Posted on 07/16/2021 6:04:35 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
This follow-up to my original article is intended to address the idea of restitution and how Zacchaeus fits into our modern-day narrative.
I recently wrote an article to explain one of the most fundamental principles of economics, namely, that you are not entitled to the labor or production of any other human being. In other words, no one has the right to enslave another person, to demand the fruit of their labor, or to threaten by government force that they perform some labor (think baker, flower designer, etc.).
Numerous comments on the article were made, but one stood out to me: “And yet, this was how white wealth was created on the backs of forced slave labor and unfair wages and benefits. But when ask [sic] to compensate for the legalized theft of wages and benefits that white slave owners have benefitted from and continue to benefit from today, many are outraged at that thought of having to compensate Black folks. Why is that? Jesus teach [sic] that we should make restitution even to 10 times the amount and come follow Jesus. Zacchaeus in Luke 19 did have an encounter with Jesus and he did make restitution even to 4 times what he stole from people. Why is it so hard for Conservatives to apply that principle to the issues of slavery and the lasting effects, including the Tulsa race massacre next of Kin? Is it possible Conservatives and Evangelicals have not experienced the same as Zacchaeus?”
First, the above comment quite correctly states that wealth was created on the “backs of forced slave labor.” There can be no doubt that in world history, many people became rich on the backs of slaves. One of the earliest records of slavery in our world was when the Egyptians enslaved the Jews for more than 400 years and forced them to build Egyptian cities. Egypt became a rich and powerful nation on the backs of Jewish slaves.
But the commentor makes what I hope is a simple mistake by saying: “But when ask[ed] to compensate for the legalized theft of wages and benefits that white slave owners have benefitted from and continue to benefit from today…” Continue to benefit from today? The commentor appears to be asserting that there exist white slave owners in the United States that continue to benefit from black slavery. Either that, or perhaps this is an insinuation that the white slave owners from the mid-20th century are still benefiting from the labor they stole. I do not know exactly what the commentor meant, but I will gladly push back against any idea that chattel slavery is active in America today.
The commentor then goes on to lament that people are “outraged” at the thought of having to compensate “Black folks” for the actions of the white slave owners. Again, the issue here is that there are not currently any white slave owners in America. Not that I’m aware of, anyway. No one currently owns slaves or is benefitting from slave labor in the United States. This begs the question, should I have to compensate people for what took place in history prior to my life?
Other questions proponents of reparations must address is who exactly is owed reparations? How many generations must pass before no one is owed? How many generations down the line should be paid reparations? Should the great-grandson of a white slave owner pay reparations to the great-grandson of a slave? What about their great-great-grandsons? Where exactly does it end?
My great-great-grandparents came from Poland with nothing. They immigrated seeking opportunity and were often discriminated against for being Polish. At no time did they own slaves or aid slavery in the country. Is it biblically just for me to pay reparations for the sins of slavery when my family had nothing to do with it? Is it biblically just for me to pay reparations for slavery when I have had nothing to do with it?
Here's where Zacchaeus comes in.
The commentor makes mention of the fact that Zacchaeus paid “restitution even to 4 times what he stole from people.” That’s true, it’s in the biblical text (see Luke 19). But there is one very important fact that separates Zacchaeus from virtually every American living today: Zacchaeus was the one that stole from the people!
Zacchaeus paid restitution because he was the one that stole. This is a principle of justice that we embody as a country today. If a person steals or causes damage to property (in most cases), that person is charged criminally and (typically) made to pay restitution for what was stolen/damaged. If your neighbor stole a car and totaled it, would you be happy to pay restitution for their crime? Probably not. Why? Because we inherently understand that it is not biblically just to penalize the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. That’s what made the atonement of Christ so remarkable: the innocent paid the price for the guilty.
We as Christians should be very quick to make restitution for our sins and crimes. If we have stolen anything, we should pay it back. If we have caused damage, we should repair the property. There can be no dispute that this is fundamental to the Law of God and teachings of Jesus. But the key is that this only applies to each of us as individuals.
The very idea that we should pay restitution for another person’s actions violates biblical principles. For example, the Bible clearly states “Thou shalt not steal” (Ex. 20). Taking my money, via government force, and giving it to someone else is, by definition, theft. Seeking to coerce the government to mandate reparations for those that have never owned slaves or supported slavery is little more than government-imposed theft. It is a clear violation of biblical principles.
At this point I am sure a well-meaning individual will remind us all that “the sins of the father will be visited unto the 3rd and 4th generation” in an attempt to justify reparations. Please don’t. If you do not understand this verse and the context it is written in, consult a commentary for a better understanding. But please refrain from taking God’s Word out of context for your own purposes (that’s another kind of sin all by itself).
Here is where I’m at on this topic. If you want to campaign for reparations because you feel so strongly that people who have never owned slaves should pay other people who have never been slaves for what happened in generations past, then the only morally and intellectually honest thing to do is expand your platform to include the following:
We could go on. World history is replete with examples of slavery. To narrow reparations down to just one group of people, in one location, at one time seems unfair. Why aren’t we as zealous for other people around the world to receive their reparations?
Christians have longed for justice since time began. We wait patiently for the day when Jesus will return to set all things right and biblical justice will be realized. And we should continue to wait patiently while reminding ourselves that “vengeance is Mine, says the Lord,” (Rom. 12:19). There is no biblical justification for government-mandated reparations. We would be sinning against our brothers and sisters to demand they make restitution for the sins of people long dead. If it is healing that is needed, only grace and the eternal bond found in Jesus can begin that process, not government-mandated theft.
Nathan Cherry is a financial advisor specializing in personal financial management and debt reduction. After more than a decade in church ministry, Nathan found a place for his talents in money management in the financial services industry working for a respected financial planning firm. Nathan also writes on social and moral issues at www.nathancherry.com.
Glad to see pushback on this. Marxists cannot seem to understand that it is personal. But that’s what they do, they organize people into groups, not individuals.
Kind of a no brainer. I can’t believe this person wrote this much to make this point, but then again when trying to make a point to the retarded left sometimes it takes a lot of words for them to understand. But probably even then they don’t understand the difference between the sins of the father not passing on to the son.
There are two types of people in the this world. Those that put people into groups and those that don’t. Which group are you in?
Does Zacchaeus prove reparations are biblical?I'm more inclined to submit Zacchaeus as evidence of the transformative power of grace.
One thing liberals do is to swap individual responsibilities with government responsibilities, and vice versa. Individuals should not kill, but liberals have used that to tie the hands of government. This writeup clearly shows liberals trying to do the same with reparations. Nicely done.
If it does, stick to what he said! “If I have defrauded anyone, I will repay THEM....” No bull hockey of us paying layabouts TODAY, for something that happened generations ago. Try again sometime.
Had Ahab taken Naboth’s vineyard for a vegetable garden to feed Samaria’s poor he would be a hero to the Socialists and Welfare State types because being generous with other people’s stuff is exactly how they roll.
19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. (Rom 12:19) KJV
#
Quoted from:
#
35 Vengeance is Mine, and recompense, in the time when their foot shall slide; for the day of their disaster is at hand and their doom comes speedily. (Dt 32:35) AMP
#
Believers know who the real enemy is, and can expect so much more if they trust God.
#
30 Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy himself when he is hungry;
31 But if he is found out, he must restore seven times [what he stole]; he must give the whole substance of his house [if necessary—to meet his fine]. (Prov 6:30–31) AMP
#
Let the Lord sort it out. It will turn out far better in the end.
Yes!
But socialism isn’t about Grace but about knowing your place beneath the state, with the governing functionaries, the apparatchiks, replacing the aristocrat and industrialist alike both socially and in terms of the relative comfort of lifestyle enjoyed, and both improving as one moves ever higher up the political food chain.
A socialistic Zacchacus would instead know what Soviet apparatchiks knew: that his comfort depended on knowing his place and making sure everyone below him knew their place, even as he might tremble at 5he slightest sidelong glacé of someone much above him. To accept Christ would invite ruin (as indeed in recent years we’ve seen the CCP purging itself of people thinking they can be Christian and party members).
Zacchaeus paid restitution because he was the one that stole.
Riiight. Just like "only God can forgive sins". That's what the religious experts of the day said, so it must have been true. /s
One of the first orders of business is to restore that which was lost: Zacchaeus reputation
Luke 19
8 And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.
9 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.
10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
How much is President Donald Trump guilty of, by false accusation? He's even been impeached twice.
It's like that.
2000 years is a length of rope.
I generalize, for sure! But I do reserve judgement for the individual, and I know that faith and all that follows is personal.
There is some sort of blurred line between the 2 though. Reading the OT, you read the the entire nation was corrupt and judged, then you see Daniel and his friends. They don’t seem corrupt to me?
Those guilty of rioting paying restitution for what they themselves did should happen anyway. Was not the best example.
Reparations should be from the guilty to the victim. Reparations so many years after the event is nonsense. Probably less that 10% of white descendants are from slave-owning families. Not to mention that there were slightly MORE black slave oe=wners than there were white. So, they’d be making out having owned slaves and those of us whose families came to the US in the 1880s who escaped Jewish ghettos in Bulgaria and Ireland would pay for something they were not guilty of. That’s why God did NOT make this a law. It was a special consequence to a certain circumstance only..
I agree. My first ancestors came here from Holland in the 1800’s and never owned slaves. Been poor farmers up until recent times. I don’t owe anyone jack squat.
Clarifying, late 1800’s. Like 1898.
Slavery was not prohibited by the Law. The Israelites (Leviticus 25:44, 46) and even the priests (Leviticus 22:11) were allowed to possess slaves from the other nations. Even an Israelite could sell one of his family into slavery, or even himself if forced to by poverty (Exodus 21:7; Leviticus 25:35-42). By law, a Hebrew slave was to be treated even better than the slaves taken from the heathen (see Leviticus 25:35-42, 46).
Slavery was never a big deal with Jesus - he never spoke a word against it.
More to the point black slavery wasn’t even a thing in the White European world until sometime in the 16th century. Until then whites were mostly enslaving other whites, blacks enslaving blacks, Asians enslaving Asians, and so forth. It would be a fair assumption that more whites were slaves to whites than ever blacks were.
Yes, Zacchaeus returned the money not just because he has stolen them, but mostly as a repentance, from his FREE will. Nobody, even Christ, ordered him! Because he has found Christ in that moment and this was his way to honor Christ.
Instead of looking for all those past ills, let us search the Kingdom of God! How better would the Earth be, if everybody has found Christ!
My comment is a joke.... Think about it 😂
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.