By inspiration, the apostle Paul stated that, "If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat" (2 Thessalonians 3:10). In the case of Ruth, even though she didn't have to pay for gathering corn in Boaz' cornfield, she still had to gather or "work" for it (Ruth 2:12 - see commentary).
Also note David's rejection of Araunah's offer of his threshing floor for the sacrifices that David was to offer in order to stay the curse brought on by David numbering the people (2 Samuel 24:10-17). David wouldn't take Araunah's offer of his threshing floor without first paying a price for it. Nor would he offer a sacrifice to the Lord that cost him "nothing" (2 Samuel 24:18-25). Obviously, David believed in having a work ethic.
Regarding the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor (without the poor having to work for it), the writer of this article poses the following question: "But is administratively shifting wealth from rich to poor the best means to uplift the poor from their lives of poverty?
He then quotes from Benjamin Franklin: "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer" (source).
Not only does a welfare state promote laziness with no incentive to work, but it can cause all kinds of other societal problems as well (see quote). Beloved, we work in order to bless others less fortunate, and they in turn work to bless others (note the spiritual principle in 2 Corinthians 8). There's no "free lunch."
—Mike Riley, Gospel Snippets
Comments
Post a Comment