Poverty
Poverty
See Poor, Poverty.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
POVERTY
Is that state or situation, opposed to riches, in which we are deprived of the conveniences of life. Indigence is a degree lower, where we want the necessaries, and is opposed to superfluity. Want seems rather to arise by accident, implies a scarcity of provision rather than a lack of money, and is opposed to abundance. Need and necessity relate less to the situation of life than the other three words, but more to the relief we expect, or the remedy we seek; with this difference between the two, that need seems less pressng than necessity.
2. Poverty of mind is a state of ignorance, or a mind void of religious principle, Rev 3:17.
3. Poverty of spirit, consists in an inward sense and feeling of our wants and defects; a conviction of our wretched and forlorn condition by nature; with a dependence on divine grace and mercy for pardon and acceptance, Mat 5:3. It must be distinguished from a poor spiritedness, a sneaking fearfulness, which bringeth a snare. It is the effect of the operation of the Divine Spirit on the heart, Joh 16:8.; is attended with submission to the divine will; contentment in our situation; meekness and forbearance as to others, and genuine humility as to ourselves. It is a spirit approved of by God, Isa 66:2. evidential of true religion, Luk 17:13. and terminates in endless felicity, Mat 5:3. Isa 57:1-21. Psa 34:18. Dunlop’s Ser. lec. 1. vol. 2: Barclay’s Dict.; South’s Ser. vol. 10: ser. 1; No. 464, Spec. vol. 6:; Robert Harris’s Sermons. ser. 3. part 3.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
poverty
(Latin: paupertas, poverty; Old French: poverte, indigence)
In Catholic doctrine and asceticism, poverty is one of the three Evangelical Counsels. Taken as such, it indicates the voluntary renunciation, partial or complete, of the right of ownership either by an individual, religious or laic, or by an entire religious community or order (Mendicant Orders). It involves at the same time the moral obligation to use the goods of earth after the manner of the ordinary poor. Apart from this specific signification, poverty means in general any deficiency in what is desired or desirable or in what constitutes richness. More particularly, it denotes the scarcity or absence of the means of subsistence, or the state of those who suffer the lack of such means. As understood by economists and sociologists, poverty is that economic and social status in which a person, either because of inadequate income or of unwise expenditure, lacks some of the requisites of physical efficiency, that is, normal health and productive capacity; or, to formulate a definition substantially equivalent in meaning to the economic and utilitarian conception, but more in consonance with the dignity of man, it is that more or less chronic condition in which a person for whatever reason falls short of the sum total of material goods requisite for the development and maintenanc; of normal health and strength, of an elementary amount of comfort, of a minimum degree of culture, and of right moral living.
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Poverty
I. THE MORAL DOCTRINE OF POVERTY
Jesus Christ did not condemn the possession of worldly goods, or even of great wealth; for He himself had rich friends. Patristic tradition condemns the opponents of private property; the texts on which such persons rely, when taken in connexion with their context and the historical circumstances, are capable of a natural explanation which does not at all support their contention (cf. Vermeersch, “Quæst. de justitia”, n. 210). Nevertheless it is true that Christ constantly pointed out the danger of riches, which, He says, are the thorns that choke up the good seed of the word (Matthew 13:22). Because of His poverty as well as of His constant journeying, necessitated by persecution, He could say: “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air nests: but the son of man hath not where to lay his head” (Matthew 8:20), and to the young man who came to ask Him what he should do that he might have life everlasting, He gave the counsel, “If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor” (Matthew 19:16-21). The renunciation of worldly possessions has long been a part of the practice of Christian asceticism; the Christian community of Jerusalem in their first fervour sold their goods “and divided them to all, according as every one had need” (Acts 2:45), and those who embraced the state of perfection understood from the first that they must choose poverty.
Does this mean that poverty is the object of a special virtue? Gury (Theolog. moralis II, n. 155) answers the question in the affirmative, and many religious writers favour the same opinion, which is supported by the ordinary conventual and ascetical literature; what is prescribed by the vow of poverty is compared therein with the virtue of poverty, just as we compare the vows of obedience and chastity with the corresponding virtues. But this is erroneous; for the object of a virtue must be something honourable or praiseworthy in itself: now poverty has no intrinsic goodness, but is good only because it is useful to remove the obstacles which stand in the way of the pursuit of spiritual perfection (St. Thomas, “Contra Gentiles”, III, cxxxiii; Suarez, “De religione”, tr. VII, l. VIII, c. ii, n. 6; Bucceroni, “Inst. theol. mor.”, II, 75, n. 31). The practice of poverty derives its merit from the virtuous motive ennobling it, and from the virtues which we exercise in regard to the privations and sacrifices accompanying it. As every vow has for its object the worship of God, poverty practised under a vow has the merit of the virtue of religion, and its public profession, as enjoined by the Church, forms a part of the ritual of the Catholic religion.
The ancients understood the nobility of making themselves independent of the fleeting things of earth, and certain Greek philosophers lived in voluntary penury; but they prided themselves on being superior to the vulgar crowd. There is no virtue in such poverty as this, and when Diogenes trampled Plato’s carpet, saying as he did so: “Thus do I trample on Plato’s pride”, “Yes”, answered Plato, “but only through your own pride.” Buddhism also teaches the contempt of riches; in China the tenth precept of the novices forbids them to touch gold or silver, and the second precept of female novices forbids them to possess anything of their own; but their ignorance of a personal God prevents the Buddhist monks from having any higher motive for their renunciation than the natural advantage of restraining their desires (cf. Wieger, “Bouddhisme chinois”, pp. 153, 155, 183, 185). If voluntary poverty is ennobled by the motive which inspires it, the poverty which puts aside temporal possessions for the service of God and the salvation of souls is the most noble of all. It is the apostolic poverty of the Christian religion which is practised in the highest degree by missionaries in pagan countries, and to a certain degree by all priests: all these voluntarily give up certain possessions and advantages in order to devote themselves entirely to the service of God.
Voluntary poverty is the object of one of the evangelical counsels. The question then arises, what poverty is required by the practice of this counsel or, in other words, what poverty suffices for the state of perfection? The renunciation which is essential and strictly required is the abandonment of all that is superfluous, not that it is absolutely necessary to give up the ownership of all property, but a man must be contented with what is necessary for his own use. Then only is there a real detachment which sufficiently mortifies the love of riches, cuts off luxury and vain glory, and frees from the care for worldly goods. Cupidity, vain glory, and excessive solicitude are, according to St. Thomas, the three obstacles which riches put in the way of acquiring perfection (Summa, II-II, Q. clxxxviii, a. 7). This abandonment of superfluities was the only way in which voluntary poverty could be understood before the introduction of the common life. The state of perfection, understood in its proper sense, requires also that the renunciation should be of a permanent character; and in practice this stability follows as the result of a perpetual vow of poverty. The warnings and counsels of Jesus Christ are valuable even to those who are not vowed to a state of perfection. They teach men to moderate their desire for riches, and accept cheerfully the loss or deprivation of them; and they inculcate that detachment from the things of this world which our Lord taught when He said, “Everyone of you that doth not renounce all that he possesseth, cannot be my disciple” (Luke xiv 33).
II. THE CANONICAL DISCIPLINE OF POVERTY
Among the followers of perfection, the spirit of poverty was manifested from the first by giving up temporal possessions; and among those living in community, the use of goods as private property was strictly forbidden, being contrary to that common life which the patriarchs of monasticism, St. Pachomius and his disciple Schénoudi, St. Basil, and St. Benedict, imposed upon their followers. But there was at that time no express vow of poverty, and no legal disability; the monastic profession required nothing but the rigorous avoidance of all that was unnecessary (cf. De Buck, “Do sollemnitate votorum, præcipue paupertatis religiosæ epistola”, x). Justinian ordained that the goods of religious should belong to the monastery (Novel. 5, iv sqq.; 123, xxxviii and xlii). This law gradually came into force, and in time created a disability to acquire property, although in the twelfth century, and even later, there were religious in possession of property. The rule of French law, under which a religious was considered as Civilly dead, contributed to establish a necessary connexion between the vow of poverty and the idea of disability.
The express vow of renunciation of all private property was introduced into the profession of the Friars Minor in 1260. About the same time another change took place; hitherto no limit had been placed on the common possessions of religious, but the mendicant orders in the thirteenth century forbade the possession, even in common, of all immovable property distinct from the convent, and of all revenues; and the Friars Minor of the strict observance, desiring to go one step further, assigned to the Holy See the ownership of all their property, even the most indispensable. Following the example of St. Francis and St. Dominic, many founders established their orders on a basis of common poverty, and the Church saw a large increase in the number of the mendicant orders until the foundation of the clerks regular in the sixteenth century; even then, many orders united common poverty with the regular clerical life: such were the Theatines (1524), whose rule was to live on alms and contributions spontaneously given; and the Society of Jesus (1540). It soon became evident that this profession of poverty which had so greatly edified the thirteenth century was exposed to grave abuses, that a certain state of destitution created more cares than it removed, and was not conducive either to intellectual activity or to strict observance; and that mendicity might become an occasion of scandal. Consequently the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, c. iii, de reg.) permitted all monasteries, except those of the Friars Minor Observantines and the Capuchins, to possess immovable property, and consequently the income derived therefrom; but the Carmelites and the Society of Jesus, in its professed houses, continue to practise the common poverty which forbids the possession of assured incomes.
Congregations with simple vows were not bound by the canonical law forbidding the private possession or acquisition of property by members of approved orders: the disability of private possession was thus considered as an effect of the solemn vow of poverty; but this bond between the incapacity to possess and the solemn vow is neither essential nor indissoluble. So far as the effect of the vow on private possession is concerned, the vow of poverty taken by the formed coadjutors of the Society of Jesus has the same effect as the solemn vow of the professed fathers. St. Ignatius instituted in his order a simple profession preparatory to the final one with an interval between them during which the religious retains his capacity to possess property. A similar rule has been extended to all orders of men by Pius IX and to orders of women by Leo XIII (see PROFESSION, RELIGIOUS). On the other hand, since the Rescript of the Penitentiary of 1 Dec., 1820, confirmed by the declaration to the bishops of Belgium dated 31 July, 1878, the solemn profession of religious in Belgium (and Holland appears to enjoy the same privilege) does not prevent them from acquiring property or keeping and administering it, or disposing of it: they are bound, however, in the exercise of their rights, to observe the submission they owe to their legitimate superiors.
The Vow of Poverty in General
The vow of poverty may generally be defined as the promise made to God of a certain constant renunciation of temporal goods, in order to follow Christ. The object of the vow of poverty is anything visible, material, appreciable at a money value. Reputation, personal services, and the application of the mass, do not fall under this vow; relics are included only on account of the reliquary which contains them, and (at least in practice) manuscripts, as such, remain the property of the religious. The vow of poverty entirely forbids the independent use, and sometimes the acquisition or possession of such property as falls within its scope. A person who has made this vow gives up the right to acquire, possess, use, or dispose of property except in accordance with the will of his superior. Nevertheless certain acts of abdication are sometimes left to the discretion of the religious himself, such as the arrangements for the administration and application of income which professed religious under simple vows are required to make; and the drawing up of a will, by which the religious makes a disposition of his property to take effect after his death, may be permitted without any restriction. This license with regard to wills is of great antiquity. The simple fact of refusing to accept, for example, a personal legacy, may be contrary to charity, but cannot be an offence against the vow of poverty. The vow of poverty does not debar a religious from administering an ecclesiastical benefice which is conferred upon him, accepting sums of money to distribute for pious works, or assuming the administration of property for the benefit of another person (when this is consistent with his religious state), nor does it in any way forbid the fulfilment of obligations of justice, whether they are the result of a voluntary promise — for the religious may properly engage to offer a Mass or render any personal service — or arise from a fault, since he is bound in justice to repair any wrong done to the reputation of another person.
Submission to a superior (as we call the person whose permission, by the terms of the vow, is required for all acts disposing of temporal goods) does not necessarily call for an express or formal permission. A tacit permission which may be inferred from some act or attitude and the expression of some other wish, or even a reasonable presumption of permission, will be sufficient. There is no violation of the vow, when the religious can say to himself, “the superior, who is acquainted with the facts, will approve of my acting in this way without being informed of my intention”. The case is more difficult, when he knows that the superior would expect to be informed, and asked for permission, even though he would willingly have given his consent: if it seems probable that he regards the request for permission as a condition of his approval, the inferior offends against the vow of poverty, if he acts without asking leave; but there is no offence if he knows that the superior and himself are agreed as to the essential nature of the act; and the question whether the presumption is reasonable or otherwise may depend on the customs of different orders, the importance of the object, the frequent necessity of the act, the age and prudence of the inferior, his relations with his superior, the facility of obtaining access to him, and other similar considerations. Any admission of luxury or superfluity in daily life is derogatory to the religious state and the first conception of voluntary poverty; but it is not clear that this want of strictness is necessarily contrary to the vow. To decide this, regard must be had to the manner in which each particular vow, with all its circumstances, is generally understood.
A sin against the vow of poverty is necessarily an offence against the virtue of religion, and when committed in connexion with religious profession it is even a sacrilege. It may be a grave or a slight offence. The question, what matter is grave, causes great difficulty to moral theologians; and while some regard the appropriation of one franc as a grave matter, others are more lenient. Most theologians are inclined to compare the sin against the vow of poverty with the sin of theft, and say that the same amount which would make theft a mortal sin would, if appropriated contrary to the vow, constitute a grave offence against poverty. With the exception of Palmieri (Opus morale, tr. IX, c. i, n. 123) and Génicot (Theol. mor., II, n. 98) moralists admit that as in the case of sins against justice, so here circumstances may be considered. While many persons consider the importance and the wealth or poverty of the community in which the offence is committed, we are of opinion that it is rather the extent of the vow that should be considered, since the act does not violate the vow by reason of the harm it causes, but by its being a forbidden appropriation. If the fault is aggravated by in justice it must, as an unjust act, be judged according to the usual rules; but when considered as an offence against the vow, its gravity will be measured by the condition of the person who commits it. Thus a sum which would be very large for a beggar will be insignificant for a man who had belonged to a higher class. The social position should be considered; is it that of the poor or mendicant class? One cannot without grave fault dispose independently of a sum which without grave fault one could not take away from a beggar. For many existing congregations, the matter will be that of a mortal sin of theft committed to the detriment of a priest of honourable condition. It follows that in the case of incomplete appropriation, we must consider the economical value of the act in question; whether, for example, it is an act of simple use of administration; and when the religious does nothing but give away honourably goods of which he retains the ownership, the amount must be very large before the reasonable disposal of it can be regarded as a grave sin for want of the required authorization. If the sin consists, not in an independent appropriation, but in a life of too great luxury, it will be necessary to measure the gravity of the fault by the opposition which exists between luxury and the poverty which is promised by vow.
Variety in the Vows of Poverty
The vow of poverty is ordinarily attached to a religious profession; a person may however bind himself to a modest and frugal life, or even to follow the direction of an adviser in the use of his property. The vow may be perpetual or temporary. It may exclude private possession, or even to a certain point possession in common. It may entail legal disability or be simply prohibitive. It may extend to all goods possessed at present, or expected in the future; or it may be limited to certain classes of property; it may require the complete renunciation of rights, or simply forbid the application to personal profit, or even the independent use of the property. According to the present discipline of the Church, the vow of poverty taken by religious always involves a certain renunciation of rights: thus the religious is understood to give up to his order for ever the fruit of his work or personal industry, stipends of Masses, salary as professor, profits of any publication or invention, or savings from money allowed him for personal expenses. The independent disposal of any of these would be contrary not only to the vow, but also to justice. We have, moreover, to distinguish in the religious life between the solemn vow of poverty and the simple vow. The latter may be a step towards the solemn vow, or it may have a final character of its own.
The Solemn Vow of Poverty
The solemn vow by common law has the following special characteristics: it extends to all property and rights; it renders one incapable of possessing property, and therefore of transferring it; it makes all gifts or legacies which a religious receives, as well as the fruits of his own work, the property of the monastery; and in case property is inherited, the monastery succeeds in place of the professed religious, in accordance with the maxim: Quicquid monachus acquirit monasterio acquirit. Some orders are incapable of inheriting on such occasions, e.g., the Friars Minor Observantines, the Capuchins, and the Society of Jesus. The inheritance then passes to those who would succeed under the civil law in default of the professed religious. Sometimes before solemn vows are made by a religious, his monastery gives up its right of inheritance by arrangement with the family, and sometimes the religious is allowed to dispose of his share in anticipation. (As to these arrangements and their effect, see Vermeersch, “De relig. instit. et pers.”, II, 4th ed., supp. VI, 70 sqq.) As long as monasteries were independent, the monastery which inherited in place of the professed monk was the house to which he was bound by his vow of stability; but in more recent orders, the religious often changes his house, and sometimes his province, and has therefore no vow of stability, except as to the entire order; in such cases, the monastery according to the common usage is the whole order, unless some arrangement is made for partition among provinces or houses. (See Sanchez, “In decalogum”, VII, xxxii sqq.; De Lugo, “De institia et iure”, d. iii, nn. 226 sqq.) We have already said that the religious of Belgium preserve their capacity to acquire property and dispose of it: their acts therefore are valid, but they will only be licit if done with the approval of their superior. It will be the duty of the latter to see that the rigour of observance and especially the common life do not suffer by this concession, which is, indeed in other respects most important for their own civil security.
The Simple Vow of Religious Poverty
The simple vow of poverty has these common characteristics: it leaves the capacity to acquire intact, and permits the religious to retain certain rights of ownership. In exceptional cases the simple vow may involve incapacity, as is characteristic of the last simple vows of the Society of Jesus. We have now to distinguish between the simple vow which is preparatory to the solemn vow, and the final simple vow.
(a) The simple vow in preparation for the solemn vow
The Decree “Sanctissimus” of 12 June, 1858, with the subsequent declarations, constitutes the common law on the subject of this simple vow. (See Vermeersch, “De religiosis institutis etc.”, II, 4th ed., nn. 61 sqq., pp. 178 sqq.) This vow permits the religions to retain the ownership of property possessed at the time of his entrance into religion, to acquire property by inheritance, and to receive gifts and personal legacies. The administration and usufruct and the use of this property must before the taking of the vow pass either to the order (if it is able and willing to approve of the arrangement), or into other hands, at the choice of the religious. Such an arrangement is irrevocable as long as the religious remains under the conditions of the vow, and ceases should he leave the order; he seems authorized also to make or complete the resignation which he may have omitted to make or complete previously. Except so far as he is affected by the decree of the Council of Trent, which forbids novices to make any renunciation which would interfere with their liberty to leave their order, the religious who is bound by this simple vow may, with the permission of his superior, dispose of his property by a donation inter vivos, and apparently has full liberty to make a will. But the Decree “Perpensis” of 3 May, 1902, which extends to nuns the simple profession of orders of men, without mentioning a will, declares simply that women are not permitted to make final disposition of their property except during the two months immediately preceding their solemn profession.
(b) The final simple vow
With the exception of the Society of Jesus, in which the simple vow of formed coadjutors entails the same personal obligations and the same disability as the solemn vow, the final simple vow is known only in religious congregations, and the practice differs in different congregations (cf. Lucidi, “De visitatione SS. liminum” II, v, sec. 8, nn. 319 sqq.), and very often resembles that of the vow preparatory to the solemn vow; but according to the Regulations (Normœ) of 28 June, 1901, the transfer of property by donations inter vivos cannot be licitly made before the perpetual vows; after these vows, the complete renunciation requires the permission of the Holy See, which reserves to itself also the right to authorize the execution or modification of a will after profession. Any arrangements made before profession for the administration of property and the application of the revenues may be subsequently modified with the consent of the superior. In diocesan institutes, there is no question of the capacity of the religions; but the bishops generally reserve to themselves the right of approving the more important acts of administration.
The Peculium
Certain goods, for example sums of money, independent of the common stock, and made over to the religions to be used without restriction for their private wants, form what is called the peculium. Only that which is irrevocably put out of the power of the superior is contrary to the vow of poverty; but all peculium is an injury to that common life, which since the earliest times was considered so important by the founders of religious communities. The Holy See constantly uses its efforts to abolish it, and to establish that perfect common life which provides that there shall be in the convent one common treasury for the personal needs of all.
Possession in Common
The vow of poverty does not necessarily or as a general rule exclude the capacity to possess in common, that is to say, to have a common stock of property at the common disposal of the possessors, provided that they do not dispose of it in any manner Contrary to the accepted rules and customs. It is a great mistake to argue from the vow of poverty that it is just to deny to religions this real common possession.
———————————–
I. Historical
BUTLER, The Lausiac History of Palladius (Cambridge, 1899), a critical discussion together with notes on early Egyptian monachism; CARRIÈRE, De iustitia et iure (Louvain, 1845), 195 sqq.; DE BUCK, De sollemnitate votorum, prœcipue paupertatis reliqiosœ epistola (Brussels. 1862); LADEUZE, Etude sur le cénobitisme Pakhômien pendant le IVe siècle et la première moitié du Ve (Louvain, 1898); MARTÈNE, Comment, in reg. S. P. Benedicti; SCHIWIETZ, Das oriental. Mönchtum (Mainz, 1904); THOMASSINUS, Vetus et nova eccles. discip., I. iii.
II. Doctrinal
BASTIEN, Directoire canonique à l’usage des congrégations à vœux simples (Maredsous, 1911); BATTANDIER, Guide canonique pour les constitutions des sœurs à vœux simples (Paris. 1908); BOUIX, Tract. de jure regularium (Paris, 1858); DE LUGO, De iustitia et iure, d. iii, s. 4 sqq.; MOCCHEGGIANI, Jurisprudentia ecclesiastica ad usum et commoditatem utriusgue cleri, I (Quaracchi, 1904); PASSERINI, De hominum statibus, I, In Q. clxxxvi, art. 7, pp. 519 sqq.; PELLIZARIUS, Manuale regularium, tr. IV, c. ii; tr. VI, cc. ix and xiv; PIAT, Prœlectiones iuris regularis, I (Tournai, 1898), 239-69; SANCHEZ, In Decalogum, l. VII, especially cc. xviii-xxi; SUAREZ, De religione, tr. VII, l. VIII; ST. THOMAS, II-II, Q. clxxxiv, a. 3; Q. clxxxv, a. 6, ad 1um; Q. clxxxvi, aa. 3 and 7; Q. clxxxviii, a. 7, c.; VERMEERSCH, De religiosis institutis et personis, I (Bruges, 1907), nn. 237 sqq.; II (4th ed., 1910), suppl. vi.
A. VERMEERSCH Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter Dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIICopyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Poverty
is that state or situation opposed to riches in which we are deprived of the conveniences of life. Indigence is a degree lower, when we want the necessaries, and is opposed to superfluity. Want seems rather to arrive by accident, and is opposed to abundance. Need and necessity relate less to the situation of life than the other three words, but, more to the relief we expect or the remedy we seek; with this difference between the two, that need seems less pressing than necessity. Poverty has been sanctified by our blessed Lord in his own person, and in that of his parents; in that of his apostles, and of the most perfect of his disciples. Solomon besought the Lord to give him neither poverty nor riches (Pro 30:8), regarding each extreme as a dangerous rock to virtue. Poverty of mind is a state of ignorance, or a mind void of religious principle and enjoyment (Rev 3:17). Poverty of spirit consists in an inward sense and feeling of our wants and defects, with a dependence on divine grace and mercy for pardon and acceptance (Mat 5:3). It is the effect of the operation of the Divine Spirit on the heart (Joh 16:8). It is attended with submission to the divine will; contentment in our situation; meekness and forbearance to others, and genuine humility as to ourselves. It is a spirit approved by God (Isa 66:2), an evidence of true religion (Luk 18:13), and terminates in endless felicity (Mat 5:3). SEE POOR.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Poverty
POVERTY.That the life of Christ was one of poverty is an impression very generally derived from the familiar words of Is 53, and also from Php 2:7 (took upon himself the form of a slave) and 2Co 8:9 (he became poor, that ye through his poverty might become rich). But the general picture of the surroundings of Christ which we find in the Gospels is one of healthy active life. Throughout NT times, until the final agony, the resources of Palestine were well used, and the population was able to bear considerable taxation with comparative ease; and though Judaea was liable to scarcity (cf. St. Pauls care for the Jewish Christians, 1Co 16:1, Act 24:17), Galilee was a hive of industry (see Swete, Gospel of St Mark, p. lxxxii; and Buhl, art. New Testament Times in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible , Extra Vol. p. 45, with authorities cited at end). In accordance with this distinction, the contact of Jesus with the poor as described in the Gospels is almost confined to Judaea and Jerusalem (Mat 19:16, Mar 10:21 the rich young ruler; Mar 12:42, Luk 21:1 the poor widow; Mat 26:6, Mar 14:5 this ointment might have been sold for much and given to the poor; Mat 20:30, Mar 10:46, Luk 18:35 the blind beggars outside Jericho; cf. Mat 25:35).
1. The place of poverty in Christs own life.
(a) The home in Nazareth.That Christs parents were not wealthy we gather from St. Lukes narrative of the Infancy (Luk 2:24), where the offering of the poor is brought at the Presentation; that there was no room for them in the inn (Luk 2:7) does not in itself show that they were badly off. Nor does the fact that Nazareth was an inconsiderable town [the question in Joh 1:46, if implying a bad reputation, is not quite borne out by the facts; see Westcott, St. John, ad loc.] condemn all its inhabitants to poverty (see Edersheim, Life and Times of the Messiah, i. 183). Since we are entirely without direct information on either side, we can only conjecture that the form of the townspeoples question as given in St. Mark (Is not this the carpenter? Mar 6:3; cf. Mat 13:55), and the movements of His family (Joh 2:12, where His mother and His brethren are staying at Capernaum; Joh 2:2, where His mother and His disciples are guests at Cana) imply a certain position of independence (cf. Joh 1:38 Where dwellest thou?).
The story in Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica iii. 19, 20) of the grandsons of Judas the Lords brother being summoned before Domitian, and removing his suspicion of them by the appearance of their horny labourers hands, can hardly throw light on the circumstances of Christs own home.
(b) The active Ministry.Christ and His disciples, certainly did not subsist on charity; true, the Son of Man had not where to lay his head (Mat 8:20, Luk 9:58); but this shows only that Christ was content not to have a home of His own, not that He could not have had one. The little party had a common bag or purse (Joh 12:6), from which they purchased necessaries (Joh 4:8; cf. Mat 16:5, Mar 8:14) and gave to the poor (Joh 13:29; cf. Mat 26:9). The disciples question before the feeding of the five thousand, as given in St. Mark (Mar 6:37 Shall we buy two hundred pennyworth of bread? cf. Luk 9:13), though doubtless ironical, does not suggest actual penury. It would seem that Jesus was in the habit of paying the Temple tax (Mat 17:24). As the firstborn, He would under ordinary circumstances have the larger share of whatever property His father might leave. That He was not without well-to-do friends, and used their hospitality, is certain. Zebedee would seem to have been in a good position (Mar 1:20 with the hired servants; one of his sons is personally known to the high priest, Joh 18:15). Perhaps it was through his help that Jesus was able to have a small boat constantly in attendance on Him when preaching at the Lake of Galilee ( , Mar 3:9). The same thing may be gathered of the household at Bethany (Luk 10:38; and still more Joh 11:3; Joh 11:45; Joh 12:3); certain women, including the wife of Herods steward, minister to Him (Mar 15:40, Luk 8:3). He is able to secure an ass on which to enter into Jerusalem (Mat 21:3, Mar 11:3, Luk 19:31), a lodging at night through the last week (Mat 21:7, Mar 11:19, Luk 21:37), and the use of an upper room for the Passover (Mat 26:18, Mar 14:15); nor is there anything to suggest that Christs hunger when He was passing the barren fig-tree was the result of inability to procure food (Mat 21:18, Mar 11:12).
2. Teaching about poverty.The blessedness of the poor is the subject of the first Beatitude (see the following article). In the same discourse occur the prohibitions against taking anxious thought (Mat 6:25) and laying up treasures (Mat 6:19). Prayer for temporal wants is to be for daily bread (bread of the coming day or bread of sufficiency, ; see Lords Prayer) alone (Mat 6:11, Luk 11:3). Christ bids the disciples of John observe that the poor have the gospel preached unto them (Mat 11:5, cf. Isa 61:1-2, Luk 4:18), and specially contrasts the widow with the rich donors to the Temple treasury (Mar 12:42, Luk 21:3). The danger of wealth is constantly pointed out (Mat 19:23, Mar 10:23, Luk 18:24 How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of heaven; Mat 18:8 If thy hand or thy foot cause thee to stumble, cut it off; Luk 16:19 the parable of Lazarus and Dives; Luk 12:16 the parable of the Rich Fool, following on Christs peremptory refusal to divide the inheritance between the two brothers). Cf. the command to the rich young ruler, Sell all that thou hast, Mat 19:21, Mar 10:21, Luk 18:22, in which there was evidently some personal appropriateness; the demand was not universally made. According to our accounts, the Temple was cleansed of buyers and sellers both at the beginning and the end of the ministry (Joh 2:14, and Mat 21:12, Mar 11:15). That Christ had the true Israelite contempt for money and commercial prosperity is at least hinted in the story of the Temptation (Mat 4:10, Luk 4:8), and shown quite plainly in the parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard: It is my will to give unto this last even as unto thee, Mat 20:15,a principle which, as Ruskin saw (Unto this Last), is a defiance of political economy as ordinarily understood. Compare the anti-commercial statutes in Deu 15:1 f., Exo 23:10 f., Lev 25:1-15 as to the remission of debts and the reversion of holdings in the Sabbatical year and year of Jubilee. If faithful to the Law, it was impossible for Israel to be anything but a comparatively poor nation (note, however, Deu 15:4), as would necessarily be the case with the Christian community which obeyed the rules, Give to him that asketh thee, and Lend, never giving up hope, (Luk 6:35; cf. Mat 6:12, Luk 11:4). Peabody (Jesus Christ and the Social Question) points out the further opposition to current Socialism implied in the parable of the Talents (Mat 25:29, Luk 12:48; cf. Mat 13:12).
An interesting echo of this teaching on poverty, or on the openhandedness that must prevent the dangerous accumulation of wealth, is found in the Gospel of the Hebrews (fragm. 11), where the rich man who came to Christ in the attitude of the young ruler is told that he could not have kept the Law, since people are dying of hunger at his gates. What we do not find, however, in the Gospels, is any eulogy of poverty for its own sake; it is enjoined simply as an almost indispensable aid to serving God aright. And the fact that Christ constantly mixes with what we should call the middle classes and the well-to-do, without rebuking them or bidding them give up all, shows that poverty must be understood in a relative sense, and not as the equivalent of penury. His life was one long protest against the attitude of virtus laudatur et alget. To take Mat 26:11, Ye have the poor always with you, to mean that the existence of poverty must be acquiesced in, is to forget all that was said about mercifulness and liberality by Him who, when He saw the multitudes, had compassion on them (Mat 9:36; Mat 14:14). Christ demanded the surrender not of money in itself, but of everything that could interfere with the interests of the Kingdom of heaven; in this sense the verb , to give up, leave (Mat 19:29, Mar 10:28, Mat 4:20, Mar 1:18; cf. Luk 9:60), is characteristic of the Gospels,as characteristic as it is in its other meaning of to forgive. The ideal is not poverty but service (Mat 20:27, Whosoever would become first among you shall be your servant).
Literature.Edersheim, Life and Times of the Messiah; Schrer, HJP [Note: JP History of the Jewish People.] passim; Delitzsch, Artisan Life in the Time of Christ: Vogelstein, Landwirtschaft in Palstina, 1894; Merrill, Galilee in the Time of Christ; for good remarks on the place of poverty in Christs teaching, see Harnack, Das Wesen des Christentums (Das Evangelium und die Armut); Expos. 6th ser. xi. (1905), 321.
W. F. Lofthouse.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Poverty
POVERTY
1. In the OT.The character and degree of the poverty prevalent in a community will naturally vary with the stages of social development through which it successively passes. Poverty is more acutely felt, and its extremes are more marked, where city-life and commerce have grown up than where the conditions of life are purely nomadic or agricultural.
The causes of poverty referred to in the OT (apart from those due to individual folly) are specially (a) bad seasons, involving failure of crops, loss of cattle, etc. (cf. 2Ki 8:1-7, Neh 5:3); (b) raids and invasions; (c) land-grabbing (cf. Isa 5:8); (d) over-taxation and forced labour (cf. Jer 22:13 f.); (e) extortionate usury, the opportunity for which was provided by the necessity for meeting high taxation and the losses arising from bad harvests (cf. Neh 5:1-6).
In the earlier period, when the tribal system with its complex of clans and families flourished, poverty was not acutely felt. Losses, of course, there were, arising from bad seasons, invasion, and pestilence; we hear, too, of rich men oppressing the poor (cf. Nathans parable, 2Sa 12:1-6); but there was little permanent poverty. Matters were maintained in a state of equilibrium so long as the land-system, under which all free Israelitish families possessed a patrimony, remained in working order. It is significant that in the earlier legislation of JE [Note: Jewish Encyclopedia.] (cf. esp. the Ten Commandments, Exo 20:1-17, and the Book of the Covenant, Exo 20:23 to Exo 23:33) the few references that do occur (e.g. Exo 22:25; Exo 23:6) do not suggest that poverty was very wide-spread or acutely felt. During the period of the later monarchy, however, commerce, city-life, and luxury grew apace, and the greed and heartless oppression of the rich, the corruption and perversion of justice, which this state of things brought in its train, were constantly denounced by the great writing prophets, esp. in the 8th cent. (cf. e.g., Isa 1:25, Amo 4:1; Amo 6:1 ff., Mic 2:1 ff.).
The Deuteronomic legislation (7th cent.) bears eloquent testimony to the prevalence of poverty under the later monarchy (cf. Deu 10:17-19; Deu 14:28-29; Deu 14:15; Deu 23:19-20; Deu 24:10-21; Deu 26:12-15), and in one famous sentence predicts its permanence (the poor shall never cease out of the land, Deu 15:11).
The classes of poor more particularly mentioned are widows, orphans, and the sojourners, or resident strangers, who possessed no landed rights (grim). The Levites also are specially referred to in Deut. as an impoverished class (cf. Deu 12:12, Deu 19:18),a result of the centralization of worship in the one sanctuary at Jerusalem. All classes of the poor are the objects of special solicitude and consideration in the Mosaic legislation, particularly in the Priestly Code (cf. e.g. Lev 5:7; Lev 5:11; Lev 19:9-15 etc.)
For a long time after the Exile and Return the Palestinian community remained in a state of miserable poverty. It was a purely agricultural society, and suffered much from contracted boundaries and agricultural depression. The day of small things spoken of by the prophet Zechariah (Zec 4:10) was prolonged. A terrible picture of devastation (produced by a locust plague) is given by the prophet Joel (ch. 1), and matters were aggravated during the last years of Persian rule (down to 332), and by the conflict between the Seleucids and Ptolemye for the possession of Palestine which raged for considerably more than a century (322198). It is significant that in the Psalms the term poor or lowly has become synonymous with pious. During the earlier part of the post-exilic period the wealthy Jewish families for the most part remained behind in Babylon. In the later period, after the conquests of Alexander the Great (from 322), prosperous communities of Jews grew up in such centres as Antioch and Alexandria (the Greek Dispersion). Slowly and gradually the Palestinian community grew in importance; for a time under the Maccabees there was a politically independent Jewish State. A certain amount of material prosperity ensued. Jerusalem, as being a centre of pilgrimage, received large revenues from the Jewish pilgrims who thronged to It: a Temple-tax swelled the revenues of the priesthood. The aristocratic priestly families were very wealthy. But the bulk of the priesthood still remained comparatively poor. The Jewish community of Palestine was still mainly agricultural, hut more prosperous under settled government (the Herods and the Romans); while Galilee became a hive of industry, and sustained a large industrial population (an artizan class).
In dealing with poverty the Jewish legislation displays a very humane spirit. Usury is forbidden: the poor are to have the produce of the land in Sabbatical years; and in Deut. tithes are allotted to be given them (Deu 14:28 etc.); they are to have the right to glean (Deu 24:15; Deu 24:21), and in the Priestly Code there is the unrealized ideal of the Jubilee Year (Lev 25:1-55, cf. Deu 15:12-15). All these provisions were supplemented by almsgiving, which in later Judaism became one of the most important parts of religious duty (see Alms, Almsgiving).
2. In the NT.In the NT period conditions were not essentialy altered. The exactions of tax-collectors seem to have been acutely felt (notice esp. the collocation publicans and sinners), but almsgiving was strongly inculcated as a religious duty, the early Christians following in this respect the example set by the synagogue (cf. Rom 12:18; and St. Pauls collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem, Rom 15:26, Gal 2:10). The early generations of Christians were drawn mostly from the poorer classes (slaves or freedmen), but the immediate disciples of our Lord belonged rather to what we should call the lower middle classsturdy Galilan fishermen, owning their own boats, or tax-collectors. It should he noted that in the Gospels (e.g. in the Beatitudes) the term poor sometimes possesses a religious connotation, as in the Psalms.
G. H. Box.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Poverty
pover-ti:
1. Old Testament References:
This word, found but once in the Old Testament (Gen 45:11) outside of the Book of Proverbs in which it occurs 11 times (Pro 6:11; Pro 10:15; Pro 11:24 the King James Version; Pro 13:18; Pro 20:13; Pro 23:21; Pro 24:34; Pro 28:19, Pro 28:22 the King James Version; Pro 30:8; Pro 31:7), is a translation of , yiwaresh, to be poor, to come to poverty (Gen 45:11). Four different Hebrew words are used in the 11 references in Prov, all bearing the idea of being in need of the necessities of life, although a distinction is made between being in want and being in extreme want. Pro 18:23 well illustrates the general meaning of poverty as found in this book: The poor (, rush, to be impoverished, destitute) useth entreaties; but the rich answereth roughly.
2. New Testament References
Poverty occurs 3 times in the New Testament (2Co 8:2, 2Co 8:9; Rev 2:9) and is the translation of , ptochea, to be reduced to a state of beggary or pauperism.
The teaching of the Bible on this subject would, however, be incomplete unless all the references to the poor were considered in this connection. Indeed the word for poverty has its root in the word for poor (, ptochos; , an, or , dal). See POOR.
3. Two Degrees of Poverty:
At least two degrees of poverty are recognized. The Old Testament does not distinguish between them as clearly as does the New Testament. The New Testament, for example, by its use of two words for poor sets forth this distinction. In 2Co 9:9, he hath given to the poor, the word used is , penes, which does not indicate extreme poverty, but simply a condition of living from hand to mouth, a bare and scant livelihood, such as that made by the widow who cast her two mites into the treasury (Luk 21:2); while in such passages as 2Co 6:10 : As poor, yet making many rich, and Luk 6:20 : Blessed are ye poor (, ptocho, a condition is indicated of abject beggary, pauperism, such as that in which we find Lazarus who was laid at the gate of the rich man’s palace, begging even the crumbs which fell from the table of the rich man (Luk 16:20, Luk 16:21). It was into this latter condition that Christ voluntarily entered for our sakes: For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor (a mendicant, a beggar), that ye through his poverty might become rich (2Co 8:9). Between 30 and 40 times in the New Testament this latter word is used.
4. Causes of Poverty:
The causes of poverty are failure of harvest and poor crops (Neh 5:1-3); devastation caused by enemies sweeping through the land; the oppression of the people by their own rulers (Isa 5:8); excessive interest, usury (Neh 5:1-5); persecution because of the faith (2 Cor 6; 8). Widows and orphans by reason of their desolate condition were in a special sense subject to poverty. Gluttony brings poverty (Pro 23:21), as does indolence (Pro 28:19).
God commanded His people to care for the poor. The exhortations to relieve poverty are numerous, especially in the Pentateuch. Those in poverty must be treated with kindness (Deu 15:7-11); must be allowed to glean in the vineyards (Lev 19:10); to reap the harvest (Lev 23:22; compare Rth 2:14-16); must not be neglected (Pro 28:27); nor dealt with harshly (Amo 8:4-6); must be treated as equal before God (Pro 22:2); are to share in our hospitality (Luk 14:13, Luk 14:21). Indeed, the truth or falsity of a man’s religion is to be tested, in some sense at least, by his relation to those in need (Jam 1:27). The year of Jubilee was intended to be of great benefit to the poor by restoring to them any possessions which they, by reason of their poverty, had been compelled to deed over to their creditors (Lev 25:25-54; Deu 15:12-15). God required certain tithes from His people which were to be devoted to the helping of the poor and needy (Deu 14:28; Deu 26:12, Deu 26:13). So in the New Testament the apostles lay special emphasis upon remembering the poor in the matter of offerings. Paul, especially, inculcated this duty upon the churches which he had rounded (Rom 15:26; Gal 2:10). The attitude of the early Christian church toward its poor is amply illustrated in that first attempt at communism in Acts 2; 4. James, in his Epistle, stingingly reminds his readers of the fact that they had grossly neglected the important matter of caring for the poor (chapter 2). Indeed, so strong is he in his plea for the care of the poor that he claims that the man who willfully neglects the needy thereby proves that the love of God has no place in his heart, and that he has consequently no real faith in God (Jam 2:14-26). Christians are exhorted to abound in the grace of hospitality, which, of course, is nothing less than kindness to those in need (Rom 12:13; 1Ti 6:18; 1Jo 3:17). See POOR.
The happiest mother and the noblest and holiest son that ever lived were among the poor. Jesus was born of poor parents, and had not where to lay His head (Mat 8:20), no money with which to pay tribute (Mat 17:27), no home to call His own (Joh 7:53; compare Joh 8:1), and was buried in a borrowed grave (Mat 27:57-61).
Figurative: Of course there is also a spiritual poverty indicated by the use of this word – a poverty in spiritual things: Blessed are the poor in spirit. By this is meant, Blessed are they who feel that they have no self-righteousness, no worth of their own to present to Christ as a ground of their salvation, who feel their utter bankruptcy of spirit, who say Nothing in my hand I bring. It is to this state of spirit that Christ refers in Rev 3:17 : Because thou sayest, I am rich, and have gotten riches, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art the wretched one and miserable and poor and blind and naked.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Poverty
General references
Pro 6:11; Pro 10:15; Pro 15:16; Pro 16:8; Ecc 4:6; Pro 20:13; Pro 23:21; Pro 24:33-34; Pro 28:19; Pro 30:8-9 Poor
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Poverty
“destitution” (akin to ptocheuo, see POOR), is used of the “poverty” which Christ voluntarily experienced on our behalf, 2Co 8:9; of the destitute condition of saints in Judea, 2Co 8:2; of the condition of the church in Smyrna, Rev 2:9, where the word is used in a general sense. Cp. synonymous words under POOR.