Was Jesus Really a Socialist? (Part 4: Jesus, Charity, and Property Rights)

Recap

In Part 3 of “Was Jesus really a Socialist?” we considered 20 different arguments made by believers to defend the idea that real Christianity is socialist… that Jesus Himself was a great socialist leader. We challenged you to read those passages in context and see if you could see problems inherent in the applications that socialist leaning believers demand from them.

Oh, Is That So?!

Today, I will pick at all 20 in regard to immediate and near context, false contrasts, and false comparisons. Next time I will draw back and consider the larger context of Christian discipleship and real world outcomes in proposed Socialist solutions to world struggle.

Go back and review the 20 claims and their textual basis if you don’t remember them. To save space I will reference them by number… so it might help to have it available in some way as you read my thoughts today.

Context, Context, Context

Context matters for all Scriptures. Sometimes that context correction is immediate and sometimes general. Today, let’s consider immediately important contexts for all 20 socialist claims.

Ananias & Sapphira

Concerning #12: Ananias & Sapphira are NOT killed for withholding funds, but for lying before the church to gain status by pretending to give it all. This follows the curse of Malachi 1:14—“Cursed be the cheat who has a male in his flock, and vows it, and yet sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished.” Not only that, but we also learn that Peter defends fundamental property rights in the very moment of cursing, saying, “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?” So, nix #12.

Individuals vs. Norms

We also draw an immediate distinction between what is spoken to individuals in their specialized discipleship call and what is meant in context as a behavioral norm for all. Jesus does not ask others to sell all their property and give it away as he does “the rich young ruler.” Rather, Jesus puts his finger specifically on this young man’s greatest weakness—the love of money. So, nix # 2.

Voluntary vs. Forced

We draw a distinction between voluntary personal action springing from a willing heart in response to divine covenant, and claims of universal programs run by government agencies that deny property rights. The “Good Samaritan” shows personal generosity with his own money. Zacchaeus offers to make restitution of all that he stole and to give away the profit earned from those stolen funds. Christians willingly give from their abundance to help in a dire situation at the launch of the Church. Believers willingly support suffering believers in Jerusalem who did so much to help others at the first. So, nix #7, #9, #11 & #15.

Voluntary Giving Defends Property Rights

Paul himself says of the call to giving in the church in #14. We find, “On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper…” (I Corinthians 16:2). And “For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints—and this, not as we expected, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and then by the will of God to us…. this act of grace… this act of grace…  prove… that your love is genuine… For if the readiness is there, it is acceptable according to what a person has, not according to what he does not have… for I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened.” (2 Corinthians 8:3-12)  Indeed, this is the exact context of supposed calls for enforced equalizing of “fairness.” It is grace and compassion and love not centralized confiscation. The idea of “fairness” in 8:13-15 is not outcome equalization but the generous, freely offered flow of what one has in abundance to alleviate destitution and need in another. So, nix #14 & #15 as a basis for socialism.

Man Before Man vs. Man Before God

There is a clear separation between man before God vs. man before men. Those who are quick to mock the notion of “legislating morality,” ignore the tithe through “New Testament grace,”  and weep in ill-conceived panic over “Christian Nationalism,” are ironically enough, also quick to erase the boundaries between calls to charity and government eradication of property rights in socialism, and feel themselves virtuous in doing it. Charity willingly takes of your own things and gives it to meet a need in others. The socialist (party A) gleefully takes from party B, in order to be “generous” with party C. They are not even remotely the same… not in spirit and not in real world outcomes. (The subject of my next article.)

Generosity vs. Confiscation & Redistribution

So, we make the same distinction between a call to generosity and a demand for centralized confiscation and redistribution, which does not occur anywhere in Scripture. Give to the needy is not the same as take from the prosperous. Giving to one in need is not the same as robbing B to artificially support the chosen lifestyle of C. Having eyes of compassion for the struggling is not the same as eradicating distinction through legislation. Hording huge amounts of wealth is not the same as investing in businesses that provide jobs and opportunity. Thus, commanding people before the Lord to be generous rather than hording huge amounts of wealth is not the same as forcing them at the end of a gun to empty their pockets. Government is always a gun. So, nix #1, #3, #16, & #20.

Stewards vs. Slaves of the State

Attitudes toward ourselves as stewards of God’s provision are also radically different than calls for centralized state-run economies of confiscation and redistribution. Those who cannot understand this are ready to call the desire to maintain wise control over what one produces GREED, but do not regard it as greedy when some desire to take from producers by force to fund, and thus reward, unproductive lifestyles. The love of money is a sin. The answer to this is not socialism that feeds on envy and rewards indolence, but a love for God, a wise handling of the resources God has permitted one to manage, manifested in generosity. So, nix #5, #10 & #17.

Discipling Thieves

The thief (whether breaking in by night or legislating wanton confiscation) must learn this. Let him work with his hands to meet the needs of others… personally… generously… selflessly. It’s a disciplined work when discipling a repentant thief. So, nix # 18.

Examples vs. Norms

This extends also to the radical distinction between the chosen actions of one group and the normalization of those actions for all groups. Jesus miraculously feeds two massive crowds of followers as a manifestation of Himself as the new Moses prayed for in Numbers 27 and promised in Deuteronomy 18. Jesus only did this twice as far as we know, and did not do this everywhere all the time. So, nix #6 as a basis for Socialism.

Limited Resources Demands Wisdom

Without the ability to miraculously multiply food, the rest of us are left dealing with real world resources in economic systems. So, even when the earliest church chooses to dig deep and sell resources to meet emergency needs, this is not a call to socialism. The ancient world knew of socialism. The Jewish people, through Scripture, rejected it. In Acts 2, many Jewish worshippers came from abroad with limited money for a short trip and ended up staying. It took time to sell their property abroad and bring their families and make permanent arrangements for their sustenance in Jerusalem. While this sharing is a miraculous event of love in community and was “necessary” to keep early momentum, it was not without consequences economically. As they burned up many of their resources in meeting emergency need, they also came to poverty in the years to come without these resources to sustain them. Hence, nix #11 as burdensome emergency measures not a call to socialism that the rest of the early church wrongfully rejects.

Here But Not There? Why?

The food distribution—necessitating administrative scramble in Acts 6 in the choosing of deacons—falls under the same umbrella. The church took on the noble work of helping widows and orphans. They did so from the same type of resources garnered in Acts 2… that which was freely given by believers. That’s the context… it says so plainly—“…a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution.” Those who came from afar began to be “burdensome” and natural alliances started to raise their ugly heads. And what does Paul say of this program as it spread to other Churches throughout the empire through his own church planting? I will pick this up next time, but if you can’t wait for an answer, go read the qualifications of 1 Timothy 5 and compare that to the call for amoral socialism’s promise of something for nothing from an increasingly indolent population of takers living off the stolen funds of producers. So, nix #13 #14 & #19.

Images and Ownership

In the same vein, render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s answers a question and is bound by the context of that question. The question is about the “lawfulness” of paying taxes to Caesar in the context of a trap meant to put Jesus in serious danger no matter what he answers. It works the concept of “image is ownership” to raise the conversation above the material to the spiritual. This is not pay taxes and pay tithe. (Governments do need money to administer law and order, protect from foreign threats, and work for the common blessing of the community in things like roads, bridges, and general water supply projects. So, taxes used for public works of general blessing in a social contract is legitimate but not total.) This, however, is a discussion about the nature of true worship. For if the coin is Caesar’s by dint of his image stamped upon it, what has God’s image stamped upon it making it His? We do not belong to Caesar, we belong to God. So nix #4 as a defense of the socialist state which eradicates natural rights born of divine image and lays claim to the life, property, and freedom of every member of that society.  

Thou Shalt Not Steal IS Property Rights

A Torah world is built on “Thou shalt not steal.” The very notion of theft has “property rights as a natural right” as a conceptual foundation. We cannot get around this by claiming that there is no such thing as theft because we reject the very idea of property in the new kind of beautiful world preached by Jesus in contradistinction to that outmoded kind of legal world preached by Torah.

Jesus Defends Property Rights

Jesus decries theft in Matthew 19:18, Mark 10:19 and Luke 18:20 by demanding the keeping of Torah. He does so again in Mark 7:21–23 and Matthew 15:19–20, calling theft “evil.” He denounces the thief in John 10:1, 8, 10, saying, “He that enters not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.” And “The thief comes not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy.” Then again in “Matthew 21:13 / Mark 11:17 / Luke 19:46, “It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.”

Jesus Defends Property Rights Again

Jesus overtly defends property rights in the very parable of the vineyard workers that many foolishly try to use to denounce property rights and to call for equal outcomes. Jesus follows the “You gave them the same as us,” with “Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’” The equal pay is generosity not one’s due. The owner declares himself free to handle his property as he pleases. The pay agreed upon under verbal contract is, however, no longer the land owners but belongs to those who worked for it. So, nix #8.

Sometimes the context is broad. So we draw a necessary distinction between the goal of covenant systems established in Israel and the outworking of those principles in the context of modern economies… the subject of my next article.

~Andrew D. Sargent, PhD