Mosaic, the other belongs to a later time. And here there can be no doubt that the law in Numbers is the original, which also has all the character of a Mosaic law. On the other hand, in Deuteronomy, we probably possess it in a form, to which it was changed in a later time, probably at a time when the original law, with so many other Mosaic directions, had long ceased to be followed, and when the relations also had so settled themselves, that no more hope could be entertained that they ever would again be followed. Then, probably, it was sought in this way, at all events, to awaken the compassion of the Israelites for the, perhaps, in part, very necessitous Levites.

495

CHAPTER IX.

DEUT.XV.1-XVI.22.

686. D.xv.1-11.

The Deuteronomist here enjoins that every seventh year shall be a year of release,' with reference, no doubt, as most commentators suppose, to the Sabbatical Year; though, if he really meant and expected that this law should be practically carried out in the Sabbatical Year, it is reasonable to believe, as before observed (680), that he would have more strictly defined the meaning of the expression at the end of seven years.' KNOBEL observes

The Jews and others erroneously understand the law to speak of an entire remission of debts in each Sabbatical Year. The word 'release' (py, shamat) does not of itself imply this, and the expression 'exact,' v.2,3, indicates that by 'release' is meant nothing more than 'not exacting.' This is also shown by the analogy of the lands, which were only left to rest in the Sabbatical Year, and afterwards were again tilled. A law of this kind also would have been quite contrary to the object aimed at, since with such a prospect before him no one would have lent anything to the needy person. We must only, therefore, think of the not pressing of claims — the allowing of debts to rest during the Sabbatical Year.

687. It is true that the expression at the end of seven years,' ' rep, mikkets shevah shanim, may mean, according to the Hebrew idiom, in the last of seven years'; see Jer.xxxiv.14; and, therefore, KNOBEL's view of the case may be admissible. Or the fact may be that the writer, ever tender-hearted and considerate for the poor and needy among his countrymen, (as is shown by such a multitude of passages throughout the book,) has availed himself of one of

the older laws about the Sabbatical Year, E.xxiii.11, L.xxv.1–7, (in neither of which passages, however, let it be noted, is a single word said about releasing debts,) to recommend compassion to creditors, and suggest to them the duty of remitting debts, which pressed heavily upon their debtors. He may have connected this duty with that portion of the older document, which instituted the Sabbatical Year, (seeking in this way to gain, as it were, the authority of Moses for such remission, after a debt had been long due,) even if the practice of observing the Sabbatical Year itself had altogether ceased, or, perhaps, had never even been practised at any time in Israel.

688. For, in the whole history of the Hebrew people, there is no sign of this law of observing the Sabbatical Year having been ever once obeyed. Rather, there is a passage, 2Ch.xxxvi.21, which would tend to prove the contrary, where it is said that 'the land enjoyed her Sabbaths, for, as long as she lay desolate, she kept Sabbath,' the reference being plainly to the expressions in L.xxvi.34,43. So in his note on 2K.xix.29, SCOTT remarks:

The devastations of the Assyrians had, probably, prevented the land from being sown that year; and the next is supposed to have been the Sabbatical Year; though this is the only intimation, in all the history of Israel, that any regard was paid to that institution.

The passage referred to by ScOTT, 2K.xix.29, is this:-

'And this shall be a sign unto thee: Ye shall eat this year such things as grow of themselves, and in the second year that which springeth of the same, and in the third year sow ye, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat the fruits thereof.'

It is evidently a mere conjecture that reference is here made to the Sabbatical Year, without any supporting ground for it.

689. KNOBEL observes, p.541:

The Sabbath-Year was prescribed by all lawgivers; before the exile, however, it was either not at all, or, at least, not regularly observed, but was first carried out in the post-captivity time.

And so KALISCH remarks, on E.xxiii. 10,11:

When the cycles of the Sabbath-Year commenced is uncertain. The Sedar Olam Rabbah states that they were first introduced fourteen years after the entrance of the Hebrews into Canaan, immediately after the distribution of the land, which, like its conquest, lasted, according to tradition, seven years. It is, however, known that the observance seems to have been almost entirely neglected before the exile L.xxvi.34, 2Ch.xxxvi.21, from which passage it has been concluded that it was not observed during a period of about 500 years, but that it was really carried out after the return from the Babylonian captivity, Neh.x.31.

JOSEPHUS, Ant.xi.8.6, says that the Samaritans applied to Alexander with the petition that he would remit their taxes in the seventh year, because they did not sow their fields in that year.

690. D.xv.12-18. This is very nearly a repetition of the law in E.xxi.2-6, with the exception that the Deuteronomist—

(i) Names the Hebrew maid-servant, as well as the manservant,

(ii) Commands that some means of sustenance shall be given to the bondman set free,

(iii) Is silent about the ear of the servant, who wished to remain with his master, being bored through with an awl in the presence of the judges.

KNOBEL observes on this last point, Deut. p.268:

The judicial action, prescribed in E.xxi.6, seems at the time of the writer to have been no longer in practice; the master might perform the act at home.

The fact may be, however, that the 'ear-boring,' which may have suited the earlier and more barbarous age, in which the original law in E.xxi.6 was, most probably, laid down, may have been wholly out of place in the time of the later kings, and, though the Deuteronomist repeats the ancient law, it is more for the purpose of enjoining such release of bondservants, than with a view of this obsolete practice being revived.

691. In Jer.xxxiv.8-22 we have an account given how king Zedekiah

'had made a covenant with all the people which were at Jerusalem to proclaim liberty unto them, that every man should let his manservant, and every man his

maidservant, being a Hebrew or Hebrewess, go free that none should serve himself of them, to wit, of a Jew his brother.'

Accordingly, we are told, they did so release them, but afterwards

turned, and caused the servants, whom they had let go free, to return, and brought them into subjection for servants and for handmaids.'

Whereupon Jeremiah prophesies thus, v.13-17:

'Thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel: I made a covenant with your fathers in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondmen, saying, At the end of seven years let ye go every man his brother an Hebrew, which hath been sold unto thee, and, when he hath served thee six years, thou shalt let him go free from thee: but your fathers hearkened not unto me, neither inclined their ear. And ye were now turned, and had done right in my sight, in proclaiming liberty every man to his neighbour; and ye had made a covenant before me in the House which is called by my Name. But ye turned and polluted my Name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids. Therefore thus saith Jehovah, Ye have not hearkened unto me in proclaiming liberty, every man to his brother, and every man to his neighbour. Behold, I proclaim a liberty to you, saith Jehovah, to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine; and I will make you to be removed to all the kingdoms of the earth.'

692. Upon the above passage we may remark as follows:

(i) It is plain that, neither before nor after the time here referred to, was it the practice to manumit their Hebrew slaves in the seventh year. And, consequently, this passage, as far as it goes, shows that the command in question was not obeyed, even in Judah,- much less in Israel.

(ii) The king and princes seem to have had some strong influence brought to bear upon them, probably, by the urgent representations of Jeremiah himself, and at first to have complied with the injunction, either regarding it as Divine, or perhaps only as a proper and humane institution.

(iii) For some reason they afterwards changed their minds, and made no scruple of retracing their steps, either because they had become satisfied, in the interim, that the law in question was not of Divine origin, or because more selfish motives prevailed over their religion and humanity.