Now we enjoin you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the instruction which he received from us.
Paul does not advise here. He commands, in the name of the Lord Jesus, that the church step back from a brother who will not work.
The phrase is not decoration. It settles who decides how the assembly acts. No church may invent its own policy and call that the Lord's authority.
And what were their fellow believers to do, if that name ruled their hearts above all? There is no greater mistake than to imagine that the assembly is left to its own spiritual instinct, while claiming the Lord's authority for it. Not so: "If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord." … The temptation to claim the right to decide for itself is very common, and the professing church everywhere has fallen into the trap.
The problem was not scandal. It was idleness, and it grew out of a wrong idea about the day of Christ. Older translations call this "walking disorderly," the phrase the writers use.
Some among them had become fanatical in their thinking. They were sure that the day of Christ had come, so they gave up their ordinary jobs. Having done this, they began to expect others to support them.
Withdrawal is a second step. It follows warnings that the man ignored.
To walk disorderly is to be "out of rank," as the word implies. The person who will not listen to the warnings given to him is now to be withdrawn from.
"Tradition" here does not mean a custom passed down through the centuries. It means teaching that the apostle handed over to them.
As to traditions, no one who has read the Greek New Testament can doubt for a moment what the word means there. It is a doctrine delivered, not something handed down… So tradition in the popular sense stands in contrast with Scripture.
That teaching is not lost to us. We hold it today.
The apostolic "traditions" (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6) were of divine authority, and now we have them as Scripture in the written word of God.
The verse still calls the man a brother. That one word limits how far the action may go.
Withdrawing from disorderly idlers is serious. But do not confuse it with purging out the wicked person in 1 Corinthians 5, which alone is excommunication. So they were not to treat a man who shirked work as an enemy. They were to correct him as a brother.
The break is a social one. His place at the Lord's Table is not touched yet.
The saints are to hold back all social contact with such a person and show him no sign of fellowship… even though he is still allowed at the Lord's Table. There is not yet enough ground to put such a person away from the assembly as a wicked person.
The distance is meant to be felt, and felt for a reason. Coldness that does not aim at recovery misses the point.
He was not put out of fellowship. But the saints were to have no personal fellowship with him. They were to keep a distance that the offender would clearly feel. This is not about personal impatience or anger. It comes from a desire for the true recovery and blessing of the guilty person. The object of all discipline is restoration.
Commentators differ on whether this is a joint act or a personal one. Some place it among the assembly's duties, as one step on a scale of discipline:
2 Thessalonians 3:6 calls for stronger action. If a warning was not enough, they were to "withdraw" from such a disorderly brother… In each of these cases the responsibility to act rests on the brothers — on the assembly as a whole — and not on particular people with gift or authority.
Others read it as a duty that rests on each believer, whatever the assembly does.
2 Thessalonians 3, like 2 Timothy 3, does not deal with public church discipline, but with private duty. Even if no one else acted, I ought to… No direction for the Church replaces personal duty, which rests on the directions of the word of God.
- The name. Paul commands in the name of the Lord Jesus. Here the assembly obeys; it does not decide for itself.
- The rank. "Disorderly" means out of rank. At Thessalonica it was men who quit work because they thought the day of Christ had come.
- The standard. The "tradition" they broke was the apostles' teaching. We hold that same teaching today as Scripture.
- The measure. Withdrawal means holding back company. It is not putting a man away as wicked. He is still called a brother.
- The aim. The distance is meant to be felt. Discipline at this level aims to win the man back before anything heavier is needed.
For ye know yourselves how ye ought to imitate us, because we have not walked disorderly among you;
Paul has just told the Thessalonians to keep away from any brother who walks out of step. He backs that command with the way he lived among them, which raises a plain question for every Christian: what gives anyone the right to correct others?
(The ESV says "idle." Older translations say "disorderly," and the commentators quoted here use that older word.)
The word Paul uses is not first about laziness. It is about position — about keeping rank:
Someone who walks disorderly, or "out of rank," as the word implies, and who does not listen to the warnings given to him, is now to be withdrawn from.
In Thessalonica that broken rank meant men had dropped their ordinary jobs. Empty hours then bred something worse:
Leisure from work is time for mischief, and occupation with the affairs of others without a duty is itself mischief.
The idleness had a root. These believers held on to the truth of the Lord's coming, so the enemy attacked from another angle:
If the enemy could not rob these saints of the truth of the Lord's coming, it seems he tried to trick them into misusing that truth. He led some of them to give up their daily work, claiming the Lord was about to come.
Paul does not just give orders. He can call them to follow him because he was himself following someone else:
Even when he calls the saints to show their disapproval of disorder, the apostle pleads with the hearts and consciences of all. How wonderfully he can urge them to follow, knowing that he himself was following the Master! This is a far truer "imitation of Christ" than the monk's version so popular in the Christian world.
He also had a right he chose not to use, and that choice gave his example its force:
The Lord's servants had left them a very important example of orderly conduct, and the saints were to follow them in it. They did not depend on others for their support, but worked night and day with labour and hardship. What an example indeed! Preaching the Word of God took a great deal of time, yet they also worked with their hands to keep themselves. If this was true of the Lord's servants, who were in Thessalonica for such a short time, how shameful for those who lived there permanently to sponge off others for their support! It would have been perfectly right for Paul and his fellow workers to be supported by those they taught the Word, but they did not use that right, so that they might be a more effective and striking example.
His self-denial did the correcting before he spoke a word of rebuke:
He set a pattern of unselfish grace at great cost to himself... He could point to his own daily ways among them at the start of the gospel. They were the witness of a self-denial which by itself rebuked the disorderly brothers in the strongest yet most gracious way. Those men were working neither day nor night, and were not ashamed to eat the bread of anyone who would supply them for nothing.
The word behind "imitate" means to mimic, and the man who told them to work with their hands could hold up his own hands as proof:
They forget that the one who urged this ambition — to work with your own hands — could hold out his hands and say, "these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me." "These hands" were probably worn and calloused from making tents... And in the Second Epistle, chapter 3, verses 7 and 9, we read: "You know yourselves how you ought to imitate (mimic) us... We give ourselves as an example to you, so that you would imitate (mimic) us."
The same test falls on anyone who teaches others:
It is extremely dangerous, morally, for a man to teach in public what he does not live in private — dangerous for himself, very damaging to the testimony, and harmful to the people he deals with.
- Rank — "Disorderly" means out of rank. In Thessalonica it meant dropped work, and the empty hours produced busybodies.
- Root — The disorder grew out of a true teaching misused. Some made the Lord's coming an excuse to quit their daily work.
- Backing — Paul's command carried weight because he had already obeyed it in front of them. He asked them to follow him only as he followed his Master.
- Cost — He had every right to their support, and refused it. He worked night and day, so that the example itself would rebuke the idlers.
- Imitation — The call is to copy a life, not just admire it. So what a teacher lives in private must match what he says in public.
nor have we eaten bread from any one without cost; but in toil and hardship working night and day not to be chargeable to any one of you
Paul reminds the Thessalonians how he lived among them: he paid for his food and worked night and day. Why did a preacher with a real right to support refuse it, and what did his working hands teach the church?
The words behind "toil and labor" are not gentle ones. One study of the Greek explains what the second one carries:
μόχθος (from μογέω, "to labour, be in distress") occurs three times in the New Testament. It has been judged to refer to the toil that is man's lot in this world of sin. It answers to "By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread." Paul's twice using it of his own labours seems to confirm this. He had to work night and day on top of his apostolic work. 1 Thess. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:8.
Paul gave up the support. He did not give up the right to it:
Yet the apostle is careful to claim the worker's right. He speaks as he worked, in total self-surrender: "It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate" (verse 9). It is one thing to claim the right the Lord gives to His service. It is quite another to claim it where people might misread or misuse it. So here, as at Corinth, he lets it go — a right he carefully explains that God gave, and one worth holding on to, for the givers as well as the receivers.
Why then did he take on the extra burden? One writer gives two reasons, and adds that Paul did accept support at other times:
On the one hand, this devoted servant would not claim his rights, for fear he should be misunderstood. On the other hand, he saw the state of some of his converts. They had only just been brought out of the deepest darkness. They needed an object lesson in him, showing how to earn an honest living... At the same time, we must not forget that there were times when he did receive, and he fully recognised that to be the divine order. "I robbed other churches," he wrote to the Corinthians, "by accepting support from them in order to serve you."
Some at Thessalonica had simply stopped working. Others have done the same since, and dressed it up as holiness:
A strange group of fanatics, in the earlier and the later days of Christendom, treated giving up work as the path to perfection. They claimed to be men of prayer above others... Their boast was that they neither sowed nor reaped. But they could not escape the charge that they liked the barn, and liked it well filled. The germ of this selfishness showed itself among the Thessalonian saints. But the apostle at once discouraged it and dealt it a heavy blow. He could point to his own work with his hands.
Another writer traces the trouble to the enemy, who turned the hope of the Lord's coming into an excuse:
He had "the right," as a servant of the Lord, to receive material help (1 Cor. 9:7-14). But for their good he gave up the right. He worked in toil and hardship night and day to meet his own needs. So his life became an example for all, and a rebuke to those who would not work. Apparently, if the enemy could not rob these saints of the truth of the Lord's coming, he tried to trick them into misusing it. He led some to give up their daily work, on the plea that the Lord was coming at once.
Paul's trade was not a lower kind of life, cut off from his walk with Christ:
The outer life matches the inner. The power and grace of Christ are not only in the affections of the heart. They also flow out in love to God, through outward ways that carry God's stamp and the fragrance of Christ... This must show itself. It gives a fresh colour to the ordinary things of this life, so that they become in truth the most extraordinary.
- The right — God gave Paul a real claim to support from those he taught. Nothing here cancels it.
- The refusal — He gave it up so no one could misread him, and so new believers could watch him earn an honest living.
- The toil — His word for labour means hardship: sweat-of-the-face work, carried on top of his preaching.
- The example — His working hands answered everyone who dressed up idleness as holiness.
- The bread — He paid for his own bread, and his daily trade became the most extraordinary of ordinary things.
not that we have not the right, but that we might give ourselves as an example to you, in order to your imitating us.
Paul had just reminded the Thessalonians that he worked night and day rather than eat anyone's bread for free. Here he explains why: he had a full claim to their support, and he gave it up so his own life could be a pattern to copy.
Paul does not want his self-denial taken as a denial that workers should be supported at all.
Yet the apostle is careful to insist on the workers' right, though he speaks as he worked, in total self-surrender: "It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate" (verse 9). It is one thing to claim the right the Lord gives to His service. It is quite another to claim it where it might be misunderstood or misused. Here, as at Corinth, he gives up what he carefully explains to be a God-given right, and one that matters greatly for both the givers and the receivers.
Paul's statement of his rights is often quoted for the opposite purpose.
There is a very marked difference between Paul's object in stating his rights and the object of many who quote his words. He states his rights only so that he may abandon them; many quote his words only so that they may insist on the rights he abandoned for the gospel's sake. There would be no grace, no moral beauty in giving up privileges you never had a right to. But when the right is clearly established, the grace that gives it up shows in full. So it was with Paul. He had a right to live by the gospel, but grace led him to live by the work of his hands. He would take nothing from the Corinthians; but that was to their shame. He did receive "once and again" from the Philippians; that was fruit abounding to their account.
Commentators give more than one reason for the choice at Thessalonica. One is the effect on those watching.
It would have been perfectly right for Paul and his fellow workers to live on the support of those they taught the Word to. But they did not use that right, so that they might be a more effective and striking example.
Another is the state of the converts themselves, who were new to the faith.
On the one hand, this devoted servant would not assert his rights, for fear he should be misunderstood. On the other hand, he saw the state of some of his converts, who had only just been rescued from the deepest darkness. They needed an object lesson in him, showing how to earn an honest living.
The word behind "imitate" means to mimic. The renderings below follow an older translation, which brings that out.
He urged these same saints to make it their ambition to live quietly and to work with their own hands. In that very same letter he wrote: "You became our imitators (mimics: mimetes), and of the Lord." And in the second letter, chapter 3, verses 7 and 9, we read: "You know yourselves how you ought to imitate (mimic) us … We … give ourselves as an example to you, in order to your imitating (mimicking) us."
The idleness in Thessalonica may have had a deeper root than laziness.
For some of them had stopped working with their hands. It may be that this was the fruit of some corrupt view of the truth that marked them out, the coming of the Lord. For it is Satan's way, if he cannot rob us of truth, to corrupt it while it is still in our hand. The Thessalonians were zealous; they had set their hearts on meeting the Lord, but this had become tied to deserting their quiet, hard-working, private walk. He does not condemn this zeal, or try to correct the evil by taking the Lord's coming out of their sight. We have seen that it is actually his great subject. But he wants them to wait for it patiently, and not in disorder. He presses this duty on them by reminding them of his example and his instructions while he was among them.
- Right. Paul did have a right to be supported, and he says so here. His self-denial is not a rule against caring for the Lord's workers.
- Released. He names the right only to lay it down. Giving up a privilege you never owned is nothing. Giving up one that is truly yours is where grace shows.
- Reason. Commentators give two. Working for his own keep made the lesson sharper, and new converts needed to see honest work done in front of them.
- Replicated. The aim of the sacrifice was a pattern to copy — imitation so close that the word used means to mimic.
- Remedy. The example met a real disorder. Some had turned the hope of the Lord's return into an excuse for idleness. Paul corrected them without dimming that hope.
For also when we were with you we enjoined you this, that if any man does not like to work, neither let him eat.
Paul is not giving a new rule here. He had already told the Thessalonians this face to face, because some had stopped working and were living off other people's labour. So how does a command this blunt fit with Christian generosity? And why did a church waiting for the Lord's return need to hear it?
The strange thing is that believers needed to hear this at all. One writer is amazed that Christians behaved this way:
Who could have thought that godly Christian men would be so thoughtless, to say no more, as to live without working? Who could have thought they would be so selfish as to expect support from those who did work, or who lived on what their work earned? Yet that is what was happening among the saints in Thessalonica, and the apostle had even warned them of it when he was there. This danger could appear anywhere and at any time. But it is most likely where saints are fresh and simple in the life of Christ: the very blessing exposes them to the peril.
The verse turns on the words not willing. It describes someone who refuses to work, not someone who cannot find work:
Suppose a lazy man who will not work, though he is able, and lives by borrowing. 2 Thessalonians 3:10 gives us direction here. It supposes a man who refuses to work when he can. There may be an excellent brother out of work and in need, and it is a privilege to help him. But God has given us Scripture to guide us in all cases.
Waiting for Christ does not excuse a disorderly life. Notice which letters press honest work hardest:
The apostle would not let disorderly ways bring reproach on this hope, or on the Lord Himself. So he points to his own example. And nowhere does he press the duty of honest work more than in the letters that most urge Christ's coming as the near and constant hope of the Christian.
Another writer puts the same point in sharper personal terms — work is not only for one's own supply:
Though I am not to be doubtful or worried about the future, I am still to labour, working with my hands at what is good so that I have something to give to others in need. Work is not simply a means of storing up provision for the future on earth, but of providing things honestly in the sight of all men, now.
Empty hours do not stay empty:
Those who do no business of their own are apt to become busybodies, as the apostle warns them in sharp words. Free time away from work is time for mischief. And meddling in other people's affairs, when you have no duty there, is itself mischief.
One writer calls honest work a mercy — it guards a person from worse things:
For children not yet converted, and for adults in the same state, work is a merciful help. It guards them against the dangers of idleness and against giving way to lust and passion. Even for the faithful it is good, just as refusing to work when a person has no means is bad. So the apostle states it in short, sharp words: if anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. Given in the right way, this remedy would usually heal, and it would never fail.
The rule limits who we should support. It does not close the giver's hand:
The Lord makes the most just and tender appeals for the poor, and He also guards the rich. He condemns the lazy in the strongest terms. Such is the fullness and wisdom of Scripture. This is what we command you: "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." Giving to those in need, as far as we are able, is one of our most sacred Christian privileges. But to support the idle would break the word of God.
Notice how ordinary the subject of this command is:
Christianity has a striking mark. Nothing is too great or high for the saint, and nothing is too little or low for God. He concerns Himself even with a duty as simple and small as a man working day by day and not living off his brothers.
- Refusal, not need. The verse targets a man who will not work though he can; a believer out of work and in need is someone it is a privilege to help.
- Hope, not excuse. The letters that press Christ's near return hardest also press honest work hardest. Disorderly ways dishonour the coming Lord.
- Idle, then interfering. Time freed from work does not stay empty. Those who do no business become busybodies, and free time turns into mischief.
- Rule as remedy. The command works like medicine. Work guards against idleness and its appetites. Holding back bread aims to heal a man, not to crush him.
- Give freely, fund no idleness. Scripture tells us to give freely to real need. It also forbids funding the idle. And God cares about something as small as a man earning his own bread.
For we hear that [there are] some walking among you disorderly, not working at all, but busybodies.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
Now such we enjoin and exhort in [the] Lord Jesus Christ, that working quietly they eat their own bread.
Paul has just named the problem in the church at Thessalonica. Some believers had stopped working. They lived off others and meddled in everyone else's affairs. Now he turns from talking about them to talking to them. His remedy is short: quiet work and bread you have earned yourself.
The trouble did not start in laziness but in a wrong idea about the Lord's return that had been pressed on the church.
Verse 6 of this third chapter and the verses that follow make it clear. The mistaken ideas about the coming of the Lord, urged on the Thessalonians, had already borne evil fruit. It is always the way that bad company corrupts good habits. Some among them had become fanatical in their thinking. They were under the impression that the day of Christ was upon them, and they gave up their ordinary jobs. Having done this, they began to expect support from others.
Commentators differ on which idea did the damage. One writer traces it not to love for the Lord's appearing, but to fear that the day of judgment had already begun.
In my judgment it was not too much enthusiasm about the Lord's coming that made any of them neglect their daily duty. It may rather have been alarm about the day of the Lord, as if it had already begun. That fear made some unwilling to do honest work, and set them gossiping about their fears. The disorderly are not described as wicked people, but are still spoken of as brothers.
The Greek word behind "quietly" is not silence. It describes the person who leaves other people's business alone.
The word hesuchia expresses the general idea of "quietness," not "silence" as in the older translation. See also 2 Thessalonians 3:12, where it stands in contrast to interfering in other people's matters.
The command reaches past the symptom to its cause. And it comes with pleading, not only with authority.
But here too faith works by love; the truth builds up instead of destroying or scattering. Discipline has its measure, since the end is restoration. The meddling, and its cause, idleness, must both go. The name of the Lord was incompatible with both; but the apostle pleads as well as commands. So even what nature itself might teach is bound up with our Lord and Saviour. It is a question of God's kingdom, not of mere morality, as if we were only men, and grace and truth did not exist in Christ.
Paul does not simply say "please." He speaks under a name that carries weight.
Where it is "the Lord Jesus Christ," we have authority — as for instance, 2 Thessalonians 3:12, "Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work and eat their own bread."
Scripture is full of calls to give generously to those in real need. What it refuses is the idle person who lives on what others earned.
Eating other people's bread in idleness was no part of Christian teaching, which commanded the opposite. The Word is full of calls to be generous and brotherly toward those in real need (Galatians 6:6; Ephesians 4:28; 1 John 3:17; 3 John 8). But eating the bread of others in idleness the Word plainly forbids. Those who had been doing the opposite were now to aim at eating their own bread. They could learn from the apostle, who worked night and day at his trade so as not to burden the saints.
Paul never cures the problem by taking their hope away. He leaves the expectation in place and adds the workbench to it.
This very posture of waiting for the Son from heaven had produced a certain evil. The Thessalonian saints were neglecting their present handiwork. The apostle does not try to change their posture at all. He urges them to hold it together with diligence and watchfulness, so that while their eye was gazing, their hand might be working (2 Thessalonians 3).
The verse aims at the idle, but the surrounding instruction touches the generous too. Misplaced kindness keeps the disorder alive.
The folly of their hearers keeps foolish talkers going. Bread eaten without cost must find someone ready to pay the cost. Here indeed a false generosity might do harm to many more than those who indulged in it. How little we think of the various ways in which we may become "partakers of other men's sins!"
- Cause. A wrong idea about the day of the Lord unsettled minds. Unsettled minds quit their jobs and started running other people's lives.
- Command. The correction comes in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is real authority, joined with pleading, because the aim is recovery, not removal.
- Quietness. The word means quietness, the opposite of interfering. The meddling and the idleness behind it must both go.
- Own bread. Scripture is full of calls to meet genuine need. It forbids living on what others earned instead of working. A false generosity makes you a partner in the fault.
- Result. Hope is never the enemy of labour: the eye gazes upward while the hand keeps working.