This is my second blog on understanding the Christian perspective on socialism. The first can be found here.

For those who maintain that Jesus was an advocate of spreading the wealth through the mechanism of government, there are a couple of clear passages that deal with this issue. The first is found in Matthew 17:24-27 which reads:

After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?” “Yes, he does,” he replied. When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes – from their own sons or from others?” “From others,” Peter answered. “Then the sons are exempt.” Jesus said to him, “But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out you line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.”

      So, it requires a profound lack of discernment to read this passage and reach the conclusion with absolute certitude that Christ was an advocate of socialism. Yes, Peter announced unequivocally that Jesus and his entourage did in fact pay the temple tax, but our Lord similarly gave context that this is no clarion call for the believer to get behind taxation without representation. Here are my takeaways from this exchange:

1. Jesus doesn’t immediately pull out his money clip and lay down his cash upon arrival. The questioner must have questioned whether Jesus paid the temple tax because the money was not forthcoming when it was due. This suggests that this was treated as a duty and not a priority for Jesus. We also know this because –
2. As Jesus is wont to do, he first posed a question of Peter about who had this obligation to pay the temple tax. Our Lord drew a clear distinction, making it clear that, as citizens of heaven, there was in fact no obligation for Christ or the disciples to ante up. They were set apart from the others even though this was a TEMPLE TAX. Taxes were owed by those whose loyalty was on earthly rulers, but he paid the tax as a gesture. That is hardly a ringing endorsement of socialism.
3. This was a temple tax which I confess to being ignorant about, but I assume it was for the expenses related to the work of the temple. This would be akin to meeting the church budget that needed to satisfy administration, building, property, technology, missions, and other expenses. They were not collecting taxes for the poor unless we are to believe this was strictly a benevolence fund. It was also a religious, not a government tax and was not therefore an example of socialism in action.
4. The fact that neither Jesus nor Peter had money to pay the tax shows that “spreading the wealth” was not something either advocated or practised. Requiring the payment of taxes from those without money is the reverse of giving to the needy.
5. It can be inferred that Jesus doesn’t even come into contact with money. As I will address in another passage, Jesus saw money as an earthly tool that, perfectly expressed by the angel in “It’s a Wonderful Life.” When George Bailey asks for money to resolve his financial woes, Clarence says, “We don’t use money in heaven.” More often than not, money is treated as an inducement in the service of meeting a need rather than a solution to a felt need. The exchange of money for goods is merely transactional.
6. Jesus doesn’t rely on cheap parlor tricks to perform his miracles. When he turned water into wine, water was collected and transformed. When he fed the 5,000 and the 4,000, Jesus did not send the disciples out to a place that would provide free carry-out. I can’t help but consider the process of handing over a smelly slime-covered coin to meet expenses and consider the message being telegraphed. My conclusion is that Christ viewed the paying of taxes as high dudgeon.

For those in breathless anticipation of where Jesus endorsed the paying of taxes to government, your thirst is about to be slaked. We turn now to the words of Matthew 22:15-22 which read:

Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?” But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax. They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

      So first we learn that the Pharisees again approach Jesus with evil intent when they inquire about the imperial tax. While we don’t have the full documentation of all Jesus’s sermons over his 3 years of ministry, this incident suggests that Jesus was not in the habit of pontificating on the virtues of paying taxes or broaching the subject of paying taxes would not be seen as an unscrupulous backroom initiative to trap him. Furthermore, notice that these are government representatives are not focused on the good to be accomplished through the paying of taxes. Their motives suggest greed and hubris, not compassion or even, “to each according to their needs.” It was already known that tax collectors were held in such low regard that they garnered their own sub (or uber) category on the sin spectrum – much like the status of child molesters in the prison hierarchy. Just check out how often Jesus is criticized for hanging out with “tax collectors AND sinners.” Jesus never protested this unjust treatment – he just extended grace to them as the sick needing a physician.

We also see once again that Jesus has no money and needs to ask that a coin be presented. There is again no evidence that he touched the coin, and I have every reason to believe he didn’t. Christ asked whose image was on the coin as a demarcation between what belongs to the ruling authorities on earth and what belongs to God. We can be assured, however that Jesus was not suggesting how we spend our money is immaterial. Try standing before God on Judgment Day and telling him that your commitment to him was through prayer, reading scripture, breaking bread with neighbours and not uttering profanities. On the other hand, since money belongs to Caesar, you did charity through mandatory taxation and your frivolous spending on licentious and selfish acts were you “giving to Caesar what was Caesar’s.” God will not be mocked. Neither Christians nor socialists believe that how we use our money is our own business. The distinction is that scripture tells us all we have belongs to God and how we use whatever we have is for his purposes. The state tells us they know better where our money should be directed for what THEY deem the greater good of society. More of our resources to the state means God is cheated of what is rightfully his.

Ravi Zacharias often referenced this interaction and pointed out the height of the cynicism within the heart of those attempting to trap our Saviour. He rightly points out that if the Pharisees were sincere, they would have had a follow-up question after Jesus identifies what is owed to Caesar. The supplemental question should have been: “What belongs to God?” This is also the question that advocates of “Christian socialism” should ask themselves. I believe Ravi was right in suggesting Jesus’s response would have been, “whose image is on you?” If our identity is properly grounded on Christ as our foundation, “socialism” would deservedly be a byword on the lips of any believer.

When I studied this passage, another detail jumped out at me – largely because it is often left out when this passage of scripture is quoted. I noticed that it reads to give BACK to Caesar what is Caesar’s. This suggests to me that the natural beauty, resources and giftings we have are ours to return to him as our offering. This is God’s commerce. Fiat currency is smelted and printed and only has the value a society gives it. If our economy collapses, the impact will be devastating on the people, but whatever God treasures does not diminish in value.

We know this from the parable of the rich fool (Luke 12:13-21) that neither the accrual of wealth nor spending it on oneself matters when your life is forfeit. One’s virtue is not tied to whether they are a beneficiary or supplier of goods (or even denied the chance to participate). Self-indulgence is not cured by adopting socialism whatever role you play in the process. If humanity was guided by compassion, money wouldn’t be necessary. Our monetary policies, whatever economic system frames them, is not a vehicle for compassion so much as it is an indictment of our greed nature.

Keeping a focus on the subject of taxes and tax collectors, another treasured event is relayed in the account of Jesus and Zacchaeus. This too may be a source for those desperate to find a call for the advancement of socialism in scripture, so it too deserves thorough analysis. We read in Luke 19:1-10:

Jesus entered Jericho and was passing though. A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus, he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. He wanted to see who Jesus was, but because he was short he could not see over the crowd. So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way. When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly. All the people saw this and began to mutter. “He has gone to be the guest of a sinner.” But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord? Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.” Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man cane to seek and to save the lost.”

      Some may conclude that this nullifies the claims that the Bible is less than sanguine about aligning itself with the advancement of socialism. Once we honestly assess this conclusion, it becomes clear that this is a specious piece of eisegesis (reading into scripture what isn’t there). In fact, it is completely consistent with the content already covered and debunked. Here is what I see as the Christian view of wealth redistribution:

1. Neither Jesus nor the government is steering Zacchaeus’s generous offer – in fact, it is just the opposite. He was serving as an agent of the state – the essential players that all socialist systems fully rely upon – and he was cheating people. Skimming off the top was the modus operandi of the tax collector. The inherent corruption in the collection and spending of these mandatory levies expose why this is a deeply flawed means of meeting needs. Zacchaeus is actually the embodiment of what the rich young man (referenced in my previous post) should have been. Both had been corrupted by the love of money, but Zacchaeus relinquished this idol for the sake of Christ. Zacchaeus was actually transitioning from a cog of wealth redistribution machinery of the state to a beautiful example of Christian charity. This is because he experienced a heart transformation; not because he left capitalism for socialism.
2. Zacchaeus did not just offer to give to the poor, but also promised to pay back more than he owed to those who were victims of his over-taxation. Those taxpayers he was exploiting to his own benefit are those who could afford the shakedown. They provided the grease to fund the priorities the state chose to direct money toward and that lined his own pockets. Even though these were the wealthy and wage-earners, Jesus didn’t admonish Zacchaeus to forgo the 1 percenters and just play Robin Hood with the proceeds of his ill-gotten gains.
3. Jesus said that salvation came to Zacchaeus, not because he was giving money to the poor, but because he turned his heart to the desires of God. Jesus’s benediction to Zacchaeus was because he turned his heart from the world and toward God. His promised commitment to the poor garnered no specific recognition because the intentions mattered more than the results. Under socialism, its just the opposite.

From the outset, I made clear that the defining features that separates socialism from Christian charity are the fealty to and dependence on government as a proxy for compassion through nonsense like promoting equity and the requisite suppression of choice. Every version of socialism is misguided and dangerous because it commands us to surrender to Caesar what is God’s. To miss this point is to completely overlook what living a life of obedience to Christ means.

My next post will be a 30,000-foot view from the principles of Christianity and how they must inspire the Christian not only to abjure the folly of socialist rhetoric, but to vigorously seek its demise. I will also address why believers and non-believers ought to be united in the fight against this horrific ideology.