The expression "withdraw fellowship" is not found in the sacred scriptures. This ought to give pause to those who claim to "speak where the Bible speaks, and remain silent where the Bible is silent." The word "fellowship" is our inadequate English translation of koinonia, a Greek term which means "to share a common life." The life which we share in common is eternal life. It dwells with the Father and was made visible to the apostles. One of them wrote, "What we have seen and heard we declare to you, so that you and we together may share in a common life, that life which we share with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ" (1 John 1:3. NEB).
No man or group of men can receive one into this fellowship. No man or group of men can withdraw it. The fellowship can neither be extended nor withdrawn by any being in the flesh. It can only be shared. Men cannot dispense eternal life, nor can they deny it. We are called into the fellowship of Jesus Christ by the Father Himself, and His fidelity is at stake in the call (1 Cor. 1:9). The New English Version aptly renders this, "It is God himself who called you to share in the life of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord; and God keeps faith."
In spite of this legalistic sects in our day continually engage in what they call "withdrawal of fellowship," and indulge in the heady notion that when they exclude an honest dissenter from their number the recording angel in heaven immediately expunges his name from the Lamb's book of life. Those who regard the love letters indited by the apostles as a written code, transform themselves into God's executive board and law enforcement agency, and exercise the power of banishment, without realizing that their petty tyrannical action is given no recognition in heaven, except as a mark against them for such unloving and unbrotherly action.
Every sect is built upon fear, and fear breeds unwholesome attitudes. It promotes suspicion of any new concept and becomes agitated when confronted with dissent. It is an easily provable fact that it was the Roman hierarchy which took the word "heresy" and injected into it the idea that it consists of holding or expressing any view contrary to the orthodox, or official view of the church. The word "heresy" thus became a club to batter and bludgeon into unwilling compliance every original thinker. And the chief threat was excommunication, a word meaning, "out of the fellowship." Rome was the first legalistic sect, and the mother of all sects, and the spirit which she breathed gave life to other legalistic parties, even to those which challenged her claim to primacy.
Any religious group on earth which makes any opinion honestly held as a deduction gleaned from personal study of the sacred scriptures, a test of fellowship or a condition of union or communion, is suckling from the paps of "the hoary mother on the Tiber." Any group which excludes from its number a humble and non-factious brother simply because he differs in his thinking with "the official norm" is practicing on a minor scale the tactics of the Inquisition, and takes its place beside the persecutors of all ages.
Of course, those who make sincere dissent the ground for excommunication do not realize they are enforcing an unwritten creed, as damaging and destructive as all creeds invented to secure uniformity. Actually they assume they are being faithful to the word of God. But whatever a man must believe to be received and recognized by any group is the creed of that group. Few factional groups realize that they search the scriptures to find some "heavenly" validation for their presuppositions, attitudes and actions, yet this is the accepted procedure of all sectarianism. In the case now under discussion, men with the sectarian spirit lifted an expression from its setting and wove around it an elaborate tissue of traditional dogma which had no relationship to its apostolic significance.
The instruction of Paul, as given in 2 Thessalonians 3:6, by the translators appointed by King James reads thus: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which ye received of us." This is a statement appearing in a context, and if fairly interpreted must be interpreted within that context. To better understand how it has been abused let me specify a few things the context does not sanction or teach.
It does not teach "withdrawal of fellowship" by a congregation. It has nothing to do with a public corporate action. It says nothing about writing out charges and demanding a public acknowledgment of guilt. It is not even related to a mistaken view of some scriptural teaching or a deduction from the sacred oracles which may be wrong. In fact, the context gives to the term "disorderly" a specific application, and it has to do with daily conduct and behavior. It is not remotely related to an idea about scripture, whether right or wrong.
The problem is the age-old one of reading back into the apostolic letters modern ideas to justify our present practices. The remedy is to ignore what we "want to prove" and inaugurate an investigation of the conditions which called forth the letter. What situation at Thessalonica demanded correction and prompted the recommendation of the apostle? What did he actually say? What did he mean by what he said? What action did he expect the saints to take? It sounds well and good to raise these questions but it will not be easy to accomplish our purpose in asking them because men are reluctant to admit they have been wrong. Even when forced to admit their application was unjustified they still want to salvage from it some crumb of comfort and save face.
The sincere student who seeks only truth will simply confess that he misunderstood a passage and was wrong about it. It will make no difference how long he taught his mistaken view or how many he influenced to accept it. I have absolutely no hesitancy in stating that I was in error on 2 Thessalonians 3:6 most of my past life. I used it as a basis for driving out from us men and women whose only "sin" was daring to think out loud. Many of the things they said then I accept now. They were ahead of me in many particulars. Unfortunately, I had "zeal, but not according to knowledge." I was wrong in spite of my sincerity. Let me share with you the things I learned which forced me to change.
Thessalonica was a city of pride. Location, history and status all contributed to the feeling of self-gratification among the citizens. But some of it was false pride. It was empty and vacuous.
The hot springs gushing from the earth in numerous places gave the city its original name of Therma. The rivulets from these, emptying into the sea, came in contact with the colder water and created a cloud of vapor through which sailing ships appeared as argosies of the skies. It was for this reason the body of water was designated "the Thermaic Gulf." The harbor bustled with the activity created by vessels of lading from many ports.
It was Cassander who changed the name of the city. The son of Antipater he married the daughter of Philip of Macedon. The latter had won a great victory on the very day that a runner brought him news of the birth of a baby girl. He returned word that she was to be called Thessalonica. After she married Cassander, he was assigned the task of slum clearance and modernization in the city which had not carted away the rubble of preceding wars. Not only did he alter the city, but changed its name to that of his wife. In honor of her he issued new coinage on which the form of "Victory" was imprinted. It was no dishonor for a city to bear the name of the sister of Alexander the Great.
In our own United States of America, Highway 66 (now Interstate 44) was long recognized as the chief arterial thoroughfare from coast to coast. Chambers of Commerce advertised their cities along this route with the slogan, "On the Main Street of America." There is some evidence that publicity groups for various municipalities functioned even in apostolic days. If so, the advertisers in Thessalonica could have adopted the phrase, "On the Main Street of the Empire." The famous Via Egnatia, the main artery through which life flowed from the heart of Rome to the remote extremities of the Asian world, passed directly through the center of Thessalonica. It was the largest and most influential city from Dyrrhachium to the Hellespont. Every pulse beat of the empire was felt as it surged through the political and economic veins of the district.
Most important is the fact that Thessalonica was a "free city." This cherished status was granted to but few places in the Greek world. Sometimes it was bestowed as a political gesture because of an illustrious past, as in the case of Athens. Again it was given as a reward for assistance to the armed forces of the empire in a period of crucial struggle, as in the case of Tarsus. This was true also of Thessalonica. After the assassination of Julius Caesar by the republican conspirators, a civil war began which culminated on the plains of the River Strymon, between Philippi and Thessalonica. These plains have been called "The Deathbed of the Roman Republic." Here the imperial forces led by Augustus and Mark Antony completely overwhelmed the army led by Brutus and Cassius.
As a result, Philippi was made a military colony (colonia) and Thessalonica a free city (urbs libera). There were four distinct privileges accorded a free city. (1) The citizens were self-governing and not subject to a district administrator appointed by Rome. They could determine their own form of government and were wholly responsible for its application. The local magistrates held the power of life and death over the citizenry, but were responsible for any outbreaks of violence. (2) No armed Roman guard was stationed in a free city and the citizens were not subjected to the sight of an occupational force. (3) No Roman insignia, either political or militaristic, could be displayed. This avoided the frequent revolts which occurred elsewhere when the hated symbols violated places held sacred by the populace. (4) In most cases freedom from taxation (libertas cum immunitate) was granted, and direct descendants of original families, as well as retired soldiers, were supported by the dole if they registered and requested it.
If time and space permitted it would be a genuine privilege to show our readers how this background is woven into the very language in Acts describing Paul's encounter in the city, and how it also provides an understanding of many of the very phrases appearing in his two epistles to the Thessalonians. However, we must forego the pleasure to be derived from such a course in the interest of a more limited pursuit. We shall begin by investigating the general effect upon the inhabitants of a city of the declaration of urbs libera.
Obviously the decree would eliminate a great deal of personal responsibility and provide much time for leisure. In a cultural environment like the one at Athens this afforded the average citizen opportunity for listening to the various philosophers, most of whom conducted their dialogues in the Forum, or marketplace. At Thessalonica, devoid as it was of such scholastic opportunities, the tendency was for many of the men to degenerate into lazy and irresponsible louts and loungers, ready for any excitement which might be aroused to offset the monotony. This type of character is depicted in the references we have seen to the Thessalonians in the literature of the times, and the rabble might well be described in the words of Epimenides concerning the Cretans--"liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons" (Cp. Titus 1:12). This will explain what happened in Thessalonica as described by Luke.
But the Jews, in a fury of jealousy, got hold of some of the unprincipled loungers in the marketplace, gathered a crowd together, and set the city in an uproar. Then they attacked Jason's house in an attempt to bring Paul and Silas out before the people. When they could not find them they hustled Jason and some of the brothers before the civil authorities, shouting, "These are the men who have turned the world upside down and have now come here, and Jason has taken them into his house. What is more, all these men act against the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another king called Jesus!" By these words the Jews succeeded in alarming both the people and the authorities, and they only released Jason and others after binding them over to keep the peace.
A congregation of saints exists within an environment and cannot be wholly disaffected by it. Those who compose it are also victims of their own past conditioning. This will serve to explain why Paul laid such emphasis upon the necessity of securing honest employment, holding it, and earning one's own livelihood. He did this in three ways.
1. By personal command while with the brethren. In his first epistle he directs them to "look after your own business, and to work with your hands, as we commanded you" (4:11). In his second epistle, he says, "For even during our stay with you we laid down the rule: the man who will not work shall not eat" (3:10).
2. By personal example in their midst. "Remember, brothers, how we toiled and drudged. We worked for a living night and day, rather than be a burden to anyone, while we proclaimed before you the good news of God" (2 Thess. 1:9). "You know yourselves how you ought to copy our example. We were no idlers among you; we did not accept board and lodging from anyone without paying for it; we toiled and drudged, we worked for a living night and day, rather than be a burden to any of you--not because we have not the right to maintenance, but to set an example for you to imitate" (2 Thess. 2:7-9).
3. By special admonition in both epistles. "Let it be your ambition to keep calm and look after your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we ordered you, so that you may command the respect of those outside your own number, and at the same time may never be in want" (1 Thess. 4:11,12).
These letters grew out of life situations. They were written to cover actual conditions. The favors for which they express thanks were real. The behavior which was commanded was genuine. The rebukes administered were not for imaginary wrongs. The corrections prescribed were not for fictitious ills. We can visualize the state of the brethren from that which was written to and about them. This fact lays a foundation of a scripture which has been wrested and contorted--2 Thessalonians 3:6.
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which ye received of us.
On the basis of this passage honest dissenters have been hounded out of every faction and sect. Every disagreement with "the powers that be" and with those "who appear to be somewhat" has been labeled a disorderly walk and action has been taken to "withdraw fellowship." In my own days of factional adherence and bigotry, I misused the passage as justification for refusal to recognize many of my brethren in the Lord Jesus. I was wrong! I am ashamed of the spirit of intolerance which I sought to excuse by this verse. I am also ashamed of the ignorance which prompted that spirit. I am convinced from unbiased research that what is commonly called "withdrawal of fellowship" is not countenanced in the verse and corporate action resulting in excommunication of a brother is not even a consideration in it.
The problem of interpretation centers around the meaning of "walking disorderly." The word for disorderly is ataktos. It occurs in the form of an adverb twice (2 Thess. 3:6,11). It occurs in the verb form ataktein once (verse 7). When applied to the military it means "to break rank, to get out of step." When applied to another orderly arrangement such as a school or business, it means "to play truant." It has to do with a slack and irresponsible attitude. Dr. Barclay mentions its use in the papyri, "in an apprentice's contract in which the father agrees that his son must make good any days on which he absents himself from duty or plays truant."
The context clearly shows that Paul used it to designate the idleness into which the brethren had drifted, or lapsed. Having reached the mistaken view that the return of Christ was imminent, they saw no further need for working. They gave up their jobs and decided to live off the other brethren, even prying into their personal affairs and becoming busybodies in other men's matters. Paul defines "disorderly" by showing both what it is and what it is not. In verse 11 he shows that it consists of "working not at all." In verses 7, 8, he demonstrates that he did not behave disorderly because he did not eat any man's food without paying for it, but supported himself by secular labor engaged in by day and by night.
To walk disorderly, in this context, is to live in idleness and sponge off of the other brethren. To read anything else into it is to ignore the setting entirely and twist the scriptures capriciously and arbitrarily to fit a preconceived idea or notion. But what should be done to a person who simply will not get or keep a job and earn his own bread? The teaching is plain.
1. The brethren are commanded in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to "Withdraw yourselves from every brother who walketh disorderly," that is, who falls into idle habits. The Revised Standard Version renders it, "Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness." Today's English Version says, "Keep away from all brothers who are living a lazy life." The Authentic Version reads, "Shun every brother who behaves as a shirker." Barclay translates, "Keep yourselves from every brother who behaves like a truant." The New English Bible has it, "Hold aloof from every Christian brother who falls into idle habits."
There is not the slightest intimation of congregational or corporate action. It has no relationship to public or formal discipline. It is individual. No action is taken on the idle person. Nothing is done to him. He is simply left where he is while the brethren step back from him. To "withdraw yourselves" means to step back, to retreat, or to retire from the scene. Observe that the one from whom the brethren are to step back or hold themselves aloof is a brother, although a lazy one who is living in idleness. Paul twice refers to the lazy individual as a brother.
"Withdraw" is from stello which means "to gather up." It was used for gathering up and binding one's loose outer garment to keep it from coming in contact with that which would soil or contaminate it. It was used for furling the sails of a ship to keep them from striking together and suffering damage. It is the term which would apply when a mother called her children into the house to protect them from threatened danger. It is easy to see how it came to mean, "to avoid, to hold aloof."
The brethren in Thessalonica were simply commanded to refrain from extending hospitality to loafers and slackers. They were not to feed them for the command was that "if any would not work neither should he eat" (verse 10). If one of these dawdling drones appeared at the front door just before mealtime he was to be offered a job instead of food. If he refused the former he was to be refused the latter. One who shunned honest toll was to be gently shunted from the table. It was just that simple.
2. The idle busybodies were commanded and exhorted to get a job. "That with quietness they work and eat their own bread." The term "busybody" is especially interesting since it is a play upon words. In the original it incorporates the word for "work." In verse 11 Paul uses the verb ergazomai, to work, and follows it with periergazomai, busy-bodies. Those who neglected their own work, which should have been central in their own lives were flitting and buzzing around telling others how to conduct their business. The prefix peri means "around" as in periscope or periphery. W. E. Vine says a free rendering of the passage would be, "Some who are not busied in their own business, but are overbusied in that of others."
"Quietness" is from hesuchia. It implies that tranquillity which arises from within and causes no disturbance of others. The Greeks had a different word for that serenity which proceeds from without but it would not have been as appropriate here. The idle brother was to secure a job and earn his own keep, without creating problems and complications for others in the congregation.
3. "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed" (verse 14). "Note" is from semeioo, of which W. E. Vine says, "In the Middle Voice, to note for oneself and is so used in 2 Thess. 3:14, in an injunction to take cautionary note of one who refuses obedience to the Apostolic word by the Epistle." In the commentary in which Vine teams up with C. F. Hogg, there occurs this interesting observation, "continuous tense, suggesting that no hasty conclusion was to be drawn from an act, but that the course and general conduct was to be observed."
The phrase "have no company with him" is intended to forbid the extending of hospitality. It would preclude invitations to social gatherings to which the idle might flock and at which they would eat at the expense of others. The word ashamed is from entrepo, and refers to a "wholesome shame which involves a change of attitude and conduct."
4. Although the offender is to be noted and hospitality refused while he persists in idleness, the record says, "Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." Refusal to furnish food for such a person does not mean he is to be treated as a heathen. He is simply a lazy and indolent brother, who must be shunned to save him from his course. When a man cannot be reached through appeal to his heart he may have to be reached through appeal to his stomach. So long as his head is empty and his stomach is full little can be done.
It is almost impossible to imagine how the tangled maze of disciplinary action--boycott, excommunication, accusation, and congregational exclusivism--has grown out of this passage. We can only conclude that when men seek for justification for their sectarian attitudes they will find it. "Withdraw yourselves" provided the handy passage to satisfy their partisan needs because it contained the word "withdraw' and they swooped down and appropriated it as a new weapon in the arsenal of factionalism.
It would be humorous, were it not so serious, that the passage has been used to exclude people for almost every thought that has been expressed, but has never been used to deal with the problem which the apostle had in mind. I have never known of anyone being hailed before the congregation on the charge of laziness. Perhaps it is recognized that, in some places, if idle habits were made a test of fellowship, there might not be enough persons remaining to even have meetings. Again, it has to be remembered that it may be that in most places the membership is too lazy to bring an accusation of laziness.
I suspect the King James Version is partially responsible for our condition and if some of the other versions had been used the brethren might have been saved the embarrassment of confessing their mistaken application. I suggest that those who are really concerned read the third chapter of the Second Thessalonian letter in The New English New Testament.