I recall discussions with RCC in the past where they would throw up 2Thes 2:15 to justify oral tradition.
And I dont see how oral tradition is justified so much there.
I mean its clear they taught them in word (when they were with them) as they even stated there but the tradition itself was not one in just in word (only) as kept but in that epistle as well.
These being things, not of empty ritual but in real life pratice one of which was the tradition of not leeching off others
If we look here earlier in 2 Thes, chapter 2
Paul says,
2Thes 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and *hold the traditions which ye *have been* taught,
whether ((by))word, ((or))our epistle.
Then by the end of the same epistle Paul says this...
2Thes 3:14 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
In 2The 2-15-3:14 Paul tells them in between what he had said (by word) when he was actually with them prior
And tells them what it was (by word) they had received (already)
*retelling* exactly what they had received of them (in this epistle)
Saying this...
2Thes 3:10 For even when **we were** with you, ((( this ))) we commanded you,
that if any would not work,
neither should he eat.
This was what the walking disorderly
and not after the tradition received of them was about.
As Paul shows it a few verses earlier...
He says this
2Thes 3:6 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 he *received of* us.
They had received it from them already
So, what was that?
To follow their"behavior"
2Thes 3:7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us:
for we behaved not ourselves disorderly (among you )
And...
2Thes 3:8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought;
but wrought with labour and travail night and day,
that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
To "make ourselves examples" (unto them) to follow
And,
2Thes 3:9 Not because we have not power,
but to make ourselves an ensample unto you
to follow us. (in that way)
So again...
2Thes 3:10 For even when we **were with** you ((( this ))) we commanded you,
that if any would not work,
neither should he eat.
So he just told them what was commanded them by word (previously in person) when they were with them
and now he is writing it (in this epistle) because the apostles (now being away) are "hearing" this...
2Thes 3:11 For **we hear** (being no longer with them but away)
that there are some which walk among you disorderly,
(Howso disorderly???
and not after what tradition???)
working not *at all*,
but are busybodies.
(So Paul names it)
Which is exactly this earlier
2Thes 3:6...that which walketh disorderly,
and not after the tradition which he received of us
And continues "to these"
2Thes 3:12 Now *them* that **are such**
we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ,
that with quietness they **work**,
and eat their *own bread*
And now what they had previously commanded them in word (and what they did receive ) when the apostles were with them is now in writing
So Paul ends it saying...
2Thes 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by *this* epistle, note that man
(ie the man who does not do what he just commanded which was *that* which they received of them in writing as well )
and to have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
And adds...
2Thes 3:15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him
So I was always like, how is Paul speaking of any of these rituals (as the RCC uses this verse to justify)? I just never saw it, yet its thrown up that way very often. you see it thrown up by protestants very similarly as well.
I have read this a multitude of times and I could never see what they put into it as Paul seems to be speaking of their own pattern of behavior and how they were not walking orderly in 2Thes 3:7 then speaks of others doing just that "walking disorderly" (not after the manner of the apostles) which is shown in 2Thes 3:11. Paul is speaking of some of them "not working" at all (being busybodies instead).Paul speaks of his own self (and those with him) as being an example to them after this particular tradition (in this thing) which was this..."if any man doth not work he shall not eat" very simply (as Paul said to the contrary he labored and ate no man’s bread for nought). And set and example to follow us. In other words we are not asking you to do anything we ourselves have not set as an example for you. So, in not walking after the tradition (ye have received of them) when they were with them was of living examples (which is after the tradition they received there). This tradition is after a manner of life, walk and behavior (set forth for them to follow) as found between the two verses. It was orally received as Paul acknowledges as it was commanded them (so it was not written yet) but it followed that it was surely written thereafter in that very epistle.
And in the which Paul could end it by saying...
2Thes 3:14 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
And it just makes more sense after the pattern than when others were subverting souls "by words" (only) and not as by a letter (or epistle) from us. To me it appears as a safeguard to always write the church, and such letters accompanied by those who would say the same things by mouth (and so whether by word or by epistle) should be saying the same things. Acts 15:23 (letters) and same thing by mouth (in Acts 15:27) and that to put a halt on an addition to the gospel (breaking off any additional yokes which were attempting to be be added)
I dont see how this is comfirming some odd form of godliness (by way of traditions of men) but completely in line with a tradition which holds to the head and is "after Christ". Paul speaking of that which is after a "walk"/ patern of orderly behavior found in the examples set forth in the apostles as they speak of the same right there.
