I know, I know. Here I go actually reading that book we all say we believe and just taking what it says as true. Silly in such a progressive age, sure, but I’m crazy that way.
I have a notebook of quotes from the Bible that I wrote down, freehand, as I read through the Bible a couple years ago. They were all scriptures about the poor and justice, and some interesting things came out of it. (I was going to write a book called God’s Heart for the Poor, which I still may write … but we’ll see …)
I’ll give a short summary here since this is a blog and not a systematic commentary and I don’t want to just copy and paste a billion scriptures. Okay, that’s an exaggeration, but there is a lot. The Bible talks about this issue A LOT.
To begin with, while poverty may be part of the curse of the Fall, the Bible never truly promises an earthly rid of poverty. That isn’t the nature of why we have compassion on those in need. A little more on that later.
Even Job, supposedly the first written book, a contemporary of Abraham, before any written scriptures or the Mosaic Law, talks at length about how part of righteousness is how you treat the poor and the widow and the orphan. You can see this as Job defends himself for being a righteous man in front of his non-helpful friends. This principle of personal compassion is consistent through the New Testament.
When you get to the Law, it is amazing the number of provisions made for the poor, everything from the Year of Jubilee to rules on how you harvested crops or lent money. The Law gets this bad rap f or being so strict and unmanageable, but Jesus calls the heart of the law “mercy and justice.” And you can see that if you don’t fall asleep reading it.
But there was an important aspect to the Law that we have to see. In the day to day operations, ie harvesting, lending, etc., the Law treated every man as a free man with a choice. In other words, there was little enforcement by any authority on most of these principles, and almost no legal punishment if they did not follow. It put the responsibility to follow these principles on the individual. Of course a judgment from God was forthcoming if they wouldn’t follow them, but it wasn’t managed by an overarching beauracracy that forced compliance. Even the Old Testament Law was designed to make the individual feel personally responsible and compassionate for his neighbor, hence the 2nd greatest commandment Jesus listed after loving God: to love your neighbor.
Other important principles in the Old Testament include the fact that poverty isn’t always the result of oppression. Laziness and foolishness bring it on, as well. In other words, sometimes poverty is the result of individual choice. But interesting enough, whether or not it was by personal choice did not come into consideration when being compassionate and giving to those in need.
Justice reached not only to the poor, but to the rich, as well. Biblically speaking, it was wrong to withhold justice from both the poor and the rich and not to judge according to either label. Some considerations in religion were made for the poor if they could not pay or provide certain things under the Old Law, but any idea of requiring more from the rich because they are rich (like a progressive income tax) is biblically unjust.
Also interesting, especially when you get to the Prophets towards the time of the exile of Judah to Babylon and onward, part of the judgment of God was to raise up the poor and lay low the rich, to essentially make the poor rich and the rich poor.
There are also some amazing promises for giving to the poor, most amazingly that “you will never lack.”
All of these ideas were, in one form or another, carried over into the New Testament. Ideas of individual obedience, personal compassion, and rights of property prevailed, even as teachings of extreme giving were common.
For instance, Jesus tells the rich young ruler to sell all he has and give it to the poor, a teaching Jesus actually made publicly to the masses, as well, as an indication of discipleship. When asked, “Who is my neighbor?” as Jesus tells us to love our neighbor, Jesus tells a story about a Samaritan who took personal responsibility to meet another’s great and dire need, at great cost to the Samaritan, differentiated from the Jews who passed by and didn’t want to be inconvenienced.
Oh, and the very clear idea of what is a need? “Food and clothing, with these be content”, the same standard mentioned by both Jesus and Paul. No mention of housing, education, occupation, or health care is ever mentioned.
Ananias and Sapphira were killed by God for “lying to the Holy Spirit”, however, and not for their lack of giving. Peter makes it clear that their property was their own to do whatever they wished. Paul makes it clear that while he seeks that the Corinthians give according to their promise, he does not require it of them and wishes them to give under NO obligation.
One more major thing of note in the New Testament: the poor are never rebuked for being poor. There are no warnings or dire judgments on them for being poor … but there are for the rich. Read the “beatitudes” in Luke and the letter from James to see what I mean.
Also absent from any discussion in the scriptures (Old Testament or New) is any indication that we should expect those in need to respond in any specific way. Their response is individual, like the responsibility of those able to give, and between them and their Creator, who will hold all accountable.
In fact, going by the Bible, Christianity is the only religion that does not promise a Utopian/perfect society on Earth if its morals were followed. Continually promised are eternal and spiritual blessings for the individual far more than any worldly ones. It could be argued that Judaism may have promised such a society, and that is probably the only difference between the teachings of the New Testament with the Old on the issue of poverty and “social justice.” In truth, the New Testament promises persecution and trouble for the righteous way more than some peaceful or prosperous life. That’s a big departure from the Old Testament.
So in conclusion, the common themes we have are individual responsibility to feel personally compassionate to those you see in need, regardless of how they came by that position, with little or no (New Testament: none) obligation or compulsion given by an authority over the individual to comply. This is what the Bible clearly teaches. You have to twist and misrepresent both Jesus and the Bible to teach anything else as Christian.
Peace.
Write that book.
I appreciated the part about deserving. I think the reason lost of us extend the idea of giving to education is the twinge of conscience that says “Right. It’s not about what we deserve. Who am I to say I deserve a better education than someone who (possibly) works harder and makes less?” But that’s more the Spirit working on individuals (and churches! Please, may it be so) as you said, and not something to be forced by governments. Unfortunately, Christian leaders on both sides are using the social justice label as an excuse to create a deeper either/or rift (help the poor or verbally preach). Preaching and reaching to the least of these are in Scripture, so I’m uneasy with ministries/churches that pick and choose. And there are some who think SJ must involve the government, and many who don’t. But if the Church pulls out the case for government involvement will just be more convincing.
Another thing I noticed when I read through the OT was below idolatry, the number two most hated sin seemed to be oppression. That plays into a lot of the sentiments of those of us concerned with SJ. Thoughts? Another post?
The two reasons I haven’t written the book is: I need to really get a good handle on the organization part … so much scripture and so much to talk about I really wanted to focus it. Secondly, I don’t know that anybody would really like it … maybe not true, but like all truth does, it challenges both political sides of the fence … although admittedly that might be my own insecurity in part.
I think you’re right about the oppression part. I didn’t go into it here because the post was already too frickin long, but that was why those later prophets were speaking judgment against the rulers/shepherds/wealthy was because of oppression. Which was also the issue in James and the New Testament.
The reason it is so abominable to God is that to use your authority or position of strength over others to damage is completely opposite of God. God humbled Himself to love us, become one of us, and it is the antithesis of God’s love and His heart to oppress.
The points of contention with oppression are the definitions of what it means to oppress. Biblically, oppression is defined as an unjust balance because someone is poor or a widow or orphan, and again, unequal treatment based on some label (racism could go here). Biblically, to oppress is to take advantage of someone because of their weak position. To say, for instance, limiting or wanting to remove a woman’s right to kill her unborn child as oppressive is taking it a bit too far, to me however, as are some of the other modern definitions of oppression.
A lot of people don’t realize that Judah and Israel split in large part due to Solomon’s overburdening the working class in his building programs and Rehoboam’s unwillingness to be less harsh. So there are definite examples of both personal and national oppression that are valid to look at, even politically.
Peace.
I think what I like about the way you worded this post is the way that you made sure that Social Justice is tempered with it’s proper heart motivation.
Too often, people polarize on this issue because of a lack of emphasis, or too much emphasis on certain parts of the issue that don’t address the spirit behind the call.
On the conservative/traditional side, I think there is a tendancy to “overspiritualize” (which is actually not being spiritual enough) the social aspects of Jesus teachings. I’ve heard many conservative Christians give lip service to social justice (myself having been one), while being completely devoid of the actual behavior. I think it comes from the idea that “being saved” and “accepting Jesus into your heart” are the most important parts of being a Christian…followed closely by praying, reading your Bible and generally being conservative in your political stance. And because “those liberal wackos” are always talking about “social justice”, then Christians downplay it as something that’s not as important as “soul winning.” After all, we wouldn’t want to be called “liberal”…that’s WORSE than a sinner!
Which brings us to the other side of the coin…the Christians who are activists and environmentalists because it’s the current issue of the day…not because it’s coming from the heart of God with an eternal perspective in mind.
I think these people miss the fact that while Jesus certainly addressed physical needs, and taught ministry to the poor and needy…he also, sometimes in the same breath, addressed the spiritual condition of the person with truth and love.
I think their reaction to the opposition is understandable, but it is still ultimately the same fallacy: that being labeled “fundamentalist” is the worst insult you can get.
Both viewpoints seems to miss that it is the physical and eternal heart of God to minister to the poor, the needy and the helpless in mind, body and spirit.
Are you sure that God didn’t expect Israelite society to obey the social justice provisions laid out in the Mosaic Law? Didn’t he judge them and their leaders for failing to provide for the poor?
I think the Old Testament teaches that society has a responsibility to provide for its weaker members by putting a greater burden on wealthier people. For example, the Law of Moses requires that agricultural property be returned to families every 50 years. This would obviously benefit families that had fallen into poverty, not the rich.
Even though there are no specific punishments prescribed for failing to follow these “social justice provisions” in the Mosaic Law, God nonetheless expected Israelite society to carry them out. When they did not, He first warned them through the prophets and then sent judgment.
I never said that God didn’t expect Israelite society to obey the social justice provisions in the Law. He expected the Israelites to obey the whole Law. The point I was making was that the responsibility was placed upon the individual alone. And the individual was then accountable to God alone. There was no central government that facilitated or ensured this. That individual was choosing “life or a curse” for themselves. And when the failing was common throughout the whole society, yes, God judged the whole nation after several warnings through prophets and held “leaders” accountable for not teaching righteousness (although most of the time, the punishments to leaders/kings were that they “led” the nation into idolatry). The word I used was “legal” punishment. I chose my words carefully.
At least that was how God set up a nation, with righteousness clearly stated and the responsibility placed upon the individual to obey. To use the scriptural ideas of social justice to then place more power in the hands of the government and to make that central government larger is folly.
As far as the year of Jubilee, which you reference, that was a system that ensured the inheritance of families, property given by God “perpetually”. And there were rules by which the rich were not taken advantage of. The price paid for property, therefore, was understood to have a definite term limit and made the price fair and reasonable. Did it benefit those that fell into poverty? Sure, but not necessarily by placing a greater burden on the wealthy. And this was only property that was restored. Other goods were private property retained by the wealthy.