II Thessalonians 3:6-13; Oops, Did I say THAT?

"6 Now we command you, beloved, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from believers who are living in idleness and not according to the tradition that they received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us; we were not idle when we were with you, 8 and we did not eat anyone’s bread without paying for it; but with toil and labor we worked night and day, so that we might not burden any of you. 9 This was not because we do not have that right, but in order to give you an example to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat. 11 For we hear that some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work. 12 Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living. 13 Brothers and sisters, do not be weary in doing what is right."

I. Introduction

I call this an "OOPS" passage because the commands given here to the Thessalonians on work can ultimately be traced to a legitimate interpretation of Paul's original preaching. Yet Paul would not have intended this reading (Hence, the "oops"). Let's see if we can follow the thread that leads to a passage like this:

1. Early Christian preaching (even before Paul) stressed the imminence of Christ's expected return.
2. Paul picked up on this theme, making it central in I Thess.
3. In that letter, Paul, telling the people that he didn't want them to be ignorant (I Thess. 4:13) of these things, gave an explanation for how the coming of Christ was going to happen.
4. The people, to their credit, apparently believed him.
5. Sometime between the writing of I and II Thessalonians, a letter came to the congregation, purporting to be from Paul, that the end time already had come (cf. II Thess 2:2).
6. As a result of this, confusion reigned in the church.
7. Paul wrote II Thessalonians to try to resolve the confusion, though, in my mind, he introduces even more (especially through the introduction of the man of lawlessness).
8. As a result of the confusion, some probably believed that Christ had come--and that therefore no work is necessary, and others believed that if he hadn't returned, no work was necessary because you had to make "preparations" for that return--to make sure that you don't "miss it."
9. So, there appeared to be a division in the congregation about working. Those who felt they were truly faithful could make the point that continuing to work was an example of faithlessness-- a commitment to the notion that nothing really had changed with the (first) coming of Christ. Those who felt they really trusted God would give up all signs of earthly security--hence, those who didn't work were probably chiding those who did, accusing them of being of lesser faith.
10. Paul urges his readers to keep on working and not to be idle (in the passage for the morning).

My point is that Paul's preaching, and perhaps the spurious letter mentioned in II Thess 2:2, had the unintended effect of producing people who were more zealous than he or who interpreted his words in ways that were beyond his meaning. But this is always the danger when you have preachers and hearers. People take literally what you meant figuratively; people zoom in one point you made and run with it, despite the fact that it might have only been a subsidiary point for you.

We who are parents also know the phenomenon. We say something to our children about how they should act. But they, picking up on our conduct, our unintended expletives or derogatory words, or our subsidiary points, embarrass us in ways we couldn't imagine. It is reminiscent to me of the "Dennis the Menace" cartoon strip, where Dennis comes into the room when his mother is entertaining a talkative neighbor and says, "Mom, I don't see a blue streak when Mrs. XXXX is talking.."

Thus, the best way to see this passage is not in the context of contemporary (i.e., 2007) partisan political debates whether one ought to award further unemployment benefits to people displaced by plant closures or layoffs, but in the context of how people have a tendency to take well-meaning points and extend the meaning exponentially.

II. The Spirit of the Passage

This comment helps us understand the intensity and authoritarian nature of our passage. The issue isn't simply about work, important as that is. It is about misinterpreting central doctrines of Paul's Gospel. That is why he is so upset with the situation. Look at the terminology that he uses. First, he commands (v. 6) rather than encourages, exhorts, begs, or entreats. The word "command" also appears in v. 10. The problem that he is dealing with is "idleness." The world translated "idle" or "idleness" is taken from a military context in Greek. It is ataktos, which means "non in order." A military force is said to be in order (tagma, taktos) when it is ready for battle. Paul gives commands; his hearers are the opposite of a ready fighting force.

Then, there is the issue of imitation. Lest the Thessalonians miss it, in two verses they are exhorted to imitate him (vv.7,9). The language of imitation finds its home in a philosophical rather than military context in antiquity. One chose a form or manner of life, and one would imitate the teachers in the way they put the principles or doctrines of the sect into practice.

Thus, the language, spirit and intention of the passage is to lay Paul's authority on the line before his hearers.

III. No Work, No Eat

Both of these things are important in getting to the obvious point of the passage--an exhortation to work. Paul (or, if the epistle is pseudonymous, the author) spends more verses on this subject than any other in the Epistle except the coming of Christ. Surely this was a subject that stuck in his craw. Why? Well, we don't know specifically, but I think it probably had to do with Paul's view of the transformative, but not confrontative nature of Christian faith. That is, Paul never explicitly either challenged the secular powers that be nor encouraged a kind of "countercultural" lifestyle that would draw unwanted attention to the new Christian movement. He was unlike Jesus in this regard, for Jesus didn't mind collecting a band of disciples, urging them to live in poverty and follow him around the land of Israel. Paul, however, and those who followed Paul, were committed to the notion of living quiety (v. 12) and industriously in the community. It would have tarnished the reputation of the early Christians to have their beliefs be seen as encouraging laziness.

Thus, in about five verses in this passage, Paul stresses the importance of working. He doesn't root his advice in what we might call the "dignity" of labor or even the economic necessity of work. Rather, it is grounded in the apostolic example. He had the privilege and prerogative not to work when he was with them; but he decided to work nevertheless (vv. 8-10). But this problem of "idleness" was one that seemed to be long-standing in Thessalonica, because he also "commanded" them in his first letter to make sure that they worked (I Th. 5:14). Apparently the patience he urged at that time has worn thin. Though he still considers those idlers to be "brothers," he beleives they need the theological equivalent of a swift kick to get them back to work.

Conclusion

Though work is the obvious point of the passage, I like the way it closes. In a verb only appearing here in the NT, he says literally, "in doing what is right (the unique word), don't lose heart." That word I translated "lose heart" was a central word in our reading from Luke 18 a few weeks ago. The bottom line for Paul is "doing right" and not "growing weary" or "losing heart" in the process. That, indeed, is the most powerful witness of all.

3008