What Does the Bible Mean When It Talks of Rights?

[Steven Yeadon]

I am confused by these verses, because they talk of "rights," that seem different than our modern conception of "rights":

In the NIV:
Job 36:6
Psalms 82:3
Proverbs 31:8-9
Isaiah 10:2
Jeremiah 5:28
Lamentations 3:33-36

 

[1689Dave]

I think this pertains to what you are asking. Abraham Kuiper explains that Jerusalem "communism" says "what's mine is yours." Modern communism says "what's yours is mine." Modern communism is theft. But either way, the Christian gives to those who ask of him. So whether we give in love or are robbed, our only right in these matters is to give, and not protect our assets.

 

[Rob_BW]

Talk of the rich oppressing the right of the poor and fatherless seems similar to our conception of rights. The poor had certain enumerated rights: the return of land at Jubilee, the return of a cloak used for collateral at night, the opportunity to glean the fields, & etc.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Talk of the rich oppressing the right of the poor and fatherless seems similar to our conception of rights. The poor had certain enumerated rights: the return of land at Jubilee, the return of a cloak used for collateral at night, the opportunity to glean the fields, & etc.

So, does that mean that everyone had a right to impartial justice under the OT Law and a right to those social obligations the Law commands?

Also, how do rights work now that we are in the NT and as gentiles that are not bound by the Law? Perhaps the system is now a right to be under the morality and social obligations laid down by Jesus and the apostles?

If true, that would be extraordinary. All kings and politicians will have to give an account one day to their Master and God. Then, it makes sense that they will be judged as successes or failures based on how much fidelity they had to the commands of Jesus and the Spirit as rulers.

As someone with a degree in International Relations and Political Science, I know that if rights are based on the commands of God in the OT and NT, then that would mean our modern human rights regime, based on secular principles applicable to all cultures, is in error. For the simple reason, that it shirks biblical morality and biblical commands and obligations. I say that, because, if justice and rights to God are based on His moral system and His system of obligations, then any other competing idea is in fact a counterfeit. That said, it is very good to know we believe in impartial justice here in America, which seems like a major aspect of biblical rights.

 

[Rob_BW]

For your first question: Do not act unjustly when deciding a case. Do not be partial to the poor or give preference to the rich; judge your neighbor fairly. Lev 19:15


For the rest, the first half of Romans 2.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

For your first question: Do not act unjustly when deciding a case. Do not be partial to the poor or give preference to the rich; judge your neighbor fairly. Lev 19:15

Thank you.

For the rest, the first half of Romans 2.

That is very interesting, the bible says that all who are given the holy standard are held to the holy standard. We are guilty before a holy, holy, holy God even without being given the holy standard of course, but we are so in ignorance. That seems a great case to obey God and put faith in His Son lest the wrath of God come upon us. Thank you Rob_BW.

I see now that in political science and international relations, I was assuming that there was some middle-ground, human-derived morality that would please God by obeying. That simply is not true. We obey His standards if we have them, and almost the whole earth has them now, or we stand in rebellion.

That is sad to me in a way, because I imbibe news form sources that do not understand the need for Jesus and obedience. They are fools, having missed the whole point. I will have to meditate on all of this.