Sermon Tone Analysis

Wenstrom Bible Ministries

Pastor-Teacher Bill Wenstrom

Thursday December 2, 2021

www.wenstrom.org

Second Thessalonians: 2 Thessalonians 3:10-The Second Reason Why the Thessalonians Must Discipline Those Among Them Living an Undisciplined Life

Lesson # 66

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now, we command each and every one of you brothers and sisters by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to disassociate yourselves from any brother or sister who is living an undisciplined lifestyle.

Consequently, they are not living according to the traditions, which they received from each one of us.

7 For you yourselves are well aware of the manner in which each and every one of you for your own benefit are under obligation to make it your habit of imitating each one of us.

For each one of us absolutely never conducted ourselves in an undisciplined manner among each one of you.

8 Absolutely never did anyone of us eat bread from anyone without paying.

In fact, on the contrary, because each one of us worked to support ourselves night and day by means of difficult, yes exhausting hard work in order to not impose a financial burden on anyone of you.

9 By no means because each one of us absolutely does not possess authority.

In fact, on the contrary, in order that each one of us would give ourselves as an example for the benefit of each and every one of you.

The purpose of which is that each and every one of you would for your own benefit make it your habit of imitating each one of us. 10 For in fact, when each one of us was living among all of you, each of us was issuing this command to each and every one of you: “If and let us assume that it is true for the sake of argument that anyone is at this particular time absolutely refusing to make it their habit of working to support themselves and we agree that there are some who do, then this person must not eat.”

(Lecturer’s translation)

2 Thessalonians 3:10 is an emphatic causal clause which is composed of a temporal clause as well as a hoti direct object direct discourse (“recitative”) clause, which is composed of a first class conditional statement.

The temporal clause asserts that when Paul, Silvanus and Timothy were living among the members of the Thessalonian Christian community, each of them were issuing a prohibition to each member of this community.

This prohibition appears in the hoti direct object direct discourse clause, which follows this temporal clause and the former contains a first class condition, which indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of argument.

This first class conditional statement also contains a disjunctive clause, which presents alternative possibilities to the idea to which it is connected, which is the command recorded here in 2 Thessalonians 3:10.

The alternatives are someone in the Thessalonian Christian community absolutely refusing to make it their habit of working to support themselves financially and such a person not eating or in other words, not being fed by this community.

The protasis of this first class conditional statement asserts that “if and let assume that it is true for the sake argument that anyone is at this particular time absolutely refusing to make it their habit of working to support themselves.”

The apodosis is “then this person must not eat.”

This is a response first class condition indicating that the Thessalonian Christian community and Paul, Silvanus and Timothy knew without a doubt that there were some in this community who disobeyed their prohibition that if anyone of them refused to work, then they must not eat.

This is indicated by the fact that Paul affirms in 2 Thessalonians 3:11 that some in the Thessalonian Christian community were living an undisciplined life by refusing to work for a living.

The relationship between the protasis and the apodosis is “cause-effect.”

The cause appears in the protasis, which we noted asserts that if anyone is at this particular time absolutely refusing to make it their habit of working to support themselves while the effect appears in the apodosis, which asserts that they must not eat.

Therefore, the apodosis of this first class condition contains a prohibition, which is inferred from the protasis of this first class condition.

In 1 Thessalonians 4:11 and 5:14, Paul alludes to this issue of people not working for a living to support themselves.

There was no one in the Thessalonian Christian community who was guilty of living an undisciplined by not working to support themselves financially when First Thessalonians was written.

This is indicated by the contents of 1 Thessalonians 4:9-11 which affirms that each member of the Thessalonian Christian community was practicing the command to love one another.

Secondly, this passage associates the practice of divine-love with working to support oneself, living a quiet life, attending to one’s own business.

Now, one must keep in mind that when Paul reminds the Thessalonian Christian community of the prohibition here in 2 Thessalonians 3:10, which he, Silvanus and Timothy regularly communicated to them while living in their midst, it only applies to those who are able to work but refuse to do so.

It does not apply to those who were suffering from some mental or physical handicap, which prevented them from working.

The Thessalonians were to perform acts of divine good on behalf of such individuals inside and outside their community.

Now, in 2 Thessalonians 3:10, the present imperative form of the verb esthiō is employed with the negative disjunctive particle mēde (μηδέ) in order to form a prohibition, which has the force of a general precept which makes no comment about whether or not an action is going on.

This is not a prohibition which speaks of the cessation of some act that is already in progress.

This interpretation is indicated by the fact that here in 2 Thessalonians 3:10, Paul is reminding the Thessalonians of a prohibition, which he, Silvanus and Timothy were communicating to them while they were living among them prior to their departure from Thessalonica due to persecution.

Further supporting this interpretation is the fact that Paul affirms in 1 Thessalonians 4:11 and 5:14 that no one in the Thessalonian Christian community was guilty of disobeying this prohibition here in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 prior to Second Thessalonians being written.

As we noted, Paul’s statements in 1 Thessalonians 4:9-11 clearly affirms that the members of the Thessalonian Christian community were not guilty of living an undisciplined life.

This is indicated by the fact that this passage affirms that each member of the Thessalonian Christian community was practicing the command to love one another.

Secondly, this passage associates working for a living with the practice of this command.

However, after writing First Thessalonians, Paul and Silvanus sent Timothy back to the Thessalonica and after this trip, he brought back a report from Thessalonica that some were not working, which was one of the reasons which prompted Paul to pen Second Thessalonians.

The emphatic causal clause here in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 presents the reason for the command in 2 Thessalonians 3:6, which required that each member of the Thessalonian Christian community to disassociate themselves from any brother or sister who was living an undisciplined lifestyle.

This interpretation is indicated by the fact that the verb parangellō (παραγγέλλω) appears in both 2 Thessalonians 3:6 and 3:10, thus, this verb links these two verses together.

Therefore, the Thessalonians must discipline those among them who were living an undisciplined life “because” when Paul, Silvanus and Timothy were living with them, they gave them the prohibition that if anyone among them was absolutely refusing to make it their habit of not working to support themselves financially, then that person must not be allowed to eat.

Furthermore, the command, which the apostle Paul issues each member of the Thessalonian Christian community in 2 Thessalonians 3:6, which required that each of them disassociate themselves from any member of their community who is living an undisciplined lifestyle, is based upon two arguments.

The first is communicated in 2 Thessalonians 3:7-9, which reveals that Paul issued this command in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 based upon his, Silvanus and Timothy’s example.

The second is communicated in 2 Thessalonians 3:10, which reveals that the command in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 is also based upon the prohibition Paul, Silvanus and Timothy issued each member of the Thessalonian Christian community.

This interpretation is indicated by the fact that the conjunction kai which begins 2 Thessalonians 3:10 is not only coordinating the prohibition here in this verse with the causative function of the conjunction gar in 2 Thessalonians 3:7 but is also emphasizing that the prohibition in the former is an addition to the explanation in 2 Thessalonians 3:7-9 of the command in 2 Thessalonians 3:6.

Therefore, this indicates that 2 Thessalonians 3:7-9 presents Paul, Silvanus and Timothy’s example as the first reason as to why the Thessalonians must obey the command in 2 Thessalonians 3:6.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 presents the prohibition each of these three men issued the Thessalonian Christian community on a regular basis while living with them as the second reason why they should obey the command in 2 Thessalonians 3:6.