The Manumission Of Slaves In Jubilee And Sabbath Years

By Michael A. Harbin

[Michael A. Harbin is Chair of the Biblical Studies, Christian Ministries, and Philosophy Department, Taylor University, Upland, Indiana.]

Summary

Debt in the Old Testament economy was problematic, and our understanding of it is even more problematic, especially with respect to debt slavery. It is suggested that several common misunderstandings have contributed greatly to the problem. First, the Hebrew word ‘ebed can be translated servant or slave and in the latter case it can denote both debt slave and chattel slave. In many cases there is a failure to make these distinctions. Second, there is a tendency to categorise all debt the same, regardless of the size. Third, a misunderstanding of the purpose of the jubilee has led to confusion regarding its role with respect to slavery and the manumission of slaves. Specifically, while the sabbath year guidelines included debt slavery, the jubilee by its nature did not involve slavery at all. Because the land ‘sale’ was really a land-lease, there was no debt involved, and the Israelite who ‘sold’ his land was not enslaved. It is then suggested that one option for the Israelite who ‘bought’ the land was to employ the ‘seller’ to work the land as a hired hand, which would explain the admonition that he was not be viewed as a slave.

1. Introduction

The issue of slavery in the Old Testament is complex. While slavery was at least condoned, various passages addressing servitude in general, especially with respect to the individual’s release from servitude, seem contradictory.[1] This leads to complicated explanations as commentators struggle with different biblical texts that discuss the matter. For example, Kiuchi translates the last phrase of Leviticus 25:39, which addresses one aspect of Israelite servitude, as ‘you shall not make him serve as a slave’.[2] He then makes this puzzling comment: ‘By definition, this Israelite becomes a slave, but the Lord sternly rules that such a person should not be treated as an ordinary slave’ (italics added).[3] In a similar manner, Rooker asserts that while a slave had the option of agreeing to stay with his master ‘after six years of enslavement; in the Jubilee even that slave is set free’.[4] If jubilee immediately followed a sabbath year as traditionally understood, this seems not only to contradict the sabbath manumission laws, but defeats the purpose of the continued service provision (economic security).[5] As a result, commentators struggle to explain how these fit together.

An important aspect of the problem is the broad field of meaning for the Hebrew word, עֶבֶד (‘ebed, plural ‘abadim). Kaiser states ‘the most basic idea of ‘ebed is that of a slave’.[6] However, more often it is understood as ‘servant’, and when it is translated ‘slave’ it covers two types.[7] This ambiguity seems to have obscured differences between different ‘ebed or servitude situations.[8] These differences are especially evident when one compares the guidelines for the jubilee and sabbath years as set forth in Exodus 21, Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15. While other passages address nuances of slavery in the nation of Israel, these three are the key passages which are understood to address the limits of servitude and release, and are the focus of this study. In summary, the Exodus passage specifies ‘ebed service for six years with release in the seventh. The Deuteronomy passage seems to identify that seventh year as the sabbath year. The Leviticus passage is more obscure, but seems to direct an additional release as part of the jubilee.[9] Comparison of these passages raises three questions. First, do the three passages address the same situations (i.e. do they all reflect slavery—and if so, is it the same kind)? Second, was the seventh year release (commonly termed manumission[10]) addressed in Exodus intended to occur during the seventh year of servitude or the seventh year of the sabbath year cycle? Third, how does one reconcile sabbath year manumission with jubilee year manumission?

The questions are not new, but proposed answers have varied widely and generally end up with less than satisfactory results especially with respect to jubilee. Presently, we are not able to review all of the different proposals, but will note two recent studies which make positive advances in distinguishing between jubilee and sabbath manumission. Chirichigno has provided an excellent overview of the discussion. Drawing on the distinction between debt and chattel slavery, he concludes that all three situations reflect a form of debt slavery, but that the ‘ebed service in the Leviticus 25 passage differs from the other two, apparently because land is involved.[11] Baker picks up on this distinction, although he prefers the term ‘temporary slaves’ for the Exodus and Deuteronomy situations, and ‘bonded labourers’ for the Leviticus situation. Advancing the idea of land involvement, he suggests that Leviticus 25 addresses a landholder as opposed to the other two situations where a landless person is in view.[12] While both have made cogent observations regarding the distinctions, as will be shown below, they also misconstrue the nature of jubilee as presented in the Leviticus text, as well as the debt issues.

In the broader discussion several factors underlie the debate. First, as noted above, the ambiguity of the Hebrew word ‘ebed has obscured the distinctions between the different types of servitude, which seems most evident in the commentaries. Second, the broad pattern seems to view debt as debt regardless of the size.[13] As a result the representation is that the consequences are the same whether the debt was a shekel or a talent. Third, there is confusion regarding the purposes of both the sabbath and jubilee years with respect to servitude. While all three affect the issue of manumission, we will begin with the issue of servitude.

2. The Concept Of Slavery In Israel

Not only was the Hebrew term ‘ebed used for both servant and slave,[14] it also denoted two types of slaves. Chirichigno categorises them as debt slaves and chattel slaves, which is a good distinction. Chattel slaves were individuals who ‘were regarded as the property of their owners’.[15] Their servitude was for life unless manumitted. In the Ancient Near East, chattel slaves could be individuals who had been captured in war, kidnapped, or who had actually been born into a slave situation.[16] They could be bought and sold, and in general had few rights.[17] Israelite law (whether observed or not) limited chattel slavery to non-Israelites (Lev. 25:44), prohibited kidnapping (Exod. 21:16), and overall set forth more humane standards of treatment.[18]

In contrast, Chirichigno defines debt slavery as a situation where a ‘creditor has only purchased the service or capacity for work (Arbeitskraft)’ of the individual.[19] Basically, debt slaves were individuals who entered servitude as a result of a debt which they were unable to repay, and they worked off their debt. Indentured servitude might be a more modern correspondence. As such, their servitude was temporary with a fixed termination point, and in general they had some rights.

Since Hebrew uses the same term, ‘ebed, for both categories of slavery as well as other types of servitude, careful evaluation of the situation is necessary to determine the type of servitude intended.[20] For example, Chirichigno correctly categorises the servitude associated with the sabbath year (addressed in Exod. 21 and Deut. 15) as debt slavery, as indicated by the clearly limited term of servitude. His evaluation of the jubilee situation in Leviticus 25, however, is problematic. He characterises the subject individual as also being a debt slave, apparently based on the assumption that the phrase translated as ‘he sells himself to you’ (Lev. 25:39 NASB)[21] suggests that he is selling himself into slavery.[22] In contrast, Milgrom maintains that all that is being sold is labour. He states ‘The Israelite can, therefore, never become a slave … his status is that of a śākîr, a wage-earning day laborer (italics added).’[23] This is based on the next verse (Lev. 25:40) which strongly asserts that any individual subject to the jubilee criteria was to be viewed as a ‘hired man’. Further, Leviticus 25:39 goes on to state specifically regarding the one who ‘sold himself’: ‘you shall not subject him to a slave’s service’ (italics added).[24]

As will be seen below, it would appear that the reason for this distinction is that the circumstances surrounding the jubilee situation in Leviticus 25 are of a different nature from those of a sabbath year. These differing circumstances explain why the Leviticus 25 service is terminated in the jubilee year, as opposed to the sabbath year.

3. ‘Debt Slaves’ In Israel

The initial directives on freeing slaves as given in Exodus are in the literary context of the ‘nation’ of Israel receiving the Law while at Sinai. Within that context, Israel is represented as having just emerged from a slavery situation three months earlier (Exod. 13:3, 14; 20:2). As such, it is unlikely that the text was intended to address a situation in existence at that time. First, the text describes the Israelites as having ‘plundered the Egyptians’ (Exod. 12:36) giving a picture of people possessing tangible assets. However, the text further presents a picture that their physical needs were being met in a unique way as God provided water (either directly as in Exod. 15:25, or by showing the nation existing springs as in Exod. 15:27), bread or manna (Exod. 16:4) and meat (Exod. 16:8). As such there would have been no contextual reason to borrow money, and consequently no debt slavery. So, while the situation in Exodus 21 is undoubtedly debt slavery, it is being presented as an anticipated future contingency for after the nation entered the land.

The Deuteronomy 15 guidelines for freeing slaves reflect a similar situation, although two key differences exist.[25] First, the literary context places the nation approximately forty years after Sinai in the Transjordan, poised to enter the land. Other than that, the economic situation would have been the same. Second, the Deuteronomy 15 guidelines amplify those of Exodus 21. As Baker expresses it, ‘it is probable that the Deuteronomic Law is a deliberate revision and expansion of this predecessor [Exodus]’.[26] He suggests that one such revision is tying the manumission of debt slaves to the sabbath year.[27] Again, debt slavery is presented as something anticipated in the future and it is that future context at which we need to look.

Two factors are important. First is the incurring of debt. Second is the transition from debt to debt slavery. From our perspective it is difficult to envision an economy which is not critically dependent upon cash flow and credit. However, recent studies have shown that while the typical Israelite family lived a rather Spartan life, it was one that was largely self-contained.[28] Israel, like much of the Ancient Near East practised a combination of village based farming and pastoralism which King and Stager define as agropastoralism (as opposed to transhumant pastoralism).[29] As they put it, ‘In an agropastoralist economy, such as ancient Israel had for most of its duration, the majority of economic activity took place within households, great and small … the household was designed to maintain its own economic survival, even if only at a minimal level.’[30] That is, the extended family largely grew or made almost everything that it used. As history progressed, the economy grew more complex as skilled craftsmen began to specialise. Even then, barter was the norm.[31]

Described as a subsistence economy, it would be a situation where little cash was required. To put it in modern terms, they would have had no house payments, no property taxes, no utility bills, and no insurance costs. Most foods would have been grown in the family fields, the garden, or within their flocks and herds. Even seed would have been saved from year to year.[32] Food, including such mainstays as bread, was cooked at home. Transportation was normally on foot. So, there were few food or transportation costs. The ‘commute to work’ would have involved the walk to the field.[33] Beyond that people seldom left the village area. While some household items such as clothing, cooking and eating utensils, farming utensils, and furniture, could be ‘outsourced’, normally even these would be produced at home.[34] The point is that on a daily basis, the average rural Israelite did not have a cash flow problem necessitating credit.

So then, what would cause debt leading in some cases to debt slavery? While actual factors are matters of conjecture, given the environment, crop failure surely ranks high on the list. However, Hopkins notes several ‘concrete expressions of the attention paid to storing produce from a year of plenty to provide for a year of farming failure’ including storage buildings, grain-pits, and collared-rim pithoi (a type of storage jar).[35] He indicates that these preparations would also support a general fallow year (i.e. a sabbath year).[36] In these cases, the lack of harvest would have been community wide not individual.

More localised situations which would lead to an individual or a single family going into debt might include household disasters such as the incapacitation or death of a key family member, or the loss of a critical capital asset such as an ox or donkey or even an essential farm implement.[37] These different losses would affect a household in various ways.

The loss of a key family member would be a major hurdle since manpower was the main resource for economic survival in a labour intensive agricultural society.[38] The keystone was the male ‘head of the household’ so that the loss of the husband left the wife and children in an extremely difficult situation, as seen in Ruth 1. The scope of the difficulty would vary depending on factors such as the ages of the couple and the number, if any, of children and their ages. Methods of alleviating this loss included remarriage (including levirate marriage), or turning to gleaning as a form of welfare provision. Another alternative for individuals possessing greater assets might be to hire labourers to perform the critical tasks. This last alternative might also be an option in the case of a temporary incapacitation. Still, in these situations, the financial strains would be tremendous.

Not as devastating, but a major financial hurdle would be the loss of a farm animal. Borowski indicates that the key agricultural tasks performed by animals were ploughing and threshing. Both were normally done by pairs of oxen or donkeys, and both directly affected how much land could be put into production.[39] The price of animals is difficult to establish not only from a lack of documentation but also due to price fluctuations. Throughout the Old Testament, references to animal sales are vague suggesting market value as a variable (e.g. Exod. 21:35). Still Dubberstein maintains that in Babylon at the time of Hammurabi, ‘a good ox was valued at twenty shekels and fifteen hundred years later the price had not changed much’.[40] This will be used as a working figure.

First Samuel 13:20-21 lists farm implements including ploughs, mattocks, axes, forks, and hoes. Even ‘complex’ implements such as ploughs were surprisingly simple in design. They consisted of a wood frame with a single plough point, made either of bronze or iron.[41] The 1 Samuel passage states that for iron implements, the Israelites had to utilise Philistine blacksmiths for sharpening or repair, and the price was about two thirds of a shekel.[42] The price of replacement tool heads is unknown.

With these situations, we can build a rough scale of debt. On the bottom end, we could conjecture the emergency repair of a critical tool—two thirds of a shekel, approximately a month’s wages for a hired hand.[43] At the higher end, we see the replacement of work animals, at an approximate cost of twenty shekels (or more if a full team needed to be replaced). The lower end might represent an amount that a farmer might reasonably expect to recuperate in a good harvest. At the other end, the amount could require several years to make up. It is in that context that we must place the ‘slavery’ (specifically debt slavery) which is addressed in the stipulations of the sabbath year.

4. The Purpose Of Sabbath And Jubilee Years

While the canonical text presents several differences between sabbath and jubilee years, there are some commonalities, primarily letting the land rest. The first reference to the sabbath year states that the nation was to ‘let [the land] rest and lie fallow’ (Exod. 23:10-12), although both here and elsewhere other purposes are added. Underlying all of these seemed to be a basic purpose that the nation show trust in God for its provision as indicated by the phrases, ‘a Sabbath to the Lord’ in Leviticus 25:2-7 and ‘the Lord your God shall bless you’ in Deuteronomy 15:9-11.

The issue of the fallow year has long been a major point of discussion. The idea of skipping a year of farming is difficult to grasp, especially within an agrarian economy where one’s life depended on a successful harvest, and where modern methods of food preservation were not available. That a single harvest on a subsistence farm would see a family through two years to cover a sabbath year has proven so difficult that various proposals have been offered to lessen the tension including arguing that there was a rotation among farmers each year so that only certain farms were fallow at any specific time,[44] suggesting that each individual farmer would let one portion (one seventh) of his land lay fallow each year,[45] and concluding that the concept was really just an ideal never practised.[46]

Hopkins and subsequently Milgrom actually argue for a biennial rotation where a landowner would crop and fallow half of his land each year, switching back and forth, with both halves being fallowed in the sabbath year. It is suggested that this would be a workable process.[47]

Although its exact nature is debated, many scholars now accept the idea that a sabbatical year was expected, based on extra biblical sources and analogous concepts in other areas of the ancient world.[48] Still, while it may be that the nation as a whole never practised it,[49] that sidesteps whether there was an authoritative expectation that it be done, and the conclusion is that the expectation was there.[50]

While land rest was also a purpose of the year of jubilee, according to Leviticus 25:10 the primary purpose was that it was ‘a year of release’ where Israelites were to return to their family property. Land rest seems to be secondary but is specifically directed in Leviticus 25:11. This produces problems, especially in terms of the relationship between the seventh sabbath year and jubilee, years 49 and 50 respectively. If one fallow year is difficult to accept, two in a row is virtually unbelievable. These difficulties have led to various suggestions such as it was an exilic ideal never instituted,[51] or it was really a short (intercalary) year of forty-nine days added during the seventh month of the forty-ninth year,[52] or that it was identical with the seventh sabbath year.[53] While an evaluation of these alternatives is beyond the scope of this study, Milgrom seems to be correct when he concludes that although there were problems, jubilee was indeed the fiftieth year subsequent to the seventh sabbath year and observes: ‘the fertility required for the land to produce crops that will feed the nation for three years is not answered by a rationalistic compromise, but is due solely to divine grace’.[54]

While the sabbath year and the jubilee year had the issue of land rest in common, there were also significant differences. A major difference is the issue of slave manumission.

5. Servitude And The Sabbath Year

The sabbath year (or seventh year) had at least a fivefold purpose. As noted, the first was to let the land rest which is tied conceptually to the sabbath day given as a day of rest (Exod. 23:12).[55] The Exodus passage also suggests that a reason for the rest was to help provide for the poor: ‘so that the needy of your people may eat’.[56] The third purpose of the sabbath year really had little to do with the land—this was a remission of debts. Deuteronomy 15:1-11 addresses this purpose and states explicitly that in the seventh year, ‘every creditor shall release what he has loaned to his neighbor’. Tied into this was the fourth purpose, the directive to free ‘abadim, who are understood to be debt slaves.[57] The fifth purpose of the sabbath year, although not stated explicitly in these terms, was to test the faith of the people. The Deuteronomy passage states that the nation would prosper ‘if only you listen obediently to the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all this command which I am commanding you today’ (Deut. 15:5).

Of these five, the first and last seem to have been most important. Leviticus 26:33-35 warned the nation that if it did not observe the sabbath years, God would scatter it throughout the other nations so the land could rest. In 2 Chronicles 36:21, Jeremiah is cited as having declared that the exile had occurred for that purpose. Because the nation did not trust God nor allowed the land to rest, it was expelled from the land. It then appears that purposes two through four (providing for the poor, forgiving debts, and freeing ‘abadim) derived from anticipation that the nation would not adhere to the sabbath year guidelines.[58]

Our focus, however, is on the remission of debt and the freeing of the debt slaves. While both reflect provision for the poor, there is much confusion about what was actually involved. For example, Chirichigno addresses economic issues by comparing the value of a debt slave as opposed to a chattel slave. He maintains that the cost of a debt slave was thirty-five shekels for a male.[59] But this assumes both that debt slaves were ‘bought’ for a fixed price and that all debt slaves served for the same period of time, six years—regardless of the amount of debt. It also seems to assume that the only way an Israelite was able to borrow money was to ‘sell’ himself into debt slavery. All are unwarranted assumptions. If the seventh year was the sabbath year, then all debt slaves would be released regardless of how long they had served. Thus, the maximum length of service would be six years.[60] As Wenham argues that the length of the period of service would vary with the amount of debt. This also suggests that a debt could be paid off before the sabbath year arrived.[61] This is more likely since it highlights the main point of the debt, which was to get the debtor through a hard time.

A possible scenario might be that a farmer broke a critical farm implement, such as a plough, during planting season. He lacked the funds (two-thirds of a shekel) to get it repaired, and went to a neighbour for a loan. While repayment terms are not addressed, it would be expected that under these circumstances the loan period would have been relatively short, perhaps as soon as the next harvest. If so, ‘debt slavery’ would then likely not have occurred until the expected repayment time came and the individual was not able to repay because of further adverse circumstances.[62] It is also possible that debt slavery was a voluntary alternative method of repaying the debt under specific circumstances such as a larger loan, i.e. one that required several harvests to repay.

Our suggestion then is that the debt involved in sabbath year debt (and subsequent debt slavery) was relatively small. Lowery insightfully labels this debt ‘subsistence debt’, which would be a loan designed to help a kinsman or neighbour in a difficult time.[63] Thus, subsistence debt would be money borrowed with expectations that the borrower could repay it after a harvest or two without going into debt slavery. Several indicators suggest this. In both Exodus and Deuteronomy, the borrower is characterised as a poor man, and in that status likely would not be borrowing large amounts. While collateral was allowed, the examples used are relatively small (a cloak in Exod. 22:26, and by implication, shoes in Amos 1:6) suggesting that the loan was small. Also, the collateral was portable and was to be returned when needed (in the case of the cloak before sunset of the day borrowed). This is amplified in Deuteronomy 24:10-13 which mandates that the lender did not have the right to enter the borrower’s house to secure the pledge. For these loans the lender was not to charge interest.

Further, if the loan was not repaid by the sabbath year it was to be forgiven (Deut. 15:1), which means that the amount of the loan was small enough that the lender was reasonably able to write off the loss.[64] Even so, Deuteronomy 15:9 also warns against reluctance to lend because the sabbath year was near.[65]

Complicating the directive that the debt was to be forgiven in the seventh year (if it had not been repaid) is the subsequent statement that debt slaves were to be freed in the seventh year (Deut. 15:12). Craigie argues that this would not be the sabbath year but after an actual six year period of labour, which creates several problems.[66] It would require that the term ‘seventh year’ carry a different connotation here than in Exodus 23:11 and Deuteronomy 15:1 where ‘seventh year’ seems clearly to refer to the sabbath year.[67] It also mandates a fixed six year period of servitude regardless of the amount of debt.

A better understanding is that the Israelite would go into ‘debt slavery’ in order to pay off his debt with a correlation between the value of the labour and the debt. This fits Wenham’s suggestion that the period of servitude varied with the amount of debt, and would suggest that the six years of labour specified in Exodus 21:2 was not an absolute term of service, but a maximum.[68] An analogy to this might be the ‘eye for eye’ restriction in the same chapter (Exod. 21:24-25) which is deemed by some scholars as setting a limit on retaliation rather than setting up a mandatory retribution.[69] If this was the case, then a better translation than ‘debt slavery’ would be warranted—perhaps ‘indentured servanthood’ would be more appropriate. In either case, under this understanding, if the debt had not been repaid by the next sabbath year, it was to be forgiven.

Within the overall economic structure of early Israel it would then seem that when an Israelite had to borrow a small sum, he had several options for fulfilling his obligation. First, he could repay the debt within a reasonable period, probably by continuing to farm (or practising his regular trade). An alternative not discussed might be for a relative (go’el or ‘kinsman redeemer’) to assist him, although that raises questions regarding the role of the extended family which are beyond this study. Should circumstances prevent repayment by the sabbath year, the debt would be remitted. An alternative in the interim would be debt slavery for either the borrower or a member of his family with the labour providing repayment.[70] If the labour proved inadequate to repay the debt by the sabbath year, the debt slave was manumitted. In this understanding, then, the debt slavery cited in Exodus and Deuteronomy was a servitude designed to allow a borrower to pay back relatively small debt through labour.[71]

6. Jubilee

In contrast to the sabbath year, jubilee is presented as a ‘consecrated year’ following the seven sabbath year cycle and is only described in Leviticus 25:8-55.[72] As noted, the exact nature of this ‘year’ is debated, although Leviticus 25:10 calls it ‘the fiftieth year’. Thus it seems the most likely understanding of the text is a full year after the seventh sabbath year.[73] While the land was to rest as in a sabbath year, the focus of jubilee was related to the land which had been ‘sold’. Specifically, all agricultural land which had been given as part of the national inheritance and had been ‘sold’ was to revert to the family to which it had been given.[74]

As presented, the situation would involve a property owner who needed significant financial assistance following a major setback such as replacing the loss of a critical farm animal. A regular loan as discussed above would be inadequate since it was unlikely that the borrower would be able to repay the loan before the next sabbath year. This provides another option—he could ‘sell’ his only adequate asset, the land which he had inherited. But according to Leviticus 25:15-16 the land was not sold. As described, what were being sold were the crops that the land would produce for a period of time up to the next jubilee. Consequently, it would be more correct to say that the land was leased with the lease rate being based on the number of years of crops until the next jubilee.[75] Failure to note this distinction has led to serious confusion. For example, assuming actual land sales and addressing the land return, Carmichael states ‘we can only imagine the enormous upheaval that would result’.[76] But if the individual ‘buying’ the land was aware that he was only buying the crops (i.e. leasing the land), there would be no more economic upheaval than occurs on a regular basis today when leases expire.

Consequently, there are several key distinctions between the jubilee and sabbath year stipulations. First, as already noted, jubilee debt would have involved more money than sabbath year debt. A somewhat arbitrary dividing line might be that jubilee debt would have been of a scope requiring more than an entire sabbath year period to repay.

Second, sabbath year debt had nothing to do with the land which was the inheritance. Whatever collateral was provided was relatively small and portable. In contrast, under jubilee debt, the land was the ‘collateral’. However, since the ‘lender’ only bought the produce of the land for a period of time (up to the next jubilee) collateral is really an inappropriate term. Rather, under jubilee debt, the borrower (‘seller’) lost control of the land for a period of years (which meant loss of income) although in a legal sense the land was still his (or at least his family’s).[77]

Third, under sabbath year debt, one option of repayment was ‘debt slavery’ where the debtor obligated himself to the lender for a period of up to six years to pay off the debt. Any debt that remained in the sabbath year was forgiven. Contrary to both Chirichigno and Baker, in the case of jubilee, there would have been no debt slavery since in reality there was no debt. The logic is very simple—the buyer had bought a commodity (a number of crops), which were delivered to him over the period of the lease. At jubilee, he had his full purchase and was owed nothing more.

7. Servitude And Jubilee

If this last point is correct, this raises a significant issue with the standard interpretation of Leviticus 25:35-40. For example, Hartley states, ‘a brother may become so מוך, “poor”, that he has to sell himself into servitude to another person’.[78] Kiuchi asserts that he becomes a slave.[79] While this understanding seems to explain the phrase, ‘he sells himself to you’ in verse 39, it is hard to reconcile with the subsequent statement in the same verse ‘you shall not subject him to a slave’s service’.

The most common way of handling this distinction seems to be to argue that what is being addressed here is a form of debt slavery as opposed to chattel slavery. Chirichigno takes this position and views the situation as a third step down in destitution with the distinction being that he is not to be treated like a chattel slave.[80] Kiuchi takes a similar view stating that this slave ‘should not be treated as an ordinary slave’.[81] Milgrom agrees with Chirichigno’s third step, but contrasts the situation as one where ‘the Israelite slave is not a slave’ but a hireling. This seems to be a step in the right direction, however, Milgrom still views the individual as indebted to his ‘employer’ and as one ‘whose work amortizes the principal’.[82] While it does address the issue of phrase in Leviticus 25:39 ‘he sells himself to you’, it misses the point of the land lease in which case there would not have been a principal to amortise. In this case, Baker is correct when he states ‘Leviticus is not concerned with slavery at all.’[83]

The tension here is the Hebrew root מכר (mkr), which normally means ‘to sell’. In the Niphal stem, it is generally translated as a reflexive (so NASB, NIV, NRSV, and ESV).[84] Lipinski argues that ‘this verb does not apply specifically to the semantic field “buy/sell”, but designates a delivery of goods … with or without the intention of passing ownership’.[85]

If correct, the question then would be what ‘goods’ were being delivered? Milgrom argues that it was just the labour of the Israelite, since an Israelite could not be sold.[86] One problem with this view is the question of how does it relate to the jubilee land principle? Milgrom (following Japhet) sees this slave law as a mirror image of the land law: as only the produce of the land was sold, so only the labour of the worker was sold.[87] However, this seems to depend on a subtle distinction in English translations of the Hebrew word ‘ebed rather than a clear distinction between categories in the text.

It would seem that a better approach might be to begin with the question of what would the ‘seller’ live on subsequent to the ‘sale’? One possibility is that he would have some of the cash that he had received from the lease of the land. With this, he might move into a city where he would ply another trade. Or, he may move to another country where he could either buy or lease land, or perhaps work another’s farm. In any event, since the lease transpired because of financial need, it is unlikely that much money was left over after that need had been met, although that may have depended on the nature of the lease. If the lease had been negotiated for the entire period until the next jubilee, it is possible that part of the money met the need, and the rest provided living resources. Here, we also need to recall that generally farmers in ancient Israel lived in settlements or villages and walked to surrounding fields. Thus it would seem that the living quarters would be unaffected by the lease, suggesting that the debtor likely would remain in his home, with the advantage of his existing social network.

It also seems probable that the length of the lease, the period of time to the next jubilee, is a maximum period (similar to what was suggested for sabbath year debt) with the actual term of the lease dependent upon the amount of money needed. Even in the former case, it is unlikely that adequate money was left for the ‘seller’ (who was leasing out his land) to live on until the lease was completed.

As noted above, Israelites lived in a village or settlement and walked to their fields. Hopkins suggests that each family would have several fields and for the purposes of diet and risk spreading would grow different crops in each field.[88] It is then likely that in most cases of a jubilee type of land lease only a portion of the land would be leased out.

In conjunction with this, another possibility is suggested by the phrase, ‘he shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner’ (Lev. 25:40). A sojourner, or resident alien, was an individual who had chosen to live in the land of Israel, but who was not an Israelite. As an alien non-Israelite there were social-legal obligations to which he would not be required to adhere, for example being circumcised (although in that case he would not be able to participate in the Passover [Exod. 12:48]). At the same time, there were other obligations that he would be expected to follow regardless, including some of the ritual purity requirements such as not eating blood (Lev. 17:12). But, there were also restrictions. According to the Old Testament law, as an alien, he would not be able to buy (i.e. own) any of the land which had been given to the nation of Israel as a national inheritance. Rather, any work he did would be as a hired hand.[89]

This would then suggest that Leviticus 25:35-41 provided a situation where the ‘seller’ could continue to work the land of his inheritance which he had leased out. However, rather than the harvest belonging to him, it would belong to the ‘buyer’ (i.e. the one who had leased the land). In return for his labour that produced the crop, the seller would receive the normal wages of a hired hand.[90] As such, he would be receiving a portion of the harvest of the land that he was working (either as produce or as silver). Then, in the jubilee year, the usufruct of the land would return to his family.[91]

8. Contrast Between Jubilee And Sabbath Year Servitude

Based on the above criteria, it is then suggested that the key difference between the service involved in the sabbath year servitude and the jubilee servitude was not whether the borrower was a land owner or not (in an agrarian society, almost all would be land owners). Rather, it lay in the size of the debt incurred, and how the borrower was expected to repay the loan. Under the sabbath year criteria, the land was not a factor. The borrower either repaid the debt in kind, or used labour (either his or that of a family member) to repay it.[92]

Under the jubilee criteria, the borrower’s land was used as a means of generating income that went to the lender in the form of a lease. While it is suggested that the borrower might actually continue to work that land, it is not clear whether the lender would normally expect the borrower to do so, or whether that was merely one option. Regardless, if the borrower worked the land, his status was not to be viewed as that of a ‘slave’ but rather as a hired hand; that is, he had the same status of a resident alien who was not able to work his own land, and was to be paid for his labour. It would then be expected that he would return to a full ‘ownership’ (i.e. usufruct) of the land in the jubilee year. For this reason, a land ‘sale’ (i.e. lease) would be legally set up to reflect the next jubilee year which effectively put a decreasing cap on land ‘values’ (or lease amounts) as jubilee approached.

9. Conclusions

Overall, the issue of manumission of ‘abadim demonstrates a tension between idealistic aspirations and realistic expectations. The canonical text asserts that the people of Israel had a God-given inheritance based on the premise that the entire land belonged to God, and the nation was his possession (Exod. 19:5; Lev. 25:23). As a result, the nation was told that if it listened to God, ‘there will be no poor among you’ (Deut. 15:4-5). Almost immediately afterward, however, the assertion is made that ‘the poor will never cease to be in the land’ (Deut. 15:11).

While the text anticipates that the nation would fail to adhere to the covenant, various safety nets were provided. One safety net governed borrowing from other Israelites with several options to repay, even including servitude. Another safety net was the provision that an Israelite could lease out (as opposed to sell) the land of his inheritance in cases of significant financial need. In both cases, guidelines were given to ensure that the safety nets did not become snares. In the case of borrowing, it was the remission of short term debt and manumission of debt slavery in the sabbath year. In the case of a land lease, it was directed that the land which had been given as part of the national inheritance could not leave the family, and use of the land returned to the family in the jubilee. The understanding of these safety nets presented in this study suggests that they were strong with significant flexibility to accommodate a variety of situations—if they were observed. Whether observed or not, the overall purpose was to ensure that each generation would have the basic capital assets needed to make a living so that the nation would not develop a permanent landless indigent class—if the nation obeyed God.

Notes

1. Lester L. Grabbe, ‘Leviticus’ in The Pentateuch, ed. John Barton and John Muddiman (The Oxford Bible Commentary; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010): 149.
2. Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, Leviticus (Apollos Old Testament Commentary vol. 3; Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2007): 447.
3. Kiuchi, Leviticus, 462.
4. M. F. Rooker, Leviticus (Vol. 3A; electronic edn; Logos Library System; The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001): 303-304.
5. The relationship between jubilee and the seventh sabbath year is problematic with a number of proposed solutions. However, most of the discussion on the relationship between the two has focused on the problem of two fallow years in a row. (See David L. Baker, Tight Fists or Open Hands? [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009]: 80-83 and Gregory C. Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East, JSOTSup 141 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993]: 303-313).
6. Walter C. Kaiser, ‘עֶבֶד (‘ebed)’, TWOT 1553a.
7. Ringgren states, ‘The subst. ‘ebed refers to a person who is subordinated to someone else. This subordination can manifest itself in various ways, however, and ‘ebed accordingly can have different meanings: slave, servant, subject, official, vassal, or “servant” or follower of a particular god’ (Ringgren, ‘עבד (‘ebed)’, TDOT, 10:387).
8. For example, while Klein begins with a clear distinction between slavery and servanthood, he assumes that all of the situations in the passages he addresses permit ‘internal Israelite slavery’ (Ralph W. Klein, ‘A Liberated Lifestyle: Slaves and Servants in Biblical Perspective’, CurTM 9, no. 4 [1982]: 214).
9. So Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery, 186, 256, 302.
10. For example, see Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery, 186-343.
11. Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery, 353. However, he also claims that the Lev. 25 service is ‘not really debt-slavery at all’ (336).
12. Baker, Tight Fists or Open Hands?, 170-73.
13. See, for example, Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery, 225.
14. Klein, ‘Liberated Lifestyle’, 212.
15. Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery, 145-47.
16. Baker, Tight Fists or Open Hands?, 113.
17. Mooney argues that this type of slave had no more rights than ‘any other piece of property’ in the ANE (Jeffrey D. Mooney, ‘Israel in Slavery and Slavery in Israel’, SBJT 12 no.3 [2008]: 71).
18. Baker, Tight Fists or Open Hands?, 116-21.
19. Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery, 145.
20. H. Ringgren, ‘עבד’, 10:387; Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery, 142. Klein suggests that while the OT uses the one term, context differentiates between slave with negative connotations and servant with positive (212).
21. All Scripture quotations are from the NASB unless otherwise noted.
22. Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery, 145-48.
23. Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27 (The Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 2001): 2163.
24. Chirichigno (329) argues that the service here is to be distinguished from that of a chattel slave, which Leviticus addresses later in the chapter, but this seems to be a forced distinction.
25. Chirichigno asserts that scholars ‘agree unanimously that the manumission law in Deut. 15:12-18 is based upon the manumission law in Exod. 21:2-6’ (Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery, 256).
26. Baker, Tight Fists or Open Hands?, 166.
27. Baker, Tight Fists or Open Hands?, 278-80.
28. See David C. Hopkins, The Highlands of Canaan (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1985); Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001); and Oded Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009).
29. King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, 112.
30. King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, 192.
31. King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, 112.
32. Contra Wenham (Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus [New International Commentary on the Old Testament; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979]: 322), and Westbrook and Wells (Raymond Westbrook and Bruce Wells, Everyday Law in Biblical Israel: An Introduction [Louisville: Westminster-John Knox, 2009]: 119). Most farmers through history saved some of their crop from one year to provide seed for the next year’s crop. Buying ‘seed corn’ did not become a practice until the modern development of hybrids. According to the Institute of Science in Society, this was as late as the 1920s (‘Hybrid Seed’, ISIS Report 2 September 2005, http:// www.i-sis.org.uk/ hybridSeed.php, downloaded 22 August 2011).
33. Hopkins suggests that the workable area for a household or village would have been a ‘radius of 5 km for grain … and two hours’ walk for herds’ (131).
34. The furnishings of the typical Israelite household would have been very basic by our standards (see King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, esp. pp. 12-21).
35. Hopkins, Highlands of Canaan, 268.
36. Hopkins, Highlands of Canaan, 200-202.
37. Sider very clearly points this out when he discusses capital (Ronald J. Sider, Just Generosity [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2007]: 76). What is not clear is the concept of ‘capital’. Sider calls the land ‘capital’ and limits capital to that commodity (75-76). Others include items such as seed, farm implements, etc., as capital (Paul Erdkamp, ‘Agriculture, Underemployment, and the Cost of Rural Labour in the Roman World’, CQ n.s. 49 no.2 [1999]: 561).
38. Hopkins, Highlands of Canaan, 232-35.
39. Borowski, Agriculture, 51-52 and 63-65.
40. Waldo H. Dubberstein, ‘Comparative Prices in Later Babylonia (625-400 B.C.)’, The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 56:1 (1939): 30. Similarly, Farber looking at Northern Babylonia cites a ‘mean price of 9 shekels, but observes that was a “significant decline” from earlier prices of thirty shekels’ (Howard Farber, ‘A Price and Wage Study for Northern Babylonia during the Old Babylonian Period’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 21:1 (1978):15-16.
41. Borowski, Agriculture, 49.
42. Bergen includes repairs as an option then comments, ‘No doubt this fee was considered outrageous and had the effect of oppressing Israel economically as well’ [R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel (The New American Commentary Vol. 7; electronic ed., Logos Library System; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001]: 154).
43. This assumes that there was a rough equivalency between the wages in Mesopotamia and those in Israel. Nemet-Nejat concludes that in Babylon, a hired hand earned 10 shekels a year (Karen Rhea Nemet-Nejat, Daily Life in Mesopotamia [Peabody, MS: Hendrickson, 2002]: 257). This correlates well with Chirichigno’s spread of 6-14 shekels per year, depending on the source and the historical period (Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery, 225).
44. Christopher J. H. Wright, ‘What Happened Every Seven Years: Part I’, Evangelical Quarterly 56:3 (1984):130-131.
45. Borowski, Agriculture, 144-45.
46. Eli Ginzberg, ‘Studies in the Economics of the Bible’, JQR n.s. 22 no. 4 (1932): 362; and Robert Gnuse, ‘Jubilee Legislation in Leviticus: Israel’s Vision of Social Reform’, BTB 15 (1985): 43-44.
47. Hopkins, Highlands of Canaan, 200-202 and adapted by Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, 2246-49.
48. Lee W. Casperson, ‘Sabbatical, Jubilee, and the Temple of Solomon’, VT 53 (2003): 283-85.
49. The Chronicler records Jeremiah as admonishing the nation that one reason for the exile was to give the land its sabbath rest (2 Chron. 36:21).
50. Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, 2245-48.
51. Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel (New York: McGraw Hill, 1965): 175-76.
52. Sidney. B. Hoenig, ‘Sabbatical Years and the Year of Jubilee’, JQR 59 (1969): 222-36 and Wenham, Leviticus, 319.
53. John E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC 4; Dallas: Words Books, 1992): 435-36.
54. Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, 2250.
55. For example, see Nahum M. Sarna, Exodus (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1991): 144 and John I. Durham, Exodus (WBC vol. 3; Waco: Word Books, 1987): 331.
56. While provision for the poor is given as a reason to let the land rest, it would seem that this was not the primary purpose since this would result in extra food only one in seven years, and other provisions were made for helping the poor in non-sabbatical years.
57. Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery, 185.
58. The Deuteronomy passage reports that God promised the generation about to enter the land that if they obeyed God, there would be no poor in the land (Deut. 15:4-5). A few verses later, however, the assertion is made that there would always be poor (Deut. 15:11). Rather than a contradiction, it seems to be a contrast between the ideal and the projected reality. Merrill suggests that the first statement is an observation on the part of Moses that the nation ought not to experience poverty in the rich land of Canaan (Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy [The New American Commentary, Vol. 4; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994; electronic edn; Logos Library System, 2001]: 244). However, it seems rather to be God’s acknowledgement that he knew the nation would never follow his guidelines. If that is the case, then one implication is that a primary source of poverty is disobedience to God’s guidelines.
59. Based on Babylonian data, he calculates that a debt slave there would take three years to pay off his debt, but that an Israelite’s slave would need to work twice that long. This assumes that the debt to be worked off is the same in all cases (Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery, 225).
60. Sarna cites Rabbinic tradition making this the seventh year after the indentureship began, although he cites Targum Jonathan as representing ‘an earlier stratum’ which interprets the seventh year as the sabbath year (Sarna, Exodus, 118).
61. As Wenham puts it, it is similar to ‘enabling a man who could not pay a fine to work off his debt directly’ (Wenham, Leviticus, 322). This is a good analogy which illustrates an important point which in general seems to be overlooked—that is, the debt was finite, and could be paid off through labour. As such, there should be a correlation with the amount of labour and the amount of debt.
62. So Craigie, although he argues for a fixed six years of servitude regardless of the size of the debt ‘defaulted’ on (Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy [NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976]: 238).
63. Lowery draws this distinction from the fact that while interest could be charged for loans to foreigners (Deut. 23:19-20) interest was forbidden on loans to fellow Israelites and concludes that they represent two different types of loan. While he calls the loans to fellow Israelites ‘subsistence loans’, he suggests that the loans to foreigners are ‘trade loans’ i.e. loans for business purposes (Richard H. Lowery, Sabbath and Jubilee [St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2000]: 40).
64. So Merrill, Deuteronomy, 243. If these laws originated during the Mosaic period (cf. Robert North, Sociology of the Biblical Jubilee [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute: 1954]: 192-212) it is unlikely that the lender was very much better off than the debtor. As Chirichigno notes, socio-economic stratification seems to have developed later (Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery, 139-42).
65. For this reason, Merrill suggests that the size of the loans would decrease as one drew closer to the sabbath year (Merrill, Deuteronomy, 243). However, if these were subsistence loans that would be expected to be repaid after a harvest a decrease in size would not be necessary.
66. Craigie, Deuteronomy, 238.
67. For example, see Sarna, Exodus, 144; Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1974): 482; Gerhard von Rad, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966): 105.
68. Sarna calls it a maximum limit but allows for a shortening only in the case of a jubilee year (Sarna, Exodus, 119). In general, commentators seem to understand these six years as a fixed period meaning that the length of servitude was the same, regardless of the amount of debt. (For example, see Durham, Exodus, 321; and Martin Noth, Exodus: A Commentary [Old Testament Commentary Series; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962]: 176).
69. George Rawlinson, ‘Exodus’ in The Pulpit Commentary, ed. H. D. M. Spence Jones (vol. 2; New York: Funk and Wagnells, n.d.; electronic edition, Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2004): 180. See also John D. Hannah, ‘Exodus’ in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. John F. Walvoord, and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983-1985): 1:142. Taking a different approach, Sarna argues from Rabbinic tradition that the reference denotes ‘monetary payment and not physical retaliation’ (Sarna, Exodus, 126).
70. Exodus 21:7 suggests that this servitude could be performed by the individual, or by a member of his family, although that raises other issues, such as the case of a female, which are beyond the scope of this study.
71. One other factor is the option that the debt slave (or indentured servant) had at the end of his service and that would be to voluntarily remain in a service relationship with his master (Exod. 21:5-6, Deut. 15:16), but that is beyond the scope of this study.
72. Two other passages mention the year in terms of specific qualifications regarding it. Lev. 27:16-21 addresses the case of a person who dedicates a field to God establishing the value in terms of the redemption time before jubilee. Num. 36:1-9 addresses the case of the daughters of Zelophehad as they inherit the land of their father to ensure that the land remained with the tribe of Manasseh, not with their husbands’ families or tribes in subsequent years of jubilee.
73. Maimonides, Hilchot Shemitah V’Yovel 10:7, tr. by Eliyahu Touger, Mishneh Torah Sefer Zeraim (Jerusalem: Moznaim Publishing Corp, 2005): 810; Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989; electronic edition; Skokie, IL: Varda Books, 2004): 130; Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, 2163.
74. The fact that Leviticus 25 addresses only the agricultural land which had been divided among the tribes at the time of the conquest, which according to Lev. 25:23 was not to be sold permanently seems significant. At a minimum it seems to omit land which the nation acquired later, although that is beyond the scope of the present study.
75. This has caused some confusion. For example, Borowski suggests a maximum of 50 years overlooking the matter of sabbath year. His figure not only counts all seven sabbath years (during which there were no ‘crops’) but also the subsequent jubilee year (Borowski, Agriculture, 24). Rather, the range should from 1 to 42. Given that the last year before jubilee was a sabbath year, the latest one could ‘lease’ his land would be two years before the jubilee year with one year of crops, although it seems likely that in this case the preferred option would have been sabbath year debt. The earliest one could ‘lease’ his land would be the year after jubilee with seven sabbath fallow years, thus 42 crops.
76. Calum Carmichael, Illuminating Leviticus: A Study of Its Laws and Institutions in the Light of Biblical Narratives (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006): 124.
77. Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, 2217.
78. Hartley, Leviticus, 440.
79. Kiuchi, Leviticus, 462.
80. Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery, 351-52.
81. Kiuchi, Leviticus, 462.
82. Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, 2216.
83. Baker, Tight Fists or Open Hands?, 172.
84. Cf. GKC §51. While Baker notes the tension between the reflexive understanding and a passive (be sold), he argues that in reality, the issue is moot (Baker, Tight Fists or Open Hands?, 172, n. 126).
85. E. Lipinski, s.v. ‘מכר (mkr)’, TDOT VIII, 291-92.
86. Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, 2217.
87. Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, 2217.
88. Hopkins, Highlands of Canaan, 237-45.
89. Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, 2221-22.
90. Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, 2222-24.
91. One key point of confusion regarding the jubilee year is the idea that the land would be ‘redistributed’ (for example, see Lowery, Sabbath and Jubilee, 68-69). It cannot be stressed enough that jubilee was not a time of redistribution, but lease termination.
92. An interesting follow on to these criteria which this study does not address is that under sabbath year servitude the borrower had an option to continue in an ‘ebed (servant/slave) relationship with the lender once his obligated service was completed.

I Died, Went to Hell… and They Tried to Nail Me to a Cross

I Died on the Abortion Table… and Woke Up in Hell

Jubilee And Social Justice

By Michael A. Harbin

[Michael Harbin is professor of Biblical Studies and chair of the biblical studies, Christian education, and philosophy department at Taylor University, 236 West Reade Avenue, Upland, IN 46989-1001.]

In the United States, the biblical year of Jubilee has long been associated with issues of social justice. During the nineteenth century, the focus was on slavery as reflected by a number of Civil War era songs.[1] This seemed to be a very logical connection since one of the parameters of the year of Jubilee was the directive to “proclaim a release through the land to all its inhabitants” (Lev 25:10 NASB),[2] a phrase understood by many abolitionists as referring to the freeing of slaves. More recently, the subsequent phrase in the Leviticus passage for “each of you” to return to “his own property” in the year of Jubilee has been used as an argument for “redistribution of wealth.”[3] Ron Sider calls this the “Jubilee Principle” and uses the year of Jubilee as an important underlying principle for his view of Christian social justice.[4] This Jubilee principle has been expanded in a number of directions, perhaps most notably in terms of international debt. Jubilee 2000 called for the cancellation of third world debt by the year 2000 claiming that in the biblical year of Jubilee, “all debts are cancelled.”[5] In the same vein, Jubilee USA Network advocates what it calls “Jubilee justice,” which it defines as the forgiveness of international debt.[6]

This raises a number of questions regarding Christian social justice. The present paper focuses on just two: “Is this concept of social justice a valid understanding of the OT institution of Jubilee?” and “Is the OT institution of Jubilee applicable today?”

I. The Origin Of The Year Of Jubilee

The year of Jubilee is presented in Lev 25:2-46 as part of the Sabbatical year discussion. According to the Torah (or Pentateuch), Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus were given by God at Mt. Sinai (Lev 27:34).[7] Within the context of the Torah, the primary purpose of Leviticus itself seemed to be to teach the priests and people the implications of God’s holiness, specifically in terms of how the people of Israel were expected to respond.[8] This expected response was a lifestyle different than anything anyone in the receiving audience had experienced to that point, and the year of Jubilee was just one aspect of it. The audience at Sinai consisted of Israelites (descendants of Jacob) and a “mixed multitude” (Exod 12:38) who had been settled in Egypt for several generations. In essence, they were emerging from corporate slavery within Egypt and would have been a group of people feeling their way into freedom. As presented in the text, at the time of Sinai there would have been no slaves, no land owners, and while they would not have been wealthy,[9] no one would have had any debt.[10] Thus it was a group of people who had not yet developed any real social stratification.[11] What is more, the land into which this population group was going was very different from the one they had left. The Egypt they knew was flat, devoid of trees, and watered by the Nile and its floods. Canaan was hilly, largely forested, and watered by rainfall. The agricultural calendars were also different as were some of the crops.[12] While it is likely that some of the Israelites had farmed in the Egyptian delta, the irrigation methods used there would have been very different from the dry land-farming methods required in Canaan. To complicate matters, by the time of the actual conquest, the generation which might have farmed in Egypt would have died off. At best, some of the under-twenty group which entered Canaan would have had limited Egyptian farming experience, but that would have been forty years in the past.[13] Consequently, when they entered the land of Canaan and the manna stopped (Josh 5:11-12), all would have had to learn an entirely new economic system rather rapidly.[14]

The key is that the Torah presents a situation of a population group about to receive developed land with cleared fields, furnished houses, orchards producing fruit, and the various necessities of functioning farms such as plows and olive presses. In this situation, the Torah gives guidelines anticipating situations which the embryo nation had not yet encountered. Some of these were presented as possibilities dependent upon how the nation responded to God.[15] It is suggested that the year of Jubilee was one such contingency.

II. The Nature Of The Year Of Jubilee

As the OT law addressed aspects of life that the people would encounter in this new place, a major category was finances. As presented in the Torah, during the wilderness period, finances were not an issue since their food was provided through the manna and their clothing did not wear out (Deut 8:3-4). Likewise, when the Israelites moved into the land, there would have been few immediate needs. Each family would have been able to set up quickly housekeeping and farming as it settled into the land that God provided. However, the text also anticipated that the people would not be faithful in following God. Although expressed as a contingency, it was expected that the people would turn from following God, and consequently situations would arise where individuals, families, tribes, and even the entire nation would experience financial difficulties from a variety of causes.[16] The Law given at Sinai (and reiterated in the Trans-Jordan in Deuteronomy) provided guidance to the nation on how to respond to these difficulties, both corporately and individually.

In general, it was expected that family and neighbors would provide financial aid to those with needs when necessary.[17] The Torah describes two types of financial aid: short-term and long-term. Short-term aid was associated with the Sabbath year laws. Long-term aid was associated with the year of Jubilee.

In the Torah, short-term financial aid was a small loan with collateral consisting of small items such as a cloak. This type of loan was to be paid back within a period of up to six years, that is, by the next Sabbath year. Any of these debts not repaid by the Sabbath year were to be forgiven.[18] An alternative method of repayment of these debts seemed to be “debt-slavery.” Debt-slaves were individuals who served their lenders in order to repay their debt. While the Hebrew word is translated “slavery,” a better term might be “indentured servanthood.”[19] The key characteristics distinguishing debt- slavery from chattel slavery[20] seem to be that debt slaves entered this service voluntarily[21] and served long enough to work off their debt.[22] Any individual who went into debt-slavery to repay his debt was to be manumitted in the Sabbath year, whether the debt was completed or not.

While outside of this study, this issue does present several problems. First, the Hebrew word עֶבֶד can denote both debt-slaves and chattel-slaves, as well as servants, which has produced significant confusion. Distinguishing between servant and slave seems to be marked by the positive and negative connotations within the context.[23] However, the chattel-slave/debt-slave distinction is more difficult, and careful evaluation of the situation is required to determine which type of slave is intended.

Long-term financial aid was associated with the year of Jubilee and involved a different situation. As described in Leviticus 25, this aid was not a loan, although commonly viewed as such.[24] This situation came about when an individual reached a point where his monetary needs were so great that he would have to “sell” his farm. However, the land was not allowed to leave the family, therefore, in reality this was not a sale. The text of Leviticus 25 specifies that the “price” of the land would be the number of crops remaining until the next year of Jubilee at which point the use of the land would revert to its original owner. As such, the “sale” would be better termed a “lease.”[25] The year of Jubilee, which was every fiftieth year (Lev 25:11), was the conclusion of the lease when the land returned to its rightful owner. The Leviticus text makes several important points regarding the institution of Jubilee.

1. The land was a gift. First, and of primary importance, the land involved was land that God gave each family as an “inheritance” (Josh 13:7, 23:4).[26] While the word “inheritance” is used, this is clearly a gift from God given to his people. This is made clear in Lev 25:23, where God tells the Israelites that the land is his, and that they are “sojourners” with him. This point is critical to any discussion of what is involved in the subsequent use of the land, especially in terms of it being “collateral” for loans.

2. The land belonged to the extended family. This inheritance was given to the family and was to remain in the family in perpetuity. Specifically, the land could not be “sold permanently” (Lev 25:23).[27] While the text uses the terms “buy” (קָנָה) and “sell” (מָכַר), the only thing being bought and sold was the crops.[28] Consequently, when talking about the land involved, we should more properly understand the transactions as leases. If these criteria were followed, then foreigners would not have been able to acquire land permanently in Israel (at least in the portion of the land distributed at the time of the conquest).

3. God’s land distribution was a one-time event. The land distribution at the time of the conquest, which was the base of the Jubilee concept, was a unique event which was limited to that generation and a specific land area.[29] While there is some indication that more land was promised for the nation to possess in the future (see Deuteronomy 19), there are no indications that a subsequent divine land distribution would be given in that case.[30] What is more, guidelines for future military expansion of the land were given at the conquest, but there were no directions for a later casting of lots to distribute the new territory (e.g. Deuteronomy 20). This suggests that those future expansions would be subject to a different type of allocation, probably of a “spoils of war” type. The prototype of this projected distribution may well have been the allocation of the Trans-Jordan region to the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh.[31] It is an open question then whether land which was outside of the original heritage could be bought or sold.

4. Cities had different rules. Different regulations applied to non-agrarian property within the cities. A house in a walled city could be sold permanently, although there was a one year right of redemption (Lev 25:29). [32]The exception was houses in the Levitical cities, which maintained a permanent right of redemption.[33]

5. Land “sales” did not incur debt. Given the nature of the transaction, by definition the money given to the original owner of the land was not a loan. It did not need to be repaid since the “lender” actually received the crops for the term of the lease as payment. Admittedly, the original owner of the land could get the use of the land back prior to the end of the lease by buying back the lease for the same rate for which he sold it—that is, the value of the number of crops remaining until the next year of Jubilee.

6. Land leases had a maximum length. The leases involved in Jubilee were of limited duration—specifically until the next year of Jubilee, that is, no more than forty-nine years. The price of the transaction was fixed by the number of years remaining until the next Jubilee. As such, the person leasing the land would not be out any money when the land reverted. Rather, he would have received the number of crops that he had “bought” within the terms of the lease.[34]

7. Slavery was not involved. Given these data, it becomes clear that the individuals who “sold the land” were not slaves in any sense of the word. This would explain why the text specifically says that they were not to be considered slaves (Lev 25:35-46, especially v. 39), and as will be shown below, how they seemed to have a much different status.[35]

With this background, we note that Lev 25:8-55 presents the year of Jubilee as a “consecrated year” following the seven Sabbath year cycle noted in verse 8.[36] It began by the blowing of the ram’s horn throughout the land on the Day of Atonement at the beginning of that “fiftieth year”[37] to show that it was consecrated.

While the land was to rest as in a normal Sabbath year, the focus of Jubilee was related to the land which had been given as an inheritance. Specifically, in that year all agricultural land which had been given as part of the national inheritance was to revert to the family to which it had been given at the time of the conquest. A second element of that year amplifies the issue of individuals in debt (Lev 25:35-46). While this is commonly viewed as a manumission of “slaves,” that term is not used here.[38] What is more, there is nothing in this passage that suggests any remission of debt in the year of Jubilee.

III. The Jubilee Process

We noted that Leviticus 25 provides a contingency for an Israelite property owner who had a significant financial need which necessitated that he “sell” his land. In this case someone who could provide help which could be a “friend, associate, or relation,”[39] provided financial assistance by “buying” the land. As noted, the actual sale was the crops that the land produced. Thus it is more correct to say that he provided financial assistance by leasing the land.[40]

This raises many questions regarding the amount of money changing hands. Perhaps the key question would be: What was the value of a crop? While we do not have exact data, we do have some information which helps. Karen Rhea Nemet-Nejat suggests that in Mesopotamia the value of an average crop would have been approximately one and half to two years’ wages. She also maintains that the typical farm of 3-8 acres was adequate to support a family.[41] This would correlate well with other data that suggests that a typical Israelite farm would have been about 5 acres.[42] So, while it is difficult to compare different cultures, these figures are suggestive.

However, both land prices and crop prices are variables. Land prices then, like today, depended upon the quality of the soil, as well as how well watered it was. Also, crop prices, like today, depended on the abundance or scarcity of the product. So, while Lev 26:16 says “it is a number of crops he is selling to you,” how the “value” of a crop was determined is not stated. At first glance, this would seem to be market value, but not necessarily. Even in the OT, market values were erratic as seen in the incident of 2 Kings 7 where grain prices climbed during a siege and then dropped overnight.

This uncertainty would have affected both parties of the lease. In the case of the leasing party, we have already noted that this transaction was not a loan, and even if it were, Israelites were not to charge interest from fellow Israelites (Lev 25:36). This seems to leave the sole motivation of taking the lease as philanthropic, that is, one of helping out a family member (or neighbor) at the risk of buying a future crop at a given price and then experiencing a bad crop.

Consequently, it seems likely that there would have been some financial incentive applicable to the lease so that the person leasing the land would have expected to receive return for his efforts and risk. One possibility is that there was an understood depreciated flat-rate value for a year of crops, and the leasing farmer might hope for a bumper crop and thus a profit. While plausible, we do not have any record showing that to be the case.

Then we need to consider the case of the individual leasing out the land. Given that the agricultural land was likely the primary source of income for the individual who needed to lease out his farm, then the reason for leasing it out would necessarily have been extreme financial need. In that case, how would that person live until the next Jubilee?

1. Possible provision for the impoverished. One possibility of provision for the person leasing out his land might have been some of the cash that he had received from the lease. However, it is likely that much, if not all, of that would be needed to pay off the debt that had led to the “sale.”

Another possibility was that he could ply another trade. While he could remain in the settlement where he was currently dwelling, he more likely would move into a city. But that, too, would involve other costs, unless he had someone there to move in with.

A third alternative was that he may move to another country where he could either buy or lease land, or perhaps work another’s farm. This seems to be the case in the book of Ruth when Elimelech, Naomi, and their family left and moved to Moab because of a famine.[43]

A fourth possibility which would have worked to the advantage of both parties is suggested by the Leviticus passage. Farming has always been a labor intensive process, especially prior to the industrial revolution. Consequently, the amount of land that a family could work, regardless of the amount owned, was directly proportional to the manpower available. So, unless the person leasing the land had excess labor (either in the form of a large family, many slaves, or hired workers), he would not be able to utilize the newly leased land of the Israelite that he had bailed out. A solution might be for him to “hire” the bailed out Israelite to work the land which he had just leased out, with a portion of the crop being used as wages. Several items in the Leviticus passage suggest that this was a common, if not the usual, practice.

a. The poor and sojourners. Leviticus 25:35 mandates that a poor person be treated as a sojourner (a resident alien). Since sojourners were not able to buy land, they must have worked as hired laborers (although as seen later in the chapter, they could become “slaves” in which case they were provided sustenance instead of wages). As hired laborers, they would have provided agricultural help for Israelite farmers who were able to develop land beyond what they and their families could work.[44] That Israel anticipated hired workers is evident from Lev 19:13, which directs that the wages of a hired man “are not to remain with you all night until morning.”

b. Limited service. Leviticus 25:40-41 states that this poor Israelite was to serve as a hired man and would only serve until the year of Jubilee, that is, until the land reverted to his family at which time the individual himself would return to his family.

c. Slaves in Israel. While this passage clearly indicates that the Israelites in these circumstances were not to be viewed as “slaves,” it was anticipated that Israelites would have slaves. For example, Lev 25:44-46 allows that Israelites might acquire slaves from sojourners or pagans from the lands around them. Here “slave” seems to be understood to be “chattel-slave.”

2. Probable provision for the impoverished. Nemet-Nejat maintains that in Mesopotamia the most common way of working the land during the Old Babylonian period was through tenant farming. She states, “The tenant received seed, animals, and tools, for which he paid a set percentage of his harvest in return.”[45]

If this is the type of situation that Leviticus describes, then, in essence, the Israelite who leased out his land would have become a tenant farmer.[46] While legally the land was his, he would no longer have actual control of it, but would continue to work it. The net result would be that a set amount of the harvest (either percentage or flat rate) would go to the person who had leased the land, which would help explain the Lev 25:15-16 statement regarding the number of crops. As a result, the financially hurting Israelite would have the status of a hired worker, even though it was on his own land. Thus, in this situation, the leasing Israelite would have bailed out his countryman by providing long term financial assistance. There would be motivation for him since he would be making income (“profit”) each year on the land he leased as it produced a new crop. Likewise, the Israelite who leased out the land would have financial support, and could remain in his own community—basically his support network.

IV. Redeeming The Land

In any event, it was anticipated that the individual who had leased out his land (or his family) would desire to regain control of it. To do so, he had two options. In the short term, he would have to buy back the lease from the person who had leased it.[47] The second option, the long-term one, was to wait until Jubilee.

Since Jubilee occurred only once every fifty years, it is likely that the original land owner would now be deceased and it would be his heirs who would receive the land back. The key here is that land belonged to an extended family rather than to smaller nuclear families with which we are more familiar today. While more work needs to be done on the nature of the extended family,[48] it likely would have been the extended family which had the responsibility of returning to the land in the Jubilee year.

It is not clear whether the nation ever observed the year of Jubilee and land redemption. As Kiuchi notes, “References to the year of Jubilee are scarce in the rest of the OT, and there is no evidence that the institution was ever practiced (cf. Jer. 34:8-17).”[49] Hartley suggests that the infrequency of the Jubilee schedule (once every fifty years) helps explain this scarcity.[50] On the other hand, we have the situation of Naboth who recognized the principle of family ownership in perpetuity (1 Kgs 21:3). We also have the situation of Boaz who presented the challenge to his relative to “redeem” the land of Elimelech, their now deceased kinsman (Ruth 4:4). The modern tendency seems to be to view the situation in homogeneous terms. That is, it is often assumed that the culture as a whole either observed or failed to observe the legal system. As suggested by the nation’s rather haphazard observation of the worship of God (not to mention overall human nature), it is more likely that complying with a rather complex civil law like this was haphazard at best with some regions following it, and others ignoring it. Thus it is extremely likely that while a majority of the people ignored these laws (like Ahab), a minority respected them and tried to follow them (like Naboth).

Even if the nation did observe Jubilee, the national impact would have been uneven. While the entire nation would have been expected to let the land lie fallow demonstrating its trust in God, the evidence is that most Israelites did not.[51] It is also likely that few Israelites would have actually leased out their land during the previous forty-nine years under the Jubilee guidelines. Of that group, some would have “redeemed” their land in the interim, meaning even fewer would be expecting to return to their family land during Jubilee.[52]

V. Implications

Jubilee was just one aspect of the Israelite economic safety net, and the other aspects (e.g. Sabbath-year provisions and provisions for widows, orphans, and resident aliens) need to be addressed separately. While there is question as to whether Jubilee was ever observed, the legislation does model how a culture could handle severe economic distress for some of its citizens. However, there are several problems in trying to use it as a foundation for social justice today.

1. Jubilee did not entail the forgiveness of debt nor did it require a periodic redistribution of wealth. Since there was no debt, there was nothing to be forgiven. What is more, since the land involved reverted to the family to which God had given it, there was no redistribution of wealth. Rather Jubilee was designed to periodically reset that nation at a God-designated socio-economic baseline. The baseline was the family possession of the land promised by God to Abraham and his descendants throughout Genesis, which was actually distributed in the book of Joshua. As noted in Lev 25:23, God owned the land and gave it to the person he desired.

That there was no debt remission or wealth redistribution seems to be the most evident implication of this study deriving from clear statements in the text. As noted, Leviticus specifically states (and repeats for emphasis) that the financial transactions leading up to Jubilee were the sale of annual crops produced by the land (Lev 25:15-16). Consequently, the person giving the money was not lending it, but buying a product. Likewise, the person receiving the money was not incurring a debt, but was providing a product which would be delivered on a periodic basis in the future. Actual ownership of the land really did not change hands, but remained with the family who had inherited it from God. Under this understanding, Jubilee is then really a semi-centennial national expiration of land leases. As such, the first gap to bridge is that between an agrarian society where families all possessed land and were largely self-reliant to today’s highly integrated post-industrial society where many have few, if any, capital assets to lease out.

2. The year of Jubilee is a culturally specific demonstration of the character of God. Sider is correct when he states that “[m]odern technological society is vastly different from rural Palestine.” Because of this, he validly concludes, “It is the principles, not the details, that are important today.”[53] It is of concern, however, that Sider seems to work from misconceptions regarding what the actual principles are. For example, Sider claims that the Jubilee principle implies “private property is so good that God wants everybody to have some.”[54] Based on his understanding of Jubilee, Sider subsequently concludes that “God wants society’s pool of productive assets to be distributed so that everyone has the resources to earn his or her own way.”[55]

While it may be true that private property would be good for everyone, this is never expressed as an objective, and certainly does not seem to be a part of the Jubilee principle. The fact that the Jubilee principle only applied to one specific territory given to one group of people out of the entire world on a one time basis seems to undermine Sider’s contention. Sider himself seems to sense this as he later looks at the life of Jesus and backs off from this position. There he states that economic relationships were transformed in the community of the disciples where they shared a common purse. He implies that this is the new standard.[56]

What seems to be overlooked in the process, however, is that “social justice” should not be viewed as an end in itself. Rather, God’s basic desire is that all people come to him.57 Not only is this relationship the foundation of social justice, without it there can be no social justice, which leads to the next implication.

3. The Jubilee principle is valid only in a society that collectively recognizes God as sovereign. The basic premise of Jubilee is that God is the true owner of the land (Lev 25:23). While it is true that God, as Creator, is the owner of the entire cosmos, Jubilee was based on a specific tract of land having been given by God to a specific generation for a specific purpose. Those who desire to apply this principle to today’s culture struggle at this point since no nation today is built on this premise.[58] While some argue that the church now has this responsibility, this still leaves us with a number of issues.[59] For example, the church does not possess the legal authority to enforce property rights. At best, the church may exert moral authority and even this is problematic because the “church” is divided on how it should apply the OT laws.[60] The alternative is that the church should enlist as an ally a secular government, which by its very nature rejects God’s ownership of anything.[61] This is one of Chilton’s key criticisms of Sider.[62]

VI. Conclusions

This study examined two questions. With respect to the first, the conclusion is that the current idea of the “Jubilee principle” is not a valid understanding of the OT institution of Jubilee since, contrary to the current understanding of the Jubilee principle, there was no debt to be forgiven and there was no redistribution of wealth. The answer to second question, however, is more problematic. On the surface, the OT institution of Jubilee is not applicable today for several reasons. However, the Israelite institution of Jubilee does seem to demonstrate principles on which models of social justice may be built today. It is imperative that we ensure that any principle we derive is valid. This means that it must faithfully represent the underlying truths that the Leviticus event demonstrates, rather than merely try to carry that event across a wide cultural gap, or read into the ancient culture current socio- economic realities. At a minimum, it means that the principle must correlate with the actual nature of the event as delineated in Leviticus, which seems to eliminate arguments for a periodic equalizing of “the means of producing wealth”[63] or the forgiveness of debt.[64]

Valid analogies require that we look for clear expressions of the character of God as well as the nature of mankind which the year of Jubilee illustrates, and use those characteristics as the principles on which we build any model of social justice. Valid character traits will also be evidenced elsewhere throughout Scripture. While there seem to be a number of these that we could explore, we will just briefly note three which seem very evident within Leviticus 25.

1. God is sovereign, and as the Creator-God owns the entire cosmos (Lev 25:23). If God does indeed own the entire cosmos, then it necessarily follows that whatever is within the cosmos also belongs to him. That is the underlying truth to God’s claim to own the land that was given to Israel. That is also a universal truth, going back to Gen 1:28, suggesting that human beings are but stewards of the world in which they have been placed. As a universal truth, it is also applicable to today’s culture. As a sojourner dependent on and responsible to the Creator-God, I must be careful to ensure that I manage whatever it is that I possess in accordance with his expectations. While Jubilee hints at guidelines, further work needs to be done to evaluate how modern parallels might be derived from this principle.

2. God is gracious in that he gives gifts to people who are undeserving (Lev 25:2). As the nation of Israel prepared to enter the land, the people were warned by God that they should not think that they were being given the land because they were righteous (Deut 9:4-6). Rather, it was because of the wickedness of the people who were being driven out. As Israel displaced those nations, it was so that they would be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:6) serving as intermediaries between God and the other nations.

This seems to amplify the first principle of God’s ownership. If God is the owner, and I am undeserving, then I should manage what he has given me not only wisely, but with a great sense of humility and as noted in the next section with compassion. In the NT, this principle is applied to the church in Eph 4:8 and 1 Cor 12:4-7 among other passages. However, the idea of compassion needs careful evaluation to ensure that it is not misplaced and counterproductive.

3. God is just and righteous and expects mankind to exhibit justice and righteousness in the way they manage the gifts God gives them (Deut 6:25). While not stated directly in the Leviticus passage, this is an implication that appears repeatedly throughout both testaments. The bottom line is that I will be held responsible for how I manage the assets given to me with the key operative terms “justice” and “righteousness.”

Justice denotes fair treatment of others.[65] For the nation of Israel, this was spelled out repeatedly throughout the Torah. In legal terms, this meant not showing partiality either in favor of the rich (Lev 19:15) or in favor of the poor (Exod 23:3), nor taking bribes (Exod 23:8; Deut 10:17; 16:18-20). In social terms, this meant actions such as returning a wandering animal even if it was an enemy’s (Exod 23:4-5), allowing the needy and the stranger access to “the gleanings” of the harvest (Lev 19:10), and giving a hired person his wages in a timely manner (Lev 19:13).

Righteousness is more complex. The root of the word suggests conformity to a moral or ethical standard.[66] However, it also carries a connotation of compassion. For example, in the case of a loan, while the lender had a legal (and moral) right to retain collateral, in some cases at least, it was directed that the lender return the collateral to the borrower. The sample situation is the case where the collateral is a cloak, and it is implied that this is what the poor person would sleep in. In that case, the lender is assured that not only would the borrower bless him, but this compassionate act would be viewed by God as righteousness (Deut 24:13). The remission of the debt in the Sabbath year would seem to demonstrate the same idea.

The two terms coupled together suggest that within the covenant community of Israel, people were to treat their fellow Israelites fairly, ethically, and compassionately. This was the foundational principle of Jubilee. Jubilee itself is one of a number of various case study laws which illustrate specifics on how fair, ethical, and compassionate treatment outlined in what we call the Ten Commandments might be worked out. Jubilee worked when one Israelite was willing to lease the land of another Israelite who was struggling financially, recognizing that at the end of that lease the use of the land reverted back to the owner (in the year of Jubilee) and in the interim he faced the risk of crop failure on that land. How that might be worked out in a non-agrarian culture must necessarily be the subject of subsequent studies. In any case, the year of Jubilee is but one example of a broader concept of social justice, not a principle underlying it.

Notes

1. The American Civil War Music web site (http://www.pdmusic.org/civilwar2.html) includes both music and lyrics for a number of these songs which correlate emancipation with Jubilee.
2. Unless noted otherwise, all Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible.
3. For example, see Richard H. Lowery, Sabbath and Jubilee (St. Louis: Chalice, 2000) 68-69; and Ronald J. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger (5th ed.; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997) 230-31.
4. Sider, Rich Christians 67-70. See also Ronald J. Sider, Just Generosity (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007) 76-79.
5. Jubilee2000 UK web site (www.jubilee2000uk.org) accessed May 18, 2010.
6. Jubilee USA Network states on its web site: “In the Jubilee Year as quoted in Leviticus, those enslaved because of debts are freed, lands lost because of debt are returned, and community is restored” (www.jubileeuse.org/about-us, accessed May 19, 2010).
7. This particular section is clearly attributed to Sinai, although modern scholars debate whether it was actually given there; see Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27 (AB 3B; New York: Doubleday, 2001) 2151-52.
8. Gary Edward Schnittjer, The Torah Story (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006) 33-37 and 289-96.
9. Given that the people had despoiled the Egyptians prior to leaving the land (Exod 12:35-36), one could argue that the Israelites were “well to do.” However, it is unlikely that the Egyptians they “plundered” were themselves rich, although they would have been better off than the Israelites who were their neighbors. Perhaps the best way to put it would be to say that as a result, “the Israelites were not hurting.”
10. These three factors would have been significant issues affecting how the people responded to the guidelines given at Sinai, which have not yet been given adequate evaluation.
11. This is an important point, since one of the premises of the modern application of Jubilee is that the OT concept was based on debt held by wealthy land owners who used this to oppress the poor. Gregory C. Chirichigno notes that “it remains unclear when social stratification began in Israel” (Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East [JSOTSup 141; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993] 139-40). Even with the beginning of social stratification he maintains that Israel was never as stratified as Mesopotamia or Canaan, and that only two social classes can really be distinguished in Israel–free citizens and chattel-slaves. Thus, while wealth would have promoted some stratification, it would have been limited (at least early in the nation’s history) and there would also have been significant mobility both upward and downward.
12. Cf. John Baines and Jaromír Málak, Atlas of Ancient Egypt (New York: Facts on File, 1992) 14-16; and Oded Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009) 31-44. For example, olives, a mainstay of Israelite agriculture, do not do well in Egypt.
13. It is generally assumed that the tribes that went into Canaan were all shepherds because Jacob’s family, as it descended to Egypt, was all shepherds (Gen 47:3). However, this does not follow. According to the biblical text, the descendents of Jacob lived in the land of Goshen almost four hundred years. Numbers 11:5 notes that the people recalled the “cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks and the onions and the garlic,” suggesting gardening skills. Other references suggest other occupations. Exodus 1:11 notes that they built the cities of Pithom and Raamses, through which they would have developed masonry skills. Bezalel and Oholiab were skilled in a variety of trades including working with gold, silver, bronze, stone engraving, and carpentry, as well as weaving, and perfume mixing (Exod 31:3-11). Others within the nation had similar skills (Exod 36:1). As such, it seems that in Egypt the Israelites had developed a complex social-economic structure incorporating many skills.
14. If, as I suggest elsewhere, the conquest took five years, it is likely that the Israelites would have learned some agricultural techniques from the peoples they were displacing (The Promise and the Blessing [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005] 190). This is especially the case since some of the local tribes (such as the Gibeonites) were absorbed, and others were not displaced immediately (pp. 196-97). An analogous situation would be how the early American settlers are reported to have learned from the Native Americans.
15. While those possibilities depended on national response, some of them are presented in the text as certainties as God foresaw the future. For example, Moshe Weinfeld asserts that “the pentateuchal laws assume slavery to be a given” (“Sabbatical Year and Jubilee in the Pentateuchal Laws,” in The Law in the Bible and in its Environment [ed. Timo Veijola; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990] 42). However, this does not necessarily mean slavery existed in the nation of Israel at the time that the law was given. Rather, it could indicate that God knew that it would be in existence at some point in the future. A similar situation might be Deuteronomy 15 where the people are told that they would have no poor in their midst if they listened and obeyed (Deut 15:4), and then a few verses later they are told that they would always have the poor (Deut 15:11).
16. We need to be careful not to read too much into this, since the Bible clearly shows that not all adversity in our fallen world is a result of disobedience and judgment (see the book of Job). At the same time, the OT is clear that much of the adversity the nation of Israel faced was a result of God’s judgment (see the book of Judges).
17. John E. Hartley notes that “nearest kinsman” suggests a “successive line of responsibility” (WBC 4; Levitcus [Dallas: Word, 1992] 438. However, the term “countryman” suggests that the obligation goes beyond just relatives, although neighbors might have a lower responsibility.
18. This takes the phrase “six years” in Exod 21:2 as indicating the maximum period allowed for repayment.
19. R. Alan Cole, Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1973) 165. The Hebrew word is עֶבֶד from the root עָבַד which means “to work or serve” (TWOT 1553).
20. Chirichigno points out that in contrast to debt slaves, chattel-slaves were slaves who had become the property of their “owners” (Debt-Slavery in Israel 30). In the ancient Near East, chattel- slaves could be individuals who had been captured in war, had been kidnapped, or had actually been born into a slave situation. They could be bought and sold, and in general had few rights, although in Israel the OT law called for a status which recognized their identity and dignity as human beings. For example, while the OT seems to condone slavery in the case of prisoners of war (Deut 20:10-18), Exod 21:16 suggests that kidnapping slaves was a capital offense. Key for our purposes here is that two different situations are addressed.
21. While the NASB and NIV both use the verb “buy,” the Hebrew is קָנָה (TWOT 2039), which means “to get or to acquire.” This is the normal verb used to denote “buying,” that is, acquisition by the use of money. While money might have changed hands in this process, it seems likely that we have read too much into the transaction. If this is an issue of “debt-slavery,” in most cases the individual “selling” himself was “selling” his labor to pay off the debt. If money exchanged hands, it would have been in the case of third person debt where the person “selling” himself received the money to give to another debt holder.
22. As Gordon J. Wenham puts it, it is similar to “enabling a man who could not pay a fine to work off his debt directly” (The Book of Leviticus [NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979] 322). This is a good analogy which illustrates an important point which in general seems to be overlooked—that is, the debt was finite, and could be paid off through labor. As a result, debt-slave servitude was temporary, and in general debt-slaves had some rights.
23. Ralph W. Klein maintains that while the OT uses the one term, context differentiates between slave with negative connotations and servant with positive (“A Liberated Lifestyle: Slaves and Servants in Biblical Perspective,” CurTM 9 [1982] 212).
24. Ephraim Radner, Leviticus (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible; Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2008) 266.
25. Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989) 173.
26. D. Howard Jr. observes: “God gave the land to his people as an inheritance, which they were to take possession of” (Joshua [NAC 5; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1998] 300). He goes on to note: “The portrait of Israel’s inheritance of the land of Canaan, the land promised to Abraham, is a richly textured one. First and foremost, it was a gift from Israel’s God, Yahweh. It involved a legal transfer to the Israelites of Canaanite lands, which Yahweh owned” (p. 306).
27. This is a point of confusion as some commentators seem to take the view that the issue is actual sale of the land with an opportunity for repurchase (e.g. Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery in Israel 326).
28. Levine, Leviticus 173.
29. Numbers 34:1-12 gives the specific borders of the land which was to be divided (Timothy R. Ashley, The Book of Numbers [NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993] 639). This land was actually somewhat less than the land which had been promised to Abraham (Gen 15:18). What is more, it appears that the actual possession of some of the land which was distributed was deferred until a future time (Josh 23:4-5). In this latter passage (and others), Joshua challenges the Israelites to be faithful so that God would continue to deliver the land.
30. Deuteronomy 19:8-9 discusses the three cities of refuge to be set aside on the west side of the Jordan. Eugene H. Merrill suggests that Moses made allowance for such additional sites (Deuteronomy [NAC 4; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994] 277). However, the text notes that they were to add an additional three cities of refuge if they carefully obeyed all the commandments and should God give the nation all of the land which had been promised (i.e. up to the Euphrates; Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002] I:936).
31. The Trans-Jordan region does not seem to be part of the land promised to Abraham, which is generally understood to lie west of the Jordan River. It also is not part of the land description of Numbers 34 which specifically sets the Jordan River between the Sea of Chinnereth (Galilee) and the Salt Sea (the Dead Sea) as an eastern border of the land which was the nation’s “inheritance.” While Num 32:33-42 relates how that land was given to those tribes, it does not tell how they divided this Trans-Jordan region, although it does not appear that it was by lottery.
32. Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27 2198-2200.
33. Ibid. 2201.
34. Milgrom asserts that in the case of a crop failure, the loss was the buyer’s (ibid. 2178).
35. Contra Jeffrey D. Mooney, “Israel in Slavery and Slavery in Israel,” SBJT 12/3 (2008) 75-76.
36. Two other passages give specifics regarding that year. Lev 27:16-21 addresses the case of a person who dedicates a field to God establishing the value in terms of the redemption time before Jubilee. Numbers 36:1-9 addresses the case of the daughters of Zelophehad as they inherit the land of their father to insure that the land remained with the tribe of Manasseh, not with their husbands’ families or tribes in subsequent years of Jubilee.
37. The word “Jubilee” seems likely to be basically an Anglicization of the Hebrew word יוֹבֵל which denotes a ram’s horn (TWOT 835e). Nobuyoshi Kiuchi suggests an alternative derivation from the verb yābal meaning “to be carried” (Leviticus [Apollos OT Commentary; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2007] 457). Milgrom notes several other suggestions, but opts for the ram’s horn (Leviticus 23-27 2169).
38. See Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary I:469; Kiuchi, Leviticus 462; Wenham, Leviticus 322; and Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery in Israel 302.
39. The word used is עָמִית, which can mean any of those three (TWOT 1638a).
40. Because of fallow Sabbath years, this would seem to be from 1 to 42 crops (Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27 2178). Given that the last year before Jubilee was a Sabbath year, the latest one could “lease” his land would be two years before the Jubilee year with one year of crops. Based on the same factors, this means that the earliest one could “lease” his land would be the year after Jubilee.
41. Karen Rhea Nemet-Nejat, Daily Life in Mesopotamia (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002) 257. Variables would have included the actual size of the farm, the fertility of the land, as well as how fruitful a particular year was.
42. Michael A. Harbin, “An Old Testament Model of Social Justice,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (New Orleans, 2009) 4.
43. Aspects of this story are hard to follow. It is clear that Elimelech possessed land in Israel (Ruth 4:3) and that there was a famine and he left to go to Moab (Ruth 1:1). It is not clear what he did with the land. He may have abandoned it and it lay fallow during the years he and his family were gone. If so, when Naomi returned, she would apparently try to sell it (i.e. lease it out) since she was not able to farm it. It is also possible that he had “sold” (i.e. leased it out) it prior to leaving for Moab. In that case, the land was in someone else’s hands until the year of Jubilee, and Naomi would not be able to farm it unless it was redeemed. Both terms are used in the passage. The latter seems more likely, but in either case, since they returned at the beginning of the barley harvest, it was too late in the year to farm, and the land question would need to be settled (“redeemed”) prior to the fall planting season.
44. We do not have wage data from Israel, but Mesopotamian data point to a daily wage of about 10 liters of barley (Nemet-Nejat, Daily Life 264). She also provides a conversion of 300 liters of barley equating to 1 shekel of silver (p. 257). She notes that this official wage applied from the Ur III period (about the time of Abraham) onward, for about two thousand years, although “actual hiring contracts showed that most people earned less.”
45. Nemet-Nejat, Daily Life 257.
46. Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27 2204-5.
47. While R. Hubbard argues that the only way that could be done was in the case of an inheritance, this is one of the functions of a go’el (גֹּאֵל) or “kinsman-redeemer,” although that is another study (“The Go’el in Ancient Israel: Theological Reflections on an Israelite Institution,” BBR 1 [1991] 3-19.)
48. Archaeological evidence suggests extended families of up to approximately 25 individuals (Uzi Avner, “Ancient Agricultural Settlement and Religion in the Uvda Valley in Southern Israel,” BA 53 [September 1990] 132). That would seem to reflect an extended family of three generations (with the youngest being pre-adolescent) including perhaps 4-6 nuclear families living in one agrarian complex.
49. Kiuchi, Leviticus 467.
50. Hartley, Leviticus 429.
51. According to 2 Chron 36:21, the failure to observe Sabbath years was a key factor in the exile. If the nation did not observe the Sabbath year, it is even more unlikely that it did not observe Jubilee.
52. To argue then that Jubilee represented a utopian vision of exiles which was never observed because “[w]holesale exchange of property every fifty years would produce economic chaos” reflects significant misunderstanding of the issues involved (Robert Gnuse, “Jubilee Legislation in Leviticus: Israel’s Vision of Social Reform,” BTB 15 [1971] 46).
53. Sider, Rich Christians 73.
54. Ibid. 74-75.
55. Ibid. 161.
56. Ibid. 75-76. Part of the ambiguity may be that Sider changed his views over the thirty years between his first edition and the fifth edition. For example, he notes in the preface to the fifth edition that he has thought a lot about the biblical view of equality and equity. He states that he still feels strongly about “economic equality,” however (p. xiv). In this light, Andrew Hartropp’s observation is insightful when he states “economists typically have little to say, as economists, about justice in economic life” noting that there is extensive analysis of “equality” (What is Economic Justice? Biblical and Secular Perspectives Contrasted [Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007] 1-2).
57. Richard J. Foster notes this when he observes that while a “genuine danger” of evangelicals is to preach a gospel that overlooks the social dimension, “these dangers pale when compared to the pitfall in the Social Justice Tradition of caring for social needs without reference to the condition of the heart” (Streams of Living Water [San Francisco, Harper Collins, 1998] 179).
58. Christopher Wright expresses it as follows: “To apply the jubilee model, then, requires that people face the sovereignty of God, trust his providence, know his redemptive action, experience his atonement, practice his justice, and hope in his promise” (“Jubilee, Year of,” ABD 3:1029).
59. Sider, Rich Christians 73.
60. Ibid. He argues that while ceremonial law is not applicable to the church, moral law is. Civil law seems caught in the middle. Sider argues that civil law contains “embedded” principles to “guide the church and inform our understanding of economic justice for society.” While Sider is undoubtedly correct that the OT law exemplifies principles that show how people might best live together, he is not clear on how to find those principles. Consequently, one is left wondering if his conclusions on how it should work are really valid. This is evident in David Chilton’s very strong criticism of Sider’s work. Writing from a different perspective, but like Sider claiming to follow biblical principles, and identifying the church with Israel, Chilton reaches conclusions exactly the opposite of Sider (Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulators [Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1986] 18-25).
61. Sider, Rich Christians 233-35.
62. Chilton, Productive Christians 34
63. Sider, Just Generosity 76-79.
64. Jubilee 2000 (www.jubilee2000uk.org).
65. B. Johnson characterizes it as “what is right and proper” (see, “מִשְׁפָּט”, TDOT 9:92).
66. “צָדֵק,” TWOT 1879. Hartropp suggests that it denotes “the idea of conformity to a norm; and it usually has a relational meaning” (What is Economic Justice? 14).