2 Thessalonians 3:6–18

Original Meaning

The Apostolic Command and Example (3:6–10)

FROM PAUL’S PERSPECTIVE it should not have been necessary to “command” (parangello, 3:6; for this verb, cf. 1 Thess. 4:11; 2 Thess. 3:4, 10, 12) the Thessalonians12 “to keep away from” any believer who is ataktos, “disorderly,” because “they themselves” (3:7) already knew what they ought to be doing about this problem. But just in case the Thessalonians had any doubt about what he is talking about, Paul explicitly states for them in 3:10 the specific content of the “teaching you received13 from us” (3:6): “If anyone refuses to work, do not permit that person to eat” (pers. trans.; cf. NASB). This translation attempts to convey the emphasis in Paul’s sentence on the refusal or unwillingness to work (a point that, e.g., the CEV’s “if you don’t work, you don’t eat” largely misses).14 It also conveys something of its somewhat awkward structure: a conditional statement, followed by an imperative directed to the community.

What Paul and his colleagues had taught during their initial visit (3:10, “when we were with you, we gave you this rule”) they had also lived themselves; that is, they deliberately practiced what they preached. Even though as apostles they had the right to be supported by others (3:9),15 they voluntarily declined to exercise this right in order to provide an example (3:6) or model for the Thessalonians to follow (3:9; cf. Phil. 3:17). That is, they did not “act irresponsibly” or “live in an undisciplined manner” (2 Thess. 3:7b; Paul uses the verb atakteo here), nor did they “eat anyone’s food without paying for it” (3:8a; his emphasis on these two points sets up the charges he makes in 3:11–12). “On the contrary,” Paul asserts (repeating virtually word for word what he said in 1 Thess. 2:9), “we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden” (2 Thess. 3:8b).

Bridging Contexts

WE FACE AT least two difficulties in attempting to bridge the gap between the situation Paul faced in Thessalonica and our contemporary world. (1) The first difficulty (and, as it turns out, one more apparent than real) is that we do not know exactly what the problem was. In the preceding discussion I have outlined the range of the debate regarding the precise nature of the problem addressed in 3:6–15. Oversimplifying things a bit, it boils down to “idleness” (a refusal to work, perhaps arising out of the expectation that the Day of the Lord was coming soon) or “disorderly behavior” (activity that was burdensome or harmful to the congregation and which kept some individuals so preoccupied that they never got around to working to earn their living, subsisting instead on the generosity of other members of the congregation). I have given the reasons why I am more persuaded by the second alternative than the first.

Typically, a decision between these two alternatives would be critical to determining the contemporary application of the passage because our understanding of the situation frequently shapes our inferences and/or conclusions about the guidelines or principles with which Paul was working. But in the present case, we are relieved of the need to make inferences from the circumstances because Paul himself explicitly states his guiding principle in 3:10: “If anyone refuses to work, do not permit that person to eat” (pers. trans.). Thus the difficulty arising from our inability to determine the precise nature of the problem Paul confronts is, because of the specific circumstances of this passage, more apparent than real.

(2) The other difficulty, however, is all too real and obvious. At its heart is the immense difference between the circumstances of the Thessalonian congregation and those of most contemporary American congregations. In addressing the problem Paul takes two things for granted about the situation in Thessalonica. (a) The congregation (or members of it, acting on behalf of the congregation) was providing financial assistance to those congregational members in need of it. (b) The congregation possessed the ability to discipline its members. That many congregations today no longer (even attempt to) do the first and are unable to do the second reveal just how different the social setting of our congregations is from that of the first century.

“If anyone refuses to work, do not permit that person to eat.” As we consider the contemporary significance of this principle, it is important to keep in mind exactly whom Paul has in view here: those who are able to work but refuse to do so.25 Indeed, in this passage Paul takes it for granted that the congregation has an obligation to assist members who are in financial need as a result of circumstances beyond their control (3:13; cf. also Acts 20:35; Eph. 4:28; Titus 3:14). As Klyne Snodgrass puts it, “If a need exists, the community has a responsibility to help meet that need.”26

As in the case of 1 Thessalonians 4:11–12, nothing is said regarding the reason(s) why the “disorderly” were refusing to work. “It may have been a conviction that the Day of the Lord was imminent … it may have been a belief in their own superior spirituality, which exempted them from such mundane concerns as earning an honest living … it may have been a combination of those or other factors”27—including attitudes toward work shaped by considerations of social class, order, and status.28 Whatever their reason(s), the “disorderly” who were not working evidently thought that those reasons constituted a valid “need” that ought to be met by the church. Furthermore, the impression left by Paul’s discussion here is that these reasons were fundamentally self-centered in their perspective. That is, the “disorderly” seem to have focused primarily on their needs or desires rather than on the needs and concerns of the congregation.

Paul, however, was not convinced of their reasons. Moreover, he apparently differed sharply from those who refused to work in how he defined “need.” In his view, an unwillingness to work by someone who was able to work does not qualify as a “need.” Hence his strongly worded reminder to the Thessalonians: “If anyone refuses to work, do not permit that person to eat.”

At least four reasons can be discerned in support of Paul’s view that individuals who are able to do so have an obligation to work. One is implicit in 3:8: so that they will not be an unnecessary burden to others in the congregation (3:8, 12). This reason is joined by two others in 1 Thessalonians 4:9–12: winning the respect of outsiders (4:12) and philadelphia, love for others (4:9). A fourth is specified in Ephesians 4:28: to have something to share with those in need (cf. Titus 3:14; also Acts 20:35).

It is worth observing that all four reasons are other-oriented. This fits in with a significant emphasis throughout the Thessalonian letters, that Christian behavior is fundamentally other-oriented rather than self-centered. This other-oriented approach contrasts sharply with the more self-centered perspective of the “disorderly.”

To summarize, Paul affirms, implicitly or explicitly, two points in this passage: Congregations have an obligation to care for members in need, and individuals who are able to work have an obligation to do so in order to avoid becoming a burden on others. This second point is for Paul no minor matter: A refusal to work is a breach of conduct serious enough to warrant the imposition of discipline.

Church discipline. Nowhere does Paul spell out fully his views about the principles and practice of church discipline. The major passages where the topic arises are here and 1 Corinthians 5.29 On the basis of these passages, we can make the following observations. (1) Discipline is the responsibility of the congregation as a whole, not one or a few individuals within it (2 Thess. 3:6, 14; cf. 1 Cor. 5:4).

(2) Discipline should generally be reserved for matters affecting the health or well-being of the entire community. Although Paul nowhere lists or defines what qualifies for discipline, it is clear that it is not for offenses that can be dealt with privately (as per Matt. 18:15–17; Gal. 6:1). It is reserved for matters that, in Stott’s words, arise “from a public, deliberate and persistent disobedience”; similarly Fee speaks of “persistent wrongdoing” that threatens to contaminate the community.30

(3) The disciplinary action itself involves a measure of social ostracism (3:6, 14; cf. 1 Cor. 5:11). In Fee’s words, the disciplined person is to be “shunned in terms of close fellowship in the believing community”31 (whether more is intended is unclear; see the Original Meaning section, above). At a minimum it appears to have involved exclusion from the formal activities of the gathered community.

(4) The purpose of disciplinary action is redemptive and remedial, not judgmental or punitive, and the spirit in which it is carried out must reflect this (3:14–15; cf. 1 Cor. 5:5). Paul’s command in 2 Thessalonians 3:15 (“Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother”) is especially important in this regard. As John Calvin observes,

We ought … to strive by whatever means we can in order that they [excommunicated persons] may turn to a more virtuous life and may return to the society and unity of the church. So the apostle also teaches: “Do not look upon them as enemies, but warn them as brothers” [II Thess. 3:15]. Unless this gentleness is maintained in both private and public censures, there is danger lest we soon slide down from discipline to butchery.32

Neither the above observations nor the two passages on which they are based answer all our questions about congregational discipline. They do, however, establish parameters or guidelines for its practice.

The context in which these guidelines are implemented is a critical variable with which we must reckon when we think about bringing this passage into today’s world. In Paul’s day, the church was essentially the only source of Christian fellowship, and churches were few and far between. Moreover, the social costs associated with belonging to the Christian community (such as loss of relationships, social ostracism, or even persecution; see comments on 1 Thess. 1:6) were generally high. This meant that people who joined the Christian movement had a high personal investment in the group and, therefore, generally had a strong motivation to maintain their association with it. In such circumstances, the threat of exclusion from the congregation of God’s people is a powerful disciplinary tool.

In some situations today, especially in instances where the church and Christianity in general hold a minority position in a culture or society, the similar circumstances are present: Individuals have a high personal stake in maintaining their association with a group for which there are few or no alternatives. In other situations, however, the circumstances are vastly different: People have a minimal commitment to a group, to which a multitude of alternatives exist—not merely other churches, but also parachurch groups and other avenues for fellowship. Consequently they have little motivation to maintain their association with one particular group, and much less to lose (in terms of personal investment) if they do leave. In these circumstances, the challenge of application is considerably different from that faced by the Thessalonians.

In view of this wide range of circumstances in which one might face the challenge of applying Paul’s guidelines regarding discipline, it becomes critically important to keep in mind the purpose and goal of discipline. (1) The purpose of disciplinary action, as noted above, is redemptive, not punitive. (2) The goal of disciplining the erring brother or sister—who throughout the process is to be regarded as a brother or sister, not as an enemy (3:15)—is restoration to full fellowship, not removal from it. In order to accomplish these goals it may be necessary to adapt or modify (but not abandon!) the means of discipline in light of the varying circumstances in which it may be needed.33

Contemporary Significance

THERE ARE TWO primary topics that most call for attention in this section, work and church discipline. A short discussion of two other topics (“never tire of doing what is right” and the centrality of Jesus Christ) brings us to the end of the letter. (For the importance of holding firm to the apostolic testimony and teaching, a point that arises out of 3:6 and 3:14, see the discussion in the Bridging Contexts and Contemporary Significance sections of 2:15.)

Work. Even while Paul explicitly affirms that individuals who are able to work have a responsibility to do so, he takes for granted the responsibility of the congregation to meet the basic financial needs of its members. In this way Paul seeks “to make sure that no able people live unjustifiably from other people’s work, and that those who are unable to work still have their basic needs met.”34 Both the affirmation and the assumption provide opportunities to reflect on the meaning, significance, and value of work.

Working and eating. Human beings, Jesus reminds us, do not live by bread alone (Matt. 4:4; cf. Deut. 8:3), but neither do they live without bread. Work is the means by which humans acquire “bread,” that is, the necessities for life (food, clothing, shelter). In the biblical tradition, people who are able to work do so in order to provide for themselves and their families. They also work in order to provide for those who, for whatever reasons, are unable to work (Acts 20:35; Eph. 4:28). Indeed, “in the Bible and in the first centuries of Christian tradition, meeting one’s needs and the needs of one’s community (especially its underprivileged members) was clearly the most important purpose of work.”35

Two observations follow from this. (1) Work is a fundamental characteristic of human life because work provides the means for sustaining life. Without work, there is no life. (2) In the biblical tradition there is an altruistic aspect to work. One works not just for self (i.e., to support oneself and one’s family) but also for others (i.e., to support those unable to work).

Viewed from this perspective, the refusal of the “disorderly” to work falls short in two respects. (1) They were neglecting their responsibility to provide for themselves and their dependents. (2) They were adding to the burden of those who were working and contributing to the needs of those unable to do so. In other words, instead of working and thereby contributing to the well-being of the congregation, they were refusing to work and thereby contributing instead to its burdens. In short, their behavior was fundamentally self-centered.

In light of the preceding considerations, how might 3:10 apply today? I suggest that it establishes a linkage between a willingness to receive assistance and a willingness to work on the part of those able to do so. For those able to work, a willingness to do so is essentially a qualification for receiving financial assistance from the congregation. (I use the phrase “willingness to work” rather than “work,” because not all those willing to work, indeed who want to work, are able to find employment, often for reasons well beyond their control.) By maintaining the connection between “eating” (i.e., having the necessities of life) and “working” (or more precisely in this context, being willing to work), Paul reinforces an important element of the biblical teaching about work.

This connection between work and sustenance is one that is under attack from a number of directions in contemporary culture. On the one hand, social policies designed to provide a necessary “safety net” for those in need—policies that have been successful to some degree in providing for the material needs of those assisted—have frequently done so in a way that has severely weakened (if not actually severed) the connection between assistance and work; this has been psychologically debilitating. The long-term negative consequences of these policies, on both the individual and the societal level, have been widely documented.

On the other hand, the rise of an “entertainment” culture, new forms of financial speculation, and the proliferation of gambling have also contributed to a weakening of the bond between “eating” and “working.” Outrageous sums of money are paid routinely to people engaged in activities (e.g., sports) that have little to do with any traditional understanding of work. Moreover, the qualifications for many of these activities—e.g., height, quickness, vocal ability, or appearance—are largely a matter of genetic good luck, something one is born with.

But if one has not been fortunate in the genetic lottery, there are other, often state-sponsored, ways in which to try one’s luck. I speak, of course, of the widespread presence of gambling in the United States and elsewhere today. One consequence of these developments has been the creation of a cultural environment in which the ability to “eat one’s bread” becomes a matter of chance rather than work. I recall one television advertisement for a state-sponsored lottery some years ago that featured a couple sitting at a table piled high with unpaid bills and debts. The suggested solution to the problem? The purchase of a lottery ticket.

In such an environment, the connection Paul maintains between “eating” and “working” is worth emphasizing and reinforcing.

Assisting those unable to work. Miroslav Volf observes that “the stress on the pursuit of self-interest in modern societies is at odds with one of the most essential aspects of a Christian theology of work, which insists that one should not leave the well-being of other individuals and the community to the unintended consequences of self-interested activity, but should consciously and directly work for others.”36 Expressed in terms that Paul employs in the Thessalonian letters (cf. 1 Thess. 4:9–12), Volf’s point is that work is not only a matter of self-interest, but also a matter of altruism, of philadelphia (love for sister and brother).

For Paul, “directly working for others” does not mean some form of socialism, nor does he envision holding all things in common (as did, apparently, the early Christian community in Jerusalem [see Acts 2:44] and the Qumran community), nor does it entail divesting oneself of one’s property. But if “Paul does not call for the abolition of private property or for its transformation into joint ownership … neither does he talk of people possessing a right to it. Any idea of rights is foreign to Paul. It cuts across all that he stands for. The gospel is about not the claiming of a right but the offering of a present.”37

What Paul envisions is that those believers who have more than they need to sustain life will voluntarily share their “present abundance” (2 Cor. 8:14, NRSV) or a sum of money they might earn from their work (1 Cor. 16:2) with those believers who are in need. The goal of this voluntary sharing with those in need is “that there might 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’ ” (2 Cor. 8:13, 15). This is the theological basis for his assumption that the congregation was to assist those members who were in need of financial help.

This Pauline idea of “equality” stands in sharp contrast to a contemporary culture characterized by a narcissistic sense of individualism and an atrophied sense of social responsibility.38 In a sense, it is a question of an ethic of caring for others in contrast to an ethic of consumption. This is a point first noted and discussed in the Contemporary Significance section of 1 Thessalonians 4:9–12. What was said there applies as well to the present passage. Together the two passages present a powerful challenge to evaluate the extent to which our attitudes about work and wealth are shaped by secular cultural values rather than the Pauline value of concern for others (philadelphia).

Church discipline. Many (if not most) American churches today have abandoned the New Testament teaching about discipline with regard to members of the congregation. Reasons why this practice is so widely ignored include fear of lawsuits,39 a concern about appearing judgmental or vindictive, a desire to avoid conflict or turmoil, and a desire to avoid historical or traditional stereotypes (such as those portrayed in the recent film The Scarlet Letter). For many congregations, it may be because the effort involved seems useless or pointless (why bother, when the person being disciplined simply leaves and joins another congregation, thereby evading the force of the action?). Other churches do not view any sin as serious enough to warrant discipline. In such instances, one is inclined to agree with Gordon Fee’s observation that “maybe the most significant thing we can learn from such a text is how far many of us are removed from a view of the church in which the dynamic of the Spirit was so real that exclusion could be a genuinely redemptive action.”40

For churches that do practice discipline, the guidelines listed in the Bridging Contexts section can inform its practice. One major problem encountered in applying the biblical texts today is defining what qualifies for discipline. As noted above, Paul does not list or define what qualifies for this last stage of discipline. We can observe, however, that it seems to be reserved for matters affecting the spiritual health or well-being of the congregation as a whole. In the absence of definitive guidance from Scripture, application requires careful prayer and consideration by a congregation and its leadership.41

In any case it is important to remember that what Paul discusses in this passage represents a final step, not the first one, in the process of holding one another accountable for our conduct as members of the congregation. How, and especially the attitude with which, the church handles those earlier stages may well determine the success or failure of this final stage.

It is always possible, of course, no matter how prayerfully or carefully the process is carried out, that the person being disciplined will simply walk away from the situation and thereby short-circuit the process. Should this happen, the effort will nevertheless not have been entirely in vain. While restoration of the erring member may be the primary goal of a disciplinary process, it is not the only reason for exercising discipline. As Calvin points out, one important purpose for discipline “is that the good be not corrupted by the constant company of the wicked, as commonly happens. For (such is our tendency to wander from the way) there is nothing easier than for us to be led away by bad examples from right living.”42 Thomas C. Oden makes a similar point (“like an astringent amid an epidemic, corrective love seeks to resist the infectious process by which the pollution of one infects another in the community”) and contributes an additional consideration: “Corrective love seeks to bear testimony against deceptive egocentricity and bring truth to light. It refuses to collude with deception.”43

Love for and concern about the spiritual health of an erring brother or sister, concern for the health of the congregation, a refusal to collude with deception (cf. the discussion of the deceptiveness of evil under 2:1–12 above)—these are reasons enough to consider seriously what Paul has to say about the topic of congregational discipline.

“Never tire of doing what is right” (3:13). Donor fatigue. Volunteer burnout. No one involved with fundraising or volunteer organizations is unacquainted with these terms or their symptoms. After a while, no one seems to notice; no one seems to care. No matter how hard one works, it doesn’t seem to make any difference or have any effect on the situation. On top of that, perhaps those whom one is trying to assist are not appreciative of one’s efforts. In circumstances such as these, it is not surprising that we sometimes grow weary of “doing good” (cf. Gal. 6:9).

John Calvin’s comment on this verse indicates that he too was familiar with this problem. He also suggests what our response ought to be:

It often happens that those who are otherwise particularly ready and eager to do good grow cool on seeing that they have spent their favours to no purpose by misdirecting them. Paul therefore admonishes us that although there are many who are undeserving, and others who abuse our generosity, we are not on this account to give up helping those who need our aid. His statement is worth noting—however the ingratitude, annoyance, pride, impertinence, and other unworthy behavior … may trouble us, or discourage and disgust us, we must still strive never to abandon our desire to do good.44

Though Paul in this passage does not state why we ought not to “tire of doing good,” we can infer it from what he says elsewhere in his letters: “Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does” (Eph. 6:7–8).45

Paul’s final word: The centrality of the Lord Jesus Christ. In the closing verses of the letter (3:16, 18) Paul echoes the key ideas and concepts of his opening verses (1:1–2). By so doing he ends the letter as it began—with the spotlight, focus, and emphasis squarely on Jesus Christ the Lord. In the course of the letter he has talked a fair amount about the Thessalonians and their problems, and some about the evil “man of lawlessness.” But in the end, the last word is about Jesus. He is the one who loved us (3:13) and from whom we receive grace and peace (1:2, 1:12; 3:16, 18); he is the one who is faithful and will strengthen and protect us from the evil one (3:3) and whose representative, the lawless one, he will overthrow and destroy (2:8) when he comes to deliver his people (1:7), who then will share in his glory and splendor (1:10; 2:14), having been counted worthy of God’s kingdom (1:5).

In short, our future rests entirely on the power and faithfulness of God as revealed through the Lord Jesus his Messiah. That was a good place for the letter to begin; it is an even better place for it to end, as we persevere in faith (1:4) and await with eternal encouragement and good hope (2:16) the revelation from heaven of the Lord Jesus himself (1:7).

Original Meaning

Orders for the Disorderly (3:11–12)

THE APOSTOLIC EXAMPLE stands in sharp contrast to “some” among the Thessalonians who were “behaving irresponsibly” (3:11, repeating the charge first made in 3:6) and thereby becoming burdens to the rest of the congregation. Paul’s opinion of such behavior is blunt (3:11b): rather than “working hard” (ergazomenous), they are “hardly working” (periergazomenous). It is not that these people were inactive, but that they were active in an unproductive, irresponsible, or disruptive manner. As suggested above, those whom Paul criticizes may have claimed that they were engaged in legitimate “work.” It was, however, from Paul’s perspective not work at all but only pseudo-work, busyness that disrupted and burdened rather than benefited the rest of the congregation.16

Paul spells out his solution to the problem in 3:12–15. In 3:6 he and his colleagues had “commanded” the congregation “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ;” here in 3:12 the “disorderly” individuals are similarly “commanded” as well as “urged [parakaleo, as in 1 Thess. 4:1, 10; 5:14] in the Lord Jesus Christ.” The full authority of the Lord stands behind these commands; to reject them is to reject not merely Paul and his colleagues, but the Lord himself. The actual command to the disorderly is (lit.) that “quietly working (ergazomenoi), they should eat their own bread” (2 Thess. 3:12b).17 That is, rather than wasting their time in pseudo-work or unproductive busyness and meddling (periergazomenoi, 3:11), they should engage in productive self-supporting activities, in accordance with the apostolic model.

The instruction that they do so “quietly” (meta hesychias) echoes 1 Thessalonians 4:11, “lead a quiet life” (i.e., avoid the strife and social pressures of the public arena and focus instead on the needs of the congregation). The point of working—and the main point of Paul’s command here—is that they “eat their own bread,” that is, “earn their own living” (NRSV) and (by implication) stop being an unnecessary burden on the rest of the community.