Socialism in the Bible?
Is socialism really the biblical system? Socialists point to several scriptures.
“He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none …” (Luke 3:11). And 1 John 3:17 says, “But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?”
Some people conclude from these verses that the Bible supports government-enforced wealth redistribution. But what these verses really show is that the Bible advocates generosity. These are two very different concepts.
Generosity springs from free will. The motivation to give and share originates in compassion, as 1 John 3:17 indicates—but there is choice involved. With socialism, it is the opposite. Redistribution of wealth is always by force of government. The government simply uses its overwhelming power to take what it thinks is “fair” from the “givers.”
God has created laws that govern human action and that work automatically, like the laws of physics. A principle of the Bible is that there are blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. God is not forcing people to obey His law. Blessings are the natural result of obeying His laws and principles. Generosity and sharing with those in need are biblical commands. Yet under God’s system—aside from tithes, which we will look at shortly—it is up to the giver to decide to give and how much he or she can afford to give, and, in many cases, whether he or she will give at all! God allows free choice. In fact, free will is essential to true Christianity.
Had God wanted to create robots that flawlessly keep His law, He could have. If He wanted to use the overwhelming force of government to impose His will on people, He could have. But God is concerned about people developing character, and this only happens through free choice.
Perhaps the single most commonly cited “proof” that socialism is biblical is the claim that the early New Testament Church was socialistic or even communistic. Acts 2:44-45 read, “The believers all kept together; they shared all they had with one another, they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds among all, as anyone might be in need” (Moffatt translation). The phrase “they shared all they had” or “had all things common,” as it reads in the King James Version, supposedly proves that these people sold all their earthly possessions and put the money into one pot, and everyone took what they needed. But consider what this verse actually says and what was actually happening in Jerusalem at that time.
The preceding verses in Acts show that the time setting is the annual festival of Pentecost. On this day, thousands of Jews from all over the world were gathered in Jerusalem. This was an exciting event, the start of the New Testament Church. It was the day the Holy Spirit was given to the disciples. Three thousand people were baptized and converted that day.
Most of these Christians were Jews who lived in places scattered all over Judea and Asia. In their excitement of finding God’s truth, conversing with God’s apostles and people of like mind, many remained in Jerusalem longer than they had planned and ran short of food and money. As Herbert W. Armstrong explained, “Consequently, of necessity, they formed a sort of community for the time being only. And, whenever some in poorer circumstances had need because of these unexpected conditions, others in better circumstances would from time to time sell part of their goods or land and share with the less fortunate” (Plain Truth, January-February 1949).
These people were not socialists or Communists. But they were generous, giving and compassionate! Many of the local Church members sold their property as needed to help fellow brothers meet their expenses in Jerusalem during this exciting time in Church history and to help those who had been ostracized and cut off from the synagogues and their means of employment by the Jews of the day (John 9:22; 12:42).
These Church members who generously stepped in to fulfill a need were able to do it because they were wealthy property owners. “They did not all sell everything they owned at once, but they sold property only when, or ‘as anyone might be in need.’ … But an absolute community of goods never was practiced by the Church at Jerusalem or any other Christian church” (ibid).
The Fenton translation says, “[N]o one who possessed property claimed it as exclusively his own: but it was for the use of all. … For some who were possessors of lands and houses sold them; and bringing the price of the sales, and presenting the same at the feet of the apostles, a distribution was made to each according to his need” (Acts 4:32, 35).
Not all sold their property. Only some of the property owners sold their possessions. “This selling of property was wholly voluntary,” wrote Mr. Armstrong. Later on, the Apostle Peter said to Ananias, “was the money not yours to do as you pleased about it?” (Acts 5:4; Moffatt). Some of the members had more assets than others from their occupations. “Here was private enterprise and private initiative and private ownership,” noted Mr. Armstrong.
So in reality, the account in Acts 2 actually proves that the Church did not practice socialism, which is a theory that advocates that the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned or regulated by the government or community as a whole.
The last major argument claiming that the Bible advocates socialism usually revolves around tithing.
The Bible described three types of tithes in ancient Israel. The first tithe (10 percent of a person’s increase) was paid to God and used by the priests and Levites. After the founding of the New Testament Church, this tithe was used by the Church for proclaiming the gospel (Hebrews 7). The second tithe was to be saved and kept by individuals so they would have money to attend the Feast of Tabernacles.
But the Bible also talks about a third tithe, and this third tithe does play an important role as a welfare program!
But consider how different God’s welfare system is compared to socialist welfare.
No comments:
Post a Comment