1 Thessalonians 5:27

1Th_5:27

I charge you by the Lord that this Epistle be read unto all the holy brethren

The authority of St.

Pauls Epistles

This is by implication a remarkable ecclesiastical sanction claimed for this Epistle. In the Jewish Church Moses and the Prophets were constantly read (Luk_4:16; Act_13:27; Act_15:21). The injunction here reminds us of the blessing in Rev_1:3, and the impressive solemnity with which it is given is worthy of note. Surely it suggests the duty of reading passages of the New Testament in church, and even the guilt of neglecting it, or of keeping it from the people. This is one of the passages which give us an idea of the great authority attributed to the Epistles from the earliest times. They were carried by the apostles delegates (like the iggereth of the synagogues); they were held to have equal dogmatic authority with the apostle himself; they were read out and finally deposited among the archives of the church; they were taken out on solemn days and read as sacred documents, with a perpetual teaching. Thus the epistolary form of literature was peculiarly the shape into which apostolic thought was thrown--a form well adapted to the wants of the time, and to the character and temperament of St. Paul. (Bp. Alexander.)

Bible reading in the Church

The solemnity of this charge suggests--

1. The coordinate authority of the Epistles with other portions of Holy Writ. The Old Testament lessons came as messages from God in the synagogue; the New Testament lessons come as the same in the church.

2. The prominent place they should occupy in public worship. Too many regard them as amongst the preliminaries, and treat them accordingly. Singing, prayer, reading, preaching are each of the utmost importance. If any deserve prominence it is reading, for that is the declaration of the pure Word of God.

I. How the Bible should be read in church.

1. Distinctly. When mumbled the time is simply wasted, and the people deprived of edification and comfort. Those who protest against their being read in a dead language should beware of reading them in a dead voice.

2. Reverently. Carelessness is a grave fault; it begets careless hearing. The Word read is a savour of life unto life or of death unto death. What a responsibility, therefore, rests on the reader!

3. Impressively. The art of elocution is by no means to be despised. We take all possible pains to impress our own messages on the minds of those who listen. We are pathetic, earnest, persuasive, as the case may be; how much more then should we be with the message from God?

4. Without note or comment. This should be the rule, although there may be exceptions. Comment comes naturally in the sermon. The Bible should be allowed a fair chance to do its own work. My Word--not a comment on it shall not return unto Me void. All Scripture … is profitable for doctrine, etc.

II. Why?

1. As a perpetual safeguard against heretical teaching. The preacher may err from the truth, but if the Bible be in the reading desk, the antidote is always at hand.

2. As a continual supply of teaching, comfort, and edification. If the preacher be inefficient, the reading of the lessons will do much to supply the want.

3. As an ever-recurring reminder of the duty of searching the Scriptures. It is to be feared that the Scriptural knowledge of multitudes is just what they learn on Sunday.

4. As a constant witness of Gods presence in His Church. The speaker is not far away from his speech. (J. W. Burn.)

A solemn mandate

This is not only an exhortation, but an adjuration by the Lord that must not be set aside for any consideration. What was the special reason for this serious order at Thessalonica is not stated; but it is possible that an opinion had begun to prevail even then and there that the Scriptures were designed to be kept in the hands of the ministers of religion, and that their common perusal was to be forbidden. At all events it is not unreasonable to suppose that the Holy Spirit, by whom this Epistle was dictated, foresaw that the time would come when this prohibition would be broached and upheld by certain ecclesiastics and councils, and that acted upon it would be one of the means by which a huge religious fabric would be established. Hence the mind of the apostle was supernaturally directed to give this solemn injunction, that the contents of this Epistle should be communicated without reserve to all the Christian brethren in Thessalonica.

I. The apostolic injunction is an express Divine command. All the people must have access to the Word of God. So important was this considered that it was deemed necessary to enjoin those who should receive the Word of God, under the solemnities of an oath, and by all the force of apostolic authority to communicate what they had received to others.

II. The unlimited character of this apostolic injunction. Not a single member of the Church at Thessalonica was omitted from it, whether high or low, rich or poor. The command is, indeed, that the Word of God be read unto all the holy brethren, but by parity of reasoning it would follow that it was to be in their hands; that it was to be ever accessible to them; that it was in no manner to be withheld from them. Probably many of them could not read, but in some way the contents of revelation were to be made known to them; and not by preaching only, but by reading the words inspired by God. No part was to be kept back; nor were they to be denied such access that they could fully understand it. It was presumed that all the members of the Church would understand what had been written to them, and to profit by it.

III. The sin of violating the injunction. If all be true we have stated, and true all is, it follows that there is great sin in all decisions and laws which are designed to keep the Scriptures from the people, and great sin in all opinions and dogmas which prevail anywhere, denying them the right of private judgment. The richest blessing of heaven to mankind is the Bible; and there is no book ever written so admirably adapted to the popular mind, and so eminently fitted to elevate the fallen, the ignorant, and the wicked; and there is no more decided enemy of the progress of the human race in intelligence and purity than he who prevents in anywise the free circulation of the Holy Volume, while there is no truer friend of his species than he who causes it to be read by all men, and who contributes to make it accessible to all the peoples of the world. (A. Barnes, D. D.)

Desire to know Gods Word

The following is an extract from a petition which was signed by 416 Roman Catholics in the vicinity of Tralee, the parents and representatives of more than 1,300 children, and presented to the Roman Catholic Bishop of Kerry in 1826:--May it please your reverence,--We, the undersigned, being members of the Roman Catholic Church in your bishopric, beg leave to approach you with all the respect and deference due to our spiritual father, and to implore your pastoral indulgence on a subject of much anxiety to us, and of great importance to the bodies and souls of our dear children. We approach your paternal feet, holy father, humbly imploring that you will instruct the clergy to relax that hostility which many of them direct against the Scripture schools, and to suspend those denunciations and penalties which are dealt to us merely because we love our children and wish to see them honest men, loyal subjects, good Christians, and faithful Catholics. In short, permit us to know something of the Word of God, so much spoken of in these days. (Religious Tract Society Anecdotes.)

The authenticity of the Epistle

To produce a letter purporting to have been publicly read in the Church of Thessalonica, when no such letter in truth had been read or heard of in that Church, would be to produce an imposture destructive of itself. At least it seems unlikely that the author of an imposture would voluntarily and even officiously afford a handle to so plain an objection. Either the Epistle was publicly read among the Thessalonians during Pauls lifetime or it was not. If it was, no publication could be more authentic, no species of notoriety more unquestionable, no method of preserving the integrity of the copy more secure. If it was not, the clause would remain a standing condemnation of the forgery, and one would suppose, an invincible impediment to its success. (Archdeacon Paley.)

The witness to Christ of the oldest Christian writing

This Epistle is of peculiar interest, as being the most venerable Christian document, and as being a witness to Christian truth quite independent of the Gospels. There are no such doctrinal statements in it as in the most of Pauls longer letters; it is simply an outburst of confidence and love and tenderness, and a series of practical instructions. But if it be so saturated as it is with the facts and principles of the Gospel, the stronger is the attestation which it gives to the importance of these. I have, therefore, thought it might be worth our while if we put this--the most ancient Christian writing--into the witness box, and see what it has to say about the great truths and principles which we call the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Let us hear its witness--

I. To the Divine Christ.

1. Look how the letter begins (1Th_1:1). What is the meaning of putting these two names side by side, unless it means that Christ sits on the Fathers throne, and is Divine.

2. More than twenty times in this short letter that great name is applied to Jesus, the Lord--the New Testament equivalent of the Old Testament Jehovah.

3. Direct prayer is offered to our Lord. Thus the very loftiest apex of revealed religion had been imparted to that handful of heathens in the few weeks of the apostles stay amongst them. And the letter takes it for granted that so deeply was that truth embedded in their new consciousness that an allusion to it was all that was needed for their understanding and their faith.

II. To the dying Christ.

1. As to the fact. The Jews killed the Lord Jesus. And then, beyond the fact, there is set forth the meaning and the significance of that fact--God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us. I need but mention in this connection another verse which speaks of Jesus as He that delivereth us from the wrath to come. It is a continuous deliverance, running all through the life of the Christian man, and not merely to be realized at the far end; because by the mighty providence of God, and by the automatic working of the consequences of every transgression and disobedience, that wrath is ever coming towards men and lighting on them, and a continual Deliverer, who delivers us by His death, is what the human heart needs. This witness is distinct that the death of Christ is a sacrifice, is mans deliverance from wrath, and is a present deliverance from the consequences of transgression.

2. And if you will take this letter, and only think that it was merely a few weeks familiarity with these truths that had passed before it was written, and then mark how the early and imperfect glimpse of them had transformed the men, you will see where the power lies in the proclamation of the gospel. The men had been transformed. What transformed them? The message of a Divine and dying Christ, who had offered up Himself without spot unto God, and who was their peace and their righteousness and their power.

III. To the risen and ascended Christ. Ye turned unto God … to wait for His Son from heaven whom He raised from the dead. And again, The Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout. The risen Christ, then, is in the heavens.

1. Remember we have nothing to do with the four Gospels here: we are dealing here with an entirely independent witness. And then tell us what importance is to be attached to this evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Twenty years after His death here is this man speaking about that resurrection as being the recognized and notorious fact which all the churches accepted, and which underlay all their faith. Then if, twenty years after the event, this witness was borne, it necessarily carries us back a great deal nearer to the event, for there is no mark of its being new testimony, but every mark of its being the habitual and continuous witness that had been borne from the instant of the alleged resurrection to that present time. The fact is, there is not a place where you can stick a pin in, between the resurrection and the date of this letter, wide enough to admit of the rise of the faith in a resurrection of the Church to the admission that the belief in the resurrection was contemporaneous with the alleged resurrection itself.

2. And so we are shut up to the old alternative, either Jesus Christ rose from the dead, or the noblest lives that the world has ever seen, and the loftiest system of morality that ever has been proclaimed, were built upon a lie. And we are called to believe that at the bidding of a mere unsupported, bare, dogmatic assertion that miracles are impossible. I would rather believe in the supernatural than the ridiculous. And to me it is unspeakably ridiculous to suppose that anything but the fact of the resurrection accounts for the existence of the Church and for the faith of this witness that we have before us.

IV. To the returning Christ. That is the characteristic doctrinal subject of the letter. The coming of the Master does not appear here with emphasis on its judicial aspect. It is rather intended to bring hope to the mourners, and the certainty that bands broken here may be reknit in holier fashion hereafter. But the judicial aspect is not, as it could not be, left out. And the apostle further tells us that that day cometh as a thief in the night. That is a quotation of the Masters own words, which we find in the Gospels; and so again a confirmation, from an independent witness, as far as it goes, of the Gospel story. And then he goes on, in terrible language, to speak of sudden destruction, as of travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. These, then, are the points of this witnesss testimony as to the returning Lord--a personal coming, a reunion of all believers in Him, in order to eternal felicity and mutual gladness, and the destruction that shall fall by His coming upon those who turn away from Him. What a revelation that would be to men who had known what it was to grope in the darkness of heathendom and to have no light upon the future! I remember once walking in the long galleries of the Vatican, on the one side of which there are Christian inscriptions from the catacombs, and on the other heathen inscriptions from the tombs. One side is all dreary and hopeless, one long sigh echoing along the line of white marbles--Vale! vale! in aeternum vale! (Farewell, farewell, forever farewell!)--on the other side, In Christo, In pace, In spe (In hope, in Christ, in peace). That is the witness that we have to lay to our hearts. And so death becomes a passage, and we let go the dear hands, believing that we shall clasp them again. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Th 5:27-28. I charge you — Greek, ορκιζω υμας, I adjure you, that is, I lay you under the obligation of an oath; that this epistle — The first he wrote; be read to all the holy brethren — Namely, of your church. The reader must observe, that in judicial oaths, the custom among the Jews was not for the person who came under the obligation of an oath to pronounce the words of swearing with his own mouth, but an oath was exacted from him by the magistrate or superior, and so he became bound to answer upon oath, by hearing the voice of swearing or adjuration rather, as the LXX. render it. Here, therefore, a solemn act of divine worship is paid to Christ, taking an oath in the name of God being a branch of his worship. This epistle was doubtless sent to the presidents and pastors of the Thessalonian church, and the command, that the epistle should be read, was delivered to them. “The same course, we may suppose, the apostle followed with respect to all his other inspired epistles. They were sent by him to the elders of the churches, for whose use they were principally designed, with a direction that they should be read publicly by some of their number to the brethren in their assemblies for worship; and that not once or twice, but frequently, that all might have the benefit of the instructions contained in them. If this method had not been followed, such as were unlearned would have derived no advantage from the apostolical writings; and to make these writings of use to the rest, they must have been circulated among them in private, which would have exposed the autographs (or the original copies) to the danger of being corrupted or lost.” But what Paul commands under a strong adjuration, Rome forbids under pain of excommunication, prohibiting the reading of the Scriptures to the common people in their religious assemblies, or enjoining them to be read, if at all, in an unknown tongue; a sufficient proof this, that whatever that church may be besides, it is not apostolical. It is justly observed by Dr. Paley, that “the existence of this clause is an evidence of the authenticity of this epistle: because to produce a letter purporting to have been publicly read in the church at Thessalonica, when no such letter had been read or heard of in that church, would be to produce an imposture destructive of itself. Either the epistle was publicly read in the church at Thessalonica during St. Paul’s lifetime, or it was not. If it was, no publication could be more authentic, no species of notoriety more unquestionable, no method of preserving the integrity of the copy more secure: if it was not, the clause would remain a standing condemnation of the forgery, and, one would suppose, an invincible impediment to its success.”

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1 Thessalonians

PAUL’S EARLIEST TEACHING

1Th 5:27.

If the books of the New Testament were arranged according to the dates of their composition, this epistle would stand first. It was written somewhere about twenty years after the Crucifixion, and long before any of the existing Gospels. It is, therefore, of peculiar interest, as being the most venerable extant Christian document, and as being a witness to Christian truth quite independent of the Gospel narratives.

The little community at Thessalonica had been gathered together as the result of a very brief period of ministration by Paul. He had spoken for three successive Sabbaths in the synagogue, and had drawn together a Christian society, mostly consisting of heathens, though with a sprinkling of Jews amongst them. Driven from the city by a riot, he had left it for Athens, with many anxious thoughts, of course, as to whether the infant community would be able to stand alone after so few weeks of his presence and instruction. Therefore he sent back one of his travelling companions, Timothy by name, to watch over the young plant for a little while. When Timothy returned with the intelligence of their steadfastness, it was good news indeed, and with a sense of relieved anxiety, he sits down to write this letter, which, all through, throbs with thankfulness, and reveals the strain which the news had taken off his spirit.

There are no such definite doctrinal statements in it as in the most of Paul’s longer letters; it is simply an outburst of confidence and love and tenderness, and a series of practical instructions. It has been called the least doctrinal of the Pauline Epistles. And in one sense, and under certain limitations, that is perfectly true. But the very fact that it is so makes its indications and hints and allusions the more significant; and if this letter, not written for the purpose of enforcing any special doctrinal truth, be so saturated as it is with the facts and principles of the Gospel, the stronger is the attestation which it gives to the importance of these. I have, therefore, thought it might be worth our while now, and might, perhaps, set threadbare truth in something of a new light, if we put this--the most ancient Christian writing extant, which is quite independent of the four Gospels--into the witness-box, and see what it has to say about the great truths and principles which we call the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is my simple design, and I gather the phenomena into three or four divisions for the sake of accuracy and order.

I. First of all, then, let us hear its witness to the divine Christ.

Look how the letter begins. ‘Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians, which is in God the Father, and in the Lord Jesus Christ.’ What is the meaning of that collocation, putting these two names side by side, unless it means that the Lord Jesus Christ sits on the Father’s throne, and is divine?

Then there is another fact that I would have you notice, and that is that more than twenty times in this short letter that great name is applied to Jesus, ‘the Lord.’ Now mark that that is something more than a mere title of human authority. It is in reality the New Testament equivalent of the Old Testament Jehovah, and is the transference to Him of that incommunicable name.

And then there is another fact which I would have you weigh, viz., that in this letter direct prayer is offered to our Lord Himself. In one place we read the petition, ‘May our God and Father Himself and our Lord Jesus direct our way unto you,’ where the petition is presented to both, and where both are supposed to be operative in the answer. And more than that, the word ‘direct,’ following upon this plural subject, is itself a singular verb. Could language more completely express than that grammatical solecism does, the deep truth of the true and proper divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? There is nothing in any part of Scripture more emphatic and more lofty in its unfaltering proclamation of that fundamental truth of the Gospel than this altogether undoctrinal Epistle.

The Apostle does not conceive himself to be telling these men, though they were such raw and recent Christians, anything new when he presupposes the truth that to Him desires and prayers may go. Thus the very loftiest apex of revealed religion had been imparted to that handful of heathens in the few weeks of the Apostle’s stay amongst them. And nowhere upon the inspired pages of the fourth Evangelist, nor in that great Epistle to the Colossians, which is the very citadel and central fort of that doctrine in Scripture, is there more emphatically stated this truth than here, in these incidental allusions.

This witness, at any rate, declares, apart altogether from any other part of Scripture, that so early in the development of the Church’s history, and to people so recently dragged from idolatry, and having received but such necessarily partial instruction in revealed truth, this had not been omitted, that the Christ in whom they trusted was the Everlasting Son of the Father. And it takes it for granted that, so deeply was that truth embedded in their new consciousness that an allusion to it was all that was needed for their understanding and their faith. That is the first part of the testimony.

II. Now, secondly, let us ask what this witness has to say about the dying Christ.

There is no doctrinal theology in the Epistle to the Thessalonians, they tell us. Granted that there is no articulate argumentative setting forth of great doctrinal truths. But these are implied and involved in almost every word of it; and are definitely stated thus incidentally in more places than one. Let us hear the witness about the dying Christ.

First, as to the fact, ‘The Jews killed the Lord Jesus.’ The historical fact is here set forth distinctly. And then, beyond the fact, there is as distinctly, though in the same incidental fashion, set forth the meaning of that fact--’God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ who died for us.’

Here are at least two things--one, the allusion, as to a well-known and received truth, proclaimed before now to them, that Jesus Christ in His death had died for them; and the other, that Jesus Christ was the medium through whom the Father had appointed that men should obtain all the blessings which are wrapped up in that sovereign word ‘salvation.’ I need but mention in this connection another verse, from another part of the letter, which speaks of Jesus as ‘He that delivereth us from the wrath to come.’ Remark that there our Authorised Version fails to give the whole significance of the words, because it translates delivered , instead of, as the Revised Version correctly does, delivereth . It is a continuous deliverance, running all through the life of the Christian man, and not merely to be realised away yonder at the far end; because by the mighty providence of God, and by the automatic working of the consequences of every transgression and disobedience, that ‘wrath’ is ever coming, coming, coming towards men, and lighting on them, and a continual Deliverer, who delivers us by His death, is what the human heart needs. This witness is distinct that the death of Christ is a sacrifice, that the death of Christ is man’s deliverance from wrath, that the death of Christ is a present deliverance from the consequences of transgression.

And was that Paul’s peculiar doctrine? Is it conceivable that, in a letter in which he refers--once, at all events--to the churches in Judea as their ‘brethren,’ he was proclaiming any individual or schismatic reading of the facts of the life of Jesus Christ? I believe that there has been a great deal too much made of the supposed divergencies of types of doctrine in the New Testament. There are such types, within certain limits. Nobody would mistake a word of John’s calm, mystical, contemplative spirit for a word of Paul’s fiery, dialectic spirit. And nobody would mistake either the one or the other for Peter’s impulsive, warm-hearted exhortations. But whilst there are diversities in the way of apprehending, there are no diversities in the declaration of what is the central truth to be apprehended. These varyings of the types of doctrine in the New Testament are one in this, that all point to the Cross as the world’s salvation, and declare that the death there was the death for all mankind.

Paul comes to it with his reasoning; John comes to it with his adoring contemplation; Peter comes to it with his mind saturated with Old Testament allusions. Paul declares that the ‘Christ died for us’; John declares that He is ‘the Lamb of God’; Peter declares that ‘Christ bare our sins in His own body on the tree.’ But all make one unbroken phalanx of witness in their proclamation, that the Cross, because it is a cross of sacrifice, is a cross of reconciliation and peace and hope. And this is the Gospel that they all proclaim, ‘how that Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,’ and Paul could venture to say, ‘Whether it were they or I, so we preach, and so ye believed.’

That was the Gospel that took these heathens, wallowing in the mire of sensuous idolatry, and lifted them up to the elevation and the blessedness of children of God.

And if you will read this letter, and think that there had been only a few weeks of acquaintance with the Gospel on the part of its readers, and then mark how the early and imperfect glimpse of it had transformed them, you will see where the power lies in the proclamation of the Gospel. A short time before they had been heathens; and now says Paul, ‘From you sounded out the word of the Lord, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to Godward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak anything.’ We do not need to talk to you about ‘love of the brethren,’ for ‘yourselves are taught of God to love one another, and my heart is full of thankfulness when I think of your work of faith and labour of love and patience of hope.’ The men had been transformed. What transformed them? The message of a divine and dying Christ, who had offered up Himself without spot unto God, and who was their peace and their righteousness and their power.

III. Thirdly, notice what this witness has to say about the risen and ascended Christ. Here is what it has to say: ‘Ye turned unto God . . . to wait for His Son from heaven whom He raised from the dead.’ And again: ‘The Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout.’

The risen Christ, then, is in the heavens, and Paul assumes that these people, just brought out of heathenism, have received that truth into their hearts in the love of it, and know it so thoroughly that he can take for granted their entire acquiescence in and acceptance of it.

Remember, we have nothing to do with the four Gospels here. Remember, not a line of them had yet been written. Remember, that we are dealing here with an entirely independent witness. And then tell us what importance is to be attached to this evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Twenty years after His death here is this man speaking about that Resurrection as being not only something that he had to proclaim, and believed, but as being the recognised and notorious fact which all the churches accepted, and which underlay all their faith.

I would have you remember that if, twenty years after this event, this witness was borne, that necessarily carries us back a great deal nearer to the event than the hour of its utterance, for there is no mark of its being new testimony at that instant, but every mark of its being the habitual and continuous witness that had been borne from the instant of the alleged Resurrection to the present time. It at least takes us back a good many years nearer the empty sepulchre than the twenty which mark its date. It at least takes us back to the conversion of the Apostle Paul; and that necessarily involves, as it seems to me, that if that man, believing in the Resurrection, went into the Church, there would have been an end of his association with them, unless he had found there the same faith. The fact of the matter is, there is not a place where you can stick a pin in, between the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and the date of this letter, wide enough to admit of the rise of the faith in a Resurrection. We are necessarily forced by the very fact of the existence of the Church to the admission that the belief in the Resurrection was contemporaneous with the alleged Resurrection itself.

And so we are shut up--in spite of the wriggling of people that do not accept that great truth--we are shut up to the old alternative, as it seems to me, that either Jesus Christ rose from the dead, or the noblest lives that the world has ever seen, and the loftiest system of morality that has ever been proclaimed, were built upon a lie. And we are called to believe that at the bidding of a mere unsupported, bare, dogmatic assertion that miracles are impossible. Believe it who will, I decline to be coerced into believing a blank, staring psychological contradiction and impossibility, in order to be saved the necessity of admitting the existence of the supernatural. I would rather believe in the supernatural than the ridiculous. And to me it is unspeakably ridiculous to suppose that anything but the fact of the Resurrection accounts for the existence of the Church, and for the faith of this witness that we have before us.

And so, dear friends, we come back to this, the Christianity that flings away the risen Christ is a mere mass of tatters with nothing in it to cover a man’s nakedness, an illusion with no vitality in it to quicken, to comfort, to ennoble, to raise, to teach aspiration or hope or effort. The human heart needs the ‘Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.’ And this independent witness confirms the Gospel story: ‘Now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept.’

IV. Lastly, let us hear what this witness has to say about the returning Christ.

That is the characteristic doctrinal subject of the letter. We all know that wonderful passage of unsurpassed tenderness and majesty, which has soothed so many hearts and been like a gentle hand laid upon so many aching spirits, about the returning Jesus ‘coming in the clouds,’ with the dear ones that are asleep along with Him, and the reunion of them that sleep and them that are alive and remain, in one indissoluble concord and concourse, when we shall ever be with the Lord, and ‘clasp inseparable hands with joy and bliss in over-measure for ever.’ The coming of the Master does not appear here with emphasis on its judicial aspect. It is rather intended to bring hope to the mourners, and the certainty that bands broken here may be re-knit in holier fashion hereafter. But the judicial aspect is not, as it could not be, left out, and the Apostle further tells us that ‘that day cometh as a thief in the night.’ That is a quotation of the Master’s own words, which we find in the Gospels; and so again a confirmation, so far as it goes, from an independent witness, of the Gospel story. And then he goes on, in terrible language, to speak of ‘sudden destruction, as of travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.’

These, then, are the points of this witness’s testimony as to the returning Lord--a personal coming, a reunion of all believers in Him, in order to eternal felicity and mutual gladness, and the destruction that shall fall by His coming upon those who turn away from Him.

What a revelation that would be to men who had known what it was to grope in the darkness of heathendom, and to have new light upon the future!

I remember once walking in the long galleries of the Vatican, on the one side of which there are Christian inscriptions from the catacombs, and on the other heathen inscriptions from the tombs. One side is all dreamy and hopeless; one long sigh echoing along the line of white marbles--’Vale! vale! in aeternum vale!’ {Farewell, farewell, for ever farewell.} On the other side--’In Christo, in pace, in spe.’ {In Christ, in peace, in hope.} That is the witness that we have to lay to our hearts. And so death becomes a passage, and we let go the dear hands, believing that we shall clasp them again.

My brother! this witness is to a gospel that is the gospel for Manchester as well as for Thessalonica. You and I want just the same as these old heathens there wanted. We, too, need the divine Christ, the dying Christ, the risen Christ, the ascended Christ, the returning Christ. And I beseech you to take Him for your Christ, in all the fulness of His offices, the manifoldness of His power, and the sweetness of His love, so that of you it may be said, as this Apostle says about these Thessalonians, ‘Ye received it not as the word of man, but, as it is in truth, as the word of God.’

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5:27 read this letter: Public reading of Scripture was practiced in both the synagogue (Luke 4:16; Acts 13:15) and the church (1 Tim 4:13). Similarly, Paul’s letters were to be read aloud to the whole congregation (Col 4:16).

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

1Th 5:27. Ὁρκιζω ὑμᾶς, I adjure you) In the Old Testament Moses and the prophets were publicly read. In the New Testament this epistle, as being the first of all that Paul wrote, is, as a sample of what they should do in the case of the others, recommended to be publicly read, as afterward the Apocalypse, ch. Rev 1:3. This was the very important reason, why Paul so adjured the Thessalonians [and these too so greatly beloved by him.—V. g.]; and there had been some danger, lest they should think, that the epistle should be concealed on account of the praises given to themselves.—τὸν Κύριον, the Lord) Christ. The divine worship of invocation is presented to Him, Ps. 63:12 (Psa 63:11).—πᾶσι, to all) at Thessalonica, or even in the whole of Macedonia.—ἀδελφοῖς, the brethren) The dative, in the strict force of it. The epistle was to be read, whilst all gave ear to it [in the hearing of all], especially those, who could not read it themselves; women and children not being excluded. Comp. Deu 31:12; Jos 8:33-34. What Paul commands with an adjuration, Rome forbids under a curse. [Those who stealthily take away the Scripture, and render the reading of the word of God so difficult to the common people, beyond all doubt deal unfairly in their own treatment of it (they must themselves in their mode of handling it evade its meaning by subterfuges and perversions); they therefore are shunners of the light. But how sadly will they be struck dumb, when the Judge shall inquire, Why have you so violently forbidden others to read My word? Why did you take it from those, who would have used it better than yourselves? “It would be desirable (and this is the remark of a Wittemberg divine of high character) that in many places, and those too of a more exalted condition, instead of the sacred prayers, which seem to be often more numerous than was suitable, the reading of certain chapters of sacred Scripture should be appointed in the Church, and should be a solemn and regular usage,” etc., Franz. de Interpret., p. 47. That would be indeed quite right. At present it is so much the more our duty to lament, that many esteem the dignity of the public assemblies of the Church to be greater only in proportion as the regard paid to Scripture is the less.—V. g.][35]

[35] Bengel, J. A. (1860). Vol. 4: Gnomon of the New Testament (M. E. Bengel & J. C. F. Steudel, Ed.) (J. Bryce, Trans.) (189–211). Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

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

1Th_5:27. This command has not its reason in any distrust of the rulers of the church; nor, as Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact think, in the yearning love of the apostle, who, in compensation of his bodily absence, wished this letter read to all; nor, as Hofmann supposes, in the anxiety of the apostle lest they should not properly value a mere epistle which he sent, instead of coming in person to Thessalonica: but simply because Paul regarded the contents of his Epistle of importance for all without exception. How, moreover, Schrader can infer from 1Th_5:27 that the composition of the Epistle belongs to a time when already a clerus presided in the churches, surpasses comprehension. Completely groundless and untenable is also Baurs opinion (p. 491), that the admonition so emphatically given in 1Th_5:27 was written from the opinions of a time which no longer saw in the apostolic Epistles the natural means of spiritual communication, but regarded them as sacred objects, to which due reverence was to be shown by making their contents known as accurately as possible, particularly by public reading. How could the apostle himself have judged it necessary so solemnly to adjure the churches, to which his Epistles were directed, not to leave them unread? An author could only say this who did not write from the natural pressure of existing circumstances, but in writing placed himself in an imagined situation, and sought to vindicate for his pretended apostolic Epistle the consideration which the apostolic Epistles received in the practice of a later age. But does the author adjure the church to leave his Epistle not unread? What a mighty difference is there between such a command and his urgent desire that the contents of the Epistle should be made known to all the members of the church! If the former were objectionable, the latter is natural and unobjectionable. And further, how is it possible that 1Th_5:27 is the reflex of a time in which the apostolic Epistles were valued as sacred objects, and to which due honour must be paid by public reading, since ἀναγυωσθῆναι is in the aorist, and accordingly a single and exclusive act of reading is referred to! And what a wrong method would the post-apostolic author have employed to secure for his letter the consideration of an apostolic Epistle, when he did not select the infinitive of the present, and did not fail to add πασῖν!

τὸν κύριον] Comp. Mar_5:7; Act_19:13; LXX. Gen_24:3. See Matthiae, p. 756. On the Greek idiom ἐνορκίζω, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 360 ff.

ἀναγνωσθῆναι] that it be read to (Luk_4:16; 2Co_3:15; Col_4:16), not that it be read by. Incorrectly also Michaelis, appealing to 2Th_2:2 (!): there is here intended the recognition of the Epistle as a genuine Pauline Epistle, by means of a conclusion added by his own hand.

τὴν ἐπιστολήν] comp. Rom_16:22; Col_4:16.

πᾶσιν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς] to the whole of the brethren, sc. in Thessalonica; not also in all Macedonia (Bengel, Flatt); still less also in neighbouring Asia (Grotius), or even the churches of all Christendom (Seb. Schmid).

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.

I charge--Greek, "I adjure you."

read unto all--namely, publicly in the congregation at a particular time. The Greek aorist tense implies a single act done at a particular time. The earnestness of his adjuration implies how solemnly important he felt this divinely inspired message to be. Also, as this was the FIRST of the Epistles of the New Testament, he makes this the occasion of a solemn charge, that so its being publicly read should be a sample of what should be done in the case of the others, just as the Pentateuch and the Prophets were publicly read under the Old Testament, and are still read in the synagogue. Compare the same injunction as to the public reading of the Apocalypse, the LAST of the New Testament canon (Rev 1:3). The "all" includes women and children, and especially those who could not read it themselves (Deu 31:12; Jos 8:33-35). What Paul commands with an adjuration, Rome forbids under a curse [BENGEL]. Though these Epistles had difficulties, the laity were all to hear them read (Pe1 4:11; Pe2 3:10; even the very young, Ti2 1:5; Ti2 3:15). "Holy" is omitted before "brethren" in most of the oldest manuscripts, though some of them support it.

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 27. I charge you by the Lord, that this epistle be read] There must have been some particular reason for this solemn charge; he certainly had some cause to suspect that the epistle would be suppressed in some way or other, and that the whole Church would not be permitted to hear it; or he may refer to the smaller Churches contiguous to Thessalonica, or the Churches in Macedonia in general, whom he wished to hear it, as well as those to whom it was more immediately directed. There is no doubt that the apostles designed that their epistles should be copied, and sent to all the Churches in the vicinity of that to which they were directed. Had this not been the case, a great number of Churches would have known scarcely any thing of the New Testament. As every Jewish synagogue had a copy of the law and the prophets, so every Christian Church had a copy of the gospels and the epistles, which were daily, or at least every Sabbath, read for the instruction of the people. This the apostle deemed so necessary, that he adjured them by the Lord to read this epistle to all the brethren; i.e. to all the Christians in that district. Other Churches might get copies of it; and thus, no doubt, it soon became general. In this way other parts of the sacred writings were disseminated through all the Churches of the Gentiles; and the errors of the different scribes, employed to take copies, constituted what are now called the various readings.

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

27 I adjure you by the Lord. It is not certain whether he feared that, as often happened, spiteful and envious persons would suppress the Epistle, or whether he wished to provide against another danger — lest by a mistaken prudence and caution on the part of some, it should be kept among a few. For there will always be found some who say that it is of no advantage to publish generally things that otherwise they recognize as very excellent. At least, whatever artifice or pretext Satan may have at that time contrived, in order that the Epistle might not come to the knowledge of all, we may gather from Paul’s words with what earnestness and keenness he sets himself in opposition to it. For it is no light or frivolous thing to adjure by the name of God. We find, therefore, that the Spirit of God would have those things which he had set forth in this Epistle, through the ministry of Paul, to be published throughout the whole Church. Hence it appears, that those are more refractory than even devils themselves, who in the present day prohibit the people of God from reading the writings of Paul, inasmuch as they are no way moved by so strict an adjuration.

END OF THE COMMENTARY ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.

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.

(27) I charge you.—Adjure is much nearer the original word, which is as solemn as can be. What is the cause of such awful solemnity? The question has never been very satisfactorily answered. It certainly seems as if the contempt of discipline and partial alienation of clergy and laity implied in 1Th_5:12-13, might suggest to St. Paul a doubt whether his Epistle would reach all the Thessalonian Christians. At any rate, the adjuration marks his sense of the extreme importance of the letter; and perhaps the fact that this was his first pastoral letter may have made him more anxious to ensure its reception and success. It amounts to a claim to inspiration. (Comp. 1Th_4:15.) The emphasis seems to rest on the word “all (“holy” is an interpolation). The reading is of course a public reading in the celebration of the Communion, at which we know from several early Fathers that the writings of the Apostles were read aloud. (Comp. Col_4:16; 2Pe_3:15-16.) Baur thought the adjuration a mark of a forger, who wished to gain authority for his cento: Bishop Wordsworth well points out, on the contrary, what a splendid guarantee for the genuineness and integrity of the Epistles this constant recitation constituted.

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

27. I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren] Holy is probably an erroneous insertion of the copyists, due to Php_4:21, or Heb_3:1.

Charge should be the much stronger adjure (A.V. margin, and R. V.). It is as much as to say, “I put you on your oath before the Lord to do this:” an extraordinary expression, and one difficult to account for. There is no appearance of such jealousy or party spirit existing in this Church as could lead to the letter being intentionally withheld from any of Its members. Two circumstances, however, occur to one’s mind which might occasion in some cases neglect of the Epistle,—(1) the extreme desire that was felt for St Paul’s presence at Thessalonica (ch. 1Th_3:6), and the disappointment caused by his failure to return, to which he addressed himself so fully in chaps. 2 and 3. This feeling might lead some to say, “O, it is only a letter from him! We do not want that. Why does he not come himself?” (2) Further, amongst the bereaved members of the Church, some in consequence of their recent and deep sorrow (ch. 1Th_4:13) might be absent from the Church meetings, so that unless the Epistle were carried to them and read in their hearing, they would miss the consolation designed especially for them. It must be remembered, too, that this is the first Apostolic letter extant, and that the custom of reading such letters officially to the whole Church had yet to be established.

Observe the repetition of “all the brethren” in 1Th_5:26-27. The same love which dictates the salutation to “all” without distinction, even though some had incurred censure (1Th_5:14), prompts the anxiety that “all” should hear this letter read, which contains so much of the Apostle’s mind and heart.

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.

27 I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.

Ver. 27. That this epistle be read] It is a matter of greatest necessity and importance that the Holy Scriptures be daily and duly read by all. A sad complaint it is, which Reverend Moulin makes of his countrymen the French Protestants: While they burned us, saith he, for reading the Scriptures, we burnt with zeal to be reading of them. Now, with our liberty is bred also negligence and disesteem of God’s word. (Moulin’s Theophilus.) And is it not so with us at this day? Our ancestors in Henry VIII’s time would sit up all night in reading and hearing, and were at great charges. Some gave five marks for a Bible, that we may have for five shillings.

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.

I charge you by the Lord - Margin, “adjure.” Greek, “I put you under oath by the Lord” - ενορκίζω ὑμᾶς τὸν Κύριον enorkizō humas ton Kurion. It is equivalent to binding persons by an oath; see the notes on Mat 26:63; compare Gen 21:23-24; Gen 24:3, Gen 24:37.

That this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren - To all the church; compare notes on Col 4:16. The meaning is, that the Epistle was to be read to the whole church on some occasion. on which it was assembled together. It was not merely designed for the individual or individuals into whose hands it might happen to fall, but as it contained matters of common interest, and was designed for the whole body of believers at Thessalonica, the apostle gives a solemn charge that it should not be suppressed or kept from them. Injunctions of this kind occurring in the Epistles, look as if the apostles regarded themselves as under the influence of inspiration, and as having authority to give infallible instructions to the churches.

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

The apostle having now finished the Epistle, lays a solemn charge upon them all, especially their elders and teachers, to have this Epistle published. He now being himself hindered from preaching to them, he sends this Epistle to them to be read to all. He wrote it for public use, and therefore would have none ignorant of it, whereby they might all understand what he had written about his great love and care of them, and the commendations he had given of them, and the instructions, admonitions, exhortations, and comforts that were contained therein, of great use to them all. And his charge herein is in a way of adjuration, Ορκιζω υμας τον Κυριον, imposing it on them as by an oath; as Abraham did upon his servant in the case of providing a wife for Isaac, Gen 24:3. And so the high priest said to Christ: I adjure thee by the living God, & c., Mat 26:63; answering to the Hebrew word Hishbagnti, I adjure you; Son 5:8; I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem, & c. It imports the requiring of a thing in the name and authority of God, with a denunciation of vengeance if it be not done. And all this charge is about the reading of this Epistle; as he commands the Epistle to the Colossians to be read in the church of the Laodiceans, and that from Laodicea to be read to them, Col 4:16, but not with that solemn charge as this is. Hence we may gather the duty of reading the Scriptures in the church assemblies, as the law of Moses was read in the synagogues. And, very early in the Christian churches there were some appointed to be readers. Julian the Apostate was a reader in the church at Nicomedia. And if this was the first Epistle written by the apostle, as some suppose it, he lays this solemn charge first for the reading of this, to show the duty of the several churches to the rest of the Scriptures, as they should come to their hand. The word of God should dwell richly and plentifully in the people, and therefore reading it is necessary, together with expounding and applying it. And we hence also may prove against the papists, it ought to be made known to the people, even all the holy brethren, and not confined to the clergy; and to be read in their own tongue, for so, without question, was this Epistle read in a language which the people understood. The apostle was not for confining of knowledge, and keeping the people in ignorance, as those are who make it the mother of devotion.

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

27. I charge you—Literally, I put you upon oath by the Lord. Bloomfield quotes from Bishop Benson as follows: “There were two ways of taking an oath, both of which, by the Jewish canons, were binding: 1. When a man swore by his own mouth, or pronounced the oath himself. 2. When he was adjured by the mouth of another, and that other pronounced the oath, and thereby laid him under the obligation of it. In all cases, an execration or curse is supposed to attend an oath; to which execration the person who takes it is exposed if he swear falsely. See Jos_6:26; 1Sa_14:24; 1Ki_2:23. When a person was adjured, he was bound by an oath, and it is lawful to answer to such an oath, as appears by our Saviour’s answering to the high-priest when he was adjured by the living God; and that other solemn oaths are lawful, see note on Jas_5:12. Why so solemn an adjuration that this epistle be read unto all? The oath and the express all suggest to some the thought that St. Paul suspected that official self-importance might desire to monopolize so important a document as an apostolic letter, containing extraordinary revelations, among a few. The popish withholding of the Scriptures may, in type, have already begun. But the all probably means simply the public congregation; and the read means the public reading in its presence. It is then, perhaps, sufficiently explained, particularly the all, on Alford’s supposition of its being simply an earnestness of expression characterizing this solemn close of the epistle. At any rate, this is a significant text against withholding the holy Scriptures from the people.

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

I charge you; namely, the presbyters. By the Lord; namely, Christ, an indirect proof of his Divinity, the adjuration being in his Name. The reason of this solemn charge was, not on account of any remissness on the part of the presbyters, but was occasioned by the earnestness of the apostle and by his consciousness that what he wrote was most important to the Thessalonians, and was the command of the Lord Jesus Christ. That this Epistle be read unto all the holy brethren; unto the Church of Thessalonica.

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

I charge you by the Lord - Christ, to whom proper divine worship is here paid. That this epistle - The first he wrote. Be read to all the brethren -- that is, in all the churches. They might have concealed it out of modesty, had not this been so solemnly enjoined: but what Paul commands under so strong an adjuration, Rome forbids under pain of excommunication.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Our apostle having now finished his epistle, gives a strict charge for the perusal of it.

In which, observe, 1. The duty enjoined, with the matter of it, namely, the reading of this epistle, and for the same reason all the rest, which had the like stamp of divine authority upon them.

Observe, 2. The object or parties to whom this epistle is to be read, to the brethren, to all the brethren.

Observe, 3. The solemnity of the injuction, I charge you, not, I exhort, beseech, or entreat, but charge and enjoin you; nay, the word signifies, I adjure you; it has the force of an oath, and that under a curse: as if he had said, "I oblige you, under the penalty of God’s curse, that this epistle be read."

Learn hence, 1. That the scriptures ought to be in a known tongue, that they may be read unto, and read by the common people.

2. That to confine the reading of the scriptures to the clergy, and exclude the laity or common people from reading of them, is a very grievous sin, contrary to the intent and design of God in the first penning and composing of them.

3. That it doth in a special manner concern the ministers and spiritual guides to take particular care that the holy scriptures be publicly read to, and privately read by all their people; and in order thereunto, to excite parents to read them daily in their families, Deu 6:9 and in their closets, Col 3:16. And also it is a great part of the minister’s duty to look after the putting forth the children of poor parents to school, that they may learn to read the scriptures for their instruction and comfort.

Lord, what a reproach is it to this Christian nation, that in thousands of families the Bible signifies no more than a chip! Not a soul amongst them able to read a letter in it! This is a lamentation, the Lord put it into the hearts of ministers and people to use their utmost endeavours to roll away this reproach from us!

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

I adjure you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the brethren . [The importance of the Epistle is shown by the solemnity of the adjuration. The command in this, the first of the Epistles, is fittingly echoed in the last written of the New Testament books. See Rev_1:3 . They suggest that the New Testament writings were to be read in the churches, and by all the people, just as the Old Testament was read in the synagogues. "What Paul commands with an adjuration," says Bengel, "Rome forbids under a curse."]

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.

27, 28. I charge you by the Lord. His affectionate solicitude impels this solemn charge. Otherwise those in charge of the new church might think the letter was for them specially and that they were to teach its spirit and thoughts to the people. Read unto all. In the public assembly.

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.

27. ενορκιζω, as against ορκιζω, is preserved in *Oba 1:17: a hapax legomenon for the N.T., and rare in Greek; see Grimm-Thayer, Lexicon s.v.

αγιοις, before αδελφοις, in AאcKLP &c., cop syrr vg go, wanting in א*BDG latt. The only parallel to αγιοι αδελφοι in Paul is αγιοις αποστολοις of Eph 3:5 (see Expository Note; cf. Heb 3:1); the copyists were more likely to add αγιοις to the text than to cancel it. Weiss suggests that it was lost in אB through homœoteleuton.

27. Ἐνορκίζω ὑμᾶς τὸν κύριον ἀναγνωσθῆναι τὴν ἐπιστολήν, κ.τ.λ. I adjure you by the Lord that the letter be read to all the brothers. Observe the 1st person singular, previously occurring only in 1Th 2:18 and 1Th 3:5, which gives to the wish, on St Paul’s part, an emphatic personal note; cf. the concluding note on 1Th 5:28. This appeal unmistakably implies, as probably does the direction of 1Th 5:26 (see note above), certain responsible persons to whose address the Epistle was sent and who had it in charge for the Church. That the request should take the form of a solemn adjuration, is surprising. The tenor of the Epistle (see Introd. pp. xxxiii., lxii.) indicates no contention or jealousy that might occasion the withholding of the Letter from one party by another. It must be remembered (1) that this is the earliest Apostolic Letter extant, and that the custom of reading such Epistles had yet to be established. The appeal gives expression to the authority of the communication, and the importance attaching to it in the writers’ minds (cf. 1Th 4:1; 1Th 4:15). (2) The desire felt for St Paul’s presence, and the disappointment of the Church at his failure to return (1Th 3:6), to which he addresses himself in chaps. 2 and 3, might lead some to say, “O, it is only a letter from him! we do not want that!” (3) Further, amongst the bereaved members of the Church whom the writers are wishful to console (1Th 4:13 ff.), some in consequence of their recent and deep sorrow might be absent when the Epistle was read; the Apostles will make sure that these shall not lose its benefit. Lightfoot suggests (4) that St Paul had “a sort of presentiment or suspicion that a wrong use might be made of his name and authority” in some quarters in regard to the matters agitated touching the Parousia—as appears, from the subsequent allusion of 2Th 2:2, to have proved the case; and that he therefore takes care that no one shall misunderstand his meaning from merely hearing it at second-hand and by report. Or, finally, (5) the ἄτακτοι (1Th 5:14) might escape hearing the Letter, unless they were sought out and had it brought to their knowledge. A somewhat similar injunction is found in Col 4:16.

ἐνορκίζω—“probably stronger than ὁρκίζω, I bind you by an oath” (Lightfoot)—appears to be found otherwise only on one or two Inscriptions, and probably (by emendation) in Josephus Antiq. viii. 15. 4; ὁρκίζω in Mar 5:7; Act 19:13. Like verbs of its class, it takes two accusatives. Ὁρκόω is the correct Attic form. Τὴν ἐπιστολήν refers to the Letter now complete. The benediction μακάριος ὁ ἀναγινώσκων κ. οἱ ἀκούοντες, of Rev 1:3, says much the same thing as this verse in another way. Bengel remarks, in regard to the reading of Scripture on the part of the laity: “Quod Paulus cum adjuratione jubet, id Roma sub anathemate prohibet.”

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.

27.] The meaning of this conjuration is, that an assembly of all the brethren should be held, and the Epistle then and there publicly read. The aorist, ἀναγνωσθῆναι, referring to a single act, shews this (but consult Ellic.’s note). On the construction τὸν κύρ. see reff. Jowett offers various solutions for the Apostle’s vehemence of language. I should account for it, not by supposing any distrust of the ciders, nor by the other hypotheses which he suggests, but by the earnestness of spirit incidental to the solemn conclusion of an Epistle of which he is conscious that it conveys to them the will and special word of the Lord.

πᾶσιν] i.e. in Thessalonica, assembled together.

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

27. ἐνορκίζω κτλ Had Paul written ποιήσατε ἵνα ἡ ἐπιστολὴ πᾶσιν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ἀναγνωσθῇ (cf. Col 4:16), it would have been natural to suppose that he intended simply to emphasise the importance of the present letter (τή; Vulg haec; cf. II 3:14, Rom 16:22, Col 4:16) not only to the weak who by it might be supported, and to the faint-hearted who by it might be encouraged, but also to the idlers who might by it be induced to heed the admonition (cf. Ephr.). The sudden change, however, from the second to the first person (but without ἐγω; cf. 2:18, 3:5), and the introduction of the solemn adjuration directed to the group as a whole (ὑμᾶ) suggest the existence of a serious situation, namely, either that the leaders had intimated to Paul that they would not read his reply to all the brethren (cf. Th. Mops., Calv., B., Weiss) or, and more probably in the light of II 3:14, that they had informed Paul that the more recalcitrant of the idlers had asserted that they would pay no heed to the epistolary injunctions of Paul. Hence the solemn adjuration by the Lord Jesus that the brethren as a group see to it (cf. v. 15) that all the brethren, including the idlers, hear this letter read.

On the theory of Harnack, shared also by Lake (The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, 1911, 89) that πᾶσι here, like πάντα in v. 26, implies the existence of a Jewish Christian church in Thessalonica between which and the Gentile Christian church addressed in I there was a line of cleavage, v. supra, p. 53 f. From this verse, called forth by a particular need, it can neither be affirmed nor denied that Paul had written letters to communities visited (cf. Gal 1:21) or that the reading of his letters, if written, in the church had become a fixed custom.—Though ἀναγινώσκει both in classics and in papyri (Mill.) may mean not only “read aloud” but also “read,” it is yet probable that the former sense, usual in classics, is always intended by Paul (2Co 1:13, 2Co 1:3:2, 2Co 1:15, Col 4:16, Eph 3:4; cf. 1 Mac. 14:19 ἐνώπιον ἐκκλησία). Whether all the artisans in Thess. could read, we do not know. The aor. infin. ἀναγνωσθῆνα (object of ἐνορκίζ; cf. BMT 391) indicates “the being read” as an act without reference to its progress, repetition, or result.—ἐνορκίζ (BADE, et al.) is found elsewhere in Gk. Bib. only Neh 13:25 (A); the simple ὁρκίζ (Neh 13:25 (B) Mar 5:7, Act 19:13) is read by אGFP, et al. (cf. ὁρκό 4 Reg. 11:4; also ἐξορκίζ Mat 26:63, Gen 24:3, Jdg 17:2 (A) 3 Reg. 22:16). These verbs are construed either with two accus. as here (Mar 5:7, Act 19:13, Gen 24:3) or with accus. and κατα with gen. (Mat 26:63, 2Ch 36:13; Hermas Sim. IX, 10:5; see Deiss. BS 28 ff.). On the infin. instead of ἵν (Gen 24:3, Mat 26:63 and the Hermas passage), cf. Joseph. Ant. VIII, 104: λέγειναὐτῷτʼ ἀληθὲς οὗτος ἐνωρκίσατ—P. omits τὴν ἐπιστολήν; ἁγίοι (אcAKLP, et al.) is an insertion influenced by φιλήματι ἁγίῳ (Dob.), and though retained by Weiss (91) is probably to be omitted with א*BDEGF, et al. πάντες οἱ ἅγιο is common in Paul (Rom 16:15, 2Co 1:1, 2Co 13:12, etc.), but οἱ ἅγιοι ἀδελφοι is unexpected and redundant. Moff. notes Apoc. Bar. 86:1: “When therefore ye receive this my epistle, read it in your congregations with care.”

VII. BENEDICTION (5:28)

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

I charge [ενορκιζω] . N. T. o. Rev. stronger and more literal, I adjure. Class. This strong appeal may perhaps be explained by a suspicion on Paul 's part that a wrong use might be made of his name and authority (see 2Th 2:2), so that it was important that his views should be made known to all. Lightfoot refers to 2Th 3:17, as showing a similar feeling in his anxiety to authenticate his letter. ===2Th1

CHAPTER I

On vv. 1, 2, see on 1Th 1:1.

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