Was Jesus a socialist?…revisited

But was He a capitalist?

As I have continued discussions with people about the proper constitutional role of the federal government, and maintaining my contention that the federal government was never supposed to be involved in most of that which it is now, I get constant pushback about how Jesus would have viewed these things. As such, I wrote recently about how Jesus expected His followers individually, and corporately, to willingly behave charitably, especially within the community of believers.

One of the most often (mis)quoted passages regarding such giving is found in Acts chapter 4, verses 32 through 35:

And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them. And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles’ feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need.

Reading this, it is easy to see how someone might (mis)interpret the passage to imply Jesus’ disciples believed in some form of Marxist socialist societal arrangement. But there are things to note here:

• This was done voluntarily, not through government

• People chose to sell property and use the money to benefit those in need by bringing that money to their religious leaders, not to government

• The monies and property used for this charitable activity was kept within the community of believers - it was not used for the “general welfare” of society

There is yet another point that gets missed in this narrative as well - there were still destitute among the believers in Jerusalem. This much is stated explicitly by Paul in the book of Romans, chapter 15, and is inferred as well by the promise to which Paul holds the Corinthians in chapter 9 of his second letter to the Church in Corinth. Still, this charity was for “the saints,” not society in general.

Recently, in response to my contention that Jesus was not a socialist, I was treated to the following rebuttal:

Of course, Jesus did not come to straighten out our politics; He came to preach God’s kingdom and salvation through His sacrifice on the cross. That said, Jesus in His parables bestowed upon his disciples many teachings, some of which could appear to embrace a more capitalist perspective. One such parable follows:

For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. When he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius for the day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the market place; and to those he said, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.’ And so they went. Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did the same thing. And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing around; and he *said to them, ‘Why have you been standing here idle all day long?’ They *said to him, ‘Because no one hired us.’ He *said to them, ‘You go into the vineyard too.’

“When evening came, the owner of the vineyard *said to his foreman, ‘Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last group to the first.’ When those hired about the eleventh hour came, each one received a denarius. When those hired first came, they thought that they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they grumbled at the landowner, saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the scorching heat of the day.’ But he answered and said to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is yours and go, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?’

- Matthew 20:1-15

The purpose of this parable is to enlighten people as to the nature of salvation, that those who receive salvation later still receive the same salvation as those who receive it sooner, regardless of how much work is performed (do not misunderstand - works do not earn salvation; they are a result of it). It also exhibits an interesting understanding of business practice.

Marxists would say that what the landowner in the above parable did is unfair. Why should those who worked all day get paid less than those who worked only an hour? What about minimum wage? Did they not earn a greater reward?

Yet Jesus makes it clear, the owner/CEO of the business has a right to pay employees that which is agreed to, and there is nothing wrong or immoral about doing so, regardless how much each is actually paid. If there is an agreement between employee and employer as to wages, then paying those wages agreed to is both fair and moral.

Similar tenets may be found in other of Jesus’ parables such as that of the servants and the talents found in Matthew 25. In that parable, the employer, prior to departing on a trip, gives each employee a sum of money based on that employees ability. The first two employees both put that money to work to earn additional funds for the employer. The third employee, however, simply buries what he is given in the ground. Upon his return, the first two employees are praised for their business prowess, and each is given more responsibility. The third, however, is castigated for his laziness and for not at least having put the money on deposit where it could have earned interest. The employer then takes back from that employee what was given and hands it over to the first employee.

If Jesus, despite not getting involved in politics, was a socialist, He wasn’t a very good one. On the contrary, the employment and financial concepts He generally expounded were far more along the lines of what we now call “capitalism” than anything else.