Comm15-X†5: Rich Young Man (Matt 19); Vineyard Workers (Matt. 20:1–16)

      This continues from Part 14 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a series presenting a new translation of C.F.W. Walther's Communism and Socialism from 1878. — Walther continues his helpful Bible lesson that teaches the true meaning of God's Word, and exposes the misuse of Scripture by some deceptive Communists.  This gives all Christians the ability to be "ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear", 1 Peter 3:15.  This is the "sword of the Spirit" spoken of in Ephesians 6:17, "which is the word of God".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Translation of Walther's 1878 Communismus und Socialismus by BackToLuther primarily using DeepL online translation service; highlighting and bolding are my emphases, red text within square brackets [ ] are my comments, underlining is Walther's emphasis. Red highlight indicates omitted in 1947 translation.

C.F.W. Walther's Communism and Socialism, (Part 15, p. 47-50)

We now move on. A third passage which is cited in defense of Communism is this [The Parable of the Rich Young Man]: Matt. 19:16-25 (cf. Luke 18:18 ff.): “And behold one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good, but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother: and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. The young man said unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to cuter into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?”

When the Communists hear this passage, they say: Here you can see it, Christ has said it out loud, what the rich should actually do: they should sell everything and give to the poor. But here they are obviously making a logical blunder; [1947-65] they are making the mistake in the art of reasoning, which is called in Latin: Fallacia a particulari ad universale, i.e., a false conclusion from the particular to the general [“Hasty generalization” or “Existential fallacy”?]. For example, in the Holy Scriptures it says that Jesus Christ said to his disciples: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” [Matt. 28:19] Would it not be foolish to say: “You see, Christ commands all Christians to go into the world and preach the Gospel?” Christ also says to those who have been healed: “Go shew yourselves unto the priests.” [Luke 17:14] Would it not be great folly to conclude from this that everyone must show himself to the priests? But it is equally foolish to try to prove, in the passage where Christ said to the rich young man: “Sell that thou hast,” that it is Christ's teaching that all the rich must sell all their possessions and give it to the poor.

But why did Christ say these words to that rich man? — That is easy to see. That rich man was a “ruler,” that is, a councillor who was of the opinion that he had fulfilled all the commandments of God. But even though he might have lived most of his life honorably, he was a terrible miser in his heart. Christ knew this, who could see into the heart. Therefore, when he said that he had kept all the commandments of God and now only wanted to know what else was missing from him for perfection: there [page 49] the Lord gives him a right lesson, so that he now would realize where his destruction actually lies, namely, in his shameful heart. Therefore the Lord says to him, “Sell that thou hast and give to the poor,” but when the councillor hears this, he does not want to know anything about Christ and goes away sad. Then Christ said: “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven! it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God!” But the apostles were so dismayed by these words that they cried out: “Who then can be saved?” With this, Christ testifies that although it is impossible for men to be rich and to be saved, with God all things, including this, are possible. [Matt. 19:26] As soon as a person converts to God with all his heart, he not only says farewell to all vices and sins, but also to his wealth, and says to it with all his heart without [1947-66] hypocrisy: “You are no longer my treasure; therefore, if God wants my money and goods from me again, I will gladly give them back to Him; my heart does not depend on them.” And in this case it is possible for a man to be very rich and yet be saved. We have a particularly beautiful example of this in Zacchaeus. [Luke 19:2 ff.] He had become a very rich man, partly through deceit. As soon as he converted to the Lord Jesus, he was ready, if he had deceived someone, to give it back to him fourfold and to give half of his goods to the poor.   

Now if the interpretation of the above passage by the Communists was correct, the Lord Jesus ​​should have said to Zacchaeus: “Half is not enough, you must sell everything and give everything to the poor.” But we do not hear anything about this; on the contrary, the Lord praises Zacchaeus as a true Israelite, even though he only wanted to give half. One should not think that Zacchaeus would not have been willing to give all of it, but he knew that God did not demand this of him, and that he, after he had been converted, would now be able to use his goods much better than if he had suddenly had to give everything away. Because when I give everything what I have to the poor then from that time on I can also no longer give any gift of love and that is why God also does not demand it from me.

The fourth passage, finally, which is also quoted to prove that the principles of Communism are biblical, is the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. [Matt. 20:1–16] The French Communist Proudhon [see p. 38, Part 10] referred to the fact that, according to this parable, those who worked twelve hours do not get more than those who worked nine, six, and three hours, indeed even only one hour. But it is indeed strange that this parable should be invoked, for there is probably no more anti-Communist passage in all of Holy Scripture [page 50] than just this one. Because first of all we meet a housefather who owns his own vineyard. Secondly, we meet here day laborers whom the housefather has hired. Thirdly, we hear about a wage contact that the housefather makes with his workers and to which he later refers. Fourth, we hear that he hires them for twelve hours' work. And fifth, finally, we hear that the Lord attributes it only to his goodness, not to justice, that he gave the same wages to those who had worked only one hour as to those who had worked twelve hours. So any [1947-67] reason that is taken from this parable for Communism is completely lost.

Now these would be the Bible passages which lead, in part by believers, and in part by unbelievers, for Communism, and which, as we have seen, prove in part nothing and in part the opposite. From this alone we can see that the efforts of the Communists are against Christianity. But we also hear:…

- - - - - - - - - - - - -   Continued in Part 16:  - - - - - - - - - - - -
      I had to laugh as Walther rightly paraphrases the correct teaching of the case of Zacchaeus, that it was notable that he gave willingly, voluntarily, not that he did not give all he possessed. Scripture interprets Scripture!  How was it that the Old Missouri Synod did so much in its early years in building seminaries, educational institutions, and missionary efforts?  They impressed on their members what the Lord had already done for them!

Comm14-X†4: Common property at Jerusalem congregation (Acts 4:32-38)

      This continues from Part 13 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a series presenting a new translation of C.F.W. Walther's Communism and Socialism from 1878. — The master Bible teacher Walther now uses the Reformation principle that Scripture, not man, interprets Scripture.  If any giving is not of faith, and therefore not voluntarily, it is not Christian giving and is no good in the spiritual sense. This will also be expanded in the next Part 15.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Translation of Walther's 1878 Communismus und Socialismus by BackToLuther primarily using DeepL online translation service; highlighting and bolding are my emphases, red text within square brackets [ ] are my comments, underlining is Walther's emphasis. Red highlight indicates omitted in 1947 translation.

C.F.W. Walther's Communism and Socialism, (Part 13, p. 45-47)

The second citation is found, as I said, in the Book of Acts. In Acts 4:32 ff. it is told: “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, [page 46] being interpreted, the son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.” But this is a glorious example of fervent love in which the first Christians stood. For one must know that very few of the wealthy converted to Christianity even then; most of those who became Christians were [1947-62] poor people. In addition, no Christian was safe for even one hour of his life. The drawn sword of a bloodthirsty Herod hung over every Christian's head. In this time of terrible need, the Christians worked closely together, and so that none of the poor would suffer want, the rich decided to sell their property and put the proceeds into the common treasury.

So far, it seems that these examples do indeed speak for Communism. But first of all, we do not read of any other Christian congregation of the apostolic era that it had made this arrangement. On the other hand, we also hear the following (Acts 5:1-3): “But a certain man” Luke continues in the story, “named Ananias, with Sapphira, his wife, sold a possession, and kept back part of the price (his wife also being privy to it) and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet." This Ananias thus also wanted to be looked upon as a loving, charitable, merciful Christian man. Therefore, although he sold his goods, he kept a part of the proceeds, and gave the other part to the apostle Peter, pretending that this was all that he had realized. And Peter said [Acts 5:3], “Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?”  

What is most strange is what Peter says here: “While it remained, was it not thine own.” We can see that it was not an order that the first Jerusalem Christian congregation had made that everyone had to give his property, but rather that the Christians did so voluntarily and without compulsion. For here Peter testifies to Ananias: “It would not have been wrong if you had kept your field and your house.” Indeed, he adds: “And after it was sold, was it not in thine own power. You might also have said: “I will give half of it, and then it would have been all right; no one would have made it a matter of conscience. The shameful thing in your deed is that you wanted to be considered a loving, sacrificing Christian, when you secretly did the opposite of what you pretend to have done. Therefore we also read that in the first Christian congregations the Christians had houses and goods, e.g. the tanner Simon in Joppe (Acts 10:6), the rich seller of purple Lydia in Philippi [1947-63] (Acts 16:14-15.), [1947-64] then even the deacon or almoner Philip of Jerusalem had a house in [page 47] Caesarea (Acts 21:8.), so also the mother of John, whose surname was Mark, in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12).

From this it emerges irrefutably that the first Jerusalem church was not Communist in its structure, but that the behavior described was a completely voluntary expression of love in times of terrible need. Acts 9:31: “Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.” From that time on, this relative community of goods in Jerusalem was also completely abolished. It had lasted for a short time, until after Paul's conversion in about the year 36.

But what we see from this example is this: how a true Christian should be minded. In his heart, if he understands it correctly, every Christian should be a Communist. In other words, a Christian should be ready and willing to give all that he has for his brothers and sisters in need at any moment when the need of the brothers and sisters demands it. This is why John says: “But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?” (1 John 3:17) And the Savior says explicitly: “Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.” (Matt. 5:42) Indeed, the apostle Paul commands that a Christian “labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.” (Eph. 4:28) He does not say that he should work with his hands and create something good in order to be able to lay down capital and become rich, but “that he may have to give to him that needeth.” The apostle Paul goes on to say: “They that buy, as though they possessed not.” (1 Cor. 7:30) So he who buys something should have such a heart as if he did not have it; his heart should not be attached to it, it should not cost him any struggle, if the need of his neighbour or the glory of God demands that he give it away. But he to whom the money has grown on his heart is not a Christian. Therefore, the Lord Jesus Christ also says right at the [1947-64] beginning of His Sermon on the Mount: “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” What does that mean? Blessed are those who, though they may have much or little property, are poor in spirit. According to heart and mind they shall be poor. The one who has wealth, then, and this wealth has also become for him wealth, the dearest and most precious treasure that he keeps, that he does not want to lose for everything in the world, has not yet recognized the first words with which Christ begins his Sermon on the Mount: “Blessed are the spiritually poor.” And if you were immensely wealthy, you should be poor in spirit; it should be as if you did not have all that has fallen to you. This is why the Psalmist also says: “If riches increase, set not your heart upon them.” (Ps. 62:10) — [page 48]

- - - - - - - - - - - - -   Continued in Part 15:  - - - - - - - - - - - -

      When Walther says "every Christian should be a Communist" at heart, he is also saying in essence that the Communists want a heavenly kingdom here on earth.  But that is impossible unless everyone were a Christian.

Comm13-X†3: No Personal Property? No incentive, no justice

      This continues from Part 12 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a series presenting a new translation of C.F.W. Walther's Communism and Socialism from 1878. — Walther makes a perfectly reasonable point about incentives to work and no one can misunderstand it.  Everyone would agree that the better worker deserves the better reward… except the Communists. — Walther then teaches, in accordance with Scripture, that the power of the sword only belongs to the authorities.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Translation of Walther's 1878 Communismus und Socialismus by BackToLuther primarily using DeepL online translation service; highlighting and bolding are my emphases, red text within square brackets [] are my comments, underlining is Walther's emphasis. Red highlight indicates omitted in 1947 translation.

C.F.W. Walther's Communism and Socialism, (Part 13, p. 44-45)

The third reason why even the first men recognized from reason that personal property [1947-60] is also necessary for earthly happiness is this: because without personal property the incentive is missing, which most men need if they are to work honestly and hard. Why do so many people work from morning till night? Because they want to bring in something for themselves. Of course, this is not the right motivating force. Christians should not be induced to work diligently because they want to earn something, but they should do it for God's sake, because it is God's command and order. But most men work merely to earn something; some may not be working for money and goods, but for honor and prestige and fame. This incentive is taken away from man as soon as his personal property is taken from him.

The first generation of men were also brought to the introduction of personal property by the sense of equity that lived in them. This tells every man that as the work is, so should the reward be. He who works diligently, faithfully and successfully should also receive more for it. But as soon as men enter into such a society, in which the profit of common work belongs to all, the true equality, which justice requires, ceases to exist.

And now completely, what would become of art and science in a Communist state? Whoever wanted to study astronomy, for example, or worldly wisdom, or even theology, or architecture, or painting, would be regarded by many as an idler. Why? Because he does not earn money for society through his science and art. In a Communist state it would undoubtedly have happened to art and science.

And finally a religious need lives in every man.  [page 45] But while a number of them do not want to know anything, the others have within themselves a certain urge to serve God. The Communists freely say: “Yes, in our Communist state no religion is to be practiced; above all, we do not want teachers of religion, they are all to be banned.” But what good does it do them if they also decide that? They will never again banish from human nature the need for religion, and if man had not heard anything about God from his youth on, if in such a state this would always have been concealed. Conscience would wake up. But the Communist state would not provide the means to build churches and hire preachers of the Gospel. [Communist China is practically banning Christian teaching and worship.]

All these were already the reasons why, [1947-61] after God had given the whole earth and all that is in it to mankind, the first men did not live in a community of goods, but distributed all goods among themselves and introduced personal property among themselves.

This is of course true: personal property is also associated with great dangers and evils, as we unfortunately see around us every day. But here the authorities should intervene to ensure that not a few devour everything. And this is also punished in the whole of Scripture in the most serious way. Thus, for example, the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 5:8) says: “Woe unto them that join house to house, field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth.” Admittedly, this outrages everyone when they see how a few people buy the land away and make it more expensive. Unfortunately, here in America we have had the experience that the authorities, instead of putting a stop to these farmers, support them in the strongest possible way. The railway companies, as you know, have been given millions of acres of land belonging to the United States to carry out their projects. This is quite disgraceful. Because if a poor man wants to buy good land, he cannot get it for the small price the government would have sold it for. [Some might brand Walther a liberal!] — That may be enough, in the first place, for what is cited in the Scriptures to justify Communism.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -   Continued in Part 14:  - - - - - - - - - - - -
      Walther's comment against the US government's takeover of land to sell it to the railroads for a "small price" sounds like a populist politician!  But note well that Walther approaches this practice from a Scriptural basis, and I learned from the prophet Isaiah that God does not favor the unjust rich.

      Walther speaks approvingly of the fields of "art and science".  Luther also was a friend of these, although both theologians would not promote what passes for modern "art", "music", and speculative "science" calculated to overturn Holy Scripture, e.g. Evolution, etc.  I enjoy good art, music and proper science… but these are largely drowned out in our modern world.

Comm12-X†2: No personal property, no peace & unity; man’s love for freedom, independence; “la loi”

      This continues from Part 11 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a series presenting a new translation of C.F.W. Walther's Communism and Socialism from 1878. — According to the book of Genesis, "personal property" is not an evil thing as the Communists teach, but is actually the natural order of things, even to reasonable people, let alone Christians. What does that say about those who hold to Communist ideology?  They can quote each other as authorities in a scholarly fashion all they want (see Wikipedia), but that does not change the fact that they are not only un-Christian, they are also unreasonable.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Translation of Walther's 1878 Communismus und Socialismus by BackToLuther primarily using DeepL online translation service; highlighting and bolding are my emphases, red text within square brackets [] are my comments, underlining is Walther's emphasis. Red highlight indicates omitted in 1947 translation.

C.F.W. Walther's Communism and Socialism, (Part 12, p. 42-44)

Here we see that reason already taught the first men that personal property must take place among men, and this first of all because without personal property, no peace and unity among men can be maintained. The Communist Fourier, of course, said that in his [page 43] Communist Republic everyone should be given what he needed, and everyone should be able to work for which he had predominantly inclination and gifts. But one must remember that the pleasures are different. Some wines are good and are less good. Much smaller and less noble fruits grow. Who would now say: “I want to have the lesser wine?” Who would say: “I want to ride the lesser horse?” Who would say: “I want to do the hardest work?” Who —: “I want to do the least honorable work?” No, everyone would want the best and everyone would want the lightest and most honorable work, and so peace would soon be at an end. Therefore, as necessary as it is that there should be unity and peace among men, so necessary is personal property.

But there is also this: Personal property is further demanded by reason, because in every human being by nature a certain love of freedom and independence lives. Without a certain amount of freedom and independence, a person cannot be happy here. But if a person has no personal property, his freedom is lost. There it is prescribed for him by others what he should work at, how he should live, what he should eat and drink, where he should live, where he should be employed. Indeed, in such a society, where I do not have complete freedom for my self-determination, I would not like to stay. I would just as gladly live under Russian whips, just as gladly under Chinese police, just as gladly under Turkish slavery. Because I would be aware that I am forced to do so [1947-59] against my will, and I am supposed to do all this myself voluntarily? Never, no, never. Hence, when Cain, after he had committed the murder, became a bit too hot in society, he left, moved to another country and built himself and his family a city called Enoch. [Gen. 4:17]

A recent writer describes very vividly the miserable state in which a Communist would find himself in a Communist state. He says: “La loi” (i.e. the law, the commandment) “plans and tells to the 50 million Icarians all their actions. La loi fixes the whole working time at so and so many hours and minutes; la loi orders when and how long all Communist men and women have to go to the toilet; la loi introduces a ‘new vegetable’ in all Icarian households; la loi provides ‘cold cuisine’ for the Icarian country outing; la loi orders, similar to Babeuf's Communist state, that literature not officially approved of is burned as ‘bad press’”, and so on. etc. *)

—————

*) “Communism” by W. Schulz in vol. 2. of the supplements to Rotteck and Welcker's Staats-Lexikon. Altona 1846. p. 67. [1856 edition, vol. 3, p. 612]

—————

That's no exaggeration. Of course it is certain that the [page 44] Communists do not imagine the reality of the state which they have in mind. They will say: “None of this is true, it doesn't even occur to us to want to establish such a state. We are free people, we will make sure that we do not sacrifice our freedom in such a Communist state.” But they may say what they want, and may squirm as they please: he who accepts the principle must also accept the consequence, and that is that man loses his personal freedom; for this, as I have said, is based above all on the fact that I myself have property and can choose the work I do, the profession I want to be in, according to my pleasure. I must have the freedom to leave it too; I must have the freedom to do what I want with what I have. All this is denied me the moment I enter a Communist community. For as soon as I am allowed to do so, the principle on which Communism was built is abolished.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -   Continued in Part 13:  - - - - - - - - - - - -

Comm11-X†1: Christianity? Bible misused: Gen. 1:26-29 – Remember Cain and Abel

      This continues from Part 10 (Table of Contents in Part 1), a series presenting a new translation of C.F.W. Walther's Communism and Socialism from 1878. — Walther now defends against the ideologies of Communism in earnest. Some Communists attempt to use the Bible for Communism, but of course they misuse it.  But what about Christians who claim the same thing? Remember Cain and Abel… what did they believe? — There are some promoting prayers for America and its future.  I suggest they make Walther's prayers their prayer. I have.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Translation of Walther's 1878 Communismus und Socialismus by BackToLuther primarily using DeepL online translation service; highlighting and bolding are my emphases, red text within square brackets [] are my comments, underlining is Walther's emphasis. Red highlight indicates omitted in 1947 translation.

C.F.W. Walther's Communism and Socialism, (Part 11, p. 42-44)

Against Christianity (Lecture III.)

“O Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches,” [Ps. 104:24] — so once, already thousands of years ago, Thy servant David proclaimed, after he had looked at the work of Thy creation, preservation and government with a mindful spirit. And so we too must proclaim today, wherever we may look, because everywhere we see brightly shining traces of Thy infinite power, wisdom and goodness.

O so protect us from that spirit of darkness which calls itself Light, and which, now poured out over whole multitudes of unfortunate men, denies Thee, the creator, sustainer, and ruler of all things, or yet Thy sacred government and wise order of things.

Let us rather recognize ever more vividly that Thou hast done everything well, and that only sinful man has corrupted Thy work. Help us, therefore, that we rebuke not Thee but ourselves, as often as the distress of this earth oppresses us. Let us not sink in the ever higher and higher rising floods of unbelief, but help us that we, whether thousands and but thousands fall, may persevere in faith until the end, until we shall look with joy at what we have believed, and enjoy what we have hoped for here. Hear us for the sake of Jesus Christ, Thine only begotten Son, our Lord and Savior. Amen.

—————————

The question which occupies us in this evening hour is, as everyone present knows, this one: Why should and can no sensible person, let alone a Christian, take part in the efforts of the Communists and Socialists, much less become a member of one of their associations? Three answers are given to this question: I. Because their aspirations are against reason, nature and experience; II. Because they are against Christianity; and finally III. Because the accusation of Communism against the Christian religion and Church, that it impedes rather than promotes the material well-being of man is unfounded and unjust. We have already considered the first answer. We have tested Communism and Socialism according to reason, nature and history, and we have seen that even here it does not stand the test. [page 41] But there have already been Christians [1947-56] who have claimed that Communism and Socialism can be justified on the basis of Holy Scripture, the only reliable document of Christianity. Yes, even unbelievers have claimed this, partly the Communists themselves, of course the latter not because they really believed it, but in order to beat us Christians with our own weapons.

There are mainly four passages of Holy Scripture that are held against us as proof that if we want to be true Bible believers, we must also recognize the aspirations of Communism and Socialism as fully justified. The first passage is found in the first chapter of Holy Scripture, where we hear how God gives man dominion over the earth and all that is on it. The second passage is found in the fourth and fifth chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, where the conditions of the first Christian community in Jerusalem are described. A third passage is found in the eighteenth chapter of St. Luke, where we are told that Christ once said to a rich man: “Sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” The fourth passage, finally, is found in the twentieth chapter of St. Matthew the Evangelist. There we find that well-known parable of the workers in the vineyard excellent. Well then, let us first take a close look at these four passages of the Scriptures and see whether they really speak for or against Communism and Socialism, i.e. for or against community of goods or common labor for common earning.

Thus we read first of all in the first chapter of Genesis [Gen. 1:26-29]: 

“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image… and said unto them…: replenish the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth… And God said: behold I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.” 

Here, however, we hear that God, the Lord, has made man or mankind the owner of the earth and of all [1947-57] that lives and moves upon it. But we hear nothing of how this property of all mankind is to be used, in what manner the earth, and all that lives and moves on it, are to be used. So the dear God must have left it to man himself, namely to his reason, to arrange this. If a rich man would give a saw, a plane, and other tools, and bread, meat, coffee, a sewing machine, a doll, [page 42] a hobby-horse, and other toys to a carpenter who was run down by misfortune and mortgaged, well, he would have given all this to the whole poor carpenter family; and if he had not added anything at all, had made clever conditions as to how they were to be used, the carpenter would have known that he had to use them to the best of his knowledge and belief. The carpenter would think that the hobbyhorse and the other toys were not for him, but for his children, and if he had been given a cradle, he would not think he should lie down in it. Nor would he think that the sewing machine was for him, but for his wife. In short, it would be property for the family, but for distribution among the members of the family. This is what God the LORD has done. He has given the whole earth and all that is upon it to mankind, but has not made any determination, has not made any arrangement as to how it should be dealt with. After all, man is not an animal that goes about irrationally and does not know the purposes of the creatures. Man has reason, which he should now use. Of course, in the beginning, when the whole earth was still an unclaimed good, it was possible for each individual person to get what he liked. What he took possession of, that was his rightful property. This might still be evident today. If, for example, a shipping company was shipwrecked and ended up on the coast of an uninhabited, unowned island, the company would simply take possession of that island. Anyone would have the right to settle there and take over part of it.

But what happened after God, the Lord, had given the earth and all that was in it to all mankind? Did the first inhabitants establish Communism, introduce community of goods or common work for common acquisition? Nothing of the kind. Already in the fourth chapter of Genesis we hear [Gen. 4:2-4]: “Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And it came [1947-58] to pass after many days, that Cain brought sacrifice unto the LORD of the fruits of the field, and of the firstfruits of his host, and of their fat: And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.” Neither Cain nor Abel believed that what each of them had was common to both. No, each sacrificed what he rightly considered his personal property. He could not have otherwise sacrificed it but his own.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -   Continued in Part 12:  - - - - - - - - - - - -
      Here is how Christians need to defend against the rampant Socialism in America today, not Peace and Love, as good as those are, but with the Truth found only in God's Word.  Now we know with certainty that Communism is far removed from the natural order of things.