The Idle in 2 Thess 3.6–12: An Eschatological or a Social Problem?

Abstract

Much of the scholarly attention given the Thessalonian epistles has been devoted to various debates. These polemics have included the epistles' authenticity, with some arguing that 1 Thess 2. 13–16 and Thessalonians are post-Pauline, often by appealing to letter structure. Lack of agreement exists as well with the interpretation of Paul's eschatology–the letters' main concern - and difference of opinion also characterizes the function of Paul's apology in 1 Thess 2. 1–12 and his paraenesis, particularly in 1 Thess 4. 1–12. While scholars have actively pursued the pros and cons of these issues, most have been rather passive when it comes to discussing ‘the idle’ (l Thess 4. 11–12; 5. 14; 2 Thess 3. 6–13) – the second most significant theme in the epistles. They usually continue the traditional eschatological explanation for the origin of the problem. This study will survey the history of this interpretation, investigate 2 Thess 3. 6–13 and recommend that a social explanation best satisfies the evidence. This study also seeks to demonstrate the fallacy of explaining historical phenomena from just theological structures and the importance of the interaction between the world of ideas and social structures for interpretation – the importance of which has been shown by redaction criticism's concern for the Sitz im Leben and by recent social descriptions of early Christianity.

The ‘Undeserving Poor’ in the Early Church

“…It seems likely that the ataktoi presumed they could be dependent on a patron in return for concerning themselves with the patron's aff airs. Th e ataktoi may have been looking for patrons within the Christian community 52 to avoid compromising their faith by being required to fulfi ll the expectations of a non-Christian patron. 53 Th ey may have found it more diffi cult to fi nd or continue with their work once they became Christians because of how they were perceived and, therefore, looked for support.…”

Paul’s Letter to Free(d) Casual Workers: Profiling the Thessalonians in Light of the Roman Economy

“…In particular, Hock insists that ‘the precept on work was part of Paul’s missionary instructions … [and] is to be understood as simply a reminder’ (1980: 43). On the contrary, others have associated it with historical events, such as eschatological laziness (Rigaux 1956: 519-21; Best 1972: 175; Bruce 1982: 91; Jewett 1986: 172-75) and enthusiasm (Marxsen 1979: 25-26, 62; Barclay 1993: 522-25; de Vos 1999: 160-70; Furnish 2007: 98), Gnosticism (Schmithals 1972: 158-60) or the abuse of the generosity of wealthy members (Wanamaker 1990: 162-64; Russell 1988: 105-109; Winter 1994: 41-60).…”