History

Re: The Bible and the Rich

G8R HED — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:54:39 GMT

Sorry for the formatting snafu. It doesn't copy and paste well.

Re: The Bible and the Rich

G8R HED — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:49:08 GMT

The division of labor is the basis of voluntary exchange and the sole reason for society. Without it, society would not exist.

Dr. C.F.W. Walther wrote a great little theological book called 'Communism and Socialism' which speaks to the Biblical perspecive of society. It is a compilation of four of his seminary lectures on the topic.

I particularly like his treatment of the topic of riches concerning Anninias and Saphirah>

"And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart,

and of one soul: neither said any of them that aught of the

things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things

common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of

the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and grace was upon them

all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as

many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and

brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them

down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto

every man according as he had need. And J oses, who by the

apostles was surnamed Barnabas (which is, being interpreted,

the son of consolation), a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

having land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the

apostles' feet."

This is certainly a glorious example of the

ardent love of the early Christians. It must be remembered

that at that time too, only a few rich people accepted Chrisianity;

the greater number of those who became Christians were

poor. To this must be added the fact that no Christian's life was

safe even for a single hour. The drawn sword of a bloodthirsty

Herod threatened the life of every Christian. During

that time of great trouble the Christians bound themselves most

intimately together, and so that no one might be in want, those

of more means than others sold their real estate and pJaced

the 'proceeds into a common treasury.

Thus far it seems as if these examples really favored communism.

We read, however, of no other Christian congregation

of the apostolic age in which such an order of things was instituted.

And furthermore we read in Acts 5:1ff., "But a certain

man" (Luke thus continues) "named Ananias, with Sapphira,

his wife, sold a possession, and kept back part of the price (his

.wife also being privy to it) and brought a certain part, and

laid it at the apostles' feet." This Ananias also wanted to be

looked upon as a loving benevolent and merciful Christian man.

To this end he sold his possessions, but kept back part of the:

price, and brought the rest to the apostle Peter under the pretense

that this was the enire sum that he had realized. "But

Peter :said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to

the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the

land? While it remained, was it not thine own? and after it

was sold, was it not in thine own power?" It is particularly

worthy of note that Peter here says: "While it remained, was it

not thine own?" We see from this that the first Christian congregation

at Jerusalem had not instituted such an order of

things that each one would have been compelled to give up his

possessions, but the Christians did this without restraint, from

free choice. For Peter here testifies to Ananias: "It would not

have been wrong for you to keep your house and land." Yes,

he even adds: "And after it was sold, was it not in thine own

power?" "Thou couldst have said: I will give one-half, and all

would have been well; no one could have made it a matter of

conscience. The reason why it is such a shameful deed, is because

thou wouldst be considered a loving and benevolent

Christian, whereas thou hast done secretly just the contrary

to what thou pretendest to have done." We read also that

the members of the first Christian congregations had houses

and possessions, for example Simon, the tanner in Joppa (Act;;;

10:6), the wealthy seller of purple, Lydia in Philippi (Acts 16:14, 15),

then even the deacon or almoner Philip in Jerusalem

had a house in Cesarea (Acts

21:8)

and even the mother of

John, whose surname was Mark, owned a house in Jerusalem ..

(Acts

12: 12.)

From this we must necessarily conclude:: that the first congregation

at Jerusalem was not organized according to communist

principles, but that the described condition of affairs was

but an unrestrained manifestation of their love in times of

~xtreme necessity. After this we read Acts

9:31,

"Then had the

churches rest throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria,

and were edified: and walking in the fear of the Lord, and ill

the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multipled." From this

time forth this arrangement of having in' a certain measure all

things common ceased in Jerusalem. It continued for a short

time only, until after the conversion of Paul about the year 36.

But what we do learn from this example, is. this: how a

true Christian should be disposed.

In his heart, IF RIGHTLY UNDERSTOOD, every Christian should be a communist. In

other words, a Christian should always be ready and willing

to give up all he has for the benefit of his suffering brethren,

whenever their necessity requires it. The apostle John accordingly

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?"

(1 John 3:17)

The Saviour expressly declares: "Give to him that asketh

thee, and from him that would borrow of thee, turn not thou

away." (Matthew 5:42.) The apostle Paul commands the Christian

to "labor working with his hands the thing which is good,

that he may have to give to him that needeth." (Ephesians

4:28.)

He does not command him to labor, working with his hands the

thing which is good, that he may obtain a capital and become

rich, but "That he may have to give to him that needeth." The

apostle Paul further says: "and they that buy, as though they

possessed not."

(1 Corinthians 7:30.) He that owns property

should then be as if he possessed nothing, his heart should not

be attached to it, it should create no inward struggle to give

up his possessions when his neighbor is in want or the glory'

of God requires it. That person is no Christian whose heart and

money are one.

Christ accordingly declares in the very begin.

ning of his sermon on the mount: "Blessed are the poor in

spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." What does this

mean? Blessed are those, whether they have few or many

possessions, who are poor in spirit. He is to be poor in his

heart and mind. That man who has riches which have really·

become riches to him, his most precious treasure, which he

secures and would not lose for the whole world, that man has

not yet learned the first words of Christ's sermon on i:he

mount: "Blessed are the poor in spirit." And if you were very

rich, you should be poor in spirit, you should be as if you had

none of those things which have fallen to your lot. The Psalmist

therefore also says: "If

riches increase, set not your heart

upon them." (Psalm

62:10.)

Re: The Bible and the Rich

Nielsio — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 06:19:47 GMT

Scott Jefferies:

A good bit of christian socialists, a la michael moore, do not seem to have a very favorable view of the rich throughout human history. Indeed, they can point to passages in the bible that do not paint a favorable view of the wealthy, to say the least. But I think a lot of these christians are not viewing the bible in the correct context. All of the events in the bible take place well well before the advent of capitalism. It is very likely that many of the rich of the time acquired their wealth illegitimately, either through sheer force or rent seeking and political favors. These would certainly be people no christian should admire or respect.

Now i'm no expert on christianity, the bible, or biblical history, but i just wanted people reading the bible to remember, when reading relevant passages, that these teachings were molded in a time where voluntary exchange may have been the least likely way to acquire wealth.

The Bible is a book of stories. If someone is a socialist, then they will think the Bible promotes socialism. Arguing against their preconceived notions based on a story is a dead end.

Re: The Bible and the Rich

Smiling Dave — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 04:03:44 GMT

Stephen:
Sometimes ppl would sell themselves into slavery to pay off debts.

How often did this happen?

At any rate, it was a bit different from serfdom, which I understand means the poor guy and his descendants were stuck there forever. The Bible mentions a Jubilee Year where everyone goes free.

Re: The Bible and the Rich

Stephen — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 03:56:16 GMT

I like this blog post here. It's just awesome. Jesus was a capitalist. I'll quote the whole parable so you can see the point.

Matthew 20:1-16:
1 "For the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2 After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the market place; 4 and to them he said, `You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.' So they went. 5 Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. 6 And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing; and he said to them, `Why do you stand here idle all day?' 7 They said to him, `Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, `You go into the vineyard too.' 8 And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, `Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.' 9 And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. 10 Now when the first came, they thought they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius. 11 And on receiving it they grumbled at the householder, 12 saying, `These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.' 13 But he replied to one of them, `Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what belongs to you, and go; I choose to give to this last as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?' 16 So the last will be first, and the first last."

I think the main point of the parable is that everyone receives the same reward of the Kingdom of God regardless of how long they've served the Lord. But the moral force of the parable rests on the recognition that a householder (capitalist) may do whatever he wants with his property and offer whatever wage he wants to his employees, regardless of whether some of them think it's unfair. The parable would be meaningless if the listener didn't recognize freedom of contract or the moral validity of capitalism.

Re: The Bible and the Rich

Stephen — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 03:41:05 GMT

Smiling Dave:

krazy kaju:

Dave, the society of the Biblical Hebrews was very much feudal, not capitalist. How else do you describe a system where the rich are rich because they own slaves?

Yeah, I forgot about the slaves. But I think they were pretty rare. You had to win a battle and take prisoners, which didn't seem to happen very often.

I wouldn't say it was rare. But it was definitely nothing like the Spanish slave trade. Sometimes ppl would sell themselves into slavery to pay off debts. Also, there were restrictions on how masters could treat their slaves. In Exodus, it says that if a slave looses a tooth or an eye because of a master, then they are to be set free.

Re: The Bible and the Rich

Smiling Dave — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 23:04:23 GMT

krazy kaju:

Dave, the society of the Biblical Hebrews was very much feudal, not capitalist. How else do you describe a system where the rich are rich because they own slaves?

Yeah, I forgot about the slaves. But I think they were pretty rare. You had to win a battle and take prisoners, which didn't seem to happen very often.

Re: The Bible and the Rich

krazy kaju — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 22:49:20 GMT

Dave, the society of the Biblical Hebrews was very much feudal, not capitalist. How else do you describe a system where the rich are rich because they own slaves?

Re: The Bible and the Rich

Smiling Dave — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 22:40:14 GMT

Scott Jefferies:
All of the events in the bible take place well well before the advent of capitalism.

So you are saying the typical way of doing business was by theft and violence? We have been doing that in the USA for only a few decades [since the introduction of income tax], and we have only a few decades left before we collapse from it. How could they have endured for thousands of years under such a system?

Of course capitalism was what they did. Property rights were clearly understood, which can only lead to a free market. All other systems were unheard of. No Marxism, no interventionism, nothing. There is reference to buying and selling all through the Bible, one might even say [exaggerating a little] on every page.

Any disparaging remarks about rich people in the Bible are of two kinds, both of which apply in a capitalist society, or in any society. The first refers to those who get rich by violence and theft. The second refers to those who, while not dishonest, become unpleasant human beings because of their wealth. In this last category fall those who neglect their spiritual duties [as the religion understands them] beacuse they are rich and feel smug and self satisfied.

Though religions may talk about the virutes of poverty, they certainly do not intend poverty as a prescription for the whole society. What sensible religion wants everyone to be cold hungry and sick all their short lives? Turning ones back on the pursuit of wealth is the path for the best of the best [in the eyes of the religion], who willingly devote their lives to the spiritual.

Re: The Bible and the Rich

Scrooge McDuck — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:51:59 GMT

To further fakename's point, I am currently listening to Rothbard's Economic Thought before Adam Smith and Rothbard argues that the claims against the rich in the Bible should be taken in context. He says that at that time that Christian's believed that "the end of days" were near, so any time spent accumulating wealth is essentially time wasted.

Re: The Bible and the Rich

krazy kaju — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:44:09 GMT

Read Tom Woods's The Church and the Market. It documents why Roman Catholics should be for free markets.

Re: The Bible and the Rich

Mtn Dew — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:19:22 GMT

The Bible also condemns stealing. What is welfare if not theft? I don't ever remember Jesus telling his disciples to rob the rich man. In fact, I seem to remember Jesus condemning jealously.

Re: The Bible and the Rich

Stranger — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:15:08 GMT

The point of the bible is that the rich man is no different than any other man, and should not be deified (quite common in ancient times). He should not be hated either.

Re: The Bible and the Rich

fakename — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:29:40 GMT

Scott Jefferies:

A good bit of christian socialists, a la michael moore, do not seem to have a very favorable view of the rich throughout human history. Indeed, they can point to passages in the bible that do not paint a favorable view of the wealthy, to say the least. But I think a lot of these christians are not viewing the bible in the correct context. All of the events in the bible take place well well before the advent of capitalism. It is very likely that many of the rich of the time acquired their wealth illegitimately, either through sheer force or rent seeking and political favors. These would certainly be people no christian should admire or respect.

Now i'm no expert on christianity, the bible, or biblical history, but i just wanted people reading the bible to remember, when reading relevant passages, that these teachings were molded in a time where voluntary exchange may have been the least likely way to acquire wealth.

I dunno, the rich man was approved of by Jesus except that he lacked the charity to "sell all he had to give it to the poor "and follow him [Jesus]. I don't think Jesus would've whole-heartily approved of him if he had been stealing or rent seeking.

The point of the bible I felt, was that it was a parable of time-preference. Yes people could get wealthy now, but in the end you'll be dead and your wealth will be useless. Therefore the chance at eternal life and perhaps even riches is more valuable and should be sought after but this means giving up wealth now -so eternal life is really a kind of interest for "investing" all your resources into worshiping God.

The Bible and the Rich

Scott Jefferies — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:14:20 GMT

A good bit of christian socialists, a la michael moore, do not seem to have a very favorable view of the rich throughout human history. Indeed, they can point to passages in the bible that do not paint a favorable view of the wealthy, to say the least. But I think a lot of these christians are not viewing the bible in the correct context. All of the events in the bible take place well well before the advent of capitalism. It is very likely that many of the rich of the time acquired their wealth illegitimately, either through sheer force or rent seeking and political favors. These would certainly be people no christian should admire or respect.

Now i'm no expert on christianity, the bible, or biblical history, but i just wanted people reading the bible to remember, when reading relevant passages, that these teachings were molded in a time where voluntary exchange may have been the least likely way to acquire wealth.