As the liberation events of Exodus form the main source for developing the theme of liberation within the Old Testament, these have been covered at greater depth than the following passages. The Exodus narrative acts as a significant context for the rest of the Israelite history. The thematic studies other Old Testament passages will be given briefer treatment that the previous study of Exodus 6:1-12.
Deuteronomy 15:12-18
Wider Literary Context
Waltke claims that Deuteronomy is, “the most important book of the Old Testament for writing Old Testament theology.” (479) He cites scholars that suggest that this book goes to, “the heart of the great issues of the relationship between God and human beings” (McConville qtd in Waltke, 479). Waltke argues that the laws in Deuteronomy reveal Yahweh’s essence and character (479). Whereas ancient Near Eastern law is a, “self-glorification of the king” the Pentateuch is, “essentially a self-revelation of Deity” (Walton, 293).
The Book of Deuteronomy has a chiasmic structure that details the laws given to Moses for all of Israel (480). The Bible Reader’s Companion defines the special literary form of the book: as a treaty type document between God and His people.
Our passage fits into this structure at the pivot of the book, where specific laws are outlined to Israel. Waltke describes its wider context (Deut 12-16:17) as the laws of worship/consecration and its specific context as Laws of Giving (Deut 14:22-16:17) (487).
The unit of thought immediately preceding our passage details the treatment Israelites should show towards debtors and those in poverty. This leads directly into our particular passage: the freeing of Hebrews that have sold themselves into servitude in order to pay off debts or escape poverty.
Specific Literary Devices
The passage centres around one clear conditional command: If a servant works for six years then he/she must be realised in the seventh year (15:12). The rest of the unit expands the commandment, gives justification for it and offers a promise of blessing.
The expansion of the command includes:
-instructions to liberally provide the freed servant with supplies (15:13-14)
-instructions if the servant does not want to be freed (15:16-17)
The justification of the command includes:
-gratitude for blessings from Yahweh, especially His redemption from Egypt (15:14b-15)
-empathy and understanding of forced slavery (15:15a)
-practical and financial benefits that have already been gained (15:18)
As one would expect from a series of stipulations, the passage is full of firm imperative verbs. There is no ambiguity: you must let him go, do not send him away empty-handed, give to him, do... do not...This clarity allows the reader an interesting tone to pervade the passage; a tone of compassion and care that is brought about both by direct and implied contrast.
There seems to be a contrast between the redeemed man and the, for want of a better term, the natural man. The natural man’s attitude is arguably inferred by the need for the command and the connection the text makes between past redemption and future action. In the previous unit Moses pre-empts the action of the natural man by predicting his excuse for not lending to those in need (15:9). Through this type of inference, Moses presents the commandments in such as way as to show an understanding of mankind’s naturally selfish desires. For example, the natural man would be tempted to keep a servant indefinitely or would send him/her away without any provisions. The natural man would not see the connection between Yahweh’s treatment of them and their treatment of others. The natural man would consider it hardship to free a servant that has given him financial advantage. In contrast to this is Yahweh’s expectation of His people. Due to their redemption from slavery, there is an obligation to follow the instructions in the text. The redeemed man gives his freed servant an abundance of supplies. The redeemed man remembers his past and the treatment of Yahweh and gratefully follows this model. The redeemed man does not consider this a hardship but rather an overflow of the blessings he himself has received. Perhaps some would see this contrast as a little far fetched, yet it is clear in the text that the reason this command can be given, and expected to be obeyed, is because of the liberating redemption Yahweh carried out for the people of Israel. Without this redemption and a concept of the Divine, the Israelites would have had no motivation to free their servants and provide liberally for them. However, what will need to be explored further is whether or not this treatment of servants was unique to the Israel nation.
Before this is carried out, further evidence of a tone of compassion[1] for those in their care needs to be examined. The servant’s possible reply to proposed freedom (a desire to stay and continue to serve) gives the reader an insight into how Israelite families were expected to treat their workers, both male and female. There is an atmosphere of mutual love between worker and family as well as comfortable living circumstances (15:16). That this treatment was something special is understood by the life-long commitment the servant is willing to make to the family, demonstrated by the outward sign of ear piercing (15:17). Furthermore, the use of terms such as liberally, open-handed, generously that are used throughout the text and context (especially when placed against opposite terms such as grudging, empty-handed, ill will) express further the spirit of compassion that surrounds the command.
[1] The term ‘compassion’ is used specifically here. Commonly held definitions of the term include ‘to suffer with’. Due to the Israelites prior experience/history as slaves, they are in the unique position to understand poverty, injustice and powerlessness. In treating the servant as implied by the text, they are showing this empathy and acting upon it. This leads to the specific use of the term ‘compassion’.
0 comments:
Post a Comment