One of my professors from Fuller Seminary once said, “The ancient past is like another country. They do things differently there.”
In understanding the Bible, I find it extremely helpful to know the context in which it was originally written and heard and lived. Not that you can’t be inspired or convicted with a cold read of the text, but I’ve always found that knowing more about the world it came from makes it possible to understand and apply the text more profoundly in this world. One of my primary takeaways from Helen Rhee’s Loving the Poor, Saving the Rich is a better picture of the economic world of the New Testament people and early Christian church. I was surprised by what was different and what was not.
Basically, the early church had two competing cultures it functioned in. On the one hand, they lived in the Greco-Roman world with its economy, culture, beliefs, and assumptions. On the other hand, the early followers of Jesus were rooted in Jewish heritage and history. Somehow they had to live out the revolutionary teachings and example of Jesus in the midst of these powerful forces. Some things never change.
So, what was the Greco-Roman world like?
The Greco-Roman economy was a subsistence agriculture economy. This is a big difference from our American economy. The vast majority of the economic activity in the Roman Empire was agricultural – growing food, harvesting food, selling food. Most markets were local. It’s true the Roman Empire built roads and trade routes, but there was no technology or way for perishables to be stored long-term or transported long distances. The silos of the wealthy could store grain, oil, and wine, but that was kind of it. Compared to the American economy in which agriculture (specifically, farms) reportedly contributes less than 1% to the gross domestic product. Even adding all related agricultural industries (food service, textiles, forestry, fishing, etc.), agriculture makes up less than 20% of our economy. (See here for more detail. https://www.fb.org/market-intel/farm-contribution-to-agricultural-gdp-at-record-low) The GDP is only one measurement, and not necessarily the best one, of a nation’s economy. That’s not the point. The point is the shape of the American economy is significantly different than that of the ancient near East. As a result, it is tempting to dismiss the economic struggles and attitudes of the ancient people in regards to wealth and poverty as irrelevant now. If anything, though, learning how the ancient economy shaped the lives and beliefs of the ancient people challenges us to consider how our beliefs affect our engagement with the marketplace and how the economy shapes our views of money, the wealthy and the poor today.
The majority of people in the Greco-Roman empire were near, at, or below subsistence levels. It’s widely accepted that the ancient economy kept 97-99% of the population extremely poor. Widows, orphans, beggars, the infirm or disabled, prisoners, and unskilled day laborers would be below subsistence levels. Their days were spent struggling to get enough food to survive that day. Some farmers, merchants/traders, skilled and unskilled laborers, and other wage earners lived at subsistence levels. The work they did each day provided enough for them and their families to eat and survive that day. They would probably have a job the next day and could earn enough to eat tomorrow too. Maybe. There’s growing consensus that even in the ancient world there were some merchants, traders, artisans, large shop owners, freed persons, and military veterans who likely had stable income and work which kept them above subsistence level with reasonable hope of staying there. They would almost be considered middle class. Almost. They made enough income to stay out of abject poverty and most likely maintained that level of income, but the ancient world had zero social safety nets and a LOT of risk. There were no sick days and no health care. In fact, one of the strangest things about the early Christians was their care for the infirm even as it cost them their life. There was no retirement plans or pensions. There was no welfare or insurance in case of disability or natural disaster or job loss. There were no rights to vote, own land, retain a lawyer, or have a different belief. One’s stability could be taken forcibly and without recourse. It’s estimated that, at best, 42% of the population were in this ‘middling’ group. That’s a significant portion of the population. The biggest difference between that ‘middling’ class and today’s ‘middle class’ is the existence of several social safety nets to help prevent people from falling into poverty. (We can debate the efficacy of welfare and insurance companies and social security some other time.)
The remaining 1-3% of the population were the wealthy – the emperor, the landed elites, senators, provincial officials, some retired military, and a few freed persons. In true Greco-Roman fashion, they viewed wealth and poverty in a binary fashion, and believed your birth determined which you should be. Born wealthy. Stay wealthy. Born poor. Stay poor. Not quite the American dream. Additionally, the wealthy, unlike in today’s economy, did not create wealth through investment or entrepreneurship or development, but rather were the primary consumers. They used wealth to perpetuate their system of patronage. Patronage was the voluntary exchange relationship of goods and services between men of unequal power and status. This would be appropriated and Christianized by the early church. Patronage encouraged wealthy men (and women) to provide gifts and opportunities, protection, justice, and influence to men of lesser wealth in exchange for honor, gratitude, and allegiance. The Greeks and Romans lauded generosity and expected the wealthy to be lavish in their gifting and charity. However, they were never expected nor encouraged to give based on need. Even when wealthy patrons gave “charity” to an entire city, the giving was based on civic rank, because the system of patronage was a means of social control and submission for those who could reciprocate. Since the poor could never give honor to the rich, even if a wealthy patron gave the city a million dollars, none would go to poor farmers or laborers, widows or orphans, or most merchants. Charity was given on the ability of the recipient to bring honor to the giver. In some ways, this hasn’t really changed. Those with the means to give to others (myself included) often want to know the recipient of the gift is “worthy.” We avoid giving to the “ungrateful poor” who “won’t use it right.” The early church never freed itself from the economic system of patronage. It did, however, drastically change the system so that charity would be based on need. Instead of receiving honor and power for their charity, the wealthy received the prayers of the pious poor. This would *help* secure their salvation. More on this in part three.
Now, what about those Judaic influences of the early Church?
Rhee notes that the early Christian church was also deeply rooted in the Israelite and Jewish teachings. There are quite a few teachings about wealth/poverty in the Hebrew Bible. In the Torah, everything belongs to God and God particularly cares for the poor. Thus, there is a social obligation toward the poor. It really cannot be overstated how weird this would have been to the Greeks and Romans and how important these beliefs remain today. In the Deuteronomic and later wisdom traditions, wealth is seen as God’s gift to the righteous for their obedience and poverty as the consequence of disobedience and sin. However, with the rise of the monarchies and the related wealth gap in Israelite history, we eventually find the prophets denouncing wealth as idolatry and the means by which people obtain and retain their wealth as economic and social injustice.
In the Psalms, even the ones written by King David, the speakers frequently self-identify with the poor and the needy. Identifying as poor and needy extended the concept of poverty to the religious and spiritual level and was done because God particularly cares about the poor. Thus, the poor are the humble, afflicted, oppressed, and the righteous who turn to God. The Old Testament ultimately draws a distinction between the pious poor and the unrighteous rich. Even in the apocalyptic writings the theme of “righteous poor/oppressive rich” will be highlighted by the few, yet glorious examples of the generous rich who fulfill their spiritual mandate by actually caring for the poor. The piety of caring for the poor is an essential religious duty, according to Jewish teaching, and would be carried forward by the early Christian church.
In light of these two dominate influences, the early Christian church sought to live out their faith in the marketplace and in community. Most of Rhee’s book is about how the issues around wealth and poverty wound their way into the life and theology of the New Testament people and early Church. She focused more on how theology is formed, and I want to focus on how theology is lived. Next week, I’ll wrap up with how the early church dealt with wealth and poverty in light of their religious heritage and secular environment. I also want to consider how all this can (should?) be applicable today.
For now, learning how different and how similar my world is from the early followers brings me closer to them. We are both committed to the Old Testament belief in a God who inclines His ear to the oppressed and expects His people to care for the “least among us.” We still live in a world which largely determines the worth of a person based on their monetary value. Rhee writes that the wealthy Roman authors
“presented the urban poor as the idle mob whose grievances and moral defect (such a laziness) led them to crimes, riots, and sedition…[but] they idealized the rural poverty of a peasant farmer…a kind of poverty characterized by an idyllic simple life and ‘unwealth,’ but not deprivation or destitution. This poverty was praised as the paradigm of good and honest living with the virtues of frugality and self-sufficiency…” (p.21)
Sounds awfully familiar considering how different the wealthy and poor of the ancient world compares to today.
So here’s the question I’m left with:
As an American middle class woman, I am not (literally) what the Biblical authors talk about when they refer to the rich or the poor. But, if the Bible is God-inspired and relevant for living in God’s world today, how can these ancient words apply to life today?
What questions do you have?