Early Christian Views on Wealth, Possessions, and Giving

[The following post continues notes and studies on the issue of wealth, poverty, and Christian ethics.  It originally appeared in an online publication: Rollin G. Grams, 'Early Christian Views on Wealth, Possessions, and Giving,' Explorations (Fall, 2010), an online publication of the Robert C. Cooley Center for the Study of Early Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.  Online: https://www.scribd.com/document/41882213/The-Cooley-Center-Articles-Early-Christian-Views-on-Wealth]

For several reasons, study of early Christianity in Protestant circles is on the rise.  Ecumenical dialogue, for instance, requires a return to the common ground of Christian writers prior to the great schisms of the Church throughout history.  Also, an increasing interest in worship and spiritual disciplines has sent some Protestants on pilgrimage to more ancient and liturgical forms of the church.  Recent challenges to long-standing Christian practices have awakened an interest in what the Church has taught and why in years past.  And challenges to orthodox Christianity through sensationalist television shows and opportunistic authors reinterpreting the ancient past has sent us all back to investigate what was really going on in the first few centuries of the Church.

However, some issues never wax and wane.  Among them is the perennial issue of wealth and possessions.  In our day, the news covers stories on economic ethics daily: the practice of hiring part–time employees and illegal aliens to avoid paying livable wages and offering benefits, unbalanced pay scales for executives and employees, aid for victims of natural disasters, profit-driven policies on safety, medical care, and pensions, national health services, personal and national debt, programs for the poor, aid to developing countries, care for the elderly, fair trade practices, payment of taxes—and on the list goes.

For Christians, numerous passages in Scripture speak to such issues, albeit in different times and to different cultures.  The question raised here, however, is “How were Christians in the first four centuries of the Church living out the teachings of Scripture on wealth and poverty?”  The following article is largely descriptive, although it also explores some of the theological and ethical reasoning given by the early Church fathers for the views expressed on wealth, possessions, and giving under the headings offered.

Ecclesiology: The Church as a Caring Community

The early Christians formed far more than a collection of individuals who adhered to a common set of beliefs and practices.  They were themselves a caring community that used the metaphors of ‘family,’ ‘body,’ and ‘third race’ (after those of Jews and Gentiles) to describe themselves.  Financial giving, on such a view, was not philanthropy (giving to improve humanity), tithing (giving a portion back to God for the support of a priesthood), or a way to reduce taxable income (income tax is a 19th century invention).  Rather, it was what family members do within their intimate and loving community.  It was what parts of the body do to secure the well-being of the whole body.

Clement of Rome (late 1st century) spoke of the church being preserved as Christ’s body through mutual subjection, a giving to other members according to whatever gifts one has.  What we have (strength, wealth, wisdom, humility, purity) is seen as a gift from God to be used for the body of Christ.  The rich, for example, should provide for the needs of the poor in the Church, and the poor should give thanks to God, who has given them brothers who can provide for their needs (1st Epistle to the Corinthians XXXVIII).  Justin Martyr (mid-2nd century) states that wealthy Christians voluntarily gave money to a common fund to help the needy (the sick, widows, orphans, strangers) and that the community shared food at their gatherings (1st Apology, 67).  Tertullian (late 2nd/early 3rd century) says Christians take up a voluntary offering once a month for feeding the poor, burying the dead, for orphans, the elderly, those shipwrecked, and Christian prisoners, and that they hold common meals to feed the hungry rather than enjoy excess (Apology 39).  Cornelius, a bishop of Rome in the mid-3rd century, notes that over 1,500 widows and persons in distress were cared for by the church in Rome (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.11).  At this time, the Roman emperor, Demetrianus, was persecuting the church.  Cyprian, a friend of Cornelius and bishop of Carthage in North Africa, defended the Church by noting the empire's greed and failure to help the needy (among other things) as the church did (Treatise V, An Address to Demetrianus).  In the mid-4th century, the apostate emperor Julian tried to turn the empire back to Roman religion after the triumph of Christianity under the Christian emperor Constantine in AD 312.  Julian was goaded by the example and reputation of Jews and Christians in their help of the poor and needy, even the wicked and prisoners.  He stated that it was a disgrace how Jews had no beggars and Christians supported the poor both within and outside the Church.  But those in the Roman religion did not do so, and many were in need of help (Epistle 22). In Julian’s comments, we see that the Church’s help of the poor began with the ‘household of faith’ but extended to any in need (cf. Gal. 6.10).

 The model for a caring, giving community was the Jerusalem Church in the book of Acts: ‘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’ (Acts 4.32, NRSV). The Jerusalem Church practiced voluntary giving that involved selling property, giving the proceeds to the church, and letting the apostles distribute the money to the needy.  The result was that nobody was in need in the community of believers.

 The understanding of the Church as a people taken from all nations (a third race) meant that their citizenship was in heaven (as Paul said, Phl. 3.20).  Thus, Christians were strangers or sojourners on earth (cf. 1 Pt. 1.1, 17; 2.11), and the logical conclusion of such an identity is that one does not accumulate goods in a foreign land (Hermas, Similitudes, 1).

 Creation: God-Given Resources are to be Shared, not Possessed

While there is ample evidence that Christians continued to hold private property (there were people with wealth in the church who could help the poor), the emphasis on community and meeting one another’s needs led some 4th century Christians to critique the very notion of private property.  This entailed thinking beyond the Church to theorizing about the very intent of God for humanity as a whole.  Some saw divisions between the wealthy and the poor as unnatural: God has created a world with abundant resources for all and not for resources to be horded by a few.  Chrysostom stated, ‘...When one attempts to possess himself of anything, to make it his own, then contention is introduced, as if nature herself were indignant....’ (Homily XII on 1 Tim. 4: Migne, PG 62,563f).  Gregory of Nazianzus, saw the divisions between people of poverty and wealth and between freedom and slavery to be a result of the Fall.  Similarly, Ambrose stated that ‘Nature has poured forth all things for men for common use .... Nature, therefore, has produced a common right for all, but greed had made it a right for a few’ (quoted in Jerome, De Officiis I,28; Migne, PL 16,67).

Gregory’s friend, Basil the Great, was born into a wealthy family but distributed his inheritance to the poor and, among other things, established Basilias, a hospital (primarily for lepers) in the region of Caesarea. He insists that wealth is not given to one to do with as one pleases.  Rather, one should take only what one requires to satisfy immediate needs and give the rest to others.  In this way, nobody would be rich and nobody would be poor (Migne, PG 31,276f).  If possessions are given one as a divine gift to be used for others, then withholding such a gift from others is tantamount to theft.  Basil says that it is the hungry person’s food one is withholding, the naked person’s cloak one is hoarding, and the needy person’s money one is possessing (Serm. Super. Luc. Xii, 18).  Thus, to the extent that one exceeds in wealth, one is lacking in love (Sermon to the Wealthy, Migne PG 31, 277C-304C).

Such a view from the 4th century reflects Clement of Alexandria’s perspective from the 2nd century, when he states,

That expression, therefore, "I possess, and possess in abundance: why then should I not enjoy?" is suitable neither to the man, nor to society. But more worthy of love is that: "I have: why should I not give to those who need?" For such an one--one who fulfils the command, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself"--is perfect. For this is the true luxury--the treasured wealth. But that which is squandered on foolish lusts is to be reckoned waste, not expenditure. For God has given to us, I know well, the liberty of use, but only so far as necessary; and He has determined that the use should be common. And it is monstrous for one to live in luxury, while many are in want. How much more glorious is it to do good to many, than to live sumptuously! How much wiser to spend money on human being, than on jewels and gold! How much more useful to acquire decorous friends, than lifeless ornaments! (The Instructor, 2.13; cf. 3.6).

John Chrysostom (347-407), Archbishop of Constantinople, delivered four challenging sermons on Jesus' parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16).  He says,

 

Behold, then, it is said, the man and his works. This also is robbery----not to impart our good things to others. Very likely it may seem to you a strange saying; but wonder not at it, for I will, from the Divine Scriptures, bring testimony showing that not only robbery of other men's goods, but also the not imparting our own good things to others,----that this also is robbery, and covetousness, and fraud. What then is this testimony? God, rebuking the Jews, speaks thus through the prophet: "The earth has brought forth her fruit, and ye have not brought in the tithes; but the plunder of the poor is in your houses," (Mal. iii. 10.) Since, it is said, ye have not given the customary oblations, ye have robbed the poor. This is said in order to show to the rich that they possess things which belong to the poor, even if their property be gained by inheritance,--in fact, from what source soever their substance be derived.  And, again, in another place, it is said, "Do not deprive the poor of life," (Ecclus. iv. 1.) Now, he who deprives, deprives some other man of property. It is said to be deprivation when we retain things taken from others. And in this way, therefore, we are taught that if we do not bestow alms, we shall be treated in the same way as those who have been extortioners. Our Lord's things they are, from whencesoever we may obtain them. And if we distribute to the needy we shall obtain for ourselves great abundance. And for this it is that God has permitted you to possess much,--not that you should spend it in fornication, in drunkenness, in gluttony, in rich clothing, or any other mode of luxury, but that you should distribute it to the needy. And just as if a receiver of taxes, having in charge the king's property, should not distribute it to those for whom it is ordered, but should spend it for his own enjoyment, he would pay the penalty and come to ruin; thus also the rich man is, as it were, a receiver of goods which are destined to be dispensed to the poor----to those of his fellow-servants who are in want. If he then should spend upon himself more than he really needs, he will pay hereafter a heavy penalty. For the things he has are not his own, but are the things of his fellow-servants (Discourse Concerning Lazarus II, trans. F. Allen).

Chrysostom has in view almsgiving; his comments are not about the politics of justice but the ethic of caring for the poor.  He is challenging the notion of luxurious living (a prosperity Gospel) and exhorting his audience with the obligation of caring for the poor.  Chrysostom is not calling for a kind of social justice that would have government or the Church force the wealthy to do something (in which case it would not be a matter of ethics but politics).  He is instead encouraging the wealthy to consider their wealth as a stewardship of goods, warning that there will be a judgement for what they have done.  His convictions do not lead him to write a treatise like Plato's Republic, in which a governmental system would be set up to enforce justice; instead, he delivers a sermon calling for responsible choices and actions on the part of the wealthy.

Note that early Christian authors did not restrict help for the needy within the Church.  Justin (Apology 1.14), Hermas (Shepherd, II), and Clement of Alexandria (Quis divis salvus, xiii) explicitly said as much.  Paul, for that matter, had expressed his agreement that the Gospel should be accompanied with 'remembering' the poor (Galatians 2.10), and this played itself out through the church as believers sought to do good 'to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith' (Galatians 6.10).

Grace: Wealth is a Gift from God to be Given to the Needy

Another argument one meets is that wealth is given by God to be used for the poor and not on oneself.  This view even gets attached to the notion that works of charity are important for one’s future reward.  Chrysostom corrected the view that all wealth is from God, argued that the rich need the poor more than the poor the rich, and explained that those given wealth from God are to use it for the needy (Homily XXXIV). Ambrose saw the misuse of money (as in the case of Judas) as a misuse of grace (On the Duties of the Clergy, XVI).

    The Work of the Church includes Charity

Much could be written on this point, but a few words must suffice.  Chrysostom (late 4th century), echoing the sentiments of James 2, stated that one should not dress in silk to honor Christ when another outside is cold and poorly clad.  He asked what good golden chalices on the Eucharistic table are when a brother is dying of hunger (Evangelium S. Matthaei, hom. 50:3-4: PG 58, 508-509).  Jerome stated that the work of charity is better than ornamenting church buildings (Epistle 130).  This seemed to be a serious issue around his time in the 4th century.  Acacius (5th century), bishop of Amida, sold 420 vases to free 7,000 Persian prisoners.  Ambrose (4th century), Augustine, bishop of Hippo (4th and 5th centuries), and Deogratias, Bishop of Carthage (5th century) also ransomed captives.  The poor, moreover, were assisted by the Church.  Bishop Cornelius of Rome (late 3rd century) oversaw support of 1,500 people.  In the late 4th century, the church at Antioch supported 3,000.

    Giving to the Poor is a Moral Requirement

The early church saw helping the poor to be a moral requirement, not just something nice to do.  In this way, helping the poor went beyond care within a close community and could be extended to anyone in need.  While Judaism taught charity towards one’s fellow Jews (cf. Tobit 1.3), Jesus taught love even towards enemies (Mt. 5.43ff; Lk. 10.29ff).  Paul told Galatian Christians to do good to all, especially the household of faith (Gal. 6.10). 

One of the earliest, extant, Christian documents after the New Testament writings is the Didache.  The work begins by describing two ways, one leading to life and the other to death.  The path leading to death is for those unmerciful to the poor (5.2), whereas that leading to life involves generosity to those in need (1.4-5; 4.5, 7).  Indeed, Christians should not think of their possessions as their own but as something to share with other believers (4.8).

The early 2nd century Apology of Aristides was written about AD 124 to the emperor Hadrian.  The author characterizes non-Christians (he could not be speaking of the Jews, however) as  ‘…unmerciful to the poor, …, turning away the needy, oppressing the distressed, advocates of the rich, unjust judges of the poor’ (5.2).  Christians, on the other hand, are compassionate towards the poor, release the captives, bury the dead, and so forth (XIV).  Later, in a marvelous passage describing Christians, the author says,


[Christians] love one another, and from widows they do not turn away their esteem; and they deliver the orphan from him who treats him harshly. And he, who has, gives to him who has not, without boasting. And when they see a stranger, they take him in to their homes and rejoice over him as a very brother; for they do not call them brethren after the flesh, but brethren after the spirit and in God. And whenever one of their poor passes from the world, each one of them according to his ability gives heed to him and carefully sees to his burial. And if they hear that one of their number is imprisoned or afflicted on account of the name of their Messiah, all of them anxiously minister to his necessity, and if it is possible to redeem him they set him free. And if there is among them any that is poor and needy, and if they have no spare food, they fast two or three days in order to supply to the needy their lack of food [cf. Apostolic Constitutions V.XX]. They observe the precepts of their Messiah with much care, living justly and soberly as the Lord their God commanded them’ (XV).

Around AD 130, an unknown Christian wrote the Epistle to Diognetus.  He argues that the one who is an imitator of God is the one who ‘takes upon himself the burden of his neighbour; he who, in whatsoever respect he may be superior, is ready to benefit another who is deficient; he who, whatsoever things he has received from God, by distributing these to the needy, becomes a god to those who receive [his benefits]: he is an imitator of God’ (X).

    Wealth and Possessions are Dangerous

Several of the Church Fathers were critical of wealth and possessions.  In this, they simply echoed teaching already found in the New Testament: the rich man who wanted to follow Jesus (Mk. 10), the rich man and Lazarus (Lk. 16), storing up treasures in heaven (Mt. 6), realizing that money is the root of all evil and that we can take nothing out of the world (1 Tim. 6.7, 10; cf. Polycarp, Philippians 4), etc.  Thus when we find similar statements in the Church fathers, it is not because persecuted Christians were looking for a religious explanation of their poverty but because they were reflecting on the Bible. 

In the mid-2nd century, Hermas warns against ‘wicked luxury,’ ‘indulgence in many kinds of food and the extravagance of riches,’ for such are the deeds that make people most wicked (Shepherd II, 8th Commandment).  Later, Hermas says that repentance is difficult for the rich and those immersed in much business, referring to Jesus’ parable of the sower (Mt. 13.3ff; the cares of the world, like thorns, choked some of the seeds sown) (Shepherd III, Ninth Similitude, ch. 20).

Tertullian (late 2nd and early 3rd centuries) challenges our views on possessions when he suggests that we should not be bothered when robbed.  Christians should despise the world and remember that Jesus, who lacked money, always justified the poor and condemned the rich.  Tertullian concluded that Christians should not seek wealth, the root of all evil (On Patience 7).

    Give with the Right Attitude

Finally, in giving to the needy, one must also have the right attitude.  Ambrose (4th century) decries giving liberally without love or giving in order to be praised by others.  He knows of some who gave impulsively and thoughtlessly to the church when doing penance for some sins and later tried to regain their wealth (On Repentance II.9.83-86).

Conclusion

This brief essay offers only a partial look into the theological and ethical arguments on wealth and possessions by Christian authors in the first four centuries of the Church.  They do not endorse a particular economic system, not least because of the importance of voluntary giving, giving with the right attitude, and the concern to develop a theological perspective on wealth (ecclesiology, creation, grace).  The ethic of giving, although in part grounded in nature, was largely due to the particular beliefs and practices of the Christian Church and therefore not applicable to all.  The New Testament writings are clearly the primary source for reflecting on these issues among the Church fathers.

While the authors cited present a fairly coherent perspective on wealth and possessions, their writings also indicate that there was diversity among Christians.  In particular, after AD 312, the Empire became increasingly Christian, the Church grew in wealth, Christians moved into positions of power, and the Church developed one ethic for people taking vows of poverty, celibacy, and chastity and another ethic for everyone else.

This essay began with a note on the relevance of earlier Christian writings for discussions today.  Readers should be just as cautious about dismissing earlier writings on wealth and poverty as economically naïve as about co-opting patristic quotes for socio-economic and political agendas today.  Rather, the arguments, convictions, and practices of the early Christians leave us with the challenge to investigate further, beginning with the teaching of Jesus and the New Testament authors on this important and relevant subject.

One conclusion that does seem possible to state from the above quotes, however, is that the early Christians did not view possessions as a matter of indifference, let alone a reward, for their faith and discipleship of Jesus.  They saw wealth as destructive at worst and as a gift to be used for the needy at best. Indulging oneself in pleasure simply because one had the means to do so (whether individuals or the Church) was viewed by Christian authors of the first four centuries as an impossible possibility for those professing faith in Christ. Such a path displeased God and led to destruction.

Notes on a Christian Approach to Work, Property, and Community in Roger Crook's Introduction to Christian Ethics

[This post continues notes on various authors regarding wealth, poverty, and economic justice.  Here is a chapter from Roger H Crook, An Introduction to Christian Ethics (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990), pp. 227-243.  I have organised the notes into the table, below.]

Crook’s concern is to find a Christian approach to work, property and community different from capitalism and communism.  Note the compatibility of his approach to natural law ethics.
         
Capitalism: ‘the system of private ownership of the instruments of production, distribution, and exchange, and the use of those instruments under a plan of individual initiative and open competition to earn private profit’ (Crook, p. 228):

1.     Problems with property: acquisition and use of property (falling into the hands of a few, misuse of property)
2.     Problems with free enterprise: unrestricted accumulation and use of money may run counter to the needs of society as a whole
3.     Problems with competition as the basis for trade: competition to regulate quality of products, set prices, establish wages, determine which products will be produced may not always be decided best by unregulated competition in the market-place.
4.     Problems with profit as the primary motive for driving the economic system: but profit now may involve payment later in destruction of the environment, or profit for a few may involve exploitation of the labourer.

Values
Virtues
Actions
1.     ‘Nature has an intrinsic value’: Gen. 1.31 (‘it was very good’); Ps. 19, 89, etc (nature praises the Creator); Ps. 8 (nature reflects Creator’s glory); Rom. 8.19ff (‘nature will take part in the final fulfillment of God’s purposes)
2.     ‘Human beings are part of the natural order’ and interdependent with it: Gen. 1-2 (part of creation); Gen. 3.19 (made from the dust).
3.     ‘Human beings have a responsibility for the natural order’ as trustees (not owners): Gen. 2.15 (till and keep the garden); Gen. 1.14 (‘dominion’ over creation)
a.     Value resources more than profit margins
b.     Value right of private property, but understood as trustees of God’s world: Ps. 24.1 (‘the earth is the Lord’s and all the fulness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein’); Ex. 20.15 (‘do not steal’àprivate ownership)
c.     Value the worker and work as a vocation (including being able to see connection between the product and the worker, being free to choose careers)
d.     Value the individual’s right to make significant choices
4.     Value one’s neighbour: Lev. 19.18 (love your neighbour as yourself)—perhaps going beyond the Genesis story, but creation or natural law does impose on us the value of others against any selfishness (or worse: vengeance, grudges—Lev. 19.18) to which we might be inclined
Labour Virtues: Industrious, diligent, efficient, faithful worker (cf. Gen. 2.15; 2 Thes. 3.10)

Social Virtues: Caring (cf. Acts 2.44-45; 4.32), compassionate, fairness (just) and honesty (related to justice and valuing the worker), respectful (of each other’s dignity and eternal worth as human beings)

Countering vices of endless accumulation of wealth (cf. Mt. 6.19-21; 19.24), greed and selfishness, competition (free market economy) on which capitalism is based
1.     Individual: conservation of energy, reduction of waste; acts of  compassion towards the needy (Mt. 25.40)
2.     Communal:
a.     Stop unfair distribution of wealth—unfair wage distribution (jobs, gender, age, race, abilities); unfair control of wealth by a few, unfair entrapment in poverty
b.     Assisting poor (Mt. 6.3; Lk. 18.22) and poor nations: land reform, sharing technology, education, gender issues keeping women in poverty
c.     Stop exploiting natural resources
d.     Educating others

Notes from Allen Verhey (Remembering Jesus) on Economic Justice

[This post continues a series of notes on various authors on wealth and poverty in Christian ethics.  Allen Verhey argues for a use of Scripture that 'remembers' the canonical writings and early Church when addressing ethical issues in contemporary contexts.  Allen Verhey, Remembering Jesus: Christian Community, Scripture, and the Moral Life (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002).]

Verhey notes that the political and economic situation change in the history covered by the Old Testament, with the result that one finds different descriptions of justice.  This might be expressed in the following table (based on his description, pp. 258-262):

Socio-Political Character
Character-istics
Biblical Source for Description of Justice and ‘Remembering’
Examples of Economic Justice
Semi-Nomadic
Abraham the wandering Aramean; Israel in slavery in Egypt; Israel wandering in the wilderness

Nobody owned the land and flocks were owned by the extended family, so there were no rich or poor
Agricultural
Israel settling in Canaan
The Covenant Code of Exodus 20.22-23.33
Attempt to desacralise agriculture (no fertility gods); reduction of some to slavery and women to chattel (e.g., Ex. 21.1-11, 20f); protection of stranger (22.21; 23.9) freeing of slaves (21.2), caring for widows and orphans (22.22-24), rest, food and a hearing for the poor (23.6-8, 10-11, 12); protection for debtors (22.25-27)—based on Israel’s story and God’s character.
Urban and Monarchical
Royal Court, standing army

Taxation and conscription (1 Sam. 8.11-17); increased division between the wealthy and poor, who mortgaged their lands and then became landless tenants or slaves; king viewed as defender of the poor (Ps. 72) but often lived above the law (e.g., Ahab confiscating Naboth’s vineyard, 1 Kgs. 21).
Reform
Rise of Prophets to call for justice according to the covenant; King Hezekiah’s and Josiah’s reforms
Prophetic literature; Deuteronomic Code (assuming urban culture: single sanctuary, Dt. 12.5, 11; 14.23f; 16.2, 6, 11; 26.2—contrast Ex. 20.24; conduct of kings, Dt. 17.14-20)
1. Prophets denounced wealth amidst poverty (Is. 3.16-26; Amos 4.1-3), dishonest and avaricious merchants (Amos 8.4-6), selfish, heartless creditors (Amos 5.11), covetous landowners (Is. 5.8; Mic. 2.1-4), venal judges (Is. 1.23; 3.13-15; Amos 5.7, 10, 12).
2. Development of Covenant Code: furnish slaves liberally upon their release in Jubilee (Dt. 15.12); not only release of slaves but also of debts (Dt. 15.1-11); judicial reforms (Dt. 16.20; 24.17), consumer protection (25.13-16—standardised weights and measures); pay of day labourer at the end of the day (Dt. 24.14f); regulation of legal practises (Dt. 23.19-20; 24.6, 10-13, 17); laws about gleaning (Dt. 23.24-25; 24.19-22) and gathering and distributing food to the poor and dispossessed through a 2nd tithe every 3rd year (Dt. 14.28f; 26.12-15).

Verhey then turns to 'remember' the teaching on wealth, poverty, and economic justice in the New Testament.

Remembering

Jesus
Eschatological Wisdom:
1.     Do not be anxious (Mt. 6.26, 28-30; Lk. 12.24, 27-28)
2.     Give (Lk. 6.35; 11.41; 12.32; 18.22)
3.     You always have the poor with you (Mt. 26.11; Mk. 14.7; Jn. 12.8)—reminding that Dt. 15.5’s vision is not yet a reality—the poor will never cease out of the land (Dt. 15.11).  This calls for an ongoing concern for the poor in the community.
Early Church
Community of Goods in Jerusalem
1.     Practised as a memory of Jesus’ teaching on care for the poor (in Luke): shepherds visit Jesus in animal stall 2.8-20), parents offered sacrifice of the poor (2.22), John the Baptist calls for people to share in Lk. (3.10ff), Jesus preaches good news to the poor (4.16-21; 6.20ff), including in unique parables to Lk. (Good Samaritan, 10.25-37; Rich Fool, 12.13-21; Great Banquet, 14.15-24; Rich Man and Lazarus, 16.19-31), Zacchaeus’ example (19.1-9).
2.     Use of money is illustrative of human existence; in Lk. it is a 'sign and symbol of one's response to … the kingdom' (282).  Acts 4.34 ('not a needy person among them') refers to Dt. 15.4.  Lk. sees 'the community created by the Spirit as a community of friends in an economic world of patrons and clients' (283).
3.     This is more than illustrative (rather creative fidelity to early Church) but not legislative, not a social program (see Luke Timothy Johnson [previous post]).
Paul
1.     The Lord's Table--koinonia at the Table, no rich and poor distinction.
2.     'Self-sufficiency' (a Stoic virtue)--Phl. 4.11f; cf. 1 Tim. 6.6-10; 1 Th. 4.11-12; 2 Th. 3.7-12)--is understood with reference to Jesus ('humility', Phl. 4.12; community, 1 Th. 4.9; love, 2 Th. 3.12).  Cf. Acts 20.35: more blessed to give….  Contribute to the needs of the poor, show hospitality (Rom. 12.13; 16.23), generous giving (Rom. 12.4ff).
3.     The Collection (Gal. 2.9, 10; 1 Cor. 16.1-4; 2 Cor. 8-9).  'Equality' is the goal (2 Cor. 8.13f).  Aristotle (NE 1131b31, 1157b36, 1158b29, 1162a35: there are: equality of distributive justice, of rectification, of friendship.  Paul advocates the last of these (p. 295).
James
Identification with the poor (James 1.9-10).  Some Christians were wealthy, others poor (1.10; 4.10).  The 'rich' hoard wealth (5.2f; cf. Mt. 6.19f; Lk. 6.37; 12.33); oppress labourers (5.4; cf. Lev. 19.13); live self-indulgently in luxury and pleasure (5.5); are guilty of judicial murder of the righteous (=Jesus, p. 300) (5.6; cf. Acts 3.14; 7.52; 22.14).  But wisdom is full of mercy and good fruits, no partiality or hypocrisy (3.17), cares for orphans and wodows (1.27), meets the poor's bodily needs (2.15f), shows them hospitality (2.1-7), humbles oneself before the Lord (4.10), resists the rich way of life (5.1-6), and endures the trials of the rich's way of life (5.7-11) (300).
Revelation
The earth's kings, great men, generals, rich and strong will be judged for not welcoming the Lamb (6.15).  Rome's fall involves such a judgement (ch. 18).
Pastoral Epistles
1.     Contentment (1 Tim. 6.6-10) is again affirmed, but still not in an ascetic sense: moderation leads to contentment.  It is not money but the love of money that needs renouncing (1 Tim. 6.13-16), and generosity is called for from the rich (6.17-18).
2.     'Caring for the poor is a communal responsibility'--widows in particular (5.3-16).  But families were first required to help before the church, and only certain widows were to receive help.
Cf. Heb. 13.2, 5, 16 (practice hospitality, be content, share)
Continuing Church
1.     The Church did not make the Jerusalem Church's practice a requirement, and they did not find a Biblical economic theory for all times.  Communities were engaged in discourse on economic ethics, deliberating and discerning what to do in given situations as they remembered Jesus and the early Church (p. 305).  Their 'memory and hope formed a tradition of generosity and justice' (p. 306).
2.     The tradition taught not to be anxious but trust in God's good future, to be generous, and 'was embodied…in a variety of institutional responses to the needs of the poor' (p. 307).  Justin Martyr: there was a common fund administered by the president to help the orphans, widows, poor, imprisoned, strangers, others (1st Apology, 67.5-6).  Tertullian: the fund also helped feed and bury the poor (Apology 39.5-7).  Cornelius: the fund in Rome helped over 1500 people in poverty (Eus., HE, 6.43).  Cyprian defended the Church by attacking the empire's greed and failure to help the needy ('Treatise V, An Address to Demetrianus').  Julian the Apostate: to overthrow Christianity, it would be necessary to copy them in hospitality to strangers, burying the poor, feeding the hungry, whether or not Christian ('Epistle 22: To Arsacius, High-Priest of Galatia').
Contemporary Church
1.     Working for a living: Eph. 4.23f, 28.  Honest work (not stealing, cheating, swindling, charging excessive interest, misusing power in how credit is extended or in how we hire and fire people, not abusing labourers (sweatshops, child labour).  Work to have something to share with the needy.
2.     Congregations need to deliberate, in memory of Jesus, about whether their life is a blessing on the poor (p. 315), especially when thinking of spending money on themselves.  The Lord's Table is a time to consider whether the Church is practising koinonia, sharing with the needy in its midst.  Generosity is a 'response to gift,' not the 'conceit of philanthropy' (316).  See Verhey's discussion of mission and development (pp. 316f).
3.     Adam Smith trained us to 'focus on the creation of wealth,' and this can be a way to help the poor.  Self-interest would create wealth, it would be regulated by unseen providence resolving conflicts of interest for the common good, it would be restrained by competition (over against the mercantilism of his day, which licensed the monopolies of the wealthy, even giving them state support) (p. 326).  But self-interest does not by itself help the poor, and our vision needs to be corrected by remembering Jesus' good news to the poor (p. 323).  Creation of wealth is only one goal; others include 'blessing the poor, sustaining the quality of human life, and sustaining the finite resources for the economic project'  (p. 323f). [The church's missionary task/s should be added to any short list]

Notes Regarding Poverty and Wealth in Luke-Acts from Luke T. Johnson, Walter E. Pilgrim, and Mark A. Powell

[This post continues the theme of poverty and economic ethics with some select notes from: Luke T. Johnson, Walter E. Pilgrim, and Mark A. Powell.]

Luke T. Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts.  Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 39 (Missoula, MT: Scholar’s Press, 1977).  See also Sharing Possessions.  [My notes, covering Johnson's comments on Acts more than Luke.]

1.       Johnson draws attention to the motif of possessions in Luke-Acts and finds it fulfilling symbolic roles.  Possessions point to power and to personal or community identity. 

2.       Luke: There are different symbolic roles for possessions in Luke.

a.       Lk. 15.11-32: the Prodigal Son: dividing property symbolises alienation; the father’s attitude towards his wealth (‘all I have is yours’) points to the possible unity.
b.      The most important role they play is determining acceptance or rejection of Jesus.  The ‘poor’ accept Jesus and renounce possessions; the ‘rich’ renounce Jesus and hold onto their possessions.  E.g., Lk. 6.20ff.

3.       Acts 9-28:

a.       9.36: Tabitha or Dorcas: piety described in terms of good works and almsgiving
b.      10.2, 4, 31: Cornelius: piety described in terms of good works and almsgiving
c.       19.19: Christians burn their costly magic books
d.      18.3: Paul worked for a living.  Also noted in 20.33-35.  Indicates lack of greed and leaders should follow suite, thus being able to help the needs of the weak.  Paul is asked to pay the fee for a purification rite for others, and thus show amity to presbyters (21.24).  Felix hoped for something from Paul (24.26).  In Rome, Paul dwells by his own wages (28.30).
e.       The Collection for the Jews: Only mentioned in Acts 24.17, it indicates this is why Paul came to Jerusalem.  Acts 11.27-30, 12.25 involve Paul in a collection for Jerusalem from Antioch for famine relief.

4.       Acts 1-8:

a.       1.12-26: Judas’ use of money intertwined with abandonment of apostlic office.  He buys a field, whereas the apostles left all.
b.      2.42f: Community life: cf. Lk. 3.11—sharing with others.  Good community is described here.  After 3.1-9, the conflict, rejection, centring around the 12’s authority, enters the picture.
c.       3.1-9: healing of lame man: neither silver nor gold, but power to heal
d.      4.32-7: community life.  Now disciples are rejected, pray for power which comes in greater force.  Community of possessions shows spiritual unity.  4.33b-34//Dt. 15.5: believers enjoy times of refreshment from God (p. 200).  4.36f: Barnabas’ donation.
e.       5.1-11: Anonias and Sapphira (cf. Josh. 7.1ff). mock the unity of the Spirit.  Reject apostles as prophets by thinking to hold something back.
f.        6.1-7: Appointment of the Seven: also have prophetic ministry.  Spiritual authority again shown in power over possessions (213).
g.       8.9-24: Simon Magus wants to buy apostolic power.  Giving his goods not to acknowledge authority of the 12 but to get an equal position for himself.  In Acts 11.27-30; 12.25: Paul’s collection for Jerusalem acknowledges the authority and so he has mission validated (p. 220).

5.       Johnson sees these stories playing a part in the pattern in Acts of acceptance/rejection, a pattern also found in the story of Jesus (and of Moses as paradigm).  He refers to this as the pattern of the Prophet and the People (e.g., p. 121).  Israel in large part rejects the Gospel, which is increasingly accepted by the Gentiles.  But some of Israel, in particular the 12 who are the apostles and leaders, accept the Gospel.

6.       The language of possessions is used symbolically for (pp. 125f; Johnson offers his proof in chs. 3 (for Luke) and 4 (for Acts)):

a.       the identity of God’s people
b.      acceptance and rejection to God’s people
c.       authority over God’s people
d.      the transmission of authority within God’s people.

7.       The poor may be rejected by men but receive the promise of the final, future reversal.

Walter E. Pilgrim, Good News to the Poor, Wealth and Poverty in Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1981).

1.     An emphasis on the symbolic role of possessions in Lk.-Acts can detract from a more literal understanding of this theme.
2.     The ‘poor’ include those who are truly poor in social and economic ways.  Jesus is their advocate; God is on their side.  While they will one day experience a great reversal in God’s final judgement, they may already experience compassion and justice in the community of Jesus.
3.     The ‘rich’ do not receive God’s salvation (Lk. 12.13-21; 16.19-31; 18.18-25).  Stories of those making financial sacrifices are to inspire the rich (5.11, 27f; 19.1-10).
4.     Lk. gives no specific rules for the use of possessions.  Christians are at the very least to be responsible stewards of their wealth through almsgiving (12.33), remitting debts (6.27-36), and promoting fellowship (14.7-24).

Mark A. Powell, What are they saying about Luke? (New York: Paulist Press, 1989).

Luke is concerned to ‘foster a community in which rich and poor alike can hear the word of Jesus and respond appropriately’ (Powell, p. 100, with reference to Robert Karris, ‘Poor and Rich: The Lukan Sitz im Leben,’ in Perspectives on Luke-Acts, ed. By Charles Talbert (Danville, CA: Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978).  How should they respond?  Powell says that ‘the consensus seems to be that Luke’s concern over the use of possessions is just that: a concern.  He does not have a definite answer.  Still, he is quite sure that treasure on earth and treasure in heaven are incompatible (12.33) and he wants every Christian to consider what, therefore, is to be done.  Jesus’ disciples (5.11, 28), Zacchaeus (19.1-10), and the Jerusalem Church (Acts 2.44-45; 4.32) provide examples of what some have done, but none of these is made the paradigm for all.  Others exemplify the disaster that can befall those who do nothing (12.13-21; 16.19-31; 18.18-25)’ (Powell, pp. 100f).

The Second Week of Advent: Preparing for the peace of God

[An Advent Homily] The second Sunday in Advent carries the theme, ‘preparation for the peace of God’.   That peace comes with the birth of C...

Popular Posts