He Who Will Not Work; Admonishing the Disorderly (2 Thessalonians 3:10–15)

2 Thess. 3:10. For even when we were with you, we gave you this commandment: if anyone is not willing to work, neither let him eat.

The disorderly brethren had a second motive for living in order—in the explicit commandment given to them personally by the Apostle himself. Example might still be explained away, but a direct commandment imposed an obligation, removing any possibility of evasion. The commandment laid the duty; the example disposed toward its fulfillment, pointing the way, as it were leading along an already-laid road. Together, both should have acted victoriously to correct a disposition previously bent in the wrong direction. Both were employed by the Apostle. The example given was powerful, and the commandment was presented in a very stern tone: “if anyone is not willing to work, neither let him eat.” He wishes to say: such a one deserves no feeding at others’ expense; he forfeits, as it were, his right to eat, and if he does eat, it is without any right—either through his own shamelessness or through the mercy of others. See then how obligatory is labour! Man is born for toil as the bird for flight (Job 5:7). This was decreed immediately after the Fall. Labour is the common penance laid upon all in Adam: “In the sweat of your face you shall eat your bread” (Gen. 3:19). Only on the condition of sweat is bread given him to eat. Therefore labour—whether bodily or spiritual—is inescapably obligatory for everyone. The Apostle exempts no one from it. Whoever will not work, be he rich or poor—“neither let him eat”—if he eats, he eats with violence to his conscience, in sin. At the same time, however, we must not lose sight of the fact that the Apostle’s word is addressed here to idle sluggards, so as to rouse their conscience—not to others, so as to cut off their charitable giving. He does not mean: do not give him food. He gives this judgment and sentence to no one. On the contrary, he speaks directly against this a few lines below, urging that in doing good one should not weary of giving even to spongers (v. 13). Theodoret writes: “Now these words—‘neither let him eat’—the Apostle said not to those who give, but to those living in idleness. To those who give, a few words later he gives counsel not to look at their bad conduct, but without hesitation to show their customary generosity.”

2 Thess. 3:11. For we hear that some among you are walking in a disorderly manner, doing nothing, but acting as busybodies.

Having clarified the grounds for the culpability of those being rebuked, he points out the very fault itself, saying as it were: yet among you, notwithstanding such compelling motives for orderly conduct, there are persons who conduct themselves not at all as they ought. What the failure of these persons consisted in has already been indicated. They are those “walking in a disorderly manner”—that is, living without discipline, in disorder, not according to the order established by the Apostles, contrary to that seemly manner of life which he had required in the first epistle (1 Thess. 4:12); “doing nothing”—not sitting with folded hands, but roaming about without occupation, to whom it is not agreeable to sit at some serious and steady labour, but pleasant to pass the time in self-indulgence, gratifying their senses of sight, hearing, taste, and the like;—“but acting as busybodies”—in Greek, prying into everything, what is here or there, what is being done, what such and such are saying, what others are planning, and so on. These are gawkers, gossips, and quarrelers. Wandering about squares, markets, streets, and houses, they snoop into everything, and it is no wonder that they deliberately spy, enter into disputes—whence come provocations, quarrels, brawls, and all the disorders in communities. “To those living in idleness,” writes Theodoret, “are proper empty talk, talkativeness, and useless curiosity.” Oecumenius even points to the cause of this. “God gave us an active mind,” he says, “and so, when we withdraw it from godly works, it—not being able to remain inactive—gives itself over to the works of the devil: to prying, chatter, slander, buffoonery, and the like.” Theophylact writes the same: “Our mind is ever in motion; therefore, when we do not engage it in needful works, it gives itself over to useless ones—to prying into how others live, and from this to gossip, idle talk, and empty chatter.” There is no indication at all that these were people of manifest vice; otherwise the Apostle would not have restrained himself from rebuking this, as he does in the Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:11); or that they were the poor who could support themselves by the labour of their hands but who simply did not like to work and lived at others’ expense by begging or deception—though perhaps there was someone of that kind. These were all idle people, killing time to no purpose. But their number was presumably not large either, for the holy Apostle says: “some.” Their number was so insignificant that they did not prevent the Thessalonian Church—the whole community of believers there—from being distinguished by those fine qualities which St. Paul so highly praises in both epistles. He writes of them with such strictness, and at such length, because even losing one soul is grievous, and out of concern lest indulgence toward them or inattention to their disorderliness should dispose others also to look lightly on such an unseemly way of life and give them occasion to be drawn into imitation. Moreover, the Apostle writes: “we hear”—a report is going about. He does not say who brought the report, or who frequently brought it, but it is evident the report was not idle, and St. Paul believed it. And he was so zealous that he could bear no defect in his churches with equanimity. He sought to present them all to Christ as pure and blameless brides (2 Cor. 11:2).

2 Thess. 3:12. Now such persons we command and urge in our Lord Jesus Christ, that working in quietness they eat their own bread.

One might have expected that following immediately upon the identification of the disorderly, the Apostle would say at once: withdraw from these very persons. But since his purpose is not judgment and punishment, but correction, he first offers the disorderly persons the opportunity to return to the right path, and only then, as they will not listen, does he command the orderly not to associate with them.

The commandment now given was already known. Here it is only repeated, with fatherly persuasion, in the name of the Lord Himself, to fulfill it exactly. One can see how ardently the Apostle desires that no one should prove disobedient, that all should become orderly in their conduct, and that there might be no need to withdraw from anyone or to make anyone subject to withdrawal. For this reason he both commands as an Apostle and entreats as a father—both on behalf of the Lord Himself. He commands with the authority given by the Lord; he implores with the love of Christ. By both together he makes his discourse at once formidable and winsome, pressing them from every side toward compliance. Strictness combined with love is always victorious. “Since,” writes Theophylact, “he had maintained somewhat stern speech above, saying ‘we command you to withdraw’ (2 Thess. 3:6), he now turns to them with greater mildness and says: we entreat in the Lord. But by this very entreaty the injunction becomes still weightier and sterner.”

“That working in quietness they eat their own bread”—that they should not wander idly here and there, but sit at home, and at home sit not with folded hands, but at their work. A modest, secluded, diligent life is enjoined, in contrast to idle wandering and the empty killing of time. “We command not only that they live in quietness (peacefully, without disturbance), but also that they work” (Oecumenius). “He demands two things of them: as from the disorderly—that they be quiet; as from the idle—that they work.” Ησυχια, quietness, is the opposite of noise, turbulence, fuss, and bustle, as well as of restlessness, a distracted and aimless life. From this every person can picture the pattern of family and domestic life which St. Paul holds up as an example for believers.

“That they eat their own bread”—either that they should not sponge, not live at others’ expense, but earn their sustenance with their own hands; or, that even if they have some means of their own, they should still work—so as to eat bread earned by their own toil, for such bread is sweeter and, one might say, more sacred. This evidently also includes the point that they should not live on charity or begging, but maintain themselves by their own labour when they have the strength. On these last points St. Chrysostom lays greater weight, for he writes: “Why did not the Apostle say: if they are not disorderly, let them be fed by alms from you; but instead requires both things—that they be both modest and diligent? — Because he wants them, by working, to feed themselves. For this is the meaning of the words: ‘that they eat their own bread’—that is, from their own labour, and not another’s obtained by asking for charity. He speaks of those who by their own choice belong to the ranks of the destitute. Indeed, why do you not work? God gave you hands not to receive from others, but so that you yourself might give to others.‘Theophylact then lays out his further thoughts more precisely:’Therefore one must have labour, working with one’s own hands. And one who has the strength to work but gives himself over to idleness should not beg for alms. You say: I pray and fast. But this is not work of the hands. You can have manual work alongside these things. And if you neglect this, you are subject to judgment as one who loves idleness. Someone will say: then why is the one who teaches (by which St. Chrysostom means the Apostles and teachers of the Church) not compelled to work with his hands? — He has a more important and more difficult work which does not permit him to engage in manual labour. But on you, a private person, no such obligation rests, and you sin by neglecting labour.”

2 Thess. 3:13. But as for you, brothers, do not grow weary in doing good.

He has given the disorderly a commandment to reform, and now he urges those who were orderly to remain in their orderly conduct. The instruction would seem incomplete without something said to them as well. What precisely does he urge upon them? — That they should not grow weary, not be burdened, not grow faint in “doing good.” And this “doing good” — καλοποιουντες — has two senses: it means either living well, maintaining good conduct and a good manner of life; or doing good to others, showing beneficence. If the first meaning is taken, then in the Apostle’s words we must see an encouragement to the orderly to continue a life opposite to that of the disorderly—a tranquil, secluded, diligent life. Sitting at home all day at their work, depriving themselves of public diversions and pleasures, denying their senses their customary gratifications, they were like prisoners of a sort, as if losing something, while the others seemed to have the better position in public view. Some of them might naturally have thought that such a life was rather dull. The Apostle therefore encourages them: you who lead a good, sober, and diligent life, having left behind that disorderly, idle, and empty one—do not grow weary or burdened by this, do not envy those idlers, and do not be tempted by their situation as though it were more advantageous. If the second meaning is taken, then the Apostle’s exhortation would be: but you, who have until now been showing beneficence even to these spongers accustomed to eating others’ bread—do not discontinue this manner of acting, do not alter your attitude toward them, continue to do good for them, without growing weary or burdened by it, and without entertaining the thought that your goodness is thereby spent in vain. Your goodness does not in the least cease to be goodness from the fact that in our estimation those persons are unworthy of mercy. God “makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous”; “be” also yourselves “merciful, as” “your heavenly Father is merciful” (Matt. 5:45, 48; Lk. 6:36). One must see the need in the one who asks, and not focus on his disorderliness.

The first meaning is not without place, but the second is closer and preferable—because the holy commentators of old understand this passage in that way, limiting the circle of the disorderly to those who live on charity while having the strength to work. They presuppose in the Apostle a concern lest Christians, hearing the stern rebuke of the idle and the commandment to them to live by the labour of their hands, might cut off their charitable giving to them, while these had not yet reformed and grown accustomed to work—and, being left without help, might die of hunger. All that the good Christians were required to do was “to withdraw”—not to associate—and thereby to urge the disorderly to reform; but charitable giving to them was not to be discontinued.

“Do you see the fatherly tender-heartedness?” exclaims Oecumenius. “He did not carry his strictness far, fearing lest these disorderly persons die of hunger. Although he commands to withdraw from them and thereby admonish them, he says: in the meantime, while they are reforming, give to them so that they do not suffer from hunger. It is punishment enough for them that you separate from them.” To this blessed Theophylact adds: “Even if one of them does not reform even after this, you still do not grow weary in doing good.” Theodoret expresses the force of this and the preceding verse concisely: “Having prescribed by law for some the pursuit of work and quietness, he counsels others to follow a spirit of benevolence: ‘do not grow weary in doing good.’ Let their disorderly conduct not overcome your generosity.”

St. Chrysostom here resolves the usual objection: “What then, someone will say: if the idle man continues to receive everything from us in abundance, will he remain idle forever? — Against this, he says, I have pointed out to you an easy remedy—namely, withdraw from such a person, that is, do not embolden him, show the appearance of being angry with him. This is no small thing. For thus must we punish a brother, if we truly desire that he be corrected. We must know in what manner we are able to punish. For tell me, if you had a brother according to the flesh, would you leave him without help when he was dying of hunger? — I think not; rather you would in all likelihood take care for his correction.”

2 Thess. 3:14, 15. But if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, take note of that person, and do not associate with him, so that he may be ashamed. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

The Apostle therefore rebuked the disorderly so sternly and gave them such commandments so that they might reform and not disgrace the Christian community, which ought to be pure and holy in all its members and in all respects. But if in the end they do not show obedience and remain in their disorderly state, then here is the order given: “note” them and do not associate with them, yet without harboring hostile feelings toward them—rather admonish them as brothers.

The first thing that was to be done was to “note” them. What is this noting, and for whom? For the Apostle Paul, or for the Thessalonians? The ancient Slavonic translation conveys the meaning that the Thessalonian Christian community, or their leaders, having announced the Apostle’s commandment to and concerning the disorderly and seeing that they were not reforming, were to inform St. Paul of them by a special letter, naming them individually in that letter, for his further directives—similar, for example, to those he later made in Corinth regarding the incestuous man. The naturalness of this, its correspondence with the flow of the discourse and with the Greek text, compels one to take the side of this translation and interpretation. For if word had been given to the Apostle about the disorderly, and if afterward it was necessary to declare to them what the Apostle was writing about them, then they must have been known to everyone, and there was no necessity to point them out to the Thessalonians. From the moment of declaring the apostolic will to them, the non-association with them would begin—without any special directives being needed for it, and it would cease toward some as soon as they showed themselves reformed. And merely noting them would have been a matter leading nowhere. Something more stern was expected. The disorderly had been found; word had been given about them, or the Apostle had learned of them and was writing a stern rebuke and exhortation; all this was declared to the disorderly; if they reformed—good; if they did not reform, what is next expected? — It is expected that word about them will be given to the Apostle, for further directives. This is the simplest and most natural course of the matter. And there is no doubt that such was the Apostle’s meaning: give me word about him by letter, and in the meantime do not associate with him—not with hostile feelings, but so as to put him to shame and admonish him as a brother, with love.

Others understand “noting” as for the Thessalonians: mark him for yourselves, or keep him under observation. In this case the word “in this epistle” — δια της επιστολης,—is connected not with “note” but with “our word”, thus: whoever does not obey our word spoken or communicated through this epistle to you—mark him for yourselves, or note him. But such a combination of words may not be accepted, for in that case one would expect λογω… τω δια… Since this is absent, the translation becomes forced and arbitrary. With it, one must supply the meaning “spoken” or “communicated” to arrive at the sense; whereas with “note” it connects naturally and requires no supplements: “note by letter.” This interpretation would be given special weight by the commentary of our ancient exegetes. But the words of St. Chrysostom on the phrase “take note of that person”—“consequently he commands this to be done, so that such conduct or such persons may not be concealed”—cannot be decisively turned in favor of that interpretation, especially if one takes into account that he read “word” not as “our” but as “your”; with that reading, δια της επιστολης would naturally go with “note.” Blessed Theodoret, St. John of Damascus, and Theophylact make no remark on this. Only Oecumenius wrote: “Note him, so that he may not escape your notice.” It is evident that, given this relation of our ancient commentators to this passage, understanding it in the latter sense is not obligatory and may at the very least be left as a matter of freedom. For us, however, the Slavonic translation and the thought connected with it ought to prevail. We therefore incline toward it.

“And do not associate with him.” Write word to me, and do not have fellowship with him. “Do not associate”—in Greek the word used signifies the way one mingles with a crowd and merges with the common mass, as, for example, wine with water. The Apostle does not merely want that no one should see Christians in the company of these disorderly persons, but that strict Christians should make evident to the disorderly persons themselves that they are shunning them for the reason that they consider their conduct incompatible with the calling of Christians—and by this estrangement stir up conscience in them and bring them to shame: “so that he may be ashamed.” This is a silent reproof and admonishment without words. “But, according to the Apostle’s thought, such a relation to the disorderly is prescribed as a punishment to the latter. And it is indeed no small punishment” (St. Chrysostom). “This punishment to the disobedient seems moderate; yet in fact it is one of the heaviest. What is heavier than to be as if in a desert, though one lives in a city?” (St. John of Damascus). “The shame is very great when everyone turns away from someone” (Oecumenius).

“And do not” regard “him as an enemy, but admonish” “him as a brother.” Not associating with the disobedient person and turning away from him—yet do not harbor hostility toward him, do not feel indignation, do not despise or condemn him, but admonish him as a brother. “Admonish” — νουθετειτε — means: to put something into someone’s mind, to bring to reason. “Bring to reason,” he says—either by this reproving manner of turning away and not participating in his unseemly deeds, or not by this alone, but alongside this also with reasonable, brotherly, love-warmed speech, expressing sorrow for him—why is he thus, why does he so demean and disgrace himself. One can see how St. Paul desires to kindle in all hearts a concern for moral purity—not each one’s own alone, but of the whole community for the entire body. But of course the expression and fulfillment of such concern was to be carried out by the leaders, to whom was entrusted the care for the salvation of souls. On them the Apostle presumably laid the fulfillment of all these directives as well.

Here are the words of St. Chrysostom, breathing love for the weak, on this passage: “Thus (the Apostle) does not permit the punishment to extend beyond its proper measure. For, as above, having said ‘if anyone is not willing to work, neither let him eat,’ out of concern lest those persons perish of hunger, he added: ‘but as for you, do not grow weary in doing good’; so also now, having said: ‘withdraw and do not associate with him,’ then, out of concern lest this very thing should cut him off from the fellowship of the brethren—for, having then doubted of himself, he might soon perish, if encouragement were denied him—(the Apostle) added: ‘and do not as an enemy regard him, but admonish him as a brother.’ By this he shows that he has appointed a great punishment for the guilty one, such as could deprive him of all boldness. Admonish as a brother, said the Apostle—and not insult as an enemy. One who admonishes his brother does so not publicly, does not exhibit him openly to shame, but carries it out in secret and with greater care, grieving and being afflicted, with tears and with weeping.”