the Bible?
Interestingly, God does not share the same belief regarding the
distribution and equality of wealth. Some examples follow.
We see that men according to Gods grace and blessings were made
richer than many others. Of course these are Old Testament examples
of how God supported private property. In fact the 8th and 10th
commandment, “though shall not steal and though shall not covet,”
were in support of private property. These commandments are still
supported by the command of Jesus to love thy neighbor as thyself
seen in Mark 12:31.
It seems that the concluding point in this matter is this; that we are to
not trust in our riches. For how then could Abraham, Lot, and David be
considered righteous men? They obviously did not trust in their riches
but only trusted in the almighty God. It was by their faith in God and
not in their riches. Granted, the verses above are definitely evidence
of how difficult it is to trust in God when riches are present.
After reviewing the New Testament I could not find any statement that
abolishes private property. So I am left to conclude that the precedent
set in the Old Testament by the men of old still holds true. Private
property is still sanctioned by God. In addition, God says, “I will have
mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom
I will have compassion,” Rom 9:15. I also have no doubt that each of
the men described above were hard workers.
Biblical Opposition to Socialism and Communism
1. Prov 6:1-2, “My son, if thou be surety for thy friend, [if] thou hast
stricken thy hand with a stranger, Thou art snared with the words
of thy mouth, thou art taken with the words of thy mouth.
2. Prov 11:15, "He that is surety for a stranger shall smart for it:
and he that hateth suretiship is sure."
3. Prov 17:18: “A man void of understanding striketh hands, [and]
becometh surety in the presence of his friend.
The distribution of this cost and benefit amongst the “social” allows for
those who fit the state’s pre-established criteria to receive medical,
retirement, unemployment, or workers compensation benefits.
Benefits received by an individual are not congruent with the amounts
the individual paid. Meaning you and I could be paying for somebody
who is in retirement, or one who has illegal citizenship, or one who
does not work and is dependant on welfare checks and food stamps, or
someone whose spouse has passed away, or someone who has a state
defined disability. I believe this is in violation of what Apostle Paul
writes in 2nd Thessalonians 3:6 –14. Some key points from these
verses are:
Also, as man was being cast out from the Garden of Eden God cursed
the land and told man we need to work for our food. I believe that
Socialism is man’s/Satan’s way of reversing God’s curse. Genesis 3:19
"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the
ground…”. State Socialism attempts to provide mankind with food,
health care, retirement, and survivor benefits. These benefits
ultimately deny God’s authority to sentence us to hardships. We
become less dependent on God and more dependent on the state. In
the case of the United States, the state is supposedly made up of the
people. It follows then that we become humanistic when we as a
people feel that we can depend on ourselves. Who needs God when
we can take care of ourselves? This “government will take care of us”
mentality drives people to laziness, especially when the checks keep
coming. All of our welfare systems are demanding more and more
funds as people seek assistance from our government. In essence, I
am forcing others to pay for my doctor bills and also for my child’s
education.
Proverbs 21:25: "The desire of the slothful killeth him; for his hands
refuse to labour."
Ephesians 4:28: "Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him
labour, working with [his] hands the thing which is good, that he
may have to give to him that needeth."
2nd Corinthians 11:9 “And when I was present with you, and
wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking
to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in
all [things] I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you,
and [so] will I keep [myself].”
Proverbs 13:4 (NIV) The sluggard craves and gets nothing, but the
desires of the diligent are fully satisfied.
Proverbs 20:4: The sluggard will not plow by reason of the cold;
therefore shall he beg in harvest, and have nothing.
The New Testament teaches for people of whatever station they are in to be content with
their station, which obviously runs contrary to the revolutionary notions of Communism.
This is because the emphasis of the New Testament in this general arena is ultimate
reliance upon God, not upon government or a revolutionary group or anything else, to
provide for our daily wants and needs (Matthew 6:25-34, 1Timothy 6:6-10). The
doctrine of the New Testament teaches for servants and slaves to be content in their
positions (Ephesians 6:5-8, etc.) We are further taught in Matt 20:25-27, Mark
10:42 –43, and Luke 22: 25 -27 that we are not to have dominion over
others, but to serve. We Christians serve one another. Christians
don’t lord over those who are not under them. Not by force, not by
vote, not by hiring a servant and then delegating to the servant an
authority to steal. Again, Christians don’t have dominion over their
neighbors. We cannot tax our neighbors to fund our retirement.
At the same time, the mercenary style of capitalism that also prevails
today, which seeks profit above all else and which forgets mercy is as
unbiblical as Communism and Socialism. I believe that in place of
much of the government handouts today, where there is true need, the
church (Christians) once filled this need and gave of their hearts
accordingly. Again, we cannot confuse charity with forced Socialism.
Unfortunately, we slowly see individuals depend more on the state
instead of God; it is easier. US Congressman in the 1840’s Robert Dale
Owen, later known as the father of American socialism, believed that
the Christian faith hindered man’s evolution. An Owen associate
wrote:
“The great object was to get rid of Christianity and to convert our
churches into halls of science... the plan was not to make open
attacks upon religion – although we might belabor the clergy and
bring them into contempt where we could ... but to establish a
system of state – we said national – schools... from which all
religion would be excluded and to which all parents were to be
compelled by law to send their children.”