Q3. No Work, No Food

[Pastor Ralph]

Q3. (2 Thessalonians 3:10) If we were to follow Paul’s rule, “If a man will not work, he shall not eat,” wouldn’t that allow people to starve? It sounds harsh. What are the positive results of this rule? To whom in a Christian community would this rule apply. To whom would it not apply?

[Gerbrand van Schalkwyk]

If we were to follow Paul's rule, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat," wouldn't that allow people to starve?

Maybe for a while, but if people realize that you are not going to bail them out all the time, they will be forced to obey God and earn a living

When we meet people who are poor but who do nothing, we help them by creating an opportunity. Once the opportunity is there, it is their responsibility to keep it going and to expand it. They must pray for wisdom on how to keep it going, they must tithe and all else from the small bussiness.

It sounds harsh. What are the positive results of this rule? People will oney God's Word.

To whom in a Christian community would this rule apply. To everybody who can work

To whom would it not apply?

The very old, the sick, lame, blind and those who are not able to work

[JanMary]

Q3. (2 Thessalonians 3:10) If we were to follow Paul’s rule, “If a man will not work, he shall not eat,” wouldn’t that allow people to starve?

No.

It sounds harsh. What are the positive results of this rule?

It's called "tough love", and teaches one to take responsibility for oneself. The consequence of not being handed provision while sitting on their duff, would be that they would get to work!

To whom in a Christian community would this rule apply.

To every able bodied one who needs to earn a living!

To whom would it not apply?

It would not apply to the elderly, infirm, children, widows with young children, those too mentally challenged to earn a living.

[Jen]

Q3. (2 Thessalonians 3:10) If we were to follow Paul's rule, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat," wouldn't that allow people to starve? It sounds harsh. What are the positive results of this rule? To whom in a Christian community would this rule apply. To whom would it not apply?

It could I guess however most people when they get hungry enough will put forth some effort to earn their food. Some might resort to thievery which to me is illegal work and much harder than just doing a days work but I believe it is in the character of some to behave this way.

I don't think it sounds harsh but rather logical. The positive results are that it motivates people to get up and do something with their lives. It applies to those who are able to work and not elderly or physically unable. However they can devote themselves to prayer and reading of the Word.

God Bless!

Jen

Romans 15:13

[Craig]

Q3. (2 Thessalonians 3:10) If we were to follow Paul’s rule, “If a man will not work, he shall not eat,” wouldn’t that allow people to starve? It sounds harsh. What are the positive results of this rule? To whom in a Christian community would this rule apply. To whom would it not apply?

Not at all. if an abled-bodied Christian refuses to work, neither should he eat. Does this conflict with the command to love and be kind? Not at all. It is not love nor kindness to encourage laziness. Charles Spurgeon once said: "The truest love to those who err is not to fraternize with them in their error but to be faithful to Jesus Christ in all things."

Charity should be given to those who cannot take care of themselves for whatever reason and for those victims of natural disasters.

Those unwilling to work, the lazy, should not be provided for by the Church.

[hanks]

Q3. (2 Thessalonians 3:10)

If we were to follow Paul's rule, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat," wouldn't that allow people to starve?

It sounds harsh. What are the positive results of this rule?

To whom in a Christian community would this rule apply?

To whom would it not apply?

Paul is referring to those who are too lazy to work, and I doubt if they will ever starve to death. They will find a way to get free handouts without working! If people are hungry, we know they will work to get food. “The labourer's appetite works for him; his hunger drives him on.” (Proverbs 16:26). I don’t think it is harsh at all. As it is in the world today we have much too many parasites who are bone lazy and will find all sorts of excuses not to work. It seems as if the state encourages this attitude by giving free handouts. The positive results if this rule is applied, will be countries not drowning in debt - as seen all over the world today. I can think of another positive spin-off - there will be less crime as there will be fewer idle time on hand. We must be careful not by our kindness to encourage laziness. Paul’s rule should apply to all and especially to Christians, who are to set an example to all. This rule would obviously not apply to those unable to work for whatever reason.

[Delivered]

Q3. (2 Thessalonians 3:10) If we were to follow Paul's rule, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat," wouldn't that allow people to starve? It sounds harsh. What are the positive results of this rule? To whom in a Christian community would this rule apply? To whom would it not apply?

The command is not to be applied to those who are NOT able to work; the rule is to be applied to able bodies.

Paul says to those whose "WILL" is not to work, to those who choose not to live by God’s laws to do them, then let the consequences of their sin fall on them.

I see many in the church today that have that same mind set, MORAL disorder is seen in their lives, they believe the “CROSS” has done it all, they have no clue to the meaning of - work out your own salvation - run your race to the end - take up your cross and follow me – they have no idea that the “CROSS” means “DEATH” to self.

It is sad for me to say, “But I see many today who are lazy, they are not preparing for that glorious day when the Lord will come back, they have no clue that He is coming for those who are “MAKING” ready, “PREPARING” themselves as they go about, they “LABOR” at doing good “WORKS" by walking in "FAITH".

We will be known by the "FRUITS" of our "LABOR".

[Lion of Grace]

Q3. (2 Thessalonians 3:10) If we were to follow Paul’s rule, “If a man will not work, he shall not eat,” wouldn’t that allow people to starve? It sounds harsh. What are the positive results of this rule? To whom in a Christian community would this rule apply. To whom would it not apply?

I don't think able bodied people who can work but won't work will starve. The hope in this passage is, once the hand outs and enabling vanish that they would repent and turn to a better lifestyle. If someone is truly set on living on hand outs they usually have street savy and always know how to work a system.

We have to be very careful though about discerning different situations. I once knew of a woman who's husband refused to work, but she worked faithfully with limited skills and pay. She struggled making ends meet and was turned down by Christian organizations for help in feeding and clothing her children because the father refused to work! She suffered for her husband's sin and was treated unfairly by Christians who judged harshly. It would apply though to those who are able bodied and just plain refuse to work and who expect others to totally support them. It would not apply to those who are genuinely out of work or truly disabled or are going through a difficult time or special cases like the one I stated above.

[haar]

Paul's warning that any one that does not work should not eat was not meant to starve people but it was to discourage laziness by those who are healthy, able, strong but choose to sit idle to depend on others.

One of the positive results of the command "no work no food" was productivity of the those that were fit to work. Another positive result was that there would be more food available to those who were sick or could not work.

[elizabeth kerr]

I am concerned that if we apply this rule, some people will starve. I do not think that we Christians have the knowledge and skill required to accurately judge who is capable of working the jobs that are available today.

Employers sometimes have "qualifications" for particular positions in their companies that have nothing to do with the employee's ability to do the job, and we cannot force an employer to hire a specific applicant just because we think he is qualified. Some employers reject applicants who are under- or overeducated, of low intellectual ability, physically disabled, suffering from a chronic illness like diabetes, obese, over 50 years old, look "old", currently unemployed, ex-cons, military veterans, cancer survivors, smokers, mothers with young children at home -- even when they have the training needed and seem capable of doing the job well.

Only if I have the means to create a new business and hire a particular applicant for a job, can I guarantee that he will be offered a job if he goes out and applies for one with my company. How many of us can do this?

Still, I think we should encourage unemployed adults to actively and diligently apply for all job openings they find out about. Maybe they will be employed. And if they do not find a job, we should encourage them for trying and to keep on trying, not put them down because they were not hired. Working to earn money to support yourself and your family is a worthwhile goal.

[Raph]

Q3. (2 Thessalonians 3:10)

If we were to follow Paul's rule, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat," wouldn't that allow people to starve? It sounds harsh.

It sounds harsh but the truth must be told. I do not think the rule would allow people to starve as the ones referred to by Paul are the ones who are capable to "feed" themselves but they do not do so beause of laziness.

What are the positive results of this rule?

The positive results of this rule are that, the lazy ones will stop their laziness and start working thus releaving the burden from other people.

To whom in a Christian community would this rule apply.

This rule apply to those with means or are capable to work and work is available but they do not to work because of being lazy, thus relying from others for their survival.

To whom would it not apply?

It would not apply to the sick, mentally unstable, little children, people with disabilities.

[t-c]

Q3. (2 Thessalonians 3:10) If we were to follow Paul's rule, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat," wouldn't that allow people to starve?

I don't think so. If people know that they can do nothing and still be fed and housed; some will do nothing. But under that rule, even if they are lazy, when they get hungry, they will work.

It sounds harsh. What are the positive results of this rule?

But its not; but in todays culture we are use to seeing able bodied people choose not to work and take advantage of a system designed for those who can't work.

This rule not only motivated people to work and better themselves, but it also exposes their sin of lazyness and give them a chance to confess and repent of it. And to find that there is joy and statisfaction in work, that God created us to work and to not be idle. God's ways are alway good and for our best interest.

To whom in a Christian community would this rule apply.

To those who are able to work.

To whom would it not apply?

To those who are not capable of working.

[wjcargile]

"If a man will not work, he shall not eat." Wouldn't that allow people to starve? They should be motivated by hunger to work, if they are able too.

The only place people would probable starve would be in some of the countries (I have visited) that people are more than willing to work but there is no work. This would fall under the "weak." that we should help.

The postive result of this rule is all able people should work.

In the christian community this rule applies to those who can work.

It would not apply to the weak and disabled.

[charisbarak]

It would move them to get work & start supplying their own needs.

The positive result to this rule would be meeting their own needs, and some needs in the body besides.

It would apply to able-bodied men & women who desire not to work, those who are very lazy and those who are in sin.

It wouldn't apply to those who are handicapped, elderly, small children.

[csreeves]

Q3. (2 Thessalonians 3:10) If we were to follow Paul’s rule, “If a man will not work, he shall not eat,” wouldn’t that allow people to starve? It sounds harsh. What are the positive results of this rule? To whom in a Christian community would this rule apply. To whom would it not apply?

The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.-the ones healthy enough to work. The elderly, disabled, and the ones who are challenged.

[Guitar Jim]

Q3. (2 Thessalonians 3:10) If we were to follow Paul’s rule, “If a man will not work, he shall not eat,” wouldn’t that allow people to starve?

I suppose it would. I personally would be too soft-hearted to let that happen though. That came back to bite me in one instance.

I know a lady who used to always sponge off me. She had some mental disorder that she used to play on to get my sympathy. She'd had a hard life and had never worked due to her "condition". I knew she was a hustler and everything but when she rang me with her sob stories I'd always fall for them and help her out. Then one day I went around to her place and in her back yard was a SHIPPING CONTAINER that she'd conned out of somebody else she'd been hustling and was using as a storage shed! She had TWO mobile home trailers (We call them caravans in Australia) as well, that guys had given her. After seeing that I haven't given her any more money.

It sounds harsh. What are the positive results of this rule?

It would force people to take action and go get a job.

To whom in a Christian community would this rule apply.

Young, able-bodied men and women and people who felt that the Church should support them. Bascially it applies to lazy people. We had a couple in our church in the early 1990s who cried poor. Their home worship group kicked in with a couple thousand dollars to get them through a really rough time in their lives . . . or so they thought. My wife worked in the same hospital as the husband and told me he was always checking the stock market reports in the newspaper to see how his share portfolio was going. Turned out they were con artists. They were also loaded! They left the church in disgrace but never returned the money. I think it'd have to be a rule that would only be applied if the church knew for sure the people in question were genuinely not looking for work and had no money put aside for a rainy day. Also if the person's family can't or won't help them the church could step into the breech and help.

To whom would it not apply?

I'd say it wouldn't apply to people who have recently become unemployed, people who have a physical or mental impairment, mothers with young childred and no husband, men who for whatever reason have sole custody of young children, people who do work but just can't earn enough due to insufficient hours rostered to them. It's a harsh rule for sure and I reckon if people are genuinely doing it hard and trying to find work but just can't, we should still help them out. I myself know how hard it is to be fully employed. I'm on a disability pension which doesn't give me enough to live even a modest lifestyle. I also gig all over the place as a professional musician and that doesn't pay enough either! But when I combine the two incomes I do OK. Trouble is: these days the music industry is in a real slump on account of the economy so I have to really pull my head in. I wouldn't go to the local church and ask for handouts though. I'd go to my family first. Fortunately that hasn't become a necessity yet.

[RD35]

This rule is made by Paul for people who do not make use of an opportunity where they find employment and they are not interested in hardworking. For such people Paul’s rule is definitely not harsh but truth told straight forward, so that they would not lead into sin. When people get close to starvation they will surely get into doing any kind of work which will give them food.

The positive results of this rule is people will try their best to find work which will help them to sustain themselves and their close family and not be a burden on the church.

This rule applies to Lazy believers.

The rule does not apply to those who cannot find work, those who are homeless against their will, or who are physically or mentally unable to work, but those who have no intention of working to support themselves.

[Thanking Joan]

The rule made by Paul if a man does not work ,he shall not eat will not mean it will make someone starve. Its a rule to be followed by every person who by all means can work to support himslef! If anyone is close to starving ,he will want to eat food and would search for means to work and satisfy his hunger!

It sounds harsh but truth has to be told in love though it may sound harsh. The positive effect of this rule is all will work ,all will be productive,less scope of sin of idleness and everyone is able to support themselves ,their families and also support others who are in need.

This rule applies to everyone who can work and specially calls for those who can work but simply lazy and depending on someone for their living.

It does not apply to those who are just not able to work like the physically challenged and mentally disabled.

[antonate]

No work, no food sounds harsh but if taken in the right attitude it can have great results. God has created us as his workmanship and he expects his people to use thier abilities to work and be prosperous. it sounds harsh and it can make people hunger for food but we should understand the context in which Paul makes us understand the effect of remaiining idle. when one is idle they become dependent on others and also in their idleness they may be confusing the once who work hard among them. It makes every believer realise that we need to sustain ourselves with our own earnings and not be a burden to anyone which may lead also to be a great blessing in God's kingdom.

This rule applies to very person who is able to work and provide for their own needs and this is not applicable to the sick, elderly or who are physically not fit to work

[Old Jerry]

I think that Paul’s rule would make a lot of people that are sponging off the system go and look for work because they would be getting hungry. They would do anything to get food. I think that the positive results of this rule would be less stealing, better family ties, and they would be donating to society. This rule would apply to all in the Christian community that could work but it would not apply to those who could not find work or are disabled.

 

 

[WinstonY]

Paul isn't talking about those who can't find work, those who are homeless against their will, or who are physically or mentally unable to work, but those who have no intention of working to support themselves. They probably will not starve for their hunger will be a motivation.

[JoanG]

I believe that those who are able to work but refuse to would not allow themselves to starve. They would eventually get up and take some responsibility in their lives. However, this rule does not apply to those who are unable to work because of medical reasons. Or those that find themselves in great need for reasons other than laziness. These can include victims of natural disasters. And in those cases the help would only be temporary. It would not be a way of life for them.

[Damary Alembi]

Q3. (2 Thessalonians 3:10) If we were to follow Paul's rule, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat," wouldn't that allow people to starve? This will enable the lazy to face the consequences of their actions by teaching them what they won’t learn otherwise.

It sounds harsh. What are the positive results of this rule? Stop gossip as everyone will be busy with their life activities. Everybody will stop being lazy and therefore work for the good of the community by helping those who are unable to. They will support themselves and also help the Christian community.

To whom in a Christian community would this rule apply? This rule would apply to people who cannot earn a living because of sickness, mental instability, age or infirmity. . Widows and orphans who have no family who can take care of them.

To whom would it not apply? This will not apply to people who can work but do not and even young widows as it is encouraged that they remarry.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Apostle Paul is stating that it is doctrinal sound not to support busybodies and lazy people.  Disfellowshipping of such people may be necessary if they still refuse to obey the truth.  Continual admonitions are to be continued until such meddlers, busybodies and lazy ones and cease from their useless matters.

Tough love is not easy.  It is not right to support meddlers and busybodies; they may have to hit bottom first, and than realize the futile ways of their lives.   However, Paul is also stating that we are to remember the worthy poor.  We are not to be weary in well doing; we have to bear each other's burdens.  Even we are instructed to admonish a wayward person as a brother.

[Krissi]

If we were to follow Paul’s rule, “If a man will not work, he shall not eat,” wouldn’t that allow people to starve?

Were there safety social nets in Roman society at the time Paul wrote these words? I doubt it. How did those people live, then, assuming they did not work, BEFORE they were part of the church? Someone must have supported them. Perhaps they were wealthy. Perhaps they were beggars.

Assuming they stopped working when they became Christians because they had figured out how to sponge off of other Christians, well, yes, I'd like them starve. Most people, when faced with starvation, figure out how to work. If they were capable of working, they'd suddenly re-discover their work ethic. 

It sounds harsh. What are the positive results of this rule?

It's not harsh. It's tough love. The church doesn't need parasites in congregation or clergy. And, parasites don't need to be parasitical!

Work is ennobling. When someone works hard at something and does a "good job," he or she has a feeling of accomplishment and satisfaction, even in more abstract jobs. I remember talking to an engineer-architect who told me that he had designed a few buildings in that city. He told me that every time he drove past those buildings, he smiled. I also remember meeting someone who designed the lighting in grocery stores -- he told me he'd always walk by the produce when shopping, just to see his illumination work! That's a good thing.

Those who are lazy may discover these same feelings or accomplishment when forced to work.

Perhaps the congregation itself would be strengthened by raising the spiritual "mean" or average of the congregation which is pulled down by it's least mature members. Forcing people to work would raise that spiritual mean. Furthermore, the congregation would have more money to give away to those who truly need it. 

To whom in a Christian community would this rule apply? To whom would it not apply?

Specifically, it would only apply to those truly in need. The elderly, in particular, are vulnerable and often unseen and ignored.  It would not apply to anyone capable of work.   I also think that Christians who work hard, but still cannot make ends meet, or who have sudden catastrophe such as a health crisis, should be supported. 

One last thing. Christians who do work, yet fall on rough times, need to be supported in a way that doesn't demean or diminish them. Sometimes that support could be in the form of child care or dropping off food anonymously. The point is to not make them feel like failures or to belittle them in any way. 

I have seen women in church groups make meals for people who don't really need meals. I remember being in one such group when I had a baby. Their "ministry" was to bring meals to new mothers for one week. This sounds nice, but none of us needed it. The only effect that these meals had was to make the women in the group feel good about themselves -- it served no real need.

Their time would have been better spent volunteering at a homeless shelter where the need for food was real, not contrived.