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).”
