The Goodbye Lines: 1 Thessalonians 5

Wow. It’s been awhile since I last visited this project. I’m quite scared to look back at the prior entries I’ve written, knowing how much learning and growing has happened since the first one. Still, we keep going.

In Summary:

Today we examine 1 Thessalonians 5, the closing chapter of this epistle of the Apostle Paul. It’s an epistle, so that means it’s a letter but we give it a fancy name. As the closing of any letter would have, Paul finishes his thoughts from earlier and then says goodbye.

Of course, Paul’s a preacher. So it takes a chapter to wrap up and a paragraph or two to say goodbye. That’s how we all are, even the introverts. 

1 Thessalonians 4 has talked some about the return of Jesus and tried to prepare the church for those times which are yet to come, and the thought continues at the beginning of this chapter. Here, we see the instruction that the church is to stay awake and be self-controlled, following Jesus.

We get an interesting comment at the beginning of the chapter, though, where the church is told that “you do not need anything to be written to you.” Why would that be? It’s important for us to remember that Paul’s letters were not the only way in which he taught. Most of his writings go to churches that he has been with personally and further are being sent with people who have traveled with and spent time with Paul. Some matters do not need writings because they were covered face-to-face! He simply calls to mind the prior teaching they had received.

(Much to our chagrin, true?)

The next paragraph reads like the bullet points of reminders that a professor might spout at a student group right before the test: it’s short, punchy, and easy to remember. It also lacks details—why “Do not treat prophecies with contempt” (5:20)? What are “prophecies” in this case? What was covered in sermons that we just don’t get today? There are questions here that require thought and humility.

In Focus:

Let us put the focus, though, on the conclusion: 1 Thessalonians 5:28 gives us “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.” What can we draw here?

First, our shared relationship with Jesus: Paul does not speak of “his” Lord or to the church of “their” Lord, but of “our” Lord. That matters—while we should not hinge doctrine entirely on a pronoun, there is a useful reminder here that preachers, teachers, apostles, missionaries, churches all share the same Lord: Jesus Christ. There is no division, not through distance nor through work in the Kingdom.

Second, our continued need for grace. Sometimes, our traditions put the whole emphasis of grace onto the moment of conversion, but the letter is to the church, to those who have been converted. There is grace for the past, grace for the future, and even grace for right now.

In Practice:

Practically, then, we ought to seek unity: there are many parts of the body of Christ but only one Lord. One source of grace. And we can, through our actions and inactions, push away from Him and His grace for our current needs. Paul gives us the keys to holding true, though: prayer and fellowship. Prayer for others, fellowship with our family of faith, and trust in Jesus.

And then, as we contemplate the return of the Lord, we should remember Paul’s points of emphasis: that we live for the Lord, that we live like it is day and work like it is day. It may be our calling to work through the whole of our lives for Jesus, as has been the calling for all the generations before us. Why should we expect Jesus to come back and keep us from having to be faithful through our death? So strengthen your hands, serve the Lord, and build good relationships with fellow believers that you can encourage and be encouraged by.

In Nerdiness: 

This chapter gives us some good moments to contemplate what it means to work on the inter-cultural understanding of Scripture. First, there is the translation of the Greek word that is most commonly rendered as “brothers.” That word (adelphoi, roughly) can be used to indicate both a group of men and a mixed group of men and women. Gendered languages work like that—usually informed by male dominance, mixed groups take the masculine form of the word.

So what do we do with that word in Scripture, like 1 Thessalonians 5:25-27? Some translations go with the literal translation: “Brothers.” Some interpret the idea: “fellow believers” or “believers.” Some interpret the idea with the family view: “brothers and sisters.” Which one is right?

Good question. Most of us would agree that even translating as “brothers” should not be seen to exclude women—and if you disagree we have much deeper issues—so we would still update our idea. Why not render it that way into English, since the Greek can be understood to mean something more than just literal brothers? 

Second, we see the concept in 5:26 of greeting with “a holy kiss.” Now, we don’t typically smooch one another at church—so what do we do here? Obey literally? Or obey the concept of relational intimacy and vulnerability? It would be easier to adopt the physical, Latin American or Italian “kiss on the cheek” idea than to be relational and vulnerable in modern America…but what’s the real point?

Look at it all: 1 Thessalonians 4

 In Summary:

Paul opens this chapter with a great word: “Additionally.” He’s linking the chapter to the one before, which is a good reminder that all of Scripture flows together, and especially one book goes as a whole book. In the modern era, we sometimes think people speak in short bursts of words, like a sentence, some spare characters, and an emoji. But down in, you don’t communicate that way: your communication is ongoing and linked to the encounters before and after it. 

Scripture is fundamentally the same: each thought links to prior communication. The linking is important and outweighs our habit of memorizing single verses wrenched from their context. You need to see the whole picture, read the whole chapter. 1 Thessalonians 4 gives some great examples of this, as Paul addresses sexual immorality, living in holiness, and the impending return of the Lord Jesus to judge the earth. Each of the principles is worth understanding, but if you, for example, take 1 Thessalonians 4:3 alone, that it is “God’s will that you keep away from sexual immorality,” you might choose to live a completely self-absorbed life, trusting that as long as you keep sexual activity within the confines of marriage, you are in “God’s will.” 

That would be like saying as long as the nails on one wall of the house hold, it’s a good house. You certainly need those nails, but you need a lot more as well!

In Focus:

Let us take 1 Thessalonians 4:7-8 as our focus passage for this chapter. Here, Paul highlights that we are called not to “impurity” but to “holiness.” As you look at this, make sure you apply some important Biblical interpretative principles:

First: do not automatically apply your normal definition of a word. In this case, the word “impurity” can be a risk for us. We typically leap to “sexual impurity,” and would perhaps grab the reference to “sexual immorality” from verse 3 to make that connection. However, here is where you need to notice that it’s two different words in English because it’s two different words in Greek. Verse 3 uses the word that we get “pornography” from, a word that definitely refers to sexual activities. The word in verse 7? It has a wider range of meaning: impurity, unclean, filthy, unpruned, unpurifiable. 

You always want to check what the words really are, and if you are using a good English translation, it will use different words. It also doesn’t hurt to use a pair of translations or to grab a good study aid for the words.

Second: always check the context. Look at the whole passage: impurity here is used in a summary verse that includes sexual conduct, self-control, not taking advantage of your fellow believers, not being self-absorbed. Impurity is a whole-life issue, not just some portions. 

Third, take note of references and connections to other places. Here, an important note should be seen in verse 6: “as we also previously told and warned you.” Paul reminds them of what else he has said! Prior sermons, letters, discussions, all are important here. You don’t have access to these, but you know this much: Christian teaching was more than one note.

In Practice:

What does this look like, practically? To live in holiness rather than impurity?

First, it looks like having the right authority: Christian people answer to God, guided by the Holy Spirit. Sometimes, God uses fellow believers to hold us accountable, but ultimately the Spirit of God calls us to holiness. That means no man can excuse our impurity, either, so we best not expect our smooth-talking to be worth much. Remember the first point for holiness is knowing the God you are to be like.

Second, it looks like caring for one another: looking again at the context, Paul reminds them of their responsibility for each other. All the way through to the end. The Christian life is replete with opportunities to show love to one another. We should do that.

Third, look ahead at the following verses, where Paul speaks of minding our own business, leading quiet lives, and testifying to Jesus. That’s not isolationism, but it is avoiding being unhelpful busybodies and critics. If all you’ve got is how the other people are doing it wrong, then perhaps you need to revisit this passage.

In Nerdiness: 

So, 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is the one place in Scripture with a very clear picture of living believers being “caught up” in the air to meet the Lord Jesus. From this passage, the idea of the “Rapture,” from the Latin word for “caught up,” entered Christian theology. We have other doctrines that only have one primary passage, so it is not a problem to only have one passage. It’s just important to note that if you read Revelation front to back and back to front, you may not see the idea, because while some scholars will attempt to locate the timing between moments in Revelation, the passage needed is in 1 Thessalonians.

All that to also say this: we need to be very, very careful to realize that Paul is not working out a fully-formed explanation of the end of all things here. He is focused on encouraging one another to love and good deeds in this present age. While he writes without error, that does not mean he writes with perfect clarity. So let us not be overly dogmatic with what we think he might have meant, and focus on the plainer truths: be encouraged, the Lord Jesus will not leave you abandoned.

Encouraged: 1 Thessalonians 3

In Summary:
Paul opens 1 Thessalonians 3 giving his side of recent events, about how he reached a point where he needed to know what was happening with in Thessalonica, so he sent Timothy to check on the believers there. Here, it is helpful to remember the chronology from Acts 17, that Paul was only in town for a few weeks before being run out by the angry mob. He then went to Berea, and then on to Athens.

I see no reason to think that the recollections Paul makes here, of sending Timothy to the Thessalonians from Athens, are from any other time frame. It is, of course, possible, but the simpler solution puts the origin point there in the narrative. Of course, one should note that everything that happened in the life of Paul or Timothy is not recorded in the text, so we cannot make it an absolute claim. But let’s let the simple be the solution.

Having pointed out his personal concern for the church, he goes on to remind them of what he had told them in person—which is noteworthy, considering how little time they had together. There is something here to be considered, briefly: if you took a 3-week slice of any of your relationships and only had that to call on, what would your relationship have? Specifically, in your Christian relationships: do you go more than 3 weeks without encouraging other believers? Pastors and teachers, if someone took a 3-week slice of your teaching, how much would it help?

On track again, we wee Paul is concerned that the Thessalonian believers have been swallowed up by temptation in the absence of encouragement and teaching, even though he had warned them about the coming affliction that both he and they would suffer. The chapter ends with a benediction-type statement, a prayer that reads very much like it should be the end of the message. Paul, however, being a Baptist preacher, still has 2 chapters left to go…

In Focus:
Put 1 Thessalonians 3:7 in your focus for the time being: Paul is encouraged by hearing how the church is responding, even as he faces distress and affliction.

What affliction? Well, since Thessalonica, where Paul was run out in a riot, he’s been run out in a riot in Berea; he’s faced the philosopher’s guild of Athens and been cold-shouldered; he’s now most likely in Corinth—where he’ll be for over a year, but not without trial and difficulty.

Yet hearing from those he loves is an encouragement. Hearing from the ones he has taught is a positive for him.

In Practice:
Well, the first thing to do “in practice” is to keep the faith with what you have been taught! Not that this means we do not grow, develop, and change, but we should separate core truth from other understandings. Knowing that Jesus really lived, really died, really rose from the grave is crucial; your understanding of how to observe the Lord’s Supper is a secondary matter and can change. The first thing we should practice is keeping the faith.

The second thing we should practice is sharing with those who have taught us how we’re doing in keeping the faith. Sometimes, it’s obvious: if you are still face-to-face (or even Internet-to-Internet) with your teachers and mentors, they should be able to see it normal life. Although it’s also valuable to communicate directly about the impact someone has had in your life, you should also be obvious with it. If you are distant—send a note, an email, a card—there are ways.

The third thing we should do is keep in touch with those we have taught: how are you encouraging those who you have taught and moved away from? That’s a challenge for me, personally, as I’m wrestling with what it means for someone who has preached and taught in several churches in the last few decades: how do I make sure to reach back and encourage? Not because those churches need me, but because I should continue to carry a burden for them. (And I do. Somebody damaged the calm of one my previous pastorates, and I think I was almost as aggravated as their current pastor)

In Nerdiness: 
I have taken the assumption that Paul writes the Thessalonians from Corinth, where Timothy was able to rejoin him after checking on the church. Other options exist—and I’m not a New Testament scholar, so you’ll have to check out some of the good resources on Thessalonians for that.

I also would note John Chrysostom’s comments on v. 3 (found in The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture): Paul notes that his sufferings are the glory of the church, because God showed His love for the Thessalonians by allowing one of His servants, Paul, to suffer on their behalf. What would become of us if we thought that way? How much does God love us that someone suffered for our faith? How much does God love others that we should suffer for them?

Entrusted: 1 Thessalonians 2

In Summary:

In this chapter, Paul first hearkens back to his time with the Thessalonians. It wasn’t a very long visit (see Acts 17:1-9), and there was hardly time for Paul and Silas to build up the church there. They were able to win a good number of folks to Jesus, but overall his introduction to the Thessalonians was unpleasant. It was an unpleasantness that followed him onward from Thessalonica to Berea, where he had some peace there until representatives from the former showed up and started stirring up trouble.

As he recounts his time with the Thessalonians, Paul goes into his own motivations and actions during the three weeks he was there. He notes that “we were gentle among you…” and how they labored to avoid being a burden. He notes that the conduct of the ministry group was devout, righteous, and blameless. All three of these should be evident in the life of the church, especially if we are going to make a difference in the world around us.

Paul then goes on to note how the people who persecuted he and Silas are of the same mindset not only of those who killed Jesus but also persecuted the prophets of old. This is an important, though intermittent, theme in the New Testament letters: the continuity of the revelation of God from the Prophets, such as Isaiah or Jeremiah, to the Apostles. A good image is that they are the two spotlights shining on the subject, the Lord Jesus Christ. This is picked up in our doctrines of inspiration and other understandings of how God has worked: through one light shining on Christ from before He came, one light shining on Him after.

In Focus:

Taking a deeper look at 1 Thessalonians 2:17-20, we see Paul expressing thoughts about his relationship with the Thessalonian church. He recognizes that he was not able to stay as long as he wanted while also noting that he did not leave of his own free will. He notes that they made multiple efforts to come back, but there was always some form of hindrance. Paul attributes that hindrance to the work of Satan.

Why would Paul wanting to go to Thessalonica be important enough for Satan to interrupt?

If he had gone, Paul would have been able to encourage the church. He would have been able to make certain the church fully understood the Gospel. He would have been able to help the church start spreading the Gospel. He also would have helped them see the implications of the Gospel for their every day life, including modeling it on an extended basis.

Instead, he is left with ministry at a distance, with a deputized send of Timothy (chapter 3) to help out. His encouragement must come through a letter and a friend, rather than just himself. The benefit, though, is to future generations: we have very few notes of Paul’s sermons—some are present in the book of Acts. All of them are short. His letters are extended, and he uses the extra space to fill in deeper and fuller thoughts.

In Practice:

What, though, could this possibly have to do with us?

For starters, we should long for the encouragement, teaching, and modeling of life that happens in our face-to-face relationships. If we are never with other believers for these purposes, we are missing out.

Yet we should also note that God works out the details of our lives in such ways that we do not automatically expect. God uses the difficulties of our life to amplify and expand how He uses us in the world around us. So we should seek and utilize whatever opportunities we find in front of us, even if it is not the one that we wanted.

Dig in, then, and take up that which is in front of you, be it a camera, a pencil, or a small group of people who need encouragement. Go for it. God will work out the rest of the issues.

After all, we’re entrusted with the Word of God. Let’s not sit on it.

In Nerdiness:

1. “We” is fun in this passage: it could be either an editorial “we,” where Paul is primarily referring to himself but uses “we” because it sounds better; he could also be using “we” because it’s a broad reference to his entire team traveling and sharing the Gospel. I’m inclined toward him speaking on behalf of the group.
2. Paul’s statement of laboring to not be a burden (in 2:8-9) has often been used to club ministers who are paid for serving the local church or the Church upside the head. After all, Paul “labored” so as not to be a burden. A few notes: first, if your pastor is a ‘burden,’ then something’s wrong anyway; second, Acts records Paul as being there only about 3 weeks, so he didn’t set a long-term ministry pattern; third, again, if someone is burdening you and claiming it’s ministry, there is definitely something wrong.

Reports of Others: 1 Thessalonians 1

In Summary:

So we come to the letters to the Thessalonians. Paul wrote two letters to these Christians, and most Biblical scholars are agreeable that 1 Thessalonians was written first. (You think that’s self-evident? It’s not—1 Thessalonians is first in your Bible because it’s longer than 2 Thessalonians. The chronology is a separate study.) This church was founded from Paul and Silas’ preaching in Acts 17, though the evidence in Acts is that the Apostle was not even in Thessalonica for a month!

1 Thessalonians opens as most of Paul’s letters do: with a standard greeting. Here, however, we see something different with Paul not asserting any title alongside his name. In most of his letters to churches, Paul identifies himself as either an apostle or a servant of the Lord Jesus. Here, he is simply “Paul,” writing with Silvanus and Timothy. Silvanus is the Latinized version of the name Silas, so this is Paul, Silas, and Timothy, the three men who were the initiators of Christianity in the region. They had persuaded many that it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer (including death) and then rise from the dead, then turned to demonstrating that Jesus was this Messiah.

Beyond the difference in the introduction, Paul’s greeting is familiar: grace to you and peace, followed by an expression of his thanksgiving for the church. Here he uses “we,” as the letter would be considered as from all three of the named authors, but Paul is the primary writer. He highlights that the church came to be not only in word but in power, though we have no information from Acts about very many miracles or events that fit this description. I would suggest to you that part of the demonstration of the Holy Spirit’s power in Thessalonica was that the church established and flourished without Paul or Silas being there for an extended time—later, in 1 Thessalonians 3, we’ll see that Timothy was sent back to encourage and strengthen the church, but it was already there.

In Focus:
Let us take a moment to look hard at 1 Thessalonians 1:7-9. Consider what is said here of the Christians in Thessalonica: they are an example to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia. That’s the bulk of modern-day Greece, dear readers, and indicates the church was not just doing well in its own town but sending out the Word of God to other places—as we see in verse 8! Paul notes that their faith has gone out (these days, I’m using CSB but I forgot how to change the automatic reference link) to the area. They have not quietly sat in their own church—despite knowing from the beginning (look back at Acts 17:1-9) that following Jesus would bring them trouble from the people around them.

From this point, Paul now states that he hardly needs to say anything about the work of faith in the people at Thessalonica: their reputation of obeying God’s word spoke for them.

In Practice:
Well, the first, most obvious point of application is this: what does our reputation say of us? For example, of our own local church?

Are we:
1. An example of joy in persecution? (v. 6) Not that we should seek persecution or idly let it happen if there are God-honoring means to prevent it, but “fear” or “panic” are not the responses we’re called to. How did you respond to suggestions of change in tax policy to persecute churches? How do you feel about government policies that sideline religion? Joyful? or angry, fearful, vengeful?
2. Followers of Christ with an active faith? Do we sit by and trust that someone will hear of us or do we go out and tell the world about Jesus? Oh, and do not think that we can do this with a Gospel of words only, but it must come with power shown in changed lives. If the church sits idly by in the face of sin in the camp, we are not showing an active faith.
3. Willing to share about the good things God is doing in the lives of others? Think about: the other churches shared the good that the Thessalonians had done. Does anyone hear of the good work done by the churches in your town…from your church?

In Nerdiness:
1. Saying that Paul wrote two letters should be qualified with a term like “that we have” or “that we know about.” It’s possible that Paul wrote the Thessalonians every other week but we don’t have the letters.
2. Not relevant to the text, but in 380 AD the Edict of Thessalonica was the proclamation of Nicene Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. This came approximately 70 years after Constantine shifted the Roman stance to toleration, then a hearty approval of Christianity.
3. Traditionally, we’ve called the city Thessalonica, and I have followed that here, but it is considered more correct to use Thessaloniki as the English formation of the Greek name.
4. In most of my resources, two things stand out on the authorship of 1 Thessalonians: there are very few that suggest it was written by anyone other than Paul and there are many who are certain it was the first of Paul’s writings. And, by extension, they also hold it to be the oldest of the New Testament writings.

From a Solid Point: Jude

In Summary:
Jude. We’re in the ‘short letter’ section of the New Testament, though that’s not exactly how the Church initially classified these. Instead, these are counted among the “Catholic” or “General” Epistles, accepted as letters written to the Church-at-large, contrasted with the letters Paul wrote to specific churches or people.

The thrust of Jude is not all that different from 1 or 2 John, or Galatians, or several other portions of the Bible: correction of false teaching, including warning the church about false teachers. It was a recurring theme even in the era of the New Testament Church: False Teachers will show up. That’s something we tend to neglect when we pine for those supposed halcyon days of the Early Church. It had life-threatening persecution, family-splitting religious changes, AND false teachers.

It’s important to note that, while it seems much of Jude is condemning people who live wickedly, it is expressly targeted at those who have abandoned the Lord Jesus Christ to live wickedly. In short, it’s not about the pagans. It’s about the Church.

In Focus:
Let’s put Jude 22-23 under the close-up lens. First of all, we see the command to “have mercy” on those who waver. You should note that “mercy” shows up in Jude 21 as well, and this repetition is valuable. The readers are encouraged to wait expectantly, trusting in the mercy of the Lord Jesus and then…extend that mercy to others.

That is the response to those who waver. Not condemnation nor abandonment, but mercy. Before you think Jude is soft, though, catch the rest of Jude 23: snatch them from the fire, hate even their defiled garments. This is not a “just validate their feelings and go on” instruction.

The mercy that we show not only intervenes, mercy loves enough to remove someone from danger. But then, that mercy restores them to walk with Christ and with the body of Christ fully, not holding past wavering as a club to harm those who have been restored.

In Practice:
What does this look like in practice?
First, may I suggest that we spend far too much time worrying that being merciful will cause others to enjoy sin? I’ve heard this since I was in youth ministry, back in the dark ages before video projectors—when Youth Specialties Ideas Books were quarterly, rather than a dusty stack of books that aren’t cool anymore: “We can’t be merciful to that youth who wavered, others will go that direction!” That’s whether it’s the young lady who is pregnant, or the young man who is now a father…or that youth who got caught smoking, drinking, etc…

Second, though, is this caveat: “wavering” is personally destructive, and the idea here is that we show mercy to the one who wavers to restore them to fellowship and on the right track before they become destructive to others. This verse should never be taken as an instruction to return an abuser to power or control. An abuser can come to Christ, be forgiven, but there are some prior actions that are disqualifying for some responsibilities. If someone has abused others, the church must never place them in a position to do harm.

Third, the idea is here about “hating the garment stained by the flesh,” which relates to avoiding falling into the same trap that the wavering one is being rescued from. This is a warning not to sin for the sake of showing mercy, nor to take any profit from the rescue. For example, if you know someone has wavered in their temptation toward drunkenness, do not begin getting drunk to rescue them. Avoid it, rescue them from dry ground—when saving a person who is literally drowning, the last thing you want to do is actually get in the water (sorry, Hasselhof fans). Reach, throw, row—keep yourself steady.

Same thing in spiritual rescue.

In Nerdiness: 
Authorship for Jude has to slide down here to the Nerdiness section. Obviously, there’s a great tell on who the author of Jude is, found in Jude 1. It’s a person named “Jude,” although one could also translate that name as “Judas,” since in Greek one is kind of left with that option: Jude or Judas are both an Anglicized version of  Ἰούδας, so the original name is the same.

That doesn’t clear it up, does it? After all, there’s at least two other guys named Jude/Judas in the New Testament, though one of them is clearly deceased and not the author of an epistle to the Church. The other is the son of Jacob, one of the Twelve Apostles. Oh, and there’s a Judas mentioned in Acts 9; a Judas in Acts 15; and there’s a Judas mentioned in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 as the brother of Jesus.

So…do we know that this Jude/Judas is the same as any of these? Or know that he’s not? We can dismiss Iscariot, but what of the others? (For the record, I’m good with Jude the brother of James/Jacob, author of James and half-brother of the Lord Jesus. And no, there is no Biblical need for Jesus’ brothers to not be born of Joseph and Mary.)

Nerd Point 2: “Mercy” is used almost as much in Jude as it does in Romans, and many of the Gospel usages (mainly in Matthew and Luke) are Old Testament citations or allusions.

Nerd Point 3: Body of Moses? Archangel disputing? Get David Helm’s commentary in the Preaching the Word Series and let him help you with that.

Gatekeepers: 3 John

In Summary:
3 John is another short book in Scripture. In fact, at a little over 200 words in the original Greek, it’s the shortest book in the whole Bible. (You can compare Greek-to-Greek by using the Septuagint.)

One of the great things about Scripture, though, is every word is valuable, and every word is given by God with a purpose. So, even the short 3 John has value. We see a couple of points in summary:

First, John writes to a friend, opening with his concern for Gaius’ own health and prosperity. There is no reason to get carried away with “prosperity” in 3 John 3, as it can simply mean the overall meeting of needs and provision for life. And, it’s linked to the prosperity of his soul—the focus is on the relationship with Jesus not on material.

Second, John keeps his eyes on the importance of walking in the truth. Realize that this is the same pen that wrote “God is love” in 1 John 4:8, so John is not short on acknowledging the love of God.

But he sees that love as inseparable from the truth of who God is.

In Focus:
John’s primary purpose in writing, though, is to address the issue of the gatekeepers of the church. In this case, we’re not talking about a gate in a fence, but rather the overall idea of those who determined who was permitted to come into the church, who was permitted to speak or teach, and to whom the church extended hospitality.

The church in question had a problem here, because Diotrephes had become the power broker in the situation. He utilized his role in the church for his own power and his own privilege, rather than for the betterment of the body. Why? John said he “loves to be first.”

John further highlights that he will, when he gets there, deal with Diotrephes.

In Practice:
Why do you think John wrote this to Gaius? It is most likely that John hoped Gaius could persuade Diotrephes to repent. Perhaps they were friends, family members, they had some relationship that had endured despite the questionable behaviors of Diotrephes.

And John wanted Gaius to work through that relationship to bring Diotrephes to repentance and restoration, for the sake of his own soul and for the good of the whole church.

You see where this is going, right? In the current era of the church, we have similar problems. There are people who have warped the church of the Living God for their own power and pleasure, to the detriment of the church and to the harm of many souls. Meanwhile, most of these have friends and associates who have remained faithful, true to the Gospel, living in the truth, and the question becomes:

Will they call their friend to repentance? In a Christendom filled with folks claiming to be Daniel or Peter or Paul or David, we need men and women to step up and be Gaius. We need those who will step forward, look their friend in the eye, and call them to repentance.

And not secretly after the first attempt: John’s letter is no closed-door meeting. The opportunity for Diotrephes to have private repentance and restoration had passed, for the damage was too wide, too public, and the only restoration could be found if the repentance matched the sin.

So what will we do? What did John find when he came to Gaius and the church? Did he find himself having to rebuke not only Diotrephes but also Gaius for falling from the truth?



What will Jesus find when He calls us to account?



In Nerdiness: 

Authorship discussions likely belong here, but there is not much to say that has not already been said regarding 1 John or 2 John. If those two are written by the Apostle John, then this one is. If not, it is likely that this one was not, either. There is very little reason to suggest a different author among the Johannine Epistles, and the determination of the Apostle John’s authorship is more a matter of historical study than it is examination of the inspired text. It does not follow that a New Testament text must be written by an Apostle to be counted as inspired by God (as referenced in 2 Timothy 3:16). We need to be cautious not to confuse the value of the text with the worthiness of its originator.

Which, of course, needs its own caveats even today for texts that are not “inspired” in the same manner as Scripture. For example, David is “inspired” in a manner that I would label as “without error” or “inerrant” when he wrote the Psalms of praise found in the text. A modern worship song may be “inspired” in a positive way, but can be wrong—some songs are really good, inspired, with one bad line in them! There is a difference.

However, on point, there is a challenge in addressing the character of the author of a text. On the one hand, David committed adultery and murder and wrote Psalms of praise; Saul persecuted the Church in its infancy and wrote much of the New Testament; James and Jude, brothers of Jesus, only show up in the Gospels as not believing in Him and write two important letters; Peter, Mark, Matthew all have issues in their background—and we do not discard their writings. On the the other hand, what do we do with others?

First, I would suggest that we set aside those writings received by the church throughout her history as inspired by God and in the canon of Scripture. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, Mark’s account of the Gospel, Ezra’s retelling of the building of the Second Temple, all of these fall under slightly different rules—rules driven by a belief in the inspiration of the text. The real question comes in things written more recently.

Sometimes only a hundred years more recently, like a 2nd century Church Father, or 1900 years more recently, like a nineteenth century minister. What do we do with those?

A couple of thoughts:

1. Compare someone’s “progressive” nature or “cultural” situation to where he or she is coming from, not where you are looking back from. A writer of the 8th century speaking of women as “surprising in their ability to have an intellect equal to men” was ahead of his time, not repressive and misogynistic. Saying the same thing now would be rude—but we live in a society that has had time to process such things.

That is not to say that some blind spots have to be ignored. Many of prior centuries views on race are so distant from what appears to be clear Biblical teaching as to confound us as to how the readers got there. But, honesty should compel us to admit we might have gotten it just as wrongly.

Do we toss all of the writings of ministers, poets, scholars of those eras? I would say we do not, but we must remember to check their lenses if we use them today.

2. The other side is one of character: while blind spots, even egregious ones, can be understood culturally, we cannot dismiss blatant, constant character failings. The authority of one who could never keep a marriage vow or was abusive to those in his care must be questioned, and typically rejected. It is unlikely that there is any one person, past the Apostles, whose contribution is so unique and so foundational that his (or her) work must be held onto regardless of their own character. Salvation by grace is not preached only in Luther or Calvin or Zwingli, for example, if one finds that any of the Magisterial Reformers were too wicked to trust their theology.

And the same can be said for songwriters, etc., for no one who writes is perfect. I am not stating that all should be sinless or discarded, but if someone is actively engaged (or, historically, was actively engaged) in a sinful lifestyle then their work should be heavily reconsidered. We sing “Amazing Grace” because John Newton wrote it after seeing his sin in slave-selling. Had he written it while in the midst of profiteering on human suffering, we should perhaps find a different song.

For the Sake of the Truth: 2 John

In Summary:

Well, we’ve hit a book that is just one chapter, so the summary will have to introduce the book and knock out the whole chapter in one fell swoop. Which should be easy, though it is not uncommon to write about 2 John and use more words than the whole of 2 John contains. In fact, take a minute and go read 2 John. I’ll be here when you get back in 5 minutes.

This letter, like four of John’s writings, is technically anonymous. It is written from “The Elder” and addressed to “The Chosen Lady.” How do we get “John the Apostle” (also, traditionally called “John the Evangelist,” as the author of the Gospel, or Evangel) from “The Elder”? Well, that’s a good question, dear reader, and it takes some examination. At this point, some 1900 years after the writing of 2 John, we can start as taking this as received tradition. When you look at it from that perspective, it’s like a replay of a football call: you accept what has been said, unless you find clear and convincing evidence to overturn the call. So you can start there, but you have to acknowledge two things: 1) it’s not explicit in the inerrant text, so you could be wrong; 2) even the early church was not certain that it was the same John.

However, the received tradition is based on a couple of usable clues. First, the authority evident in the letter itself suggests someone who is well-regarded by the church and needs no introduction. Unlike our “this man needs no introduction,” which we typically follow up with a “here’s the introduction,” apparently The Elder needed no introduction…and got none. Second, there are language similarities to 1 John and John, as well as theological themes in common. There is not a strongly compelling reason to think the tradition is wrong, but we should be careful hanging too much on authorship here.

The next question becomes: who is “The Chosen Lady?” You get two choices here as well. It’s either symbolic or literal. You’re either seeing a letter sent to a group symbolized by the term, or to a definite person who is the audience. The Church is often referred to as the “Bride of Christ,” which would legitimately result in this type of address. Further, The Elder addresses not only The Chosen Lady but also her “children,” and this is often taken as the church and those they have reached with the Gospel. Further, the closing verse of “the children of your chosen sister greet you” (2 John 13) could be an indicator that The Elder speaks of another congregation. We know that the early church used family terms to refer to one another and their fellow congregations.

However, it is also possible that The Elder (John) has developed a relationship with a believing family and is writing for the purpose of encouraging a specific lady and her children. Perhaps she has been a supporter of the ministry or is a believer who has recently had to relocate and needs both news of her children left behind (v. 4) and guidance for traveling teachers she will encounter at times (v. 9).

Either way, the message then comes to us, as written initially to a person or a congregation of the ancient world, and now we strive to apply it to our modern day.

In Focus:

With that in mind, while there are many quick truths here, put your focus on 2 John 10-11 about greeting those who do not abide in the teaching of Christ. The instruction is not to even bring those who teach falsehood into the home. This rejection of hospitality is notable: that was not the way of the world at the time. You provided hospitality to those in need or even those traveling about, even if you did not know the person. The exception were those who had deeply wronged your family.

And The Elder is instructing the Chosen Lady to treat false teachers in exactly that manner: they are wronging the family. Do not so much as let them in for lunch.

In Practice:

What does that look like for us?

First, what it does not look like: if the recruiting team for another religion knocks on your door and you bring them for a glass of water and to tell them about Jesus, then you are not violating this principle. That’s a good thing to do.

What should we not do? We should not do things like: send that snake-oil peddling Gospel-denying TV preacher $50 just “in case” or anything of the sort. We should not support those ministers who harm the family by being wolves in sheep’s clothing and abusing their authority or position.

We have to be discerning. Which requires us, as the people of God, to know the Word of God well enough to discern right from wrong and, as Spurgeon (I think) said, discern right from “almost” right. Remember that Truth is like asking if the power is on or off before you rewire the ceiling fan: there’s no “almost” or “maybe.” That wire is either hot or it isn’t. And if it is, you’re going to get zapped.

For the sake of the truth, we must know the Truth and hold to it.

In Nerdiness: 
Well, some of the nerdcontent is up there in the In Summary section, but a few more notes: if 3 John is written by the same person as 2 John, then we could consider the intro to 3 John in deciphering 2 John. 3 John is from “The Elder” to “The Beloved Gaius.” It would be logical that the formula in 2 John matches and “The Chosen Lady” is a name formula.

A Conquered World: 1 John 5

In Summary:

It’s taken me a long time to finish 1 John. Which is, honestly, somewhat odd because I’ve preached through 1 John several times and greatly enjoyed it. I do not remember who first suggested it, but I remember being advised that the best place to point a new believer in the Bible was to 1 John. Through these five short chapters, one can gather a background in the basics of Christian belief, the person of Jesus, and the way of walking with Him.

That being said, let us take a look at this last chapter.  John presents his closing arguments to the church. He is writing, per 1 John 5:13, to help them have confidence in the eternal life that comes through Christ. But that eternal life is not a “later-on” thing which holds no import in the current day. Instead, the beliefs underpin a changed life now. It starts with loving God, which is demonstrated by keeping his commands (1 John 5:3) but then goes on to “conquer the world,” (1 John 5:4). Conquest would be something clearly understood in the original time: the Romans were typically ruling over places that they had conquered at some point in the past, and that past was not too far away. John himself would have been well-aware of the life of Israel as a land conquered by Rome, and many in the churches would have been descended from those Rome had overrun.

In Focus:

In focus, though, look at how this conquest takes place: 1 John 5:5 speaks of Jesus conquering. He is the One who has conquered not just by water but by water and blood, with the Spirit testifying to the truth of this. This should be understood as a reference to both the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus, showing this is how He demonstrated who He is and why He came.

This is not the type of “conquest” that many people were looking for. It is a conquest that starts with individuals converting from their self-driven kingdoms and surrendering to God. The change, the new kingdom starts within and works outward, loving God and loving one another.


In Practice:

What, then, do we do?

First, we need to get our focus right. Our conquest of the world starts with allowing God, through His Word and His Holy Spirit, to conquer us. That’s entirely different than forming political action groups or gathering to boycott, protest, or any other form of earthly structures. If we are not mastered by the Word of God, then we are in no shape to be part of God’s plan in the world around us. To get there, we must learn His Word that we may follow Him, that we may obey Him.

Second, let us keep in mind that we are conquering. That should put in our hearts a readiness for opposition. That opposition should be coming from the world, though, and not structured by our own hearts or our fellow conquerors.

Which brings us to point three: guess what you learn in the study of history? Most conquests fall apart not from lack of strength but because, internally, strife and division destroyed the unity and strength of the conquerors. And if you look at the church today, why do we not conquer? Disunity and strife. Strife from abusive leaders that should be removed, corrected, and guided to repentance. Division from church members who think the church is their property and not the property of the Living God. Strife from the tyranny of traditions and division from the chaos of trying to always embrace the new.

The solution is to be unified in the power of God, grounded in the Word of God.

In Nerdiness: 

A. There’s a textual criticism issue with 1 John 5:7, which most newer translations footnote with “late mss (for ‘manuscripts’) add testify in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8. And there are three who bear witness on earth:” followed by v. 8 as we have it in the text. Because those manuscripts are the foundation of earlier Bible translations, like the King James or the Geneva Bible, the first appearance here is that newer translations are removing part of Scripture. However, the other side of the debate suggests that, historically, at some point a scribe copying 1 John added the phrase, and the newer translations are restoring the original text. Which is accurate? I personally hold that the text is without error in its original form, so here I would say whatever and however the Holy Spirit inspired John to write, that was inerrant. If the Holy Spirit did not inspire the longer rendering, then it should be out.

And we can figure this out with some degree of certainty, but it is not a great place to camp out dogmatically. Textual criticism (the term for this branch of study) is a science, and as such remains open to new evidence, new methods. We can be certain, though, that no doctrine is at risk here. The doctrine of the Trinity is pretty explicitly spelled out in the later reading, but it’s not like it’s absent in the rest of Scripture. Plus, there’s a potential lean in the wrong direction of restricting the Trinity to Heaven only with that line rather than seeing the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit at work on earth. Still and all—don’t get overwrought by some of the textual questions. There are good scholars who take the Word of God seriously who spend their lifetimes on this stuff; not everyone with a textual question is a heretic out to destroy the faith. Many of the faithful women and men in Biblical Studies as an academic field are trying to make sure we understand fully rather than only through tradition.

B. John’s conclusion is quite different from Paul’s letters: there are no personal greetings here, no notes of travel plans. Just a final warning: beware of idols. It’s a good one for us, as well: guard yourselves from idols. An idol cannot do anything to you unless you embrace it.

Beloveds: 1 John 4

Dear readers: yes, it’s a blog post from Doug. You may have forgotten you subscribed, but I hope you’ll stick around.

In Summary:
It’s amazing, really, how much John packs into this chapter as we look at 1 John 4. He opens with the need to test the “spirits,” moves through the spirit of the antichrist, and then passes through to the importance of love for the family of God. It’s a well-packed chapter. 1 John has five of those, honestly, which make it one of the better “read this first!” sections of the New Testament. In fact, that’s usually my guidance to a new believer: start with 1 John. The Gospels give us the events of the life of Christ, the miracles and teachings that are key to understanding who Jesus is. 1 John, though, distills much of the Gospel and has deep truth for the long-time disciple of Jesus while still presenting great first step points for the new disciples.

The chapter breaks down into three major sections, each one opening with John’s preferred address for the church: “Beloved.” The first section challenges the church to test the spirits, because there are false prophets in the world. He then gives a basic test, and it’s a doctrinal one: is this spirit in agreement with the truth that Jesus has come in the flesh? (1 John 1:1) If not, then it is a false spirit. The real test of spirituality is right doctrine: you do not get closer to God through wrong-headedness about the person of Jesus.

The second “Beloved” section addresses God’s love for people, and features one of the top five most misquoted, context-removed segments of Scripture: “God is love.” That definition only works when you let God’s Word define love. It doesn’t work with a cultural love, a Hollywood love, or a personal quest kind of love. This love includes Jesus coming as the propitiation for sins: the sacrifice necessary to appease the wrath of God. Love, then, is seen in sacrifice. Connected with the first section, where we saw the importance of acknowledging Jesus came in the flesh, here we see that right doctrine also includes knowing Jesus came to die for our sins, and that the further test of spirituality is right love: your right doctrine is required and must be acted out in surrender to Jesus and His love shown on the cross.

The third “Beloved” section delves deeper into the love for one another that comes as a result of God’s love for us: we love one another because the love of God is in us. Right doctrine and right love for God results in a full love for God’s people. If you love God but cannot find a love that is sacrificial for His people, you are missing something.

In Focus:
In focus, though, let us look at 1 John 4:15: whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God abides in him, and he in God. If you have confessed Jesus is the Son of God, surrendered to Him as Lord and Saviour, then you are not simply “on your way” to God’s presence or hopefully traveling—you are there. You abide in God and God abides in you. Now, we will not attempt to resolve this issue right here and right now. I would say it falls under the wondrous mystery of how God works. But God is with you, right there, in whatever situation you are in, fellow believers. You are not abandoned, even if all the church has failed you, even if your closest loves have failed you. God abides in you, and you abide in Him. It’s a state of reality.

In Practice:
What do we do about it, then?

1. Learn to trust this as reality. Just like kids learning to walk, following Jesus is a learning to walk type of exercise. You need to remind yourself, daily, that you are in God and that God has not abandoned you. The best way to do that is to read your Bible, pray, and make a few notes about how God is at work in your life.

2. Because you are secure in God, take a chance or two in life. Love those who seem unlovable. Share what God has done in you and what He has taught you—love one another sacrificing your self-image and your pride; love one another by surrendering what you hold tightly inside so that others can see Jesus in you.

3. And since you are secure in the God who abides in you, stop chasing after every nut who claims to be spiritual. Test the spirits and see if God has really spoken through them—if they change the focus off the truth of the Incarnation of Jesus, that Jesus came, really, in the flesh, died for sinners, and rose again, move on. They’re either false or a useless distraction.

In Nerdiness:

1. The “Beloved”s are all in the vocative case in Greek. If you want to be really particular, they are substantive adjectives in the vocative case, plural in number, masculine in gender. The vocative is used primarily as direct address, like calling someone’s name. You could translate the single word Ἀγαπητοί as “Beloved ones that I am speaking to” or some other extended phrase, but this fits. Which is part of the nerd note here: what’s a “literal” translation? :) Further, what’s a “thought-process” translation? Greek is a gendered language, each word is masculine, neuter, or feminine, and that cannot be changed for modern understandings, so we have this reality: a group of anything but all women will be referred to with a masculine term. This masculine word is inclusive…unless, of course, one assumes that the early church was deliberately gender-segregated and the letters were only to the men in the church. Which, in turn, reads a culture onto the text that may or not be there.

How, then, do you translate it? Here, NASB, ESV, and KJV get it simplest: “Beloved” brings across the sense of the word. CSB and NLT’s “Dear friends” works for this word, but I think it loses a bit of the love repetition that John uses through the book (he uses words rooted in αγαπαω more than 25 times in 1 John).

2. Antichrist. We have to deal with this sometime: this word only appears in Christian writings, it may have been a word created by John—it only shows up in 1 and 2 John. (That’s right, the Greek word for “antichrist” is not in Revelation.) When you are trying to understand a word in Biblical studies (or any language, really), your first key to meaning is the pre-existing semantic range of the term: What did it mean when the author used it? You see the problem here, I am sure: there is no semantic range prior to the New Testament usage. Same with checking usage outside of the author in question: John is the only one who uses the term. That leaves two other good factors: context of the word and, if it’s a compound word (made up of known parts), looking at the individual parts to see what you have (this can lead us in questionable direction: take the English word “butterfly” as an example; the ‘butter’ part needs some research, though the thing does ‘fly,’ it’s not exactly a ‘fly’). The context gives us the idea that we are looking at a personal agent, and then the term parts are “anti” and “Christ.” Now, we have to remember that we need the Greek meaning of “anti” and not the English, so….generally, it means “opposite” or “in place of.” If you take the word “antichrist” apart and get its components, it means “something or someone opposed to or in place of Christ [the Anointed One].” I think the term “Christ” is definitely a personal title for Jesus in almost of all of its usage in the New Testament, so that’s what an “antichrist” is against, opposite, or in place of: the person of Jesus.

Because of Love: 1 John 3

In Summary:
John continues to emphasize the love of God for the church. Realize that this is John’s primary theme throughout 1 John: the actions of God are driven by His love. Why would this matter to John or the church in that era?

It matters because this is ultimate contrast between Christianity and the religions of the day, as well as the primary contrast between Christianity and the Judaism it formed from: God acts because of His own love for His creation. Greek and Roman myths, native and traditional religions, all had various gods and deities that operated for their purposes. Some acted on their truth, some acted on their love, some acted out of spite for the other gods in the pantheon!

But there were no major gods and goddesses that acted out of self-giving love. An all-powerful Deity that willing gave to those who, honestly, could not give anything back to Him? That was beyond comprehension. Every god of the age needed something back from his or her worshipers, even if it was just statistical support that this god was not irrelevant.

God the Father, though, does not act out of self-interest. Despite being the Almighty, His actions are on behalf of His creations.

Because He is love.

John draws the contrast between the hatred that is of this world, connecting it with Cain, with murder, and with death. His push, though, is ever God-oriented, pointing to the love that God gives us.

In Focus:
Love, though, is not an idle thought in John’s mind. God’s perfect love required Him to act, because it is impossible for love to be perfect without follow-up action.

And if we are going to love in response to the love of God, our first response is to love God with all He gives us. That love will show in our response to His commandments.

In Practice:
Practically speaking, there are two things here.

First, there is the need for us to get our motivation right. God’s love precedes our actions, and our love should precede our actions as well. Our actions should arise from a heart that is passionate to show the love God has placed within us. We should not act as if we are earning God’s love or developing a better standing before God but because we are already loved. Our motivation is gratitude.

Which leads into the second thing to get right: the actions that we use to show love. Since our motivation is gratitude, then our response should fit with what the One we are showing gratitude for desires. And this is made clear in God’s Word. This should be seen as liberating: you do not have to go out and try to figure out what to do for God! You can simply abide in His commandments (1 John 3:24) and trust that God meant what He said.

Beyond that, your creativity can shine through within the parameters God has set. He gave it to you, so utilize it. Let it work in His framework.


In Nerdiness: 
Just a brief reminder: when John speaks of the commandments of God, he’s using two sources:
1. First-hand knowledge of what Jesus commanded, which is what we find in the New Testament;
2. Learned knowledge of what God had commanded in the covenant, which is what we find in the Old Testament.

You may get some differences in application, and you get some fulfillments, but you do not know the character of God fully if you do not use all of His word.

Joyous Doctrine: 1 John 1

In Summary:

Now we move forward into the Johannine Epistles. These are the three letters labeled 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John in the Bible. Tradition, including the manuscript evidence available with labels, ascribes the authorship of these letters to John, son of Zebedee and brother of James, one of the Twelve Disciples. There are also some connections in vocabulary and methodology between the Gospel of John and 1 John, especially, that suggest these have the same author. For a fuller look at the issues, take a read here The Writings of John by C. Marvin Pate. For simplicity’s sake, I will simply proceed on the assumption that these are written by John the Apostle. I see no harm to the interpretation of the text that way.

1 John does not read like one of Paul’s Epistles. We are not faced with the standard opening greetings, personal remarks, or even authorial declaration! John begins his letter where he also begins his Gospel: at the very “beginning.” (See John 1:1) Rather than identify himself by his calling, his ministry, or even his name, John highlights that he writes of what he has seen, studied, and touched. He establishes that his work is based on personal interaction with Jesus, here called the Word of Life. He goes on to make clear in this chapter that God has no darkness in Him, but that we all have a need for God because of our sin.

In Focus:

Where we could focus for a moment is on 1 John 1:4. Why here? John gives his reason for writing: so that his “joy may be made complete.” First off, let’s address the “we write….our joy….” concept here. In the modern way of speaking, we are accustomed to using a singular first-person pronoun because using the plural requires either multiple people or it’s a sign of self-importance like the “royal we” that is used by kings and queens. So, if we read that backward onto the text, our opinion of John will be skewed. Or we will search for the identity of those with him.

But you cannot do that with a text written in another culture, another language, and another millennium. You have to dig into how they wrote back then. There are two additional aspects of using “we/our” in place of “I/mine.” The first is actually that it was possible that an author was speaking on behalf of a larger group even if none is specified. For example, John writes as part of the “we” that is the church, to another part of the church. The other possibility comes back to fellowship: John is writing so that the joy of he and his audience will be complete. That is the view I would take here, that John is addressing the idea of fellowship and interaction between the church-at-large, and how he is writing to ensure his audience remains in fellowship with the Body of Christ at large.

This connects to his explanation of doctrinal issues in this first chapter: the eternal nature of Jesus and the untainted goodness of God. If the recipients of the letter undo the character of God or lose the divinity of Christ, they are moving so far from the faith that they will not be in fellowship any longer, they will not be able to count themselves in the Body of Christ any longer.

In Practice:

What does this mean for us?

First, note that there is joy to be found in getting doctrine right and together. We tend to think of doctrine as dry, dull, unhappy matters to attend to quickly so that we can do the fun stuff. But knowing the truth about God is joyful. It should bring us joy to think of the Eternal God and His untainted character. Especially if you look around and see some tainted characters in this world.

Second, note that we are part of a community of faith that needs us, and we need them. We are too quick to isolate ourselves, sometimes simply within our own churches, and miss the larger picture. In the same way, our churches tend to do that as well. Come up for air and look around: there are good things to celebrate in other places, and things to take warning of from other places.

Third, note that John is writing. He is communicating, with all effort to be clear, about what the church needs. We need to do the same thing: be clear about the Truth of Jesus, first of all, and about truth overall. We cannot work in hints and suggestions, or with unwritten, unclear ideas. Spread the truth plainly, that the joy of understanding may be known.

In Nerdiness: 

Nerd note 1: According to some of my sources (academic sources, not news-type sources, I just don’t want to list all the differing commentaries, Study Bibles, etc…), 1 John should be considered the first of John’s writings, and his Gospel comes later. Other sources flip-flop that and put the Gospel first. I’m inclined to agree that the Epistle came first. Some of the thoughts in the Epistle seem to be more fully developed in the Gospel, and knowing preachers, I figure if John had already written his Gospel, he would have just sent it instead of writing a new letter.

Nerd note 2: in 1:1, “Word of Life” is “Logos of Life” in Greek, using the same terminology that John uses in his Gospel about “In the beginning was the Word…” good parallel to take note of.

Truth: 2 Corinthians 13

In Summary:
Paul is wrapping up his letter to the Corinthians. He has now written them at least twice, and possibly more, but this will end his recorded correspondence with the church at Corinth. He has exhorted the church to stand for what is right in the midst of a culture that had little use for Christianity, and to clean up the church from the infiltration of worldliness. While 2 Corinthians 13 is its own chapter, we should also see at as somewhat of a conclusion to his work with that church. It is possible that he visited the church later, and that is the opening subject of this chapter: he reminds the church that he intends to come and visit them, to see if they are walking in obedience.

As Paul finishes his correspondence, he draws the Corinthians to a very direct point: they need to examine themselves to see if they are in the faith. There is a callback here to 1 Corinthians 11, where he gives the same instruction regarding taking the Lord’s Supper. He is providing them both a closing challenge for the individual and the church: test yourself and the group behavior. What should the test be? There are the actions of moral obedience that function as a starting point, but he gives the final test in 13:11. Those who are truly in the faith, who have examined themselves, will be able to live in peace with each other, will grow in their faith, and will be unified about Jesus. His closing sentence is a clear statement of the Trinity: the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all (2 Corinthians 13:14, NASB). If we follow Jesus, we will show grace to one another. If we are children of God the Father, we will have love for one another. If we are indwelt with the Holy Spirit, we will have fellowship (not just meal-sharing) with one another.

How are we doing with that in the church today?

In Focus:
Let us put 2 Corinthians 13:8 into our focus for the day. Paul says that we do nothing against the truth, only for the truth. What does that mean?

First, it has a philosophical connection. That which is “the truth” can be opposed, can be argued against, but cannot actually be destroyed. Truth is neither a negotiable item nor an issue of perception. Truth does not depend on a certain point of view, though points of view can affect one’s access to the truth.

Second, there is a practical connection. Truth is not stronger, more true, or the opposites because of anything someone does. In this concept, Paul is speaking of those things which are unchanging truth. It is not “the truth about who really discovered America” but a deeper concept, an unchanging reality that is universal.

Third, there is a personal connection. Paul asserts that the truth does not need anyone, and in so doing implies that he knows this truth, that he presents this truth, and that even if all the Corinthians bailed out on the truth, it will still be true. This was as big of a deal in the Greco-Roman Empire and its pluralism as it is for the modern world.

In Practice:
Practically speaking, we are not really that different from the world of Paul. Philosophically, many different schools of thought lay claim to holding the truth. The overarching viewpoint of the current day is that no one can possibly be certain their particular view is absolutely right, and so we live in a pluralistic society where the only absolute claim that is acceptable is that no one can make absolute claims. We also find ourselves concerned about defending the truth or about assaults on the truth, and while there are knowledge problems where facts are assaulted as “not true” when they are, or alternates are presented that are “not true” but claimed that they are, the ultimate truth is still unassailable.

And then we hit the personal connection: do we know the truth? And if we do, do we live like it? If the Gospel is true, that God put on flesh, dwelt among us, that Jesus died for us and rose again, then do we show that in our lives? Because if the ultimate truth is Jesus (John 14:6 might be relevant here), then we ought to live that out.

Instead, though, our lives and churches invest a great deal in attempting to “defend” the truth or stressing that something will “disprove” our faith. For example, consider the investments in archeology with hopes of “proving” the Bible, or our fears when CNN runs something they claim “disproves” the resurrection (which has never been successfully done). We sit and wait on those rather than acting on the truth as if it were true and unassailable. We live like God needs our help rather than acknowledging how deep our need for Him goes.

I suggest that we invest more of our time in learning the truth through the Word of God than we spend in trying to defend the truth. There is a value in defending the faith, defending the truth, but in many ways the church has become like a hospital that has learned to keep out bacterial infections and forgotten how to treat patients. The floors are clean but we are not entirely sure what we are supposed to be doing as we walk on them.

Alongside that, may we also recognize that how we live may obstruct other people’s view of the truth, but it does not change the truth. Likewise, our own heroes can point us to the truth but they are not the truth. Let us strive to fixate our thoughts on Jesus Himself, and never be so addicted to one of His representatives that that person has power over our grasp of the truth.

In Nerdiness: 

1. Writing to the Corinthians: there are some who advocate that 1 Corinthians 5:9 indicates a letter before 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians 2:3-4, 7:8 indicate a letter between 1 and 2 Corinthians. The Baker Exegetical Commentary volumes, the NICNT volumes, the Pillar NT volumes, all are worth consulting on this matter. (I’m not discounting others, those are the ones I looked at.)

2. Paul’s citation of Deuteronomy 17:6, about needing “two or three witnesses” is interesting here. He places this in context with his warnings to the church: I warned you once, I’ve warned you again, and so now my warnings are established seems to be what you have in 2 Corinthians 13:2. If that is so, then it should inform our own understanding that “two or three witnesses” may not automatically mean two or three impartial observers.

Thorns, Visions, Leaders, and Fellowship: 2 Corinthians 12

In Summary:
Well, we’ve reached one of the great “weird” chapters of the New Testament. 2 Corinthians 12 sees Paul speak of “a man” who was caught up to the third heaven and saw Paradise and heard “inexpressible words.” And then, Paul speaks of his thorn in the flesh, some unclear “messenger from Satan” that is there to keep him humble. It’s a perfectly clear chapter apart from that. Well, except for the identity of “the brother” that Paul sent with Titus. 2 Corinthians 12 provides fertile ground for speculation and imagination.

Which we will indulge in up to a point, but there comes a time to move from that to the more profitable exercise of exegesis: striving to understand the contents of the text. It is entirely possible to not understand a portion of a chapter and still grasp the overall meaning that God has put in the text. After all, while God requires us to have the Holy Spirit illuminate the text for us to fully understand the text, He didn’t give it to us to ponder, be confused by, and then never read. The word of God is given that we may know the Word of God in Christ Jesus.

So, we’ll put most of the speculations into the “In Nerdiness” section where it belongs and focus on the rest of the chapter.

Paul is continuing to defend his status and role as an apostle. A word might be useful here about why he needs to do this. At this point in the growth of the church, they have two primary sources for Truth in the church: the Jewish Scriptures (what we call the Old Testament) and the teaching of the Apostles who told them about Jesus. The church is not yet in possession of the New Testament (not written, mostly, yet), so what they know about Jesus comes from the Apostles, the eyewitnesses of the Risen Jesus. That makes being considered an “Apostle” a big deal because your teaching is authoritative and trusted. Paul needs to demonstrate and hold his claim to this status so that his teaching about Jesus is considered accurate. And when you look at the folks who opposed Paul: the Judaizers who wanted to add Jewish law to the Gospel; the folks in Corinth from 1 Corinthians who were sexually immoral; the people who tried to use the Gospel for profit—it’s a good thing he did! The Truth remains the same, with or without defenders, but it is far easier to know it if someone trustworthy proclaims it!

In Focus:

For a focal verse, let us move past the visions and thorns and look long and hard at 2 Corinthians 12:20. Here, Paul expresses his concern that his arrival in Corinth will find the church tied up in jealousy, temper, disputes, arrogance, and a host of ego-driven problems. Ego-centrism is diametrically opposed to the Gospel: you cannot be full of self, driven by self, and serving only yourself and also follow Jesus Christ as Lord. It just does not work—and Paul is reminding the Corinthians of this.

He wants to settle as many of their disputes with him, and by extension, with each other, before he gets there so that his time with them is a time of building up, not breaking down. He then commands them to repent of impurity, immorality, and perversion before he gets there—because they cannot be right with each other until they get right with God!

In Practice:

What does this look like for us? After all, we have the Bible so we don’t necessarily need Apostles, right? I think the argument should be made that the Apostles are the eyewitnesses of the Risen Christ, and so we do not have Apostles, whether we need them or not. (And if we needed them, God would have loopholed them so we would have them. He didn’t, so we don’t.)

The issue at stake for us is two-fold: leadership and fellowship. Leadership first: while we are not dealing with the exact same qualifications as an Apostle of the first century, those who would lead a church today should look long and hard at what Paul uses to justify himself: his sacrifice, which was real. Not some nebulous “I could have made millions as a something else” sacrifice or a “look how hard this is, somebody bring me a Fresca” type of ranting, but rather as a “How can you think I’m doing this for myself when you see how much trouble it is? If this was for me, I’d mail it in, go fishing with somebody…” He has worked and shown himself to be true.

We need to consider the same thing in our leadership: too many times, we allow a natural gifting to overwhelm our good sense or a feeling of amazement at one great moment. But the moment does not always make the man: the church must be more aware of how they invest authority in leaders and must put more effort into preparing leaders.

Second, we must consider fellowship. There can be no true fellowship in the midst of strife, jealousy, disputes, slanders, and so forth—so what do we have in our churches? There are problems among us because we are not repentant of our sins, and that drives us to lash out at others rather than fix our own hearts. Let the impurity go from each one of us, and we might be astounded what God will do with our relationships with each other.

In Nerdiness: 

As discussed above:
1. “I know a man:” almost all of the commentaries I have take this as autobiographical, and just the manner of speaking in that era. Especially when Paul goes from “knowing a man” who had these visions to he, Paul, having a thorn so that he didn’t get arrogant because of the visions. Hard to figure that he got the thorn if he didn’t have the visions, true?

2. “The third heaven:” really? We want to talk about that, too? Sure thing: it is either the “third heaven” which is above the heaven the birds fly in and the heaven the stars are in and is, therefore, Eternity-type heaven, or there are levels to eternity that we don’t understand. Dante picked that view, for both Heaven and Hell. Either way, Paul has a vision of the unseen things, and he is not permitted to talk about it.

3. Okay, he cannot talk about it—he heard “inexpressible words.” That particular phrase is sometimes used to move speaking in “tongues” into speaking in “heavenly languages” which nobody understands, but that doesn’t work, because a human is not allowed to speak those words. No, we do not know what they are…and probably will be so engaged in the presence of Jesus in eternity that we’ll forget we care.

4. The Thorn in the Flesh, a Messenger from Satan! Paul’s great problem. It’s been suggested that he has poor eyesight, that he has some other illness, or that he has a relational issue. Perhaps this is his expression of frustration, “Why, Lord, do I have to keep battling the same stupid arguments about Judaizing or legalism, over, and over, and over again?” Whatever it was, it was not going away—and Paul had to cope with that. God does not solve all of our problems. He instead provides us Himself, and that is a far better solution.

Lights and Deception: 2 Corinthians 11

In Summary:

Paul continues to work through the challenges to his leadership in Corinth and the wider Christian world of the time. While the focus of 2 Corinthians 11 is his relationship with the church at Corinth, an Apostle would have been respected, should have been respected, by all of the churches of the time. As such, he is defending not only his work in the one local church, but also his work throughout the body of Christ.

Reading through this chapter, it is important to recognize that Paul is going to use several contextually-normal rhetorical devices to make his point. He’ll refer to his ‘foolishness’ and to his skills and his effectiveness. He will also point out that he is personally committed to the Corinthians and contrast that with the manner in which others have, apparently, treated them. Verse 20, for example, makes it clear that some bad things have happened to the church at Corinth, yet the Corinthians seem unwilling to reject the people responsible for those occurrences. Perhaps they were too afraid to cross up the celebrity apostles of the day by rejecting them outright.

Paul highlights, as the chapter comes to a close, that one of the marks of a true apostle is his willingness to face danger for the sake of the Gospel. Paul testifies to his experiences, not in the abstract, of dangers faced for the Christ he serves. The wolves, on the other hand, tend to flee the risks of the work. We do not have records to see what they claimed, but one can almost fill in the gaps: that if Paul had any sense, he would have avoided the dangers, the robbers, etc.., and Paul is embracing the danger as part of the task.

In Focus:

For a focus, though, let us move off of Paul and onto 2 Corinthians 11:14. Here we see the most insidious problem that churches will face: the masquerade. Take from verse 13 through verse 15 as a unit and the picture becomes clear: those who are false prophets are agents of Satan, out to destroy.

And Satan uses deception to advance his purposes, just as his servants disguise themselves as God-honoring servants. As we consider this, the dangers come into view: the first glance at a false prophet, a deceitful worker, will look like someone who is doing good things for the Church. After all, these men had deceived the churches which learned from the Apostles themselves! Their deeds will, eventually, expose them as false but not before they lead many astray.

To that end, Paul warns the church at Corinth: BE AWARE, but also do not be so surprised. They should expect this.

In Practice:

And so should we: deceivers still come around and try to destroy churches. They come in many flavors, and we need to address a few of those here.

First, there is the willful deceiver. This is the person who knows what they are doing is wrong, and comes deliberately to do wrong and bring harm to the people of the church. There are more of these than you would expect! They prey on our unwillingness to ask probing questions, our unwillingness to push back against a forceful personality, and our over-willingness to let people do whatever they like, for fear they’ll leave!

Second, there is the unwitting deceiver. There is a bit more to be pitied in this person, because they are not aware of their errors. They still take people along with them, and need to be corrected. But the malice is absent. These tend to come in two basic types. You have the ones who have slidden, over time, away from a solid faith. They started off good and Christ-focused, but issues pushed them off the mark into a bad place. Usually it happens in response to someone’s sin: a good example is the youth teacher who becomes legalistic about all forms of boy/girl interaction in response to sexual sin on the part of a few. They are deceived (and deceiving others) that hyper-legalism will substitute for a vibrant relationship. The other portion of this group tends to be those who follow false teachers. Perhaps it is because of an old relationship, perhaps because of a personal blind spot, but these folks recycle the bad teaching of a wolf without knowing what they are doing. You can find this when someone frequently brings in the same author/speaker/video presenter and will accept no questions of that person’s ideas. Having a favorite author/speaker/presenter is no sin, but treating that person as infallible is absolutely a problem.

So, what do we do about it?

Three quick thoughts:

1. Know the truth yourself, to the fullest of your ability. That requires effort and diligence, which means you need to treat your Christian walk as a responsibility and not a dessert party. You have to work at your growth in Christ. It will not be automatic.

2. Be willing to ask questions. You need to listen to the answers, because at some point you have to decide if someone is trustworthy or not, but ask questions. Ask good questions: not the fluffy ones but the real ones. The ones that are revealed as much in a life as they are in words. If someone professes one thing but you have never seen evidence of the other, that should be a clue.

3. Be careful of the cynicism that rises up in you as you encounter deceivers. It is absolutely true that some folks are out to use you, abuse you, or otherwise harm you. It is certainly false that everyone is out to do so. Now, avoiding cynicism is not the same as having no defense—the wise person locks their car, the cynic never takes it out of the garage. Both are trying to avoid it being stolen, but one is still using their resources for life.

(and someone who has had many bad experiences will, understandably, need more times of staying in the garage.)

4. Seek the wisdom of others. It is tragic the number of times that we treat others as non-existent when we need help. Many wise people in your life probably feel like Cassandra: shouting the truth and being fully ignored by those in need. Ask for help, and be fully forthcoming in your requests. It is very, very difficult to give wise counsel to those who only tell half the problem.

5. When you identify a deceiver, do not keep it to yourself. Pass that information on to those who need it! Not out of malice, but out of compassion for others.

In Nerdiness: 

1. Take note of 2 Corinthians 11:7-9 when some use Paul’s occasional tent-making as a justification that ministers/preachers should never be paid. Here Paul expresses that his wages for working in Corinth were supplied by other churches—he was not always working outside of teaching/preaching! We should also take from this, though, an additional thought: when our churches can sustain multiple ministers, is it not worth considering that we should be like the Macedonians and fund a minister to a church, that he may serve without straining that church? Usually we want the excess spent on more of what we want, or we send it off, but there are many areas in need of a solid, local Gospel witness, that are only a few miles from large churches—but while the large church adds a fifth, sixth, seventh, full-time employee, the church a bit further away lacks the resources for one minister. We could do better about sharing as Baptists, this much I do know.

2. We assemble parts of Paul’s biography from the end of the chapter, but we cannot fit all of those details into the narrative of Acts. So, we don’t know where his shipwrecks were, all of his floggings, etc..

The Image of a Warrior: 2 Corinthians 10

In Summary:

2 Corinthians 10 continues Paul’s defense of his work and his role as an apostle of Christ. He is dealing with a spectrum of accusations and here actually presents some of them. For example, v. 10 lets us know that Paul was accused of being “unimpressive” in person, that he was hard to listen to (or, perhaps, too easy to listen to and not lofty and elevated). He talks about his work, and does so to contrast what were apparently self-promoters in the church.

That’s a challenge to deal with, because the simplest way for Paul to shut them down is to point out how awesome he is, rattle off the fullness of his credibility. He could have demolished a bad argument or two, but in the end, he would have looked a bit more like a jerk and less like an apostle. That’s self-defeating: let me prove I’m a better Christian by shouting you down and shutting you up. It may seem reductionist, but that’s worth considering: is that the argument you are making?

This is not Paul’s point. Now, I think it’s worth noting that he’s wrestling with two different issues here. First, there are those who are pseudo-apostles, trying to make a living preaching a Gospel they do not really believe. They are working to fit the mold of roving sage, just as the many philosophies of the Greco-Roman World had. They could talk the talk, but the life was not quite there. It may have been a virtuous life, but it was a dead life as well. They were impressive, though, and that made life a bit tougher for Paul. The missionary that flies coach/standby always looks a bit more disheveled when they show up to preach than the guy who stepped off his private jet, though. Paul was in a similar situation: he looked a bit more worn because he was not using his resources to look good or travel in luxury. He certainly did not need his own multi-million drachma personal transportation, either. Jesus walked until He needed a colt to fulfill His Word; Paul was much more interested in being like Jesus than anybody else.

The second group was a bit tougher to straighten out. Some of the other Apostles, from the original Twelve, were also traveling and preaching. And, because they had walked with Jesus, they were often received in high honor. It is likely, given the other references to “I follow Peter…” and other mentions of the Apostles in both Corinthian letters, Paul is dealing with the church getting a bit too fanboy of some of these Apostles and comparing Paul to them. It’s not fair to do so—Peter or John can talk about being in storms that were stilled, seeing the 5,000 fed. And Paul does not want to outdo those. He just needs the church to listen to the Word of God instead of becoming idolaters of Apostles. We have trouble with this, too, because we take our heroes of the faith and make them untouchable. Yet all of them were human. They suffered, they struggled—Lottie Moon had bad days; Dietrich Bonhoeffer had some odd theology; the Venerable Bede wasn’t always venerable! 

Paul, then, is trying to assert the validity of his ministry without taking a shot at Peter, but also nudging aside impostors. No wonder he had some trouble!

In Focus:

The verses I need to focus on the most right are 2 Corinthians 10:3-4, so let’s go there. Paul goes straight to the heart of many of our problems: we walk around in the flesh. Our lives are lived in the body, in a sin-soaked world, surrounded by troubles and internally challenged by our old sin nature. We walk around in the flesh. That is the reality now just as it was then. 

But we do not war according to the flesh—we do not go into conflicts driven by winning the way the flesh wins. (Check Ephesians 6 if you want to know if he’s consistent.) We war with weapons designed to fight the spiritual battles around us. Paul is highlighting that we are not always going to look like we are rightly equipped, but the standard is the spiritual issue.

He goes on, and in verse 5 brings forward taking every thought captive for Christ. The war, ultimately, is about self-control so that the glory of God shines through us and others see the grace of Christ. The matters at hand are far more important than true and false apostles, but come all the way back to the Creator of All. If someone is truly an apostle, then see Jesus shine through them.

In Practice:

Well, I wish this were easy. But it’s not. My first tendency is to war according to the flesh, because my enemies are in the flesh. Sometimes they are outside of the church, and I just want to rise up and force my way onto the world rather than winning the world to Christ. Sometimes, my enemies are within the church, and I’d like to use a bit of aggressive negotiation to bring them to my way of thinking. I get short, snappy, angry, and question the salvation and humanity of my opponents. But that is the way of the world—see the modern political climate and realize just how dreadful that is when brought into the church!

And, finally, I do war with myself as if the problem is merely flesh. As if I can correct myself with earthly means when the problem is spiritual rot. The solution is to live growing in obedience to Christ, not to merely discuss my own wretchedness.

It is far better practice to advance obedience to Jesus than to attempt to flatten the flesh. He is a big enough God to clear His own space.

In Nerdiness: 

I’m so far out of the habit that I’m struggling to do this whole thing, much less catch nerd notes…

1. Fortresses=ὀχύρωμα=ochyroma and this means…”fortresses.” Is he talking about spiritual powers? Or just deeply dug-in sinful responses in our lives? Great question….

2. Paul’s reference to “regions beyond” in v. 16 suggests he wanted to travel past Greece. This could be Italy, though in Romans he references a desire to go to Spain. 

3. Note the challenges to Paul’s rhetoric: that he writes aggressively but speaks calmly. But is that not sometimes necessary? Clarity in print can be mistaken as harshness.

Never Equally Returned: 2 Corinthians 9

In Summary:

Whenever we give something away, there is always a concern. What if I need this later? What happens if I run short? This concern may not be completely universal, but it is common enough to see it in action in Corinth. Paul spent 2 Corinthians 8 reminding them about how they should be participating in the offering for the saints in Jerusalem, and now tightens his focus on the motivation for their giving.

Paul reminds the Corinthians that their giving will not go unnoticed. Starting with 2 Corinthians 9:8 and following, he expresses that God is capable of supplying their needs. The Corinthians need not fear that they will not be able to do the work of God if they give in obedience now, because He will take care of their needs.

The Corinthians are also nudged about the idea that a few of the Macedonians are coming with the brethren to carry the offering—and they wouldn’t want the Macedonians to find them unwilling, would they?

A final general note from this chapter: Paul is clearly more concerned in the character of the givers, not the quantity of the gifts. If they are becoming generous and cheerful, then they are doing well. If, on the other hand, large amounts are being given grudgingly and sparsely (in comparison to ability), then they are failing. Keep in mind that a willing, generous dime reflects spiritual maturity better than a grumped million from someone who won’t notice it.

In Focus:

Taking a longer look at 2 Corinthians 9:10, though, there is something important to take note of. Paul uses the image of agriculture to speak of giving. He highlights that the God who provides seed for the sower will also supply the needs of the Corinthians. The concept is that, by giving, the Corinthians are planting a “seed” which God will then multiply into a “harvest.”

Now, if we are not careful, this will go in a very bad direction. What is that direction? The idea of a clear correspondence between the giving of money and the sowing of a harvest in material wealth. It is crucial to read the whole verse in the context of the whole unit (2 Corinthians 9:6-15), and in context of the book and the whole text of Scripture.

The harvest is of righteousness. Paul speaks throughout the passage of the ability to provide for their need for grace (v. 8), good works (v. 8), righteousness (v. 10), thanksgiving (v. 11), and the confession of the gospel (v. 13). While there are areas, such as in 2 Corinthians 9:13, that can (and should) be understood to reference God meeting the material needs of the Corinthians, nowhere does this support a reading that giving some leads to a definite material prosperity. It is instead given that they will be able to grow in generosity—which is not the same as material wealth.

In Practice:

The practical side of this is threefold:

First, the command on the believer is clear: our giving should be cheerful and constant. Just as a farmer does not sow only once in a lifetime, but at all times that the season is right for it, we should give in the appropriate season. When is that? At all times when there is a harvest to reap. What is that harvest? How about the one in Luke 10:2? Here we see that there is a harvest ready immediately—which means it’s time to keep planting.

Second, that the harvest is not automatically of the same category as the seed. Here we depart from the pure agriculture picture: one does not plant rice seed and harvest oak trees, but with God you just may see something like that. One plants, perhaps through financial giving, and then harvests righteousness in your own life, salvation in others, or grace in your growth. From this, we grow onward and are more generous—not only with the same seed but with new seed, drawn from the new harvest.

Third, that it is in God’s good time that we see that harvest. It will be in time to meet the needs He sees.

In Nerdiness:

2 Corinthians 9:7: God loves a “cheerful” giver. Now, with appropriate credit to Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies, we need to remember something here. “Cheerful” comes from the Greek word that eventually gives us the word “hilarious.” However, “hilarious” in modern English does not have the same meaning as “cheerful (hilarion)” in the Koine Greek. Therefore, the idea that has popped up from preachers and televangelists, that one should “laugh through their giving” or other nonsense, playing on hilarious, is just wrong. It has no basis in the text. “Cheerful” rather than “morose,” yes, but giving isn’t a knee-slapping manner. It’s one of the clearest ways that the Kingdom of Eternity crashes into the Kingdom of Now, because their economic systems are fundamentally different.

Now, it is easy to try and massage this passage into instructions for the routine, proportional giving that we as believers should be doing to support kingdom work through our local churches. But I don’t see it here—this is about special projects, about tasks beyond the local church. Tithing comes in other places—though we can learn about the character of the generous, the ungenerous, and the God who sees all.