I was part of a discussion about how we define ‘bribery’. At what point does the passing of money become wrong? This may be more subtle than we sometimes think. The Old Testament book of Proverbs is key here.
A bribe does have an effect, changing men’s decisions. ‘Bribe’ is too harsh a word! A generous and timely gift to another, perhaps a person of influence, can lead to success. David Adeney comments on this lack of condemnation of a bribe; ‘Such equivocation in the Old Testament seems to reflect a recognition of the power differential between a poor person who gives a gift in order to stave off injustice and the rich who uses his power to exploit the poor. The powerful and the powerless are not judged by the same abstract absolute.’ (Strange Virtues, Ethics in a Multicultural World, quoted by Andy McCullough in Global Humility)
The real test is not the passing over of a sum of money, but the motivation and purpose behind it. Can I suggest the following distinction:
Bribery condemned
17.23 and 22.16 look at the purpose of a bribe. Where it is given to prevent justice or to oppress the poor, then it is properly condemned. 15.27 likens a person giving a bribe to someone greedy for unjust gain.
Generosity with purpose
In 17.8, a precious stone changes a person’s decision in the donor’s favour. In 18.16, generosity opens door. And in 21.14 a gift soothes anger. If I buy someone flowers or chocolates to cheer them up, we do not think of that as bribery. It is a gift with a purpose.