~ Taken from Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians ~

Paul says that so far Satan has stopped him from returning to the Thessalonians. The Bible refers to Satan as an evil spirit who is capable of thinking, communicating, and producing various natural and mental effects. There are those theologians and preachers who minimize the role of Satan in human events. But the writers of Scripture do not think it strange to attribute even some seemingly routine occurrences to the devil. Any tendency to phase out Satan in our theology and preaching does not come from Scripture, but most likely from private prejudices and phobias, or the influence of non-Christians who consider it a superstition to believe that there is a personal devil (that there is a devil, and that he is a person). Now if the non-Christians can also convince us that belief in God is also a superstition, the destruction of Christianity would be complete. But Satan exists just as God exists, and it is God who tells us through the Scripture that Satan exists. It is not optional for Christians to affirm that there is a devil, that he is a person, and that he is active in the world.

Then, some excuse themselves with the idea that Christ’s resurrection signals such an overwhelming victory over Satan that, even if the devil remains active, it is unnecessary to be conscious of him, and still less should we speak of him as if he has a hand in the routine troubles that occur in our lives and ministries. Our passage is evidence that their thinking is contrary to Scripture. Unless Satan had appeared in person and physically restrained Paul and his companions, the apostle could perhaps specify the way that they had been hindered instead of making a direct reference to the devil. The reason could be hostile weather, dangerous political climate, severe religious opposition, insufficient funds, or ministry emergencies. But even if Satan had hindered them by such things, as it was possibly the case, Paul decides to explain his absence by the statement, “Satan stopped us.” There might be a reason for this choice,  but the point is that a direct reference to a personal devil is not the last resort, but rather the proper explanation. If we never perceive events in this manner, it is either because the devil has retired, or because we have, in a departure from Scripture, de-supernaturalized and de-spiritualized our theology.

God is all-powerful and all-knowing, and this means that he is stronger than Satan, and that he always knows what Satan is doing. This in turn means that whatever Satan does is allowed by God, since God knows about it but does not stop him. I will soon remind you that God’s role in the occurrence of evil is in fact much more active and direct than mere permission, but at this point I wish to relate Satan’s activity to God’s purpose. That is, God’s purpose is behind Satan’s activity, so it is not the case that Satan designs and causes his evil plans all on his own, and that God can do nothing more than to react against them. Rather, since God is an intelligent being, since he knows what Satan would do before he does it, and since he is able to stop Satan but does not, this must mean that he has a purpose in not stopping him. There is a reason for it. Thus it would be true that God has a purpose in Satan’s evil works even if we have just regarded him as rather passive toward them, as in merely to allow them or not stop them.

However, it is impossible for God to be passive in anything that happens, since nothing other than deity has the power of deity, so that no created object has the power within itself to sustain itself (including its own mind) or the power within itself to produce any effect in another object. If it has the power within itself to sustain itself, then by definition it would not require God to continue to exist – it would have the power of self-existence, and thus an independent existence from God. This would by definition make this object deity in itself. Among other reasons that would render this impossible, biblical revelation cannot harmonize with this, since it declares that God sustains all things by his power. A similar denial is made against the idea that a created object can have power within itself to influence another object. Rather, only God has this power. In other words, when existence and causation are considered on this ultimate or metaphysical level, God is the only power that sustains all things and that causes all things. In the absolute sense, God is the only cause of anything.

That said, when created objects serve as the reference points for a discussion, and when we are speaking about the relationships between created objects without reference to the metaphysical power that has absolute and immediate control over them, and that sustains them and causes their motions and effects, then it is legitimate to refer to created objects as causes. We are then, strictly speaking, not referring to causes as such (since God is the only real cause), but relationships between created objects. These relationships, of course, are also determined by God, the real cause. But again, it is unnecessary to mention this when the discussion remains on a relative level, a level where only the relationships between created objects are considered.

For example, once absolute divine sovereignty is assumed, when object X moves and strikes object Y, and object Y in turn moves, we understand that object X has no power within itself to move itself or to cause object Y to move. Rather, God causes X to move toward Y, and causes Y to move when X touches it. The movement of Y, therefore, is in itself independent of the fact that X strikes it. The correlation is there only because God causes the respective movements, thus establishes a relationship between the two created objects. Any mention of physical laws, kinetic energy, and such things, are irrelevant. Even if we ignore the fallacies inherent in all scientific explanations for now, God would still be actively and directly sovereign over anything that is mentioned as natural forces and causes, in the way that his control over X and Y is described above.

The point here is that, although this is the metaphysical explanation, it is entirely acceptable in everyday speech to speak of X and Y as causes, as long as it is understood that we are speaking in a relative sense, that is, about the relationships between created objects. In this case, we would indeed say that object X moves object Y.

An analogy might be helpful. When Jesus commissions his disciples, he says to them, “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give” (Matthew 10:8). The command is that they heal the sick, they raise the dead, they drive out demons, and so on. But we understand that it is in fact God’s will and power that perform each miracle. The disciples do not have power in themselves to produce these effects, as Peter acknowledges later: “Men of Israel, why does this surprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk?” (Acts 3:12). In terms of metaphysical power, the disciples have no ability to heal, but in terms of the relationships between creatures, and when properly understood, it is acceptable to say that the disciples “heal the sick, raise the dead,” and so on.

When we refer to a created object as if it has any power at all, we are speaking on this relative level. And it is in this sense that we acknowledge Satan’s efficacy in hindering the apostle and his companions. Again, the reason that God’s sovereign control over Satan’s activity is mentioned is to suggest that there is a divine purpose for this demonic hindrance to the apostolic ministry. Our ignorance of God’s purpose, although considerable, is nevertheless often exaggerated. Each event in God’s providence is so calculated and so interconnected with other events that it would be impossible for any human person to grasp all the reasons for any single event. However, we can often understand at least a few broad reasons for an event, because God has revealed to us in the Bible a substantial amount of information about his overall purposes and priorities.

We can suggest several reasons within God’s purpose for Satan’s hindrance of the apostolic ministry. Some of these are certainties, since they are universally applicable. Although others seem to be mere possibilities, no correlation can be considered accidental, since God knows and causes all things, so that even what seems to be a correlation must be considered intentional in the mind of God. It is unnecessary to delineate all the actual or possible reasons, as our present purpose is to show that there are reasons in the purpose of God for evil to occur, that they work out for the glory of God and the good of the elect, that we know at least some of these reasons, and so that there is no need to puzzle over evil or to agonize over the fact that we would often encounter opposition even as we strive to obey God’s command to penetrate the nations with the gospel.

With this in mind, one reason for Satan’s hindrance that might not be so obvious, but that stands right before us, is that this letter to the Thessalonians could be written. The Thessalonian Christians and all the Christians thereafter are the beneficiaries. It provides the occasion so that a letter would be written, and it provides the context so that Paul would write what he writes in it. As the second letter to the Thessalonians share the identical background as the first, this reason applies to both letters. Both letters contain major doctrines that would not have been delivered to us in their present form if Paul had returned to the Thessalonians. Of course, God would have delivered them in another form if he had wished to deliver them in another form, but he wanted to record these doctrines in the form that we have now.

Another reason for Satan’s hindrance is that, since Paul has been unable to reach the Thessalonians, it gives an opportunity for these new converts to be “taught by God” (4:9). Of course, God has ordained that his word would be delivered by human teachers, but this does not mean that he is inactive in the Christians’ conversion and maturation. He has reserved the most pivotal role for himself: “So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow” (1 Corinthians 3:7). Some things are impossible for man to achieve, or not up to him to even try, so that God alone may receive the glory.

Although he uses human teachers, the extent of their contribution can vary in each instance as determined by God’s providence. In this case, the situation compels the apostle to openly appeal to God, so that he may cause the Thessalonians to increase in love, and so that he may strengthen their hearts and keep them blameless to the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ (3:12-13). The apostle, of course, is ever willing to acknowledge God’s grace and power in preserving the chosen ones, but sometimes God’s providence helps make evident what faithful men always emphasize, that they are but agents entrusted with God’s word and empowered by God’s Spirit. It is God “who makes things grow,” or who causes their effort to become effective.

Sometimes people misapply the doctrine of divine sovereignty with the result that they are confused about their moral responsibility, or the basis and extent of their responsibility. For example, some might think that if it is God who controls Satan, it would imply that we should not resist Satan’s evil activities. Or, if it is established that we should resist Satan’s evil activities, then this would imply that God is not the one who controls Satan. In other words, if God controls evil, then we should not resist evil, but since it is the more popular premise that we should resist evil, it is thus commonly assumed that God does not control evil.

Many of those who affirm the doctrine of divine sovereignty are also infected with this way of thinking, so that even as they say that God is sovereign over evil, they would still distance him from an active, direct, and immediate manipulation of evil. The result is a blatant contradiction in their theology: Is God sovereign over all things or not? Any position that makes God’s control over evil passive or indirect is in fact a denial of his absolute and exhaustive sovereignty, and thus a denial of God – in effect, to them the God of the Bible cannot exist.

However, this difficulty with divine sovereignty and moral responsibility is a false dilemma that is based on the arbitrary and unbiblical assumption that wherever divine sovereignty intrudes it destroys moral responsibility. There is no biblical or rational reason to suggest this. The Christian faith affirms that God is sovereign in every sphere of life, so that his moral commands define for us that which is good and evil, right and wrong. So if God tells us to resist Satan, then we ought to resist Satan. It has nothing to do with who controls Satan. Our moral responsibility is defined by God’s commands about what we ought to do, and not God’s decrees about what he would do or what he would cause to occur.

At this point, the question is posed, if Satan is under God’s control, then why would God cause Satan to perform evil acts, and then command us to resist Satan? It is disappointing that many believers ask this question. First, the question arises from rebellion, for who are you to question God (Romans 9:19-21)? And second, the question arises from foolishness, since the Bible answers it over and over again. It does not occur to them that God might not cause Satan to perform evil for its own sake, so that evil might triumph, but that among other reasons, it is to produce situations for the elect to resist evil. Thus there is no mystery or paradox between God’s ordaining Satan to perform evil and God’s commanding Christians to resist evil, since it could be that the point is to educate the elect through resisting evil in the first place.

Since evil is not an end in itself and since evil itself is not the termination point of God’s plan, but since God’s purpose is the perfection of the saints, it is perfectly sensible for God to ordain evil and then tell the elect to resist it. James writes, “Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything” (James 1:2-4). God’s plan is not that evil might prosper, but that his own people would “be mature and complete, not lacking anything.” There are other reasons for God to ordain evil, but for now this explanation alone is sufficient to show that it is unnecessary to appeal to mystery or paradox. God uses Satan and non-Christians for his own glory and for our benefit, testing and refining our faith. When they have served their purpose, they will be thrown into the lake of hellfire to be punished and tortured forever.

Therefore, it is appropriate for Paul to persist in fighting the works of Satan, and to keep trying to return to the Thessalonians. It is reasonable to assume that his attempts would include natural means where applicable. (This includes simple things like getting up and walking toward the direction of Thessalonica!) Other than that, it is significant that although he is aware that it is Satan who hinders him, and although he is aware of his authority over demonic forces (not as an apostle, but as a Christian), he appeals to God the Father to “clear the way” for his return to the Thessalonians. He makes petitions to God about it.

This is contrary to the practice of some charismatics, who would assert that one ought to deal with Satan directly once aware of his involvement in a situation. The more extreme of these suggest that Christ has no authority to police demonic activities on the earth, since he has delegated it to the Christians. However, an authority that is not retained by the original wielder once it is delegated is not delegated authority, but abdicated authority.

For delegated authority to have any meaning at all, it is assumed that whatever the one who authorizes another to perform, he could perform himself. The one who wields delegated authority represents the one who confers such authority upon him. Thus if the Christian possesses delegated authority from Christ to police demonic activities, this necessarily means that Christ himself has retained this authority, and that he could perform the very task that he has sent his representative to perform.

Scripture speaks of two kinds of situations in which it is appropriate to directly address evil spirits. First, one may address Satan in the face of temptations to sin, as Jesus does in Luke 4. This is also acceptable even when Satan is working through a human person in the attempt to dissuade us from performing God’s will. Thus Jesus rebukes Satan in Matthew 16:23, although Peter is used for the temptation. That said, to directly address Satan when resisting temptation is acceptable, but not necessary, and it is probably not to be done most of the time. Second, one may address Satan, or an evil spirit, when it is evident that he has taken over a human person’s mind and body, even speaking and acting through him. When this happens, the biblical practice is for a Christian to command the demon to leave in the name of Jesus Christ.

Although it is true that Satan’s influence is pervasive in the non-Christians even when they are not screaming obscenities, cutting themselves, running naked, and foaming at the mouth, as long as this demonic influence is not overtly demonstrated, there is no biblical evidence for directly addressing Satan and to command him to depart. Rather, regular means such as preaching and counseling are used. Even if a person is under severe demonic bondage, the Spirit of God can deliver him through the consistent preaching of the word of God. It is often unnecessary to have special discernment about the particular kind of demonic activity involved and to formulate a tailored approach to counteract it. And even if one is dealing with a case of overt demonization, in which case it is appropriate to cast it out of the person, there is no biblical evidence suggesting that it is outright wrong for the Christian to pray to God, so that God may liberate the victim from demonic bondage.

Luke 22:31-32 provides another example: “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail.” He is aware that Satan would orchestrate an attack against Peter, but rather than rebuking Satan, so that Peter’s faith would not be tested or that it would not fail, it is implied that Jesus prays to God to preserve Peter or to repel Satan. And of course, all this time Jesus possesses the authority to police Satan’s activities, but still this is what he does to help Peter through the demonic assault. In most situations, therefore, there is no reason to directly address Satan. Even when we become conscious of Satan’s involvement, it is usually the case that we should still speak to God about it, rather than to directly address the demonic forces.