BIG IDEA:
CHURCH DISCIPLINE MAY BE NECESSARY TO REINFORCE THE NEED FOR A DISCIPLINED LIFE OF RESPONSIBLE WORK
– TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN FAMILY
– AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE NEEDS OF OTHERS
INTRODUCTION:
John MacArthur: Now I want to know if you have ever seen a sign on the back of a speed boat that said, “I’d rather be working?” Or a license plate that said, “Thank God it’s Monday?” Not likely. We really do have a warped perspective on the matter of work. Our materialistic self-indulgent adolescent infantile child-like culture has a warped view of the place and role of work.
Michael Martin: As important as it is to identify the cause and nature of the problem behavior addressed in vv. 6–15, we should not ignore the fact that our passage both begins (v. 6) and ends (vv. 14–15) with exhortations, not to the idle but to the rest of the church. The admonition addressed directly to those Christians who were living improperly (v. 12) is, in fact, rather brief. The bulk of the passage contains Paul’s advice to the church about how to deal with disruptive persons who were not following apostolic examples or instructions. Thus the passage deals as much (if not more) with the exercise of church discipline as it does with the specific problem of the ataktoi.
Gordon Fee: What this means, then, is that we simply do not know why some of them chose not to work and thus to live off the largesse of others. Was it disdain for work itself, because they were people of God’s kingdom and thus a cut above needing to work? Was it pressing the gospel of the kingdom a bit too far, expecting/demanding the rich to care for the poor? Was it related to their eschatological understanding? Was it an attempt on Paul’s part to break up dependencies created by patron-client relationships? Or was it just plain laziness? We simply do not know; and in fact getting an answer to this question would hardly affect our understanding of the text at all. All we know for sure is what Paul actually says, “We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive” (v. 11), meaning unwilling to work and thereby disrupting the shalom of the believing community.
- He begins ( 6–10) by addressing the whole community, who are being urged to “shun” those who are unwilling to work. In so doing, the larger part of the section (vv. 7–9) has to do with Paul’s and his companions’ own example with regard to work.
- The second part ( 11–12) is then (finally?) aimed directly at the disruptive-idle themselves, although it still comes to them through what Paul is here telling the rest of the community, who are themselves commended in verse 13.
- The third part ( 14–15) tells the community what to do if the disruptive-idle do not heed the instructions given here; they are to be shunned, not as punishment but as a means of redemption.
A careful reading of the whole reveals that Paul is clearly concerned that the disruptive-idle become active participants in the community of faith. Nonetheless, at the end of the day Paul’s greater concern, as usual, is for the community as a whole and their role as offering evidence of God’s rule on earth through their conduct in general and relationships as a community in particular.
Timothy Brookins: Various theories have been proposed as to why the ataktoi were not working:
(1) they believed that the parousia was imminent (Best 1979, 334; cf. Bruce 1982, 209),
(2) they believed that eschatological blessings were already present in spiritual form (Beale 2003, 251),
(3) they had dedicated all their time to vigorous and aggressive evangelism (Barclay 1993),
(4) they believed that they could rely on the support of wealthy patrons (Russell 1988; Harrison 2011, 327–28) or were busy with client duties (Winter 1994), or
(5) they believed they shared the apostolic right to demand financial support (Jewett 1986, 105).
Grant Osborne: We don’t really know much about this group Paul calls “the lazy idlers.” We know they refused to work, that they made the people of the church take care of them and feed them, and that when they were castigated and commanded to take care of themselves they refused and were rebellious and disruptive. What we don’t know is what their origins were.
Two major theories have arisen.
Many believe it was another result of the eschatological errors the church had made. A group believed the Lord was returning any day and thought if that were the case, the only important thing would be to get ready for his return. So they quit their jobs and went into prayer, fasting, and other things as they waited for the parousia. As one day flowed into another and Christ didn’t come, they had to be fed and cared for, and the more “carnal” members of the church who still had jobs were forced to do so.
The other major theory flows out of the patron-client system that dominated the Roman world. The wealthy were expected to take care of the needs of those less fortunate, and clients owed their patrons loyalty and support on civil issues, giving them honor in society as benefactors of many. So this group decided that the patronage system was all they needed and refused to work, expecting the wealthy in the church like Jason (Acts 17:5–9) to supply all their needs. Paul then is saying they have gone too far and are misusing the system and contributing nothing to the church or the needy (making it clear that they are not the needy).
The problem is that while he discusses the solution to this indolent group, he never tells us its origin, and we simply cannot know which of these is correct, or if there is another reason for the group that no one has thought of yet. Of the two options, my personal preference is the eschatological one, for an entire group exploiting the patronage system like this just seems a bit far-fetched to me. Still, neither option is decisive, and we must admit we cannot know for certain.
I. (:6a) APOSTOLIC COMMAND: AN UNRULY LIFE REQUIRES CHURCH DISCIPLINE
“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life.”
Michael Martin: The exercise of discipline was the responsibility of the church as a whole. Joint action by the entire congregation was especially imperative, considering that the only punishment authorized was the ostracism of the offender(s). If the whole congregation did not take a unified stand, such action would be ineffective either as punishment or as a symbolic statement that the ataktoi were not living according to Christian standards.
Paul commanded the church “to keep away from every brother who is idle.” The infinitive (stellesthai) means “to avoid or hold oneself apart from something or someone.” The only other time it occurs in Paul’s letters is when he was expressing his desire to “avoid” any criticism about the offering entrusted to his care by the Gentile churches for the poor in Jerusalem (2 Cor 8:20). In the present context Paul was instructing the members of the church to refuse to associate with fellow believers who persisted in living in a way contrary to “the teaching” (paradosin; cf. 2 Thess 2:15; 1 Cor 11:2) they had received from Paul and his coworkers. Several years later Paul would instruct the Corinthian believers also to withdraw fellowship from persons who claimed to follow Christ yet persisted in (and defended as a valid Christian lifestyle) some unchristian behavior (1 Cor 5:9–11). By ostracizing such persons the church as a body was able to express its disapproval in a manner that the offender could not dismiss lightly. Ultimately the goal of the church was to see the errant one repent, return to a Christlike lifestyle, and return to the fellowship of believers (vv. 14–15; cf. 2 Cor 2:6–8).
II. (:6b-10) APOSTOLIC TRADITION: REINFORCING APOSTOLIC COMMAND – EXEMPLIFIES A DISCIPLINED LIFE OF RESPONSIBLE WORK
A. (:6b-8) Apostolic Example = Sacrificial Diligent Work
- Instruction in Consistent Apostolic Tradition
“and not according to the tradition which you received from us”
Gordon Fee: It should be further noted that at the heart of this passage (v. 8) Paul picks up language that he had used in the earlier letter (1 Thess 2:9), but here with a significant difference as to his reason for choosing to work. In the first letter he was defending his “right” to work with his own hands, apparently because some in the believing community had taken some exception to his “working” and thus not accepting “support” from them. Here the same reality (his working to support himself and his companions) is being used to offer a model for the disruptive-idle to emulate. When looked at together, these two passages (from both letters) indicate that from the beginning of his time in Thessalonica Paul sensed that “work” was an issue for some of them. So now he must address the present situation in a more thoroughgoing way.
- Imitation of Consistent Apostolic Tradition
“For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example”
Michael Martin: The disciples were obligated “to imitate (mimeisthai)” (RSV, NASB margin) those who had established them in the faith. Imitation was not used here in a shallow sense, implying a lack of genuineness. Nor does it indicate any arrogance on the part of the apostle. Teachers of the day were expected to instruct their disciples both with their words (logos) and with their manner of life (ethos). Disciples were expected not only to understand the wisdom of their teachers but to emulate their wise behavior as well.
a) Negative Example
1) Not Undisciplined
“because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you”
2) Not Unaccountable = Out for a Free Ride
“nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it”
b) Positive Example
1) Sacrificial … Diligent… Sustained Effort
“but with labor and hardship
we kept working night and day”
2) Unselfish Motivation
“ so that we might not be a burden to any of you”
Michael Martin: Paul’s decision not to require support from the Thessalonians was a wise one. Apparently the credibility of his message would have suffered if opponents could have cited his remuneration as “evidence” that he was an opportunist selling a man-made product. Since he gained no financial advantage from his missionary work, however, he was not vulnerable to charges of greed.
Grant Osborne: Our practice must always be to work and pay our own way, using the extra we accumulate to help the needy rather than to wait for others to help us. . .
This does not obviate congregational care to the needy. These are not the needy; they are the indolent who refuse to work. It is clear that the problem is not an inability to find work but an unwillingness to look for work. Those who could work and simply refuse to do so are sinning against themselves, against God, and against those around them. So they must be isolated from the rest of the community and allowed to participate in the harvest they have created for themselves.
B. (:9) Apostolic Elective = Forsaking the Right to Financial Support to Reinforce the Necessary Example
“not because we do not have the right to this,
but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you,
that you might follow our example.”
C. (:10) Apostolic Edict = Corresponding … Clear… Consistent … Apostolic Commandment
“For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order:
If anyone will not work, neither let him eat.”
III. (:11-12) APOSTOLIC CORRECTION (FOR THE IDLE BUSYBODIES):
GET TO WORK!
A. Negative Report
- Verbal Report
“For we hear”
Michael Martin: “We hear” is a present tense implying that ongoing reports indicated that this was a persistent problem the church needed to address. A string of three present participles further illustrate both the persistence and the nature of the problem.
- Limited Scope
“that some among you”
- General Indictment
“are leading an undisciplined life”
- Specific Charges
“doing no work at all”
“but acting like busybodies”
Gordon Fee: But now with a considerable play on words Paul spells out how it is that they are not simply being “idlers,” as historically they have been designated, but are disturbing the shalom of the community as a whole. Although wordplays are usually next to impossible to translate effectively from one language into another, the TNIV translators have chosen in this case to do that very thing, and at little or no expense to greater precision in English. Paul’s problem is that these people are not simply not “working” (ergazomenoi); they are “meddling” (periergazomenoi = “working intrusively”), a wordplay that everyone in the Thessalonian community would have captured immediately, and which is also nicely caught by the TNIV’s “not busy but busybodies.” Since this is obviously deliberate on Paul’s part, one can be sure that if straight talk itself will not get his point across, this bit of play on words should catch everyone’s attention—especially those who are “guilty” regarding this matter.
Timothy Brookins: Paul’s original description of these people as ataktoi can now be put in sharper focus. The ataktoi are likely “disorderly” in that they transgress the boundaries of expected social roles (insinuating themselves into business inappropriate to their relationships) and upset communal or societal stability (stirring up rumors, inciting fear, provoking discord).
B. Nouthetic Counsel
- Tone of Apostolic Authority
a. By way of Command
“Now such persons we command”
b. By way of Exhortation
“and exhort”
c. By way of Delegated Authority
“in the Lord Jesus Christ”
- Task of Personal Responsibility
a. “to work in quiet fashion”
Michael Martin: “Quiet” behavior is peaceful (Acts 22:2) and appropriate (1 Tim 2:11–12). Persons who work “quietly” to “earn their own keep” will not only avoid depleting the church’s resources unnecessarily but also are more likely to earn the respect of those outside the church and less likely to find themselves in need (1 Thess 4:12).
b. “and eat their own bread”
IV. (:13) APOSTOLIC ENCOURAGEMENT (FOR THE RESPONSIBLE BRETHREN): KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!
“But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good.”
Michael Martin: Paul may have feared that exploitation by the idle might so discourage the church that they would cease all benevolence. Certainly when “doing well” results in being exploited, it can be a discouraging experience. It was bad enough that the idle had robbed the church of resources. It would be worse still if their actions also robbed the church of its willingness to engage in Christian benevolence.
V. (:14-15) APOSTOLIC SUMMARY WARNING: CARRY OUT THE DISCIPLINE IF NECESSARY – BUT WITH BROTHERLY LOVE
“And if anyone does not obey our instruction in the letter, take special note of
that man and do not associate with him, so that he may be put to shame. And
yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.”
Michael Martin: The punishment was not intended to alienate the person and make him an enemy of the church but to make the person aware of the wrongness of his actions by demonstrating the church’s unanimous condemnation of his behavior. One who had been “shamed” successfully would have realized the error of his own position and come to respect the truth of the criticism leveled against him (cf. 1 Cor 4:14; Titus 2:8). Such a change of mind should have led the person to repent and genuinely change his ways. Understanding that the intent of the church’s action was redemptive, not punitive, is key to understanding the whole of vv. 5–16.
Grant Osborne: The purpose is to force them to feel the “shame” they have brought upon themselves. This was an honor-shame society, and so shame was a powerful deterrent. Everything in ancient life centered on community acceptance, and so social ostracism and community censure were a serious thing. This would provide strong motivation to conform. Also, it must be noted that the purpose of the ostracism was to get the person to repent, not to punish them. If they got right with the Lord and with the community, all would be forgiven, and they would be reinstated to the congregation.
(3:16) APOSTOLIC BENEDICTION: SEEK PEACE AND PURSUE IT!
“Now may the Lord of peace Himself continually grant you peace in every
circumstance. The Lord be with you all!”
Michael Martin: In Paul’s Jewish heritage peace was a broad concept encompassing both the absence of conflict and the presence of well-being. That Paul prayed for a peace granted by the Lord of peace makes clear that he was thinking of a spiritual reality that goes beyond human peace, one that can exist even in the midst of temporal turmoil (cf. Phil 4:6–9). It arises from the knowledge that all that is rests in the hands of the Father. And so it is possessed only by those who have learned to trust their Lord and God.
(3:17) AUTHENTICITY — AUTOGRAPHIC ATTESTATION
“I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, and this is a distinguishing mark
in every letter: this is the way I write.”
Grant Osborne: Paul, due to his extremely poor vision, could not write his letters himself but had to dictate them to an amanuensis, or secretary. In all his letters except Galatians, Ephesians, and 1 Timothy he follows letter-writing custom by adding a personal greeting and signature “in my own hand” at the close of the letter to prove he is behind it. In Romans 16:22 he names Tertius as the amanuensis; here he does not tell who this person is. In 1 Peter 5:12 it is Silas, part of the team here, and he may be the scribe here as well.
(3:18) CLOSING BENEDICTION
“The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all”