《Peake’s Commentary on the Bible –1 Thessalonians》(Arthur Peake)
Commentator
Arthur Samuel Peake (1865-1929) was an English biblical scholar, born at Leek, Staffordshire, and educated at St John's College, Oxford. He was the first holder of the Rylands Chair of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis in the University of Manchester, from its establishment as an independent institution in 1904. He was thus the first non-Anglican to become a professor of divinity in an English university.
In 1890-92 he was a lecturer at Mansfield College, Oxford, and from 1890 to 1897 held a fellowship at Merton College.
In 1892, however, he was invited to become tutor at the Primitive Methodist Theological Institute in Manchester, which was renamed Hartley College in 1906.[1][4] He was largely responsible for broadening the curriculum which intending Primitive Methodist ministers were required to follow, and for raising the standards of the training.
In 1895-1912 he served as lecturer in the Lancashire Independent College, from 1904 to 1912 also in the United Methodist College at Manchester. In 1904 he was appointed Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis in the (Victoria) University of Manchester. (This chair was in the Faculty of Theology established in that year; it was renamed "Rylands Professor, etc." in 1909.)
Peake was also active as a layman in wider Methodist circles, and did a great deal to further the reunion of Methodism which took effect in 1932, three years after his death. In the wider ecumenical sphere Peake worked for the National Council of Evangelical Free Churches, serving as president in 1928, and was a member of the World Conference on Faith and Order held in Lausanne in 1927. He published and lectured extensively, but is best remembered for his one-volume commentary on the Bible (1919), which, in its revised form, is still in use.
The University of Aberdeen made him an honorary D. D. in 1907. He was a governor of the John Rylands Library.
First published in 1919, Peake's commentary of the bible was a one-volume commentary that gave special attention to Biblical archaeology and the then-recent discoveries of biblical manuscripts. Biblical quotations in this edition were from the Revised Version of the Bible.
00 Introduction
I. AND II. THESSALONIANS
BY PROFESSOR H. T. ANDREWS
The City of Thessalonica (the modern Salonika) was situated at the end of the Thermaic Gulf on the famous Via Egnatia, the highway which connected Italy and the East. I was the most populous city in Macedonia, and therefore, both by reason of its size and its position, specially suitable as a base of operations when Paul commenced his task of evangelizing Greece (Acts 17:1*). We know little about the intellectual or religious condition of the town. It was within sight of Olympus, and Cicero tells us that when he visited the district where Homer and the Greek poets had seen the home of the gods, he saw only snow and ice. From what we know of the general condition of religion at the time, we may be sure that Cicero's opinion was very largely shared by the natives of Thessalonica. There is one interesting fact known to us, which throws some light upon certain statements in the epistle, i.e. the existence of a religious sect in Thessalonica known as the Chabiri, which was patronised by the Roman Empire, and which seems to have regarded immorality as an important element in the cultus.
Paul's Work at Thessalonica.—Paul came to Thessalonica after his ill-treatment at Philippi (1 Thessalonians 2:2). A brief account of his visit is given in Acts 17:1-9.* He preached on three successive Sabbaths in the Jewish synagogues, and then apparently (though Ac. is silent on this point) began to work among the Gentiles. His converts were made up of three classes: (a)some Jews, (b)a great multitude of devout Greeks, (c) not a few of the chief women of the city. The epistles give us the impression that the Greek element predominated (1 Thessalonians 1:9). Paul's work was interrupted by an attack by the Jews (Acts 17:5) on political rather than religious grounds. The politarchs, jealous for the reputation of the city, compelled Jason to give a surety that the disturbance should not be repeated. This made it necessary for Paul to leave the town (p. 795).
Paul's Subsequent Movements.—Paul went first of all to Berœa, then to Athens, and finally to Corinth. There is reason to believe that his heart was set on returning to Thessalonica (1 Thessalonians 2:17-20). He knew that his converts were being subjected to a severe persecution, and was afraid lest they would give way under the fiery trial. At last the suspense became too terrible to bear (1 Thessalonians 3:1), and Paul despatched Timothy from Athens to Thessalonioa to comfort the Christians and bring back word with regard to their condition.
The Occasion for the First Epistle.—Timothy returned and met Paul at Corinth with varied information. (1) In spite of the persecution, the Christians at Thessalonica were standing firm. (2) Some of them, however, had died in the interval, and the problem had been raised, "Would their death rob them of the glory of the promised Parousia?" (3) The opponents of the Church were doing their best to malign and blacken the character of Paul. (4) There was a tendency on the part of some Christians, in view of the Parousia, to neglect the ordinary duties of life.
It was as the result of this message brought by Timothy that the first epistle was written, and the four points of information contained in the message give us the key for understanding it. The substance of the letter ranges round the four points: (1) Paul congratulates the Thessalonians on their steadfastness in the face of persecutions; (2) assures them that death will not rob their friends of a share in the Parousia; (3) replies to the charges which had been brought against his own person and work; (4) exhorts the Thessalonians to "increase and abound," and "to study to be quiet."
Genuineness of the First Epistle.—The external evidence is quite satisfactory. The letter was recognised by Marcion and the Muratorian Canon, quoted by name by Irenæus, and used by Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian. There is no evidence that there was the slightest hesitation in ancient times about accepting it as a genuine Pauline work. Modern scholars who have questioned the Pauline authorship have done so on internal grounds, chiefly because it lacks some of the doctrinal marks of the later epistles. The absence of these characteristic marks may be explained partly by the circumstances which called for a letter of practical exhortation and not for theological discussion, partly by the fact that the epistle was written before the theological controversy had become acute. It would be much more difficult to explain the absence of these elements on the supposition that the epistle is a later forgery. It bears on its face traces of its early origin. No later writer would have credited Paul with the belief that the Parousia would happen in his own lifetime. The problem with regard to the relation of the dead to the Parousia could have arisen only at the very earliest stage. The organisation of the Church is in the most rudimentary condition. And, finally, there is no motive in the contents of the epistle which can explain its invention by a later writer.
The Occasion of the Second Epistle.—The second epistle seems to have been written soon after the first, though the interval between the two cannot be definitely fixed. Its object was to correct the misapprehension about the Parousia, which is alluded to in the first epistle, and which seems to have produced disastrous effects upon some sections of the Church. The real motive for the letter is the apocalyptic section in ch. 2. Paul is anxious to allay the disorder which the belief in the near approach of the Parousia had caused, and to show that it cannot take place till certain preliminary events had happened.
The Apocalyptic Section.— 2 Thessalonians 2 belongs to the region of Apocalyptic (see art. on Apocalyptic Literature, p. 431), and reminds us of the Book of Revelation. It is the most striking illustration of Apocalyptic in the writings of Paul, though apocalyptic elements are to be found elsewhere in his epistles, notably in 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15. Its subject is the events that must precede the Parousia. Antichrist, or the Man of Sin as Paul calls him, must first appear, but this appearance is impossible at present, because of "the power that restrains." The time will come, however, when that power will be removed and the Man of Sin will manifest himself. After this, Christ will reappear and slay Antichrist "with the breath of his mouth." Reasons are given in the notes for supposing that "the restraining power" is to be identified with the Roman Empire and that the Man of Sin is likely to arise from the Jewish people.
The Genuineness of the Second Epistle.—The external evidence is, if anything, a little stronger than in the case of 1 Th., since in addition to the attestation in support of the first letter, the second appears to have been cited by Polycarp and Justin Martyr. The reasons which have led some modern scholars to reject it are derived from its contents. It is argued, for instance, that its conception of the Parousia differs from the statements of 1 Th., and that it postpones what 1 Th. regarded as imminent. This, however, is not really the case. 1 Th. does not state that the Parousia is to happen immediately. It lays the stress on its "suddenness," and there is nothing in 2 Th. which denies the "suddenness" of the Parousia. Besides, if there were a discrepancy, it would not be fatal to the Pauline authorship. Paul was always quick to grasp a situation, and it would not be beyond the bounds of possibility that the disorders which arose in Thessalonica might have led him to modify his teaching in some degree. Again it is argued that the presence of the apocalyptic section stamps the epistle as un-Pauline. As we have seen, however, other epistles contain at any rate germs of Apocalyptic, and it is by no means unreasonable to suppose that the apocalyptic side of Paul's theology should have come to full expression in this passage. Another reason which has led some scholars to reject 2 Th. is the dissimilarity of the tone of the two epistles. The first is warmer and more sympathetic than the second, and it is obviously written to a Gentile community, while the second seems to be addressed to Jewish readers. To meet these difficulties, Harnack has recently propounded a theory that the two epistles were written for different sections of the Church, the first for the Gentile element, and the second for the Jewish Christians. There is an interesting reading preserved in some MSS. in 2 Thessalonians 2:13, "God chose you as a firstfruit." This expression does not seem applicable to the Church as a whole, because there is no reasonable sense of the term in which it can be described as a "firstfruit;" but it is very applicable to the Jewish section of the Church, because the first converts at Thessalonica were certainly Jews. There are two serious objections to the hypothesis: (a)2 Th., like its predecessor, is addressed to "the Church of the Thessalonians," and there is nothing to indicate that the phrase was intended to cover only a section of the Church. (b) We have no reason to suppose that the Church at Thessalonica was divided into two well-defined communities, each with its own particular problems and needing special apostolic advice. Nor have we any other precedent for supposing that Paul was in the habit of writing to a particular group of Christians within a Church and not to the Church as a whole.
Another interesting theory which has been revived in recent times is that of Grotius, who argued that tradition has inverted the true order of the epistles, and that the second epistle ought to be regarded as the first, and vice versa.
Literature.—Commentaries: (a)Jowett, Mackintosh (WNT), Adeney (Cent.B), Findlay (CB), Drummond (IH), Plummer; (b)Milligan, Moffatt (EGT), Findlay (CGT), Frame (ICC), Lightfoot, Notes on Epistles of St. Paul; (c) Bornemann (Mey., 1894), Schmiedel (HC), Wohlenberg (ZK), von Döbsehutz (Mey., 1909); (d)Denney (Ex.B). Other Literature. As on 1 Cor. Also studies by Askwith, von Soden (1 Th.), Spitta (2 Th.), Harnack, (2 Th.). Das Problem des Zweiten Thessaloni-cherbriefs (Sitzungsberichte der könig. Preuss. Akad. d. Wissenschaften zu Berlin), Lake, The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul.
BY PROFESSOR H. A. A. KENNEDY
I. Presuppositions. (a) Pharisaic Training.—It is true even of the most gifted thinker that his ideas are permanently influenced by his early training. Such influence will be more marked when the training is determined by a sacred tradition. As the son of devout Hebrews (Philippians 3:5), and probably destined to be a religious teacher, Paul's acquaintance with the OT was that of an expert. In the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, he had found spiritual nurture and intellectual illumination. He had learned to use the Scriptures as absolutely authoritative for faith and life. When he became a Christian he did not abandon, but only modified his attitude. The fulfilment of the earlier revelation in Christ confirmed its value and gave him fresh insight into its meaning. Its regulative importance for his thought is evident from his constant use of Scripture proofs in establishing his arguments (e.g. Romans 3:10 f., Galatians 3:6; Galatians 3:8, Galatians 3:10-13). This method had been carried to extravagant lengths in the Pharisaic schools. Their main business was commenting on the text of the OT. These comments, remarkable for their ingenuity and pedantry, had accumulated into a mass of tradition, chiefly occupied with the Law, and possessing an equal authority. Traces of the Rabbinic exegesis in which Paul had been trained appear in such arguments as Galatians 3:16; Galatians 4:21-31. But nothing more completely reveals the completeness of his religious transformation than the manner in which he has shaken off the limitations of his professional education.
The Law was not, however, studied by the Pharisees for its historical interest. Its strict observance was the most pressing question of the national life. To outward appearance the Jews were a conquered, broken people. There was nothing in their present experience to kindle expectations of a happier future. But that was to reckon without God. For God and God's Covenant were the supreme factors in their history. The Law was the visible expression of God's relation to them, God's will for them. To obey the Law was to hold God to His promises. And these promises were summed up in the Messianic Hope which had preserved their vitality in the midst of overwhelming disasters. Hence those who ignored the claims of the Law were a positive hindrance to the realisation of the nation's splendid destiny. But there were also serious consequences for the individual. The conception of personal retribution had by this time come into the forefront. God's final verdict on each life at the day of reckoning was based on its obedience or disobedience to the legal standards. Thus the religious experience of a Pharisee largely consisted in his consciousness of blamelessness or transgression when confronted with the prescribed requirements of the authoritative code.
The central place of the Messianic Hope in the Pharisaic outlook reminds us that the devout Jew of Paul's day was constantly engrossed with the future. When the woes of the present had reached a climax, he expected a catastrophic intervention of God, in which the existing evil age should be transformed, and the Divine rule established once for all in righteousness. The pictures of the coming age are confusingly varied. At times its basis is earthly, at times it belongs to a new heavenly order. Perhaps more often than not it is associated with the figure of a personal Messiah. Throughout his epistles, Paul reveals the influence of this strain of thought.
(b) Diaspora-Environment.—While Paul took his theological curriculum, if we may so describe it, in the Rabbinic schools of Jerusalem, he was by birth a Jew of the Diaspora. There can be little doubt that the more liberal atmosphere of Hellenism was not without effect even upon so exclusive a temperament as the Jewish. Recent discoveries have shown a closer touch with Greek life than was formerly recognised. In any case, the fringe of Greek enquirers attached to the synagogues in important centres formed a medium for the communication of Hellenistic ideas. Paul's native city of Tarsus was famous for its school of Stoic philosophy. Whether, in his earlier days, his eager spirit was affected by the doctrines of Stoicism which were being diffused among all classes of society we cannot tell. The occasional points of contact between Paul and the popular philosophy of his time can quite well be accounted for by his inevitable intercourse, as a Christian missionary, with men and women whose thought had been influenced by the current beliefs of the day. To the same source must be referred those traces of affinity with influential mystery-cults which are occasionally discernible in his conceptions and (still more) in his terminology.
(c) Pre-Christian Religious Experience.—The influences described in the preceding paragraphs must be regarded as secondary factors in shaping the Pauline theology, as compared with the crisis of Paul's conversion which cleft his life in twain. But the significance of his conversion can scarcely be grasped, apart from a brief survey of his pre-Christian religious experience, so far as that may be inferred from the hints supplied by his letters. Two considerations ought here to be emphasized. First, Paul's experience must not be regarded as typical of the average Judaism of his day. That explains why so many Jewish Christians failed to understand him. And, secondly, the account which he gives of his pre-Christian life, notably as regards the operation of the Law (e.g. Romans 7:7-24), could only have been given by a Christian believer. Still, we have sufficient data from which to compose a rough picture.