Work and Labor
Even before the fall God created man with work as something good for him to do (Gen. 2:15). It is a privilege and duty for us to work in exercising the command to have dominion over the earth as God's representative image-bearers (Gen. 1:27-28; Ps. 8:6ff).
And while work in itself is a good thing and something in which all those in society should endeavor to the best of their abilities, because of the fall work has now become much more difficult (Gen. 3:17-19). Even with the added difficulties though, it is still the responsibility of man to work, to earn his own living, and to provide for certain others that are not able to do so (2 Thess. 3:10; Eph. 4:28).
Now in working to provide for others who cannot provide for themselves, there is something to be said in a hierarchical fashion:
But there is still something to be said for what kind of work is acceptable as righteous, or for what industry we can provide labor in order to contribute righteously to society. Obviously if you work as a hit man, it's not an acceptable form of labor either by civil regulations or societal righteousness.
So in what industries can we provide labor in order to contribute righteously to society?
God surely gives us an amazing realm of possibilities. And we're even created and commended to enjoy what we do for our labor (Eccles. 3:12-13). But there are also some serious restrictions regarding the realm of our labor. It clearly can't be something that directly violates His commands. For example, one should never work as a prostitute (Prv. 5:3-6), an abortionist or hit man (Ex. 20:13), a slave trader (Ex. 21:16), or an extortioner (Ex. 20:15-17, 22:21-27, 23:1-3; Deut. 24:14-15, 17-18), etc. But it's a little bit difficult to get into some finer details of other situations.
For instance, are we permitted to work for a company that sells super-caffeinated beverages, nicotine/tobacco, or hard liquors(2)? A company with a branch of operations that performs embryonic stem cell research? A company that exists to promote materialistic consumerism in general? A government organization that has no legitimate Biblical warrant? What if we work for an agency or consulting firm that makes a contract with any of the above companies?
These are not easy questions to answer; and I'm certainly not going to pretend that I have the answers. And with all this we must keep in mind the difference between societal righteousness and governmental jurisdiction (i.e. even if we as individuals are prohibited by God's Word for working for such a company, it does not by necessity mean that the government has the right to prohibit others from working for that company).
But I do wonder if there aren't certain principles we should follow.(3) Moving on though, if our goal is to righteously contribute our labor to society (given that the society is not fully righteous itself), what does that look like?
Let's look again at some of our hypothetical situations and see if there isn't Biblical direction to take into consideration. Are we permitted to work for:
To be clear, I must emphasize again that I do not have all the answers here, nor do I claim to have them. These are my initial thoughts; but I'm teachable. I do think whatever the case, though, we do need to give serious thought to these kinds of things and that we need to think through them Biblically!
And while work in itself is a good thing and something in which all those in society should endeavor to the best of their abilities, because of the fall work has now become much more difficult (Gen. 3:17-19). Even with the added difficulties though, it is still the responsibility of man to work, to earn his own living, and to provide for certain others that are not able to do so (2 Thess. 3:10; Eph. 4:28).
Now in working to provide for others who cannot provide for themselves, there is something to be said in a hierarchical fashion:
- First it is the duty of the immediate family members to provide for their own households (1 Tim. 5:8)
- If they cannot do it, it is the duty of the church, provided certain stipulations are met for those being given care (Eph. 4:28; 1 Tim. 5:3-10)
- After that, it is the duty of every righteous person to give to the powerless poor (Ps. 112:5, 9; Prv. 19:17, 21:13, 28:27)(1)
But there is still something to be said for what kind of work is acceptable as righteous, or for what industry we can provide labor in order to contribute righteously to society. Obviously if you work as a hit man, it's not an acceptable form of labor either by civil regulations or societal righteousness.
So in what industries can we provide labor in order to contribute righteously to society?
God surely gives us an amazing realm of possibilities. And we're even created and commended to enjoy what we do for our labor (Eccles. 3:12-13). But there are also some serious restrictions regarding the realm of our labor. It clearly can't be something that directly violates His commands. For example, one should never work as a prostitute (Prv. 5:3-6), an abortionist or hit man (Ex. 20:13), a slave trader (Ex. 21:16), or an extortioner (Ex. 20:15-17, 22:21-27, 23:1-3; Deut. 24:14-15, 17-18), etc. But it's a little bit difficult to get into some finer details of other situations.
For instance, are we permitted to work for a company that sells super-caffeinated beverages, nicotine/tobacco, or hard liquors(2)? A company with a branch of operations that performs embryonic stem cell research? A company that exists to promote materialistic consumerism in general? A government organization that has no legitimate Biblical warrant? What if we work for an agency or consulting firm that makes a contract with any of the above companies?
These are not easy questions to answer; and I'm certainly not going to pretend that I have the answers. And with all this we must keep in mind the difference between societal righteousness and governmental jurisdiction (i.e. even if we as individuals are prohibited by God's Word for working for such a company, it does not by necessity mean that the government has the right to prohibit others from working for that company).
But I do wonder if there aren't certain principles we should follow.(3) Moving on though, if our goal is to righteously contribute our labor to society (given that the society is not fully righteous itself), what does that look like?
Let's look again at some of our hypothetical situations and see if there isn't Biblical direction to take into consideration. Are we permitted to work for:
- A company that sells super-caffeinated beverages, nicotine/tobacco, or hard liquors?
I would suggest that if the company's main purpose is to cause addiction or habitually take someone out of a right state of mind or induce otherwise harmful effects to their health or the health of others, then no - we're not permitted. But if the company's purpose is to sell a refreshment that does not actively encourage the above mentioned vices (even though they may be a customer-sought intention), then it seems it's a legitimate labor. - A company with a branch of operations that performs embryonic stem cell research?
Obviously if you're the one doing the embryonic stem cell research or even working in that department (or branch), I would say you're certainly not permitted to labor in that field. The problem is that the research being done on embryonic stem cells is generally being done by a branch of a hospital or school that otherwise is very useful and righteous for society. And in that, as your intention is not to encourage embryonic stem cell research (which you don't, you don't even work in that department or branch) but simply to help society through other work in health care or education, it seems difficult to say you would not be permitted to work for that organization at all. - A company that exists to promote materialistic consumerism in general?
My general outlook on this is pretty negative. Let's think about it. If you work for an employer such as Abercrombie & Fitch, can you really go home at night with the feeling that you're righteously contributing to society? Obviously people need clothes; and quality clothes are certainly good things to have (1 Tim. 6:8). But you must realize with a company like that (or the many like it), they're not simply selling clothes. They're intentionally selling the worldview that pleasure (especially sensual pleasure) is to be desired more than anything; and the clothes they produce are simply the vehicle to get you that pleasure. - A government organization that has no legitimate Biblical warrant?
Again, if it was me, I'm not sure I could convince myself that working for the unemployment office would be a way I could righteously contribute to society. Yes, I want to help the poor! But I think it's done best when done within appropriate guidelines given to us from God's Word. Working for an agency that takes by force in order to give to others is not the "charity" that embodies the Christian generosity that's described and encouraged in Scripture (Acts 5:4; 2 Cor. 9:7). - An agency or consulting firm that makes a contract with any of the above companies?
It would really depend on the contract at this point. If part of the contract requires you to help directly promote the aspect of the company that's involved in embryonic stem cell research, materialistic consumerism in general, the illegitimate government organization, etc., perhaps the answer is no. I would think of course you would make your convictions known and seek to find a different contract to which you could be assigned, rather than break all ties over one potential contract. In my experience I've found people are generally willing to work with you when you bring up some heartfelt convictions (obviously there are exceptions which will cause us to reflect on God's Word and what our Biblical duty is at that point - prayer and reliance on the church and the Holy Spirit are the best things we can do in those situations).
To be clear, I must emphasize again that I do not have all the answers here, nor do I claim to have them. These are my initial thoughts; but I'm teachable. I do think whatever the case, though, we do need to give serious thought to these kinds of things and that we need to think through them Biblically!
Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. (Prv. 14:34)
(1) We say the powerless poor for reasons below. A righteous person is not commanded or encouraged to give to someone who is able to work but is simply lazy (Prv. 6:6-11, 10:26, 13:4, 15:19, 20:4, 21:25, 24:30-34). If he especially wants to have compassion for a poor person who can help it, he needs to show such a person that work is truly a good gift from God and then perhaps train him in a skill or help him get educated. But just giving money to a sluggard is never the answer (2 Thess. 3:10).
Now a question remains: Is there a place for the government to collect a tax in order to distribute it to the poor? The answer, we think, is "No."
But someone might raise the passage of Deuteronomy 14:28-29 and so might want to add to the hierarchy above:
"4. The triennial distribution from what is collected in the tithe (as a civil tax) for the powerless poor (Deut. 14:28-29)."
This last point is debatable (to say the least). But even granted that it is or should be the case for a just society to take care of the poor through a civil tax, notice that it's not a regular monthly payment for those who aren't working or just can't find a job (i.e. "Unemployment" as a civil benefit is unbiblical and should be abolished). It's a regular triennial (once every three years) distribution for those who are not able to provide for themselves due to their life situation (sojourners, widows, and orphans).
There was not a whole lot for widows in that culture to do for moral, income-producing work; and the fatherless (that is, orphans) of course are in the same predicament - in most cases they were both as good as dead if their families did not come to their aid. Therefore, it seems best case scenario that the triennial distribution, granting that it was indeed a civil and not a ceremonial distribution, was not something given to people who had the ability either to work or to learn a new trade or skill. It was available only for those who did not have the means to provide for themselves - the "unemployable" (as opposed to having the means but not the opportunity - the "unemployed").
However, in the context of Deut. 14:22-29; it does seem to us that it is not a civil benefit but a ceremonial (or ecclesiastical) regulation. The context speaks of the one giving the tithe as using it to participate in the covenant meal of the Lord (Deut. 14:22-26). And the command seems to reflect God's grace in including those who could not otherwise partake of the covenant meal: the Levite, because he had no inheritance in the land; the sojourner; the widows and the orphans (or fatherless). It's collected for the reason that even they (assuming they are also believers) shall "come and eat and be filled" in the covenant meal of the Lord (cf. 1 Cor. 11:20-22, 33-34).
So we would still maintain that for life-sustainment, helping the poor is definitely something with which all righteous people ought to be concerned (Ps. 112:5, 9; Prv. 19:17, 21:13, 28:27; 1 Cor. 16:2; 2 Cor. 8:8-15, 9:6-15; Jas. 1:27), but it is not something the civil government should be forcing upon a free society.
Now a question remains: Is there a place for the government to collect a tax in order to distribute it to the poor? The answer, we think, is "No."
But someone might raise the passage of Deuteronomy 14:28-29 and so might want to add to the hierarchy above:
"4. The triennial distribution from what is collected in the tithe (as a civil tax) for the powerless poor (Deut. 14:28-29)."
This last point is debatable (to say the least). But even granted that it is or should be the case for a just society to take care of the poor through a civil tax, notice that it's not a regular monthly payment for those who aren't working or just can't find a job (i.e. "Unemployment" as a civil benefit is unbiblical and should be abolished). It's a regular triennial (once every three years) distribution for those who are not able to provide for themselves due to their life situation (sojourners, widows, and orphans).
There was not a whole lot for widows in that culture to do for moral, income-producing work; and the fatherless (that is, orphans) of course are in the same predicament - in most cases they were both as good as dead if their families did not come to their aid. Therefore, it seems best case scenario that the triennial distribution, granting that it was indeed a civil and not a ceremonial distribution, was not something given to people who had the ability either to work or to learn a new trade or skill. It was available only for those who did not have the means to provide for themselves - the "unemployable" (as opposed to having the means but not the opportunity - the "unemployed").
However, in the context of Deut. 14:22-29; it does seem to us that it is not a civil benefit but a ceremonial (or ecclesiastical) regulation. The context speaks of the one giving the tithe as using it to participate in the covenant meal of the Lord (Deut. 14:22-26). And the command seems to reflect God's grace in including those who could not otherwise partake of the covenant meal: the Levite, because he had no inheritance in the land; the sojourner; the widows and the orphans (or fatherless). It's collected for the reason that even they (assuming they are also believers) shall "come and eat and be filled" in the covenant meal of the Lord (cf. 1 Cor. 11:20-22, 33-34).
So we would still maintain that for life-sustainment, helping the poor is definitely something with which all righteous people ought to be concerned (Ps. 112:5, 9; Prv. 19:17, 21:13, 28:27; 1 Cor. 16:2; 2 Cor. 8:8-15, 9:6-15; Jas. 1:27), but it is not something the civil government should be forcing upon a free society.
(2) We're not here suggesting that super-caffeinated beverages or hard liquors are inherently wrong (some of us take exception with tobacco because we can't for the life of us think of any good reason for it off the top of our head - but again, we're teachable). Caffeinated beverages do help many people to be alert at times when they need it, and depending on the beverage and the person's make-up have little health risks involved. Likewise, hard liquors help many people calm down when they really need it. Contrary to popular opinion, the Bible does not condemn the use of certain "drugs" (like alcohol) at all times or even for its properties that "gladden the heart" (Ps. 104:15).
The abuse of these things is what is condemned over and over again in Scripture (Prv. 20:1), especially since they tend only to lead to more unrighteous behavior (Isa. 5:11-12, 22-23).
For a Biblical resource on alcohol, tobacco, and drugs, we recommend and are greatly indebted to:
Frame, John M., The Doctrine of the Christian Life, 2008: Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, pp 740-743.
The abuse of these things is what is condemned over and over again in Scripture (Prv. 20:1), especially since they tend only to lead to more unrighteous behavior (Isa. 5:11-12, 22-23).
For a Biblical resource on alcohol, tobacco, and drugs, we recommend and are greatly indebted to:
Frame, John M., The Doctrine of the Christian Life, 2008: Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, pp 740-743.
(3) While not related to the field of labor, Paul makes a very interesting statement concerning those with whom we should have fellowship: "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people - not all all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world" (1 Cor. 5:9-10). Again, this passage doesn't have to do with our own personal work and labor; but it does say something about the world we live in: it's impossible not to encounter something or someone that is opposed to God and His Word - every day!
Again not related to our contribution to labor, but related to our role as consumers Paul says: "Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience" (1 Cor. 10:25). Of course keep in mind he's talking about meat that was sacrificed to idols before being sold - because "as to eating of food offered to idols, we know that 'an idol has no real existence,' and that ' there is no God but one'" (1 Cor. 8:4ff). He's saying since an idol isn't real, there's no need to worry that the meat you buy has been sacrificed to an idol (a non-existent 'god'). Keep in mind he's speaking directly about food and idols and fellowship with believers. He's not saying consume whatever is sold in the market without raising conscientious questions at all (cf. Rom. 12:2; Eph. 5:10)!
With these limited passages (and they not even directly related to "labor"), we're still left with some serious thought to put to this subject. But for now, it seems to us that unless the labor we're performing is either directly in violation of God's Word or indirectly promoting a company whose main mission directly violates God's Word, perhaps we have to have a little leeway with our pursuit to carry out the Biblical command to provide for our own households (1 Tim. 5:8), which itself is a direct command.
For example: Paul was a tent maker (Acts. 18:1-3). Now we're sure he made and sold tents to his customers for the purpose of shelter. But is it not inconceivable that some of his customers were purchasing a tent with evil intentions (to provide a concealed area for committing adultery, to sacrifice to a pagan god, to set up a shop from which he could distribute idols)?
On the one hand, Paul's intentions for making tents was to provide shelter to his customers. On the other, his customers may have had very different intentions for buying such a tent. Some of them may have even been open enough to tell him that. If they did, would Paul then not sell them the tent? Or would he sell it to them and only plead with them that they use it for good purposes and that they repent and put their faith in Jesus Christ? It may be frivolous to speculate here, but we think there's some gain to be found in it.
Again not related to our contribution to labor, but related to our role as consumers Paul says: "Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience" (1 Cor. 10:25). Of course keep in mind he's talking about meat that was sacrificed to idols before being sold - because "as to eating of food offered to idols, we know that 'an idol has no real existence,' and that ' there is no God but one'" (1 Cor. 8:4ff). He's saying since an idol isn't real, there's no need to worry that the meat you buy has been sacrificed to an idol (a non-existent 'god'). Keep in mind he's speaking directly about food and idols and fellowship with believers. He's not saying consume whatever is sold in the market without raising conscientious questions at all (cf. Rom. 12:2; Eph. 5:10)!
With these limited passages (and they not even directly related to "labor"), we're still left with some serious thought to put to this subject. But for now, it seems to us that unless the labor we're performing is either directly in violation of God's Word or indirectly promoting a company whose main mission directly violates God's Word, perhaps we have to have a little leeway with our pursuit to carry out the Biblical command to provide for our own households (1 Tim. 5:8), which itself is a direct command.
For example: Paul was a tent maker (Acts. 18:1-3). Now we're sure he made and sold tents to his customers for the purpose of shelter. But is it not inconceivable that some of his customers were purchasing a tent with evil intentions (to provide a concealed area for committing adultery, to sacrifice to a pagan god, to set up a shop from which he could distribute idols)?
On the one hand, Paul's intentions for making tents was to provide shelter to his customers. On the other, his customers may have had very different intentions for buying such a tent. Some of them may have even been open enough to tell him that. If they did, would Paul then not sell them the tent? Or would he sell it to them and only plead with them that they use it for good purposes and that they repent and put their faith in Jesus Christ? It may be frivolous to speculate here, but we think there's some gain to be found in it.