Paul is indeed setting the example. But he does it with a purpose – to show that everyone who can support himself, must support himself. The punchline is in verse 10, “if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.”
That punchline is in the context of Paul,as a leader,instructing a Christian community over which he had spiritual jurisdiction.
Now, Paul wasn’t a mean old man – he was a holy and loving man, a man who sacrificed everything – including his life – for Christ and for his fellow Christians.
He was also a practical man – he saw how some people were quite willing to live on the charity of others (and this isn’t the only epistle where he discusses the problem.) He saw how that has a deleterious impact on the one receiving charity (as we see it today) and how it sucked down resources needed by those who could not support themselves.
Yes, he did!!
Paul could not hold those outside of the Christian communities to that rule.
If Paul came across a person in need who was not under his spiritual jurisdiction,then Paul’s rule would not be binding over that person. Paul would have just been hard-hearted if he had applied that rule to a stranger in dire need,and it would fly against Paul’s ideas on grace. If Paul could bless his persecutors – those who wanted to kill him and who blasphemed God,he could certainly give food to a wastrel in need.
The general application is here: “if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.”
It could only have had general application within the Christian communities. And even so,it would not have nullified the greater rule of “Give to everyone who asks of you” (Luke 6,30).
He drives the message home in 1 Timothy, 5-3, 13:
Note these widows are not part of “his circle.”
I can concede that they are not part of Paul’s circle,but they are a Christian community that Paul commisioned Timothy to set in order.
Note again how he stresses the negative impact of excess charity on the recipients in verses 11-13.
He clearly meant it to be held as a general moral rule!!
It was a rule for Christian communities to abide by,being agreed in their faith,and hence,values.
Unworthy and unable are two different things. We help those who are unable to help themselves, regardless of any idea of their “worth.” But Paul clearly says those who can help themselves must help themselves – and explains why.
When we come across a person who is not helping himself,we do not always know how able or unable he really is. His unwillingness to work can be,in effect, indistinguishable from the inability to work,the inability to function well. But we are still led to think that he is unworthy of our help.
You are confounding the idea of “worth” with the idea of “ability.” Those who have the ability to care for themselves must care for themselves. Those who do not have the ability to care for themselves are proper obejcts of Charity – regardless of any perception of their “worth.”
Again,we do not really know just how able or unable strangers
are to care for themselves. They may not even know how able they are either,and may not be convinced even if we told them how able they are. But even though we don’t know their ability or inability, we are still inclined to think in terms of worthiness or unworthiness.
