The false lure of "let us all have one purse"

The temptation of the welfare/socialist state: "Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse." Pro 1:14. But the spoils are those of robbery and murder and to take the innocent in a snare. God counsels us to not to consent to such enticement. Where is such wisdom today?

Some have objected that this is not a valid application of this scripture, since the enticement was to engage in “street violence.” The principles of the scripture are timeless, and applicable to all ages and societies. If we are forced to view them as being strictly captive to their time and culture, then they have nothing to say to us today. Certainly that is not true. This portion of Proverbs 1 is the warning of a father to a son to not be fooled into thinking there is profit in heeding the enticement of criminals to join them in stealing their living from other people and to all share a common purse funded from their plunder.

A working example of this is found in the New Testament in the story of the Good Samaritan. In that parable, the man on his way down to Jericho is set upon by thieves and beaten and robbed and left “half dead.” The Samaritan encounters him on the road; shows compassion, and helps him.
The warnings against the enticement to rob others for a living are only a part of this father’s advice. He also warns about having one bag in common. The lure is partially that the participant will always have something monetary to count on since they will all be contributing to the bag. He owns a part of what is in the bag. In other words, he sees it as a means to security in an insecure world. There is also the practical perspective that if they don't share and share alike, it will pit them against one another. That would be no incentive to be part of such a gang, so the one purse is the only solution.

But there are other problems: the security of having one bag is ephemeral, for the bag itself  is not secure. His confidence in the bag is predicated on the good character of the one who holds it. The problem with this thought is that one cannot expect to find good character in a band of thieves. Say what you will about "honor among thieves" I would think that it has strict limits. Thus, he won’t be able to depend on a fair and equal sharing out because the bag is in the hands of a thief and murderer to begin with. Who is to say that the spoils in the bag are not systematically plundered by the bag-keeper and maybe a few of his closest cronies? It is highly likely. A newcomer might bring something to the bag, but it is very unlikely he will draw much from it. And complaining or questioning the bag-keeper might prove fatal.

There is a further trap in the plan. Throwing in your lot with murderers and thieves might sound exciting, but one’s own life is now in danger because he is not able to leave the group. He would not be allowed to leave because he knows who they are, their victims, their hideouts, their lurking places and their crimes. Any attempt to leave would likely cost him his own life. He has forfeited his freedom in joining them.

The warning not to try to profit by thievery is seen to be very good advice to a young man indeed.

Some pointed out that Jesus’ group had “one bag” also (John 12). There is no doubt they did, but I also have no doubt that the invitation to join his group was not predicated on an enticement to profit by ill-gotten gains, or that they would all live out of one bag. Jesus’ “bag” was funded by voluntary contributions and not, God forbid, on rapine and murder.

It is noteworthy as an aside that the one bag was also in the hands of Judas Iscariot who stole from it. The experiment of trusting someone even in Jesus’ inner circle proved to be a failure because of the bed character of Judas. This might even be an implied warning that even in the presence of the Son of God, checks and balances are required to secure wealth that is placed in the hands of a fallible man. I will not speculate as to why Jesus allowed this. He certainly knew what was going on with the bag. But it is a fact nonetheless.

It is also doubtful that the one bag was shared out evenly – it was shared out in accord with what Jesus would have dictated (whatever was left from Judas’ depredations.) Jesus’ one bag has many points of contrast to the Proverb’s bag.  The Proverb warnings are not applicable because the two examples are so far apart..

This portion in Proverbs 1 is important because it is a father’s advice to a young son just starting out his life. I commented on it mainly because of the enticement that the ringleaders dangled in front of his eyes: “join us and we’ll all share the spoils”. IE: “you’ll profit by joining us because our source is others’ wealth – and best of all, you will get a portion of it (without having to work for it.)”

What is most important in my application is the heart of the enticement – the prospect of getting something for nothing (which by the way, is a violation of the Eighth Commandment not to steal.) He is being enticed to ignore the unrighteous source of his wealth.)

That is exactly the enticement of the Socialist welfare state. It entices some to profit off of what has been taken from others by force. “Never mind where the money comes from, just be glad you can swill at the common trough.” Margaret Thatcher said it very well: “Socialism works fine until you run out of other people’s money.“ She had a keen appreciation of the lure of Socialism, and the real source of its apparent (but temporary) “success.” It eventually wrecks a country or society. Think Greece.

That is why we should scrupulously avoid all Socialist schemes that depend on coercion to fund their “bag.” Sharing risk voluntarily is our privilege as individuals, but sharing risk against our will, and by crooked means, as it is in the heart of Socialism, is dead wrong. We all ought to carefully heed Solomon’s counsel.