Can a government redistribute wealth and property?

Jekabs Bikis and I have been discussing for the last week the question as to whether a government can rightly tax its citizens in order to redistribute wealth and property, especially with regards to the issue of charity towards the poor. Jekabs has challenged me to offer a biblical reading that would support such actions. Let me say to start out that I am not addressing or defending the modern welfare system at the national or even state level. Jekabs and I actually agree somewhat that the modern system has a number of problems that seem to perpetuate poverty rather than help address the need for creative and meaningful work. I, for one, hold that the more local, voluntary, and privatized social charity is the better. Nonetheless, Jekabs and I have disagreed as to whether any government involvement in redistribution can be considered legitimate as oppossed to being simply state-level robbery of people.

So what would a biblical model of government involvement look like? I don't think we can dictate from scripture alone the specifics; rather, we must look at some general guidelines and models:

1. Ancient Israel was commanded to provide a system of meaningful work and welfare for the poor through allowing them to harvest the corners of property owners' fields (Lev 19:9-10; Deut 24:19-21). The story of Ruth, for example, models this behavior in action (Ruth chapter 2). I think one can also add here the opposite of this which is laziness and deserving of its consequences (Prov 6:6; cf. II Thess 3:10).


2. Every 50 years, Israel was commanded to redistribute ancestral property to its original families, as well as release all Hebrew slaves that had had to sell themselves due to economic hardship (Lev 25:25-28, 35-43).


3. Every three years all tithes were taken and stored as means to provide additional support for both the Levites who served in the tabernacle and the poor who were in need (Deut 26:12-13).


4. There were additional laws designed to protect the poor from economic exploitation, as well as from absolute poverty (Deut 24:12-18).


5. The kingship, once it developed, was charged with the particular protection of the poor (Ps 72:1-4, 12-14), and this concern had national consequences since God would judge the nation for oppressing the poor (Ps 10:1-4; Is 58:7-11; Amos 2:6-8, 4:1-2).


6. There are some indications that large-scale public provision was deemed acceptable in times of famine and crisis and that God expects concern from nations outside Israel (cf. Dan 4:27, Prov 17:5). The story of Joseph in particular gives me pause, for the text for Genesis praises him for a radical social welfare program in Egypt that also had the effect of bringing most lands into royal ownership (Gen 41:34-57, 47:13-26).


7. Of course, all of the above is in part based on God's own love of the poor (Ps 102:17, 113:7-8, 140:1-2).


8. The injunction to care for the poor is carried over into the New Testament (Gal 6:10; Jam 1:27, 2:1-7, Matt 19:21, Lk 11:41, 12:33); Jesus even marks this as a defining characteristic of his people (Matt 25:31-46).


9. And there are also warnings about becoming too tied to wealth and commerce when it acts to oppress others (Jam 5:1-6; Rev 18:9-19).


10. Paul commends the payment of taxes--both tribute and revenue taxes--as an outcome of the sword born by the government against wrongdoing (Rom 13:1-8).

Taken together, the Old Testament clearly assumes a system of some measure of both private and public charity, as well as redistribution, tied to meaningful work. It also assumes some measure of government involvement when the poor are neglected. The New Testament, being addressed to churches primarily, is more focused on the charity demanded of believers, but in James and the Revelation of John there are indicators of the social class divisions in which the authors side with the poor. Likewise, while Paul in Romans does not spell out whether taxes for public charity are right or wrong, one might assume that the apostle has something like the Hebrew picture of the king in mind.

I am assuming throughout a biblical hermeneutic that sees the Old Testament injunctions as being helpful principles and models for other nations, not as absolute commmands for anyone except ancient Israel. This understanding also assumes that since the nation was meant to be a light to the nations and since the Church is meant at some level to model for the world what God wants for it, that the injunctions to both should suggest broad public and local concerns for human life.

Now, I think all this adds up to a strong biblical case that the government may be involved in the public care of the poor if that burden is not fully assumed by communities, businesses, families, and churches, not that it must. In fact, I think there are good reasons to be advanced that the government better fulfills its role as a promoter of virtue when it encourages its citizens to grow in the virtues of charity by means other than taxation and redistribution, but that's another discussion.

Additionally, none of this per se addresses what Christians should do in a country where large-scale public welfare for the foreseeable future will play a significant role in charity. I think that question is as important as the one I've sought to answer.