1 Thessalonians 4:1–12
The chapter divisions in modern Bibles were not added until the thirteenth century, but on some occasions they rightly identify key turning points in the text. This is one of those occasions. From this point on in the letter, Paul turns to †paraenesis, encouraging and exhorting the new converts to please God with their lives (4:1). In 4:1–12, Paul discusses sexual purity and brotherly love. He had already told them some of these things when he was in Thessalonica (4:6, 11), but Timothy’s report, though positive overall, led Paul to believe that there were certain problems that needed to be addressed (3:10). Paul carefully prepared his listeners for this section in chapter 2 when he described the apostles’ own behavior. The apostles sought to please God (2:4), to be free from uncleanliness and greed (2:3), and to work so as not to burden others (2:8–9). Now Paul returns to all these same issues, telling the Thessalonians that they must do likewise. For Paul, the stakes were high: it was necessary to continue in this new way of life in order to be worthy of the kingdom of God.
Instructions on Pleasing God (4:1–2)
1Finally, brothers, we earnestly ask and exhort you in the Lord Jesus that, as you received from us how you should conduct yourselves to please God—and as you are conducting yourselves—you do so even more. 2For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus.
NT: 2 Cor 5:18–20
The NABRE’s Finally makes it sound as if the letter were coming to a close. The sense of the Greek is closer to “So then, as for the other matters . . .” Far from wrapping the letter up, Paul has a number of pressing issues to address, including sexual morality and the question of what happens to the faithful after they have died. Though 1 Thessalonians remains friendly from start to finish, in this section Paul adopts a more solemn tone, giving instructions on vital matters and in some cases warning them of divine judgment should they refuse to comply. The word translated as instructions (parangelia) is often used in military and legal settings and could be translated as “commands” or “orders.” These are not optional suggestions for their consideration but rather a blueprint laying out the pattern of life that God requires. Paul gives them these instructions through the Lord Jesus, meaning that the ideas that follow in the section are not his personal preferences but instead carry the authority of Jesus himself. As Theodoret of Cyrus explains, “Paul makes the paraenesis [parainesis] worthy of belief by invoking the memory of the Master.”1 Though Paul is giving commands from the Lord, he does not describe God as an implacable taskmaster. Instead, Paul indicates at a number of points in the letter that God will supply what the Thessalonians need to keep God’s commands (see especially 5:23–24). Paul thought that it really was possible for them with God’s help to live in a way that God would find pleasing, just as he endeavored to please God in his own ministry (2:4; see Rom 8:8–9).
Sanctity and Sexual Immorality (4:3–8)
3This is the will of God, your holiness: that you refrain from immorality, 4that each of you know how to acquire a wife for himself in holiness and honor, 5not in lustful passion as do the Gentiles who do not know God; 6not to take advantage of or exploit a brother in this matter, for the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you before and solemnly affirmed. 7For God did not call us to impurity but to holiness. 8Therefore, whoever disregards this, disregards not a human being but God, who [also] gives his holy Spirit to you.
NT: Acts 15:1–29
Catechism: the sixth commandment, 2331–400
Lectionary: 1 Thess 4:1–8; Memorial of Saint Augustine
In this section Paul boldly proclaims the will of God for the Thessalonians, describing the way of life that God demands. First, he says that God desires their holiness (hagiasmos), a word that is very uncommon outside of Jewish and Christian literature. In the †Septuagint it refers to the consecration or sanctification of things set aside or purified to serve God (e.g., Amos 2:11; 2 Macc 14:36). In effect, Paul reminds the Thessalonians that they have become sacred vessels, recipients of God’s Holy Spirit who must behave accordingly (1 Cor 6:19). Sanctification was not limited to sexuality for Paul, but in this passage it is defined as abstention from sexual immorality (porneia). Contrary to what the NABRE translation might suggest, the Greek word porneia refers specifically to sexual immorality, not all immorality. In classical Greek, porneia referred to prostitution, but by Paul’s day Jewish writers used it to refer to almost any sexual relationship outside the relationship between a husband and a wife. The specific form of porneia that Paul has in mind here may be adultery (see below on v. 6), though scribes who made copies of the letter in antiquity understood Paul to be condemning every possible type of sexual immorality: from the fourth century on, Paul was quoted as saying “abstain from all fornication.” It is possible that Timothy had informed Paul of specific instances of fornication, possibly of adultery between members of the church.2
After describing holiness in negative terms (avoid sexual immorality), Paul offers positive instructions: each of them must learn how to acquire a wife for himself. The phrase “acquire a wife for himself” is notoriously difficult to interpret.3 The word translated as “wife” is skeuos, which means “vessel.” What would it mean for the Thessalonians to learn how to acquire their own vessels? The NABRE interprets “vessel” as a metaphor for a wife. If this is correct, Paul would seem to be telling all the unmarried men to find wives. Though this interpretation was favored by some ancient Greek readers of Paul (St. Basil the Great, Theodore of Mopsuestia), there are serious difficulties with it. There is no clear evidence that the word skeuos was ever used in other Greek literature to refer to wives, despite the claims of some scholars to the contrary. First Peter 3:7 does refer to wives as “the weaker vessel,” but the implication is that husbands are vessels too. A second difficulty with this interpretation is the unlikelihood of Paul telling all the Thessalonians that they must acquire a wife. Paul himself was not married, so it would have been odd to demand that all the Thessalonians, who were to become imitators of him (1 Thess 1:6), must get married (see 1 Cor 7:7–8).4
Another interpretation, one favored by many English translations (NRSV, NIV, CEB, ESV), understands “vessel” as a metaphor for human beings or their bodies. As Theodoret puts it, “Some interpret ‘his own vessel’ as ‘spouse,’ but I think ‘vessel’ means ‘his own body.’ For it is not only to those who have married he offers the legislation.”5 In other words, Paul would be telling all the Thessalonians, married and single, that they must learn to control themselves. Unlike “vessel” as wife, there is good evidence for “vessel” as a metaphor for human beings. Indeed, Paul himself uses skeuos to refer to humans (Rom 9:21–23; 2 Cor 4:7–12). This interpretation has its own weaknesses, however. It is not clear what it would mean to “acquire” one’s own body. Interpreters have taken ktaomai to mean “control,” an interpretation for which there is little clear evidence. While “body” seems much more likely than “wife,” it remains uncertain what it means to “learn to acquire” one’s own body. St. John Chrysostom suggests that Paul said this because controlling one’s body is difficult and requires repeated effort to learn; that is, one must learn to acquire self-control.6 While not free of difficulties, this is perhaps the best explanation we have.
Why did Paul speak of “vessels” instead of stating what he meant more clearly? Skeuos (“vessel”) is used frequently in the †Septuagint to refer to sacred vessels in the tabernacle or the temple, and it is also commonly used as a metaphor for people who are either used by God or used for evil. The metaphor of person as vessel emphasizes the different purposes that a person’s life might have: a holy vessel for God or a profane vessel for ordinary things. For instance, 2 Timothy encourages becoming an honorable, pure, and holy vessel by avoiding sinful desires. The italicized words all have parallels in 1 Thess 4:3–8:
In a large house there are vessels not only of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use and others for dishonorable use. If anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honorable use, consecrated, useful to the master, ready for every good work. Flee youthful desires and pursue justice, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from purity of heart. (2 Tim 2:20–22 [my translation])
Regardless of one’s opinion about the authorship of 2 Timothy, this passage provides a helpful parallel to 1 Thess 4:4–5. In both cases, the recipients are encouraged to act as holy vessels, pursuing purity and avoiding sinful desires. Paul contrasts the life to which God has called them, which is characterized by growth in holiness, honor, and the presence of the Holy Spirit, with lust, uncleanliness, and estrangement from God. They are to use their body in a way that is holy—that is, as vessels of God’s Holy Spirit, like the sacred vessels used in the temple.
Verse 5 continues the sentence begun in 4:3. As holy vessels, the Thessalonians are to conduct themselves in holiness, not in lustful passion. The word translated as “lustful” (epithymia) could refer to good or bad desires, but here it describes “passion” (pathos) and probably refers to sexual urges. Warnings against passion do not appear in the Old Testament, but they were a common topic of conversation among moral teachers in Paul’s day, especially Stoic philosophers. One of the most influential philosophies of the first century, Stoicism taught that the passions were excessive impulses toward a particular thing that rob one of freedom.7 Stoics taught that lust or desire (epithymia) was one of the four main types of passion, along with fear, pain, and pleasure. Similar warnings against the passions can be found in Paul’s other letters and some early Christian writers.8
Readers today might well wonder what business Paul has telling the Thessalonians to control their passions. Modern people often see sexual urges and other emotions as more or less unchangeable and uncontrollable features of a person’s makeup. In contrast, many people in Paul’s day thought that passions could be mastered under the correct tutelage. For instance, the noncanonical book 4 Maccabees (first century AD) acknowledges that no one is able to eradicate their passions and desires, but “reason” provides a way not to be enslaved by them (3:2). Some ancient Jews argued that the Torah is the best antidote to the passions.9 Paul taught that knowing God and receiving the Holy Spirit are what empower a person to overcome the passions (see 1 Thess 4:7–8). In his letter to the Galatians he would go on to name enkrateia (“self-control” or “self-mastery”) as one of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:23; see also Rom 1:26; Col 3:5). Similarly, in this letter Paul is confident that God will provide what is necessary for the Thessalonians to conquer their lusts.
Paul associates lustful passion with the Gentiles who do not know God. It was not uncommon for ancient Jews to link the Gentiles’ false ideas about God with deviant sexual behavior (e.g., Wis 14:12; Rom 1:26). In this letter, Paul characterizes the Gentiles as those who worship idols, give in to their passions, and remain ignorant of the true and living God (1 Thess 1:9; 4:5). The people of Israel, on the other hand, were to be a “kingdom of priests, a holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Their holiness was meant to render them fit to commune with God (Num 15:40–41; Ps 51:11). The astonishing thing was that the Gentile Thessalonians had themselves become dwelling places of God’s Spirit and, as such, were called to be “blameless in holiness” (1 Thess 3:13). Yet, as anyone acquainted with ancient philosophy can attest, Jews and Christians were not the only people in the Greco-Roman world who were concerned about sexual ethics. The first-century Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus, for instance, condemned all sexual activity outside of marriage, including sex between a man and his own female slaves, which was widely practiced.10
Given the presence of such “ethical pagans,” why would Paul describe non-Jews as those who are controlled by their passions? There are two obvious reasons why Paul would talk this way in a letter to new converts. First, though ethical teaching was popular, acts of what Paul called porneia were widespread. Sex with married women was frowned upon because it trespassed on the honor of the cuckolded husband, but generally speaking, men were not discouraged from occasional sex with prostitutes or slaves. Thus, despite the presence of high-minded teachers like Musonius Rufus, it was not for nothing that the apostles instructed Gentile converts to “abstain from porneia” (see 1 Thess 4:3). Second, by speaking of the “Gentiles who do not know God” as some other mass of people, Paul reinforces the Thessalonians’ sense of belonging to a new group. The Thessalonians were themselves Gentiles who had only recently turned to worship “the living God” (1:9). By speaking of “the Gentiles who do not know God” as some other group of people, Paul reinforces the Thessalonians’ sense of belonging.
Since antiquity some interpreters, especially those who read the text in Latin, have thought that verse 6 marked the beginning of a new topic—namely, honesty in business dealings in the church. The words translated as exploit (pleonekteō) and this matter (pragma) are sometimes used to refer to greed with money. The Douay-Rheims Bible, which is based on the Vulgate, translates the clause as “And that no man overreach, nor circumvent his brother in business.” Other ancient interpreters, such as John Chrysostom and Theodoret, take verse 6 to be a continuation of the discussion of chastity that began in verse 3, and there is good reason to believe that they were correct.11 Verse 6 continues the sentence that began in verse 3 and repeats the language of holiness that pervades this discussion of sexuality. Exploiting a brother probably refers to harming a fellow member of the community by having sex with his wife, daughter, or slave. St. John Chrysostom offers a compelling explanation of why Paul would refer to fornication as the exploitation or robbery of a brother:
God has assigned a wife to each man, and he has set boundaries to nature, namely, that intercourse is with one only. Therefore, transgressing with another is both robbery and “exploitation.” Or rather, it is more grievous than any robbery, for we do not suffer so much when our possessions are carried away as when marriage is undermined.12
In other words, the man who sleeps with another man’s wife exceeds the boundaries that God has set out for him and takes something that is not his. Modern readers can hardly fail to notice that Paul does not warn against defrauding a sister in these matters. The apostle appears to presuppose a patriarchal view of sex and family in which illicit sex with a woman is an offense primarily against the woman’s husband or father. This very passage, however, contains ideas that would be used in the later tradition to begin moving toward the understanding that sexual sins are offenses primarily against the person directly involved and against God (see Reflection and Application on 4:3–8).
Paul stresses the gravity of committing fornication, reminding them that the Lord is an avenger in all these things. Most acts of porneia were legal under Roman law, adultery being the main exception. Nevertheless, those who commit these acts should expect to face divine judgment. The “Lord” who will execute justice is probably Jesus. Kyrios (“Lord”) always refers to Jesus in 1 Thessalonians, and early Christians expected that Jesus “will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,” as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed puts it (see, e.g., Acts 10:42; 2 Tim 4:1; 1 Pet 4:5). The word translated as “avenger” (ekdikos) refers here to one who ensures that justice (dikē) is done (see also 2 Thess 1:9). The image of Jesus as an avenger who will mete out just punishments on Christians who did not live holy lives is startling and stands in apparent tension with Paul’s claim that the Thessalonian converts are God’s chosen and beloved ones (1 Thess 1:4; 5:9). How could God choose them and then avenge their fornication? These two ideas run throughout Paul’s Letters: God offers grace unconditionally (Rom 5:6–11), but God will also judge everyone according to their deeds (see 2 Cor 5:10; Rom 14:10). The Thessalonians have received the Holy Spirit, but they are expected to live holy lives (1 Thess 4:7). God empowers them to do this (1:6; 3:12–13), yet they must choose to live in holiness.
Verse 7 acts as a good summary of this section as a whole. In responding to God’s call, the Thessalonians accepted the obligation to live in a particular way. Paul makes this point using the “not X but Y” form that he relies on so often in this letter: God did not call us to impurity but to holiness. God’s call is a gift, but it also imposes obligations. To respond to the call requires the church to follow the way of life that God reveals. The antithesis between impurity (akatharsia) and holiness (hagiasmos) evokes both the moral and †cultic realms. Morally, holiness describes a way of life ordered by love, and impurity refers to sin, especially sexual sin. These words also have a cultic sense, however; holiness refers to the realm of God, and impurity is what makes a person unfit to have access to God. The two fields of meaning, moral and cultic, are both in play in this passage. It is by living morally upright lives that the Thessalonians maintain their sanctity as recipients of God’s Spirit. To give in to moral impurity would be to reject God’s presence.
Unlike the NABRE, Paul does not use the same preposition in both halves of the antithesis. A better rendering would be “God did not call us to impurity but in holiness” or perhaps “through sanctification.” That is, God’s call has a sanctifying power on their lives. As 2 Thess 2:13 puts it, “God chose you as the firstfruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit” (italics added). God called the Thessalonians by giving the Holy Spirit to them (see commentary on the word of God in 1 Thess 2:13). This is why Paul sees the refusal to embrace sanctification as such a serious problem: it is tantamount to rejecting the Holy Spirit, a point that is reinforced in verse 8. Paul ends the section with another warning, repeating once again that the call to avoid fornication is not merely his personal preference but rather is God’s command. Those who reject this command reject God, who gives his holy Spirit to you.
Reflection and Application (4:3–8)
In ancient Greece and Rome the social status of a woman determined whether it was moral or legal for a man to have sex with her.13 Men were permitted to have sex with low-status women such as slaves, prostitutes, and courtesans. Such acts of porneia were seen as acceptable outlets for male sexual energy. Even if the man was married, sex with a low-status woman was not considered adultery (moicheia). Men also had complete authority over the bodies of their own slaves, whether male or female. Sex with free, respectable women, however, was considered adultery, in part because sex with them would dishonor their husbands or fathers. In other words, men were given great sexual license, provided the woman in question was low status and therefore sexually available. As Salvian, a fifth-century bishop, famously puts it while complaining about Roman culture, they are forever “forbidding adultery, building brothels.”14 While preaching on 1 Thessalonians, St. John Chrysostom staged a direct attack on all these assumptions, arguing that one’s status before God is what matters, not one’s social or marital status. Chrysostom compares the offense of sex with a list of possible women, descending in order of honor: a queen (basilis), a married slave, an unmarried slave, and a prostitute. The congregation listening to Chrysostom seems to have shared the widespread assumption that sex with a queen would be completely incomparable to sex with a prostitute because of their different levels of respectability. Though he expects the congregation to get angry, Chrysostom cites 1 Thess 4:8 to argue that no matter who the woman is, “the crime is the same” because in every case “you have committed the same crime against God.” Even if one has sex with a prostitute and there is no husband to take offense, “nevertheless God avenges, for he avenges himself.” Unfaithful men are punished “not by Roman laws but by God.” He continues, “Listen carefully to what I say, for even if this message is difficult to bear, it must be said to set things right for the future. It is adultery not only when we corrupt a married woman. Even if the woman is available and free, it is adultery if we men are married. So what if she isn’t married? You are!”15
Love and Work (4:9–12)
9On the subject of mutual charity you have no need for anyone to write you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another. 10Indeed, you do this for all the brothers throughout Macedonia. Nevertheless we urge you, brothers, to progress even more, 11and to aspire to live a tranquil life, to mind your own affairs, and to work with your [own] hands, as we instructed you, 12that you may conduct yourselves properly toward outsiders and not depend on anyone.
NT: 2 Thess 3:6–13
Lectionary: 1 Thess 4:9–11; Martyrdom of Saint John the Baptist
In 2:1–12 Paul described his affection for the Thessalonians, how he loved them and worked “night and day” to share the gospel with them without placing a financial burden on them. As noted in the comments on that section, Paul did this in part to offer an example to the Thessalonians of how they ought to behave. In this section Paul addresses the issue directly, exhorting the Thessalonians to grow in love and to live orderly lives that will allow them to conduct themselves becomingly with outsiders.
In this section Paul turns to the subject of philadelphia, a Greek word that the NABRE translates as mutual charity but that could be more woodenly translated as “brotherly love.” This word ordinarily referred to the love between actual siblings.16 Some ancient Jews, however, spoke of the “brotherly love” between fellow members of God’s people (2 Macc 15:14). Paul uses the word in this sense, but he includes the Gentile members of the Thessalonian church, commending them for loving one another as brothers and sisters and urging them to do so even more. In contemporary English we tend to associate the word “love” with good feelings or romance. The love that Paul has in mind here, however, is constituted by actions (see 1 Thess 1:3, 7–8). It is something that the Thessalonians have “done.” Strikingly, this love extended beyond the local congregation to include all the brothers throughout Macedonia. The language of family that permeates this letter extends also to those who are in Christ beyond the Thessalonian congregation. Paul is already cultivating a sense of the Church as “catholic,” meaning “universal,” including all who are in Christ regardless of their location. Paul doesn’t say precisely how the Thessalonians were showing love for one another and other Christians across Macedonia. One possibility is that they were sharing their possessions. We know from 2 Cor 8:1–5 that the churches of Macedonia were quick to contribute to Paul’s collection for the poor in Jerusalem. Though almsgiving did not exhaust the meaning of love for Paul (1 Cor 13:3), he considered it an expression of love (2 Cor 8:8, 24). The sharing of resources may also be part of what is behind the reluctance of some of the Thessalonians to work (see below on vv. 11–12).
The Thessalonians’ acts of love are evidence that they are taught by God. The Greek translated as “taught by God” is one word, theodidaktoi, and it seems to be Paul’s own coinage. One might ask why Paul goes on to write this section at all. If God is their teacher, why do they need Paul? Paul regularly assured readers that they did not need to hear about a particular topic, but he would then go on to talk about it anyway. This was (and is) a common rhetorical device called “paraleipsis,” which allows the speaker to compliment the audience before making further requests (e.g., “You know better than most how important it is to tithe regularly”). More importantly, Paul is drawing on biblical promises of a coming age when God will become the teacher of all the people. For instance, the prophet Isaiah speaks of the time when “all your children shall be taught by the LORD” (54:13). Jeremiah promises a new covenant when God will write the law on the people’s hearts (31:31–34), and Micah speaks of the Gentiles receiving the teaching of God instead of waging war (4:1–3).17 Paul and other early Christians believed that texts such as these were describing the time they were living in when the Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. Thus, when Paul heard about the Thessalonian converts doing good deeds for the sake of Christians across Macedonia, he took it as confirmation that God was their teacher.
For Paul, there is no tension between being taught by him and taught by God, for he believes that he is God’s chosen emissary to the Thessalonians. He goes on to ask them “to progress even more” (1 Thess 4:10), listing specific ways for them to do this. They are to aspire to live a tranquil life. The word translated as “aspire” (philotimeomai) means “to love honor” and frequently refers to the desire for public recognition that motivated extravagant gifts to one’s city. The Thessalonian Christians, however, are to aspire to “live a tranquil life,” or a “quiet” life. Instead of making it their ambition to draw attention to themselves they are to mind their own business, just as Paul has sought to please God rather than seeking glory from people (2:4–6). Paul also asks them to work with your [own] hands, a command that he had already given them when he was in Thessalonica and that he had exemplified through his own labor. The purpose of this hardworking way of life was that you may conduct yourselves properly toward outsiders and not depend on anyone. Stated negatively, if some members of the church refused to work, they would make a poor witness to those outside the church, and if they were not wealthy, they would mooch off the goodwill of others.
Paul’s emphasis on love is well known, but he speaks much less often on the importance of work. How do we explain the emphasis on this issue here? One theory that has been popular in modern times is that some of the new converts had stopped working because they thought that the return of Jesus was imminent. One trouble with this theory is that Paul himself never links his teaching on the Lord’s return with idleness. Another possibility is that the generosity of other Christians allowed them to stop working. Paul had already given the command to do manual labor when he was in Thessalonica (4:11), so perhaps he saw problems in this area beginning to develop. If Paul is the author of 2 Thessalonians, then it would seem that this problem grew worse after 1 Thessalonians was written. What is clear is that Paul sets out work and orderly living as a means of loving both those in the church and those outside of it (1 Thess 3:12) because it allows Christians to conduct themselves becomingly with outsiders and avoid sponging off of one another.
Reflection and Application (4:9–12)
In 4:9–12 Paul urges the Thessalonians to work with their hands and mind their own business in order to win the respect of non-Christians (“so that you may walk becomingly toward outsiders” [my translation]). This advice seems sensible enough: if some in the congregation were conspicuously lazy, it could bring the young church into disrepute (see also 1 Cor 10:32–33; Col 4:5). Yet Paul’s concern for the congregation’s reputation seems at first glance to contradict his own example of refusing to please people or seek praise from anyone (1 Thess 2:4, 6). Are Christians supposed to work to make good impressions on outsiders or not? This question becomes thornier when one considers the contrast that Paul draws between Christian and pagan ways of life. He celebrates the converts’ renunciation of idols (1:9) and dismisses those outside the Church as children of darkness (5:5) and slaves of passion (4:3–8) destined for God’s wrath (1:10; 5:1–11; see also 4:13). Even stronger contrasts appear in Paul’s later letters, such as 1 Corinthians, which sets the message of Christ crucified in opposition to the wisdom and power of the world (1:18–2:16; see also Rom 12:2; 2 Cor 4:3–4). Is it possible to lead a countercultural life, disregarding the praise of others, while also working to establish a good reputation? Sharp debates in today’s Church swirl around this question, with disagreements about whether the Church should be inward focused, withdrawing to ensure fidelity to a countercultural mandate, or outward focused, seeking to attract the wider world.
Origen (ca. 185–254) addresses this question while commenting on Rom 15:2 (“Let each of us please our neighbor for the good, for edification” [my translation]). Origen notes that the words “for the good, for edification” clarify in what sense the Christian should seek to please others: “For he is advising not that ‘praise from people’ (1 Thess 2:6) be sought but that edification be given to our neighbors by our deeds and words.”18 Origen then links these verses to the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus teaches that good deeds should be done in secret—for God’s eyes only (Matt 6:1–18)—but also instructs disciples to let others see their good works (Matt 5:16):
As also in that place where the Savior says, “Let your light shine before people, and when they see your good works they praise your Father in heaven” (Matt 5:16). Through this he is certainly not exhorting the disciples to seek “praise from people.” Rather, living righteously and honorably, they should edify those who see so that God may be praised.19
According to Origen, the motive driving one to make a good impression on others is of central importance. One might seek to impress others for one’s own glory—which Paul and Jesus condemn—or for the good of others and the glorification of God.
1. Interpretatio in xiv epistulas sancti Pauli (PG 82:644 [my translation]).
2. See the careful attempt to ascertain the situation in Thessalonica in Nijay K. Gupta, “Mirror-Reading Moral Issues in Paul’s Letters,” JSNT 34 (2012): 361–81.
3. For detailed weighing of the options and a different conclusion from the one presented here, see Matthias Konradt, “Εἰδέναι ἕκαστον ὑμῶν τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος κτᾶσθαι . . . Zu Paulus’ sexualethischer Weisung in 1Thess 4,4f.,” ZNW 92 (2001): 128–35.
4. Others propose “live with one’s own wife.” According to this interpretation, Paul was not telling the Thessalonians that they all needed to find a wife. He was telling them that they must live with their wives in “holiness and honor,” without surrendering to lust. Unfortunately, however, this interpretation retains the translation “wife,” which almost certainly is incorrect, as noted above.
5. Interpretatio in xiv epistulas sancti Pauli (PG 82:644 [my translation]).
6. Homiliae in epistulam i ad Thessalonicenses (PG 62:424).
7. E.g., Epictetus, Discourses 4.7.
8. E.g., Rom 1:24–26; Didache 1.4: “Abstain from fleshly and bodily desires” (my translation).
9. Paul’s younger contemporary, Josephus, imagined Moses as someone who had mastered his passions (Jewish Antiquities 4.328).
10. On Musonius Rufus and many other parallels between Paul and the philosophy of his day, see Abraham J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 32B (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 230.
11. Chrysostom, Homiliae (PG 62:424); Theodoret, Interpretatio in xiv epistulas sancti Pauli (PG 82:644).
12. Homiliae (PG 62:424 [my translation]).
13. Kyle Harper, “Porneia: The Making of a Christian Sexual Norm,” JBL 131 (2012): 363–83.
14. On the Government of God 7.22. Cited by Harper, “Porneia,” 369.
15. Homiliae (PG 62:425–26 [my translation]).
16. E.g., Plutarch, Paul’s younger contemporary, wrote a treatise on the importance of philadelphia, by which he meant the love between actual siblings.
17. See also Deut 30; Ezek 36–37.
18. Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (according to Rufinus) 10.6 (my translation).
19. Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans 10.6 (my translation).