Is the biblical perspective on poverty that “there shall be no poor among you” or “you will always have the poor with you”?

Introduction

The problem of poverty in the United States compels us to explore various traditions in order to determine what we can learn about poverty in general and what solutions we might emulate in order to address it. Although the United States is one of the richest nations on earth, it is plagued by the reality of poverty like many poor nations of the world. This article surveys the current status of poverty in the United States in the broader ancient Near Eastern and global contexts. The insights from the ancient cultures and the Bible are used to suggest some ways of addressing the problem of poverty in the United States. The research reveals poverty as a timeless issue and a human reality. I will analyze poverty in its various contexts in order to determine what the biblical perspective on it is. Ultimately, this perspective will enable us to understand poverty in the United States and around the world. ¹

Poverty in the United States

Whereas many people outside the United States may be unaware of the existence of poverty in this country, those who reside here are well aware of it in spite of the myth of “streets paved with gold” that outsiders may hold. The reality of poverty is reflected on the streets of many of America’s inner cities and rural areas on a daily basis. Its most visible signs may be the homeless and street panhandlers, but the reality is much deeper than its outward manifestations. Perhaps two of the most eye-opening twentieth-century books about the existence of poverty in the midst of affluence are the influential and classic books by a leading economist and social scientist: John Kenneth Galbraith’s The Affluent Society and Michael Harrington’s The Other America. ² Their research and observations still provide a more balanced picture of the reality of wealth and poverty in America.

In an opinion piece in the New York Sunday Times Review in 2012, Peter Edelman states, “The lowest percentage in poverty since we started counting was 11.1 percent in 1973. The rate climbed as high as 15.2 percent in 1983. In 2000, after a spurt of prosperity, it went back down to 11.3 percent, and yet 15 million more people are poor today.” ³ Edelman identifies four reasons poverty has persisted in the United States: (i) low-wage jobs; (ii) households headed by a single parent without a livable income; (iii) the near disappearance of cash assistance or welfare for low-income mothers and children; and (iv) the role of race and gender in increased poverty for minorities and families headed by single mothers. ⁴

To address this serious matter and to reduce poverty, Edelman suggests we must invest in education, develop skills, and create more jobs that pay decent wages. He argues that low-wage jobs have persisted for the last 40 years. Citing the most recent data from the Census Bureau, he observes that 104 million people, or a third of the population, have annual incomes below twice the poverty line, or less than $38,000 for a family of three. ⁵ He also clarifies that “poverty among families with children headed by single mothers exceeds 40 percent” and that wages have not significantly increased since 1973. ⁶ According to a University of Michigan study, “The poverty rate for children has historically been somewhat higher than the overall poverty rate. The poverty rate for people in households headed by single women is significantly higher than the overall poverty rate.” ⁷ In November 2012, the US Census Bureau stated that “more than 16% of the population lived in poverty in the United States, including almost 20% of American children.” ⁸ Additionally, in 2013, child poverty reached record high levels in the US, with 16.7 million children living in households with inadequate food. ⁹

Edelman argues that much of the poverty experienced today is due to the virtual collapse of social welfare or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). As a result, “six million people have no income other than food stamps … [which] provide an income at a third of the poverty line, close to $6,300 for a family of three.” ¹⁰ He observes,

Race and gender play an enormous part in determining poverty’s continuing course. Minorities are disproportionately poor: around 27 percent of African-Americans, Latinos and American Indians are poor, versus 10 percent of whites. Wealth disparities are even wider … we cannot ignore race and gender, both because they present particular challenges and because so much of the politics of poverty is grounded in those issues. ¹¹

To solve this crisis, Edelman suggests that the rich need to pay their fair share, and that we must raise the minimum wage and provide health care as well as a decent safety net for the poor. ¹² He concludes, “The wealth and income of the top 1 percent grows at the expense of everyone else. Money breeds power and power breeds more money. It is a truly vicious circle.” ¹³ Thus, Edelman argues for a “politics of change” and “a new politics of honesty” through which more people move into the middle class. Such change must come “from the bottom up.” ¹⁴

The realization of the concentration of wealth among the top 1% of the population has given rise to the nascent “Occupy Movement” among the 99%. ¹⁵ According to its proponents, “The Occupy movement calls for serious reflection on the social and economic teachings of the church, its images of God and other topics, and a public theology that speaks to the challenges of our time.” ¹⁶ Reflecting on the 1980s violence in El Salvador against priests, LeAnn Snow Flesher writes, “The poor are not just objects of liberation, but also the subjects that will bring liberation. For it is by standing in solidarity to the end, even if the end means death, that the hope of liberation is fulfilled.” ¹⁷ Owing to the socio-political and economic disparity in Latin America, liberation theologians had already taken a “preferential option for the poor” in the 1960s. ¹⁸

Recent US census statistics show that “in 2010, 15.1 percent of all persons lived in poverty. The poverty rate in 2010 was the highest poverty rate since 1993. Between 1993 and 2000, the poverty rate fell each year, reaching 11.3 percent in 2000.” ¹⁹ According to government statistics, the poverty level for 2012 was set at $23,050 for a family of four. However, “[p]overty rates are persistently higher in rural and inner city parts of the country as compared to suburban areas.” ²⁰ A study conducted in 2012 estimated that about 38% of Americans live from "paycheck to paycheck.” ²¹ These individuals are essentially what biblical scholars refer to as the penes or in today’s terminology, “the working poor.” ²² Overall, despite the United States being a rich First World nation, poverty is a reality and there are many and conflicting opinions about how to reduce it. These range from changes in education, to changes in labor laws, tax laws, and health laws, among others.

Despite the 1960s declaration of the “War on Poverty,” these brief statistics show that in the United States, as elsewhere, poverty is still an enemy that needs to be fought. From a medical and anthropological perspective, Paul Farmer describes what he terms “the new war on the poor” and calls for “a paradigm shift.” ²³ Similarly, in a recent report on eviction and the lives of America’s poor, Elizabeth Gudrais cites Matthew Desmond as saying, “Poverty is a process that involves a victim, a system that produces poverty, and people who benefit from that system.” Desmond presents the poor “with the hope that his words will motivate action of shift views.” ²⁴ Although various solutions have been proposed, it is instructive to consider ancient cultures and assess how they approached the problem of poverty. Consequently, we may glean some helpful hints to address this problem today.

Ancient Near Eastern antecedents

Ancient Near Eastern societies wrestled with the problem of poverty and debt 5000 years ago. ²⁵ We are still wrestling with the same problem today. Material evidence from the ancient cultures of Mesopotamia, Egypt, Syria, and Canaan suggests that debt was an established tradition in these societies, and most debt involved agricultural products because of their agrarian economies. Debt involved soft loans typically given by the royalty or wealthy citizens to the populace for survival, and commercial loans granted to merchants for travel and acquisition of goods. Graeber’s research shows that monetary debts evolved later, and in the ancient world as today, the rich were the major creditors as they possessed the means of production. ²⁶

Debt acquisition implies debt repayment. The general evidence suggests that when debts were repaid, interest was charged. Hudson argues that the origins of interest were in the palaces and temples of ancient Mesopotamia. ²⁷ Because of high interest rates, debtors were often unable to repay a loan, and as a result, they sold themselves or a family member into indentured servitude until the debt was paid. Sometimes debtors lost their land and property, or found themselves at the mercy of the creditor. The earliest evidence of a loan has been found in royal inscriptions from the city of Lagash in Southern Mesopotamia. ²⁸

To ameliorate the problem of debt and insolvency, ancient Near Eastern rulers often announced freedom proclamations or debt cancellation decrees, usually at accession to the throne. These measures were intended to provide what scholars refer to as a “clean slate,” whereby rulers restored equity and economic viability in the land. According to Paul Hanson, these measures were also “a means of winning the popular support necessary for a peaceful reign, and of maintaining social and economic stability in the land.” ²⁹ Mesopotamian Bronze Age clean slates seem to have influenced the biblical concept of Jubilee because these edicts “cancelled debts, freed debt-servants and restored land to cultivators who had lost it under economic duress.” ³⁰ Rulers made such freedom proclamations as part of their attempt to maintain economic justice.

The evidence shows that Enmetena, a ruler of Lagash (2404−2375 BCE), issued the earliest Sumerian debt cancellation on record around 2400 BCE, after his military victory over the neighboring city of Umma. He “instituted liberty in Lagash. He restored the child to its mother, and the mother to her child; he cancelled interest.” ³¹ The prologue and epilogue of Hammurabi’s Law Code also express concerns for justice and equity. ³² Ur-Nammu (2112−2004 BCE), the ruler of the Third Dynasty of Ur, also proclaimed misharum (“debt cancellation”) as part of a long established tradition. Hence, “the Israelites likewise seem to have picked up the Clean Slate idea from Babylonia.” ³³ Elsewhere, Hudson states, “If rulers had not proclaimed clean slates, creditors would have reduced debtors to bondage and taken their lands irreversibly. In canceling … crop debts, rulers acknowledged that the palace had taken all that it could.” ³⁴

Evidently, justice was at the core of Mesopotamian legal documents, although these measures seem to have vanished over time. Hudson explains that they waned during the Axial Age (sixth−fifth centuries BCE) when wealth-seeking individuals replaced kings who normally restored order. ³⁵ He adds that the parts of the Hebrew Bible that deal with debt cancelation and release issues are the most documented in ancient Near Eastern literature. ³⁶ As we glance at modern society, it is evident and indeed ironic that this great tradition of the ancient Near East and ancient Israel has essentially been “lost.”

Deuteronomy 15 and the release laws

With this ancient Near Eastern background, we turn to the release laws of Deuteronomy 15. This book has a humanitarian attitude toward the poor and needy. Although Deuteronomy 15 “holds out the ideal of a land without poverty (Deut 15:4), [it] recognizes that it is the ongoing existence of the poor which causes the law to be given.” ³⁷

The text (15:4) argues that there shall be no poor people among the Israelites. If Israel obeys the Torah, then the poor would not exist because community members would care for the needy. By modern standards, this ancient Israelite vision seems idealistic, but, nevertheless, it would have reduced or eliminated poverty among the Israelites, had it been implemented.

Deuteronomy 15 also discusses the poor in the context of the year of release (shemittah). ³⁸ This release is viewed as a remission of debts every seventh year. ³⁹ There is also a parallel release from slavery in Deuteronomy 15:12−18. According to Deuteronomy 31:9−13, the law is to be read aloud publicly every seven years, so that all the population would know they were to be freed from bondage.

The shemittah law states that there should be no one in need among the Israelites because Yahweh will bless them all. If Israel obeys the entire commandment, Yahweh will continue to bless it (vv. 1−6). However, should there be any poor people among them, Israel is to give ungrudgingly in order to continue receiving God’s blessings (vv. 7−10). The poor continue to receive interest-free loans even as the shemittah year approaches. Apparently, such loans are virtual gifts because they will soon be canceled. Verse 11, commonly misunderstood because it is not read in full or in context, states that because the poor will never cease from the land, Israel is to give generously to the poor in its midst. The thrust of this verse is that the poor do not cease from the land because Israel has disobeyed its divine mandate. Cited in the New Testament (Matt 26:11; Mark 14:7; John 12:8), v. 11 is often understood to mean that “the poor will always be there.” Rather, this verse explains why the poor are always there when they are not supposed to be. As Miller argues, this is “exactly the opposite of what this text says.” ⁴⁰ Read correctly and in its proper context, Deuteronomy 15:11 urges community members to care for those in need. In addition to calling for benevolence toward the poor, Deuteronomy also calls for a regular cancellation of debt to ensure equity. ⁴¹

Scholars have interpreted the “release” as either suspension or cancellation of the debts of the poor. ⁴² In light of the slave release law of Deuteronomy 15:12−18, whose structure is similar to that of Deuteronomy 15:1−11, and the language of the text, I agree with most scholars that a full release is meant here. ⁴³ The poor only exist when this command is disobeyed. ⁴⁴

Deuteronomy also deals with loans, pledges, and the wages of the poor (Deut 24:10−13; Exod 22:25−27; c.f., Lev 25:35−36). Loans are to be interest-free (Exod 22:26−27; Deut 23:19; Lev 25:35−38) and wages must be paid daily. A pledge garment taken as collateral for a loan must be returned before nightfall (Exod 22:26−27; Amos 2:8; Prov 20:16; 27:13; Job 22:6) because it is that person’s only source of warmth. Creditors are forbidden from entering a poor person’s house to take a pledge item. They must wait outside. According to Hoppe, “Deuteronomy’s concern is to maintain the dignity of the poor in what was already a humiliating situation.” ⁴⁵ The law also prohibits taking interest on loans to fellow Israelites (see Exod 22:25; Deut 23:19−20; Lev 25:35−38; Neh 5:1−13; Ps 15:5; Prov 28:8; Ezek 18:5−8, 10−13; 22:12; 2 Kgs 4:1; Isa 50:1). ⁴⁶

The biblical mandate and the ideal concerning poverty

The problem of the persistence of poverty according to Deuteronomy 15 seems to stem from a fundamental disobedience to the Torah. Read in its proper context, Deuteronomy 15 argues that the poor ought not to exist in Israelite society. This is the biblical mandate, to care for the poor, and the book of Deuteronomy demonstrates specifically how Israel was to do this.

This biblical mandate is evident throughout the biblical period as it was in surrounding cultures. Gerhard von Rad correctly argues with regard to Deuteronomy 15 that “this sermon is a summons to meet the poor at all times with an open hand and an open heart. It is just the appeal to the heart which is characteristic.” ⁴⁷ For us, the duty to care for the poor falls on human governments and community members who can ameliorate the situation of the poor. These ancient concerns are still relevant in our modern societies, if not more.

In light of the ancient concern for the welfare of the poor, the scriptures generally display a violation of this basic biblical mandate. The Torah views it as an improper distribution of resources; prophetic literature regards it as exploitation and oppression of the poor and powerless, and wisdom literature sees it as a matter of individual responsibility or a poor work ethic. ⁴⁸

The meaning of Jesus’ proclamation on poverty

Should the poor always be with us? The existence of the poor is evident during Jesus’ time as he also addressed the issue during his ministry (Matt 26:11; Mark 14:7; John 12:8). Read in the context of ancient Near Eastern clean slates and the biblical attempt to eliminate poverty (Deut 15), Jesus’ proclamation is a serious indictment for failure to heed the biblical mandate. Essentially, Jesus challenges the disciples to put long-held ancient traditions into practice. He tells those who were complaining about the wasted expensive oil that they could show kindness to the poor whenever they needed to. As a Jewish Rabbi, Jesus was well aware of the biblical mandate to care for the poor. I contend that his response is a stinging criticism of the lack of obedience to this basic command.

In Matthew 26, an anonymous woman anoints Jesus. This woman pours very expensive perfume on his head. This perfume, called myron, was different from that used for anointing for office. ⁴⁹ The anointing was “an extravagant act of devotion in preparation for burial.” ⁵⁰ Boring argues that “Jesus’ reply that the poor are always present is not opposed to social humanitarian efforts as part of responsible Christian discipleship.” ⁵¹ Jesus contrasts helping the poor with the woman’s devotion to him, which was a more costly venture. He adds, “Her act is a model of extravagant love and insight when others have been unseeing.” In Matthew’s context, the saying distinguishes between “the constant priority of helping the poor and the unique priority of worshipful devotion to Jesus as Lord.” ⁵² Both Matthew and Mark agree that this good deed that the woman performed will enable the gospel to be preached “in memory of her” throughout the world (Matt 26:13; Mark 14:9).

In Mark 14, as in Matthew 26, an anonymous woman anoints Jesus as preparation for his burial. Some denigrated the woman in the name of the poor, or used “a pious excuse to condemn the woman.” ⁵³ According to Perkins, the fact that the woman used the entire vial of oil instead of just a few drops “forms a foil to the cheapness of Jesus’ life in the eyes of those who seek to destroy him.” ⁵⁴ This gesture parallels the action of the poor widow at the Temple treasury (Mark 12:41−44) who put in “two small copper coins” worth a penny, which was all she had, whereas the rich put in large sums of money. Jesus vindicated her because it was her best and most valuable gift. In both cases, “the willingness of both women to give all of what they have raises doubts about the behavior of the others.” ⁵⁵ Although Jesus appealed to Mosaic scriptures in Deuteronomy 15:7, 11, with which his critics were familiar, Perkins argues that they did not “recognize that the universality of poverty means that the righteous will always have to fulfill the responsibility of charity.” The virtue of the woman’s action far surpasses the demands and “false piety” of her critics to give the proceeds of such costly oil to the poor. Perkins adds that though the law required all to help the poor, and “if the poor are [still] in desperate need, then this woman’s failure to donate the cost of the ointment is neither the cause nor the cure.” ⁵⁶

John 12:1−8 also recounts this story, except in this case Mary anoints Jesus’ feet with a pound of costly perfume as an extravagant act of love and devotion to Jesus before his burial. John points out that Judas complains about the oil that could have been sold for 300 denarii and the money given to the poor, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief. Mary shows extravagant love whereas Judas will soon viciously betray Jesus.

The woman’s action is reminiscent of prophetic individuals who anointed the kings of Israel on the forehead. ⁵⁷ Jesus does not sanctimoniously reprimand the woman; Schüssler Fiorenza argues that because the poor are still very much present among them, “now is the time to decide to do good.” She adds, “In remembering that a nameless woman prophet has anointed Jesus as the messianic inaugurator of the basileia, the community also remembers that the God of Jesus is on the side of the poor and that God’s future, the basileia, belongs to the poor … the impoverished and starving.” ⁵⁸

In all four Gospels, a woman anoints Jesus. However, in Luke 7:36−50, an anonymous woman (a repentant sinner), anoints Jesus’ feet with an alabaster jar of oil. There is no reference to the poor here. Apparently in the later Christian church, “the poor have become an object of almsgiving and charity, whereas poverty is seen as an ascetic challenge and ‘practice for special religious people.’” ⁵⁹ These New Testament texts and commentary demonstrate how far Israel had strayed from the divine mandate that called for the elimination of poverty, and how interpreters might miss this important clue. Essentially, they bracket out the Torah’s primary demand to eliminate poverty.

Although Deuteronomy argues that the poor should not really exist in Israelite society, we see consistent disobedience to the Torah throughout Israel’s history. By viewing the two positions about the poor in biblical times (that the poor should not really exist and that the poor will always be there), I contend that the poor will always be there as long as human beings ignore ancient paradigms. At the heart of the problem is a fundamental disobedience to the Torah, which legislated caring for the poor. The history of poverty is so extensive that it is difficult to conceive whether there will ever truly be no poor among us. Whereas the basic vision of the lack of poverty in Israelite society is utopian and idealistic, the reality is that the poor continued to exist owing to inattention to this idealistic vision of society. The negation of this vision explains why the poor are always present, even when the mandate is to do away with their situation.

Toward a theology of jubilee in a global economic context

The biblical jubilee (Lev 25:8−55; c.f., 27:16−24) is another text that sheds light on the concept of debt forgiveness or cancellation, liberty from bondage, and return of property to original owners in the forty-ninth or roughly fiftieth year. ⁶⁰

There is much scholarly debate about the length, structure, meaning, and intention of the jubilee year. ⁶¹ Like the Sabbatical Year, the origin of the Jubilee has been traced to ancient Near Eastern practices. Westbrook argues: “Cancellation of debts, release from slavery, and restoration of land to its original owner, as the result of either a specific or general enactment, were all regarded as common-place events in the ancient Near Eastern sources.” ⁶² Scholars, however, question whether the jubilee was ever observed. Most feel that it was merely a utopian vision of a better community. As de Vaux puts it, “It was a Utopian law and it remained a dead letter.” ⁶³ Despite this general view, the spirit and challenge of jubilee legislation is to be commended.

Deuteronomy’s humanitarian concern may have been influenced by the reforms of King Josiah or the prophets and their passion for social justice. In any case, I strongly agree with Wright, who argues that ancient Israel’s economic system “was geared to the needs of the lowest in society, with the immediate goal of giving maximum assistance to the poor, and the ultimate ideal that there should be no poor.” ⁶⁴

Regardless of the practicality of these laws, institutions, and social programs, it is evident that ancient Israel, influenced by its ancient Near Eastern neighbors, had very idealistic visions of social renewal. If all these measures had been strictly followed (Deut 15), the plight of the poor would have been greatly ameliorated if not eliminated. ⁶⁵ Debt cancellations were decreed because debt had become so insurmountable that it could disrupt the social order. The clean slate ideal was to provide economic equilibrium, social balance, and cohesion.

When we consider this problem in modern twenty-first century societies, we are struck by increasing cases of poverty in both developed and developing countries of the world. Indeed, there seems to be a disconnection, or greater irony, in the existence of poverty in the very affluent societies of the developed world. Although resources could be shared more equitably, there is great disparity between those who have and those who do not. As the few rich grow richer and richer, the majority poor grow poorer and poorer and by larger margins. As we noted above, the United States may be viewed as a land of the two Americas.

The reality is that most people in the developing world are poor and survive on only one to two dollars a day. There are cases of “extreme poverty” in Africa, Latin America, and elsewhere. Despite globalization and progress in technology and other areas, the poor die of poverty, preventable diseases, and many other causes. ⁶⁶

Social scientists and economists like Jeffery Sachs argue that if we took responsibility for each other, poverty would be ended. In The End of Poverty, Sachs boldly argues that the global condition of extreme poverty could be ended by 2025 if rich nations of the world played their rightful role to assist poor nations in achieving economic independence. ⁶⁷ Like the biblical mandate, this is a visionary statement of what it means to extend one’s hand to the needy. This modern prescription for solving global poverty is not unlike ancient debt cancellations or Israel’s vision of social reform. In both cases, the challenge is radical social transformation and subversion of the status quo. We ought to wrestle seriously with the implications of a world of extremes—extreme wealth on the one hand, and extreme poverty on the other. Both are two sides of the same coin.

Summary and conclusion

From antiquity to the present, poverty has been a vexing human problem. Research indicates many ancient attempts to rectify the problem of poverty primarily through debt cancellations and clean slates. The biblical evidence also points in the same direction, although the problem seems to have persisted. A chronological overview indicates the general loss of ancient provisions for addressing this problem. Hudson explains that the tradition was lost when private wealthy individuals replaced palaces and temples as creditors. ⁶⁸ Viewed from the vantage point of modernity, the concept of debt forgiveness is all but forgotten. It may linger in cases of bankruptcy, but not without complications to the borrower. Hudson adds that Christian charity replaced the concept of debt cancelation and forgiveness. ⁶⁹ Although charity may indeed make the giver feel good, it accommodates the wealthy but is not intended to dismantle an entire economic system. ⁷⁰

Poverty affects all humanity, whether poor or rich. The biblical evidence outlines the many responsibilities of the rich to the poor, and of the poor to themselves. The irony of poverty in the midst of affluence may be summed up by the Deuteronomist’s simple requirement to give to the poor and not be tightfisted (Deut 15:11). For Hamilton, this imperative is for the powerful who can truly make a difference in the life of the poor. He states, “The obligation falls, as it does in Deuteronomy, on those who have the capacity, the resources, to see that such a change from dependent living to good living is carried out.” ⁷¹

Because poverty affects everyone, all humanity needs to fight against it. As Leslie Hoppe puts it, “Poverty just does not happen; it happens because people make it happen.” ⁷² Because the problem of poverty is a global crisis, it requires a global response or solution.

In attempting to address rising cases of poverty, liberation theologians have visited the issue once again. Noting that because the “option for the poor” was pronounced by Roman Catholic theologians back in the 1960s, poverty has reached “scandalous proportions.” Gustavo Gutiérrez (one of the major architects of this concept) writes, “The ideal, what we should strive for, is that there be no poor; if there must be some, the conduct of the believer should be that of opening one’s heart and one’s hand to the poor.” ⁷³ Indeed, in Gutiérrez’s articulation of the ideal for the human community is a sad realization that poverty has continued to increase despite the biblical mandate and the modern preferential option for the poor.

What then can we do about poverty today? The late African novelist, Chinua Achebe, sums up the case for us to respond to fellow human need:

The poor of the world may be guilty of this and that particular fault or foolishness, but if we are fair we will admit that nothing they have done or left undone quite explains all the odds we see stacked up against them. We are sometimes tempted to look upon the poor as so many ne’er-do-wells we can simply ignore. But they will return to haunt our peace, because they are greater than their badge of suffering, because they are human. ⁷⁴

From this analysis, we can conclude that there will always be poor people around the world unless the global community does something drastic about it. Just as in the case of ancient Israel, poverty continued to exist because the nation violated its divine mandate to care for the poor and needy. Similarly in the global context, poverty is bound to increase if the developed world does not extend its hand to the poor. The lessons from the ancient Near East and ancient Israel are extremely important for the modern generation wrestling with the problem of poverty on a global scale.

What more can be done about poverty? Although the poor may try to help themselves, their options are often limited. However, those who wield the power to liberate the poor or to keep them in oppressive situations have a significant role to play. Oftentimes the poor are struggling against systems designed to keep them in perpetual poverty. In the ancient world, insolvency was one of the major causes of poverty because of high interest rates. In that context, those who could not pay off their debts usually ended up in slavery. That is why ancient Near Eastern decrees and the biblical text recommended debt reduction or cancellation altogether. The crisis of insolvency is not uncommon in our own world. Many have assumed debts they can no longer pay because of job loss or compounded interest rates. Such measures do not ease the burdens of the poor but rather worsen their situation. Similarly, many developing nations are groaning under debts that they can never repay in full. That is why some have suggested cancelation of such debts in order to ensure the economic viability of poor nations. ⁷⁵

The challenge of the biblical mandate and the ideal of the forgiveness of debt lie on the shoulders of those persons with the means to impact the situation of the poor negatively or positively. As Hamilton states, “the powerful are reminded that the health of society is defined both by the absoluteness of its allegiance to YHWH and by its treatment of the dependent in its midst. The responsibility, the moral imperative, is … on the powerful who can make … that society a just one.” ⁷⁶

Given the evidence of persistent poverty in the biblical context and mounting cases of global poverty, liberation theologians have revisited the concept of taking an option for the poor. ⁷⁷ The global ramifications of such an act are enormous. Sachs projects the end of poverty in our times if we follow what amounts to the clean slate ideal or the biblical mandate in economic terms. ⁷⁸ Among his suggestions are that rich nations should help poor nations get out of “the poverty trap” through debt cancellation, giving grants and not loans, global trade, economic development, and eradication of disease, among others. ⁷⁹ These suggestions have enormous potential to achieve their purpose if only the global community would adhere to them just as the ancient decrees sought to do, and as the biblical mandate challenged Israel.

The comprehensive study of debt by Graeber reminds us once again of the challenge that lies before us. He concludes:

We are long overdue for some kind of Biblical-style Jubilee: one that would affect both international debt and consumer debt. It would be salutary not just because it would relieve so much genuine human suffering, but also because it would be our way of reminding ourselves that money is not ineffable, that paying one’s debts is not the essence of morality, that all these things are human arrangements and that if democracy is to mean anything, it is the ability to all agree to arrange things in a different way. It is significant … that since Hammurabi, great imperial states have invariably resisted this kind of politics. ⁸⁰

Graeber concedes that debt repayment is “a flagrant lie” and concludes with this provocative challenge: “We don’t ‘all’ have to pay our debts. Only some of us do. Nothing would be more important than to wipe the slate clean for everyone, mark a break with our accustomed morality, and start again.” ⁸¹ Such a decree, and the implementation of ancient Near Eastern principles and the biblical mandate, all suggest that the poor ought not to exist in human society.

All the measures discussed above suggest that, in the modern context of poverty, the ancient concept of the forgiveness of debt is an idea whose time has come around again. Given the reality of poverty in the United States and around the world, this research outlines some possible solutions to consider. The very idea of poverty in the United States, one of the richest nations on earth, may seem ironic or troubling to some. However, the implementation of some of the ancient Near Eastern and biblical principles such as the clean slate ideal would not only be visionary and transformative, but it would challenge us to fulfill the biblical mandate that there shall be no poor among us.