|
Thomas
P. Osborne At the time of its Fifth Plenary Assembly in 1996, the members of the Catholic Biblical Federation present at Hong Kong committed themselves to "working actively for the cancellation of international debts by the year 2000, in order to make it a real year of Jubilee, a lifting of burdens from the oppressed" (Final Declaration, § 8.1.7). This resolution followed the appeal of Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Letter Tertio millennio adveniente (1994), in which the pontiff draws on a series of biblical texts which describe the periodical liberation of slaves and the restoration to their land of Israelites who had lost their property because of debt. According to the Pope, "the purpose of the Jubilee Year was precisely to reestablish equality among all the children of Israel, opening new possibilities to families that had lost their goods and even personal liberty". Its aim was to reestablish "social justice" (§ 13). In the tradition of the Church, the Jubilee Year is that "year of grace" of which Isaiah speaks (chap. 61). It has become above all a "year of forgiveness of sins and of the penalties due to sins, a year of reconciliation among enemies, a year of multiple conversions and of sacramental and extra-sacramental penance" (§ 14). A little later in this same document, the Pope emphasizes the importance of the preferential option for the poor and the excluded which should shape Christian engagement: "Indeed, it has to be said that a commitment to justice and peace in a world like ours, marked by so many conflicts and intolerable social and economic inequalities, is a necessary condition for the preparation and celebration of the Jubilee. Thus, in the spirit of the Book of Leviticus (25:8-12), Christians will have to raise their voice on behalf of all the poor of the world, proposing the Jubilee as an appropriate time to give thought, among other things, to reducing substantially, if not canceling outright, the international debt which seriously threatens the future of many nations" (§ 51). Numerous Christian groups have rallied to this appeal. Under the rubric of Jubilee 2000, a vast international campaign of sensitization and collection of signatures has been organized in view of the meeting of the G-8 countries which took place in Cologne on 19 June, 1999. Caritas Internationalis has set in motion an effort of sensitization under the rubric "Putting Life before Debt". Numerous Bishops' Conferences, Justice and Peace Commissions and ecumenical church agencies have drafted thought-provoking documents on this question. In the wake of these discussions, several countries have already obtained a reduction, or even an outright cancellation of their international debt, in particular a number of countries that have recently been struck by natural catastrophes. The participants in the meeting of Hong Kong more than once raised the question: "What can we do in the face of such a complex situation? We know how to read the Bible and to do biblical animation, but the questions of international finance and the management of loans are so complex that we would be going beyond our area of competency by involving ourselves in this discussion". It is true, in fact, that the questions are not easy and there is no single, universal response. Nevertheless, if we believe that the Bible has a word to say on behalf of the lives of men and women of our time, we do not have the right to hide behind pious words. We are called on to open our ears and our hearts both to the biblical texts and to our brothers and sisters who are victims of a debt that is impossible to bear. This article would like first of all to pass in review the principal biblical texts that treat the periodical liberation of persons who are in debt or in slavery. It will then go on to make a few comments on the relevancy of these texts for the issue of the remission of debt. Since it is not possible to date these texts or the law collections of which they form a part with certainty, nor to demonstrate conclusively the literary relationships between them, we will remain cautious as far as concerns elaborating a theory of the progressive development of this legislation. We simply note that the problem of indebted individuals was one which preoccupied Israelite society and its legislators at different periods and in diverse situations, and that they came up with a variety of solutions. The Covenant Code The Covenant Code (Ex 20:22-23:19) drew on the model of the rhythm of a six day work week and a seventh day of rest (23:12) when it decreed the liberation of Hebrew slaves after six years, if they so desired (21:2-11) and when it legislated a fallow year for the land in the seventh (23:10-11). These directives have essentially a social purpose: the seventh day of rest allows beasts of burden, servants and emigrants alike to catch their breath; the fallow year allows the soil to recover its strength and the poor to procure nourishment from the uncultivated produce of the soil; the emancipation of slaves imposes a certain limit on the exploitation of Hebrew brothers. Despite the positive accents of this legislation, a reader of the late 20th century remains unsatisfied regarding the acceptance of the practice and the institution of slavery, limited to six years for compatriots, unlimited with respect to emigrants; the decidedly less favorable treatment of women-servants compared to that of men-servants; the rights of the master over the family of the slave. Ultimately, it boils down to a certain limitation placed on the exploitation of human persons. But viewed from the present day perspective, this remains an insufficient compromise. Let us note, however, that this first beginning of sensitivity to the situation of exploited persons is based on a common experience of precariousness: "You must not oppress the stranger; you know how a stranger feels, for you lived as strangers in the land of Egypt" (Ex 23:9). The Deuteronomic Code In the middle of the book of Deuteronomy, the Deuteronomic Code constitutes a collection of laws designed to cover the whole of human, religious and political relationships within Israelite society. This collection probably dates to the middle of the seventh century before Christ. More so than the Covenant Code, it is profoundly marked by an explicitly theological motivation. On the question that concerns us, Dt 15 lays out the ordinances regarding the remission of debts (15:1-11) and the emancipation of Hebrew slaves (15:12-18) at the end of seven years. A two-fold relationship underlies these texts: the relationship among brothers, members of a single people, on the one hand, and the relationship between this people and their God on the other. The legislation considers two levels of precariousness. If a person has been forced to go into debt to his brother in order to provide for his needs, the possibility of lending him money, if necessary on security – and not against interest – is legitimated, but the validity of the security is limited to seven years. At the end of seven years the debts will be remitted, the shemittah in Hebrew. On the other hand, people are urged to do everything within their power to insure that there be no poor in the country, or, to put it another way, among brothers. The progression towards poverty must be broken in time. The way the text unfolds is significant: "There
will be no poor among you" (15:4) Social reality then seems ultimately to carry the day over moral proclamations. But brotherly solidarity remains a requirement: "Always be open-handed with your brother, and with anyone in your country who is in need and poor" (15:11). This solidarity is grounded in God who was the first to fill his people with his blessing. The second level of precariousness is reached when an individual, whose situation has become so fragile that borrowing on security is no longer sufficient, is forced to sell himself in order to survive. The author of the text does not pause to comment on the reasons for this slavery "chosen" by a person who has fallen into a situation of inextricable distress. He once again invokes generosity, motivated by the awareness that the "master" had himself been liberated from slavery by his God, but also by a correct estimation of the work supplied by the slave. The relationship "master-slave" is not destined to become definitive: in principle, it is limited in time, thanks to the release from slavery that takes place in the seventh year. The release of slaves under King Zedekiah Lovely as these social and theological options might be, they are at the same time difficult to realize in concrete life, as is attested by the narrative of the release of Hebrew slaves under King Zedekiah (Jr 34:8-22). At the time of the siege of the city of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, in 588-587, Zedekiah gave the order to free all the Hebrew slaves, doubtless in order to allow them to participate actively in the defense of Jerusalem. But as soon as the siege of the city was lifted, the people reniged on their commitment and re-appropriated their former slaves. Jeremiah takes the position that the people’s failure to respect their commitments vis-à-vis their fellow countrymen and their return to exploiting them as slaves is something like a profanation of God’s name leading to disastrous consequences for the whole of the society. This is a constant experience in human society: the break of the social contract among persons compromises the chances of a people’s survival. The voice of the prophet points to the way in which this behavior impinges on the relationship with God: the God of Israel is a God who does not tolerate exploitation among brothers. For Jeremiah, the return of the Babylonians and the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple in 587 are a direct consequence of this breech of commitment. The Jubilee Year in the framework of the priestly legislation In the present state of the Pentateuch, the legislation on the year of Jubilee in Leviticus 25 is as it were the crowning point of a vast legislative collection which originated within a priestly current, toward the end of the Babylonian exile. The great complex begins in Ex 24:15 and continues all the way to Lv 26. It speaks, in order, of the dwelling place of God, or the tent of meeting, of the ritual of sacrifices and of the priesthood in view of obtaining the remission of sins, of the rules for maintaining the purity of the people and of the tent of meeting. It provides precise measures for the purification of persons and of objects and it fixes the rite for the day of the great annual pardon. Finally, it specifies the behaviors required for the people to participate in the divine holiness as well as the sanctions to be applied in the case of non-compliance with directives. A Calendar based on the Sabbath Throughout these texts, but above all in Lv 23 and 25, the legislator develops a calendar based on the seventh day and the Sabbath. The underlying structure of this calendar is as follows:
This "septenary" rhythm of time is of extreme importance for the priestly current which developed it at the time of the exile of a part of the Jewish people to Babylon in the 6th century before our era. It amounts to a theological reading of history and a coherent religious system aimed at helping the Jewish people to understand their situation of exile and to preserve their religious identity and their ethnic cohesion in the face of the political power and the religious lure of Babylon. Every people that has been subjected to foreign rule knows how important it is to affirm one’s identity through particular institutions, persons and objects. It is in this context that we are to understand the new significance attached to this ancient institution which is the seventh-day rest, which was called "shabbat" already before the exile. For the priestly circles, the Sabbath constitutes the master key, not simply of the structure of time, but of the entire theological reading of the people’s history. Taking a closer look at the texts relative to Sabbath in the priestly history and legislation, we can make the following observations:
The great collection of priestly legislative texts culminates with Lv 26: the exhortation to observe the Sabbaths and to respect the sanctuary (26:2), a series of blessings in the case of the observance of the Lord’s commandments (26:3-13) and a series of curses in the case of non-observance of these ordinances (26:14-39), and finally, a text which leaves room for the possibility of conversion (26:40-45). It is interesting to note that the failure to respect the Sabbath is cited as one of the essential reasons for the dispersion of the people far from their country. This exile will enable the land to fulfill the Sabbaths it was unable to keep because of the people: "Then the land will observe its sabbaths indeed, lying desolate there, while you are in the land of your enemies. Then indeed the land will rest and observe its sabbaths. And as it lies desolate, it will rest, as it never did on your sabbaths when you lived in it" (Lv 26:34-35). "Abandoned by them, the land will keep its sabbaths, as it lies desolate when they are gone. But they must atone for their sin, for they have spurned my customs and abhorred my laws" (Lv 26:43). It is perhaps not without interest to remark that the exile did in fact last for about 50 years, from the time of the destruction of the temple in 587 till the return of the Jews in the years that followed the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, in 539. Would not the priestly author be seeing the hand of God in the phenomenon of the exile, as well as in its duration? Is it not perhaps the case that he is converting this tragic incident into a model of divine punishment and liberation, to be erected into a religious institution thereafter? The possibility is at least worthy of consideration. The Sabbatical Year The first section of Lv 25 (vv. 2-7) is devoted to the sabbatical year, in the proper sense of the term. At the time of the people’s entry into the land, this land will observe a year of repose; more precisely, the land will not be cultivated nor will the fields or grapevines be harvested. To allow the soil to rest periodically, to practice a fallow year, was a common practice in agricultural societies that were not familiar with the use of strong fertilizers. It was generally accomplished through rotation, often in cycles of more or less three years, for a part of the cultivable land. The regulation of Lv 25 required however a complete year when the entire land is at rest. The food shortages created by this system are enormous, as one can imagine. They are attested in 1 M 6:48-54 which recounts the circumstance of a siege that was life-threatening because it happened to occur in this seventh year, and the Israelites brought back to Judaea from the midst of the pagan world had consumed the last reserves in the city. Lv 25:20-22 offers a theological response to food problems: the blessing of God will enable the sixth year to produce in sufficient abundance to sustain life till the harvest of the eighth year. This is reminiscent of the double portion of manna on the sixth day which made it possible to get over the hurdle of the Sabbath. But can what applies to a day also apply to a whole year? This would require the competence in food management of someone like Joseph in Egypt, a management that can rely on the solidarity of all the members of an entire people and on a divinely supported productivity. In this whole context, confidence in the divine blessing goes hand in hand with confidence in the productivity of the land and in human solidarity, together with a just management of food resources. These last issues are not alluded to in the text of Lv 25 on the sabbatical year. In any case, one finds no further trace of the emancipation of slaves in the seventh year, as was the case in the legislation of the Covenant Code and of the Deuteronomic Code. In the priestly legislation, one must await the ordinances for the year of Jubilee to see this problem become the object of discussion. The Jubilee Year 1. The legislation on the Jubilee Year in the proper sense of the term is found in Lv 25:8-19, 23-55. After the general proclamation of the Jubilee (8-13) there is a whole series of concrete stipulations that concern not simply the liberation of the 49th/50th year, but also the right and the duty of ransom of property in the strict sense and of individuals whose realization does not await the elapse of 50 years to be valid (14-19, 23-55). Let us look more closely at the general proclamation. This is how the text reads in a fairly literal translation: "And
you will count for yourself seven Sabbaths of years, 2. Is the Jubilee Year the forty-ninth year (25:8) or the fiftieth year (25:10,11)? To calculate the Jubilee Year would appear to be an easy matter. Based on the idea of the sabbatical year, defined as every seventh year, one need only arrive at the seventh sabbatical year (7 periods of 7 years = 49 years) and add one year (49 years + 1 year = the 50th year). This calculation however raises a very concrete problem. If the 50th year is also a fallow year, as is implied by verses 11 and 12, this would mean that the harvest of the 48th year would have to suffice for the 49th year, the 50th year and the 51 year, till the new harvest. How is it possible to survive with a single harvest for what amounts to about two and half years? In all probability, the legislation refers to the calendar of the priestly tradition in which the year begins in the springtime with the month Aviv or Nisan, probably under Babylonian influence. According to Lv 25:9, the year of Jubilee is proclaimed in the seventh month, the 10th day of the month, on the great Day of Atonement. Would not then "the year of Jubilee" or "the 50th year" be a shortened year, which would last only from the great Day of Atonement until the end of the current year? This hypothesis has the benefit of not unduly aggravating the hardships regarding food supplies of a Jubilee year associated with a sabbatical year, but it is difficult to pronounce on it with certitude. 3. What is this great Day of Atonement which marks the beginning of the year of Jubilee and of its "liberation"? The yom hakippurim in Hebrew or the "day of atonement" is described in Lv 16 and Nb 29:7-11 and it is mentioned in Lv 23:27-30; 25:9 and Ezk 45:18 that is in texts that date to the time of the exile. The text of Ezekiel seems to be the most ancient: it fixes the date for the celebration in the springtime, on the first day of the first month. The other texts, all of the priestly tradition, situate it in the fall. We are dealing with an annual celebration, a very solemn one, marked by fasting and rest, and intended to atone for the sins of the highpriest and his family and of the people in general, but also to purify the entire sanctuary. These expiatory rites and purification are accomplished through a series of sacrifices and sprinklings with blood around – and inside of – the sanctuary, and also by the sending away from the camp a goat upon which the people’s sins have been laid. In these rites, the blood plays a role of primary importance as the seat of life. According to Lv 17:11, "it is the blood that makes atonement, for it is life". In sum, within the framework of its legislation regarding ritual and moral purity, the priestly tradition is concerned to raise the level of consciousness regarding the sinfulness of individuals as well as of the people and to insure regular release from sins. In this way it hopes to prevent the divine sanction attached to these sins. The beginning of the Jubilee is situated in the framework of this general absolution and of this generalized purification. It proclaims a year of liberation (deror), of return to the family property and of rest for the land. The beginning of the Jubilee is marked by the sounding of the trumpet (shophar), a musical instrument employed to proclaim certain religious feasts and fasts, but also to sound the alarm in situations of danger. The Hebrew word which we translate "jubilee" is jobel. It has nothing to do with the Latin word jubilaeus, from the verb jubilare: to rejoice. As Jos 6:4, 5, 6, 8, 13 and Ex 19:13 attest, jobel originally signifies the "horn" of a ram. The call of the horn invites, not to public exuberance, but to the awareness of oneself as a sinner, to the interiorization of attitudes of repentance and to the awareness of having been forgiven and saved from the divine wrath. By moving in the direction of a liberation, the Jubilee seems however to be pointing beyond the expiations of the great Day of Atonement. 4. Indeed, even before pronouncing the word "Jubilee", Lev 25 announces that the 50th year will be holy and that "a liberation in the land for all its inhabitants" will be proclaimed. The next lines of the text supply the following clarifications: "And you will return, each to his own property; and each to his tribe, you will return" (Lev 25:10). Here we are in the middle of the text on the Jubilee! What is the liberation that is alluded to here? What return? To what property? Return of whom: of everyone or only of some individuals? To what tribe? The Hebrew word deror translated here "liberation, release", is not frequent in the First Testament. It reappears in Jr 34:8, 15 and 17 (twice), in a narrative regarding the emancipation of Hebrew slaves at the time of the siege of Jerusalem; in Ezk 46:17, a text which likewise treats of the emancipation of slaves in the framework of the property rights of the prince; and in Is 61:1 which speaks of the liberation of prisoners. The text of Ezekiel brings together a whole series of themes that are common to Lv 25: "The Lord God says this. 'If the prince presents his sons with part of his hereditary portion, the gift is to pass into the ownership of his sons, and become their hereditary property. If, however, he presents part of his hereditary portion to one of his servants, it shall only belong to the man until the year of liberation and then it is to revert to the prince. Only his sons may retain his hereditary portion. The prince may not take any part of the people’s hereditary portion and thus rob them of their rightful possessions; he must provide the patrimony of his sons out of his own property, so that no member of my people is robbed of his rightful possessions' " (Ezk 46:16-18). This text speaks about rights in connection with the princely inheritance, rights which differ according to the quality of the person, whether he is the son or the slave of the owner. The son can regard the family land as his own patrimony, while the slave must return it to his master in the year of emancipation. The section concludes with a warning against the prince who would be tempted to take for himself the patrimony belonging to the members of the people. We encounter this theme in the story of the vineyard of Naboth (1 K 21) but also in a series of prophetic oracles (Mi 2:1-3; Is 5:8-9), texts which all bring out the tendency of kings and more generally of the rich to appropriate the lands and houses of the people. The differences between Ezk 46 and Lv 25 are not to be underestimated. Ezekiel is speaking to us of the recovery of land by the prince at the time of the emancipation of the slave, while the author of Leviticus is speaking rather of the recovery of the land, indeed of the country, by people who have been released. But the observation can be made that in both cases the primary perspective seems related to the maintenance of the integrity of the patrimonial or national land. 5. Who is liberated? And from what? According to Lv 25, all the individuals whom the text addresses are targeted by the directive: "Every one of you will return to his property"! In a first moment, a casuistic type of clarification is not given: "If you have become a slave and have lost your patrimony...". No, the prescription is addressed to all, and one must suppose that they are all away from their familial land. The Bible speaks on several occasions of the partitioning of the land for the benefit of the tribes of Israel: in Nb 26:52-53; 27:1-11; 34-36; Jos 14-21; Ezk 48; and Ne 11. Although the geographical delimitation of the allotments does not correspond exactly in the different texts, the principle is nevertheless clear: each tribe finds itself allotted a plot of land in the country of Canaan to settle on and to serve as a source of subsistence... to the detriment, it should be recalled, of the peoples who lived there before. The author of Leviticus seems to allude to this partitioning of the land, i.e., to that described in Numbers and Joshua (with their levitical towns), rather than to that of Ezekiel. In these texts one encounters a number of terms, in part synonymous, to designate the parcel of land assigned to a particular tribe. These terms do not imply a relationship of "ownership" in the strict sense, but rather the connection between an object (land, slave, etc.) and the person or tribe who has the use of these items, who can benefit from their use. This object can be a place where one has a right to live. The text of Leviticus specifies that the land belongs to God and not to the people or to individuals: one lives there as guests and foreigners (Lv 25:23) and God can, at any moment, "show his people the door". With regard to persons, the Hebrews cannot become "slaves" or the property of other persons, because they became slaves of the Lord at the time of their liberation from slavery in Egypt (Lv 25:42-43, 46b, 55). One can benefit from their services only for a limited period of time. When "ownership" or "heritage" is spoken of in Lv 25, it is a question of an object (a plot of land, or a human person) which one can have at one’s disposal so as to insure one’s own survival and that of the family. One has the use of such property or the labor of such a person, but does not become their "owner" in the strict sense of the term. It is interesting to note that the Sabbatical rest, weekly or other, regularly recalls this fact: to be sure one benefits from the products of the soil as from the divine blessing, but one does not possess the land and one has no right to (over-)exploit it. Yes, there are definite limits to this exploitation of the soil, as there are to the exploitation of persons. In other words, one has been granted the privilege of access to the means of subsistence – an access which according to Leviticus is guaranteed by God in the framework of respect for the covenant; but this privilege is not a right which one can invoke to deprive a brother of the means of subsistence, to expropriate him in a definitive way or to reduce him to slavery for an unlimited period of time. 6. Would it not be possible to understand this text in the framework of the return from Exile? From the time of the destruction of the Temple in 587 until the capture of Babylon by Cyrus in the year 539, the exile lasted 48 years. Could not the year 538-537 be viewed, under this perspective, as a sabbatical year and a year of Jubilee in the course of which all the exiles would be liberated from their captivity and authorized to return to their country, to their tribal lands? Without wishing to enter too deeply into cabalistic word-puns, one can nevertheless ask whether there might not be some connection between the Hebrew roots sb' (seven), sbt (sabbath) and shûb (return). To borrow the words of Lv 26, the abandoned land was fulfilling the Sabbaths that had not been observed at the same time as the people were living out their punishment in exile. It is only after this period, according to the priestly view, that the people can return home. Although he does not employ the same terminology, the anonymous prophet of the end of the exile, the one referred to in modern scholarship as Second Isaiah, appeals to the motifs of the fulfillment of the chastisement of the people and the preparation of a way of return to Jerusalem marking the end of the exile : "Comfort,
comfort my people, says your God, This "great return" after 48 years of exile from the country of the fathers was to become, in the perspective of the priestly author, a model of behavior for the handling of debts in Judaea. Casuistic stipulations The legislation on the year of jubilee climaxes with a long series of stipulations of a casuistic nature. What should one do in the following cases?
We cannot discuss each of these stipulations in detail, but we will outline a few general orientations. The country or the land belongs to God. Human "owners" have no rights over it except to its use. In this perspective, God places the land at the disposition of the Israelites in order to insure their subsistence. This is why houses that are within fortified towns have a distinct status, since a house without a field is not of primary necessity for human subsistence. This legislation concerns itself with the situation of precariousness of Israelites, but not of foreigners. The relationship between brothers constitutes the basis of the responsibility an individual has toward his fellow-Israelite. In the framework of this relationship, there is no place for exploitation or for the violent domination of a brother. The same does not hold true with respect to foreigners. At the time of the composition of these priestly laws, Israel does not have a sense of solidarity with the nations. And this is all the more so since the major concern of the priest is to make known and respected the distinction between the pure and the impure, the sacred and the profane (cf. Lv 10:10). The legislators have established certain protective measures in favor of Israelites in a precarious situation who have been forced to sell a part or the whole of their landed property or real-estate: The price of the land should be fixed in function of its use, that is to say the number of harvests remaining till the next Jubilee. This principle protects both the seller and the buyer. In this system of reckoning, there is on both sides the recognition of the eventuality of the restoration of the land to its original "owner". In the majority of cases, there exists a right and even a duty of redeeming the land or the house by a member of the family of the person in difficulty. In the absence of redemption by a member of the family, the person in difficulty may himself proceed to the redemption of the sold object if he manages to assemble the necessary resources. These measures of family solidarity have as their objective to maintain the integrity of the heritage, or patrimony, which is to remain at the disposition of a particular tribe. If the redemption of the land or the house is not effectuated either by a family member or by the person himself, then the person or the tribe will recover their land on the occasion of the next Jubilee. The Jubilee "release", then, constitutes a last resort. It does not dispense from the obligation of short-term or mid-course redemption. When a person who, having sold his land and spent all his resources, is brought to the point of having to ask for assistance, whether the request is made to a brother, or even to a migrant or host, one is urged to lend him money, without requiring interest or profiteering from the precarious situation of the person. This legislation is made for the benefit of the person in the precarious situation and not of the individual who comes to his aid. Finally, the legislation envisages the situation of a person who has been so stripped that he must sell himself either to his brother, or even to a foreigner. In the case of sale to a compatriot, no redemption is provided for, since it is taken for granted that he or she will not be treated as a slave, and will be able to leave the situation of slavery at the time of the Jubilee. When an Israelite is sold to a foreigner, the mechanism of redemption by a family member comes into play or, if necessary, the release of the person, together with his children, at the time of the Jubilee. In any case, Israelites are bound to prevent the brutal treatment of a slave. Particular directives regulate the precarious case of Levites. They do not have lands at their disposal for their subsistence, but they have a home in the towns set apart for them and the surrounding "pastureland". Their basic subsistence is guaranteed by the part of the offerings which goes to them in exchange for their services in the cult. It is in this context that they have a right to the redemption of their houses and that the pasturelands are exempted from sale. The function of "buyer" or "redeemer", the go’el in Hebrew, is of primary importance in this text. The go’el is the individual who, in virtue of his family relationship, is to avenge the murder of a family member (cf. Nb 35:12, 19, 24, 25; Jos 20:3, 9; 2 S 14:11). He is to intervene to redeem an Israelite who, for economic reasons, has been compelled to sell himself (Lv 25 passim) or to redeem the land of an Israelite who has had to sell it for reasons of indebtedness (Lv 25 passim; Jr 32:6-44; Ruth passim). Jeremiah makes this type of intervention himself to redeem the field of his cousin Hanamel. The final sections of the book of Isaiah, dating from the end of the exile or the beginning of the post-exilic period, transpose this institution of family solidarity into the theological domain: God redeems his people from exile in Babylon so that they can return to Jerusalem (cf. Is 35:9-10; 48:20). The different stipulations of Lv 25 are regularly associated with motives of a theological type (see Lv 25:17-19, 38, 42-43, 55; 26:3-13). One could summarize them as follows:
The Jubilee and its place within the biblical legislation At the conclusion of our summary review of the legislative texts of the Old Testament regarding a remission of debt in general, we could draw up an initial, even if somewhat provisional balance sheet. This balance sheet would have to be complemented, of course, with the help of other Old Testament texts (Is 61 and Ne 5, for example) and of the New Testament (the inaugural speech of Jesus at Nazareth, in Lk 4). We have observed that at different times and in various circumstances the problem of indebted persons and possibly even of persons reduced to the state of slavery sufficiently preoccupied Israelite society that it devoted a part of its legislation to the issue. In this context, it raised the question about the meaning of productivity, of human beings as well as of the land, and on the limits to be placed on their exploitation. The Deuteronomic Code and the priestly legislation provide concrete and intermediary measures bringing into play the resources of familial and ethnic solidarity. If these do not produce the effect of sufficient aid, the codes propose a remission of debt and the abolition from various kinds of slavery either at the end of seven years or at the fiftieth year (the Jubilee year). These texts enable us to make a number of observations which remain fully relevant for our discussions and commitments at the end of this millennium. The precariousness of human existence – past, present or future – places all human beings, whether they like it or not, in the same boat. "We have all been slaves in Egypt or elsewhere" – "We are all in danger of becoming victims to indebtedness". How are we to conceive personal, family and ethnic relations among persons who are advantaged and persons who are disadvantaged? The biblical legislation makes us attentive to the tendency of individuals in a situation of power to take advantage of persons in situations of weakness. To limit abuses, these texts legislate on the conditions of a kind of solidarity pact. Solidarity is to be "insured" through a system of legislation and a higher court of appeal (in the biblical texts the king and/or the divinity) which is committed to protect those in danger of becoming victims of their debts and of a system of exploitation from which they are incapable of exiting by themselves. In a religious system, such as that on which our biblical texts draw, it is God who grants liberty and land and it is he who makes the land fruitful. The situation of human persons is not exclusively the result of personal effort or ingenuity, but likewise of "chance", in the view of some, or of "grace", according to others, of which those persons are the beneficiaries. When there are considerable economical differences between human beings, the Bible frequently reminds us that the dignity of human persons and the respect that is due them are not determined by their economic situation or their solubility. The priestly legislation sets in place a whole system of liberation. Its calendar makes it possible for us to take our distances with respect to the exigencies of productivity. Every seven days, for a few weeks each year, every seven years, every 49th or 50th year, the machine is brought to a halt, people and even plots of land are allowed to rest. The priestly legislation, by establishing a "pedagogical" calendar which establishes a critical distance, seems to have well perceived the stubborn and determined nature of the "economic reason". Its system of sacrifices of atonement enables the effects of personal or national culpability to be contained, through the remission of debts toward God. The "great day of atonement" is an important element in this system. It is significant that the remission of economic debts and the return to the land together form part of the movement of forgiveness which God grants his people. An extension of this line of thought will be found in the New Testament: the forgiveness of God is to be extended into forgiveness between brothers (cf. Mt 18:23-35). The priestly legislation seeks to maintain the purity of the nation, the non-exploitation of brothers, and in this way, life in security in the country. Failure to respect this "solidarity pact" has harmful consequences for the society. Its survival is what is at stake. Already the priestly flood narrative was reproaching people for having filled with violence the space that God had given them. The non-respect of the divine commandments has led to the fact that "the land vomits its inhabitants", according to the terminology of Leviticus. For the priestly redactor the exile is the consequence of the non-respect for the "solidarity pact" and at the same time it can become a means of atonement for sin – moral and economic – which will enable the return to the land. The "solidarity pact" is however limited to the "children of Israel" and in a few cases to the foreigners who reside in the land. And the lot of female slaves is different from that of male slaves. Seen from the perspective of today, these orientations would appear nationalistic and sexist. We should note, however, that even in our own enlightened, western societies, we have great difficulties when it comes to putting into practice the equality of women and men or to agreeing to substantial economic aid to foreign countries. We are obliged to point out that even "traditional", direct solidarity – familial and ethnic – is more and more lacking in a society that is geared above all to profit and productivity. The market tolerates no weakness, structural or human. What are the "fuses" put in place today to avoid a situation in which the mechanisms of productivity and the market have occasioned indebtedness, poverty and slavery? What attention do we pay to those in debt within our geographical borders and within our ethnic and family ambients? A heightened sensitivity and engagement at this first level will invite us to look beyond the geographical and political borders, toward the misery of other peoples. In accordance with its style, the biblical text confronts us with the fundamental questions of life. It does not supply us with ready-made responses. Biblical legislation and the remission of the debt of poor countries To look in these biblical texts, which are over 2000 years old, for concrete directives for our economic engagements at the end of the 20th century is an enterprise full of pitfalls. A direct and immediate, that is a fundamentalistic application of these texts could prove very dangerous. In a first step, one would have to measure the distance between these law codes and what is usually called the "remission of the debt of poor countries". Here are a few lines of reflection. 1. The biblical legislation seeks primarily the engagement of an individual vis-à-vis another individual, both of the same family or the same group. It is personal, familial and ethnic sensitivity and solidarity that are urged. The remission of the debt of poor countries is a question that, at an initial stage at least, involves commitments among national banking or monetary institutions and particular governments. What is the role that can and should be played in this question by individuals, alone or in concert with others, whether they are or are not members of financial institutions? What levels of awareness can they bring to this reflection and to the search for viable solutions? 2. The biblical legislation seeks to maintain tribal, familial integrity (with regard to indebted individuals) and to maintain the integrity of landed property with regard to the land: one cannot cede to a foreigner, nor even to a member of another tribe of Israel, what belongs to one’s familial or tribal territory. The sentiment of belonging to a particular group is doubtless what constitutes the essential motivation for the action of the go’el on behalf of the recuperation of the indebted individual or the ceded land. Action on behalf of the remission of the debt of poor countries has to be based on an international solidarity which renounces an outlook that is ego-, ethno- or even religio-centric. It must recognize that the bonds of solidarity extend beyond ethnic, racial, religious, etc. barriers. A number of New Testament texts can help us in this broadening of the sphere of solidarity – texts such as Jesus' encounter with the Samaritan (Jn 4) or the parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:25-37). 3. The biblical legislation rejects the exploitation model with regard to the children of Israel, whether this be in the form of violent domination, the requirement of interest on a loan or the reimbursement of funds engaged to procure food for minimal subsistence. Those who are reflecting on the political economy and the eventuality of the remission of debt should acknowledge that money lent at interest to persons in a situation of extreme poverty is a form of exploitation the primary goal of which is the profit of the lender and not the assistance of the poor. We have but to observe how the lender countries recover the money lent through the sale of arms or technology. This observation holds not only for countries that are thus burdened with debt but also for indebted individuals who are victims of our societies of consumption in which financial institutions draw profit from the weak position of borrowers. 4. The biblical legislation situates the Jubilee liberation in the framework of the "day of atonement" or "day of pardon" in the course of which the entire people as well as institutions acknowledge their sins and their actions that threaten to compromise the future of the country and the survival of the people. The effort to remit the debt of the poor countries should be accompanied and motivated by the recognition of the debt owed by the countries of the "first world" to the countries of the third-world. What I mean is of course the exploitation and the exportation of human resources [slavery], of natural resources and of cultural resources during and after the colonial periods. 5. For concrete individuals, the biblical legislation takes the view that access to the means of subsistence should be assured through access to land (for cultivation and pasture). The royal authority has the responsibility to protect the rights of individuals (and not to exploit the subjects of the realm). One should avoid reducing the remission of the debt of poor countries to the mere cancellation of a financial debt, often contracted by the leaders and paid for by the people. One should put a stop to the bleeding of vital resources, a bleeding due to the payment of loans, capital and interest, and the access of all to the means of subsistence should be restored. The problem is complex, because the borrowers are governments and institutions. They have often profited from loans, while the people now have to support the payments through the sale of food products on the foreign market to the detriment of their own existential needs. Conclusion The Fifth Plenary Assembly of the Catholic Biblical Federation has loudly proclaimed that the Word of God is the source of life for the men and women of the world. The fact is that even in a question as complex as the problem of international debt and its effects on the poor countries of our planet, with all of its extremely technical political, economic and historical aspects, this Word calls us. It was addressed to the complex reality of the Jewish people of 2000 years ago. It challenges us today, us and our institutions, at this end of the second millennium. We are called to hear this Word and to listen to the individuals and groups who are uttering their cry of distress. Would not the role of contextual biblical animation be that of offering this possibility to hear, with the hope that the heard Word be translated into commitment? (Translated from the French: L. Maluf) Source: Dei Verbum, Nr.51 - 2/1999
|