2 Thessalonians 3

vs 1

So they're obviously a good example, if PS&T want the message to be taken in the same way the church at Thessalonica did.

vs 2

Something PS&T, and the Thessalonians, knew all too well.

vs 3

Again, this is one of those promises you say "Oooh, but he didn't!", or "He doesn't!"Which only goes to show our ignorance regarding how protected we are, even when bad things are happening.

vs 4

So it would seem that this letter isn't written after a report from someone like Timothy - it could even be written in response to a letter. In any case, rather than citing a report, PS&T just say they have confidence.

vs 5

I'm trying to think what it means to persevere with your heart. I guess it means you don't give up on the thing you have to do, no matter what. Someone more emotional could probably shed light on that. I tend to be a bit brain focused, and so most things start for me in the brain. Perhaps that's why PS&T put it this way - for us, we have to start things with our brain before our hearts are affected - but God can direct our hearts directly.

vs 6

Literalism would have us dig the grave of the Christian church right here in these verses. Firstly, let me point out that the NASB reads this as "keep away from every brother that keeps an unruly life". The word, ataktos, is used twice in the NT - both in 2 Thessalonians - and means "disorderly, out of ranks (like about a soldier), deviating from the prescribed order". A derivative word is used once, in 1 Thessalonians. The root word means "to put in order, to arrange". There's a note for the word used in 1 Thessalonians saying it was used in Greek society to describe those who didn't go to work.

Let me say, though, that I am not trying to say that the Bible doesn't want lazy people admonished. What I am saying is that the literalist interpretation of this verse, without a social context and without taking our own context into account, is vital. Our attitudes have to be shaped by the whole gospel of God, not just some bits.

I mean, if you want to be really literalistic, you should only stay clear (stello: to cause to cease, to remove one's self) of them if they both are idle and don't live according to the teaching of PS&T. But if you want the literal meaning, undisciplined or unruly is really better than idle. The ataktos are doing something - just not what you think they should be doing.

In applying this verse, remember first that life for them was very different. There was no government welfare. So any sponging they did, they did off the church. But there were also very few (if any) disabled people - they simply didn't survive. Children worked from a fairly young age. But even then, what about orphans, or widows, who had no means of support? They weren't even allowed to work in many cases! Remember also that a pretend Christian in the NT church was a real liability - they could get people tortured or killed.

So, in our situation, should be we keeping a 2 metre exclusion zone between us and the unemployed, or between us and the undisciplined? What about those people who drain the church emotionally or temporally rather than economically? Emotions and time are real commodities to us today, as valuable as money. Or is it possible that there is an eternal principle we can apply to our church today with a little bit of good hermenutics?

vs 7

PS&T tell us that they were not idle (or undisciplined, depending on translation). They certainly weren't.

vs 8

And now we see the fruits of their example. They had a purpose in their labours - they wanted to be an example to the Thessalonians. Because in fact, if you take them literally (highly bloody unlikely, by the way), it would mean that every time someone invited them to dinner, they would have said "Well, that was a great meal. Here, take this money, because we don't think you're a family to us, you're more like some sort of restaurant". Yes, it would be as rude then as it is now (a lot ruder actually - the cultural faux-pas it would have caused then would be like using their wicker chair as a toilet in front of their children). So hey, if you want to follow PS&T's example, then don't ever take a free meal off anyone, even your church friends or family.

vs 9

Note that PS&T had the right to ask for money, to be supported. And yet are PS&T saying "Follow our example, you leaders of the church - though you can ask for money, don't you dare!"? Why, then, did Paul tell Timothy in his letters to him that "A worker deserves his wages"? Something tells me that PS&T are trying to make a specific point to a specific church's problems here... That's usually what it means when they are saying something else to someone else.