For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness—ou gar ekalesen hēmas ho Theos epi akathars ia alla en hagiasmō (οὐ γὰρ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς ἐπὶ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ ἀλλὰ ἐν ἁγιασμῷ). This verse grounds sexual ethics in soteriology: God's calling determines lifestyle. Akatharsia (ἀκαθαρσία, 'uncleanness/impurity') encompasses moral filth, especially sexual immorality. The preposition epi (ἐπί, 'unto/for') indicates purpose—God didn't call us for the purpose of uncleanness. Rather, en hagiasmō (ἐν ἁγιασμῷ, 'in holiness/sanctification') indicates the sphere and goal of calling: God calls believers into holiness and toward progressive sanctification.
This theological foundation refutes antinomianism: grace doesn't permit sin but empowers holiness (Titus 2:11-12). God's calling includes both justification (declaration of righteousness) and sanctification (transformation unto righteousness). Those truly called by God will pursue holiness, not excuse immorality. This doesn't mean sinless perfection but directional movement: genuine believers increasingly mortify sin and vivify righteousness. Persistent, unrepentant immorality questions conversion's authenticity (1 John 3:6-9).
Historical Context
Some Thessalonians apparently struggled with sexual temptation, perhaps arguing that God's grace permitted occasional immorality or that physical acts didn't affect spiritual status. Paul decisively refutes this by grounding sexual ethics in God's calling itself—salvation includes sanctification; justified people are being sanctified. This same error plagued later churches (Corinth had worse sexual sin, 1 Cor 5-6), requiring repeated apostolic correction. Contemporary 'cheap grace' teaching continuing this error must be refuted with Paul's clear connection between calling and holiness.
Questions for Reflection
How does understanding holiness as integral to God's calling (not optional extra) affect your pursuit of sanctification?
What evidence demonstrates that your life is marked by progressive holiness rather than persistent, unrepentant immorality?
How do you distinguish between perfectionism (expecting sinlessness) and authentic sanctification (directional growth in holiness)?
Related Resources
Explore related topics, people, and study resources to deepen your understanding of this passage.
Analysis & Commentary
For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness—ou gar ekalesen hēmas ho Theos epi akathars ia alla en hagiasmō (οὐ γὰρ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς ἐπὶ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ ἀλλὰ ἐν ἁγιασμῷ). This verse grounds sexual ethics in soteriology: God's calling determines lifestyle. Akatharsia (ἀκαθαρσία, 'uncleanness/impurity') encompasses moral filth, especially sexual immorality. The preposition epi (ἐπί, 'unto/for') indicates purpose—God didn't call us for the purpose of uncleanness. Rather, en hagiasmō (ἐν ἁγιασμῷ, 'in holiness/sanctification') indicates the sphere and goal of calling: God calls believers into holiness and toward progressive sanctification.
This theological foundation refutes antinomianism: grace doesn't permit sin but empowers holiness (Titus 2:11-12). God's calling includes both justification (declaration of righteousness) and sanctification (transformation unto righteousness). Those truly called by God will pursue holiness, not excuse immorality. This doesn't mean sinless perfection but directional movement: genuine believers increasingly mortify sin and vivify righteousness. Persistent, unrepentant immorality questions conversion's authenticity (1 John 3:6-9).