Wilma Ivelisse Reyes
OT520 Old Testament Introduction
Dr. Brian Russell
August 10, 2015
ISRAEL’S COVENANTAL LAW REGARDING THE POOR AND ITS RELATIONSHIP
WITH THE EXILE ACCORDING TO ZECHARIAH 7:9-14
The Sinaitic Covenant of YHWH with the people of Israel and its laws regarding their relationship with the poor and the needy is in direct relationship with the reasons why Israel was exiled from their land, first by the Assyrians around 740 BCE and later by the Babylonians in 539 BCE.
Zechariah is an Old Testament postexilic prophet whose visions present a reversal of circumstances where “YHWH promises to ‘return’… [upon] the community’s repentance or return to YHWH” (Ollenburger) after enduring a period of judgment away from their land, their temple, and their unity as a people. The verses pertaining to this study are part of a larger sermon structure in which Zechariah “looks back at the reasons for the fall of Jerusalem and the exile” (Gowan).
Zechariah 7:9-14 (NIV) states;
9 “This is what the Lord Almighty said: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. 10 Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other.’
11 “But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and covered their ears. 12 They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the Lord Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. So the Lord Almighty was very angry.
13 “‘When I called, they did not listen; so when they called, I would not listen,’ says the Lord Almighty. 14 ‘I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations, where
they were strangers. The land they left behind them was so desolate that no one traveled through it. This is how they made the pleasant land desolate.’”
The prophet’s call echoes the message of earlier prophets, with its focus on “social justice as an expression of covenant faithfulness” (Boda) centering on four groups: the widow, the orphan, the sojourner, and the poor. The relationship between the indictment uttered by the prophet over Israel and the exile experienced by them as a community at the hands of foreign nations is a provocative stance which challenges the person who reads it to delve into the prominence of YHWH’s standards for his people’s way of life.
At the center of the prophet’s statement lies “the Old Testament’s typical description of the nature of a healthy community … expressed by three potent words – justice (mishpat), loyalty (̣esed), and compassion (ṛamim)” (Gowan). The type of justice to administer is referred to as “true,” a word which in the Hebrew has the connotation of faithfulness, and always used to speak about God’s character. “Judging faithfully here speaks of judging with faithful adherence to God’s law no matter who stands before the court (Boda).” The next imperative is the term “loyalty.” Which is described in the Hebrew as “the loyalty expected of those who have entered into covenant (Boda)”. The second characteristic, “compassion,” has the connotation of tender love. So, the call of the prophet was “not only to administer justice faithfully, but to do it with the spirit of faithful loyalty and tender compassion.” (Boda)
These exhortations find their context in the prohibition of the oppression of the four groups of individuals; the widows, the orphans, the foreigner, and the poor. These four groups mentioned by the prophet were considered weak and vulnerable. For instance, “…in a society which depended so heavily on human muscle power for subsistence, a family without one adult male, composed of a widow and her children would find it difficult to survive. … [The circumstances of a] sojourner… [or the] non Israelite who has found a home in Israel … could be
precarious since they were of foreign origin … [and having] to sojourn in a place where he was not strengthened by the presence of his own kind, [he would have to] put himself under the protection of a clan of a powerful chief [in order to survive]. …The “least of the poor … did not have the same opportunities [as] the average, poor … [and were easier] to cheat them [because] their options were so few” (Gowan). But poverty was not their major problem; “…powerlessness and its consequences: lack of status, lack of respect, making one an easy mark for the powerful and unscrupulous, so that those who are not poor are likely to become poor and those who are poor are going to get poorer.” (Gowan)
One of the first instances where the plight for justice for the needy appears in the book of Exodus, and happens when YHWH establishes his covenant with the people of Israel at Sinai. Exodus 22:21-23 (CEV) says, “21 Don’t mistreat or oppress an immigrant, because you were once immigrants in the land of Egypt. 22 Don’t treat any widow or orphan badly. 23 If you do treat them badly and they cry out to me, you can be sure that I’ll hear their cry.” The covenantal laws concerned with the poor and the treatment they were to receive from the people of Israel as basis for their welfare “… [encompass] three main areas of concern: 1) the area of the remains from the harvest, 2) the area of the administration of justice, and 3) the area of partaking in the tithes brought for the Levites every three years.” (Ekpo) It is interesting to note that this plight was not only one made to address “hunger and lack of shelter; it is their inability to maintain their rights, so that it is possible for others to oppress them.” (Gowan) The denial of justice Zechariah spoke about had its basis “…in their experience in Egypt, where, as aliens, they were oppressed and brutalized and YHWH came to their deliverance when they cried to him. It is this redemptive act that defines the divine character and also establishes the basis of the moral imperative.” (Ekpo) It is in the context of the Egyptian exodus, when YHWH steps in and
champions the deliverance of the people of Israel from their oppression in Egypt, that He establishes a covenant relationship with them as their God and ruler, promulgating laws “upon His people so that they might continuously remember the magnitude of His redemptive grace toward them.” (Patterson) These laws are YHWH’s “fundamental moral framework communicated… [through] Ten Commandments, and a set of laws that would shape a social construction of reality so very different than what they had experienced in Egypt.” (Carroll R.) These regulations aimed to protect the outcasts of society did not come through the prophetic voices of sages in Israel, but in the context of common policies of virtue and conduct found in the Ancient Near East at the time. “From the earliest times on, a strong king promulgated stipulations in connection with protection of this group. Such protection was seen as a virtue of gods, kings, and judges.” (Fensham) The success of any strong king depended on the defense of policies which looked out for the wellbeing of the weak, the widow, the orphan, and the poor. From the code of Hammurabi in Mesopotamia, which in its prologue refers to “justice executed by the king… [stating] that the strong are not allowed to oppress the weak, so that the sun may rise over the people” (Fensham), to the famous Instructions of Amenemope in Egypt, where “a maxim declares that the oppressed must not be robbed and that no harshness may be inflicted on the disabled” (Fensham), the concern for the oppressed sectors of society is well documented. In Egyptian literature there is ample evidence of “the ideal of respecting the rights of the weak, widow and the orphan [flourishing] in times of decay or at the beginning of a new period… in wisdom literature… [dating to] the First Intermediate Period and the beginning of the Middle Kingdom.” (Fensham) One of the maxims in the Instructions of Merikare prescribed the conduct of a king against his people, indicating that the king’s long life on earth was dependent on the protection of widows (Fensham). Seemingly, the fair treatment and protection of these people
with basically no legal personalities and restricted rights was a good indicative of a wellbalanced society, and thus a strong king.
As Israel acquires the understanding of these concepts through their experiences with other cultures, and specifically under the oppression of their Egyptian rule, YHWH reveals himself as the victor of justice and righteousness for the incipient nation right after their deliverance takes place. In this aspect, there were two primary motivations for following these decrees: “[F]irst, historical memory. Israel must never forget the marginalization and injustice they had endured in Egypt. That social, racial, economic, and political memory was to be an incentive for them not to replicate their nativist attitudes and oppressive treatment of foreigners in their own land. To forget would lead to their turning into the very kind of society (and people!) from whom they had been redeemed. The second motivation is grounded in the person of YHWH” (Carroll R.), in his loyalty and compassion; that is, his love shown to them as he became their protector. “This Law was in some measure an expression of the heart of God” (Carroll R.). The stipulations contained in the treaty of this covenant relationship between YHWH and Israel is a representation of the vassal/suzerain paradigm of Hittite cultures of the second millennium BCE (Longman, III and Dillard). “It is significant that the theme of the widow, the orphan, and the poor is an integral part of the covenant stipulations of the Old Testament where in Israel is represented as the vassal to her sovereign God” (Patterson). But still more significant is that “within that treaty structure the motif is wedded to the redemptive work of God; it is He who has come to the aid of those who have no strength. As such, it forms the basis for a similar conduct on part of His redeemed people” (Patterson). Israel’s adherence to YHWH’s commandments required not only obedience of the revealed law, but rather an alignment of one’s behavior with the way that observation and experience show to be most
beneficial” (Abernethy). It is at the intersection of social justice and the principle of royalty where we find the development of this relationship as YHWH reveals Himself as the ideal king, the foundation for justice. In the context of Zechariah’s oracle, the people who were saved from oppression and slavery forgot they were once foreigners, and chose to live outside the theocratic unity, rejecting the love, compassion, and may we say even protection of their King, ending up once again oppressed, enslaved, and as foreigners in their own land. Even with the beneficent model of living under the rule of a Sovereign Lord, remaining in a status quo was not something humanity could bolster. “Those in a position to share their resources with the poor…must choose whether to go along with those who get rich quick by exploiting the poor for their own aggrandizement or to follow the path of generosity and justice” (Garber). As vassals of the Lord God as suzerain and king, Israel was to represent YHWH in the world and among the nations. And it is the Decalogue the one that outlines the principles and the “establishment of an economically and socially just society” (Garber). The very introduction of these laws present YHWH “as the one who rescued Israel from their slavery…[solidifying] that the God of ancient Israel is indeed a liberating God” (Garber). Even the ideology behind the carving of images of YHWH to control others would justify the oppression of those who did not adhere to the same. For this reason, by forbidding the creation of such, YHWH’s people would “embody the image of God through liberating and loving actions. Humans become the images of God when they reach out to the poor and the oppressed, when they act redemptively by fighting for the liberation of the disempowered in society” (Garber). However, when their political relationship turned to a monarchical system, their economic and societal structures suffered major transitions which moved them away from their loyalty to YHWH, and into vassal relationships with two major foreign empires.
The prophetic call of Zechariah is indeed a call to turn back; to once again become the people under God’s rule. It wasn’t a call to simply enter into another relationship of political convenience or cultic tradition, but to embrace the community, “with a primary concern for the socially marginalized; the widow, the orphan, the alien and the poor, who are to be included in the definition of mutuality, and hence of the community” (Ollenburger). Only extraordinary stubbornness could account for the rejection of these norms. Just as the past involved a reversal from prosperity to adversity, so must the future involve such a reversal of the opposite kind. (Ollenburger)
REFERENCES
Abernethy, Andrew T. "He Has Shown You What Is Good: Old Testament Justice." Trinity Journal 34.1 (2013): 89-90.
Boda, Mark J. Haggain, Zechariah: The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004.
Carroll R., M. Daniel. "Biblical Perspectives on Migration and Mission: Contributions from the Old Testament." Mission Studies 30 (2013): 9-26.
Ekpo, Paull Cookey. "The Old Testament and Poverty Alleviation with Special References to 'Widows' and 'Orphans'." SADNES & OTSSA. Johannesburg: University of Johannesburg, 2014.
Fensham, F. Charles. "Widow, Orphan, and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature." Journal of Near Eastern Studies 21.2 (1962): 129-139.
Garber, David G Jr. "Justice Or Wormwood: Foundations For Economic Justice In The Old Testament." Review and expositor 110.2 (2013): 271-283.
Gowan, Donald E. "Wealth and Poverty in the Old Testament: The Case of the Widow, the Orphan, and the Sojourner." Interpretation (n.d.). ATLA Database.
Longman, III, Tremper and Raymond D. Dillard. An Introduction to the Old Testament. 2nd. Michigan: Zondervan, 2006.
Ollenburger, Ben C. "The Book of Zechariah: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections." The New Interpreter's Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes. Ed. Leander E Kevck, et al. Vol. VII. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996. 735-840.
Patterson, Richard D. "The Widow, Orphan, and the Poor in the Old Testament and the ExtraBiblical Literature." Bibliotheca Sacra 130.519 (1973): 223-34.