The Hope of the Gospel (Past: The Manner of Paul's Ministry)

 

We are still dealing with the past; with how it is that the Thessalonians came in contact with the gospel in the first place. Chapter 1 dealt mainly with how the Thessalonians responded to Paul's preaching. Chapter 2 now focuses more on how Paul preached; we are given greater insight into Paul's methods and attitudes while he was preaching in Thessalonica.

(1 Thessalonians 2:3-12) For our exhortation was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile: but as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts. For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye know, nor a cloke of covetousness; God is witness: Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ. But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children: so being affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted unto you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye were dear unto us. For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God. Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe: as ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children, that ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.

We talked before about how Paul came to Thessalonica and preached. His time there ended when some of the Jews in Thessalonica became so jealous that they formed a mob and dragged Paul's host into court. As a result of this, Paul and Silas left by night, perhaps to avoid detection. (Timothy isn't mentioned here, so if he was with them in Thessalonica, he may have stayed behind and left later—he was not a leader and so would not have been as big a target.)

Paul and Silas left Thessalonica and traveled to Berea (about 45 miles away). Here, once again, Paul began preaching and seems to have had an even more successful ministry, winning converts from both the Jews and Gentiles. Everything seems to have been going well until: “But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people.” (Acts 17:13)

There was a segment of the Jewish population in Thessalonica who were so opposed to Paul's work that they actually traveled to Barea when they found out he was having a successful ministry there. The trouble they caused was great enough that the Christians at Barea thought Paul needed to leave immediately, so he left and traveled to Athens, leaving Timothy and Silas behind—since clearly it was Paul personally who was the main target of the opponents.

And I bring up all this history for a reason. There was a segment of the people of Thessalonica who were opposed to Christianity but, even more specifically, were opposed to Paul as a person. They held a strong, lingering passion against him; certainly, they had a rather low opinion of his character.

And therefore it is highly possible that they tried to pull the Thessalonian Christians away from their faith by attacking Paul's character; very likely, they tried to persuade the church that Paul was nothing more than a traveling charlatan, peddling a quack religion to line his own pockets. Such people were around in the first century as they are around today.

Many commentators believe that this passage is Paul's defense against such accusations. He is reminding the Thessalonians of how he behaved among them. This is not simply Paul declaring his own innocence; Paul is reminding the Thessalonians about the evidence they had of him, the evidence of their own experience.

But this is more than Paul's apologetic. Paul was the example to the Thessalonians about how Christians ought to live. Being followers of Christ entailed, to some extent at least, being followers of Paul. And therefore his example was important as a lesson to them. We will see later that some of the issues Paul mentions here were issues that some in the church seem to have been struggling with, and so Paul is gently reminding them of how he acted as an encouragement that they ought to act the same way.

And that is why this passage which, at the outset, might seem irrelevant to us, is important—because this still shows an example of how to act as Christians. Some of this is perhaps more relevant for preachers or missionaries, but there are lessons here for all of us.

This is a very dense passage; to break it down, we are going to operate under the assumption that this passage is Paul's defense against accusations from his enemies and look at the accusations that he seems to be refuting.

First, we have the accusation of TRICKERY. In verse 3 Paul says that his preaching was not with guile. According to Robertson, the Greek word here comes from the idea of using bait to lure an animal into a trap. Looking at that, I thought about how many cults today, when they approach prospective converts, show only their more attractive and conventional beliefs; they don't start out showing their weird or unpleasant doctrines. Paul had not used any such trickery. He had been honest and forthright in dealing with the Thessalonians.

Also in verse 3, he says his preaching was not with deceit, or error; it might almost literally be translated: he was not leading them astray. This may be a general statement of his truthfulness, but Barnes thinks this means that Paul did not use the same kind of tactics as those usually used by those who peddle lies. 

One such tactic is flattery. If you want, by hook or crook, to win an audience without any scruples, a common way to do is by flattery—tell people what they want to hear. If you make people feel good about themselves, they are more likely to listen to you. 

Another common tactic is appealing to greed or other desires. If you promise people that all their dreams will come true, that they'll get a pile of money, a shiny car, and a new girlfriend, they'll be more likely to listen to you.

For examples of either of these tactics, see 85% of modern advertising.

But Paul had not engaged in such tactics. In verse 4, Paul says that he did not speak as a man-pleaser—as someone interested in or primarily engaged in pleasing people. In verse 5 he reminds them that he never used flattering words.

In verse 3, Paul says that his preaching was not of uncleanness. This may mean that Paul had no impure or selfish motive in his preaching. But it may also mean that his preaching was not comprised of anything that would appeal to such motives. He hadn't gotten a following by promising selfish gratification.

He had brought a promise of hope and joy, but it was not with idle flattery or lavish promises. He had not tried to trick them by using plausible, misleading arguments or appealing to cheap manipulation tactics. The Thessalonians knew from their own experience that Paul was something more than your common religious conman.

Some men may use wrong methods to win people to a lie that they themselves sincerely believe. (Sadly, some people even use wrong methods to win people to the truth—low key, one of the morals here is that we should avoid that.) But usually, the people who peddle in religion like a seedy salesman do it for selfish motives. That is the second accusation, the accusation that Paul was SELF-SERVING; that he preached to gain something for himself, rather than out of a genuine care either for God or for his converts.

In verse 4, we have Paul's own view of the case. Paul did not take up his work on his own. It was something he had been given by God, not for his own benefit, but as a trust. He goes on to emphasize that he was not working for the sake of men, but for God who tries or tests the heart. You can put on a good front and fool men, but God knows the truth. Paul had lived as one who knew he was being judged and inspected by God. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but look at verse 5: Paul says that he never used flattering words “as ye know.” Then Paul says that he did not use a cloak of covetousness; in other words, he did not hide a selfish greedy motive under a plausible exterior; he was not a wolf in sheep's clothing. And of that “God is witness.” The Thessalonians knew from their own experience that Paul was not a flatterer—that they could testify to. They couldn't say for sure what Paul's motives were; they couldn't positively say he wasn't being a hypocrite. Of that, only God could witness.

However, even if the Thessalonians couldn't see Paul's heart, they could make some safe assumptions from his actions; they could see that his actions were not those of someone who was trying to serve themselves. Verse 6: “Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others.” Paul had not exalted himself; he had not demanded or even suggested that people should exalt him. Paul's work had not been about Paul.

Paul's work was not to exalt and glorify himself. And equally, it was not to advance himself in material things. In verse 9, Paul reminds them of the fact that he had not demanded money from them, even for his own support while he preached. He had worked on his own, getting up early and staying up late (in addition to his preaching) to earn money to support himself. Acts 18:2-3 tells Paul's time in Corinth: “And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them. And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.” Paul stayed with Priscilla and Aquila and wrought or worked; he may have been in a business partnership with them—anyway, at Corinth he worked to support himself by making tents. It is safe to assume that he did the same at Thessalonica. (And probably Silas helped?) 

The point is that Paul had not demanded or asked for support from the Thessalonians even though it would have been perfectly logical for them to support him. It wasn't that Paul was so proud that he couldn't accept gifts. Years later, writing to the church at Philippi, he remembers: “For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity.” (Philippians 4:16) Twice (at least) the Philippian church had sent him money or material goods. Some have thought that, for some reason or another, Paul deliberately refused to take any support from the Thessalonians. But I think the truth is that they (or most of them) didn't offer him support, and he wasn't going to ask for it—still less demand it, even though he would have had the right to do so. He would rather work and support himself than force others to support him.

And that is not the attitude of a self-serving man; that is not the mode of behavior practiced by those who preach for gain. If Paul was a self-serving preacher, he was very bad at it. 

Bound up with this accusation was the accusation of TYRANNY. Paul's opponents (seemingly) painted him as a dictator, lording it over his converts and harshly demanding their attention and obedience. This is the attitude practiced by many cult leaders and politicians. But that was not the way Paul had acted. In verse 6, Paul says that he was not (when he might have been) burdensome as an apostle. This might refer to demanding financial support, but it may mean more generally that he was not burdensome; the Greek word for burdensome has the idea of “weight.” We might put it that Paul did not come down heavily upon them. This idea is carried on in verse 7.

Paul says that he was gentle among them. He wasn't harsh or dictatorial; though he wasn't a flatterer or a people pleaser, he also didn't speak roughly or demand their respect and obedience. His manner was gentle. But here is the interesting thing about this verse. The Greek word for 'gentle' is only one letter different from the word for 'baby' or young child, and there are some manuscripts and translations that have that instead. If that was Paul's thought, there's an interesting progression here. First, Paul thinks of a baby—small, helpless, harmless, unable to hurt or demand anything of anyone. Paul had been that harmless to the Thessalonians. But then, a baby is also helpless to do good; it is ineffectual and, in some sense, selfish. And so Paul's thought leaps immediately from the baby to the mother tending and feeding the baby. Like the baby, she is gentle and harmless. But her gentleness is intentional and purposeful; she is gentle because she loves her baby and wants to help it. 

And that was Paul's attitude as well, because, as he goes on to say in verse 8, he had a real love for the people of Thessalonica. He was not a tyrant because his motive was love. His heart was full of love for them, so much that he would have been willing to die for them; the greatest kind of love. And while, again, the Thessalonians could not see Paul's heart, his actions while there had clearly been such that they could have a reasonable assurance of his love. He had acted in love, not like a tyrant.

Verses 10-12 are a summary of the passage. In verse 10, Paul summarizes the nature of his ministry by saying that he behaved in a manner that was holy, just, and unblameable. Perhaps 'holy' means that he was faithful to God; 'just' that he was faithful to men; and 'unblameable' that he tried to avoid even the suggestion or hint of any wrongdoing to either.

As Paul said earlier, he worked to please God and not men. He lived his life in light of the fact that it would be judged by God. But he also was careful to live a life that would bear inspection by man. When his enemies brought accusations against him, he could call his own behavior as a witness. 

Paul's ministry had been with integrity. It had also been with intention. Paul hadn't simply pottered around preaching here and there. He had been deliberate and faithful in his ministry, hoping to cause his converts to reach a certain goal.

Earlier, Paul compared his attitude to the gentleness of a child and the love of a mother. Here, in verse 11, he compares it to the discipline of a father. As a good father tries to teach and train his children to grow up into good men and women, so Paul had exhorted and comforted and testified to them, so that they would walk worthy of God. 

Why was it so important that they walk worthy of God? Because God had called them to share in His kingdom and glory. The idea of the kingdom of God is used in the Bible to refer to God's work in this world in the present. But it sometimes is connected to the future. And most commentators think the word “glory” here refers to the revelation of God's glory in the future consummation of His kingdom. So in one or both of these words, we have an appeal to the future and therefore to hope. Paul's preaching was aimed at preparing people for that future hope. He had a future focus.