We said that few issues are more confusing - and have been more manipulated - than references to the poor in the Bible. In these installments, we will approach such a thorny topic. The reference to the poor became a few decades ago one of the elements most called to create confusion in Catholic theology and, therefore, universal. And in reality, it should not be surprising that there is no reference to the moral superiority of the poor or to a preferential option for them in primitive Christianity because the concept of "poor" presents a wider meaning in the Bible than the material one.
From the outset, it should be noted that the Scriptures establish a clear dichotomy between the material poor and the spiritual poor [1]. Both categories may coincide, but this is not always the case. The letter from Santiago seems to indicate that, along with the material poverty that characterized a certain number of those who integrated primitive Christianity in Jerusalem, there was also another type of poverty that we could frame in more spiritual terms and that, perhaps, could be translated more correctly as "humility." Barnabas, who sold his property (Acts 4, 36-7), seems to have been a person who voluntarily renounced part of his property and the same can be said of other former followers of Jesus.
We find Peter and the sons of Zebedee in a situation of some relief. It is no less true that it was replaced by a kind of voluntary poverty by following Jesus [2]. The circle of those closest to it, of course, seems to have had a common stock market (John 13, 29) whose funds were not only used to cover the expenses of the same, but were also used to give alms to the poor. This poverty was not something identifiable with misery, but rather with a simplicity of life and a humility of spirit, which did not necessarily question the possessions of each one although it did nourish solidarity and help others, and put all their faith in the intervention of God. Such is the case of the letter from Santiago and, of course, that of Jesus.
The community was not so much formed by "poor" in a material sense, as by "humble", understanding them more as a theological concept than as an economic and social category. The idea, far from being an innovation, had a rancid ancestry within the theological development of the Jewish people [3]. In fact, the term "anav" in the Old Testament has, as in Spanish, an ambivalent meaning. While in some cases, it only refers to the needy (Isaiah 29, 19, 61, 1, Amos 2, 7, etc.), in others it is equivalent to "humble" (Numbers 12, 3, Psalm 25, 9, 34, 3 ; 37, 11; 69, 32, etc). The same can be said of "ebion" (Jeremiah 20, 13) or "dal" (Zephaniah 3, 12) whose meaning can be both the needy and the humble in some passages. Thus, in a specific way, we see the poor mentioned in Isaiah 61, 1 (those who are heartbroken) or defined as those who seek God (Psalm 22, 27, 69, 33, etc.), whose right is violated (Amos 2, 7) but to those whom God hears (Psalm 10, 17), he teaches the way (Psalm 25, 9), saves (Psalm 76, 10), etc. All this causes the poor (anavim) to praise God (Psalm 22, 27), rejoice in Him (Isaiah 29, 19, Psalm 34, 3, 69, 33), receive their gifts (Psalm 22, 27; , 11), etc. The anavim, then, are not the poor without more, but the poor of God (Zephaniah 2, 3 ff.), Those who trust Him in the midst of tribulations. In the LXX, this interpretation of the term "poor" appears so assumed how poor is translated not only as "ptojós" and "pénes", but also by "tapeinós" (humble) and "prays" (meek) or their derivations. Therefore, in the Bible, the "poor anavim" were none other than those who are not merely destitute but await the liberation of God because they are aware that it can not be expected from any other. Anyone who analyzes the Scriptures seriously perceives why the thesis of F. Engels [4], K. Kautsky [5], Rosa Luxemburg [6] and, more modernly, YA Lientsman [7] or Gonzalo can not be considered acceptable. Puente Ojea [8], in the sense of contemplating Christianity as a movement whose ideological content, to a great extent, is only a false supra-structure superimposed on a situation of social oppression and that was fundamentally formed by the dispossessed of society. Certainly this thesis has enjoyed decades of considerable predicament for reasons that, more than historical, should be called meta-historical, but it can not be sustained in light of the sources we have unless we agree to violate them unjustifiably or elude his examination [9].
The same can be said of the positions of liberation theologians. Therefore, if someone tries to identify the first Christians with a simple social movement of oppressed classes, he incurs a completely wrong perspective. No caneHe does not want to be considered a special recommendation or worthy of a "preferential option". To be poor was, substantially, to realize what the true human condition is, to what extent we are unable to control situations and the future and, therefore, that the only logical and reasonable way out for every human being is to cling to God, the only hope that never disappoints.