Then the Apostle, having left with the Thessalonians the comfort of this about their brethren, turns to the day of the Lord, or His appearing. “But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.” “The day of the Lord” is invariably in Scripture that period when the Lord will come in manifest and awful judgment of sinful men. It is never applied to any dealing with the Christian as on the earth. We find a very particular application of it, which seems connected with the saints. This is not exactly called the day of the Lord, but “The day of Christ.” Confessedly there is a connection between the two. The day of Christ means that aspect of the day of the Lord, in which those who are in Christ will have their special place in the kingdom assigned. Consequently, where it is a question of the fruit of labor in the service of Christ, reward of faithfulness, or anything of the kind, “The day of Christ” is mentioned.
But “The day of the Lord,” as such, is invariably the day of the Lord’s dealing in judgment with man as such on the earth. Of that day, then, the Apostle felt no need to write. It was already known perfectly that the day of the Lord is coming as a thief in the night. This was a matter of Old Testament statement and phraseology. All the prophets speak of it. If you search from Isaiah to Malachi, you will find that the day of Jehovah is that moment of divine intervention when man is no longer allowed to pursue his own path, when the Lord God will deal with the world’s system in all its parts, when the idols of the nations shall all perish together with their benighted votaries. But the Lord Himself shall be exalted in that day, and His people shall be brought into their true place, and the Gentiles shall accept theirs. This will be the time of displayed divine government. Jehovah will take Zion as the central seat of His earthly throne, and all peoples shall submit to His authority in the person of Christ.
Hence, therefore, the Apostle, when he speaks of the day of the Lord, alludes to it as already too notorious to need fresh words about it. The Thessalonians did not require to be instructed as to that. But this makes most plain the distinction of the manner in which the saints and mankind will be dealt with. When he treats of the Lord’s coming, they require to be instructed; where he speaks about the day of Jehovah, they do not. The day of Jehovah was matter of common knowledge from the Old Testament. To a scribe instructed thus, there was no doubt about its bearing. Not even a Jew disputed about it, and of course a Christian would be subject to the testimony of God in the Old Testament. But a Christian might not know that which most of all it was desirable for him to understand the manner in which his own proper hopes would link themselves with the day of Jehovah.
It is exactly there many make such utter confusion; for they do not distinguish between the hope of the Christian and “the day” for the world. And this lets out a great secret—the heart’s desire to think of the two things together. We can all understand that people would like to have the best of both. But it cannot be done. Hence in speaking of the day of the Lord (and I draw your attention to it, because we shall find its importance in the next epistle) he says, “When they shall say, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child.” He does not say “you,” but “they.” Why this difference? When he is speaking about the presence of the Lord, he says “you,” “we”; but when treating of the day of Jehovah, he says “they.”
Indeed, the Apostle excludes the believer; for he says, “Ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.” Besides, he gives a moral reason, “Ye are children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. For they that sleep, sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation. For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ.” Salvation here means complete deliverance not yet come—the redemption of the body and not that of the soul alone. For Christ “died for us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.”
Carefully remember that waking or sleeping here has reference to the body; it has no reference at all to anything of moral state. It is impossible that the Spirit of God should say that, whether in a right state or wrong, we should live together with Him. The Holy Spirit never makes light of the condition of sin. Nor is there anything more foreign to the tone of Scripture, than that the Spirit of God should treat with indifference the question whether a saint was in a good or a bad state. He had no doubt just used the words “wake or sleep” in another sense; but he seems to me to assume the impossibility of a saint applying them in a moral sense when he pursues the subject farther. In verse 6, for instance, the sleeping and watching are moral states; but when we come down to verse 10, they refer to the question of life or death in the body, and not to the saints’ ways. In fact this manner of taking up words, and applying them in another sense, will be found to be one of the characteristics of the abrupt, animated, and forcible style of the Apostle.
I should not make the remark if I had not known excellent men sometimes in considerable danger from overlooking this, and taking Scripture in a narrow and pseudo-literal sense. But this is not the way to understand the Bible. It is one of the great misuses to which a concordance exposes those who are caught by venal analogies, instead of entering into the scope of thought and real meaning.
We shall live with Him then. “Wherefore,” he says, “Comfort yourselves together, and edify one another.” Then he gives them certain instructions; and I add this observation) which is one of practical importance. He calls upon these young believers to know those who labored among them, and were over them, or took the lead in the Lord, and admonished them. They were to esteem them very highly in love for their work, being at peace at the same time among themselves.
This exhortation, always right, has, to my own mind, great wisdom and worth for us now; for the simple reason that, so far, we stand in a measure, as to circumstances—though not from the same cause—with these Thessalonian saints. Assuredly they were in a comparatively infantine condition, quite as much or more than those I am now addressing. Yet if saints, no matter how informed, then had among them those that labored and were over them in the Lord, surely the same Lord gives still the same helps and governments. He raises up and sends His workmen in the world, and those who bring in that moral power and wisdom which enable some to take the lead. Hence it is beyond just controversy— from the case of the Thessalonians (and it is not alone)—that for some to be over others in the Lord did not depend on apostolical appointment. It is a defective and even mistaken idea to restrict it to this, though it is admitted that the apostles used to appoint such elders. But the essence of what we find here is, that in that appointment spiritual power and might did show itself in this way; and that the greatest of the apostles exhorts the saints to acknowledge those who were thus—and only thus—over them in the Lord, altogether independently of any apostolic act. No doubt the due external appointment was desirable and important in its place. But what of places (and I would add, what of times) where it could not be had?
These are our circumstances now; for no matter how much we might welcome and value such outward appointment, we cannot have it. Without the proper scriptural authority, who is to appoint? Anybody unquestionably, and leaders especially, might imitate Paul and Barnabas, or Titus. But, assuredly, mere imitation is nothing, or worse; and those that take the lead, or are qualified to do so, are the persons to be appointed—not to appoint, if we really bow to the Lord. More than this—direct authority from the Lord for the purpose was needed. Where is it now? The moment you make an appointing power of your own, it is evident that its authority cannot rise above its source. If it is only a humanly given authority, it can exercise no more than a human power. But the Apostle—or rather the prescient Spirit of God—meets various contingencies in the exhortation, and shows that a company of believers, even though not long gathered, might have more than one in their midst qualified to lead the rest, and entitled to respect and love on the score of their work, as thus laboring. If there be such now, (and who will deny it?) are the saints not called on to know them? Are there none who labor among them—none that take the lead among them in the Lord? It is evident that there ought to be no flinching from such a truth as this. For the present and long-existing confusion of Christendom in no way neutralizes it, but rather creates a fresh reason for adhering to it, as to all Scripture. No doubt it may not be always pleasant to high-minded men; but be assured, it is a thing of no small moment in its place.
Again, under the circumstances of Thessalonica, as there must have been danger of headiness, the Apostle calls on the brethren to watch against unruly ways. The two things would be likely to go together: peace promotes love and respect. Disorderly folk are apt to know nobody over them in the Lord. Hence he calls on all to admonish them, to comfort the faint-hearted, to support the weak, to be patient toward all. Then follows a cluster of other exhortations on which I need not dwell now. My object is not so much to insist on the exhortatory part of the epistle, as to present the general thread of design that runs though each, so as to give a comprehensive view of its structure.