What is involved in withdrawing from a brother who walks disorderly? Is it the "putting away" of 1 Corinthians 5, and what constitutes walking disorderly (2 Thess 3.6)?
The disorderly of 2 Thessalonians 3.6 are not referred to as wicked, for they are still referred to as "brother" (see also v.15). Paul does not have to deal with wickedness in the Thessalonica assembly as he had with Corinth. The putting away and the withdrawing are certainly not two ways of describing the same action, nor is the wicked person in the context of 1 Corinthians 5 the same as the disorderly person in 2 Thessalonians. Paul is dealing with immorality in Corinthians whereas the sin in 2 Thessalonians 3 was not serious moral sin. The different treatment in each case shows the degrees of discipline to be adopted. Paul in his first letter directs that the disorderly were to be warned (1 Thess 5.14). The fact that we have a fairly lengthy paragraph given to this sin, vv.6-15, indicates that the sin had grown worse since the writing of the first epistle. A disorderly person is one out of rank (it is a military term) with their brethren in not walking according to the teaching of Scripture. In the context it is seen as insubordination, which shows itself in idleness, in being meddlesome, interfering with the work of others, and wanting to be supported by the church (vv.11 & 12).
Withdrawing. Since the disorderly person or persons had not responded to the warning in the first epistle, a more serious action had to be taken with a view to making the offender ashamed. The withdrawing does not imply complete ostracism, for v.15 states that such a one should be acknowledged as a brother, but it does mean that the rest of the assembly should not get mixed up with him, or associate with him on intimate terms and follow his example. Of course there are other ways of walking disorderly than those alluded to in 2 Thessalonians 3, for if the good traditions (v.6) laid down in Scripture are wilfully disregarded by believers in an assembly, then such sadly would be out of step with their brethren. A searching question to all in assembly fellowship would be: Are we keeping rank with our brethren?
John J Stubbs
Can you explain "thy desire shall be to thy husband" (Gen 3.16)? In what way does this differ from the situation before the Fall when the woman was "an help meet" for the man?
All that we are told concerning Adam and his anticipated relationship to the woman prior to her formation is, "I will make an help meet for him (lit. a helper, like man)" (Gen 2.18); evidently she was to be his complement.
As to the Fall, Paul would teach: "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being (thoroughly) deceived was in the transgression" (1 Tim 2.14). Paul also tells us that "the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty" (2 Cor 11.3); she acted independently of her husband in her fateful decision to taste of the forbidden fruit. However, Adam’s sin, "and he did eat" (Gen 3.6), was deliberate and inexcusable. He was the federal head of the human race and it was therefore "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin" (Rom 5.12).
In Genesis 3.14-19 we learn of certain consequences of the Fall.
To the woman the Lord God said,
The language here is very similar to that found in Genesis 4.7, where the Lord says to Cain, "And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him". At the beginning of this verse, we read, "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?". The marginal rendering of the latter phrase is, "shalt thou not have the excellency?"; i.e. shalt thou not retain the right of the firstborn son over Abel? Thus if Cain were to present the appropriate offering, "unto thee shall be his desire" – Abel would still be subject to him, "and thou shalt rule over him".
So the woman, who had acted independently of her husband when tempted by the serpent, must henceforth exercise her desire only to her husband, and in a reciprocal way he would bear rule over her. The woman would not rule over her husband.
David E West
