Opinion

Hypocritical Liberals Appeal to Jesus in Support of Government-Mandated Healthcare

Like clockwork, when the Republicans voted to make changes to the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, Liberals went to Jesus for help with the hashtag #JesusNeverSaid. For example: “#ThingsJesusNeverSaid ‘You have a pre-existing condition, I can’t cure you.’”

When the State can cure people like Jesus did, I’ll listen to them. When Jesus told the story of the Good Samaritan, He never said, “Appeal to Caesar to create a confiscatory healthcare system.”

Speaking of the Good Samaritan, there are non-government healthcare programs available like Samaritan Ministries, Christian Healthcare Ministries, and Medi-Share. Here’s a site that evaluates the three.

Jesus never said, “A woman has a right to kill her unborn baby.” I saw this one: Jesus never said, “Blessed are the children, unless they are unplanned.” Jesus never said, “Homosexual marriage is supported by the Bible.” Or this one: “There are 80 different genders.”

Trending: How One Little Word Changes Everything in the Book of Revelation. Do You Know What It Is?

Liberals are very selective (and misinformed) on what Jesus said. They only use Him when they’ve run out of rational and moral arguments for their positions. They are desperate Jesus seekers who don’t know a thing about who Jesus is.

This isn’t the first time someone has tried to equate New Testament social theory with modern-day socialism in an attempt to turn Jesus into an advocate of wealth confiscation and redistribution.

Jesus said that He did not come to “abolish the law and the prophets” (Matt. 5:17). One of those laws is “You shall not steal” (Ex. 20:15), even if a majority of people vote for stealing. Socialism is the transfer of wealth from some people to other people by force. Neither Jesus in particular nor the Bible generally advocates for such a system.

Gleaning in the Old Testament was a way to help the poor. Even the poorest members of society had to work (Lev. 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut. 24:20-22). Jesus and his disciples practiced a form of gleaning as they walked through grain fields breaking off heads of wheat to eat (Mark 2:23). Gleaning was hard work, and it was not a government program.

It’s true that Jesus did say that we should care for “the least of these” (Matt. 25:40). Who are the “these”? The context makes it clear that Jesus’ scope is limited to “these brothers of Mine.” As the story of the Good Samaritan shows, mercy extends beyond the brotherhood of believers. It’s difficult to fulfill this obligation when the government confiscates hundreds of billions of dollars in wealth and funnels it through a bloated impersonal bureaucracy that ends up keeping people in poverty. See Joel McDurmon’s article “Churches Worse than Infidels.”

Note that there is no mention of government programs, legislation, or mandates. The directive is aimed at individuals, not faceless and nameless bureaucrats. Certainly, Rome had the power to tax (Luke 2:1; Matt. 22:15–22), and yet Jesus never petitions the Empire to force people to pay their “fair share” in the development of a welfare State. Jesus believed in limited government, personal responsibility, and the government of the church to help those in real need.

The Good Samaritan is an example of how aid should be handled. The Samaritan took care of the “half dead” man out of his own pocket. He “bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn. . . .” And “the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you’” (Luke 10:30–37).

Even the story of the Rich Young Ruler is not about socialism (Mark 10:17–27). Jesus didn’t use the example of the rich man strangled by his wealth to appeal to Rome to tax the rich so the poor will benefit. If that had been Jesus’ objective, then why didn’t He say the same thing to Joseph of Arimathea who is described as a “rich man” (Matt. 27:57; Mark 15:43)?

An appeal cannot be made to Acts 2:44–45 and 4:32–37. These early Christians voluntarily sold their property and used the proceeds to help those in need. Neither the Empire nor the Church had any role in the sale of the property.

John R. Richardson writes:

“No one was forced into giving up his goods and possessions. It was not socialism legislated either by church or state. It does not resemble modern communism in any respect. . . . Ananais was free to keep or sell his property. When he sold it, he had the right to determine whether he would give all of it, or part of it, or none of it, into the treasury of the church for the alleviation of the needs of poor Christians. J. W. Lipscomb is certainly correct when he says, ‘The program was a voluntary expression of Christian concern for the needs of fellow Christians, and was not a program for compulsory collectivism such as we hear advocated all too often today.’”1

Paul takes up a collection for the Jerusalem church “from the saints” (1 Cor. 16:1–4; 2 Cor. 8:1–9:15; Rom 15:14–32). They gave “according to their ability, and beyond their ability, of their own accord” (2 Cor. 8:3).

Attempts at a socialistic economic system have been repeatedly tried with abject failure.

The Pilgrims were initially organized as a Collectivist society as mandated by contract by their sponsoring investors. No matter how much a person worked, everybody would get the same amount. It didn’t take long for the less industrious to realize that their diminished labor would net them the same result of the mot industrious.

William Bradford, the acting governor of Plymouth Colony, wrote the following in his first-hand history of events:

“The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years . . . that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God.”

“For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without [being paid] that was thought injustice.”

“This [free enterprise] had very good success, for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.”

Not only is Socialism unbiblical and immoral; it doesn’t work.

  1. Christian Economics: The Christian Message to the Market Place (Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1966), 60. []
Previous post

For everything that Obama got wrong, he's right about this

Next post

Black Professor Says Killing White People Might be Necessary for 'Black Liberation'


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.