Board index ‹ Government and Politics

[Machiavelli]

I was just wondering what would be the kind of economic policy favored by the Bible. Perhaps, such a policy could be a change made to any of our current system. I was just curious to ask.

[jimwalton]

In the Bible God does not dictate the shape of society. He does not seek to form a "perfect" society, because no society is perfect (since it is a society of fallen humans). He rather speaks into the shape of society as it exists in those times and encourages his people to live holy lives in that society. He does not dictate an ideal kind of government (monarchy vs. democracy); he does not dictate a system of marriage (arranged vs. love, or even polygamy vs. monogamy); he does not dictate a certain sort of economy (market economy vs. barter). Every social structure is flawed.

By the same token, the Bible has a lot to say about economics. The Proverbs, in particular, has many sayings pertaining to economics; so also the Gospels.

- People should be paid fairly for the work they do.
- Interest should be a reasonable amount and not usurious
- People should have a way out of debt. There was never an intention in ancient Israel that there be a permanent poverty class.
- No interest should be charged when lending to people in poverty.
- Those who have a lot should give generously to those who have little. Giving is a higher value than loaning.
- Any ill-gotten profit should be penalized.

Those kinds of principles are common in the Bible. There are a lot more.

[Allissa]

> In the Bible God does not dictate the shape of society.

What would you say about how God established the nation of Israel in the Promised Land?

[jimwalton]

When God chose Moses to be their sole leader in the Exodus, Moses (on his own at the suggestion of Jethro) decided to appoint officials to serve as judges over the people (Ex. 18.13-27, esp. 19-23). This was not something God had commanded, nor is it something that God rebukes or forbids. God was not concerned to dictate the shape of society.

Under Joshua the nation conquered the highlands of Canaan, and each tribe was assigned its allotment. There are no particular instructions given as to how each tribe, or the nation as a whole was to govern itself.

During the days of the judges we don't read of any particular instructions from God about how the people were to govern themselves, whether by centralized gov't or local jurisdictions. God raised up hero leaders (judges) to free the people from oppression at various times through the era, but most of the time those judges were not set as rulers over the people. We don't really know much about how the Israelites governed themselves during the era of the judges, except "poorly."

Samuel functioned somewhat as a ruler, but only with priestly and prophetic authority and not with any legal or royal authority.

When a king was appointed (1 Sam. 8-10), God specifically says "It is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king" (1 Sam. 8.7). The bottom line is that the Israelites didn't want the method or manner of their deliverance from foreign oppressors to be subject to God's discretion—they wanted more direct control of their destiny as a nation. They wanted God to follow them rather than them follow God. So God still wasn't dictating the shape of their society by granting them a king. It seems to have grieved him.

But, we'd obviously have to say, that God saw himself as their king. It was true in the sense that he had given them their laws and He saw himself as the Divine Warrior to lead them in victory in battle. I wouldn't exactly call that dictating the shape of their society, either.

Let me hear what you have to say in response to all of this. Thanks for the interaction.