Abstract
This article reviews the equitable economic empowerment (EEE) for the poor in the South African context from a biblical perspective. Statistics show that 1 out of every 11 (n = 11) people in the world, and 1 out of every 5 (n = 5) people in Africa, faced starvation in 2024. The immediate question is: Where lies the problem? Is there a problem with food production and availability locally and globally? Is the food affordable and accessible? The food utilisation and nutrition or food security and stability? In search of an amicable solution, three issues will be discussed regarding the EEE from the biblical perspective, with a special focus on Deuteronomy 15:14–15, namely, its basic conception, critical reception and ultimate application in addressing poverty in a polarised South African context. An underlying EEE precept is to restore broken relationships between the privileged and underprivileged people living together in a polarised South African context.
Contribution: This article adds value in a debate about poverty in the polarised South African context whereby, basic biblical precepts of Deuteronomy 15:14–15 are an incentive to offer EEE guidelines which not only define the nature, significance and scope of the effect of poverty, but also offer a clear direction in handling (addressing) poverty in the polarised context of South Africa for prosperous and peaceful cohesion and cohabitation in God’s ecodomy.
Keywords: equitable economic empowerment; equitable justice; equity; equality; Calvin; missio Dei.
Introduction
‘The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.’ Gandhi. (n.d.)
The Brazilian Catholic Archbishop, Hélder Pessoa Câmara (1909–1999), agrees with Mahatma Gandhi’s words, as he was quoted in one of his sermons saying, ‘When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist’ (Rocha 2000:53). It is in the same line that Ganson (2025) in the Mail & Guardian newspaper article of the 18 July 2025 Mandela Day article attempted to answer the question he raised, ‘Why are we still having this conversation?’ by saying, ‘A true Mandela Day contribution from companies must be a business plan that addresses extreme poverty’. It is understandable, given the March 2025 statistics regarding poverty by the StatsSA (2025) estimate that 30.4 million people (about 55.5% of the South African [SA] population) are living below the upper-poverty line of R1634.00 per month and that out of them, 13.8m (about 25.2%) are living below the food line of R796.00 per month. It is estimated that those who experience hunger are about 1 (n = 1) in 11 (n = 11) people globally and 1 (n = 1) in 5 (n = 5) in Africa, according to the State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI) report published in 2023 by 5 (n = 5) United Nations specialised agencies. The immediate question is: where lies the problem? Is the problem in the food production, its availability, affordability, accessibility, utilisation, nutrition, security and stability (locally and globally). In search of an amicable solution, the basic biblical precepts of Deuteronomy 15:14–15 are uncovered and discussed as an incentive to offer equitable economic empowerment (EEE) guidelines in addressing poverty in the polarised context of South Africa. In that regard, this article is set to discuss three aspects of EEE from the biblical perspective, with a special focus on Deuteronomy 15:14–15, namely: its basic conception, critical reception and ultimate application in addressing poverty in a polarised South African context.
The basic conception
The triple challenges in South Africa
From the black South African point of view and experience, Olehile A. Buffel (2017) noted that:
‘Despite promises of a ‘better life for all’ millions of mainly black South African are subjected to pain and suffering as a result of poverty.’ (p. 1)
‘[T]he Church’s efforts to address poverty and unemployment are one way of ensuring that social justice is implemented.’ (Van der Westhuizen & Swart 2015:742)
To build a healthy nation, the partnership of the Church and the government is necessary to address the triple challenge of, namely, poverty, unemployment and injustice. These challenges are approached and addressed in diverse ways (Adelzadeh 2006) including, firstly, the religio-intellectual (conceptual): focusing on the vision and policy designs; secondly, the socio-political (will-to-do): focusing on commitment (out of comfort zone) to an execution of policies; thirdly, the praxis-concrete (resources): plan of action and strategies in service delivery in solving triple challenge whereby measurements (monitors and evaluations) mechanism are put in place to ensure effective and efficient process and progress. Fløttum (2013:62) warns us that in the white paper, apparently, many voices oppose the politician’s position of claiming to ‘Talk Left’, to ‘Walk Right’ regarding the triple challenges. It is therefore important to understand the legal words like equity, fairness and just within the triple equitable economic empowerment (EEE) framework that this article proposes to discuss (cf. its basic illustration in Box 1).
| BOX 1: Equitable justice according to John Calvin (1846:220). |
In Box 1, the three statements are illustrated, namely, Statement 1: the normative demand statement: ‘you shall love your neighbour’; Statement 2: the reciprocity qualifier statement: ‘As you love yourself’ and Statement 3: the maxim: ‘Do unto the neighbour what you would have him do unto you’. These three statements: Statement 1, which is neighbourly love, which is put in front as a priority, and Statement 2, which is an active equity, which is put in the middle and Statement 3, which is the Golden Rule love. These threefold love expressions not only fulfil what scripture teaches about love but also serve as the proper guide for socio-economic and political charity. In the Bible, our Lord Jesus Christ provides the ‘short and simple’ statement which is called the Golden Rule, which says, ‘do to others what you requires to be done to you’ (cf. Calvin 1846:220). It summarises the moral law of love and the key legal words like (human) fairness, justice and rights towards the neighbours (Box 1). The key legal words like equity, fairness, rights and justice are and should be understood in terms of Jesus Christ’s Golden Rule, which demands the active charity or equitable (charitable) treatment of others as a priority, which is explained by Statement 1 in Box 1. Then Statement 2 in Box 1 is called the Passive Charity; it is a self-centred charity or treatment for one’s self for self advancement or benefit or profit. It is not actively involved with the neighbour. Jesus’s Golden Rule demands active charity or equitable (charitable) treatment of others as a priority, which is taught in the whole Bible (in the laws and prophets) (Calvin 1846:220). In dealing with the poorest of the poor, paupers, homeless, et cetera, Maxwell (2004), argued that:
‘We can take … the low road-where we treat others worse than they treat us; the middle road-where we treat others the same as they treat us; the high road-where we treat others better than they threat us … [for] the hight road helps to create positive relationships and attracts others to us … it is not a natural or common road. However, those who practice become instruments of grace to others and recipients of grace.’ (p. 221)
The basic definition of equitable justice
It is important to understand the basic definition of equitable justice. The word equity is derived from the French and Latin root, aequus, equité, which means ‘to be fair or just or right’ in the legal and moral sense (cf. Merriam-Webster 2024a; Muswubi 2024b:2). The basic meaning of equity has to do with equilibrium or legally and ethically balance or straight or right and its opposite is immoral, unethical, imbalanced and/or impartial behaviour (Beever 2004:33ff.; White 2004:103ff.). In this regard, Aristotle among others discussed the two types of legal justice, namely distributive (or public or communal) justice and corrective (or private or individual) justice, which are basic, helpful and applicable criteria in seeking stability, equality and/or a right, just, good and fair balanced proportion of an unequal society (Anghel 2017:369–373; Beever 2004; Kolm 2002; Muswubi 2024b:2; Pritchard 1998:13).
Equitable justice appeals to an inner witness of conscience: Equitable justice appeals to the inner witness of conscience. The conscience is engraved within each human being (cf. Calvin 1583; Calvin 1962, IV.20.16). Natural law is part of the conscience, inner witness and/or monitor and is the implanted (engraved) seed of both the rule of righteousness and of the political order implanted (imprinted) in the hearts of all human beings. Natural law consists of an equitable justice which is naturally and universally accessible to all human beings, including the Gentiles, who are unfamiliar with the written word or law. An equitable justice is expressed in two ways, namely, loving your neighbour and loving yourself. This is clarified in God’s word by Jesus Christ, who provides the ‘short and simple’ statement which is called the Golden Rule which says, ‘do to others what you requires to be done to you’ (cf. Calvin 1846:220; 1948:220; Grabill 2006:89). The Golden Rule is not only an ontological and supernatural base of natural law, but it also fulfils and satisfies epistemological and moral demands (command) of natural law, including the equitable justice to do fair, just or right actions and hence renders all people no right to make excuse before God (cf. Helm 2004:347f; Verhey 1975:86).
Equitable justice appeals to the common sense: According to Beukes and Beukes (2023):
‘Rather than leading an ascetic lifestyle and disengaging from the world, the church should actively involve itself in the struggles of the majority in post-apartheid South Africa.’ (p. 3)
In that regard, Buffel (2017:1) argued ‘for pastors, theologians and lay leaders with strong organic links with the masses and their organisations to engage in prophetic activism’. The question is: what is the starting point? An equitable justice appeals to common sense. Common sense is defined as ‘the basic level of practical knowledge and judgement that we all need to help us live in a reasonable and safe way’. Or ‘the ability to use good judgement in making decisions and to live in a reasonable and safe way’ (cf. Cambridge Advanced Learner’s and Thesaurus Dictionary 2024). It is part and parcel of one’s inner voice or conscience and the source of knowledge of what is morally right or wrong (cf. Helm 2004:354). This article is appealing to the role of equitable justice in addressing the underlying ideological, policy and strategy clashes and struggles, which are obstacles in addressing the triple socio-economic and political challenges of deprivation-leading poverty, vulnerability-leading unemployment, and disadvantage-leading inequality to this day in Africa and beyond.
Critical point: The deformation, distortion and misdirection of the polarised society
Defining the equitable (restorative) types of justice
Many scholars argue for the revitalisation of the overtaken or redundant theology of reconciliation (restitution and reconstruction), which was propagated in the early 1980s and 1990s (Boesak 2020:57; Maluleke 2000:80ff; Molobi 2010:9ff; Motlhabi 2005:15ff). In that regard, this article discusses the restorative (equitable) Justice as one of the four distinct types of Justice, namely, the Distributive, Procedural, Retributive, and Equitable or Restorative Justice in addressing poverty (as one of the triple challenges in the South African context). In equitable justice, there are at least two distinct (not separate) sides (aspects) of the one coin (same essence), namely, on the one hand, it is an equitable or a fair type of justice1 which constitute the ruling, governing and/or managing aspect of justice. And, on the other hand, it is the right or straight type of justice which is the moral volition, decision-making and/or actions aspect of justice.2
Distinguishing the equitable justice from other types of justice
Equitable justice is a distinct type of justice from procedural justice, for the latter is a type of justice which is viewed and applied in the narrow sense of the word, whereby it means to rectify by law. It is a justice that deals with the procedures or the technicalities of laws. For example, it is procedural laws (including human rights laws) applied in a courtroom, in the judicial and/or legal system. In Matthew 5:25f., Jesus implied this kind of justice. The equitable justice is not only the type of justice which is viewed and applied in a broader than a procedural justice but also the type of justice which determines a fair, just and/or right action (share and/or treatment) of the people to restore the broken relationship between the victims and the offenders, whereby in the victim–offender mediation programmes, on the one hand, the victims’ wounds are healed and/or compensated, and on the other hand, the offenders are equipped to understand the harm they have caused to the victims and hence to take responsibility for it. The aim is to restore (strengthen) both the victim and the offender so that they can live together in the community and hence prevent similar harms from happening in the future.
In this subsection, the four distinct types of justice, namely, the Distributive, Procedural, Retributive and Equitable Justice, are discussed. For further discussion on these types of justice, Scott (1983:217ff.) and Sider (1995:137ff) are helpful. The aim of equitable justice is to balance or stabilise an unequal society so that the common good (and peace) of the society is reached. The challenge, which is faced by this article, is to attempt to argue or advocate for the ultimate common good or peace that this equitable justice seek to achieve, which is in turn a criterion to use to balance or stabilise an unequal society so that the victims (disadvantaged) and the offender (advantaged) receive fair, just and/or right treatment or share.
The biblical context, basis and praxis for the equitable justice
The biblical context for the equitable justice
The narrative of Deuteronomy 15 portrays this message to the readers, both the first readers, the Israelites, rich and poor and readers today who are in a covenant relationship with Yahweh, their God. Such a relationship with God determines not only their relationship with and the understanding of each other in and outside the faith community (McConville 1998:214), but also their relationship with and their understanding of their God-given gifts and possessions or inheritance [הָלֲחַנ] (and how they should be used) (Dt 15:4–6; Brueggemann 1978:3; Buch 2005:13ff; Kessler 2013:401; McKeown 2003:487). It is important, therefore, to understand the context of the text, that is, Deuteronomy 15:11–12, which indicates the reality that the poor and the needy face, that they can remain in a vicious cycle of his or her position and/or condition (for instance, poverty or slavery). Having laid a general context, therefore the narrative of Deuteronomy 15:11 specifically portrays, on one hand, the continued existence of the increasing statistics of the gap between the few rich people and the mass of the poor people is part of the reality of this sinful world in which we live (Dt 15:11; Levin 2014:59), but on the other hand, the regulatory mechanism which this article called the EEE (Dt 15:14; Muswubi 2024a:5f). Such EEE mechanism is more than charity and handout. Such charity or social reforms (mercy ministries or justice) are necessary, but they should not be carried out at the expense of or in substitution for or as an either-or, but should be carried out as ‘both-and’ or together with solutions to the root causes of the problem (cf. Harris 1996:78f). Otherwise, it will continue to give a misguided impression of being involved and committed, yet the unjust attitudes and system are still entrenched, maintained and/or perpetuated. It is easy to give money to charity-based work and keep a distance or remain indifferent to or avoid the victims of poverty, slavery or any other plight, position or condition of the victims. Such charity is like help from a safe distance. It is one thing to do charity work in that way and another thing to suffer along with or to relate to or pay attention to the victims.
The biblical basis for equitable justice
It is important to discuss equitable justice from the biblical perspective, with a special focus on Deuteronomy 15:14–15, because of limited space and time. In this regard, Deuteronomy 15:12 offers a context, namely that God allows an Israelite, a man or woman, to volunteer to offer his or her service to an Israelite master as a way of paying back his or her debts. In such a case, he or she should render 6 years’ service, and then in the 7th year, he or she is released or set free from such a service and hence in that way, the debt is considered paid in full. Then, God addresses the master, saying that he or she should do two things (Dt 15:13–14): firstly, he or she should not send him or her empty-handed; secondly, he or she should furnish him or her liberally, that is, with a necklace-like (special if not expensive) resource. He or she should be furnished or empowered with means of production as a severance (lump sum) payment by master’s flock, grain or wine (Wiersbe 1999:104). God gave the reason for it by reminding the master of God’s redemptive power and grace, saying that God is not only his or her redeemer from slavery (Egypt), but also the source of thought (vision) and efforts (mission) who also made opportunities and resources to be available (Ex 11:2; 12:35–36; Merrill 1994:246), and hence God commands them to redeem fellow Israelites (Dt 5:15; 7:18; 8:18; 9:7; 15:15; 16:3,12; 24:9,18,22; 32:7).
The biblical praxis for equitable justice
From the perspective of God’s kingdom (Glasser 2003) and missio Dei (Wright 2006), preaching [Κερούγμα] (Ac 17:3; Rm 10:15), teaching [διδασκαλία] (Mt 28:19; 2 Tm 2:2), counselling [παράκλησις] (Jn 16:13; 2 Cor 1:3f) and worship [προσκυνέω and λειτουργία] (Heb 10:25; Mt 18:20) alone will not address poverty, but according to Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15 and related passages, poverty eradication which include debts cancelling for witnessing [μαρτυρία] (by words and deeds, Ac 1:8; 1 Jn 5:10f), doing and administrating justice [δικαιοσύνη] (Mt 7:12; Rom 12:21), communion [Κοινωνία] (Jn 13:34; 1 Jn 4:12), and service [διακονία] (Jn 13:14; Phlp 2:3f) to the poor and needy in and outside the faith community (Gl 6:10). According to Muswubi (2024b:8), at the heart of this biblical incentive is the restoration of the main four relationships of the poor and the needy, namely the personal relationship with God; with themselves (inward and intrinsic); with others, that is, with their family, tribe, and nation; and with nature (creation). When restoration is the goal, it is important to pursue equitable justice towards a permanent or long-term solution rather than handouts or short-term charity-type justice. The focus of charity or handout is more on solving important yet short-term, external and temporal challenges, issues and problems. It is in the same line that Ganson (2025), in the Mail & Guardian newspaper article of 18 July 2025, Mandela Day article, attempted to answer the question he raised, ‘Why are we still having this conversation?’ by saying, ‘A true Mandela Day contribution from companies must be a business plan that addresses extreme poverty’. So, to address triple challenges, namely, poverty, unemployment and inequality in a polarised South African context, it is important to distinguish two things: firstly, the root causes of the problems, four of which are, the natural (uncontrollable) causes; personal (controllable) causes; the socio-economic (controllable) causes whereby problems were and are human-made like unjust decisions, policies and systems and lastly the spiritual-religious (root or radical), but secondly, the type of justice offered, is it holistic enough to address not only the whole person (inside out), but also all relationships. That is, one’s relationship with God, self, others and nature. In Charity (handout), the projects have a beginning and an end, without dealing much with the real (actual) or root causes and ultimate effects of the underlying challenges, questions and problems. So, the EEE justice is more than restitutive, retributive and/or court justice. Equitable justice also deals with ‘with the mercy’ or ‘emotions’, strictly speaking (cf. Keller 2012). The rigid retributive justice is derived from the Latin root retribuere, rectus, which means to rectify or to make right or straight. It was common justice ideology in the Ancient Near East (ANE), which tended to be confused with the biblical restorative justice (cf. Gn 9:5f; Hab 1:7; Lk 18:2; Dillard & Longman III 1994:203).
Deformation (misdirection) of the restorative justice
‘The light in man’s conscience is imperfect and is unable to read these laws correctly/hence need special revelation.’ (cf. Dabney 1985:353)
Adam’s sin affected the whole creation, including the human moral laws and the natural scientific laws. They all belong to God and do not operate outside him, though God cannot be mixed and equated with (on one hand) and cannot be distant or apart from it (on the other hand) as he is distinctly and immanently involved in and part of his creation including his Creation Ordinance (cf. Wolters 1994:55). ‘The light in man’s conscience is imperfect and is unable to read these laws correctly and hence need special revelation’ (cf. Dabney 1985:353).
Sin misdirects, distorts, divides, blinds and corrupts humanity in such a way that the light is extinguished and all of humanity is unwilling and unable not only to see God, to read his Creation Ordinance and to do (or to live up to) his laws, but also to reject God and to suppress and to break his moral and natural laws and to continue to hide from God as Adam and Eve did (cf. Gn 3:8–10; Rm 1:18–23; 8:7; Calvin 1962, Inst. 2.2.24).
Sin distorts the intentions and purpose of the moral and natural law, so that humanity only sees them to use them for oneself and for their own group interests and intentions. In that regard, humanity tends to absolutise (-ism) and/or to reduce (-ism) certain aspects of God’s creation, including His moral and natural laws, to serve one’s interests and/or a group’s interests (Mouw 2011:12, 127f). However, the content of God’s moral and natural law renders humanity inexcusable and proves all of them guilty before God (cf. Calvin 1962, 2.2.22; 4.20.15f).
Selfish and self-centred human justice and rights
‘Calvin was right. We must not, like the Greeks and the scholastics after them, engage in vain speculations about the essence of God. We must not, like Descartes, start from man as a final point of reference in predication. We must listen to what God has told us about himself, and about ourselves, and our relation to him through [sic] Christ in Scripture as our Creator-Redeemer.’ (Van Til 1980:92)
The ANE religions and cultures, like the Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian et cetera, generally, believed that there are some inherent (divine and/or natural) qualities of beings or deities that exist in and operate in the universe, independent of God, which orders both the universe and the socio-economic and political structure and life (cf. Grudem 1994:356; Van Til 1980:92). The Greek philosophy and the Roman culture continue from the ANE with claims that these inherent (divine and/or natural) qualities are beings or deities, which are not only foreign to God’s revelation of himself in the Bible, but also in ignorance of (if not rejecting) the fact that God is actively present and provides, sustains and cares for his creation, both human and nature (cf. Gn 1:1; Jn 1:3; Ps 24:1; 104:5; Calvin 1962, I.5, 6; I.16.2). The Stoic philosophy confirms and promotes human rights, yet with own self at the centre. This becomes clear in John Calvin’s argument, saying:
‘Consequently, we observe that there exist in men’s minds universal impressions of a certain civic fair dealing and order. Hence no man is to be found who does not understand that every sort of human organization must be regulated by laws, and who does not comprehend the principles of those laws. Hence arises that unvarying consent of all nations and of individual mortals regarding laws. For their seeds have, without teacher or lawgiver, been implanted in all men.’ (Calvin 1962, II.2.13)
Sin and proportional justice advocated by Stoic and modern philosophy
Freedom to follow one’s own desires, to do what one wants, including making a profit by taking advantage of the poor and the needy people (Preston 1979:91ff). The profit-driven laissez-faire free market economic system (cf. the French word, laissez [to let] faire [to do] cf Latin laxus ‘loose’ + facere ‘do’ cf. Collins English Dictionary 2012) flourishes where people are. The apathy (Indifferent) mentality and proportional Justice [cf. προαίρεσις] is a form of justice which literally means to ‘get what you give’. The symmetrical proportion (cf. Merriam-Webster 2024b). which can be traced back in the Stoics philosophy Plato, Aristotle and Seneca and other Stoic philosophers before and after them, despite their own nuances, agreed on which spiritualise (downplay and postpone) the present reality teaches that people, especially the vulnerable and the marginalised people, should not only view and treat themselves as virtuous people who should resign from pursuing the material world (money, riches, honour, reward, recognition etc), but should also accept and submit themselves to their position and condition of suffering and poverty for their destiny is decreed by impersonal, unknowing, uncaring and unloving nature and/or god of fate. In Colossians 2:16–23, Paul addressed such Stoic saying, ‘pain is good, and pleasure is evil’ and/or Platonic dualism calling for freeing the soul from the evil body (cf. Hodges 2010:4).
These ideas distort the biblical view of God’s creation (in nature and humanity) in general and the positions and conditions of the poor and the needy (Muswubi 2025). This article addresses the socio-economic injustice, inequality, unemployment and poverty which have continued since 1994 to this day, despite the diverse attempts that have been made already.
Out of deformation and towards the fullness of life for all
To create an alternative faith community and to bring back hope to nations to work towards the fullness of life for all, God not only saved and freed the Israelites from slavery in Egypt but also called and sent them as agents of saving and freeing other people who are in slavery in one way or another. In allowing God to rule and lead the Israelites as his chosen people towards the Promised Land (Ex 19:5f) also means learning to have both an open-hearted attitude within them and an open-handed service delivery in and outside the faith community (cf. Dt 15:1, 14; Horsely 2009:41,139). As part of their lesson in the desert in preparation for their entry into Canaan, they were taught to confess as their statement of faith and/or creed (cf. the Latin credo, meaning, I believe), namely that they are freed to free others. It is not only a motif, a token, a test and a pledge given to God’s people, the Israelites and the Church, but also a part of their identity (deoxyribonucleic acid), nature (who they are) and what they say and do (cf. Dt 6:20–25) and hence part of their embodied (lived-out) witness of God’s love and mission for his creation (nature and humanity) in and outside Israel (cf. Ex 22:21; 23:9ff; Dt 24:17ff; Kinsler & Kinsler 1999:8). The capacitated or equipped glocal church’s priority and integrity is in beliefs (faith-credo) and conduct (practice) (cf. Dt 15:7; Is 58:3–4; Sider 2005:178f). It is in that context that Christ releases and/or forgives the publicans and sinners by welcoming and accepting them, despite being accused by the religious leaders of the day (cf. Lk 3:12f; 15:1; cf. Mt 21: 31; Muirhead 1907:46).
Poverty, indebtedness and slavery and God’s damage control by Equitable Economic Empowerment framework
The Equitable Economic Empowerment (EEE) framework is like God’s damage-control system (Lv 25:35; Dt 15:14–15, Muswubi 2024b:5–6). According to Deuteronomy 15:11 and Matthew 26:11 among other biblical passages, poverty is not only permitted (allowed), recognised and acknowledged as a reality of this sinful era and life, but the rules and regulations are also provided on how to manage poverty as one of the results of sin (cf. Boerma 1979:7; Christian 1999:17; Guinan 1981:15f). As a biblical solution to overcome hunger, poverty and misery, God offers a holistic solution to both the spiritual roots of sin and material effects of sin to stitch the wounds, mend and heal the broken world in all areas of human life (cf. Is 58:3f). This is a biblical teaching of the Old and the New Testament that, in response to God’s grace and mercy shown to them, God’s people should show the same grace and mercy to the destitute, the sick, the widows and the afflicted and hence meet their basic needs in various ways (in words and deeds of individual Christians and the corporate church). Many scriptural passages attest to God’s unconditional love for the world, both in the Old Testament (cf. Ex 20:1; Lv 19:15, 18; Pr 21:13; 26:8; 31:8f; Is 1:17) and in the New Testament (cf. Mt 22:36ff; 25:35ff; Lk 10:30ff; Jn 10:10, 11; Ac 2:42; 4:32–37; 6:1ff; Rm 5:8; 12:3–8; Gl 6:10; Eph 4:12, 25; 1 Cor 12:12, 25f; 1 Tm 3:1, 3, 5; 6:1; Jm 1:27; 2:1ff; 1 Jn 3:16ff). In that regard, it is part of biblical teaching that God the Father sent his only begotten and beloved Son, Jesus Christ, through his Spirit to lay down his life (died) for the sheep (i.e. all who trust him), and that is the basis of the diaconal office (service) in response to the grace and mercy manifested by the triune God. Such as diaconal service, for example, the Greek verb diakoneo meaning to wait upon, render a service in and outside the faith community (cf. Greenway 1999:186; Vorster 2003:46). It is therefore part of God’s holistic solution to do the damage control towards both the spiritual roots and material effects of sin.
Ultimate point: God’s equitable justice and transformation (redirection and restoration)
There are seven (n = 7) aspects from John Calvin’s biblical commentary regarding equitable justice to the poor.
The first aspect is that despite individual and corporate positions and conditions, all human beings belong to the same Maker God with the same make-up [Amigo Dei]. According to Calvin (CO 34:655):
‘[W]e have a common Creator, that we are all descended from God; then that there is a similar nature, so that we must conclude that all men, however low their condition might be and however despised they might be according to the world, nevertheless do have a brotherhood with us. Therefore, he who does not bother to acknowledge a man as his brother, must make himself an ox, or a lion, or a bear, or some other wild beast, and so renounce the image of God which is imprinted in us all.’
The second aspect is that, despite positions and conditions, all human beings belong to the same (human) species with the same make-up. According to John Calvin, this fact is the basis for the good relationship between the advantaged (the masters) and disadvantaged (the servants or slaves) (cf. Calvin’s sermon on Job 31, CO 34, 654ff; Calvin’s sermon 54 on Gn 12:4ff; cf. Augustine 1960:vol. XIX, ss. xv–xvi; Calvin 2000:601f; CO 23, 39, 87). In short, all human beings do not only have the same Maker to whom they belong but are also made in his Image (likeness), and hence they should view and treat each other based on such a belief and worldview, despite their advantaged and disadvantaged positions and conditions they find themselves in.
The third aspect is that we have the same Giver of possessions and belongings. John Calvin summarised it by saying, ‘All the blessings we enjoy have been entrusted to us by the Lord on this condition, that they should be dispensed for the good of our neighbours’ (cf. Inst., III, vii, 5; Calvin in his sermon no. 113 on Job 31:13–15, CO 34, 647–660). And he said:
‘Humanity’s vocation (wealth) etc is not for power and private use, but for sharing with the fellow (poor) for common good and to promote equity and to restore solidarity in and outside the Church (body of Christ).’ (cf. Calvin’s Commentary Acts 2:42ft; 13:36 trans. Graham 1971 [1984]:68; Inst., II, viii, 55)
The fourth aspect is that we have the same lawgiver (the same guidelines, terms and conditions). It is therefore expected that God’s law and/or word should give the necessary guidelines, terms and conditions on how to use their God-given belongings (possessions). According to Calvin:
‘Let those, then, that have riches, … (are to) consider that their abundance was not intended to be laid out in intemperance or excess, but in relieving the necessities of the brethren.’ (cf. Sermon 95 on Dt 15:11–15, CO 27.338; Busch 2007:74; cf. Inst., II, viii, 55)
God engraved consciousness within each human being to make them conscious not to misuse and/or abuse it; instead, all human beings are expected to be used as instruments of human solidarity and generosity in relating and responding to God-given natural law and justice in viewing and treating each other in relation to each other’s needs. John Calvin discussed the socio-economic justice (including the poor) and ecological matters (humans are corrupting, destroying and polluting the creation of God) (cf. Calvin’s commentary on Gn 6:6; Ex 16:19; Ps 104:31; Calvin’s Commentary Ac 2:42ff; 13:36; Inst., II, viii, 55).
The fifth aspect is that we have the same religious consciousness and sense of divinity, which enable us to respond and account to him and his terms and conditions. God expects that his people view and treat other human beings with neighbourly love which is an active charity, and hence equitable justice is a priority before one’s self as God expects us to put our neighbour first, as it is the fair, just or right thing to do according to the Golden Rule, namely, ‘do to our neighbour what we would have them to do unto us.’ According to Calvin (1847–1850, par. 466–468):
‘[T]he Golden Rule clarifies and fulfils the second table of the law, when every man conducts himself in the same manner towards others, as he wishes them to conduct themselves towards him. But on the contrary, people normally demand passive (pretentious) justice is a passive charity. That is, they opt for self-love as they rigidly, maliciously, knowingly, willingly, and purposely shut their eyes and trample upon equitable justice, which shines in our hearts and take advantage and think (or put ourselves) first before our neighbours.’
The question is, what causes or solves many conflicts, injuries and wars between people and nations in the world?
The sixth aspect is that we are all affected by sin (sin misdirects our good relationship with God, oneself, others and nature). Sin affected the reading and keeping of the content of God’s moral and natural law. Adam’s sin affected the whole creation (both nature and humanity). The content of God’s moral and natural law is inherently good as it belongs to Him and does not operate outside Him, though God cannot be mixed and equated with (on one hand) and cannot be distant and apart from it (on the other hand) as he is distinctly and immanently involved in and part of his creation, including his Creation Ordinance (cf. Wolters 1994:55). ‘The light in man’s conscience is imperfect and is unable to read these laws correctly and hence need special revelation’ (cf. Dabney 1985:353).
The seventh aspect is that God gave His guidelines to address the socio-economic injustices and inequality. It is like a barometer to view and treat each other fairly, justly and rightly for the common good, despite our positions and conditions in life (whether we are rich or poor; men or women, master or servants; Jews or Gentiles, etc). John Calvin made an example of what Abram did to his nephew Lot as the ‘best remedy to remove all the cause of bitterness and restoring peace’, for though he was the superior in that relationship, he voluntarily sacrificed (moderated) his own rights for the sake of neighbourly love, of restoring peace, of the common good and of community bond (Calvin 1847–1850, par. 353–55; 2 Cor 8:14f). To Calvin:
‘Those who have riches, by inheritance, or by efforts, consider that their abundance was not intended to be laid out in intemperance or excess, but in relieving the necessities of the brethren … but an equality is to be observed thus far, that no one is to be allowed to starve, and no one is hoard his abundance at the expense of defrauding others.’
So, equitable justice appeals to those who are in advantageous positions and conditions to fight unwillingness and subdue their pride, moderate their severity toward (Calvin 1847–1850, par. 256–258).
Conclusion
‘The light in man’s conscience is imperfect and unable to read this law correctly and hence need special revelation’ (Dabney 1985:353). ‘The aim of the broad law is to render human inexcusable and to prove them guilty by their own testimony on issue of injustice’ (Calvin 1962, 2.2.22; 4.20.15f).
In search of an amicable solution, this article reviews and discusses the equitable economic empowerment (EEE) for the poor in the South African context from a biblical perspective. Statistics show that 1 out of every 11 (n = 11) people in the world, and 1 out of every 5 (n = 5) people in Africa are facing starvation in 2024. The immediate question is: where lies the problem? Is there a problem with food production and availability locally and globally? Is the food affordable and accessible? The food utilisation and nutrition or food security and stability? In search of an amicable solution, this article is set to discuss three aspects of EEE from the biblical perspective, with a special focus on Deuteronomy 15:14–15, namely: its basic conception, critical reception and ultimate application in addressing poverty in a polarised South African context. An underlying EEE precept is to restore broken relationships between the privileged and underprivileged people living together in a polarised South African context. This article adds value in a debate about poverty in polarised South African context, whereby, the basic biblical precepts of Deuteronomy 15:14–15 are an incentive to offer EEE guidelines which not only define the nature, significance and scope of the effect of poverty, but also offer a clear direction in handling (addressing) poverty in a polarised context of South Africa context for prosperous and peaceful cohesion and cohabitation in God’s ecodomy.
Acknowledgements
Firstly, the author thanks the Triune God and acknowledges that all glory should be attributed to him, as stated in 1 Corinthians 10:31 and Colossians 3:17. Secondly, sincere gratitude to Alvinah, his wife, for her Proverb 31 support. Also, thank you for the academic support received from Ms Blanch Carolus. Additionally, the author acknowledges the unwavering support of his children, Vhuhwavho, Mufulufheli, Wompfuna, Thamathama, Lupfumopfumo and Tshontswikisaho.
Competing interests
The author declares that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
Author’s contribution
T.M. is the sole author of this research article.
Ethical considerations
This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
Data sharing does not apply to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The author is responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.
References
Adelzadeh, A., 2006, Overcoming unemployment. Strategies for giving the effect to the Right to Work, District Six Museum, Alternate Information Development Centre, Cape Town.
Anghel, E., 2017, ‘Justice and equity’, Challenges of the Knowledge Society 27(7), 369–373.
Augustine, 1969, Confession, 10.33, ed. M. Skutella, Stuttgart, Leipzig, Germany.
Beever, A., 2004, ‘Aristotle on equity, law, and justice’, Legal Theory 10(1), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325204000163
Beukes, J.W. & Beukes, L.E., 2023, ‘Proposing a social justice approach to Diaconia for a South African context’, Religions 14, 668. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14050668
Boerma, C., 1979, Rich man, poor man – And the Bible, SCM Press, London.
Boesak, A.A., 2020, ‘When tomorrow is yesterday: Black theology, black consciousness, and our incomplete revolution’, Stellenbosch Theological Journal 6(2), 35–66. https://doi.org/10.17570/stj.2020.v6n2.a2
Brueggemann, W., 1978, The land: Place as gift, promise and challenge in biblical faith, Fortress Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Buch, J., 2005, ‘Neshekh and Tarbit: Usury from Bible to modern finance’, Jewish Bible Quarterly 33(1), 13–22.
Buffel, O.A., 2017, ‘Black theology and the black experience in the midst of pain and suffering amidst poverty’, Scriptura 116, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.7833/116-1-1298
Busch, E., 2007, ‘A general overview of the reception of Calvin’s social and economic thought’, in E. Dommen & D. Bratt (eds.), John Calvin rediscovered: The impact of his social and economic thought, pp. 67–75, Westminster John Knox, Louisville, KY.
Calvin, J., 1583, The sermons of M. John Calvin upon the fifth book of Moses called Deuteronomy…, transl. A. Golding, Henry Middleton, London.
Calvin, J., 1846, Commentary on a harmony of the evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, transl. W. Pringle, vol. 1 (or relevant volume), the 1845–1846 edn., Calvin Translation Society, Edinburgh.
Calvin, J., 1847–1850, ‘2 Corinthians 8:14–15’, in Commentary on Corinthians – Volume 2, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Grand Rapids, MI, viewed 20 July 2025, from https://www.ccel.org/ccel/c/calvin/calcom40/cache/calcom40.pdf.
Calvin, J., 1847–1850, ‘Genesis 13:8–10’, in Calvin’s commentaries, Vol. 1: Part 1, pp. 353–355, transl. J. King, at sacred-texts.com, viewed 20 June 2025, from https://sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc01/cc01018.htm.
Calvin, J., 1847–1850, ‘Matthew 7:12’, in Calvin’s commentaries, Vol. 31: Matthew, Mark and Luke, Part I, transl. J. King, at sacred-texts.com, viewed 15 May 2025, from https://sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc31/cc31072.htm.
Calvin, J., 1847–1850, ‘Titus 3:2–3’, in Calvin’s commentaries, Vol. 43: Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, pp. 256–258, transl. J. King, sacred-texts.com, viewed 20 July 2025, from https://sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc43/cc43022.htm.
Calvin, J., 1948, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, 2 vols., transl. J. Pringle, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Calvin, J., 1962, Institutes of the Christian religion, James Clarke, London.
Calvin, J., 2000, Sermons on Genesis, chapters 1 to 20.4 (Supplementa Calviniana XI/1–2), ed. M. Engammare, Neukirchener Verlag, Neukirchener-Vluyn.
Cambridge Advanced Learner’s and Thesaurus Dictionary, 2024, Common sense, Cambridge University Press, viewed 20 January 2024, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/common-sense.
Christian, J., 1999, God of the empty-hand: Poverty, power and the Kingdom of God, MARC, Mississauga, Ontario.
Collins English Dictionary, 2012, Digital Edition, HarperCollins, viewed 10 March 2023, from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/laissez-faire.
Dabney, R.L., 1985, Systematic theology, Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh.
Dillard, R.B. & Longman, T. III., 1994, Christianity In Crisis: The 21st Century, (1994). Hanegraaff, H, June 2, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.
Fløttum, K., 2013, ‘The role of social justice and poverty in South Africa’s national climate change response White Paper’, South African Journal on Human Rights 29(1), 61–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/19962126.2013.11865066
Gandhi, M., n.d., The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members, University of Wisconsin–Madison, viewed 20 July 2025, from https://quotefancy.com/quote/856011/Mahatma-Gandhi-The-true-measure-of-any-society-can-be-found-in-how-it-treats-its-most.
Ganson, B., 2025, ‘A true Mandela Day contribution from companies must be a business plan that addresses extreme poverty’, Mail & Guardian, 18 July, viewed 20 July 2025, from https://mg.co.za/thought-leader/opinion/2025-07-18-a-true-mandela-day-contribution-from-companies-must-be-a-business-plan-that-addresses-extreme-poverty/.
Glasser, A.F., 2003, Announcing the Kingdom: The story of God’s Mission in the Bible, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI.
Grabill, S.J., 2006, Rediscovering the Natural Law n Reformed theological ethics, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Graham, F.W., 1971, The constructive revolutionary: John Calvin and his socioeconomic impact, John Knox Press, Richmond, California.
Greenway, R.S., 1999, Discipline the city: A comprehensive approach to urban mission, Library of Phillipsburg, NJ, P & R Publishing.
Grudem, W., 1994, Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine, InterVarsity Press, Leicester.
Guinan, M.D., 1981, Gospel poverty: Witness to the risen Christ, Vesuvius Press, Phoenix, AZ.
Harris, M., 1996, Proclaim jubilee, Westminster John Knox, Louisville, KY.
Helm, P., 2004, John Calvin’s ideas, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hodges, J.M., 2010, Beauty in music: Inspiration and excellence for Veritas Academy Fine Arts Symposium, Veritas Academy Press, Lancaster.
Horsely, R.A., 2009, Covenant economics, Westminster John Knox, Louisville, KY.
Keller, T., 2012, LifeCoach4God, Encouraging you in Christ centred living!, viewed 20 July 2025, from https://lifecoach4god.life/2012/08/28/dr-tim-keller-on-the-worship-wars/.
Kessler, J., 2013, Old Testament theology: Divine call and human response, Baylor University Press, Waco, TX.
Kinsler, R. & Kinsler, G., 1999, The Biblical jubilee and the struggle for life, Orbis, Mary Knoll, New York, NY.
Kolm, S.C., 2002, Justice and equity, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Levin, C., 2014, ‘Rereading Deuteronomy in the Persian and Hellenistic periods: The ethics of brotherhood and the care of the poor’, in D.V. Edelman (ed.), Deuteronomy–Kings as emerging authoritative books: A conversation, pp. 48–71, Ancient Near East Monographs 6, Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, GA.
Maluleke, T.S., 2000, ‘The crucified reflected in Africa’s cross-bearers’, Mission Studies 17(1), 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1163/157338300X00109
Maxwel, J.C., 2004, Winning with people: Discover the people principle that work for you every time, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Nashville, Tennessee.
McConville, J.G., 1998, ‘Deuteronomy’, in G.J. Wenham, J.A. Motyer, D.A. Carson & R.T. France (eds.), The New Bible commentary, pp. 198–232, Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester.
McKeown, J., 2003, ‘Land’, in T.D. Alexander & D.W. Bkaer (eds.), Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, Inter-Varsity Press, Downers Grove, IL.
Merriam-Webster, 2024a, Equity, Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, viewed 17 January 2024, from https://www.Merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equity.
Merriam-Webster, 2024b, Proportion, viewed 17 January 2024, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proportion.
Merrill, E.H., 1994, Deuteronomy, vol. 4, The New American Commentary, Broadman & Holman Publishers, Nashville, TN.
Molobi, V.M., 2010, ‘The past and future of Black Theology in South Africa: In discussion with Maimela’, Studia Historiae Ecclessiasticae 36(1), 35–48.
Motlhabi, M.G.B., 2005, ‘Black theology in South Africa: An autobiographical reflection’, Studia Historiae Ecclessiasticae 31(2), 37–62.
Mouw, R.J., 2011, Abraham Kuyper: A short and personal introduction, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Muirhead, L.A., 1907, The times of Christ, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh.
Muswubi, T.A., 2024a, ‘Missional precepts of the jubilee as an incentive to address poverty in South Africa and beyond’, In die Skriflig 58(1), a3082. https://doi.org/10.4102/ids.v58i1.3082
Muswubi, T.A., 2024b, ‘Reviewing equitable justice and the land question in South Africa from a reformation perspective’, Theologia Viatorum 48(1), a267. https://doi.org/10.4102/tv.v48i1.267
Muswubi, T.A., 2025, ‘A missional view of the Good Samaritan parable in handling neighbourliness in Christ’s view’, Verbum et Ecclesia 46(3), a3292. https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v46i3.3292
Preston, C.W., 1979, ‘The Philistines in Genesis’, M. Div. thesis, Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, IN.
Pritchard, A.C., 1998, ‘United States v. O’Hagan: Agency Law and Justice Powell’s legacy for the Law of Insider Trading’, The Boston University Law Review 78(1), 13–58.
Rocha, Z., 2000, Hélder, The Gift: A life that marked the direction of the Church in Brazil, ed. Vozes, Petropolis, Rio de Janeiro.
Scott, B.B., 1983, ‘A master’s praise: Luke 16:1–8’, Biblica 64, 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0957042X00002996
Sider, J., 1995, Interpreting the parables: A hermeneutical guide to their meaning, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.
Sider, R.J., 2005, Rich Christians in an age of hunger, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, TN.
Statistics South Africa (StatsSA), 2025, Mid-year population estimates, Poverty, Pretoria, viewed 20 July 2024, from https://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0302/P03022025.pdf.
Strong, J., 1981, The exhaustive concordance of the Bible, Eaton & Mains, Jennings & Graham, Cincinnati, NY.
Van der Westhuizen, M. & Swart, I., 2015, ‘The struggle against poverty, unemployment and social injustice in present-day South Africa: Exploring the involvement of the Dutch Reformed Church at congregational level’, Stellenbosch Theological Journal 1(2), 731–759. https://doi.org/10.17570/stj.2015.v1n2.a35
Van Til, C., 1980, The Reformed Pastor & modern thought, Presbyterian and Reformed Publ. Company, Phillipsburg, NJ.
Verhey, A., 1975, ‘Natural Law in Aquinas and Calvin’, in C.J. Orlebeke & L.B. Smedes (eds.), God and the good, pp. 80–92, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Vorster, J.M., 2003, An introduction to Reformed church polity, Potchefstroom Theological Publications, Potchefstroom.
White, M., 2004, ‘Equity: A general principle of law recognised by civilised nations?’, Law and Justice Journal 4(1), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.5204/qutlr.v4i1.177
Wiersbe, W.W., 1999, Be equipped, “Be” commentary series, Chariot Victor Pub., Colorado Springs, CO.
Wolters, A.M., 1994, ‘Creation order: A historical look at our heritage’, in B.J. van der Walt (ed.), God’s order for creation, pp. 42–61, Instituut vir Reformatoriese Studie, Potchefstroom.
Wright, C.J.H., 2006, The mission of God: Unlocking the Bible;s grand narrative, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL.
Footnotes
1. The Hebrew word, מִשְׁפָּט Mishpat is derived from שָׁפַט shawfat means to judge (Strong 1981:8199).
2. Heb. צדקים tzedek and its derivative Tsadaq, means to be or to make right in a moral or forensic sense, for example, right actions and/or conduct (cf. Strong 1981:6664–6666).
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
