Original Meaning

CONTRARY TO THE impression given by the NIV, these verses comprise a single segment of the letter composed of just two sentences, verses 9–10a and 10b–12. After signaling the beginning of this section with the phrase “now concerning” and announcing the topic (philadelphia, “love for brothers and sisters”), Paul employs a figure of speech (paralipsis; cf. BDF §495) in which a speaker pretends to skip over a subject (“we do not need to write to you”) that he does in fact discuss. It offers Paul a diplomatic way simultaneously both to affirm the Thessalonians for what they are doing well (4:9–10a) and to encourage them to develop in areas that need further attention (4:10b–12).

In pre-Christian usage, philadelphia refers to love for one’s siblings. Its use in Christian circles (cf. Rom. 12:10; Heb. 13:1; 1 Peter 1:22; 2 Peter 1:7 [twice]) to designate love for fellow believers probably arose out of the practice of Christians addressing each other as “brother” or “sister.”1 In 4:11–12, however, Paul will make it clear that love for those within the community has implications for how Christians ought to relate to those outside the community as well.

The Thessalonians’ exemplary mutual love (philadelphia), not just for one another but towards believers throughout Macedonia (4:10a; cf. 1:7–8), leads Paul, using a strongly affirmative present tense (lit., “are”; NIV “have been”), to characterize them as theodidaktoi, “taught by God” (4:9). This word was almost certainly coined by Paul, though the concept itself was not new (cf. John 6:45, quoting Isa. 54:13, which describes the messianic age of salvation). This Greek word assumes the existence of a relationship with God; this in turn implies that the Spirit (4:8) is the means by which God teaches them, an idea Paul develops in 1 Corinthians 2:9–16 (cf. also John 14:25–26; Rom. 5:5; Gal. 5:22, 25–26).

Even as Paul affirms the Thessalonians for doing well with respect to philadelphia (4:10a), he urges (parakaleo) them, as he did in 4:1, “to do so more and more” (4:10b, a phrase that both looks back to 4:9–10a and forward to what follows; cf. also 3:12). Verses 11–12 (which with 4:10b comprise a single sentence) spell out (indeed, remind them, “just as we told you”) what Paul has in mind. Specifically, he wants them (1) “to make it your ambition [a] to lead a quiet life and [b] to mind your own business,” and (2) “to work with your hands.”2

The meaning of these three phrases, both individually and as a group in the context of 4:9–12, is a matter of debate.3 They are often interpreted, in light of 2 Thessalonians 2:1–3 and 3:6–15, as Paul’s response to a situation generated by excessive interest in and excitement about the imminent return of Jesus, which led some members of the church to abandon their jobs and behave in ways that disrupted the fellowship and irritated their pagan neighbors.

But this scenario is at best only a possible hypothesis. Against it stand three considerations. (1) There is the awkwardness of interpreting the earlier letter (1 Thessalonians) in light of the later one (2 Thessalonians). (2) Paul himself does not connect the refusal to work with the expectation of Jesus’ return. (3) Paul repeatedly stresses that he is bringing to their attention things he had already taught them (4:11; cf. v. 2). Almost certainly this would have to have happened at the time the community was established—before, in other words, any specific problems or misunderstandings arose.

Taken in their own right (i.e., not in light of 2 Thess. 2–3), the phrases in 1 Thessalonians 4:11 are richly evocative of social and political concerns (indeed, the first two have unmistakable political connotations). Moreover, from its inception the Christian community, willingly or unwillingly, had been visible in the public arena, with sometimes painful consequences for the new believers (cf. Acts 17:5–9; also the discussion of persecution in 1 Thess. 1:6; 3:1–5). Any member of the congregation who remained active in the public arena, either in his or her own right or as someone’s client (whose obligations included looking after the public interests of one’s patron, upon whom a client was financially dependent), ran the risk of attracting continued negative public attention—that is, thlipsis, “persecution” (1:6; 3:3–4, 7)—to the congregation as a whole. In such a setting, Paul argues that philadelphia (i.e., love and concern for the well-being of one’s Christian sisters and brothers) requires that the members of the congregation fulfill their “ambition” (4:11; cf. Rom. 15:20; 2 Cor. 5:9) in private rather than public ways.

As a result, Paul urges the believers in Thessalonica “to lead a quiet life” and “to attend to their own concerns” (NIV “mind your own business”), two idioms with similar meaning. In secular usage both phrases can describe a principled withdrawal from the public arena. The first one evokes the image of a withdrawal from the noise, antagonism, and strife of public matters in favor of a quiet, more contemplative setting; in the Old Testament (Job 3:26; 11:19; Ezek. 38:11) and elsewhere it is associated with images of virtue, peace, tranquillity, and security.4 The second phrase suggests a withdrawal from public matters to devote time to one’s own private interests, or to give attention to that for which one is best suited (in Pauline terms, that to which one has been called). In the context of Paul’s concern for philadelphia (4:9), he is advising the Thessalonians to avoid as much as possible the strife, social pressures, and tumult of the public arena (and the attendant potential for violence against the congregation), and to focus instead on the needs and the building up of the congregation.

The proper context for understanding the command “to work with your hands” (v. 11; cf. 1 Cor. 4:12; Eph. 4:28) is not that of Greco-Roman culture (in which philosophers and moralists debated the propriety and fitness of various types and kinds of work, including manual labor), but the Old Testament. There this expression occurs as an idiomatic phrase (Deut. 2:7–8; Job 1:10; Ps. 89:17 [LXX]; Jer. 1:16), in which the emphasis falls not on “hands” but on “work” (cf. Isa. 5:12, with its parallelism between “the deeds of the LORD” and “the work of his hands”). Thus, Paul is not discussing manual labor as opposed to other kinds of work, but simply “work” in general, as a means of providing for the needs of individuals and the community.5

This understanding of 4:11 fits nicely both with the two commands that precede it, where Paul is basically telling the Thessalonians to keep a low profile, to give attention to their own affairs, and to stay busy, and with the reasons that follow in 4:12. This understanding also means that it is not necessary to drag back (anachronistically, in my opinion) 2 Thessalonians 2:1–3 and 3:6–13 in order to understand this verse.

In 4:12 Paul spells out the specific goals of the behavior he encourages in 4:10b–11. The first goal (which ties in most closely with the first two commands in 4:11, but can encompass all three) is that the believers in Thessalonica will live (lit., “walk,” peripateo; cf. 2:12; 4:1; 2 Thess. 3:6, 11) in a manner that will “win the respect of outsiders” (cf. 1 Cor. 10:32–33; Col. 4:5; 1 Peter 2:12). Not only will this make it easier for the young community to thrive in the midst of a hostile pagan environment, it will also significantly and positively affect opportunities for further outreach and evangelism in the community.

The meaning of the second goal (linked closely to the command to work in 4:11) is doubly ambiguous. In terms of the grammar, the phrase can be translated either as “have need of no one” (cf. NIV’s “not be dependent on anybody” [similarly NRSV]) or as “have need of nothing” (cf. NASB, “not be in any need”). Of more importance is the contextual ambiguity. On the one hand, Paul’s concern may be that believers should work in order to be self-sufficient and free from entanglements with outsiders (in particular, free from financial dependence on patrons). On the other hand, Paul’s concern may be that believers should work in order not to be a burden on insiders, that is, fellow believers who would feel compelled to provide the necessities of life for any brothers or sisters in the congregation who lacked them.

The “outsider” option makes good sense in light of 4:12a; on this view, all three commands in 4:11 have to do with how the congregation relates to outsiders. But I favor slightly the “insider” option, since (1) it is not without its implications for how outsiders view the congregation, and (2) it makes good sense in light of the overall topic of 4:9–12: The proper exercise of philadelphia includes working to support one’s needs and not taking financial advantage of one’s brother or sister in Christ.

Throughout 4:1–12 Paul has sought to establish clear standards of community conduct (holiness and honor) and to foster a particular community ethos (private rather than public, active rather than idle); in doing so, he has consistently used insider/outsider language (the community vs. those “who do not know God,” 4:5; “outsiders,” 4:12). In these ways he has continued the process of (re-)socializing the new Thessalonian converts by fostering a unique sense of congregational identity within the larger community and by establishing a clear boundary between it and the larger culture.6

Bridging Contexts

PHILADELPHIA WITH RESPECT to outsiders. Determining the historical context of a text is a critical aspect of bringing this section into our day and age. In the case of 4:11, one’s understanding of the historical context is determined by the exegetical decisions one makes regarding the meaning of “lead a quiet life,” “mind your own business,” and “work with your hands.” If one concludes that the passage is Paul’s response to a situation generated by excessive interest in and excitement about the imminent return of Jesus, which led some members of the church to abandon their jobs or behave in ways that disrupted the fellowship and irritated their pagan neighbors, then one will reconstruct the situation with which Paul is dealing as a matter of internal church discipline. On this view, some members of the congregation have let their eschatological excitement get out of hand and have quit their jobs, and Paul is telling them to calm down a bit and get back to work.

If, however, one concludes (as I have done) that Paul is dealing with a situation in which some members of the congregation are active in the public arena and are bringing unwanted attention to the congregation, then one will interpret the situation with which Paul is dealing as a matter of external church/community relations. On this view, Paul is instructing members of the congregation about the (in)advisability of being involved in the public affairs of the community.

Regardless of how one decides this matter, it is important not to lose sight of Paul’s starting point, which is also the basis for his instructions. The topic of this section of the letter is philadelphia, love for brother and sister (4:9), and the instructions given in 4:11 (however we interpret them) indicate a specific way in which the Thessalonians can practice philadelphia “more and more” (4:10b). Here it is crucial to observe not simply what Paul is saying, but also what he is doing: In advising individuals who have made (or are making) decisions about the extent to which they can or should be involved in the larger community, Paul indicates that such decisions ought to be significantly influenced by philadelphia.

In other words, Paul takes it for granted that genuine love and concern for others will influence (if not determine) an individual’s decisions (here, about mundane matters such as whether to become involved in public affairs). Moreover, it is clear, given the way this topic appears throughout his letters, that this is not an isolated element in Paul’s theology (see, e.g., Rom. 14:19; 15:1–3; 1 Cor. 12:7; 14:12; Gal. 5:13). As Paul says in Philippians 2:4, “Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.”

Discerning this underlying principle—that philadelphia should influence an individual’s decisions—is a key to applying this passage today. In some countries today Christianity is, like the church in Thessalonica, a persecuted minority movement. Public attention to one member of the group can and often does result in a spotlight being cast on others as well. The wrong kind of public activity on the part of one believer can have devastating consequences for the entire congregation. Where the circumstances of the church today mirror closely those of the Thessalonian congregation, the applicability of the specific advice in 4:11 is apparent.

In many countries and regions, however, Christians form a substantial part of cultural majorities. In these circumstances the consequences of public involvement are substantially different, and it may be that engagement with rather than withdrawal from the public arena is called for. Regardless, however, of how similar or different our circumstances are, Paul’s fundamental point in this passage (the need for philadelphia) will be applicable, even if his specific instructions may not be.

In addition to this primary concern for philadelphia, Paul spells out in 4:12a another (clearly secondary) factor that should shape decisions: concern for the respect of outsiders.7 In the larger context of the letter, it is clear that there are substantial limits to this factor. For example, Paul certainly would not want the Thessalonians to give up their faith in Jesus simply to win the respect of the larger community! Paul himself was always far more concerned about being faithful to God than he was to impress unbelievers. At the same time, and quite pragmatically, he appears to have sought to avoid behavior that needlessly brought disrespect or shame to the gospel or the church. This suggests that Paul’s concern here is that the Thessalonians not give unnecessary or needless offense to those outside, for the well-being of the congregation as well as for the sake of the gospel.

Philadelphia with respect to insiders. The matter of work (4:11) reappears in 2 Thessalonians 3:6–13, where it is the major focus of attention. Nevertheless, a few comments may be in order here. Elsewhere Paul makes it clear, in close conjunction with instructions about philadelphia (Rom. 12:10), that he expected believers to “share with God’s people who are in need” and to “practice hospitality” (Rom. 12:13; cf. 2 Cor. 8:7–14; 9:12; also Heb. 13:1–3; 1 Peter 4:8–9). Here he is dealing with the flip side of the matter: the implications of philadelphia for those who might be recipients of such sharing. Those who are able to work (a point assumed by his instructions here) ought to do so; they should not take advantage of the willingness of fellow believers, motivated by mutual love, to help out.

Philadelphia, in other words, is bi-directional: It entails both a willingness to assist those who are in need and a responsibility not to exploit or take advantage of the willingness of fellow believers to help. As John R. W. Stott observes, “It is an expression of love to support others who are in need; but it is also an expression of love to support ourselves, so as not to need to be supported by others.”8

Contemporary Significance

TO THIS POINT in chapter 4, Paul has emphasized two fundamental points, holiness and philadelphia. The first focuses primarily on our relationship with God, while the second focuses, by the very nature of the term, on our love for others. In this respect, Paul’s discussion parallels what Jesus identified as the most important commandment: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength”; and, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:30–31; cf. Matt. 22:37–40)—which Paul himself cites elsewhere (Rom. 13:9).

Paul’s broad understanding of philadelphia challenges us to reconsider what it means to love our neighbor. In light of his own application of the principle in 4:9–12 to the matter of work, two closely related topics suggest themselves: choice of occupation and choice of how we spend out money.

Occupational choice. Ours is a culture that increasingly measures an individual’s worth not by the quality of one’s character but by the quantity of one’s wealth and possessions (“The one who dies with the most toys wins”). Thus it is hardly surprising that high-paying jobs are more highly valued than low-paying ones. What is surprising is the extent to which this attitude has infiltrated the church. In a recent study of religion and attitudes towards money, Robert Wuthnow reports that “weekly churchgoers” were more likely to admire “people who make a lot of money by working hard” than “people who take a lower-paying job in order to help others.”9

This is a troublesome finding, especially since it involves weekly churchgoers, who are more likely to be serious about their faith than occasional attenders. It suggests that the long-standing tradition of Christians valuing most highly career choices that focused on helping others—choices like teaching, missions, medicine, and social services—is declining. One reason such service-oriented careers have been highly respected among Christians is precisely because they represented various ways to practice philadelphia by serving others.

The shift observed by Wuthnow away from valuing jobs for what they accomplish toward valuing them for what they pay represents a shift towards a more self-centered perspective. Since self-centeredness is a central characteristic of contemporary American culture, it is difficult not to view this shift as evidence of the church’s accommodation to the values of the surrounding culture, a trading of biblical values for secular ones. Precisely at this point Paul’s instructions to the Thessalonians about making occupational choices in light of their impact on others, believers and unbelievers alike, challenge us to reconsider the value of this trade. As believers, what really is more important to us: accumulating wealth or serving others? An honest answer to this question can function as an important diagnostic tool as we reflect on this issue. While the answer we give in real life is often a compromise, Paul reminds us where the emphasis clearly ought to fall.

As I worked on this section, a local newspaper ran a feature about an African-American man in his late twenties who left a respected job in private industry to take a position with the city Park District as a supervisor of a community recreation center. In the space of two years he turned the building and grounds from a hot spot for drug dealing and gang activities into a safe place for the neighborhood kids to hang out after school, and he instituted several successful mentoring and self-improvement programs. When asked why he had left the better-paying position for his current one, he indicated that he did so in order to serve his community better and more directly. This is the kind of choice that Paul’s emphasis on philadelphia calls us to affirm and model.

It is not enough, however, to affirm and model career choices in isolation, for they are frequently related to lifestyle choices. Our culture defines success increasingly in material terms and places great emphasis on affluence as evidence of success. Thus lifestyle choices about the size and location of one’s house, the vehicle one drives, the clothes one wears, the organizations one joins, or the places one visits all become ways of demonstrating one’s affluence—concrete evidence of one’s success (or lack thereof). Magazines like The Robb Report (“for the affluent lifestyle”), prominently displayed at the checkout counter of the upscale grocery store, offer advice on the proper ways of demonstrating one’s affluence. Wealth is to be displayed (“If you’ve got it, flaunt it”), and excess and extravagance are widely celebrated. In view of this contemporary emphasis on material affluence, it is no surprise that people feel pressure to choose a job primarily for what it pays rather than for its social usefulness or value.

How we spend our money. If the church is to affirm and model choosing jobs in terms of service rather than salary, it will also have to affirm and model lifestyle choices that encourage people to live on lower levels of income. But here too, as was the case with career choices, the trends are disturbing. In an analysis of the “anatomy of a giver,” Tim Stafford, drawing on several recent authoritative surveys and analyses, compared the giving habits of Christians with those of non-Christians. One of his key findings about Christians as a whole: “Their affluence is indistinguishable from their neighbor’s.” Moreover, the key variable predicting giving levels was not age (the younger were no less generous than their elders) but income. The weakest givers were those making from $40,000 to $100,000 per year, who gave less as a percentage of their income than those making under $20,000 a year. Even among conservative and evangelical believers, who rank among the most generous givers, the per-member contributions between 1985 and 1993 actually shrank, in constant dollars, from $651 to $621.10

It is difficult not to draw a connection between the culture’s emphasis on affluence and the finding that Christians who as their income rises could afford to give more in fact give less (as a percentage of income). It appears that many Christians, like their unbelieving neighbors, are making lifestyle choices based on affluence rather than philadelphia.

What might it mean to make spending decisions on the basis of philadelphia rather than affluence? (1) It might mean making lifestyle choices on the basis of need or utility rather than label or status (e.g., is a car being chosen primarily for its transportation value, or for the nameplate it bears?).

(2) It might mean making lifestyle choices in light of their impact on one’s ability to contribute to the needs of others. For example, not a few people cite “a large mortgage” as a reason why they cannot contribute more. But why did they end up with such a large mortgage? Perhaps because they followed a common bit of real estate advice to buy as much as they could “afford,” a choice that then set limits on how much they could give. Why not turn the process around: Decide first on a giving level and then settle on a mortgage consistent with that decision. This is not always easy to do; one couple was ridiculed by various real estate professionals for adopting such a “stupid” strategy.

(3) When considering a discretionary purchase (perhaps a new hi-tech golf club in order to gain a yard or two from the tee?), it might mean asking whether there is some other use to which the money might be put, from which others might benefit.

(4) It might mean taking seriously what Jesus said about those to whom much has been given: “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked” (Luke 12:48). Note too what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 8:13–15:

Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, as it is written: “He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.”

True, individuals may find it difficult to withstand on their own the cultural onslaught regarding wealth and spending. Consequently, the church needs to create an environment, a countercultural community, in which believers can mutually encourage and support one another in going against the cultural tide.