1 Thessalonians 5:12–22

Original Meaning

Congregational Responsibilities Toward Leaders (5:12–13)

VERSES 12–13A COMPRISE a single sentence in which Paul asks the congregation2 to “respect” and to “hold … in highest regard in love because of their work” a specific group within the church. The second verb elsewhere means “to think, consider,” but the context here requires something like “to esteem, regard, respect,” especially in view of the following adverb, “most highly, beyond all measure” (hence the NIV’s “hold … in highest regard”). But this means that “respect” is not the best translation of the first verb, since “respect” and “esteem/regard” are closer in meaning than the two words Paul has used. Either “acknowledge” or “recognize” (cf. 1 Cor. 16:18, “deserve recognition”) better catches Paul’s nuance here.3

In short, Paul is calling for proper recognition and appreciation of “those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you.” The grammar makes it clear that he is describing a single group with three characteristics. Paul often uses the verb “to work” (kopiao, which sometimes indicates manual labor) to characterize his own activities on behalf of the gospel (1 Cor. 15:10; Gal. 4:11; Phil. 2:16; Col. 1:29) or those of members ministering within a congregation (1 Cor. 16:16; cf. Rom. 16:6, 12). This is its meaning here (the corresponding noun, kopos, occurs in 1:3 in the expression “labor prompted by love”).

The second verb (proïstemi; NIV “are over”; NRSV “have charge of”) can mean “to lead, protect, care for.” Its meaning in Romans 12:8, where it occurs as one of a series of spiritual gifts, is subject to the same uncertainty we find here (although its position there between “contributing” and “showing mercy” suggests “care for” rather than “lead”). In 1 Timothy 3:4, 5, 12 it describes a father’s relation to his household and children (which involves all three aspects), and in 1 Timothy 5:17 that of elders to the church. In Titus 3:8, 14 it involves “caring for” (i.e., “promoting”) good works. The corresponding noun is used in Romans 16:2 of Phoebe, the benefactor who cared for (in a financial sense) Paul and others. The most consistent nuance running through these occurrences is that of “care for,” a meaning that makes good sense in relation to the third term, “admonish” (noutheteo; cf. 5:14).4

Our difficulties in determining exactly what kinds of “work” these people are performing should not obscure the point that it is precisely “because of their work” (5:13) within and for the congregation that Paul directs the other brothers and sisters to acknowledge and appreciate them. Had Paul himself appointed them (as he did in some situations; cf. Acts 14:23), presumably such a request would not have been necessary, since the people in question would have had clear apostolic backing and support. The implication is that these people have surfaced within the congregation as “servants” or “ministers” (i.e., diakonoi; cf. Rom. 16:1 NRSV; 1 Cor. 16:15), and Paul is calling on the rest of the community to recognize that fact.

It is possible that 5:13b hints at a bit of tension between leaders and the rest of the congregation. But the call to “live in peace with each other” is common in Paul and elsewhere (see Rom. 12:18; 14:19; 2 Cor. 13:11; Eph. 4:3; Col. 3:15; 2 Tim. 2:22, Heb. 12:14; cf. Mark 9:50). In other words, Paul’s purpose here may be preventative rather than curative. (For the meaning of “peace” see comments on 1 Thess. 1:1.)

Bridging Contexts

IN BRINGING THIS section of the text to us today, it is important to keep in mind that verses 15–22, no less than verses 12–14, are in the first place directed to the community, not individuals (a point missed, for example, by the commentator who assigned to verses 16–18 the heading “Responsibilities to Oneself,” thinking that they deal with “the believer’s inner life”). Stott’s analysis of this section—under the heading of “Christian Community, or How to be a Gospel Church,” he discusses leadership (vv. 12–13), fellowship (vv. 14–15), and worship (vv. 16–22)—points us in the right direction. This is not to suggest that these verses have nothing to say to individuals, but rather that we must keep in mind that they are addressed first to the congregation, and only indirectly to individuals. This will help us, for example, to avoid misapplying a verse like 5:16 or 5:21.

Leadership issues. In the civic or social clubs and associations that were common in first-century Greco-Roman culture, there was a noticeable relationship between wealth, status, and leadership. Often wealthy members were given leadership positions because they were patrons of the group (or in hopes that they would become patrons). Indeed, in many cases wealthy members of an association or group who functioned as patrons or benefactors took it for granted that they would exercise leadership. Within the Christian congregation, however, the key qualification for leadership (in theory, if not always in practice) was not wealth or status but giftedness for ministry. As F. F. Bruce has observed, in general “leaders did not do the appropriate work because they had been appointed as leaders; they were recognized as leaders because they were seen to be doing the work.”17

In this respect, Paul’s instructions in 5:12 are countercultural. He wanted the congregation both to acknowledge and to respect as its leaders those people who were actually doing the work of ministry, rather than accepting (perhaps by default) those who had, from the perspective of secular culture, the “proper” social or financial qualifications. In such circumstances, the possibilities for misunderstandings, hurt feelings, or even divisions within the congregation (e.g., consider Corinth!) are obvious, and that may have prompted Paul to include at this point the command to “live in peace with each other” (5:13).

Congregational pastoral ministry. Every church, no matter how strong, has what J. R. W. Stott terms “the ‘problem children’ of the church family,” that is, those who are struggling with “problems of understanding, faith, and conduct.”18 Moreover, most individuals, no matter how strong or mature spiritually, are likely to encounter in the course of life times of grief, doubt, or even despair (as Paul himself acknowledges, see 2 Cor. 1:8). In this section, Paul sketches some of the responsibilities of a congregation as a whole to individuals within it who happen to find themselves in need of some kind of encouragement, help, or even warning.

With respect to 5:14, it is important to notice that Paul calls on the entire congregation, not just the leaders, to take responsibility for mutual care and encouragement (cf. 5:11 above). As Ernest Best observes,

Paul lays the responsibility for the whole community on the community itself; each member, and not the leaders alone, must be aware of his or her responsibility for others and seek to help them. At no stage can the ordinary member lean back and say, “This is the task of the ministry alone.” Paul knows nothing of an inert mass, the congregation, on which the ministry operates.19

In short, Paul is trying to develop in the entire congregation a sense of pastoral responsibility.

With respect to 5:15, we should not water down or ameliorate the force of Paul’s absolute statements about not repaying “wrong for wrong” and seeking instead to do good. Paul’s statements “can only mean that even when somebody does wrong to a Christian the latter must respond by doing good in return.”20 That is, Paul does not merely forbid retaliation, he commands, in the spirit of the Golden Rule, that we seek to do good. Moreover, we are to do good not just for the congregation, but for everyone, including those who may be attacking the church. As some of the disciples said in another context, “This is a hard teaching” (John 6:60).

Joy in all circumstances. In thinking about the application of verses 16–18, it is important to keep clearly in mind just what Paul meant by them. In 5:18, for example, Paul does not say to give thanks for all circumstances, but in all circumstances. Similarly, 5:16 is not a command to individual believers to “be joyful always”; as Stott observes, joy is not something that can be turned on and off like a faucet.21 Moreover, such a command contradicts what Paul urges in Romans 12:15 (“mourn with those who mourn”). Rather “to rejoice always is to see the hand of God in whatever is happening and to remain certain of God’s future salvation.”22 Paul has in mind “a stable and deep-rooted joy which enables him”—but even more so a congregation—“to cope with disappointments and see them in their true perspective.”23 And that true perspective is rooted in the conviction that in any and all circumstances, God is at work on behalf of his people—reason enough to give thanks and rejoice and thereby fulfill God’s will for us (v. 18).

On prophecy. It is clear that in 5:19–22 Paul is focusing on a particular manifestation of the Spirit, namely, “prophecies” (5:20). It is sometimes claimed that prophecy ceased at the close of the apostolic age,24 a conclusion that would render these verses largely irrelevant today. There is, however, in my opinion no biblical basis for such a cessationist view of prophecy (or any other spiritual gift, for that matter), despite efforts to find one in 1 Corinthians 13:8–12 or Ephesians 2:20.25 Paul took it for granted that prophecy was part of the common and normal experience of the Spirit’s activity in the congregations he established, and there is no biblical basis to think that the situation is or should be any different today.

In this respect, Paul would never bother to “regulate” (as he does here) anything that ought not to be happening in the first place—he would simply forbid it! As Gordon Fee rightly notes, “despite the fact that the ministries of the Spirit can be abused in the Christian community, Paul’s own deep appreciation for the central role of the Spirit in individual and corporate life will not allow for correcting abuse by commanding disuse. Rather, the antidote for abuse is proper use,”26 which he defines in 5:21 as a matter of “testing” prophecies.

To affirm the present-day validity of prophecy is not to say that “not quenching the Spirit” (5:19) is merely a matter of being open to the possibility of prophecy or other specific manifestations of the Spirit. On an individual or a congregational level, obedience to 5:19 cannot be reduced to a matter of Pentecostal versus non-Pentecostal experience, as if being Pentecostal or charismatic automatically means that one is open to the Spirit and that a non-Pentecostal is automatically guilty of quenching the Spirit. As Keener observes, “Contrary to their own claims … some charismatic churches plainly follow a charismatic tradition by rote; by contrast, in some noncharismatic churches … only the most spiritually insensitive person could fail to sense the overwhelming presence of God’s Spirit.”27

To put the matter a bit differently, it is accurate to observe that some traditions, denominations, or movements do seem to be more open to certain expressions of the Spirit’s working than others. But it is impossible on the basis of this generalization to make predictions or judgments about the openness of any particular congregation or individual to the leading of the Holy Spirit. All congregations and all individuals need to take seriously Paul’s command against “quenching the Spirit.”

One difficulty in applying 5:21a (“Test everything”) is that Paul nowhere provides a list of criteria by which to test prophecy. Nonetheless Gordon Fee suggests that two principles may be inferred from his letters.28 (1) In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, in a context in which some Thessalonians had been badly shaken by misrepresentations of Paul’s teaching (misrepresentations that may have had their origins in a prophecy, cf. 2 Thess. 2:2), Paul urges the believers to “stand firm” and “hold to the teachings we passed on to you.” This suggests that one test of any prophecy is its agreement with the apostolic preaching and teaching about Jesus; any prophecy that does not agree with the apostolic proclamation is immediately suspect (cf. 1 John 4:1–3). Since today the apostolic preaching and teaching is preserved in Scripture, in practical terms this means that Scripture is the standard or norm by which prophecy is to be tested, not the other way around. This is the test of content.

(2) In 1 Corinthians 14:3, Paul says that genuine prophetic activity serves to strengthen, encourage, and comfort—that is, it works “for the common good” (12:7). This is the test of purpose and effect.

With regard to 5:21–22, in context these commands clearly have in view the matter of prophecy. But the way in which Paul states them hints at a wider application. Paul himself appears to make a broader application of 5:21b (“hold on to the good”) in Philippians 4:8 (“whatever is true, whatever is noble, … if anything is excellent … think about such things”). In applying 5:22 more broadly, however, it is important to keep clearly in mind precisely what Paul meant by it. It is still not uncommon to hear people, influenced by but misunderstanding the King James Version of 5:22 (“Abstain from all appearance of evil”), paraphrase the verse as, “Avoid even the appearance of evil.” This in turn is taken to mean that we should “avoid anything—even if it is good—that might somehow under some circumstances possibly seem to be evil.” But Paul does not say to avoid something that might (mistakenly) somehow appear to be evil; he commands us to avoid evil whenever and however it appears (as the NIV makes clear).

Contemporary Significance

AS JACOB W. Elias observes, this passage “prescribes both spontaneity and freedom as well as structure and accountability for worship and church life generally.”29 Maintaining this tension between openness and control while seeking to apply faithfully the many imperatives presents a major challenge to responsible application.

Congregational responsibilities toward leaders (5:12–13a). Paul’s instructions in 5:12–13a call on congregations today to do two things. (1) They should recognize or acknowledge those who are actually doing the work of ministry. Those with the titles, positions, visibility, or recognition are not always the ones doing the hard work that keeps a congregation going. Factors other than spiritual giftedness (e.g., ambition, connections, personality, education, natural talent, or good looks) often influence which people are placed in positions of leadership or visibility in a congregation. In and of themselves, however, these considerations neither qualify nor disqualify one for ministry. The key consideration is giftedness by the Spirit, something that usually becomes evident in the exercise of the gift. Thus Paul calls us to recognize as our congregational leaders those who are actually leading the congregation.

(2) The congregation should respect or “hold … in highest regard” its leaders. This may be the greater failure of congregations today. We usually know who our leaders are, but far too often we do not respect or follow them. To be sure, to some extent respect is something that must be earned, as we like to remind ourselves, but far too often even when it has been earned, it is not given. A leader does something less than perfectly, and we think to ourselves, “I could have done better than that.” A solid message is preached, but it lacks the flair and drama of the big-name personality we watched earlier on TV, and we say to ourselves, “Why can’t he preach like so-and-so?” A song is well sung from the heart, but it lacks the production values of the latest video from our favorite Christian recording artist, and we are disappointed. In these and other subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) ways we fail to give those who minister to us the respect they deserve.

Ben Franklin, who was both printer for and friend of George Whitefield, the famous colonial era evangelist, claimed that when he was listening to Whitefield preach, he could easily tell the difference between a new sermon and one previously delivered. The latter were highly polished in both content and delivery and had a tremendous impact on the audience, including the somewhat skeptical Franklin himself. (He reports that prior to a particular sermon appealing for funds, he had resolutely determined to give nothing; he was so moved, however, by Whitefield’s eloquence that by the time the offering plate came by, he emptied his pockets!)30

In view of Whitefield’s impact and reputation, it is hardly surprising, as Franklin reports, that not a few of the local preachers were less than happy to have Whitefield preaching in their area. It is easy to understand how they might have felt threatened by his presence and the inevitable comparisons drawn between his preaching and theirs. But any such comparison was hardly fair; they were responsible for two or three new sermons per week, while Whitefield had the opportunity to polish and refine his sermons through repeated delivery. But the unfairness of such comparisons did not prevent them from being made.

The problem of unfair negative comparisons is still around; if anything, the advent of mass-media communication has exacerbated the problem. No longer do we know of nationally renowned preachers, teachers, or speakers only by reputation; we have usually seen and heard them, either via television or videos. What we tend to forget when watching them, however, is that much of what we see on these TV shows or videos is produced with the benefit of substantial production support and post-production editing. So we see them on-screen in all their edited perfection, speaking powerfully and moving deeply large, enthusiastic studio audiences. Compared to such well-presented personalities, it is hardly a surprise that our own pastor, Sunday School teacher, or seminar leader somehow seems a bit “lacking” in some respect.

Though such comparisons are inherently unfair, we make them anyway, sometimes without even realizing it. When we do so, we fail to give our local leaders the respect they deserve for doing the work to which God has called them. Paul’s command here reminds us of the need to grant our respect to those who have earned it by their work and care for the congregation.

Living in peace (5:13b). Paul’s command to live in peace with one another is a hard saying for many people and congregations. The peace that the apostle has in mind is not merely the absence of conflict (hard enough to achieve for many of us!), but the presence of positive, healthy relationships. Too often, however, we place a higher value on a superficial harmony than on genuine peace. We are “nice” to one another and coexist without open warfare (at least most of the time). Because we value so highly “niceness” and not upsetting or disturbing someone, we avoid the hard work it takes to maintain a relationship.

When a problem occurs, we do not follow the guidelines of Matthew 18:15 and go to the other person to clear up the matter (after all, it’s not “nice” to be confrontational). Instead we pretend that there’s nothing wrong (meanwhile gossiping about it with others). But this leaves wounds untreated and hurts unhealed, allows misunderstandings to linger, and eventually gives rise to suspicion and mistrust. We have superficial harmony, but no peace, because we have avoided the hard work of reconciliation necessary for genuine peace to flourish. Only as we “care enough to confront,” to paraphrase the title of Milton Mayerhoff’s little classic, will we be able to fulfill Paul’s command to live in peace with one another.

Congregational responsibilities toward individuals (5:14–15). In reviewing Luci Shaw’s poignant book God in the Dark: Through Grief and Beyond, Margaret D. Smith writes:

Through the book, she calls to God, asking like the Psalmist, “Where are you? I call but you don’t answer. You have left me here, alone….” If she hasn’t abandoned God in this crisis, and if God has promised to be with her always, then where is he? Why doesn’t he make himself known? This is her aching prayer, and she never knowingly receives a satisfactory answer.

Through the book, friends flit in and out like fireflies, giving off brief sparks in the darkness, telling Luci in a thousand thoughtful ways that they love her. But while she appreciates these friends, Luci never seems to connect the two wires: Where is God? and, Here are God’s people.31

Smith’s insight—that God often makes his presence known through his people—underscores the importance of Paul’s command to the Thessalonian congregation in 5:14. In nurturing those who are weak, in caring for those in distress, by encouraging those who are fearful, and, if necessary, disciplining those who require it, we can become ministers of the grace of the gospel, servants of God through whom he reaches out to those looking for him or in need of his presence.

The congregational activities of rejoicing, praying, and giving thanks mentioned in 5:16–18 tie in closely here as well. There are times when a group of believers can do what an individual believer may find herself or himself unable to do and in this way minister to that individual. I remember vividly a faculty worship service when, overwhelmed with grief, I found myself completely unable to rejoice or give thanks and hardly able to pray. But as I listened to my colleagues pray, give thanks, and rejoice in God’s grace and goodness, their words broke through my sorrow. Unable to give thanks or rejoice at the moment, I nevertheless felt carried along by their praise, thanksgiving, and prayers. As they did what I was unable to do alone, my colleagues became for me tangible evidence of God’s presence.

Ministering to those in the body who have deep needs or hurts, as Paul here urges us to do, is often difficult, sometimes simply because people do not always respond, heal, or grow as fast as we think they should. This may be why Paul adds a word about patience at this point. Our society not only encourages us to want things our way, but to want them our way when we want them. But if we are to be genuinely patient with others,

we must renounce the tyranny of our own agendas…. The idea that we should not have to wait on anything or anyone is merely another form of self-centeredness. Patience … values other people enough to give them room and time to fail, learn, and develop … to mature at their own rate rather than expect them to do everything right and to do it now.32

If impatience is one form of self-centeredness, retaliation (5:15) is another. Perhaps that is why judgment and vengeance are tasks God has not entrusted to his people to carry out. As humans we are too prone to identify our enemies as God’s enemies; we too easily confuse our desires for revenge with God’s justice. Perhaps it is precisely “because of our strong natural tendency to seek revenge,” as Calvin puts it, that any form of retaliation or “vengeance is forbidden to us without exception.”33 This may be the only way to break the otherwise unending spiral of violence that retaliation generates.

In place of retaliation, we are commanded instead to “always seek to do good” (NRSV), not only to those within the congregation but to everyone else as well. This kind of nonretaliatory behavior has a much different motivation: “Such treatment of opponents has as its goal reconciliation and peace, not another’s defeat and suffering. That is the way God dealt with us when we were his enemies. That is the way God deals through us with those who continue to oppose him.”34

It is important to notice a significant consequence of Paul’s command to do good to everyone (friend and foe alike): It hinders the development of a dualistic perspective—the tendency to view everyone outside our group or aligned against us as evil (or at least on the side of evil). Instead, it reminds us of God’s love, care, and concern for everyone. It forces us to expand our perspective toward that of God’s, rather than reduce his to the limitations of ours.

Congregational responsibilities toward God (5:16–18). I have labeled this section “responsibilities toward God” primarily in order to maintain the parallelism with the other headings in this section. Moreover, to do so recognizes that in these verses, as throughout the passage, Paul speaks in the imperative mood, that is, in the language of command. In many respects, however, it might well be as accurate to label this section “opportunities to acknowledge and affirm our faith in God.” For just as reciting a formal written creed (such as the Nicene Creed or Apostles’ Creed) is an intellectual statement of faith, so the actions of rejoicing, giving thanks, and praying are an experiential statement of faith. They are ways of expressing by our behavior what we believe with the mind.

Charles Wesley’s famous hymn “Rejoice, the Lord is King” catches well this coordination between belief and expression:

1. Rejoice, the Lord is King! Your Lord and King adore!

Rejoice, give thanks, and sing, And triumph evermore:

Refrain

Lift up your heart, lift up your voice!

Rejoice, again I say, rejoice!

4. Rejoice in glorious hope! Our Lord the Judge shall come

And take His servants up To their eternal home: (Refrain)

In these verses, the rejoicing and giving thanks are both based on and give concrete expression to our convictions that our Lord is indeed King, and that he will come to take us to be with him for eternity. Viewed in this light, rejoicing, praying, and giving thanks are less things we “have to do” and more expressions of what we truly believe. In this sense, then, Paul’s commands in verses 16–18 become more opportunities than responsibilities—opportunities, moreover, that constitute nothing less than God’s will for us.

The real challenge in verses 16–18 comes out, however, not when times or circumstances are good and it is easy to rejoice and give thanks, but when (as in Thessalonica) our material circumstances may not seem so good. Do we truly believe that God’s salvation is of more value than the cost of persecution that comes as a result of accepting the gospel? Then let us demonstrate that conviction by rejoicing in the midst of it. Are we really persuaded that God will indeed deliver his people and bring justice on their behalf? Then let us pray with persistence and patience, waiting and watching expectantly for God to act (cf. Luke 18:1–8, the parable of the persistent widow).35 Are we genuinely convinced that “in all things God works for the good of those who love him” (Rom. 8:28)? Then let us demonstrate that conviction by giving thanks in all circumstances.

Congregational responsibilities toward the Spirit (5:19–22). There is a double responsibility in these verses: not to quench anything that is genuinely of the Spirit, and not to attribute anything false to the Spirit. As J. W. Elias succinctly puts it, “During worship the Spirit needs to have freedom to move prophets to speak, yet what is said also needs to be tested.”36

The worship services of a great many churches in America today are so tightly structured, choreographed, and controlled that there is virtually no opportunity for “spontaneous, Spirit-inspired, intelligible messages, orally delivered in the gathered assembly, intended for the edification or encouragement of the people” (the definition of prophecy given above). The key word here, I think, is “control”: Some services are so much under human control that there is virtually no room for the Spirit to move.

In considering this last statement, it is important to emphasize that this is in no way a matter of “liturgical” versus “nonliturgical” traditions. It is not difficult for a skilled worship leader, even one working from a well-defined liturgy or service book in which everything is printed out in advance, to provide room and opportunities for the Spirit to move in and through the congregation during worship. On the other hand, nonliturgical congregations, including some that would faint at the sight of a printed order of service, can be observed following, week after week, an “order of service” as rigid and predictable—as “controlled,” in other words—as any printed liturgy.

In other words, it is not so much a matter of liturgical style as it is a matter of attitude and approach. Some of us are simply more comfortable when things are “under control”; we dislike the unexpected and prefer the comfort of the predictable. But the hidden cost of predictability is a loss of spontaneity, and a consequence of too much control is a quenching of the Spirit. In such cases, part of the solution may be building into the congregation’s worship activities “space” or room for the Spirit, perhaps during one of the less formal gatherings (such as a Saturday or Sunday evening service).37

It is also possible to quench the Spirit by valuing cultural expectations or norms more than the Spirit. This may be a matter of labeling only certain styles of music or forms of worship as fitting, proper, or “Christian,” of placing a high value on having the service end by a certain time so as not to interfere with other scheduled activities, or of insisting on gender distinctions or social roles that are cultural rather than biblical. In these and other ways some congregations run the risk of quenching the Spirit in their midst.

If the problem for some churches is too much control, the problem for others is too little discernment. Some churches or movements are so in awe of prophets and prophecy that they neglect to test anything at all that happens in the name of the Holy Spirit. This is a blatant contradiction of Paul’s command to “test everything,” and then to hold on to what is good and stay away from everything else. The results of this failure have been widely documented; they include not only questionable behavior, but worse, the propagation of false teaching and heresy.38 This failure to take seriously Paul’s command to test all prophecies is a major shortcoming of the contemporary charismatic movement.

As was indicated in the Bridging Contexts section, there are two means by which to test prophecy. (1) One test is that of purpose and effect: Genuine prophetic activity serves to strengthen, encourage, and comfort. In short, it works to edify and to build up God’s people. If the effects of an alleged prophecy are otherwise, then there is good reason to suspect it. The same goes for prophecies that exalt or serve the interests of an individual.

(2) The primary means of testing prophecies, however, is Scripture. It is axiomatic that nothing that is truly of the Holy Spirit will contradict anything that God has said in his Word. Any alleged prophecy or revelation must be tested against the one reliable, Spirit-given source of revelation that has already been received, namely, Scripture. Moreover, as was pointed out in the Original Meaning section, there is no evidence that prophetic utterances in the early church were ever given the same authority as Scripture. Though I disagree in general with the cessationist view of prophecy, I share their concern for the centrality of Scripture in the life of the church. Nothing must be allowed to supplant God’s written Word as the final guide for faith and life.

Wayne Grudem offers three important guidelines for churches that use the gift of prophecy, which incorporate the key points discussed thus far.39 (1) “Remember that what is spoken in any prophecy today is not the word of God, but is simply a human being reporting in merely human words something which God has brought to mind.” (2) “Be sure to test prophecies, to evaluate them by Scripture and by what else you know to be true.” (3) “Be sure you emphasize Scripture as the place where people can always go to hear the voice of the living God.” If these guidelines are followed, it would eliminate much of the unbiblical, sub-biblical, and even heretical activity that is falsely attributed to the Spirit today.

Original Meaning

Congregational Responsibilities Toward Individuals (5:14–15)

HAVING “SPOKEN OF the need of the community to respect its leaders,” Paul “moves on to advise the community on how it ought to treat those with special spiritual problems and needs.”5 (1) He instructs them to “warn those who are idle.” While the verb (which in 5:12 the NIV renders as “admonish”) can carry a positive sense (e.g., Rom. 15:14), here it clearly includes a note of disapproval (cf. 1 Cor. 4:14). While “idle” is attested as a meaning for Paul’s word here (ataktos), in fact it represents only a narrow part of the term’s broader semantic range, which touches on ethical and social/political conduct. In light of 1 Thessalonians 4:11–12 above, which deal with responsible conduct or behavior, and how the related adverb and verb are utilized in 2 Thessalonians 3:6–15 (see esp. v. 11), it should probably be given here its more fundamental sense of “undisciplined, irresponsible, disorderly” (cf. NASB).

(2) They are to “encourage [paramytheomai; see 2:12] the timid.” The range of meaning of the uncommon word translated “timid” (oligopsychous; NRSV “faint hearted”) includes worried, discouraged, fearful, inadequate, lacking in confidence, despondent, sad, and weak. Nothing in the immediate context offers a clue to its precise nuance here or about its cause.

(3) “Help the weak” (cf. Rom. 15:1) is similarly imprecise.6 The verb can be rendered “support, supply, help,” or even “defend,” while the “weakness” can involve moral temptation, spiritual shortcomings, physical weakness, or economic need.7

(4) The command to “be patient with everyone” in the congregation (echoed in Eph. 4:2; Col. 3:12) should be compared with Galatians 5:22 (patience as a fruit of the Spirit), 1 Corinthians 13:4 (a characteristic of love), as well as Exodus 34:6 (a quality of God). The relevance of this injunction to a community under pressure or stress (e.g., persecution or concern about deceased believers) is evident.

(5) In 5:15, “Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always try to be kind to each other and to everyone else,” Paul appears to be quoting a saying that formed a part of his basic instructions to new converts. It is closely paralleled by Romans 12:17–21 and echoes the Golden Rule in both its negative form (Don’t do to others what you do not want done to you) and its positive form (“Do to others what you would have them do to you,” Matt. 7:12//Luke 6:31). It is probably grounded in the teachings of Jesus regarding vengeance (Matt. 5:38–42; cf. Luke 6:29–30; also Prov. 20:22; 25:21–22; Sir. 28:1–7) and love for enemies (cf. Matt. 5:43–48; Luke 6:27–28, 32–36).

Verse 15a is a categorical prohibition against repaying evil for evil; verse 15b is an equally absolute command to “always” (the word order is emphatic) actively pursue or strive for “what is good” (lit. trans.).8 Note that pursuing what is good is not limited to other members of the congregation (“each other”). Even in a context in which believers have been ostracized and persecuted by outsiders, Paul includes within the scope of his command all people (“everyone else,” in the climactic position in the sentence), thereby repeating and reinforcing a point he made earlier in 3:12.