One-Third for the Poor Campaign

ONE-THIRD for the POOR

CAMPAIGN

Starve the Beast,

Feed the Kingdom,

Help the Poor God's Way

Join the Cause on Facebook:

http://apps.facebook.com/causes/351801

"At the end of every three years you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in the same year and lay it up within your towns. And the Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance with you, and the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, who are within your towns, shall come and eat and be filled, that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands that you do." (Deuteronomy 14:28-29)

"These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: . . . He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards. . . . He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves." (1 Samuel 8:11,15,17)

There was no state welfare system under the law of Moses. The poor could glean from the fields after the harvest (Leviticus 23:22), they could hand-pick and eat from the crop growing in a farmer’s field (Deuteronomy 23:25; Matthew 12:1); they could receive zero interest loans (Exodus 22:25), and every third year the tithe was set aside for the poor (Deuteronomy 14:28-29). The State did not collect taxes from the rich to redistribute to the poor. A tax rate of less than ten percent, as required by 1 Samuel 8, would not allow for such a welfare program. In a Christian society, the church receives a ten percent “tax” at the minimum. And the poor tithe of every three years would be equivalent to a third of the tithe going to the poor. Even if you take the position that the tithe under the Law of Moses is not directly applicable to the New Covenant era, surely we should be no less generous to the poor under the New Covenant than under the Law of Moses! With the Church receiving a higher tax rate than the State, in a Christian society the Church becomes a more influentual institution than the State. The Church cares for the poor, not the State. And unlike the State, the Church gives the poor the moral uplift that they need to escape poverty, along with the material aid. This approach to poverty relief creates more productive, law-abiding citizens than the approach of welfare from the hand of a godless state, which lures the poor into a cycle of intergenerational poverty.

God has established four governments with their own spheres of authority delegated to them by God: Self government, Family government, Church government, and State government. The biblical prescription for poverty puts responsibility for caring for the poor first with the individual, then the family, then the church as an institution of last resort.

Individual responsibility is the first resource for solving poverty. Those who are able should work for their food, and they are not to receive any food if they refuse: "For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies" (2 Thessalonians 3:10-11).
Families have the second level of responsibility to care for the poor. Since those needing help are often elderly parents or grandparents, this is an implication of the fifth commandment: "Honor your father and your mother." Paul says, "Honor widows who are truly widows. But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents, for this is pleasing in the sight of God. . . . But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever" (1 Timothy 5:3-4,8). Since someone who refuses to provide for their own family "has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever," that person would be subject to discipline and ultimately excommunication from the Church.
The Church has the third level of responsibility to care for the poor. When Paul says, "Honor widows who are widows indeed" (1 Timothy 5:3), if they don't have family to help them, Paul is informing Pastor Timothy of his responsibilities in leading the Church. Since the Church is allocating a third of the tithe to help the poor, this is no minor ministry of a God-honoring Church. James says that helping those who can't help themselves is a basic religious obligation: "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world" (James 1:27).

Liberals trying to find a justification for statist welfare in the Bible have often argued that the Bible commands us to help the poor, and simply because of that, statist welfare is required by the Bible. They ignore how the Bible says the poor are to be helped. The State is given no commands to help the poor like other governments listed above, and it is restricted from collecting taxes in an amount that would Some liberals have argued that the Biblical teaching of human sinfulness precludes relying on voluntary contributions to be the main source of helping the poor, so State coercion to fund welfare programs is necessary. They have also argued that statist tax-based welfare reduces the temptation to be prideful that is created in people who contribute to voluntary charity programs. Yet the Apostle Paul specifically says that charity should be voluntary rather than coerced:

Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. (2 Corinthians 9:7)

The validity of these deductions from the sinfulness of humanity to support statist welfare is refuted by the low level of taxation allowed to the State, and the specific commandments of God's word, which set up a private, decentralized charity program, not a statist one. God's concern in many passages of the Bible, such as the account of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11:1-9, the restrictions placed on kings in Deuteronomy 17:14-20, the description of tyranny in 1 Samuel 8, the judgment against empires in the book of Daniel, and the description of the Beast of Revelation, is that centralized human authority, especially when joined with the power of coercive violence as possessed by the State, magnifies human sinfulness. The destructive power of the centralized human authorities poses a great danger.

When God delivered the Israelites from the tyranny of Pharaoh, He set up a republic of twelve confederate states, governed by a judge. Hundreds of years later when the Israelites asked for a king like the other nations, God told Samuel that the Israelites were rejecting God Himself as king (1 Samuel 8:7). The laws that God gave Israel did not set up a centralized, Statist welfare program like Egypt had under Joseph (see more on this below). A godly State would not prosecute a person, rich or poor, for trespassing who was gleaning from a farmer's land. But it is given no command to give special favors to the poor. In fact, God commands the State to not show favoritism to the poor: "Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly" (Leviticus 19:15).

Whatever pride is removed from private individuals by removing their responsibility to care for the poor becomes magnified in elite, powerful politicians. They begin to think of themselves as Saviors of the World because, by giving away other people's money, they become the source of life to the common people, whose vote can essentially be bought by the handouts. The State has the power to enforce its laws against anyone in its realm at the end of a gun barrel; adding high taxes to fund its power of violence is like adding gasoline to a fire. Because of the State's power of violence, sin is able to wreak more destruction against more people through a highly-funded State than through any other human institution. This is tragically illustrated by the slaughter and slavery perpetrated by atheistic, socialistic regimes in the 20th Century that exceeded the abuse of power in all other centuries of human history combined (see here). In contrast, God's law is concerned with keeping the ruler humble, "that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers" (Deuteronomy 17:20). The Biblical teaching against a powerful State is expressed well by Lord Acton's dictum that "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

We cannot ignore the example of Christ on this issue of the Biblical legitimacy of the welfare State. When He performed the miracle of feeding the five thousand, the people wanted to make Him king. A king that could perform miracles to feed the entire populous would constitute the ideal welfare State. But Christ refused to become a welfare-state king and rebuked the people for having misplaced priorities:

When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, "This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!" Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself. . . . "Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you." (John 6:14-15, 26-27)

The appeal to the Biblical doctrine of sin to justify the welfare State also ignores the Biblical doctrine of grace. God's redemptive grace through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to overcome the curse: "For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:17). Redemption from the curse does not involve narrowly spiritual matters rather than earthly matters. All creation groans under the curse from the Fall of Adam (Romans 8:21-23). The curse from the Fall is the source of all the world's woes, including poverty; therefore Christ's redemptive power is the solution to poverty. Jesus announced, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor." (Luke 4:18) Furthermore, what liberals say can't be done has been done. The Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin Olasky shows how the Church has been effective at caring for the poor in the past. Jesus said that "the poor will always be with you" (Matthew 26:11; cf. Deuteronomy 15:11), and indeed human perfection will never be achieved in anything on earth this side of the Last Judgment. But God's law is perfect, and following God's plan to help the poor, the best that imperfect people can, will always achieve the best results. Through our redemption by the Spirit of God, God has given us the power to obey His law, not perfectly, but substantially (Romans 8:7-9, 1 John 5:1-3).

A few specific passages in the Bible are cited by liberals as requiring a welfare state:

"Am I my brother's keeper?" - Genesis 4: A "keeper" is a shepherd, like a shepherd of sheep. If this is a command, being your "brother's keeper" means that you should own your brother and control his life. But it's not a command at all. It's Cain's sarcastic remark after he murdered his brother Abel and God asks Cain where Abel is to give Cain a chance to confess (Genesis 4:8-10). It has nothing to do with a requirement of the State to provide welfare to the poor.
Joseph's welfare program in Egypt - Genesis 41: Joseph instituted a grain storage program that saved Egypt from seven years of famine because of Joseph's gift from God to infallibly interpret dreams that predicted the future. That would be great if we had a politician with that gift today, but we don't. The attempts of planners in socialist nations to predict the best production levels has resulted in massive overproduction of many goods and constant food shortages. Second, Joseph did not institute a give-away program like the programs that modern welfare advocates would like. He required the people to buy the grain during the years of famine, which resulted in everyone selling their land to the State, and finally everyone selling themselves as slaves to the State (Genesis 41:56-57, 47:13-21). Third, the consequence of this program was enslavement of the population, and that is not a result we should imitate. Enslavement is a curse from God for disobedience to Him (Deuteronomy 28:43-48). For the people of Israel, God only allowed servitude for temporary periods to allow the poor to pay back debts that they could not afford, because God wanted His people to be His servants, not man's servants (Leviticus 25:47-55). Joseph's welfare program was a blessing in the sense that it saved the lives of the people, but because it caused their slavery, it was also a curse on the Egyptians as the enemies of God. When God gave Israel its laws, He did not institute a State wealth redistribution program. God gave them laws that would make the Israelites a free people, if His laws were followed (Deuteronomy 28:12-13). When Joseph enslaved Egypt, he imposed a 20% tax on them (Genesis 47:23-26), but even a 10% tax was considered tyrannical for the Israelites (1 Samuel 8:15,17).
Inalienability of tribal land - Leviticus 25: The tribal territories in Israel were acquired as military spoils when they conquered the land. The land was conquered, divided among the tribes, and preserved as the property of those tribes as part of a unique, holy status that the land of Israel had during the Old Testament period in order to prepare for the coming of the Messiah. Although "The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it" (Psalm 24:1), the land of Israel was uniquely God's possession: "The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine" (Leviticus 25:23). God had a unique presence in Israel as the only place on earth where God's house, the Temple, was to be built. But this changed with the death of Christ. The curtain into the Temple's Most Holy Place was torn in two (Matthew 27:52), and within a generation (A.D. 67-70) Christ sent the Roman army to destroy the Temple (Matthew 24:1-2, 34). Christ fulfilled the liberation to which the Law of Jubilee foreshadowed, which law required slaves to be set free and the land to be returned to its original owners every fifty years (Leviticus 25:10), when Christ announced the beginning of His ministry: "He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor" (Luke 4:18-19). The return of land to its original owners is no more legitimate today than military conquest to win nations for Christ, or building a new Temple, or the continued practice of perpetual slavery of foreigners (Leviticus 25:44-45 - which had been limited to the land of Israel then, but would now be a legitimate practice throughout the world). Liberals want to use the law against the alienability of tribal land as a justification for leveling wealth among all people, but this was not an egalitarian program. You had to be in on the ground floor of the deal as part of one of the Israelite clans that conquered the land. It helped out the Israelite who was poor, but it did not help the resident alien, who was prevented from permanently owning any land outside of the walled cities (Leviticus 25:29-31).
Amos: Prophet for the Poor: Amos strongly condemned the rich who were oppressing the poor in his day. But this is an example of liberals assuming that, just because the Bible speaks out for the poor, the Bible is promoting State welfare. Liberals ignore the standard that Amos used to judge that the rich were oppressing the poor. Amos has a vision of a plumb line on a wall, and God says, "Look, I am setting a plumb line among my people Israel; I will spare them no longer" (Amos 7:8). The plumb line was a measure of justice and righteousness (Isaiah 28:17), and like a wall that was shown by the plumb line to have been built crooked, God was going to tear down Israel. What was the standard of justice, the plumb line? The law of God: "For three transgressions of Judah, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment, because they have rejected the law of the LORD, and have not kept His statutes" (Amos 2:4). Amos cites the specific commandments of God's law against the Israelites in God's lawsuit against them. As we have seen, the law of God makes some provisions for the poor, but not through statist welfare:
     A. "They sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals—those who trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth and turn aside the way of the afflicted" (Amos 2:6-7). The rich here are violating God's command that they have mercy on those too poor to support themselves. The wealthy were not to make a profit from things sold to the destitute, but were to loan to them at zero-interest and sell food to them at cost (Leviticus 25:35-38). The destitute who sold themselves to a wealthy person were not to be treated harshly like slaves but as hired servants (Leviticus 25:39-43). These servants were not to be sold (Exodus 21:8), and when they were released, they were to be supplied liberally so that they could make it on their own (Deuteronomy 15:14).
     B. "They lay themselves down beside every altar on garments taken in pledge" (Amos 2:8). This violated the command against keeping garments overnight that were held as collateral (Deuteronomy 24:10-13), as well as the command not to worship other gods.
     C. "You trample on the poor and you exact taxes of grain from him" (Amos 5:11). This is a condemnation of State coercion to exact taxes on a poor person's food. If food was to be sold to them at cost (Leviticus 25:37), by implication, neither should their food be taxed.
     D. "You oppress the righteous and take bribes and you deprive the poor of justice in the courts" (Amos 5:12). God's law condemned bias toward the rich or poor in court (Leviticus 19:15), so this condemnation is no support for taking from the rich to give to the poor.

Sharing wealth among Christians in Acts: In the first church formed after Christ's ascension, Acts records that "no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. . . . There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need" (Acts 4:32-36). This generosity among the first Christians is often said to be an example of "communism," but it provides no support for redistribution of wealth by the State. First, the State is not involved. This is completely a Church program. Second, individual property rights are still recognized. Peter tells Ananias, "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?" (Acts 5:4) The land was theirs to do with it whatever they thought best. The sin of Ananias and his wife was not the failure to sell all that they had, but it was lying to God about donating the whole proceeds from the sale when they had secretly held some of the money back. Last, it only makes sense that the land and houses that these Christians sold was investment property or other property that the owners had not been living in. If everyone sold everything that they had, the whole group of them would have been homeless and destitute. But Luke records that even after "they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need" (Acts 2:45), they were still "breaking bread in their homes" (Acts 2:46).

For further study, see the following books, available for free at http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks:

An Economic Commentary on the Bible: A Multi-Volume Exposition by Gary North

Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators, by David Chilton

Bringing in the Sheaves, by George Grant

In the Shadow of Plenty, by George Grant