(1) the principle of private property is tantamount to theft.(2) the employment of workers amounts to unfair exploitation of labor, and
(3) business profits come out of consumer's pockets.
That these anti-capitalistic ideas have gained precedence in American society is testified by the fact that our statute books are full of legislation that undermines and hampers the entrepreneurial efforts of private producers, simultaneously burdening the members of society with an expensive and initiative-stifling government bureaucracy. This incessant attack has even affected Christians who should, by their familiarity with biblical precepts, be among the staunchest supporters of private enterprise. But, sad to say, many Christians, because they have not thought issues through consistently on a biblical basis, are in the forefront of those who demand increased government controls and regimentation of the economy.
(1) The Bible upholds the principle of private property. Peter didn't upbraid Ananias and Sapphira for retaining control of the proceeds from their sale of land, but for lying about what they did. Rather than attacking private property. Peter's admonition constitutes a strong defense of private property (Acts 5:4). In Genesis 13:2 we read, in a favorable context, that Abram was very rich: and there are a number of passages that point out that the powers to accumulate wealth is a gift from God (Deut. 8:18; Chr. 29:12; Pr. 22:4; Ecc. 5:19).
When Jesus was approached by a coveter who wanted his brother to divide his inheritance, Jesus rebuked. "Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?" (Lk. 12:14). Even in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk. 16:19- 31). there is not the slightest hint of an attack against the rich man's perfect right to do what he wished with his own property. To do so would undermine the biblical principle of each person's direct responsibility to God for the use of wealth while sojourning on earth.
The principle of private property is centered on one's personal trusteeship to God for the gifts He has bestowed on us. Only by being free from outside (social) control can man be maximally self-responsible to God spiritually (i.e., in his psyche). As God owns us. so we own our bodies and the produce of our labor (Eph. 2:10), for we are His workmanship.
(2) Nowhere in the Bible is the private employee-employer relationship considered anything less than completely honorable (but the same cannot be said about employment by the civil government). It is admitted that unfair exploitation of the employee by the employer -- or of the employer by the employee -- can take place if one or the other is unjust. This is why each is admonished to do service with good will (Eph. 6:5-9; Lev. 19:13; Deut. 24:15: Mal. 3:5; Col. 3:22, 4:1: I Tim. 6:1; I Pet. 2:18).
The employee-employer relationship is definitely an honorable relationship according to the Bible. And. rather than being unfairly exploited by the sale of his labor in the marketplace by making himself a "commodity," the labor market provides workers with the greatest defense against being enslaved. Those who aren't free to sell their labor to the highest bidder must be economically dependent on someone else (Gen. 47:13-26). This explains why slaveholders in the antebellum South generally opposed the practice of allowing slaves to sell their services in the marketplace. It tended to generate economic self-sufficiency, and possibly produce an air of independence that would, serve to undermine the system of slavery. But in communist countries, as in Pharaoh's Egypt, tyranny is certain to result when the State becomes the sole employer. The real question isn't whether the employee-employer relationship will exist, but whether the employer will be a private employer who must compete with other private employers for the needed services of workers, or whether the employer will be the civil authority who can act autocratically as the sole employer (I Sam. 8:10-18).
(3) The idea that business profits come from adding onto the price that consumers pay is both a popular delusion and Marxian in origin. It is based on the false assumption of exploitation, that the seller is a monopolist who has complete control over how consumers spend their money. Therefore, all the seller has to do is set his price at whatever level he wants, and the poor exploited consumer has no other alternative but to mechanically respond.
But even in the Soviet Union where the autocratic government is indeed the only seller of most items (ice. a monopolist), consumers still have other options. Their common refusal to buy shoddy goods at high prices is attested to by warehouses full of unsold goods.
Business services provided to consumers in the competitive marketplace by profit-seeking entrepreneurs are just a practical way of fulfilling the "royal law" of Christ: "If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself', ye do well" (Jas. 2:8).
Biblical Economics Today Vol. 1, No. 5 (October/November, 1978)
For a PDF of the original publication, click here:
© 2022 GaryNorth.com, Inc., 2005-2021 All Rights Reserved. Reproduction without permission prohibited.