Chrys C. Caragounis, «Parainesis on 'AGIASMO/S' (1 Th 4: 3-8)», Vol. 15 (2002) 133-151
1 Th 4:3-8 (particulary vv.3-6) is full of exegetical problems. Almost all the leading
concepts of the passage present problems of interpretation: pornei/a, skeuo~j,
u(perbei/nein, pleonekte=in, a)delfo/j. On the basis of the two main interpretations of two of them, namely skeuo~j and a)delfo/j, the author rejects the current explanations of the section and claims for a better understading that takes into account to the parameters of the text, the context, the persons addressed, and the historical significance of the bearing terms. According to the writer, Paul has no concrete case of adulterous behavior in mind, but gives a general apostolic exhortation and warns the members of this church (men and women alike) against the dangers of such a behavior.
Parainesis on á¼Î³Î¹Î±Ïƒï¿½ÏŒÏ‚ (1 Th 4: 3-8) 137
matters. This is, however, unlikely both in itself and because it would
introduce a thought foreign to the context (cf. also vs. 7).44 For a criticism
of these arguments, see Best.
The other basic interpretation, represented by e.g. Morris45, Bruce,46
Marshall,47 Wanamaker,48 et al. takes σκεῦος as ‘body’, especially in its
sexual aspects. Morris thinks that the meaning of ‘body’ for σκεῦος con-
flicts with κτᾶσθαι, which he takes to mean ‘to acquire’. Nevertheless,
the inappropriateness of ‘vessel’ to designate a wife, and the altogether
too low view of marriage, which this interpretation would attribute to
Paul, lead him and the other interpreters of this group to choose ‘body’
as the meaning of σκεῦος, as a euphemism for genitalia. Accordingly
they understand ϖοÏνεία generally of sexual immorality. Even for this
interpretation the ἀδελφός of vs. 6 is a problem. Morris, followed by Best,
understands it as referring to anyone in the community who is thereby
offended, but particularly the brother who one day is going to marry
the debauched woman. Marshall, thinks that it refers to “disregarding
and taking advantage of somebody else by adulterous behaviourâ€. Bruce49
does not indicate how the ‘brother’ is affected.
Before proceeding to a more detailed exegetical discussion of the com-
plex issues of vv. 3-6, and hopefully to a solution, it is deemed necessary
to clarify the parameters within which any interpretation of these verses
must be contained.
III. Clarifying the Parameters
1. Basic Presuppositions in the Interpretation of 1 Thessalonians
a. Length of Paul’s Stay and Date of the Letter. The data of 1 Thes-
salonians, Philippians, and Acts lead to the conclusion that Paul’s stay
in Thessalonike lasted about two months,50 and that he wrote this letter
See further Best, 1 Thessalonians, 165f.
44
Morris, First Thessalonians, 121-27.
45
Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 81-85.
46
Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 106-12
47
Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians, 150-55.
48
Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 85.
49
On Macedonia and Thessalonike, see the basic study edited by M. B. Sakellariou,
50
Macedonia. 4000 Years of Greek History and Civilization, Athens 1983 rp. 1994, esp.
192-221. The presence of Jews in Thessalonike is very meagerly attested. The oldest refer-
ence seems to be Philo, Legatio, 281, which, however, mentions no numbers. For Paul’s time
Acts is the only source. There are some inscriptions from late Roman times, on which see