In the nineteenth century, neoclassicism was the orthodox way of viewing economics. It was characterized by a mathematical, systematized approach defined by the utility theory of value. This theory asserted that individual preferences were quantifiable, that pleasure and pain could be calculated, and that people would make rational decisions to maximize utility (Viera, 2017). Then the Great Depression and two world wars shook America to her core, turning this orthodoxy on its head. The Great Depression was pivotal in Keynes’s philosophical formation because it revealed neoclassicism’s false assumptions. Keynes’s theory expanded economics to consider unemployment and demand rather than simple output formulas, a weakness that neoclassicism had become over-reliant upon.

Keynes also departed starkly from the classical view that claimed human selfinterest as a strict positive for economic development, arguing instead that “it is not correct deduction from the Principles of Economics that enlightened selfinterest always operates in the public interest” (Medema, 2013). Keynes held the state responsible for market regulation, failure correction, public interest protection, and action when the private sector could not support the market (Taioka, 2025). The central premise of his theory is similar to the stationary state proposed by Mill: that eventually society would move past the need for wealth accumulation and focus its efforts on social welfare instead (Taioka, 2025).The strength of Keynesianism is that it interprets human nature more accurately than neoclassicism. Neoclassical thought assumes humans will make rational decisions and boost the economy through self-interest, whereas Keynesians believe economic incentives can remain misaligned. For instance, Keynesianism sees past neoclassical short-sightedness in the case of privatization in developing countries. The neoclassical transition of eastern and central Europe to a market economy contained unnecessary costs that Keynesian fine-tuning could have avoided. Keynesians argue that privatization without proper regulation incurs more social cost than a mixture of state-managed and private ownership. Because savings in transition economies are low compared to developed economies, they cannot accomplish a complete privatization drive. This leads to property being controlled by those who benefited from the previous regime rather than the market (Marangos, 2002). Under neoclassical conditions, the country would be overrun by oligarchs. From a biblical perspective, there are still meritorious aspects of Keynesian theory. Keynes emphasized the government’s responsibility to safeguard against welfare loss and unemployment. This aligns with Matthew 5:42: “Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you” (ESV). It may consequently be argued that Keynesianism is more biblically sound than free-market efficiency, which prioritizes economic growth over actual human needs. Even though some elements of Keynesianism are biblically sound, it also contradicts several vital biblical truths. Keynesianism places the state as the arbiter of the destitute, but reality and biblical principles do not substantiate this perception. Keynesianism also mistakenly redirects man’s fallen nature away from the government and into the private sector. Both the private and public sectors are susceptible to corruption, and in some cases, government intervention may cause worse corruption than private self-interest. In our modern era, Keynesianism remains an ever-present factor in the discussion of economic policy. Although his theory overlooked some important economic factors, Keynes’s bold break from traditional economic thought rightly sought to solve practical problems such as unemployment and insufficient demand. Consequently, while certainly imperfect, Keynesianism offers helpful insights into market economies that can coexist with orthodox economic thinking despite differences in thought.