Withdraw From the Disorderly; the Apostle’s Example (2 Thessalonians 3:6–9)

The failing rebuked here had already been corrected by St Paul in the First Epistle (1 Thess. 4:11, 5:14). But there it was briefer and more lenient, whereas here it is more strict and more extensive. Evidently this deep-seated vice was common among the Thessalonians before their conversion and was not regarded as a sin; hence they were slow to correct it. But it was conspicuous and stood out in such a way that St Paul noticed it during his first stay in Thessalonica and gave the necessary commandments and instructions at the time (1 Thess. 4:11; 2 Thess. 3:10). In confirmation of those instructions he issued a charge in the First Epistle. Since they were falling into the same pattern again, here, in the Second Epistle, he devotes an entire section of ten verses to the rebuke, setting forth the grounds for the inadmissibility of the conduct rebuked, giving a strict commandment against it, and appointing a penalty for those who disobey—should there be any. The train of thought runs as follows: following my example, verses 7–9, and remembering the commandment I gave in person, believers ought to conduct themselves soberly and live by their own labours, verse 10. But certain of you act otherwise—they do nothing, only going about to and fro, verse 11. I command them to amend, so that by labouring they may eat their own bread. As for those who will not obey this word of mine—report them to me; in the meantime, have no fellowship with them, verse 14—not with feelings of hostility, but with a view to their amendment, verse 15. The Apostle’s evident desire is to cut off quickly the spread of the evil, or to hasten the amendment that has begun. To this end he prescribes with particular insistence that those who are orderly in this regard should break off fellowship with those who are not. By this two benefits were achieved: the orderly were delivered from the contagion and were more firmly established in orderliness, while the disorderly were put to shame and, over and above other incentives to labour, received a new and tangible one—namely, that because of their idleness everyone shunned them and made them as outcasts in the midst of the community. Regarding this measure as so powerful, St Paul insists upon it especially—mentioning it both at the opening of his address, verse 6, and at the close, verse 14—and elevates it to an inviolable law, pronounced in the name of the Lord Himself.

There is no indication anywhere that this idleness—this idle and parasitic way of life—manifested itself in such force among the Thessalonian Christians as a result of the false conviction that the Day of the Lord had arrived. If this love of leisure bore any relation to the expectation of the Lord’s coming, the Apostle would have marked it by some detail. But he gives no such indication whatsoever. It is rather to be supposed that this was a general vice of pagan life. In crowded cities a noisy, merry, idle, and dissolute life meets the eye everywhere. Such it remains among us today. Were the Apostle to appear in any of our great cities, he would see there what he saw among the Thessalonians, and he would say to us what he said to them: they do nothing, only bustle about, run from one end to the other, chase after pleasures and make merry. Christians are not to live this way. They ought to conduct themselves soberly, stay at home, engage in work, so as to have the consolation of eating their own bread. A pleasure-seeking, leisure-loving life is so contrary to the spirit of Christianity. And so the Apostle wishes to wean Christians from it, that not a trace of them might remain on these paths of pagan life.

2 Thess. 3:6. Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks in a disorderly manner and not according to the tradition they received from us.

Here the Apostle sets out a general law for the maintenance of Christian good conduct; to the particular case of which he will speak below there is only a light hint here. The Apostles, in preaching the Gospel, established from the very beginning new Christian ways of life among the faithful—how they were to comport themselves in the family, in society, in the Church—and from the Lord’s authority gave an unalterable law: whoever does not live in this way, withdraw from him. By this a silent judgment was enacted and those at fault were cut off from the Christian community, for when others withdrew from them, they naturally became the excommunicated. From this it follows that, according to the intentions of the Lord and the holy Apostles, Christian communities—all of them, in their full composition—are to be strict keepers of the commandments and blameless in their morals, and that the maintenance of such purity is the affair of the whole community, as a law of self-preservation.

“Now we command you.” He had previously said: we trust that you, whatever we command, both do and will do. Now he says: “we command you”—here is what. This is a direct reference to what preceded. Consequently, that was said with this in view: he now makes an application of that hope, or indicates an occasion to vindicate it.

“In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The name stands in place of the person. “In the name”—the same as: by Christ the Lord Himself, or from the Lord’s own person, by His authority given to us for the ordering of His kingdom on earth. As if to say: “It is not we who say this, but Christ” (Chrysostom). “He enacts this law through us” (Theodoret). “For what I say, He says” (Theophylact). The Apostle speaks thus “either in this sense: let Christ be witness that we have given you such a commandment, or in this sense: the word I speak is not mine, but His” (Oecumenius). In any case, the commandment given is the direct will of God—an inviolable law that cannot be evaded or subtly reinterpreted. “By speaking in this manner, the Apostle shows with what fear this commandment is to be regarded” (Chrysostom). At the same time there is a clear intimation that departure from this commandment would cast a shadow upon the Gospel itself—and as it were upon the Lord Himself. Hence the sternness, that outsiders should not be able to say: see what they are taught, see what their faith is, see who their Christ is.

“To withdraw”—“to separate” (Theodoret), “to stand apart, to keep away” (Oecumenius), “to turn away” (Chrysostom). Further on he says: “do not associate”; yet in such a way that the disorderly brother is not to be treated as an enemy, but admonished as a brother by such a manner of relating to him (2 Thess. 3:14). It is evident that this is something more than a mere withdrawal from sharing in his activities or way of life. Even this much could convey the message: we do not walk your road and we do not advise you to, which could act as a sobering influence on the disorderly person. Seeing that participation does not encourage him while non-participation rebukes his conduct, the brother might come to his senses and reform. The Apostle says something more—namely, that in withdrawing from the disorderly brother one should exclude him from fellowship, so that he might see himself cut off from the Christian community. In this lies the whole force of the corrective measure established by the Lord through the Apostles; we shall cite below a lengthy passage from St. Chrysostom on this subject.

“Every brother”—that is, every Christian, and insofar as he is a Christian. In the Epistle to the Corinthians the Apostle likewise commands not to associate with various persons of disorderly conduct, but only with those who belong to the Christian community, that is, to the brethren. For, he says, if the rule were to keep away from all such people in the world, one would have to leave the world altogether (1 Cor. 5:10).

“Walking in a disorderly manner”—“that is, one who lives” (Chrysostom); “one who lives without any order, not according to the laws of God” (Oecumenius). Judging by the kind of disorder spoken of below, those who “walk in a disorderly manner” here are understood to be idlers who do nothing, who avoid useful labour and spend their life only in merriment and amusement. This is how all our God-wise commentators understand it. Yet nothing prevents us from understanding by such persons all violators of the order of Christian life in general—all those who live contrary to the traditions received from the Apostles. The Apostles everywhere established new moral-religious, domestic, and civil orders of life, and demanded their fulfillment without exception. Those who violated these ordinances deviated from the order, proving themselves disorderly, walking in a disorderly manner. To withdraw from all such persons and thereby exclude them from fellowship—this was the universal apostolic law, of which the Apostle makes mention in many epistles. Writing to the Romans, for example, he commands to avoid everyone “who causes divisions” (Rom. 16:17); and in the Epistle to the Corinthians he enumerates all such persons, saying: “But now I have written to you not to associate, if anyone who is called a brother is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—with such a one not even to eat” (1 Cor. 5:11). How beneficial was such a law then, and how one could wish it had remained in force in our own times—on this subject St. Chrysostom writes at length: “The Apostle desires that we should withdraw from every brother who walks in a disorderly manner. To be excluded from the whole fellowship of the brethren was counted a great calamity in those days. Therefore the Apostle subjects everyone to this punishment. So in another place, namely in the Epistle to the Corinthians, he said: ‘with such a one not even to eat’ (1 Cor. 5:11). But now the greater part of people regard this as nothing of importance, and everything has melted together and fallen into confusion: we enter into fellowship indiscriminately, as occasion offers, with adulterers, fornicators, and the covetous. If it was necessary to keep away from one who, through idleness alone, needed the support of others, how much more from the rest. And that you may learn what fear the exclusion from fellowship with the brethren inspired, and what benefit it brought to those who received such punishment with a good spirit—hear how that man who had boasted of his sin, who had descended to the last degree of depravity, who had committed a fornication not even named among the Gentiles, who had remained insensible to his wound (for this is the extreme of corruption)—how this very man, so vicious as he was, was so humbled and subdued that Paul afterward said of him: ‘Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the many… therefore I urge you to reaffirm your love for him’ (2 Cor. 2:6, 8). For such a man at that time was as a member cut off from the rest of the body. The reason why this inspired such fear then was that it was counted a great blessing to be in the society of believers. For at that time in each Church they lived as people dwelling in one house, who are subject to one father and share in one table. Therefore this misfortune meant for each person removal from so great a love. But now this does not seem of any importance, because we do not count it of any importance even to be in mutual fellowship. What formerly was reckoned among punishments, now, through the cooling of love, happens among you not as a punishment—we withdraw from one another out of indifference. For the cause of all evils is the absence of love in us; it has destroyed and abolished all that was great and glorious in the Church, all that for which one should rejoice.”

It must be noted that in the words “not according to the tradition which they received from us”, tradition, as is evident, signifies not doctrine but the orders of life established by the Apostles, and it encompasses all such orders. These orders were received by the Christian communities and were preserved inviolably, under the title of an immutable law. From the immediate recipients of these orders—directly from the Apostles—they passed unchanged to their successors. Such as the Church came out of the apostolic age, such she was shaped by the holy Apostles themselves. Teaching was given by word and confirmed, where necessary, by writing. Orders were established in practice, by direct arrangements, though they were sometimes also mentioned in epistles. In the present passage, the tradition is understood as something actual, introduced into life by deed. Theodoret writes: “The tradition here is understood not by words, but by deeds.” Other commentators understand by tradition here also the example of the Apostle, for through this his injunction concerning a life of diligence more readily entered into the life of Christians and acquired greater force. “By tradition,” says St. Chrysostom, “the Apostle calls what they saw in his conduct.” Oecumenius thus: “The tradition which I delivered to you by my deeds, having been an example for you.” “For this properly is tradition,” Theophylact adds. — It is therefore in vain that the wisdom of non-Orthodox Christians takes an unfavorable view of this patristic interpretation.

Having stated the general law, the Apostle now turns to its application among the Thessalonians. He might have said directly: to withdraw from those walking in a disorderly manner is an inescapable law; you have the disorderly among you, so withdraw from them. But the Apostle first clarifies the culpability of these disorderly persons (vv. 7–10); then he specifically identifies the fault of the disorderly persons being reproved (v. 11); after that he urges them to reform (v. 12). And only then, if they will not listen, does he command withdrawal from them (2 Thess. 3:13, 14).

The Apostle established the culpability of the disorderly by the force of the motives they had for living in order. These motives were present for them in the example of the Apostle himself—in how he lived and acted while he was among them (vv. 7–9)—and in the direct commandment given to them (v. 10). The motives drawn from the Apostles’ example are set forth thus: you ought to imitate us; but we, while living among you, were not disorderly and did not sponge on anyone, but passed day and night in labour and toil. You likewise ought to act in this way.

2 Thess. 3:7–9. For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, for we were not disorderly among you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but in labour and toil, working night and day, so that we might not be a burden to any of you. Not because we do not have the right, but in order to make ourselves an example for you to imitate.

“You yourselves know.” A pupil naturally inclines to imitate his teacher, and children their parents. This remains always in their consciousness. And the Thessalonians, as disciples of the Apostle and as children born through his preaching of the gospel, could not but feel drawn to imitate him. But the Apostle speaks of imitation not as a matter of the heart alone, but as a morally obligatory duty. Not to the Thessalonians only, but to others as well he urged: “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). The Apostles were the mirror of Christianity. By word they interpreted it, and by their life they displayed it in practice. To imitate them is for the believer the same kind of duty as being faithful to the faith in all things. Even in ordinary life it happens that whoever first establishes a certain order, everyone imitates that person; and such imitation passes from generation to generation.

“How you ought to imitate us.” How pure was the apostolic conscience! How blamelessly they conducted themselves in everything, in full accordance with the demands of the Christian spirit! Living openly, before the eyes of all, they could say: live thus! They were confident that so many eyes could detect nothing reprehensible in them; and this was because they saw themselves as pure also before the eyes of God, for they never consciously and willfully inclined toward anything of which conscience bore witness that it was contrary to the will of God. This mutual confidence gave them the boldness to speak in this way. They were wholly offered to God and to God’s purposes, and they spoke thus, moved by the Spirit, as men wholly consecrated to God in all things. St. Chrysostom writes: “The thought that he can, by appealing to his own righteous deeds, give exhortation to his disciples—this gives the teacher great boldness. Therefore Paul also said: ‘you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us.’ For the teacher ought to instruct more by his life than by his word. Let no one think that the Apostle said this out of a desire to praise himself immoderately, for necessity compelled him to say it, and moreover for the sake of the common good.”

Then, from the whole sum of his deeds worthy of imitation, the Apostle draws attention only to those which, by their very contrast with the disorderly conduct of some Thessalonians, sternly reproved their failure. “We were not disorderly,” he says, “nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it.” He denies in himself the reprehensible characteristics of those being rebuked. Therefore those persons were disorderly and ate bread without paying for it. And this ought not to have been, just as it was not the case with the Apostles. “We were not disorderly”—in Greek, ουκ ητακτησαμεν — we did not live without discipline. Consequently those being rebuked lived without discipline, without regard for time, place, or persons—or, they lived in disorder (for ταξις means order), that is, not according to the ordering of life that their calling obliged them to, for example as husbands and heads of household—they lived carelessly, in idleness, wandering aimlessly through the squares and markets, given over to public amusements, strolling, and a merry life. “By disorderliness the Apostle here means being without labour and work, as above. For God ordained that man should live in labour and equipped him with limbs fit for that purpose; so that one who remains idle steps outside the order of God” (Theophylact).

“Nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it”—we ate bread for nothing from no one, although “if we had eaten at someone’s table, it would not have been for nothing: ‘for the worker is worthy of his wages’ (Matt. 10:10)” (Chrysostom). Consequently those being rebuked ate bread without paying for it—they were spongers, living at others’ expense. Perhaps they even caroused, going from house to house to eat and drink, thereby draining one another or those among their circle who had some means. Having the strength to work and thereby earn their own keep, they were not ashamed to wheedle their way into others’ households by every sort of pretense and consume their resources.

“But in labour and toil, working night and day.” We did not eat bread for nothing, but “working”—that is, obtaining it by the labour of our hands. No outsider maintained us freely; we fed ourselves by our own toil. “Having brought the gospel to you, we took nothing from anyone, but night and day we laboured to thereby obtain what was necessary for sustenance” (Theodoret). “Night and day”—the sense is not that we did nothing but work, for there was a need also to eat, to sleep, to preach in the synagogue and from house to house. The Apostle wishes to say: neither by day nor by night did anyone see us idle. All our time, beyond satisfying the natural needs of the body, was given—apart from preaching—to labour. And this is precisely what some among the converted Thessalonians lacked: the willingness to sit quietly at home and carry out patiently whatever work had been entrusted to them.

“So that we might not be a burden to any of you.” The believing Thessalonians would certainly not have considered it a burden to support the Apostles, since, as the first epistle states, they showed generosity even to those living in other places. “A burden is reckoned when someone takes something from another against his will” (Theodoret), or even “when someone gives to another not with great eagerness” (Chrysostom). But neither the first can be expected of the Apostles, nor the second of the Thessalonians. What would they not have done for St. Paul, whom they had loved with a strong love, as he himself bore witness? Yet the Apostle sets forth what especially moved him to act in this manner. His fatherly love for those he was converting would not allow him to trouble them in any small way. It impelled him to expend all things for them, requiring and accepting nothing from them. In the Epistle to the Corinthians he cites as his motive the concern lest the preaching of the gospel be hindered; but here—the delicacy of his fatherly feeling. He brings this to the fore with the particular aim of thereby more sharply marking the unseemliness of sponging. He wished to convey, as St. Chrysostom notes, this lesson: “If I, a preacher of the words of instruction, feared to burden you, how much more ought that man to fear this who brings you no benefit whatsoever.” “Not because we do not have the right.” And the Lord commanded “those who preach the gospel to live from the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:14), when, sending the Apostles to preach, He said to them: “In the same house” (in which they receive you) “remain, eating and drinking what is theirs” (Lk. 10:7). All the Apostles acted thus. In all likelihood St. Paul also made use of this rule at times. He could have availed himself of it among the Thessalonians as well, and of course no one would have dared say anything against it. But he did not do this. The Spirit of God, who guided him, suggested to him a different manner of acting—perhaps on account of the character of the peoples among whom he was appointed to spread the gospel.

“But to make ourselves an example for you to imitate.” Writing to the Corinthians he advances a different goal, as already noted—namely, that the gospel preaching might be received more impartially; but here, to give an example. Of what? — Of diligence, of staying at home, of sobriety, and of good order. This again leads to the thought that idleness, sponging, carousing, and roaming about were in all likelihood a distinguishing feature of the Thessalonians’ life (in paganism). St. Paul noticed this from the very first and at once began urging them toward diligence and sobriety (v. 10 of the first epistle). But in order to act upon them more powerfully, he himself began working with untiring effort to provide for his own sustenance and that of those with him. Example in this regard could indeed act more powerfully than any word. The conduct of St. Paul could not fail to trouble the conscience of the idle and sluggish, and to dispose them toward diligence. “For if,” as St. Chrysostom notes, “St. Paul, who had no need to labour—having, on the contrary, the possibility of exempting himself from such occupations—yet, having taken upon himself so great a work, laboured nonetheless, and not simply laboured, but laboured night and day, so that he could also provide assistance to others—then how much more ought others to have acted thus.”