1 Thessalonians 3:5

την υμων πιστιν (WH, margin), B 37 73 116: this (for Paul) unusual order (cf. e.g. 1 Thessalonians 3:2; 1 Thessalonians 3:6) may be original. On the other hand, 1 Thessalonians 3:7 may have deflected the reading of B here.

5. διὰ τοῦτο κἀγὼ μηκέτι στέγων ἔπεμψα κ.τ.λ. On this account I myself also, no longer bearing (it), sent, &c.: a re-assertion, in the singular number, of what 1 Thessalonians 3:1 related in the plural, with an additional reason brought into view—διὰ τοῦτο, scil. εἰς τὸ γνῶναι κ.τ.λ. Some suppose (a) that the plur. and sing. of 1 Thessalonians 3:1; 1 Thessalonians 3:5 are used indifferently, that indeed the 1st plur throughout the Epistle is a conventional pluralis auctoris; but this is improbable, on general grounds (see Introd. pp. xxxix. f.). (b) Hofmann and Spitta (Urchristenthum, Band i., pp. 121 f.) draw quite another inference from the discrepancy of number; they conclude that St Paul in his impatience sent a second messenger, on his own account, with the enquiry stated in this verse, after Timothy had been despatched by himself and Silas (1 Thessalonians 3:1). But the words of 1 Thessalonians 3:1 are deliberately resumed, as if expressly to identify the two (quite congruous) purposes stated in 1 Thessalonians 3:2; 1 Thessalonians 3:5; moreover it is Timothy (1 Thessalonians 3:6) who returns with the report that allayed St Paul’s anxiety. (c) Assuming, then, that 1 Thessalonians 3:1; 1 Thessalonians 3:5 refer to one and the same visit, and that the distinction of number in the double grammatical subject is not otiose, we must understand that, while the two chiefs concurred in sending Timothy to Thessalonica from Athens, the action was St Paul’s principally; and that, while both the senders were wishful to strengthen the faith of the Thessalonians, St Paul attributes to himself, rather than to Silas, the apprehension that this faith might have given way. In 1 Thessalonians 2:18 St Paul distinguished himself as having made a second, unshared, attempt to get back to Thessalonica; and here, as being actuated by a second motive, that was perhaps not at the time so explicit, in directing Timothy’s errand. If διὰ τοῦτο be prospective to εἰς τὸ γνῶναι, the construction resembles that of 1 Timothy 1:16; 2 Timothy 2:10; Philemon 1:15; but the above interpretation is consistent with the more usual retrospective reference of the prepositional phrase—scil. to προελέγομεν κ.τ.λ.—the purpose of Timothy’s visit being understood as growing out of the prevision expressed in 1 Thessalonians 3:4 : “expecting this continued trial for you, I sent, in some apprehension, to see how you were bearing it.”

εἰς τὸ γνῶναι τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν. (On this account I indeed sent Timothy), so that I might ascertain your faith: to learn its condition—whether, and how, you are maintaining it. Γινώσκω, in distinction from οῖδα, to be aware of, acquainted with (1 Thessalonians 3:4, &c.), means to get to know, perceive, recognize: cf. Colossians 4:8, and the two verbs as associated in Ephesians 5:5; also 2 Corinthians 2:9. “The brevity of the expression shows how entirely ἡ πίστις forms the all-comprising and fundamental concept for the whole life of Christianity as it is called into existence by the Gospel” (Bornemann).

μή πως ἐπείρασεν ὑμᾶς ὁ πειράζων καὶ εἰς κενὸν γένηται ὁ κόπος ἡμῶν, lest (fearing that) somehow the Tempter had tempted you, and our toil should prove in vain. Upon this, the generally accepted, construction, the μή of apprehension is followed by the aorist indicative in the first clause inasmuch as the πειράζειν belongs to the sphere of historical facts, while the εἰς κενὸν γενέσθαι was matter of eventual contingency (aor. subjunctive): see Winer-Moulton, pp. 633 f., Blass, Grammar, p. 213, Ellicott ad loc.: the opposite transition—from subjunctive to indicative, after μήπως—is observed in Galatians 2:2 (see Lightfoot ad loc.). It is possible, however, both in this passage and in Galatians 2:2, to read μήπως as the indirect interrogative, in which case γένηται (subj.) implies contingency in the matter of enquiry (see Winer-Moulton, pp. 373 f.; and the exx. in Liddell and Scott, s.v. μή, C.2 Thessalonians 1): (enquiring), Had the Tempter anyhow tempted you, and would our toil prove in vain? ut cognoscerem … num forte tentator vos tentaverit, adeo ut labor meus (rather noster) irritus fieri possit (Schott). See Grimm-Thayer, Lexicon, s.v. μήπως; also Hofmann’s, Bornemann’s, or Lünemann’s (Meyer’s Commentary) note ad loc Ἔπεμψα εἰς τὸ γνῶναι describes an act of virtual interrogation; in the two members of the question united by καί, upon this construction, ἐπείρασεν relates to (presumable) fact, and the dubitative γένηται to the possible consequence thereof. Ephesians 6:21 (ἵνα εἴδητε τὰ κατʼ ἐμέ, τί πράσσω) and Acts 15:36 (ἐπισκεψώμεθα τοὺς� …, πῶς ἔχουσιν) afford similar instances of the indirect question attached to the accusative after a verbum cognoscendi. Only one other instance is quoted of interrogative μήπως, viz. Iliad x. 101, while μήπως of apprehension is frequent in St Paul (1 Corinthians 8:9; 1 Corinthians 9:27; 2 Corinthians 9:4; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 2 Corinthians 12:20, &c.); but there is nothing in the added πως inconsistent with interrog. μή: cf. εἴπως in Romans 1:10; Romans 11:14; Acts 27:12. The practical difference between the two constructions is small.

Ὁ πειράζων (for the substantival participle see note on ὁ ῥυόμενος, 1 Thessalonians 1:10) is ὁ Σατανᾶς of 1 Thessalonians 2:18, in his characteristic activity: cf. Matthew 4:3; Matthew 6:13; Mark 1:13; 1 Corinthians 7:5. God is ὁ δοκιμάζων (1 Thessalonians 2:4), “the Prover (of hearts)”: the difference of the verbs lies in the bad or good intent of the trial; see Trench’s Synon. § 74. The repetition of the verb in subject and predicate almost assumes the fact of temptation; the stress of the apprehension (or interrogation: see previous note) rests on the second half of the sentence. For εἰς κενόν (to a void issue), cf. note on κενή, 1 Thessalonians 2:1; also 2 Corinthians 6:1; Galatians 2:2; Philippians 2:16; in the LXX, Isaiah 65:23; Jeremiah 28. (Heb. or Eng. 51) 58, Micah 1:14. For κόπος, see note on 1 Thessalonians 1:3. Ὁ κόπος ἡμῶν closes the question with emphasis: that “our toil”—such labour as 1 Thessalonians 1:9 to 1 Thessalonians 2:12 described, and attended with such success—“should prove abortive,” was a fear that wrung St Paul’s soul.