Is Jesus a Socialist?

Not according to Tom Snyder whose article, No, Jesus is not a Socialist, offers some compelling evidence in support of that claim. The very first paragraph was enough to realize posting on it would provoke near apoplectic response from certain commentors, and while that image amused me, let me state quite clearly that that is not why I'm posting on it now. His premise is intriguing, and yes, it is provocative, but I can't find anything wrong with his argument. I would say that his vision of social welfare is the ideal, but in the present social climate here in America, and indeed around the world, it is and will continue to be an elusive dream.

But it doesn't have to be that way.

Mr. Snyder writes...

A group of self-described "progressive" Christian evangelicals calling themselves "Red Letter Christians," and led by the left-oriented Sojourners magazine and left-oriented religious pundits like Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo, has recently emerged in the body politic. These self-proclaimed "progressives" have been making a lot of noise recently complaining about the ties that other Christian evangelicals have long held with the conservative movement in the United States, including the conservative movement in the Republican Party.

One policy under attack by these "progressives" is the conservative effort to "cut programs to the poor." They say that such a policy goes against Jesus Christ's commands in chapter 24 of the book of Matthew to feed those who are hungry.

These "Red Letter Christians" are making a lot of noise, but they are just a bunch of clanging cymbals – and the love that they claim to spout has no truth in it whatsoever.

What these misguided religious zealots conveniently fail to note is that nowhere in the New Testament or the other books of the Bible do Jesus Christ, His apostles, God the Father, the Holy Spirit, Moses or the Hebrew prophets command the government to take money from its citizens and transfer it to poor people. In fact, the Bible says just the opposite.

Matthew 24 speaks of the Great Tribulation at the end of this age, or this present dispensation of Grace. No mention whatsoever is made of 'the poor', and only one mention of 'feeding'...

Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?
--Matthew 24:25

But this admonishment is not so much a command to feed but rather a qualifying despription of what a 'faithful and wise servant' is, and the nature of his commission... 'to give them meat in due season'.

It is obvious that Snyder is disdainful of progressive "Christians" who, to his mind, distort the truth of God's word. If his article were nothing more than a list of objections it too would be no more than 'clanging cymbals', but Snyder offers corroboration...

God presents us with three general ways in the Bible to take care of the poor and needy: 1) through the family; 2) through the church; and 3) through individual charity. The applicable passages for these three ways are Deuteronomy 14:28-29, Numbers 18:24, Matthew 6:1-4 and 1 Timothy 5:3-16.

So what do these verses say?

"At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates: And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest."
--Deuteronomy 14:28-29

It is the Church, therefore, in this Church age, the dispensation of Grace, that is responsible for feeding not just the poor, but the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and then only, what? Every three years? Personally, I believe the Church can do much better than that, but Snyder explains further on that this is all that's required by God.

"But the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering unto the LORD, I have given to the Levites to inherit: therefore I have said unto them, Among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance."
--Numbers 18:24

Numbers 18:24 appears to be clarification of the Deuteronomy verse which describes the Levites as 'hav[ing] no inheritance', which seems to afford them a measure of neutrality. Any thoughts on this? Anyone?

"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly."
--Matthew 6:1-4

Where Deuteronomy spoke to organizational responsibility, these verse speak to personal responsibility, coupled with a warning against pride and self-righteousness.

"Honour widows that are widows indeed. But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God. Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day. But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth. And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless. But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. For some are already turned aside after Satan. If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed."
--1 Timothy 5:3-16

These verses get into specifics, who to and who not to 'relieve' of their affliction. But another aspect here is starkly present: Members of the house of God come first and foremost.

I can support that claim with Galatians 6:10... "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith." Use of the word 'especially' indicates preference.

To add to Mr. Snyder's list of who should receive aid, allow me to point out who should NOT receive aid... "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." --2 Thessalonians 3:10

Back to Snyders article...

Now, the first two ways are pretty clear. People's first obligation is to the needy, poor, widowed and orphaned in their own families. Only after they do this do they have any obligation to help the needy, poor, widowed and orphaned through their local church organization. God established the pattern for this kind of church giving in Numbers 18:24 and Deuteronomy 14:28, 29. As David Chilton points out in his great book "Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators," the bulk of Christian giving to the local church should be geared toward financing professional theologians, experts in biblical law and church discipline, teachers of God's word and leaders skilled in worship. It was only every third year that all the giving was set aside to help the needy, poor, widowed and orphaned. Even then, the money was not given just to anyone who showed up. Those able to work but don't do not qualify for help. Also, those who have families to take care of them don't qualify, nor do widows under age 60 qualify, according to the Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 5:3-16.

Jesus Christ, who is God in the flesh, talks about the third way in Matthew 6. He tells His listeners that they should give individual charity. He also says they should give such charity secretly: "Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing."

In other words, Jesus is not a socialist. Nor is he a liberal. In fact, in none of the Bible passages just cited, nor in any others I know of, does Jesus, God or even Moses cite the government as the means by which the poor, needy, widowed and orphaned are housed, clothed and fed.

Thus, a simple, straightforward reading of the Bible, God's Word, including the "Red Letter" words of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, clearly shows that the American welfare state is anti-Christian and unbiblical. Any Christian who advocates such a government welfare system (including clergymen or women) should be harshly rebuked. Furthermore, any members of any political party, including Republicans, Democrats, Reform Party members, Libertarians or whatever, who advocate such a socialist system yet claim to be Christian should be reprimanded by their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and by all church leaders.

It sounds harsh, but again, I can't find anything wrong with it. The American welfare system is an abomination, and a travesty. It encourages sexual impurity; fornication, un-wed motherhood. It encourages slothfulness. It destroys families. And it fosters generational dependency, a sense of entitlement, and outright slavery with little or no hope for freedom... unless they rise up themselves and flee the Welfare state of mind.

There are of course plenty of stories of men, women, and children rising above poverty and the welfare state to make something of themselves, and the lives of their children, but these results are rarely the result of anything the 'system' has done for the welfare recipient, but rather, are overwhelmingly the product of the hard work and determination of those welfare recipients. Personal disgust of one's situation coupled with hard work and determination bring more people out of poverty than Welfare, or EBT.

There is much more to the article, but I'll leave that for you to read.