Andrew’s Contribution (John 6:8-9)

Which disciple brought the little boy with his lunch to Jesus? Andrew (John 6:8)

The feeding of the 5,000 is the only miracle recorded in all four canonical gospels (Matthew 14:15-21; Mark 6:31-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:5-14). John, the final gospel written, offers a more intimate telling, including several details not mentioned in the Synoptic gospels’ relatively vague accounts (John 6:5-14). John records Philip calculating the cost of feeding the multitude (John 6:7) and adds that it was Andrew who interjects himself into the conversation to draw attention to an unnamed boy’s meager provisions (John 6:8-9).

One of His disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to Him, “There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what are these for so many people?” (John 6:8-9 NASB)

That the disciples individual personalties are drawn out by the fourth evangelist is not surprising as John is the only gospel to particularize their roles. John gives speaking parts to individuals whereas the Synoptics speak more often of the collective “disciples”.

D. Moody Smith (b. 1931) observes:

Some disciples (other than Peter) who are named play a larger role in John than in the Synoptics. This is particularly true of Thomas (John 11:16, 14:5, 20:24-28, 21:2), but also of Philip (John 1:43-48, 6:5, 7, 12:21-22, 14:8-9) and Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother (John 1:40, 41, 6:8, 12:22). (Smith, The Fourth Gospel in Four Dimensions: Judaism and Jesus, the Gospels and Scripture, 88)

The narrator unnecessarily reintroduces Andrew as a disciple and as Simon Peter’s brother (John 1:35-42). John repeats the information to emphasize the question and its source. John Painter (b. 1935) coments, “Andrew, who is again introduced as the brother of Simon Peter (John 6:8 and see John 1:40) to remind the reader of the initial quest of Andrew, shows a glimmer of comprehension (R. Alan Culpepper [b. 1946], Critical Readings of John 6 (Biblical Interpretation, 22), 62).”

Andrew’s and Philip’s responses accent the inadequacy of the supplies and the disciples’ inability to respond to such a severe situation. This increases the magnitude of feeding the multitude. Robert Kysar (b. 1934) notes, “Both Philip and Andrew offer statements of the extent of the human need. The little boy...and his tiny lunch pose dramatic contrast with the abundance of food produced by Jesus’ act (Kysar, John (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament), 91).”

Evidently, a young boy was the only person known to the disciples wise enough to bring food to the desert. But he came prepared to feed himself, not an army. John accents the sparsity of the lad’s provisions. Kenneth O. Gangel (1935-2009) registers:

Andrew...found a boy carrying a lunch consisting of barley loaves and fish. Like Philip, Andrew had no idea what use that pittance would be. John’s record offers so many interesting observations, not the least of which is that the two fish Andrew found were definitely small. The word apsarion is used only by John, and it emphasizes the insignificance of these tiny sardines. (Gangel, John (Holman New Testament Commentary, 118-119)

Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) adds, “His five loaves are of barley—poor quality apparently. And the two fish are described as opsaria—another double diminutive.(Brodie, The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 262),”

Gary M. Burge (b. 1952) sees significance in the paucity:

Andrew...locates a young boy (paidarion) who can possibly help. This boy is carrying five barley loaves and two salted fish. Only John mentions that the bread is barley, which is a signal of the poverty of this crowd. Barley was considered the bread of the poor and this lad has five pieces of it—much like five round loaves of today’s pita bread. Luke 11:5 implies that three such pieces might make a meal for one person. These details are important because in II Kings 4:42-44 is another Old Testament miracle, where Elisha feeds a hundred men with twenty barley loaves and is assisted by a paidarion or young servant. As with the twelve baskets left after Jesus’ miracle, Elisha had baskets of food left over. (Burge, John (The NIV Application Commentary), 144)

The situation is so bleak that the disciples are reduced to commandeering a child’s lunch, an act we associate with school bullies. And even so, obtaining this donation amounts to asking for loose change to help reduce the national deficit.

Just how Andrew became acquainted with the boy or how he convinced him to part with his lunch is not stated. Leon Morris (1914-2006) speculates:

It is possible that his knowledge of the lad came as the result of a reconnaissance with a view to finding out what food resources could be mustered, for he definitely relates the boy’s supply (evidently provisions for his own personal use) to the needs of the multitude. Or the boy may have offered his food to Jesus. (Morris, The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 304)

Others have surmised that Andrew must have been a people person to have even acknowledged the lad. J. Ellsworth Kalas (b. 1928) boasts:

It was like Andrew, of course, to notice the small boy...Andrew was the kind of person a little boy could approach. While the other disciples were busy with bigger things, Andrew was chatting with a boy, patting him on the head, asking him where he had caught the fish—or did his mother buy them at market? A scruffy lad of no special promise, but Andrew—the brotherly type—visits with him and somewhat ridiculously thinks that his lunchbox will interest the Master. (Kalas, The Thirteen Apostles, 14)

Ancient commentator Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428) suggests that Andrew is merely trying to clear his name, showing that he has no plans of hoarding the little food to which he has access:

Andrew said this so that they might not think he was hiding the food for his own use. Indeed, Andrew was right in observing that those five loaves were nearly nothing for that great crowd. And he had no other food. (Commentary on the Gospel of John (Ancient Christian Texts), 61)

Many have seen Andrew’s bringing the lad to Jesus’ attention as indicative of the disciple’s personality. He is presented three times in John’s gospel and each time he is depicted as bringing someone to Jesus (John 1:40-42, 6:8-9, 12:20-22).

William Barclay (1907-1978) deduces:

Andrew is characteristically the man who was always introducing others to Jesus...It was Andrew’s great joy to bring others to Jesus. He stands out as the man whose one desire was to share the glory. He is the man with the missionary heart...Andrew is our great example in that he could not keep Jesus to himself. (Barclay, The Gospel of John, Volume 1, 105)

Greg Laurie (b. 1952) exclaims:

How we need more Andrews today! Every time we read of him in Scripture, he’s bringing someone to Jesus...If we had more Andrews, we would have more Simon Peters–one person bringing another to Jesus. So simple. So effective. So neglected. (Laurie, Breakfast with Jesus, 261)

Do you consider supernatural solutions to your problems? Do you take note of children? Why does Andrew bring the lad to Jesus? Who have you brought to Jesus? Who could you? Do we have an obligation to follow Andrew’s example? Is Andrew’s interjection an act of faith or doubt?

There is a natural comparison between Andrew and Philip. Both were from Bethsaida (John 1:44) which may account for why they appear together three times in John’s gospel (John 1:40-44, 6:5-9, 12:21-22). Philip calculates the demand (John 6:7) while Andrew evaluates the supply (John 6:9). Andrew works part to whole; Philip whole to part. Neither factor Jesus heavily in their analysis.

Herman N. Ridderbos (1909-2007) notes:

He [Philip] gets support from Andrew (with whom he is also linked in John 12:21ff; 1:44), who, without bothering himself about imagined amounts of money, limits himself to the actual supply of bread on hand: five loaves, and two (dried) fish. But what could one do with that, given so many mouths? (Ridderbos, The Gospel According to John: A Theological Commentary, 211)

Andrew, like, Philip, responds in natural terms which naturally leads to despondency. Gerald L. Borchert (b. 1932) critiques:

Andrew, the helper, tried to solve the problem in another way. He began immediately to search for picnic resources in that barren place, but his search also ended in failure, according to his thinking. All he found was a boy in the crowd who had a lunch with barley loaves (the bread of the poor) and two small fish (emphasis on small, John 6:9). Andrew’s answer was also hopelessness. (Borchert, John 1-11 (New American Commentary), 253)

Despite being with Jesus from the beginning, Andrew and Philip have not yet developed a theology of abundance. They do not consider that Jesus could solve their predicament. Francis J. Moloney (b.1940) assesses:

Andrew joins Philip in pointing to the paucity of their supplies: a lad is at hand with five barley loaves and two fish (John 6:8-9). Andrew and Philip have been with Jesus from the first days of the Gospel (John 1:43), but they have not learned from their master’s attempt to draw them beyond the limitations of their expectations (John 1:35-51), in this case the need for a large sum of money to buy quantities of bread. (Moloney, The Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina), 197)

Though they respond similarly, Andrew leaves looking better than Philip, at least making Jesus an offer. Merrill C. Tenney (1904-1985) explains:

The barest sketch of Philip and Andrew was given, yet it revealed the temper and faith of the men...Philip was a statistical pessimist...Andrew was an ingenious optimist. Philip’s information was given in answer to a question; Andrew’s was volunteered. Philip produced figures to show what could not be done; Andrew brought food, hoping that something might be done. His faith was wavering, for he added to his offer, “but what are these among so many?” (John 6:9)—but he had faith. Though rather quiet he must have had winning ways. Any man who can persuade a small boy to relinquish his lunch possesses a forceful character. (Tenney, John: Gospel of Belief, 113)

In some ways, Philip serves as a foil to Andrew. R. Alan Culpepper (b. 1946) observes, “As in John 1 an 12, Andrew is Philip’s companion and comes off better than Philip (Culpepper, The Gospel and Letters of John (Interpreting Biblical Texts Series), 156).”

Andrew does show some initiative. In Mark’s gospel, Jesus puts out an APB for resources to feed his audience (Mark 6:38), but in John’s account, Andrew need not be asked. Andrew T. Lincoln (b. 1944) notes:

Whereas in Mark Jesus tells the disciples to find out how much food there is, here Andrew, also operating on the merely human level, locates a boy, a further addition to the Synoptic version, who has the five loaves and two fish and then draws the obvious despairing conclusion. (Lincoln, The Gospel According To Saint John (Black’s New Testament Commentary), 212)

Both faith and doubt are seen in Andrew’s response. Faith is seen in his initial statement and he would have come off marvelously well had he quit when he was ahead. But he apologetically adds, “but what are these for so many people?” (John 6:9 NASB). This lament reveals Andrew’s doubt.

Anne Graham Lotz (b. 1948) speculates that in the midst of Andrew’s doubts, his faith involuntarily bubbles to the surface:

Almost as soon as Philip came to the conclusion that it was humanly impossible to feed the crowd gathered on the hillside...Andrew...spoke up...(John 6:8-9). While Andrew seemed to agree with Philip about the impossibility of feeding so many, his approach to the need was more positive. Without even realizing it, his faith had found the key to the storehouse of God’s ample supply. When he offered Jesus a few loaves and fish, he was offering Jesus everything he had!...What do you have? Do you have a little bit of time? A little bit of love? A little bit of money? A little bit of faith? Don’t concentrate on what you lack, concentrate on what you have. Then give all of it to Jesus for His use. (Lotz, Just Give Me Jesus, 120)

Frederick Dale Bruner (b. 1932) concurs:

Andrew, by contrast, sees just a little hope and shows just a little faith by coming forward with a little boy and his little provisions...fora little while! And just a little faith is all that Jesus apparently, from all the Gospel reports, ever at first expects from anyone, and so it is all he ever minimally seeks from his always still-very-human disciples. (Bruner, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 362)

Stephen Farris (b. 1951) instructs that though he demonstrates faith, Andrew need not be sainted for his performance in the desert:

Don’t make Andrew a hero of faith. He offers the fish and the loaves, but almost in the same breath he takes them back verbally, “But what are they among so many people?”...He doesn’t have very much faith. But not very much faith is not the same as no faith at all...He has the faith the size of a mustard seed. He has five loaves and two fish worth of faith. He has faith the size of a small boy’s lunch. That amount of faith, Jesus says, is able to move the mountain they’re sitting on. It may even be enough to feed five thousand. (David Fleer [b. 1953] and Dave Bland [b. 1953], “The Andrew Option”, Preaching John’s Gospel: The World It Imagines, 23)

Andrew contributes very little to the feeding of the 5.000 and what he offers, he gets from a small boy. He is only a middle man. Andrew brings Jesus much less than is needed. As do we. And like Andrew, though our offerings are not much, they can be significantly multiplied in the hands of Jesus.

N.T. Wright (b. 1948) reminds:

Philip doesn’t know what to do. Andrew doesn’t either, but he brings the boy and his bread and fish to Jesus’ attention. The point is obvious, but we perhaps need to be reminded of it: so often we ourselves have no idea what to do, but the starting point is always to bring what is there to the attention of Jesus. You can never tell what he’s going to do with it – though part of Christian faith is the expectation that he will do something we hadn’t thought of, something new and creative. (Wright, John for Everyone: Chapters 1-10, 73)

What do their responses to the food shortage say of Philip and Andrew? What is Andrew’s contribution? If Andrew had not brought the boy, how would Jesus have fed the multitude? What can you bring to Jesus’ table?

“How lovely to think that no one need wait a moment, we can start now, start slowly changing the world! How lovely that everyone, great and small, can make their contribution toward introducing justice straightaway... And you can always, always give something, even if it is only kindness!” - Anne Frank (1929-1945)

Must Work For Food? (II Thessalonians 3:10)

Complete: “If anyone will not work, let him not ___.” Eat (II Thessalonians 3:10)

II Thessalonians addresses people who act parasitically by taking from the church without making any contribution (II Thessalonians 3:6-13). Paul commands the Thessalonians to not be idle and reminds them of the example set forth by he and his fellow ministers (II Thessalonians 3:6-9). He then mentions a policy he had implemented when he was ministering in Thessalonica (II Thessalonians 3:10).

For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. (II Thessalonians 3:10 NASB)

These are Paul’s harshest words on the subject. Bruce M. Metzger (1914-2007) paraphrases: “No loaf for the loafer (Metzger, The New Testament: Its Background Growth and Content, 221)!”

Jon A. Weatherly (b. 1958) comments:

This command should have been familiar to the idlers from the beginning, as it constituted a memorable part of Paul’s oral instruction...The content of the command is deliberately terse and parallel, probably to make it easier for the Christian converts to remember. “Will” here does not indicate the future tense but translates θέλω (thelō), indicating a willingness to do the action mentioned. So Paul’s original oral instruction specifically censured the refusal to work, not the inability to work. The sanction placed on such people is that they “shall not eat,” a phrase translating an imperative verb which might be translated “must not eat.” Clearly the church could not stop the idle from obtaining bread from other sources, so the point is that the church should not subsidize those in their fellowship who refuse to support themselves when they have the means and opportunity. All the verbs in this command are in the present tense and emphasize continuing action, so the instruction might be translated, “If anyone continually does not want to keep working, he must not keep eating.” (Weatherly, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (The College Press NIV Commentary), 296)

Leon Morris (1914-2006) adds:

The saying emphasizes the will — “If anyone won’t work, refuses to work...” The concluding clause is not a statement of fact, “he shall not eat,” but an imperative, “let him not eat.” Paul is giving the clearest expression to the thought that the Christian cannot be a drone. It is obligatory for him to be a worker. (Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 256)

The command appears to have been a slogan during the author’s ministry in the area. Gene L. Green (b. 1951) speculates:

The author makes no mention of the teaching about work that they had briefly included in the first letter (I Thessalonians 4:11-12), reminding them rather of the oral instruction that, according to many Roman and Greek authors, was more potent than written communication...This instruction came in the form of an authoritative command (II Thessalonians 3:4, 6, 12; see I Thessalonians 4:11): “We gave you this command” (NRSV; parēngellomen). The verb is in the imperfect tense, which suggests that the teachers had given this command on various occasions during their rather short stay in Thessalonica. (Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 349)

Though unwritten, the command has both biblical and theological roots. Beverly Roberts Gaventa (b. 1948) explains:

The language employed is quite emphatic, referring to the presence of the apostles with the believers and using the language of command. Neither the Gospels nor the Pauline letters contain any such “commandment,” and it may be that the writer draws on proverbial wisdom that has developed from Genesis 3:17-19 (see also Psalm 128:2 and Proverbs 6:6-11). The Didache, an early Christian manual of instruction, reflects a similar wisdom: “[N]o Christian shall live idle in idleness. But if anyone will not do so [i.e., work], that person is making Christ into a cheap trade; watch out for such people” (12:4-5; author’s translation). (Gaventa, First and Second Thessalonians (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching) , 130)

Theologian Jacques Ellul (1912-1994) probes:

The first point that we must make from an ideological standpoint is that work belongs in every sense to the order of necessity. If God gave it to man as a means of survival, he also made it a condition of survival. This is what Paul has in mind when he says that if a man will not work, neither should he eat (II Thessalonians 3:10). Work is no part of the order of grace, liberality, love, and freedom. Confusion must be avoided in this regard...In Christ the order of necessity is by no means abolished. There is victory over it...But death, evil, and the powers still exist. They constitute the order of necessity in which man is always set...Work has to be accepted in faith...as a sign of our creatureliness and our sinfulness. (Ellul, The Ethics of Freedom, 505-506)

John Piper (b. 1946) summarizes, “Able-bodied people who choose to live in idleness and eat the fruit of another’s sweat are in rebellion against God’s design. If we can, we should earn our own living (Piper, Don’t Waste Your Life, 147).”

It is uncertain why the Thessalonians were not working. Gordon D. Fee (b. 1934) interprets:

The “surprise” element for the later reader is the fact that Paul had had to make such a ruling, apparently in an ongoing way, when he and his companions were present with them...Although we have no hints in the text itself as to why this had been a matter of concern even from the beginning of his ministry there, there can be little question that the issue is not a recent one, one that had come up after the apostolic trio had left Thessalonica. Both Paul’s opening clause “when we were with you”) and his putting the verb in the imperfect “we used to give you this command”) indicate that something was not quite right among them from the beginning. (Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 332)

Some have seen the Thessalonians’ lack of diligence as the result of perceiving the second coming as so imminent (I Corinthians 7:31) as to make work futile. Brian D. McLaren (b. 1956) and Tony Campolo (b. 1935) relay:

The Apostle Paul-who expected the imminent return of Christ–had to warn the Christians of his day to get in about their business, for apparently some were spending all their time waiting for Christ’s return instead of working and earning a living for themselves and their dependents. No freeloading, Paul declared (II Thessalonians 3:10) (McLaren and Campolo, Adventures in Missing the Point: How the Culture-Controlled Church Neutered the Gospel, 62)

This theory posits that the church at Thessalonica was so convinced of the second coming that they stopped everything to wait. The opposite is often true now as contemporary churches do nothing to demonstrate that they are actively anticipating the second coming.

The belief that the Thessalonians refused to work while waiting is not the only view of the situation in Thessalonica. Craig L. Blomberg (b. 1955) explicates:

Much of Paul’s eschatological teaching in II Thessalonians makes it clear that some people are thinking that the parousia is extremely imminent or has actually passed (see especially II Thessalonians 2:2). Not working is then related to the assumption that this life or present world-order is on the verge of vanishing. But increasingly, scholars are agreeing more that a sociological problem is more likely in view here. Paul never explicitly connects the Thessalonians’ idleness with his teaching about the parousia, but there is much in the Greco-Roman practice of patronage and benefaction that could have led to the problems described here. If a significant number of the Thessalonians before converting to Christ had been clients who worked only sporadically and relied on the gifts of their wealthy patrons...then it is understandable that they might have expected well-to-do leaders in the Christian community to treat them in a similar fashion...But Paul will consistently challenge the conventional system of patronage throughout his epistles. (Blomberg, Neither Poverty nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Possessions (New Studies in Biblical Theology), 180-181)

G.K. Beale (b. 1949) sees problems with sociological considerations being the rationale behind the Thessalonians’ slothfulness:

This may have been an encouragement not to support those who refused to engage in some self-supporting livelihood, perhaps recalling the command of II Thessalonians 3:6 and anticipating the similar imperative of II Thessalonians 3:14. Some scholars exclude any connection of the problem of work with eschatalogical error and see it related only to a sociological problem in the Hellenistic world. For example, Ronald Russell locates the “idle” against the sociological background in the average Hellenistic city, where opportunities for work were often limited and there was widespread unemployment and a diverse social class of poor people. Sometimes such people were able to come into relationship with a patron or benefactor who would support them in exchange for various forms of service. Russell contends that some of these poor in Thessalonica who became Christians formed client relationships with Christian benefactors in the church but then took advantage of the context of Christian love and did not feel any obligation to reciprocate with appropriate service. Since such reciprocal service was an expectation in the culture, the populace at large would have taken a dim view of the church if it allowed the new Christian converts to sponge off wealthier Christians. Consequently, Paul wanted to avoid such a bad witness...The sociological approach, however, is likely not an exhaustive explanation of the situation. Maarten J.J. Menken [b. 1948] rightly concludes that, while such a sociological view explains the reason church members were unemployed, it does not explain “their unwillingness to work”...Rather, the false teaching that the final resurrection and Christ’s parousia has come explains their desire not to work. (Beale, 1-2 Thessalonians (The IVP New Testament Commentary Series), 255-256)

Ernest Best (1917-2004) speculates:

Such teaching would have been necessary in view of the Hellenistic dislike of anything other than intellectual labour for free men; Christians, taught that they were free, would have run the danger of thinking they ought to cease manual work; this is more probable than that they would think themselves too pious to work (Adolf Schlatter [1852-1938]) or too ‘spiritual’ (cf. Walter Schmithals [1923-2009], Robert Jewett [b. 1933]). The danger was probably inflamed by the apocalyptic atmosphere of the Thessalonian community and so became an acute problem for it; lacking this atmosphere Paul did not need to take up the point in other letters; the initial teaching was sufficient to control the situation. (Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (Black’s New Testament Commentary), 338)

Victor Paul Furnish (b. 1931) summarizes:

Most interpreters regard the attention given to disruptive idleness as evidence that our author knows it to be a problem in Christian circles (cf. Wolfgang Trilling [1925-1993] 1980, 152). There is less agreement, however, about why certain believers were no longer willing to work. Some offer a theological explanation, attributing it to the (perhaps fanatical) belief that the day of the Lord had already arrived, from which it was concluded that mundane responsibilities were no longer important (e.g., Paul-Gerhard Müller [b. 1940], 2001, 294). A variation of this view holds that those who regarded the Kingdom as Paradise restored were rejecting as obsolete the decree of Genesis 3:17-19 that humanity must sustain itself through the arduous tilling of the soil (Maarten J.J. Menken [b. 1948] 137-141). In fact, however, the author himself neither specifies nor even implies that the problem of idleness has its roots in an erroneous eschatalogy...Sociological explanations of the problem, even when they are plausible, are also hard to substantiate from what is actually said...Because the author’s whole discussion of this matter is couched in such general terms, it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions about the situation that may have evoked it. Indeed, some have questioned whether the author even had a specific situation in view (e.g. Willi Marxsen [1919-1993] 1982, 100). Perhaps he has simply imagined a situation that allows him to emphasize very concretely...the vital importance of adhering to apostolic tradition. (Furnish, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 177)

Whatever their reasons, it is likely that members of the church at Thessalonica were slacking and that their behavior necessitated the reminder. As such, the policy does not speak to unemployment in general but rather to those who have options to work and choose not to take them.

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) distinguishes:

It is refusal to work that is reprobated here...Comparable sayings are quoted from Jewish and early Christian literature. Rabbi Abbahu is cited as saying, “If I do not work, I do not eat” (Genesis Rabbah 2.2 on Genesis 1:2). In a non-Pauline area of the early Christian world the Didache instructs its readers how to deal with visitors who come to them in the Lord’s name: “If he who comes is a traveler, help him as much as you can, but he shall not stay with you more than two days or, if necessary, three. If he wishes to settle down with you and has a craft, let him work for his bread...But if he has no craft, make such provision for him as your intelligence approves, so that no one shall live with you in idleness as a Christian. If he refuses...so to do, he is making merchandise of Christ...beware of such people” (12:2-5). (Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 45), 200-201)

Robert H. Gundry (b. 1932) concurs:

The command that the person isn’t to eat who doesn’t work because he doesn’t want to work—this command means that his fellow Christians shouldn’t feed him. Hunger may teach him to work for his own food. His fault lies in a lack of desire, not in the job market. (Gundry, Commentary on First and Second Thessalonians)

Also in agreement, Grant R. Osborne (b. 1942) advises:

Be careful not to use this verse on those who are willing but unable to work. It is easy to glibly dismiss the difficult conditions of those with disabilities, lack of job training, or lack of job availability. Paul’s harsh words are for people who are unwilling to work when they have both the ability and the opportunity. This phrase should not...be used to hammer the poor. (Osborne, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (Life Application Bible Commentary),146)

Victor Paul Furnish (b. 1931) notes that this guideline was presented in such a way as to make it foundational to the functioning of the community:

He conveys this as a rule of fundamental importance (note the emphatic “this” and the imperfect tense [=continuing past action]): “This is what we were commanding you: ‘If someone is not willing to work, let him not eat” (II Thessalonians 3:10b, author’s translation). Formally, this command is typical of regulations that stipulate how particular situations should be dealt with in the life of a particular community...Moreover, its linking of eating to work reflects the view, expressed in many ancient sources, that providing for one’s own livelihood is a responsibility that must not be shirked, and that there will be serious consequences when it is (e.g. Proverbs 6:6-11; cf. Proverbs 10:4. 12:11; Pseudo-Phoculides, Sent 153-54; Dio Chrystostom Or. 7 [discussed by Hock, 1980, 44-45]). (Furnish, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 176)

With this in mind, many communities have institutionalized this rule, including the first permanent English settlement in America, Jamestown. Robert Jewett (b. 1933) notes that North America is not the only continent to create rules based upon this Scripture:

The only quotation from the Bible in the constitution of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is the famous line about not being fed without working. It is curious that it played a larger role in a communist state than it has in mainline churches around the world, where it is occasionally cited as a warning against laziness but it is never included in the founding instruction of church members as indicated by II Thessalonians 3:10. Could this and other passages in the Pauline letters disclose a tradition of voluntary communalism that has been buried by our dominant interpretive tradition? (Jewett, Paul the Apostle to America: Cultural Trends and Pauline Scholarship, 73)

This mandate often sounds harsh to modern readers as, in some ways, society appears to be moving away from this principal. Kenneth Minogue (b. 1930) chronicles:

I take my bearing from what Bernard Williams [1929-2003] wrote when the Social Justice Commission (of which he was a member) published its report in October 1994..Inequalities, he argued, must be eliminated as much as possible, and ‘everyone is entitled, as a right of citizenship, to be able to meet their basic needs of income, shelter and other necessities’. We are clearly some distance from St. Paul’s ‘if any would not work, neither should he eat’. (David Boucher [b. 1951] and Paul Kelly [b.1962], “Social justice in theory and practice”, Perspectives on Social Justice: From [David] Hume [1711-1776] to [Michael] Walzer [b. 1935], 263)

Still, beneath II Thessalonians’ argument is the premise that work is inherently good for humanity. Henry Cloud (b. 1956) speculates that work’s responsibility is actually empowering:

People who don’t obey this law of cause and effect, who don’t own their behavior and the consequences for it, feel enormously powerless. They become dependent on others who encourage their irresponsibility to maintain their dependency. They have no confidence in their ability to cause an effect. This is why Paul says in II Thessalonians 3:10, “If a man will not work, he shall not eat..” He knows that there is dignity and joy in good behavior. (Cloud, Changes That Heal: The Four Shifts That Make Everything Better...And That Everyone Can Do, 101)

D. James Kennedy (1930-2007) sees compassion in the rule given to the Thessalonian church:

Most people feel a twinge of guilt when they hear those words, as if they were without compassion. But this is the most compassionate statement on the subject of economics that has ever been uttered. Were that dictum not followed to a large degree, famine and starvation would plague the world. So let it be proclaimed to a deaf culture committed to a form of socialism that scholar Rousas Rushdoony [1916-2001] calls “the politics of guilt and pity”; if one will not work, nether let him eat. (Kennedy, How Would Jesus Vote?: A Christian Perspective on the Issues, 103-104)

What are the benefits of working? Do you view work as a blessing or a curse? Why were the Thessalonians idlers? What is the connection between working and eating? How does this passage speak to modern welfare programs? Should II Thessalonians 3:10 be a foundational principal for governments? When have you seen someone take advantage of charity? How should Christians assist the unemployed? At what point does one move from helping to enabling? Does Paul add stipulations to Jesus’ mandate in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:42)?

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus instructs, “Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you (Matthew 5:42 NASB).” Interpreters often focus on either II Thessalonians 3:10 or Matthew 5:42 and ignore the verse that does not suit their purposes. For instance, social activist Shane Claiborne (b. 1975) never addresses II Thessalonians 3:10 in either of his first two books on being an “ordinary radical”, The Irresistible Revolution (2006) or Jesus For President (2008). In contrast, ultraconservatives seldom mention Matthew 5:42 when lauding the benefits of enforcing II Thessalonians 3:10.

Feeding the needy is a critical issue at the heart of Christianity. Michael W. Holmes (b. 1950) records:

Human beings, Jesus reminds us, do not live by bread alone (Matthew 4:4; cf. Deuteronomy 8:3), but neither do they live without bread. Work is the means by which humans acquire “bread,” that is, the necessities for life (food, clothing, shelter). In the biblical tradition, people who are able to work do so in order to provide for themselves and their families. They also work in order to provide for those who, for whatever reasons, are unable to work (Acts 20:35; Ephesians 4:28). Indeed, “in the Bible and in the first centuries of Christian tradition, meeting one’s needs and the needs of one’s community (especially its underprivileged members) was clearly the most important purpose of work.” (Holmes, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (The NIV Application Commentary), 283)

Knowing when and how to help feed someone’s needs is not always clear cut. Gary W. Demarest (b. 1926) acknowledges:

Wherever the gospel of Christ has truly taken hold of the lives of people, difficult questions arise with regard to the poor and needy. The initial impetus of the Bible, New and Old Testaments alike, is the responsibility of the better-off to help and care for those in need. But having said that, the questions must still be raised as to why they are in need. Sometimes it is a matter of tough luck, sometimes a matter of circumstances, sometimes a matter of physical or mental limitations, sometimes a matter of geography and/or politics. The reasons are many and complex...Here, the only people to whom the proverb was applicable were those who were quite capable of working and for whom work was available, but who persisted in their refusal to work. (Demarest, 1,2 Thessalonians, 1,2 Timothy, and Titus (The Preacher’s Commentary, Vol. 32), 143)

R.A. Torrey (1856-1928) answers:

Matthew 5:42 undoubtedly teaches that the disciple of Jesus Christ should give to everyone that asks of him, but it does not teach that he should necessarily give money. When Peter and John were appealed to in Acts 3:2-4 by the lame man at the Gate Beautiful they gave to him, but they did not give him money–they gave him something better. Paul distinctly says in II Thessalonians 3:10: “If any man will not work, neither let him eat.” This does not mean that if a man is a tramp we should not give him when he asks, but it does mean that we should use discrimination in what we give him. (Torrey, Practical And Perplexing Questions Answered, 64)

Using discernment instead of creating a blanket rule regarding giving to the needy is wise counsel.

What do love and justice require with respect to the distribution of wealth and income? Under what circumstances should we give money to those in need?

“Work is not man’s punishment! It is his reward and his strength, his glory and his pleasure.” - George Sand (1804-1876)

Please Don’t Give (Exodus 36:6)

When did people give so much they had to be told to stop? When the tabernacle was being constructed (Exodus 36:6)

In the era between the Exodus and the conquest of the Promised Land, the Israelites were nomads. In the interim, God outlined specific plans as to the creation of a tabernacle, a portable representation of the divine presence (Exodus 25:9; Acts 7:44). The Israelites’ God would not merely reign distantly from the heavens but was willing to move with them in their uncertainty in the wilderness.

As with all building projects, this venture needed capital. Amazingly, the Israelites gave so much that Moses actually needed to issue an edict to restrain the giving! (Exodus 36:6)

So Moses issued a command, and a proclamation was circulated throughout the camp, saying, “Let no man or woman any longer perform work for the contributions of the sanctuary.” Thus the people were restrained from bringing any more. (Exodus 36:6 NASB)

Over giving was and is a highly unusual problem (and one as pastor I would like to have). Reuven Hammer (b. 1932) quips, “This may be the only instance in the entire history of fund-raising that the campaign was so oversubscribed that it had to be brought to a halt. Never before or after did we have to be told to stop giving (Hammer, Entering Torah: Prefaces to the Weekly Torah Portion, 133).”

Has a religious group ever said no to money? Why did Moses halt the cash flow? Should he have ceased this activity? Could he have not saved the funds for a rainy day? Why did the Israelites give so freely?

The Israelites gave because their hearts were moved to do so (Exodus 35:29). The campaign was successful and the tabernacle was built to specification (Exodus 40:17-19). It was erected exactly one year after leaving Egypt (Exodus 40:17). Throughout much of the preceding year, the Israelites rebelled against Moses (and ostensibly against God), but the building of the tabernacle was one instance where the community united together for a common good.

What projects have you witnessed that united a body of believers? Where do you give? Can you be accused of giving too much?

“Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” - II Corinthians 9:6 NASB