POST SCRIPTS

Now that was a good message and I think I will share it with my pastor. He gets a little unnerved when people try to say Christ would be a Democrat.

Reality is, Jesus probably would not participate in politics. Souls, that was His focus, the souls of men.

So then, Jesus was a capitalist?

Mark

Ps. I noticed you did not use footnotes when citing the tenants of socialism. It only seems fair to cite all sources for your argument.

Modern socialism has gotten away from the teachings of The Master--just as Christianity has gotten away from the teachings of the Master.
This essay proves nothing.
For an instruction into Christ's teachings, look no further than Matthew, chapters five though seven.

Definitions of socialism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

** Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with an egalitarian method of compensation.[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late 19th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticized the effects of industrialization and private ownership on society. Karl Marx posited that socialism (the disappearance of class and therefore state) would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution after a transitional stage from capitalism called the Dictatorship of the proletariat.[3][4]
The utopian socialists, including Robert Owen, tried to found socialist factories and other structures within a capitalist society. Henri de Saint Simon, the first individual to coin the term socialism, was the originator of technocracy and industrial planning. The first socialists predicted a world improved by harnessing technology and combining it with better social organization, and many contemporary socialists share this belief.[5][6] Early socialist thinkers tended to favor more authentic meritocracy, while many modern socialists have a more egalitarian approach. *** Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly based on the amount of work expended in production, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how and to what extent this could be achieved. **

http://www.conservapedia.com/Socialism

** Socialism is an economic system of government which advocates state ownership of the means of production with equal distribution of goods among the people. The central goal is to establish a "worker's paradise"-an ideal state with perfect equality. *** In practice the government owns the banks, railroads, farmlands, factories, and stores, and is the only employer. (People sometimes are allowed to have small gardens.) The central goal is to destroy the "evils of capitalism" by government ownership of the means of production. *** In practice however the socialist system never manages to establish this "paradise" because management for the benefit of the employees leads to featherbedding and lack of investment or economic growth, at the expense of consumers. Collective farming (operating farms like factories) sharply reduced the food supply. The most thoroughgoing efforts by Communist regimes turned into authoritarian dictatorships. The government controls all investments, production, distribution, income, and prices, as well as all organizations, schools, news media and formerly private societies. Churches and labor unions are suppressed or controlled by the government. Socialism is the antithesis of capitalism, opposes private ownership of capital or land, and rejects the free market in favor of central planning. It also rejects "civil society" and makes sure that all organizations are controlled by the government. **

For those who prefer first hand experience to dry definitions I highly recommend the following:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=21734

Front Page Magazine – David Horowitz

Text of a talk delivered at the Second Thoughts Conference in Krakow, Poland, May 4-7, 1989, just before Poland became free.

I was born fifty years ago in 1939, just before the Germans invaded Poland. This is my first trip to your country, and it has been inspiring to me to see that although you have been occupied for half a century you have not been defeated.
The members of my family were socialists for more than 100 years; first in Moravia and the Ukraine, then in New York and Berkeley. First as socialists; then as Communists; and then as New Left Marxists. My grandparents came to New York to escape persecution as Jews in the pale of settlement. My grandfather was a tailor. He lived with other Jews in poverty on the Lower East Side and earned $3 a week. He was so poor that sometimes he had to sleep under his sewing machine in the factory where he worked. Compared to czarist Russia from which he had fled, America was a new world: He was still poor, but he had arrived in a land of opportunities provided by its free-market economy and political democracy, a land where people could grow rich beyond their wildest dreams.
That was my grandfather's reality. Like many others who arrived in America, my grandfather also had a dream. His dream, however, was not a dream of riches. It was a dream he shared with other members of the International Left: the dream of a socialist future--a world of planned economy and economic equality, of material abundance and social justice...follow the link to read the rest…it’s very good.

For the complete story of David's personal conversion get a copy of David’s excellent book, “Radical Son”)

Or try this opinion about a recent event that shows what socialism breeds:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=5123

Spoiled French Riot for Socialism By: Lawrence Kudlow – Frontpage Magazine

** Throughout much of last week, hundreds of thousands of students in France were angrily protesting. *** They have been joined by the major French labor unions, which are threatening a general strike. *** And what is this all about? *** It is all about a new law in France that allows a company to fire a person under the age of 26, without cause, within two years of being hired. *** Wow. Imagine that. You might get fired from your first job. *** As it happens, the whole point of the law was to encourage companies to hire young people. The unemployment rate among young people in France is 23 percent. And in many suburbs, it is double that. Meanwhile, French companies are understandably loath to hire 22-year-olds when they cannot fire them except "for cause," which under union rules means something like committing mass murder in the workplace. *** What these massive demonstrations reveal is the narcissism, laziness and irresponsibility inculcated by socialist societies. **

"For an instruction into Christ's teachings, look no further than Matthew, chapters five though seven."

Yeah, whatever you do don't read Matthew 25. (eye roll)

Mark

So then, Jesus was a capitalist?

Where did I say that?

Christ would be apolitical and only worried about the soul.

Matthew, chapters five though seven

The Sermon on the Mount was for the followers not mankind in general. If you do not accept Christ as your Lord and Savior the rest matters not. Only after you accept Christ will you be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and get convicted of how you should live as to what Jesus laid down in the Sermon on the Mount.

If you are still lost in your sins because you have not accepted Christ as your Lord and Savior, what does it matter how you live. Accept for an orderly and moral society, your actions actually do nothing for you on Judgment day if Christ is not your propitiation before god.

Yeah, whatever you do don't read Matthew 25. (eye roll)

I take it you are referring to the parable of the talents? If so, good capitalist point.

"For the kingdom of heaven is like a man traveling to a far country, who called his own servants and delivered his goods to them. And to one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one, to each according to his own ability; and immediately he went on a journey.Matthew 25:14-15

The whole lesson of the parable of the talents can be read from Matthew 25:14-30.

That being said, I do believe the capitalism God suggested was much kinder and more honest then the capitalism most humans practice in today's modern society. Not that there are not honest capitalists, I work for one, but sadly most fall very short of the standard God expected man to follow.

One Vike,

I don't get it. In reply to me you say Jesus was not a capitalist, but then later in response to anonymous you seem to say that God is suggesting a kinder, gentler capitalism. Which is it?

I also find it suggestive that when you need to prove that God favors the hard working, you turn to Paul, not Jesus, much as John Calvin did.

Here is a similar question: would Jesus blog on Post Scripts?

Trying my best to be respectful,

Mark

"Not that there are not honest capitalists, I work for one, but sadly most fall very short of the standard God expected man to follow."

Proving that people are people whether employer or employee; whether big corporate owner or humble factory worker.

Some employees are more honest than others.

They don't steal supplies, waste time, talk trash about their employer, expect regular raises even though they do nothing to earn it, gossip about fellow employees behind their backs causing employee discontent and strife, show up late, leave early, take advantage of sick days, abuse compensation insurance, fail to observe safety standards...need I go on?

We would all be wise to get a grip on the enmity that arises due to politically inspired class hatred and division. We are individual people with oth bgood and bad traits. The sooner we begin to think of ourselves as Americans instead of a collection of groups, the sooner we will begin to enjoy the promises and opportunity of this great nation.

We are so blessed to live in America, where the Constitution and Bill of Rights, capitalism, private property, legal system, and government of checks and balances support individuals in creating whatever life they wish. It isn't perfect, no system is, but it is the best system on earth to ensure freedom, opportunity, and justice. It's up to us to make it as great as we possibly can.

Isn't it interesting that it was God inspired?

Mark

No, I told you I did not say so in the article, and I was pressed for time and I wanted to answer the obvious first. Now I have more time and I will get into the question of capitalism and Christ.

Like I said I never answered that in the article, because the gist of my apologetical argument was about Jesus and His teachings not

Now I will admit that it is my contention that Jesus supported the capitalist monetary system, but when it came to politics, He was A-political.

In reality we cannot pin Christ down on anything accept for what he taught and the inferences we get from His lessons. We know that He was God and God does not need the monetary system to survive. Remember the one time He needed money He sent Peter to catch a fish, and that fish had the amount needed for the tax inside He was to pay.

Now as Christians we have to survive in a secular world as we attempt to be the light of truth for them. In this world men practice different forms of monetary policies, and the policy of capitalism in my humble opinion is prevalent in His teachings. It is the only monetary system that respects an individuals personal freedom of choice. Their is a reason we were created with free will, and that is because God is not a cosmic rapist. God wants us to come to Him willingly and do what He calls us to do willingly, and Capitalism allows for some to be prosperous and be tested upon their hearts desire to willingly help those in need.

Being wealthy leaves one open to a lot of temptation, and so one needs to be real careful with how they handle the wealth God blesses them with. God gives all His children blessings, some come with a lot of responsibility. How one handles that responsibility goes to the core of that individuals heart. It is that heart that only God can see. So the wealthy Christian should be generous with what God gave them, not greedy and not stupid, but wise.

That is the main Christian concept when it comes to those who are blessed with much, are they willing to share with those less fortunate, that is why some are blessed more than others. We are tested by what we get to see what our hearts will cherish, His precepts or our greed. God gives us all enough rope, the question is will we use it to hang our selves with it, or what Christ called us to do and help others who are truly in need.

However, Just as God does not force us to do what is right, He does not expect Christians to force others to do what is right with their money. Other aspects of life are different that is why He allows for governments.

Q. Would Jesus blog on PS? I blog on Post Scripts all the time under the name anonymous. From now on I will just use my name, Jesus.

Via con dios.

Jesus Ramirez
From now on I will just use my name, Jesus.

I promise I will not confuse you for the Jew who died for us.

The parable of the talents is not an exercise in capitalism.

It is a demonstration, by means of comparison, of personal attitude and will. The lesson being, those who live in fear and suspicion, witholding and spite will come to no good end. Those who live with joy and enthusiasm, industry and good will are rewarded. It also teaches that we are not to question our station in life but go about our business trusting in Him.

"...would Jesus blog on Post Scripts?"

Hi Mark. while I think that Jesus proabaly would have other business to attend to just for the sake of argument I would say that yes, Jesus would blog on PS. The reason I say that is that throughout His life he spent time with sinners, something for which He was criticized.'m pretty sure that all who post here could agree that we are all sinners here.

I'm not sure why you ask this question. I'd appreciate knowing exactly what it is you are trying to say in posing this question...if you can. Thanks.

I

The very commandment "Thou Shalt Not Steal" presupposes the existence of private property.

The story of the rich man and the eye of the needle is not a condemnation of wealth but rather and illustration of how great wealth has the ability to shield us in part from the circumstances which often bring us to position of realizing our dependency on God.

Socialism is a political system based on the compulsory redistribution of wealth or stealing, in order to achieve greater "economic leveling".

I'm afraid I see no scriptural basis for such a form of government.

Capitalism on the other hand is the natural state of exchange. While the Bible never expressly uses the word of course, the concepts of property, exchange of goods and services, the emphasis on working for ones bread, etc. all point more toward a capitalist system rather than a socialist one.

Keep in mind this is not a hard and fast rule, simply a suggestion that the Bible advocates individual liberty and responsibility, which are tenets of capitalism not socialism.

“That being said, I do believe the capitalism God suggested was much kinder and more honest then the capitalism most humans practice in today's modern society.”

Don't be deceived by the propaganda of the MSM.

99% of capitalists (that is, each and everyone of us who wakes up and makes use of freedom, a free-market system, our interests and natural abilities to make a living) are honest, hard-working people.

The 1% that are greedy or criminal are the ones the MSM uses to denounce capitalism and call for its death by a thousand nicks, as Keynes said.

And let's not pretend that non- or anti-capitalists are somehow free of greed and dishonesty.

Greed is satisfied by two main vices: money and power. But they have the same unquenchable goal: worldly prominence. Those who seek money, do so because they believe it will make them powerful. Those who seek power do so because they believe it will make them wealthy.

And let's also be sure we do not confuse capitalists with corporationists, more and more of whom are becoming corporate socialists, colluding with government to establish monopoles. These are not capitalists, they are socialists. And they give all capitalists a bad name.

Mark: "I also find it suggestive that when you need to prove that God favors the hard working, you turn to Paul, not Jesus, much as John Calvin did."

Are you claiming that Paul's teaching was not divinely inspired?

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Thus the socialist statist from ego wants to 'solve' the problems of the people. Power goes to their heads and they become absolutely corrupted. The founders of this nation built the constitution on this premise and religious faith was necessary as a bedrock.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams --October 11, 1798

"And let's also be sure we do not confuse capitalists with corporationists, more and more of whom are becoming corporate socialists, colluding with government to establish monopoles. These are not capitalists, they are socialists. And they give all capitalists a bad name."

Can I have a hallelujah and amen?

God instituted civil government, church government, individual government and family government, each with (mostly) separate areas of jurisdiction. Any attempt to place civil government over church, family and individual in the manner advocated by the socialists (ie. secular humanists) will lead to tyranny and the destruction of Christian civilization.

All forms of socialism are a denial of God, Christianity and the rule of law.

Nick;

Capitalism on the other hand is the natural state of exchange. While the Bible never expressly uses the word of course

To understand the true nature of the distaste for capitalism by the left, we need to realize that the word “capitalism” is actually a Marxist term, and while we use it interchangeably with “market economy,” the Marxist view of capitalism surprisingly still shapes the way we tend to understand economics. The term capitalism gives the impression that the market is something out there: a nebulous force which can create great wealth but can also turn and harm us. This impersonal understanding can lead us to blame markets when things go wrong instead of looking for reasons that are harder to diagnose and often reveal deeper cultural and spiritual issues.

Pope John Paul II specifically rejected the term capitalism and its mechanistic, amoral, and impersonal image, preferring instead “market economy,” “business economy,” or “free economy.” He did so not to be pedantic, but to illustrate the important truth that markets are fundamentally networks of human relationships. Understanding markets this way sheds light not only on many economic problems, but also on the underlying moral nature of markets. If markets are intrinsically connected to human action then they necessarily have a moral dimension. Capitalism as seen by Marxists, or even within neo-classical mathematical models, separates markets from morality ­and thus from reality. This, as we have seen, can have disastrous consequences.

I hope that helps anyone who wanted to understand a bit about the true nature of the word "capitalism" as it relates to economics.

Let me add that I have an understanding of that which I speak, and I'll leave it at that.

It is disgusting how many people are working overtime to subvert the message of Christ. Christ did not come to teach us about socialism, capitalism, or any other ism. Jesus Christ came to give mankind a way to be reconciled to God.

II Thessalonians 3:10 & 1 Timothy 5:8 prove that neither Christ nor His apostles were socialists:

2 Thessalonians. 3:10-12 For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread.

1 Timothy 5:8 If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Since socialism by its nature takes the profit of the producers and gives it to the non-producers or from the workers to the non-workers.....do any of the above verses sound like socialism to you???? Rather the command is quite specific: If a man will not work, he doesn't get to eat! Likewise a man is to work and reap the product of his own hands in the command “eat their own bread” not the neighbor’s bread. No food stamps, no welfare, no wealth redistribution. Zip, nada, nothing. That’s capitalism folks, not socialism.

James

Jesus Christ came to give mankind a way to be reconciled to God.

I believe that is what OV said in his article. Are you taking offense to his article or those who try claim Christ was a socialist?

Because even those who say Christ's teachings point to capitalism are correct, but no one is claiming Christ came to champion anything but salvation for mankind. It's just that in the debate about what monetary system God finds to be more acceptable is capitalism, then charity with that which He blessed your hard work with.

That charity must be willing though not coerced through an oppressive government, or it will do the soul no good.

On another note, the early settlers tried socialism. They thought that like the early Christians everyone would be better off sharing everything. The result was they literally starved and suffered great lack.

When Bradford became the governor he instituted capitalism and history tells the rest of the story. Each family farmed its own crops and they all reaped bountiful increase. This led to what we celebrate as Thanksgiving!

I guess they found out that socialism was bad and that God blessed them when they turned to capitalism, as He has done with every country that has ever tried capitalism since.

To me, the moral of the story is capitalism leads to the prosperity of all. Socialism leads to the enslavement of all. You chose, I'll take my chances on capitalism.

Tina,

I am not sure what Jesus would do. OV was right, all we can know for sure is what we have him saying in the scriptures. I think he might have blogged if it was an effective way to minister, but I am pretty sure he would not have blogged on PS because this is about news and information, plus plenty of political debate. As such, it is of the world, and beyond his concern.

I was with One Vike when he was saying that Jesus was not a socialist. Socialism, as you point out, is a 19th century phenomena, like capitalism of 18th century, and mercantilism of the 16th century. Jesus was not a capitalist or a socialist. He was a carpenter.

However, when OV says that Jesus would support a capitalist system, I have to laugh.

Jesus was very clear about this point. We are to "deny ourselves, take us the cross and follow him "(Mark 8:34). God does not "bless us with wealth." That is John Calvin speaking, not Jesus Christ.

The reason Jesus said it is easier for a camel to pass through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven was not because having money is bad; it is what you had to do to get money, mainly FOCUSING on it, that moves one away from God. Again, I am not saying money is bad, or Christians with money are bad, but Jesus was clear that a FOCUS on money is bad.

So, it is wrong to say that Jesus would be in support of a system that focuses on the expansion and accumulation of wealth (capital) by appealing to individual self-interest. I am sorry, but I do not see how that position can be supported by scripture.

That's all.

Mark

Nick,

I am saying you can't use Paul's teaching to put words in Jesus' mouth. Remember, they never met.

Also, I do believe that Jesus told the apostles not to worry about bread, let alone work for it. (Mark 8:14-21)

Mark

"So, it is wrong to say that Jesus would be in support of a system that focuses on the expansion and accumulation of wealth (capital) by appealing to individual self-interest. I am sorry, but I do not see how that position can be supported by scripture."

You haven't expressed my understanding of capitalism so it's impossible to continue to discuss this.

As Dan suggested a better term might be one of these: “market economy,” “business economy,” or “free economy.”

Most people who go into business do so in pursuit of a means of caring for their family...not because they are f"ocused" on money. In fact those who do focus only on money usually fail, one way or another, sooner or later. Owning a business is a great discipline. All of the important lessons of the Bible are there to confront the individual in business just as they are in any other aspect of ones life.

Self interest doesn't necessarily mean selfish interest.

Tina,

Let me be clear. I do not think owning a business makes you a bad person, or going into business to make money is bad. I think one can make money owning a business and still be a good Christian.

Rather, all I am saying is that Jesus did not, in word or deed, offer any support for a capitalist/free market/market economy. His answer was simply to give up all ones possessions and have faith that God would provide (Luke 12:22-34). The message was not received well then, and I can appreciate why it is not well received now.

Mark

Mark

The reason Jesus said it is easier for a camel to pass through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven was not because having money is bad; it is what you had to do to get money, mainly FOCUSING on it, that moves one away from God. Again, I am not saying money is bad, or Christians with money are bad, but Jesus was clear that a FOCUS on money is bad.

Wrong Mark, Jesus did not mention in Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, & Luke 18:25 that it was easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle then it was for a rich man to get into heaven because of what a man had to do to get wealth, but because a wealthy man is at risk to worship his money over God. Throughout the Scriptures God blessed men Like Abraham, Job, Solomon, and even Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea with wealth. He blessed them because He wanted to. What they did with their wealth and how they still worshiped God or their money would determine some day how God judges their heart.

God is the same yesterday, today and forever. He never changes and He never goes back on his word. What Jesus taught was no different then what Moses taught with the exception that Christ would fulfill all the ceremonial laws, and become our Sabbath rest. Look at His teachings, He reiterated what God had already expected man to do. However the religious leaders had bastardized God's commandments. Study the Scriptures, you will see Christ not asking the disciples to do anything the Israelites were not already told to do. Like I said accept for the ceremonial laws that He would fulfill.

You are correct by saying money should not be our focus, but to accumulate money for the purpose of taking care of one's family and future or to hire employees by creating jobs is what God intended man to do. Christ did not abolish man's right to earn and make a living or to accumulate wealth. Christ pointed us to what God always wanted us to do with the wealth we accumulated, and that is to take care of our loved ones and those who are less fortunate then us.

When you look at the parables Jesus used you will see He always used examples of what men do and what men should or should not do. He only corrects the actions of those who do wrong, He does not always openly tell those who are doing things right that they are. He expected men who knew what was right to do what was right. We see Him rebuking the wrong and using these moments to teach those who do not know what is right.

As for money itself, Christ did say that where your treasure is so too is your heart, but that again speaks of where your treasure is. A wealthy man can still treasure God over his wealth while a poor man can treasure his small paycheck over God. It matters not how much you have but how much you treasure what you have. It does mean that it is harder to keep focused on God with great wealth but not impossible.

Christ did not tell every man who came to Him to give what he had away, only the one who's heart He knew already loved his wealth. Each person is different and Christ went directly to each individuals heart matter. After all, the heart of all our problems is the problem with all our hearts.

The Sermon on the Mount mentioned many sins of men, and Christ points out that all sin leads to death and that we need to stop sinning. Looking down upon the wealthy just because they have more then you is the sin of coveting and hate. Today's man suffers greatly from covertness and that is something this generation will have to answer for.

Another thing is that money in one form or another is mentioned more than almost anything else in the Bible. That includes more then the word love, and forgiveness. God was concerned about man's weakness for wealth, but He never, ever stood in the way of man getting it. God wanted us to be wise with it ,not greedy. Also, no were does God say the market economy is evil or bad. The majority of the men God used throughout history have themselves used the market system to prosper or to survive. In 2 Kings 4:1-8 Elisha multiplied a woman's oil and told her to sell it to pay her debtors. Elisha could have produced the money from God if the market economy was evil, or prayed to God to touch the hearts of her debtors to make them forgive her debt, but instead he told her to use market economy, and sell the increase he produced by Gods miracle and pay her debtors.

Throughout the Scriptures God used and allowed for the market economy to work and bless His people, why pray tell would He change things if He knew the world was going to last over 2000 more years and His children would have to survive in this world? He would want us as Christians to use the system that best allows men to be truly free and giving, that is capitalism. No other form of monetary system even allows for Christians to be generous with their own money that God blesses them with.

One last thing Mark, I disagree with John Calvin's teachings. I personally think that Calvinism's idea of predestination is borderline heretical.

Dear Pastor O.V., I just wanted to compliment you on your excellence in writing, as well as the inspired thought, hard work and research displayed in your Sunday sermon. You did an outstanding job and I thank you for your sincere efforts. Well done, OV, very well done! I hope you will continue to bring us the "Sunday Sermon"!!!!

Thanks Jack;

With encouragement like that I am sure the Lord will continue to inspire and bless me in my messages.

There’s no equal distribution in heaven:-)

Why would there be any expected here?

Jesus is a socialist in the same way that God is a dictator.

Human political terms are utterly inadequate to fully describe divinity.

Excellent response OneVike.

I would like to suggest another passage of Scripture that clearly shows capitalism in action Proverbs 31:10-31. The classic text of the godly wife. Some examples:

v.16; She considers a field and buys it; From her earnings she plants a vineyard.

She works (v. 10-15), saves, then buys a field and plants a vineyard - yet more work and more earnings. Says nothing about the state coming in and taking over her vineyard, taxing half her earnings, and then giving those earnings to the lazy able bodied bum sitting around at the village gate waiting for a handout.

Another one:

v.17-19 more work from the godly wife.

Then again it continues:

20; She extends her hand to the poor, And she stretches out her hands to the needy.

From the earnings from her hard work she has surplus to take care of those truly in need. The state does not come in and decide for her who is in need and then takes half or more of her wealth from her. SHE decides.

In verses 21-23 - again - MORE work that she does so that her husband praises her. What does she do?

v.24; She makes linen garments and sells them, And supplies belts to the tradesmen.

She sells what she makes, she is running a business here. She is SELLING what she is PRODUCING. And she’s doing so without state interference. Again, that’s capitalism. The state isn’t running her business for her, she is producing without the state telling her what to produce, how much to produce, and what is to be charged, or how much she can keep of her earnings from what she produces. Nor is she facing such high taxation that she can no longer afford to produce anything let alone sell it!

Just my 2 cents.

Mark perhaps I have misunderstood you.

You started out asking, "So then, Jesus was a capitalist?"

OneVike was not suggesting that Jesus was either capitalist or socialist as his reply indicates: "Where did I say that? ** Christ would be apolitical and only worried about the soul."

Instead OV was attempting to refute the claim made by the political left that Jesus was a socialist. (a political tactic to inspire Christians Democrats and middle roaders to come into the Democrat fold - to counter the religious right)

Saying that Jesus was not a socialist does not automatically imply He was a capitalist.

Your second query: "Here is a similar question: would Jesus blog on Post Scripts? ** Trying my best to be respectful"

Respectful or not you seem to be a bit contentious and maybe condescending. (I always wonder...what is it he's not asking or saying.)

"Jesus was very clear about this point. We are to "deny ourselves, take us (up) the cross and follow him "(Mark 8:34). God does not "bless us with wealth."

You've said it's OK with you that people work. Is it OK with you that a person feels humble, grateful and yes, blessed to have acquired some wealth? Is it possible that that person could find favor with God beyond what you might think from your limited perspective? I can't imagine that you think we should all be sitting on a rock somewhere in sack cloth.

I'm sorry if I'm being equally contentious but their seems to be an attitude behind your questioning that is assuming and perhaps a bit condescending. I can't for the life of me get what you are attempting to provoke or inspire.

"...all I am saying is that Jesus did not, in word or deed, offer any support for a capitalist/free market/market economy." *** Jesus was not a capitalist or a socialist. He was a carpenter."

Joseph was a carpenter as was Jesus...carpentry was a trade in a capitalist system assuming they sold their wares for money or traded them for other goods...so yes, He did prior to taking on his divine assignment participate in a free market economy, including the paying of tax. He never admonished against working and caring for ones family and others...personally. He never suggested we give everything to government.

Perhaps the next subject should be "charity".

What about it OV? There is similar confusion on that subject.

Ok, now I am not catholic, but a friend gave me something to read once by Pope Leo XIII. He wrote it back in 1891, and it was about the growing power of the Socialists in Europe and what the common catholic needed to be mindful of.

He went into great depth in his argument against Socialism being the Christians duty. I am posting but 4 of the 65 points he made. I pray I do not bore you with this, but it was written almost 20 years ago and it is still relevant today.

ON CAPITAL AND LABOR

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII MAY 15, 1891

4. To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.

5. It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own. If one man hires out to another his strength or skill, he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in land, the land, in such case, is only his wages under another form; and, consequently, a working man's little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor. But it is precisely in such power of disposal that ownership obtains, whether the property consist of land or chattels. Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.

8. The fact that God has given the earth for the use and enjoyment of the whole human race can in no way be a bar to the owning of private property. For God has granted the earth to mankind in general, not in the sense that all without distinction can deal with it as they like, but rather that no part of it was assigned to any one in particular, and that the limits of private possession have been left to be fixed by man's own industry, and by the laws of individual races. Moreover, the earth, even though apportioned among private owners, ceases not thereby to minister to the needs of all, inasmuch as there is not one who does not sustain life from what the land produces. Those who do not possess the soil contribute their labor; hence, it may truly be said that all human subsistence is derived either from labor on one's own land, or from some toil, some calling, which is paid for either in the produce of the land itself, or in that which is exchanged for what the land brings forth.

9. Here, again, we have further proof that private ownership is in accordance with the law of nature. Truly, that which is required for the preservation of life, and for life's well-being, is produced in great abundance from the soil, but not until man has brought it into cultivation and expended upon it his solicitude and skill. Now, when man thus turns the activity of his mind and the strength of his body toward procuring the fruits of nature, by such act he makes his own that portion of nature's field which he cultivates -- that portion on which he leaves, as it were, the impress of his personality; and it cannot but be just that he should possess that portion as his very own, and have a right to hold it without any one being justified in violating that right.

Thank you for sharing your insights, dear OneVike!

Was Jesus a Socialist?

OV is correct in his overall thesis that Christ was not and could not, be, a Socialist.

I too have been tracking all the different kinds of arguments floating about lately proposing that Jesus advocated socialism. There have been books written to that effect, attempting to paint a picture of a “liberal Jesus” or otherwise using his ministry and parables to try and swing Christians to the left. Jesus certainly advocated caring for the poor, and I don’t think either liberals or conservatives would question that, but does that really equate to advocacy of socialist economic policies?

I also agree that it has been a concerted effort to twist the gospel of Christ to be used as a political hammer on uneducated Christians with big hearts.

Just to make sure we’re all on the same page with our terms, Merriam-Webster defines socialism as:

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3:a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

If we stick to the dictionary definition of socialism, it refers primarily to government ownership of goods. I don’t remember Jesus ever advocating government ownership of anything, or disparaging personal property ownership. There are several times that Jesus encourages the rich to give their possessions to the poor…but then the poor recipient would have ownership, not the government. In fact, I can’t find anything in Jesus’ teachings that advocate the kind of system described in the first two definitions above. Or did I miss the “give all your possessions to the government so it can redistribute them to whomever it defines as poor” passage?

The third definition, “unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done,” has some backers who reference the parable of the vineyard workers in Matthew 20:1-16. To summarize, the workers were all paid a day’s wage by the landowner regardless of the number of hours worked that day. However, there are several problems with using this parable to justify Marxist economics:

1. The passage was never truly about money in the first place. Wages in this case are part of a salvation allegory; equal passage into the Kingdom of Heaven regardless of when in one’s lifetime a person comes to know and follow Christ. To make it a model for economic policy is completely missing the point of the parable.

2. The distribution of wages was based on the individual agreements between the landowner and the workers, not a government-mandated policy that requires different people to be paid equally despite unequal work.

3. The landowner states in Matthew 20:15, “Is it against the law for me to do what I want with my money? Should you be jealous because I am kind to others?” In my opinion, this pretty much illustrates the OPPOSITE of socialism. The landowner was free to do what he chose with his money, a shining example of free market capitalism. There is a world of difference between government-controlled redistribution of wealth and voluntary generosity.

Jesus certainly advocates the rich giving to the poor…the operable word here being “giving.” There’s a big difference between making a donation and having half your income confiscated by the government for government-run programs. (Many of which are completely ineffective and have a ridiculous percentage of its funding allocated to administrative costs, but that’s another point all together) No doubt Jesus encouraged the wealthy to give to the poor, and even went so far as to advocate giving ALL of one’s possessions to the less fortunate, but he never took money by force. Free will had a role in all of Jesus’ teachings about money and finances, and I believe one of the reasons for that is because Jesus knew a little more about the relationship between economic prosperity and spiritual health than Karl Marx did.

If a man is forced to hand over his wealth to the government, even though it *may* (I don’t say this with a lot of confidence, but just for the sake of argument) go towards programs that help the poor, it does nothing for his spirit but to make him bitter and to long for what was taken away. A person who gives freely, however, is likely to find joy in that giving. When I give to a charity, I don’t miss the money. I’m glad to see it doing good for someone else, and it helps to right my priorities.

It’s not the lack of wealth but the act of giving and faith in God’s provision that’s important. Socialism can ONLY work by force, and Jesus was not a proponent of forceful confiscation; he advocated voluntary giving. Redistributing your OWN wealth is an exercise in spiritual discipline; I doubt anyone would attribute their spiritual health to progressive taxation.

Now I apologize for posting what amounts to my opinion upon this whole matter, but it is a subject I have been tracking and making notes about for quite some time. It just seems that OV beat me to the punch.

Good article OV, and I look forward to reading your articles in the future.

Tina,

I have been writing here long enough for you to know that, aside from what I think are cute wordplay, I comment on two basic topics.

I am VERY interested to what you and fellow posters think about global warming, er, um, I mean “our deteriorating atmosphere.” I ask questions, give my opinions, and generally act in a respectful manner.

And then there is the subject of Jesus. I support religious freedom/tolerance and I am fine with the many definitions of Christianity. It is 2000 years old after all, and one would expect some variation. What gets my goat, however, is when people attribute statements and attitudes to Jesus that I know are not true.

I have studied scripture, extensively. I went to a high school attached to a seminary. The priests couldn't teach me much about biology or mathematics beyond the introductory level, but they were great to learn from on all matters of Christianity. So, yeah, I get a little contentious on this topic. Sorry.

I understand that Jesus was the fulfillment of prophesy, and that his life was but an extension of the larger story of the children if Israel. I also understand that Jesus said nothing he preached contradicted traditional Jewish teachings contained in the Old Testament. He clearly had a different twist, however, and it was not materialistic.

I am simply saying that nothing Jesus said in his ministry on Earth can be seen as in support of acquisition of any kind, capitalist, socialist, or otherwise.

No, I don't follow that model either. I have a job, a house, two cars, and all that stuff. No sack cloth here. Our limitation, however, do not give us the right to water down the message so we feel better.

Strange how some people are for strict construction of the Constitution but not the Bible.

Hopefully soon we can get back to arguing about the weather.

Mark

Now that we have this settled, we can go back to arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Mark,

"What gets my goat, however, is when people attribute statements and attitudes to Jesus that I know are not true. *** I am simply saying that nothing Jesus said in his ministry on Earth can be seen as in support of acquisition of any kind, capitalist, socialist, or otherwise."

Thanks!!! Now you're communicating clearly and it's a great point.

Although OV made his argument from a different perspective I believe he was saying Jesus was not here for politics. OV was arguing against labeling Him a socialist. Since the subject has been brought into the political conversation I think he felt strongly that that notion should be countered. When questioned by you he immediately responded, "Christ would be apolitical and only worried about the soul."

"Strange how some people are for strict construction of the Constitution but not the Bible. *** Hopefully soon we can get back to arguing about the weather."

I think OV is also for strict construction of the Bible...but I'll let him take that one on...LOL

Love your weather remark. Thanks again, Mark

---Jim---

Now that we have this settled, we can go back to arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Thomas Aquinas's looked at that question and said this,

"If the head of a pin is taken to be shorthand for a geometric point, The answer to the question is “one”, but if it is taken to be an actual pinhead, the answer is “all of them”.

Just because you wanted to know.

mark

I will take you up on that strict constructionist point at a later time. As for now I am at work, however I did want to tell you one thing for you to chew on.

I do not give credit for my Biblical knowledge to any man, or entity run by men. I give all credit for my understanding and convictions to God, who has saw fit to bless me through His Holy Spirit to understand the teachings of His Son Jesus Christ.

I give all so that I may one day receive all. Like Paul told those in Thessalonica, (Act 17:11) I too will do as the Bereans did. I shall receive God's word with all readiness, searching the Scriptures daily to find out whether the things I am presented with are so.

We are told that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom (Psalm 111:10) and knowledge (Proverbs 1:7), and only a fool rejects what God offers for free.

You may disagree with me on my theological beliefs, but I will never back down from that which I believe, unless God shows me my error. If God does show me that I have errored, I have in the past and will in the future admit my error publicly.

So do me a favor and do not hesitate to take me to task, I promise not to disappoint you even if I do not convince you of my understanding of His word.

OneVike,

Fair enough.
Take care,

Mark

Now THIS is a great, persuasive article. Well done, OneVike. Keep the rest of your work up to this level, and I may start to have more respect for you.

"The Sermon on the Mount was for the followers not mankind in general."

Tsk. The biggest difficulty, obstruction, problem, I dont' know, that Christianity has had down through the ages is the myriad dubious contructions, the political slant if you will, put upon the teachings of Jesus ... by persons with a whole other agenda entirely.

Libby

Yeah, like the idiotic Socialist dictators on the left as OV has correctly pointed out.

Watch out Libby. Someone just might drop a house on you.

Thanks K,

That compliment from you has really made my day.

God bless you and yours. :>)

It Amazes me how the left tries to make the words of a man they despise fit their doctrine. Try as they may, they are wrong. The author of this article is correct, Jesus was NOT a Socialist.

In Matthew 24, Jesus told His disciples that hard times were coming, one of which was a severe famine. Later in (Acts 11:28) Luke tells us that the famine Jesus predicted came to fulfillment during Caesar Claudius’ reign.

Jesus taught us to take care of each other and support one another. He did not give directives to the state to impose collective ownership and redistribution. To the contrary he told us to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.

From the many laws of the Old Testament to the economic parables of Jesus it is quite clear that God is the author of free-market ideas that reward hard work and punish slothfulness. It is the Bible that tells us to multiply talents, and it is the Bible that says those who refuse to work shouldn’t eat.

To be sure, there are those who have abused the God ordained free-market system for their own gain. They should be called to account for their greed and sin. But because people abuse the truth of God’s Word doesn’t mean we need to redefine it. It means that the church needs to get better at teaching it, learning it, living it, and applying it.

"From the many laws of the Old Testament to the economic parables of Jesus it is quite clear that God is the author of free-market ideas that reward hard work and punish slothfulness."

Jose,

Can you please tell me which "economic parables of Jesus" you are referring to?
Chapter and verse, please.
Thanks,

Mark

Definition of free market for the sake of our readers and clarity:

an economic market operating by free competition : an economic condition of unrestricted buying and selling

OneVike;

You are correct as usual. I too have noticed the concerted effort by the left to fool the less educated of our Christian brothers and sisters into thinking Christ would support the agenda of the left.

What those misguided political wanks and their accomplices in the liberal wing of Christianity 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.

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.

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.

Don:..good clarification.

Mark....where does it say that God does not reward us with wealth?

Secondly how do you define "selfish intentions"?

Because this is important. Technically every act is a "selfish" one isn't it. So I don't think you can reasonably claim that Christ was suggesting that we should not do anything out of a self interested intent. I think Christ was making it clear that we should "Renew our minds" so we obey the will of the spirit against the will of the flesh. This in no way suggests that we cant obtain wealth, and secondly, since when has socialism done a better job of taking care of the poor?

Jim & Nancy

how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The answer is: none because the question itself is posed incorrectly.

Angels are purely immaterial beings, and therefore "place" or "position" or "amount of space" or "time" are terms that do not apply to such beings.

There is a pernicious myth surrounding this alleged question:

The Scholastics of the High Middle Ages knew very well such a question was incorrectly posed... so, no, they did not "waste" their time debating such questions--except, of course, to demonstrate what is and is not important in theological and philosophical discourse.

It is modern man, who refuses to read exactly what was discussed about such matters, who continue the rumors about what was discussed in the middle ages about the subject of angels and pinheads.

I for one am not surprised by modern man's inability to search the truth on such matters when one considers the fact that most Americans still think Bill Clinton was impeached over sex with an intern and a stain on a blue dress.

"...most Americans still think Bill Clinton was impeached over sex with an intern and a stain on a blue dress."

It's full circle time on this one...O'Reily would call those folk, "Pinheads"

As Edith Ann used to say, "an that's the truthphtphtpht!"

K
Just chiming in to say, I'm pretty sure no lefty I've ever met or heard of "despises" Jesus.

When one despises a Christian they despise their God which is Christ. You deny that many on the left despise Christians? If you really ask I can give a very long list with their quotes of what they think of Christians. Christ said;

"Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me."

Remember we are all made in the image of the Holy Father, and such as those who despise the image, despises the Father. The Father and the Son are one. Despise the man you despise the father.

You may ask, does not Christians despise people? I would answer in the affirmative, and then inform you that such a Christian is sinning. We are told to hate the sin, but love the sinner. As he did on the cross, He was still about His Fathers business and forgave one of the thieves, who moments before was cursing and mocking Him.

So to answer your statement laden question,

I'm pretty sure no lefty I've ever met or heard of "despises" Jesus.

Every leftist who disparages one of God's own, also disparaged His Son and Him. Yet the left will then turn around and twist His precepts to trick unaware Christians into supporting their Godless agendas.

Be very careful how you word your statements. God is on the side of truth, and their is very little truth in an activist Socialists mind.

God will NOT be mocked.

Mark

I support religious freedom/tolerance and I am fine with the many definitions of Christianity.

I am glad you are comfortable with others in their erroneous beliefs. I however am not, for I know there is but one and only one truth. Christians are called to be ever vigilant, for a little leaven leavens the whole lump. (Gallations 5:9) I cannot and will not ever sit idly by as others follow a path to destruction.

It must also be pointed out that other then the Gospels, Acts. and the Book of Revelations, all other New Testament books were of apologetical nature. That is to say they were written to defend the faith against savage wolves who came in after the apostles departed and did not spare the flock. (Acts 20:29) It was the heretical teachings of these wolves that corrupted the truth whom the letters were written to correct. I, like the original church fathers, will do the same should I be confronted by one who teaches error or has been taught error.

It is 2000 years old after all, and one would expect some variation.

Variation in matters that are not essential is fine and we can disagree but not divide over them. The essentials are a different matter altogether, as one cannot veer even slightly to the left or the right in the essentials. For that would be heresy, and that is how cults get started.

What gets my goat, however, is when people attribute statements and attitudes to Jesus that I know are not true.

I can understand that, but when I prove beyond a shadow of the doubt and you still disagree then maybe you need to do some more research upon your own and not count on something you were taught by men when you went to school next to a seminary.

I have studied scripture, extensively, and I went to a high school attached to a seminary.

As I said before I give no man or school credit for my training. What I know is what the Holy Spirit has taught me. I too have studied the Scriptures extensively, including the ancient texts of the early church fathers. I also have an good understanding of Koinonia Greek and Hebrew.

The priests couldn't teach me much about biology or mathematics beyond the introductory level

Well, today we have very learned scientists who are also theologians. The men have gone toe to toe with the secular scientists who, in the past, have gotten away by talking circles around Christians who had such limited scientific training they did not even understand what the secularist scientists were talking about.

they were great to learn from on all matters of Christianity. So, yeah, I get a little contentious on this topic. Sorry.

I have no reason to doubt what you say, but I would be interested to know what denomination and seminary school you speak of. I might know of them or their contemporaries.

I understand that Jesus was the fulfillment of prophesy, and that his life was but an extension of the larger story of the children if Israel. I also understand that Jesus said nothing he preached contradicted traditional Jewish teachings contained in the Old Testament.

We are in agreement with the basics of your thought.

He clearly had a different twist, however,

You just refuted your last statement. Either he said nothing that contradicted the teachings of the OT or he had a different twist on it. Which do you believe?

and it was not materialistic.

I agree, but that is not to say he did not allow for and use a certain method of monetary practice. I showed and others have showed how his very teachings often centered around the free market or market economy. To deny it is to deny the evidence that is throughout the scriptures.

I am simply saying that nothing Jesus said in his ministry on Earth can be seen as in support of acquisition of any kind, capitalist, socialist, or otherwise.

If Christ did not support the monetary system then he would have not needed a treasurer to keep money for the things they needed. Above all, Jesus said to follow the rule of law and pay what taxes were due as He did.

He did say not to worry about the things you need, and that your needs would be met. However He also knew the future and so he knew that Christians would need the means to survive in this world. That survival would entail working, raising children, and dealing with the world. To say that He did not support any type of monetary system is again a failure to see the evidence in the very Scriptures that you claim to understand and to have studied.

Without going over it again, I will just point you to the many very good arguments posted here that prove the idea that Jesus, as being God, supported a market economy as the best most fair and honest system.

Strange how some people are for strict construction of the Constitution but not the Bible.

When I study the Old Testament I see the example of how Christians should live. I use the examples of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as my examples. Like them, we too are sojourners just passing through this town called earth. While in Rome we must follow the laws of Rome as long as we are not violating the laws of God.

We also must buy, sell, and trade to survive in this strange land we are passing through. And the lesson is that the "market economy” is the system God has given us to exemplify for dealing with each other when we must. That to me is being a strict constructionist on what the Bible teaches as far as money is concerned. Just as I see Jesus throughout the Ot and the NT I also see the market economy being blessed by God over all other systems practiced in the Scriptures.

OK, I tried to do my best and answer your questions. Now in the volume of words I used I might have left myself open for more debate, but such is the nature of blogging.

God Bless you my friend;
OV

OV,

I will not argue with revelation, and I respect your direct insights as your own.

The economy, which ever kind, is of the world. We are not to be, of the world. Jesus said, do not worry. Period. He offered not other clarification or conditioning, like, "except to make a living and support your family."

Now God may have told you that, and as such it is your duty to speak your truth. I am simply saying that the Gospels do not record Jesus ever saying such. I do not think you have given ANY evidence for that.

On a related point, free trade is not an economic "system." Most of the people who worked for others during Jesus' time did not trade their labor. They were slaves. The rest of the economy was based on family businesses, like Jesus working for his dad, and for the most part, goods were exchanged in barter. Coin was limited. Even taxes were paid in goods. The "system" then was a barter economy based on servitude.

I am not sure how you make the jump from those ancient economies to this one.

Mark