Socialism: Does the Bible permit governments to provide welfare?

[Kilk1]

Hello! Personal political views aside, I've seen some people argue that socialism is inherently sinful and that to accept social security, public education, etc. is not part of God's design for government. They understand God's intended purpose for government to be negative, such as prohibiting and punishing evil, not positive, such as giving things to people. I haven't been under the impression that the Bible takes this hard of a stance on such political issues—to the extent that social welfare programs are completely sinful—but I'm open to hearing more on the matter. Two passages come to mind on the role of government. The first one, 1 Peter 2:13-14 reads (NKJV):

Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good (emphasis added).

The second, Romans 13:3, reads (NKJV):

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same (emphasis added).

What does it mean for the government to "praise" those who do good in these passages, contrasted with punishing those who do evil? Does this suggest that the role of the government is positive and negative, rather than just negative? Could this be an example of the government providing welfare/positive reinforcement to those who "do good" (i.e., are law-abiding citizens as opposed to criminals who do "evil")? What would be examples of "praising" those who do good in first-century Rome or elsewhere that'd be relevant to Paul or his readers?

And finally, didn't Israel have laws requiring the Jews to leave some of their harvest for the poor, etc.? If so, wouldn't this be taken as God-ordained approval of government providing for the poor? Again, it could be abused, but does this suggest that the government helping the poor isn't wrong in principle? I appreciate some thoughts on this. Thank you!

Note: This is not necessarily a political thread per se. While it is about socialism, it isn't about whether socialism is effective or not or whether we should advocate for such on a political level. Rather, the question pertains to whether such things are sinful. Thus, the Bible, not evidence of effectiveness or political arguments, are key.

 

[Sabertooth]

Socialism: Does the Bible permit governments to provide welfare?

The Bible does not constrain secular governments in that regard.
While I am grateful for such aid when we needed it, any system managed by fallen wo/men --especially if money-based-- will have elements of their corruption.

Even the Old Testament Hebrew government had "welfare" features [Leviticus 19:9-10].

 

[HTacianas]

Hello! Personal political views aside, I've seen some people argue that socialism is inherently sinful and that to accept social security, public education, etc. is not part of God's design for government. They understand God's intended purpose for government to be negative, such as prohibiting and punishing evil, not positive, such as giving things to people. I haven't been under the impression that the Bible takes this hard of a stance on such political issues—to the extent that social welfare programs are completely sinful—but I'm open to hearing more on the matter. Two passages come to mind on the role of government. The first one, 1 Peter 2:13-14 reads (NKJV):

Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good (emphasis added).

The second, Romans 13:3, reads (NKJV):

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same (emphasis added).

What does it mean for the government to "praise" those who do good in these passages, contrasted with punishing those who do evil? Does this suggest that the role of the government is positive and negative, rather than just negative? Could this be an example of the government providing welfare/positive reinforcement to those who "do good" (i.e., are law-abiding citizens as opposed to criminals who do "evil")? What would be examples of "praising" those who do good in first-century Rome or elsewhere that'd be relevant to Paul or his readers?

And finally, didn't Israel have laws requiring the Jews to leave some of their harvest for the poor, etc.? If so, wouldn't this be taken as God-ordained approval of government providing for the poor? Again, it could be abused, but does this suggest that the government helping the poor isn't wrong in principle? I appreciate some thoughts on this. Thank you!

Note: This is not necessarily a political thread per se. While it is about socialism, it isn't about whether socialism is effective or not or whether we should advocate for such on a political level. Rather, the question pertains to whether such things are sinful. Thus, the Bible, not evidence of effectiveness or political arguments, are key.

No, socialism is not sinful according to the bible. You'll find the attitude that it is comes from American protestants and its based on the long time conflict between the West and the Communist East. Communism is inherently atheist. You'll find that most Socialist movements are atheist as well.

 

[TheWhat?]

Centralized welfare, mandatory periodic debt relief and a path to citizenship for unnaturalized residents, are surprisingly descriptive of the ancient Hebrew nation under the law.

But "socialism" doesn't really enter the picture until much, much later, so, no, they weren't socialists.

 

[Sketcher]

Scripture does not mandate socialism. Scripture doesn't say that state-owned property can't exist, but it does consistently teach the value of the individual, and the responsibility of the individual, and that the individual has private property rights. Socialism seems to have a problem with all of that.

 

[RDKirk]

I've never heard any preaching that the authority given to earthly government was to be only negative, or that the Body of Christ had a mission to force earthly authority to be negative and never positive.

During the first century, and during the time Paul wrote to the Romans, the Roman empire actually had a public welfare system. They provided free bread, grain, and entertainment to Roman citizens, believing it was a sin to beg.

Without a doubt, Paul would prefer the Body of Christ to provide for itself rather than to depend on Caesar, but also Paul did not urge Christians to try to prohibit Caesar. It is not the mission of the Body of Christ to fix the Roman Empire.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Hello! Personal political views aside, I've seen some people argue that socialism is inherently sinful and that to accept social security, public education, etc. is not part of God's design for government. They understand God's intended purpose for government to be negative, such as prohibiting and punishing evil, not positive, such as giving things to people. I haven't been under the impression that the Bible takes this hard of a stance on such political issues—to the extent that social welfare programs are completely sinful—but I'm open to hearing more on the matter. Two passages come to mind on the role of government. The first one, 1 Peter 2:13-14 reads (NKJV):

Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good (emphasis added).

The second, Romans 13:3, reads (NKJV):

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same (emphasis added).

What does it mean for the government to "praise" those who do good in these passages, contrasted with punishing those who do evil? Does this suggest that the role of the government is positive and negative, rather than just negative? Could this be an example of the government providing welfare/positive reinforcement to those who "do good" (i.e., are law-abiding citizens as opposed to criminals who do "evil")? What would be examples of "praising" those who do good in first-century Rome or elsewhere that'd be relevant to Paul or his readers?

And finally, didn't Israel have laws requiring the Jews to leave some of their harvest for the poor, etc.? If so, wouldn't this be taken as God-ordained approval of government providing for the poor? Again, it could be abused, but does this suggest that the government helping the poor isn't wrong in principle? I appreciate some thoughts on this. Thank you!

Note: This is not necessarily a political thread per se. While it is about socialism, it isn't about whether socialism is effective or not or whether we should advocate for such on a political level. Rather, the question pertains to whether such things are sinful. Thus, the Bible, not evidence of effectiveness or political arguments, are key.

The world system is under Satan's control and is in opposition to the Kingdom of God. It is founded on the principle of good and evil. Satan is not especially concerned which side of the coin people choose, as long as it is his coin. Socialism requires people to give money to a government that does as it pleases with the money. That may be something utterly at odds with Christianity. Communism is socialism enforced by violence and repression.

No political system is untainted by Satan's hand. Sir Winston Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government - apart from any other form. For a example, a democratically elected government in Australia is enforcing utterly unreasonable vaccine mandates. The only hope is that they are evicted next election. Even then, you don't know what the next lot will do.

The ultimate opposite to socialism is anarchy. This is not a violent revolution as some suppose. It simply means that every individual does exactly as he or she wants. This is how Israel ended up in the period between judges and kings. It was a time of unutterable evil.

How would anarchy work? If you wanted a road built, you would have to get affected people to either work to build it and/or raise the money to build it. It might even work on a small scale.

So is socialism sinful? It does not require faith. Whatever is not of faith is sin. So, I would suggest that it is sin.

 

[dqhall]

The Book of Deuteronomy commanded Israel to collect a tithe each year. In the third year they distributed the annual tithe (10%) to the poor.

Deuteronomy 14:28 (WEB) At the end of every three years you shall bring all the tithe of your increase in the same year, and shall store it within your gates. 29 The Levite, because he has no portion nor inheritance with you, as well as the foreigner living among you, the fatherless, and the widow who are within your gates shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that Yahweh your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do.

Jesus instructed a rich man to sell his possessions, give to the poor and to follow Jesus (Luke 18:22).

In Acts 4 Peter’s church members shared all things in common. In Acts 6 the apostles were administering funds to widows in need of support.

The Romans collected taxes. They built roads, aqueducts, harbors and public buildings. They hired soldiers and gave veterans land to retire on. They distributed free food rations to citizens of the city of Rome.

Even though Herod was a wicked king, he used his own royal funds to import and distribute food to his starving people during a famine. See Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XV, Chapter IX: Concerning the Famine that Happened in Judea and Syria; and How Herod, after He had Married Another Wife, Rebuilt Cesarea, and Other Grecian Cities.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I don't know, but when I was in discernment for the Diaconate, a priest who was obviously anti-right wingers, quoted this verse;

Now when Jesus was in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came up to him with an alabaster jar of costly perfumed oil, and poured it on his head while he was reclining at table.

When the disciples saw this, they were indignant and said, “Why this waste?
It could have been sold for much, and the money given to the poor.

Since Jesus knew this, he said to them, “Why do you make trouble for the woman? She has done a good thing for me. Matthew 26:6-10

The priest claimed that what the Apostles did was a right-winger's mentality.

Afterwards I spoke with another man from our group and I said the priest was wrong,
taking other's property and giving to others is a left-wing policy. He agreed.

To me, Jesus was giving his opinion about socialist mentality that the Apostles exhibited
in this verse.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't know, but when I was in discernment for the Diaconate, a priest who was obviously anti-right wingers, quoted this verse;



The priest claimed that what the Apostles did was a right-winger's mentality.

Afterwards I spoke with another man from our group and I said the priest was wrong,
taking other's property and giving to others is a left-wing policy. He agreed.

To me, Jesus was giving his opinion about socialist mentality that the Apostles exhibited
in this verse.

Both of them were wrong. The disciples didn't do anything. They did not advocate taking the woman's oil from her, nor did they advocate her keeping it for herself.

Rather, they were virtue signaling, and precisely that: Merely virtue signaling. James complained about virtue signaling as well. Both sides do it.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Both of them were wrong. The disciples didn't do anything. They did not advocate taking the woman's oil from her, nor did they advocate her keeping it for herself.

Rather, they were virtue signaling, and precisely that: Merely virtue signaling. James complained about virtue signaling as well. Both sides do it.

The disciples didn't do anything because Jesus stopped them. The woman was doing what
she wanted with her perfume and that was, giving it to Jesus. It was her free choice and
the Apostles would've stepped on the choice she made, had Jesus not rebuked them.

This is what happens in socialistic societies. They take from one group whom they've villainized and give it to others who did not earn what they received.

This is what happened in Venezuela, the former Soviet Union and Mao's China

 

[RDKirk]

The disciples didn't do anything because Jesus stopped them. The woman was doing what
she wanted with her perfume and that was, giving it to Jesus. It was her free choice and
the Apostles would've stepped on the choice she made, had Jesus not rebuked them.

This is what happens in socialistic societies. They take from one group whom they've villainized and give it to others who did not earn what they received.

This is what happened in Venezuela, the former Soviet Union and Mao's China

There is no indication that the disciples were going to take any kind of action. The woman had already poured her oil out on Jesus...that was a done deal.

They were just virtue signaling, which is the opposite of taking action.

Jesus hushed their virtue signaling.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

There is no indication that the disciples were going to take any kind of action. The woman had already poured her oil out on Jesus...that was a done deal.

They were just virtue signaling, which is the opposite of taking action.

Jesus hushed their virtue signaling.

Then you must not be able to read, as I posted what the Apostles said about the woman's use of the perfume.

In John's gospel, the woman did not pour out all the oil as Jesus handed her the jar and told her to keep it for his burial.

“Why was this oil not sold for three hundred days’ wages* and given to the poor?”

He[Judas Iscariot] said this not because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief and held the money bag and used to steal the contributions.

So Jesus said, “Leave her alone. Let her keep this for the day of my burial.
John 12:5-8

 

[Sabertooth]

But "socialism" doesn't really enter the picture until much, much later, so, no, they weren't socialists.

Joseph's preparation for the seven-year famine was a type of tax-based socialism.

 

[Albion]

Note: This is not necessarily a political thread per se. While it is about socialism, it isn't about whether socialism is effective or not or whether we should advocate for such on a political level.

Yes, but it is NOT about Socialism.

The fact that some Christians hold some sort of radical Libertarian POV concerning the people's presumed obligation to obey the laws doesn't at all mean that having public schools, which were mentioned, or something else on that level amounts to Socialism.

Rather, the question pertains to whether such things are sinful.

Now, THAT seems to be the question, I agree.

 

[trophy33]

Bible permits (or even commands) Christians to provide welfare for each other.

When countries (and therefore also governments) became Christian, these social elements have been incorporated into laws and society.

In Europe, the continent with the longest Christian tradition, almost all countries are liberal social democracies.

Liberal - people have freedom to do anything they want as long as it does not harm others
Social - all people pay mandatory health and social insurance to state and state gives them all free education, health care and pensions
Democracies - people vote for their government every few years

We can say that this European combination would not exist without Christian influences.

 

[eleos1954]

Hello! Personal political views aside, I've seen some people argue that socialism is inherently sinful and that to accept social security, public education, etc. is not part of God's design for government. They understand God's intended purpose for government to be negative, such as prohibiting and punishing evil, not positive, such as giving things to people. I haven't been under the impression that the Bible takes this hard of a stance on such political issues—to the extent that social welfare programs are completely sinful—but I'm open to hearing more on the matter. Two passages come to mind on the role of government. The first one, 1 Peter 2:13-14 reads (NKJV):

Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good (emphasis added).

The second, Romans 13:3, reads (NKJV):

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same (emphasis added).

What does it mean for the government to "praise" those who do good in these passages, contrasted with punishing those who do evil? Does this suggest that the role of the government is positive and negative, rather than just negative? Could this be an example of the government providing welfare/positive reinforcement to those who "do good" (i.e., are law-abiding citizens as opposed to criminals who do "evil")? What would be examples of "praising" those who do good in first-century Rome or elsewhere that'd be relevant to Paul or his readers?

And finally, didn't Israel have laws requiring the Jews to leave some of their harvest for the poor, etc.? If so, wouldn't this be taken as God-ordained approval of government providing for the poor? Again, it could be abused, but does this suggest that the government helping the poor isn't wrong in principle? I appreciate some thoughts on this. Thank you!

Note: This is not necessarily a political thread per se. While it is about socialism, it isn't about whether socialism is effective or not or whether we should advocate for such on a political level. Rather, the question pertains to whether such things are sinful. Thus, the Bible, not evidence of effectiveness or political arguments, are key.

No system with man at the helm will work ... man is sinful .... any governments put in place will eventually become corrupt and fail completely .... it's just that some systems take longer for them to become completely rotten. Helping the poor through government or through the private sector and/or individual is never wrong .... it's never wrong to help the poor.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Joseph's preparation for the seven-year famine was a type of tax-based socialism.

Your anachronism is showing. What the Egyptians did at Joseph's advice was in no way like 20th and 21st century socialism. What they did was more akin to the US government strategic oil reserves than anything socialistic in nature. Storing one particular commodity in order to release it in time of shortage is not in any way similar to appropriating all the means of production and executing those that object.

 

[Albion]

Your anachronism is showing. What the Egyptians did at Joseph's advice was in no way like 20th and 21st century socialism. What they did was more akin to the US government strategic oil reserves than anything socialistic in nature. Storing one particular commodity in order to release it in time of shortage is not in any way similar to appropriating all the means of production and executing those that object.

This kind of thinking you are reacting against seems to be widespread.

I'm referring to the notion that if a government of any kind does one or two things that might possibly be done instead by private entrepreneurs--deliver the mail, for example--then, voila! it's a Socialist government.

It makes me wonder if this is something spread by weak or biased schoolteachers, or maybe it's a cover story spread by Socialists themselves in order to make Socialism look like nothing special and not anything to be vary of.

 

[pescador]

The world system is under Satan's control and is in opposition to the Kingdom of God. It is founded on the principle of good and evil. Satan is not especially concerned which side of the coin people choose, as long as it is his coin. Socialism requires people to give money to a government that does as it pleases with the money. That may be something utterly at odds with Christianity. Communism is socialism enforced by violence and repression.

No political system is untainted by Satan's hand. Sir Winston Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government - apart from any other form. For a example, a democratically elected government in Australia is enforcing utterly unreasonable vaccine mandates. The only hope is that they are evicted next election. Even then, you don't know what the next lot will do.

The ultimate opposite to socialism is anarchy. This is not a violent revolution as some suppose. It simply means that every individual does exactly as he or she wants. This is how Israel ended up in the period between judges and kings. It was a time of unutterable evil.

How would anarchy work? If you wanted a road built, you would have to get affected people to either work to build it and/or raise the money to build it. It might even work on a small scale.

So is socialism sinful? It does not require faith. Whatever is not of faith is sin. So, I would suggest that it is sin.

Water is blue, clouds are white, so clouds aren't made of water.

Socialism is not sin. It is a form of government, like capitalism, communism, etc.

Here is what Jesus had to say about the Roman government. Mark 12:17, "Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were utterly amazed at him."

And Paul said in Romans 13:1-5, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation because it is God’s servant for your well-being. But be afraid if you do wrong because government does not bear the sword for nothing. It is God’s servant to administer punishment on the person who does wrong. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath of the authorities but also because of your conscience."

And they were speaking about the cruel, despotic government of Rome, not modern socialism.