I need to preface this post by saying that I've read enough about linguistics and discourse analysis to be dangerous. This is just about something I noticed, I'm not making an assertion about how the text should be read. Working through things by writing is one of the primary methods I use to think about an issue and to assimilate data regarding an issue or question. So that's what this post is doing. I suppose this is why I find blogging so helpful, because it means I can get feedback on these preliminary sorts of thoughts as well. Also note that I haven't checked commentaries; I like to work through something and then check the commentaries because then I feel I can really interact with them — as opposed to letting them, intentionally or not, direct my study.

Before we start, here's the text in the ESV:

¹² We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, ¹³ and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. ¹⁴ And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all. ¹⁵ See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone. ¹⁶ Rejoice always, ¹⁷ pray without ceasing, ¹⁸ give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. ¹⁹ Do not quench the Spirit. ²⁰ Do not despise prophecies, ²¹ but test everything; hold fast what is good. ²² Abstain from every form of evil. (1Th 5.12-22)

I'm sure that many folks have noticed the string of imperatives in 1Th 5.14-22. At present (and this will likely change) I see a few sections in 1Th 5.12-22. They can be laid out thusly:

1. vv. 12-13a*
2. vv. 14-22
   • vv. 14-15a
   • vv. 15b-18
   • vv. 19-22

I think there is cohesion between the first two parts because the main verbs of each part (Ἐρωτῶμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί and Παρακαλοῦμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί) were used together earlier in 1Th 4.1 (Λοιπὸν οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ἐρωτῶμεν ὑμᾶς καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ).**

It's what happens in verse 15 where I noticed something that I hadn't noticed before. After realizing there was a plethora of imperatives in the passage, I was slowly working through the syntax of the passage using the OpenText.org clause annotation (inside of Logos Bible Software 3, of course) and I noticed the position of the imperatives. In vv. 14-15a, the imperatives are at the front of the clause, which (depending on what you think about constituent order in Hellenistic Greek) is standard order with the verb first. In v. 15, though, the verse is split by the conjunction ἀλλὰ, providing contrast from the first part of v. 15 to the second part of v. 15, and this is how it is translated: "Ensure that nobody repays anybody evil for evil, but always pursue the good for one another and for everybody" (my own translation). In the Greek, "ensure" is at the front of its clause. But the second clause (joined to the first by the conjunction ἀλλὰ) has its imperative "pursue" at a later position in the clause, then further modified by two prepositional phrases.

After this, through v. 22, each clause has its imperative at the end of the clause. This visualisation I copied from the OpenText.org GNT in Logos Bible Software 3 shows it a little better. Note the highlighting of the imperatives (done using Logos' "Visual Filters" feature). 'P' is for Predicator, 'C' is for Complement, 'S' is for Subject, and 'A' is for Adjunct. The lines are broken into clauses and secondary clauses.

So I began thinking: Does the conjunction ἀλλὰ in v. 15 serve to connect the clauses in v. 15 but also serve a larger function in the discourse? Why, after that point, are adverbs, prepositional phrases, and objects fronted in their clauses with their predicators (here imperative verbs) following.

Admittedly, there are a few options. Here are the ones I thought of.

Option 1: Coincidence. That is, nothing intentional is going on here, this could just be the way the text was written and transmitted. Or the shift in constituent order in v. 15 could be incidental. Or the shift in v. 15 could be intentional, but the following constituent order difference could be coincidental.

Option 2: Focus. In vv. 14-15a, the focus is on the action itself. In vv. 15b-18 the focus is on how the action is carried out, in vv. 19-22 the focus is on to whom the action is done.

Option 3: Recipients of Action. In vv. 14-15a, the action involves things that those in the fellowship are to do to others. In vv. 15b-22, the action involves things that those in the fellowship do in relation not to people, but to ideas or practices.

I'm interested to know what others think regarding the idea that  ἀλλὰ in v. 15 may function both to join the clauses in the verse and perhaps may function at a larger level, joining two paragraphs/pericopes/whatever together. Feel free to comment, send email, whatever. Note I still need to read Denniston's Greek Particles to see if he lists this sort of function as possible for ἀλλὰ.

Whatever the split between vv. 14-15a and 15b-22, the further division of 15b-22 mentioned above is for reasons of subject matter, not strictly due to structure of section.

vv. 15b-18 involve things in relation to worship and obedience to God. The question, of course, is determining the 'this' of "for this is the will of God". What does that include? I don't have that answer at present (whether it is immediate content and therefore vv. 15b-18 or if it goes all the way back to v. 14) so we won't go there.

vv. 19-22 involve negatives, but I think it also proceeds from verse 18. Paul just laid down what the will of God is, vv. 19-22 (still using imperatives, here with fronted objects instead of fronted adjuncts) instruct the Thessalonians how to live now that they have a guide to the will of God: Don't squelch whatever comes, but test it to see if it is the will of God. Embrace it if it is of the will of God, squelch it if it isn't.

* More on 1Th 5.12 on the Logos Bible Software blog ...

** Note that 1Th 4.3 (Τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ) compares favorably with 1Th 5.18 (τοῦτο γὰρ θέλημα θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ εἰς ὑμᾶς). Thus we have good evidence of cohesion between that portion of chapter 4 and this part of chapter 5.

It was two weeks ago today (er, Monday ... yeah, I'm postin' late) that my sweetie and I put the wedding invitations in the mail. And tomorrow (that's Tuesday) we'll be going to the county auditor's office to pick up the marriage license! Did you know that the state of Washington has a three day waiting period for marriages? And that the license is only good for 60 days? And that they're more expensive than drivers licenses, even though they're only good for a 60 day window?

In recognition of all of this I figured I'd post some pics of the mailing of the wedding invitations. Enjoy!

That's the happy couple, with scads of invites!

We mailed the invitations in Lynden, WA ... so this
Dutch boy had to get a picture under the sign with
the wooden shoe and tulips!

Kudos and thanks to my future father-in-law Ted for taking the pics and for passing along the files!

Watch out, I'm in "corporate schill" mode again.

Just noticed that Logos Bible Software (my employer) has announced an "Introduction to Biblical Greek Collection" on its pre-pub program. This includes two books:

• Swetnam's Introduction to the Study of New Testament Greek
• Zerwick's Biblical Greek, Illustrated by Examples

How cool is that?!

Update (2006-06-21): Logos added another pre-pub: Moulton-Howard-Turner's four volumes on Greek Grammar, including another volume from Turner on Grammatical Insights.

[This is part of a running series on the Didache. See the introductory post for more information — RWB]

Phrasing/Translation

Οὐκ ἀρεῖς τὴν χεῖρα σου ἀπὸ τοῦ υἱοῦ σου ἢ ἀπὸ τῆς θυγατρός
Do not lift your hand against your son or against your daughter
   ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ νεότητος διδάξεις τὸν φόβον τοῦ θεοῦ.
   but from their youth teach them the fear of God.

οὐκ ἐπιτάξεις δούλῳ σου ἢ παιδίσκῃ,
Do not command your male or female slaves
   τοῖς ἐπὶ τὸν αὐτὸν θεὸν ἐλπίζουσιν,
   who are hoping in the same God,
   ἐν πικρίᾳ σου,
   in your bitterness,
   μήποτε οὐ μὴ φοβηθήσονται τὸν ἐπ’ ἀμφοτέροις θεόν·
   lest they cease to fear the God who is over you both.
   οὐ γὰρ ἔρχεται κατὰ πρόσωπον καλέσαι,
   For he does not call according to circumstance,
      ἀλλ’ ἐφ’ οὓς τὸ πνεῦμα ἡτοίμασεν.
      but [calls] those whom the Spirit has prepared.

ὑμεῖς δὲ οἱ δοῦλοι ὑποταγήσεσθε τοῖς κυρίοις ὑμῶν ὡς τύπῳ θεοῦ
And you who are slaves be subject to your masters as to a copy of God
   ἐν αἰσχύνῃ καὶ φόβῳ.
   in reverence and fear.

Μισήσεις πᾶσαν ὑπόκρισιν καὶ πᾶν ὃ μὴ ἀρεστὸν τῷ κυρίῳ.
Hate all hypocrisy and all that is not pleasing to the Lord.

οὐ μὴ ἐγκαταλίπῃς ἐντολὰς κυρίου,
Do not forsake commandments of the Lord,
   φυλάξεις δὲ ἃ παρέλαβες,
   but guard that which you have received,
      μήτε προστιθεὶς
      neither adding
      μήτε ἀφαιρῶν.
      nor taking away.

ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐξομολογήσῃ τὰ παραπτώματά σου,
Confess your wrongdoings in the church,
   καὶ οὐ προσελεύσῃ ἐπὶ προσευχήν σου ἐν συνειδήσει πονηρᾷ·
   and do not enter into your prayer with an evil conscience.

αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ὁδὸς τῆς ζωῆς.
This is the way of life.

Notes

There are several groups within this overall section. The first has to do with interaction with others, it is broken into two groups. The first group is children. Christian parents are not to instill fear of themselves into children, they are to instill fear of God into children. A child might obey if punishment from a parent is feared. But this is not proper for the baptismal candidate. Instead, his children must fear God because in fearing God children will honor parents and glorify God.

A similar plea is made to the second group, slaves. Christians who have slaves that are believers must treat those slaves as brothers and sisters. For God is the one who places people into their respective situations. There is nothing prohibiting slaves from becoming believers, so if they are confessing brothers and sisters they must be recognized as such. This, however, is not a free pass for slaves. Slaves, likewise, have been placed in their circumstance by God so they should honor their masters and therefore honor God.

After the instruction on slaves and children comes a statement that helps in transitioning to a new section: "Hate all hypocrisy and all that is not pleasing to the Lord". This is transitionary because it applies to the previous section — parents who instill fear of parents into children, masters who mistreat slaves, and slaves who disonor masters, if they claim to be Christian, are hypocrites. Their actions do not align with their confession. Similarly, points that follow outline proper action and the baptismal candidate should not depart from them.

The following section, then, builds off of this with two primary points:

• keep the commandments
• confess transgressions

But these really boil down to the same thing: Obey, and confess when you don't obey. The emphasis is obedience. The hypocrite is the one who professes to obey but doesn't, and then doesn't confess his disobedience as wrong and seek forgiveness.

Each of these primary points is augmented a bit. Only the commandments received are to be adhered to; the baptismal candidate should be wary of the one who comes bringing new commandments to obey. Likewise, the commandments that are given are not to be subtracted from. If a teacher comes along professing that commandments do not apply, the baptismal candidate should be wary.

Regarding confession, it is interesting that wrongdoings (or transgressions) are to be confessed in the church. There is, it appears, some accountability and public confession going on. The baptismal candidate is to take responsibility for his wrongdoings and confess of them. He is also to not "enter into his prayer with an evil conscience". This is interesting as well. Is this directly related to his confession? Does this mean that as he confesses, he is not to do so with haste and disgust or even hatred at those keeping him accountable? Perhaps.

The whole section (from Did 1.2 through Did 4.13) ends with an inclusio, repeating the same text that started the section: "This is the way of life". This bounds the whole section, so we know that the Didachist's life-giving teaching ends here.

The next section will begin the flip side: the way of death.  

After reading Hill's stuff (see post below) I'm convinced, once again, that I need to do some serious reading of Irenaeus.

The problem is that I have no idea what a good modern edition of Irenaeus would be. I'd like something that doesn't sound like the KJV. If it has the Greek and notes that is bonus. Something like a Loeb edition with a modern translation would be perfect, but I'd also go for a cheap (but good) modern English translation and a recommendation as to which Greek edition to pursue (assuming the organizing schemes between the two editions are compatible).

Any help? Any ideas? Feel free to leave a comment or email me with edition citations.

Thanks!

Update (2006-06-13): I purchased two volumes. One is Irenaeus' Proof of the Apostolic Preaching. The other is Book I of Irenaeus' Against the Heresies. Both are volumes from Paulist Press' Ancient Christian Writers series. Note they only have Book I of Against Heresies, I guess I'll find another edition to cover the balance unless they rush out with the balance of it. If anyone has any leads on decent English editions of others of Irenaeus' works, please feel free to let me know, either via email or through comments on this post (comments are preferred).

About six weeks ago, I blogged about the first part of Charles E. Hill's book From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp, where he argues (somewhat convincingly) that Polycarp is the source of Irenaeus' anonymous presbyter in AH 4.27-32.

I read the second part of the book today. Amy is at a bridal shower, so after I got some chores 'round the house done (mowed the lawn, pressure-washed the driveway and front walk) I figured I could sit down with a book for awhile and get lost. Since I'd been meaning to get back into Hill's book (disclaimer: I took a year of Greek and a class on the Johannines from Dr. Hill when he was at Northwestern College) it seemed the thing to pick up.

As Hill himself mentions, the links between Polycarp and the work known as the Epistle to Diognetus (henceforth ad Diognetum) are largely circumstantial and cannot, with current data, be proven beyond reasonable doubt. That said, Hill makes a strong case. As a result of reading his work, I'm more ready to say that the work likely came from a Smyrnaean milieu, though a specific, direct tie to Polycarp is another matter.

For me, there are just too many jumps to make in order to get there. Each step seems legitimate, but as a group the whole seems rickety. Granted, there are few if any other theories about the authorship of ad Diognetum that do as well as Hill's in covering bases. But the textual jumps are, I think, too strained. They could be used as evidence with other more certain proof, but standing on their own they are inconclusive.

What are they? I'll say first off that Hill has many more parallels (textual, cultural, epigraphic, and geographic) than I'll list here. If you're interested, you need to read the book.

The primary jump -- the initial one Hill makes, anyway -- seems to be from the Martyrdom of Polycarp to chapters 11-12 of ad Diognetum. Hill makes a strong case that Polycarp was known as a "disciple of the apostles", language in common between Martyrdom of Polycarp and ad Diognetum. But from here we have to jump back from the Martyrdom -- an account of Polycarp's death with some reported speech that may or may not be accurate -- to Polycarp himself. And we have to jump over the large lacunae between chapters 10 and 11 of ad Diognetum.

Hill does this well. He makes a strong case for the unity of the ad Diognetum, positing that the lacunae are missing sheets from the same document, not a work of someone else pasted on the end of the ad Diognetum.* Hill also then makes the case that ad Diognetum is protreptic, that is, it is a work that was read by the author in the presence of Diognetus; it wasn't a letter. Hill finds other similarites between reported speech of Polycarp in the Martyrdom of Polycarp.

And again, it all could be, but to me it seems too stretched to stand on its own. Hill's thesis is worthy of consideration, but it, with current knowledge, cannot be proven. Even Hill admits that. In his preface he writes:

At the outset I will state that the two cases [i.e., Polycarp as source of AH 4.27-32 and Polycarp as source of ad Diognetum] rest on quite different sets of evidence; each case is presented and should be evaluated separately. The first will render results which, I will suggest, may be treated as a certainty. The results of the second rest, I believe, high in the realms of probability, though perhaps not quite at the same level as the first.

From my perspective, I can agree with this. That is, I think Polycarp as source of ad Diognetum is within the realms of probability as a result of reading Hill's work; but I do think it is still far from certain.

If you have an interest in the Apostolic Fathers, particularly in Polycarp, the ad Diognetum, or Irenaeus; or if you have an interest in authorship studies or general texutal analysis, I recommend Hill's work with enthusiasm.

Update (2006-06-04): Stephen C. Carlson (Hypotyposeis) asks about where Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians fits into this whole theory. It does fit in, but Hill finds more parallels in the martyrdom because it is more contemporary with ad Diognetam in Hill's view. The martrydom happened in 155 or 156 (likely); Hill places ad Diognetam in the 140s. The epistle, however, is much earlier (30 years earlier, at least, perhaps 40). Hill also sees differences in genre. The epistle is just that, an epistle. The ad Diognetam is apologetic and intended to be given as an address to convince. This is why Hill focuses more on the reported speech sections of the Martyrdom; if they are accurate of Polycarp's style of debate and presentation, then they will likely show more parallels. Hill does have a whole section (pp. 136-140) on the corresponences between Polycarp's epistle and ad Diognetam. One major item of correspondence is discussion of Christ's atoning as substitutionary, which Hill says "is not at all comon elsewhere in the second century": Poly 1.2, Poly 8.1, Poly 9.2 compared to Diog 9.2-5.

* I think the case is strong enough that the adherents of the general consensus that chaps 1-10 and 11-12 are from different documents need to respond to the case presented by Hill.

I just received word that the paper I submitted for presentation at the 2006 national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Washington DC has been accepted. Here's the info:

• Paper: Subjects and Predicates and Complements, Oh My! Searching the New Testament with Sensitivity to Syntax
• Abstract: Logos Bible Software have implemented an edition of the OpenText.org Syntactically Annotated Greek New Testament. One facet of OpenText.org's work isolates clause boundaries. Within each clause, subjects, predicators, complements and adjuncts are identified. This enables searching of the Greek New Testament with sensitivity to clause-level criteria. This advance raises certain questions: How should syntactic annotation be used? What sorts of things can be searched for? This paper examines different sorts of searches that can be pursued from the starting point of a word. Questions like "When is [word] used as a subject?" or "What verbs are used when [word] is a subject?" will be examined and discussed.

If you'll be at ETS in November, make sure to talk to me more about syntax and searching the Greek New Testament. If you're really interested, I have a few articles on the Logos blog with video (here and here) that you can check out in the meantime. In those articles, I walk through some searches using the OpenText.org annotation. Fun stuff!

This sure beats last year -- I only found out my paper was accepted when I read the program book about a month before the meeting!

We recently looked at 1Th 4.1-12 in the home group study I take part in. I wanted to work a little further through the flow of the text, so this seems as good a place as any to do it.

Section 1: 1Th 4.1-2

Λοιπὸν οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ἐρωτῶμεν ὑμᾶς καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν
Finally, then, brothers, we ask you and urge you
   ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ,
   in the Lord Jesus,
   ἵνα καθὼς παρελάβετε
   that just as you have received
      παρ’ ἡμῶν τὸ πῶς δεῖ ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀρέσκειν θεῷ,
      from us how you should necessarily walk and please God,
         καθὼς καὶ περιπατεῖτε,
         just as you are walking,
         ἵνα περισσεύητε μᾶλλον.
         that your progress may continue even more.

οἴδατε γὰρ τίνας παραγγελίας ἐδώκαμεν ὑμῖν
For you know this message we have given to you
   διὰ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ.
   through the Lord Jesus.

In chapter 3, Paul (and Silas, and Timothy; though primarily Paul) had written concerning their relationship with the Thessalonians. How fellowship with them was missed, and how Paul was apprehensive about their condition and faith. After being reassured by Timothy's report, Paul digs in and switches to didactic mode. This is the preface. Note how Paul's request -- that the Thessalonians continue to progress and apply what they have been taught -- is bounded on both sides by reminders that this message is from "the Lord Jesus". It is asked in the Lord Jesus (v. 1) and given through the Lord Jesus (v. 2). The message is serious: Don't stop. Keep going, and keep walking and progressing, that you may continually please God to a greater degree with your obedience to His will.

The focus on the message and on the source of the message is important. Paul wants them to know that what he has to say is not from him, but from the Lord. It is a serious message, one that requires attention and one that demands obedience.

Section 2: 1Th 4.3-8

Τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ,
For this is the will of God,
   ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν,
   your sanctification,
   ἀπέχεσθαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τῆς πορνείας,
   that you keep yourselves from sexual immorality,
   εἰδέναι ἕκαστον ὑμῶν τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος κτᾶσθαι
   that each of you know (how to) gain control of your own body
      ἐν ἁγιασμῷ καὶ τιμῇ,
      in holiness and honor,
      μὴ ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας
      not in lustful passion
         καθάπερ καὶ τὰ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ εἰδότα τὸν θεόν
         just as the Gentiles who do not know God;
   τὸ μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν καὶ πλεονεκτεῖν
   no one should exceedingly transgress or take advantage
      ἐν τῷ πράγματι τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ,
      of his brother in this matter,
      διότι ἔκδικος κύριος περὶ πάντων τούτων,
      because the Lord is the one who punishes concerning all things,
         καθὼς καὶ προείπαμεν ὑμῖν καὶ διεμαρτυράμεθα.
         just as we warned you and testified against.

οὐ γὰρ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς ὁ θεὸς
For God has not called us
   ἐπὶ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ ἀλλ’ ἐν ἁγιασμῷ.
   for impurity but into holiness.

τοιγαροῦν ὁ ἀθετῶν οὐκ ἄνθρωπον ἀθετεῖ ἀλλὰ τὸν θεὸν
For this very reason, the one who rejects this rejects not man but God,
   τὸν [καὶ] διδόντα τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ τὸ ἅγιον εἰς ὑμᾶς.
   the one who gives his spirit, the holy one, to you.

After underscoring the importance of the message in 1Th 4.1-2, Paul digs right in. The holiness, or sanctification, of the Thessalonians is what God wills. Paul describes that in three parts:

• "that you keep yourselves from sexual immorality"
• "that you know how to keep control of your own body"
• "no one should exceedingly transgress or take advantage of his brother"

Is this all that sanctification consists of? No. But these are three areas that Paul instructs the Thessalonians to address and ensure they are obedient in. It is interesting that the second and third items in the list are expanded upon.

Keeping control of one's own body is to be done in holiness (prepositional phrase with prepositional object of "holiness" or "sanctification", the same word used earlier in v. 3) and honor. This is contrasted with the lack of control that Gentiles (others outside Christian community) show. They follow their "lustful passions" instead of curbing them in obedience. The Thessalonians are to curb their lustful passions, they are to control their bodies with their eyes focused on honor and holiness.

The third item has to do with defrauding or cheating others, taking advantage of others with the idea of benefitting ones self instead of acting in the interest of others. It is the self-focused nature of the action that is the underlying problem. The Thessalonians are to act with the interests of the other in view, particularly if the other is a fellow believer.

The consequences of disobedience are then laid out: The Lord punishes. Paul simply reiterates that this is what the Thessalonians were told by Paul, Silas and Timothy during their stay.

This is all followed up by another reminder of the will of God: sanctification. God calls to holiness, not to impurity or immorality. This bounds the section, it began by stating God's will was sanctification, it ends with a reminder that impurity (reflected in the three areas mentioned) is not what God calls His own to; he calls to holiness. Sanctification.

After this, a reminder that the one who rejects this teaching does not reject man (Paul, Silas and Timothy; the ones bringing the message) but reject God. In so doing, the Holy Spirit is rejected. Note the similarity with Lu 10.16, where Jesus says, "The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me." (ESV). 

Section 3: 1Th 4.9-12

Περὶ δὲ τῆς φιλαδελφίας οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε γράφειν ὑμῖν,
Now concerning brotherly love you have no need [for anyone] to write to you.
   αὐτοὶ γὰρ ὑμεῖς θεοδίδακτοί ἐστε εἰς τὸ ἀγαπᾶν ἀλλήλους,
   for you yourselves have been taught by God in the love of others,
   καὶ γὰρ ποιεῖτε αὐτὸ
   for this is what you do
      εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς
      to all the brothers,
      [τοὺς] ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ.
   the ones in the whole of Macedonia.

Παρακαλοῦμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, περισσεύειν μᾶλλον
But we implore you, brothers, to progress still more
   καὶ φιλοτιμεῖσθαι ἡσυχάζειν
   and have as your ambition quietness,
   καὶ πράσσειν τὰ ἴδια
   and mind your own,
   καὶ ἐργάζεσθαι ταῖς [ἰδίαις] χερσὶν ὑμῶν,
   and work with your own hands,
      καθὼς ὑμῖν παρηγγείλαμεν,
      just as we proclaimed to you,
   ἵνα περιπατῆτε εὐσχημόνως
   so that you may walk properly
      πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω
      among those who are outside
      καὶ μηδενὸς χρείαν ἔχητε.
      and you may have need of nothing.

Paul next transitions straight into the Thessalonians' love of the community. They practice this, and they do it well. But Paul isn't satisfied with this and he encourages them to strive even more in this area. Paul offers three areas of refinement:

• have quietness as their ambition (cf. 1Ti 2.1-2)
• mind their own personal matters
• work with their hands

The Thessalonians aren't to be boorish or overbearing, they are to be serious and respectful. They aren't to be nosey. And they are to be productive. These are all things Paul had told them earlier, he is reiterating them here. The result of this action, says Paul, is twofold:

• Those outside the fellowship will see these things, they will see the proper walk (cf. 1Ti 3.7)
• Need of and reliance on things of the world will decrease

Paul urges them to take the next step, to "up their game" a notch. He says, "You're doing great. But you can do better, so shoot for a higher goal." They are to love others with more than a brotherly love, they are to love with the love of Christ. This love isn't the naive love of embracing tolerance, nor is it the tough love of judgement and rebuke. It is a love that focuses on Christ our Savior, loving him and obeying the will of God as we progress toward sanctification. It is a love that strives for holiness in our relationship with Him, and in our relationship with others, loving Him and loving others with the eternal and not necessarily the temporal in primary view. We can meet temporal needs, and this is good. But we need to primarily attend to the need of salvation in non-believers and the need of sanctification in our lives and the lives of other believers. Adding this eternal focus to the way they love others is how the Thessalonians can do even better, "excel still more" as the NASB translates.

Of course, that's what we need to do too.