In one of his literary masterpieces, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, Mises provided a chapter titled, “Christianity and Property,” in which he wrote the following statements regarding the teachings of Jesus,
But all efforts to find support for the institution of private property generally, and for private ownership in the means of production in particular, in the teachings of Christ are quite vain. No art of interpretation can find a single passage in the New Testament that could be read as upholding private property. Those who look for a Biblical ukase must go back to the Old Testament, or content themselves with disputing the assertion that communism prevailed in the congregation of the early Christians….
One thing of course is clear, and no skilful interpretation can obscure it. Jesus’s words are full of resentment against the rich, and the Apostles are no meeker in this respect. The Rich Man is condemned because he is rich, the Beggar praised because he is poor….
This is a case in which the Redeemer’s words bore evil seed. More harm has been done, and more blood shed, on account of them than by the persecution of heretics and the burning of witches. They have always rendered the Church defenceless against all movements which aim at destroying human society. The Church as an organization has certainly always stood on the side of those who tried to ward off communistic attack. But it could not achieve much in this struggle. For it was continually disarmed by the words: “Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the Kingdom of God.” (emphasis added)
This article—while still loving Mises—argues that, on this point, Mises was wrong. Why Mises likely made these particular errors in his historical context is a matter for another article. This article focuses on where Mises failed to take full account of the teachings of Jesus on this subject.
While Mises is correct that Christians and churches have often allied with interventionists and socialists—even using Bible verses and the words of Jesus—it is key to read the words of Jesus (or anyone) with regard to context, consistency, and totality. Doing so, it is evident that the socialists and interventionists do not have in Jesus the ally they think they do. In other words, Mises may have failed to apply the “Golden Rule” (Matthew 7:12), reading another in a way one hoped to be read.
Below is a non-exhaustive sample of the teachings of Jesus with regard to such topics. Length considerations limit examination of every statement on the topic, so the goal is not unbalanced cherry-picking but limiting evidence to statements that provide a counterbalance to claims that Jesus was against the rich as such, opposed to private property, promoted wealth distribution, or would have supported the welfare state.
Property (Matthew 20:15; cf. Matthew 20:1-16)
Matthew 20:15—“Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious [Lit evil] because I am generous [Lit good]?’”
Throughout His teaching, Jesus affirmed the validity of the Law of God (cf. Matthew 5:17-19), including the 8th commandment: “You shall not steal” (Matthew 19:18; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; cf. Romans 13:9; Ephesians 4:28), which presupposes the legitimacy of private property. Not only this, He also reaffirmed the 10th commandment against “deeds of coveting” (Mark 7:22).
More strikingly, Jesus told the parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16). A landowner hires laborers throughout the day for a denarius—a day’s wage—even hiring workers until the 11th hour (i.e., 5 p.m.). At the end, all the workers were paid one denarius, regardless of time worked. When the workers who had worked longer grumbled because the man who worked only one hour was paid a full day’s wage, they were answered with,
Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is yours and go, but I wish to give to this last man the same as to you. Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious [Lit evil] because I am generous [Lit good]? (Matthew 20:13-15, emphasis added)
While the socialists or the proponents of redistribution might use this passage to argue for a universal basic income, equal wages, or equalizing wealth, the point is actually the opposite. The landowner is not portrayed as an exploiter, he hired workers for different rates, engaged in a legitimate contract, agreed with his workers what would be paid for the work, and had control over his own property and exchange. The complainers were rebuffed—no injustice had taken place against them; they were paid according to the terms of his voluntary, contractual agreement and goods exchanged for labor. The laborer is worthy of his wages (Luke 10:7), but those wages are determined by voluntary agreement and exchange.
Charitable Giving, Choice, & Welfare State Trumpeters
Matthew 6:1-4—“Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in Heaven. 2So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 3But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.”
No one disputes that Jesus promoted charitable giving to the poor. Jesus said giving to the poor should not be with the motivation to be noticed by men (Matthew 6:1), that one should not sound a trumpet before them (Matthew 6:2), and that the left hand should not even know what the right hand is doing (Matthew 6:3), so that giving would be in secret (Matthew 6:4). The very concept of giving presupposes the legitimacy of private property and voluntarism. One cannot legitimately give what is not first legitimately possessed nor is it giving if done under coercion.
The fallacy of the statist non sequitur can easily slip in here: “I’m a better person because I believe that the state should tax and distribute more wealth for social welfare programs!” People assume an attitude of unjustified moral superiority when they falsely equate personal-private voluntary charity with the collective, coerced, redistributive policies via the political state. Being coerced via the state to give to the poor is not giving, but our culture’s superficial test of moral virtue. “Jesus said to give to the poor, therefore [non-sequitur], you must support the modern secular welfare state.” The conclusion does not follow. In fact, it would undermine secret, personal, voluntary charity.
At least the hypocrites Jesus condemned for drawing attention to their generosity to the poor in order to be noticed by men actually chose to give up their own resources voluntarily to the poor. The welfare state proponent sounds a trumpet before them—in the name of Jesus, if necessary—signaling their moral superiority as they announce that they want the government to expropriate goods from others to give to the poor. What generosity! The “welfare trumpeter”—unlike the hypocrite Jesus described—signals their supposed virtue by arguing that the state should transfer the goods of other people to the poor by force.
Redistribution Requests (Luke 12:13-15; John 12:1-8)
Luke 12:13-15—“Someone in the crowd said to Him, ‘Teacher, tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with me.’ 14But He said to him, ‘Man, who appointed Me a judge or arbitrator over you?’ 15Then He said to them, ‘Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions.’”
Jesus refused to redistribute and equalize unequal wealth when asked. Instead, He warned the poorer man against greed. This would have been the perfect opportunity for Jesus to promote redistribution of wealth. He did say, “Sell your possessions and give to charity” (Luke 12:33), but context and totality shows that Jesus did not always require this of all of His followers, however, even that statement presumes property, exchange, voluntary choice, and charitable giving.
In this request (Luke 12:13), we can hear the words of the modern socialists or interventionists who want to use Jesus to add authority to their cause: “Jesus, tell the rich to divide their wealth with me (and the state apparatus)!” They want to be able to say that Jesus would have supported the modern, secular welfare state to manage and distribute the wealth of private individuals. Surely Jesus—whose focus was the Kingdom of God and who lived during a period that would be considered unbelievable poverty by any living today—would empathize with the modern proponent of wealth redistribution in America and Europe with electricity, running water, iPhone, and Starbucks.
In one final case, for this article, we read about Mary of Bethany taking a 12 oz. bottle of expensive perfume and anointing Jesus’s feet (John 12:3). An expensive, luxury good was consumed. An objection to such an act of conspicuous consumption was raised: “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii [11 months’ wages] and given to poor people?” (John 12:4). This objection came—not from woke Jesus—but from Judas Iscariot (John 12:4). To this Jesus responded, “Let her alone… For you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me” (John 12:7-8). Jesus did not condemn an act of voluntary, expensive consumption, even when the opportunity cost meant that the wealth did not go to the poor.
More evidence could be adduced, but these limited verses alone should be sufficient to demonstrate that the typical presentations of Jesus as categorically opposed to property, wealth, voluntary exchange, voluntary giving, and other related topics, is incomplete.
