1 Thessalonians 4:7

(7) For God.—This gives the reason for stating that the Lord will take vengeance on such sins; because they are not part of the terms on which His Father called us. It should be “did not call.” These 1Th_4:7-8, sum up the little disquisition, returning to the principle announced in 1Th_4:3.

Unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.—The preposition translated “unto” has the same force in Gal_5:13, “Called unto liberty,” and Eph_2:10, “Created unto good works.” It implies not so much the definite end to which we are invited, as the terms on which the invitation will still stand; for the call is not yet accomplished. (See Note on 1Th_2:12.) The second “unto” in the Greek is simply “in,” used in the same sense as in 1Th_4:4. Paraphrase, “For God did not call us on the understanding that we might be unclean, but by the way of sanctification.”

Holiness is a mistranslation for sanctification. The process, not the quality, is meant.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4:7 holy . . . not impure: Cp. 1:4; 2:12; 5:23-24; 2 Thes 2:13-14; 1 Pet 1:15-16.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1Th 4:7. Ἐν ἁγιασμῷ, in sanctification) ἐπὶ, for, on account of, rather expresses the end; ἐν, in, the nature or character of the thing [viz. of our calling].

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Th_4:7. Reason of ἔκδικος ὁ κύριος περὶ πάντων τούτων.

ἐκάλεσεν] the fuller form in 1Th_2:12.

ἐπὶ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ] on condition of, or for the purpose of uncleanness; comp. Gal_5:13; Eph_2:10; Winer, p. 351 [E. T. 492]; Erasmus: Non vocavit nos hac lege, ut essemus immundi, siquidem causa et conditio vocationis erat, ut desineremus esse, quod eramus.

ἀκαθαρσίᾳ] is uncleanness, moral impurity generally (comp. 1Th_2:3), and thus includes covetousness as well as lust.

ἀλλʼ ἐν ἁγιασμῷ] gives, by means of an abbreviation (comp. Kühner, II. p. 316), instead of the purpose, the result of the calling: but in holiness, i.e. so that complete holiness of life has become a characteristic property of us Christians. Comp. 1Co_7:15; Gal_1:6; Eph_4:4. But ἁγιασμός, as it forms the counterpart to ἀκαθαρσίᾳ, must denote moral holiness in its entire compass, and is accordingly here taken in a wider sense than in 1Th_4:3.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

7. ημας is υμας in several minn., as in cop syrpesh; but in no uncial.

7. οὐ γὰρ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ ἀλλʼ ἐν ἁγιασμῷ. For God did not call us for (with a view to) uncleanness, but in sanctification. A further reason (γάρ), put by way of explanation at the close, for chastity amongst Christians. That purity of life was God’s purpose for us in sending the Gospel-message, explains in part the peculiar anger with which a departure from it will be visited.

The A.V. misrenders both ἐπί and ἐν here. Ἐπί with dative may signify either on terms of or with a view to, according as the reference is subjective or objective—i.e. as the intention implied was in the mind of the called themselves, or of God who called them; the latter rendering is preferable in this connexion (cf. Gal 5:13; Eph 2:10). Ἐν ἁγιασμῷ, as in 1Th 4:4 and 2Th 2:13, marks out “sanctification” not as the ultimate aim, nor as a gradual attainment, of the Christian life, but as its basis and ruling condition, the assumption on which God’s dealings with Christian men rest,—viz. that they are ἅγιοι, consecrated persons; cf. note on ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν, 1Th 4:3. Accordingly ἐκάλεσεν bears the emphasis of the sentence (cf. 1Th 2:12, and note; also 1Th 1:4 and 2Th 2:13). God’s call in the Gospel, from which the Christian status of the readers took its rise, would be frustrated by any relapse into the filthiness of heathen life.

1Th 4:8 concludes the rehearsal of the apostolic παραγγελία on this subject by an appeal to God, such as διεμαρτυράμεθα in 1Th 4:6 already implied (see note above):—

τοιγαροῦν ὁ ἀθετῶν οὐκ ἄνθρωπον ἀθετεῖ ἀλλὰ τὸν θεόν. Wherefore then the rejector is not rejecting a man, but God. The compound particle τοι-γαρ-οῦν, “collective and retrospective” (Ellicott), “introduces its conclusion with some specific emphasis or formality” (Grimm, in Lexicon), in a style suitable to the solemn language of 1Th 4:6 b, 7: Heb 12:1 supplies the only other example of this conjunction in the N.T.; it is common in Epictetus. Ἀθετέω (α- privative, and √ θη- of τίθημι, through ἄθετος) means to set out of position, to make void (a promise, law, or the like; see Gal 3:15; Heb 10:28), to set aside, deny, in his authority or rights, a person (Mar 6:26; Luk 10:16; Jud 1:8). For the antithesis of man and God, cf. 1Th 2:13 b; Gal 1:10; Act 5:4. While ἄνθρωπος is anarthrous (indefinite) in the negative clause, the articular ὁ θεός signifies the (one, actual) God; cf. Gal 4:31, for the article.

Romanist divines (e.g. Estius), following the received Latin reading of the two last words of the verse (in nobis), quote this text in proof of the Divine sanction of ecclesiastical authority. The Apostles, however, are insisting not on their own commandment as Divine, but on God’s commandment as distinct from and immeasurably above theirs. That the “charge” of 1Th 4:3-6 comes from God is evidenced (1) by the nature of the injunction itself, (2) by the moral purpose of the Gospel (1Th 4:7), and (3) by the witness of the Holy Spirit given to the readers (1Th 4:8 b):—

τὸν διδόντα τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ τὸ ἅγιον εἰς ὑμᾶς, (God) who gives His Spirit, the Holy (Spirit), to be within you. Even if εἰς ἡμᾶς were the true reading (see Textual Note, and last paragraph), this would refer not to the writers specifically or officially, but to writers and readers communicatively; cf. the 1st plural in the same connexion in Rom 8:15 f., Gal 4:6. Lightfoot sees in the participle διδόντα an indication of “ever fresh accessions of the Holy Spirit” (cf. Gal 3:5; 1Co 12:11); it is, perhaps, better conceived as a substantival present, like τὸν ῥυόμενον in 1Th 1:10 or τῷ δοκιμάζοντι in 1Th 2:4—“the giver of His Holy Spirit”; for this bestowment is God’s prerogative, and sets Him in an abiding relation of inward guidance and command toward believers: cf. Luk 11:13; Joh 3:34; Joh 7:38 f.; 2Co 1:22; 2Co 5:5; Rom 8:9; Rom 8:14 f.; Gal 3:2; Gal 4:6; Gal 5:25; 2Ti 1:7; 1Jn 3:24; 1Jn 4:13. The epithet ἅγιον is emphasized by its position, in accordance with the stress thrown on holiness throughout (1Th 4:3-4; 1Th 4:7). (Τὸν διδόντα) εἰς ὑμᾶς means not “to you” (ὑμῖν) but “into you,” so as to enter your hearts and dwell within you: Eze 37:6 (δώσω πνεῦμά μου εἰς ὑμᾶς, נָתַתִּי בָכֶם רוּחַ) probably suggested the phrase; cf. δίδωμι εἰς in Act 19:31; Heb 8:10; also εἰς in Eph 3:16; Mar 2:1, &c. That God who called us to a pure life, puts His Spirit in us, is a consideration heightening the fear of Divine vengeance upon sins of inchastity; for they affront God’s indwelling Presence and defile “God’s temple”: cf. 1Co 3:16 f., 1Co 6:19; Eph 4:30. Seen in this light, uncleanness is profanity.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

unto uncleanness--Greek, "for the purpose of."

unto--rather as Greek, "in"; marking that "holiness" is the element in which our calling has place; in a sphere of holiness. Saint is another name for Christian.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 7. God hath not called us unto uncleanness] He is the creator of male and female, and the institutor of marriage, and he has called men and women to this state; but the end of this and all the other callings of God to man is holiness, not uncleanness. And they who use the marriage state as he directs, will find it conducive to their holiness and perfection.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

7 For God hath not called us. This appears to be the same sentiment with the preceding one — that the will of God is our sanctification. There is, however, a little difference between them. For after having discoursed as to the correcting of the vices of the flesh, he proves, from the end of our calling, that God desires this. For he sets us apart to himself as his peculiar possession. Again, that God calls us to holiness, he proves by contraries, because he rescues us, and calls us back, from unchastity. From this he concludes, that all that reject this doctrine reject not men, but God, the Author of this calling, which altogether falls to the ground so soon as this principle as to newness of life is overthrown. Now, the reason why he rouses himself so vehemently is, because there are always wanton persons who, while they fearlessly despise God, treat with ridicule all threatenings of his judgment, and at the same time hold in derision all injunctions as to a holy and pious life. Such persons must not be taught, but must be beaten with severe reproofs as with the stroke of a hammer.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

7. For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness] The two prepositions alike rendered “unto” in the A.V., are quite distinct in the Greek. St Paul writes, God called us not for (with a view to) uncleanness, but in sanctification; similarly in 2Th_2:13, “God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of spirit.” The call of God was from the first a sanctifying call for the Thessalonians, and was attended with holy influences that forbade all uncleanness. Certainly He never intended them to live impure lives, when He “called them to His own kingdom and glory” (ch. 1Th_2:12); the understanding on which that call was received was the opposite of this. The entire purpose and tendency of God’s message to them was “in sanctification.” For this last word, see notes to 1Th_4:3-4. True believers in Christ are necessarily “saints;” so the Apostle commonly addresses all Christians to whom he writes (see Rom_1:7, &c.—“called saints,” i.e. “saints in virtue of your calling”); and their sainthood excludes impurity and wrong-doing.

Observe that God’s call is the starting-point of a Christian’s life. All the motives and aims by which that life is governed are virtually contained in this. “Walk worthily of the calling wherewith you were called” is with St Paul an exhortation that includes all others (Eph_4:1). So he comes to his last word on this matter:—

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For God hath not called us,.... The Syriac version reads "you". This is another reason to enforce the above exhortations, and to caution them against the above unclean practices, taken from the end of the effectual calling by the efficacious grace of God, which is not

unto uncleanness of any sort, as before specified. This they had lived in before their calling, and were now called from it into communion with Christ, who loves righteousness, and hates iniquity; and by the Gospel, which teaches to deny ungodliness, and worldly lusts, and to forsake all impurity, both of flesh and spirit:

but this call is

unto holiness of life and conversation in general, and to chastity in thought, look, word, and actions in particular; for God that calls is holy, and therefore those who are called ought to be so; the calling with which they are called is an holy calling, principles of grace and holiness are wrought in their souls, when they are called; and the end of their calling is to live soberly, righteously, and godly; and then, and then only, do they walk worthy of that calling wherewith they are called, and of God who has, by his grace, called them to his kingdom and glory.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

7 For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.

Ver. 7. For God hath not called us] {See Trapp on "Eph 4:1"} It is a sure rule given by the ancients, Confusiones libidinum sunt signa cuius libet sectae. Simon Magus had his Helena, Carpocrates his Marcellina, Apelles his Philumena, Montanus his Priscilla and Maximilla, &c.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For God hath not called us unto uncleanness - When he called us to be his followers, it was not that we should lead lives of impurity, but of holiness. We should, therefore, fulfil the purposes for which we were called into his kingdom. The word “uncleanness” (ἀκαθαρσία akatharsia), means, properly, “impurity, filth;” and then, in a moral sense, “pollution, lewdness,” as opposed to chastity; Rom 1:24; Rom 6:19; 2Co 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 4:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

These two verses are added, as further arguments to persuade to that chastity he had spoken of, called sanctification, 1Th 4:3,4. The first is taken from their Christian calling, which is not to uncleanness, but to chastity, called holiness. When they were Gentiles in state, they lived in the lust of uncleanness, but they were now called by the power of the gospel, and brought to such a profession that did forbid and condemn it. And the author of their call is God himself, though the apostles and other ministers were the instruments. Whence he fetcheth this second argument, 1Th 4:8, that if this chastity he despised, or rejected, as we may read the text, it is not man, but God, that is despised. To despise a minister in a commandment he delivers from God is to despise God himself, Luk 10:16, &c.; and the apostle doth here intimate, not to obey the commandment of God is a despising God. Or, that the apostle was despised by some because of the outward meanness of his person, or questioning his authority.

Who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit: this he adds as a third argument; so that what he had preached to them, was not from himself, but from the Holy Spirit. Or if by us he means these Thessalonians also, as some copies read it, he hath given you, &c., then he argues from the gift of the Holy Spirit they had received against living in the sin of uncleanness. This would be very disagreeable, not only to their holy calling, but the Holy Spirit God had given them. Or else these arguments of the apostle are to persuade to universal holiness, taking sanctification and holiness in a larger sense; and uncleanness, for all sin in general standing opposite thereunto. Sin is often spoken of in Scripture under the notion of filth, defilement, pollution, &c., and so was typed forth under the law; and to be cleansed from sin is a cleansing man from filthiness, 2Co 7:1; so that to live in sin, as the apostle argues, is to live in uncleanness, to contradict our holy calling, to despise God, and to walk contrary to the nature and dictates of his Holy Spirit.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

7. For—Ground of these warnings.

Not called us—Says Erasmus, (quoted by Lunemann,) “God has not called us under the law that we should be impure, since, indeed, the very cause and condition of our calling is, that we should cease to be what we once were.”

Uncleanness—Impurity; primarily applicable to sexual impurity, but capable of including any moral contamination, as here of both adultery and fraud. These were closely allied vices, and, to the chaste and unselfish mind of the apostle, both were a foul stain upon the body and soul.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For God hath not called us unto; or, for the purpose of. Uncleanness; moral uncleanness in general. (comp. 1Co_6:15) But unto; or, in; in a state of Holiness ; or sanctification; the same word as in the third verse; so that holiness is the whole sphere of cur Christian life.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For God called us not for uncleanness, but in sanctification . ["God has not called us under the law that we should be impure, since, indeed, the very cause and condition of our calling is that we should cease to be what we once were."--Erasmus.]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

7. Unto holiness. The Christian calling demands purity of life.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

God did not call us to uncleanness, but to holiness

This can be stated in positive form. AT: "God called us to cleanness and holiness" (See: Double Negatives)

God did not call us

The word "us" refers to all believers. (See: Inclusive "We")

he who rejects this

"whoever disregards this teaching" or "whoever ignores this teaching"

rejects not people, but God

Paul stresses that this teaching is not from man, but from God.

translationWords

God

call

clean

holy

reject

Holy Spirit

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

7.] This verse (see above) is in my view decisive for the above rendering of ver. 6. There is no mention here of avarice: nor is it possible to understand ἀκαθαρσία, when ver. 3 has gone before, of any thing but carnal impurity. Chap. 2:3, which is adduced to shew that it may here represent covetousness, is a very doubtful example: see there.

ἐπί, for the purpose of,—on condition of: ἐν, in, ‘in the element of,’ not = εἰς, the aim: but ἁγιασμός is the whole sphere of our Christian life.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

7. οὐ γὰρ ἐκάλεσεν κτλ. The γά, parallel to διότ (v. 6), introduces a second motive for obedience, the moral goal of God’s call. “For God called us Christians not that we should be impure (ἐπί denoting the purpose or object) but that we should be holy” (ἐ indicating the state of holiness resulting from the calling). Such being the moral purpose of the call, it would be sin to disregard these commands which express God’s will.

On καλεῖ, which is mediated by the preaching of the gospel (II 2:14), see 2:12; on ἀκαθαρσί, which sums up περὶ πάντων τούτων see 2:3. ἁγιασμό is here, as in v. 4, holiness, the state of those whom God consecrates to himself through the Spirit. ἐπι indicates either the condition or basis on which, or the “object or purpose for which, they were (not) called” (Ell.); cf. Gal 5:13, Eph 2:10 and Bl 43:3; also Sap. 2:23 ὁ θεὸς ἔκτισεν τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐπʼ ἀφθαρσίᾳ (Mill.). ἐ is not for εἰ (Piscator) but is a “natural abbreviation for ὥστε εἶναι ἐν ἁγιασμῷ as the sense requires” (Lft. who notes Eph 4:4). For ἐ introducing the result of καλεῖ, Col 3:15 is pertinent. Other expositors (e. g. Bengel, Hofmann, Riggenbach, Wohl. Dob.) understand ἁγιασμό as an act of God and ἐ as indicating the essential character of the call.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Unto uncleanness [επι ακαθαρσια] . Better, for uncleanness; ejpi denoting aim or intention. The intention is viewed as the basis of the act [επι υπον] . Comp. Gal 5:13; Eph 2:10.

In sanctification [εν] . Note the change of preposition. Sanctification is the characteristic life - element of the Christian, in which he is to live. Comp. in peace, 1Co 7:15; in hope, Eph 4:4.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.