10 Reasons Jesus Was Not a Socialist
*Note: This article first appeared as a two-part series at womeninapologetics.com.
According to a 2019 YouGov poll, 70% of millennials (27-42 years old) said they would vote for a socialist.[1] A Gallup poll that same year showed that 47% of Americans of all demographics would vote for a socialist for president of the United States.[2]
Should Christians be among the ranks of those who support socialism? Did Jesus and the disciples teach principles consistent with socialism? We will offer 10 reasons socialism isn’t compatible with biblical Christianity. But first, let’s define socialism.
Defining Socialism
Socialism is “a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution…by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.”[3] In other words, businesses, as well as the land, capital, and equipment needed for producing goods and services, are not owned by individuals, families, or shareholders, but rather by the community as a whole. In theory, everyone is an equal owner of hospitals, clinics, farms, markets, grocery stores, and every other business and industry. But in practice, someone has to be responsible for operating and maintaining those businesses. People typically don’t volunteer to operate businesses knowing they can’t build up equity, have control over the decisions made, or keep the fruits of their labor. So, the government steps in and takes over.
This is very different from the free market in which individuals decide what they need and want (known as demand) and those who produce each good or service provide it accordingly (known as supply). Without supply and demand to determine how much of each good and service is produced and how much they cost, the government makes these decisions for everyone.
Such a system is inconsistent with the teachings and lives of Jesus and his disciples for several reasons.
1. Jesus and the disciples taught voluntary giving, not government redistribution.
People sometimes cite accounts like Matthew 19:16-30 in which Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell his possessions, give to the poor, and follow him as evidence that Jesus would favor socialism over a free market economy. However, such accounts are more in line with a free market economy because Jesus always called for voluntary giving. He did not call for government taxation and redistribution, community confiscation, or seizure of land and businesses. In fact, we see affirmation of private ownership and free decisions in the account of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5.
Ananias and Sapphira were members of the early church who sold some of their property. They kept some of the profit for themselves and donated the rest to the church. But they lied and said they donated the full amount of their property. Peter rebuked them for lying, saying,
Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God. (Acts 5:3-4, emphasis mine)
This was the perfect opportunity to condemn private ownership, but Peter did the opposite. He affirmed that the property, as well as the proceeds from it, were theirs to do with as they pleased. His only condemnation was that they lied about what they did.
Jesus and the disciples didn’t condemn private ownership; rather, they assumed we have personal possessions and taught us how to steward them wisely since, ultimately, everything belongs to God, and we are accountable to him for our decisions. This is the primary difference between a free market economy and socialism. The former is based on free trade, while the latter is imposed by force of law. In contrast to government confiscation and redistribution of wealth, when we voluntarily give away what we have earned, that’s charity and it’s praiseworthy. The voluntary component makes all the difference.[4]
2. Jesus and the disciples taught care for fellow Christians first.
Several New Testament passages emphasize the importance of Christians caring for one another first before extending that care to others outside the community of faith. For example, Romans 12:13 says, “Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.” Similarly, Galatians 6:10 says, “So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.” We see this lived out in Acts 2:42-47 in which the believers had everything in common, even selling their belongings in order to give to one another as they had needs.[5]
This may come as a shock to some Christians, but when the government takes your tax money, they don’t send it to Women in Apologetics, Christian missionaries, or your pastor who is struggling to make ends meet. They don’t send it to Wayne Grudem so he can write more books, to William Lane Craig so he can do more debates, or to Frank Turek so he can speak at more universities. They don’t send it to Christian schools, Christian churches, or Christian publishers.
The reality is that secular governments have a different worldview than Jesus, and spending always reflects the values of the purse holder. Socialism would provide the secular government with even more of Christians’ earned income and property that would otherwise be available to support the community of believers.
3. Jesus and the disciples taught accountability within the community of believers.
The most common passage I hear to support the claim that the Bible teaches socialism is Acts 2:42-47:
And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
Once again, we see that this giving among Christians was voluntary, not government-imposed. This passage assumes the Christians owned private property, kept their earned income, and were free to share it with fellow believers.
Additionally, there was accountability here that the government simply couldn’t provide. The text says the Christians met together daily. They knew the details of one another’s lives. There was accountability in how they were living. These Christians were not giving their money to people who were obstinately sexually promiscuous, doing drugs, promoting unbiblical beliefs, and choosing not to work. They were giving to fellow Christians.
The Apostle Paul wrote, “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat” (2 Thess. 3:10). And the early church practiced church discipline. Those who willfully disregarded the commands of the Lord were not rewarded; rather, they were told to leave the community of believers.[6] The central government isn’t capable of (or interested in) providing this kind of moral accountability, which makes all the difference between helping those in need versus subsidizing and incentivizing self-destructive behavior.
4. Jesus wasn’t concerned with equal financial wealth for all.
Jesus is most concerned with our spiritual well-being, not our temporary financial comfort. This is made clear in Luke 12:13-15 in which a man in the crowd said to Jesus, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” This would have been the perfect opportunity for Jesus to affirm the man’s request and teach that everyone must share equally in the wealth available to them, but that’s not what he did. Rather, Jesus refused to oblige the man and warned against greed, saying, “Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.”
Socialism is the demand for the same financial outcomes for everyone, regardless of skills, hard work, investment, risk-taking, and personal decision-making. It’s a demand that has some parallels with Luke 12:13. and it’s a demand that contradicts Paul’s teaching in 2 Thessalonians 3:10.
Although some may point to the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Matt. 20:1-16) to show that all the workers were paid the same amount regardless of how many hours they worked, it’s important to remember that this is a parable about the kingdom of heaven (v. 1), not instruction for how much to pay one’s employees. The main point of the parable is that God’s grace is not earned by human effort and that all genuine believers receive the gift of eternal life, whether they follow the Lord faithfully for 90 years or repent with their dying breath.[7]
Nonetheless, if we’re going to look to this parable for present-day application, we must at least acknowledge Jesus’ affirmation that the landowner has the right to do what he pleases with his own money, as well as his condemnation of envy (v. 15). This brings us to our next point.
5. Jesus and his disciples condemned envy and resentment.
Although socialism is frequently presented as being motivated by compassion for those who have less than we do, it’s also driven by envy and resentment toward those who have more than we do. In fact, the Cato Institute found that “resentment of the successful has about twice the effect of compassion in predicting support for increasing top marginal tax rates, wealth redistribution, hostility to capitalism, and believing billionaires should not exist.”[8] The same study showed that compassion and resentment both equally predict support for full-scale socialism.
Jesus and his disciples unequivocally condemned envy, portraying it as inner corruption that leads to even greater sin.[9] James warned that envy is demonic and results in “disorder and every vile practice” (James 3:14-16), and Paul warned that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:19-21). In contrast, Christians must cultivate a spirit of gratitude and contentment.[10]
6. Jesus condemned the rich when he was in areas where wealth was typically obtained through extraction, not hard work and ingenuity.[11]
Jesus lived, traveled, and ministered among the wealthy Sepphoris bankers, the wealthy fishing merchants of Magdala, and the Galilean artisans who made their living on large building projects.[12] Although he certainly had plenty of opportunities to confront wealthy entrepreneurs and investors who earned a good living as a result of their honest hard work, we don’t find such confrontations in the Gospels. Rather, the Gospels indicate Jesus reserved his warnings and condemnations regarding money for his visits to areas in which wealth was typically obtained through extraction by the religiously and politically powerful.[13]
Specifically, Jesus was tough on the wealthy when he was in the high-tax, exploitive, political, and religious center of Judea[14] and in the politically-tied towns of Tyre and Sidon,[15] where the Jerusalem shekel was minted, high-level trades with the politically powerful were made, and slaves were sold in open-air markets.[16] Since socialism is characterized by the full takeover of business and the economy by the government, presumably Jesus would not have kind words regarding socialism today. In contrast, Jesus omitted the lectures and warnings about money when he was in areas where most of the wealth was created through labor, commerce, and investment.[17] These are more characteristic of free-market economies.
7. Jesus and his disciples condemned theft.
Just because an action is carried out by the government doesn’t make it moral. When the government takes innocent lives, demands idol worship, or commands believers to stop sharing the gospel, it’s immoral, even when it’s approved of by a majority of citizens.[18] Likewise, when the government takes, by threat of law, what some members of society have earned in order to give it to those who didn’t earn it, it’s immoral, even with majority approval.[19]
Socialism, by definition, involves the politically powerful taking what rightfully belongs to others and giving it to those who didn’t earn it. Such “redistribution of wealth” disincentivizes innovation, risk-taking, creative problem-solving, and serving others to the best of our ability because we don’t personally benefit from our efforts. Dissuasion of these critical components of human flourishing is a major reason why socialism consistently leads to decreased production and has even led to mass starvation and death (see #9 below).
8. Jesus and his disciples acknowledged the sinful nature of man.
Socialism is built on several assumptions about reality. These include the assumptions that: 1) people will work hard and be honest without personal incentive to do so; 2) a small group of elites can predict how much of each good and service the entire population will need; and 3) the world’s wealth is a fixed amount which ought to be divided up rather than increased.[20]
While none of these assumptions align with reality,[21] the first one, in particular, rejects a foundational Christian doctrine, namely, the inherited sinful nature of mankind resulting from the fall of Adam.[22] Therefore, socialism is at odds with biblical Christianity, and we ought not to be surprised that it consistently produces negative, and often devastating, outcomes.[23]
9. Jesus and his disciples valued human life and flourishing, which are consistently impeded by socialism.
Although Jesus wasn’t concerned with manufacturing equal financial outcomes, he certainly valued life and human flourishing.[24] When we look at the results of socialism, this isn’t what we find at all.
Some of the most horrific examples of socialism include:
The Bolshevik Revolution, where at least 10 million people were sent to the gulags in the USSR, and millions more starved in the Terror-Famine (Holodomor) in Ukraine
The Great Leap Forward in China in which between 15 million and 55 million people starved to death
The socialist experiment in Cambodia in which more than a million people were gruesomely murdered
The Castro regime in Cuba expropriated the land of Cuban farmers and the businesses of Cuban entrepreneurs, stealing their possessions and livelihoods and exiling millions of people
The socialist policies of North Korea have caused the starvation of up to 3.5 million people and caused ongoing destitution for an entire nation
The implementation of socialism in Venezuela turned a once-prosperous nation into a failed state with the world’s highest rate of inflation[25]
While these nations and their histories stand as cautionary tales of what happens when socialism is fully embraced, partial socialism — or what is sometimes called democratic socialism or a mixed economy — generally results in partial loss with few, if any, benefits.[26] The more the government takes control of the economy and restricts individual economic freedom, whether through tax increases, minimum wage regulation, stricter rules that prevent the firing of workers, or other regulations and restrictions, the less prosperous the nation becomes.[27] In contrast, the more economic freedom citizens have, the more a nation tends to flourish.
Although flourishing nations do tend to have greater wealth inequality between the poorest members of society and the wealthiest, everyone is better off overall when individuals have greater economic freedom.[28] According to Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, as a direct result of capitalism, since 1970 the percentage of humanity living in extreme poverty has fallen by 80%.[29] Before then, more than 1 in 4 people around the world were living on a dollar a day or less. Today, it’s about 1 in 20. This didn’t happen because of government handouts, redistribution of wealth, or socialism. It happened because of globalization, free trade, property rights, the rule of law, and entrepreneurship, all of which are essential features of capitalism.
10. Jesus and his disciples desired the growth of the church and Christian influence.
A growing body of research shows that as the welfare state grows, the church shrinks and so does its influence.[30] As the government gains power, religious freedom is often reduced, and people in need rely more heavily on the government to provide for them rather than participating in communities that hold them accountable to biblical standards of morality.
Given that secular governments don’t use their wealth to fund Christian ministry, it only makes sense that there would be less money for such activities under a secular socialist government.[31] Without pastors, evangelists, and apologists to teach and disciple, schools devoted to raising up leaders with a Christian worldview, and ministries dedicated to creating, publishing, and distributing Christian materials — all of which require money donated by believers — Christian influence wanes.
Conclusion
While all economic systems are comprised of sinful people and no system eliminates sin, socialism ignores the reality of sin altogether by expecting people to give their best, take risks, work hard, and innovate even when there is little to gain from it. Socialism further perpetuates and incentivizes sin by taking from those who earn wealth and giving it to those who don’t. Socialism robs nations of financial freedom and prosperity, it diminishes Christian influence, and often it results in millions of deaths. None of this recalls to mind anything Jesus or his disciples taught us to seek or support.
Rather, the Apostle Paul taught, “Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:7).
Notes:
[1] Morgan Gstalter, “7 in 10 millennials say they would vote for a socialist: poll,” The Hill, October 28, 2019, https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/467684-70-percent-of-millennials-say-theyd-vote-for-a-socialist-poll/.
[2] Justin McCarthy, “Less Than Half in U.S. Would Vote for Socialist for President,” Gallup, May 9, 2019, https://news.gallup.com/poll/254120/less-half-vote-socialist-president.aspx.
[3] Dictonary.com, “socialism,” accessed June 21, 2024, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/socialism.
[4] Compare Exodus 20:15 versus 1 Corinthians 9:7
[5] See also 1 John 3:17-18; James 2:15-16; and 1 Timothy 5:8
[6] 1 Corinthians 5:1-2, 11-12
[7] An example of the latter is in Luke 23:39-43 when the criminal next to Jesus repents on the cross as he dies.
[8] Emily Ekins, “Study: Top Motivation for Hating Capitalism Isn’t Compassion, It’s Resentment,” Cato Institute, October 1, 2019, https://www.cato.org/commentary/study-top-motivation-hating-capitalism-isnt-compassion-its-resentment.
[9] Mark 7:21-23; Matthew 20:1-16; Luke 15:25-30; Romans 13:13; Galatians 5:19-21
[10] Colossians 3:15; Philippians 4:4-7, 11-12
[11] Jerry Bowyer, The Maker Versus the Takers: What Jesus Really Said About Social Justice and Economics (New York: Fidelis Books, 2020).
[12] Bowyer, The Maker Versus the Takers, 34-40.
[13] Bowyer, The Maker Versus the Takers, 17-75.
[14] Mark 10:1, 17; Luke 6:17-25, 18:18, 19:1-8; Mark 11:15-18
[15] Luke 6:17
[16] Bowyer, The Maker Versus the Takers, 45-49.
[17] Bowyer, The Maker Versus the Takers, 18-39.
[18] This is clear from passages that call for obedience to God rather than men when the two diverge, including Acts 4:18-20; Acts 5:29; Daniel 3:16-18 (see also Hebrews 11:33-34); and Revelation 13:15-17.
[19] Exodus 20:15, 17; Deuteronomy 5:19; Exodus 22:1-14
[20] Sahil Chinoy, Nathan Nunn, Sandra Sequeira, and Stefanie Stantcheva, “Zero-Sum Thinking and the Roots of U.S. Political Divides,” May 15, 2024, https://socialeconomicslab.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/zero_sum_political_divides.pdf
[21] Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy, 5th ed. (New York: Basic Books, 2015).
[22] Genesis 3:17-19; Romans 5:12, 18-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22
[23] Russell A. Berman, “Leaving Socialism Behind: A Lesson from German History.” Hoover Institution (Stanford: Leland Stanford Junior University, 2020), accessed June 20, 2024, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/humanprosperityproject_berman.pdf; H.R. McMaster and Leopoldo Lopez, “Venezuela: The Disaster Of The ‘Socialist Revolution’ And Prospects For Recovery,” Hoover Institution, March 16, 2022, https://www.hoover.org/research/venezuela-disaster-socialist-revolution-and-prospects-recovery; “The Index of Economic Freedom,” Heritage Foundation, last modified October 2023, https://www.heritage.org/index/pages/report.
[24] John 10:10
[25] “H.Con.Res.9 - Denouncing the horrors of socialism,” Congress.gov, accessed June 20, 2024, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/9/text.
[26] Lee E. Ohanian, “The Effect of Economic Freedom on Labor Market Efficiency and Performance,” Prosperity Project, accessed June 20, 2024, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/prosperityproject_ohanian_final.pdf.
[27] “The Index of Economic Freedom,” Heritage Foundation, last modified October 2023, https://www.heritage.org/index/pages/report.
[28] John Tamny, “Income Inequality is Good,” PragerU, September 5, 2016, https://www.prageru.com/video/income-inequality-is-good.
[29] Arthur Brooks, “If You Hate Poverty, You Should Love Capitalism.” PragerU, August 31, 2017, https://www.prageru.com/video/if-you-hate-poverty-you-should-love-capitalism.
[30] Ben Johnson, “How Socialism Causes Atheism,” Religion & Liberty 29, no.3 (December 11, 2019), https://www.acton.org/religion-liberty/volume-29-number-3/how-socialism-causes-atheism.
[31] This is not the case in Islamic countries, where there is no separation of church and state and the government funds Islamic activities.
