7<\/strong>. For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness<\/em> ] The two prepositions alike rendered “unto” in the A.V., are quite distinct in the Greek. St Paul writes, God called us not for<\/strong> (with a view to) uncleanness, but in sanctification<\/strong>; similarly in 2Th 2:13<\/span>, “God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification<\/em> of spirit.” The call of God was from the first a sanctifying call for the Thessalonians, and was attended with holy influences that forbade all uncleanness. Certainly He never intended them to live impure lives, when He “called them to His own kingdom and glory” (ch. 1Th 2:12<\/span>); the understanding on which that call was received was the opposite of this. The entire purpose and tendency of God’s message to them was “in sanctification.” For this last word, see notes to 1Th 4:3-4<\/em><\/span>. True believers in Christ are necessarily “saints;” so the Apostle commonly addresses all Christians to whom he writes (see Rom 1:7<\/span>, &c. “called saints,” i.e. “saints in virtue of your calling”); and their sainthood excludes impurity and wrong-doing.<\/p>\n Observe that God’s call<\/em> is the starting-point of a Christian’s life. All the motives and aims by which that life is governed are virtually contained in this. “Walk worthily of the calling wherewith you were called” is with St Paul an exhortation that includes all others (Eph 4:1<\/span>). So he comes to his last word on this matter: <\/p>\n For God hath not called us unto uncleanness – <\/B>When he called us to be his followers, it was not that we should lead lives of impurity, but of holiness. We should, therefore, fulfil the purposes for which we were called into his kingdom. The word uncleanness (<\/SPAN><\/span> akatharsia), means, properly, impurity, filth; and then, in a moral sense, pollution, lewdness, as opposed to chastity; Rom 1:24<\/span>; Rom 6:19<\/U><\/span>; 2Co 12:21<\/span>; Gal 5:19<\/span>; Eph 4:19<\/span>; Eph 5:3<\/span>; Col 3:5<\/span>.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 7. God hath not called us unto uncleanness<\/B><\/I>] He is the creator of male and female, and the institutor of marriage, and he has called men and women to this state; but the end<\/I> of this and all the other callings of God to man is holiness<\/I>, not uncleanness<\/I>. And they who use the marriage state as he directs, will find it conducive to their holiness and perfection.<\/P><\/p>\n These two verses are added, as further arguments to persuade to that chastity he had spoken of, called sanctification, <\/I>1Th 4:3<\/I><\/span>,4<\/span>. The first is taken from their Christian calling, which is not to uncleanness, but to<\/B> chastity, called holiness.<\/B> When they were Gentiles in state, they lived in the lust of uncleanness, but they were now called by the power of the gospel, and brought to such a profession that did forbid and condemn it. And the author of their call is God<\/B> himself, though the apostles and other ministers were the instruments. Whence he fetcheth this second argument, 1Th 4:8<\/span>, that if this chastity he despised, or rejected, as we may read the text, it is not man, but God, that is despised. To despise a minister in a commandment he delivers from God is to despise God himself, Luk 10:16<\/span>, &c.; and the apostle doth here intimate, not to obey the commandment of God is a despising God. Or, that the apostle was despised by some because of the outward meanness of his person, or questioning his authority. <\/P> Who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit:<\/B> this he adds as a third argument; so that what he had preached to them, was not from himself, but from the Holy Spirit. Or if by us<\/B> he means these Thessalonians also, as some copies read it, he hath given you, &c., then he argues from the gift of the Holy Spirit they had received against living in the sin of uncleanness. This would be very disagreeable, not only to their holy calling, but the Holy Spirit God had given them. Or else these arguments of the apostle are to persuade to universal holiness, taking sanctification and holiness in a larger sense; and uncleanness, for all sin in general standing opposite thereunto. Sin is often spoken of in Scripture under the notion of filth, defilement, pollution, &c., and so was typed forth under the law; and to be cleansed from sin is a cleansing man from filthiness, 2Co 7:1<\/span>; so that to live in sin, as the apostle argues, is to live in uncleanness, to contradict our holy calling, to despise God, and to walk contrary to the nature and dictates of his Holy Spirit. <\/P> <\/p>\n 7. unto uncleanness<\/B>Greek,<\/I>“for the purpose of.” <\/P> unto<\/B>rather as Greek,<\/I>“in”; marking that “holiness” is the element inwhich our calling has place; in a sphere of holiness. Saint<\/I> isanother name for Christian.<\/I><\/P><\/p>\n For God hath not called us<\/strong>,…. The Syriac version reads “you”. This is another reason to enforce the above exhortations, and to caution them against the above unclean practices, taken from the end of the effectual calling by the efficacious grace of God, which is not<\/p>\n unto uncleanness<\/strong> of any sort, as before specified. This they had lived in before their calling, and were now called from it into communion with Christ, who loves righteousness, and hates iniquity; and by the Gospel, which teaches to deny ungodliness, and worldly lusts, and to forsake all impurity, both of flesh and spirit:<\/p>\n but<\/strong> this call is<\/p>\n unto holiness<\/strong> of life and conversation in general, and to chastity in thought, look, word, and actions in particular; for God that calls is holy, and therefore those who are called ought to be so; the calling with which they are called is an holy calling, principles of grace and holiness are wrought in their souls, when they are called; and the end of their calling is to live soberly, righteously, and godly; and then, and then only, do they walk worthy of that calling wherewith they are called, and of God who has, by his grace, called them to his kingdom and glory.<\/p>\n Not for uncleanness, but in sanctification <\/B> ( ‘ <\/SPAN><\/span>). Sharp contrast made still sharper by the two prepositions <\/SPAN><\/span> (on the basis of) and <\/SPAN><\/span> (in the sphere of). God has “called” us all for a decent sex life consonant with his aims and purposes. It was necessary for Paul to place this lofty ideal before the Thessalonian Christians living in a pagan world. It is equally important now. <\/P> <\/p>\n Unto uncleanness [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Better, for uncleanness; ejpi denoting aim or intention. The intention is viewed as the basis of the act [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Comp. Gal 5:13<\/span>; Eph 2:10<\/span>. <\/P> In sanctification [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Note the change of preposition. Sanctification is the characteristic life – element of the Christian, in which he is to live. Comp. in peace, 1Co 7:15<\/span>; in hope, Eph 4:4<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “For God hath not called us”<\/strong> (ou gar ekalasen hemas ho theos) “For the Trinitarian God called us not”; the negative approach of instruction is here used, what one is not called to be and to do, as our Lord taught in his model prayer, Joh 6:1-3<\/span>; Joh 6:5<\/span>; Joh 6:7-8<\/span>; 2Co 6:14-17<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “Unto uncleanness”<\/strong> (epi akatharsia) “to uncleanness”, to or toward a life of moral uncleanness, but out of darkness into light, out of wrong into right, 1Th 5:4-10<\/span>; 1Co 1:2<\/span>; 1Co 1:26<\/span>; 1Co 1:30-31<\/span>.<\/strong><\/p>\n 3) “But unto holiness”<\/strong> (all’ en hagiaseno) “but in sanctification”; in a state (of) sanctification or holiness, even to the time when this corruptible shall put on incorruption, Job 19:25<\/span>; 1Co 15:23<\/span>; 1Co 15:51-52<\/span>; We are therefore to pre-reflect that state of holiness of life today, Col 3:1-4<\/span>; 1Jn 3:3<\/span>; Heb 12:14<\/span>; 1Pe 1:14-16<\/span>.<\/p>\n 7 For God hath not called us. This appears to be the same sentiment with the preceding one — that the will of God is our sanctification. There is, however, a little difference between them. For after having discoursed as to the correcting of the vices of the flesh, he proves, from the end of our calling, that God desires this. For he sets us apart to himself as his peculiar possession. (570) Again, that God calls us to holiness, he proves by contraries, because he rescues us, and calls us back, from unchastity. From this he concludes, that all that reject this doctrine reject not men, but God, the Author of this calling, which altogether falls to the ground so soon as this principle as to newness of life is overthrown. Now, the reason why he rouses himself so vehemently is, because there are always wanton persons who, while they fearlessly despise God, treat with ridicule all threatenings of his judgment, and at the same time hold in derision all injunctions as to a holy and pious life. Such persons must not be taught, but must be beaten with severe reproofs as with the stroke of a hammer. <\/p>\n (570) “ Comme pour son propre heritage et particulier;” — “As for his peculiar and special inheritance.” <\/p>\n Text<\/strong> (1Th. 4:7-8<\/span>)<\/p>\n 7 For God called us not for uncleanness, but in sanctification. 8 Therefore he that rejecteth, rejecteth not man, but God, who giveth his Holy Spirit unto you.<\/strong><\/p>\n Translation and Paraphrase<\/strong><\/p>\n 7.<\/p>\n For God has NOT called us (into his kingdom) upon (the basis of liberty to practice moral) uncleanness, but (he has called us) in sanctification (or holiness).<\/p>\n 8.<\/p>\n Consequently, he who disregards (this command) is not disregarding (any mere) man (like myself) but the (very) God who also gives to you His Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n Notes<\/strong> (1Th. 4:7-8<\/span>)<\/p>\n 1.<\/p>\n God told the Israelites in olden times: I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy. Lev. 11:44<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2.<\/p>\n The same instructions are given to Christians: Be ye holy; for I am holy. 1Pe. 1:16<\/span>. Therefore we beseech you, as strangers and pilgrims in this world, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul. 1Pe. 2:11<\/span>. Avoid entertainments, reading material, and thoughts which are immoral and lustful. These things are fighting against your soul.<\/p>\n 3.<\/p>\n For God did not call us with a permission of impurity, but in sanctification. (Rotherhams translation of 1Th. 4:7<\/span>.)<\/p>\n 4.<\/p>\n It is a serious thing to despise the preachers message, for you are actually despising and rejecting God in so doing. Jesus said to His disciples, He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. Luk. 10:16<\/span>.<\/p>\n 5.<\/p>\n Note that it is in the voluntary power of a man to resist or accept truth. But it is not in mans power to escape the consequences of that choice.<\/p>\n 6.<\/p>\n The Holy Spirit is given to every one who repents and is baptized. Act. 2:38<\/span>; Act. 5:32<\/span>; Gal. 4:6<\/span>. What, know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 1Co. 6:19<\/span>.<\/p>\n The Holy Spirit had brought joy to the Thessalonians. 1Th. 1:6<\/span>. God had given them the Holy Spirit. They therefore could not honorably disobey God when He had given them such a blessing.<\/p>\n (7) For God.<\/strong>This gives the reason for stating that the Lord will take vengeance on such sins; because they are not part of the terms on which His Father called us. It should be did<\/em> not call. These 1Th. 4:7-8<\/span>, sum up the little disquisition, returning to the principle announced in 1Th. 4:3<\/span>.<\/p>\n Unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.<\/strong>The preposition translated unto has the same force in Gal. 5:13<\/span>, Called unto liberty, and Eph. 2:10<\/span>, Created unto good works. It implies not so much the definite end<\/em> to which we are invited, as the terms<\/em> on which the invitation will still stand;<\/em> for the call is not yet accomplished. (See Note on 1Th. 2:12<\/span>.) The second unto in the Greek is simply in, used in the same sense as in 1Th. 4:4<\/span>. Paraphrase, For God did not call us on the understanding that we might be unclean, but by the way of sanctification.<\/p>\n Holiness<\/strong> is a mistranslation for sanctification.<\/em> The process, not the quality, is meant.<\/p>\n 7<\/strong>. <\/strong> For<\/strong> Ground of these warnings. <\/p>\n Not called us<\/strong> Says Erasmus, (quoted by Lunemann,) “God has not called us under the law that we should be impure, since, indeed, the very cause and condition of our calling is, that we should cease to be what we once were.” <\/p>\n Uncleanness<\/strong> Impurity; primarily applicable to sexual impurity, but capable of including any moral contamination, as here of both adultery and fraud. These were closely allied vices, and, to the chaste and unselfish mind of the apostle, both were a foul stain upon the body and soul.<\/p>\n 1Th 4:7<\/span> . Reason of .<\/p>\n ] the fuller form in 1Th 2:12<\/span> .<\/p>\n ] on condition of, or for the purpose of uncleanness<\/em> ; comp. Gal 5:13<\/span> ; Eph 2:10<\/span> ; Winer, p. 351 [E. T. 492]; Erasmus: Non vocavit nos hac lege, ut essemus immundi, siquidem causa et conditio vocationis erat, ut desineremus esse, quod eramus.<\/p>\n ] is uncleanness, moral impurity generally (comp. 1Th 2:3<\/span> ), and thus includes covetousness as well as lust.<\/p>\n ] gives, by means of an abbreviation (comp. Khner, II. p. 316), instead of the purpose<\/em> , the result<\/em> of the calling: but in holiness, i.e.<\/em> so that complete holiness of life has become a characteristic property of us Christians. Comp. 1Co 7:15<\/span> ; Gal 1:6<\/span> ; Eph 4:4<\/span> . But , as it forms the counterpart to , must denote moral holiness in its entire compass, and is accordingly here taken in a wider sense than in 1Th 4:3<\/span> .<\/p>\n 7 For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 7. For God hath not called us<\/strong> ] See Trapp on “<\/em> Eph 4:1 “<\/em> It is a sure rule given by the ancients, Confusiones libidinum sunt signa cuius libet sectae.<\/em> Simon Magus had his Helena, Carpocrates his Marcellina, Apelles his Philumena, Montanus his Priscilla and Maximilla, &c. <\/p>\n 7<\/strong> .] This verse (see above) is in my view decisive for the above rendering of 1Th 4:6<\/span> . There is no mention here of avarice<\/em> : nor is it possible to understand <\/strong> , when 1Th 4:3 has gone before, of any thing but carnal impurity. Chap. 1Th 2:3<\/span> , which is adduced to shew that it may here represent covetousness, is a very doubtful example: see there.<\/p>\n <\/strong> , for the purpose of, on condition of<\/strong> : , in<\/strong> , ‘in the element of,’ not = , the aim<\/em> : but <\/strong> is the whole sphere of our Christian life.<\/p>\n hath. Omit. <\/p>\n unto. App-104. <\/p>\n unto. App-104. <\/p>\n holiness. Same as “sanctification”, 1Th 4:3. <\/p>\n 7.] This verse (see above) is in my view decisive for the above rendering of 1Th 4:6. There is no mention here of avarice: nor is it possible to understand , when 1Th 4:3 has gone before, of any thing but carnal impurity. Chap. 1Th 2:3, which is adduced to shew that it may here represent covetousness, is a very doubtful example: see there.<\/p>\n , for the purpose of,-on condition of: , in, in the element of, not = , the aim: but is the whole sphere of our Christian life.<\/p>\n 1Th 4:7. , in sanctification) , for, on account of, rather expresses the end; , in, the nature or character of the thing [viz. of our calling].<\/p>\n 1Th 4:7<\/p>\n For God called us not for uncleanness,-God has not called to practice any lewd and lascivious habits which the Gentiles who know not God practice. The law of God alone can hold back from degrading sins.<\/p>\n but in sanctification.-God constituted marriage: “Let marriage be had in honor among all, and let the bed be undefiled. (Heb 13:4.) He ordained that every man should have his wife and cleave unto her alone. [The call of God was from the first a sanctifying call for the Thessalonians, and was attended with holy influences and forbade all uncleanness. Certainly he never intended them to live impure lives when he called them into his own kingdom and glory. (2:12.)]<\/p>\n God: Lev 11:44, Lev 19:2, Rom 1:7, Rom 8:29, Rom 8:30, 1Co 1:2, Eph 1:4, Eph 2:10, Eph 4:1, 2Th 2:13, 2Th 2:14, 2Ti 1:9, Heb 12:14, 1Pe 1:14-16, 1Pe 2:9-12, 1Pe 2:21, 1Pe 2:22 <\/p>\n uncleanness: 1Th 2:3, Gal 5:19, Eph 4:19, 2Pe 2:10 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Lev 11:45 – be holy Lev 20:7 – General Num 15:40 – be holy Psa 110:3 – beauties Isa 35:8 – The way Luk 1:75 – General Joh 17:19 – for 1Co 5:1 – fornication 2Co 7:1 – perfecting Eph 5:3 – fornication Col 1:22 – to Tit 2:12 – denying 1Pe 1:15 – as 2Pe 1:3 – called<\/p>\n 1Th 4:7. This verse gives us a clear meaning of holiness. The subject being discussed is forncation, which is still under consideration in this verse. Hence the conclusion is that refraining from the uncleanness of fornication would be to show a quality of holiness.<\/p>\n 1Th 4:7. For God called us not onto uncleanness. Paul returns to the idea of the third verse, the idea that such sins were antagonistic to Gods purpose and work in Christians. If we profess to be responding to Gods call, let us clearly understand what it is; what we must abandon, and what we must seek. It is a call from one moral condition to another.<\/p>\n For God called us not for uncleanness, but in sanctification. [“God has not called us under the law that we should be impure, since, indeed, the very cause and condition of our calling is that we should cease to be what we once were.”–Erasmus.] <\/p>\n Verse 7 <\/p>\n Unto uncleanness; to sin or moral impurity of any kind.<\/p>\n The general principle the Thessalonians were to keep in mind was that God’s purpose for all Christians is not impurity but purity. It is a life set apart from sin unto holiness (cf. Eph 2:10).<\/p>\n For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness. 7. For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness ] The two prepositions alike rendered “unto” in the A.V., are quite distinct in the Greek. St Paul writes, God called us not for (with a view to) uncleanness, but in sanctification; … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Thessalonians 4:7”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29539","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29539","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29539"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29539\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29539"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29539"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29539"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"