The first three chapters of this letter are largely personal and historical in character, the last two practical and doctrinal. They are joined in the Greek by the conjunction oun, which sometimes expresses a logical connection, as in Romans 12:1 where the exhortation arises out of the doctrinal exposition (cf. also Eph. 4:1; Col. 3:5). But not here. The oun is simply transitional. In his report, Timothy may have noted a tendency, or at least a temptation, for the Thessalonians to slip back into heathen conduct. There is always the pressure to conform—the downward pull of society. Paul exhorts them, therefore, to holiness (vv. 1–8; cf. 5:22f.), and to love (vv. 9f.), taking up the themes of the prayer of 3:11–13. He also pleads that they live quiet and industrious lives (vv. 11f.). Bruce suggests that the urgency of the exhortation betrays some resistance on the part of the Thessalonians. In the light of verse 1, however, this should not be overstated. But there may have been a tendency to think that Christian liberty meant Christian license: that Christ had set them free from codes and taboos, leading them to ask, therefore, why they should now be expected to submit to a new set of rules. What they needed to learn was that their liberty was to enable them to live a Christ-like life, a life with a positive ethical content which some rules might help them to achieve. In terms of its form, the exhortation (or parenesis) of these verses falls into a pattern found elsewhere, both in these and in other Pauline epistles (in the Greek, not always discernible in the English). In its fullest form, this pattern comprises a verb of exhortation, a vocative such as “brothers,” a prepositional phrase such as “in the Lord Jesus” (which puts the exhortation into context), and an injunction expressed by hina with the verb in the subjunctive, by an imperative, or by an infinitive (cf. 5:12, 14; 2 Thess. 3:6, 12).
4:1 Finally (loipon) seems strange in the middle of the letter and has occasioned much discussion. A number of commentators see the word as simply marking a transition (e.g., Milligan; Lightfoot; J. W. Bailey, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians [New York: Abingdon, 1955]), but others accept the rendering, “finally,” as appropriate at this point (e.g., C. F. D. Moule, Idiom Book of New Testament Greek [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959], p. 161). Morris comments that Paul can use “finally” quite early in a letter (1 Cor. 1:16; 4:2; Phil. 3:1; 4:8), but in this instance “it seems to mean that the main argument has been concluded, though other, not unimportant, matters are now to be dealt with.” The teaching of this section builds on what the missionaries had told the Thessalonians while they were still with them. We instructed you, says Paul (Gk. “just as,” kathōs, “you received from us,” paralambanō; see disc. and note on 2:13), how to live in order to please God. “To live” is, literally, “to walk” (see disc. on 2:12). The figure suggests that the Christian life should be marked by progress (i.e., spiritual growth); it is “itinerant, always on the march.” That thought is now enhanced by the present tense of the infinitive. The instruction was “to go on walking”—to persist in their efforts towards perfection; that is, to be like Christ—and so “to go on pleasing God” (another present infinitive). The phrase in Greek is stronger than it appears in NIV, for the Greek uses dei, “must.” The instruction was that they “must go on walking and pleasing.” There is no question of its being a matter of choice. It is part of what it means to be a Christian. In receiving Christ, we take on the obligation to be like him. Paul acknowledges that the Thessalonians had done this: as in fact you are living (i.e., “walking”). But there was no room for complacency. The urgency of the appeal is verified by the doubling of the verbs (cf. 3:2, “to strengthen and encourage”): We ask you and urge you … to do this more and more (cf. 4:10). Erōtaō, used in classical Greek only of asking a question, acquired by this time the additional sense of making a request (cf. 5:12; 2 Thess. 2:1). But “request” is too weak a term, and so the other is added parakaleō, see disc. on 3:2). Added also is the phrase, in the Lord Jesus, which puts the appeal into context. It could be read as an assertion by the missionaries of their authority to lay down the rules, but it is better read as indicative of their consciousness of the presence of Christ (for Lord, see note on 1:1). They speak simply as Christians to Christians (but cf. the authoritative tone of the phrase, “in the name of the Lord” in 2 Thess. 3:6). Their authority is, however, asserted in the next verse.
4:2 Paul reminds his Thessalonian readers of what they had been told earlier: You know what instructions we gave you. The authoritative tone is unmistakable, sounded in the word, parangelia, which signifies an order passed from one to another, often in a military context (cf. Acts 5:28; 16:24; 1 Tim. 1:5, 18). Paul is referring, then, to instructions that have come “down the line” from God, “through the Lord Jesus” (dia tou kyriou Iēsou; see note on 1:1). Some uncertainty exists as to how best to render the preposition dia in this phrase. It may be, as we have suggested, that it denotes agency: Jesus acts for God in the transmission. Or it may mean something like “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Cf. NIV by the authority of.… In any case, the instructions come from the highest authority and must, therefore, be obeyed (for the oneness of the Father and Son, see disc. on 3:11 and 2 Thess. 2:16).
4:3 These orders are that you should be sanctified. The Greek runs, “This is God’s will; [namely,] your sanctification.” In 3:13, hagiosynē is holiness itself; now the related word, hagiasmos, is rather the process that results in that state. Strictly the word means to be set apart for God, but what is set apart for God must be worthy of him, and so hagiasmos acquires an ethical meaning. It is the process of becoming holy in the sense of good, of bringing Christian practice into line with Christian status (cf. vv. 4, 7; 2 Thess. 2:13, but see comment on that verse; for the corresponding verb, hagiazō, “to sanctify,” cf. 1 Thess. 5:23). Sanctification in this sense requires the work of a lifetime and will be completed only at the Parousia (cf. Phil. 3:12, 21). It covers the whole range of Christian living, but on this occasion Paul deals specifically with sexual matters, detailing three areas in particular in which the Thessalonians were to look to their present practice. First, he says, God’s will is that you should avoid sexual immorality. The language resembles the apostolic decree in Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25, with which both Paul and Silas would have been familiar. The word rendered “sexual immorality” is porneia, which regularly means to have dealings with a prostitute (pornē), but it was also used of any form of illicit sex—illicit from the Jewish/Christian point of view—that is, of any sexual relationship outside of marriage and sometimes of those marriage relationships forbidden by Jewish law. It may have been to the latter especially that the apostolic decree was referring (cf. also Matt. 5:32; 19:9; 1 Cor. 5:1). This restriction of sex to marriage struck the pagan world of that day as odd, for it tolerated and even encouraged, at least in the case of men, various forms of extramarital sexual activity. But the lives of believers are to be governed not by the general level of morality in the community, but by the will of God.
4:4–5 God’s will is, second, that each of you should learn to control his own body. Paul changes from the plural “you” of the previous verse to the singular, and from the negative “avoid” to the positive “control.” The object of that control is understood by NIV to be the body, but it must be acknowledged that this is not the most common meaning of skeuos, the word thus translated. Skeuos usually means “a vessel” or “an implement.” It does, however, function metaphorically of people, including Paul himself, in a number of places (cf. Acts 9:15; Rom. 9:22f.; 2 Tim. 2:21) and in 1 Peter 3:7 with reference to the marriage relationship, of wives in particular. Peter describes the wife as the weaker vessel. On the basis of that passage, some suppose that Paul is also speaking of wives—“that each of you should learn to control his own wife.” But it should be observed that Peter does not call the wife the husband’s vessel, but rather implies that both the husband and wife are the vessels of God. In any case, if that were Paul’s meaning here, it would imply such a low view of marriage as would make nonsense of his use of marriage elsewhere as a model of mutual love and esteem (e.g., Eph. 5:21–23). Some support for the meaning of skeuos as “body” occurs in 2 Corinthians 4:7, where Paul highlights the weakness, including the physical weakness, of the ministers of the gospel by describing them literally as “vessels of clay.” But the best support surfaces in 1 Samuel 21:5, where David assures the priest of Nob that his young men have kept themselves from women. Their “vessels (LXX skēnē) are holy,” he said. The reference is, broadly, to their bodies and, perhaps, specifically to their genitalia. How specific Paul may have intended to be is open to question, but it does seem highly likely that he meant “body” by skeuos, not “wife.” Accordingly, he also intended this to be a general instruction, like that which precedes it in verse 3 and follows it in verse 6, addressed to both men and women (see further notes).
Further difficulty arises with the verb ktaomai, which usually means “to acquire” and would make good sense here with that meaning: “that each of you should acquire his own wife.” But given that “wife” is a less likely meaning of skeuos than “body,” we should take ktaomai to mean “to possess.” In classical usage, this sense is restricted to the perfect and pluperfect tenses, but Moulton-Milligan cite evidence that this restriction no longer applied in NT Greek. Here Paul uses the verb in the present tense (of the infinitive) with the sense, “to be in the process of gaining possession, i.e., control.” He was realistic enough to know that we are not made into saints (in the popular sense) overnight and that we must work at it, especially with regard to our bodies. Sex is a good thing, but our proclivity to illicit sex must be controlled. Nor is this discipline merely for discipline’s sake. It is for God’s sake.
This whole discussion centers on doing God’s will. Thus the “possession” of the body must be achieved in a way that is holy and honorable. Again we have the word hagiasmos. In verse 3 it meant sanctification, the process of making holy. In this passage it draws closer to the meaning of hagiosynē, the resultant state. Paul wants each of them to control his or her body in a way that accords with their consecration to God (to be holy means [1] to be separate, set apart for God, and [2] to be worthy of God). Their self-control should be honorable (timē) in the sense of honoring God (cf. 1 Cor. 6:20), in contrast with the sexual excesses of others which involve the “dishonoring (atimazō) of their bodies with one another” (Rom. 1:24). So he adds, not in passionate lust like the heathen. Pathos generally has a neutral sense, “experience,” “emotion,” but in the NT it consistently carries the bad sense of “passion,” not a violent emotion as we think of passion but rather as an over-mastering emotion. “It denotes the passive side of a vice” (Morris). Epithymia, though, is concerned with its active side, generally also in a bad sense: desiring what is forbidden. The combination of the two words (en pathei epithymias, “in a passion of desire”) suggests the idea of total surrender to illicit sex, which, says Paul, typifies the heathen who do not know God. Their behavior is explained by their ignorance but is not excused by it. In Romans 1:28, the heathens’ ignorance of God is due not to any lack of data but to their deliberately ignoring God (cf. 2 Thess. 1:8).
4:6 Third (in detailing three areas in which the Thessalonians were to be sanctified), God’s will is that in this matter, i.e., in respect to sex, no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. Some dispute that Paul’s theme was still sex and see this as a general warning (see, e.g., RSV marg., “defraud his brother in business”). But in the Greek, verses 3 to 6 are one sentence in which three phrases (expressed by infinitives) stand in apposition with hagiasmos in verse 3, defining it. This being so, it is more likely that Paul would maintain the one theme throughout the sentence than change it in the last phrase. In any case, “in this matter” (en tō pragmati) clearly refers to the matter already under discussion. Specifically then with respect to sex, “no one should wrong his brother.” The verb hyperbainō, which is found only here in the NT, means “to go beyond” and thus “to go beyond the bounds,” “to trespass,” and here, “to have illicit sex”; that is, to enter into a sexual relationship outside of marriage. “Brother” probably means one’s fellow Christian, whether male or female, although the same prohibition would apply were the other party a pagan. The second infinitive in this phrase, “to take advantage” (from the verb pleonekteō), connotes greed, “to want to have more than one should,” and here, “to want the spouse of another.”
The sentence (vv. 3 to 6) ends with an explanation (not apparent in NIV) which is at the same time a warning: “because (dioti) the Lord is an avenger in (peri, ‘concerning’) all these (matters).” From the apparent change of subject in verse 7 to God (theos), we can assume that the “Lord” of this verse is Jesus (see note on 1:1) and that he is the endikos, the avenger. The only other instance of this word in the NT concerns the civil magistrates in Romans 13:4. It would appear, then, that Paul envisions a trial in which Jesus is the judge (cf. Acts 10:42; 17:31; 1 Cor. 4:5; 2 Thess. 1:8). His thought is probably of the Parousia, although the NT, and indeed Paul himself, is not unfamiliar with the idea of divine judgment taking place even now (cf. John 3:18; Rom. 1:24, 26, 28). And this judgment will take account of, among other things, sexual morality. Earlier, the missionaries warned the Thessalonians about this. Christians, no less than others, will be judged, although in their case the judgment will not be a matter of life and death. As far as that is concerned, they have already been acquitted of the “capital offense” of sin; that is, they are already justified. But they will still be called to give an account of themselves as Christians, and Timothy’s report may indicate that their earlier warning along these lines could do with repetition (for Christians being judged, see Williams, Promise, pp. 93–96).
4:7–8 A further explanation is added: For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. The tense of the verb (aorist) dates this call from conversion (see disc. on 2 Thess. 2:14). The mention of impurity (akatharsia, cf. 2:3) confirms that the subject of verse 6 is sexual rather than general behavior. The construction in the Greek, with this noun in the dative case governed by the preposition epi, denotes purpose. But the construction changes in the second half of the verse to en with the dative. The noun is once again hagiasmos (see disc. on 4:3 and 4:4f.), and once again the thought is of believers being called to be “in the process of becoming holy.” They are consecrated to God, and consecration demands sanctification. To fail to appreciate this has serious consequences, as indicated by what follows.
Therefore (toigaroun, an emphatic and somewhat portentous conjunction) he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God. NIV supplies “this instruction” (from 4:2), the Greek being only “he who rejects does not reject man.” The verb “to reject” (atheteō) means “to do away with what has been laid down.” It was sometimes used with regard to documents, such as a will (cf. Gal. 3:15), in which case it means “to annul.” Where people are concerned, it means “to treat as of no account,” and that is the sense here. Whoever regards sexual sin as a matter of little consequence is guilty of discounting God. “Man” lacks a definite article and therefore includes any who might have instructed them or might do so again in the future. But the human teacher is incidental; the instruction is God’s, and the sin of disregarding it is against God. The seriousness of such sin, or rather, the ingratitude it exemplifies, is brought home by the description of God as the one who gives you his Holy Spirit. That he “gives” demonstrates his grace and demands our gratitude, not disregard; that he gives his Holy Spirit (where the adjective is deliberately employed as indicated by its emphatic position in the Greek) indicates his concern that his grace should issue in our holiness. And in this context, the reference to God’s Spirit will remind Paul’s later readers who are familiar with his Corinthian correspondence, that the very “vessel” with which sexual sin might be committed, is the dwelling place of the God who forbids it (cf. 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:18f.).
4:9 The opening words of this verse, Now about brotherly love, employ the same formula (peri with the gen. case) found in 1 Corinthians, where it signals Paul’s answers to the Corinthians’ questions (cf. 1 Cor. 7:1; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12; cf. also 1 Thess. 5:1). It is unlikely, however, that the Thessalonians had asked his advice about brotherly love. It is not the kind of specific subject on which advice would be sought, and, in any case, Paul acknowledges that there was no need for him to write on the subject. He comments several times on the love that characterized the Thessalonian church (1:3; 3:6, 12). Brotherly love (Philadelphia) is a particular instance of the love (agapē) that Christians should have for all people (see disc. on 3:12). It is their love for each other as members of the one family. Sadly, it is not always obvious, but in this case it is. You yourselves, Paul declares, have been taught by God to love (agapaō) each other. In saying this, Paul employs a word unique to this passage in the NT and, indeed, in the whole of the Greek literature to that time—theodidaktos, “God-taught.” He may have coined it himself. It picks up the promise of the OT that the day would come when God would teach his people (Isa. 54:13; Jer. 31:33f.). That day had now come, but how precisely had God’s people been taught? They had been taught by Jesus: by the precepts that he had given them reaffirming the law of love (Mark 12:31; John 13:34; cf. Lev. 19:18; Rom. 13:8–10), by his own practice of that law (John 13:1), and by the Spirit who imprints that law of love on our hearts (Rom. 5:5; Gal. 5:22). The juxtaposition of this verse with the reference to the Spirit in verse 8 suggests that the Holy Spirit is especially in Paul’s mind as the one by whom the Thessalonians were instructed.
4:10 And in fact, he adds, you do love all the brothers throughout Macedonia (cf. 1:7f.). But Paul’s attitude to his own sanctification is “Not that I have … already been made perfect, but I press on” (Phil. 3:12). Showing the same attitude to the Thessalonians and their sanctification, he acknowledges their progress (cf. 3:7), but urges them to press on toward that goal of perfection to which he also strove. The language is almost identical with that of verse 1, but the reference is now specifically to their love for each other: we urge you, brothers, to do so more and more (for parakaleō, “to urge,” see disc. on 3:2 and for perisseuō, “to abound,” see disc. on 3:12 and for the present infinitive, see disc. on vv. 11–12 below).
4:11–12 These verses continue the sentence (in Gk.) begun at the end of verse 10. Paul urges the Thessalonians to abound in love and “to be ambitious” in specific areas relating to conduct. These two objectives are closely connected, in that the bad conduct of individuals can unsettle the church or bring the church into disrepute and so become an offense against brotherly love. Philotimeomai, “to be ambitious,” acquired the sense “to seek restlessly after one’s objective” (for the present infinitive, see below), which presents us with the paradoxical instruction that the Thessalonians are “to seek restlessly to be quiet.” The point, however, is clear. They are to make every effort to lead a quiet life (cf. 5:13). What is not so apparent is what prompts Paul to give this advice. It is commonly thought that an “undue eschatological excitement had induced a restless tendency in some of the Thessalonian Christians and made them disinclined to attend to their ordinary business” (Bruce); but there may have been some other local sociological reason (see further disc. and note on 2 Thess. 3:6–12; cf. the plea for quietness in v. 12 of that passage with the similar plea here in v. 11). To be quiet is the first of the three goals on which Paul would have them set their ambition. The second is to mind your own business and the third to work with your own hands. Each of these is expressed by a present infinitive, underscoring that this is to be their practice (this applies also to the infinitives “to abound” and “to be ambitious”). The injunction to work with your own hands must be read against a background in which manual labor was little esteemed by the Greeks, but its dignity was affirmed by the Jews. In this matter, Paul held true to his Jewish origins. Free-loaders had no place in Paul’s concept of Christian community, which called for shared work (Gal. 6:2) in a context of personal responsibility (Gal. 6:5). Had he not himself, many times, with “these hands” worked to support himself and his friends (cf. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:7–10; Acts 20:34; also Eph. 4:28)? The missionaries had already given the Thessalonians instruction on the importance of work—just as we told you. The verb behind told (parangellō) has a distinctively military ring, “to command” (cf. 2 Thess. 3:4, 6, 10, 12). But Paul reminds them of work’s significance now because it has implications for their witness—that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders. Literally, this is “that you might walk fittingly towards those outside” (cf. Col. 4:5 for the same idea and disc. on 2:12 for the idea of walking). See the discussion on 5:14 for a further treatment of this theme of the work ethic as a factor in promoting well-being both of the church and of society. Alone among NT writers, Paul insists that one of the criteria of Christian action of any kind is its effect on the world at large (cf. 1 Cor. 14:16, 23f.)—and on the well-being of themselves and the church. Those who could, should work so as not to be dependent on anybody or “not to need anything.” The Greek can be rendered either way, although the latter is more likely since the Greek word for “need” (chreia) is usually followed by a thing, not a person. There was no question, however, that those who could not work, whether through lack of opportunity or because of age or infirmity, should look to the church for their support. This is specifically mentioned in Ephesians 4:28 as a reason for the Christian’s “doing something useful with his own hands”; namely, “that he may have something to share with those in need” (cf. 1 Tim. 5:3–8).
Additional Notes
4:3 It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: For a literal rendering of the Greek, see above. The word for “will,” thelēma, lacks any definite article, and, although qualified by “of God,” it should be regarded as indefinite (a gen. qualification sometimes appears to make an anarthrous noun definite). This indicates that while sanctification is a part of God’s will—and that fact must be given all the importance it deserves—it is not the whole of it. God’s will, even if we restrict the reference to ourselves, concerns much more than this.
4:4 Each of you should learn to control his own body: The debate on how this admonition should be understood has a long and complex history. For a full discussion of that history, cf. B. Rigaux, Les Epîtres aux Thessaloniciens (Paris: Gabalda, 1956) pp. 502–7, and for the scholarship since Rigaux, see R. F. Collins, Studies on the First Letter to the Thessalonians (Leuven: Leuven University, 1984) pp. 299–325, to which should be added J. Whitton, NTS 28 (1982) pp. 142–43, and O. L. Yarbrough, Not Like the Gentiles: Marriage Rules in the Letters of Paul (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985) p. 7. Michael McGehee offers a critique of both Yarbrough and Collins in “A Rejoiner to Two Recent Studies Dealing with 1 Thess. 4:4,” CBQ 51 (1989) pp. 82–89. In this article McGehee draws attention especially to the social setting of the letter, which provides further support for the position that this is not an instruction as to how a man should acquire a wife, but a general instruction to both men and women as to how they should conduct themselves sexually. McGehee points out that at the society level to which most church members would have belonged, there would be very few men of “independent means who could make social decisions on their own without reference to parents, masters, or other family members.” Moreover, since marriages were usually arranged, the opportunity to choose a wife was even further restricted.
