Was Jesus a Marxist?

Note: originally published in Appendix B of Modern Marxism: A Guide for Christians in a Woke New World.

Objection 8: “While on earth, Jesus promoted and practiced early forms of socialism or neo-Marxism. So Christians should too.”

Claim:

Jesus clearly stood on the side of the marginalized, exploited, and oppressed. He associated with sinners, Samaritans, and tax collectors. He affirmed the value of women. He told a rich man to sell everything and give to the poor. He opposed privileged religious rulers who were abusing their social power. He identified with the needy and imprisoned, saying that what we do for the least of these, we do for him. Jesus also quoted Isaiah 61 to reveal himself as the Messiah whom God anointed “to proclaim good news to the poor … liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed.” In all these ways, Jesus advanced aspects of an early form of socialism or neo-Marxism—and so should his followers.

Quick answer:

Most of this claim—at least, until the last sentence—is completely biblical.1 Jesus did associate with the marginalized, validate women’s dignity,2 and minister to earthly needs as part of his wider purpose to meet spiritual needs. He did oppose religious rulers who hypocritically prioritized human ideas above God’s Word at the expense of God’s image bearers. Jesus did counsel the rich young ruler to sell everything and give to the poor.3 He does command us to serve “the least of these” in his name. And (praise God!) Jesus did identify himself as the Anointed One—the Messiah—of Isaiah 61.

But does all this mean our Savior endorsed an early form of socialism or neo-Marxism?4

Jesus, the Living Word of God, would not promote anything that contradicts the written Word of God.

Jesus, the Living Word of God, would not promote anything that contradicts the written Word of God. As we saw earlier, neo-Marxism revolves around worldview assumptions, definitions, and practices that do contradict God’s Word. By fundamentally contradicting Scripture, neo-Marxism fundamentally opposes Jesus.

This opposition remains even though aspects of neo-Marxism may seem to align with Christ by expressing concern for liberating the oppressed—the language of Isaiah 61. The key issue, as we saw earlier, is that neo-Marxism uses words like liberation, justice, oppression, and guilt so differently from Scripture. Take liberation, for instance. Given the big picture of Jesus’ mission revealed throughout Scripture, it’s reasonable to think Jesus was primarily concerned with liberating people from sin.5 Part of Jesus’ ministry—healing diseases, raising the dead, driving out demons—did involve freeing people from instances of sin’s oppressive hold on creation.6 However, these miracles’ ultimate purpose was to validate Jesus’ power to liberate humanity—and ultimately, creation—from sin and its effects.7

We see this ultimate purpose revealed from Genesis 3:15 to Revelation 21:14. The goal of liberating creation from sin provides the wider context for Jesus’ earthly actions—including every example given to argue that Jesus endorsed socialism. We see his ultimate mission reflected in Jesus’ words to Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”8 Contrary to popular expectations among first-century Jews, Jesus had not come to lead a revolution against the truly oppressive power of Rome. He came—ultimately—to liberate his image bearers from the oppression of sin.

At a practical level, Jesus’ actions affirm his primary concern was not about earthy socioeconomic conditions, power dynamics, or coercive wealth redistribution.9 For example, Luke’s gospel records that a man once asked Jesus, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” Although this man was presumably entitled to economic equality with his brother, Luke records that Jesus answered, “Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?” Jesus then declared, “Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (Luke 12:13–15). Jesus clearly cares about people’s earthly needs but did not suggest—or enforce—the idea of necessarily equal economic outcomes.

Jesus’ practices differ from socialism and neo-Marxism in other respects as well. For instance, while neo-Marxism demands partiality towards groups considered oppressed, Jesus, being God, shows no partiality.10 Jesus did not solely befriend, benefit, or minister to the poor. He also ministered to noblemen, rulers, and a centurion—who, despite showing love to the Jews, was a powerful, privileged representative of the oppressive Romans.11 Jesus additionally befriended tax collectors like Zacchaeus, who were marginalized because other Jews (often with good reason) considered them to be traitorous, wealthy oppressors.12

Zacchaeus’ response to meeting Jesus illustrates how the gospel is the solution to genuine oppression.

Zacchaeus’ response to meeting Jesus illustrates how the gospel is the solution to genuine oppression. Jesus, who was not himself a revolutionary, offers the real liberation that earthly revolutions consistently fail to deliver. One day, Jesus will return as the triumphant Warrior King and reign in genuine justice. He will create a new heaven and earth, where the oppressive effects of sin will be no more. Meanwhile, Jesus commands us to live out our faith by being like him and loving others—including by defending the vulnerable, speaking for the voiceless, and meeting earthly needs (Matthew 25:31–46).13 All these practices help to mitigate the effects of our fallen world and point toward Jesus’ reign in the restored creation.

Christians rightfully emphasize these practices, which neo-Marxism has highjacked for its own agenda by using the similar-sounding—but differently defined—language of “justice” and “liberation.” As we practice biblical justice, we must be careful not to fall for this hijacking. Following Jesus will never mean endorsing a worldview that opposes him.

Objection 9: “This book is oppressive.”

Claim:

By defending authority structures like the church, the family, and marriage, this book contributes to sustaining an inherently unjust status quo and is therefore oppressive.

Quick answer:

Whether we see institutions like the family as oppressive social constructs or as God-given paradigms for human flourishing comes down to our worldview “glasses.” A person wearing Marxist glasses will see everything as either sustaining oppression or working towards liberation (revolution). Meanwhile, someone with biblical glasses will interpret reality through the lens of God’s Word. The question is, which glasses are best?

In answer, we can evaluate a worldview based on three factors:14

1. Internal consistency:

   How well does the worldview support itself? For instance, does the worldview contradict itself by relying on concepts it can’t self-consistently explain? Does embracing the worldview require people to accept—or act as though they accept—conflicting ideas that cannot be reconciled within the worldview’s own framework?

2. External consistency:

   How well does the worldview match what we see in the real world? Is the worldview consistent with observational science? Does history unfold in the ways this worldview’s teachings predict?

3. Consequences of consistent application:

   What would (or could) happen if people always acted as if the worldview were entirely true? (Notably, the consequences of believing a message don’t necessarily tell us whether that message is true. So, evaluating a worldview’s consequences may not matter on a theoretical level, but clearly matters on a practical level as people live out their beliefs.)

Let’s briefly apply these tests to check how secular Marxist worldviews compare with God’s Word. As chapter 2 described, secular worldviews lack a consistent, ultimate foundation for concepts like truth, morality, and logic. Secular worldviews must borrow these ideas from outside of themselves, failing the internal consistency test. Secular worldviews that rely on evolution, as Karl Marx did, also run into problems with external consistency by contradicting observational science.15 Classical Marxism also failed to accurately predict real-world history, leading to neo-Marxist revisions.

What about consequences? We can glimpse the consequences of Marxist-based worldviews by thinking about what happens when people redefine truth, morality, goodness, and human value in revolutionary terms. “Truth,” according to neo-Marxism, is whatever the feelings and lived experience of oppressed groups dictates. “Morality” is whatever changes the power balance. “Goodness” can equate to violence (not to mention, oppression) if that’s what the revolution needs. As a result, everything from riots to book-burnings to vandalism to the destruction of churches can now qualify as “social justice.”16

Neo-Marxism also assumes a low view of certain humans—whomever neo-Marxism judges as oppressors based on discriminatory factors like gender and skin tone. Neo-Marxist movements that espouse radical environmentalism may even view all humans as a “blight on the earth.”17 Altogether, these shaky conceptions of truth, morality, and human value add up to a precarious social equation—as multiple historical case studies illustrate.18

In contrast, a biblical worldview alone passes all three tests. God’s Word is internally consistent, providing a self-sufficient foundation for truth, morality, justice, logic, knowledge, scientific reasoning, human value, and corresponding human rights. Scripture not only aligns with observational science, but also accurately records and predicts history.19 When consistently applied, a biblical worldview also accords with human flourishing—as research,20 history,21 and lives transformed by the gospel repeatedly attest.

A biblical worldview sees all human beings as God’s image bearers worthy of respect.

A biblical worldview sees all human beings as God’s image bearers worthy of respect. It sees the natural environment as a gift to steward wisely. It sees economic assets as resources to give generously, invest diligently, and enjoy with contented thanksgiving. It sees our fallen world and sinful natures realistically, setting appropriate “guardrails” to prevent abuses while allowing optimal freedoms in accordance with our God-given designs. The very opposite of oppressive, a biblical view summons humans to abundant life in Jesus Christ.