The right to amass capital and its concomitant power has been maintained and practiced by many Christians. It is not without cause that Marx connects Christianity with capitalism. But is this a world-picture that radical Christians must accept? Must we merely attempt to reform capitalism or does the Bible present a radical alternative against which our present circumstances must be judged and towards which we must strive? The answers to these questions, which are basic to any radical Christian critique of society, lies in a scriptural analysis of what it means to be the people of God and the implications of this social concept for our own lives.
Christians are often referred to as God's people. 1 Peter 2:9, for instance, applies this title along with several others. The roots of that title, however, lie in the Old Testament. That is, "kingdom of God" and "people of God" were applied to Israel before they were used by Christians. To obtain a biblical perspective for the meaning of this term and its relationship to the use of wealth, we must first look at the Old Testament.
Old Testament Economies
The Old Testament meaning of being the people of God can be summarized in two propositions. First, the basic Old Testament picture of the people of Israel is not that of a monarchy (in the sense that we think of Saul's, David's, or Solomon's reign) but that of a theocracy. We must remember this fact, for the prophets constantly judge the social conditions of the current monarchy against this theocratic ideal.
The ideal social system in Israel -- the ideal expression of being the people of God -- is found in the Pentateuch. In this system a type of theocratic socialism operated. The land was distributed by lot to tribal groups, and these groups in turn parceled it out by lot to families. But the title to the land was the Lord's. He alone owned the sole major economic resource -- real estate (Leviticus 25:23). As sole owner, he decreed three major regulations for his people. First, a percentage of the produce of the land (3.4 percent) must be directly given to the poor (Deuteronomy 14:28-29). Second, the produce of every seventh year must be left for the poor (Exodus 23:11). Third, land was inalienable; every 50 years it should revert to the family which originally possessed it (Leviticus 25). This last provision meant that except within metropolitan centers there was no such thing as a true land sale; land could only change hands for a period of years. Therefore there could be no accumulation of capital. Along with these provisions went a set of laws which required the forgiveness of debts every seven years, the abandonment of the gleanings of the harvest, and the prohibition of interest (and other similar practices which were hard on the poor).
This social system had a theology behind it. God is a God who loves and cares for the poor and the oppressed (Deuteronomy 10:12-22). The good fortune of Israel is a mark of grace, not of merit. The people are to express the fact that they are God's people by copying God in caring for the poor within their borders. The ideal is the total elimination of poverty (Deuteronomy 15). Although these laws reflect some primitive Hebrew practices, we should not pretend that this economic system was ever in toto an actuality. Nor should we close our eyes to the fact that the Hebrews could legally exact interest from foreigners and own slaves (although the slavery of fellow Hebrews was limited to six years). We also recognize that the small village community in which people were genealogically related to one another contributed to the economic picture. But archaeology shows that the periodic redistribution of land and the requirement of helping the poor did in fact produce a social equality in the land in the early period of Hebrew settlement.
Excavations in Israelite towns bear witness to this equality in the standards of living. The houses of the 10 century BCE are all of the same size and arrangement. Each represents the dwelling of a family which lived in the same way as its neighbors. The contrast is striking when we pass to the eighth century houses on the same site: The rich houses are bigger and better built and in a different quarter from that where the poor houses are huddled together (Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions).
The quotation above leads us from the primitive economic system to our next proposition: the monarchy radically changed the economic picture of Israel, but being the people of God -- reflecting God in the world with all the social implications of this idea -- did not change. According to 1 Samuel 8, the monarchy was a rejection of the divine theocracy; it would bring with it economic and social oppression which had not occurred on the same scale before.
The major economic force operating behind this change was the emergence of a strong central government; and with this revolution came urbanization. The central government levied taxes. The land of those who could not pay was sold. The government officials, civil servants, and professional soldiers (probably an innovation of David, who employed Philistine mercenaries) swelled the size of the cities (where property was not inalienable), created an increased need for commerce (to feed the cities), and received large estates from the king from land he had confiscated or conquered. The king (central government) replaced God as the center for allegiance.
The old concern for the poor did not flourish in this atmosphere. But God remained the God of the poor and dispossessed. Therefore Amos thundered against those who "sell the righteous for money and the needy for a pair of sandals" and he castigated "you cows of Bashan who are on the mountain of Samaria, who oppress the poor, who crush the needy, who say to your husbands, 'Bring now, that we may drink!' " Jeremiah explicitly attacked those who had broken the ancient laws designed to protect the poor (Jeremiah 34:8-22). When the exile came, the Chronicler interpreted its length as a period to make up for the neglect of the seven year cycles during the monarchy (2 Chronicles 26:21).
The rejection of God for the state had brought with it a failure to live out the meaning of being the people of God. Apostasy and social oppression go hand in hand. The prophets attacked the rejection of God's social ideal in favor of a capitalistic amassing of wealth just as they attacked theological error. To be the people of God is to copy God's concern for the poor; to reject God is to reject the poor as well.
With the coming of Christ the situation of the people of God has changed. Formerly there was a distinct national community with a clearly defined economy. Now the people are scattered throughout the world. We shall see that the principal features of the old Hebrew economy also appear in the commands of God for his new international people. The new people is also a social entity.
Following Jesus
Jesus preached that all should enter the kingdom of God. To do this was to become his disciple. But discipleship involved some specific economic commitments. The first of these was a new attitude toward wealth. The possession of wealth was considered extremely dangerous to faith because the demands it made were irreconcilable with total commitment to God. Therefore we find such sayings in the gospel as, "How hard it will be for the wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!" (Mark 10:23); "You cannot serve God and Money" (Matthew 6:24); and "So also none of you can be a disciple of mine without parting with all his possessions" (Luke 14:33). This new attitude was not so much a rejection of the use of property (asceticism) as a rejection of dependence upon property (the gathering of "things"). It was based upon the assurance that all property belongs to God. Because God loves his people, he will supply their needs.
Jesus also taught a positive doctrine concerning the use of wealth. If Christians must detach themselves from wealth, they are free to use it to help others. Luke 14, for instance, speaks of making the poor the recipients of our generosity (inviting them to our "feasts"). When Jesus speaks of storing up treasure in heaven (Matthew 6:19-21), he is using a known Jewish metaphor for charity. The command to the rich young ruler was to give his wealth to the poor. Luke presents Jesus saying as general instruction for all disciples, "Sell your possessions and give in charity." This teaching is in line with that of John the Baptist, whom Luke reports saying, "The man with two shirts must share with him who has none, and anyone who has food must do the same" (Luke 2:11).
What was the effect of this teaching? Before their commitment to Jesus the various disciples were part of the world's economic system; they were concerned about their own welfare and wealth. Now they have forsaken their "wealth" (either literally or potentially). Luke presents some wealthy disciples, but he invariably presents them in the process of sharing their wealth with others. Some women with well-placed husbands followed Jesus to care for the material needs of the disciples (who were poor as a result of their call) out of their own wealth. Another disciple forgot about his own need of burial and donated his tomb to Jesus. Zaccheus responded to Jesus not only by restoring (with a punishing rate of interest) that which he had taken unjustly, but also by distributing half of his goods to the poor. Instead of caring for themselves, the disciples were a transformed group who cared for others.
Here we see the continuity between Jesus and the Old Testament. In the Old Testament all land belonged to God and its produce was God's gift. Now the denationalized people of God recognize that all wealth belongs to God and that he gives them what they need. In the Old Testament God is concerned with the poor and weak in the land, establishing a political system which periodically redistributes wealth. Jesus provided for a more thorough redistribution of wealth and a caring for the poor.
Jesus is concerned with the poor for several reasons. First, the poor were God's special concern in the Old Testament. One who was poor was also powerless. God was the defender of the powerless and poor. But Jesus also recognized a second importance in the poor. The radical demand of the gospel called one to forsake everything for a total commitment to Jesus. Those who were most involved in the system and who were benefiting from the system found this extremely difficult. Therefore Jesus recognized that it was only by a miracle of God that a rich man (such as Zaccheus) could enter the kingdom of God; normally those who listened gladly to him were from the poorer classes of the people.
The new people of God must be characterized by a detachment from wealth and a concern for the weak and dispossessed. How did this in fact work out in the early church?
We must not imagine that everything went smoothly. The epistle of James, for instance, speaks to those members of the Christian community who professed a commitment to Jesus and yet were still motivated by a desire to retain their position in the world's system. James calls upon them to give freely and to turn their back upon the system. They, are lovers of the world, he says, and this makes them enemies of God. The new people of God cannot serve both God and money any more than the old people of God could serve God and the idols of Canaan. James has a single message for all who would compromise their faith by seeking power and economic advantage: repent!
Luke presents the positive side of the early church:
All who had become believers held everything together in common: they would sell their property and possessions and make a general distribution as the need of each required. With one mind they kept up their daily attendance at the temple, and, breaking bread in private houses, shared their meals with unaffected joy, as they praised God and enjoyed the favor of the whole people (Acts 2:44-47, which is very similar to another summary in Acts 4:32-37).
The first impression which one receives from Luke's summaries in Acts is that the church practiced communism -- they totally renounced private property and only the group as a whole owned anything -- but a closer examination of the text does not bear this out. The Greek verbs used to describe the selling and distributing imply that, "Whenever there is need of money for the poor of the congregation, one of the property-owners sells his piece of land or valuables, and the proceeds are given to the needy." An example of this process is the action of Barnabas; an example of the abuse of this activity is the lie of Ananias and Sapphira.
Luke's message is simple: when the Holy Spirit is truly at work in the hearts of God's people and they listen to the words of Jesus; they give up their property whenever they see poor brothers and sisters in need and the ideal enunciated in Deuteronomy 15:5 is actualized. The church was not demonstrating a new legalism; rather it was demonstrating the new life produced by God through his Spirit, freeing his people from this world's economic order and introducing them into the new order he had instituted in Jesus.
In the 40s and 50s of the first century, Jerusalem suffered from economic problems, famine being among them. One of the groups to suffer most was the outcast community of Christians. The result was the reduction of the church collectively to poverty. For us this situation is most fortunate, for it proves to us that the church's concern for brothers and sisters who are suffering should and did transcend the local congregation. Acts 12:27-30 shows that the church in Antioch came to the aid of the brothers and sisters in Jerusalem during this time. But 2 Corinthians 8-9 tells us much more. Paul takes up a contribution from the churches of Greece and Asia Minor to help the poor in Jerusalem. He calls on the Christians to copy Jesus, whose life and message was characterized by giving. He then enunciates the basic principle behind this contribution:
There is no question of relieving others at the cost of hardship to yourselves; it is a question of equality. At the moment your surplus meets their need, but one day your need may be met from their surplus. The aim is equality; as Scripture has it, 'The man who got much had no more than enough, and the man who got little did not go short.' (2 Corinthians 8:13-15)
Paul's point is simple: no Christian should prosper while others suffer; there should be a free flow of surpluses from one church to another so that ideally the whole church of Jesus Christ world-wide fares equally. He enunciates the principle, "From each according to his ability to each according to his need."
Despite the brevity of our survey we can draw some conclusions:
1. God's command to his people in the Old Testament does not differ radically in principle from that to his people in the New. The discontinuity between the two is that the new people of God have the life-changing dynamic of the Holy Spirit given through commitment to Jesus and that they are an international, landless people rather than a distinct national group.
2. The desire to gain and retain wealth is always a danger to God's people. It remained a danger after the New Testament period. In the Shepherd of Hermas (early second century) a process culminated in Clement of Alexandria's Quis dives slavetur in which the wealthy are accepted into the church without any demands being placed upon their wealth; the radical commands of Jesus are transformed into spiritual platitudes. The Christian community of today must retain Jesus' distrust of wealth and avoid this same failure.
3. The people of God must recognize that all wealth belongs to God. This is not simply a spiritual truth. It is a principle which rebukes any use of wealth for security or any attempt to gain wealth for itself. It demands a radical lifestyle in contradistinction to that of the world.
4. The people of God are committed by the teaching of scripture and the command of their master to a redistribution of wealth. This begins with the voluntary sharing of wealth within the communities of transformed men and women. In the discipled community the brothers and sisters share all they have; economic distinctions evaporate. But, the redistribution goes beyond the confines of the individual community. Communities support each other across nations and continents. This is not a sharing due to law or demand, but a sharing out of love and obedience.
5. The people of God are committed by the example of their God and Lord to help the poor and defenseless of the earth. The history of the church proves that this action is a powerful form of witness, but God's people are not so much concerned with the effect of their efforts as with following the example of the one whom they claim to follow. This is no optional extra; it is a part of the mainstream of the command of God.
God has established God's new people in the world. As John Howard Yoder has pointed out, this is a political people. Christians should be a counter-cultural political group; they are also a counter-culture economic group. They pick up the principles first given to the people of God in the Old Testament, and they apply them in the new situation of their radical discipleship to Jesus. The result is a reorientation towards the value of wealth in which the needs of others take precedence over the desire to gain property. They are committed to radical economic justice in every aspect of their lives, including the political. They are not supporters of the status quo, but bearers of the revolution of the social order introduced by Jesus of Nazareth upon the foundation of the Old Testament revelation of God.
Peter H. Davids was a graduate of the University of Manchester and teaching in Germany when this article appeared.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!