we inculcate this rule, but also by express precept.” Ellicott makes this γάρ “coφrdinate with the preceding γάρ in 2 Thessalonians 3:7” (so Lόnemann), and finds here a “second confirmation of the wisdom and pertinence of the preceding warning that they ought to avoid those that were walking disorderly.”—The τοῦτο before παρμγγέλλομεν is wanting in Sin.1, but supplied, by correction.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 3:12.—The reading, ἐνκυρ. Ἰησ. Χρ. has the oldest authorities in its favor, A. B. Sin.1 D.1 E.1 F. G., Versions [Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, Ellicott, Riggenbach]; the other, διὰ τοῦ κυρ. ἡμῶνἸ. Χ. [Sin.2 D.3 E.2 K. L.], is moreover the more usual with παρακαλεῖν. 2 Thessalonians 3:13.—[For ἐκκακήσητε, Schott, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, Wordsworth, Ellicott, read ἐγ (Sin.) or ἐνκακήσητε.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 3:14.—[τῆςἐπιστολῆς; Revision: ‘ ‘which I have just written, and which he will soon hear read.” Ellicott, however: “This, perhaps, may remain as one of the few cases in which idiom and euphony may justify us in retaining the pronominal translation;” as does likewise Alford.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 3:14.—The καί is wanting in A. B. Sin. D.2 E. [Lachmann], and with this is connected the fact, that nearly the same authorities give the infinitive συναναμίγνυσθαι, [Lachmann]; many codd., to be sure, are constantly confounding as and e, as the Sin. also just before gives σημειοῦσθαι; see the exposition. [Riggenbach brackets καί.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 3:14.—[See 1 Corinthians 4:14; and so Ellicott here.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 3:15.—[καί. See the exposition.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 3:16.—[ἐνπαντὶ τρόπῳ. Comp. 2 Thessalonians 2:3.—J. L.] The only suitable reading τρόπῳ is sufficiently supported by A.2 B. Sin. D.3 E. K. L., Versions and Fathers; τόπῳ (A.1 D.1 F. G. [Vulgate]) arose probably from such places as 1 Corinthians 1:2, and was improperly favored by Beza and Grotius. [Lachmann alone edits it.—J. L.] The other various readings—2 Thessalonians 3:8, νυκτὸςκαὶ ἡμέρας, instead of νύκτακαὶ ἡμέραν; 2 Thessalonians 3:11, a different position of the word περιπατοῦντας; 2 Thessalonians 3:13, ἐνκακήσητε, instead of ἐκκ.—are of no consequence whatever to the sense. [So Matthias and Olshausen explain ὑ πέστελλεν, whereas Ellicott agrees with De Wette in regarding that rather as the initial act, which led to the second—the separation.—J. L.] [Ellicott: “in that we behaved not disorderly.—J. L.] [παράτινος. Webster and Wilkinson quote the provincial English idiom: off any man.—J. L.] Riggenbach’s construction is the more common; but the other, which makes ἐνκόπῳ καὶ μόχθῳ the positive complement, in opposition to δωρεάν, of αρτονἐφάγομεν, and then adds νύκτακαὶ ἡμέρανἐργαζόμενοι as an explanatory parallel” (Revision), is adopted by the Dutch Version, De Wette, Winer, Conybeare, Ellicott, Am. Bible Union, and others. Ellicott: “The emphatic position of δωρεάν apparently suggests the sharper antithesis, which the separation of the members here seems to introduce.”—J. L.] [Estius: “Quasi dicas, nihil operantes, sed circumoperantes.” Robinson: “Doing nothing, but over-doing; not busy in work, but busy-bodies.” Conybeare: “Busy bodies who do no business;” Jowett: “busy only with what is not their own business;” “Webster and Wilkinson: “working nothing but overworking.”—J. L.] [Ellicott, on Galatians 6:9 : “If ὲκκακ. exist, the difference will be very slight; ἐκκακεῖν may perhaps mean, ‘to retire from fear out of any course of action’ (nearly ἀποκακεῖν); ἐγκακεῖν ‘to behave cowardly,’ ‘to lose heart,’ when in it.—J. L.] [The two cases are by no means parallel, and in neither case can the construction properly be called inaccurate.—J. L.] 3. 2 Thessalonians 3:17-18 He concludes with a parting Salutation and Benediction under his own hand 17The salutation of Paul with mine own hand; which is the [a] token in every epistle: so I write. 18The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. AND 1. (2 Thessalonians 3:17.) The salutation of Paul with mine own hand; Παύλου is in apposition to ἐμῇ, which indeed as to sense is the same thing μου. Hitherto, therefore, Paul had dictated; and that was his custom (Romans 16:22); though Galatians 6:12 [11] purports otherwise.—Which is the [a] token; ὅ might be explained by attraction, the subject being conformed to the gender of the predicate; but it is better to understand it thus: which, to wit, the ἀσπάζεσθαιτῆ ?̣ ἐμῆ ?̣ χειρί.—In every epistle; on which Theophylact already remarks: ἐνπάσῃ τῆ ?̣ ἐπιστ. τῆ ?̣ ἵσωςπεμφθησομένῃ πρὸςὑμᾶς, ῆ καὶ ἁπλῶςἐνπάσῃ τῆ ?̣ πρὸςοὕστινας. [Ellicott: “Apparently with reference to every future epistle (τῆ ?̣ πρὸςοὕστιναςδήποτε, Theoph. 2) which the Apostle might hereafter deem it necessary so to authenticate,—not merely those he might have contemplated writing to Thessalonica (Theoph. 1, Lόnem.); for consider 1 Corinthians 16:21 and Colossians 4:18. If it be urged that these last mentioned are the only Epistles in which the autograph attestation seems to have found a place, it may be reasonably answered that the πάσῃ must be understood relatively of every Epistle that was sent in such a way or under such circumstances as to have needed it. All the other Epistles (except 1 Cor., Col., which have the σημεῖον, and 1 Thess., which was sent before circumstances proved it to be necessary) are fairly, shown both by De Wette and by Alford in loc. to have either been delivered by emissaries (2 Corinth., Phil.), to bear marks (Galatians 6:11, and perhaps the doxology in Rom., Eph.), or to be of such a general character (Rom.? Eph.? and those to individuals) as to have rendered such a formal attestation unnecessary.”—J. L.]—So I write; not, that is, these words, as if there were cause for surprise, if we meet with them again only in 1 Cor. and Col.; it is not ταῦτα, but οὕτως, and De Wette’s inquiry, why the words recur in the smallest number of the other Epistles, is quite superfluous. He says merely: This is my handwriting (see the Introduction to Thess., p. 114). Grotius, Bengel and others, thought of an intricate monogram, difficult of imitation; but that is untenable, and not consonant to antiquity. It may be further asked, whether by the autograph salutation Paul means 2 Thessalonians 3:17, or 2 Thessalonians 3:18, or both together. Very improbable is Diedrich’s idea: The salutation and benediction in 2 Thessalonians 3:16 are written by my hand. The word is referred to 2 Thessalonians 3:18 by Chrysostom (ἀσπασμὸνκαλεῖ τὴνεὐχήν), Theodoret, Theophylact; by Lόnemann, on the other hand, only to 2 Thessalonians 3:17, ἀσπασμός, he thinks, being something different from a benediction. But probably this is to distinguish too nicely, and besides it is scarcely to be supposed, that Paul should have written 2 Thessalonians 3:17 with his own hand, and then again have dictated 2 Thessalonians 3:18. Nor does Lόnemann assume this, but regards both verses as autographical. In that case, however, the separation between salutation and benediction also fails, as Hofmann properly remarks. The closing salutation might be compressed, or extended. The Apostle wrote it himself, but not always in the same words, nor always expressly drawing attention to it: ὁ ἀσπ., &c. In this place it is the salutation of love, and at the same time a precautionary measure for the future. After what has been said, Lόnemann’s other inference is likewise untenable, that, if Paul here says for the first time: οὕτωςγράφω, and thus shows that his handwriting was still unknown to the Thessalonians, then in the First Epistle he had not written the salutation. But he might there too have written the words of benediction, and merely not have found occasion to make express reference to his handwriting. So Hofmann with reason. Utterly groundless is it, when Grotius also infers from our passage that this Epistle was the first, since, had they already received one at an earlier period, this notice would have been unnecessary.—A thorough knowledge of Paul’s customary procedure could only be got from the original letters. But we know enough to say, that to regard the warding off of a pernicious forgery, as just a mark by which a forger betrays himself, is the most perverse abuse of our passage.2. (2 Thessalonians 3:18.) The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all; as in the First Epistle, only that here all is expressed; no one, therefore, even of the delinquents is excluded. AND ETHICAL(2 Thessalonians 3:17-18.) Paul takes great pains even for the fides humana of Scripture. The interest which faith has in scientific criticism consists in this, that it must be of importance for us to place confidence in nothing that is precarious. Now the original apostolic manuscript is not accessible to us, but we are referred to a series of intermediate processes, through which copies of the original are delivered to us, and, were we obliged to verify the trustworthiness of these mediums, we should remain in a painful uncertainty. But, on the whole, it is only through the fides divina that the fides humana first receives its full authentication. Only because this Epistle also bears the stamp of the Spirit of God, is the assertion of the writer, which we read at 2 Thessalonians 3:17, worthy of credit, and it becomes a moral impossibility for us to impeach it as a falsehood. Not the Apostle’s handwriting, which we no longer have before us, but the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, which pervades the Epistle, is for us the decisive seal of authenticity. AND Stδhelin: Truly this is also the mark of all those who are a living epistle of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:2-3), that the grace of their Lord Jesus, whom they have received in faith and love to their justification, sanctification, and salvation, is by them continually embraced and held fast as their souls’ only comfort and joy. THE END OF . Footnotes: 2 Thessalonians 3:17.—[The Greek is: Ὁ ἀσπασμὸςτῆ ἐμῆ χειρὶ Παύλου, which Riggehbach renders: Der Gruss mit meiner Paulushand. Our English Version gives it in three forms: “The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand” (1 Corinthians 16:21; and so Ellicott in our text); “The salutation by the hand of me Paul” (Colossians 4:18); “The salutation of Paul with mine own hand” (2 Thessalonians 3:17). The second mode was adopted in my Revision of this Epistle.—J. L. ] 2 Thessalonians 3:17.—[σημεῖον, without the article; and so De Wette, Lόnemann, Conybeare, Ellicott, and others.—J. L.] 2 Thessalonians 3:18.—Most authorities give ἀμήν; it is wanting in B., Sin. ΰ prima manu, and some others. Grotius decides, that Amen was added by the church, when the Epistle was read. [It is cancelled by Tischendorf and Alford. Riggenbach likewise omits it.—J. L.] [Webster and Wilkinson: “We have here a strong proof that St. Paul regarded himself and desired the churches to regard him as the sole author of his Epistles, whatever might be the association of the superscription, or the corresponding phraseology of the composition.”—J. L.]