Slander and Ministry
An excerpt from Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians.
1 THESSALONIANS 2:1
You know, brothers, that our visit to you was not a failure.
Slander is a favorite tactic against the gospel. It refers to false criticisms, accusations, and representations, and can be directed against our doctrine, motive, behavior, and history. It is designed to undermine the credibility of the Christian faith, and in many cases, to inflict pain and loss on the ministers of the gospel. Jesus taught his disciples about those who would "insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me" (Matthew 5:11). This reflects the kind of people that non-Christians are, and these are the things that they do when they cannot withstand the influence and intelligence of Christianity. Slander can also come from professing believers who disagree with our theological peculiarities. When that happens, of course, they are operating in dishonesty and hypocrisy.
Jesus faced constant slander during his ministry. His opponents branded him a deceiver (Matthew 27:63; John 7:12, 47), and said that he worked miracles by "the prince of demons" (Matthew 9:34). At his trial, "many testified falsely against him" (Mark 14:56), although their statements did not agree. He faced slander even after his death and resurrection, since his opponents spread false theories about what happened to him (Matthew 28:12-15). He remains the most slandered person today, as unbelievers malign him, and professing believers misrepresent him. "If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household!" (Matthew 10:25). We worship and preach the one whom evil men slander, and because of this we have become their targets as well. As Jesus said, they will "falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me." Instances in Scripture abound. The Jews, for example, "produced false witnesses" (Acts 6:13) against Stephen and murdered him (7:57-58).
Paul faced slander throughout his ministry. During his second missionary journey, he was slandered in Philippi (Acts 16:20-21), Thessalonica (17:6), Athens (17:18), and Corinth (18:12-13). Since the Jews from Thessalonica who encouraged slander against him were the ones who incited persecution in Berea, it is probable that he was slandered in Berea as well (17:13). Thus he was slandered in every major location in his second missionary journey. When we also take into account all the other instances of slander against him recorded by Luke in Acts and indicated (although sometimes only by implication) by Paul in his own letters, we should become acutely aware that slander plays a large part in the opposition against the gospel and its ministers. Therefore, adequate ministry training must include instructions on how to handle slander, and believers in general must also be taught how to respond to slander against themselves and against their ministers, "in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes" (2 Corinthians 2:11).
It is widely held that 2:1 begins a section in which Paul refutes the slander that has been leveled against him. Although this is possible, the assumption is unnecessary for an accurate interpretation of the passage, since what Paul says is true and intelligible regardless of whether it is something that he is asserts for his own purpose, such as to reinforce the credibility of his person and message, and to enhance his relationship with his converts, or whether it is something that he asserts in defense of his person and message. The meaning of what he says is the same. Indeed, it would not surprise us that those who are so eager to slander him to his face would be much more ready to slander him in his absence. Still, an accurate interpretation of the letter does not depend on this assumption. There is nothing in the passage or in the entire letter that could be distorted or misunderstood apart from such an unverified background.
The hermeneutical tendency insisting that extra-biblical conjectures regarding the historical context are necessary in even gaining a basically reliable understanding of Paul's words is false, incompetent, and dishonest. The nature of these statements is such that their meaning remain essentially unchanged regardless of the historical context as to whether there is any slander involved. It is common for hermeneutic-happy individuals to require more (any?) extra-biblical information than we need in blatant disregard to the clarity and richness of the passages examined. This error in hermeneutics occurs because exegetes are sometimes more interested in preserving a sense of importance for their specialized discipline than in promoting Scripture's sufficiency and perspicuity, and in principle the right and ability of every believer to understand it.
If Paul is answering slander, then we can infer that at least some of his statements correspond to the false criticisms against him, so that at least some of these statements would represent the opposite of what the slander entails. We will discuss what he says in the next chapter of this commentary. However, to correct another common hermeneutical tendency, even if Paul is answering slander, it would be illegitimate to assume that every detail is written in answer to a corresponding false criticism or accusation made against him. That is, if a person responds to a slander by saying, "I came to you without any greed or ulterior motive," it does not follow that the slander has stated that he came with "greed" and "ulterior motive." It could be that the slander only accused the man of greed, but it is natural or desirable for the person so falsely maligned to complete the declaration of innocence or to make a general disclaimer against other possible accusations regarding his motive. Whatever the nature of the slander may be, or whether there is any slander at all, notice that "I came to you without any greed or ulterior motive" would carry the same meaning.
As with everything else, we desire to learn God's perspective on this form of persecution, for in divine wisdom is the response of confidence and holiness. Slander is not reserved for great apostles, but Jesus assumes that it could happen to any person who represents him. If you stand for the truth of the gospel before the church and the world, then it is likely that at some point people will misunderstand you, misrepresent you, and spread lies about you. Jesus calls those of us targeted by slander for his sake blessed. In enduring slander because of our allegiance to Christ, we are identified with the prophets, since they were also likewise persecuted, and our rewards will be great in heaven (Matthew 5:11-12). May the Spirit grant illumination and sincere faith, so that this admonition takes root in us; otherwise, it will not persist in our minds when actual slander occurs against us. But if by God's power we truly believe that our rewards will be great for enduring slander for his sake and for joining the company of the prophets, we will indeed rejoice in the face of slander, and the stigma, inconvenience, and persecution that it generates.
Our response is characterized by faith, rejoicing in our participation of the kingdom and looking toward God for justice and vindication. So we do not resort to dishonorable methods, such as repaying slander with slander, or to physical violence. Rather, we will entreat and intercede for their sake, so that perhaps God may save some of them. And if they do not repent, there is no need for us to punish them ourselves. God is just, and he will punish those who slander the gospel and its ministers, even throwing them into the lake of fire that burns forever. As for those who claim to be Christians and yet slander other believers, they should examine themselves to see if they are in the faith.
This does not mean that we may never answer slander and attempt to correct false criticisms, accusations, and representations against us, especially when the credibility of the Christian faith is at stake. If 1 Thessalonians 2:1-12 is indeed a response to false allegations against Paul, then it serves as another example in handling slander. But even if not, we know from other places that he indeed addresses slander at times. In any case, even as he defends himself, he could not address every charge at length and he could not constantly maintain his defense. And certainly no one can actively defend himself after death. Much is left for God's providence to sort out apart from the labor of the slandered minister or believer. God calls us to serve him, not to replace him. Therefore, whether or not we defend ourselves, and whether or not we take much time to do it, we must look to God for the vindication of his name, and if it is his will, ours as well. But let no one suppose that the effect of our work will be in exact proportion to our effort; rather, by God's providence and blessing the effect will be greater than what our effort appears to be able to produce.
If we preach and practice the gospel, it is likely that we will be slandered. The proper response is to rejoice, defend, and believe. Then, the awareness that we as individual believers might be slandered alerts us to the possibility that other believers, Christians other than ourselves, might also be falsely maligned at times. This realization is significant because it reminds us that many criticisms and accusations against other Christians are untrue, and just as we would not want people to slander us, we should not slander others, spread slander about others, or to believe slander about others.
It is especially important to keep this in mind when allegations are made against our theological opponents, such as Christians with whom we disagree. In fact, we should not believe slander or unjustified accusations even against unbelievers. Christians have no business inventing or encouraging slander against anyone, not even the devil himself. There are professing Christians who invent and promote slander against their theological rivals. This is of Satan and of the spirit of the Pharisees, who murdered the Lord Jesus and thought that they did God a favor. But God will judge such men. A lie is a lie, and we should not endorse it. For the sake of truth and justice, at times we may need to defend the victims of slander, even if we must then turn around to make some accurate criticisms against them instead.
Some Christians, it seems, will believe any accusation against their ministers. It is true that ministers of the gospel can betray their commitment to Christ and sin grievously – failing in doctrinal purity, in sexual morality, in financial accountability, and so on – and at least in the current spiritual climate, many of them are not believers at all, so "Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning" (1 Timothy 5:20). But let us always keep in mind that slander is a weapon of the enemy, to introduce suspicion, strife, and chaos into the church; therefore, Paul instructs, "Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses" (5:19).
Christians are likely to agree with what I say here, that we should not endorse or promote slander, whether it is directed against Christians or non-Christians, or whether against those whom we support or oppose. But unless they jealously hold themselves to a strict standard of truth and justice, the temptation to take advantage of slander in order to advance their own agenda at times takes control of them. Slander capitalizes on the thrill that many professing Christians experience upon hearing a negative report about someone they disapprove, and their eagerness to see this person destroyed. So they gloat when they hear accusations against those that they dislike or oppose, and they add fuel to the fire, so to speak, by building additional criticisms on top of the current fury. This behavior is of the evil one. It does not become the children of light. Any hearsay can also be slander, and to encourage it makes one a tool in the devil's hand.
There was a church that appeared promising for a time. There were numerous problems with it, but at least it had maintained some semblance of loyalty to the biblical faith until it began to increasingly deviate from the spirit and doctrine of Christianity. I would not consider myself an insider, and I had no authority in that church, but I did have minimal access to the leadership's attention. So I vehemently complained about the direction that the church was heading, but my effort was of no avail.
The church's teaching became so outrageous and so endangered the congregation, that it caught the media's attention. Reports about the church soon appeared on television, magazines, and newspapers. However, I noticed that these media reports carried very little accurate information about the church, its practices, and its teachings. The errors did not consist of differences in biblical or religious interpretation, but numerous factual errors concerning what the church taught, what certain leaders had said and done, and so on. Regardless of the reason for these inaccuracies – perhaps the reporters had defective sources, misunderstandings, or outright disregard for the truth, etc. – most of the criticisms were in effect invented. The church had many problems, so many and so serious that I no longer considered it a Christian church, but they were not the ones reported.
Here is what I wish to say by the illustration: For a Christian leader to then warn his congregation about this church on the basis of media reports would be to endorse and preach slander, that is, if he had spoken as if these reports were true. Now consider how often Christian polemics issued by pastors and anti-cult ministries depend on media reports about those that they wish to annihilate, and the seriousness of the situation becomes apparent. The church is a culture of slanderers.
If the world does not offer accurate reports on our Master, why would you expect it to offer accurate reports about you? And if the world does not hesitate to slander you, why would you expect it to tell the truth about another believer? If the world is unjust toward you, why would you expect it to be blameless when it tells about another Christian, even if you do not think that person is much of a Christian? Why make Satan your ally just because you consider the person a threat? Handle it with truth or not at all.
False teachers can always be exposed by an examination of their own statements. Media reports about their numerous extravagant purchases and torrid sexual affairs are unusable unless you can verify these allegations apart from the media reports. But all this is unnecessary ammunition. If it can be shown from their own publications that they promote heresy and perverse behavior, this is all that is necessary to expose them and to warn believers against them.
Chosen for Salvation
An excerpt from Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians.
1 THESSALONIANS 1:5c-10
You know how we lived among you for your sake. You became imitators of us and of the Lord; in spite of severe suffering, you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit. And so you became a model to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia. The Lord's message rang out from you not only in Macedonia and Achaia – your faith in God has become known everywhere. Therefore we do not need to say anything about it, for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead – Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.
Paul is confident that his hearers have been chosen for salvation because he was conscious of God's power when he preached to them, and it produced deep conviction in the Thessalonians, that is, an assurance and persuasion that the gospel was true. However, anybody can pretend to agree with the gospel, but only genuine believers will exhibit consistent indications of faith and regeneration. As Jesus says, "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them" (Matthew 7:18-20; see also v. 21-27).
Regeneration is a radical reconstruction of the intellect and personality of the individual, and therefore the true convert would exhibit in his outward speech and conduct the changes that correspond to such a drastic inward transformation. From the transformation that has taken place in the Thessalonians, Paul infers that they are truly born again, and that their faith in Christ is real.
For example, Paul says, "In spite of severe suffering, you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit." Now, Jesus explains in the parable of the sower that not everyone who appears to receive the word of God with joy is truly saved: "The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away" (Matthew 13:20-21). But the joy of the Thessalonians was "given by the Holy Spirit."
The Spirit regenerates only the chosen ones. Jesus says, "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit" (John 3:8). The doctrine of free will cannot make sense of this verse, but the biblical doctrine of salvation affirms that, as "the wind blows wherever it pleases," so the Spirit of God regenerates only those who have been selected for salvation by God. Scripture says, "All who were appointed for eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48). A person believes in Christ because he has been chosen. God did not choose us because he had foreseen our faith, but we have faith because God has chosen us without regard to any condition that would be found in us. Since it was the Holy Spirit who gave Paul's converts such joy in receiving the gospel, it means that God has performed a work in their minds because of his own sovereign decision, and since God does not in this manner change the heart of those whom he has not chosen, Paul infers that the Thessalonians are among the elect.
Jesus says that a false convert falls away "when trouble or persecution comes because of the word." In contrast, the Thessalonians had joy from the Holy Spirit "in spite of severe suffering," thus showing the genuineness of their conversion. Many professing Christians live in countries where persecution is relatively light, even though believers indeed often receive unjust treatment. Under this relatively comfortable atmosphere, false converts that have been gathered by unbiblical preaching are not sifted out of the church. Contributing nothing but costing much, they continue to be a vexing but often unacknowledged problem in the church. Nevertheless, the solution is not to hope for severe persecution, but a return to preaching the biblical gospel and enforcing church discipline, such as reprimand and excommunication.
Some writers are alarmed at the rate at which professing Christians are converting to other religions – Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism, Catholicism, and other non-Christian groups and cults. But the unceasing influx of false converts is even more disturbing. By God's providence, non-Christian religions and philosophies in fact serve to remove some of the false converts from the church, lest we become overwhelmed by them. Many reprobates, destined for destruction, join themselves to Christian churches because they have heard and affirmed a false gospel, and non-Christian religions and philosophies sometimes attract these reprobates away from the church.
On the other hand, true Christians belong to Christ forever, so that "no one can snatch them out of [his] hand" (John 10:28). It is better for a kingdom to have many easily marked enemies than to have many foreign spies within its own domain, wrecking havoc, causing dissension and confusion, and draining its resources from within. Add to this the fact that many false converts have even become ministers, wielding authority over the doctrines, agendas, and finances, clearly it is better for them to leave the church than to remain in it.
Since there are many false converts in our churches, there is a great need to evangelize our own congregations – let the gospel either convert them or drive them away. In John 6, Jesus gives his followers a "hard teaching" (John 6:60) after which "many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him" (v. 66). But even this did not remove Judas, who being "doomed to destruction," was not lost until later, "so that Scripture would be fulfilled" (John 17:12). He betrayed Christ as predicted (v. 70-71), and afterward committed suicide. On the other hand, Peter denied Christ three times, but recovered to become a great apostle. What was the difference? Jesus had prayed for Peter so that his "faith may not fail" (Luke 22:32). He also prayed for the rest of his elect, but not for the reprobates: "I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours" (John 17:9; also Romans 8:34 and Hebrews 7:25). The truth is that "no one can come to [Christ] unless the Father has enabled him" (John 6:65). Peter was enabled; Judas was not.
Faith embraces the gospel in spite of the dangers and consequences. The Thessalonians demonstrated the genuineness of their conversion by their joy in the face of severe suffering. Paul would certainly denounce those who compromise the faith that they claim to affirm because of financial losses, political threats, or pressures from relatives and friends. On the other hand, "No one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life" (Luke 18:29-30).
Perseverance in suffering and persecution is one indication of genuine faith, the presence of which implies that God has chosen the person for salvation, and sovereignly changed his heart. God does not preserve us as a reaction to our enduring faith; rather, our faith endures because God preserves it and causes it to endure. Hebrews 12:2 calls Jesus both "the author and perfecter of our faith." Faith does not come from our own wills, but it is a gift from God. And faith does not endure by our own power, but "he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus" (Philippians 1:6). Salvation depends on God's sovereign will and mercy from the beginning to the end. Therefore, it is by his immutable decree in election and not by human free will (which we do not really have) that all "those he justified, he also glorified" (Romans 8:30). Those who fail to persevere until their glorification, have never received justification.
Genuine faith does not only endure, but it is active and growing (v. 7-9). Peter writes, "Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation" (1 Peter 2:2). A person who shows no interest in studying theology is perhaps temporarily ill in spirit, but a persistent indifference indicates that he has never received faith and life from God. By feeding on spiritual milk, the believer grows up in his faith, although one who "lives on milk" is still a spiritual infant, and "is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness" (Hebrews 5:13). There is much to learn, and much room to grow through learning. Anti-intellectualism, which disparages even spiritual milk, has prevented generations of Christians from growing up in the faith.
Spiritual growth has to do with an intellectual understanding of God's word and not mystical experiences. And spiritual maturity has to do with how one speaks and reasons: "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me" (1 Corinthians 13:11). The writer of Hebrews reprimands his readers, saying, "In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!" (Hebrews 5:12). But how many Christians understand the letter to the Hebrews itself? Many consider its material rather advanced, but the letter was directed to those who were "slow to learn" (v. 11), and those who still "need milk, not solid food" (v. 12). Anti-intellectuals reject the biblical standard of measuring spiritual growth and maturity, and instead make the Christian faith a matter of feeling and experience. But Scripture's teaching is that Christians are to increase in knowledge and character, through an intellectual understanding of the things of God, so that they can think and speak as spiritual adults.
Bearing fruit is another metaphorical way of indicating spiritual life and growth. Jesus teaches, "I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). The Bible contradicts the notion that the mere profession of faith guarantees salvation. A person who makes a profession of faith but fails to bear fruit afterward has no warrant for claiming that he has ever been a believer. Verse 8 says that one shows that he is a true disciple by producing spiritual fruit: "This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples."
The Thessalonians have passed this test. Their faith have been enduring and increasing such that they have become models for other believers to emulate. As Paul instructs Timothy, "Set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity" (1 Timothy 4:12). Other Christians readily recognize the powerful effect the Holy Spirit produced in the Thessalonian converts, so that wherever Paul travels, he has no need to tell others about them. Believers everywhere already know how the Thessalonians have "turned to God from idols" (1 Thessalonians 1:9).
True conversion results from a drastic and permanent transformation at the deepest level of one's intellect and personality. God changes the individual's most basic commitments, so that he denounces the abominable objects he once served, and turns to offer true worship to God. This change in a person's first principle of thought and conduct generates a rippling effect that transforms the entire spectrum of his worldview and lifestyle. Thus conversion produces not only a negative change, in which one turns from idols, but Paul states that they have also turned "to serve the living and true God" (v. 9). Moreover, a biblical system of thought replaces the former unbiblical philosophy. This new worldview is one in which we "wait for [God's] Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead – Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath" (v. 10).
Salvation does not come by turning to a generic "God," as if there is such a thing, but a true convert explicitly affirms the biblical system of thought. Verse 10 is of course not exhaustive, but at least it includes the resurrection and return of Jesus Christ, the coming wrath of God against the unsaved, and it carries a partial reference to the Trinity, since Paul distinguishes between the Father and the Son. The Christian worldview offers a teleology that ties together the whole of human history. Turning from idols to serve the true and living God, the believer now looks forward to the culmination of the ages in the return of Jesus Christ.
Therefore, our biblical passage assumes the apostle's soteriology from election to glorification. God has chosen those who would be saved through Christ by an immutable decree in eternity. In due time, he regenerates them and produces faith in their minds by means of preaching. Genuine faith then perseveres and grows into maturity. This enlightenment of the mind and transformation of the personality result in a glorious hope, through which the believer yearns for and expects the return of Jesus Christ and the consummation of his salvation.
The Proof of the Spirit
An excerpt from Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians.
1 THESSALONIANS 1:5b
…but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction.
Paul is aware that God has chosen the Thessalonians for salvation because of his consciousness of divine power when he preached, and because of the their deep conviction about and genuine reception of the gospel (v. 4-6).
Preaching is the means by which God summons to himself the elect, that is, those whom he has chosen for salvation. His power regenerates the elect who come under the preaching of the gospel, and gives them faith in Christ. Because not all who hear the gospel are among the elect, God's power might not operate in a saving manner every time the gospel is preached, or it might not operate in a saving manner toward everyone in an audience.
The gospel is never void of power, since "it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes" (Romans 1:16), but only the chosen ones will receive a change of mind, so that they will recognize Christ as the power and wisdom of God. Paul explains, "Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:22-24).
The "power" in verse 5 refers to the Holy Spirit's influence at work through the apostle's preaching to effect change in the minds of the hearers. The common consensus is that in this instance Paul does not have in mind the power that works miracles. One reason for asserting this is that the word is in the singular, and not the plural form when the word is associated miracles elsewhere, as in 1 Corinthians 12:10 – "miraculous powers." The Christians in Scripture would consider miracles an integral part of evangelism (Romans 15:18-19; Hebrews 2:3-4), but this does not mean that miracles are necessarily or available for every instance of evangelism. By "power," the New Testament writers sometimes have in mind the subjective influence of the Holy Spirit, as in his divine power to convert sinners.
Since 1 Corinthians 2:4 parallels 1 Thessalonians 1:5, we should study it to better understand both verses.
The entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 2 has been distorted by many anti-intellectual commentators. For example, Paul says in verse 2, "For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified." From this, some make the ludicrous assertion that Paul decided to suppress his knowledge of theology and skill in argumentation in his preaching.
First, the expression, "Jesus Christ and him crucified," does not restrict the content of Paul's preaching to Christ's crucifixion. Indeed, it refers to a central theme of the gospel message, that "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3). But as 1 Corinthians 15 indicates, Paul also told the Corinthians about Christ's resurrection when he preached the gospel to them. The truth is that "Jesus Christ and him crucified," "the message of the cross," and other such phrases are designations for the whole biblical gospel and worldview. Several aspects of Christianity may receive emphasis at the beginning, but Paul did not preach only a simple message with little regard for the comprehensive set of doctrines forming the Christian faith. Rather, he says that he preached "the whole will of God" (Acts 20:27) to his hearers.
Throughout 1 Corinthians 1 and 2, Paul does not say that the Christian message is less intellectual or rational, or that the gospel has no claim to intellectual respectability, but his concern is to emphasize that the content of revelation differs from non-Christians philosophy and that the method of delivery differs from non-Christian speakers. The content of the gospel is superior to the product of human speculation, since the gospel comes from God's wisdom. And the method of delivery is also superior, in that it consists of plain speech, accompanied by the power of the Spirit to convince and to convert people, rather than mere sophistry that relies on confusion and deception to persuade.
Our purpose for coming to 1 Corinthians 2 requires us to focus on verses 4 and 5: "My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power."
The Greeks had tremendous admiration for oratory eloquence, so much so that at times it caused them to ignore the substance of what was said. The "wisdom" (1 Corinthians 1:22) they so respected "often degenerated into meaningless sophistries." The sophists, scorned by Plato, were those who would argue for whatever position the situation demanded. Their blatant disregard for truth allowed them to become debaters for hire, that is, to argue for whatever position that they were paid to defend. Some compare them with present-day lawyers.
The sophists did not offer sound reasoning, but their arguments were fallacious and deceptive. Their philosophical discourses were based on dubious human speculation. Thus as Paul defends his apostleship, he writes, "I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way" (2 Corinthians 11:6). The Christian faith is not based on speculative philosophy, but divine revelation, on knowledge taught by God.
The "wisdom" of the Greeks led them to despise the message of the cross, since it appeared to them a message of defeat, so that Paul writes, "We preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (1 Corinthians 1:23), but there is salvation is no other message. The statement, "For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified" (1 Corinthians 2:2), refers to the gospel's contrast against non-Christian thinking, and not an anti-intellectual strategy of evangelism. Paul is noting that he preached a message that was contrary to the people's cultural and spiritual disposition, and since the message was not founded on human speculation in the first place, he did not speak as the sophists did, but instead relied on God's power to convince the hearers.
Paul deliberately slips into philosophical terms in verse 4, asserting that his preaching was shown true, not by speculative and fallacious arguments, but by the "demonstration" of the Spirit. This is unlike the "manifestation" of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:7. The word indicates a logical proof, as in philosophy and geometry, rather than the idea of exhibition. The English translation is appropriate, since "demonstration" denotes a "logical proof in which a certain conclusion is shown to follow from certain premises." His point is that he insisted on presenting a message that was based on divine revelation instead of one that was based on human speculation.
Bullinger writes, "Here, it denotes the powerful gift of divine wisdom, in contrast with the weakness of human wisdom." This is the issue at hand. Paul's preaching differs from the orators both in method and content, but his arguments are nevertheless logical and persuasive. Unlike the fallacious "proof" of the sophists, the apostle provides sound "proof" for his message that is powerful to effect conversion in his hearers.
One part of Vine's definition on the word "demonstration" is problematic. It says, "a 'showing' or demonstrating by argument, [apodeixis] is found in 1 Cor. 2:4, where the apostle speaks of a proof, a 'showing' forth or display, by the operation of the Spirit of God in him, as affecting the hearts and lives of his hearers, in contrast to the attempted methods of proof by rhetorical arts and philosophic arguments."
It is correct that apodeixis means "demonstrating by argument," and it is true that the "showing forth" is not a visible "manifestation" as in 1 Corinthians 12:7, but it is the operation of the Spirit's power "as affecting the hearts and lives of his hearers." It is also true that Paul contrasts his approach against "the attempted methods of proof by rhetorical arts." In this case, rhetoric indeed denotes, "artificial eloquence; language that is showy and elaborate but largely empty of clear ideas." Any speech is rhetoric in the sense that it is verbal communication or discourse, and as such Paul engages in it, but unlike the philosophers, his arguments are free from sophism. The definition is acceptable to this point. Paul's approach differs from those who employed "mere rhetoric," since he preaches a message with true and coherent content without using fallacious arguments to deceive his hearers into agreeing with him.
However, Vine then contrasts Paul's speech against "philosophic arguments," and this can be misleading. If "philosophy" is the "theory or logical analysis of the principles underlying conduct, thought, knowledge, and the nature of the universe," then Christianity is certainly a philosophy. Scriptural teachings indeed produce a worldview, or "a comprehensive…philosophy or conception of the world and of human life." Unless Vine means "sophistic" when he says "philosophic," his contrast between Paul's demonstrations and "philosophic" arguments is false. That is, Scripture indeed addresses "philosophic" issues, using sound "philosophic" arguments, but unlike human philosophy, these arguments are not fallacious or "sophistic." We should contrast Christianity against sophistry, and not against philosophy as such.
Paul tells the Corinthians that he preached the way he did "so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power" (1 Corinthians 2:5). As with 1 Thessalonians 1:5, "The main point is that the whole is God's work. The Corinthians were made Christians by divine power." Since the power in both places refer to "the powerful operation of the Spirit, bearing witness with and by the truth in our hearts," "men's wisdom" and "God's power" do not necessarily refer to the object of faith – that which the person believes – but rather the means by which faith is generated. We may understand the verse to say, "with the result that your faith should not exist by the wisdom of men, but by the power of God."
Some charismatics assert that 1 Corinthians 2:1-5 indicates a change in Paul's missionary strategy. They say that Paul was at first a failure as a missionary, because he would enter one place after another to preach at and argue with the people there, and invariably he would encounter resistance and persecution, so much so that before he could make many converts or before the gospel could take root, he would have to leave for another place, where the same thing would happen again. As he entered Corinth, he finally resolved to cease relying on his own intellect and education, but to depend on the power of the Spirit instead, that is, the power to work miracles. Therefore, the lesson is that we should not argue with people, but we should depend on the Holy Spirit, and practice evangelism through the use of signs and wonders.
Recall the summary of Paul's second missionary journey in the first chapter of this commentary. There I emphasized several points about Paul's method and its effects in preparation for answering this false interpretation of 1 Corinthians 2:1-5. I will make several observations here on the basis of the summary provided earlier. First, Paul's method of preaching and argumentation was effective, as indicated by significant conversions and established churches. Second, the false interpretation assumes that success in ministry means the absence of persecution, or even that a miracle ministry might prevent persecution. But this contradicts the teachings and examples of Jesus and the apostles. If it is acknowledged that a ministry that is accompanied by signs and wonders can nevertheless be persecuted and expelled from a place, then one cannot cite this as evidence that Paul's method was a failure because he was persecuted and expelled. Third, Paul worked miracles even before he reached Corinth. Fourth, contrary to the false interpretation, he continued his method of preaching and argumentation in Corinth (Acts 18:4).
It would seem that the false interpretation is motivated by an anti-intellectual bias, and asserted in the face of biblical passages that stand in direct contradiction to it. A ministry of signs and wonders is indeed legitimate, and the apostles exercised such a ministry, but this does not mean that argumentation is excluded. The two do not contradict or exclude each other.
The Gospel, Rhetoric, and Power
An excerpt from Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians.
1 THESSALONIANS 1:5a
…because our gospel came to you not simply with words…
The pervasive influence of secular philosophy has infected many professing believers with an anti-intellectual bias. Thus it has become unacceptable to present the gospel with "just a sermon"; rather, great emphasis is given to performance, entertainment, socializing, and mystical experience. Such a disposition tends to distort Paul's "not simply with words" into an endorsement to this type of thinking, so that the expression could be seen even as a deprecation of plain preaching.
Even some of the more reliable commentators stumble over the phrase. For example, Leon Morris writes, "Words alone are empty rhetoric, and more than that is required if people's souls are to be saved." But just because it is true that "more than that is required if people's souls are to be saved," it does not follow that "words alone are empty rhetoric."
Morris is unclear in the first place. If by rhetoric he means, "the art of speaking or writing effectively," "skill in the effective use of speech," or "verbal communication," then what he says almost amounts to, "Words are words," which is a mere tautology. However, Morris probably has in mind the meaning, "artificial eloquence; language that is showy and elaborate but largely empty of clear ideas." But if Paul's preaching had been stripped of the power of the Spirit, it still does not follow that his words would have been "artificial eloquence" or "language that is showy and elaborate but largely empty of clear ideas." Paul preached the gospel, and Morris' statement is equivalent to saying that the gospel by itself is nothing more than showy language void of substance and clear ideas. But the gospel is what it is whether or not it is accompanied by the power of the Spirit – the same words and ideas are conveyed.
Morris betrays his confusion when he continues, "The gospel is power…whenever the gospel is faithfully proclaimed, there is power." But if "the gospel is power," then it is never empty rhetoric. It is fashionable to repeat anti-intellectual phrases such as, "Words alone are empty rhetoric," but words are always rhetorical, and rhetoric always deals with words. Whether a presentation is empty rhetoric depends on the content of the speech. The proposition, "Jesus is Lord," consists of words alone, and no one will acknowledge its truth unless by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3), but whether one believes it or not, it is not empty rhetoric.
Any interpretation of Scripture that deprecates the role of words or of preaching cannot be true. The entire Bible consists of words without a single picture or musical note; it uses words to convey intellectual information. Paul says, "Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified" (Acts 20:32). We inherit the blessings of the gospel and grow in the spiritual life by means of the words of God.
Again, the verse says, "For our gospel did not come to you in word only" (NASB). There are two ways to understand the word "only," as the following examples illustrate:
1. The Godhead does not consist of only God the Father, but also Christ the Son and the Holy Spirit.
2. His wealth does not consist of only this broken bicycle, but also five cars and two houses.
In the first statement, the word "only" does not belittle God the Father, but merely indicates that he is not the sole member of the Godhead. So the word can simply mean that there are additional items in the list without implying anything negative. But in the second statement the same word suggests that one's wealth would indeed be meager if it consists of nothing more than a broken bicycle.
Since the Scripture emphasizes the importance of words in many places, the word "only" (or "simply") in verse 5 cannot be understood in the second sense. Paul has no intention of belittling words or preaching when he says that his gospel did not come "in word only," but he desires to indicate that other things besides his verbal presentation had happened, and these things suggest to him that his converts are among God's elect.
Misconceptions in this area are common. Robert Thomas begins well his explanation of verse 5, saying, "Words are basic to intelligent communication. But the gospel's coming was not 'simply' in word; speaking was only a part of the whole picture." But then he stumbles over the same point as Morris and writes, "Their preaching was not mere hollow rhetoric but contained three other ingredients essential to the outworking of God's elective purpose." However, Galatians 1:11-12 eliminates the possibility that the content of Paul's preaching is ever "mere hollow rhetoric."
What Thomas writes amounts to saying that if the Spirit does not accompany your reading of the Bible, then the Bible is mere rhetoric. Many unthinking people would agree with Thomas, but I call this blasphemy. As God's verbal revelation, the Bible is never mere rhetoric. That the Spirit does not act powerfully when you read only means that you may not be affected by what you read, but the content of the Bible, being the mind of God, is not therefore hollow.
Morris and Thomas do not seem to know what the word "rhetoric" means. Paul says he knows that God has chosen the Thessalonians because his preaching came "with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction." This implies that his preaching was not always accompanied by the power of the Spirit, in the sense that God did not always make his preaching effective; otherwise, all who heard Paul preach would have been converted. Now, at those times when God did not make his preaching effective with great power and conviction, did the content of the gospel become empty rhetoric, or did the content of the gospel remain the same – that is, the power and wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:24)? If Paul preached the same thing, then whether or not the Spirit came with power to produce faith in the hearers, the gospel was still the power and wisdom of God.
Against the anti-intellectual interpretations of Scripture, we must maintain that words can be meaningful by themselves, and whether a presentation consists of empty rhetoric depends on the content of the speech. Since the gospel consists of truth, it is never empty rhetoric. It is true that besides the words that we preach, God must exercise his power to convert the sinner, but it is often on the occasions of our preaching that he exercises this power. Paul came to know that some of the Thessalonians were among God's elect because of the effects accompanying his preaching that he could not have produced as a man. But in trying to affirm the necessity of God's power to convert the sinner, we must not belittle words or preaching, lest we blaspheme the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Election and Reprobation
An excerpt from Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians.
1 THESSALONIANS 1:4
For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you…
The sovereignty of God is foundational to Christian theology. This is because "God" is not an empty word or sound, but it refers to a person with definite characteristics, and one of these is the unique quality of absolute and exhaustive sovereignty over all things, including every event in creation, and even every thought and decision of the human mind. This characteristic of sovereignty defines him, and since it is what it is – an absolute and exhaustive quality – it excludes all other possible referents, so that the word "God" can refer to only one being, that is, one who possesses this quality of complete sovereignty.
By extension, the doctrine of election is foundation to Christian soteriology, since it is an application of God's sovereignty to the salvation of individuals. The doctrine maintains that in eternity, before the universe was made, God had selected an unchangeable number of specific individuals for salvation in Christ, and he did so without basing his decision on the faith and works, or any other condition, in the individuals so selected. Rather than choosing an individual because of any foreseen faith, the elect individual receives faith because God has first chosen him.
Arminianism opposes this biblical doctrine. Its proponents turn divine election into God's reaction to what we choose, so that our choosing Christ is logically prior to God's choosing us, so that mere human beings determine the will of God in salvation. Against this heresy, Paul declares, "For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you." It is God who sovereignly chooses the elect, so that Paul says, "He has chosen you," and not "He has approved of your choice." If God merely accepts our choice, then he does not choose us in any real sense of the term. But Jesus says, "You did not choose me, but I chose you" (John 15:16). Therefore, Arminianism is false.
The corollary of election is reprobation. Just as God has chosen those individuals who would be saved, he has also deliberately and individually (that is, "by name") decreed the damnation of all others. Many of those who affirm the doctrine of election nevertheless reject the doctrine of reprobation. However, just as election is a necessary conclusion from the sovereignty of God, reprobation is also true if by nothing else other than logical necessity, although it is also supported by direct biblical teaching. Those who reject the doctrine do so on the basis of their irrational prejudice instead of on biblical argument or logical inference.
One common objection is that this biblical doctrine of divine sovereignty removes or contradicts the moral responsibility of man. That is, if God controls everything, including human beliefs, thoughts, decisions, and actions, then it seems to some people that man would not be morally responsible for anything. However, man is responsible precisely because God is sovereign, since for a person to be responsible means that he will be held accountable to his actions, that he will be rewarded or punished according to a certain standard of right and wrong. So moral responsibility has to do with whether God has decreed a final judgment, and whether he has the power to enforce this decree. It does not depend on any "free will" in man. In fact, since human responsibility depends on divine sovereignty, and since divine sovereignty indeed contradicts human freedom (not human responsibility), this means that man is responsible precisely because he is not free.
Man is responsible because God will reward obedience and punish rebellion, but this does not mean that man is free to obey or rebel. Autonomy is an illusion. Romans 8:7 explains, "The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so." The Bible never teaches that man is responsible for his sins because he is free. That is, man is responsible for his sins not because he is free to do otherwise – this verse says that he is not free, but he is still counted as sinful. Whether man is responsible has nothing to do with whether he is free, but whether God decides to hold him accountable. And man is responsible because God has decided to judge him for his sins. Therefore, the doctrine of human responsibility does not depend on the unbiblical teaching of free will, but on the absolute sovereignty of God.
The issue then becomes one of justice, or whether it is just for God to punish those whom he has predestined to damnation. Paul anticipates this question in Romans 9:19, and writes, "One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?'" He replies, "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" (v. 20). God rules by absolute authority; no one can halt his plans, and no one has the right to question him. This is true because God is the creator of all things, and he has the right to do whatever he wishes with his creation: "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?" (v. 21).
Paul continues, "What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath – prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory…" (v. 22-23). He is still answering the question cited in verse 19: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" He denies that man has the right to question God in the first place, but then he proceeds to answer the objection anyway. And he writes that, since God is sovereign, he can do whatever he wishes, and this includes creating some vessels destined for glory, and some destined for destruction. Peter says regarding those who reject Christ: "They stumble because they disobey the message – which is also what they were destined for" (1 Peter 2:8). Whereas the elect rejoice in this doctrine, the non-elect detest it, but either way, this is the way it is and there is nothing that anyone can do about it.
It is because of poor reasoning that the issue of justice is even brought up against the doctrine of reprobation. In its various forms, the objection amounts to the following:
1. The Bible teaches that God is just.
2. The doctrine of reprobation is unjust.
3. Therefore, the Bible does not teach the doctrine of reprobation.
However, the second premise is assumed without warrant. By what standard of justice does a person judge whether the doctrine of reprobation is just or unjust? In contrast to the above, the Christian reasons as follows:
1. The Bible teaches that God is just.
2. The Bible teaches the doctrine of reprobation.
3. Therefore, the doctrine of reprobation is just.
The pivotal point is whether the Bible affirms the doctrine, and one must not assume whether the doctrine is just or unjust beforehand. Since God is the sole standard of justice, and since the Bible affirms the doctrine of reprobation, this means that the doctrine of reprobation is just by definition. As Calvin says:
For God's will is so much the highest rule of righteousness that whatever he wills, by the very fact that he wills it, must be considered righteous. When, therefore, one asks why God has so done, we must reply: because he has willed it. But if you proceed further to ask why he so willed, you are seeking something greater and higher than God's will, which cannot be found. Let men's rashness, then, restrain itself, and not seek what does not exist, lest perhaps it fail to find what does exist.
Just as the elect comes to Christ by an irresistible summon, and "it is God who works in [him] to will and to act according to his good purpose" (Philippians 2:13), the reprobate is by no means autonomous – not even in his sins. God directs a person's thoughts "like a watercourse wherever he pleases" (Proverbs 21:1), and there is no free will.
It is futile to repeat the silly objection that God permits some actions but does not will them, for as Calvin says, "Why shall we say 'permission' unless it is because God so wills?" Since God controls and sustains all things, what does it mean for him to permit something except to say that he wills and causes it? That is, to say that God "permits" something is nothing more than an ambiguous way of saying that God "permits" himself to cause something. There is no distinction between causation and permission with God; unless he wills an event, it can never happen (Matthew 10:29).
The election and reprobation of individuals belong to God's secret decree, so that the members of either group are not listed for public examination. So on what basis does Paul say, "For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you" (1 Thessalonians 1:4)? Paul lists the indications that his readers were chosen by God for salvation in the next several verses.
Faith, Love, and Hope
An excerpt from Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians.
1 THESSALONIANS 1:3
We continually remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Paul thanks God that the Thessalonians are exhibiting signs of faith, love, and hope. These are three paramount virtues of genuine and growing Christians.
Faith produces works that correspond to it. Faith is assent, a genuine assent birthed and sustained by the Spirit in a person, to a system of belief that has been revealed by God. This system or worldview is the Christian religion. We may say it in different ways to stress different aspects of it, but faith is genuine assent to the gospel, the Bible, Christianity, and Jesus Christ, that is, the truth about him or what has been revealed about him.
Because the Christian religion insists on certain inner qualities and outward actions, genuine assent to it will necessarily be accompanied by these qualities and actions. Because faith affirms the divinity and lordship of Jesus Christ, then it necessarily produces obedience to his teachings and commands. And because faith presupposes a work of God in the heart by which he transforms the individual and grants him godly dispositions, then these will of course be found in the individual who has faith. The works of faith, then, will include obedience toward biblical commands, compassion for the sick and needy, eagerness to suffer for righteous reasons, boldness in speech and action, and enterprising efforts to advance the gospel.
Now, there are various wrong motives for spiritual labor. Some perform ministry work for vainglory, to impress other men and to be admired by them. Some are taken up by a sense of ambition – the same kind of ambition that men have for secular careers and achievements, but applied to ministry work. Others are driven by competition. Whether there is any need or reason for it, they want to be better than everyone else, or at least better than some specific individuals that they have in mind, because the thought of being less successful than they are is unbearable. In connection with this, there is the motive of spite. It is possible to pursue what appears to be worthy spiritual projects for no other reason than malice and revenge. Of course, these wrong motives, and many others not mentioned, tend to overlap. They are against the spirit of Christ and must be exorcised from the heart.
Love is the only motive for spiritual labor that is worthy of the gospel. Contrary to the world's opinion and even most Christian teachings, this love is mainly not an emotion or a feeling, but a disposition that cares about the things of God, to honor his name and obey his commands, and that cares about the welfare of other people, regardless of any emotion or feeling. A person who loves may consistently experience certain emotions or feelings that seem to accord with such a disposition, but he thinks and behaves with love – that is, a sacrificial obedience to God's law concerning how to relate to God and to people – whether or not he is experiencing these emotions and feelings. Christian love drives emotions and feelings, while non-Christian love, which is not love at all, defines love itself by their emotions and feelings, and then allow love to fluctuate along with these emotions and feelings. Christians who define love as an emotion or feeling endorse a non-Christian characteristic as the supreme virtue, and contribute to the spiritual and ethical decline in the church and in the world. True love is biblical, intelligent, sacrificial, consistent, and persistent.
Hope produces endurance. If we are to grasp the connection between the two, we need to first understand the meaning of hope. Unlike some popular usage, in Scripture hope is not the same as wish. It is not something that we wish to have, but might or might not obtain. It is not something that we wish to happen, but might or might not happen. And it is not something that we will produce or attain by ourselves, our own ability and cleverness. Rather, Christian hope refers to something that God has conceived, ordained, and promised, and it is something that will surely happen. For the Christian to have hope is for him to look forward to something that God has promised, and he can participate in and benefit from this hope because of his union with Jesus Christ.
This hope is in Jesus Christ, so that although it refers to some things that will happen in the future, in a sense it is for us a present reality and a present certainty. This is because he has already revealed himself to us. We know this person now, and our hearts are full now. The fulfillment of the promise is not entirely in the future, but he has saved us already, and we have received from him already. Our hope is not wishful thinking, a baseless expectation, or an empty delusion, but it is a future certainty based on present reality.
We have from him knowledge, faith, power, love, virtues, his Spirit, and "every spiritual blessing" (Ephesians 1:3). We have salvation now. We have the knowledge of God now – that is, we know him now. We have a filial relationship with God now. And even though many believers would renounce their birthright to protect a tradition or a false humility, we have rational, coherent, and extensive answers to all ultimate issues now. God has given us all these things through the Scriptures and by his Spirit. Yet all these things, he says, only amount to a deposit for the greater things that he will lavish upon us in the age to come. This is what a Christian ought to mean by hope.
No wonder that those who grasp this shout and leap for joy. And no wonder those who have this hope possess great endurance. It is not a passive quality, but an active virtue. It energizes us to pursue that which God has ordained for us to do. As Jesus, "who for the joy set before him endured the cross" (Hebrews 12:2), so we will consider "that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us" (Romans 8:18). And again, this endurance is not a strength produced by a delusion or deception, for we have already received a deposit, and we are already enriched by it. The future hope refers to our full inheritance, but those who believe have already experienced its reality. So we perceive that even those things that seem to harm and oppose us are only steps that will take us closer to the glorious end that the Father has promised.
In contrast, non-Christians have no hope. They have nothing. They do not have the answers to anything about anything. They cannot prove any of the things that they claim they know. They cannot demonstrate that their worldviews contain anything true or reliable in them. And they have no basis to think that they will gain knowledge or salvation, or that anything positive will happen to them in the future. For them to expect anything good would be delusional and wishful thinking.
Our knowledge of God in the present forms the basis of our hope for the future, and this hope in turn enhances our comprehension about the present. We are not only able to interpret any event in the past and present in relation to Christ's anticipated and then accomplished redemption, but we are also able to interpret any past and present event in the light of what we know God has in store in the future. Unbelievers cannot do this. Because they do not know Christ, the light of men and the light of the world, they are completely in the dark, about any thing, about any time. They have no understanding of the past, no wisdom for the present, and no hope for the future. They are lost, ignorant, and miserable.
Petition and Thanksgiving
An excerpt from Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians.
1 THESSALONIANS 1:2
We always thank God for all of you, mentioning you in our prayers.
In their attempts to curb selfishness in prayer, preachers sometimes urge believers to reduce the time spent making petitions for their own needs, but to increase the time spent in making petitions for others, that is, to devote more attention to intercessory prayer. Then, in their attempts to curb imbalance or a "taking" attitude with God, they sometimes urge believers to reduce the time spent making petitions altogether, but to increase the time spent in other aspects or forms of prayer, such as adoration, thanksgiving, confession, and so on. Both of these recommendations are misguided and destructive. This is because although the problems perceived are real, and present actual dangers, the solutions proposed are unbiblical, and go against the teachings and emphases of Scripture.
Throughout the Bible, God's people are encouraged to make direct petitions to God, to make requests to him. The Father tells us to ask (Jeremiah 29:12), the Son tells us to ask (Matthew 7:7), Paul tells us to ask (Philippians 4:6), and James tells us to ask (James 4:2). The Bible does not tell us to stop making petitions or to make petitions for others as a prescription to cure selfishness in ourselves. We should address the selfishness itself, and not the legitimate practice of making petitions to God. There is in fact no necessary relationship between the two. A person who makes constant petitions might not be selfish at all, but his behavior might very well be an expression of his faith in God, that is, his confidence in divine power (that God is capable), and his dependence on divine grace (that God is willing). A reverent petition toward God does not spring from a wicked and fearful motive, but it is an acknowledgement of God's sovereignty and goodness, that he is in control, and that he is merciful to bless, to help, and to deliver.
It is difficult to perceive a person's motive merely by his external conduct. Some inferences are possible, especially if his words and actions reveal specific thoughts and dispositions of the heart. But the bare fact of constant petition does not imply a spiritual imbalance. It is what we should expect from someone who believes and follows God's instructions.
We might not know the motive of someone who makes constant petitions to God, but we know for certain that there is something wrong with the person who does not do it, because he defies the teachings of Scripture. In addition, the nature of petition suggests several possible motives for the person who does not do it. Perhaps he is full of pride, or a self-sufficient attitude, and thinks that he can supply for his needs and solve his problems in his own way and by his own power. Perhaps he is full of unbelief, so that he does not believe that God answers prayer, and that making petitions to God is an unproductive use of his time and energy. Perhaps, for whatever reason, he is full of bitterness against God, so that he is reluctant to humble himself and submit his requests to God. If he prays for others and not for himself, this does not indicate selflessness, but the implication is that he thinks other people need God but he does not.
Likewise, it is legitimate to entertain a degree of suspicion regarding those who teach that we should de-emphasize petition for ourselves or that we should focus on making petitions for others instead of for ourselves. If this is what they teach, then this is probably their own attitude toward the prayer of petition. Unless they teach against an emphasis on petition but still do very much of it in private, in which case they are hypocrites, then they do not perceive the need and legitimacy of constant petition, and this is a failure to acknowledge biblical instructions on the subject.
Christians should be encouraged, even commanded, to make more petitions. If we are to take seriously biblical instructions on the subject, each individual should make more petitions for himself, and to be consistent and persistent in doing so. If motive is a problem, the solution is not to turn away from God or from what he commands, but look to him. So the solution to wrong motives and attitudes is not to discourage petitions in prayer, but to teach about these wrong motives and attitudes, and to petition for right motives and attitudes. The solution to the problems associated with petition is to make petition about these problems. That is, the problems with petitions are solved by making more petitions. It is God who grants the insight to perceive our own defects, then the desire to change, and the internal movement that produces the petition for a pure heart.
Then, there is a tendency to discourage prayer for material things, for things that pertain to our circumstances, our finances, our health, and so on, but to focus our effort on asking for spiritual blessings and advancements. The previous criticisms apply to this view as well, for it is as if the person acknowledges his need for God to supply his spiritual needs but not his material needs. Jesus, on the other hand, instructs his disciples to ask for their daily bread. He also says, "Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete" (John 16:24). Therefore, my attitude is that I need God, now and every moment, and for everything. So I ask, and he hears, and he answers and blesses. His supply is not restricted by my petitions, or I would have very little. He gives more than I ask, since I am limited in what I can perceive, think, remember, and express even about my own needs and desires. But I should bring to him all the requests that come to mind, and all the needs and desires that I can recognize in my life.
Nevertheless, it is true that for many people prayer is equated with making petitions to God, often to the exclusion of other aspects of prayer, and this needs to be corrected. To make this correction, or to urge "balance" in prayer, several items or categories are sometimes introduced. They include adoration, confession, thanksgiving, and petition. Insofar as these are taught in Scripture, it is also appropriate for us to teach them. However, we should avoid prescribing rigid rules as to the order that these are to be performed and the proportion that each item is to occupy.
For example, there is the teaching that one must always come to God first by adoration. We can list at least three problems with this. First, the Bible itself does not teach this. There is no explicit teaching prescribing this, and just because some prayers in the Bible begin with adoration does not mean that all prayers in the Bible begin in such a manner, nor does it mean that ours should begin in this way. Second, there is the practical problem of deciding where one prayer ends and the next one begins. That is, if after spending some time in adoration during morning prayer I leave the room to get a glass of water, when I return to the room to pray, is it the same prayer session or a new one? If it is a new one, then I will have to start from adoration again. And if thirty seconds of absence does not break a prayer session, how about thirty minutes? If I wish to pray in the afternoon, do I need to begin from adoration again? Who decides? Where is this in the Bible? Third, this teaching that requires one to begin with adoration would eliminate a legitimate prayer like, "Lord, save me!" If the teaching is that prayers should usually begin with adoration, this is better, but short of a explicit statement from Scripture or a statistical tabulation from biblical examples plus a principle that permits us to make an enforceable inference from it, such a teaching would amount to nothing more than a suggestion.
Legalistic pronouncements, even when devised to counteract a genuine problem, causes bondage and destruction. Rather, let us just say that we should include adoration (or confession, or thanksgiving) in our prayers. But what will make us do it if we do not follow a prescribed order and schedule each time we pray? We will do it if we will develop inner qualities that would naturally express themselves in adoration, confession, and thanksgiving. These are produced by sound scriptural teachings and the continual work of the Spirit in our hearts.
So we may say that prayer should not consist of petitions alone. Perhaps it is better to say this from a positive angle, that is, there are reasons and purposes for prayer other than to make petitions. Rather than adding by force or in an artificial manner the things that are lacking, we can remind ourselves of various things about God and our great salvation that will naturally move us to pursue other forms and expressions of prayer. Rather than holding up an empty concept of adoration in prayer and then trying to conjure up things about God for which to adore him, we can remind ourselves of things about God that will naturally move us to voice our adoration to him. This is another way of saying that, if our lips draw close to God but our hearts are far from him, then our prayers are empty even if we think we have covered all the required items, in the correct order, and in the right proportions.
Thanksgiving is one other aspect of prayer. Paul does not begin his letter by saying that he makes requests to God for the Thessalonians. Surely they have their needs and problems, but these do not provide the only reason for Paul to talk to God about these believers. Rather, he first thanks God for them, for what they are already doing well, for the good things that God has already worked in them. Whatever good that is found in them, it is a work of God, so that Paul does not ask God to thank the Thessalonians for their much coveted endorsement of the gospel, but he thanks God for causing faith and holiness in them. A doctrine of human autonomy leaves room for only half-hearted thanksgiving.
Thanksgiving necessitates remembrance of divine grace, a calling to mind God's faithfulness and generosity toward us. It requires single-minded gratitude, because it is difficult to sincerely and unreservedly thank God for things that you have, while you resent God for things that you do not have. Of course, a person's motive is seldom perfect, and the act of thanksgiving could focus his thoughts upon the goodness of God even more, driving out any hidden unbelief and bitterness toward God.
Thanksgiving is an expression of a believing and regenerate heart. Reprobates do not give thanks to God (Romans 1:21). Although non-Christians sometimes exhibit gratitude, it is never directed to God, since by definition they do not believe in the true God, but they direct it toward either human beings or false gods, which consist of demons or imagined entities. So when a non-Christian thinks that something good has happened, if he exhibits gratitude about it, it is directed to a human, a demon, or a delusion instead of the true God.
This means that whenever a non-Christian exhibits gratitude, he gives the credit for something good (or that he perceives as good) to a creature – at times even to the devil – rather than to the Creator. This in turn means that whenever a non-Christian exhibits gratitude, he is demonstrating his lack of gratitude toward the true source of all goodness and the one who deserves all gratitude. Every time he shows gratitude to another, he is rubbing his lack of gratitude in God's face.
Therefore, whenever a non-Christian expresses gratitude (he never thanks the true God, or he would not be a non-Christian), he mocks and spites God, and thus sins against him. In non-Christians, gratitude is deliberate exclusion and derision of the Creator as sinful creatures show appreciation for one another instead. Non-Christian gratitude is a manifestation of rebellion. It is pure evil in demonstration. Of course, not giving thanks to anyone at all is also sinful, since it remains that no gratitude is expressed to the true God. Non-Christians can do nothing good. All their thoughts, words, and actions are wicked all the time.
Providence and Persecution
An excerpt from Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians.
Paul's second missionary journey began from Antioch (Acts 15:30-35). His disagreement with Barnabas over Mark resulted in the dissolution of their original partnership (15:37-39), so that this time he chose Silas to go with him instead (15:40). They passed through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches (15:40b). When they arrived at Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium, Paul inducted Timothy into their missionary team (16:1-3). The relationship between these two would turn out to be productive both on a personal and a ministerial level.
Paul and the others traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, but were kept from preaching in the province of Asia (16:6). When they reached the border of Mysia, they were about to continue into Bithynia, but the Spirit did not permit them (16:7). So they passed by Mysia and went to Troas (16:8). There Paul had a vision that convinced the group that God had called them to enter Macedonia (16:9-10).
From Troas they sailed to Samothrace and then to Neapolis, and then traveled to Philippi (16:11-12). Their work there receives major coverage in the Acts of the Apostles. The initial preaching was met with some success (16:13-15), but then they were confronted with demonic harassment that led to a city riot and their imprisonment (16:16-24). God's miraculous deliverance, in conjunction with their joyful and steadfast faith, reversed their predicament and gave them the upper hand. This resulted in the conversion of the jailer and his whole family (16:25-34). Nevertheless, they were asked to leave and so they departed from the city (16:35-40).
After passing through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they reached Thessalonica (17:1). Their ministry was successful, since they not only persuaded some of the Jews, but "a large number" of Greeks and prominent women were also converted (17:2-4). But some Jews became jealous, so that they incited some bad characters, formed a mob, and started a riot in the city against the believers (17:5-9). And so the Christians sent Paul and Silas away during the night (17:10).
Although the present work is an exposition of Paul's letters to the Thessalonians, in order to grasp some of the observations that I will make in this chapter and a later chapter, we will need to go beyond Thessalonica in our survey of Paul's second missionary journey. So we will continue a little further.
The Thessalonian Christians sent Paul to Berea (17:10). His work there was again successful, and "many" people believed, both Jews and Greeks, men and women (Acts 17:12). It is said of them, "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true" (17:11). Luke's emphasis in this verse is often misrepresented. He is not commending the Bereans for their healthy skepticism or discernment, but he is making a contrast between the receptiveness of the Bereans and the stubbornness and resistance that many of the Thessalonians exhibited. So to first stress even a healthy sort of skepticism or discernment in the Bereans would be to teach almost the opposite of what the verse says. The attitude commended is a receptiveness and openness to the gospel. It is not a "we will not believe unless we have to" attitude, but a "we will believe in accordance to what has been revealed" attitude. In any case, when the Jews in Thessalonica learned of Paul's work at Berea, they went there also, "agitating the crowds and stirring them up" (17:13). So the believers escorted Paul away to Athens (17:14-15).
Luke covers in detail Paul's work in Athens. The apostle preached in the synagogue and in the marketplace, and his disputation with some philosophers brought him before the Areopagus (17:16-21). A large section is then devoted to transcribe or summarize Paul's speech, a significant discourse that resembles a presentation in Christian systematic theology or philosophy (17:22-31). This effort was met with some success – "a few men" and "a number of others" became believers. Among them were Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus (17:34). There was some opposition, albeit more in the form of mockery than the violent riots stirred up by the Jews in other places (17:18, 32).
The most dangerous persecution will often come from those who consider themselves the people of God. Jesus said, "They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God" (John 16:2). Likewise, a minister of the gospel will often find that his greatest enemies consist of professing believers, those who say they are Christians, but who uphold human traditions and personalities rather than God's commands and teachings.
Then Paul left Athens and entered Corinth (18:1). His preaching there was effective, as a synagogue ruler and his entire household, along with many of the other Corinthians who heard the gospel, believed in the Lord. But the Jews again opposed the gospel and "became abusive" (18:6). They attempted to manipulate Gallio the proconsul, but he dismissed them, since Paul committed no crime (18:12-17). So Paul remained in Corinth for a while longer (18:18).
After that, Paul set sail for Syria, and stopped by Ephesus on the way (18:18-19). He went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews, but when they asked him to remain, he declined, but said that he might return (18:19-21). Then, he went to Caesarea, and finally back to Antioch (18:22).
There is a recurring pattern in this narration of Paul's second missionary journey. Whenever he entered a new location, he would first enter the local synagogue and reason with the Jews, showing from the Scripture that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, that he had to suffer and die, and be raised from the dead. This does not mean that his ministry was limited to the synagogues, only that he would attempt to persuade the local Jews first concerning the truth of the gospel. Then, persecution would erupt, usually incited by the Jews who were resistant to the truth and jealous of Paul's success, so that the apostle and his companions had to leave that location and continue with their journey.
From this we may make some observations about the functions and effects of persecution in relation to the progress of the gospel.
First, persecution constantly propelled Paul and his companions forward in their mission. They proceeded from place to place rather rapidly, always remaining long enough to get the job done, but seldom staying longer than necessary. When persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem in Acts 8, the Christians scattered throughout Judea and Samaria, and "those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went" (v. 4). Thus persecution is one manifestation of divine providence that facilitates the spread of the gospel.
Second, persecution prevented the infant church from beginning with the burden of false believers who would profess the Christian religion because of curiosity or excitement. Of course, such a profession does not come from genuine faith, and does not result in transformed thinking and behavior, nor does it lead to salvation of the soul. A congregation that is burdened with a large percentage of false believers will have problems affirming the proper doctrines and governing itself aright, and it will have difficulties in relating to outsiders in a way that honors the doctrine of Christ and the power of the Spirit, and in a way that rightly distinguishes itself from the kingdom of darkness.
On the other hand, a church that is born in the midst of persecution is more likely to comprise of individuals that are compelled to profess the gospel due to the force of its truth and the work of the Spirit within their hearts. They do not have illusions about what Christianity will offer to them and require from them. Concerning one who has no genuine faith, Jesus explains, "But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away" (Matthew 13:21). Genuine disciples are those who would forsake all to follow Christ (Luke 14:26-27, 33), who would put their hands to the plow and not look back (Luke 9:62). Therefore, persecution is also one manifestation of divine providence that serves to maintain the purity of the church.
Christians pray, worry, scheme, conspire, compromise, beg, plead, threaten, entice, and become exercised over how to gather more people into their churches. This is a legitimate desire if we mean that we wish to preach the gospel so that people would believe it and become faithful members in our congregations. But a matter that is almost as urgent as this other is how we can expel from our churches the overwhelming number of false believers that we have collected over the years. As one preacher said, "Unregenerate men make lousy Christians." Among other things, biblical preaching and strong persecution will drive out those who refuse to believe but still wish to maintain their reputation as Christians.
Now, anything that can be done by persecution can be done by the word of God alone. For example, a person who becomes aware of the harsh treatment that he would experience as a believer could have learned about this from the Scripture prior to and apart from any persecution. A person whose false faith has been exposed due to his inability to endure hardship could have discovered this through self-examination by the word of God. Nevertheless, not all men are honest, and persecution often forces them to become at least a little more candid with themselves and with the world.
The third point follows from the first two, and that is, persecution does not indicate God's disapproval of a ministry. It is a mistake to assume that if a ministry is saying and doing what God has commanded, then it would perform its mission without oppositions (persecution), hindrances (delays, limitations, etc.), and apparent setbacks. These things are often the tools of providence by which God would produce the exact effects desired through the ministry. They serve to maintain a level of efficiency, purity, and honesty among the ministers and the converts.
The fourth point follows from the third, and provides another reason as to why a legitimate ministry may face opposition, even persecution that often appears to hinder its mission and progress. And that is, Christians are called not only to gather and educate the elect – this is only one specific aspect of their calling. Rather, Christians are called to be witnesses for the Lord Jesus. In other words, Christians represent and evidence God's truth, power, and grace to the world, and the purpose for doing this is not only to attract those whom God has chosen for salvation, but also to incite the negative reactions of the reprobates so as to draw out in their words and deeds that which is in their hearts, that is, the wickedness and rebellion in them.
Men are tested and exposed by their response to a ministry that proclaims the word of the Lord by the power of his Spirit. The elect are awakened, converted, and edified, but reprobates will persecute such a ministry. Thus non-Christians testify against themselves before God by the way they deride and oppose believers and preachers of the gospel. Each instance of persecution is another example by which God demonstrates to the world the wickedness and obstinacy of those who reject the Christ. Each instance of persecution is another affirmation of God's justice in his condemnation against all sinners. John 3:19 says, "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil." And so, Paul writes, "For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To the one we are the smell of death; to the other, the fragrance of life" (2 Corinthians 2:15-16; also 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16).
This understanding enables us to maintain a joyful attitude in the face of persecution, and to combat doubt and discouragement. Men's endorsement does not validate a ministry, just as men's rejection does not disqualify it. Only the word of God, the standard that has been revealed and established by divine revelation, is the true and final judge. But even though we speak with this note of triumph, the pain of persecution is actual and intense in those who must bear it. Therefore, let us be mindful of the suffering of our fellow believers, and pray for those who must endure hardship for the sake of the gospel.