points to the divine source and strength /
of their mission; what impelled them was simply a sense of lasting respon- sibility to God, upon the one hand, and an overpowering devotion to men upon
\
|
the other (cf. the δι’ ὑμᾶς οἱ i. 5), for the gospel’s sake. Had the apostles yielded to feelings of irritation and despondency, giving up their task in Macedonia, after the troubles at Philippi, or had they con- ducted themselves at Thessalonica in such. a way as to secure ease and profit; im, either case, they would have proved their} mission to be ambitious or selfish, and. therefore undivine. As it was, their cour- age and sincerity were at once the evid- ence and the outcome of their divine commission.—Advys, ‘‘error’’ (cf. Ar- mitage Robinson on Eph. iv. 14). Their preaching did not spring from some delu- sion or mistake. Paul was neither fool nor knave, neither deceived nor a deceiver (δόλῳ). Nor was his mission a sordid at- tempt (ἀκαθαρσίας) to make a good thing out of preaching, the impure motive being either to secure money (cf. πλεονεξίας ver. 5, and νετ. 9), or to gain a position of importance (ver. 6) and popularity. Cf. Tacit., Annal., vi, 21 (of Tiberius’ attitude to astrologers) ‘‘si uanitatis aut fraudum suspicio incesserat”. Both. features were only too familiar in the contemporary conduct of wandering so- phists, ἀρεταλόγοι, and thaumaturgists (e.g., Acts xili. 10, and Clemen’s article in Neue Kirchl. Zeitschrift, 1896, 151 1.) whose practices would also explain the literal interpretation of ἀκ. (= sensual- ity). But the context favours the associ- ations of greed (cf. Eph. v. 3), as in the case of πλεονεξία. On the persuasive- ness of sincerity in a speaker, 7.¢., the extent to which his effectiveness depends upon his hearers’ conviction of his own earnestness and honesty, see Aristotle’s analysis of ἠθικὴ πίστις (Rhet., ii. 1) and Isocrates’ description of εὐνοίας δύναμις. (Orat., xv. 278, 279).
Ver. 4. “Α5 God, who tests our hearts, has attested our fitness to be: