Parainesis on ἁγιασ�ός (1 Th 4: 3-8) 141 might disparage what Paul is writing (ἄνθρωπον refers to the authors of this letter)57. The structure envisaged is: Τοῦτο γὰρ ὲστιν θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ͵ ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν ἀπέχεσθαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τῆς πορνείας εἰδέναι ἕκαστον ὑμῶν τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος κτᾶσθαι ἐν ἁγιασμῷ καὶ τιμῇ μὴ [κτᾶσθαι] ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας καθάπερ καὶ τὰ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ εἰδότα τὸν Θεὸν τὸ μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν καὶ πλεονεκτεῖν ἐν τῷ πράγματι τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ διότι ἔκδικος Κύριος περὶ πάντων τούτων καθὼς καὶ προείπαμεν ὑμῖν καὶ διεμαρτυράμεθα οὐ γὰρ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς ἐπὶ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ ἀλλ᾿ ἐν ἁγιασμῷ Τοιγαροῦν ὁ ἀθετῶν οὐκ ἄνθρωπον ἀθετεῖ ἀλλὰ τὸν Θεόν τὸν καὶ δόντα τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ τὸ ἅγιον εἰς ὑμᾶς58 IV. The Interpretation of Vv. 3-6 1. Πορνεία. The term πορνεία is normally distinguished from μοιχεία in that whereas the latter implies that at least one of the partners in- volved in μοιχεία is married, the former makes no such presupposition. It usually denotes sex outside marriage, but also more generally an illicit sexual affair.59 Of the two terms πορνεία is the wider term, and can even encroach on the more special territory of μοιχεία. The context seems to imply that πορνεία is here used in its wider sense of sexual relations outside the prescribed bounds, which may in- clude the breaking of marriage as well. 2. Σκεῦος. Chr. Maurer has definitely made a case for σκεῦος meaning ‘wife’ in Jewish contexts. His arguments are so well known to interpret- ers of 1 Thess 4:3 ff. that I do not need to repeat them here60. There However, this understanding is not to be related to Schmithals’ thesis (Paul and the 57 Gnostics, New York 1972, 157 f.) that this injunction was necessitated by the Gnostics’ making headway in Thessalonike, and undermining Paul’s authority. For a somewhat different structure, see Collins, Studies in the First Letter to the 58 Thessalonians, 329 f. B. Malina, “Does Porneia Mean Fornication? NovT 14 (1972) 10-17, has unsuc- 59 cessfully tried to prove that πορνεία does not include pre-marital sexual relations. His position has been refuted by J. Jensen, “Does Porneia Mean Fornication? A Critique of Bruce Malina” NovT 20 (1978), 161-84. Maurer’s interpretation has been accepted by e.g. R. F. Collins, Studies on the First 60 Letter to the Thessalonians, 299-325, esp. 311 ff., and 326-335, esp. 333 ff., where he writes: “To interpret σκεῦος as woman and v. 4 of marriage is to interpret the verse in a fashion