b. The disobedient (3:14–15)
6. Godly discipline (3:6–15)
a. The disorderly (3:6–13)
The importance of this subject may be gauged from the fact that, next to that on the second coming, this is the longest section in the epistle. If we compare the treatment of the subject in the first letter (1 Thess. 5:14) with what we have here, it is obvious that the problem has continued unabated or even intensified.
6. Paul’s opening is authoritative; there is a military ring about the words he uses. Thus command is often used of a general giving orders to his troops, and ‘disorderly’ (NIV idle) refers to the failure of a soldier to keep in rank (see comment on 1 Thess. 5:14). The command is given in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 5:4), which makes it as authoritative as it possibly can be. But despite the authoritative tone, Paul uses the affectionate address brothers and applies it to the offenders as well as to other church members. They are to be dealt with, but they remain brothers. This is the warm affection of a friend, not the cold rule of an autocrat.
Paul enjoins the brothers to keep away from such people. His verb (stellesthai) was earlier used for activities such as furling sails. It signifies a withdrawing into oneself, a holding aloof (BAGD). But such a withdrawal is not to be made in a spirit of superiority. Paul appeals to brotherliness, and it is part of being a brother that no member should condone the deeds of another who, while claiming to be a brother, denies by his actions what the brotherhood stands for. Corporate responsibility is important.
When he was in Thessalonica Paul had warned against idleness; now he reminds his readers that such conduct is ‘not according to the tradition’ (NIV mg.; see comment on 2:15). Live is more exactly walk (peripateō), a metaphor Paul often uses for the steady progress that should characterize the Christian. There is a textual problem at the end of the verse, with some MSS reading you received from us (NIV, etc.) and others ‘we gave them’ (GNB). Either way Paul is saying that the church as a whole and the offenders in particular knew that this conduct was blameworthy, for they had received ‘the tradition’. They knew that Paul had spoken on the subject in his original proclamation.
7. This is not new and Paul appeals to what you yourselves (autoi; cf. NASB, GNB) know. In the first letter he spoke of the example he and his companions had set (1 Thess. 1:5–6; 2:3ff.); now he goes further and says that the converts must follow that example. Paul’s verb (dei) means more than you ought (NIV); it denotes a compelling necessity, ‘you must’. To follow our example is better ‘to imitate us’ (JB; the verb is mimeisthai). The Thessalonians had been excellent imitators in some things (1 Thess. 1:6; 2:14); they must now extend the activity. The verb translated we were not idle (ētaktēsamen; the meaning is ‘to be undisciplined’, LSJ) is found here only in the New Testament, but there are other words from the same root in verses 6, 11 (and in 1 Thess. 5:14). In none of these passages is the meaning a general lack of discipline; it is the specific failure to earn one’s living.
8. The expression ‘to eat bread’ (arton; NIV food) is a Hebraism; it comes to mean eating food generally (2 Kgs 4:8) and then to getting maintenance (2 Sam. 9:7). Paul is not saying that he did not get free meals, but that he refused to impose on anyone for his livelihood (cf. 1 Thess. 2:9). There is a difference from the statement in the first epistle, for there he was professing the purity of his motives, while here he is appealing to the force of his example. Frame points out that, whereas Paul might have said that he had worked to set them an example, he increases the effect by pointing out two things: first, that his labour among them had been hard, constant and purely in their interests, and secondly that, while he had had the right to maintenance from the church, he had not exercised that right.
9. Right translates exousia, a word that originally meant freedom to do as one pleases, and came to mean authority or right. Milligan cites examples of its use in the papyri in wills and contracts in the sense of legal ‘right’. Paul is insisting that, as a preacher, he had the full right to be maintained, an attitude he takes up in other places. His ideas on this subject are most fully developed in 1 Corinthians 9:3–14 (cf. 1 Tim. 5:17–18), where he bases the right to maintenance on a command of the Lord (cf. Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7). More than once Paul declined to exercise this right, but he never forgot that he had it.
At Thessalonica he waived his right in order to set the converts a good example. There was a wholehearted commitment, for Paul says literally ‘that we might give ourselves’: notice two significant things, the verb ‘give’ and the emphatic ourselves. He might have said (as Rutherford actually translates), ‘that you might have in us a pattern’ (cf. GNB, ‘we did it to be an example’). For model see comment on 1 Thessalonians 1:7.
10. For even is better ‘For also’: not only did we give you an example when we were with you, but we also gave you a rule in concise form. We gave you this rule (‘This we commanded you’) uses the same authoritative verb as in verses 4, 6; here it is in the imperfect tense with the meaning ‘This we used to command you’. It was apparently a constant theme of teaching, not simply an isolated saying. Findlay says it is ‘a Jewish proverb, based upon Gen. 3:19’ (cf. the passages cited by Strack-Billerbeck). Adolf Deissmann saw it as ‘a bit of good old workshop morality, a maxim applied no doubt hundreds of times by industrious workmen as they forbade a lazy apprentice to sit down to dinner’ (LAE, p. 314). Some see in it a Greek saying; some find it among the Jews (cf. Prov. 10:4); others try to trace it to a saying of our Lord (cf. his own example, Mark 6:3). But, while it is the kind of saying that might have arisen anywhere, in point of fact we cannot find it prior to this passage (earlier sayings are of the ‘He who does not work, does not eat’ variety). It may well be that Paul himself coined it. What is clear is that we owe to Paul the fact that it has been given a religious imperative and imported into the Christian scheme of things. He is, of course, referring to voluntary choice, the man who will not (ou thelei) work, not to unemployment as a result of unwelcome economic conditions.
11. We hear shows that Paul was not making general comments, but had specific instances in mind. The present tense may mean ‘We keep hearing’ or it may be more or less equivalent to the perfect ‘we have heard’. The expression is used naturally of hearing by word of mouth, but it may also refer to what comes in a letter, so it gives no indication of the source of Paul’s information. He says some among you rather than ‘of you’, and his word order is ‘some who walk among you’, not ‘some among you walk’. This way of putting it may be meant to indicate that the relationship of the idlers to the church was not what it should be (Paul has used the same words ‘among you’ in v. 7 with reference to the preachers who, of course, did not belong to the local church). Moore thinks that the expression ‘shows up the problem as an open scandal and the responsibility not only of the idlers but also of those amongst whom they live’.
The report was that some were idle (see comment on v. 6). Paul has a play on words which NIV brings out in words not unlike Moffatt’s ‘busybodies instead of busy’ (the verb periergazomai is found only here in the New Testament, but the cognate adjective is in 1 Tim. 5:13 in a context which brings out the meaning). Most accept the idea that it was the supposed nearness of the second advent that convinced the idlers that it was useless to work for a living, and this is supported by the interest in eschatology, so clear from these letters. But it is possible that it arose from the Greek dislike of manual labour (Christians were made free in Christ; why should they work like slaves?), or that some of the ‘spiritually minded’ felt that mundane daily labour was beneath them and that other church members should keep them while they concentrated on promoting the ‘spiritual’ life. That they were busybodies shows that they would not let others alone; they may have been trying to convince them of the rightness of their position, or this may simply be the result of idleness. Paul castigates their conduct.
12. The apostle has a few words for the idlers themselves. He speaks tactfully as to brothers; he does not address them directly (‘you idlers’), but uses an impersonal form, such people. To command he adds urge (parakaleō, translated ‘encourage’ in 1 Thess. 3:2, where see comment), which softens it a little. This is the one place where Paul has this combination. Further his exhortation is in (not ‘by’) the Lord Jesus Christ, at one and the same time reminding them of the brotherly relationship that links them to other church members and of the high standards that were the consequence.
There are three points in Paul’s exhortation. Settle down is better ‘with quietness they work’ (AV), where ‘quietness’ refers to an inner tranquillity in contrast to their present excited state; ‘they work’ to the necessity for some real labour on their part in line with the apostle’s own practice (v. 8); and the bread they eat to the earning of their living. There may be some emphasis on ‘their own’ (heautōn) with bread, for they had been in the habit of eating other people’s.
13. And as for you (hymeis de) is a strong contrast; it turns the exhortation away from the loafers towards the church at large. Whatever the loafers choose to do, the duty of the brothers is plain. It is possible that the conduct of the idlers had so annoyed some of the other church members that they had grown irritable and had acted otherwise than love would direct. But we have no evidence, and the words are sufficiently general to be applicable, even without such a specific cause. It is important to notice that the church at large has a responsibility to its dissident members.
The verb enkakeō (tire) originally meant ‘to behave badly in’, and then came to mean ‘to be weary’, ‘to flag’. Doing what is right is the participle of the compound verb kalopoieō, found only here in the New Testament, though the two parts occur together several times (e.g. Rom. 7:21; 2 Cor. 13:7; and especially Gal. 6:9, where the thought is much the same as here). It signifies ‘ “doing the fair, the noble thing” rather than “conferring benefits” ’ (Milligan). Milligan also thinks that kalos ‘carries with it the thought not only of what is right in itself … but of what is perceived to be right’. Believers are to direct their conduct to the highest ends, and that without flagging.
b. The disobedient (3:14–15)
Paul evidently thinks it likely that some of the more obstinate will not obey his directions, so he adds a few words to deal with that situation. At the same time he makes them broad enough to cover all that he has said, not just the matter of idleness.
14. The word obey (hypakouei) properly means the action of one who, in the position of doorkeeper, comes to listen (cf. its use in Acts 12:13, where NIV translates ‘answer the door’). It carries the idea of hearing, then of acting on what is heard. This letter is correct, though perhaps we should notice that Paul says ‘the letter’ and some take this with the following in the sense, ‘If any does not obey our word, designate him by letter’, i.e. write to Paul about him. This has little to commend it; the word order is against it, as is the use of the definite article which, at the close of a letter, often means the letter just written (e.g. Rom. 16:22; 1 Thess. 5:27). In any case Paul is concerned that the community should take action, not that he should be the one to do it.
Take special note of him, writes Paul. His verb (sēmeioō) was originally neutral, but came sometimes to have the note of disapproval of the person or thing noted, as it does here. It was used by the grammarians in a sense equivalent to our ‘N.B.’ (see MM), so that it means more than a cursory notice. Paul does not say how the person is to be marked out, only that this be done. Do not associate with him employs a double compound (synanamignysthai) with ‘the first preposition syn denoting “combination,” the second ana “interchange” ’ (Lightfoot). It means literally, ‘Don’t mix yourselves up with him.’ This very expressive word conveys the idea of familiar intercourse, which is thus prohibited in the case of the erring brother. This is something the community should note, for the church as a whole is concerned with the behaviour of its individual members (cf. James W. Clarke, ‘Christianity is finally dependent, for its influence on and growth in the world, upon the character of its disciples’, IB). The verb is used in only one other passage in the New Testament (1 Cor. 5:9–11), where it is added that one is not to eat with the offender. The course urged here is not so stringent, for it is only the exercise of familiar intercourse that is cut off. Paul is insisting that the erring one be regarded as a brother and treated in such a way as to bring him back. The action is not excommunication (as Calvin held), but in order that he may feel ashamed (and so brought to a change of mind and conduct).
15. The attitude of tenderness is insisted on; the man is still to be treated as a brother. Most translations have something like Yet as the first word (taking kai as equivalent to kaitoi). But Paul says ‘And’; he is not proceeding to a contrasting thought, but continuing and amplifying what he has said. The order of his words is interesting. ‘And warn’ is his sequence of thought, but he puts the words about not being an enemy before those about admonishing. He may have had some fear that the more zealous would be too eager for drastic action. He makes it clear that the offender is still to be regarded as one of themselves. He has erred, indeed, and his sin must be brought home to him. But this is to be done entirely in a spirit of love, with a tender concern for the welfare of the one being disciplined (cf. 2 Cor. 2:7). It is reclamation, not the purging of the flock, that is in mind. Warn is elsewhere translated ‘admonish’ (1 Thess. 5:12, where see comment); it conveys the thought of blame for wrongdoing, but also that of an act basically friendly (in the spirit of Prov. 27:6; cf. 1 Cor. 4:14). It is symbolical that the last word to the loafers, in the Greek as in our translation, is brother.