The Second Coming of Christ
An excerpt from Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians.
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage each other with these words.
When Jesus was taken up into heaven, the disciples continued to look intently up into the sky as he ascended. Suddenly "two men dressed in white" appeared, which we understand to be angels, and said to them, "This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven" (Acts 1:11).
This "second coming" of Christ is prominent in the teaching of the apostles (see 1 Corinthians 15; Philippians 3:20-21; 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 1 Timothy 6:14-15; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 9:27-28), although some passages about a "coming" that are often taken as references to this second coming in fact refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. In any case, the doctrine is essential, and is necessary to a wholesome understanding of the Christian faith.
Paul introduced this doctrine to the Thessalonians when he first preached the gospel to them, and he refers to it in the letter. For example, he states that the Thessalonian Christians would be his crown and glory "in the presence of the Lord Jesus when he comes" (2:19), and he wishes that they would be blameless "when our Lord Jesus comes with all his holy ones" (3:13). The Thessalonians have learned the doctrine, and they understand these references to it.
All evidence suggests that Paul not only imparts a comprehensive system of theology to his converts, but he also strives to expound each doctrine in some detail, even when the time is short and the setting inconvenient. Still, Paul did not have all the time he needed with these converts (2:17), and it seems that he lacked opportunity to complete their understanding of the Christian faith (3:10), including the doctrine of the second coming. Or, perhaps certain questions did not arise when he was with them, but now have become relevant. Here he supplements his teaching with additional information (4:13-18), and provides a reminder and application (5:1-11) of what they have learned.
The doctrine is that Jesus Christ will come again, and when he comes, he will receive his people to be with him forever (4:17). As for how this will happen, we should begin with the concern that gives occasion for this passage in the first place. That is, what will happen to those believers who die before Christ returns? Is their fate unknown to us? Or, will they perish forever, as vapor disbursed into thin air? And even if not, will they somehow be at a disadvantage compared to those who are living when Christ comes? It is easy to understand the importance and relevance of the question, since numerous believers have died and will die before the return of Christ. And if he tarries, those of us who now live will also die as those who believed before us.
The answer is the resurrection. Paul does not refer immediately to the resurrection of the believers, but first to the resurrection of Christ. The Lord was killed and buried, but then he was raised from the dead. And Paul depicts Christ as the archetype of all those who die as Christians, as believers in him. The resurrection of Christ, therefore, is both a promise and a proof for the glorious future of the saints. When a person makes a promise, and then defies religious and political authorities, demonic powers, as well as death itself to authenticate and to enforce it, no doubt can be cast upon the integrity and ability of this person, and therefore no doubt can be cast upon the promise that he makes. The matter is settled – there is nothing that anyone can say against such a person as this, or against any promise that he makes. Just as Christ was raised from the dead, he will also raise from the dead those who believe in him (4:14-16). The dead in Christ will not be shortchanged or forgotten.
As for those believers who are still alive when Christ returns, the Lord will take them up to be with him forever (v. 17). We also note that the dead in Christ will be raised with a new kind of body. The new body will bare some relation with the old, but it will be vastly superior. Paul likens it to a seed that is sown into the ground and that produces according to its own kind. For example, wheat comes from wheat seed, not some other kind of seed. Those believers who are alive when Christ returns will also receive this new body, but they will not be raised from the dead as such, since they would not be dead, but their bodies will be "changed" into the same kind that the dead in Christ will receive at their resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:35-57).
Christians are to encourage one another with this doctrine. Encouragement is here not given by grieving with the bereaved or being an attentive and sympathetic listener. Although these can be legitimate, they are in themselves powerless to comfort. And it is wicked to identify with someone who rails against the kindness and justice of God on the occasion of the death of some friend or relative. We must not allow anyone to attack the honor of God as an exercise of emotional release. When this occurs, both the bereaved and those who mourn with them in like manner should be harshly reprimanded, and commanded to repent and then shut their mouths. Proper encouragement is offered not by listening, but by teaching. And to encourage the bereaved, we are to teach or remind them of the return of Christ and the resurrection of the saints.
Paul writes to Christians, and he says that he does not want them to grieve like "the rest of men," that is, like all the non-Christians. In other words, Christians are permitted to mourn the deaths of fellow believers, but they are not to mourn as the non-Christians. Rather than allowing grief to plunge them into utter despair, or waiting for it to subside with time, Christians can lament the temporary separation from their brothers and sisters in Christ, but then find encouragement in the doctrines of the return of Christ and the resurrection of the saints.
The passage is often read at funerals, with the intent to encourage. However, Paul forbids universal application, since he contrasts the way that Christians should grieve against the way that all others grieve, since the rest of humankind have "no hope." He is writing to Christians about Christians. If the audience includes non-Christians, or if non-Christians are among the dead, then the doctrine is not nearly as comforting. The doctrine should not comfort the non-Christians who mourn, since they will not share in the glory of the return of Christ, or in the resurrection of Christians. And the doctrine should not encourage anyone about the deceased non-Christians, since death spells the commencement of a kind of suffering for them that strains our ability to fathom, although we applaud the justice of it.
Even as Paul addresses those who might be in mourning, and even as he writes to the Christian living about the Christian dead, he makes an attack on the unbelievers. Unless a minister has warrant to assume that he is speaking to Christians about Christians, he is a liar if he applies the doctrine of the glorious resurrection of the saints as if it applies to all in the audience, and at a funeral, as if it applies to the one in the coffin. If the minister is aware that his audience includes non-Christians, and if he is aware that the deceased was an unbeliever, then what excuse does he have to say anything other than, "Look! God is punishing this man – your father, your husband, your son, your friend, this relative of yours – even now…God is punishing him, torturing him, burning him up even now! Your wife, your mother, your sister, your daughter…she is now screaming out in pain and agony! She is crying for help, but there is only endless suffering before her, forever. And if you do not repent, you will likewise perish! Repent, for soon it will be your time to face the Lord!"
Perhaps we do not always need to preach in this way, but there is nothing wrong with this manner of speaking, and indeed we should often speak like this. It is explicit, forceful, uncompromising, and convincing to those whose hearts God has made receptive to the truth. But even when we do not speak this way, we must make the doctrine clear: "If you have a non-Christian friend or relative who died, he is now suffering in hell. And if you do not become a Christian, then you will go there too." Let social propriety burn in hell along with the unbelievers, but let boldness and wisdom be our guide. If we follow the rules of the world, we will never preach the gospel as it ought to be preached, if we are allowed to preach it at all.
The passage illustrates the use of contrast by the prophets, the apostles, and the Lord Jesus. Even when Paul's purpose is to encourage Christians, he makes an attack on the non-Christians. This is not due to vindictiveness, but the contrast is a teaching device that serves to make the information conveyed explicit and to increase the effect that this information has on the audience. Since a contrast does not invent falsehood, but only draws attention to both sides of an issue and takes note of the distance between them, it helps to bring forth the whole truth of the matter. Thus the information conveyed is accurate, and the effect produced on the audience is based on truth and not deception.
In this case, although the purpose is to encourage, so that the main focus rests on the positive doctrines of the return of Christ and the resurrection of the saints, a contrast is made against the hopelessness of the non-Christians. Paul stresses the fact that unbelievers lack the glorious prospect of the believers – non-Christians are without hope. This stands in contrast with the hope of the believers, that their dead will be raised, and that their living will be changed and received by the Lord to be with him forever. Of course, when we take into account what Scripture teaches in other places, then the unbeliever does not merely face a lack of hope, but he is outright condemned. When a non-Christian dies, God seizes his soul and plunges him into the depth of hell, where he must endure extreme torment forever.
A survey of the writings and discourses of the prophet, the apostles, and the Lord Jesus would expose the alarming deficiency of much of what passes as Christian preaching and literature, and even Christian apologetics, in their reluctance to make contrasts between the Christian faith and non-Christian beliefs, and between Christians and non-Christians. Now, to assert sharp contrasts between what we believe and what others believe, and between what we are and what others are, and in a way that reveals our superiority and their inferiority, could be seen as uncharitable and arrogant. So it is understandable that many professing believers shy away from this biblical practice. I mean that I understand them to be worthless cowards and spiritual traitors.
The remedy is simple, but only those faithful to the Lord will implement it. Traitors will revile those who do – they know that courageous believers are in fact filled with mercy, but unbelievers will not spare them! – and make excuses for themselves. In any case, to follow the biblical pattern would mean that we must make explicit contrasts, to draw attention to the difference between Christian belief and non-Christian belief, and to the distance between Christian expectation and experience versus non-Christian expectation and experience. And we must point out that Christian and non-Christian systems are incompatible. In other words, a person cannot affirm non-Christian ideas and possess Christian expectations and experiences.
The principle seems harmless enough, but weaklings are too horrified to declare the actual contrasts. For preaching, it would mean that when we speak about the glories of heaven for the Christians, we should also describe the agonies of hell for all non-Christians. And when we mention the complete forgiveness that God provides for his chosen ones through Jesus Christ, we should also affirm the damnation that God reserves for those whom he has created for hell. Preaching entails telling not only how wonderful it is to be a Christian, but also how hopeless, asinine, and despicable it is to remain a non-Christian.
For our everyday conversation, it means that we must not testify only concerning the faithfulness of the Lord to comfort and rescue, but we should mention to friends, relatives, and strangers, that if they do not repent and believe the gospel, then God has already marked them for damnation, for endless suffering in hellfire. These comments about preaching and conversation, of course, must apply also to the education of children. We must tell children not only about the goodness of God and the sanctification of the saints, but also the severity of God and the wickedness of the unbelievers.
Children, just as much as others, can and must grasp the difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan, and the distance between them in terms of their beliefs, intelligence, character, prospects, and destinies. For example, children must understand that their non-Christian relatives and friends are sent to hell if they die as unbelievers. This includes their little demonic playmates at school – for every unconverted child is as a little demon, and the children of believers ought to know this. There is no reason to keep the truth from them. It is not the case that adults can handle the idea of hell any better. The reason anyone resists the idea of hell is sin, not age.
Likewise, when it comes to apologetics, the biblical practice of making contrasts means that we must not only argue for the veracity and rationality of the Christian faith, but we should also show that all non-Christian beliefs – all of their religions, philosophies, theories, and practices – are false, wicked, and stupid. Therefore, apologetics must not remain a defensive enterprise, but it must take on an offensive energy and an aggressive nature that no adherent of any other belief system has ever known or exhibited. Even so, our weapons are spiritual and intellectual, and not the feeble instruments of blades and explosives. If the term "apologetics" and the idea of "the defense of the faith" render us too passive in our attitude and approach, then it might help to supplement our thinking with other biblical terms such as the "confirmation," "demonstration," and "vindication" of the faith. These can accommodate both the defensive and offensive aspects of our intellectual engagement with the world.
When we consider the Great Commission in terms of our spiritual conflict and disagreement with unbelievers, it is in fact a command for us to invade and conquer – again, not in a military or political sense, but in a spiritual and intellectual sense. It is a command to intrude into people's nations and regions, and into their lives, classes, and circles. We have the mandate and the authority to upset their lifestyles and upend their beliefs. Therefore, it is our duty and our right to pursue all non-Christians, to preach to them the Christian faith, and also to attack, criticize, refute, discredit, disrespect, and mock their beliefs and practices. This is grounded on the words of Christ and confirmed by the practice of the prophets and the apostles, so that anyone who disagrees with it sets himself as an enemy to the kingdom of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Sometimes people object to sound doctrine with the complaint that the Christian faith is supposed to be "good news." For example, Christians have used it to oppose the biblical doctrines of active reprobation and effective atonement, and some have used it to endorse the false doctrine of the "sincere offer" of the gospel. And no doubt some will object that to condemn, attack, and ridicule non-Christians contradict the nature of the gospel in that it does not make our message sound like good news. However, this involves a misapplication of the term and a misunderstanding of the gospel.
The idea of "good news" is specific. The term appears within the context of a Christian system of theology and a Christian history of salvation, so that its meaning is defined by such a context. It is not good news to every person and in every sense imaginable. The reprobate who hears that a person must believe in Jesus Christ and renounce his own beliefs and lifestyles would not consider our gospel "good news" at all. Since he is a reprobate, it is determined that he would not believe the gospel, and therefore the message is to him a notice of inevitable condemnation.
To such a person, the only good news would be salvation without faith and repentance, without any belief, without any change. But the only gospel that God has given states that a person is saved by trusting in Jesus Christ, through a faith given to him by the power of God. This is "good news" to a person whom God has chosen for salvation, and in whose heart God has performed the work of regeneration. To those who refuse to believe and cannot believe, the gospel is a death sentence. It is a final declaration that there is no other way to be saved. As 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). In effect, the preacher of the gospel is the messenger of death to those ordained to destruction.
Since the Bible is God's book, of course he approves of all the contrasts used by the prophets, the apostles, and the Lord Jesus – he inspired all those words. But he does something even more drastic, and that is in fact the necessary foundation for all the verbal contrasts made between Christians and non-Christians:
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? 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 – even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? (Romans 9:21-24)
If there were no reprobates, we would not be able to say that those who do not believe have "no hope," for all would be chosen and all would be believers. If Christ has redeemed all, we would not be able to say, "Look, those are the ones on whom the wrath of God shall fall," for no one would suffer his wrath, except the Lamb of God. And if Adam had never sinned, no contrast between the two lines of humanity would be possible.
God takes this teaching device very seriously. He creates people's very souls and ordains their eternal destinies, lifting some to heaven and damning others to hell, to make the contrasts possible. To draw attention to the difference and the distance between Christians and non-Christians is only to declare what God has been doing throughout human history. It is to labor in accordance with his purpose and to speak in agreement with his explanation. He chooses to reveal his nature and educate his people in this manner. The person who preaches his works, that he saves whom he wills and damns whom he wishes, is the one who declares his glory.
The doctrine of the second coming exhibits several characteristics that should greatly affect our thinking and our preaching:
First, it is a foundational part of a comprehensive and self-consistent system of belief. It depends on other parts of the system, and is depended on by other parts of the system. For example, it is directly related to the doctrines of the resurrection and the judgment. The second coming must be mentioned together for a proper understanding of the nature, order, and relation of these events.
Second, there is much about the doctrine that is clear, definite, and not subject to speculation or misunderstanding, although even so some distort it to their own destruction. Many complicated and farfetched theories and schemes have been devised about it or around it, but the main thrust of the teaching is simple and explicit. This is the doctrine: Jesus Christ will one day return, at which time the dead in Christ will be raised, and the Christians who are alive at the time will be changed, and together they will be received to be with the Lord forever. As for non-Christians, they will be judged and thrown into a lake of fire, to be punished forever. With this simple doctrine, we admonish and encourage the saints, and we warn the reprobates and the unrepentant. To overcomplicate the doctrine dulls its force to impress itself upon the minds of men.
Third, and this follows from the first two points, the doctrine is so foundational and connected within the Christian system that it is an integral part of the teachings of the apostles. Even in some places where it does not stand apart to receive special exposition, it is often naturally mentioned as a point of reference. It is cited to produce motivation in sanctification, anchor in temptation, comfort in bereavement, and strength in persecution. It is even used to identify those who belong to Christ – those who believe in him look forward to his glorious return (1 Corinthians 1:7-8, 16:22-24; Philippians 3:20-21; Titus 2:12-15; 2 Timothy 4:1, 8; Hebrews 9:27-28; 2 Peter 3:11-12; 1 John 2:28). The doctrine does not only provide hope for us as believers, but it imposes a moral obligation on us to look forward to the Lord's return and to order our lives in a manner that is consistent with this expectation. And it is to be a natural part of our preaching and conversation.
Doctrines and Ethics
An excerpt from Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians.
1 Thessalonians 4:1-12
Finally, brothers, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more. For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus.
It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.
Now about brotherly love we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other. And in fact, you do love all the brothers throughout Macedonia. Yet we urge you, brothers, to do so more and more.
Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.
A Christian ministry that is faithful to perform its function installs a new system of doctrines in the minds of converts. On this foundation, the ministry then installs a new system of ethics. The revealed doctrinal principles necessarily produce the authoritative ethical principles. Strictly speaking, ethical principles may be categorized under doctrinal principles, since they are still doctrines, only that they are doctrines about thought and behavior. For example, the divine command, "You shall not murder," is a doctrine about the preserving and the taking of human life.
Ethical doctrines are logically preceded by and dependent on epistemological and metaphysical doctrines, that is, doctrines that closely relate to the first principles of the biblical worldview. These include the necessity of Scripture, the reality of God, the depravity of man, the divinity of Christ, and so on. Continuing with the above example, the authority of the command, "You shall not murder," is derived from the sovereignty of God, his identity as the Creator, the nature of man as his creation and subordinate, our innate knowledge of the moral law, the reality, authority, and perspicuity of written revelation, and other relevant metaphysical and epistemological doctrines.
Nevertheless, the distinction between doctrines and ethics is merely a practical one, made for the sake of convenience in discussion. In reality, we mean doctrines about the metaphysical aspects of the Christian worldview, or the epistemological aspects, or the ethical aspects, and so on. These doctrines are interrelated, and some are more foundational than others. This means that the doctrines can be logically prioritized, but they are equally authoritative. In other words, the existence of God is more foundational and logically prior to the divine command, "You shall not murder," but the doctrine of the existence of God and the divine command that forbids murder proceed from the same absolute authority, and are therefore equal in truth and power, compelling agreement and obedience.
It is a common occurrence in religious discussions to evaluate metaphysics on the foundation of ethics, or to use ethics to evaluate metaphysics. The logical priority of metaphysics alerts us as to the error of this approach. This fallacy has influenced the way some Christians present the gospel and challenge unbelievers, and as a result has obscured the rational superiority of the Christian faith.
To illustrate, suppose a non-Christian affirms that it is morally acceptable or even commendable to murder all those who disagree with him. It is often suggested that such a principle is morally repugnant, and on this basis, any view of truth and reality that produced this principle must be false. But the principle is determined to be morally repugnant only by a different view of truth and reality in the first place. This unbeliever finds the principle acceptable or commendable because of his own view of truth and reality. In fact, in his view such killings would not be considered murder. It would not be the unjust killings of innocent people.
This approach assumes agreement on an ethical principle and argues for the metaphysical propositions that best account for the ethical principle. Suppose that the unbeliever opposes mass murder. The believer then demonstrates that the unbeliever's metaphysical assumptions cannot produce such an ethical principle, but that only the biblical worldview can account for it. The believer seems to think that the ethical principle is nonnegotiable, and assumes (hopes?) that the unbeliever thinks the same way. But if the unbeliever is more faithful to his metaphysics – his "god" – than the believer is to the Christian God (the believer should not place ethics before God in the first place), then the unbeliever would maintain his metaphysical assumptions and abandon the ethical principle on which the believer bases his argument.
The Christian, of course, is correct in both his metaphysics and his ethics. He is right in thinking that mass murder is wrong, and he is right in thinking that only biblical metaphysics can account for this judgment. But although he is correct in terms of his knowledge of truth and reality, his approach fails to demonstrate this because it does not maintain the logical priority of metaphysics over ethics. In other words, what is good depends on what is true and what is real. What kind of universe is this, in which mass murder is wrong? Is there a God who reigns supreme, and who has created all living and nonliving things, and thus carries absolute authority to define right and wrong, and has indeed defined right and wrong for us?
Appeal to agreed ethical principles is often legitimate, but it depends on the purpose for which such an appeal is made and the role given to it in one's system of thought. If it is to determine the correct view of reality, then it is a fallacy, since the ethical principle is not fixed unless the metaphysical assumption is first fixed, so that the unbeliever may abandon the former in order to save the latter. Now if the unbeliever abandons his metaphysics to save his ethics, then in terms of intellectual ability he is even more foolish then the believer first assumes. But the unbeliever might react this way because he somehow finds that in this case the ethical principle is nonnegotiable, whereas his view of metaphysics is not.
The biblical explanation is that this ethical principle is part of the innate knowledge of God's moral laws that he has written into the hearts of all men, so that they can find no excuse for their many sins. The unbeliever instinctively knows that the ethical principle is nonnegotiable, because he instinctively knows that it is a divine law, founded on the authority of the Christian God, a view of metaphysics that is also nonnegotiable. Yet he suppresses this instinctive knowledge, and is therefore unable to articulate it, and is seemingly unaware of it.
In any case, in speaking to the unbeliever, we must not base metaphysics on ethics, but sooner or later, we must make it clear that our ethics is based on our metaphysics. Sooner is better. Because ethics is not fixed without metaphysics, ethics must never be the point on which the whole discussion turns, especially if the debate is ultimate about metaphysics, as in the existence and character of God.
Nevertheless, although logical priority belongs to metaphysics, to begin an apologetic encounter with ethics is legitimate when the purpose is to draw attention to metaphysics, or to draw attention to fixed innate and revealed moral principles, which again draw attention to metaphysics. The point is not that we must never begin a discussion with ethics, but that we should never give the impression that metaphysical principles can be judged by seemingly shared ethical principles. The worst that can happen is for us to give non-Christian the impression that our God is merely a heuristic assumption.
The logical priority of metaphysics must also be maintained when teaching those already converted to the Christian faith. The doctrines of Scripture, God, Christ, and so on, must be given logical priority, if not always chronological priority in teaching, before the ethical principles that dictate the believer's thought and behavior. It is an error to give the impression that we believe what we do about God because we believe what we do about right and wrong. Instead, we believe what we do about right and wrong because we believe what we do about God, because we believe about God what he has revealed to us about himself.
Only when this logical priority is maintained – only when God precedes ethics – does it make sense to say that to reject this system of ethics, the biblical system of ethics, is not to reject mere man, but to reject God himself (v. 8). And only when there is a system of ethics the rejection of which is not to reject mere man but to reject God himself does that system of ethics carry authority to compel agreement and obedience. That is, a system of ethics carries authority only when the rejection of which amounts to the rejection of God, and not the rejection of mere man. It can be said on behalf of such an ethical system, "Agree, or else…" and "Obey, or else…" – only such a system can define merits, carry threats, and promise rewards.
To put all of the above in simple words, because God says so, this is right, and because God says so, that is wrong. God commands such and such, and therefore you must do it. God forbids such and such, and therefore you must not do it. You are to believe this because God says it is true. You must renounce that because God says it is false. You must think this way because God tells you to think this way. You must not think that way because God tells you not to think that way. This is the essence of biblical ethics.
Christian ethics is based on the divine command system. This stands in contrast to ethics that are based on naturalistic determinism, subjective intuition, cultural norm, relative judgment or preference, projected utility, projected effect, universal obligation and applicability, and other principles. All non-Christian ethical systems are failures in that they lack coherence and justification, and in many cases, it is impossible to carry them out in thought and practice.
For example, the idea that the right or good course of action to follow in a given situation is the one that yields the highest good for the greatest number of people is impossible in practice. First, the calculation requires omniscience to accomplish. Second, what is "good" for people requires either a definition that does not come from this principle, or another calculation that requires another calculation before that, thus generating an infinite regress for every moral decision. Third, it must be decided whether the calculation is done concerning the short-term or long-terms effects of the action, that is, if the calculation can be made in the first place. The only way to salvage this theory is to uproot the whole thing and place it on the foundation of the divine command system, since only God can define what is good and make the relevant calculations. But placing this theory on the divine command system destroys the theory itself. Moreover, only God has the right to say that this is the right principle in the first place, but he does not say this.
On the other hand, the divine command system supplies specific content for moral reasoning and decision-making. Another point of superiority is that it can be taught. There is no need to advance the proposition, "You shall not murder," as an intuitive ethical principle – many people might not share this intuition, even if they should. Rather, we can expect them to learn, "You shall not murder," because we tell them, "You shall not murder," as a command from God. It follows from this that it is possible under the divine command system to resolve disagreements and to expose rebellion by appealing to a common, public, and absolute authority.
Against some objections, the divine commands are always clear and they never contradict one another, and it is possible to show this. Objections are raised not because people can discover rational or practical difficulties with the system, but because people wish to disobey the divine commands, or since it requires obedience to God in all facets of life, to dispense with the system altogether. Thus the divine command system of ethics is the most – the only – rational, authoritative, and perfect system, but it is also the most hated one.
Sometimes even professing believers find fault with it, as if it is inadequate to provide guidance, but this only exposes their foolishness and rebellion. It is not that the system cannot guide, but that people do not want to follow its guidance. There is a God who speaks and commands, but people do not want to hear and obey. Those who profess the faith but protest this system do not lend credibility to the objections, but rather weaken the credibility of their profession.
In any case, the main reason that the divine command system of ethics is the only legitimate system is that it proceeds necessarily from the only true system of metaphysics and epistemology. There really is an all-sovereign God (metaphysics) who has really revealed his mind in verbal propositions recorded in the written text of Scripture (epistemology), and this text includes an entire system of ethical commands that is sufficient to provide morally binding guidance to all of life. The person who heeds and obeys these instructions is "equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:17).
Paul is aware that he delivers instructions "by the authority of the Lord Jesus" (v. 2), and he reminds the Thessalonians of it. Since the instructions come from God, to reject these instructions is to reject not mere man, but to reject God himself (v. 8). No terrible consequence might come about for rejecting a mere man's opinion, but to reject God's command is to invite punishment, if not damnation (v. 6). The implication of a knowing and persistent defiance is that the person is not a child of God, and is doomed to suffer the everlasting torture of hellfire. This is the absolute authority and serious implication of the Christian system of ethics.
When we are reading or preaching from the Bible, we are reading or preaching a message recorded by the same Paul that delivered instructions to the people of his day "by the authority of the Lord Jesus." And we are reading or preaching from the inspired documents produced by the same prophets and apostles who spoke by the authority of God. Since God the Father and the Lord Jesus still possess the same authority today, the doctrines and precepts that we find in the Bible also carry the same authority today. Because the doctrines and precepts in the Bible are revealed and delivered by the authority of God, those who reject the Bible do not reject mere men or a mere book, but they reject God himself. God will punish them for this defiance. The positive aspect of this is that to follow God's precepts for living is to adopt a lifestyle that pleases him (v. 1). This is the ongoing authority and relevance of the Christian system of ethics.
Paul makes particular mention of sexual immorality (v. 3). It is possible that the Thessalonians still struggle to shake themselves from the perversions associated with pagan culture and worship, but the admonition is applicable in general. Christians ought to control their bodies, and to adopt a lifestyle that is "holy and honorable" (v. 4). This is said in contrast to "the heathen, who do not know God" (v. 5).
In Christian writing and exposition, it is appropriate to regularly draw attention to the depraved mindset and lifestyle of the non-Christians, and in contrast, the superior condition of the Christians. Paul makes the point: "The non-Christians do not know God, but now you are Christians, and you do know God. They are inferior, and you are superior, so act like it." Sometimes Christians hesitate to assert that they are better than the non-Christians, thinking that it is humble to avoid the claim of superiority or to practice self-deprecation even in contrast to the non-Christians.
However, when we refer to aspects of our intelligence, personality, and lifestyle that have been addressed in redemption, self-deprecation soon crosses the line from admissions of personal shortcomings to blasphemies against the work of Christ. It is one thing to claim superiority on the basis of something inherent in ourselves – that comes from a prideful and self-righteous attitude. But it is another thing to declare that we are superior in intelligence and in character because of what Christ has done for us and in us – that comes from true faith and humility. God makes Christians superior to non-Christians by his sovereign grace through Jesus Christ and by his Holy Spirit.
The alternative is to declare that Christ's work is futile, and that the Spirit's power is ineffective. This is not humility, but a self-serving pretense to humility that denigrates the grace of God and the work of Christ. If you were just like other non-Christians before your conversion, but Christ has made you better than before through conversion, this means that you are now better than the non-Christians. The logic is unavoidable; false humility is self-defeating. As Christians, if we are not already better in some aspects, and potentially better in many other aspects, then redemption has no meaning and no effect, and we believe and preach the gospel in vain.
I am a Christian, and therefore in intelligence, in character, and also in many other aspects I am superior to the non-Christians. This is not because I am inherently superior to them, or that I had always been superior to them. I was as foolish, immoral, and depraved in every way as they are before conversion, except for the divine decree for my conversion, still secret before it was carried out. I am superior because I am a Christian, but there is no room for boasting since I did not make myself a Christian, but I am what I am because of God's sovereign choice. He sent Christ to save me, and he gave me his Holy Spirit. Therefore, although I cannot boast about anything in myself, I will boast about what he has done, including what he has done in me (1 Corinthians 1:31; Galatians 6:14). True faith relies on something outside of and other than oneself – namely, Jesus Christ – so that its confidence becomes as great as the object on which it relies.
This application of redemption also renders Paul's ethical admonition reasonable, for it follows from the superior condition of the Christians, effected by the power of God at conversion. In light of the contrast between the believers and the unbelievers, how can we continue to indulge in sexual immorality, as if we are unintelligent beasts (Psalm 32:9), which are without understanding, and without the knowledge of God? The duty to excel has been placed upon us, and there is nothing to excuse us from it.
Sexual immorality is the norm for non-Christians. Paul calls us to think differently, to live differently, and to distinguish ourselves from the unbelievers, who do not know God. We must mention this over and over again because the devil is like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. It is vital to spiritual survival and progress for us to remain alert and vigilant. Failing this, many Christian families and congregations have been infiltrated by non-Christian beliefs and practices. And failing to remain aware of God's unchanging standard and the Spirit's conviction, some have lost sensitivity to the gross immorality among them and around them. Then, when one of them awakens to the divine command and voices dissent, he is ironically criticized and persecuted.
It should be unnecessary to point out that just because a sin is common does not mean that it is not a sin. The more common it is the more alarmed we should be about the situation. When we consider what Scripture says on this issue, and how often it goes unheeded, it becomes obvious that we have not been diligent and fierce enough in proclaiming God's commandments. If the typical admonition is rare and weak, to outright condemn sexual immorality with threats of punishment is considered socially and even ecclesiastically unacceptable. No coward is qualified to proclaim the word of God, and alas, so few are qualified that the rest of us must take up the slack with a seemingly inhuman severity in our preaching. Such preaching is good and necessary, and Paul confers to us the authority we need.
It makes a difference if a person is an adulterer, a fornicator, a homosexual, or some other perverted person. Paul writes, "The Lord will punish men for all such sins" (v. 6b), and adds, "as we have already told you and warned you" (v. 6c). The topic assumes a prominent place in the apostle's ethical teachings, and he considers it worthy of repetition, accompanied with threats. Verse 6 is better rendered, "the Lord is an avenger in all these things" (ESV). This is said in the context of the previous statement, "in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him" (v. 6a). In other words, God will take it upon himself to avenge not only his own honor, that his command has been disregarded (v. 8), but he will also avenge the party that has been wronged.
Therefore, it is nothing short of a gross dereliction of duty when a Christian minister fails to declare God's command on this issue, and to do so accompanied by threats. Scripture compels us to preach, "If you commit adultery, God will punish you. If you are a homosexual, God will make you suffer." God is the avenger – he will destroy your life for cheating on your spouse, for defiling a person's husband or wife, and he will torture you in hell forever after he is done with you in this life. Anyone who thinks that this is false or at least too harsh for Christian preaching should start reading the Bible. Anything weaker than this is not the whole truth. This is Christianity – take it and obey it, or leave it and suffer.
It is fashionable to preach about compassion, understanding, reconciliation, second chances, and so on, toward adulterers and homosexuals. Scripture does not talk about sexual immorality in this manner. It defines and upholds God's strict standard on the issue and condemns all those who transgress. There is indeed forgiveness in Jesus Christ, but notice that Paul issues his warning of God's vengeance even to Christians. So no one should think that he can make a mockery of divine pardon.
If we are to reflect the scriptural emphasis on this issue, then it is necessary for us to multiply the accusations and condemnations in our preaching, instead of to avoid or reduce them. Preachers who refuse to hold out the inflexible standard of the word of God in this crooked and depraved generation (Philippians 2:15-16) should admit that they are unfit for the ministry and resign. If they wish to be positive in every way, they ought to become motivational speakers, and motivate their hearers straight to hell. They should stop pretending to be pastors and prophets to God's people.
Verse 9 illustrates that not every admonition corresponds to an existing shortcoming among Paul's readers. He says that there is no need to tell the Thessalonians to walk in love, since they already exemplify this godly characteristic. The admonition is that they should do so "more and more" (v. 10), but it is not as if they are not doing it at all. The reason that they have flourished in this area of their faith is attributed to God's guidance, that they have been "taught by God." We may be certain that, in his initial interactions with these converts, Paul had mentioned the virtue of love and how it flows from genuine faith in Christ. But as he says elsewhere, "So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow" (1 Corinthians 3:7). He may say it, and indeed this is a necessary part, but only God can make them do it. This principle inspires both humility and confidence in ministers of the gospel. Humility, because the success cannot be credited to us. Confidence, because the effect is not limited by us.
No matter how talented and resourceful, a minister can never produce the result that he desires by his own power, bringing his hearers from conversion to perfection by his own words and efforts. We are dealing in matters of the spirit, and after some distance the power of man reaches an end, and only God can bridge the gap and cause the process to bear fruit. And even the things man seems to be able to do are caused and energized by God. There is a vast difference between one who is sent with nothing but human credentials, and one who is sent by God's sovereign ordination, and who goes forth with invincible confidence, accompanied by divine power.
The application of this truth extends beyond ministry to others. The more personal and immediate question is whether we ourselves have been taught by God. Many believers take a deistic approach to their Christian life, but the Scripture indicates that healthy disciples should be conscious of God's illumination and endowment. The Thessalonians have been "taught by God." Then, it is said that God works in the Philippians "to will and to act according to his good purpose" (Philippians 2:13). And God would "make clear" to them some aspects of Paul's teachings (Philippians 3:15). Also, Paul writes to Timothy, "Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this" (2 Timothy 2:7).
Verse 11 might not seem severe, but its content would trouble some people. Against a culture that entices one to crave adventure and greatness, to achieve and to become the extraordinary, it is as if Paul writes, "Be ambitious to be unambitious," "Make it your ambition to have no ambition," or "Strive hard to be ordinary." It is not that there is a paradox within the verse, but when non-Christian standards are used to define worthy ambitions, then the verse shows that the Christian faith contradicts these non-Christian ideals. The verse stands against the non-Christian philosophy of life, and it is a corrective for the believers who have adopted an ungodly way of thinking. God indeed calls some people to lead unusual lives, but even then he defines greatness and excitement differently, and in a way that does not contradict verse 11.
The admonition is associated with a teaching against meddlesomeness and idleness, and indeed this modifies the sense of the "quiet life" advocated, although the above usage is not excluded. Sometimes it is assumed that a number of the Thessalonian Christians have misapplied that teaching of Christ's second coming, using it as an excuse to escape the normal routines and stations of life. Although the admonition is broad in application, and thus is certainly relevant to such an assumption about the Thessalonians, there is in fact no clear indication of a connection between the two, that is, between the doctrine of the second coming and the unproductive lifestyle. It might be that these converts avoid labor for some other reason.
That said, eschatological frenzy has produced precisely this problem among many professing Christians in our own day, so that the assumed imminence of Christ's return is used as an excuse to forsake normal routines and stations, and this often translates into meddlesomeness, idleness, and dependence on the charity of others, all the time casting themselves as eschatological heroes who have been called "for such a time as this." These individuals fail to "win the respect of outsiders" (v. 12), but giving reason for unbelievers to consider us bums and fools, they dishonor the name of Christ and bring shame upon us all. To them, Paul's instruction is most appropriate: "Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you." This directive comes from a chosen apostle by divine authority, so anyone who disobeys it cannot at the same time present himself as a devout Christian, faithfully awaiting the Lord's return.
Satanic Opposition
An excerpt from Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians.
Paul says that so far Satan has stopped him from returning to the Thessalonians. The Bible refers to Satan as an evil spirit who is capable of thinking, communicating, and producing various natural and mental effects. There are those theologians and preachers who minimize the role of Satan in human events. But the writers of Scripture do not think it strange to attribute even some seemingly routine occurrences to the devil. Any tendency to phase out Satan in our theology and preaching does not come from Scripture, but most likely from private prejudices and phobias, or the influence of non-Christians who consider it a superstition to believe that there is a personal devil (that there is a devil, and that he is a person). Now if the non-Christians can also convince us that belief in God is also a superstition, the destruction of Christianity would be complete. But Satan exists just as God exists, and it is God who tells us through the Scripture that Satan exists. It is not optional for Christians to affirm that there is a devil, that he is a person, and that he is active in the world.
Then, some excuse themselves with the idea that Christ's resurrection signals such an overwhelming victory over Satan that, even if the devil remains active, it is unnecessary to be conscious of him, and still less should we speak of him as if he has a hand in the routine troubles that occur in our lives and ministries. Our passage is evidence that their thinking is contrary to Scripture. Unless Satan had appeared in person and physically restrained Paul and his companions, the apostle could perhaps specify the way that they had been hindered instead of making a direct reference to the devil. The reason could be hostile weather, dangerous political climate, severe religious opposition, insufficient funds, or ministry emergencies. But even if Satan had hindered them by such things, as it was possibly the case, Paul decides to explain his absence by the statement, "Satan stopped us." There might be a reason for this choice, but the point is that a direct reference to a personal devil is not the last resort, but rather the proper explanation. If we never perceive events in this manner, it is either because the devil has retired, or because we have, in a departure from Scripture, de-supernaturalized and de-spiritualized our theology.
God is all-powerful and all-knowing, and this means that he is stronger than Satan, and that he always knows what Satan is doing. This in turn means that whatever Satan does is allowed by God, since God knows about it but does not stop him. I will soon remind you that God's role in the occurrence of evil is in fact much more active and direct than mere permission, but at this point I wish to relate Satan's activity to God's purpose. That is, God's purpose is behind Satan's activity, so it is not the case that Satan designs and causes his evil plans all on his own, and that God can do nothing more than to react against them. Rather, since God is an intelligent being, since he knows what Satan would do before he does it, and since he is able to stop Satan but does not, this must mean that he has a purpose in not stopping him. There is a reason for it. Thus it would be true that God has a purpose in Satan's evil works even if we have just regarded him as rather passive toward them, as in merely to allow them or not stop them.
However, it is impossible for God to be passive in anything that happens, since nothing other than deity has the power of deity, so that no created object has the power within itself to sustain itself (including its own mind) or the power within itself to produce any effect in another object. If it has the power within itself to sustain itself, then by definition it would not require God to continue to exist – it would have the power of self-existence, and thus an independent existence from God. This would by definition make this object deity in itself. Among other reasons that would render this impossible, biblical revelation cannot harmonize with this, since it declares that God sustains all things by his power. A similar denial is made against the idea that a created object can have power within itself to influence another object. Rather, only God has this power. In other words, when existence and causation are considered on this ultimate or metaphysical level, God is the only power that sustains all things and that causes all things. In the absolute sense, God is the only cause of anything.
That said, when created objects serve as the reference points for a discussion, and when we are speaking about the relationships between created objects without reference to the metaphysical power that has absolute and immediate control over them, and that sustains them and causes their motions and effects, then it is legitimate to refer to created objects as causes. We are then, strictly speaking, not referring to causes as such (since God is the only real cause), but relationships between created objects. These relationships, of course, are also determined by God, the real cause. But again, it is unnecessary to mention this when the discussion remains on a relative level, a level where only the relationships between created objects are considered.
For example, once absolute divine sovereignty is assumed, when object X moves and strikes object Y, and object Y in turn moves, we understand that object X has no power within itself to move itself or to cause object Y to move. Rather, God causes X to move toward Y, and causes Y to move when X touches it. The movement of Y, therefore, is in itself independent of the fact that X strikes it. The correlation is there only because God causes the respective movements, thus establishes a relationship between the two created objects. Any mention of physical laws, kinetic energy, and such things, are irrelevant. Even if we ignore the fallacies inherent in all scientific explanations for now, God would still be actively and directly sovereign over anything that is mentioned as natural forces and causes, in the way that his control over X and Y is described above.
The point here is that, although this is the metaphysical explanation, it is entirely acceptable in everyday speech to speak of X and Y as causes, as long as it is understood that we are speaking in a relative sense, that is, about the relationships between created objects. In this case, we would indeed say that object X moves object Y.
An analogy might be helpful. When Jesus commissions his disciples, he says to them, "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give" (Matthew 10:8). The command is that they heal the sick, they raise the dead, they drive out demons, and so on. But we understand that it is in fact God's will and power that performs each miracle. The disciples do not have power in themselves to produce these effects, as Peter acknowledges later: "Men of Israel, why does this surprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk?" (Acts 3:12). In terms of metaphysical power, the disciples have no ability to heal, but in terms of the relationships between creatures, and when properly understood, it is acceptable to say that the disciples "heal the sick, raise the dead," and so on.
When we refer to a created object as if it has any power at all, we are speaking on this relative level. And it is in this sense that we acknowledge Satan's efficacy in hindering the apostle and his companions. Again, the reason that God's sovereign control over Satan's activity is mentioned is to suggest that there is a divine purpose for this demonic hindrance to the apostolic ministry. Our ignorance of God's purpose, although considerable, is nevertheless often exaggerated. Each event in God's providence is so calculated and so interconnected with other events that it would be impossible for any human person to grasp all the reasons for any single event. However, we can often understand at least a few broad reasons for an event, because God has revealed to us in the Bible a substantial amount of information about his overall purposes and priorities.
We can suggest several reasons within God's purpose for Satan's hindrance of the apostolic ministry. Some of these are certainties, since they are universally applicable. Although others seem to be mere possibilities, no correlation can be considered accidental, since God knows and causes all things, so that even what seems to be a correlation must be considered intentional in the mind of God. It is unnecessary to delineate all the actual or possible reasons, as our present purpose is to show that there are reasons in the purpose of God for evil to occur, that they work out for the glory of God and the good of the elect, that we know at least some of these reasons, and so that there is no need to puzzle over evil or to agonize over the fact that we would often encounter opposition even as we strive to obey God's command to penetrate the nations with the gospel.
With this in mind, one reason for Satan's hindrance that might not be so obvious, but that stands right before us, is that this letter to the Thessalonians could be written. The Thessalonian Christians and all the Christians thereafter are the beneficiaries. It provides the occasion so that a letter would be written, and it provides the context so that Paul would write what he writes in it. As the second letter to the Thessalonians share the identical background as the first, this reason applies to both letters. Both letters contain major doctrines that would not have been delivered to us in their present form if Paul had returned to the Thessalonians. Of course, God would have delivered them in another form if he had wished to deliver them in another form, but he wanted to record these doctrines in the form that we have now.
Another reason for Satan's hindrance is that, since Paul has been unable to reach the Thessalonians, it gives an opportunity for these new converts to be "taught by God" (4:9). Of course, God has ordained that his word would be delivered by human teachers, but this does not mean that he is inactive in the Christians' conversion and maturation. He has reserved the most pivotal role for himself: "So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow" (1 Corinthians 3:7). Some things are impossible for man to achieve, or not up to him to even try, so that God alone may receive the glory.
Although he uses human teachers, the extent of their contribution can vary in each instance as determined by God's providence. In this case, the situation compels the apostle to openly appeal to God, so that he may cause the Thessalonians to increase in love, and so that he may strengthen their hearts and keep them blameless to the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ (3:12-13). The apostle, of course, is ever willing to acknowledge God's grace and power in preserving the chosen ones, but sometimes God's providence helps make evident what faithful men always emphasize, that they are but agents entrusted with God's word and empowered by God's Spirit. It is God "who makes things grow," or who causes their effort to become effective.
Sometimes people misapply the doctrine of divine sovereignty with the result that they are confused about their moral responsibility, or the basis and extent of their responsibility. For example, some might think that if it is God who controls Satan, it would imply that we should not resist Satan's evil activities. Or, if it is established that we should resist Satan's evil activities, then this would imply that God is not the one who controls Satan. In other words, if God controls evil, then we should not resist evil, but since it is the more popular premise that we should resist evil, it is thus commonly assumed that God does not control evil.
Many of those who affirm the doctrine of divine sovereignty are also infected with this way of thinking, so that even as they say that God is sovereign over evil, they would still distance him from an active, direct, and immediate manipulation of evil. The result is a blatant contradiction in their theology: Is God sovereign over all things or not? Any position that makes God's control over evil passive or indirect is in fact a denial of his absolute and exhaustive sovereignty, and thus a denial of God – in effect, to them the God of the Bible cannot exist.
However, this difficulty with divine sovereignty and moral responsibility is a false dilemma that is based on the arbitrary and unbiblical assumption that wherever divine sovereignty intrudes it destroys moral responsibility. There is no biblical or rational reason to suggest this. The Christian faith affirms that God is sovereign in every sphere of life, so that his moral commands define for us that which is good and evil, right and wrong. So if God tells us to resist Satan, then we ought to resist Satan. It has nothing to do with who controls Satan. Our moral responsibility is defined by God's commands about what we ought to do, and not God's decrees about what he would do or what he would cause to occur.
At this point, the question is posed, if Satan is under God's control, then why would God cause Satan to perform evil acts, and then command us to resist Satan? It is disappointing that many believers ask this question. First, the question arises from rebellion, for who are you to question God (Romans 9:19-21)? And second, the question arises from foolishness, since the Bible answers it over and over again. It does not occur to them that God might not cause Satan to perform evil for its own sake, so that evil might triumph, but that among other reasons, it is to produce situations for the elect to resist evil. Thus there is no mystery or paradox between God's ordaining Satan to perform evil and God's commanding Christians to resist evil, since it could be that the point is to educate the elect through resisting evil in the first place.
Since evil is not an end in itself and since evil itself is not the termination point of God's plan, but since God's purpose is the perfection of the saints, it is perfectly sensible for God to ordain evil and then tell the elect to resist it. James writes, "Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything" (James 1:2-4). God's plan is not that evil might prosper, but that his own people would "be mature and complete, not lacking anything." There are other reasons for God to ordain evil, but for now this explanation alone is sufficient to show that it is unnecessary to appeal to mystery or paradox. God uses Satan and non-Christians for his own glory and for our benefit, testing and refining our faith. When they have served their purpose, they will be thrown into the lake of hellfire to be punished and tortured forever.
Therefore, it is appropriate for Paul to persist in fighting the works of Satan, and to keep trying to return to the Thessalonians. It is reasonable to assume that his attempts would include natural means where applicable. (This includes simple things like getting up and walking toward the direction of Thessalonica!) Other than that, it is significant that although he is aware that it is Satan who hinders him, and although he is aware of his authority over demonic forces (not as an apostle, but as a Christian), he appeals to God the Father to "clear the way" for his return to the Thessalonians. He makes petitions to God about it.
This is contrary to the practice of some charismatics, who would assert that one ought to deal with Satan directly once aware of his involvement in a situation. The more extreme of these suggest that Christ has no authority to police demonic activities on the earth, since he has delegated it to the Christians. However, an authority that is not retained by the original wielder once it is delegated is not delegated authority, but abdicated authority.
For delegated authority to have any meaning at all, it is assumed that whatever the one who authorizes another to perform, he could perform himself. The one who wields delegated authority represents the one who confers such authority upon him. Thus if the Christian possesses delegated authority from Christ to police demonic activities, this necessarily means that Christ himself has retained this authority, and that he could perform the very task that he has sent his representative to perform.
Scripture speaks of two kinds of situations in which it is appropriate to directly address evil spirits. First, one may address Satan in the face of temptations to sin, as Jesus does in Luke 4. This is also acceptable even when Satan is working through a human person in the attempt to dissuade us from performing God's will. Thus Jesus rebukes Satan in Matthew 16:23, although Peter is used for the temptation. That said, to directly address Satan when resisting temptation is acceptable, but not necessary, and it is probably not to be done most of the time. Second, one may address Satan, or an evil spirit, when it is evident that he has taken over a human person's mind and body, even speaking and acting through him. When this happens, the biblical practice is for a Christian to command the demon to leave in the name of Jesus Christ.
Although it is true that Satan's influence is pervasive in the non-Christians even when they are not screaming obscenities, cutting themselves, running naked, and foaming at the mouth, as long as this demonic influence is not overtly demonstrated, there is no biblical evidence for directly addressing Satan and to command him to depart. Rather, regular means such as preaching and counseling are used. Even if a person is under severe demonic bondage, the Spirit of God can deliver him through the consistent preaching of the word of God. It is often unnecessary to have special discernment about the particular kind of demonic activity involved and to formulate a tailored approach to counteract it. And even if one is dealing with a case of overt demonization, in which case it is appropriate to cast it out of the person, there is no biblical evidence suggesting that it is outright wrong for the Christian to pray to God, so that God may liberate the victim from demonic bondage.
Luke 22:31-32 provides another example: "Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail." He is aware that Satan would orchestrate an attack against Peter, but rather than rebuking Satan, so that Peter's faith would not be tested or that it would not fail, it is implied that Jesus prays to God to preserve Peter or to repel Satan. And of course, all this time Jesus possesses the authority to police Satan's activities, but still this is what he does to help Peter through the demonic assault. In most situations, therefore, there is no reason to directly address Satan. Even when we become conscious of Satan's involvement, it is usually the case that we should still speak to God about it, rather than to directly address the demonic forces.
Jeremiah 32:35
NOTICE:
This is an outdated and unofficial item. The article was released as a draft/preview to The Author of Sin. For the current and official version of the article, please download the book from the online library.
Vincent,
Warm greetings to you.
Yesterday I saw this from a Christian forum:
Now, if you're so convinced that the most Holy God is ultimately behind all sin and evil, care to explain why He unequivocally states the exact opposite concerning idolatry in Jeremiah 32:35?
"And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin."
God is plainly stating that this is not His doing. If it did not enter into His mind that the should offer their children to idols, then how can you say He in fact decreed it before the world began?
What can you say about his statement?
This is such a naïve and irresponsible abuse of Scripture that it has never entered my mind that it would be used against the biblical doctrine of God's sovereignty over all things, that is, the doctrine that God is God. It is a good example of a person who is ignorant of theology, and refusing to acknowledge the context of the verse – not only the verses around the verse, but the words around an expression within the verse – he distorts a biblical passage to prove an unbiblical point.
In response, first we reaffirm the biblical distinction between divine decree and divine precept. As I have explained and defended this elsewhere, I will offer only a summary here. A divine decree is what God has decided to cause. A divine precept, on the other hand, has nothing to do with causation. It is God's definition of what is of truth and righteousness. It is his definition of man's moral obligation. And it often comes in the form of a command.
The verse says that God never commanded them to sacrifice their children to Molech. This provides the context to understand the expression that comes right after. The idea that "it never entered my mind" corresponds to "I never commanded." It emphasizes how far this practice was removed from the commands of God. The verse is completely irrelevant to whether God decrees or causes evil. This teaching is affirmed in many other biblical passages, but it is not affirmed or denied here.
Some translations recognize this and render the verse accordingly. For example, the NLT reads, "They have built pagan shrines to Baal in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and there they sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molech. I have never commanded such a horrible deed; it never even crossed my mind to command such a thing. What an incredible evil, causing Judah to sin so greatly!" The verse does not say that "it never crossed my mind" to cause the evil, but to command the evil. In fact, if God had commanded it as their moral obligation, it would have been a righteous thing to do.
I have answered this objection against the biblical doctrine, but this person is left with a serious problem.
For his objection to make sense, he must insist that the verse applies to God's decree, or his determination to cause. To him, then, the verse would mean either that it never crossed God's mind that they would perform such a thing, or that it never crossed God's mind that he would cause such a thing.
However, if the verse is interpreted to mean that it never crossed God's mind that they would do such a thing, then this amounts to a denial of God's foreknowledge. Now, my position is that God's foreknowledge and God's foreordination are two sides of the same coin. He knows all things because he causes all things, and he knows himself, thus he knows all that he would cause. But even if I were to adopt the false idea that foreknowledge is mere prescience, or a passive knowledge of future events, this concept of foreknowledge would still be denied by such an interpretation of the verse.
Then, if the verse is interpreted to mean that it never crossed God's mind that he would cause such a thing, it also amounts to a denial of God's foreknowledge, with the added blasphemy that God does not even know himself, since it would mean that he could not conceive of all the options possible for him – that he is incapable of hypothetical thought. But clearly to cause evil is conceivable to him (he can grasp the concept), since according to this interpretation, he interacts with the idea in this verse. This interpretation should alarm believers and invite great suspicion against anyone who advocates it as a refutation of the doctrine that God causes all things, including evil.
It appears that this person indeed assumes the second interpretation, since he writes, "God is plainly stating that this is not His doing." Therefore, not only does he fail to accomplish his goal of refuting the doctrine of God's sovereignty, but spiritually speaking, he has placed himself in a most dangerous position. Since his use of the verse amounts to an attack against God's nature, even his omniscience, it calls into question his profession of faith. This is more than an argument for him to win or lose, but it is a sinful distortion of Scripture for him to be repented of, lest he faces God's displeasure for his irreverence and blasphemy.
Standing Firm in the Lord
An excerpt from Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians.
Paul reminded the Thessalonians over and over again that they would be persecuted as Christians. Trials could cause some people's faith to become "unsettled." This effect can follow for a number of reasons. Perhaps after suffering a period of mistreatment, some simply do not wish to suffer anymore, and would consider abandoning whatever it is that invited the persecution in the first place.
Another reason for becoming unsettled may be false expectations associated with the Christian faith. Some people might expect an increase in wealth, popularity, respect, and all kinds of natural blessings once they come to believe in Christ. After all, they have now come to the side of truth. Why would not everyone like them? If they suffer persecution, does this mean that there is something wrong with what they believe? Paul tried to eliminate the surprise and bewilderment that could come from suffering persecution by reminding them that this would be part of their experience as Christians: "In fact, when we were with you, we kept telling you that we would be persecuted. And it turned out that way, as you well know" (1 Thessalonians 3:4). Once educated by sound doctrine, Christians are less likely to assume that there is something wrong with their faith or religion when persecution comes.
Although persecution comes from non-Christians and false Christians, who are hostile to the truth and opposed to holiness, as with everything else, it happens by God's sovereign and immutable decree. He decides what would happen and he causes them to happen. Our firm grasp on the goodness of God toward us as revealed in the gift of Jesus Christ provides us with a principle of interpretation by which we may understand at least the broad meaning and purpose of all things, including persecution. When we hold fast to both the sovereignty and the goodness of God, then we understand that the persecution we suffer is ordained by God, and because it is ordained by God, because it is not something that happens outside of his control or agenda, we also know that he ordains it for our good and not for our destruction.
God ordains persecution for believers, among other things, for their training and education, for his own honor, and to increase the punishment against unbelievers, who persecute his people. Thus when rightly perceived, the idea that we are "destined" (1 Thessalonians 3:3) for persecution generates in us, not bitterness or despair, but great peace, strength, and consolation.
The Christian's perseverance under persecution deserves some attention. All of us would like to think that we will remain faithful under persecution. In our prideful and careless moments, we might even imagine that our commitment to the Lord is unique – so strong and special that it is in a class of its own. And we become more vulnerable when this confidence is founded on and expressed in terms of our superiority over other disciples. But a faith that is measured by perceived superiority turns religion into a competition among men, when it should be about worship toward God. This kind of faith is an illusion and will not persevere under persecution.
Our perception of our own faithfulness, for various reasons, can be inaccurate, as when Peter said, "Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will" (Matthew 26:33). But Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times" (v. 34). Yet Peter did not finally fall away, for even before his empty outburst of confidence, Jesus had prayed for him. And he does not say to Peter, "I have prayed to God about you, to assure God that your faith will not fail." Rather, he tells Peter, "I have prayed for you (asking God to uphold you and to thwart Satan's assault against you), so that your faith will not fail" (see Luke 22:31-32).
There is one point about this that has received scant emphasis, and that dramatically increases the importance of this subject. That is, faithfulness under persecution is obligatory, not optional. It is not as if God expects it from only a few whom he has endowed with special power and courage. The Bible does not say that we are to "hold firmly to the faith we profess" (Hebrews 4:14) only when it is convenient. As Jesus says, "All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved." It has to do with one's salvation, and the genuineness of his faith. The stakes cannot get any higher than this.
At this point, many people might find it a frightening prospect that they might not be able to persevere when the time comes, when intense persecution indeed happens to them. Here the difference between confidence in ourselves and confidence in the Lord becomes clear. When our confidence rests on our own ability to withstand persecution, then this confidence can rise only as high as this perception, and even then it may be a delusion, since we sometimes think of ourselves more highly than we ought to think. Therefore, this confidence is limited, and in fact useless and ineffectual.
How much easier it is, and how much more realistic it is, to believe in God's ability to preserve us when we face persecution. Our proper perception of God's greatness and God's grace becomes the extent of our confidence when we face persecution. As long as we are not distracted from this way of thinking, our confidence becomes and remains limitless, just as we perceive that God is limitless. Thus we read:
Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are – yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need….Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. (Hebrews 4:14-16, 10:23)
We must not look within ourselves for the strength to remain faithful in persecution, as if to impress God with what we can develop apart from him and in distinction from others. Rather, to remain faithful to God, we must look outside of ourselves and to him, trusting in his grace and power, that he is both willing and capable to complete the work that he has started in us.
Proper confidence is produced when we direct our mental focus away from ourselves and toward God instead. We persevere because God preserves; therefore, a genuine and effectual confidence that we would persevere is derived from the knowledge that God would indeed preserve us. And since his grace and power is greater than any suffering that man can inflict, there is the basis for the confidence that we would remain faithful to him under persecution – not that we are faithful in ourselves, but that he is willing and powerful to keep us faithful.
Paul discovers that the Thessalonians are indeed "standing firm in the Lord" (3:8). This must refer to both doctrine and behavior. People who are polite, honest, diligent, and charitable, but who do not insist on any particular belief, probably will not suffer much persecution, if any at all. But regardless of character and behavior, those who promote teachings that are widely hated will be persecuted. So to stand firm in the Lord is first a matter of affirming the right doctrines even in the face of opposition. But it also means to adopt practices that are consistent with these doctrines, and to persist in these practices in the face of opposition.
Although we may distinguish doctrine and practice for the sake of discussion, they cannot be entirely separated. This is because Christian doctrines claim divine inspiration and authority, and therefore demand complete obedience. And some of the actions demanded by Christian doctrines are distinctively Christian, so that they cannot be performed without reflecting, some more clearly than others, the beliefs that stand behind them. Examples that illustrate this include prayer, preaching, church attendance, breaking bread in remembrance of the Lord, and so on.
This in turn means that one cannot claim that he is standing firm in the Lord if he compromises Christian doctrine or practice as a result of opposing pressure or persuasion. Now a clear and extreme example would be a person who loses his faith in the very existence of God and becomes an atheist, and still calls himself a faithful Christian. He is, of course, not "standing firm" in the Lord at all. This is only to illustrate again that doctrine matters – it is the defining factor in whether a person is remaining steadfast in the faith. Likewise, a person who becomes convinced of the theory of evolution or who comes to reject biblical inerrancy, cannot be called a faithful Christian, if a Christian at all. He is, rather, a traitor to the Lord and to all Christians, and must be addressed and dealt with as such.
Another indication that the Thessalonians are standing firm in the Lord is their "pleasant memories" (3:6) of those who brought them the gospel.
Christians usually agree with the idea that we should not exalt men, who are only servants and instruments by which God delivers his word to us. However, the reality is that Christian circles are often characterized by a sectarian spirit, so that each group defines itself according to the person that it follows – that it idolizes and worships. Addressing this problem in the Corinthian church, Paul writes:
Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly – mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men? (1 Corinthians 3:1-4)
Likewise, in our churches we hear people say, "I am of this theologian," or "I follow that philosopher." They are so accustomed to categorizing people in terms of the person that they follow (since this is how they must think of themselves), that if a person refuses to raise a banner other than that of Jesus Christ, they will associate him with a person of their choosing by force: "Now, surely you are of that professor!"
Once everyone is neatly placed under a Christian idol, the factions are now defined, and war ensues. Although the arguments are often about doctrines, and anyone should notice that I regard doctrines as occupying the highest place, this is not the way to define ourselves or to handle disagreements. Paul writes that these people are but spiritual infants, and they are not ready for spiritual meat. It is more urgent for them to repent and to learn in silence, rather than to present themselves as great defenders of the faith, crushing all others in the name of their favorite theologian, philosopher, or apologist. They are not qualified to engage controversy. They are spiritual children, and should be treated as such.
That said, there is a place for a proper kind and a proper degree of respect for the messengers of the gospel. Just because we are to glorify God and not men does not mean that we are to treat those men as rubbish. Indeed, it is our attitude toward God that matters, but our attitude toward his servants is one indication of our attitude toward God. By preaching the gospel to them, the apostles brought turmoil and suffering to the Thessalonians, not that the gospel itself would do this, but it incited violent reactions from those who remained in unbelief. Nevertheless, Timothy finds that these converts harbor fond memories of these preachers who altered their lives forever in the name of the Lord Jesus.
This attitude is appropriate. It does not sinfully glorify mere men when it is acknowledged that God is the one who has sent his Son to atone for our sins and that God is the one who has sent messengers to tell us about it. The men are mere instruments, but it is right to honor even the instruments that God has chosen, not as saviors but as servants. As it is written, "How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, 'Your God reigns!'" (Isaiah 52:7). Or, as Paul writes to Timothy, "So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner" (2 Timothy 1:8). Therefore, we are to hold in high regard those who minister the word of God, and this is an indication that we hold him who sent them in high regard as well (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13).
Contrast this against the attitude of the Israelites who were brought out of Egypt by Moses. Rather than rejoicing in their freedom from slavery and their freedom to worship their God, they beautified their past bondage and complained about their present: "If only we had died by the LORD's hand in Egypt! There we sat around pots of meat and ate all the food we wanted, but you have brought us out into this desert to starve this entire assembly to death" (Exodus 16:3). They were angry against the Lord and were bitter because his servant Moses had convinced them to take this new direction.
They were like those professing believers who have forgotten how miserable they were before they were brought out of their previous lifestyle and environment by the gospel. They have forgotten that they were slaves, abused and in bondage. They conjure in their minds a romanticized version of their old life, and complain about the unmet expectations about this new life, as if the Lord Jesus and his servants have deceived them. Are these actual Christians? Is their faith real? Doubtless they are nothing like the Thessalonians, who retain fond memories of Paul and his companions even as they face severe persecution for their faith.