Jesus Was Not A Socialist

Jesus was not a Socialist. A standard mode of thinking by the religious left, and those pushing “social justice,” is to say something like this: "Jesus cares about the poor and, therefore, so should we. That means we must be socialists, not capitalists."

Socialism's central characteristic is the concentration of power to forcibly achieve these purposes: central planning of the economy, government ownership of property, and the redistribution of wealth. Government, whether big or small, is the only entity in society that possesses a legal monopoly over the use of force. The more force it initiates against people, the more it subordinates the choices of the ruled to the whims of their rulers — that is, the more socialist it becomes.

So was Jesus really a socialist? Did he call for the state to redistribute income to either punish the rich or to help the poor?

Consider the eighth of the Ten Commandments: "You shall not steal." Note the period after the word "steal." This admonition does not read, "You shall not steal unless the other guy has more than you do" or "You shall not steal unless you're absolutely positive you can spend it better than the guy who earned it." Nor does it say, "You shall not steal, but it's OK to hire someone else, like a politician, to do it for you."

In case people were still tempted to steal, the tenth commandment is aimed at nipping in the bud one of the principal motives for stealing (and for redistribution): "You shall not covet." In other words, if it's not yours, keep your fingers off of it.

What about the story of the Good Samaritan? Doesn't that make a case for government welfare programs or redistribution? The answer is an emphatic "No!"

Consider the details of the story, as recorded in Luke 10:29–37: A traveler comes upon a man at the side of a road. The man had been beaten and robbed and left half-dead. What did the traveler do? He helped the man himself, on the spot, with his own resources. He did not say, "Write a letter to the emperor" or "Go see your social worker" and walk on. The Good Samaritan story makes a case for helping a needy person voluntarily out of love and compassion.

There's no suggestion that the Samaritan "owed" anything to the man in need or that it was the duty of a distant politician to help out with other people's money. Moreover, Jesus never called for equality of material wealth, let alone the use of political force to accomplish it, even in situations of dire need.

What about the reference in the book of Acts to the early Christians selling their worldly goods and sharing communally in the proceeds? That sounds like a progressive utopia. On closer inspection, however, it turns out that those early Christians did not sell everything they had and were not commanded or expected to do so. They continued to meet in their own private homes, for example.

The well-known "Golden Rule" comes from the lips of Jesus himself, in Matthew 7:12. "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." In Matthew 19:19, Jesus says, "love your neighbor as yourself." Nowhere does he even remotely suggest that we should dislike a neighbor because of his wealth or seek to take that wealth from him. If you don't want your property confiscated (and most people don't), then clearly you're not supposed to confiscate somebody else's.

Christian doctrine cautions against greed. So does present-day economist Thomas Sowell: "I have never understood why it is 'greed' to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money."

Using the power of government to grab another person's property isn't exactly altruistic. Jesus never even implied that accumulating wealth through peaceful commerce was in any way wrong; he simply implored people to not allow wealth to rule them or corrupt their character.

That's why his greatest apostle, Paul, didn't say money was evil in the famous reference in 1 Timothy 6:10. Here's what Paul actually said: "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." Indeed, progressives themselves have not selflessly abandoned money, for it is other people's money, especially that of "the rich," that they're always clamoring for.

In Matthew 19:23, Jesus says, "Truly I tell you, it will be hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven." A redistributionist might say, "Eureka! There it is! He doesn't like rich people" and then stretch the remark beyond recognition to justify one rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul scheme after another.

But this admonition is entirely consistent with everything else Jesus says. It's not a call to envy the rich, to take from the rich, or to give "free" cell phones to the poor. It's a call to character. It's an observation that some people let their wealth rule them, rather than the other way around. It's a warning about temptations (which come in many forms, not just material wealth).

Haven't we all noticed that among the rich, as is equally true among the poor, you have both good and bad people? Haven't we all seen some rich celebrities corrupted by their fame and fortune, while others among the rich live perfectly upstanding lives? Haven't we all seen some poor people who allow their poverty to demoralize and enervate them, while others among the poor view it as an incentive to improve themselves and their communities?

"Render unto Caesar" is the beginning of a phrase attributed to Jesus in the synoptic gospels, which reads in full, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

This phrase has become a widely quoted summary of the relationship between Christianity and secular authority. The original message, coming in response to a question of whether it was lawful for Jews to pay taxes to Caesar, gives rise to multiple possible interpretations about the circumstances under which it is desirable for the Christian to submit to earthly authority.

They anticipated that Jesus would oppose the tax, as their purpose was "to hand him over to the power and authority of the governor". The governor was Pilate, and he was the man responsible for the collecting of taxes in Roman Judea. At first the questioners flattered Jesus by praising his integrity, impartiality, and devotion to truth. Then they asked him whether or not it is right for Jews to pay the taxes demanded by Caesar. In the Gospel of Mark the additional, provocative question is asked, "Should we pay or shouldn't we?"

Jesus first called them hypocrites, and then asked one of them to produce a Roman coin that would be suitable for paying Caesar's tax. One of them showed him a Roman coin, and he asked them whose head and inscription were on it. They answered, "Caesar's," and he responded: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's".

In Jesus's teachings and in many other parts of the New Testament, Christians — indeed, all people — are advised to be of "generous spirit," to care for one's family, to help the poor, to assist widows and orphans, to exhibit kindness and to maintain the highest character. How all that gets translated into the dirty business of coercive, vote-buying, politically driven Socialists redistribution schemes is a problem for prevaricators with agendas. It's not a problem for scholars of what the Bible actually says and doesn't say.

Socialism dictates choices, violates freedom, and rewards irresponsibility – which is the opposite of Christianity. God neither dictates choices nor violates freedom; He gifted humanity with personal volition (free will), moral responsibility and individual accountability. The same cause/effect natural order that governs the cosmos ensures that person reaps the consequences of his or her own choices.

Socialism is always presented as an "economic" argument rooted in altruism. Dostoevsky disagreed and says "socialism" is rooted in atheism and greed. The idea of people reaching heaven after their life on earth is pushed aside in favor of the idea of dragging heaven down to earth instead.

“For socialism is not merely the labour question, it is before all things the atheistic question, the question of the form taken by atheism today, the question of the tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to Heaven from earth but to set up Heaven on earth. The present socialism, in Europe and here in Russia, removes Christ everywhere and summons science, and asserts that the reason for all human calamities is one — poverty, the struggle for existence, ‘society.’ These socialists in their expectation of a future arrangement of society without personal property, love money terribly in the meantime and value it even to the extreme, but namely in accordance with the idea they attach to it.””

Therefore, God is irrelevant and man is the higher power that can create "heaven" on earth for himself. All the Social Justice Warriors who spew "Jesus was a Socialist" to justify their politics, when they don't even believe in Jesus, reveals how truly incapable they are of actually comprehending the brainwashing they've undergone to reach their ridiculous conclusions.

Search your conscience. Consider the evidence. Be mindful of facts. Ask yourself: When it comes to helping the poor, would Jesus prefer that you give your money freely to the Salvation Army or at gunpoint to the welfare department? History has shown the world that the only lasting thing that socialist and redistributive arrangements do for poor people is give them lots of company.