FAMILY 14 - FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY WITHIN FAMILY
Spouses responsibility for each other
Gen 2:24 Primary responsibility it to spouse
“therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and they will be one flesh”
- With marriage the new couple or family becomes the primary center, allegiance, point of reference, identity, responsibility and accountability.
- There may be other financial obligations, but they are so to lesser degree and must be secondary to the obligations to the first circle of immediate family.
Exo 21:10-11 Rights of even a slave wife
“If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife.11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money.”
- This verse is foundational to Jewish marital law: If these are the rights of a slave wife, then definitely also of a free wife, and of the husband.
- Jewish marriage obligations: material provision (food, clothing, sometimes oil is mentioned) and emotional provision (marital rights). For men: obligation to provide. For women: obligation to prepare (cook, sew).
- Unmentioned because universally accepted obligation in marriage: sexual faithfulness. For the wife: her husband only. For the husband: his legitimate wives only (due to permissible polygamy). Adultery (sexual marriage outside of marriage) was universally seen as a crime worthy of punishment (often capital) in OT as well as Ancient Near Eastern law. See FAM 02 Divorce & Remarriage.
Parents’ responsibility to children
2 Cor 12:14 Parents should lay up for their children
“Here I am, ready to come to you this third time. And I will not be a burden, because I do not want what is yours but you, for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children.”
Prv 13:22 Parents should leave an inheritance to their children
“The good leave an inheritance to their children’s children, but the sinner’s wealth is laid up for the righteous.”
- God’s highest: Parents should feed and provide for their children. They should also be financially responsible for themselves when children are grown and work as long as they can to keep building up wealth that they can pass on to their children, even their grand-children.
- There maybe cases where this is not possible: extreme poverty, disease, accident, national crises, war, … but this should be the goal as far as possible.
- If a family starts in poverty, this may not be reachable in one generation’s time, but there is a good chance to reach this goal if two subsequent generations live by godly values.
- Again the big theme of pass down: we should be able to pass down something good to children and those around us.
- Pass down needs to be much more than money, possessions and wealth: Also stewardship, work ethics, character, attitude, self-control, management skills, experience. If these are not passed on together with wealth, the 2nd generation will live in indulgence and tear down what the 1st generation generated.
- In the long run money may well be the smallest part of the inheritance we pass on.
- Prv 20:21 … “An estate quickly acquired in the beginning will not be blessed in the end”. God wants slow, gradual increase with character, attitude, management skill and work ethics growing alongside; so it would be stable and blessed.
- God wants a multi-generational build-up, families are to increase in wealth, skill, attitude, stewardship generation by generation.
- 2 Cor 12:14 … Where is Paul taking this from? What is he quoting? Nothing in the law of Moses says exactly this. Or is this common knowledge, or an extrapolation from something?
- Prv 13:22 This is not only possible, it’s even a promise of God: the good, righteous, honest pass on an inheritance, not only to children, but to children’s children. A promise of multi-generational build-up being possible.
- What if parents are unwise or unwilling, losing property and being lazy? Difficult, but nothing much to be done. Yet: even if parents destroyed family property, by my wise choices I can start building it up again.
- In the West pass down of wealth is considered ‘normal’ due to Christian heritage.
- ‘the good leave and inheritance’. In Bangladesh: often an unnecessarily early retirement of parents, then depending on children’s income. If this persists: there will forever a ‘pull backwards’, having to feed lazy demanding senior relatives. The immediate family, which is supposed to bring up and school children, is constantly pressured for money by an extended family.
- ‘the sinner’s wealth is laid up for the righteous.’Bangladesh: sometimes it seems the evil keep all the land and wealth, and the righteous can’t do much about it.
- Yet a lot of loss of land or wealth is due to internal family problems: lack of wisdom, cheating, not heeding principles, indulgence, addiction, laziness.
- This sort of build up won’t happen by accident, we need to be hard-working, intentional, committed, prayerful, sacrificial, self-controlled and lead by God’s principles in order for this to become reality.
- Time will prove the principle, but somebody has to start, to give is sweat and effort, to see it through. It takes faith now to obey God’s principles. At the end all will see.
Deu 5:12-15 Command to work 6 days a week
2 The 3:10 Anyone unwilling to work should not eat
- The command to work is not lifted once your son is adult and ‘can provide for you’. The command to work stands as long as this is physically and mentally possible. Parents who can work, should work. With age gradual decline in amount and severity of work is acceptable, of course. Everybody should continue to contribute.
- There is dignity and satisfaction in work, therefore the idea of heaven being ‘the great retirement village’ with ‘physical pleasures forever more’ is a distortion.
Children’s responsibility to parents
Mrk 7:9-13 Don’t escape financial responsibility for parents
“Then he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandments of God in order to keep your tradition! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.’ 11 But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, “Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban’ (that is, and offering to God) – 12 then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many such things like this.”
- Jesus quotes the 5th commandment from Deu 5:16 or Exo 20:12 and the death penalty on cursing parents Jesus holds us accountable to help parents financially from Lev 20:9. Is there no other law more specific to quote? It seems not. Jesus argues from these.
- According to this one part of ‘honor your father and mother’ is to support parents (needy parents? Widowed parents? not healthy any more? Or generally?).
- Jesus attacks the Pharisees and scribes for invalidating God’s law (through Moses) by quoting their traditions and laws, that were added later.
- ‘Corban’ means ‘sacrifice’, consecrated to temple funds. It seems there was a system to reclaim this money later, when the parents have died.
- If the money was not recoverable: Jesus attacks the grand-standing piety and spirituality while not being willing to even support own parents
- If the money was recoverable: Jesus attacks this deceitful ‘rip off system’, using ‘spiritual excuses’ and supposed ‘loopholes in the law’ to escape commanded financial responsibility towards parents. It seems the Pharisees or scribes were involved in this scheme for people unwilling to support their parents (Mk 7:12).
- Jn 19:26-27 … Jesus on the cross gives John the responsibility to look after his mother (and vice versa), even though he has 4 younger brothers (Mk 6:3).
Deu 5:12-15 Command to work 6 days a week
2 The 3:10 Anyone unwilling to work should not eat
- The command to work is equally given to adolescent or adult children.
- To be lazy or to live off your parents’ provision or inheritance as a healthy, able-to-work adult is definitely not acceptable.
- ‘Bank Papa and Hotel Mama’ is not acceptable for an adult child. Parents should not indulge adult children like this. Adult children should not take advantage of it.
- By implication then: if I live as an earning adult child with parents then I need to pay for daily expenses (rent contribution, food, essential expenses) and carry a part of the workload of the household.
- To not work and shun obligations to elderly or sick parents is not acceptable.
Circles of Responsibility?
1 Tim 5:3-8, 16 Financial responsibilities for widows
“Honor widows who are really widows. If a widow has children, or grandchildren, they should first learn their religious duty to their own family and make some repayment to their parents, for this is pleasing in God’s sight. 5 The real widow, left alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplication and prayers night and day; 6 but the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives. 7 Give these commands as well, so that they may be above reproach. 8 And whoever does not provide for relatives, and especially for family member, has denied the faith and is worse than and unbeliever … 16 If any believing (man or) woman has relatives who are really widows, let her assist them; let the church not be burdened, so that it can assist those who are real widows.
- Context: What social or financial responsibility does the church have towards needy widows? See also Acts 6:1-6.
- Paul establishes that the church is only responsible for widows who have no family or relatives to take care of them and who live godly, constructive lives.
- The defense against poverty is first the domain of family, only then domain of church.
- Only real widows are to be supported, that is: financial help comes with conditions: The widow who is hoping in God, not people and praying, which is giving what she can give. Maybe there was a problem with many widows in Ephesus joining the church upon hearing about financial benefits.
- Who is a ‘real widow’ is mentioned in both 1 Tim 5:3-8 (concerning family responsibility) and 5:9-16 (concerning church responsibility).
- Does this mean that a widow who lives for pleasure doesn’t need to be supported neither by family nor by the church? Or can only the church put down conditions? 1 Ti 5:16 ‘let the church not be burdened’. I think God will not hold a family accountable for an irresponsible widow/
- There are levels of responsibility: 1st spouse and own children, 2nd elderly parents, 3rd unmarried sisters (Lev 21:-3), 3rd relatives, 4th church.
- In 1 Tim 5:7 Paul tells Timothy to command widows ‘so that they may be above reproach’. In 1 Tim 5:8 Paul tells Timothy to command families, so that they will indeed take responsibility for their widows, other wise they are ‘worse than unbelievers’, a strong statement! > Again God gives commands and responsibility on both sides.
- What if a believer has an unbelieving widow in his family? What if a godly widow has no believing and otherwise irresponsible family? No responsibility without limits, no authority without limits, it seems.
- A widow which is living for pleasure (1 Tim 5:6) or who is gadding about from house to house, idle, gossip, busybody (1 Tim 5:13) still seems to have options. She can get what she wants. She doesn’t use her time for work or anything constructive. Therefore (I think) neither the family nor the church is responsible for her.
- The right attitude for a widow is: to set her hope in God (1 Tim 5:5), which means: not demanding from family or church. She continues in supplications and prayers night and day (1 Tim 5:5), which means: she is giving or contributing in whatever way possible.
- I think: If a widow still has strength to work, she should participate in household work. If she she is unable to do so, then let her still contribute in prayer and faith.
- 1 Tim 5:8 talks of two levels of responsibility: first to the immediate family, only then to relatives. And within immediate family: first to children (till adult), then to parents (if needy or widowed).
- Instone-Brewer (‘Divorce & Remarriage in the Bible): Records were found of the church in Rome having 1500 widows on their support list and the church of Antioch 3000 widows and virgins. These numbers indicate that this was a needed care but also a high financial burden.
Jam 1:27 Do help widows & orphans
“Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
- Any widow and orphan, not just a widow in my own immediate or extended family
- Levels of responsibility to take care of a widow: 1st line is the immediate family, 2nd the extended family, 3rd to any godly and willing person.
- Any widow and orphan, not just a widow in my own immediate or extended family
- Levels of responsibility to take care of a widow: 1st line is the immediate family, 2nd the extended family, 3rd to any godly and willing person.
Lev 19:9, Deu 24-19-22 Special provision and protection for widows & orphans
- The fact that there is the special provision of gleaning for those without families also means that families are responsible for their members.
Jer 49:11 God will take care of widows and orphans
“Leave your orphans, I will keep them alive; and let your widows trust in me.”
- God will take care of widows and orphans, those who have no own family. This also implies: if there is family then the family should take care of them.
Isa 58:6-7 Do not hide from own kin
“Is not this the fast that I choose: … 7 Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover them, and not to hide yourself from your own kin?”
- To not hide from own kin. The word in Hebrew is ‘flesh’, implying own blood relatives and people married into the family.
- Basic responsibility to give towards and to take care of relatives.
2 The 3:10 Do not feed or indulge laziness in relatives
“For even when we were with you we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat.”
- But yet again: obligations to irresponsible and lazy persons or family members are very limited: Even if I am the closest relative, I am not ‘limitlessly’ responsible to feed a lazy or irresponsible relative.
- No obligation to ‘pour into bottomless barrels’.
Deu 21:20 Description of the rebellious youth
“this son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.”
- Here the focus is a handover of responsibility to someone else when parental authority has broken down and the person is not yet an adult.
- But implied in that: irresponsible behavior of a child is not acceptable. Parents are not obliged to ‘keep putting up or indulging’, they are commanded to address.
Lev 21:1-3 Special arrangements for an unmarried sister
“No one shall defile himself for a dead person among his relatives, 2 except for his nearest kin: his mother, his father, his son, his daughter, his brother, 3 likewise for a virgin sister close to him because she has had no husband, he may defile himself for her.”
- This is not a case of financial provision, but another essential service: looking after a dead body, burying it with honor.
- For immediate family a priest may defile himself, but not for any relative.
- Why the unmarried sister? She has no husband, and presumably in this case the father is dead, otherwise this would fall to the father (I think).
- Principle of ‘closest circle being responsible’ and only if there is nobody in the inner circle does the responsibility go to the next circle.
- In the case of a Nazirite vow the defiling is forbidden even for closest kin (Nu 6:7)
Deu 15:2-3 Remission of debt for a neighbor but not foreigner
“And this is the manner of the remission: every creditor shall remit the claim that is held against a neighbor not exacting it of a neighbor who is a member of the community, because the LORD’s remission has been proclaimed. 3 Of a foreigner you may exact it, but you must remit your claims on whatever any member of your community owes you.”
- Sabbatical year: all debts of community members must be cancelled, but not those of foreigners (possibly to ensure foreigners get loans at all in spite of higher risk).
- This again indicates circles of responsibility or rights, here pertaining to cancellation of debts.
Putting it together: Levels of responsibility
- There seems to be pretty clear levels or circles of responsibilities:
- 1st own spouse, own children … children till adult and independent
- 2nd own parents and in-laws … if unable support themselves (old, widow, sick)
- 3rd relatives … if responsible but needy
- 4th community, church, widows, orphans, poor
- 5th outsiders, foreigners
- God wants every person to be protected and taken care of (if they are in need) by circles or responsible people around them. But to do so in case of the person being irresponsible is actually wrong (2 The 3:10).
- God wants always the closest level or circle of responsibility to take care of the needy person. A person or family unit is only responsible if no more direct caretaker exists. Only if the first circle truly cannot help or nobody is alive any more, then the next level or circle picks up the responsibility.
- Endless demands of extended family on those relatives that are warm-hearted and financially wise must be prevented, because it frustrates, overburdens and destroys those relatives (and their immediate family).
- God actively protects the faithful, financially responsible, caring person from the endless demands of irresponsible and unwise relatives. Again ‘no pouring into bottomless barrels’. No sacrificing of the immediate family to the extended family.
- Also: No financial responsibility where a person has no say in the way money is spent. Example: A son does not have to pay endless bills of an irresponsible elderly parents. He may invite parents into his household to take care of them, but then he and his wife decide what is being spent. Equally an irresponsible adult son living at home cannot live off his father at will. Either he needs to leave or obey.
- In the long run to obey these principles will bring life. Truth will prove itself in reality, but the pathway of application is painful. People may call you selfish, uncaring, irresponsible for saying ‘no’ to certain demands.
- God’s amazing system of checks and balances: responsibility given but also limited; authority given but also limited. God is equally committed to the needy person as to the helper.
A warning about being too benevolent
Isa 22:20-25 too much weight on one good man
“On that day I will call my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah, 21 and will clothe him with your robe and bind your sash on him, I will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 They shall place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open. 23 I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his ancestral house. 24 And they will hand on him the whole weight of his ancestral house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. 25 On that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg that was fastened in the secure place will give way; it will be cut down and fall and the load that was on it sill perish, for the LORD has spoken.”
- This passage is not very clear but fascinating: In contrast to a self-seeking and corrupt official (Isa 22:15-19) Eliakim is godly and benevolent. He is put into leadership by God and honored by God.
- But then ‘they’ hang on him the whole weight of his ancestral house … Probably: him being in government, in a high leadership position and revered this could take the form of him financing a host of relatives, giving them recommendations, putting in a good word, getting them appointed to jobs, etc. It’s dependency on him, never-ending demands, possibly making him compromise (corruption, nepotism, favoritism) or maybe it’s just too much > he comes down and everybody with him.
- Do not over-demand, over-depend on able, skilled, powerful or rich relatives
- Benevolence can become a problem. Saying ‘no’ from principle is harder and harder if it would be ‘so easy for you’ to meet the need, to fulfill the demand.
- The temptation of the good, godly, honored leader, to be the answer to everything and everybody, feeling like he cannot say ‘no’ because it is his power to help.
Other cases in a family
Deu 21:15-17 Polygamy: Right of the first born son
“If a man has two wives, one of them loved and the other disliked, and if both the loved and the disliked have borne him sons, the first born being the son of the one who is dislike, 16 then on the day when he wills his possessions to his sons, he is not permitted to treat the son of the loved as the first born in preference to the son of the disliked, who is the first born. 17 He must acknowledge as first born the son of the one who is disliked, giving him a double portion of all that he has; since he is the first issue of his virility, the right of the first born is his.”
- If two wives are equally liked, there is no problem (if such a thing exists!).
- If there is polygamy, if there is favoritism, still there must be maintaining of basic rights. This is a ‘limiting the damage’ kind of law, not a condoning of polygamy or favoritism or injustice.
- How about a first son out of wedlock? How about any child out of adultery?
Exo 21:10-11 Polygamy: Rights of the first wife, even if originally a slave
“If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money.”
- There are rights within family, within polygamy, even if the wife was originally a slave. Husbands responsibility to feed his wife / several wives / slave wife, clothe her and grant her full marital rights.
- There is such a thing as marital rights! … even of a slave woman, therefore definitely also of a free woman.
- If he refuses to do any of this (that is: he breaks his marriage vows), he must let her go as a free woman without debt or payment. She cannot be sold.
Deu 21:10-14 Female Captives
“When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God hands them over to you and take them captive, 11 suppose you see among the captive a beautiful woman whom you desire and want to marry, 12 and so you bring her home to your house: the shall shave her head, pare her nails, 13 discard her captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house a full month, mourning for her father and mother; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money. You must not treat her as a slave, since you have dishonoured her.”
- God allows for this case, but he puts limits on it by giving rules:
- Rules: He must marry her fully, he must give one month mourning time, he must put her through a mourning, cleanliness, de-beautifying procedure. If he rejects her later, he can’t sell her but must let her go a free woman.
- This is basically prevention of rape or forced prostitution of conquered women. Often in war zones things are done which would not be done in normal society. Any conquered woman immediately falls under the protection of this rule.
- Why the nail and hair cutting? It was a sign of mourning. Also: prevention of disease transmission. But also: cooling-passions-by-diminishing-beauty, cooling-passion by waiting, cooling-passion-by-family reality.
- He must take her into his household, and this attachment must now stand the pressure of parents, relatives, earlier wives (if any). This is a protective law, steam-off-the-valve law, partially a damage-control law.
- All considered this was not a too bad pathway for a conquered woman, else she is sold as a slave. In this way at least she will become a legally married wife with the rights that this includes.