C. Exhortation To The Rest (3:13-15)
C. EXHORTATION TO THE REST (3:13-15)
Having now commanded the disruptive-idle to “work with their own hands,” Paul moves toward bringing this somewhat long exhortation to its conclusion. To do so he speaks first to those who are not a part of the problem, urging them not to “grow weary” in “doing what is good” (v. 13). And since these people, undoubtedly the majority of the believing community, are to carry out the “shunning” that is called for in the preceding “command” (v. 12), Paul concludes this exhortation by spelling out how they are to handle those who would remain disobedient, especially after having been shamed by the public reading of this letter. The majority are to “not associate with them,” so that the disruptive-idle themselves might become truly “ashamed” of their conduct (v. 14); but in so doing, this same majority are not to forget that the “idlers” themselves are members of the family. Thus they are to be warned as “brothers or sisters” (v. 15) — still members of the family, to be sure, but now on the outside edge, as it were.
1. Always Do Good (3:13)
13 And as for you, brothers and sisters, never tire of doing what is good.
For reasons that are not especially clear, the NIV translators (kept in the TNIV) chose to include this imperative not as the “heading” of the conclusion found in verses 14-15, but as the “conclusion” itself of the preceding exhortations. In this they were apparently following the lead of the RSV (also kept in the NRSV), thus making these two the only English translations to do so. But in going this way both translations have had to disregard Paul’s own usage of the vocative “brothers and sisters,” which in every one of its many occurrences in Paul’s letters serves either as his way of “marking” a new section, or as a means of transition within a section. There is simply no analogy in Paul for using the vocative to conclude an argument.
13 Although it is true that there are no certain indicators in the text that Paul is now speaking to the whole community, such an assumption alone seems to make sense of this exhortation. On the one hand, speaking in this way to the whole community, both the majority and the few who are disrupting the shalom of the community, allows Paul to urge the same imperative on all of them; none of them is ever to “tire of doing what is good.” At the same time, on the other hand, it also serves as a useful way for Paul to preface what he will ask the whole community to do if the disruptive-idle do not follow through on the imperative. That it thus serves as the “heading” for the final guidelines regarding their treatment of the disruptive-idle seems to be made certain both by the content of the imperative itself and by the fact that it is followed by three further imperatives. Together these data suggest that Paul is thus bringing this issue to a conclusion by offering this general command as something of a “heading” for the final “correctives” that follow.
One should also note how Pauline this emphasis is. It is common in several contemporary situations, where Paul is considered as something of a theological hero, to think in terms of “doing the right thing.” Although such language is not totally foreign to the apostle,1009 his own emphasis is usually to be found in the present language, “doing what is good.” This may seem like a small matter to some; but it is an unfortunate part of church history that God’s people are far more often concerned about the “right thing” than “the good thing,” and often in ways that abandon altogether what is good. While Paul is concerned about both, his own emphases tend to lie with the latter, as in the present passage. After all, it is the “good thing” that is most often also the “right thing.”
2. Shun the Disobedient (3:14-15)
14 Take special note of those who do not obey our instruction in this letter. Do1010 not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. 15 Yet do not regard them as enemies, but warn them as fellow believers.
We should probably read these final admonitions with the presupposition that the disruptive-idle are themselves, as least some of them, present for the reading of the letter. If so, they have by now already had their ears full; and because the action here prescribed is going to bring them to utter “shame” in a culture where “honor” and “shame” are absolutely basic values, with these final words to the whole community Paul tries to soften the blow on them, as it were. Indeed, outside of an “honor/shame”-driven culture, these words tend to be difficult to understand — not in terms of the actual words themselves, but of what would have driven Paul to say them at all. On the one hand, he wants them truly to experience “shame”; on the other hand, he does not want such “shame” to drive them out of the community altogether. So in the end he seems to be speaking to both groups at the same time. He is quite prepared for the disruptive-idle to experience the shame of being put outside the believing community; but he seems obviously also hoping that it will not come to that. Hence the ambivalence that many modern readers experience when reading these words. If Paul is trying not to shame them, then why such words as these? The answer to which question seems to be a modified “yes” and “no.” He is quite ready for them to experience the kind of shame within the believing community that will lead to their repentance; at the same time he is ready for them to experience this degree of shame “within” so that they will not have to experience the ultimate shame “outside,” by their being disassociated from the community altogether. Thus all of what is said here makes sense only in such a culture where “honor” and “shame” stand at the highest level of values.
14 For the sake of good English the TNIV translators have rearranged Paul’s word order, which in his Greek text puts all the emphasis on “anyone” who might disregard “our instruction in this letter.” Although in some ways this might appear to come as something of a surprise at the end, it is in fact the clear indication that Paul knows well that not all will readily heed what he is currently pressing on the whole community. In effect, Paul is telling the community to “shun” the one who will still persist in being unruly-idle, who would be unwilling to conform even after this letter has been read in that person’s presence. Indeed, the rest are to “take special note”1011 of such a person.
But the way of “marking” a person who would still persist in being unruly-idle after this letter has been read aloud in the community is by not “associating”1012 with him.1013 And at this point everything hinges on his thus “feeling ashamed” in a shame-and-honor culture. Indeed, this is the first of only two instances in his letters where Paul suggests this kind of discipline for the person who is doing what is wrong.1014 If these people are actually present at the reading of the letter, they will especially be singled out for shame, which Paul apparently hopes will have its own effective results by leading them to change their ways.
15 In one of the more surprising moments in this letter, Paul begins this qualifying sentence not with an expected “but,” but with an “and,” which in this case most likely would have been understood by them to mean something like “but at the same time.” Again, Paul’s emphases lie in part with his word order: “not as an enemy regard [him], but warn as a brother.” His obvious point is that their action must be carried out in a way that is redemptive rather than punitive.1015 Paul recognizes clearly that “correction” can be done in a way that punishes but fails to redeem at the same time; and his concern throughout this entire passage is a redemptive one, for both the person(s) involved and the community as a whole.
This passage has had its own rocky history in the church. In the more Westernized and thus more “democratized” churches of the Western world, this kind of discipline is effective only in the most tightly constricted ethnic communities, where “banning” is a matter of enormous cultural shame. For the rest of the Western world, it tends to be a matter of “take or leave it” on the part of both the offenders and the community at large. Only in communions where there is especially strong power in the hands of church leaders does this kind of “banning” play a significant role. And this is merely an attempt to be observant (in the first sense of that word, meaning a good observer of the world in which one lives), not a suggestion as to how churches in more democratic societies should carry out these imperatives that were spoken into a much different cultural order. Any “ban” that would take place in the later church should at least have the possibility of effectiveness that this one would have had.