In philosophy and theology, there is an issue called “theodicy” or the problem of evil. The problem of evil has been stated and restated several times throughout history. Put very simply, if God is all-powerful and good, then why is there suffering and evil? In fact, these very questions and issues (among others) are the bulk of the Old Testament book of Job:
Job 9:22-24—“It is all one; therefore I say,
‘He destroys the guiltless and the wicked.’
23If the scourge kills suddenly,
He mocks the despair of the innocent.
24The earth is given into the hand of the wicked;
He covers the faces of its judges.
If it is not He, then who is it?” (cf. Job 24)
Job’s statement, “It is all one” basically means “It’s all the same thing!” or “Then it doesn’t matter!” In other words, nothing matters because if God is not responsible for evil and suffering, then who is? Job’s struggle concerning God’s righteousness and wisdom in suffering—recognizing that God has a right to punish sinners (cf. Job 4:17)—especially as the sovereign and holy Creator, asks why God created man if only to suffer, why God would allow suffering seemingly disconnected from our actions (cf. Job 24), whether man can be right with God, and whether God can be justified and vindicated (cf. Job 9:2).
Stated other ways in the history of philosophy,
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?—Epicurus (341–270 BC), as quoted in John Hospers, An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis. 3rd Ed. (Routledge, 1990), p. 310
Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?—David Hume (1711–1776), Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, ed. Nelson Pike, (Indianapolis, IN.: Bobbs-Merrill Publications, 1981), p. 88
Briefly, the problem of evil is this: . . .If God knows there is evil but cannot prevent it, he is not omnipotent. If God knows there is evil but can prevent it but desires not to, he is not omnibenevolent.—George Smith, The Case Against God, (Buffalo, NY.: Prometheus Books, 1979)
Over time, many have attempted to answer this argument and resolve the problem of theodicy (including this author), but theodicy in general is not the main point of this article, rather to present an issue for the Christian socialist and progressive and their conception of Jesus.
The problem that the Christian socialist must face regarding Jesus—assuming that this Christian believes what the Bible teaches about Jesus according to the historic Christian faith (i.e., supernaturalism, miracles, historicity, etc.)—is that He was and is capable of providing “universal healthcare” through divine healing and world hunger, but that He either failed to do so and/or did not desire to do so. Put another way, socialist Christians must accept that Jesus was either unable or unwilling to heal and feed everyone, thus making Him incapable or evil according to their socialist standards. (Let it be clear that I do not hold to either of these conclusions because I do not share socialist ethical presuppositions).
Jesus and Christian-Socialist Presuppositions
Many ethical arguments for socialism—especially in their stronger forms—rest on several key premises: 1) that significant material inequality, particularly when paired with unmet basic needs, is morally suspect; 2) that property rights, especially in productive assets, are not absolute but subordinate to the “common good”; 3) that those with substantial surplus have a moral obligation to alleviate the needs of others; and, 4) that collective mechanisms, including coercive state action, may be justified in enforcing these obligations.
To be fair, Christian socialists and progressives might reject these or qualify these premises or the conclusions, especially in the case of Jesus. That said, to the extent that Christian socialists (or progressive socialist sympathizers) argue that the possession of surplus resources in the presence of unmet need constitutes a moral failure—one that justifies coercive redistribution—they face a Christological tension. The Gospels portray Jesus as having both the power and compassion to alleviate suffering, yet exercising that power limitedly rather than universally. If their moral principle is applied consistently, it would seem to require either that Jesus failed to fulfill a moral obligation or that the principle itself is incomplete.
Jesus and “Universal Healthcare”
What the Christian socialist has to face here is that Jesus had the ability to heal all people for all time, but did not. Since Jesus of Nazareth obviously did not and does not currently heal everyone, then the socialist uniquely has to wonder why? While all Christians must grapple with this question, the Christian socialist—due to their ethical presuppositions—has an added problem with Jesus. The Christian socialist—believing Jesus had the ability to heal everyone—should believe that Jesus therefore had the ethical responsibility or duty to heal everyone He could.
It is true that Christian socialists could fairly deny that they necessarily hold the ethical presupposition that Jesus had to heal everyone if He were truly good, however, this seems hard to avoid given the common argument regarding what they imagine they could do—via the coercive state, of course—with the money of millionaires, billionaires, and trillionaires. If Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are ethically compromised because of their abundance, which could be redistributed and shared with the world (and the state), then what about the divine Son of God who demonstrated His miraculous ability to heal and was not ultimately limited by scarcity or finitude?
If Christ’s desire is not questioned, then the socialist must question His competence or ability. Christian socialists would have to argue for Jesus’s impotence—that Jesus sincerely wanted to heal everyone, but was unable to do so.
Even if the progressive “Christian” socialist follows the path of theological liberalism—“Christianity” separated from the Bible, its worldview presuppositions (e.g., supernaturalism), and the historic faith such that key terms and concepts can be reinterpreted by a modern perspective—and argues that Jesus was not divine and did not really do miracles in the traditional sense, this is just another version of the failure of Jesus’s power and ability. Such theological liberals—arguing from Jesus’s example—must deny most of what the New Testament presupposes and teaches about Jesus’s words and actions only to arbitrarily impose their worldview onto “Jesus.” This lacks consistency, evidence, and authority.
Further, according to the New Testament, even during Jesus’s life and ministry, Jesus did not heal everyone and even walked away from situations where He could have healed more people. In fact, while Jesus healed many, He did not heal everyone who wanted to be healed or who came to Him to be healed.
At one point early in His ministry, according to Mark’s description, Jesus was healing many at Simon Peter and Andrew’s house: “they began bringing to Him all who were ill and those who were demon-possessed” (Mark 1:32), in fact, “the whole city had been gathered at the door” (Mark 1:33). It is reported that Jesus “healed many who were ill with various diseases” (Mark 1:34). Early the next morning, Jesus extracted Himself from the situation to find a secluded place
to pray alone, and when His disciples found Him, Simon Peter said, “Everyone is looking for You” (Mark 1:37). Jesus had already demonstrated His powerful ability to heal, but instead of continuing, He said, “Let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby, so that I may preach there also; for that is what I came for” (Mark 1:38).
In reality, all the people that Jesus healed, got sick again and died. Even the people Jesus resurrected from the dead died again. While the Christian can accept this because Jesus had higher priorities, and the miracles were signs that pointed to His nature, kingdom, and gospel, the progressive Christian socialist should find it hard not to criticize Jesus.
Jesus and Ending Hunger
First, let it be stated that, unlike Communists, Jesus actually fed people. What the Christian socialist has to face here is that Jesus had the ability to feed all people for all time—ending world hunger—but did not. It is worth noting that Jesus would not have had to “redistribute” wealth since He could create it.
After the miraculous feeding of the 5,000 men (not including women and children) and an attempt of the people to make Jesus king by force against His purposes (John 6:15), John records that the same crowds located Jesus, hoping He would meet their physical needs and political desires. In this context, He chided them (John 6:26-27),
Jesus answered them and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.”
Note that Jesus’s rebuke was that the crowds failed to recognize the significance of the sign of the loaves and fishes and come to Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God, and the One with the words of eternal life (cf. John 6:68-69). They only sought satisfaction of physical hunger—still a real and acute human need. Keep in mind that Jesus did not make these statements in 21st-century America, but in a world where hunger and starvation were existential realities, as they have been for all of human history.
According to the Gospels, Jesus had the ability to feed thousands of people miraculously, in fact, John portrays Jesus as God in the flesh who created all things that exist (John 1:1-3, 10, 14), therefore, His power was not inherently limited. In this context, Jesus sought to elevate the perspective of the crowd from physical satisfaction of hunger to the spiritual satisfaction of believing in Jesus for eternal life (John 6:29, 40, 47, 64 [x2]). The main point of the entire passage is encapsulated in a single statement of Jesus in this context: “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst” (John 6:35). Jesus—though He had the ability—did not make it His mission and priority to end world hunger or even the hunger of all around Him in His own day.
Conclusion
Jesus is not the ally that socialists and progressives—Christian or otherwise—think He is. Jesus affirmed the legitimacy of private property (Matthew 20:15; cf. Matthew 19:18; Mark 7:22; 10:19; Luke 18:20), the legitimacy of voluntary contract (Matthew 20:13-15), and private, secret, voluntary charity (Matthew 6:1-4). He refused to act as a judge in cases of unequal distributions of wealth (Luke 12:13-15), and rejected the concept that extra wealth ought necessarily be used for the poor (John 12:1-8). Further, the Christian socialist cannot consistently use Jesus, the early Church, or the New Testament as a moral case for socialism, the welfare state, or coercive wealth redistribution.
Ronald J. Sider—author of the guilt-provoking Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger—was not a socialist, but was a proponent of an extensive welfare state in Jesus’s name. In his book, he actually showed contempt for private charity, contrasted against the welfare state,
First, institutional change is often more effective. . . The cup of cold water that we give in Christ’s name [Matthew 25:35, 42] is often more effective if it is given through the public health measures of preventive medicine or economic planning.
Second, institutional change is often morally better. Personal charity and philanthropy still permit the rich donor to feel superior. And it makes the recipient feel inferior and dependent. Institutional changes, on the other hand, give the oppressed rights and power.
David Chilton—a point-by-point critic of Sider’s book—responds to the above quote, “Now, if only the Lord had thought of that.” Instead of the book being about personal charity, personal charity is just an imperfect stepping-stone to institutional state welfare programs. Such a program cannot be derived from the Old or New Testament or the teachings of Jesus. Further, Christian socialists, “welfare state trumpeters” (cf. Matthew 6:1-4), and those like Sider must face a pertinent issue: If the moral claim is that the failure to use available resources to eliminate suffering constitutes an injustice warranting coercive correction, then the life of Jesus creates an unavoidable tension. The Christ of Scripture—though possessing both power and compassion—did not equalize wealth, end hunger, or permanently eradicate disease. One must therefore conclude either that He failed morally, that He lacked the ability, or that the moral premise itself is mistaken.
The crowds attempted to make Jesus king by force (John 6:15) because they had inappropriate views regarding His kingdom and kingship. In this case, satisfaction of physical hunger led them to the conclusion that Jesus would achieve their political goals, defeat their enemies, and satisfy all their material needs. Similarly, many today exhibit a mirror image of this—vesting political views, elites, and policies with religious-spiritual significance.
Christian socialists and others of similar views legalistically attempt to lay a burden on the followers of Jesus that He did not lay on them. Jesus criticized those who “tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger” (Matthew 23:4). Jesus also criticized neglecting the commandments of God to hold to the traditions of men (Mark 7:7-8, 9, 13). If Christian socialists appeal to Jesus to mandate the comprehensive alleviation of material inequality and suffering—even to the point of requiring what He did not explicitly command—then they must account for why Jesus Himself, though possessing both the power and compassion to do so, did not bring about their universal elimination.
