Parainesis on ἁγιασ�ός (1 Th 4: 3-8) 149 Πλεονεκτεῖν (only in Paul: 5 times) means ‘to take advantage of’, ‘to out- wit’, ‘to cheat’. In no one of the other four instances is the word used of business.95 Nor is πλεονεκτεῖν particularly collocated with words having business or sexual import. The meaning is simply ‘greed’ of any sort.96 7. Finally ἀδελφός. The reason why this term has been so problematic to fit in the context has been partly the parameters assumed and partly the problematic interpretations of the various crucial words: πορνεία, σκεῦος, κτᾶσθαι, as well as the articular infinitives97. The recognition that the paraenesis is directed to the entire Church, i.e. married and unmarried men and married and unmarried women, that it does not address any concrete instances of fornication or adultery, but instead forms part of the general apostolic exhortation to all Christians in view of the dangers with which they are surrounded, is a basic pre- supposition for interpreting the bearing terms in their true context and significance. It has been pointed out above that πορνεία refers to illicit sexual relations, not only outside marriage but also –being the general term for such relations– covers the case of adultery as well. Moreover, we have seen that σκεῦος refers to the body of every Christian member irrespective of sex, and that κτᾶσθαι (together with εἰδέναι) has dura- tive sense, the paraenesis being that all the members of the Thessalonian Church, men and women, are exhorted to keep their bodies in holiness In 2 Cor 2:11 Paul seeks to hinder Satan from taking advantage of the Corinthian 95 Church. In 7:2; 12:17, 18 the sense is regularly that Paul disowns having ever misused his position as Apostle or founder of the Corinthian Church to attain personal gains. H. Baltensweiler (“Erwägungen zu 1. Thess. 4,3-8” TZ 19 (1963),1-13) has advanced 96 the thesis that πρᾶγμα refers to a law-suit which has in view the marriage of the ἐπίκληρος daughter. According to Solon’s laws a female heiress was to marry one of her relations in order to keep the property within the family. From this awkward situations might arise, and these were left to the discretion of the judge. The worst that might occur was that even if the heiress were married, her relative might be disposed to claim his rights and force her to divorce her husband to marry him (for the law see Plato, Leges 924d-926d; cf. Aristotle, The Constitution of Athens VIII.5. In Plutarch’s time this law was considered ἄτοπος καὶ γελοῖος (Solon, XX,2-3)). It is argued that in Paul’s Jewish eyes such a union would be considered incestuous. His admonition then would be that a Christian brother should not press his inheritance rights and force a sister to divorce her husband –the brother!– in order to marry him. This highly imaginary interpretation is far from convincing. Even if this old Athenian law was current in Thessalonike in Paul’s day, it is highly unlikely that in the small group of Christians in Thessalonike such a rare case would have arisen. Besides, who would have divined Paul’s mind that by the defrauded brother he meant the husband of an ἐπίκληρος daughter? If any refutation is needed, Best’s (1 Thessalonians, 164) will suffice. N. Baumert, “Brautwerbung. Das einheitliche Thema von 1 Thess 4,3-8” in R. F. 97 Collins, The Thessalonian Correspondence, 316-39, building partly on Maurer’s and partly on Baltensweiler’s theses as well as on a number of questionable exegetical judgments, comes to the fantastical conclusion that the main issue is concerned with courting or wooing a (prospective) wife: “Aber dieser ‘Fall’ bestünde nun darin, daß jemand durch ϖορνεία die zu einem anderen gehörende Braut an sich zu binden suchte …”.