But if any one obey not our word by the letter, mark that man, and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed of himself;
Paul closes his letter with a rule for the reader who refuses to obey it. Believers are to note that person and pull back from his company, so that he feels shame and turns. Two questions follow. How far does the pulling back go? And how does it stay short of treating a fellow believer as an enemy?
The trouble Paul has been correcting is not scandalous sin. It is idleness. One writer explains who acts in a case like this.
This is what we may call personal discipline in private life. It matters greatly. Sadly, it is much needed but little understood. It is not a case calling for the action of the assembly, but for faithful personal dealing. The disorderly walking referred to is a brother not working, but going about as an idle busybody. Such a one was to be admonished, and avoided. We cannot help thinking that this form of discipline is much needed. Many people whose ways do not call for excommunication still need faithful dealing.
Action starts when someone refuses to obey what Paul wrote in this letter. That letter is more than one man's opinion.
They were neither to be indifferent on the one hand, nor to be stumbled on the other. Disgust at those who walk unworthily is neither grace nor righteousness... Disobedience was not to be passed by. "What we say in this letter" was not a word of men. It was, in truth, God's word. It works in those who believe, and it leaves those who make light of it worse than before.
The same holds for all of Scripture. It speaks with authority straight to ordinary readers.
The apostles wrote to churches and to Christians. These people were to receive what they wrote and live by it — to receive it as "the commandments of the Lord." Those who did not heed the words of the apostles were to be noted and avoided. So the Scriptures came with authority, and came at once, to the body of ordinary Christians. They were bound to receive them, believe them, obey them, and act on them. No interpreter was to stand between the authority of that written word and their souls.
This instruction stops short of putting anyone out of the assembly.
This is not a case for putting away, or for church discipline as in 1 Corinthians 5. Here the believers act one by one against the idle and mischievous man, by withdrawing from all personal fellowship with him. The aim of this Christian discipline is to press a united testimony on the heart and conscience of the one who "walks disorderly," so that the assembly never has to expel him. The apostle does not say "put away." He says, "take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed" — that is, that he may see his evil way and forsake it.
Another writer marks how far the withdrawal reaches, and where it stops.
A believer who walks contrary to the Word of God is walking in disorder. Believers are to mark him out and keep apart from him, so that he feels his wrong and is ashamed of his course. Withhold all social contact and every expression of fellowship... This discipline of withdrawal is corrective. Its aim is that the disorderly one may be broken down in his course, restored to the Lord, and keep his place at the Lord's table. He is not to be counted as an enemy, but is to be admonished as a brother.
Withdrawal must not become coldness of heart. One writer separates two things that sound alike.
The apostle says, in writing to the Hebrews, "Let brotherly love continue." But he nowhere says, Let brotherly kindness continue. "Love never fails." Kindness must, in some cases. A brother, through the power of Satan, may be walking disorderly. Or he may fall into error, and so become a proper subject of discipline. Toward such a one our conduct must change, though our love stays the same, or even grows stronger... The people spoken of here are still in fellowship. So it is hard to cherish brotherly love and at the same time carry out a wholesome discipline toward them.
The pulling back can be quiet. One writer shows what it looks like day to day.
Sometimes a little silent neglect, which no one but our brother may notice, works better than pressing on with spoken warnings he refuses to hear. This is true above all when the withdrawal carries clear signs of sorrow, with acts of thoughtful love as occasion allows. Our blessed Lord gave the choicest portion of the dish to the poor wretch He knew was planning to betray Him.
- Word — the trigger is refusal to obey the letter. That letter is God's word, and it binds every ordinary Christian directly.
- Walk — the fault is not gross sin but disorder: not working, and going about as an idle busybody.
- Note — he is marked and avoided, but not put away. This is personal discipline, meant to prevent an expulsion rather than carry one out.
- Shame — withdrawing company is corrective. He feels his wrong, gives it up, and is restored to the Lord.
- Brother — kindness may stop; love never does. He is still a brother to admonish, not an enemy.
and do not esteem him as an enemy, but admonish [him] as a brother.
Paul has just told the Thessalonians to mark the brother who refuses his word. They must stop keeping company with him. This closing line sets the limit on that action. The man they avoid is still family. The aim is his recovery, not his removal.
Two levels of discipline stand behind this verse. Commentators place these instructions on the lighter of the two.
This is not a case for putting away, the church discipline of 1 Corinthians 5. It is discipline that believers carry out one by one against the idle and mischievous man. They withdraw from all personal fellowship with him. The aim of this Christian discipline is to press that united testimony on the heart and conscience of the man who walks disorderly, so that the assembly never has to put him out.
Withdrawing looks unkind. What makes the difference is the spirit behind it.
Some men are warned about their disorderly course and still keep on in it. Then much more serious measures of discipline are needed. This is more painful to put into practice, but it is true kindness. Believers must withdraw from the brother who walked disorderly. He was not put out of fellowship. Yet the believers were to have no personal fellowship with him, keeping a reserve that the offender would clearly feel. There is no thought here of personal impatience or anger. The desire is for the true recovery and blessing of the guilty party. The object of all discipline is restoration.
Paul does not simply say to warn the man. He says warn him as a brother. That relationship rests on birth, not on behaviour, so bad conduct cannot dissolve it.
One's brother must remain in that relation whatever the ups and downs of his affairs, or the character of his ways. The elder son in the parable was reminded that the prodigal was his brother (Luke 15:32). The Thessalonian Christians were urged to count the believer their brother, even though he was walking disorderly and would not obey the Word. He would need warning in such a case. They were not to hold that back. But the tie of spiritual birth was there, and they were to remember it.
Keeping no company with a man, while warning him as a brother, can look like a contradiction. One writer answers it by separating two things: how we act, and how we love.
Through the power of Satan, a brother may be walking disorderly, or he may fall into error. He then becomes a proper subject of discipline. Toward such a one our conduct must change, though our love remains the same, or even stronger... The people spoken of here are still in fellowship. That is what makes it hard to cherish brotherly love and at the same time exercise a wholesome discipline toward them.
So what would treating him as an enemy look like? One writer answers by pointing to the harsher step this man is being spared.
They were neither to be indifferent on the one hand, nor to be stumbled on the other. Disgust at those who walk unworthily is neither grace nor righteousness... Is he then put out from among the believers, as a wicked person? Exactly the opposite: "Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother." He was seriously wrong, and believers refused his company. But brotherly warning is the word, not being put out of the assembly as if he were an enemy and a wicked man.
A warning only works if the man can tell it comes from love.
On the other hand, there must be care that no harshness or unbrotherly conduct creeps in. That would destroy the effect of the discipline all over again. Harshness or a legal spirit could not reach the end sought — only love could. Being sure of that love would take hold of the offender. It would draw him, and let the warning gain a hearing. Only at another's feet can one wash them.
- Brother, not offender. New birth forms the tie, so it survives the failure. The son who ran away was still his father's son and his brother's brother.
- Brother, so limited. This is not putting away. Believers withdraw personal company, one by one, and stop short of putting him out.
- Brother, so aimed. The point of the withdrawal is recovery. Discipline that goes beyond restoration has overshot its purpose.
- Brother, so loved. Conduct toward him changes; love toward him does not — and may need to grow stronger.
- Brother, so gently. Harshness kills the very effect sought. Only love makes the admonition worth hearing.