“If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the LORDyour God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be.” Deuteronomy 24.17, 18

In an economy in which material prosperity is the defining ideal, the State increasingly assumes the role of ensuring the attainment of that ideal for all its members. The State abhors the idea that there must always be poor people among us, and those who make and enforce public policy cannot help but notice the political opportunity caring for the poor affords. In the present climate, the State carefully monitors the conditions and numbers of the poor, and it employs an army of agencies and agents to ensure that all who fall below a certain income level shall be cared for by its largesse.

Thus the State ever seeks to increase its ability to transfer wealth from those who produce it to those who consume it, always in the name of some putative war on poverty.

This is an impossible task, and one that divides societies along class and economic lines. This is because the injustice and futility of such an effort are patent, and such policies contradict the Biblical teaching both about the role of government and how to respond to the needs of the poor.

In the Law of God poverty is regarded as a local problem. Granted, in the New Testament, when the Body of Christ began to take on universal proportions, the needs of impoverished communities in one part of the world were considered to be the responsibility of all Christians everywhere. But the members of the Body of Christ maintain a special unity of the Spirit (Eph. 4.3) and citizenship (1 Pet. 29, 10) which other communities and societies do not possess. The unity of the Body of Christ makes every local church a full-fledged member of the universal Church. Thus, in the Church, everything that pertains to the needs of local churches is also to be the concern of the universal Church, and vice-versa(for example, in the areas of doctrine, mission, and church order).

Poverty in ancient Israel was regarded as a local problem, to be resolved at the local level. The lines of response whenever someone fell into poverty were, first, family, then, immediate neighbors, and, finally, the resources of the community as a whole. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that communities could share resources with one another if necessary, as we see among the churches in the New Testament; however, we do not see in the Law of God any explicit instruction or policy requiring this.

Nor do we find any stipulations empowering magistrates beyond the local level to ensure that the needs of the poor were being met. Typically, if a community could not – or would not – care for its own poor, those poor would move on to some other place in order to meet their needs (cf. Ruth 1).

Poverty in ancient Israel was not to be an excuse for failing to be a contributing member of the community. The poor were not “dependent” in ancient Israel; laws and policies were enacted in order to ensure that poor people would continue to give what they could for the justice and wellbeing of a community. Thus, it was in the community’s best interest to provide for the poor so that they could overcome the bonds of poverty and continue their stewardship within the community even while they remained poor.

T. M. Moore

Visit our website, www.ailbe.org, and sign up to receive our thrice-weekly devotional, Crosfigell, featuring writers from the period of the Celtic Revival and T. M.’s reflections on Scripture and the Celtic Christian tradition. Does the Law of God still apply today? Order a copy of T. M.’s book, The Ground for Christian Ethics, and study the question for yourself.