A Just Weight and Measure: Embodied Economics and the Relationship between Worship and Economic Transaction

Introduction

On 5 December 2019, an $18 million judgment was made against the defendants of a mortgage loan modification scheme. ¹ According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the defendants charged advanced fees of up to $3,900 and monthly instalments of $650 to customers who had been promised expert legal assistance. Their claims included a 98–100% success record along with the assurance that they could negotiate lower homeowners’ interest rates to reduce their monthly mortgage payments. In some cases, the defendants recommended that customers stop paying their mortgages and stop communication with their lenders. ²

It seems hard to imagine that deceptive mortgage schemes like the one mentioned above have room to continue within the United States despite the moral lessons that could have been learned from the mortgage crisis of 2008. Although the government may continue to demonstrate victories over individuals with predatory practices in this field, the government's achievements do not make a good argument for enacting justice. In this particular case, although it is true that the $18 million may be used by the FTC to provide reparation to those affected by the scheme, it will not be enough to reverse the irreparable damage. ³

On the one hand, while the illegality of many cases seems obvious, there remain many more ambiguous situations, where deceptive strategies are practised that are entirely within a legal framework. The Theology of Work Project touches on this subject in the following anonymous quote:

Our business is providing credit cards to poor people with bad credit histories. Although we charge high interest rates, our customers’ default rate is so high that we can’t make a profit simply by charging interest. So we have a trick for catching them off guard. For the first six months, we send them a bill on the 15^th of the month, due the 15^th of the following month. They learn the pattern and diligently send us the payment on the 14^th every month. On the seventh month, we send their bill on the 12^th, due on the 12^th of the next month. They don’t notice the change, and they send us the payment on the 14^th as usual. Now we’ve got them. We charge them a $30 service charge for the late payment. Also, because they are delinquent, we can raise their interest rate. ⁴

In analysing this credit company's practices, it can be observed that an element of their financial growth is dependent on whether they are able to deceive otherwise faithful customers into having to pay service charge fees. Yet, despite these obviously deceptive tactics, this company is protected by the ‘fine print’ within contracts that give them the freedom to change billing dates. An economic system that affords the opportunity for unethical, yet legal, economic practice can hardly be considered an inherently just system. The speed of global innovation and connectivity seems to be changing the world in accelerated ways and exacerbates this problem by making it too fast for law enforcement agencies and judicial processes to repair.

There is no slowing down the speed of innovation as multiple technological epicentres throughout the world compete for superiority in immaterial yet influential ways (e.g., software, technology, human capital). The world is progressing toward more complicated globalized and disembodied economic relationships. It is a central premise within this article that what is needed is an ethical plumb line that goes further than the framework of legal systems, since legality does not always mean ‘just’, and innovation creates new ways to form capital, and steal capital. Writing in relation to markets, Albino Barrera argues that Christian ethics provides a relevant theological-moral framework that emerges from biblical teachings on economic morality and contemporary church settings. ⁵

In an attempt to address some of the issues regarding economic transactions, in this article, I provide an interdisciplinary analysis of Deut. 25:13-16 with a focus on the statement, ‘A full and fair weight you shall have, a full and fair measure you shall have’. ⁶ For the purpose of contextualizing this verse within a narrative, this article will also explore the motif of weights and measures within the eighth-century prophets (i.e., Amos, Isaiah, Micah, Hosea), with a particular focus on the prophet Amos.

Amos's critique of the economic injustice within Israel will provide a useful lens through which to reflect on the significance of Deut. 25:13-16. It provides a narrative beyond what can be immediately understood in Deuteronomy regarding weights and measures. Amos prophesied on behalf of the Lord that the sacrifices of Israel were hated and despised. What God desired was for justice to ‘roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream’. ⁷ This article will explore how these two texts can inform Christian thought on just economic transactions along with reflection on how Christian worship is affected by unjust economic behaviours.

The primary method for biblical analysis and theological application will be a narrative analysis by way of insights from cognitive linguistics with a focus on a particular branch of cognitive linguistics called Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT). ⁸ This article will utilize current research on narrative and metaphorical studies that have taken a turn towards embodiment. ⁹ It offers an opportunity for fresh theological engagement with Scripture. Within theological and biblical studies, this has mainly revolved around embodied approaches to metaphor rather than narrative. ¹⁰

I follow the definition offered by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, ‘The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another’. ¹¹ Zoltán Kövecses suggests that, in general, the more concrete physical domains of experience serve as the source for more abstract domains. ¹² The more simple kinds of metaphors can be understood as metaphors that correlate directly to sensorimotor experience. This includes metaphors such as Intimacy is Closeness, or, Important is Big. ¹³ Conceptual metaphors, on the other hand, are metaphors that often include a blend of various primary metaphors. ¹⁴ This can be seen in conceptual metaphors like LIFE IS A JOURNEY, ANGER IS FIRE, and THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS. Though further elucidation on the difference between primary and conceptual metaphors is certainly beneficial for a deeper understanding of the subject, for the purposes of this article, I focus primarily on conceptual metaphors. In the common metaphors of LIFE IS A JOURNEY, ANGER IS FIRE, and THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS, a journey is the concrete physical experience that is utilized to describe the more abstract domain of the experience of life. The concrete experience of fire is used to understand anger, and the concrete experience of constructing a building is used to understand or communicate the more abstract concept of a theory. ¹⁵ Below, I demonstrate an adaptation of a metaphorical mapping that is typically used by scholars to demonstrate its function. ¹⁶

Conceptual Metaphor: LOVE IS A JOURNEY

Source Domain: JOURNEY Target Domain: LOVE

Travelers → lovers

Vehicle → lover's relationship

Journey: looking back → time/events that have already transpired

Journey: looking forward → time/events that are anticipated to transpire

Speed → rate in which anticipated time/events are transpiring

Obstacles and road conditions → difficulties and challenges experienced

Destination → shared goals for the relationship

Route choices → what decisions lead to relationship goals

In this metaphorical map, what can be observed is that the more concrete experiences to the left are correlated with the more abstract concepts to the right. This demonstrates one of the reasons why communication is often expressed in terms of metaphorical concepts.

Along these same lines, CMT has helped uncover many of the embodied elements of the way language is used. Although it is not within the purview of this article to offer a comprehensive overview, Bonnie Howe's treatment of moral accounting is useful. ¹⁷ It provides evidence for the physical experiential grounding of the concept of just weights and measures. Howe develops this insight based on Lakoff and Johnson's WELLBEING IS WEALTH conceptual metaphor. ¹⁸

Therefore, this article will seek to explore the narrative provided by the eighth-century prophets regarding unjust weights and measures. Linguistic analysis and historical information will be explored as it aids this study in constructing a narrative for ethical reflection. As for the structure of this article, I will seek to do the following: (1) explore the meaning of Deut. 25:13-16, (2) consider the narrative of the eighth-century prophets as it relates to unjust economic exchange, and (3) reflect on some ethical implications in a contemporary context with a focus on worship.

Narrative and the Pentateuch

According to Walter Houston, the Pentateuch as a whole is a narrative with law and instruction integrated into it. ¹⁹ Chaya Halberstam takes this a step further in stating that, ‘Given that Israelite law collections are embedded within a narrative of Israel's history and a story of covenant-making, it becomes clear that the division of the Pentateuch into “legal” and “narrative” sections with a broad brush is largely unsustainable’. ²⁰ Assnat Bartor states that the casuistic law of the Pentateuch is narrative by nature and, as such, ‘biblical law is, by all means, an ideal laboratory for exploring the narrative elements of the law’. ²¹ For Bartor, the narratological components of the casuistic laws are ‘mimetic’ or ‘imitating reality’ (specifically the social reality of their ancient context). They were given, not merely as commands, but also with persuasive purposes. ²² For this reason, Jonathan Burnside states that ‘It is crucial to recognize that biblical law is not presented as “codified law” but is integrated “at every stage” into the broader story of God's purposes for Israel, and, beyond that, for the world’. ²³ This can be set in juxtaposition to what Burnside says is sometimes unhelpful scholarship in regards to biblical law, for example Bruce Wells's definition of ‘biblical law’ in the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Law, which says that the law is ‘the set of rules found in the texts of the Pentateuch’. ²⁴

That the law in Israel was not a codified law ²⁵ is important to this study because it is a primary reason why a narrative reading of the law is not only useful but a necessary element in interpreting the law the way that it was intended by the authors to be interpreted. ²⁶ Burnside juxtaposes a narrative approach to biblical law from a semantic approach as a distinction between ‘literal’ and ‘imagistic’ approaches. Semantic approaches ask, ‘what is the literal meaning of the words’, whereas a narrative approach asks, ‘what typical situations do the words of this rule evoke?’ ²⁷ For the purposes of this article, that the casuistic law regarding just weights and measures is given metaphorically indicates an assumption that the reader has the task of holding the law in analogical conjunction with the reader's target ethical scenario. In essence, it provides the more concrete physical experience of a ‘weight and measure’ through which to analyse the more abstract scenarios that arise in life. Conceptual Metaphor Theory is a useful tool in this regard. It is the primary tool for analysis here because it will help elucidate the metaphorical and embodied elements embedded within the concept of just weights and measures along with analysis of an ancient context found in the book of Amos.

Weights and Measures and the Embodied Grounding of Economics

In the book of Deuteronomy, God desired to ensure justice for the poor and foreigners within the land of promise. God gave Israel economic and commercial regulations to preserve safety and just transactions with all of those that dwelled within the land Canaan. ²⁸

Though prima facie, due to its apodictic nature, it may seem as though Deut. 25:13-16 may not hold metaphor or narrative, a closer analysis of the text reveals it is significantly undergirded with both. The selected passage begins with dual statements on weights and measures, ‘You shall not have in your bag two kinds of weights, a large and a small’ and ‘You shall not have in your house two kinds of measures, a large and a small’. That this is held in juxtaposition to the ‘full and fair weight’ (emphasis mine), means that the reference here is to weights that are used to enable dishonest economic transactions. According to Richard Nelson, ‘The heavier weight would be used to weigh the silver received when selling, and the lighter one to weigh what one would pay out when buying’. ²⁹

Weight in the ancient Near East was measured using stone or metal weights. Archaeological evidence suggests that only occasionally would the weights be inscribed with their values. ³⁰ Furthermore, in Israel, there were a variety of measures that were adopted from several peoples at the same time. This included Mesopotamian (e.g., the kor and shekel), Egyptian (e.g., the ephah and hin), and Canaanite measures (e.g., letekh and kikkar). ³¹ In addition, apart from the presence of various standards of valuation, it was customary behaviour to measure with limbs themselves. ³² Some biblical references to measuring with the human body include a finger (1/4 handbreadth [Jer. 52:21]), handbreadth (4 fingers [Exod. 25:25]), span (3 handbreadths [Exod. 28:16]), cubit (2 spans [Deut. 3:11]), and a reed (6 cubits [Ezek. 40:5-7]). ³³ Additionally, an omer was a measuring receptacle used in farming for a bundle of ears of corn. It is mentioned in the Exodus narrative how much manna an individual could collect for a day’s worth of food (Exod. 16:16, 17). Though the precise value of an omer cannot be certain, the omer was understood approximately as a tenth of an ephah. ³⁴ In short, there was a proliferation of non-standardized methods of doing business, many of which were extensions of bodily measurement and the amount that a person can physically travel or work.

That Deut. 25:13-16 did not include a comprehensive list of the different methods of weighing and measuring means that the mention of ‘weights’ and ‘measures’ within the passage is representative rather than literal. From a cognitive linguistic point of view, while not formally metaphorical, the use of the terms ‘weights and measures’ is a form of figurative language called metonymy. According to Jeannette Littlemore, ‘Whereas metaphor usually involves some sort of comparison between largely unrelated entities (or entities that are construed as being unrelated in that particular context), in metonymy, the relationship between a term and its referent is usually much closer’. ³⁵ Additionally, Raymond Gibbs states, ‘Metonymy typically refers to linguistic statements in which one well-understood or easily perceived aspect of something is used to represent or stand for the thing as a whole’. ³⁶ For example, one of the most common examples is the use of the term ‘The White House’, to refer to the executive branch of government within the United States. ³⁷

In the case of Deuteronomy, although weights and measures are real references to modes of economic exchange it is primarily used as a metonym that represents the larger body of modes of economic transaction. This form of metonymic figurative speech is referred to as a PART FOR THE WHOLE type of metonymy called a synecdoche. ³⁸ For ancient Israelites, this meant that whatever the means of trade may be, they were commanded to have a fundamental concern for just and honest trading. A ‘full’ weight signifies that the weight of the stones used in trade should be the exact amount disclosed by any party involved. For one to have a full weight recalls a CONTAINER metaphor. Thus, A JUST WEIGHT IS A FULL CONTAINER. The metonym of weight and measure is not a metaphor in itself, but it is certainly used as a conceptual tool to construct the conceptual metaphor A JUST WEIGHT IS A FULL CONTAINER.

Conceptual Metaphor: A JUST WEIGHT IS A FULL CONTAINER

Source Domain: FULL CONTAINER Target Domain: JUST WEIGHT

Container → agreed-upon amount for exchange

Contents in the container → amount actually given

Full container → amount given matches the amount agreed upon

What can be observed through this metaphorical map is that the more concrete experience of a container correlates to an agreed-upon amount for exchange. It can also represent a stated value for a commodity. This is directly correlated with the physical experience of using a container for the purpose of measuring and moving a precise amount of, to give an example, grain, from one place to another. To collect the intended amount, it would be expected that the container that one is using will be able to carry an accurate amount of grain. In an economic transaction, the contents of the container represent the actual amount given in exchange. And finally, a full container represents the circumstance in which the agreed amount matches the actual amount given. When the amount given does not match the amount that was agreed upon, it correlates to a container that is not full. In other words, the container is not fulfilling its intended purpose. The dynamic presented here is also an experiential grounding for the moral accounting metaphor represented in the following map adapted from Howe. ³⁹

Source Target

FINANCIAL TRANSACTION → MORAL INTERACTION

The experiential grounding for this conceptual metaphor according to Howe correlates to the experience of gain and loss in actual monetary transactions. Thus, if one participates in an unjust economic transaction, the moral integrity of the transaction is compromised. ⁴⁰ Additionally, a ‘fair’ weight and measure means that economic agents should be concerned with discerning a mutually just value of trade, a trade that would benefit the other just as much as oneself. Therefore, the casuistic law in reference here implicitly assumes that the reader will imagine how the metonym of weights and measures translates into the reader's particular modes of economic transaction.

Another figurative element to this passage is that the commandment restricts the presence of dishonest weights in the bag and household of an individual. The bag and household are used linguistically in the same manner as that of the weights and measures. They are figurative and metonymic references to ownership or possession. In other words, what Scripture is saying is that one should not own a weight or measure that does not match its claimed value.

Balances, on the other hand, were the means of weighing the various weights. Though the Old Testament gives few details as to the nature of the scales, it is mentioned explicitly within wisdom and prophetic literature with an emphasis on a condemnation of falsified or wicked balances (Ezek. 45:10; Hos. 12:8; Mic. 6:11; Prov. 11:1; etc.). ⁴¹

Bonnie Howe points out that metaphor and morality have their basis in the way people embody material or physical well-being. That is why well-being is often metaphorically represented by health, strength or wealth. ⁴² Metaphors emerge from our embodiment of the world to form metaphorical statements like: ‘You have a very healthy self-esteem’ or ‘You are very rich with wisdom’. I apply this same kind of analysis in the following section to the eighth-century prophetic engagement with oppressive economic practices as a detriment to the physical well-being of others. It represents unjust economic transactions in terms of physical harm.

Embodied Economic Harm: Weights and Measures in Amos and the Eighth-Century Prophets

According to biblical narrative, the eighth-century prophets in Israelite society include Amos, Isaiah, Micah and Hosea, all of whom presented a severe critique of the northern and southern kingdom's economic practices. The following section will primarily outline the critique found within Amos along with special reference to other prophets in relation to economic injustice and cultic practice. The prophet Amos, according to the biblical narrative, is chronologically the first of the eighth-century prophets. The book of Amos is presented as a covenant lawsuit to the people of Israel. He consistently relays oaths that God swore to them. The constant reference to the Torah proves an explicit intent, that Israel should remember their covenant with God. ⁴³ The message that the book of Amos communicates is primarily that YHWH is going to enact judgment on the northern kingdom due to the practice of social injustice. ⁴⁴

It is intriguing to note that although the poor are referenced, the word rich (asir) does not appear in Amos. Walter Houston points out that the oppressors within Amos are more clearly identified by their actions than by their socioeconomic status. ⁴⁵ This is a rational conclusion as predatory economic behaviour could just as easily be enacted by poor individuals, who under the burden of unjust taxation themselves, could take advantage of their more impoverished and economically vulnerable neighbours.

Ultimately, though the rich are not explicitly addressed, what can be surmised is that Amos addresses the metropolitan aristocracy of those involved in the royal administration and their beneficiaries. This is evidenced by the consistent reference to Samaria (Amos 3:9, 12; 4:1; 6:1). ⁴⁶ Although this may have included the wealthy, it certainly refers to individuals in power. Samaria was the capital of the northern kingdom. As such, Samaria was used by Amos as a metonym of the northern kingdom ‘as a whole’ in the same way that ‘Washington DC’ is representative of the United States government.

There are currently different theories on the identity of the poor referred to in the writings of the eight-century prophets. Marvin Chaney makes an argument for the more widely held view of the poor as predominantly the peasants, subsistence farmers and agricultural workers. ⁴⁷ Nevertheless, this view has been challenged by scholars asserting that the poor predominantly resided in the cities. ⁴⁸ Despite whatever may be said about the identity of the poor, what is clear is the narrative includes oppressors taking advantage of the poor and vulnerable.

One of the most vivid images relayed within Amos is found in 4:1, ‘Hear this word, you cows of Bashan, who are on the mountain of Samaria, who oppress the poor, who crush the needy, who say to your husbands, “Bring, that we may drink!”’ This passage employs an intense image of violence against the poor, where the violent action of crushing the needy is stated as the product of the actions of the husbands who sought to fulfil the request of the women of Samaria. An important detail to note is that the metaphorical image of crushing the needy is not only metaphorizing the actions of the husbands but also the request of the women of Samaria that is only fulfilled as a result of the oppression of the more economically vulnerable. Regarding this, Anthony Phillips states, ‘Thus the women of Samaria are condemned not for their indolent and selfish lives, nor for their possession of wealth, but because they are only enabled to live as they do through the exploitation of the needy. It is this that makes their conduct so unacceptable’. ⁴⁹ Though the women of Samaria participated in injustice by proxy, their market complicity in destroying the lives of others is a direct cause for God's judgment. Thus, it can be concluded that just economic transactions should have been a concern even for those participating in indirect market complicities.

The violent image of crushing the needy is also elicited in Amos 8:4, ‘Hear this, you who trample on the needy and bring the poor of the land to an end’. This demonstrates a multiplicity of passages that express economic oppression in embodied terms. In recalling the section prior, we see that many of the forms of economic transaction emerged from bodily interaction with the world. This included things like a day's journey, the length of a forearm, or what the book of Exodus describes as the amount that one can eat in the day. If economy emerged from bodily interaction, it is reasonable that economic evils are described analogically in terms of bodily harm. This also speaks to the attitude of the God that Amos was speaking for. Though economic harm is not an action that literally tramples another's head, it certainly is seen that way.

Corrupt Worship: Worship That God Cannot Perceive

Subsequently, Amos narrates how the Lord peers into the intentions of the unjust economic agents as they say (presumably in their hearts):

When will the new moon be over, that we may sell grain? And the Sabbath, that we may offer wheat for sale, that we may make the ephah small and the shekel great and deal deceitfully with false balances, that we may buy the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals and sell the chaff of the wheat? (8:5-6)

What can be seen here is that the oppressors, though agents of corrupt economic action, are not without a kind of religious observance. It is apparent that they observe the Sabbath. Yet their cultic practice is saturated with anticipation for the moment they can continue the business of buying and selling, making the ephah (i.e., measure) small, shekel (i.e., weight) great, and ‘deal deceitfully with false balances’. The Lord continues by saying, ‘Surely I will never forget any of their deeds’ (Amos 8:7).

Interestingly, most of the same elements found within Amos 8:4-7 are also found in Micah 6:10-12:

Can I forget any longer the treasures of wickedness in the house of the wicked, and the scant measure that is accursed? Shall I acquit the man with wicked scales and with a bag of deceitful weights? Your rich men are full of violence; your inhabitants speak lies, and their tongue is deceitful in their mouth.

Though Micah was called by God to prophesy to the southern kingdom of Judah, judgment on the Israelite's economic transactions was the same. The actions of the Israelites were not without harmful effects. Furthermore, the act of doing business with wicked and deceitful valuations is represented figuratively as violence against the poor.

This injustice is therefore experienced phenomenologically as a part of God's memory that can no longer be forgotten. That God asks in Micah, ‘Can I forget any longer…?’ is a statement worth more exploration. That God cannot forget any longer implies that He is holding Israel's recent actions in conjunction with the injustice enacted in the past. That God would ‘forget’ their unjust deeds prior to the indictments found in the eighth-century prophets likely refers to that God, in the past, did not enact judgment upon unjust economic actions. Nevertheless, the time had come that God deemed it appropriate to intentionally address the social injustice within Israelite society. Accordingly, God commissions the eighth-century prophets to prophesy and indict the northern and southern kingdoms.

One of the gravest consequences of Israel's actions, and one that is directly pertinent to the purposes of this article, is God's reception of Israel's religious practices. In Amos 5:21, God declares, ‘I hate (saneti), I despise (ma’asti) your feasts, and I take no delight (‘ariah, generally in connection to the sense of smell) in your solemn assemblies’. He continues, declaring of their burnt and grain offerings, ‘I will not accept them’, and ‘I will not look upon them’. To ‘not look upon them’ is a statement that speaks of God's intentionality in a similar manner to that of Micah 6:10. ⁵⁰ Whereas God will intentionally address the injustice within Israel, He will simultaneously not even consider observing the offering and sacrifice given by the people. God's attention has been unvaryingly fixed on the day-to-day actions of the people. In other words, sacrifice and liturgical practice cannot repair the status of Israel in God's eyes. This action is connected to the primary metaphor UNDERSTANDING/KNOWING IS SEEING. The physical experience of seeing something commonly produces knowledge of things in an attended environment. Therefore, from infancy, the experience of physically seeing is naturally correlated to the acquisition of knowledge. Correspondence is therefore created between the concrete physical experience of seeing and more complex conceptual metaphors. ⁵¹ Some examples of this include statements like, ‘The statement is clear’ and ‘You shed some light on the subject’. That God will not look upon Israel's religious practices means that God will intentionally seek to not make meaning of their sacrifices. God's eyes are upon their immoral behaviour. In other words, God is only making meaning of their immoral behaviour. Therefore, it is only a reversal of their specified immoral behaviour that will produce meaningful perception for God. Howe highlights a similar dynamic in Psalm 10 where the wicked are described as crushing the helpless and poor, saying in their hearts, ‘God has forgotten, he has hidden his face, he will never see it’ (Psalm 10:10-11). The poor, on the other hand, call on God to ‘see’ what the economic oppressors are doing. ⁵²

There is also some possible correspondence between the experience of turning away from something that looks and smells repulsive and God's act of ignoring Israel's religious practice. It demonstrates a deeply metaphorical description between the concrete experience of disgust to the more abstract concept of God's rejection of their religious practices.

Therefore, what God seeks from them is not cultic practice, but for them to ‘Hate evil, and love good, and establish justice in the gate, it may be that the LORD, the God of hosts, will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph’ (Amos 5:15).

At the same time, Micah 6:6-8 hyperbolically anticipates the approach that many in Israel may consider taking:

‘With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?’ He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

God's rejection of Israel's religious practice is also present within the other prophets’ writings. ⁵³ Though the focus of this article is on the economic injustice referred to in the narrative of these prophetic texts, it is by no means the only accusation brought against Israel. It is clear within the biblical narrative that idolatry was also a major problem within Israel. Nevertheless, God's rejection of Israel's cultic practices in these texts is not motivated by Israel's idolatry. God's rejection was motivated by Israel's social injustice.

Why, one may ask, would Israel's cultic service to God be rejected if sacrifice and offering are part of the law given by God himself? It may seem rational to think that though economic injustice was practised, surely there is some good in that they held some form of religious worship. However, a careful analysis of the relationship between economic transaction and cultic practices reveals that acceptable worship was not possible in light of economic injustice.

A brief narrative based on the details presented so far may help illustrate the dynamics at play here. In the following narrative construction, let us imagine an oppressor who is preparing to depart to make his yearly tithe according to Deuteronomy. Before heading out, he has one more transaction to make. It is a large transaction that consists of the trade of wheat for barley. The oppressor, in an effort to make more profit from the transaction, has mixed the chaff of the wheat into each ephah (Amos 8:6).

In the case that the oppressor then converts a tenth of his grain into a tithe of silver (Deut. 14:24-25), will it be considered a true tenth of the yield of his field? It would have to be concluded that it would not. On the contrary, for the oppressor to offer the appropriate amount, the oppressor would require formulating and thus implicitly admitting to the amount of agriculture that was lost through deceit in the transaction. As soon as an unequal amount of wheat for barley was exchanged, a portion of the yield will naturally be left unaccounted for as the oppressor seeks to calculate a tenth of his commodities. Furthermore, if the oppressor then seeks to purchase a ram for a sin-offering, though the ram is ritually pure, will the ram be an acceptable sacrifice before God? Certainly not, as it is purchased with the silver obtained with the proceeds of a fraudulent transaction. The oppressor would be buying a sacrifice for sin, with a sacrifice that was bought with money that was obtained through sin. And finally, if the oppressor would attempt to give a thanks-offering to demonstrate gratitude to God, would this be acceptable before God? Certainly not, as the oppressor would be thanking God for the increase of possessions obtained, even if in part, through robbery.

In short, by using unjust weights and measures, the oppressor has perverted the integrity of a just transaction. In essence, it is not a FULL CONTAINER of the agreed-upon amount. As a consequence, the oppressor has not only robbed from another, he has also forfeited the right to worship God as it is not possible to worship God by means of sin, neither thank God for providing one with the means to sin. Hence, how could God justifiably accept the sacrifices of the Israelites, if the sacrifices themselves are purchased with proceeds that were stolen from another? God's word to the Israelites through the prophets was justified. Their sacrifices meant nothing until they lived justly before God.

Conclusion: Ethical Economic Transaction in Contemporary Context

As time has progressed, the economic systems in the world have become complex in ways unique to that of the barter system. The barter system of ancient societies had limitations as it lacked the transportability of more fluid forms of capital for economic exchange. Economic systems based on barter were not sustainable as the ancient world continued to globalize. Forms of money eventually succeeded. ⁵⁴ Money is a result of society's search for a fluid form of exchange. As regional trade began to transition to global trade throughout the centuries, the medium of exchange was typically a decided-upon good that people or governments thought would be accepted by others. ⁵⁵

In simple terms, money is an attributed value of economic resources. Economic resources can be categorized into three elements: labour, land and capital. Labour represents the time and energy needed to produce goods and services. Land includes natural resources like water, oxygen and land. Capital involves long-lasting tools and skills. ⁵⁶ According to Craig M. Gay, ‘Money is the crucial instrument that enables us to objectify and conceptually unify the world of values. Money's conversion of reality into measurable, quantifiable units is what enables us to precisely assess, indeed to calculate, the relation between economic means and ends’. ⁵⁷ Money, in other words, is a tool to valuate that which cannot be immediately materialized. This is what enables an office worker to receive steady pay, despite being an accountant for a car manufacturer. Capital, however, has taken on more complicated forms as technology has advanced.

In their book, Capitalism without Capital, Jonathan Haskel and Stian Westlake explore a great shift in the way developed economies began investing. The major shift was a major rise in investment in intangible assets like branding, research and development, and software. Such investments redefined the way economists measured the value of companies. Microsoft, for example, in 2006 was considered the most valuable company at around $250 billion. Surprisingly, if one were to look solely at Microsoft's balance sheet, only $60 billion would be cash and various financial instruments, while plant and equipment were only valued at $3 billion. ⁵⁸ What this means is that the value of Microsoft does not primarily reside in objects that can be held and touched. Rather, Microsoft is affording value to intangible things like the software that is utilized and currently being developed by the company. As Microsoft's intangible assets are considered in light of the vast amount of value and wealth that is linked to it, it may be easy to disregard the moral ramifications of participating in, for example, downloading a pirated copy of Windows software. If one is to take the biblical account of Amos as an example, however, as stated before, immoral economic behaviour is not only applicable when the rich take advantage of the poor. It is an action that applies equally to all people, regardless of socioeconomic status.

The thoughts offered here are intended to serve as a point of self-reflection as areas of intangible capital are developing like software development. In the United States, the projected percentage change in employment within the field of software development through 2029 is projected to include a 22% growth. This is significant as the average growth rate for all occupations in the US is 4%. ⁵⁹

This comes in an age where globalization and trade have brought great benefits to many. According to Albino Barrera, ‘Market openness has been instrumental in breaking the poverty trap for many’. ⁶⁰ On the other hand, it has also been discovered through empirical evidence that there are significant costs associated with liberalization, especially within economies that do not have strong banking and financial infrastructure. Consequently, they are more susceptible to the sweeping consequences of macroeconomic shock or economic manipulation. ⁶¹

Christopher Wright succinctly describes the ethical dilemma at hand:

Finally, the end of product of the economic process is also manipulated unjustly. Claims of ownership are privatized and regarded as absolute, unfettered by any sense of transcendent responsibility for others. Resources are extracted from some countries over centuries in a way virtually tantamount to robbery. Then manufactured products, including foodstuffs, are sold back to the same countries at a subsidized cost that undercuts and eventually destroys local industry and agriculture. These grossly unfair trading arrangements are then compounded by the morally horrendous phenomenon of international debt, which contrary to all natural and historical justice, is said to be owed by the poor and plundered to the rich and rapacious. ⁶²

The purpose of mentioning these details about intangible capital and the globalized economy is to highlight the growing complexity of economic relationships. Economic complicity in the violation of rights that are inherent to every human being is an issue that should be of concern. In this age, we are forced now to expand our ethical imagination into the growing horizon of economic interrelationships. The narrative in the eighth-century prophets along with the metaphorical and narrative qualities of the law itself provides useful analogical value for ethical reflection on contemporary application.

In an overview of the most relevant details of this article, what has been discovered is that the concept of weights and measures within Deut. 25:13-16 was used as a figurative concept to represent all of the various kinds of transactions that were being used in the ancient context. The concept represents a PART OF A WHOLE metonym that allows us to liberate the term from its ancient context and appropriate it for ethical imagination regarding our contemporary context. As stated before, the value of weights and measures in the Ancient Near East was only seldomly written on objects. Additionally, there was very little to assure a buyer that there was chaff hidden among the wheat of any given trade. Likewise, we are faced with similar contemporary challenges today. What is the value of an idea? What is the value of a brand or a slogan? It is difficult to measure these kinds of things. The exact value is not immediately perceivable. That does not indicate, however, that one should not seek to participate fairly in the evermore intangible modes of economic relationships.

Subsequently, the eighth-century prophet's use of the concept of weights and measures provides a narrative context through which to understand the concept of unjust weights and measures and the ensuing consequences that follow those deceitful transactions. What is established is that in participating in unjust or deceitful weights and measures, one not only has the potential to steal from another, but one also forfeits the right to worship God for His benevolence. To preserve access to worship God, there should be a concern with assessing our current economic relationships in both tangible and intangible domains. Admittedly, this article has not gone far enough to be considered a comprehensive treatment. The complexity of increasingly globalized markets and disembodied forms of capital provide for economic relationships that will require ongoing rigorous engagement by Christian ethicists. I propose that perhaps one of the strongest motives for pursuing rigorous engagement is worship. Considering the implications of this study, Christians should take care to act justly, not only as an act that honours the humanity of others but also as an act that preserves one's right to worship God for his benevolence.