DID JESUS BELIEVE IN INCOME EQUALITY?

I couldn’t find one instance where Jesus affirms income equality (IE). Perhaps the parable that comes closest to supporting IE is the parable about an owner who repeatedly goes to the market to hire workers for his vineyard and pays each the same amount, irrespective of how long they had worked. When those who had worked the longest complained, the owner answered:

·       “’Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’ So the last will be first, and the first last.” (Matthew 20:13-16; ESV)

Jesus never suggested that His ideal is IE. Instead, there are a number of reasons that this teaching shouldn’t be taken as a repudiation of capitalism in favor of IE:

1.    Jesus affirmed, as He did in all of His parables, the legitimacy of the employer/employee relationship.

2.    Jesus also affirmed the legitimacy of the owner/employer having disproportionate wealth.

3.    He affirmed the fact that ultimately there will be some who are first and some last. Not all will have the same thing.

4.    Above all else, the owner gave out of generosity and not because he owed it to his employees or to the government.

In other parables, Jesus affirmed the legitimacy of capitalism even more directly. Another parable featured the owner of a vineyard who had leased it out to tenants. However, the tenants, perhaps advocates of IE refused to pay the landlord the profits due to him. However, Jesus sided with the landlord (Matthew 21:33-41; Mark 12:1-9; Luke 20:9-16).

Jesus used the father of the Prodigal Son as a positive role model. However, he had numerous “hired servants” (Luke 15:17) and evidently great wealth. Even in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, who ended up in a place of torment, there is no indication that his wealth had been the problem, but rather that he refused to share what he had (Luke 16:19-31).

In fact, it is important to note that Jesus never criticized but endorsed the Mosaic Law. Instead, He often criticized those who departed from it (Matthew 15:1-8; John 5:44-47). However, the Law had nothing to say against being rich and having employees, even servants. In fact, God had blessed many – Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Job, David, and Solomon – with great wealth. While the Law did mention equality, it was never a matter of IE.

Jesus’ teachings were in tandem with the Mosaic. He too endorsed the principle that the hard worker should be able to reap his rewards.

Jesus told a parable about a wealthy landowner who was leaving in a long journey. He therefore entrusted with money so that they would use it to make a profit for him. Most did so and were commended by the landowner upon his return. However, one servant simply buried it and returned to his master the very amount that had been entrusted to him.

The master did not commend him but berated him:

·       “‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.’” (Matthew 25:26-29)

Not only did Jesus affirm the master/servant relationship, He also affirmed the fact that the master was using the servant to make a profit. Even “worse,” Jesus affirmed that the little that the “slothful servant” had should be taken from him and given to those who had much more – hardly an advocacy for IE.

Of course, Jesus wasn’t advocating unrestrained capitalism. The Mosaic Law contained numerous safeguards and provisions for the poor. However, the Law didn’t suppress individual initiative, the essential element of capitalism.

However, many, even “Christians,” are not aware of Jesus’ teachings and, therefore, tend to understand Him in a way that affirms their own modern, progressive values. One New York Times columnist cited a fringe figure, Brian McLaren, as proof that the Church is not following its Founder:

·       “Our religions often stand for the very opposite of what their founders stood for…”

·       “No wonder more and more of us who are Christians by birth, by choice, or both find ourselves shaking our heads and asking, ‘What happened to Christianity?’” McLaren writes. “We feel as if our founder has been kidnapped and held hostage by extremists. His captors parade him in front of cameras to say, under duress, things he obviously doesn’t believe. As their blank-faced puppet, he often comes across as anti-poor, anti-environment, anti-gay, anti-intellectual, anti-immigrant and anti-science. That’s not the Jesus we met in the Gospels!”

McLaren claims that the Church has misunderstood Jesus. What is the basis of his charge? Certainly not Scripture! Rather, it seems that the Church is wrong because it fails to understand Jesus in a way consistent with McLaren’s progressivism.

And what of McLaren’s charge that the Church is not following Jesus’ teaching about feeding the poor? Jesus never petitioned the ruling classes to establish entitlement programs to feed the poor. However, He did appeal to individuals to give generously.

Admittedly, we fail in many regards. However, it is not because, as McLaren alleges, the Bible-believing church has willingly distorted His teachings.

Poverty, the Church, and Entitlement Programs

Christians are routinely bashed for not being concerned about the poor. This charge is based upon our lack of support for “entitlement” programs.

Meanwhile, many are now calling for “income equality” as a basic “human right,” and even claim that this is a Christian thing. But is it? Certainly, concern for the poor is a high biblical priority. Here are some examples:

THE SABBATH  “Observe the sabbath day… Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant or your ox or your donkey or any of your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you, so that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. (Deut. 5:12-14)

The Sabbath was even a rest for the least of people. Such mercy for the poor was in direct contrast to all other ancient cultures:

• “Tacitus, Juvenal, Plutarch make merry over the idea of presenting one day in every seven to the worker! The far-reaching humanitarian significance of the Sabbath was, of course, undreamt of by them.” (J.H. Hertz, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs)

• “Subordination of the rights of property to those of humanity…a new conception in the history of the world-a conception that could as little have been derived from Egypt as from Greece and Rome.” (Hertz)

• “Among the Romans, the idea of property took precedence over theidea of humanity. Thus, if the debtor was unable to repay a sum advanced to him, the Roman creditor could imprison him in a private dungeon, chain him to a block, sell him into slavery, or kill him…pity for the poor was looked upon as sickly sentimentality, unworthy of a free man…Virgil praises one of his heros because he never felt any sympathy for sufferers through want; Seneca thinks it natural to recoil in horror from a poor man; and Paulus declares feeding the hungry to be cruelty because it prolongs a life of misery.” (Hertz)

According to Mosaic Law, the poor were never to become a permanent underclass. Therefore, debts had to be cancelled every seventh year – an historical anomaly among the nations:

THE SABBATH YEAR:

• At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother, because the LORD's time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother owes you. (Deuteronomy 15:1-3) 

THE JUBILEE:

• Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you; each one of you is to return to his family property and each to his own clan. (Leviticus 25:10) 

Land was the means of wealth and security. When the poor would lose their land, they would also lose their means of income. Therefore, the land had to revert to the family to whom it had been originally allocated.

THE THIRD YEAR TITHE:

• At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it in your towns, so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. (Deuteronomy 14:28-29)

This was not intended for the able-bodied but for the needy. We do not know to what extent it provided for their needs.

GLEANING:

• "When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God." (Leviticus 23:22)

The law of gleaning did not encourage laziness. Instead, the gleaners would have to forage strenuously for scarce resources.

LOANS:

• If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. (Deuteronomy 15:7-8) 

Jesus seems to have only reiterated the Mosaic laws:

• Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. (Matthew 5:42)
  

These loans weren’t gifts. They had to be paid back or else the Israelite might have to sell himself as a servant until the debt is paid off. Giving was never to be administered in a way that created dependency but in a way that would help the needy to escape dependency.

Those who received the loan had to be treated with dignity. The loaner could not simply enter into the home of the indebted one. His dignity had to be preserved:

• When you make a loan of any kind to your neighbor, do not go into his house to get what he is offering as a pledge. Stay outside and let the man to whom you are making the loan bring the pledge out to you. (Deuteronomy 24:10-11)

Although the indebted might have to provide security on his loan in case of default, the loaner could not deprive the indebted of his means of repaying the debt:

• Do not take a pair of millstones--not even the upper one--as security for a debt, because that would be taking a man's livelihood as security. (Deuteronomy 24:6)
  

Christians, therefore, rightly want to give in a way that will help and not hinder. If giving creates dependency and laziness, it is destructive. Instead, compassion argues that the lazy should reap the appropriate consequences of their laziness so that they might wake up:

• He who gathers crops in summer is a prudent son, but he who sleeps during harvest is a disgraceful son. (Proverbs 10:5) 

• Diligent hands will rule, but laziness ends in forced labor. (Proverbs 12:24)

• A sluggard’s appetite is never filled, but the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied. (Proverbs 13:4)

• One who is slack in his work is brother to one who destroys. (Proverbs 18:9)

Consequently, Paul argued that the lazy should not be enabled in their laziness:

• For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." (2 Thess. 3:10) 

When giving is not coupled with wisdom, it can damage:

• As for younger widows, do not put them on such a [support] list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. (1 Tim. 5:11-12)

Giving can also elicit contempt and an entitlement mentality. The Occupy Movement believes that they are entitled to the money of others. They decry the riches of the “one percent” and even talk violently against them, as if they have committed a great injustice. (Sometimes, it is a matter of injustice. But if this is so, then it must be mediated by the courts, or new laws must be passed to protect the poor. However, the Occupiers have never seemed able to articulate what the new laws should look like.)

From where do their threats come? They have been told that they are entitled to more, and that they have been unjustly cheated out of their “human rights.” While poverty is sometimes a matter of justice, it is not always so. It might instead be the product of other causes, including laziness and substance abuse.

It is therefore important to exercise discernment and wisdom. Many entitlement programs have actually hurt those who were supposed to be helped by them, creating dependency and an angry entitlement mentality:

• We hardly need another polemic about the failure of America’s “war on poverty.” After decades of bitter wrangling and torpid inaction, there is at last a broad consensus that the welfare system is a cure no less malignant than the disease it was intended to remedy. Liberals and conservatives, politicians and program administrators, social workers and taxpayers have all been forced to acknowledge that the poor are not best served by our current lumbering and impersonal entitlement bureaucracy. They never have been. They never will be. On this, we now all agree.

• If the poor are to be equipped with the tools of self-reliance and initiative, they must first restore family ties and community connections that have been sundered by privation and irresponsibility. Promiscuous philanthropy does little to solve the long-term dilemmas of social disintegration. It is little surprise then that programs that emphasize personal accountability, family responsibility, and community cooperation are much more likely to succeed than programs that simply dispense aid as sheer entitlements. 

How can we truly help the poor? First, we have to understand their must fundamental needs. Gracey Olmstead writes:

• In his excellent essay at the end of the book, Peter Greer references a World Bank survey from the 1990s, in which surveyors asked financially poor people throughout the developing world how they would describe poverty. “The poor did not focus on their material need,” writes Greer. “Rather, they alluded to social and psychological aspects of poverty.” They referenced poverty in terms “shame, inferiority, powerlessness, humiliation, fear, hopelessness, depression, social isolation, and voicelessness.” 

Can we give in a way that helps the needy recover their sense of dignity? Many Christian aid groups have! In The Tragedy of American Compassion, Marvin Olasky, editor-in-chief of World Magazine, argues that, for 300 years, the church has been doing a good job of addressing the needs of the poor:

• Faith-based groups a century ago helped millions out of poverty and into homes. Local organizations had the detailed knowledge and flexibility necessary to administer the combination of loving compassion and rigorous discipline that was needed.

Caring for the poor is not an option, it is a Christian duty! However, this duty must be wisely fulfilled, or it will damage the ones we are to help.

Are Christians Hypocrites: Jesus’ Parables

“You Christians love to tell others how they’re messing up, but you too refuse to follow Jesus!” he charged.

I asked Bob what he meant. He responded, “Jesus taught you to turn the other cheek, but you want to bomb the snot out of ISIS. Jesus taught you to give to anyone who asks, but you won’t give me a miserable $20!”

This is a serious charge. If Bob is right, then we are hypocrites, telling others to follow Jesus, while we refuse to follow him.

I wanted to answer Bob, but I knew that the answer would not be satisfying. It required more than a one verse rebuttal. Besides, Luke did write:

• "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. (Luke 6:27-30)

Admittedly, this is a difficult set of verses to interpret. One reason that it is difficult is because it seems to contradict many other verses. Paul had instructed that we shouldn’t give to everyone who asks. If someone refuses to work, we would be doing wrongly to support him (2 Thess. 3:10). Even Jesus taught that there are occasions when we shouldn’t give. We shouldn’t waste our pearls of wisdom on those who will turn against us (Matthew 7:6). Even Jesus did not give to all who ask. James and John requested Jesus to make them His co-regents once He’d set up His kingdom. However, He turned them down!

Do we then have a contradiction, or is there a way to resolve this apparent contradiction? Yes! Jesus spoke in parables, often using hyperbole (exaggerated language):

• And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (Matthew 5:30)

No one takes this literally. If we did, the church would be filled with handless people. Likewise, no takes Jesus’ command to “pluck out your eye” literally. However, His hyperbolic language makes a powerful point: “If cutting of your hand could keep you from sin and hell, then it would be a small price to pay!”

For years, I had struggled with Jesus’ elusive teachings. Should I turn my cheek when my students were misbehaving, even to the point of threatening other students? Fortunately, I decided against this kind of turning the other cheek. It would have brought utter disrespect upon me and upon the church.

It eventually became apparent to me that if I took Jesus literally, I would violate other biblical commands. If my friend asked to borrow my gun so that he could shoot his wife, such giving would violate the law of love. Perhaps, a ridiculous looking interpretation of giving is ridiculous and wrong-headed.

I began to ask, “Does the context of this teaching give me the justification to take Jesus’ teaching hyperbolically.” I dreaded the idea of misapplying His teaching merely to enable me to live with it. However, I did find grounds in the following verses:

• “Do to others as you would have them do to you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” (Luke 6:31-36)

Often, Jesus gives us the key to unlock the interpretation. It seems that He had in this case. When I began to see His teaching on giving in the light of the over-arching principle of love and mercy, it began to make sense.

I had to be ready to give to others in love. If giving isn’t in the best interests of the other person, then I shouldn’t give. I had to learn the difference between destructive, disempowering, indulgent giving and giving that would empower. Paul had argued against the church supporting certain widows because this would enable them to sin. Instead, he argued that the younger widows should marry and that the widow’s family should support her where necessary (1 Tim. 5:3-8).

Jesus argued that our mercy should reflect the wisdom of God’s mercy (Luke 6:36). What does that look like? It looks like what’s been written in the Hebrew Scriptures, what else! There, we find giving accompanied by accountability. God displayed a major interest in the welfare of the poor and needy but in a loving way. He wouldn’t de-motivate them with handouts but instead required that the fields be available to the poor to glean the remains.  

We have a weighty responsibility for the poor, but it must be exercised wisely, lovingly, and Scripturally. Also seen from the point of view of God’s revelation, “turning the other cheek” was not a command to fire every policeman and tear down every jail. Instead, it was a warning against taking the law into our own hands to seek revenge. (Watch out, ISIS!) Instead, it reflects the Bible’s emphasis on the civil magistrate (Romans 13:1-4) as opposed to vigilantism.

Bob would not sit still for this explanation, but at least I can assure myself that I am not a hypocrite.

Tim Keller and Making Mercy an Entitlement

In Generous Justice, Pastor Tim Keller fittingly argues that we have a biblical obligation to do justice on behalf of the poor (especially for all the vulnerable and needy). However, in making his case, he wrongly equates justice with mercy and argues that to do justice is to be merciful and to be merciful is to do justice:

• The mishpat, or justness, of a society, according to the Bible, is evaluated by how it treats these [marginalized and vulnerable] groups. Any neglect shown to the needs of the members of this quartet is not called merely at lack of mercy or charity, but a violation of justice, of mishpat. God loves and defends those with the least economic and social power, and so should we. This is what it means to “do justice.” (4-5)

While God requires both justice and mercy from us, these complementary principles are distinct. We are entitled to justice as a human right. Keller rightly cites the fact that there should be one law for both Israelites and alien. God required that both receive equal treatment under the law. The fact that all are created in the image of God makes justice an entitlement.

This might illustrate the distinction between mercy and justice. A judge, constrained by the law to treat everyone justly and equally, is also free to throw a party and discriminate. He could be merciful to some and not to others. He could invite some of the poor but not all of the poor. Those poor who were not invited could not protest, “You have violated our rights by not inviting us.” Instead, the judge is free to invite whomever he so pleases to invite. This is not a matter of justice but of mercy. Therefore, the poor cannot insist that the judge hadn’t been just with them, as he must be in the court.

Jesus told a parable about a landowner who had invited some unemployed to come work for Him. He promised them a denarius. However, later He hired others to work in His vineyard but for a much shorter time. However, at the end of the day, He gave all of His workers the same pay.

The ones who had worked the longest protested that this was not just. However, He explained that He had been just and had given them the exact amount that they had agreed on. Therefore, they had no reason to complain. However, there was also a matter of mercy:

• “I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius?  Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you.  Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?” (Matthew 20:13-15)

Justice and mercy are two different things. Justice gives a person what they deserve – what they are entitled to. Mercy gives a person what he is not entitled to!

This distinction should be obvious. Justice requires God to destroy all humanity, because this is what we deserve: “The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life” (Romans 6:23). While justice requires death, mercy gives life. Because mercy is discriminate and not an entitlement, God is free to be merciful to whomever (Romans 9:18). There is nothing that compels Him to save all, but He must be just to all. However, no one can accuse Him of injustice, although they can charge that He hasn’t been even handed in giving mercy.

How then does Keller attempt to eliminate the distinction between mercy and justice, making them both an entitlement? He cites a number of verses where mercy and justice are mentioned side-by-side:

• “If I have denied justice [mishpat] to any of my servants, whether male or female, when they had a grievance against me, what will I do when God confronts me?... If I have denied the desires of the poor or let the eyes of the widow grow weary, if I have kept my bread to myself, not sharing it with the fatherless— but from my youth I reared them as a father would, and from my birth I guided the widow— if I have seen anyone perishing for lack of clothing, or the needy without garments, and their hearts did not bless me for warming them with the fleece from my sheep, if I have raised my hand against the fatherless, knowing that I had influence in court, then let my arm fall from the shoulder, let it be broken off at the joint… then these also would be sins to be judged, for I would have been unfaithful to God on high.” (Job 31:13-28) 

Job correctly recognized a connection between justice and mercy, that both are mandated by God and complementary. However, mentioning justice and mercy together doesn’t mean that they are the same thing.

Keller recognizes that many will object to his thesis:

• Many readers might be asking at this point why we are calling private giving to the poor “justice”… In English, however, the word “charity” conveys a good but optional activity. Charity cannot be a requirement, for then it would not be charity. But this view does not fit in with the strength or balance of the Biblical teaching. (15). 

Keller is correct that charity, in general, is not optional. However, we are free to exercise discernment regarding to whom we will be charitable. Not so with justice! He therefore argues that:

• In Scripture, gifts to the poor are called “acts of righteousness,” as in Matthew 6:1-2.

Here, Keller attempts to equate mercy (“gifts”) with justice (“acts of righteousness”). However, these verses fail to support Keller’s case. Although “acts of righteousness” – giving – is mandated, we are free to exercise discernment and to not give.

Keller also cites several other verses in support (Ezekiel 18:5-8; Deut. 10:18-19; Isaiah 58:6-7). While it is probable that these verses reference the two concepts of mercy and justice together, they do not explicitly say that they are the same thing. Instead, this association seems to show that we must be both just and merciful. (16-17)

Contrary to Keller’s case, there are many verses that reflect the fact that maintaining the poor at a certain material level is not mandated:

• He who gathers crops in summer is a prudent son, but he who sleeps during harvest is a disgraceful son. (Proverbs 10:5)

• Diligent hands will rule, but laziness ends in forced labor. (Proverbs 12:24)

• A sluggard’s appetite is never filled, but the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied. (Proverbs 13:4) 

• One who is slack in his work is brother to one who destroys. (Proverbs 18:9)

None of these verses suggest that the lazy or slothful are entitled to support. In fact, numerous verses instruct against giving support:

• For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." (2 Thes. 3:10)

• As for younger widows, do not put them on such a [support] list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. (1 Tim. 5:11-12)

While justice is an entitlement - a human right – mercy is not. While the poor can insist that they are owed justice, they cannot insist that they are owed an income. Instead mercy was to be exercised discriminately, compassionately, and thoughtfully.

This distinction is not merely academic. Violent passions and church divisions ride upon it. The Occupy Movement believes that they are entitled to the money of others. They decry the riches of the “one percent” and even talk violently against them, as if they have committed a great injustice. (Sometimes, it is a matter of injustice. But if this is so, then it must be mediated by the courts or new laws must be passed to protect the poor. However, the Occupiers never seemed able to articulate what the new laws should look like.) However, it seems obvious that their vehemence is not restricted to just these one percent.

From where do their threats come? They have been told that they are entitled to more, and that they have been unjustly cheated by the rich. While poverty is sometimes a matter of justice, it is not always so. It might instead be the product of other causes, including laziness.

It is therefore important to exercise discernment and wisdom. Many entitlement programs have actually hurt those who were supposed to be helped by them, creating dependency and an angry entitlement mentality:

• We hardly need another polemic about the failure of America’s “war on poverty.” After decades of bitter wrangling and torpid inaction, there is at last a broad consensus that the welfare system is a cure no less malignant than the disease it was intended to remedy. Liberals and conservatives, politicians and program administrators, social workers and taxpayers have all been forced to acknowledge that the poor are not best served by our current lumbering and impersonal entitlement bureaucracy. They never have been. They never will be. On this, we now all agree.

• If the poor are to be equipped with the tools of self-reliance and initiative, they must first restore family ties and community connections that have been sundered by privation and irresponsibility. Promiscuous philanthropy does little to solve the long-term dilemmas of social disintegration. It is little surprise then that programs that emphasize personal accountability, family responsibility, and community cooperation are much more likely to succeed than programs that simply dispense aid as sheer entitlements. 

When mercy, like justice, becomes an entitlement, it is no longer mercy!

ADDENDUM

Despite the above critique, Keller makes an excellent case for legalizing additional protections for the marginalized based upon the concern that God shows for them in the Bible. Here are just of few of the safeguards that our Lord has put into place:

1. JUBILEE - The land returns to its original owners after 49 years. This would provide the poor with a means of support.

2. LAW OF THE GLEANER - The poor could harvest the land of the wealthy after the initial harvest.

3. SABBATH YEAR - The slaves go free!