Thessalonians, First Epistle to the – Thunder

Thessalonians, First Epistle to the

1. Occasion and date.— According to the narrative of Acts 17, St. Paul, in the course of his second missionary journey, went from Philippi to Thessalonica, and reasoned there in the synagogue for three Sabbaths, with the result that ‘some of them were persuaded, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few’ (v. 4) There follows a tumult of the Jews, and accusation against Jason, St. Paul’s host, who is bound over to keep the peace. St. Paul is sent away by the brethren to Beroea, and thence again to Athens, leaving Silas and Timothy in Beroea. From Athens he sent for them, waiting till they should arrive (17:15, 16). but apparently they did not rejoin him till he had passed on to Corinth (18). At the time of his writing 1 Th. they are with him

2 U (1:1). Timothy having just arrived (3:6), not, however, from Beroea, but Irom Thessalonica, whither he had been despatched by St. Paul from Athens (3:1, 2). It is clear, then, that the Epistle was written from Corinth, but in the compressed narrative of Acts, St. Luke has overlooked the fact that Timothy at least did join St. Paul in Athens, and was sent back to Thessalonica under impulse of the Apostle’s deep concern for his converts, whom he could not re-visit personally, for ‘Satan hindered us’ (1 Thessalonians 3:1, 2 2:17, 18). (Very possibly Jason’s bond involved a pledge that St. Paul should not re-enter the city, — an absolute barrier, described as hindrance by Satan.) Further, the impression is conveyed by Acts that St. Paul’s expulsion from Thessalonica followed immediately upon a three weeks’ ministry in the synagogue, and a doubt naturally arises whether the church as described in 1 Th. could have been established in so short a time. Apart, however, from indications in the Epistle itself of a longer stay (e.g. 2:7–12). there are others: — (1) While in Thessalonica St. Paul received gifts more than once from his converts at Philippi (Philippians 4:16). (2) The synagogue ministry does not account for his astonishing success among the Gentiles (Acts 17:4, 1 Th It is probable, therefore, that the Acts narrative is to be interpreted as implying a brief and almost fruitless appeal to the Jews, followed by a longer and more successful ministry to the Gentile population (cf. Acts 13:44–46). It may be added that at Acts 17:4 there is considerable ‘Western’ authority for inserting ‘and of before’ Greeks,’ thus giving three classes of converts besides the women — Jews, devout persons (i.e. proselytes), and Greeks (i.e. heathen). See also Ramsay, who constructs an ‘eclectic’ text (St. Paid the Traveller, pp. 226 note, 235 note 2).

The occasion of the letter, then, was the return of Timothy from his mission: its date falls within the eighteen months’ sojourn in Corinth, as late as possible, to allow time for the history of the church as sketched in the Ep., and yet early enough to leave room for the circumstances of 2 Th., also written from Corinth. The varying schemes of Pauline chronology assign for the departure from Corinth the spring of some year between 50 and 54; perhaps 52 is the most probable date for 1 Thessalonians. With the possible exception of Galatians (which, if addressed to the churches of South Galatia, may have been written earlier), it is the earliest of extant Pauline writings.

2. Contents. — The Epistle does not lend itself to formal analysis. The least doctrinal and most personal of all St. Paul’s letters to the churches, it is simply prompted by affectionate concern for the ‘faith and love’ of his recent converts, and for their ‘good remembrance’ of himself.

The tidings brought by Timothy that they ‘stand fast’ (3:5–8) leads the Apostle to begin with an outburst of thankful memories of his mission, in which every reminder of his ministry among the Thessalonians and of their enthusiastic response is both an appeal and an admonition . This ,together witn reference to his intense longing to see them and to the visit and return of Timothy, forma the first and main section of the Epistle (chs . 1-3) , the final words gathering up all its desires mto a prayer (3:11–13). Very simple yet profound expression is given to the Christian faith and hope (V- there is reference to Jewish hostility (2:14–16). but no controveraial insistence on an anti-Judaic Christianity — a confirmation of early date. In oh. 4 there is warning against the besetting impurity of the Gentile world (4:1–8). , and against a fanatical detacnment from the ordinary duties and responsibilities of life (w.’‘-^^), This is followed by a comforting assurance, rendered necessary by the belief in the speedy ‘coming of the Lord’ which St. Paul shared with his converts(v.^s) that those of the brethren who have already died will have part in that event equally with those who are yet alive (vv. 13–18) This theme is carried on to a warning to be watchful against the sudden coming of ‘the day of the Lord,* as beseems ‘sons of light and sons of the day’ (5:1–11). A general admonition to the church to respect its leaders and to cultivate peace (w.12. 13) leads out into a beautiful series of short exhortations, like a ‘string of glittering diamonds’ (vv. 14–22), prayer and salutation (w.23-26), an injunction that the letter be read to all the brethren (v. 27). and final benediction (v. 28).

3. Authenticity. — (1) External testimony. — Echoes of 1 Th. have been traced in Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Poly carp, — none of them, however, certain. It is contained in the Syriac and Old Latin Versions, and named in the Muratorian Fragment. The earliest quotation is in Irenaeus, who attributes the Ep. to St. Paul, and specifies it as the ‘First’ to the Thessalonians: it is quoted by Clement of Alexandria, and frequently by Tertullian. If regard be had to the personal and non-theological character of the letter, this testimony is ample.

(2) Internal evidence. — The simplicity of the letter, the prevalence of the personal note over the doctrinal, its accord with the history in Acts (apart from the slight discrepancies already noted, which a ‘forgery’ would surely have avoided), and the agreement with Philipp. and 2 Cor. , in the writer’s attitude of affectionate confidence towards these Macedonian Christians, all make strongly for genuineness, and the Ep. is, in fact, generally accepted by critics of all schools.

The assertion of an im-Pauline doctrinal standpoint (by Baur) takes for the standard of comparison the later Epp. — Gal., Cor., and Rom. — and ignores the gradual shaping of Pauline Christianity under stress of problems and controversies as yet hardly in sight. The Jewish opposition is not to St.Paul’s distinctive teaching, but to his whole mission (2:14–16) ; the declaration that because of persistent rejection of Christ ‘the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost’ (2:16). by no means implies that Jerusalem is already destroyed (a.d. 70). The rapid progress of the Church at Thessalonica reflects the first enthusiasm of the new faith, and such primitive organization as it exhibits (5:12) jg consistent wiui the still earlier date of Acts 14:23. It is true, and in no way remarkable, that the expectation of an imminent Parousia (4:15–17) ig not repeated in St. Paul’s later letters (2 Corinthians 5:1. Philippians 1:21–24 3 4:5. Colossians 1). Would, then, a ‘forger’ of a later generation have attributed this to St. Paul?

There is really no reason to doubt that the Epistle gives a genuine and invaluable self-revelation of St. Paul the man. All the great Christian truths appear — the Divinity of Christ, His death for men, and resurrection, the Christian’s union with Him, the gift of the Holy Spirit, — but less as doctrines than as vital elements of personal religion, the moving forces of St. Paul’s own life and ministry. S. W. Green.

Thessalonians, Second Epistle to the

l. Occasion and date.— Scattered indications fix theletter(if genuine) as written from Corinth, not long after the First Epistle. For Timothy and Silas (Silvanus) are still with the Apostle (1’, cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:1), whereas in Acts there is no further mention of Silas after St. Paul left Corinth. The former letter seems to be referred to (2:15). and the allusions to St. Paul’s ministry in Thessalonica suggest that this was almost as recent as when 1 Th. was written. Very possibly 3:2 is to be explained by the opposition encountered at Corinth, recorded in Acts 18. The reasons for a second letter are hardly evident in any considerable difference of subject-matter; they appear to consist in tidings which had reached St. Paul as to (1) some misunderstanding of his teaching about the Parousia (2:1–3) (2) increase of persecution (1:4–10) (3) disorderly conduct in some members of the Church (3:11) (4) letters forged in the Apostle’s name (2:2 3:17).

2. Contents. —

Salutation (!’■ 2); thanksgiving (with prayer) for their growth in faith and love in the midst of affliction patiently endured, with assurance of God’s vengeance upon their persecutors(w.8-"); warning that the ‘day of the Lord’ IS not yet, but must be heralded by certain signs (2:1–12; renewed thanksgiving, exhortation, and prayer (w."-^‘). St. Paul asks for their prayers (3:1, 2), expresses his confidencein them (w .’-5), warns them against the ‘disorderly’ (vv. 6–15) and between repeated bene£ctions authenticates the letter by his signature (w."-").

3. Authenticity.^ — (1) External testimony. The evidence already cited for 1 Th. is reinforced by quotations in Polycarp, and possibly in Justin Martyr; that is, of the two Epistles the Second is the more strongly attested.

(2) Internal evidence. Circumstances have already been assigned to the letter, in themselves consistent and not improbable. To these may be added the close resemblance to 1 Th. in subject-matter and phrasing, so obvious that it need not here be detailed. A literary dependence of 2 Th. on 1 Th. is practically certain, for the interval necessary to justify a second letter at all forbids the supposition of unconscious repetition. If 2 Th. is by St. Paul, he must have re-read his former letter before writing this, and the question naturally arises whether it is likely that he would so reproduce himself. (The case of Colossians and Ephesians is not parallel: these were contemporary Epistles, and not addressed to the same Church.) Hence the resemblance to 1 Th. is made an argument against the Pauline authorship of 2 Th. Moreover, along with the resemblance are found other featiu:es which are regarded as un-Pauline and post-Pauline, with the result that the Second Epistle is widely rejected by those who admit the First. The grounds of this rejection must be briefly examined.

(a) Style. It is freely admitted that this argument is hazardous and indecisive: those who rely upon it would not perhaps quarrel with Jowett’s dictum that ‘objections of this kind are, for the most part, matters of taste or feeling, about which it is useless to dispute’ {Com. on Th. i. 147). The argument must also reckon with those evident features of Pauline style and vocabulary which the close resemblance of some two-thirds of the Ep. to 1 Th. carries with it, while in the remainder what is exceptional may be due to the new subject-matter. Still, it may be argued that some of the passages which are most closely parallel to 1 Th. show’a loss of ease and simplicity which suggests that they have been worked over by another hand. There is a difference, hard to account for in the same writer saying the same thing after so short an interval; nor is the change such as marks advance towards the style of St. Paul’s later letters.

(6) Subject-matter (apart from 2:1–12). As compared with 1 Th., very little appears in 2 Th. that is new or convincingly Pauline: something, too, of the warmth and glow of personal feeling has gone. The severity of tone in 1:6–9 cannot perhaps be objected to, in view of 1 Thessalonians 2:15, 16. while 3 is sufficientlyaccountedfor by an aggravation of the offence already rebuked (1 Thessalonians 4:11 5:14). The reference to an ‘epistle as from us’ (2:2) suggests an earlier correspondence of St. Paul with his Churches, of which we have no knowledge, frequent enough to have already given rise to fraudulent imitation. This IS not impossible, though the precaution of a certifying signature (3) may seem, perhaps, a little inadequate,

(c) The passage 2:1–12. The objection that this contradicts the eschatology of 1 Thessalonians 5 cannot be sustained. "The earlier passage speaks of a coming of ‘the day of the Lord,’ sudden and unexpected: if this had been misinterpreted of a coming so imminent as to cause the ordinary duties of life to lose interest or claim, the Apostle might well.without inconsistency, remind the Thessalonians thathe had warned them of si^is which must first be fulfilled (2:3–5). . A more serious doubt is raised by the apocalyptic character of the passage, unique in Paul, and held to snow both de-

Eendence on later writings and allusion to post-Pauline istory. So far, however, as the thought is exceptional, the section may fairly be regarded as a pendant to the equally exceptional section 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17 (cf. also Romans 7:1–6, Galatians 4:21) and as more likely to be original than attributed to Paul by a later imitator. ‘The question rather is whether it can be accounted for lay contemporary ideas, or betrays the facts and conceptions of a later time. The general thought is that the coming of Christ is to be heralded by an outburst of iniquity, described as the ‘apostasy’ (‘falling away ‘2’), either headed by or personified as ‘the man of sin’ (RVm ‘the man of lawlessness’), ‘the son of perdition,’ ‘the lawless one’ (w.^- whose character and coming are more fully described in w.’- ‘-‘2. Already’ the mystery of lawlessness’ is at work (v. 7). but the crisis is delayed, as the Thessalonians know, by " that which restraineth| (v.). ‘one who restrains’ (v. 7). . In due season this restraint will be removed, that the lawless one may be revealed, to be slain by the Lord Jesus (w.6-9). ,, , ■

Now, of the elements of this conception, that of an apostasy’ is not un-Pauline: it appears 2 Corinthians 11:13–15. Rp 16 (as well as Acts 20:29–30. and throughout the Pastoral Epp.), and is attributed to false teachers. The same idea occurs in Matthew 24:5, 11, 12 2 Pet. and Jude, 1 John 2:18, 22 4:3. 2 Jn». This wide prevalence of the thought in the NT writings, and the constant prediction of ‘many’ false teachers, false prophets, false Christs, antichrists (1 John 2:18), may suggest as regards ourpaBsage(l) that it draws upon a common stock of eschatological ideas; (2) that ‘the man of sin’ is not necessarily a person but rather a type (cf. 1 John 2:18. ‘many antichrists," but v. 22 and elsewhere ‘the antichrist’), symbolizing tendencies and movements, and therefore only at grave hazard to be identified with any definite historical personage. Hence the alleged reference to the legend of Nero redivivus’ (Tac. Hist. ii. 8), with its iinpUcation of A.D. 68-70 as the earliest possible date for 2 "Th., is quite without warrant.

It is true that our passage has close affinities with Revelation(especially 13" -" W- 20) but this does not necessarilymean dependence. For Ezekiel 38. 39, Dn 7-9. 11.12, and later extra-canonical Jewish apocalyptic literature present, under varied historic colouring, the same conception of a final rally of the powers of evil before the last days, and of the triumph of Messiah over ‘antichrist.* In Test. xii. Patr. this anti-christ’ is ‘Belial’ or ‘Behar’ (cf. 2 Corinthians 6:15). in Rev. ‘the beast’ (symbol of the Roman Empire rather than exclusively of Nero), and it is not necessary to regard ‘the man of sin’ and equivalent expressions as more personal than these. What is really peculiar to 2 Th. is the assertion of a restraining power, holding in check the mystery of lawlessness already at work. Can this be explained as historical colour given by St. Paul to current apocalyptic tradition under the circumstances of a.d. 53 or thereabouts?

Now, at that date the Apostle of the Gentiles had lately experienced the determined enmity of the Jews to his whole Christian mission, at Thessalonica, Beroea, and Corinth. Though the Parousia is not yet (2 Thessalonians 2:2). St. Paul expects it within his own lifetime (1 Thessalonians 4:17). The traditional ‘antichrist’ is therefore already to be looked for (2 Thessalonians 2:7). and might well be discovered in Jewish hatred, bent on the very destruction of Christianity (1 Thessalonians 2:15, 16). fortified by its secure hold of the national sanctuary (2 Thessalonians 2:4),. and held in restraint only by the forces of order seated in the Roman power, or, possibly, in the better elements of Judaism itself (2:6, 7). Thus interpreted, the passage would be a development on apocalyptic lines of the outburst of I’-u", and no necessity would remain f ortbesuggestion, quite unsupported by evidence, that 2:1–12 either is an interpolation , or is itself a genuine Pauline fragment worked up into aspurious Epistle.

So far, then, as doubts concerning 2 Th. are reduced to argument, they can hardly prevail against the tradition of Pauline authorship. Whether misgivings as to style can be relieved by the suggestion that Timothy or Silas wrote in the Apostle’s name is doubtful; at least, the repeated ‘we’ points to no such co-operation (cf . 1 Th 2:17). The trend of present critical opinion is perhaps indicated in Jfllicher’s judgment, that the difficulties ‘can after all be most easily solved’ under the view that the Epistle was written by St. Paul.

S. W. Green.

Thessalonica

(modern SaloniH). An important city of the Roman province Macedonia, situated on the Via Egnatia, the overland route from Italy to the E., and at the north-eastern corner of the Thermaic Gulf. Its buildings rose above one another in tiers on the slopes of the hills. The situation is in every respect admirable, and must have been early occupied. This city was founded about B.C. 315, and named after a step-sister of Alexander the Great. Its greatness under Macedonian rule was even extended under Roman rule. It became the capital of the Roman province Macedonia, constituted B.C. 146. It was made a ‘free city’ in b.c. 42 (Acts 17:5 knows this fact), and was ruled by its own magistrates under the rather rare title ‘politarchs,’ who were 5 or 6 in number. There were many Jews here, as the possession of a synagogue shows (Acts 17:1), and a number of proselytes (Acts 17:4). The enemies of St. Paul raised a cry of treason, and a serious riot resulted. Some of Paul’s friends had to give security that this would not be repeated. This forced Paul to leave the city. Members of the church here were Jason, Gaius, Secundus, Aristarchus. See Thessalonians. A. Souteb.

Theudas

Mentioned by Gamaliel (Acts 5) as the leader of an unsuccessful rebellion of 400 men. Josephus (Ant. XX. V. 1) speaks of a Theudas who misled the people and gave himself out for a prophet, a,t least ten years after Gamaliel’s speech; and also a little afterwards(§ 2) speaks of the sons of Judas the Galilffian, the instigator of a rebellion in the time of Quirinius. Now St. Luke (Acts 6) speaks successively of Theudas and Judas, and it is alleged that he erroneously put their names into Gamaliel’s mouth owing to a misreading of Jose^hus. But the difference between the writers is so great that it is impossible to suppose that the one account depends on the other. It St. Luke depends on Josephus, where did he get his number ‘400 men’ from? There may have been more than one Theudas, and Lightfoot suggests that the name might be used as the Greek equivalent of several different Hebrew ones. There certainly were, as Josephus tells us, many rebellions at this period. Or the name may be an interpolation in Josephus, taken from Acts by some Christian scribe (Blass); or one of the writers may have made a mistake in the name. But they could hardly be quoting, either from the other. A. J. Maclean.

Thigh

(Heb. yarm, Gr. mSros). The hollow of Jacob’s thigh was strained as he wrestled at Peniel {Gn 32’"), and to this is attributed the Jewish custom (enjoined in the Mishna) of not eating ‘the sinew of the hip’ (v.’^). On the thigh the sword was girded (Exodus 32:27, Psalms 45, Song of Songs 3:8) Ehud’s on the right thigh because he was left-handed (Judges 3:16, 21). Under the jealousy ordeal the woman’s thigh falls away if she has been guilty of adultery (Numbers 5:21 ff.). To smite ‘hip and thigh’ (lit. "leg upon thigh’) is a phrase denoting utter discomfiture accompanied by great slaughter (Judges 15:8). Its origin is unknown, and its meaning much disputed. In Jeremiah 31:19 and Ezekiel 21:12 smiting upon one’s thigh is a gesture of sorrow or terror. In Heb. (ct. AVm) of Genesis 46:26. Exodus 1:5. Judges 8:30 a man’s children are described as coming out of his thigh. This explains the oath taken by placing the hand under the thigh (Genesis 24:2, 9 47:29). a special sacredness being ascribed to the organs of generation. In NT ‘thigh’ occurs only in Revelation 19:16, where perhaps the meaning is that the name was written on that part of the garment which covered the thigh. J. C. Lambeht.

Thisbe

The place from which Tobit was carried away captive by the Assyrians (Tobit 1:2). Its position is described as being on the right hand (south) of Kedesh-naphtali in Galilee above Asher. No trace of the name has yet been found. Some commentators maintain that Thisbe was the home of Elijah ‘the Tishbite,’ but this is very doubtful.

Thistles

See Thokns.

Thooanus

Thooanus (1 Esdras 9:14) =Tikvah, Ezra 10:15.

Thomas

One of thejtwelve Apostles. The earlier Evangelists mention only his name (Matthew 10:3 3 Luke 6:15). but St. John has rescued him from oblivion. His question in the Upper Room (John 14:5) proves him somewhat slow of understanding. He was querulous and gloomy, always disposed to look at the dark side. Thus, when Jesus on the evening of the Resurrectionday appeared to the Apostles in the room at Jerusalem where they were assembled with closed doors, Thomas was absent, buried in despair; and when he heard that they had seen the Lord, he would not believe it. He would not, he declared, be persuaded unless he saw and handled His pierced hands and side (John 20:19–25). The next Sunday evening Jesus appeared as before, and gave Thomas the evidence he had craved. ‘My Lord and my Godl’ cried the doubter, leaping from the depth of despair to the summit of faith (John 20:26, 29). His doubts were removed, and he was one of the seven who journeyed north to meet the Lord at the Lake of Galilee (21:2). Despondent though he was, Thomas was no coward, and he had a great devotion to Jesus. It was he who, when tidings of Lazarus’ sickness were brought to Bethany beyond Jordan, and the rest, fearing the rage of the rulers, were disposed to let the Master venture alone into Judaea, put their cowardice to shame: ‘Let us also go, that we may die with him!’ (John 11:16.)

Thomas is not really a name but an epithet, meaning, like its Greek equivalent Didymus (John 11:16 20:24 21:2), ‘the Twin.’ If, as Eusebius states, the Apostle’s name was Judas, he would be styled ‘the Twin’ to distinguish him from Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot. Tradition credits him with the authorship of a Gospel (see Gospels [Apocryphal], 6). David Smith.

Thomei

See Temah.

THORNS.THISTLES, ETC.— So many words are used in the Heb. for thorny plants, and they are so variously translated, that it will be convenient to consider them all in .one group. In the great majority of cases it is impossible to identify the special species referred to.

1. ‘dtdd, Judges 9:14 f. AV’‘bramble,’ mg. ‘thistle,’ RVm ‘thorn’; Psalms 58:9 AV and RV ‘thorns.’ In Genesis 50:10, 11, Atad occurs as a propername. The ‘afacJis probably the buckthorn(ii^mnus palesiina), a_ lowly bush.

2. barqanim (Judges 8:7, 16 ‘briers’), some kind of thorn. Arab, berqdn is the Centaurea scoparia, a thorny-headed composite common in Palestine.

3. dardar (Genesis 3:18. Hosea 10:8). some thistly or thorny plant. In modem Arab, shauket el-dardar is applied to the star thistles or knapweeds of which Centaurea calcitrapa and C. verutum are common Palestine forms.

i. chedeq (Proverbs 15:19 ‘thorn,’ Micah 7:4 ‘brier’; of. Arab, chadaq ‘to enclose’), some prickly plant used as a hedge (Proverbs 15:19).

5. chSach (2 K 14’, 2 Chronicles 25:18. and Job 31:40 ‘thistle’; 2 Chronicles 33:11. , Song of Songs 2:2. and Hosea 9:6 ‘thorns ‘; Isaiah 34:13 AV’ brambles ‘; 1 Samuel 13:6’ thickets’: Job 41:2 ‘thorn,’ where ‘hook,* as in RV, would be better), some shrub, species unknown,with very strong spines.

6. mesukdh, a thorn hedge (Micah 7:4).

7. na’utsuts (Isaiah 7:19 ‘thorns,’ 55:13 ‘thorn’), from Aram. na’ats ‘to prick’), a general term for a thorn.

8. sinm (Eo 7:6. Isaiah 34:13. Hosea 2:6. Nahum 1:10 ‘thorn’). The reference to the ‘crackling of thorns’ suggests the thorny burnet, which is burned all over Palestine in lime-kilns. slroth. Am 4’, means ‘hooks.’

9. sillon (Ezekiel 28:24 ‘brier"; sallonim, Ezekiel 2 ‘thorns’).

■ 10. sarablm (Ezekiel 2 ‘briers,’ Ht. ‘rebels,’ as in mg., but text doubtful).

11. sirpdd (Isaiah 55:13 ‘brier,’ lit. the ‘burner,’ hence perhaps ‘nettle’).

12. tsinnim (Job 5, Proverbs 22:5 ‘thorns’); tsenlnlm, (Numbers 33:55, Joshua 23:13 ‘thorns’).

13. qots (Genesis 3:18. Exodus 22:6. Judges 8:7, 16 etc.), the commonest and most general word for ‘thorns.’

14. gimTnos (Proverbs 24:31 ‘thorns’), elsewhere ‘nettles.’ See Nettle.

15. eikklm (Numbers 33 ‘pricks’), cf. Arab, shauk ‘thorn.’

16. shayith, only in Is. (5:6 7:23 f. 9:17 147 27:4). always with shdmir (‘brier’), and tr. ‘thorns.’

17. shdmir, in Is. (see above) always tr. ‘brier’; cf . Arab. samur ‘& thorny tree.’

18. rhamnos (Gr.), Baruch 6:71 (AV and RV ‘thorn’).

19. skolops (Gr.), 2 Corinthians 12:7 ‘thorn’ (RVm ‘stake’). See Medicine, p. 600; Paul, p. 688’.

20. akanthai (Gr.) = Heb. qots, Matthew 7 13:7, 22 27:29 etc. ‘thorns.’

21. tribolos (Gr.), Matthew 7 ‘thistle,’ Hebrews 6:8 ‘brier.’

The variety of words used to describe these prickly plants is not surprising, when it is remembered that such plants are ubiquitous throughout Palestine, and for many months of the year are almost the only living uncultivated vegetation. They form the common food of goats and camels; they are burned (Ecclesiastes 7:6), specially the thorny burnet (Arab. billSn), in ovens and lime-kilns, large areas of land being diligently cleared every autumn for this purpose. Gigantic thistles, sometimes as high as a horse’s head, cover whole acres of fallow land and have to be cleared by fire before ploughing can begin. ‘Thorns’ of various kinds, e.g. brambles, oleasters, etc., are commonly used as hedges; and tangled masses of dead thorny branches from the Zizyphus and similar trees are used, particularly in the Jordan Valley, as defences round fields, flocks, or tents (Proverbs 15:11, Micah 7:4 etc.). E. W. G. Masteeman.

Thought

In 1 Samuel 9:5, In Matthew 6 (as well as in the foil, vv."- 31. M), in 10", in Mark 13:11, and in Lk 12. a the Eng. word ‘thought’ is used in AV in the old sense of ‘grief or anxiety.’ Thus Mark 13:11 ‘Take no thought beforehand’ does not mean do not think or plan, but be not burdened wUh anxiety beforehand.

Thousand

See Ahmy, 2; Number, 6,

Thraoe

Some have proposed to identify Tiras (Genesis 10:2) with Thrace, but this identification is uncertain. A Thracian horseman is mentioned in 2 Maccabees 12:35 (about B.C. 163) as saving Gorgias, the governor of Idumsa under Antlochus Epiphanes, from capture. The name Thrace — It was not till a.d. 46 the name of a Roman province — was applied to all the country lying between the rivers Strymon and Danube. After the death of Lysimachus (B.C. 281 — see Thyatira), with whom the prospect of civilization for the country died, it continued barbarous, and was famous only for its severe climate and its soldiers. Of the latter there was a plentiful supply, and as soldiers of fortune they were to be found in the armies of the richer States. They were chiefly cavalry and light-armed infantry. (The name ‘Thracian’ was hence applied to gladiators armed in a particular way.) Kings who employed them in war frequently settled them in colonies after peace was declared. A. Souteh.

THBAS.ffiUS.— The father of Apollonius (2 Maccabees 3:5).

Three

See Number, § 7.

Three Children

Three children (SONG OPJ.-See Apocrypha,6.

THRE8HING,THRESHING-FL00R.-SeeAaBicui,-

TUBE, 3.

Threshold

See House, 6.

Throne

The OT tr. of Heb. kissS’ or kissm. It is used of any seat of honour: e.g. of the high priest (1 Samuel 1:9 4). of a judge (Psalms 94:20), of a military officer (Jeremiah 1)) but most frequently of a king (e.g. Pharaoh Exodus 11:5, David and Solomon 1 Kings 2:12 etc.), and thus of God Himself (Psalms 9:7 W 45:6. Isaiah 6:1). For a description of Solomon’s throne see 1 Kings 10:18–20. 2 Chronicles 9:17–19. Frequently ‘throne’ is used metaphorically for dignity, royal honour, and power. Thus ‘the throne of David’ often stands for the royal honour of David’s house (2 Samuel 7:16). So God’s ‘throne’ is His sovereign power (cf. Psalms 45:6 93:2).

The NT term thronoa [once (Acts 12) Kma, ‘judgment-seat,’ is tr. ‘throne’] is similarly used. It is applied in Eev 20:4 to the thrones of the assessors of the heavenly judge (cf. Matthew 19:28)), Luke 22:30)) but is most frequently used of the throne of God or Christ (Matthew 5:34 19:28)). Luke 1:32. Acts 2:30 7:49. Hebrews 1:8 4:16 8:1 12:2. Revelation 1:4 3:21 etc.). For thrones’ as a rank of angels, see art. Dominion, and cf. PowEB. W. F. Boyd.

Throughly

This is the older spelling of ‘thoroughly.’ In mod. editions of AV we find both forms used, ‘thoroughly’ in Exodus 21:19. 2 Kings 11:18. and ‘throughly’ elsewhere; but in the original edition of 1611 the spelling Is ‘throughly’ everywhere. There was no distinction In earlier Eng. between ‘through’ and ‘thorough,’ ‘throughly’ and ‘thoroughly.’ In the first ed. of AV Exodus 14:16 reads ‘the children of Israel shall goe on dry ground thorow the mids of the Sea.*

Thrum

See Spinning and WEAViNa, §§ 3, 5.

Thumb

The thumb Is associated with the great toe, and occurs in two different connexions. 1. We are told that Adonibezek’s thumbs and great toes were cut oft (Judges 1:6). and that he himself had practised this mutilation on seventy kings (v. 7). The object seems to have been to render the vanquished monarchs unfit for war and thus for reigning in a warlike age. 2. In the ritual of the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Exodus 29:20. Leviticus 8) blood was sprinkled on ‘the tip of the right ear, upon the thumb of the right hand and the great toe of the right foot.’ The cleansed leper was similarly sprinkled with blood and oil (Leviticus 14. The action seems to have symbolized the consecration (or purification) of the whole man, the extremities only being touched, just as only the horns of the altar were sprinkled with the blood. W. F. Boyd.

Thummim

See Urim and Thummim.

Thunder

There is no finer description of a thunderstorm than that of Psalms 29. In a land of high mountains and deep gorges, split throughout its length by the great cleft of the Jordan, the effect of thunder is peculiarly terrible. In Palestine it is confined almost entirely to winter (1 Samuel 12:17 f.), but the writer once witnessed a terrific storm late in April, among the Gilead uplands. It Is invariably accompanied by rain. According to poetic and popular ideas, thunder was the voice of God (Psalms 104:7. Job 37:4 etc.), which a soul gifted with insight might understand and interpret (John 12:28 f.; cf. Mark 1:11. Matthew 3:17 etc.). It is the expression of His resistless power (1 Samuel 2:10. Psalms 18:13 etc.), and of His inexorable vengeance (Isaiah 30:30 etc.). Thunder plays a part in afflicting the Egyptians (Exodus 9:23 ff.). , at the delivery of the Law (19:16 20:18). and in discomfiting the Philistines (1 Samuel 7:10). It is not guided by caprice, but by the will of God (Job 28:26 38:25). it appears largely in the more terrible imagery of the Apocalypse. For ‘Sons of Thunder,’ see Boanerges. W. Ewing.