I was struck by a comment made by David W. Baker in his commentary on Leviticus (Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy [Cornerstone Biblical Commentary]), p. 194-195:
… Protection of life and dignity through a shared distribution of wealth was also known and practiced in the early church at Jerusalem (Acts 2:44-45), though not in relation to any actual Year of Jubilee. This might sound radical and unheard of in much of today’s church, but its implementation in Acts seems to have been a catalyst for many becoming members of the church every day. Could there be a causal link between the two, which the church today should take into consideration? The church needs to give greater thought to its economic responsibilities in addition to, and as part of, its theological ones.
Now for those who may think this is from a liberal commentary, it’s not; it’s from a solidly evangelical one. The redistribution to which he refers is the return of land and the freeing of slaves at the Jubilee. Those who have done poorly during the preceding 49 years are suddenly blessed by a substantial redistribution of wealth in the form of land or even of their personal freedom.
There are a number of principles that can be illustrated through Leviticus 25. There is the basic idea of caring for those less fortunate, the particular command against enslaving one’s own people (though the extension to not enslaving anyone had to wait for a later time), and also the idea that such support was not a constant and unconditional thing.
I suspect most of us have observed how people respond differently to certain sermons or passages of scripture. When a pastor preaches on giving, for example, often people in the congregation who are already inclined to give feel the need to push themselves to do more, while others who give less on a regular basis are good at finding the loopholes.
It’s difficult sometimes to find just how a scripture applies to me and not to all the other people I’d like it to apply for. That underlines the importance of prayerful study of scripture. Prayerful study does not merely involved praying before you study. It is also the prayerful attitude, i.e. the attitude of listening to and depending on God throughout.
Now look at how the early church implemented very similar principles, but in a much different way. In their smaller community, which was not the equivalent of the nation, unlike that envisioned in Leviticus 25, they managed to keep everyone properly cared for by holding all things in common. Latter, as discussed in 2 Corinthians 9 & 10 Paul implemented similar principles through taking a special collection.
Our tendency is to read a passage like the description of the Jubilee, and if we’re inclined to support (or at least talk about supporting) the poor, we’ll emphasize that aspect. One of my college professors constantly talked about the Jubilee in direct opposition to public welfare, even though wealthy Israelites would have been forced to give up wealth to others in a massive redistribution, because he noted that in the ordinary course of affairs people were expected to work. That was his inclination, and that was what he heard in the text.
Another professor whose inclination was toward communism found his warrant in Acts 2:44-45, and never seemed to notice that the early church was not a government, but rather a voluntary association, and indeed an association to which one really had to want to belong, nor did he notice the short duration of this particular practice. Yet another person could hardly bring himself to fully describe the situation of Acts 2:44-45, because he was so anxious to point out how limited the circumstances were and how short the time!
I think this passage should give pause for both Christian capitalists and Christian socialists. I am fairly strongly inclined to the capitalist myself, but as a Christian I believe I should be deeply concerned about and positively active concerning those who are left out. At the same time, I do have biblical warrant for good and careful stewardship. Jubilee does not mean that I have to give without consideration or that redistribution is always a great idea. It also does not give comfort to those who say “Never!”
The particular way in which I implement God’s commands is left up to me and to the community of which I am a part, with the aid of examples of how God had these principles implemented over time.
One further thought occurred to me here. Frequently we read statements about caring for the orphan and the widow that are found frequently in the prophets and we use these in support of whatever program is on the front burner today. Perhaps we should look a bit at the foundation document here in Leviticus to discover just what caring for the poor might have meant to those prophets. I don’t mean that there cannot be tension between prophetic and priestly statements, but at the same time, my view of the world is doubtless more unlike that of Hosea or Jeremiah than either of their views was from their priestly contemporaries.