See attachment REL-110RS

Wealth and Poverty

Source:

The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Theology

Author(s):

Samuel L. AdamsSamuel L. Adams

Wealth and Poverty 

The distribution of resources in a society is always a complex matter, and the biblical world was no exception. The economy of ancient Israel and then in Judah during the Second Temple period (when Jesus lived) revolved around the agricultural cycle, animal husbandry, and harsh conditions for all but a small minority of the populace. The challenging terrain for farming and the incursion of foreign powers made it difficult for households to avoid poverty. Stratification played a divisive role in the society, leading to hardship for many, especially when those with means oppressed or cheated vulnerable persons. In both testaments, one finds regular acknowledgment of these realities and in many cases a depiction of stark inequality.

When considering wealth and poverty in the Bible, four recurrent themes are worth noting from the outset: (1) a “justice” (Heb. mišpāṭ) principle that advocates a fair and equitable distribution of resources, such that no one hoards too much and persons can avoid destitution; (2) God taking the side of those who suffer from poverty, even becoming their legal advocate; (3) wariness about the corrupting nature of money and how it can distract someone from faithful living; (4) an emergent belief in certain Jewish and Christian texts that immortality provides eternal consolation, especially for those righteous persons who have suffered the devastating effects of poverty. The first three themes appear in the legal collections, prophetic texts, and wisdom literature of the Hebrew Bible as well as in the New Testament (especially the Gospels) and the postbiblical literature of the Second Temple period. The fourth theme appears only in texts beyond the Hebrew Bible, with the exception of the book of Daniel.

Hebrew Bible.

A variety of terms in biblical Hebrew describe these economic polarities. With regard to wealth, some designations refer to actual material holdings, including ḥayil (“strength” or “wealth”), ʿōšer (“riches”), kābōd (“glory” or “wealth”), kōaḥ (“strength” or “wealth”), hôn (“riches”), and the noun kesep, which can mean either “silver” or “money.” The range of some of these terms indicates semantic overlap between physical strength and material holdings. In other words, some of the vocabulary related to power has both a physical and a material connotation. In addition, certain roots have adjectival forms that denote a wealthy individual, such as ʿāšîr (“rich person”).

With regard to poverty, key terms include dal/dallâ (“poor,” “poor one”), rāš/rîš (“poor one,” “poverty”), ʿānî (“poor” or “afflicted”), and ʾebyôn (“needy”). Certain phrases are quite descriptive of what it means to be poor, such as ḥăsar leḥem, which literally means “one who lacks bread.”

Along with these key Hebrew words for wealth and poverty, related terms include nešek (“interest”), śākār (“wages”), and the verb ʿārab (“to stand surety”). Moreover, the biblical texts indicate that some categories of people are more susceptible to poverty, such as slaves, “resident aliens” (gērîm), widows, and orphans. On the other side, kings, noble persons, large landowners, and in certain instances priests have greater resources.

Biblical law.

All three sections of the Hebrew Bible (Torah, Prophets, Writings) deal with wealth and poverty issues, including candid acknowledgments of social realities and prescriptive solutions for a fairer society. With regard to the biblical laws on wealth and poverty, there is special concern for the plight of the poor. In the Covenant Code from Exodus (20:19—23:33), the earliest collection of laws in the Bible, one finds specific commands on this topic: “You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. You shall not abuse any widow or orphan” (22:21–22 [Heb. vv. 20–21]). The society of ancient Israel was built around a “house of the father” (Heb. bêt ʾāb) structure, which consisted of household units with kinship ties and usually a patriarch at the head of a hierarchical grouping. This system was patrilocal, such that women who married became members of their new husband’s household, and patrilineal because family identity and any inheritance generally passed from the father to his son(s). Consequently, those who did not enjoy a connection to a functioning “house of the father” faced precarious circumstances. This is a primary reason that the laws of the Pentateuch single out widows, orphans, and resident aliens as needing special protection because these persons were most susceptible to isolation and destitution. They lacked the security of a functioning household.

Other laws in the Covenant Code are equally cognizant of the vulnerability of poor persons: “If you lend money to my people, to the poor among you, you shall not deal with them as a creditor; you shall not exact interest from them” (Exod 22:25). The Hebrew word for interest (nešek) can also describe the bite of a serpent, thereby offering an incisive commentary on the behavior of certain lenders.

Such laws pertaining to wealth and poverty have “justice” as a baseline goal. “Justice” in the Hebrew Bible can mean more than the act of deciding a case; it frequently indicates “fairness,” with special attention to those on the margins. The stipulations of Deuteronomy are pertinent here as these build on the Covenant Code and single out those most likely to be poor: “You shall not deprive a resident alien or an orphan of justice; you shall not take a widow’s garment in pledge” (Deut 24:17). Because God’s defining characteristics are “justice and righteousness” (e.g., Ps 99:4: “Mighty king, lover of justice, you have established equity; you have executed justice and righteousness in Jacob”), because God acted within history to redeem a chosen people from Egypt, those who are part of the covenant community of Israelites have to follow their Creator’s lead in seeking to ameliorate the effects of poverty. One biblical scholar (Pleins, calls this a “theology of obligation,” such that humanity must limit the frequent inclination to take advantage of vulnerable persons for financial gain.

Another famous example of this emphasis on justice and advocacy for the poor is the Jubilee year legislation from the Holiness Code in Leviticus (25:1—26:2). The lengthy description in this chapter requires forgiveness of all loans, including interest, and restoration of all lands every 50 years. Such a bold requirement recognizes the tendency in many agrarian economies for land and resources to become concentrated in the hands of the few, especially when interest charges and debt slavery widen the gap between rich and poor. Since there are no extracanonical references to the Jubilee year as actual practice, many biblical scholars doubt that such a bold remission actually occurred; but it does reflect the goals of debt forgiveness and minimizing poverty.

A related practice is the sabbatical year, a law of forgiving debts every seven years and letting farmlands lie fallow (Exod 23:10–11; Deut 15:1–6; Lev 25:1–7, 20–22). This law of “release” (šĕmîṭâ) appears in later texts (1 Macc 6:49; Josephus, Ant. 11.342–343; 12.378; 14.202–203), suggesting that such requirements resonated with later interpreters, even if the widespread adoption of the sabbatical year is uncertain.

With regard to the charitable responsibilities of wealthier persons, the biblical laws require contributions to priests, Levites, widows, and others who do not own property. According to Deuteronomy 14:22, persons have to donate one-tenth (i.e., tithe) of their annual produce for Jerusalem during the year. In a similar statement, a law in Leviticus requires that one-tenth of produce, “whether seed from the ground or the fruit from the tree, are the Lord’s” (Lev 27:30). This statement implies a regular priestly claim to such proceeds. These and similar passages affirm the significance of owning land in the ancient Near East and the need to support those who do not since they are the most susceptible to poverty.

In assessing these various passages, the goal of an egalitarian society is persistent, as many of the regulations acknowledge stratification and enmity between rich and poor. The laws depict oppression of the poor and failure to help the most vulnerable members of the society as an abrogation of responsibility to the God of “justice and righteousness.” Yet this material in the Pentateuch does not necessarily categorize financial holdings as inherently evil. In fact, many of the biblical narratives include material favors from God as part of the covenant blessing (e.g., God’s treatment of Abraham in Gen 12:1–4).

Prophetic books.

Nowhere in the Bible are economic inequality and treatment of the poor more passionate topics than among the prophets of ancient Israel. The most vocal commentary comes from such figures of the eighth century b.c.e. as Amos, Hosea, Micah, and Isaiah. These prophetic figures had their careers during a time of economic polarization. Various kings and wealthy citizens of Israel and Judah centralized power and expanded the role of the elite and mercantile classes. During this period, the prophet Samuel’s earlier warnings about the king taking vital goods from the populace (e.g., 1 Sam 8:17) were verified. Such figures as Jeroboam II of Israel (r. ca. 786–746 b.c.e.) and Uzziah of Judah (r. ca. 783–743 b.c.e.), along with their associates, established fortresses throughout the region, usurped land belonging to small farmers through a variety of tactics, and built opulent houses for themselves. Wine production increased during the eighth century, as well as the making of olive oil. I am not talking about the same level of conspicuous consumption that often takes place in our modern context, but the eighth century marks a period of wealth disparity and redistribution in both Israel and Judah. There is a key term for this development: “latifundialization.” This refers to a process in which the plight of the lower classes, especially subsistence farmers, worsens as they lose access to arable land, often through deceptive tactics. In most premodern societies, including ancient Israel and Judah, agrarian households required at least a small plot of land in order to maintain their viability and “house of the father” structure. During the period of these prophets, the concentration of land and resources into the hands of a few threatened their very survival.

Such developments incensed prophets like Amos, who provides perhaps the most colorful commentary on wealth, poverty, and the process of latifundialization. Despite coming from Judah, Amos had his career in the northern kingdom of Israel; and he leveled specific indictments against the wealthy:

· because they sell the righteous for silver,

· and the needy for a pair of sandals—

· they who trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth,

· and push the afflicted out of the way;

· father and son go in to the same girl,

· so that my holy name is profaned;

· they lay themselves down beside every altar

· on garments taken in pledge;

· and in the house of their God they drink wine bought with fines they imposed.

(Amos 2:6–8)

Amos takes aim here at bribery, corruption, sexual assault against the vulnerable, conspicuous consumption—all issues that frequently characterize an era of marked stratification. Moreover, those wealthy persons oppressing the poor should not believe that showy displays of piety can atone for their ruthless behavior: “I hate, I despise your festivals, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies” (5:21). According to Amos, God longs for a day in which “justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an everflowing stream” (Amos 5:24). This means something quite specific for the prophet. Amos seeks mišpāṭ, fairness in society, so that all voices are heard and institutional corruption and mistreatment of the poor will cease.

The prophets Micah and Isaiah bring a similar message. In the late eighth century, Micah sees many of the same injustices in Judah that Amos had witnessed a few decades earlier. This prophet is a vocal defender of the rights of small farmers and their households, who had been working the same plot of land for centuries according to the “house of the father” structure. Micah promises that God will punish any rapacious individuals who bilk land from those who depend on it (Mic 2:1–5). The famous declaration that the Lord only requires that a person commit “to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God” (6:8) often yields a sentimental interpretation in contemporary circles. Yet the prophet’s articulation of this requirement is anything but syrupy: in a specific indictment of the people in Micah 6, God seeks a society where human beings live into long-standing covenant stipulations, including care for the poor. The passion of these prophets on wealth and poverty issues inspired future believers, including Jesus and the New Testament authors.

Wisdom literature.

The sapiential works of the Hebrew Bible, most notably the book of Proverbs, contain a more ambiguous presentation on wealth and poverty. Because this is a collection of sayings, edited by scribes over many centuries, the reader should not expect uniformity across the text. Yet the contradictory sayings on wealth and poverty are striking. In certain maxims, wealth functions as a blessing for virtuous behavior and awe before God (i.e., “fear of the Lord”). For example, “The reward for humility and fear of the Lord is riches and honor and life” (Prov 22:4). Along the same lines, those who adopt corrupt behavioral patterns will not enjoy the benefits of wealth (e.g., Prov 1:10–19, and the young man who falls in with the wrong crowd). Yet other sayings highlight the superiority of wisdom over wealth: “How much better to get wisdom than gold! To get understanding is to be chosen rather than silver” (16:16). Such statements appear to contradict the maxims about wealth as a reward for wisdom.

Still another set of sayings presents a more realistic description of wealth and poverty: “The field of the poor may yield much food, but it is swept away through injustice” (13:23). Here, and in similar maxims, one finds an honest assessment of wealth and poverty in relation to human behavior. Moreover, as with the Torah and many of the prophets, the sages responsible for Proverbs cite the Deity as siding with the poor. God becomes the advocate who “pleads their cause” (Prov 23:11).

Other sayings address the reasons a person becomes rich or poor. One frequent trope is that industrious behavior leads to material gain and laziness results in penury. The person whose work ethic resembles that of an ant will prosper (Prov 6:6–9), while those with questionable habits, especially when alcohol is involved, will never become wealthy (e.g., Prov 21:17; cf. 23:20–21).

In assessing all of these sayings, it becomes clear that the book of Proverbs affirms contradictory beliefs: a casual connection between virtuous behavior and wealth as well as an acknowledgment that the poor often suffer grievous harm, even when they have not sinned. This tension does not indicate an obtuse perspective in Proverbs but rather a goal to instill honest behavioral patterns, guarantee some sort of connection between a person’s character and his or her earthly rewards, and affirm divine fairness. These are often contradictory goals. The presentation in Proverbs demonstrates the difficulty of formulating a social ethics when so much wealth is attained through illicit means.

The book of Ecclesiastes, written by a sage after the Babylonian Exile, is even more candid about the dangers of wealth and poverty in a society. The author of this text assumes that the wealthy will not always play fairly (Eccl 5:8; 9:13–16) and that the wisdom of the poor individual will not resonate with the public (Eccl 9:15). Since death strikes everyone in equal measure and even the wealthy have to leave their possessions behind, the best option for all persons is to take delight in family, friendships, and whatever their resources allow them to do, “for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going” (9:10).

Other Second Temple Texts.

The Jewish sage Ben Sira (second century b.c.e.) comments on wealth and poverty issues in the spirit of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. Unlike these earlier books, his discourse explicitly utilizes the Torah in formulating a belief that almsgiving and generosity are paramount. Ben Sira does not view accumulation as evil: “Riches are good if they are free from sin” (Sir 13:24). Yet this sapiential author does not view this as a likely possibility: “As a stake is driven firmly into a fissure between stones, so sin is wedged in between selling and buying” (Sir 27:2).

An even more revolutionary development occurred during the third and second centuries b.c.e. Because of the emergence of apocalyptic ideas within the traditions of early Judaism, certain authors began to promise eschatological reward for the righteous elect. The corpus of Enochic works includes some passages in this regard, most notably from the Epistle of Enoch. In this text, a series of woe oracles in the tradition of earlier prophets depicts a stark contrast between the wealthy and the poor. The wealthy may have enjoyed lucrative earthly success, but this apocalyptic text offers a reversal at the end of days: “from your riches you will depart, because you have not remembered the Most High in the day of your riches” (1 En. 94:8). Casting the poor as the elect class, this text offers eternal recompense for those righteous who have suffered during their lifetime: “you will shine like the luminaries of heaven; you will shine and appear, and the portals of heaven will be opened for you” (1 En. 104:2). Such statements provide an eschatological horizon for the poor to receive blessings. Similar pronouncements occur in the corpus of the Dead Sea Scrolls, especially in the sapiential text 4QInstruction.

New Testament.

The New Testament writers and Jesus himself drew upon this eschatological framework to discuss wealth and poverty, especially in the Gospels. In the famous passage addressing judgment and the separation of the sheep and the goats, the litmus test for salvation is not knowledge or creedal statements but care for the poor: “just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me” (Matt 25:40). The ones who deny such aid receive terrible punishment in an “eternal fire” (v. 41).

The most sustained engagement with wealth and poverty in the New Testament occurs in the Gospel of Luke. Like the Epistle of Enoch, the Sermon on the Plain contrasts the fate of the wealthy and the poor in eschatological terms: “Blessed are you who are poor [ptōchos], for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20). In contrast, “But woe to you who are rich [plousios], for you have received your consolation” (6:24). These woe oracles regarding the wealthy are in the same tradition as the Epistle of Enoch.

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31) offers the clearest and perhaps the most famous example in the New Testament of this eschatological framework. The wealthy man clothed “in purple and fine linen” (v. 19) does not live into the justice requirements from the Torah, as evidenced by his callous neglect of the poor fellow (Lazarus) who suffers at the gate outside of his house (v. 20). When death occurs for these individuals, the rich man faces the same fate as the wicked in Matthew 25, eternal “agony” in the fiery flames of hell/Hades (Luke 16:24–25), while Lazarus “was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham” (v. 22). The emphasis on the “theology of obligation” in the Torah and the Prophets is apparent in this passage. Jesus cites the rich man’s brothers as fully culpable for their actions because of the clear template in Jewish tradition: “They have Moses and the prophets; they should listen to them” (v. 29). These earlier voices in the Hebrew Bible had called such behavior into question; the fundamental difference in Luke is that there are now eternal repercussions related to wealth and poverty.

The book of Acts continues the Lukan tradition of paying attention to these concerns. In the midst of all the signs and wonders, an important observation appears in 4:32: “Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common [koina].” This last word, koina, is from the same Greek root as koinonia. Koinonia can mean “association” or “fellowship” and is often used to refer to the solidarity that the first believers had with one another. In this early portion of Acts, we hear of the followers of Jesus that “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship [koinonia], to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (2:42). This was communal living at its most basic, with no great disparities in wealth and a clear sense that the resurrection miracle demanded solidarity. Such language is in the spirit of Jesus’s more radical commandments earlier in Luke: “Sell your possessions, and give alms” (12:33).

The apostle Paul also speaks of wealth and poverty, again with an emphasis on not hoarding more than one requires in order to live. His clearest articulation of this belief is in 2 Corinthians: “I do not mean that there should be relief for others and pressure on you, but it is a question of a fair balance between your present abundance and their need, so that their abundance may be for your need, in order that there may be a fair balance” (8:13–14).

Engaging the Biblical Witness on Wealth and Poverty.

The relevance of this material from scripture continues to be a divisive issue. Some modern-day prophets, such as Martin Luther King Jr., sought to live into the mandate of the prophets and New Testament through direct action and a focus on civil and economic rights. His “Letter from Birmingham City Jail.” for example, highlights the pursuit of justice in prophets like Amos. The efforts of Clarence Jordan to enact communal living on Koinonia farms in Americus, Georgia, are another example of direct imitation in this regard. Jordan attempted to model this community after the first disciples.

Even with these examples, the disconnect between our global economy and an agrarian, small-village society that relied on household stability and bartering is striking. With worldwide communication and transportation operating at such an advanced level, some have argued that these laws and principles in the Bible are anachronistic, having no relevance in our more sophisticated context. The ability to conduct financial transactions with the click of a button and the intricate network of international commerce differ sharply from the regional economy of the biblical world. In the debate about the fairness and efficacy of various types of economic structures, the content of these ancient laws and oracles is rarely invoked as a guidepost beyond religious circles. Even among those who take the Bible seriously as scripture, the notion of using it as a blueprint for addressing the complexities of modern stratification seems far-fetched to many.

Yet there are still many similarities between the biblical world and ours when it comes to wealth and poverty, primarily as the result of stark inequality and the timelessness of human behavior. The daily challenges for many persons, especially in the Third World, resemble quite closely the situation of poverty for many of the characters in the Bible. Moreover, the charging of exorbitant interest rates on loans to the poor by ruthless creditors is a clear example of continuity. Witness the frequency of “payday lending” to low-income borrowers in the United States. Many who study this material are coming to believe that these ancient voices can indeed provide a template, with a relentless focus on love of God and neighbor and an obligation to seek fairness in every society.

Bibliography

Baker, David L. Tight Fists or Open Hands? Wealth and Poverty in Old Testament Law. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009.Find this resource:

Fox, Michael V. Proverbs. 2 vols. Anchor Yale Bible 18A, 18B. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2000–2009.Find this resource:

Goff, Matthew J. The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4Q Instruction. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 50. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2003.Find this resource:

Lehtipuu, Outi. The Afterlife Imagery in Luke’s Story of the Rich Man and Lazarus. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 123. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2005.Find this resource:

Nickelsburg, George W. E. “Revisiting the Rich and the Poor in 1 Enoch 92–105 and the Gospel According to Luke.” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 37 (1998): 2:579–605. First published in New Testament Studies 25 (1978–1979): 324–344.Find this resource:

Nickelsburg, George W. E., and James C. VanderKam. 1 Enoch: A New Translation. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004.Find this resource:

Pleins, J. David. The Social Visions of the Hebrew Bible. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2001.Find this resource:

Premnath, D. N. Eighth Century Prophets: A Social Analysis. Saint Louis, Mo.: Chalice, 2003.Find this resource:

Sandoval, Timothy J. The Discourse of Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs. Biblical Interpretation Series 77. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2006.Find this resource:

Weinfeld, Moshe. Social Justice in Ancient Israel and the Ancient Near East. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.Find this resource: