"SATAN HINDERED US" (I THESSALONIANS 2:18)

Paul writes to this church, probably from Corinth, “For we wanted to come to you – certainly I, Paul, wanted to again and again – but Satan blocked our way.”

The first point we note in this verse is the way Paul states his name and uses the first person singular, I, in place of the plural form that occurs in most of the letter. I have explained elsewhere (see my post on “I and II Thessalonians: Introduction to the Literary Structure”) that this is probably a joint letter written by Paul, Silvanus, and possibly Timothy. Cousins, thus, feels free to deduce, “The first use in this letter of the first person singular emphasizes the depth of the apostle's emotion.” In a similar vein, Morris says, “Throughout these two Epistles [I and II Thessalonians]...the plural is used much more than in most of Paul's letters. This makes the singular the more significant when it does occur.”

As far as the key verb “blocked, or hindered,” Morris explains, “The verb used here means literally 'to cut into.' Milligan says the idea is that of cutting up a road to make it impassible, and thus of hindering in general.”

A. There are several questions we could ask in regard to this verse. The most obvious one is that we are certainly curious as to the manner in which Satan prevented Paul from returning to Thessalonica. The more cautious commentators respond in the following fashion:

    “Though the separation's immediate cause is unstated,Paul recognizes in it the work of Satan...” (A. Smith)

    “It is useless to speculate on the nature of the repeated difficulties that hindered the visit.” (Cousins)

    “It is no longer possible to determine what hindrances Paul classified as Satan's work.” (Peisker)

    As to the specific roadblock Paul is referring to, “we can only speculate.” (Elias)

    “As to the particular mode Satan's activities took,...we are completely in the dark in this matter, and all the attempts are simply guess work.” (Morris)

    Hendricksen asks, “Just how did Satan do this?” and answers, “We just do not know. Moreover, it does not matter.”

    “Presumably both Paul and the Thessalonians knew well what the interference was. Since we lack this information, it is better for us to confess our ignorance than express an unwarranted confidence.” (Stott)

Despite the above warnings, several specific reasons have been advanced as to the nature of Satan's hindering activities. Perhaps the most popular of these stems from a consideration of the events described in Acts 17, where Paul and his companions first visited the Thessalonians and were the center of a controversy that caused the new believer Jason, and perhaps his friends, to have to put up bail or security money ensuring that no further turmoil would happen.

F.F. Bruce points out that this was William Ramsay's interpretation of Paul's comment. And Bruce adds that “Paul friends had no doubt gone bail for him without his consent, but once they had done so, his hands were tied. He might well discern satanic machinations behind the politarchs' decision, while they themselves would regard their decision as mild but effective.” Toussaint agrees with this assessment: “If more trouble arose, Jason and the others would lose their money. This may explain why Paul was prohibited from returning.”

As persuasive as this explanation appears to be, there are at least two objections that can be advanced against it. First, if it was due to the bond money put up by Jason, then how was Paul able to send Timothy, one of the original “instigators,” back to Thessalonica so soon after their initial visit (I Thessalonians 3:2) and yet Paul himself was not allowed to go? Secondly, unless the leaders of the city imposed bail money a number of times on Jason, why does Paul say that “time and time again” he was prevented?

Three other possible explanations of the nature of Satan's actions have been advanced: (1) It was due to recurrences of Paul's medical condition: his thorn in the side from Satan, (2) There was some additional opposition from Jews in Thessalonica (although that would also have prevented Timothy from returning), or (3) There was some sin or scandal in Corinth that kept Paul occupied there (Stott).

Whatever the exact mechanism of hindering, the next pair of related question to ask is why Paul attributed it to supernatural causes and why did he attribute it to Satan rather than to God. Various scholars weigh in on those points:

    “They were no doubt explicable by natural causes, but Paul does not take them as 'the Lord's will', rather seeing behind them the 'prince of this world.'” (Cousins)  Of course, this statement does not really answer either question; it just states the facts.

    Constable goes a little further: “Was Satan responsible, or was God, or were other people? Paul's reason for deciding to return was to provide additional spiritual help for the new converts. This by itself is clearly the will of God in any situation. Seen as such, any hindrance becomes opposition to the will of God. Regardless of who was involved on the human level, the ultimate leader of this kind of opposition is Satan.” This argument is by no means a fool-proof one. Just pointing to one simple fact is enough to demolish it: By being hindered from ministering in one church, Paul was able to minister in another one. Thus, it could easily be attributed to God's will rather than Satan's.

    Elias also fails to deal with this ambiguity when he says, “This reference to Satan's interference in the missionary enterprise reflects Paul's apocalyptic viewpoint. Beyond the external forces which hinder the proclamation of the gospel, Paul sees the evil powers of the present age and the pervasive dominance of Satan, their superintendent.”

    Hendricksen echoes some of the above pronouncements: “The fact as such that Satan exerts a powerful influence over the affairs of men, especially when they endeavor to promote the interests of of the kingdom of God, is sufficiently clear from other passages (Job 1:6-12; Zech. 3:1; cf. Daniel, chapter 10).” But it should be pointed out that in each of these cited cases, God used Satan's plans against him in order that He would be glorified even more. In the same manner, keep in mind that we would not even have I and II Thessalonians today with its enduring teachings if Paul had been allowed to return and teach the church there in person.

So this brings us to the difficult theological and practical issues involved in trying to parcel out Satan's actions from those of God, and to personally discern the will of God for our lives through circumstances. Some scholars have wrestled with those matters for us:

    Peisker notes, “In Acts 16:6 Paul is prevented by the Holy Spirit from preaching the gospel in the Roman province of Asia. By this comment Luke intends to demonstrate God's leading along the road towards Europe...Paul was prevented from going to Rome (Rom 1:13)...It is striking that both Paul and Luke see the ultimate origin of hindrances affecting Christians not in the actions of the people concerned but in God himself.”

    Bruce also points out Paul's prevention from visiting Rome (citing Romans 15:22 in addition) but also the confusing fact that “he discerned supernatural interference from a different source at times [as in I Thessalonians 2:18].”

    This leads John Stott to ponder, “A more important question is why Paul attributed this blockage to Satan, while attributing others to God. One answer could be that God gave Paul spiritual discernment between providential and demonic happenings.” Evidence for this ready explanation comes from the fact that one of the gifts of the Spirit listed by Paul elsewhere is the discernment of spirits.

Stott continues, “Another is that the attribution could be made only with the benefit of hindsight.” I believe that we can all relate to this one. How many times have you looked back at all the twists and turns your life has taken and realized that it all had a part in shaping who you are today, for better or for worse?

But then Stott comes to a final, and the preferred, solution by citing Calvin: “A third and more theological perspective is to say that 'both statements are true. Although Satan does his part,God still retains supreme authority.” This is probably most clearly seen in two OT instances: Satan and/or God inciting David to take a census of the people and the throne scene which opens the Book of Job.

    Finally, Wanamaker points out a potential danger in attributing circumstances to demonic forces: “To what extent is it helpful or even legitimate to think of Satan as a personal force able to interfere in human existence? Without wishing to deny the existence of a personal evil power, I believe that we should take Best seriously when he warns against the danger of too easily using Satan as an explanation for evil and human failures. Such a practice often leads people to obscure the real causes of evil and results in their failing to deal with those causes.”

Application

In closing, I would like to cite a few passages from Garry Friesen's helpful book Decision Making & the Will of God. He discusses three factors that are often said to be in play in our attempting to discern God's will from experiences and circumstances in our lives: our inward feelings, closed doors, and open doors.

He asks, “How is God's individual will communicated?” It has been proposed that we should listen to the small voice inside us. He responds that “impressions could be produced by a number of sources: God, Satan, an angel, a demon, human emotions (such as fear or ecstasy), hormonal imbalance, insomnia, medication, or an upset stomach...tremendous frustration has been experienced by sincere Christians who have earnestly but fruitlessly sought to decipher the code of the inward witness.”

Concerning closed doors: “We must, however, use caution with this road sign. Experienced saints know that sometimes a door may look closed, but in reality God is using that circumstance to test and strengthen that person's faith. You may find that God is saying, 'Wait, and I will open this door later.'”

Concerning open doors, Friesen refers to Acts 14:27; I Corinthians 16:9; II Corinthians 2:12; Colossians 4:3 and Revelation 3:8. After reflecting on this passages, he concludes that these opportunities for ministry sent from God “should be utilized as part of wise, resourceful living for the Lord (Ephesians 5:15-16). But “if a greater opportunity or more pressing work is at hand, it is acceptable and proper to pass by the open door; an 'open door' is not a direct providential sign from God telling the believer to go in a certain direction.”

Friesen has much more valuable advice on this whole subject, and so I urge you to get a copy of his book if you are interested in this general subject.