Starve Those Who are Idle
This is an adaptation from Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians.
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."
We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right.
If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother. (2 Thessalonians 3:6-15)
This is a rather self-explanatory passage. The challenge is to make Christians take it seriously, and to obey it. Paul had said, "warn those who are idle" in his first letter (1 Thessalonians 5:14), but apparently that did not eradicate the problem. So when he receives report that some of them remain idle (2 Thessalonians 3:11), he brings up the matter again in this second letter. This time he takes on a more urgent tone, first appealing to "the name of the Lord Jesus Christ," and then issuing a "command" to compel the brothers to take decisive action against those who persist in idleness. Rather than earning their own food, they live on the charity of others – they are loafers and freeloaders. And not being busy with meaningful labor, they meddle in other people's business.
It is common to assume that the problem of idleness among the Thessalonians is related to their misunderstanding or misapplication of the doctrine of the second coming. The assumption is that, in light of the second coming of Christ, some begin to think that there is no point to maintaining a regular occupation, and so have stopped working in order to wait for the event. However, Paul does not suggest such a connection, and it is unconfirmed in the text. At the most the theory should be considered a mere possibility. Interpretation does not depend on it, and in fact might be distorted by it, especially if the assumption is false. In any case, the passage is applicable to idleness for any reason.
In the name of Christ, Paul commands the Christians to take decisive action against those who are idle. His instructions are not at first directed to those who are idle, but to those who are not. So those who are faithful in productive labor are not exempt from considering this topic, or from what Paul commands them to do. It is precisely to those who are not among the idle that the apostle directs most of his statements on the subject. So no one should take what Paul says only as a matter of exegetical interest, but this is something that Christians must do, that all churches must implement as official policy, as a matter of obedience to the Lord Jesus.
The decisive action that Christians are to take against those who are idle is to "keep away" from them – that is, to literally, really, shun them. What? Should we just let them starve? Is that the Christian way? Yes, it is. Paul adds, "For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: 'If a man will not work, he shall not eat'" (v. 10). In the name of Christ, Paul commands all Christians to let idlers starve to death. It would be a sin to feed them. Then, the apostle proceeds to "command and urge" those who are idle to "settle down and earn the bread they eat." Verse 14 repeats the command to those who are not idle: "If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed." Mark this person. Know him by name and by face. And then avoid any association with him. There must be a concerted effort of the entire Christian community to shun and to shame this person.
The command has obvious implications for policies on welfare and charity. Those who are able to work, but are unwilling to work, are to be shunned and shamed. They are not to receive any financial or material aid. If they do not work, they do not eat. If they starve to death, then so be it.
Of course, housewives and children do not work for money, but the principle can still apply in the sense that they must not be idle. They have their own work that contributes to their families, churches, and societies. Ministers who labor in preaching, writing, visiting, counseling, and other such tasks are not idle, but as noted earlier, they have a right to financial support, including a steady salary. Paul had a right to this kind of support, although he did not accept it, but rather worked for his own food, in order to provide an example for his converts to imitate. However, even as he refers to his example, he reasserts his right to financial support (v. 7-9).
In any case, we acknowledge that there are cases of genuine need – those who are orphaned or widowed without any source of support, those who are disabled, and those who are willing to work but cannot find work at the moment. The Bible makes provisions for such individuals.
Recommended:
Cessationism and Speaking in Tongues
A supplement to Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians, in particular the section also published separately as "Cessationism and Rebellion."
Download PDF (includes footnotes)
~ 1 ~
Some people call me a Reformed Charismatic. I remember one person who criticized me on the basis that the term is a misnomer and an oxymoron. He thought that a Reformed person could not at the same time be a Charismatic, and a Charismatic could not possibly deserve to be called Reformed.
While I agree that much of my theology agrees with those who are Reformed, I do not call myself Reformed. And although I affirm the continuation of the supernatural endowments of the Spirit, I do not call myself a Charismatic. This person had a certain concept of the Reformed, and a certain concept of a Charismatic, and the two were incompatible. But why must I be either one or both of these things? The way he thinks of these two groups make them incompatible, or maybe they are indeed incompatible, but what does that have to do with me?
A person might think that a Christian must either be Baptist or Presbyterian, and if a person affirms Baptist sacraments but Presbyterian government – or any one thing that is supposedly Baptist and another that is supposedly Presbyterian – then he must be wrong, simply on the basis that, according to him, these two categories are incompatible. But this is a poor argument, and does nothing to address whether this person's doctrine is right or wrong. It does, however, tell us that the critic's understanding of the Christian world is limited to a narrow conception of Baptists and Presbyterians. He is like a frog trapped at the bottom of a well, and his idea of the heavens is as small as the opening through which he views the sky.
The Christian world is very broad. Just because a person believes in the biblical doctrine of predestination does not mean that he learned it from Calvin. Maybe he learned it from Augustine. Maybe he learned it from Hodge, or Shedd, or Berkhof. Maybe he learned it from Vincent Cheung, or you, or your pastor. How about this – maybe he read the Bible himself and learned it there! But…is it possible? Is it possible that a person can read biblical passages and actually learn biblical doctrines? Who has ever heard of such a thing? And even if it is possible, is he a Calvinist or not? Maybe he learned it from someone that you have never heard of. Now it would be most foolish of you to apply your criticisms of Calvin to this person, as if he is some devoted disciple of his, but who may have never heard of Calvin.
So, although labels and categories can make conversation more convenient, it can also make the person who uses them lazy and careless. You cannot press an argument with labels and categories that your target has no obligation to satisfy. When you do this, you are only showing that the way you understand the terms somehow generates some conflict and confusion. You are not saying much more than this. Certainly, you cannot defend any doctrine or refute anyone on this basis alone.
Thus I would caution against simplistic categorizations that result in misrepresentations. There are those who think that if a person believes in the continuation of the supernatural manifestations of the Spirit, then they must be like the Pentecostals – that is, those crazy Pentecostals that they know about. It does not occur to him that this person might not be like the Pentecostals at all, that even his doctrine on the spiritual gifts might be vastly different. And it might not occur to him that there might be Pentecostals somewhere that are not crazy. It is unfair for a cessationist to use Pentecostals as the standard, so that it is as if a person is either like the Pentecostals that he has seen, or he must be a cessationist like him.
~ 2 ~
When it comes to the continuation of miracles, whether they occur to a person or through a person, the doctrine of the sovereignty of God settles the issue. God can do anything he wishes, and if he wishes, he can work a miracle today. It can be a miracle that is done to a person, or a miracle that appears to be effected through a human instrument. God can do anything he wishes, including miracles. If a person questions this, he has a much greater problem than whether he affirms cessationism. His belief about the most basic aspects about God is flawed.
Cessationists do not object to the above. They readily agree that God can do anything that he wishes. If this is true, then it is conceivable that I can pray for a cancer patient, and if God wishes, he would heal the person, and the person would be freed of cancer. Here I am not saying that it happens every time, but only that it is conceivable given the doctrine of God's sovereignty.
This is agreed by all who believe in God. However, in practice very few believe it. They say that they believe in God's sovereignty, but they deny it by their works, having a form of sound doctrine and godliness, but denying the power thereof. How often do cessationists pray for God to heal the sick? No, I am not referring to prayers that ask God to guide the physicians. I am referring to petitions that ask God to heal the sick person. How often do cessationists even attempt this? If their doctrine allows for the possibility that God might heal if he wishes, then why not ask him to heal? Is God the savior of the soul, but not of the body? Is the arm of the Lord too short, or his ears dull of hearing?
You say, it is true that God can heal if he wishes, but perhaps he never wishes to heal anymore. How do you know this? It is one thing to say that he might not wish to heal in some instances, but another to claim that he no longer wishes to heal. No one knows that he does not wish to heal, and there is no biblical or any other kind of evidence to show that God no longer wishes to perform miracles.
Cessationists claim that they want to protect the doctrines of the sufficiency and the completion of Scripture. I believe this, that this might be one of the reasons they consider it necessary to affirm cessationism. However, I do not believe that this is the only reason. There are ulterior motives behind this doctrine, such as unbelief, and the fear that this unbelief would be exposed if they venture out and sink like Peter did when the Lord called to him to walk on the water. Seasoned theologians do not like to be embarrassed. Some of them would rather crucify Christ with their pens, just to shut him up, than to admit that they struggle with unbelief. In any case, it has been shown that the continuation of the supernatural manifestations of the Spirit does not compromise the sufficiency and the completion of Scripture.
The affirmation of God's sovereignty means this: If God wishes to make a person speak in a language that he has never learned, he can and he will. It is as simple as that. Whether he does this is one thing, but there should be no question that it is possible, even today.
Nevertheless, we must recognize that the issue is not settled by affirming the bare doctrine of God's sovereignty, since it has to do with how he uses this sovereignty relative to the spiritual gifts, and what he has revealed in Scripture about this. Also, when it comes to spiritual gifts, we are referring to a particular mode of the manifestation of God's power, namely, through human instruments as spiritual endowments. So it is acknowledged that the matter is complex, although it remains that the foundation for the discussion must be God's sovereignty, that he can and will do whatever he wishes. And in connection with the spiritual gifts, I will say again that, although there are many verses in Scripture commanding us to operate in spiritual gifts, there is no biblical or any other kind of evidence that even comes close to suggesting that these have ceased.
~ 3 ~
Let me first apply my simple argument against cessationism to speaking in tongues. Paul writes, "Do not forbid speaking in tongues" (1 Corinthians 14:39). But if all supernatural gifts have ceased, then tongues have ceased. And if tongues have ceased, then all claims to speaking in tongues today are false. If all claims to speaking in tongues today are false, then we must forbid speaking in tongues. In other words, if cessationism is correct, then we are obligated to do exactly the opposite of what Paul commands in this verse on the basis that the situation has changed, so that the same apostolic concern would require us to forbid all speaking in tongues.
However, to turn "Do not forbid speaking in tongues" to "Always forbid speaking in tongues" would require a biblical argument that is either equally explicit, or if it must come by deduction or inference, one whose reasoning is perfect, infallible, without any possibility for error or room for criticism. Otherwise, no one has the authority to say that speaking in tongues has ceased, and still less to forbid speaking in tongues.
Jesus says, "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:19). God commanded me, "You shall not commit murder." If you wish to advance a doctrine that requires me to change this to, "You shall always commit murder," then before I go on a killing spree, I am going to demand that you produce either a direct biblical command that replaces the former one, or a biblical argument supporting the new command or obligation that is clear and perfect, without any possibility of error or room for criticism. If I perceive even the slightest flaw or weakness, I am going to remain with what is clear and direct, that is, "You shall not commit murder."
Likewise, if I teach "Do not forbid speaking in tongues" and you teach "Always forbid speaking in tongues" (or a doctrine that leads to this), then one of us must be wrong. To show me that I am the one in the wrong, I would demand that you produce a biblical argument that is as clear, as forceful, as perfect, and as infallible as the one that says, "Do not forbid speaking in tongues."
Frankly, against this consideration, I would be too afraid to teach cessationism. And I wonder how we can justify the decision to allow anyone to remain in the ministry who would continue teaching cessationism after hearing this simple argument. If he cannot answer it – if he cannot produce an infallible argument for cessationism – but continues to teach the doctrine, this can only mean that he consciously promotes rebellion against the Lord. What right do we have, then, to refrain from throwing him out of the ministry? Do I have the authority to protect such a person from church discipline? But I am not stronger than the Lord. As it is, cessationism is not a doctrine to be argued about, but a sin to be repented of. Christians should not only avoid cessationism, but they should be afraid, deathly afraid, to affirm it, since as it stands, it entails a direct and deliberate defiance of God's commands.
You may say, "It is fine to say that we must not forbid speaking in tongues, but we must forbid the counterfeit." How is this relevant at this point? If in the attempt to oppose the counterfeit, you oppose all claims to speaking in tongues as a matter of principle, then you are back to defying Paul's command again. If you admit that we must not forbid speaking in tongues, but must judge each instance on its own merit, I would agree with you, but then you are no longer a cessationist.
Now that we have mentioned the possibility of counterfeit, the discussion has finally come to the nature of tongues. Acts 2 tells us that the Holy Spirit enabled the disciples to speak in languages that they had never learned. These were human languages known and recognized by the foreigners who were present. It is sometimes supposed that it was a miracle of hearing, but the foreigners heard the disciples speak in their languages because the disciples were speaking in their languages. The Scripture states that they spoke what the Spirit gave them. It does not say that the Sprit altered the audience's hearing. The speaking in tongues in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is the same kind of manifestation as the one in Acts 2. There is no reason to think otherwise.
Since the utterances consist of human languages, as demonstrated in Acts 2 and also indicated in 1 Corinthians 13:1, there are certain characteristics that we should expect. A human language includes a substantial vocabulary, or words, which form sentences. In ordinary speech, sentences are marked by pauses and inflections, which often determine the precise meaning of these sentences. For example, an inflection might change what could be understood as a statement of fact into a question. Thus, "You are going to church today," changes to "You are going to church today?" An inflection might also turn an ordinary statement into an exclamation, or even an accusation. There are many other things that we can mention about the characteristics of human languages, but the point is that they exhibit discernable complex traits and patterns.
I mention the above to say this: Judging from my admittedly limited experience, most of the people who speak in tongues probably do not speak in real languages. Of course, my experience does not reflect the total number of those who claim to speak in tongues. The claim is that most of those that I have heard probably do not speak in real languages, and that there are probably many others like them. When they supposedly speak in tongues, their sounds do not exhibit the variety and complexity expected in actual human languages. They very often repeat only one, sometimes two or three syllables in rapid succession, like "da-da-da-da-da-da-da", or "wa-ka-la-ka-wa-ka-la-ka-wa-ka-la-ka-wa-ka-la-ka," or "moshimoshimoshimoshimoshi."
There are three possible explanations for this:
First, they could be speaking in Morse code, or something like it. However, even Morse code must differentiate its signals by patterns and pauses. But when a person repeats the same syllable sixty times without any pause at all, and after taking a quick breath, repeats the same syllable another forty times, it is difficult to believe that he is communicating any meaningful message. One may also object that speaking in tongues is supposed to refer to an ordinary human language, but this cannot settle the question, since Morse code or something like it can conceivably qualify as a human language.
Second, it is alleged that some of them might be speaking in the language of angels, which might not exhibit the same characteristics as the languages of men. However, even if 1 Corinthians 13:1 indeed grants the possibility that one might speak in the language of angels, the same concerns regarding Morse code applies. There must be discernable patterns to differentiate between signals for there to be a language, at least when it is spoken through men. And if the language of angels cannot be spoken through men in a way that there are discernable patterns, then they are not in fact speaking in the language of angels, since apparently this language cannot be spoken through men at all.
Third, and it seems the most likely one, those who speak without any discernable pattern are not speaking in human languages, and they are not speaking in tongues at all. I am not saying that there is no genuine speaking in tongues today. I have very forcefully affirmed that the manifestation continues according to God's will. But if those who speak in tongues wish to exercise the genuine gift, and if they wish to be taken seriously, they must raise the standard. Anything less than Morse code is unacceptable, because it would not be a language at all. And are we to believe that all or most of the people who speak in tongues do so in code? No, genuine tongues will be human languages, and will sound like human languages. We should be suspicious of any alleged manifestation of speaking in tongues that lack any discernable pattern or complexity.
One factor that has contributed to the pervasive instances of false tongues is the neglect of the fact that speaking in tongues is a manifestation of the Spirit – it is something that the Spirit pushes out into the open. Therefore, it is not something that one man can teach another to do. Pentecostals sometimes teach the newcomer, "Just start speaking. Say, 'da-da-da-da-ka-ka-sha-la-la….there, that's it! You've got it!" No, neither of them has anything. It is a manifestation of the Spirit, and when it happens, there is a heavenly quality, a noticeable intelligence behind it. It is not something that can be taught, practiced, or enforced by the flesh.
~ 4 ~
Recently, I heard a sermon on the biblical approach to church growth by John MacArthur. He insisted that church growth methods that are based on business theories and marketing gimmicks are unfaithful and destructive. Rather, he proposed that Christians should return to the Acts of the Apostles, since in there the divine method modeled by the first disciples is set forth. He did not refer to some New Testament model in a general sense, but he was adamant that we must follow the Book of Acts.
Then, in the course of the sermon, he offered five principles that he had derived: The early church had 1) A transcendent message, 2) A regenerate congregation, 3) A valiant perseverance, 4) An evident purity, and 5) A qualified leadership. However, any honest expositor should have added, 6) A tongue-speaking, cripple-healing, dead-raising, demon-expelling, liar-slaying, prison-breaking, house-shaking, sorcerer-cursing, vision-seeing, future-predicting, miracle ministry. All these things are recorded in the Book of Acts, are they not?
Of course, I did not expect MacArthur to embarrass himself with the truth. Knowing that he was a raging cessationist, I waited for a mention of this item before it would be dismissed, but it never came. He did not even mention it. But I thought we were to return to the pattern in the Book of Acts? Which Book of Acts was he reading? Is this the champion of expository preaching that so many Christians adore? But I thought expository preaching was supposed to compel the preacher to address topics that he is uncomfortable with, and to set forth what he might find difficult to accept? What happened to that?
I will tell you what the pattern in the Book of Acts is – there is the pattern of not allowing dishonesty and prejudice to obscure the plain teachings of the word of God. If we were to force ourselves to be unreasonably charitable, we might say that MacArthur skipped the issue to save himself time from mentioning something that he did not believe in the first place. But at least on the surface, he violated his own standard of preaching the word of God as it is written. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to excuse someone for not mentioning miracles when he himself, with so much zeal and indignation, reprimands churches for failing to follow the pattern in the Book of Acts.
Jesus said that we would receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon us. So where is the power? You who do not believe in the continuation of the supernatural gifts: You say that you have the Spirit, that all believers do, so where is the power? You hypocrite – you pretend to have it by redefining it. And you who believe in the continuation of the supernatural gifts: You claim that you have the Spirit, but where is the power? You hypocrite – you insult the Spirit by implementing a low standard, so that the false and the excesses are numbered with the genuine, if there are indeed genuine manifestations among you. When Elijah challenged the false prophets, he did not make it easy for himself or for the Lord. He did not pour gasoline on the sacrifices, but he poured much water. He was of the mind that if God would not do it, then let it not be done, but if God would do it, then let there be no question that the miracle was of the Lord, and not of the scheming and trickery of men.
Both of you say that you have the Spirit, but when the disciples were filled with the Spirit in the Book of Acts, there were such manifestations of power that it caused the unbelievers to quake. Where is the power? It is true that a demonstration of divine power does not always entail miracles, but are there any manifestation of power among you? Any at all? Where is the divine authority in your speech? Where is the divine wisdom in your counsel? Where is the divine boldness in your action? You have your expository methods, your seminary degrees, your ordination papers, and the books by this or that theologian on your shelves. But you do not have the power.
There are those who think that my ministry is worthless. I will not address them right now. But if you see any faith, any wisdom, any power, any life, any zeal, any boldness, any other-worldly authority in me, then let it be known that it comes from the Spirit of God. He saved me, and gave me a holy calling, even the work of the ministry. And he gave me his Holy Spirit, so that I may be enabled to live this new life, in truth and holiness, and to perform the works that he has foreordained for me to do. I am not saying all of this just because I think I should, but I am consciously aware of the power of the Spirit by which I think and labor, and the difference that he makes. I can tell you what he does for me, and what I am unable to do without him.
This is the inheritance of every Christian, and the necessary equipment of every minister of the gospel. God has not given us a spirit of weakness, but a spirit of power – power to perceive, power to believe, power to declare, power to endure, and power to defeat cynicism and unbelief.
Divine Action in the Soul
This is an adaptation from Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians.
But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and by his grace gave us eternal encouragement and good hope, encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good deed and word.
Finally, brothers, pray for us that the message of the Lord may spread rapidly and be honored, just as it was with you. And pray that we may be delivered from wicked and evil men, for not everyone has faith. But the Lord is faithful, and he will strengthen and protect you from the evil one. We have confidence in the Lord that you are doing and will continue to do the things we command. May the Lord direct your hearts into God's love and Christ's perseverance. (2 Thessalonians 2:13-3:5)
At the end of the previous passage, Paul writes that it is God who "sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie." He does this so that "all will be condemned" who are non-Christians, "who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." Their delusion, unbelief, and condemnation are all authored by God's deliberate choice and action. Then, Paul begins this next passage by contrasting the believers against the unbelievers. Christians are those whom God has "chosen" for salvation, and he saves them "through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth."
Gordon Clark writes, "The Arminians usually hold that God does not cause people to despise the truth nor does he purpose to condemn them for doing so. But this verse says, note carefully, that God plunges them into error in order that they shall be condemned. Non-calvinists will say that God permits, but does not cause, unbelief." The last sentence implies that Calvinists would say that God does not merely permit, but that he causes unbelief. In other words, he implies that Calvinists affirm the biblical position. He is correct about the Arminians, of course, but he is too charitable toward the Calvinists, unless he means that those who call themselves Calvinists but who do not believe that God causes unbelief, are not really Calvinists, in which case he would be right.
The truth is that one can rarely find a Calvinist who would say that God actively causes unbelief, delusion, or the like. In agreement with Scripture, "Calvin denounces the idea of a permissive will," but many (most?) who call themselves Calvinists insist that God decrees sin and evil only in a permissive sense, rather than in an active sense, as in to decide that it should happen and then to cause it to happen. This is inconsistent with Calvin's view, and more importantly, it defies the teachings of Scripture and assaults the nature of God. Any so-called Calvinist who affirms that God does anything in a permissive sense disagrees with Scripture, and less importantly, also disagrees with Calvin.
There are also those who agree that God actively decrees and causes evil, but then insist he is not the author of sin. This is self-contradictory and impossible. So there is Arminianism and there is inconsistent Calvinism, the popular form of Calvinism. Both are hopelessly unbiblical. Inconsistent Calvinists share two false assumptions with the Arminians, and with non-Christians, that moral responsibility presupposes some kind of freedom, and that to (metaphysically) cause evil is to (personally) commit evil. The Arminians and non-Christians use these two assumptions to form thoroughly anti-biblical systems, but the inconsistent Calvinists are ensnared by these stupid inventions.
On the other hand, consistent Calvinism, or the Bible's own teaching, would say that God actively decrees and causes all things, including evil, so that he is indeed the sovereign and righteous author of sin. And because consistent Calvinists affirm the sovereignty of God not only as lipservice, as the inconsistent Calvinists do, they submit under God's own definition of good and evil. Since God regards it consistent with his own holiness to exercise active control over all things, including evil, then the consistent Calvinist – or what is more appropriate, the consistent Christian – is happy to affirm this as well. Thus God is the author of sin, and there is nothing wrong with that.
So, the difference is that Christians believe in the truth, while non-Christians believe in the lie. And the cause for this difference is God's decree and power. He chooses to save some, and causes them to believe the truth. He chooses to condemn others, and causes them to believe the lie.
Paul stresses two factors that sum up the spiritual life of man. They provide a reliable structure to guide our thinking about our own development and also the way we conduct ministry:
The first is man's steadfast belief in the truth. In this passage, the words "truth" (v. 13), "gospel" (v. 14), and "teachings" (v. 15) are interchangeable.
The word translated "teachings" (NIV) is literally "traditions" (KJV, ESV). "Traditions" may carry a negative connotation in our minds, because it is often associated with human customs that keep men in bondage to difficult and unnecessary rules of behavior, and that even subvert the commands of God. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, and said, "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!" (Mark 7:9).
However, this is not the necessary meaning of traditions. They can simply refer to beliefs and practices that are preserved and passed on, from one person to another, and from one generation to another. Whether the traditions are good or bad depends on their source. Are these traditions invented by men, or traditions revealed by God, and transmitted through his faithful servants? Are these Catholic traditions, superstitious traditions, cultural traditions, which are either evil or at least without authority, or are they apostolic and biblical traditions, which are authoritative, and convey God's saving wisdom and power? Paul writes, "And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others" (2 Timothy 2:2). He is talking about divine traditions.
Paul refers to the traditions that he passed on to the Thessalonians. As much as he values godly examples (3:9), he does not mention them here; rather, these traditions are transmitted "by mouth or by letter" – they are taught, not caught. And as noted, the term is interchangeable with "truth" and "gospel" in our context. Therefore, Paul is talking about intellectual traditions, or what we call doctrines or dogmas. The NIV has the correct meaning with "teachings." He instructs them to "stand firm and hold to" these doctrines. This is what the Christian life is about – believe these doctrines, practice these doctrines, keep on believing and practicing these doctrines, and promote these doctrines "whether by mouth or by letter." An evaluation of a person's faith or ministry, therefore, entails asking whether there is an adequate emphasis on, belief in, obedience to, and promotion of, sound doctrine.
The second factor is God's divine action in the soul. Doctrines make the difference between heaven and hell, but it is God who causes those whom he has chosen for salvation to believe the right doctrines. The gospel is made effective in the soul of man by a divine inward action, a power that God applies directly to the mind as he controls the thoughts and dispositions of man. Paul credits to this work of God the initial belief in the gospel, the sanctification of the believer, encouragement in the heart, and strength "in every good deed and word."
We relate to God's action in the soul through faith and prayer. We ask God to make his word effective in us and in those who hear us. We ask God to sanctify us by his Spirit and through the truth. We ask God to help us stand firm and hold to the doctrines that have been passed on to us in the apostolic and biblical traditions. To strengthen our brothers, we remind them of the promises and the faithfulness of Christ, and then we ask God to encourage their hearts by a direct action in the soul through these doctrines. Thus Christian life and ministry place all the emphasis on intellectual doctrines, but place all the expectation on gracious divine action to render these doctrines effective in us and in others.
Pay Back: The God of Vengeance
This is an adaptation from Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians.
We ought always to thank God for you, brothers, and rightly so, because your faith is growing more and more, and the love every one of you has for each other is increasing. Therefore, among God's churches we boast about your perseverance and faith in all the persecutions and trials you are enduring.
All this is evidence that God's judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.
With this in mind, we constantly pray for you, that our God may count you worthy of his calling, and that by his power he may fulfill every good purpose of yours and every act prompted by your faith. We pray this so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Thessalonians 1:3-12)
Commentators assume that one major reason for this second letter is to encourage the believers as the persecution against them has become more severe. However, the text does not in fact say that persecution has increased, and it is invalid to infer that it has because Paul is writing a letter to them about it. But whether or not the persecution has become increasingly severe, we can say that it has been ongoing, and that it has not been mild.
What Paul says is that their "faith is growing more and more" and that their "love…is increasing." This growth occurs with "perseverance" and in the face of "persecution and trials." Endurance under persecution implies that Christian belief, profession, and action are preserved. If the Thessalonians no longer believe what they first believed, or if they no longer make the same profession before the world or perform the same actions that are consistent with this profession, then the persecution would have ceased, or would have been reduced.
As Paul writes to the Galatians, "Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished" (Galatians 5:11). If our message and our practice offend unbelievers and incite their outrage, then compromise ought to appease them, rendering endurance unnecessary. But if the offense continues, the persecution also continues. The Thessalonians' perseverance implies that they have not compromised their faith, whether in doctrine or in practice. Paul says that they are "worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering" (v. 5).
Paul continues, "God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you" (v. 6). The Christians will inherit the kingdom of God, but their persecutors will reap the whirlwind. Revenge is an offensive idea to misinformed believers. As mentioned in connection with 1 Thessalonians 5:15, revenge itself is not wrong, and in fact justice requires revenge, or as Paul puts it, justice means "pay back." The Bible does not teach against revenge, but rather insists that revenge is necessary. However, it forbids us to take it upon ourselves to exact revenge on those who wrong us, for God reserves that right for himself. It is important to correct the misunderstanding on revenge.
If we are against the very idea of "pay back," then although we would refrain from taking revenge, we would be doing this for the wrong reason. Moreover, this can also misdirect our thinking when it comes to the legal system, as in the punishment of criminals, as well as our understanding of the everlasting punishment of unbelievers in hell. So to summarize, God makes justice necessary, and justice makes revenge necessary, but God should be the one who carries it out. Therefore, Christians ought to endure persecution without compromise, while looking to God for justice, to "pay back" trouble to those who trouble us (v. 6).
Christians often discourage one another from thinking this way, that God would "pay back" those who trouble them. However, the apostle regards this as the proper perspective to offer those suffering persecution, so if a Christian finds this offensive, it is only an indication that his understanding is defective, and not in accord with divine justice. A person who refuses the principle of retribution, of "pay back," cannot at the same time grasp and accept the biblical doctrines on sin, and on redemption and atonement. Sin incurs a debt that man cannot pay, and through the atonement, Jesus Christ sacrificed himself to pay this debt. For those who look to him and call upon him in faith, this payment is credited to their account. The principle of retribution is a necessary presupposition behind the ideas of justice, sin, and redemption.
If some unbelievers who persecute Christians finally repent and convert to the faith, then of course their sins are forgiven. They will not suffer a "pay back," especially the kind that entails hellfire, since their debt has been paid by Christ. It would mean that Jesus has already endured the pay back that is meant for them. We have no objection to this, since our own debt has been paid by Christ as well, and we cannot dictate to God as to how he must dispense his mercy. He has said that he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and he will harden whom he wishes to harden.
Since the "pay back" principle is derived from God's justice, it is applicable to any period in history, and to believers in any setting. God will exact revenge on those who persecute Christians today. He will avenge even us. The ultimate manifestation of retribution will occur when God throws all non-Christians into the lake of fire, in which they will suffer constant conscious extreme torture forever. But God may at times also deal out temporal punishments against the unbelievers. Whether these occur or how they occur is up to him. The principle of retribution, or "pay back," is in force in all cases.
Earlier, we observed that Paul has introduced two major future events to the Thessalonians:
The first is the coming of Christ in temporal judgment that would result in the destruction of Jerusalem, and the slaughter and dispersion of the Jews (1T5 and 2T2). History tells us that this occurred in AD 70, but as we noted, our belief of this event and interpretation of the passages concerning it do not require the confirmation of historians. Jesus said that the event would happen to the same generation to which he ministered, so that even without the testimony of history, we would know that the event occurred within a matter of decades since the ministry of Jesus. Of course, this would have been a future event to the Thessalonians, but a past event to us.
Then, the second major event is the coming of Christ to receive his people (1T4). Those who are dead will be resurrected, and those who are alive will be caught up to be with him forever. This event is also accompanied by a final judgment against non-Christians, although 1T4 does not emphasize this, since the purpose of that passage is to encourage bereaved Christians. This event is what we usually call the "second coming" of Christ, and it remains in our future.
Some have offered reasons to believe that Paul is referring to the first event (AD 70) in our passage. First, the text focuses on the punishment that would come upon those who are persecuting the Thessalonians at the time of the writing of this letter. These persecutors mainly consist of Jews, and the punishment in view here seems to correspond to what Paul means in the first letter when he writes concerning them, "The wrath of God has come upon them at last" (1 Thessalonians 2:16). Second, the language in our passage parallels that of Daniel 7:9-12 and Joel 2-3, which include prophecies that are now understood to have occurred in the first century. Third, the language in our passage parallels that of Matthew 16:27-28, where Jesus says that "some who are standing here will not taste death" before they witness the event. Thus it is more than possible that the punishment in our passage refers to God's coming in judgment to slaughter the Jews and destroy their temple in AD 70.
The apostle stresses punishment in our passage, saying, "He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power" (v. 8-9). The words denote retribution and recompense. Our God is a God who punishes. We must become accustomed to this, but more than that, we must come to like it. To dislike the idea that God punishes is to dislike God himself, since he acts out of his nature of justice. That God would punish them with "everlasting destruction" does not mean that they would cease to exist, since then they could not also be "shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power." Paul means that God would kill them and then send them to hell. They will have no share in the joy and glory that the faithful Thessalonian Christians are destined to receive.
Although it is likely that the passage refers to God's coming in judgment in AD 70, the principles that determine the persecutors' punishment and the believers' inheritance remain applicable, since they are stated as universal principles.
Paul does not say, "God will punish these very Jews who persecutor you and no one else." But he writes, "He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus" (v. 8). Those who "do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus" make up a very large but well-defined group, namely, all non-Christians. God is coming to punish all non-Christians, if not in AD 70, then at some other time, and if not by a temporal punishment followed by hellfire, then immediately by hellfire at their death or at the second coming of Christ. There will be no escape.
As for the Thessalonians, Paul says that they are numbered among Christ's own people, not because they are Thessalonian Christians, but "because you believed our testimony to you" (v. 10). We have believed on the same apostolic testimony, and therefore we are also numbered among Christ's own people, and will share in the same glorious inheritance.
Cessationism and Rebellion
This is an adaptation from Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians.
Download PDF (includes footnotes)
Do not put out the Spirit's fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. (1 Thessalonians 5:19-20)
Verses 19-22 discuss the apostolic policy toward prophecy. Paul writes, "Do not treat prophecies with contempt," but he tells the Christians to "test everything."
Cessationism is the false doctrine that the manifestations of miraculous endowments such as those listed in 1 Corinthians 12 have ceased since the days of the apostles and the completion of the Bible. Although there is no biblical evidence for this position, a main motive for this invention is to secure the sufficiency of Scripture and the finality (completion) of Scripture. However, it has been shown that the continuation of miraculous manifestations does not in fact contradict these two doctrines or put them at risk. Thus cessationism is both unbiblical and unnecessary.
More than that, cessationism is also evil and dangerous. This is because if cessationism is false, then those who advocate this doctrine are preaching rebellion against the Lord.
The Bible commands Christians, "Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy" (1 Corinthians 14:1). If cessationism is correct but we do not know it, then we could still safely obey this instruction, although we will not receive what we desire. That is, if prophecy has ceased but I think that it continues, then I could still desire the gift of prophecy in accordance with this command, but I will not receive the gift of prophecy. No harm is done.
On the other hand, since the cessationist teaches that prophecy has ceased, then although the Bible says "desire spiritual gifts," he will not desire spiritual gifts, since the spiritual gifts are no longer in operation, and what gifts people think they have are necessarily false. This also applies to prophecy in particular. So although Paul says, "Do not treat prophecies with contempt," the cessationist must treat all prophecies with contempt, since he believes that prophecy has ceased, so that all prophecies today are false. His view toward prophecy must be "reject everything" instead of "test everything." But again, if cessationism is false, then this person would be preaching rebellion against the biblical commands to desire and test spiritual manifestations.
Since the commands "desire spiritual gifts," "do not treat prophecies with contempt," and "test everything" are revealed by divine and infallible authority, the cessationist must present an infallible argument to render them inapplicable for today. If he cannot provide this but he still advocates cessationism in the face of these explicit biblical commands, then is it not obvious that he has condemned himself before God, even if this person is right that the gifts have ceased? No Christian should dare follow such a person or believe his doctrine. If a person preaches cessationism but cannot prove it – if he cannot provide an infallible argument for it (since the command to desire spiritual manifestations is clear and infallible), then this means that he consciously preaches rebellion against some of the Bible's straightforward commands. Why then, should he not be removed from the ministry or even excommunicated from the church?
Since the arguments for cessationism are forced and feeble, and since the doctrine presents so great a danger, it is best to believe the Bible as it is written, and obey its commands as they are stated – that is, "desire spiritual gifts" and "test everything." This position is faithful to the direct statements of Scripture, but it requires courageous resistance to fallacious arguments, academic bullying, and church traditions.
Inherent in this biblical approach is protection against charismatic fanatics and false miracles. The Bible instructs us to "test everything," and since it is sufficient, it is able to expose counterfeit miracles and false prophecies. The answer is not to assert that the gifts have ceased, but to follow the instructions that the Bible has already given on the subject. This position, that we should follow what Scripture says, would offer us perfect protection even if cessationism is correct. If prophecy has indeed ceased, then any prophecy today is false. Since the Bible is a sufficient revelation, the information in it will enable us to "test everything," so that any alleged prophecy today will either be tested, and finding it false, it will be condemned, or if the content is such that it is untestable, it will be ignored.
Cessationism teaches us to abandon some divine commands without divine warrant, and thus preaches rebellion, but the position that we should obey both "desire spiritual gifts" and "test everything" preaches obedience to the Lord, and it is at the same time able to protect itself against all deception. There is no danger in desiring spiritual gifts as long as we also test everything – if all spiritual manifestations are false, then we will expose all of them as false when we test them, and so we will regard all of them as false. A person who does this is safe from judgment.
Concluding Admonitions in First Thessalonians
This is an adaptation from Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians.
Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other. And we urge you, brothers, warn those who are idle, encourage the timid, help the weak, be patient with everyone. Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always try to be kind to each other and to everyone else. Be joyful always; pray continually; give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus. (1 Thessalonians 5:1-18)
As Paul brings his letter to a close, he offers a number of short instructions. Whether long or short, these are divine precepts, and a serious consideration of the letter would forbid us from quickly passing over them, or to make a general statement about them that ignore the particulars. So when Paul writes, "Give thanks," we are not to regard this as just something good to say, but we are to pause, consider the meaning and significance of this precept, repent of our ingratitude, and give thanks to God in all things. Each item in the passage could generate a full discussion, and although we will not do this in our commentary, some initial effort is better than nothing.
Verses 12-15 provide instructions that are necessary to maintain the strength of a congregation's internal stability as well as its testimony before the world. Paul here refers to the church leaders, the believers, and "everyone else."
Of course church leaders are also believers, but as Paul writes, they are "over you in the Lord." They consist of a small company of individuals among the believers that exercise oversight in the congregation. Christians are to "hold them in the highest regard." In a culture that despises authority, and in which ignorant and incompetent people harbor the delusion that they are equally qualified as everyone else to make pronouncements in matters of religion and morality, this instruction is especially important to maintain proper order in the church, and to prevent it from appearing foolish before the world.
On the other hand, respect for church leaders must be placed upon the proper basis. Some believers hold their leaders in the highest regard not "because of their work," but because of their reputation, appearance, eloquence, or other factors that render their adoration a form of idolatry rather than a healthy respect. They are more tolerant toward those who blaspheme God than those who criticize their favored theologians and preachers. They are as the carnal Corinthians, who would say, "I am of Paul!" or "I am of Peter!" This is sinful, and it is destructive to the cause of Christ.
If believers are to respect their leaders, even hold them in the highest regard because of their work, then these leaders better be faithful in this work. Paul writes that the Christians should "respect those who work hard among you…who admonish you." Church officers who do not work hard, or who do not work hard in the right things and in the right way, should not receive the respect that Paul urges in this passage. Among other things, those who are to be respected work hard to "admonish." They are those who labor to remind and rebuke the believers to follow sound doctrine and pursue holy living.
Some commentators believe that Paul mentions this because there is tension between the leadership and the congregation. Again, the popular hermeneutical assumption that the apostle would bring up a subject only when there is a corresponding problem in the audience is most unwarranted and foolish. One could push the assumption further and assert that whenever Paul calls Jesus the "Lord Jesus Christ," it is because his readers doubt that Jesus is Lord and Christ, or even that whenever Paul mentions God, it is because his readers are atheists. But for some reason, commentators do not say this. The assumption is a stupid invention, and must be discarded and purged from the practice of biblical interpretation. We can be certain that a writer is addressing an existing issue with the readers only when there is actual evidence for it.
Christians are to "live in peace with each other." Believers consist of individuals from different nations, races, genders, and social, financial, and educational backgrounds. When they come together, these difference are not obliterated. When unbelievers are able to maintain unity among themselves, it is because they celebrate their differences and practice tolerance. The basis for this unity is common humanity. In contrast, when believers come together in unity, they practice reconciliation. The basis for this true unity is common faith in Christ.
Unlike the non-Christians, believers should not celebrate their human differences, but they must become secondary. Sometimes Christians adopt an attitude that comes from the world, and that is anti-biblical. They would say that they are proud to be Americans, but that they are united to Christians from other nations through Christ. But why should nationality be emphasized in the first place? Or, others will say that they are proud to be black, but they are united to their white brothers in Christ. But when race rather than faith is in the forefront of your thinking, are you not still carnal? These human differences among believers remain, and it is sometimes helpful to consider them, but they are not celebrated in comparison to our common adoration of Christ. And if anyone boasts, let him not boast in his race or gender, as if a "black" Christian or a "woman" Christian is anything special. But let him who boasts boast in the Lord, for it is he who has chosen and redeemed us.
Our peace is not one that tolerates incompatible principles and practices, but it is one that confronts them and demands their conformity to Christ. Paul tells his converts to "warn those who are idle." We are to disapprove, entreat, reprimand, and even threaten those who do wrong. The basis for this is not the inherent superiority, the strong opinion, or even the mere assertiveness of some believers over others, but it is the authority of Christ, to whom all are accountable. On this same basis, we are to "encourage the timid, help the weak, be patient with everyone."
Again, although only brief mention is given to these items that are listed in quick succession, they proceed from divine wisdom and authority, and must be regarded with deliberate attention and obedience. Christians must actually encourage those who are timid, help those who are weak, and so on. They are not intended to be pretty sayings, but believers must act on them. If there is someone idle in your church – if he is able to work but unwilling to work, but sit idle to collect welfare or to receive charity from church members – then warn him. Tell him that he is living in sin, and that he must repent and change. He must find work. Likewise, if there is someone timid among you, go and speak to him. Encourage him, be an example to him, and help him become firm in the faith and bold in his witness for the Lord. These instructions, including "warn those who are idle," are directed to all believers, and not just to the leaders. So the broader principle here is that all believers are to be mobilized in ministry under competent leadership.
The Bible disapproves of one who "pays back wrong for wrong." This is stated variously in a number of places. For example, Paul writes in Romans 12, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord" (v. 17-19). The principle is related to living in peace with everyone. In other words, when Paul tells the believers to live in peace with others, this instruction demands that we do not take revenge on those who wrong us. Peace is destroyed by perpetual retaliation.
However, the principle is not against revenge as such. He says that the reason for believers to refrain from revenge is to "leave room for God's wrath," because God himself said that he wanted to reserve this privilege for himself: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay." Every wrong incurs a debt, and someone must pay. The principle is not that sin incurs no debt, which would be an anti-biblical rejection of the very idea of sin, but the principle is that it is not up to a man to make another man pay. Nevertheless, payment must be rendered, and God says, "It is not up to you to be the debt collector – I will do it." He will either make the sinner pay forever in hell, or he will reckon his debt paid by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. He is the substitute for the chosen ones.
Paul insists on the justice of revenge in his second letter to the Thessalonians, saying, "God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus" (1:6-8). Because Christians have been misinformed on this matter of revenge, we must stress this over and over again. The Bible never teaches against revenge itself, but it teaches that it is not up to us to do it, that it is up to God to do it. In fact, to oppose the idea of revenge is to oppose the idea of justice, the idea that sin incurs debt. Therefore, a person who insists that revenge itself is wrong opposes the atonement, and thus the whole gospel. The minister of the true gospel must affirm and preach that justice demands revenge, that revenge is good and right, and God will be the person who carries it out. He will either make the sinner pay forever, or he will reckon his debt paid by Jesus Christ.
Verse 16-18 tell Christians to rejoice, to pray, and to offer thanks. These items are stated not as attitudes, but as things to do. It is common to suggest that "pray continually" refers to a "prayerful attitude," but this ignores the apostle's teaching. It is understood that the verse does not command us to do these things constantly, in the sense that we must not even pause to eat or sleep, so it is unnecessary to distort them into attitudes in order to make it possible to practice them. They refer to actions. "Be joyful always." Do it – rejoice, and do it all the time. "Pray continually." Do it – do not just have a "prayerful attitude," but engage in prayer. And since he says to do it "continually," he means that we must do a lot of it. Attitude cannot replace action in this verse. "Give thanks in all circumstances." Do it. When something good happens, give thanks. When something bad happens, give thanks. It is good to have a thankful attitude. Turn it into action, and show it by giving thanks. There is no excuse not to do it in a biblical commentary: Thanks be to God, for the gift of Jesus Christ!