Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Thessalonians 4:5
Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:
5. not in the lust of concupiscence ] Far better, not in the passion of lust (R. V.). The sense of the last verb ( to possess) is carried on, with a modified application, into this clause: not (to have it: i.e. your body) in a state of lustful passion. (For the altered meaning of the verb, comp. 1Co 3:2: “I gave you milk to drink, not meat”). This condition the state of one immersed “in” wicked desire is the opposite of “sanctification and honour.”
The word “passion” signifies not so much a violent feeling, as an overpowering feeling, one to which the man so yields himself that he is borne along by evil as if he were its passive instrument; he has lost the dignity of self-rule, and is the slave of his lower appetites. Comp. Rom 7:5, “the passions of sins which wrought in our members;” and Rom 7:20, “It is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.”
In such shameful bondage lived the Gentiles which know not God (an O. T. expression, Psa 79:6, Isa 45:4-5; recurring in 2Th 1:8, see note). For impurity, often in most abandoned and revolting forms, was a prevailing feature of Pagan life at this time. In Rom 1:24, &c., St Paul speaks of this as a punishment of the heathen world for its wilful ignorance of God: “He gave them up unto passions of dishonour.” Man first denies his Maker; then degrades himself.
The God Whom these degraded “Gentiles knew not,” is the “living and true God” of ch. 1Th 1:9, to Whom Thessalonian believers had “turned from their idols.” Coming to know Him by His gospel, they had devoted themselves to Him; and so their bodies had been redeemed from vice and dishonour, and the soul had a clean house to live in, a clean vessel to use for holy service.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Not in the lust of concupiscence – In gross gratifications.
Even as the Gentiles – This was, and is, a common vice among the pagan; see the Act 15:20 note; Rom 1:29 note; Eph 4:17-18 notes, and the reports of missionaries everywhere.
Which know not God – See the Rom 1:21, Rom 1:28 notes; Eph 2:12 note.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 5. Not in the lust of concupiscence] Having no rational object, aim, nor end. Some say, “not like beasts;” but this does not apply as they who use it wish, for the males and females of the brute creation are regular and consistent in their intercourse, and scarcely ever exceed such bounds as reason itself would prescribe to those most capable of observing and obeying its dictates.
The Gentiles which know not God] These are the beasts; their own brutes are rational creatures when compared with them. Enough has been said on this subject on Romans 1, and 2: They who wish to see more may consult Juvenal, and particularly his 6th and 9th Satires; and indeed all the writers on Greek and Roman morals.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Any violence of affection we call passion, whether of love, or anger, or desire, because the soul is passive, or suffers thereby. The Stoics said passions were not incident to a wise man; and: They that are Christs, saith the apostle, have crucified the flesh with the passions and lusts, Gal 5:24. And lust is usually taken for all inordinate affection, either with respect to the object or degree; though the Greek word doth signify only desire, and is sometimes taken in a good sense, as Phi 1:23; for, there are good lustings as well as evil, as Gal 5:17, the Spirit lusteth against the flesh; but here the word is taken in a bad sense, for the lust of uncleanness, which the apostle here calls
the lust of concupiscence. The philosophers distinguish of the affections or passions of the soul, some are irascible, some concupiscible. The former are conversant about evil, to repel it or fly from it; the latter about good, either real or imaginary, to pursue it or embrace it. And the lusts of concupiscence are either of the mind or of the flesh, Eph 2:3; here we understand the latter, that fleshly concupiscence that is conversant about women, which if by vessel in the former verse is understood mans lawful wife, then he forbids all unchasteness even towards her; if the body, then he forbids all unchaste usage of the body in any kind, or towards any person whatsoever. And, to avoid fornication, he forbids lust that leads to it.
Even as the Gentiles which know not God; which the apostle useth as an argument to them: Though ye are Gentiles by nation as well as others, yet not in state, such as know not God. There is a natural knowledge of God, which the apostle speaks of, Rom 1:21, which the Gentiles had; and supernatural, which is by the Scriptures; to know the mind, will, nature, decrees, and counsels of God as they are there revealed: and the knowledge of God in Christ; this is meant in the text, and this the Gentiles had not, and therefore no wonder though they followed the lust of concupiscence, they wanted the rule of Gods word to direct them, and that effectual knowledge of God, and presence of his grace, that would have restrained them from such lust. But these Thessalonians now, since their conversion by the gospel, were come to this knowledge of God, which they had not before, and therefore were not to live as before they did. Knowledge ought to influence our hearts and lives, and to sin against knowledge is the great aggravation of sin, and will make men more inexcusable. But yet where knowledge is wanting what wickedness will not men practise! The Gentiles were alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that was in them, Eph 4:18. The Jews crucified Christ, and Saul persecuted the disciples, through ignorance, 1Ti 1:13. Much more are those Christians to be condemned, who, having more knowledge than the Gentiles, yet practise worse than they; as the apostle upbraids the Jews upon this account, Rom 2:27.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
5. in the lustGreek,“passion”; which implies that such a one is unconsciouslythe passive slave of lust.
which know not Godandso know no better. Ignorance of true religion is the parent ofunchastity (Eph 4:18; Eph 4:19).A people’s morals are like the objects of their worship (Deu 7:26;Psa 115:8; Rom 1:23;Rom 1:24).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Not in the lust of concupiscence,…. Or “passion of lust”; for the mere gratifying and indulging of that; for a man so to possess his vessel, is to cherish the sin of concupiscence, the first motions of sin in the heart, by which a man is drawn away, and enticed; to blow up the flame of lust, and to make provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof:
even as the Gentiles which know not God; for, though they knew him, or might know him with a natural knowledge, by the light and works of nature, yet they knew him not savingly and spiritually, as he is revealed in the word, of which they were destitute; or as the God of all grace, and the God and Father of Christ, or as he is in Christ: and though by the light of nature they might know there was a God, yet they knew not who that God was; nor did they act up to that light and knowledge they had; they did not glorify him as God, by ascribing to him what was his due; nor were they thankful for the mercies they received from him; nor did they fear, love, worship, and serve him; nor did they like to retain him in their knowledge, and therefore were given up to judicial blindness and hardness, to a reprobate mind, and to vile affections, and so did things very inconvenient, unnatural, and dishonourable. Wherefore, for a man to use either his wife or his body in any unchaste and dishonourable manner, for the gratifying of his lusts, is to act an Heathenish part; a like argument, dissuading from things unlawful, is used in Mt 6:32.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Not in the passion of lust ( ). Plain picture of the wrong way for the husband to come to marriage.
That know not God ( ). Second perfect participle of . The heathen knew gods as licentious as they are themselves, but not God. One of the reasons for the revival of paganism in modern life is professedly this very thing that men wish to get rid of the inhibitions against licentiousness by God.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Not in the lust of concupiscence [ ] . Lit. in passion of desire. Not with avaricious greed. For ejpiqumia see on Mr 4:19. Its meaning is by no means limited to sensual lust; see, for instance, Luk 22:15. It is used as including all kinds of worldly desires, as Gal 5:16, 24; 1Jo 2:17. In Rom 7:7, especially of covetousness.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Not in the lust of concupiscence” (me en pathei epithumias) “not in passion of lust”; not controlled or obsessed by an immoral passion or craving for sex, in an evil or forbidden manner, above all other things, as if you were still heathen, Rom 7:8; Col 3:5.
2) “Even as the Gentiles” (kathaper kai to ethne) “Even as the heathen, Gentiles or races”; those estranged or separated from God, those of heathendom, such as some of them had formerly been, 1Th 1:9; Eph 4:17-23. Paul was saying, “Since you are redeemed, it is different now, be certain that you show it.” Col 3:1-3.
3) “Which know not God” (ta me eidota ton theon)
who know not God”; Self-respect, regard for ones own name and influence, and reverence for God all forbid unchastity in Christian conduct, different from those who know not God, Rom 1:24-25; Luk 21:19; 1Jn 2:15-17.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Text (1Th. 4:5)
5 not in the passion of lust, even as the Gentiles who know not God;
Translation and Paraphrase
5.
(By possessing our vessel in sanctification, we shall) not (live) in the passion (which) lust (arouses) as (do) the Gentiles who do not know God.
Notes (1Th. 4:5)
1.
The big word concupiscence in this verse (pronouncedkon-KUE-pi-sns) will derail the thought of most readers from what this verse says, as it is a stranger in modern English.
Actually, the word simply means ardent desire, hence, sexual lusts. (Websters Collegiate Dict.)
The American Standard Version translates lust of concupiscence as passion of lust.
2.
There is little difference in meaning between the words lust, concupiscence, and passion; Thayer says that the phrase passion of lust is a genitive of apposition. The word translated concupiscence (epitkumia) may be a slightly more comprehensive term, describing desire and lust as a way of life; whereas the word translated lust (pathos) can refer to a more momentary passion, the ungovernable desire. Hence in our paraphrase We have rendered the phrase, the passion (which) lust (arouses).
3.
Some men think that nothing can be done about sexual passions except to gratify them. This verse teaches us that this is not so. We can pray to God for deliverance. We can deliberately turn our minds toward other matters. We can do physical work which will absorb the energy that is showing itself in the form of lust.
4.
Once again here Paul emphasizes the moral degeneration of the Gentiles. The heathen moralists condemned unchastity only in the case of a child-bearing wife, as it would wrong her husband not to know the paternity of her children. (B. W. Johnson) See also paragraph 2 of the notes on 1Th. 4:1-2.
5.
The statement that the Gentiles do not know God is more than just a casual bit of information. It is a judgment upon them. The reason that they do not know God is that they refused to have God in their knowledge. Rom. 1:28. God will take vengeance on them that know not God. 2Th. 1:8. Pour out thy fury upon the heathen that know thee not. Jer. 10:25. See also Psa. 79:6; Gal. 4:8; 1Co. 15:34.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(5) Not in the lust of concupiscence, for such a method of using ones faculties, such an attempt to acquire mastery of vital powers, is really to abandon them altogether to others. This notion is involved in the very word here translated lust, which is more often rendered passion, and implies something which befalls a man, something done to him: Not in the helpless passivity of concupiscence or uncontrolled desire.
The Gentiles which know not God.Mind the punctuation. The readers of the letter were Gentiles which knew God. Their brother Thessalonians. are held up to them as melancholy examples of men who are trying in the wrong way to show their power over themselves. Remark that this is not one of the crimes which he alleges against Jews.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
5. Master your body and use it not in the lust, or passion, of concupiscence, or sensual appetite. This seems to give the balance very decisively in the sense of body. Before vessel, however, the Greek has the word own, omitted by our translators. From this Lunemann strongly argues from the antithesis between having a wife of your own and meddling with other women. But, in spite of his logic, the answer of Olshausen is valid. Nothing material is more a man’s own than his body; and St. Paul might well emphasize the thought that every man should take care of the purity of his own. The strongest argument in favour of the meaning wife. is 1Co 7:2. Let every man have his own wife; which looks very strongly like a parallel passage, a saying the same thing in slightly different words.
As the Gentiles Who not only were licentious, and often made a boast of license, but even transformed it into a religious rite.
Know not God They know Jupiter, Mars, and Venus, the impersonation of their own ambition, war, and lust; but God, who wills your sanctification, they know not.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Th 4:5. As the Gentiles, which know not God, The idolatrous Gentiles in general, and those of Thessalonica in particular, were remarkable for their impurity; and how brutish and preternatural the vices of many in the heathen world were, and those not condemned, but practised in the world instances, by their philosophers, may be seen in numbers of ancient Greek and Latin authors. And were those philosophers the fit men to educate youth? to shew them the beauty of virtue, and the odiousness of vice?The representations of the boundless and unnatural lusts which their own poets gave the heathens, even of their chief gods, were enough to encourage their votaries in the like enormities: nay, such monstrous obscenities became part of their religious worship, as Christian and chaste ears could not even bear to have mentioned. See Eph 5:12. What their satirists, Horace, Juvenal, and Persius have intimated, and what Suetonius has suggested, as to the emperors themselves, would make a modest person blush even to read or hear; and when the people, philosophers, emperors, and gods were such notorious offenders, how exact a picture has the Apostle drawn of the heathen world, in Rom 1:21-32.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Th 4:5 brings forward the prescription once more on account of its importance, but now in a negative form.
] not in the passion of desire . Accordingly, Paul does not here forbid , for this in itself, as a natural impulse, rests on the holy ordinance of God, but a , that is, a condition where sense has been converted into the ruling principle or into passion. Theodore Mopsuestius (ed. Fritzsche, p. 165): , .
] after is not added for the sake of elegance (Pelt), but is the usual after particles of comparison; see 1Th 2:14 , 1Th 3:6 ; 1Th 3:12 , 1Th 4:6 ; 1Th 4:13 ; Rom 4:6 , etc.; Hartung, Partikell . I. p. 126.
] of whom nothing better is to be expected. Comp. on the expression, Gal 4:8 ; 2Th 1:8 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
5 Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:
Ver. 5. Not in the lust of concupiscence ] Or, in the disease of lust, that dishonourable disease, Rom 1:26 , that wasteth not only the substance of the body, but the honesty and the honour of it.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
5 .] . , having the emphasis, ‘in the mere passio of lust,’ as Thdr. Mops. (Ln.), , .
. ] the so usual after particles of comparison, points to the association in the same category which the particle supposes: , Xen. Anab. ii. 1. 22. See examples in Hartung, Partikell. ii. 127: and cf. ch. 1Th 2:13 ; 1Th 3:6 ; 1Th 3:12 , &c.
. . . ] , because the Gentiles are spoken of by the writer from this point of view. It is not a mere fact which is stated, but that fact as logically interwoven with the course of the context: and hence the subjective negative. See reff.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
lust. Greek. pathos. See Rom 1:26. The Revised Version renders it “passion”.
concupiscence = lust, or desire.
Gentiles = Gentiles also.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
5.] .,- having the emphasis,-in the mere passio of lust,-as Thdr. Mops. (Ln.), , .
. ] the so usual after particles of comparison, points to the association in the same category which the particle supposes: , Xen. Anab. ii. 1. 22. See examples in Hartung, Partikell. ii. 127: and cf. ch. 1Th 2:13; 1Th 3:6; 1Th 3:12, &c.
. . .] , because the Gentiles are spoken of by the writer from this point of view. It is not a mere fact which is stated, but that fact as logically interwoven with the course of the context: and hence the subjective negative. See reff.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Th 4:5. , not in the lust of concupiscence) As concupiscence gains the mastery, it at length waxes strong, so as to become a wretched passion and disease, 2Sa 13:4.- , the Gentiles) These are also denoted at 1Th 4:12-13, by different periphrases [them that are without, 1Th 4:11 : others, , 1Th 4:13].- , who know not) Ignorance is the origin of unchastity, Rom 1:24. [Look at the serenity of heaven, and thou wilt conceive a loathing of impurity.-V. g.]
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Th 4:5
not in the passion of lust,-Not giving way to the lusts or to the will or tendency of unrestrained licentiousness. [Passion signifies an overpowering feeling, one to which one so yields himself that he is borne along by evil as if he were its passive instrument; he has lost the dignity of self-control and is the slave of his own appetites.]
even as the Gentiles who know not God;-The Gentiles gave way to the gratification of every lust and evil desire. [For impurity, often in the most abandoned and revolting forms, was a prevailing feature of pagan life at the time Paul wrote. Of their condition, Paul says: Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due. (Rom 1:24-27.) Man first denies his Creator, then, degrades himself.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
in the: Rom 1:24, Rom 1:26, Col 3:5
as the: Mat 6:32, Luk 12:30, Eph 4:17-19, 1Pe 4:3
know: Act 17:23, Act 17:30, Act 17:31, Rom 1:28, 1Co 1:21, 1Co 15:34, Gal 4:8, Eph 2:12, 2Th 1:8
Reciprocal: Est 2:12 – to go in Job 18:21 – knoweth Isa 45:4 – though Jer 10:25 – that know Rom 6:12 – in the lusts Rom 7:7 – lust 1Co 6:18 – sinneth Eph 4:18 – the understanding 1Pe 1:14 – in
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Th 4:5. The original Greek word for concupiscence is defined by Thayer, “desire for what is forbidden, lust.” The verse means the opposite of the preceding one. To commit fornication would be to obtain that which is forbidden by the Lord. The Thessalonians were Gentiles, but they had been made acquainted with God, and hence were expected not to do like the Gentiles who do not know Him.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Th 4:5. Not in the lost of concupiscence. Marriage is to be contracted not for mere bodily gratification, but to gratify purer feelings and yearnings. Married people are so to live that they may be mutually conscious that with them marriage is an honourable estate, with nothing in it that makes them ashamed, and that it promotes their sanctification.
Who know not God. Those who know not God cannot be expected to have the same ideal of holiness and purity. They have not heard the words, Be ye holy, for I am holy; neither have they become acquainted with perfect holiness in the incarnate God. Every Christian, therefore, must feel how much more is required of him than of the heathen. Increased knowledge is increased responsibility.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
not in the passion of lust, even as the Gentiles who know not God [By “will of God” Paul means the divine desire. Not an absolute desire, but one which human perversity may frustrate. “Sanctification” means holiness in its general sense. In all his Epistles to the Gentile churches Paul introduces exhortations to purity of life. He was at this time in Corinth, whose patron goddess was Venus, and where social impurity abounded. “Heathenism,” says Whedon, “had made the crime trivial, jocular, rather smart, and even religious and right. All this must Christianity reverse, and place it among the most heinous sins, and subject to the most fearful penalties.” There has been much discussion over the phrase “possess himself of his own vessel,” some asserting that it means to acquire a wife, and others that it means to control the body and its desires. The problem is surely a difficult one. The verb “possess” is commonly used to indicate the winning or acquiring of a wife, and 1Pe 3:7 is cited to prove that the word “vessel” is used to indicate a wife. One other citation is given from the Talmud, where Ahasuerus is represented as calling his wife his “vessel.” But the Talmud does not prove Hebrew usage in Paul’s day, being written many centuries later, and the citation from Peter proves nothing, for the word “vessel” is there used to indicate the human body, the man’s being the stronger, and the woman’s the weaker. The human body or personality is elsewhere called a vessel in the Bible (Act 9:15; Rom 9:21-23; 2Co 4:7; 2Ti 2:21; 1Sa 21:5). This Biblical use of the word is strongly against the idea that it could mean a wife. The word “vessel,” then, favors the idea that Paul is talking about the body. On the other hand, it is urged that the verb “possess” here used simply means to win or acquire, and never has that ethical use (to possess morally, to subdue, or control) which is claimed for it here. It is true that no classical or Biblical citations can be given of such a use, but that it is used so here is unquestionable, whichever interpretation we put upon “vessel”; for the full phrase is “possess in sanctification and honor,” etc., introduced by the phrase “know how.” Conceding that Paul is talking about a wife, he certainly does not mean to say that each man should know how to win or acquire a wife; there is nothing moral or spiritual about such knowledge. What he does say is that a man should know how to hold or possess (either his wife or his body) in sanctification and in honor; i. e., in moral cleanliness. We take it that Paul here urges bodily self-control, and that the passage is a parallel rather to Rom 6:19 than to 1Co 7:2];
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
4:5 {4} Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:
(4) The third, because the saints are distinguished by honesty and purity from those who do not know God.