Confiscation In The Name Of The People is an excellent essay on the transfer of the people of salvation, from the Jews to the Church, and really should be read by all. It’s appreciation of Roman power politics is rather good, as well!
But right here, I want to point out the striking resemblance between the hired hands of Jesus’ parable (who killed the Son) and the collectivists of the 20th century (who, of course, hated Jesus with a passion.)
His or Ours?
The hired hands asserted a claim of ownership. Standing between them and this claim was the owner who was far away, and his servants, who were no match for the hired hands, and the son. The son was the least of their problems, as long as the owner stayed away. But, of course, he would not stay away once word of his son’s murder came to him. The rulers had understood this: “When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.” In the matter of power, the hired hands were superior to the servants and the son, but the owner was armed and dangerous.
The hired hands decided to confiscate the inheritance by killing the heir. In the name of the people — the workers of the world — they united to kill the son. When they did this, they secured their own judgment. They would not retain their stolen goods indefinitely. The owner would come and destroy them. But they did not foresee this. They did not believe that he would return from the far country. They were fools.
The twentieth century, more than any in history, is the century of the hired hands. Because they have adopted the Darwinian view of God, they have become convinced that the cosmic owner of the vineyard is not even in a tar country; He is a figment of superstitious men’s imaginations. Within a quarter century of Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859), Lester Frank Ward wrote Dynamic Sociology (1883), which asserted the right and obligation of the States scientific planners to direct society, including the economy, into evolutionary progress. By 1900, this view of central planning had captured the minds of the leading intellectuals? The Progressive movement in the United States and the social democracy movement in Europe invoked Darwinism as the model for, and justification of, social planning.
Social planning requires power. It also requires funds. Through State power, social planners have laid their hands on other people’s money. They have transferred the inheritance of families into the coffers of the State. Taxation has grown tenfold or more in this century. The Bible-based observation that God has placed restrictions on lawful taxation — less than ten percent of one’s income (I Sam. 8:15, 17) — is greeted with hoots of derision, not only from social Darwinists but from Christian professors of social science, who have publicly baptized the recommendations of social Darwinism. “Don’t give us that Old Testament stuff!” the Christian professors insist. What they really mean is, “Give us a State that taxes us at 40 percent of our income, twice the rate that Pharaoh extracted from the Egyptians.” They call this “economic democracy.” It is based on a revision of the eighth commandment: “Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.”
I don’t believe that the Church per se will be disinherited: but her rebellious members, including various leading officials and clergy, will be.
Certainly, this intensely anti-Christian society will be disinherited: indeed, it already has been. But not to fear: as the incompetent enemies of God wipe out their children and their wealth, obedient sons of God will be risen up by God to take up what is rightfully theirs.