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).”