What does the Bible say about private property?

As a pastor in the United States, I never thought I’d find myself in the position of defending the moral goodness of private property. Yet here I am, and that’s exactly what I want to do in this post. I will defend the notion that private ownership of property is not only morally permissible—as in one legitimate option among other legitimate options—but is actually morally good and should thus be the model for ownership in any society.

 Support for private ownership of property is waning somewhat in the United States as socialist and communist ideas gain greater traction—though ironically, no one seems to be volunteering to have their own property redistributed! With this shift in views about private property, Christians are left wondering what—if anything—the Bible has to say about this matter. Let’s find out!

 

Does the Bible support private ownership of property?

The answer to this question is “yes,” and this can be demonstrated through several lines of evidence:

 

Private ownership of property is based on the responsibility of stewardship

One detail that should be clarified early in this discussion is the reality of “ownership.” Technically speaking, God retains ownership of all things in His role as Creator:

 

            Deuteronomy 10:14—“Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of     heavens, the earth with all that is in it.”

 

            Psalm 24:1-2—“The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who            dwell therein, for he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers.”

 

            Psalm 89:11—“The heavens are yours; the earth is also yours; the world and all that is   in it, you have founded them.”

 Thus, to speak of humans “owning” property is a bit of a misnomer. What we actually possess is a stewardship from God—a responsibility to have oversight of a role or a good to cause it to flourish. This notion of stewardship is rooted in the creation account when God gave mankind the responsibility to oversee the Earth and cultivate its productive potential (Gen 1:26-28; 2:5). As time went by, God gave various stewardships to various people—and not equally to all people, but usually in differing proportions to individuals. To Job and Abraham he gave great wealth; to Moses he gave the leadership of Israel; to the sons of Aaron he gave the priestly office; to the tribes of Israel he gave the land of Canaan as property; to David he gave kingship; to the Apostles he gave leadership over the church. In each of these cases, notice that a stewardship was given to some people that was not given equally to others. It was entrusted to someone as their responsibility.

 Inherent in the notion of a stewardship is the authority to oversee and execute one’s stewardship; in other words, personal control over whatever has been entrusted. It is not for others to possess and control my stewardship—it is for me, and as we’ll see below, I am held responsible for whatever is entrusted to me. This accountability assumes that my stewardship belongs to me and that I have personal—or we might say “private”—control over it.

 It can be seen in this discussion that exercising authority over a stewardship is part of what it means to live as a being created in the image of God. Animals do not have this same kind of existence or activity—to use one’s intellect and will to cause one’s stewardship to flourish is a profoundly human activity, and it is honoring to God to use our capacities in this way. Conversely, it is profoundly de-humanizing to deny a man the private oversight of his possessions or the appropriate fruits of his labor. The history of Communism has repeatedly borne out the cheapening of humanity when we deny a man the right to have a personal, private stewardship from God. This link is not at all surprising given that Communism is an atheistic philosophy.

 

Private ownership of property is assumed in commands against theft, coveting, and envy

Commands against theft, coveting, and envy assume that other people will possess goods and property that do not belong to me. They rightfully belong to someone else, and I have no claim upon them. How would such commands apply in a society in which everything is communally owned? If there is no boundary between what is mine and what is yours, how could I possibly steal something? If it is said that each person has an appropriate share of something that is communally owned, we’ve really gone right back to a situation of private property, just under a different name. It seems we cannot escape the reality that there has to be boundaries between what is mine and what is yours and that these boundaries ought to be respected.

 

Private ownership of property is assumed for recompense and reward

Private ownership of property is a necessary assumption behind statements like 2 Timothy 2:6: “It is the hard-working farmer who ought to have the first share of the crops.” Why should he have the first share of the crops? They belong to him—he labored to produce them from his field. He caused his stewardship to flourish, and he should be the first to enjoy the goods produced.

 Private ownership is also assumed in passages that speak of rewards for one’s stewardship. Jesus’ Parable of the Stewards comes instantly to mind. Each steward in the parable was given a certain amount of money to oversee, and each steward was given a corresponding reward for how he had caused that wealth to grow (or failed to do so). The notion of reward implies that the property given to the steward was under his control. He had authority and oversight of it such that he deserved credit or blame for what happened to it.

 If the Lord plans to reward us for how we have stewarded our various roles and possessions, then the control of them must belong to us and no one else. They must be our property in this sense—not the property of others.

 

Private ownership of property was explicitly established in Israelite society through the Law of Moses

Old Testament Israel gives us an interesting instance of God establishing a society for a nation by divine command. In this society, private property was the cornerstone of the economic system. Each tribe of Israel was given a certain portion of the land of Canaan, and each family in a tribe was given an allotment of that tribal portion. Interestingly, the farmland that a family received could not be permanently sold. If it was sold, by law it had to be given back to that family at the end of every seven-year cycle. The initial sale price was to be adjusted based on how many years were left in the cycle. Thus, a family’s land was supposed to be their permanent possession.

 

Are inequalities of wealth or income inherently wrong?

Income inequality is a hot topic in our culture today. It is often assumed that inequality in income or wealth between two people is inherently wrong, and those making this assumption further assume that the government should enact programs to bring about equal income and wealth for all people.

 It is important to recognize a clearly unbiblical assumption that lies behind such thoughts—namely, that an increase in income or wealth is an unalloyed blessing; that such an increase brings only good into a person’s life and no evil. That notion is easily believed in our culture that is flooded with the love of money, but it is simply unbiblical. The Apostle Paul warned, “those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs (1 Tim 6:9-10).” When the children of Israel were on the cusp of taking the Promised Land, Moses warned them, “Take care lest you forget the Lord your God by not keeping his commandments and his rules and his statutes, which I command you this day, lest, when you have eaten and are full and have built good houses and live in them, and when your herds and flocks multiply and your silver and gold is multiplied and all that you have is multiplied, then your heart be lifted up, and you forget the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery (Deut 8:11-14).”

 The temptations associated with wealth led King Agur to offer this prayer: “give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me, lest I be full and deny you and say, ‘Who is the Lord?’ or lest I be poor and steal and profane the name of my God (Prov 30:8-9).” Agur’s prayer expresses what our personal attitude toward wealth should be, but it also illustrates what we should pursue in society—adequacy of wealth for all people, not necessarily equality of wealth for all people.

 It should bother Christians that some people do not have sufficient income or wealth to meet their own essential needs. Scripture commands us to extend personal generosity to those who, through no fault of their own, lack necessities such as food and clothing (James 2:15-16; 1 John 3:16-17). We therefore must give of our own resources to resolve inadequacies in essential needs that others are facing through no fault of their own.

 But once such inadequacies are resolved, the Bible gives no indication that any remaining differences in income or wealth between two people are inherently wrong. Indeed, several observations argue that they are not. First, God at times promised material prosperity to some people, but not all people. One such example would be God’s promise to Solomon in 1 Kings 3. After God invited Solomon to ask him for anything he wanted and Solomon asked for wisdom, God promised that he would also grant riches to Solomon since he had chosen well in asking for wisdom. That God would deliberately make Solomon wealthier than other people around him shows that such an inequality must not be inherently wrong—otherwise God would have been committing a moral evil by enriching Solomon.

 Second, certain Bible characters are praised for their godliness despite the fact they had more wealth than other people. People like Abraham, Job, Cornelius, Philemon, and others are all portrayed as godly people even though they possessed more wealth than others had. They are never said to be in the wrong because they hadn’t given away all of their excess to achieve precise equality of income or wealth with those around them.

 Third, some inequalities may stem from a moral failing on the part of the person who has less. This cause certainly isn’t at work in all inequalities, but surely it is in some. Are we supposed to simply gloss over the fact that some people may have less because of their own laziness or foolishness in stewarding their resources? In cases resulting from genuine moral failing, the Bible is quite clear: “if anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat (2 Thess 3:10).” It is de-humanizing to treat a person as if he is not a morally responsible being; a person’s own choices must be considered as a factor in his circumstances. It surely is not inherently wrong if they face an inequality due to their own decisions.

 Certainly, many people in the United States have a significant excess of wealth—resources beyond what they need for their essentials. It is not inherently wrong that they have more than others, but they should carefully consider these words from the Apostle Paul: “As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life (1 Tim 6:17-19).”

What does the Bible say about war?

War is a terrible facet of life in this fallen world. It should be particularly odious to Christians since we serve the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6). We look forward very much to the time of Christ’s kingdom on this earth, when swords will be made into plowing implements because nations will no longer war against each other (Isaiah 2:1-4). Until that time, we will have to live with the possibility of war—and the possibility that we might be called upon to take up arms. And so we must ask: can fighting in a war ever be morally permissible? Could war even be morally right in some situations?

For the sake of clarity and brevity, I’m going to assume that most people reading this post already believe that war can be morally permissible in some situations (which is the view I hold). With that assumption, I will only briefly address the biblical indications that war can be permissible. I will devote more space to examining the texts often cited by pacifists to argue that war is never permissible.

Biblical Indications that War Can Be Permissible

1. Abraham was blessed by a priest of God for going to war to save non-combatants unjustly captured by an aggressor (Genesis 14).

It is stated in this account that God delivered Abraham’s enemies into his hands, thus showing approval of Abraham’s actions.

2. God commanded the Israelites to attack the Canaanites.

At times, God miraculously aided the Israelites in these battles to ensure their success (Joshua 10:11-14).

3. God moved the biblical authors to portray Him with military imagery.

God is comfortable being called a warrior (Exodus 15:3, Psalm 24:8). He is frequently called “Lord of Hosts,” which portrays Him as a general over a vast army. Also, the return of Christ is described as a glorious military victory (Revelation 19:11-21). By contrast, God is never portrayed as an adulterer, a liar, a thief or any other person who is clearly immoral. It is unthinkable that God would allow Himself to be portrayed as a warrior if warfare can never be morally right.

4. God has given governments the right to use force against those who do evil (Romans 13:1-5).

This right would surely include the right to punish evil between its citizens (criminal justice) and against its citizens (defensive warfare).

5. Some soldiers are praised in the New Testament with no suggestion that their occupation was inherently wrong.

When a certain centurion asked Jesus to heal his servant, Jesus praised the man for his faith without giving any rebuke of the man’s occupation (Luke 7:1-10). The centurion Cornelius was called “a devout man who feared God” and he became born-again without Peter or anyone else rebuking him for his occupation (Acts 10).

“But doesn’t this verse say…?”

When we think of the possibility of going to war, there are likely a number of Bible verses that come to mind that can’t seem to be reconciled with engaging in combat. How should we understand these verses? Here’s a sampling of them with explanation for each:

“Thou shalt not kill.”—Exodus 20:13 (KJV)

The old King James Version of the Bible translated the Hebrew word ratsakh as “kill” in its translation of the 6^th Commandment. It should more accurately be translated “murder,” as the New King James Version and all other modern English translations render it. The prohibition here was not against every instance of taking a life, but only those that would constitute murder. The very same legal code (the Law of Moses) called for the death penalty for certain crimes. Also, as noted above, God commanded the Israelites to go to war against the Canaanites. If killing in war is an instance of ratsakh, then God would have issued contradictory commands. Thus, the 6^th Commandment does not rule out killing in war.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.”—Matthew 5:38-41

Several comments are in order for this important passage. First, the standard “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” was given to judges by the Law of Moses as a guideline for penalties in court cases. It was never meant as a standard for personal relationships, which is the Lord’s focus in this passage. If a person seeks to inflict such “justice” himself, he is in the wrong. But according to the Law of Moses, it was acceptable for a legal authority to use such force in the administration of justice. This observation aligns with Paul’s teaching in Romans 13:1-5 about the right of government to use force. Thus, personal retaliation is wrong, but justice meted out by a governing authority is not.

Second, notice that Jesus specifically mentioned the right cheek in this statement. Why specify the right cheek versus the left? Because it indicates what type of blow Jesus was talking about. Right-handedness has always been more common than left-handedness; thus, it’s safe to assume that Jesus was describing a right-handed person striking you on the right cheek. That blow would be a back-handed slap—an insult rather than a more forceful attack. Thus, what Jesus had in mind in this verse is responding to a personal insult. He wasn’t addressing the subject of personal self-defense, let alone the legitimacy of engaging in warfare.

Third, when Jesus says, “Do not resist the one who is evil,” we have to define resistance from the context. We shouldn’t consider resistance in the abstract and consider what it might mean—the context tells us what Jesus had in mind. From the context, we could define “do not resist” in the following ways: 1) refuse to take justice into your own hands (an eye for an eye…); 2) endure insults patiently without responding in kind (if anyone slaps…); 3) don’t insist on your rights in every situation (if anyone would sue…); and 4) be kind even to those who use you (…go with him two miles).

This passage should not be interpreted as a blanket condemnation of all uses of force. We must not even be too quick to take it out of the context of personal relationships. This passage really says nothing about a government and its responsibilities. To use it to say that a government has no right to wage war is simply a misapplication of the passage. It is far better to draw conclusions about a government and warfare from a passage that explicitly addresses that subject, such as Romans 13:1-5.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.”—Matthew 5:43-45

This misunderstanding of the command to love one’s neighbor was circulating among the Jewish people at that time, so Jesus addressed it here. It is fair to ask how one could possibly love an enemy (as in an enemy combatant) and yet use lethal force against him. A few observations need to be made.

First, this passage follows directly on the heels of the previous passage that we considered. Thus, it is still dealing with the question of personal relationships. The word “enemy” should not be interpreted as an enemy combatant but as an enemy in one’s personal life.

Second, notice that the purpose behind loving our enemies is that we would imitate the behavior of God—we’re supposed to show the family resemblance, you might say. Along these lines, we should remember that God, in His capacity as judge of all the Earth, certainly did use lethal force against His enemies at times. Examples from the Old Testament could be multiplied; I will simply remind you of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. Thus, even this passage does not rule out the use of lethal force by someone who is appropriately appointed to execute justice. God has that prerogative, and He has also entrusted it to human governments. A soldier acting on behalf of the government would thus carry that prerogative as well.

“The second [greatest commandment] is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”—Mark 12:31

I certainly want other people to treat me with kindness and respect, so shouldn’t I treat others the same way? On that basis, how could I justify using force against another person?

This objection, like the others above, fails to take important contexts into account. Jesus was not discussing the rights and responsibilities of a government in this passage—he was talking about personal relationships. Certainly in my personal life—as a private citizen—I am to be kind, gentle, not combative or violent. But God has given governments the right to use force, and governments are made up of people. Thus, people serving as agents of the government have a right to use force.

Should I engage in any and every war that my government launches?

The history of warfare shows that not every war is alike. Wars are fought for a variety of reasons; the combatants involved may have stronger or weaker justification for their fighting. In some wars, two nations are clearly co-belligerents; in others, one nation is clearly the aggressor. Should I as a Christian feel a duty to take up arms in any and every war that my government launches?

Norman Geisler helpfully distinguishes between two responses that we might have to this question.¹ The first is activism. This response says that I have a duty to fight for my country any time it calls upon me because of the benefits that I enjoy as a citizen. I do not need to ask whether the war is just or unjust. The second response is selectivism. This response says that I must weigh the causes and goals of the war before I answer the call to arms. It may be immoral for me to fight if the cause or goal is immoral.

Given Scripture’s teaching that we must obey the moral laws of God over the civil laws of man, selectivism seems to be the proper response. In our fallen world, the government may abuse its right to use force, and if it does, we should conscientiously object to fighting in that instance. From this perspective, for example, German citizens should have refused to fight for the Nazi Party’s goals during World War II. Some of them did, and they were right to do so. It is a blessing as Americans that our laws protect conscientious objectors and that even our military recognizes a soldier’s right to refuse orders that are immoral.

Conclusion

In the end, we can say confidently from biblical principles that fighting in war can be morally permissible. It may even be the morally right thing to do if one is battling a great evil, such as in World War II. But Christians have a responsibility to weigh the causes and goals of a war before taking up arms. If my government goes to war with an immoral aim, I must object to fighting in that instance.

Notes

Norman Geisler, “War,” in Christian Ethics, second ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010): 220-243.

What does the Bible say about gambling?

Gambling has long been a taboo practice among Christians. I say “taboo” because gambling has more likely been discouraged through tradition and peer pressure than any attempt at clear, biblical teaching. While tradition and peer pressure (or let’s call it “accountability”) can serve a community well if they are oriented toward good ends, we should stop at least once a generation and ask, “Are we right about this?”

So let’s apply this question to the issue of gambling. I’m dealing with this question in part because I suspect that gambling has become more common among Christians in recent years. This is especially true if one considers gambling to include pay-to-play games like NCAA Tournament bracket pools and fantasy football (more on this later). If more Christians are in fact gambling these days, then it’s a good time to revisit this issue.

The Biblical Data

To the possible consternation of some, there is no verse of Scripture that states, “Thou shalt not gamble.” Ah, how short this post could have been! You could have been on to other things by now, but instead we’ll have to dig a bit deeper into the Word to get some answers. As it turns out, there is a strong biblical case against gambling.

The Bible condemns some common motives for gambling, like greed or the love of money.

If someone is moved to gamble out of greed or a love for money, his actions would clearly violate Scriptural standards. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their greed (Luke 11:39-41), and greed is a motivating factor for false teachers, who twist the Gospel for their own gain (2 Peter 2:3, 14). Also, in a very memorable passage, Paul warned us against a longing for riches and a love of money:

            But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and             harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a    root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from          the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. But as for you, O man of God, flee      these things. Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness (1     Timothy 6:9-11).

Is it possible that someone could gamble out of other motives—perhaps even motives that aren’t objectionable? That seems possible, so other considerations beyond motive will have to be considered in order to decide if gambling is morally permissible, and even if it is, if it is wise.

Gambling is a very foolish way to pursue prosperity.

The odds of winning at gambling vary from game to game, but generally speaking, they’re incredibly small. It is far more likely that you will lose money gambling, especially if you keep at it. In fact, even if you do win, you may come to regret it, as the experience of many lottery winners has shown.¹

The Book of Proverbs warns us about the desire to “get rich quick:”

            Wealth gained hastily will dwindle, but whoever gathers little by little will increase it       (Proverbs 13:11).

            Whoever works his land will have plenty of bread, but he who follows worthless pursuits lacks sense (Proverbs 12:11).

Love for one’s neighbor should prevent us from gambling.

This concern is especially true for public gambling institutions like casinos and state lotteries. Such opportunities are disproportionally used by those who can’t truly afford them. Gambling is a highly addictive activity for many people, and studies have also shown that when the casino comes to town, so do higher crime rates.² Love for our neighbors should move us not to support these establishments that have such detrimental effects on society.

The Casino vs. The Kitchen Table

But could there be a difference between gambling at a casino and going to poker night at your buddy’s man cave? Consider a situation in which you’re playing poker for money with just a few close friends. To the best of your knowledge, each person involved can afford the $50 entry fee for the game, and no one has a gambling problem that would be exacerbated by participating. Everyone is fully convinced that it’s okay to participate, so no one’s conscience will be violated by playing. Would this be wrong?

It is difficult to say that participating would be inherently wrong, but that’s not to say it would be wise. Why not play without introducing money into the game? You could still enjoy the fun of friendly competition without flirting with the potential temptations that could come from winning money. One should also consider the other activities that you could be doing with your friends. Other entertainment options could be more edifying toward the goal of becoming like Christ. In other words, while participating might not be morally bad, it might also not be morally best.

On Pools and Patrick Mahomes

What about activities like NCAA Tournament bracket pools or fantasy football? Should these be considered gambling? If one could draft Patrick Mahomes in his fantasy league, surely that wouldn’t be gambling since he’s such a safe bet to put up big numbers! (Pun fully intended.)

Deciding if these activities constitute gambling would depend on how one defines gambling, which we haven’t done yet in this post. For the sake of discussion, I’ll use the definition offered by theologian Norman Geisler: “gambling can be defined as the transfer of something of value from one person to another primarily on the basis of chance.”³ The element of chance is the determining factor according to this definition, and one would think it would be a constituent element of any definition of gambling.

Using chance as the deciding factor still leaves the waters a bit murky because so many activities involve chance—including highly legitimate activities like investing in a retirement fund or opening a business. But chance does at least give us a sliding scale with which to make some assessments.

According to such a scale, a bracket pool is more likely to be a form of gambling since the winner is decided in large part by chance (you know it’s true, bracketologists!). A fantasy football league would be less likely to be a form of gambling since the element of chance is more delicately balanced with the element of skill. This would seem to be especially true of a season-long league, since a player would have opportunities to change his strategy in light of chance occurrences that come up. Knowing what changes to make would be an example of skill.

All of this being said, however, a decision to participate in such games would have to pass through the same questions as the decision to attend poker night with your buddies. Is it wise to spend your money in this way? Does the introduction of money into the game needlessly expose you to temptations? Are you certain that no one in the game is flirting with personal harm—either financially or morally? To me, the same conclusion seems valid: it might not be morally bad, but it also might not be morally best.

References

1. “Here’s How Winning the Lottery Makes You Miserable,” Melissa Chan, https://time.com/4176128/powerball-jackpot-lottery-winners, accessed July 8, 2020.

2. For the claims in this section, I am relying on the documentation in Wayne Grudem, Christian Ethics (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 1039-41.

3. Norman Geisler, Christian Ethics, 2^nd edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 374.