Is it the Job of government to Feed People?
Forum category
I have taught for quite some time now that the basic job of government is to protect the righteous, punish the evil, and to collect only enough revenue to execute this purpose - Rom 13.
I have often heard John Lofton on the American View say that it is not the job of government to feed, house or clothe anyone. To that, I add a loud amen.
However, as I was preparing to teach my Old Testament Survey class, the example of Joseph came to mind. Here God placed Joseph in Egypt for the purpose of saving many people. How? He would tell Pharoah to store up enough grain from the seven years of prosperity to provide for people in seven years of famine.
While this grain would be sold for a price, is this an example of God working through government to provide for His people? If so, are there any implications for our government today?
- Kevin Thompson,
www.understandingourtimes.com
I have often heard John Lofton on the American View say that it is not the job of government to feed, house or clothe anyone. To that, I add a loud amen.
However, as I was preparing to teach my Old Testament Survey class, the example of Joseph came to mind. Here God placed Joseph in Egypt for the purpose of saving many people. How? He would tell Pharoah to store up enough grain from the seven years of prosperity to provide for people in seven years of famine.
While this grain would be sold for a price, is this an example of God working through government to provide for His people? If so, are there any implications for our government today?
- Kevin Thompson,
www.understandingourtimes.com
- 4 views
I dont see where Romans 13 limits the government to just what it states. The text doesnt say that is all that the government does, merely that is a function of government. There is certainly a role for the government today to provide food for the needy.
By the time the seven years of famine were over, Pharoah owned all the property in Egypt, (traded by the former owners to Pharoah to pay for food), and employed all (?) the workers in Egypt (having run out of money and property with which to buy food, they worked the fields they had previously owned for the new owner, Pharoah, in order to have food).
Having followed the Lord’s direction, the poloitcal leader of the government owned everything and everybody in the country.
My question is not a challenge, simply a question: Is this the example God wants us to follow in the United States today?
Having followed the Lord’s direction, the poloitcal leader of the government owned everything and everybody in the country.
My question is not a challenge, simply a question: Is this the example God wants us to follow in the United States today?
[Quote=”kevinjthompson”] I have taught for quite some time now that the basic job of government is to protect the righteous, punish the evil, and to collect only enough revenue to execute this purpose - Rom 13.[/Quote]
I agree with tyork’s point above that this passage does not in any way seem to limit the scope of governement to promoting justice. Also, I’d ask where in Romans 13 you see that government should “collect only enough revenue to execute this purpose.” As is frequently noted in discussions of this passage, neither this limited purpose of government nor the revenue collection limitations were true of government at the time this was written.
[Quote=”kevinjthompson”] I have often heard John Lofton on the American View say that it is not the job of government to feed, house or clothe anyone. To that, I add a loud amen.
However, as I was preparing to teach my Old Testament Survey class, the example of Joseph came to mind. Here God placed Joseph in Egypt for the purpose of saving many people. How? He would tell Pharoah to store up enough grain from the seven years of prosperity to provide for people in seven years of famine.
While this grain would be sold for a price, is this an example of God working through government to provide for His people? If so, are there any implications for our government today?[/Quote]
No, this is not an example of God working through government to provide for His people. At least, not His people alone. While Joseph’s family certainly benefitted, so did very many Egyptians. I think this demonstrates that good government is favor from God toward all who are blessed to live under it. To the extent that it exercises authority in a manner consistent with God’s character, good government serves as a picture of that perfect government under which God’s people will one day live.
I think our support for care (even government sponsored) toward the weak and vulnerable in this country should instead be based on God’s evident concern for the weak and vulnerable. As believers, we have a clear Scriptural duty to care for others in Christ’s body. I think a less clear, but analogous duty exists in society at large.
I agree with tyork’s point above that this passage does not in any way seem to limit the scope of governement to promoting justice. Also, I’d ask where in Romans 13 you see that government should “collect only enough revenue to execute this purpose.” As is frequently noted in discussions of this passage, neither this limited purpose of government nor the revenue collection limitations were true of government at the time this was written.
[Quote=”kevinjthompson”] I have often heard John Lofton on the American View say that it is not the job of government to feed, house or clothe anyone. To that, I add a loud amen.
However, as I was preparing to teach my Old Testament Survey class, the example of Joseph came to mind. Here God placed Joseph in Egypt for the purpose of saving many people. How? He would tell Pharoah to store up enough grain from the seven years of prosperity to provide for people in seven years of famine.
While this grain would be sold for a price, is this an example of God working through government to provide for His people? If so, are there any implications for our government today?[/Quote]
No, this is not an example of God working through government to provide for His people. At least, not His people alone. While Joseph’s family certainly benefitted, so did very many Egyptians. I think this demonstrates that good government is favor from God toward all who are blessed to live under it. To the extent that it exercises authority in a manner consistent with God’s character, good government serves as a picture of that perfect government under which God’s people will one day live.
I think our support for care (even government sponsored) toward the weak and vulnerable in this country should instead be based on God’s evident concern for the weak and vulnerable. As believers, we have a clear Scriptural duty to care for others in Christ’s body. I think a less clear, but analogous duty exists in society at large.
[Jack] Also, I’d ask where in Romans 13 you see that government should “collect only enough revenue to execute this purpose.” As is frequently noted in discussions of this passage, neither this limited purpose of government nor the revenue collection limitations were true of government at the time this was written.Very true. Rome had at one time been a republic, but was at the time of Paul an empire. The people of the OT and NT were primarily familiar with the monarchy as the common form of government.
Fast forward 1750 years (approximately). The concept of limited government was established in the Constitiution of the United States. The colonies rejected the monarchy as a political system, and established a representative republic with limited power.
As much as we revere the principle of Limited Governemnt, it’s not a Biblical principle.
I’m not opposed to submitting to gov’t, and whatever the gov’t policies, we are obligated to honor it- but when it comes to the Biblica principles of giving to the poor, there are some criteria, such as not enabling those who won’t work, and to give voluntarily and cheerfully. Neither idea is honored by our current welfare system. Even if we used anicent Egypt as an example, you still have an even exchange of goods and services for food, not people sitting around expecting Joseph to deliver corn to their front door every month, nor did the Egyptian gov’t take Bob’s cows so they could give corn to Joe.
II Thessalonians 3 is dealing very specifically with idleness among professing believers. So the issue there is not punitive as relates to the idle man, but rather a proper and jealous guarding of the reputation of Christ and those who call themselves His followers.
Even with governmental efforts, there are plenty of people who are cannot obtain work sufficient to provide food, clothing, and shelter. Whether they suffer from the affects of past sin such as drug abuse, from natural disadvantages such as limited mental capacity, or from deteriorating health due to age or physical disability, there are still plenty of opportunities for believers to give voluntarily and cheerfully in Christ’s name. I’ve seen few (and this is not a judgment of you Susan - I don’t know your practices) who exhaust their opportunities to give freely. I know I certainly don’t.
I’d also suggest that for believers, paying taxes toward social welfare programs is an opportunity to give voluntarily and cheerfully. After all, voluntarily and cheerfully are heart attitudes and not external displays. Could it be that paying taxes cheerfully is something we can use to point unbelievers to Christ? I think so!
Even with governmental efforts, there are plenty of people who are cannot obtain work sufficient to provide food, clothing, and shelter. Whether they suffer from the affects of past sin such as drug abuse, from natural disadvantages such as limited mental capacity, or from deteriorating health due to age or physical disability, there are still plenty of opportunities for believers to give voluntarily and cheerfully in Christ’s name. I’ve seen few (and this is not a judgment of you Susan - I don’t know your practices) who exhaust their opportunities to give freely. I know I certainly don’t.
I’d also suggest that for believers, paying taxes toward social welfare programs is an opportunity to give voluntarily and cheerfully. After all, voluntarily and cheerfully are heart attitudes and not external displays. Could it be that paying taxes cheerfully is something we can use to point unbelievers to Christ? I think so!
[Jack] Even with governmental efforts, there are plenty of people who are cannot obtain work sufficient to provide food, clothing, and shelter. Whether they suffer from the affects of past sin such as drug abuse, from natural disadvantages such as limited mental capacity, or from deteriorating health due to age or physical disability, there are still plenty of opportunities for believers to give voluntarily and cheerfully in Christ’s name. I’ve seen few (and this is not a judgment of you Susan - I don’t know your practices) who exhaust their opportunities to give freely. I know I certainly don’t.That’s why I used the term “won’t work” not “can’t work” or “wants to work but hasn’t found a job yet”. I also didn’t say that being taxed to support welfare programs precludes one’s own cheerful giving- but I don’t count the money that the gov’t takes from each paycheck as an ‘offering’ to the poor. My dh and I prayerfully make choices about who we help and how we help them, and giving money is often not part of the equation- I can’t begin to count all the jobs, vehicles, and even homes that my husband has found for people. I usually feed people and help them with their children. I also have a tendency to give away my kitchen appliances. No, you can’t have my KitchenAid. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-taunt013.gif
I’d also suggest that for believers, paying taxes toward social welfare programs is an opportunity to give voluntarily and cheerfully. After all, voluntarily and cheerfully are heart attitudes and not external displays. Could it be that paying taxes cheerfully is something we can use to point unbelievers to Christ? I think so!
IWe pay taxes to honor God by submitting to gov’t, but knowing that much of that money isn’t helping people who are truly poor doesn’t thrill me. I think true giving involves choice, and you can pretend you are volunteering to pay your taxes if you like, but I don’t have to pretend I’m ‘giving to the poor’ in order to have the right attitude about paying taxes. I don’t know how paying taxes can lead someone to God other than just being a good example of a law-abiding citizen.
But the OP asks if it is the gov’t’s responsibility to take care of the poor, and I think a righteous gov’t will encourage people to care for the needy, and possibly come up with solutions for hard times. The problem is when the solution becomes a permanent fixture even after the crisis is over. The example of Joseph in Egypt doesn’t jibe with the American welfare system though, as I said before.
The account of Joseph usually isn’t a great parallel to our welfare system. There has to be the interjection of an extremely difficult economic time to really make the connection. The bailout of Chrysler, GM and the banks is probably a better example of government stepping in during severe economic times, something more in line with Joseph and Egypt
[kevinjthompson] I have taught for quite some time now that the basic job of government is to protect the righteous, punish the evil, and to collect only enough revenue to execute this purpose - Rom 13.where do you find in romans 13 a restriction against governments collecting more money than they need? where do you find any restriction against a government doing more than this basic job? for that matter, romans 13 doesn’t even require all governments to use capitol punishment. it only recognizes that the roman government had the right to execute. romans 13 isn’t trying to describe proper government. it is describing a proper response to government, regardless of perceived illegitimacy, injustice, or whatever.
I have often heard John Lofton on the American View say that it is not the job of government to feed, house or clothe anyone. To that, I add a loud amen.
Somewhat of a tangent, but I agree with Chris. Romans 13:6-7 certainly should make us very circumspect before not paying taxes, whether we believe them to be just or unjust
Scripture does not support or preclude constitutional democratic capitalism. It merely commands believers to respect and submit to the powers that be, including monarchs when they are the legitimate and established power. It also promotes rulers who are just and honest. Throughout history, Christianity thrived within dictatorships, monarchies, communism, and constitutional republics.
However, we are privileged to live at this moment under a Constitution that carefully deliniates the scope of our federal government. Clearly, Article I, Section 8,
[QUOTE] Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.[/QUOTE] coupled with the 10th amendment,[QUOTE] Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people[/QUOTE] denies the federal government jurisdiction to feed the poor. It is illegal for the federal government to do so. The Constitution does not prevent states, commonwealths, counties, municipalities, churches, social organizations, and families from feeding the poor.
Then there is the question of economics. Which entities are the most effective at feeding the poor. History and my limited experience tell me that the federal government is the least effective (economical), and that families are the most effective. Churches and volutary social organizations come in a close second. Thus, it probably does not make sense for states, commonwealths, and the federal government to feed the poor. Since Christians should seek the most effective means to provide charity, they should support those methods and use their political means to deny the usurpations of the federal government in this arena. Additionally, when the federal government provides for the poor, it only provides for physical needs. Families, churches, and social organizations retain the freedom to meet both the physical needs and the long term spiritual and social needs, thus liberating the poor from their impoverishing patterns. Federal welfare programs cannot hold a candle to the quality care of a loving family or church.
Because of Constitutinal constraints and the evidence of history, I believe that it is immoral for the Federal government to use public monies to feed the poor.
However, we are privileged to live at this moment under a Constitution that carefully deliniates the scope of our federal government. Clearly, Article I, Section 8,
[QUOTE] Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.[/QUOTE] coupled with the 10th amendment,[QUOTE] Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people[/QUOTE] denies the federal government jurisdiction to feed the poor. It is illegal for the federal government to do so. The Constitution does not prevent states, commonwealths, counties, municipalities, churches, social organizations, and families from feeding the poor.
Then there is the question of economics. Which entities are the most effective at feeding the poor. History and my limited experience tell me that the federal government is the least effective (economical), and that families are the most effective. Churches and volutary social organizations come in a close second. Thus, it probably does not make sense for states, commonwealths, and the federal government to feed the poor. Since Christians should seek the most effective means to provide charity, they should support those methods and use their political means to deny the usurpations of the federal government in this arena. Additionally, when the federal government provides for the poor, it only provides for physical needs. Families, churches, and social organizations retain the freedom to meet both the physical needs and the long term spiritual and social needs, thus liberating the poor from their impoverishing patterns. Federal welfare programs cannot hold a candle to the quality care of a loving family or church.
Because of Constitutinal constraints and the evidence of history, I believe that it is immoral for the Federal government to use public monies to feed the poor.
“General welfare” does not mean “basic social needs”. We have a KJV style interpretation issue here. Modern use of the term “general” does not equal the founding fathers’ use of the term “general”. Likewise, the term, “welfare”.[QUOTE] Ephesians 4:22 (King James Version)
That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;[/QUOTE] Everybody remembers this one. The pastor always has to take a break during the sermont to explain to us that “conversation” means “conduct” rather than just the way somebody speaks.[QUOTE] Ephesians 4:22 (New King James Version)
that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts,[/QUOTE] Failing to use historical etymology to discover a text’s meaning is a common hermeneutical failure. Serious readers must always consider the intent of the author, and that sometimes requires a bit of study.
Fortunately for us, somebody else has done that study:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7zvGxJ8J1I
That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;[/QUOTE] Everybody remembers this one. The pastor always has to take a break during the sermont to explain to us that “conversation” means “conduct” rather than just the way somebody speaks.[QUOTE] Ephesians 4:22 (New King James Version)
that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts,[/QUOTE] Failing to use historical etymology to discover a text’s meaning is a common hermeneutical failure. Serious readers must always consider the intent of the author, and that sometimes requires a bit of study.
Fortunately for us, somebody else has done that study:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7zvGxJ8J1I
Discussion