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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Preachers and Their Wages
An excerpt from Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians.
1 Thessalonians 2:2-12
We had previously suffered and been insulted in Philippi, as you know, but with the help of our God we dared to tell you his gospel in spite of strong opposition. For the appeal we make does not spring from error or impure motives, nor are we trying to trick you. On the contrary, we speak as men approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel. We are not trying to please men but God, who tests our hearts. You know we never used flattery, nor did we put on a mask to cover up greed – God is our witness. We were not looking for praise from men, not from you or anyone else.
As apostles of Christ we could have been a burden to you, but we were gentle among you, like a mother caring for her little children. We loved you so much that we were delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God but our lives as well, because you had become so dear to us. Surely you remember, brothers, our toil and hardship; we worked night and day in order not to be a burden to anyone while we preached the gospel of God to you. You are witnesses, and so is God, of how holy, righteous and blameless we were among you who believed. For you know that we dealt with each of you as a father deals with his own children, encouraging, comforting and urging you to live lives worthy of God, who calls you into his kingdom and glory.
If Paul is indeed answering slander in this passage, then at least some (not necessarily all) of the statements would correspond to the accusations leveled against him. And we can infer that these accusations allege the opposite of the statements that he makes here. However, contrary to a common hermeneutical error, even if we assume that Paul is answering slander (an assumption that cannot be established), we have no right to assume that every item that he mentions is said in reply to a corresponding accusation made against him. Therefore, there is no way to know the exact content of the slander. And if he is not answering slander, then the passage is simply something that Paul wishes to say. All of this has no effect on the meaning of the passage.
The text highlights several characteristics of a genuine gospel ministry. Preaching the same message in place after place even in the face of persecution makes it more credible that the apostle has a sincere belief in the veracity and urgency of his doctrine, and that he speaks out of obedience to God and compassion for his hearers. He is not after comfort or popularity, since he does not flatter his audience, and almost everywhere he goes he has to suffer mistreatment and endure insults. He is not after some financial reward, since he worked to earn his own living. I will say more about this last point in a moment.
He makes a number of denials as well as several claims. His preaching, he says, does not spring from error, does not spring from impure motives, and does not spring from trickery. He is not trying to please men or seek the praise of men. He does not use flattery or put on a mask as if to cover up evil intentions. Perhaps these items correspond to accusations made against him, but we cannot be sure, and he could make these denials whether or not he is answering slander. On the contrary, he adds, he speaks as one approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so that both his character and his message have received the divine seal of authenticity. He makes these claims with the awareness that God "tests our hearts" and that he is "our witness." In addition, while he was with the Thessalonians, he treated them with the care of a mother and the comfort of a father.
Here is where consistent doctrine and lifestyle can pay off: Paul appeals to what the Thessalonians have learned about him from the time that he stayed with them. In order to answer slander or to reinforce his credibility, he only has to remind them of what they already know about him, and so he writes, "You know" (v. 5), "Surely you remember" (v. 9), "You are witnesses" (v. 10), and "For you know" (v. 11). This is a powerful method for defending one's integrity, but needless to say, it is effective only if one has displayed exemplary conduct before his audience. This observation impresses us with Paul's holiness and dedication, but it becomes even more beneficial if we will follow his pattern.
As for the matter of financial support, Paul writes that while he and his companions were preaching the gospel to the Thessalonians, they "worked night and day in order not to be a burden to anyone" (v. 9). It is essential to truth, justice, and the health of the church and its people to know what Paul is saying, what he has done, and his reason for doing it. Some have concluded that ministers of the gospel should never accept payment for their work as preachers, but should always earn their livelihood by laboring in something other than the work of the ministry. This position represents not only a misunderstanding and even a rejection of Scripture, but it is abusive, unjust, and wicked, and it will incur the Lord's punishment if not righted.
There is the matter of motive. Christians often complain that preachers only want to take their money. But not many preachers are wealthy, and with stingy and rebellious Christians like these, it is unlikely that many of them will become wealthy. Preachers enter into the ministry knowing this, and those who do not are probably not very intelligent. The fact is that most professing believers who complain about greedy preachers do so to hide their own covetousness. It is not that preachers only want to take their money, but that these so-called believers only want to keep their money. The issue of stingy believers is a much greater problem than greedy preachers.
Then, although 1 Thessalonians 2:6-9 includes all the information that we need to grasp the basics of Paul's view on the matter, he offers more details in 1 Corinthians 9:3-14:
This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. Don't we have the right to food and drink? Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?
Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn't the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn't we have it all the more?
But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.
Paul's thinking spills into verses 15-18, but there he is already proceeding to the next point in his argument, and so we will stop at verse 14. As we consider this topic, we will keep both the 1 Thessalonians and the 1 Corinthians passages in mind.
In both places, Paul insists that he has the right to obtain financial support from his hearers. He uses various expressions and analogies to describe this right. He says that he has the right "to be a burden" (1 Thessalonians 2:6, 9). The context is that he "worked night and day," so the burden refers to the financial support that the Thessalonians would have had to provide for Paul if he had not worked to provide for himself. He says that he has "the right to food and drink" (1 Corinthians 9:4). He mentions that Peter, the Lord's brothers, and the other apostles would take their wives along with them (v. 5). This is mentioned together with "the right to food and drink," implying that the provision must also extend to the companions of the apostles. Then, he asks the rhetorical question, "Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?" (v. 6). This implies that Paul and Barnabas have the same right as the other apostles, and that this right entails not having to "work for a living" – work that is something other than the work of the ministry.
He drives his point across in verses 7-14 with many analogies, one after another: "Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk?…Doesn't the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: 'Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.' …when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest….If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you?…Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar?"
The principle common in all these analogies is that the worker should benefit from and should live on his work. So the soldier should receive payment for being a soldier – it would be an injustice to require him to serve as a soldier and at the same time to labor in something else to earn his livelihood. No, if he works as a solider, then that is where his livelihood should come from. The farmer eats of his own produce. The temple worker gets his food from the temple. How much more should one who sows "spiritual seed" receive a "material harvest" from those that he serves (v. 11)?
Both the analogies and the explicit statements insist that this right belongs to every preacher of the gospel, and not only to the apostles. The universal principle applies to he who serves as a solider, he who plants, he who tends a flock, the plowman, the thresher, and even an ox. And it is directly applied to those who sow "spiritual seed" (v. 11) and "those who preach the gospel" (v. 14). The principle applies to all workers, even animals, and no less to those who preach the gospel. He concludes, "In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel" (v. 14).
This is the Lord's ordinance, and places a moral obligation on every person. Therefore, those who hear the gospel are expected to render payments to the preachers, and those who preach the gospel are to exercise this right and accept their payments, to make their living by preaching the gospel. In fact, Paul himself accepted financial support from the Philippians (see Philippians 4:15-19). He refers to the transaction as a "matter of giving and receiving" (v. 15), and that which was received as "aid" (v. 16), "a gift" (v. 17), and by implication a "payment" (v. 18). And he says that the Philippians sent gifts to him "again and again" (v. 16).
Thus it is not true that Paul never accepted payment for his preaching and ministry work. But he did not demand payment from the Thessalonians and the Corinthians. So although he had the right, he did not exercise his right to demand payment for his spiritual labor in these instances. He says as much in 1 Corinthians 9:12 and 15: "We did not use this right…I have not used any of these rights." Again, the fact that he did not use his right means that he had it to use. He made himself an exception, and this means that in all other situations, preachers may exercise the right to receive payment for their work of preaching.
Why did Paul make himself an exception? Why did he not exercise his right? He explains, "We put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ" (v. 12). He would earn his own living while he preaches the gospel in situations where this would prevent or remove hindrances to the gospel. In these instances, he is approaching unbelievers with the gospel as a missionary, and he distinguishes himself in this manner from the itinerant charlatans who swindle people by their fanciful philosophies. Even then, notice that whereas the right of preachers to receive payment from their hearers remains a universal principle, his decision to not accept payment from unbelievers (for when he first preached to them, they were still unbelievers) stands as a personal policy that Scripture never made into a universal principle. That is, preachers might follow his example at times, but they are never required to do so, as there is no indication that even the other apostles gave up their rights in this manner.
As he defends his ministry in his second letter to the Corinthians (see 2 Corinthians 11:5-23), he again mentions the fact that he preached the gospel to them "free of charge" (v. 7). He brings this up to make a contrast between himself and the "false apostles" (v. 13) that were exploiting them, and that apparently have deceived some of the Corinthians, turning them against Paul and his teachings. As with the Thessalonians, he reminds them of what they ought to know already, that unlike those with dubious doctrines and motives, he preached to them as an ambassador of Christ, under authority and under command, and instead of exercising his right to receive payment from them, he earned his own living while he preached to them.
But it was not that Paul earned all of his income by himself, or that he never accepted financial support, since in this same passage he writes, "I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you. And when I was with you and needed something, I was not a burden to anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied what I needed. I have kept myself from being a burden to you in any way, and will continue to do so" (v. 8-9). So it was not that he always refused payment, but that he refused payment from them. Did Paul do that because they were special? Yes, as it turned out, they were especially fickle.
So why did Paul make himself an exception? Why did he not exercise his right? Because he was preaching to people who were either unfamiliar with the gospel, unstable in the faith, or not known to be established. Sometimes, as with the Philippians, Christian virtues quickly take root and bear fruit, and the believers soon become partners in the gospel (Philippians 1:5), so that they send aid again and again (Philippians 4:16). Sometimes, as with the Corinthians, they remain suspicious, disloyal, covetous, gullible, and always teetering on the edge of apostasy. This is when a preacher rejoices that he has not accepted anything from them.
For a preacher to exercise his right to accept payment implies nothing negative about the preacher, since it is a right. But for a preacher to not exercise his right to accept payment is, in fact, very unflattering to those who hear him. He probably regards the audience as unbelievers, as false believers, as immature believers, or no matter what they are, he perceives some deficiency in them or even hostility in them against the gospel, or he foresees some danger on the horizon that he could address from a superior position if he would refuse payment from the people at this time. He, in any case, does not consider the audience a group of genuine and mature Christians who are able and eager to become his partners in the gospel.
When a preacher accepts or even requests financial support from a group of people, he honors them by indicating that he trusts them as genuine and mature believers who are secure in the faith, and who would not stumble over this command of Christ in the matter of giving and receiving. Accordingly, those professing believers who complain about preachers who exercise their right in accepting payment for their service condemn themselves before the Lord. And those who even insist that all sincere preachers should earn their own living apart from preaching the gospel proclaim themselves to be unbelievers or immature believers who might stumble over the smallest sacrifice or act of obedience.
Concerning the matter of payment toward church elders, Paul writes, "The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, 'Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,' and 'The worker deserves his wages'" (1 Timothy 5:17-18). He does not say, "Do not pay the elders anything! They must work outside of the church to provide for themselves and their families."
That they are "worthy of double honor" refers to the nature and amount of their compensation, as indicated by the context. Verse 18 first mentions again the ox that grazes while it treads the field, that is, the principle that the worker should receive payment from the work that he does. Then, it makes the statement, "The worker deserves his wages," which echoes the Lord's own words (see Luke 10:7) – they are worthy of "double." In other words, Paul's instruction is to pay the church elders, and pay them well. Nevertheless, he refers to those who do well, and especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. Any board or church that disregards this principle operates in opposition against God's command. The Lord will judge.
The preacher's power to receive payment is called a "right" (1 Corinthians 9:12, 15), and the money rendered to him is called a "wage" (1 Timothy 5:18, Luke 10:7). This means that the payment toward the preacher is owed to him. And this in turn means that when believers provide proper financial compensation to a preacher, this is considered a salary, and not an act of charity or compassion. But if they fail to pay, they are rightly considered cheaters and robbers.
When you withhold money from a preacher, you are withholding money that belongs to him, that he has a right to receive. The Bible calls the money that his deserves his "wages" or salary. So those who fail to pay fall under the curse of James, who writes, "Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty" (James 5:4).
The money that you withhold from preachers who proclaim the word of God to you, who teach you sound doctrine, who defend you against assaults and deceptions, and who pray for you, so that your faith would not fail, now testifies against you before the Lord. It will stand as a witness against you in the day of judgment, as evidence of your injustice and cruelty. God will hold you responsible for every lack that they endure. He will charge to your account every occasion that their wives worry about the future. He will punish you for every night that their children go to sleep hungry. And what about those who have to do without the ministry of preachers who lack the resources to reach them? Surely their blood is on your hands.
We reap what we sow. Elsewhere, Paul writes, "Anyone who receives instruction in the word must share all good things with his instructor. Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life" (Galatians 6:6-8). To say this another way, our investments will produce the corresponding returns. The things that we put our time, effort, and money in, are the kinds of things that we will receive.
Consider a military illustration. Suppose a nation neglects to finance its military because it chooses to invest in other more interesting agendas. Its defense will not fall overnight, but it will begin to weaken, corrode, and become outdated. It will be unable to recruit, train, and maintain its troops, or to research and invest in new technologies. In fact, it will become increasingly difficult to keep up a continual supply of the basic equipment that every unit requires. And thus the nation becomes vulnerable to threats.
Likewise, a poorly financed police force becomes ineffective in recruiting, training, and maintaining its officers, or to supply them with the latest equipment and technologies. As a result, crimes increase and citizens are endangered. On the other hand, if the state or nation invests in its police force, its officers become well-trained and well-equipped, contributing to the general welfare and ordered operation of the society.
We are familiar with the effects of investments in many other fields: medicine, education, computer science, architecture, music, environmental preservation, and so on. Indeed, the same argument can be made concerning every area of human life and culture. People acknowledge the problems that can occur when we underpay doctors, teachers, soldiers, and police officers, but they consider God so irrelevant to society that they think nothing of underpaying or even not paying the preachers of the gospel.
We reap what we sow. If you have refused to sow to the spirit but have sown instead to the indulgence of the flesh – that is, if you have invested in the pleasures of your flesh instead of the things of God – then, you will reap a whirlwind of sin and carnality, violence and destruction, unbelief and defiance. Christians often complain that they live in a country characterized by such things, but the fact is that many of them have contributed to the current condition by investing in the things of the flesh, spurning the things of God and withholding funds from his ministers. What if we invest everything we have in preachers and theologians who are faithful to communicate the Christian faith with clarity and courage? The church will be strengthened, God's name will be honored, and the nation as a whole will become prosperous. In the face of an ever worsening crisis, even Christians are accustomed to take away their support from the things of God and to invest in unspiritual solutions. But this only adds to the harvest of destruction.
So the question to Christians is, are you willing to, often without sacrificing any comfort at all, part with some of your surplus so that you will exhibit at least a pretense of respect for God and for those whom he has called and sent to preach for the salvation of your very souls? Invest your time, effort, and money in spiritual things – in preachers, churches, and ministries that publish sound doctrine and enforce church discipline – and you will reap a harvest of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Finally, a word to the preachers. The biblical principle and standard is that "those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel" (1 Corinthians 9:14). We must preach it to the people because this is what God commands, even if they might regard such a message as self-serving when coming from us. We must not be embarrassed by it, but as with other biblical doctrines, we must preach it with boldness and shamelessness, so that those who desire to obey the truth will know and comply, and to remove any excuse from those who disobey out of ignorance and rebellion, so that they may be judged. We can tell them that they should invest in ministers – in us! – but we cannot force them, and they will not comply unless the Holy Spirit regenerates them and stimulates them to joyful obedience.
Love does not always insist on rights. Even if we suffer because of the people's callousness, we must still perform the work that God has called us to do, looking to him for our deliverance and sustenance, instead of to those whom we call brothers and sisters. So the question to preachers is, are you willing, if necessary, to sacrifice personal comfort and security to minister to an often covetous, selfish, ungrateful, unbelieving, demanding, and critical people?
Slander and Ministry
An excerpt from Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians.
1 THESSALONIANS 2:1
You know, brothers, that our visit to you was not a failure.
Slander is a favorite tactic against the gospel. It refers to false criticisms, accusations, and representations, and can be directed against our doctrine, motive, behavior, and history. It is designed to undermine the credibility of the Christian faith, and in many cases, to inflict pain and loss on the ministers of the gospel. Jesus taught his disciples about those who would "insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me" (Matthew 5:11). This reflects the kind of people that non-Christians are, and these are the things that they do when they cannot withstand the influence and intelligence of Christianity. Slander can also come from professing believers who disagree with our theological peculiarities. When that happens, of course, they are operating in dishonesty and hypocrisy.
Jesus faced constant slander during his ministry. His opponents branded him a deceiver (Matthew 27:63; John 7:12, 47), and said that he worked miracles by "the prince of demons" (Matthew 9:34). At his trial, "many testified falsely against him" (Mark 14:56), although their statements did not agree. He faced slander even after his death and resurrection, since his opponents spread false theories about what happened to him (Matthew 28:12-15). He remains the most slandered person today, as unbelievers malign him, and professing believers misrepresent him. "If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household!" (Matthew 10:25). We worship and preach the one whom evil men slander, and because of this we have become their targets as well. As Jesus said, they will "falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me." Instances in Scripture abound. The Jews, for example, "produced false witnesses" (Acts 6:13) against Stephen and murdered him (7:57-58).
Paul faced slander throughout his ministry. During his second missionary journey, he was slandered in Philippi (Acts 16:20-21), Thessalonica (17:6), Athens (17:18), and Corinth (18:12-13). Since the Jews from Thessalonica who encouraged slander against him were the ones who incited persecution in Berea, it is probable that he was slandered in Berea as well (17:13). Thus he was slandered in every major location in his second missionary journey. When we also take into account all the other instances of slander against him recorded by Luke in Acts and indicated (although sometimes only by implication) by Paul in his own letters, we should become acutely aware that slander plays a large part in the opposition against the gospel and its ministers. Therefore, adequate ministry training must include instructions on how to handle slander, and believers in general must also be taught how to respond to slander against themselves and against their ministers, "in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes" (2 Corinthians 2:11).
It is widely held that 2:1 begins a section in which Paul refutes the slander that has been leveled against him. Although this is possible, the assumption is unnecessary for an accurate interpretation of the passage, since what Paul says is true and intelligible regardless of whether it is something that he is asserts for his own purpose, such as to reinforce the credibility of his person and message, and to enhance his relationship with his converts, or whether it is something that he asserts in defense of his person and message. The meaning of what he says is the same. Indeed, it would not surprise us that those who are so eager to slander him to his face would be much more ready to slander him in his absence. Still, an accurate interpretation of the letter does not depend on this assumption. There is nothing in the passage or in the entire letter that could be distorted or misunderstood apart from such an unverified background.
The hermeneutical tendency insisting that extra-biblical conjectures regarding the historical context are necessary in even gaining a basically reliable understanding of Paul's words is false, incompetent, and dishonest. The nature of these statements is such that their meaning remain essentially unchanged regardless of the historical context as to whether there is any slander involved. It is common for hermeneutic-happy individuals to require more (any?) extra-biblical information than we need in blatant disregard to the clarity and richness of the passages examined. This error in hermeneutics occurs because exegetes are sometimes more interested in preserving a sense of importance for their specialized discipline than in promoting Scripture's sufficiency and perspicuity, and in principle the right and ability of every believer to understand it.
If Paul is answering slander, then we can infer that at least some of his statements correspond to the false criticisms against him, so that at least some of these statements would represent the opposite of what the slander entails. We will discuss what he says in the next chapter of this commentary. However, to correct another common hermeneutical tendency, even if Paul is answering slander, it would be illegitimate to assume that every detail is written in answer to a corresponding false criticism or accusation made against him. That is, if a person responds to a slander by saying, "I came to you without any greed or ulterior motive," it does not follow that the slander has stated that he came with "greed" and "ulterior motive." It could be that the slander only accused the man of greed, but it is natural or desirable for the person so falsely maligned to complete the declaration of innocence or to make a general disclaimer against other possible accusations regarding his motive. Whatever the nature of the slander may be, or whether there is any slander at all, notice that "I came to you without any greed or ulterior motive" would carry the same meaning.
As with everything else, we desire to learn God's perspective on this form of persecution, for in divine wisdom is the response of confidence and holiness. Slander is not reserved for great apostles, but Jesus assumes that it could happen to any person who represents him. If you stand for the truth of the gospel before the church and the world, then it is likely that at some point people will misunderstand you, misrepresent you, and spread lies about you. Jesus calls those of us targeted by slander for his sake blessed. In enduring slander because of our allegiance to Christ, we are identified with the prophets, since they were also likewise persecuted, and our rewards will be great in heaven (Matthew 5:11-12). May the Spirit grant illumination and sincere faith, so that this admonition takes root in us; otherwise, it will not persist in our minds when actual slander occurs against us. But if by God's power we truly believe that our rewards will be great for enduring slander for his sake and for joining the company of the prophets, we will indeed rejoice in the face of slander, and the stigma, inconvenience, and persecution that it generates.
Our response is characterized by faith, rejoicing in our participation of the kingdom and looking toward God for justice and vindication. So we do not resort to dishonorable methods, such as repaying slander with slander, or to physical violence. Rather, we will entreat and intercede for their sake, so that perhaps God may save some of them. And if they do not repent, there is no need for us to punish them ourselves. God is just, and he will punish those who slander the gospel and its ministers, even throwing them into the lake of fire that burns forever. As for those who claim to be Christians and yet slander other believers, they should examine themselves to see if they are in the faith.
This does not mean that we may never answer slander and attempt to correct false criticisms, accusations, and representations against us, especially when the credibility of the Christian faith is at stake. If 1 Thessalonians 2:1-12 is indeed a response to false allegations against Paul, then it serves as another example in handling slander. But even if not, we know from other places that he indeed addresses slander at times. In any case, even as he defends himself, he could not address every charge at length and he could not constantly maintain his defense. And certainly no one can actively defend himself after death. Much is left for God's providence to sort out apart from the labor of the slandered minister or believer. God calls us to serve him, not to replace him. Therefore, whether or not we defend ourselves, and whether or not we take much time to do it, we must look to God for the vindication of his name, and if it is his will, ours as well. But let no one suppose that the effect of our work will be in exact proportion to our effort; rather, by God's providence and blessing the effect will be greater than what our effort appears to be able to produce.
If we preach and practice the gospel, it is likely that we will be slandered. The proper response is to rejoice, defend, and believe. Then, the awareness that we as individual believers might be slandered alerts us to the possibility that other believers, Christians other than ourselves, might also be falsely maligned at times. This realization is significant because it reminds us that many criticisms and accusations against other Christians are untrue, and just as we would not want people to slander us, we should not slander others, spread slander about others, or to believe slander about others.
It is especially important to keep this in mind when allegations are made against our theological opponents, such as Christians with whom we disagree. In fact, we should not believe slander or unjustified accusations even against unbelievers. Christians have no business inventing or encouraging slander against anyone, not even the devil himself. There are professing Christians who invent and promote slander against their theological rivals. This is of Satan and of the spirit of the Pharisees, who murdered the Lord Jesus and thought that they did God a favor. But God will judge such men. A lie is a lie, and we should not endorse it. For the sake of truth and justice, at times we may need to defend the victims of slander, even if we must then turn around to make some accurate criticisms against them instead.
Some Christians, it seems, will believe any accusation against their ministers. It is true that ministers of the gospel can betray their commitment to Christ and sin grievously – failing in doctrinal purity, in sexual morality, in financial accountability, and so on – and at least in the current spiritual climate, many of them are not believers at all, so "Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning" (1 Timothy 5:20). But let us always keep in mind that slander is a weapon of the enemy, to introduce suspicion, strife, and chaos into the church; therefore, Paul instructs, "Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses" (5:19).
Christians are likely to agree with what I say here, that we should not endorse or promote slander, whether it is directed against Christians or non-Christians, or whether against those whom we support or oppose. But unless they jealously hold themselves to a strict standard of truth and justice, the temptation to take advantage of slander in order to advance their own agenda at times takes control of them. Slander capitalizes on the thrill that many professing Christians experience upon hearing a negative report about someone they disapprove, and their eagerness to see this person destroyed. So they gloat when they hear accusations against those that they dislike or oppose, and they add fuel to the fire, so to speak, by building additional criticisms on top of the current fury. This behavior is of the evil one. It does not become the children of light. Any hearsay can also be slander, and to encourage it makes one a tool in the devil's hand.
There was a church that appeared promising for a time. There were numerous problems with it, but at least it had maintained some semblance of loyalty to the biblical faith until it began to increasingly deviate from the spirit and doctrine of Christianity. I would not consider myself an insider, and I had no authority in that church, but I did have minimal access to the leadership's attention. So I vehemently complained about the direction that the church was heading, but my effort was of no avail.
The church's teaching became so outrageous and so endangered the congregation, that it caught the media's attention. Reports about the church soon appeared on television, magazines, and newspapers. However, I noticed that these media reports carried very little accurate information about the church, its practices, and its teachings. The errors did not consist of differences in biblical or religious interpretation, but numerous factual errors concerning what the church taught, what certain leaders had said and done, and so on. Regardless of the reason for these inaccuracies – perhaps the reporters had defective sources, misunderstandings, or outright disregard for the truth, etc. – most of the criticisms were in effect invented. The church had many problems, so many and so serious that I no longer considered it a Christian church, but they were not the ones reported.
Here is what I wish to say by the illustration: For a Christian leader to then warn his congregation about this church on the basis of media reports would be to endorse and preach slander, that is, if he had spoken as if these reports were true. Now consider how often Christian polemics issued by pastors and anti-cult ministries depend on media reports about those that they wish to annihilate, and the seriousness of the situation becomes apparent. The church is a culture of slanderers.
If the world does not offer accurate reports on our Master, why would you expect it to offer accurate reports about you? And if the world does not hesitate to slander you, why would you expect it to tell the truth about another believer? If the world is unjust toward you, why would you expect it to be blameless when it tells about another Christian, even if you do not think that person is much of a Christian? Why make Satan your ally just because you consider the person a threat? Handle it with truth or not at all.
False teachers can always be exposed by an examination of their own statements. Media reports about their numerous extravagant purchases and torrid sexual affairs are unusable unless you can verify these allegations apart from the media reports. But all this is unnecessary ammunition. If it can be shown from their own publications that they promote heresy and perverse behavior, this is all that is necessary to expose them and to warn believers against them.
Faith, Love, and Hope
An excerpt from Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians.
1 THESSALONIANS 1:3
We continually remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Paul thanks God that the Thessalonians are exhibiting signs of faith, love, and hope. These are three paramount virtues of genuine and growing Christians.
Faith produces works that correspond to it. Faith is assent, a genuine assent birthed and sustained by the Spirit in a person, to a system of belief that has been revealed by God. This system or worldview is the Christian religion. We may say it in different ways to stress different aspects of it, but faith is genuine assent to the gospel, the Bible, Christianity, and Jesus Christ, that is, the truth about him or what has been revealed about him.
Because the Christian religion insists on certain inner qualities and outward actions, genuine assent to it will necessarily be accompanied by these qualities and actions. Because faith affirms the divinity and lordship of Jesus Christ, then it necessarily produces obedience to his teachings and commands. And because faith presupposes a work of God in the heart by which he transforms the individual and grants him godly dispositions, then these will of course be found in the individual who has faith. The works of faith, then, will include obedience toward biblical commands, compassion for the sick and needy, eagerness to suffer for righteous reasons, boldness in speech and action, and enterprising efforts to advance the gospel.
Now, there are various wrong motives for spiritual labor. Some perform ministry work for vainglory, to impress other men and to be admired by them. Some are taken up by a sense of ambition – the same kind of ambition that men have for secular careers and achievements, but applied to ministry work. Others are driven by competition. Whether there is any need or reason for it, they want to be better than everyone else, or at least better than some specific individuals that they have in mind, because the thought of being less successful than they are is unbearable. In connection with this, there is the motive of spite. It is possible to pursue what appears to be worthy spiritual projects for no other reason than malice and revenge. Of course, these wrong motives, and many others not mentioned, tend to overlap. They are against the spirit of Christ and must be exorcised from the heart.
Love is the only motive for spiritual labor that is worthy of the gospel. Contrary to the world's opinion and even most Christian teachings, this love is mainly not an emotion or a feeling, but a disposition that cares about the things of God, to honor his name and obey his commands, and that cares about the welfare of other people, regardless of any emotion or feeling. A person who loves may consistently experience certain emotions or feelings that seem to accord with such a disposition, but he thinks and behaves with love – that is, a sacrificial obedience to God's law concerning how to relate to God and to people – whether or not he is experiencing these emotions and feelings. Christian love drives emotions and feelings, while non-Christian love, which is not love at all, defines love itself by their emotions and feelings, and then allow love to fluctuate along with these emotions and feelings. Christians who define love as an emotion or feeling endorse a non-Christian characteristic as the supreme virtue, and contribute to the spiritual and ethical decline in the church and in the world. True love is biblical, intelligent, sacrificial, consistent, and persistent.
Hope produces endurance. If we are to grasp the connection between the two, we need to first understand the meaning of hope. Unlike some popular usage, in Scripture hope is not the same as wish. It is not something that we wish to have, but might or might not obtain. It is not something that we wish to happen, but might or might not happen. And it is not something that we will produce or attain by ourselves, our own ability and cleverness. Rather, Christian hope refers to something that God has conceived, ordained, and promised, and it is something that will surely happen. For the Christian to have hope is for him to look forward to something that God has promised, and he can participate in and benefit from this hope because of his union with Jesus Christ.
This hope is in Jesus Christ, so that although it refers to some things that will happen in the future, in a sense it is for us a present reality and a present certainty. This is because he has already revealed himself to us. We know this person now, and our hearts are full now. The fulfillment of the promise is not entirely in the future, but he has saved us already, and we have received from him already. Our hope is not wishful thinking, a baseless expectation, or an empty delusion, but it is a future certainty based on present reality.
We have from him knowledge, faith, power, love, virtues, his Spirit, and "every spiritual blessing" (Ephesians 1:3). We have salvation now. We have the knowledge of God now – that is, we know him now. We have a filial relationship with God now. And even though many believers would renounce their birthright to protect a tradition or a false humility, we have rational, coherent, and extensive answers to all ultimate issues now. God has given us all these things through the Scriptures and by his Spirit. Yet all these things, he says, only amount to a deposit for the greater things that he will lavish upon us in the age to come. This is what a Christian ought to mean by hope.
No wonder that those who grasp this shout and leap for joy. And no wonder those who have this hope possess great endurance. It is not a passive quality, but an active virtue. It energizes us to pursue that which God has ordained for us to do. As Jesus, "who for the joy set before him endured the cross" (Hebrews 12:2), so we will consider "that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us" (Romans 8:18). And again, this endurance is not a strength produced by a delusion or deception, for we have already received a deposit, and we are already enriched by it. The future hope refers to our full inheritance, but those who believe have already experienced its reality. So we perceive that even those things that seem to harm and oppose us are only steps that will take us closer to the glorious end that the Father has promised.
In contrast, non-Christians have no hope. They have nothing. They do not have the answers to anything about anything. They cannot prove any of the things that they claim they know. They cannot demonstrate that their worldviews contain anything true or reliable in them. And they have no basis to think that they will gain knowledge or salvation, or that anything positive will happen to them in the future. For them to expect anything good would be delusional and wishful thinking.
Our knowledge of God in the present forms the basis of our hope for the future, and this hope in turn enhances our comprehension about the present. We are not only able to interpret any event in the past and present in relation to Christ's anticipated and then accomplished redemption, but we are also able to interpret any past and present event in the light of what we know God has in store in the future. Unbelievers cannot do this. Because they do not know Christ, the light of men and the light of the world, they are completely in the dark, about any thing, about any time. They have no understanding of the past, no wisdom for the present, and no hope for the future. They are lost, ignorant, and miserable.
Petition and Thanksgiving
An excerpt from Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians.
1 THESSALONIANS 1:2
We always thank God for all of you, mentioning you in our prayers.
In their attempts to curb selfishness in prayer, preachers sometimes urge believers to reduce the time spent making petitions for their own needs, but to increase the time spent in making petitions for others, that is, to devote more attention to intercessory prayer. Then, in their attempts to curb imbalance or a "taking" attitude with God, they sometimes urge believers to reduce the time spent making petitions altogether, but to increase the time spent in other aspects or forms of prayer, such as adoration, thanksgiving, confession, and so on. Both of these recommendations are misguided and destructive. This is because although the problems perceived are real, and present actual dangers, the solutions proposed are unbiblical, and go against the teachings and emphases of Scripture.
Throughout the Bible, God's people are encouraged to make direct petitions to God, to make requests to him. The Father tells us to ask (Jeremiah 29:12), the Son tells us to ask (Matthew 7:7), Paul tells us to ask (Philippians 4:6), and James tells us to ask (James 4:2). The Bible does not tell us to stop making petitions or to make petitions for others as a prescription to cure selfishness in ourselves. We should address the selfishness itself, and not the legitimate practice of making petitions to God. There is in fact no necessary relationship between the two. A person who makes constant petitions might not be selfish at all, but his behavior might very well be an expression of his faith in God, that is, his confidence in divine power (that God is capable), and his dependence on divine grace (that God is willing). A reverent petition toward God does not spring from a wicked and fearful motive, but it is an acknowledgement of God's sovereignty and goodness, that he is in control, and that he is merciful to bless, to help, and to deliver.
It is difficult to perceive a person's motive merely by his external conduct. Some inferences are possible, especially if his words and actions reveal specific thoughts and dispositions of the heart. But the bare fact of constant petition does not imply a spiritual imbalance. It is what we should expect from someone who believes and follows God's instructions.
We might not know the motive of someone who makes constant petitions to God, but we know for certain that there is something wrong with the person who does not do it, because he defies the teachings of Scripture. In addition, the nature of petition suggests several possible motives for the person who does not do it. Perhaps he is full of pride, or a self-sufficient attitude, and thinks that he can supply for his needs and solve his problems in his own way and by his own power. Perhaps he is full of unbelief, so that he does not believe that God answers prayer, and that making petitions to God is an unproductive use of his time and energy. Perhaps, for whatever reason, he is full of bitterness against God, so that he is reluctant to humble himself and submit his requests to God. If he prays for others and not for himself, this does not indicate selflessness, but the implication is that he thinks other people need God but he does not.
Likewise, it is legitimate to entertain a degree of suspicion regarding those who teach that we should de-emphasize petition for ourselves or that we should focus on making petitions for others instead of for ourselves. If this is what they teach, then this is probably their own attitude toward the prayer of petition. Unless they teach against an emphasis on petition but still do very much of it in private, in which case they are hypocrites, then they do not perceive the need and legitimacy of constant petition, and this is a failure to acknowledge biblical instructions on the subject.
Christians should be encouraged, even commanded, to make more petitions. If we are to take seriously biblical instructions on the subject, each individual should make more petitions for himself, and to be consistent and persistent in doing so. If motive is a problem, the solution is not to turn away from God or from what he commands, but look to him. So the solution to wrong motives and attitudes is not to discourage petitions in prayer, but to teach about these wrong motives and attitudes, and to petition for right motives and attitudes. The solution to the problems associated with petition is to make petition about these problems. That is, the problems with petitions are solved by making more petitions. It is God who grants the insight to perceive our own defects, then the desire to change, and the internal movement that produces the petition for a pure heart.
Then, there is a tendency to discourage prayer for material things, for things that pertain to our circumstances, our finances, our health, and so on, but to focus our effort on asking for spiritual blessings and advancements. The previous criticisms apply to this view as well, for it is as if the person acknowledges his need for God to supply his spiritual needs but not his material needs. Jesus, on the other hand, instructs his disciples to ask for their daily bread. He also says, "Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete" (John 16:24). Therefore, my attitude is that I need God, now and every moment, and for everything. So I ask, and he hears, and he answers and blesses. His supply is not restricted by my petitions, or I would have very little. He gives more than I ask, since I am limited in what I can perceive, think, remember, and express even about my own needs and desires. But I should bring to him all the requests that come to mind, and all the needs and desires that I can recognize in my life.
Nevertheless, it is true that for many people prayer is equated with making petitions to God, often to the exclusion of other aspects of prayer, and this needs to be corrected. To make this correction, or to urge "balance" in prayer, several items or categories are sometimes introduced. They include adoration, confession, thanksgiving, and petition. Insofar as these are taught in Scripture, it is also appropriate for us to teach them. However, we should avoid prescribing rigid rules as to the order that these are to be performed and the proportion that each item is to occupy.
For example, there is the teaching that one must always come to God first by adoration. We can list at least three problems with this. First, the Bible itself does not teach this. There is no explicit teaching prescribing this, and just because some prayers in the Bible begin with adoration does not mean that all prayers in the Bible begin in such a manner, nor does it mean that ours should begin in this way. Second, there is the practical problem of deciding where one prayer ends and the next one begins. That is, if after spending some time in adoration during morning prayer I leave the room to get a glass of water, when I return to the room to pray, is it the same prayer session or a new one? If it is a new one, then I will have to start from adoration again. And if thirty seconds of absence does not break a prayer session, how about thirty minutes? If I wish to pray in the afternoon, do I need to begin from adoration again? Who decides? Where is this in the Bible? Third, this teaching that requires one to begin with adoration would eliminate a legitimate prayer like, "Lord, save me!" If the teaching is that prayers should usually begin with adoration, this is better, but short of a explicit statement from Scripture or a statistical tabulation from biblical examples plus a principle that permits us to make an enforceable inference from it, such a teaching would amount to nothing more than a suggestion.
Legalistic pronouncements, even when devised to counteract a genuine problem, causes bondage and destruction. Rather, let us just say that we should include adoration (or confession, or thanksgiving) in our prayers. But what will make us do it if we do not follow a prescribed order and schedule each time we pray? We will do it if we will develop inner qualities that would naturally express themselves in adoration, confession, and thanksgiving. These are produced by sound scriptural teachings and the continual work of the Spirit in our hearts.
So we may say that prayer should not consist of petitions alone. Perhaps it is better to say this from a positive angle, that is, there are reasons and purposes for prayer other than to make petitions. Rather than adding by force or in an artificial manner the things that are lacking, we can remind ourselves of various things about God and our great salvation that will naturally move us to pursue other forms and expressions of prayer. Rather than holding up an empty concept of adoration in prayer and then trying to conjure up things about God for which to adore him, we can remind ourselves of things about God that will naturally move us to voice our adoration to him. This is another way of saying that, if our lips draw close to God but our hearts are far from him, then our prayers are empty even if we think we have covered all the required items, in the correct order, and in the right proportions.
Thanksgiving is one other aspect of prayer. Paul does not begin his letter by saying that he makes requests to God for the Thessalonians. Surely they have their needs and problems, but these do not provide the only reason for Paul to talk to God about these believers. Rather, he first thanks God for them, for what they are already doing well, for the good things that God has already worked in them. Whatever good that is found in them, it is a work of God, so that Paul does not ask God to thank the Thessalonians for their much coveted endorsement of the gospel, but he thanks God for causing faith and holiness in them. A doctrine of human autonomy leaves room for only half-hearted thanksgiving.
Thanksgiving necessitates remembrance of divine grace, a calling to mind God's faithfulness and generosity toward us. It requires single-minded gratitude, because it is difficult to sincerely and unreservedly thank God for things that you have, while you resent God for things that you do not have. Of course, a person's motive is seldom perfect, and the act of thanksgiving could focus his thoughts upon the goodness of God even more, driving out any hidden unbelief and bitterness toward God.
Thanksgiving is an expression of a believing and regenerate heart. Reprobates do not give thanks to God (Romans 1:21). Although non-Christians sometimes exhibit gratitude, it is never directed to God, since by definition they do not believe in the true God, but they direct it toward either human beings or false gods, which consist of demons or imagined entities. So when a non-Christian thinks that something good has happened, if he exhibits gratitude about it, it is directed to a human, a demon, or a delusion instead of the true God.
This means that whenever a non-Christian exhibits gratitude, he gives the credit for something good (or that he perceives as good) to a creature – at times even to the devil – rather than to the Creator. This in turn means that whenever a non-Christian exhibits gratitude, he is demonstrating his lack of gratitude toward the true source of all goodness and the one who deserves all gratitude. Every time he shows gratitude to another, he is rubbing his lack of gratitude in God's face.
Therefore, whenever a non-Christian expresses gratitude (he never thanks the true God, or he would not be a non-Christian), he mocks and spites God, and thus sins against him. In non-Christians, gratitude is deliberate exclusion and derision of the Creator as sinful creatures show appreciation for one another instead. Non-Christian gratitude is a manifestation of rebellion. It is pure evil in demonstration. Of course, not giving thanks to anyone at all is also sinful, since it remains that no gratitude is expressed to the true God. Non-Christians can do nothing good. All their thoughts, words, and actions are wicked all the time.