Original Meaning
Depriving a Person of Access to Food (24:6)
THIS SINGLE-SENTENCE INSTRUCTIONAL FRAGMENT is cast in impersonal third person form, with an added motive clause. This statement does not prohibit creditors from accepting deposits from debtors, but it prohibits them from demanding as security household items required for subsistence. The handmill, which consists of an upper millstone and a lower stone slab on the ground, provides an apt illustration of the principle.1 To demand a millstone as a pledge meant depriving a household of the basic instrument for making essential food (bread), which was tantamount to claiming the debtor’s life as a pledge.
Bridging Contexts
TREATMENT OF THE POOR in Scripture. Old Testament narrative accounts of persons who lived according to the ethical principles outlined by Moses in these texts are few and far between. Cast in the morally dark period of the judges (Ruth 1:1), Boaz shines as a beacon of light, demonstrating true righteousness in overt act and speech. When Ruth requested permission from Naomi to glean in the field of a man in whose eyes she might find favor (Ruth 2:2), she recognized Israel’s current moral problem; as a poor alien and a widow she could not count on anyone allowing her to glean behind the harvesters.
However, having caught the spirit of Torah, Boaz’s response went far beyond the letter of the law. (1) He addressed Ruth respectfully and affectionately as “my daughter” (2:8). (2) He invited her to join his own female servants (v. 8). (3) He forbade his male servants from harassing her (vv. 9, 15–16). (4) He invited her to drink from the water jars provided for the members of his own household (v. 9). (5) He blessed her (v. 12). (6) He invited her to his table, encouraging her to dip her bread in his sauce, serving her personally, and giving her food until she was fully satisfied (v. 14). (7) He instructed his workers deliberately to pull grain from their bundles and leave them for her (v. 16). Because of his generosity, Ruth returned to her mother-in-law with as much grain as she could carry. In his overwhelming charity Boaz was not satisfied with merely meeting the demands of the earlier laws or even Moses’ exposition thereof. With magnanimity and in the spirit of righteousness divinely defined, he recognized himself as the “wings” of Yahweh, under whom the destitute may find shelter (v. 12).
In the Old Testament narratives Boaz has few moral and spiritual peers. On the contrary, Israel’s historians understood their history as a history of failure, not only because of their idolatry but also because of their refusal to live according to the covenant standards of righteousness. Second Kings 4:1–7 illustrates the problem. While the use of olive oil as a key motif in the story links this text directly with Deuteronomy 24:20, this short episode does not merely show that Yahweh takes care of the poor—which he does; it also exposes the underlying moral problem of the nation. The substitution of Baal for Yahweh as the object of devotion was accompanied by ethical erosion, demonstrated especially in the treatment of the marginalized. Even if the creditor was within his legal rights to demand her two sons (which is doubtful), his response to the widow’s plight obviously violated his moral obligations.
The exploitation of the poor is a prominent motif in the latter prophets. Amos provides classic expression of the problem in the eighth century BC northern kingdom—complete with a reference to Yahweh’s past grace:
This is what the LORD says:
“For three sins of Israel,
even for four, I will not turn back my wrath.
They sell the righteous [ṣaddîq] for silver,
and the needy [ʾebyôn] for a pair of sandals.
They trample on the heads of the poor
as upon the dust of the ground
and deny justice to the oppressed.
Father and son use the same girl
and so profane my holy name.
They lie down beside every altar
on garments taken in pledge.
In the house of their god
they drink wine taken as fines.
“I destroyed the Amorite before them,
though he was tall as the cedars
and strong as the oaks.
I destroyed his fruit above
and his roots below.
“I brought you up out of Egypt,
and I led you forty years in the desert
to give you the land of the Amorites.” (Amos 2:6–10)
We find denunciations of the same moral problem and challenges to righteous alternatives in preexilic Judah in Isaiah (Isa. 3:14–15; 10:1–3; 32:7), Jeremiah (Jer. 2:34; 22:16–17), Habakkuk (Hab. 3:14), and Ezekiel (Ezek. 16:49; 18:12; 22:29). Oppression of the poor was a primary precipitant to Yahweh’s fury leading to the destruction of Jerusalem, but Zechariah 7:9–12 and Malachi 3:5 attest to the persistence of the problem even in postexilic times.
Despite the legislation in Exodus 22 and the present instructions on taking garments as collateral (vv. 10–12, 17), references to taking garments as collateral in Proverbs 20:16 and Job 22:6, as well as Amos’s denunciation of creditors who take the garments of the poor as pledges and then spitefully sleep on them themselves in public places (Amos 2:6–8) suggest this situation was common in Israel’s history. An extrabiblical window into economic and social conditions in rural Judah during the time of Josiah is provided by the Mezad Hadshavyahu Ostracon, discovered in 1960 near Yavneh-Yam. The text of this document reads as follows:
May my lord the governor hear the appeal of his servant. Your servant is a reaper working in Hazar-asam. Your servant finished his harvest and stored it a few days before stopping. After your servant had finished storing the harvest a few days ago, Hoshayahu son of Shobay came and took your servant’s garment. After I finished my harvesting a few days ago, he took your servant’s garment.
All my companions who were harvesting with me in the heat of the [sun] will testify for me. They will testify that what I have said is true. I am innocent of any [offense.]
[So please return] my garment. If the governor does not consider it his obligation to have [your servant’s garment] sent back, [do] it out of pity! You must not remain silent [when your servant is without his garment.]15
This letter does not explicitly state the garment was taken as collateral for a loan, but the actions of Hoshayahu certainly violate the spirit of the Torah.
Deuteronomy’s appeals to compassion toward the poor are based on three considerations: imitation of Yahweh, who demonstrates a special interest in the poor (10:17–19); empathy, remembering their own experience of oppression in Egypt (24:18, 22); and recognition that the future blessing of the nation depended on their compassion toward the poor (v. 19). To these considerations the sage of Israel adds a fourth: acknowledgment that the poor bear God’s image, and the way one treats them is a reflection of one’s disposition to God:
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker,
but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. (Prov. 14:31)
He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker;
whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished. (Prov. 17:5)
Explicit echoes of the “social Torah” found in Deuteronomy 24:6–22 are scarce in the New Testament. Jesus’ declaration that acts of charity for the hungry, the naked, and the imprisoned are actually performed for him (Matt. 25:31–46) is rooted in the perspective found in the Proverbs texts. James 2:5–6 sounds the most like the prophetic utterances cited above.
Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have insulted the poor man. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?
In the references to oppression and mistreatment of the poor in the courts we hear echoes of the voice of Moses.
Reflections of the instructional fragments not concerned overtly with the marginalized in later writings deserve brief comment. As noted above, Deuteronomy 24:7 seems to be concerned only about the abduction of persons for the purpose of selling them into slavery, that is, trafficking human beings. However, its placement immediately after verse 6, whose primary concern is wrongful claims of collateral, invites the reader to interpret this verse within the same social realm.16 Moses seems to have in mind a scene like that envisioned in Job 24:9:
The fatherless child is snatched from the breast,
the infant of the poor is seized for a debt.
It is possible that the widow in 2 Kings 4:1–7 fears the creditor’s coming because he is demanding her two sons as collateral for an unpaid debt. Perhaps he hopes to recoup his losses by selling the boys. Moses’ prohibition on the seizure of human beings and their sale is reflected in Amos’s denunciation of the Philistines and Tyrians for delivering entire populations to Edom, presumably as slaves (Amos 1:6–10).
The instructions concerning skin diseases (vv. 8–9) remind readers in every generation that those whom Yahweh has put into authority are to be respected, their ministry on his behalf to be willingly received. Miriam serves as an illustration to all that God will hold accountable those who reject his will as mediated through his servants.
Contemporary Significance
CONCERN FOR THE POOR and marginalized. As it was in ancient Israel, so today the true barometer of the genuineness of people’s faith is not found in creedal utterances, but in their charity toward the poor and the marginalized inside and outside the church. Christian charity toward the poor needs to happen at two levels. (1) Within the spirit of the Torah, individuals within the church should be proactive in caring for the marginalized in their own communities. (2) As communities of faith, churches must respond to the injustices and social cancers that plague the nation and the world. The problem is illustrated by a recent story in the Chicago Tribune:
On a recent afternoon, 15-year-old Marlon Parras stood on a stage in front of 3,000 people and talked about the hardships he and his 13-year-old sister, Emily, have faced since their parents were deported to Guatemala.
He wept as he spoke softly of their parents’ decision to leave the children, both American citizens, with relatives and church members so they could continue their education in suburban Atlanta.
“This is not a family,” Parras told the crowd that rose to its feet during his emotional testimony. “This is not fair.”17
While the issue of undocumented aliens is complex, the response of Christians to scenes like this should be different from that of non-Christians. The close identification of many evangelicals with right wing politics and the reputation of hardheartedness toward social concerns they often exhibit are scarcely a credit to the name of Christ. Where is Boaz when so many are looking for “the wings of the Lord”?18 This issue is not political; it is moral and spiritual.
Vicarious punishment. But what of the issue of vicarious punishment (24:16)? Courts should not punish children of criminals more severely than they do those whose families have no history of crime. At the personal level, it is tempting to hold grudges against those who, through no decision of their own, happen to be connected by birth or social organization with those who have committed crimes, but who are long gone. While children are implicated in the effects of their parents’ actions, in the administration of justice they may not be held responsible, let alone punished for them.
On the other hand, although this text highlights the importance of individual responsibility for individual crimes, it should not be interpreted in isolation from other texts that highlight communal solidarity and responsibility for the well-being of others. Not only are individuals’ personal identities determined by the community in which they live, but their conduct also has a direct bearing on the lives of others, not to mention the bearing of others’ actions on them.
Individual and corporate responsibility represent two poles of a continuum, which, if not opposed, often exist in tension.19 This chapter of Deuteronomy highlights the responsibility of the community to care for individuals, especially those with limited means for taking care of themselves. At the same time, it refuses to allow the members of the community to be dragged into the net of other individuals’ misdeeds, especially when this involves actions subject to human judicial decision. The principle of righteousness (s.edāqâ) precludes human courts from imposing the sentence for one person’s crimes on another person.
Original Meaning
Depriving a Poor Person of Life Itself (24:7)
THE SECOND FRAGMENT PROHIBITS depriving people of their freedom. Here Moses concretizes and contextualizes the ordinance as given in Exodus 21:16. He identifies the kidnapper as a “brother” of his victim, thereby applying a universal ordinance to members of the covenant community. By highlighting the humiliation of victims, he portrays them as chattel property treated and sold like merchandise (cf. 21:14). By calling for the death penalty to purge the evil from Israel’s midst, Moses places this offense in a class with other capital crimes.2
Bridging Contexts
TREATMENT OF THE POOR in Scripture. Old Testament narrative accounts of persons who lived according to the ethical principles outlined by Moses in these texts are few and far between. Cast in the morally dark period of the judges (Ruth 1:1), Boaz shines as a beacon of light, demonstrating true righteousness in overt act and speech. When Ruth requested permission from Naomi to glean in the field of a man in whose eyes she might find favor (Ruth 2:2), she recognized Israel’s current moral problem; as a poor alien and a widow she could not count on anyone allowing her to glean behind the harvesters.
However, having caught the spirit of Torah, Boaz’s response went far beyond the letter of the law. (1) He addressed Ruth respectfully and affectionately as “my daughter” (2:8). (2) He invited her to join his own female servants (v. 8). (3) He forbade his male servants from harassing her (vv. 9, 15–16). (4) He invited her to drink from the water jars provided for the members of his own household (v. 9). (5) He blessed her (v. 12). (6) He invited her to his table, encouraging her to dip her bread in his sauce, serving her personally, and giving her food until she was fully satisfied (v. 14). (7) He instructed his workers deliberately to pull grain from their bundles and leave them for her (v. 16). Because of his generosity, Ruth returned to her mother-in-law with as much grain as she could carry. In his overwhelming charity Boaz was not satisfied with merely meeting the demands of the earlier laws or even Moses’ exposition thereof. With magnanimity and in the spirit of righteousness divinely defined, he recognized himself as the “wings” of Yahweh, under whom the destitute may find shelter (v. 12).
In the Old Testament narratives Boaz has few moral and spiritual peers. On the contrary, Israel’s historians understood their history as a history of failure, not only because of their idolatry but also because of their refusal to live according to the covenant standards of righteousness. Second Kings 4:1–7 illustrates the problem. While the use of olive oil as a key motif in the story links this text directly with Deuteronomy 24:20, this short episode does not merely show that Yahweh takes care of the poor—which he does; it also exposes the underlying moral problem of the nation. The substitution of Baal for Yahweh as the object of devotion was accompanied by ethical erosion, demonstrated especially in the treatment of the marginalized. Even if the creditor was within his legal rights to demand her two sons (which is doubtful), his response to the widow’s plight obviously violated his moral obligations.
The exploitation of the poor is a prominent motif in the latter prophets. Amos provides classic expression of the problem in the eighth century BC northern kingdom—complete with a reference to Yahweh’s past grace:
This is what the LORD says:
“For three sins of Israel,
even for four, I will not turn back my wrath.
They sell the righteous [ṣaddîq] for silver,
and the needy [ʾebyôn] for a pair of sandals.
They trample on the heads of the poor
as upon the dust of the ground
and deny justice to the oppressed.
Father and son use the same girl
and so profane my holy name.
They lie down beside every altar
on garments taken in pledge.
In the house of their god
they drink wine taken as fines.
“I destroyed the Amorite before them,
though he was tall as the cedars
and strong as the oaks.
I destroyed his fruit above
and his roots below.
“I brought you up out of Egypt,
and I led you forty years in the desert
to give you the land of the Amorites.” (Amos 2:6–10)
We find denunciations of the same moral problem and challenges to righteous alternatives in preexilic Judah in Isaiah (Isa. 3:14–15; 10:1–3; 32:7), Jeremiah (Jer. 2:34; 22:16–17), Habakkuk (Hab. 3:14), and Ezekiel (Ezek. 16:49; 18:12; 22:29). Oppression of the poor was a primary precipitant to Yahweh’s fury leading to the destruction of Jerusalem, but Zechariah 7:9–12 and Malachi 3:5 attest to the persistence of the problem even in postexilic times.
Despite the legislation in Exodus 22 and the present instructions on taking garments as collateral (vv. 10–12, 17), references to taking garments as collateral in Proverbs 20:16 and Job 22:6, as well as Amos’s denunciation of creditors who take the garments of the poor as pledges and then spitefully sleep on them themselves in public places (Amos 2:6–8) suggest this situation was common in Israel’s history. An extrabiblical window into economic and social conditions in rural Judah during the time of Josiah is provided by the Mezad Hadshavyahu Ostracon, discovered in 1960 near Yavneh-Yam. The text of this document reads as follows:
May my lord the governor hear the appeal of his servant. Your servant is a reaper working in Hazar-asam. Your servant finished his harvest and stored it a few days before stopping. After your servant had finished storing the harvest a few days ago, Hoshayahu son of Shobay came and took your servant’s garment. After I finished my harvesting a few days ago, he took your servant’s garment.
All my companions who were harvesting with me in the heat of the [sun] will testify for me. They will testify that what I have said is true. I am innocent of any [offense.]
[So please return] my garment. If the governor does not consider it his obligation to have [your servant’s garment] sent back, [do] it out of pity! You must not remain silent [when your servant is without his garment.]15
This letter does not explicitly state the garment was taken as collateral for a loan, but the actions of Hoshayahu certainly violate the spirit of the Torah.
Deuteronomy’s appeals to compassion toward the poor are based on three considerations: imitation of Yahweh, who demonstrates a special interest in the poor (10:17–19); empathy, remembering their own experience of oppression in Egypt (24:18, 22); and recognition that the future blessing of the nation depended on their compassion toward the poor (v. 19). To these considerations the sage of Israel adds a fourth: acknowledgment that the poor bear God’s image, and the way one treats them is a reflection of one’s disposition to God:
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker,
but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. (Prov. 14:31)
He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker;
whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished. (Prov. 17:5)
Explicit echoes of the “social Torah” found in Deuteronomy 24:6–22 are scarce in the New Testament. Jesus’ declaration that acts of charity for the hungry, the naked, and the imprisoned are actually performed for him (Matt. 25:31–46) is rooted in the perspective found in the Proverbs texts. James 2:5–6 sounds the most like the prophetic utterances cited above.
Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have insulted the poor man. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?
In the references to oppression and mistreatment of the poor in the courts we hear echoes of the voice of Moses.
Reflections of the instructional fragments not concerned overtly with the marginalized in later writings deserve brief comment. As noted above, Deuteronomy 24:7 seems to be concerned only about the abduction of persons for the purpose of selling them into slavery, that is, trafficking human beings. However, its placement immediately after verse 6, whose primary concern is wrongful claims of collateral, invites the reader to interpret this verse within the same social realm.16 Moses seems to have in mind a scene like that envisioned in Job 24:9:
The fatherless child is snatched from the breast,
the infant of the poor is seized for a debt.
It is possible that the widow in 2 Kings 4:1–7 fears the creditor’s coming because he is demanding her two sons as collateral for an unpaid debt. Perhaps he hopes to recoup his losses by selling the boys. Moses’ prohibition on the seizure of human beings and their sale is reflected in Amos’s denunciation of the Philistines and Tyrians for delivering entire populations to Edom, presumably as slaves (Amos 1:6–10).
The instructions concerning skin diseases (vv. 8–9) remind readers in every generation that those whom Yahweh has put into authority are to be respected, their ministry on his behalf to be willingly received. Miriam serves as an illustration to all that God will hold accountable those who reject his will as mediated through his servants.
Contemporary Significance
CONCERN FOR THE POOR and marginalized. As it was in ancient Israel, so today the true barometer of the genuineness of people’s faith is not found in creedal utterances, but in their charity toward the poor and the marginalized inside and outside the church. Christian charity toward the poor needs to happen at two levels. (1) Within the spirit of the Torah, individuals within the church should be proactive in caring for the marginalized in their own communities. (2) As communities of faith, churches must respond to the injustices and social cancers that plague the nation and the world. The problem is illustrated by a recent story in the Chicago Tribune:
On a recent afternoon, 15-year-old Marlon Parras stood on a stage in front of 3,000 people and talked about the hardships he and his 13-year-old sister, Emily, have faced since their parents were deported to Guatemala.
He wept as he spoke softly of their parents’ decision to leave the children, both American citizens, with relatives and church members so they could continue their education in suburban Atlanta.
“This is not a family,” Parras told the crowd that rose to its feet during his emotional testimony. “This is not fair.”17
While the issue of undocumented aliens is complex, the response of Christians to scenes like this should be different from that of non-Christians. The close identification of many evangelicals with right wing politics and the reputation of hardheartedness toward social concerns they often exhibit are scarcely a credit to the name of Christ. Where is Boaz when so many are looking for “the wings of the Lord”?18 This issue is not political; it is moral and spiritual.
Vicarious punishment. But what of the issue of vicarious punishment (24:16)? Courts should not punish children of criminals more severely than they do those whose families have no history of crime. At the personal level, it is tempting to hold grudges against those who, through no decision of their own, happen to be connected by birth or social organization with those who have committed crimes, but who are long gone. While children are implicated in the effects of their parents’ actions, in the administration of justice they may not be held responsible, let alone punished for them.
On the other hand, although this text highlights the importance of individual responsibility for individual crimes, it should not be interpreted in isolation from other texts that highlight communal solidarity and responsibility for the well-being of others. Not only are individuals’ personal identities determined by the community in which they live, but their conduct also has a direct bearing on the lives of others, not to mention the bearing of others’ actions on them.
Individual and corporate responsibility represent two poles of a continuum, which, if not opposed, often exist in tension.19 This chapter of Deuteronomy highlights the responsibility of the community to care for individuals, especially those with limited means for taking care of themselves. At the same time, it refuses to allow the members of the community to be dragged into the net of other individuals’ misdeeds, especially when this involves actions subject to human judicial decision. The principle of righteousness (s.edāqâ) precludes human courts from imposing the sentence for one person’s crimes on another person.
Original Meaning
Righteousness in Heeding Authority (24:8–9)
WITHOUT WARNING THE SUBJECT shifts from the righteous response to a personal health issue. On the surface the present concern for skin disease (ṣâraʿat) seems to have nothing to do with morality.3 This note presupposes Leviticus 13–14, which had dealt with the issue in great detail. However, whereas the earlier text involved precise clinical legislation, this is motivational speech, lacking specific information on the nature of the malady or prescriptions for its treatment. Furthermore, whereas the earlier text highlights the role of the priests in the diagnosis and treatment skin diseases, these instructions are addressed to the people, to whom Moses appeals for diligent compliance with the instruction of the Levitical priests. Not doubting his own authority, at the end of verse 8 Moses reinforces his appeal for compliance by linking the voices of Levitical priests with his own and ultimately with God’s voice.
Finally, Moses calls for careful attention to the voice of experience, charging the people to remember what happened to Miriam on their journey out of Egypt (Num. 12:10–15). This reminder suggests that the real concern here is not the skin disease but the importance of heeding the instruction of the priests (cf. 17:8–13; 25:2). By this interpretation the “leprous disease” represents Yahweh’s punishment for noncompliance with priestly instruction. In any case, this text shows no interest in issues of purity and impurity or why it is inserted among other ethical instructions.
Bridging Contexts
TREATMENT OF THE POOR in Scripture. Old Testament narrative accounts of persons who lived according to the ethical principles outlined by Moses in these texts are few and far between. Cast in the morally dark period of the judges (Ruth 1:1), Boaz shines as a beacon of light, demonstrating true righteousness in overt act and speech. When Ruth requested permission from Naomi to glean in the field of a man in whose eyes she might find favor (Ruth 2:2), she recognized Israel’s current moral problem; as a poor alien and a widow she could not count on anyone allowing her to glean behind the harvesters.
However, having caught the spirit of Torah, Boaz’s response went far beyond the letter of the law. (1) He addressed Ruth respectfully and affectionately as “my daughter” (2:8). (2) He invited her to join his own female servants (v. 8). (3) He forbade his male servants from harassing her (vv. 9, 15–16). (4) He invited her to drink from the water jars provided for the members of his own household (v. 9). (5) He blessed her (v. 12). (6) He invited her to his table, encouraging her to dip her bread in his sauce, serving her personally, and giving her food until she was fully satisfied (v. 14). (7) He instructed his workers deliberately to pull grain from their bundles and leave them for her (v. 16). Because of his generosity, Ruth returned to her mother-in-law with as much grain as she could carry. In his overwhelming charity Boaz was not satisfied with merely meeting the demands of the earlier laws or even Moses’ exposition thereof. With magnanimity and in the spirit of righteousness divinely defined, he recognized himself as the “wings” of Yahweh, under whom the destitute may find shelter (v. 12).
In the Old Testament narratives Boaz has few moral and spiritual peers. On the contrary, Israel’s historians understood their history as a history of failure, not only because of their idolatry but also because of their refusal to live according to the covenant standards of righteousness. Second Kings 4:1–7 illustrates the problem. While the use of olive oil as a key motif in the story links this text directly with Deuteronomy 24:20, this short episode does not merely show that Yahweh takes care of the poor—which he does; it also exposes the underlying moral problem of the nation. The substitution of Baal for Yahweh as the object of devotion was accompanied by ethical erosion, demonstrated especially in the treatment of the marginalized. Even if the creditor was within his legal rights to demand her two sons (which is doubtful), his response to the widow’s plight obviously violated his moral obligations.
The exploitation of the poor is a prominent motif in the latter prophets. Amos provides classic expression of the problem in the eighth century BC northern kingdom—complete with a reference to Yahweh’s past grace:
This is what the LORD says:
“For three sins of Israel,
even for four, I will not turn back my wrath.
They sell the righteous [ṣaddîq] for silver,
and the needy [ʾebyôn] for a pair of sandals.
They trample on the heads of the poor
as upon the dust of the ground
and deny justice to the oppressed.
Father and son use the same girl
and so profane my holy name.
They lie down beside every altar
on garments taken in pledge.
In the house of their god
they drink wine taken as fines.
“I destroyed the Amorite before them,
though he was tall as the cedars
and strong as the oaks.
I destroyed his fruit above
and his roots below.
“I brought you up out of Egypt,
and I led you forty years in the desert
to give you the land of the Amorites.” (Amos 2:6–10)
We find denunciations of the same moral problem and challenges to righteous alternatives in preexilic Judah in Isaiah (Isa. 3:14–15; 10:1–3; 32:7), Jeremiah (Jer. 2:34; 22:16–17), Habakkuk (Hab. 3:14), and Ezekiel (Ezek. 16:49; 18:12; 22:29). Oppression of the poor was a primary precipitant to Yahweh’s fury leading to the destruction of Jerusalem, but Zechariah 7:9–12 and Malachi 3:5 attest to the persistence of the problem even in postexilic times.
Despite the legislation in Exodus 22 and the present instructions on taking garments as collateral (vv. 10–12, 17), references to taking garments as collateral in Proverbs 20:16 and Job 22:6, as well as Amos’s denunciation of creditors who take the garments of the poor as pledges and then spitefully sleep on them themselves in public places (Amos 2:6–8) suggest this situation was common in Israel’s history. An extrabiblical window into economic and social conditions in rural Judah during the time of Josiah is provided by the Mezad Hadshavyahu Ostracon, discovered in 1960 near Yavneh-Yam. The text of this document reads as follows:
May my lord the governor hear the appeal of his servant. Your servant is a reaper working in Hazar-asam. Your servant finished his harvest and stored it a few days before stopping. After your servant had finished storing the harvest a few days ago, Hoshayahu son of Shobay came and took your servant’s garment. After I finished my harvesting a few days ago, he took your servant’s garment.
All my companions who were harvesting with me in the heat of the [sun] will testify for me. They will testify that what I have said is true. I am innocent of any [offense.]
[So please return] my garment. If the governor does not consider it his obligation to have [your servant’s garment] sent back, [do] it out of pity! You must not remain silent [when your servant is without his garment.]15
This letter does not explicitly state the garment was taken as collateral for a loan, but the actions of Hoshayahu certainly violate the spirit of the Torah.
Deuteronomy’s appeals to compassion toward the poor are based on three considerations: imitation of Yahweh, who demonstrates a special interest in the poor (10:17–19); empathy, remembering their own experience of oppression in Egypt (24:18, 22); and recognition that the future blessing of the nation depended on their compassion toward the poor (v. 19). To these considerations the sage of Israel adds a fourth: acknowledgment that the poor bear God’s image, and the way one treats them is a reflection of one’s disposition to God:
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker,
but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. (Prov. 14:31)
He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker;
whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished. (Prov. 17:5)
Explicit echoes of the “social Torah” found in Deuteronomy 24:6–22 are scarce in the New Testament. Jesus’ declaration that acts of charity for the hungry, the naked, and the imprisoned are actually performed for him (Matt. 25:31–46) is rooted in the perspective found in the Proverbs texts. James 2:5–6 sounds the most like the prophetic utterances cited above.
Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have insulted the poor man. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?
In the references to oppression and mistreatment of the poor in the courts we hear echoes of the voice of Moses.
Reflections of the instructional fragments not concerned overtly with the marginalized in later writings deserve brief comment. As noted above, Deuteronomy 24:7 seems to be concerned only about the abduction of persons for the purpose of selling them into slavery, that is, trafficking human beings. However, its placement immediately after verse 6, whose primary concern is wrongful claims of collateral, invites the reader to interpret this verse within the same social realm.16 Moses seems to have in mind a scene like that envisioned in Job 24:9:
The fatherless child is snatched from the breast,
the infant of the poor is seized for a debt.
It is possible that the widow in 2 Kings 4:1–7 fears the creditor’s coming because he is demanding her two sons as collateral for an unpaid debt. Perhaps he hopes to recoup his losses by selling the boys. Moses’ prohibition on the seizure of human beings and their sale is reflected in Amos’s denunciation of the Philistines and Tyrians for delivering entire populations to Edom, presumably as slaves (Amos 1:6–10).
The instructions concerning skin diseases (vv. 8–9) remind readers in every generation that those whom Yahweh has put into authority are to be respected, their ministry on his behalf to be willingly received. Miriam serves as an illustration to all that God will hold accountable those who reject his will as mediated through his servants.
Contemporary Significance
CONCERN FOR THE POOR and marginalized. As it was in ancient Israel, so today the true barometer of the genuineness of people’s faith is not found in creedal utterances, but in their charity toward the poor and the marginalized inside and outside the church. Christian charity toward the poor needs to happen at two levels. (1) Within the spirit of the Torah, individuals within the church should be proactive in caring for the marginalized in their own communities. (2) As communities of faith, churches must respond to the injustices and social cancers that plague the nation and the world. The problem is illustrated by a recent story in the Chicago Tribune:
On a recent afternoon, 15-year-old Marlon Parras stood on a stage in front of 3,000 people and talked about the hardships he and his 13-year-old sister, Emily, have faced since their parents were deported to Guatemala.
He wept as he spoke softly of their parents’ decision to leave the children, both American citizens, with relatives and church members so they could continue their education in suburban Atlanta.
“This is not a family,” Parras told the crowd that rose to its feet during his emotional testimony. “This is not fair.”17
While the issue of undocumented aliens is complex, the response of Christians to scenes like this should be different from that of non-Christians. The close identification of many evangelicals with right wing politics and the reputation of hardheartedness toward social concerns they often exhibit are scarcely a credit to the name of Christ. Where is Boaz when so many are looking for “the wings of the Lord”?18 This issue is not political; it is moral and spiritual.
Vicarious punishment. But what of the issue of vicarious punishment (24:16)? Courts should not punish children of criminals more severely than they do those whose families have no history of crime. At the personal level, it is tempting to hold grudges against those who, through no decision of their own, happen to be connected by birth or social organization with those who have committed crimes, but who are long gone. While children are implicated in the effects of their parents’ actions, in the administration of justice they may not be held responsible, let alone punished for them.
On the other hand, although this text highlights the importance of individual responsibility for individual crimes, it should not be interpreted in isolation from other texts that highlight communal solidarity and responsibility for the well-being of others. Not only are individuals’ personal identities determined by the community in which they live, but their conduct also has a direct bearing on the lives of others, not to mention the bearing of others’ actions on them.
Individual and corporate responsibility represent two poles of a continuum, which, if not opposed, often exist in tension.19 This chapter of Deuteronomy highlights the responsibility of the community to care for individuals, especially those with limited means for taking care of themselves. At the same time, it refuses to allow the members of the community to be dragged into the net of other individuals’ misdeeds, especially when this involves actions subject to human judicial decision. The principle of righteousness (s.edāqâ) precludes human courts from imposing the sentence for one person’s crimes on another person.
Original Meaning
Depriving a Person of Clothing (24:10–13)
THE ILLUSTRATION CHANGES FROM verse 6, but here we find additional instructions on how creditors may lend to the poor. Elaborating on Exodus 22:25–27[24–26], Moses sets the context and presents the case as a general principle. Whereas in the earlier text the loan involved silver and prohibited Israelites from capitalizing on the misfortunes of others, here Moses casts the net more broadly and seeks to limit the psychological damage caused by economic stress. He prohibits creditors from intimidating debtors by entering their houses to demand the pledge. Instead, lenders are to stand outside and wait for borrowers to bring them the pledge. As elsewhere, the goal is a community built on ethical values of trust and compassion.
Verses 12–13 focus on a particular type of borrower, a destitute man, with nothing to offer as collateral but his “outer garment.” Since he also uses it as his blanket at night, the creditor must return it to him before sundown. Moses does not say whether the pledge was to be returned for good or if the lender might return every morning to hold the object during the day until the loan is repaid. Whereas Exodus 22:25–27[24–26] encourages compliance by warning creditors that Yahweh defends the debtor, our text offers positive incentives. If the creditor is considerate of the debtor, the latter will bless him.4 Verse 13 ends with the judicial and divine verdict of innocence/righteousness (ṣedāqâ) on the creditor (cf. 6:25). This response to the poor promotes a healthy relationship between creditor and debtor and pleases Yahweh.
Bridging Contexts
TREATMENT OF THE POOR in Scripture. Old Testament narrative accounts of persons who lived according to the ethical principles outlined by Moses in these texts are few and far between. Cast in the morally dark period of the judges (Ruth 1:1), Boaz shines as a beacon of light, demonstrating true righteousness in overt act and speech. When Ruth requested permission from Naomi to glean in the field of a man in whose eyes she might find favor (Ruth 2:2), she recognized Israel’s current moral problem; as a poor alien and a widow she could not count on anyone allowing her to glean behind the harvesters.
However, having caught the spirit of Torah, Boaz’s response went far beyond the letter of the law. (1) He addressed Ruth respectfully and affectionately as “my daughter” (2:8). (2) He invited her to join his own female servants (v. 8). (3) He forbade his male servants from harassing her (vv. 9, 15–16). (4) He invited her to drink from the water jars provided for the members of his own household (v. 9). (5) He blessed her (v. 12). (6) He invited her to his table, encouraging her to dip her bread in his sauce, serving her personally, and giving her food until she was fully satisfied (v. 14). (7) He instructed his workers deliberately to pull grain from their bundles and leave them for her (v. 16). Because of his generosity, Ruth returned to her mother-in-law with as much grain as she could carry. In his overwhelming charity Boaz was not satisfied with merely meeting the demands of the earlier laws or even Moses’ exposition thereof. With magnanimity and in the spirit of righteousness divinely defined, he recognized himself as the “wings” of Yahweh, under whom the destitute may find shelter (v. 12).
In the Old Testament narratives Boaz has few moral and spiritual peers. On the contrary, Israel’s historians understood their history as a history of failure, not only because of their idolatry but also because of their refusal to live according to the covenant standards of righteousness. Second Kings 4:1–7 illustrates the problem. While the use of olive oil as a key motif in the story links this text directly with Deuteronomy 24:20, this short episode does not merely show that Yahweh takes care of the poor—which he does; it also exposes the underlying moral problem of the nation. The substitution of Baal for Yahweh as the object of devotion was accompanied by ethical erosion, demonstrated especially in the treatment of the marginalized. Even if the creditor was within his legal rights to demand her two sons (which is doubtful), his response to the widow’s plight obviously violated his moral obligations.
The exploitation of the poor is a prominent motif in the latter prophets. Amos provides classic expression of the problem in the eighth century BC northern kingdom—complete with a reference to Yahweh’s past grace:
This is what the LORD says:
“For three sins of Israel,
even for four, I will not turn back my wrath.
They sell the righteous [ṣaddîq] for silver,
and the needy [ʾebyôn] for a pair of sandals.
They trample on the heads of the poor
as upon the dust of the ground
and deny justice to the oppressed.
Father and son use the same girl
and so profane my holy name.
They lie down beside every altar
on garments taken in pledge.
In the house of their god
they drink wine taken as fines.
“I destroyed the Amorite before them,
though he was tall as the cedars
and strong as the oaks.
I destroyed his fruit above
and his roots below.
“I brought you up out of Egypt,
and I led you forty years in the desert
to give you the land of the Amorites.” (Amos 2:6–10)
We find denunciations of the same moral problem and challenges to righteous alternatives in preexilic Judah in Isaiah (Isa. 3:14–15; 10:1–3; 32:7), Jeremiah (Jer. 2:34; 22:16–17), Habakkuk (Hab. 3:14), and Ezekiel (Ezek. 16:49; 18:12; 22:29). Oppression of the poor was a primary precipitant to Yahweh’s fury leading to the destruction of Jerusalem, but Zechariah 7:9–12 and Malachi 3:5 attest to the persistence of the problem even in postexilic times.
Despite the legislation in Exodus 22 and the present instructions on taking garments as collateral (vv. 10–12, 17), references to taking garments as collateral in Proverbs 20:16 and Job 22:6, as well as Amos’s denunciation of creditors who take the garments of the poor as pledges and then spitefully sleep on them themselves in public places (Amos 2:6–8) suggest this situation was common in Israel’s history. An extrabiblical window into economic and social conditions in rural Judah during the time of Josiah is provided by the Mezad Hadshavyahu Ostracon, discovered in 1960 near Yavneh-Yam. The text of this document reads as follows:
May my lord the governor hear the appeal of his servant. Your servant is a reaper working in Hazar-asam. Your servant finished his harvest and stored it a few days before stopping. After your servant had finished storing the harvest a few days ago, Hoshayahu son of Shobay came and took your servant’s garment. After I finished my harvesting a few days ago, he took your servant’s garment.
All my companions who were harvesting with me in the heat of the [sun] will testify for me. They will testify that what I have said is true. I am innocent of any [offense.]
[So please return] my garment. If the governor does not consider it his obligation to have [your servant’s garment] sent back, [do] it out of pity! You must not remain silent [when your servant is without his garment.]15
This letter does not explicitly state the garment was taken as collateral for a loan, but the actions of Hoshayahu certainly violate the spirit of the Torah.
Deuteronomy’s appeals to compassion toward the poor are based on three considerations: imitation of Yahweh, who demonstrates a special interest in the poor (10:17–19); empathy, remembering their own experience of oppression in Egypt (24:18, 22); and recognition that the future blessing of the nation depended on their compassion toward the poor (v. 19). To these considerations the sage of Israel adds a fourth: acknowledgment that the poor bear God’s image, and the way one treats them is a reflection of one’s disposition to God:
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker,
but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. (Prov. 14:31)
He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker;
whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished. (Prov. 17:5)
Explicit echoes of the “social Torah” found in Deuteronomy 24:6–22 are scarce in the New Testament. Jesus’ declaration that acts of charity for the hungry, the naked, and the imprisoned are actually performed for him (Matt. 25:31–46) is rooted in the perspective found in the Proverbs texts. James 2:5–6 sounds the most like the prophetic utterances cited above.
Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have insulted the poor man. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?
In the references to oppression and mistreatment of the poor in the courts we hear echoes of the voice of Moses.
Reflections of the instructional fragments not concerned overtly with the marginalized in later writings deserve brief comment. As noted above, Deuteronomy 24:7 seems to be concerned only about the abduction of persons for the purpose of selling them into slavery, that is, trafficking human beings. However, its placement immediately after verse 6, whose primary concern is wrongful claims of collateral, invites the reader to interpret this verse within the same social realm.16 Moses seems to have in mind a scene like that envisioned in Job 24:9:
The fatherless child is snatched from the breast,
the infant of the poor is seized for a debt.
It is possible that the widow in 2 Kings 4:1–7 fears the creditor’s coming because he is demanding her two sons as collateral for an unpaid debt. Perhaps he hopes to recoup his losses by selling the boys. Moses’ prohibition on the seizure of human beings and their sale is reflected in Amos’s denunciation of the Philistines and Tyrians for delivering entire populations to Edom, presumably as slaves (Amos 1:6–10).
The instructions concerning skin diseases (vv. 8–9) remind readers in every generation that those whom Yahweh has put into authority are to be respected, their ministry on his behalf to be willingly received. Miriam serves as an illustration to all that God will hold accountable those who reject his will as mediated through his servants.
Contemporary Significance
CONCERN FOR THE POOR and marginalized. As it was in ancient Israel, so today the true barometer of the genuineness of people’s faith is not found in creedal utterances, but in their charity toward the poor and the marginalized inside and outside the church. Christian charity toward the poor needs to happen at two levels. (1) Within the spirit of the Torah, individuals within the church should be proactive in caring for the marginalized in their own communities. (2) As communities of faith, churches must respond to the injustices and social cancers that plague the nation and the world. The problem is illustrated by a recent story in the Chicago Tribune:
On a recent afternoon, 15-year-old Marlon Parras stood on a stage in front of 3,000 people and talked about the hardships he and his 13-year-old sister, Emily, have faced since their parents were deported to Guatemala.
He wept as he spoke softly of their parents’ decision to leave the children, both American citizens, with relatives and church members so they could continue their education in suburban Atlanta.
“This is not a family,” Parras told the crowd that rose to its feet during his emotional testimony. “This is not fair.”17
While the issue of undocumented aliens is complex, the response of Christians to scenes like this should be different from that of non-Christians. The close identification of many evangelicals with right wing politics and the reputation of hardheartedness toward social concerns they often exhibit are scarcely a credit to the name of Christ. Where is Boaz when so many are looking for “the wings of the Lord”?18 This issue is not political; it is moral and spiritual.
Vicarious punishment. But what of the issue of vicarious punishment (24:16)? Courts should not punish children of criminals more severely than they do those whose families have no history of crime. At the personal level, it is tempting to hold grudges against those who, through no decision of their own, happen to be connected by birth or social organization with those who have committed crimes, but who are long gone. While children are implicated in the effects of their parents’ actions, in the administration of justice they may not be held responsible, let alone punished for them.
On the other hand, although this text highlights the importance of individual responsibility for individual crimes, it should not be interpreted in isolation from other texts that highlight communal solidarity and responsibility for the well-being of others. Not only are individuals’ personal identities determined by the community in which they live, but their conduct also has a direct bearing on the lives of others, not to mention the bearing of others’ actions on them.
Individual and corporate responsibility represent two poles of a continuum, which, if not opposed, often exist in tension.19 This chapter of Deuteronomy highlights the responsibility of the community to care for individuals, especially those with limited means for taking care of themselves. At the same time, it refuses to allow the members of the community to be dragged into the net of other individuals’ misdeeds, especially when this involves actions subject to human judicial decision. The principle of righteousness (s.edāqâ) precludes human courts from imposing the sentence for one person’s crimes on another person.
Original Meaning
Depriving a Person of Rightful Due (24:14–15)
ALTHOUGH THE REFERENCES TO a poor individual and the appeal to act “before sunset” link this paragraph to the preceding, the attention shifts from a neighbor to a person who contracts his services to an Israelite for wages. Building on Leviticus 19:13, Moses addresses the temptation of employers to exploit their workers, perhaps even seizing pledges by force. The remainder of verse 14 clarifies the status of the potential victim.
The word śākîr (“hired man”) refers to a person who is not a member of the household but who is hired for the day to perform specific tasks. Economically he is “poor and needy” (cf. 15:11),5 sociologically he may be “a brother Israelite or an alien,” and geographically, he resides “in your land in your gates” (pers. trans.).
Having challenged his hearers in principle not to take advantage of day laborers, in verse 15 Moses explains what he means: day laborers must be paid at the end of the day in which they perform their services.6 He concludes with four reasons why they should do so: (1) The hired hand is destitute, having offered his services because he has no independent access to wealth. (2) The man has worked all day in anticipation of payment at the end of the day; he must not be disappointed. (3) Heartless failure to pay will cause the hired man to cry to Yahweh against his employer (cf. 10:18; Ex. 22:27[26]). (4) Failure to pay will render the employer guilty of a crime. The declaration that “it will be [counted] against him as sin” (pers. trans.) is the opposite of the verdict received by creditors who demonstrate righteousness by being gracious to debtors (v. 13; cf. 15:9; 23:20[21]).
Bridging Contexts
TREATMENT OF THE POOR in Scripture. Old Testament narrative accounts of persons who lived according to the ethical principles outlined by Moses in these texts are few and far between. Cast in the morally dark period of the judges (Ruth 1:1), Boaz shines as a beacon of light, demonstrating true righteousness in overt act and speech. When Ruth requested permission from Naomi to glean in the field of a man in whose eyes she might find favor (Ruth 2:2), she recognized Israel’s current moral problem; as a poor alien and a widow she could not count on anyone allowing her to glean behind the harvesters.
However, having caught the spirit of Torah, Boaz’s response went far beyond the letter of the law. (1) He addressed Ruth respectfully and affectionately as “my daughter” (2:8). (2) He invited her to join his own female servants (v. 8). (3) He forbade his male servants from harassing her (vv. 9, 15–16). (4) He invited her to drink from the water jars provided for the members of his own household (v. 9). (5) He blessed her (v. 12). (6) He invited her to his table, encouraging her to dip her bread in his sauce, serving her personally, and giving her food until she was fully satisfied (v. 14). (7) He instructed his workers deliberately to pull grain from their bundles and leave them for her (v. 16). Because of his generosity, Ruth returned to her mother-in-law with as much grain as she could carry. In his overwhelming charity Boaz was not satisfied with merely meeting the demands of the earlier laws or even Moses’ exposition thereof. With magnanimity and in the spirit of righteousness divinely defined, he recognized himself as the “wings” of Yahweh, under whom the destitute may find shelter (v. 12).
In the Old Testament narratives Boaz has few moral and spiritual peers. On the contrary, Israel’s historians understood their history as a history of failure, not only because of their idolatry but also because of their refusal to live according to the covenant standards of righteousness. Second Kings 4:1–7 illustrates the problem. While the use of olive oil as a key motif in the story links this text directly with Deuteronomy 24:20, this short episode does not merely show that Yahweh takes care of the poor—which he does; it also exposes the underlying moral problem of the nation. The substitution of Baal for Yahweh as the object of devotion was accompanied by ethical erosion, demonstrated especially in the treatment of the marginalized. Even if the creditor was within his legal rights to demand her two sons (which is doubtful), his response to the widow’s plight obviously violated his moral obligations.
The exploitation of the poor is a prominent motif in the latter prophets. Amos provides classic expression of the problem in the eighth century BC northern kingdom—complete with a reference to Yahweh’s past grace:
This is what the LORD says:
“For three sins of Israel,
even for four, I will not turn back my wrath.
They sell the righteous [ṣaddîq] for silver,
and the needy [ʾebyôn] for a pair of sandals.
They trample on the heads of the poor
as upon the dust of the ground
and deny justice to the oppressed.
Father and son use the same girl
and so profane my holy name.
They lie down beside every altar
on garments taken in pledge.
In the house of their god
they drink wine taken as fines.
“I destroyed the Amorite before them,
though he was tall as the cedars
and strong as the oaks.
I destroyed his fruit above
and his roots below.
“I brought you up out of Egypt,
and I led you forty years in the desert
to give you the land of the Amorites.” (Amos 2:6–10)
We find denunciations of the same moral problem and challenges to righteous alternatives in preexilic Judah in Isaiah (Isa. 3:14–15; 10:1–3; 32:7), Jeremiah (Jer. 2:34; 22:16–17), Habakkuk (Hab. 3:14), and Ezekiel (Ezek. 16:49; 18:12; 22:29). Oppression of the poor was a primary precipitant to Yahweh’s fury leading to the destruction of Jerusalem, but Zechariah 7:9–12 and Malachi 3:5 attest to the persistence of the problem even in postexilic times.
Despite the legislation in Exodus 22 and the present instructions on taking garments as collateral (vv. 10–12, 17), references to taking garments as collateral in Proverbs 20:16 and Job 22:6, as well as Amos’s denunciation of creditors who take the garments of the poor as pledges and then spitefully sleep on them themselves in public places (Amos 2:6–8) suggest this situation was common in Israel’s history. An extrabiblical window into economic and social conditions in rural Judah during the time of Josiah is provided by the Mezad Hadshavyahu Ostracon, discovered in 1960 near Yavneh-Yam. The text of this document reads as follows:
May my lord the governor hear the appeal of his servant. Your servant is a reaper working in Hazar-asam. Your servant finished his harvest and stored it a few days before stopping. After your servant had finished storing the harvest a few days ago, Hoshayahu son of Shobay came and took your servant’s garment. After I finished my harvesting a few days ago, he took your servant’s garment.
All my companions who were harvesting with me in the heat of the [sun] will testify for me. They will testify that what I have said is true. I am innocent of any [offense.]
[So please return] my garment. If the governor does not consider it his obligation to have [your servant’s garment] sent back, [do] it out of pity! You must not remain silent [when your servant is without his garment.]15
This letter does not explicitly state the garment was taken as collateral for a loan, but the actions of Hoshayahu certainly violate the spirit of the Torah.
Deuteronomy’s appeals to compassion toward the poor are based on three considerations: imitation of Yahweh, who demonstrates a special interest in the poor (10:17–19); empathy, remembering their own experience of oppression in Egypt (24:18, 22); and recognition that the future blessing of the nation depended on their compassion toward the poor (v. 19). To these considerations the sage of Israel adds a fourth: acknowledgment that the poor bear God’s image, and the way one treats them is a reflection of one’s disposition to God:
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker,
but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. (Prov. 14:31)
He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker;
whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished. (Prov. 17:5)
Explicit echoes of the “social Torah” found in Deuteronomy 24:6–22 are scarce in the New Testament. Jesus’ declaration that acts of charity for the hungry, the naked, and the imprisoned are actually performed for him (Matt. 25:31–46) is rooted in the perspective found in the Proverbs texts. James 2:5–6 sounds the most like the prophetic utterances cited above.
Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have insulted the poor man. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?
In the references to oppression and mistreatment of the poor in the courts we hear echoes of the voice of Moses.
Reflections of the instructional fragments not concerned overtly with the marginalized in later writings deserve brief comment. As noted above, Deuteronomy 24:7 seems to be concerned only about the abduction of persons for the purpose of selling them into slavery, that is, trafficking human beings. However, its placement immediately after verse 6, whose primary concern is wrongful claims of collateral, invites the reader to interpret this verse within the same social realm.16 Moses seems to have in mind a scene like that envisioned in Job 24:9:
The fatherless child is snatched from the breast,
the infant of the poor is seized for a debt.
It is possible that the widow in 2 Kings 4:1–7 fears the creditor’s coming because he is demanding her two sons as collateral for an unpaid debt. Perhaps he hopes to recoup his losses by selling the boys. Moses’ prohibition on the seizure of human beings and their sale is reflected in Amos’s denunciation of the Philistines and Tyrians for delivering entire populations to Edom, presumably as slaves (Amos 1:6–10).
The instructions concerning skin diseases (vv. 8–9) remind readers in every generation that those whom Yahweh has put into authority are to be respected, their ministry on his behalf to be willingly received. Miriam serves as an illustration to all that God will hold accountable those who reject his will as mediated through his servants.
Contemporary Significance
CONCERN FOR THE POOR and marginalized. As it was in ancient Israel, so today the true barometer of the genuineness of people’s faith is not found in creedal utterances, but in their charity toward the poor and the marginalized inside and outside the church. Christian charity toward the poor needs to happen at two levels. (1) Within the spirit of the Torah, individuals within the church should be proactive in caring for the marginalized in their own communities. (2) As communities of faith, churches must respond to the injustices and social cancers that plague the nation and the world. The problem is illustrated by a recent story in the Chicago Tribune:
On a recent afternoon, 15-year-old Marlon Parras stood on a stage in front of 3,000 people and talked about the hardships he and his 13-year-old sister, Emily, have faced since their parents were deported to Guatemala.
He wept as he spoke softly of their parents’ decision to leave the children, both American citizens, with relatives and church members so they could continue their education in suburban Atlanta.
“This is not a family,” Parras told the crowd that rose to its feet during his emotional testimony. “This is not fair.”17
While the issue of undocumented aliens is complex, the response of Christians to scenes like this should be different from that of non-Christians. The close identification of many evangelicals with right wing politics and the reputation of hardheartedness toward social concerns they often exhibit are scarcely a credit to the name of Christ. Where is Boaz when so many are looking for “the wings of the Lord”?18 This issue is not political; it is moral and spiritual.
Vicarious punishment. But what of the issue of vicarious punishment (24:16)? Courts should not punish children of criminals more severely than they do those whose families have no history of crime. At the personal level, it is tempting to hold grudges against those who, through no decision of their own, happen to be connected by birth or social organization with those who have committed crimes, but who are long gone. While children are implicated in the effects of their parents’ actions, in the administration of justice they may not be held responsible, let alone punished for them.
On the other hand, although this text highlights the importance of individual responsibility for individual crimes, it should not be interpreted in isolation from other texts that highlight communal solidarity and responsibility for the well-being of others. Not only are individuals’ personal identities determined by the community in which they live, but their conduct also has a direct bearing on the lives of others, not to mention the bearing of others’ actions on them.
Individual and corporate responsibility represent two poles of a continuum, which, if not opposed, often exist in tension.19 This chapter of Deuteronomy highlights the responsibility of the community to care for individuals, especially those with limited means for taking care of themselves. At the same time, it refuses to allow the members of the community to be dragged into the net of other individuals’ misdeeds, especially when this involves actions subject to human judicial decision. The principle of righteousness (s.edāqâ) precludes human courts from imposing the sentence for one person’s crimes on another person.
Original Meaning
Righteousness in Accountability for Crimes: Protecting the Innocent (24:16)
THIS FRAGMENT IS LINKED to the preceding by the word “sin” (ḥetʾ). In denying judicial authorities the right to execute children for crimes committed by their fathers,7 this statement does not contradict the Decalogue.8 The first command is addressed to fathers, declaring that their actions have implications for all who live within the household (5:9–10). Knowledge that they will be held responsible for the effects their sins have on their families should deter them from actions that violate Yahweh’s covenant. Significantly, Old Testament examples of children being punished for crimes committed by parents all involve fundamental violations of the covenant.9
Bridging Contexts
TREATMENT OF THE POOR in Scripture. Old Testament narrative accounts of persons who lived according to the ethical principles outlined by Moses in these texts are few and far between. Cast in the morally dark period of the judges (Ruth 1:1), Boaz shines as a beacon of light, demonstrating true righteousness in overt act and speech. When Ruth requested permission from Naomi to glean in the field of a man in whose eyes she might find favor (Ruth 2:2), she recognized Israel’s current moral problem; as a poor alien and a widow she could not count on anyone allowing her to glean behind the harvesters.
However, having caught the spirit of Torah, Boaz’s response went far beyond the letter of the law. (1) He addressed Ruth respectfully and affectionately as “my daughter” (2:8). (2) He invited her to join his own female servants (v. 8). (3) He forbade his male servants from harassing her (vv. 9, 15–16). (4) He invited her to drink from the water jars provided for the members of his own household (v. 9). (5) He blessed her (v. 12). (6) He invited her to his table, encouraging her to dip her bread in his sauce, serving her personally, and giving her food until she was fully satisfied (v. 14). (7) He instructed his workers deliberately to pull grain from their bundles and leave them for her (v. 16). Because of his generosity, Ruth returned to her mother-in-law with as much grain as she could carry. In his overwhelming charity Boaz was not satisfied with merely meeting the demands of the earlier laws or even Moses’ exposition thereof. With magnanimity and in the spirit of righteousness divinely defined, he recognized himself as the “wings” of Yahweh, under whom the destitute may find shelter (v. 12).
In the Old Testament narratives Boaz has few moral and spiritual peers. On the contrary, Israel’s historians understood their history as a history of failure, not only because of their idolatry but also because of their refusal to live according to the covenant standards of righteousness. Second Kings 4:1–7 illustrates the problem. While the use of olive oil as a key motif in the story links this text directly with Deuteronomy 24:20, this short episode does not merely show that Yahweh takes care of the poor—which he does; it also exposes the underlying moral problem of the nation. The substitution of Baal for Yahweh as the object of devotion was accompanied by ethical erosion, demonstrated especially in the treatment of the marginalized. Even if the creditor was within his legal rights to demand her two sons (which is doubtful), his response to the widow’s plight obviously violated his moral obligations.
The exploitation of the poor is a prominent motif in the latter prophets. Amos provides classic expression of the problem in the eighth century BC northern kingdom—complete with a reference to Yahweh’s past grace:
This is what the LORD says:
“For three sins of Israel,
even for four, I will not turn back my wrath.
They sell the righteous [ṣaddîq] for silver,
and the needy [ʾebyôn] for a pair of sandals.
They trample on the heads of the poor
as upon the dust of the ground
and deny justice to the oppressed.
Father and son use the same girl
and so profane my holy name.
They lie down beside every altar
on garments taken in pledge.
In the house of their god
they drink wine taken as fines.
“I destroyed the Amorite before them,
though he was tall as the cedars
and strong as the oaks.
I destroyed his fruit above
and his roots below.
“I brought you up out of Egypt,
and I led you forty years in the desert
to give you the land of the Amorites.” (Amos 2:6–10)
We find denunciations of the same moral problem and challenges to righteous alternatives in preexilic Judah in Isaiah (Isa. 3:14–15; 10:1–3; 32:7), Jeremiah (Jer. 2:34; 22:16–17), Habakkuk (Hab. 3:14), and Ezekiel (Ezek. 16:49; 18:12; 22:29). Oppression of the poor was a primary precipitant to Yahweh’s fury leading to the destruction of Jerusalem, but Zechariah 7:9–12 and Malachi 3:5 attest to the persistence of the problem even in postexilic times.
Despite the legislation in Exodus 22 and the present instructions on taking garments as collateral (vv. 10–12, 17), references to taking garments as collateral in Proverbs 20:16 and Job 22:6, as well as Amos’s denunciation of creditors who take the garments of the poor as pledges and then spitefully sleep on them themselves in public places (Amos 2:6–8) suggest this situation was common in Israel’s history. An extrabiblical window into economic and social conditions in rural Judah during the time of Josiah is provided by the Mezad Hadshavyahu Ostracon, discovered in 1960 near Yavneh-Yam. The text of this document reads as follows:
May my lord the governor hear the appeal of his servant. Your servant is a reaper working in Hazar-asam. Your servant finished his harvest and stored it a few days before stopping. After your servant had finished storing the harvest a few days ago, Hoshayahu son of Shobay came and took your servant’s garment. After I finished my harvesting a few days ago, he took your servant’s garment.
All my companions who were harvesting with me in the heat of the [sun] will testify for me. They will testify that what I have said is true. I am innocent of any [offense.]
[So please return] my garment. If the governor does not consider it his obligation to have [your servant’s garment] sent back, [do] it out of pity! You must not remain silent [when your servant is without his garment.]15
This letter does not explicitly state the garment was taken as collateral for a loan, but the actions of Hoshayahu certainly violate the spirit of the Torah.
Deuteronomy’s appeals to compassion toward the poor are based on three considerations: imitation of Yahweh, who demonstrates a special interest in the poor (10:17–19); empathy, remembering their own experience of oppression in Egypt (24:18, 22); and recognition that the future blessing of the nation depended on their compassion toward the poor (v. 19). To these considerations the sage of Israel adds a fourth: acknowledgment that the poor bear God’s image, and the way one treats them is a reflection of one’s disposition to God:
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker,
but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. (Prov. 14:31)
He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker;
whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished. (Prov. 17:5)
Explicit echoes of the “social Torah” found in Deuteronomy 24:6–22 are scarce in the New Testament. Jesus’ declaration that acts of charity for the hungry, the naked, and the imprisoned are actually performed for him (Matt. 25:31–46) is rooted in the perspective found in the Proverbs texts. James 2:5–6 sounds the most like the prophetic utterances cited above.
Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have insulted the poor man. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?
In the references to oppression and mistreatment of the poor in the courts we hear echoes of the voice of Moses.
Reflections of the instructional fragments not concerned overtly with the marginalized in later writings deserve brief comment. As noted above, Deuteronomy 24:7 seems to be concerned only about the abduction of persons for the purpose of selling them into slavery, that is, trafficking human beings. However, its placement immediately after verse 6, whose primary concern is wrongful claims of collateral, invites the reader to interpret this verse within the same social realm.16 Moses seems to have in mind a scene like that envisioned in Job 24:9:
The fatherless child is snatched from the breast,
the infant of the poor is seized for a debt.
It is possible that the widow in 2 Kings 4:1–7 fears the creditor’s coming because he is demanding her two sons as collateral for an unpaid debt. Perhaps he hopes to recoup his losses by selling the boys. Moses’ prohibition on the seizure of human beings and their sale is reflected in Amos’s denunciation of the Philistines and Tyrians for delivering entire populations to Edom, presumably as slaves (Amos 1:6–10).
The instructions concerning skin diseases (vv. 8–9) remind readers in every generation that those whom Yahweh has put into authority are to be respected, their ministry on his behalf to be willingly received. Miriam serves as an illustration to all that God will hold accountable those who reject his will as mediated through his servants.
Contemporary Significance
CONCERN FOR THE POOR and marginalized. As it was in ancient Israel, so today the true barometer of the genuineness of people’s faith is not found in creedal utterances, but in their charity toward the poor and the marginalized inside and outside the church. Christian charity toward the poor needs to happen at two levels. (1) Within the spirit of the Torah, individuals within the church should be proactive in caring for the marginalized in their own communities. (2) As communities of faith, churches must respond to the injustices and social cancers that plague the nation and the world. The problem is illustrated by a recent story in the Chicago Tribune:
On a recent afternoon, 15-year-old Marlon Parras stood on a stage in front of 3,000 people and talked about the hardships he and his 13-year-old sister, Emily, have faced since their parents were deported to Guatemala.
He wept as he spoke softly of their parents’ decision to leave the children, both American citizens, with relatives and church members so they could continue their education in suburban Atlanta.
“This is not a family,” Parras told the crowd that rose to its feet during his emotional testimony. “This is not fair.”17
While the issue of undocumented aliens is complex, the response of Christians to scenes like this should be different from that of non-Christians. The close identification of many evangelicals with right wing politics and the reputation of hardheartedness toward social concerns they often exhibit are scarcely a credit to the name of Christ. Where is Boaz when so many are looking for “the wings of the Lord”?18 This issue is not political; it is moral and spiritual.
Vicarious punishment. But what of the issue of vicarious punishment (24:16)? Courts should not punish children of criminals more severely than they do those whose families have no history of crime. At the personal level, it is tempting to hold grudges against those who, through no decision of their own, happen to be connected by birth or social organization with those who have committed crimes, but who are long gone. While children are implicated in the effects of their parents’ actions, in the administration of justice they may not be held responsible, let alone punished for them.
On the other hand, although this text highlights the importance of individual responsibility for individual crimes, it should not be interpreted in isolation from other texts that highlight communal solidarity and responsibility for the well-being of others. Not only are individuals’ personal identities determined by the community in which they live, but their conduct also has a direct bearing on the lives of others, not to mention the bearing of others’ actions on them.
Individual and corporate responsibility represent two poles of a continuum, which, if not opposed, often exist in tension.19 This chapter of Deuteronomy highlights the responsibility of the community to care for individuals, especially those with limited means for taking care of themselves. At the same time, it refuses to allow the members of the community to be dragged into the net of other individuals’ misdeeds, especially when this involves actions subject to human judicial decision. The principle of righteousness (s.edāqâ) precludes human courts from imposing the sentence for one person’s crimes on another person.
Original Meaning
Depriving the Poor of Justice (24:17–18)
NOW MOSES RETURNS TO the primary issue of this chapter: demonstrating righteousness toward socially and economically vulnerable persons (cf. 16:20 and comments), specifically promoting the well-being of aliens, the fatherless, and widows. While Exodus 23:6 prohibits perversion of justice in legal proceedings, here Moses applies the principle to the daily treatment of the marginalized.
As an illustration he singles out a destitute widow, whose garment a creditor might demand as collateral. In 10:18 he had reassured aliens, the fatherless, and widows that Yahweh is on their side and provides their basic needs. Now he portrays the Israelites with means as extensions of God’s gracious hands. Whereas verses 12–13 assume creditors’ right to accept a poor man’s garment as a deposit for a loan, now Moses prohibits them from demanding the same from a widow.
Some suggest Moses’ intent is to spare her the indignity of removing mourning garments,10 but it seems more likely to relate to her gender. Without the protection of a father or husband, a woman appearing in public without her normal clothing could precipitate gossip and charges of immorality.11 In verse 18 Moses seeks to motivate compassion by reminding all Israelites of their own experience in Egypt.12 Not only should the memory of their own experience of divine grace stimulate compassion toward all who are disadvantaged, including foreigners, but in so doing they will emulate the character and actions of their God (10:18–19).
Bridging Contexts
TREATMENT OF THE POOR in Scripture. Old Testament narrative accounts of persons who lived according to the ethical principles outlined by Moses in these texts are few and far between. Cast in the morally dark period of the judges (Ruth 1:1), Boaz shines as a beacon of light, demonstrating true righteousness in overt act and speech. When Ruth requested permission from Naomi to glean in the field of a man in whose eyes she might find favor (Ruth 2:2), she recognized Israel’s current moral problem; as a poor alien and a widow she could not count on anyone allowing her to glean behind the harvesters.
However, having caught the spirit of Torah, Boaz’s response went far beyond the letter of the law. (1) He addressed Ruth respectfully and affectionately as “my daughter” (2:8). (2) He invited her to join his own female servants (v. 8). (3) He forbade his male servants from harassing her (vv. 9, 15–16). (4) He invited her to drink from the water jars provided for the members of his own household (v. 9). (5) He blessed her (v. 12). (6) He invited her to his table, encouraging her to dip her bread in his sauce, serving her personally, and giving her food until she was fully satisfied (v. 14). (7) He instructed his workers deliberately to pull grain from their bundles and leave them for her (v. 16). Because of his generosity, Ruth returned to her mother-in-law with as much grain as she could carry. In his overwhelming charity Boaz was not satisfied with merely meeting the demands of the earlier laws or even Moses’ exposition thereof. With magnanimity and in the spirit of righteousness divinely defined, he recognized himself as the “wings” of Yahweh, under whom the destitute may find shelter (v. 12).
In the Old Testament narratives Boaz has few moral and spiritual peers. On the contrary, Israel’s historians understood their history as a history of failure, not only because of their idolatry but also because of their refusal to live according to the covenant standards of righteousness. Second Kings 4:1–7 illustrates the problem. While the use of olive oil as a key motif in the story links this text directly with Deuteronomy 24:20, this short episode does not merely show that Yahweh takes care of the poor—which he does; it also exposes the underlying moral problem of the nation. The substitution of Baal for Yahweh as the object of devotion was accompanied by ethical erosion, demonstrated especially in the treatment of the marginalized. Even if the creditor was within his legal rights to demand her two sons (which is doubtful), his response to the widow’s plight obviously violated his moral obligations.
The exploitation of the poor is a prominent motif in the latter prophets. Amos provides classic expression of the problem in the eighth century BC northern kingdom—complete with a reference to Yahweh’s past grace:
This is what the LORD says:
“For three sins of Israel,
even for four, I will not turn back my wrath.
They sell the righteous [ṣaddîq] for silver,
and the needy [ʾebyôn] for a pair of sandals.
They trample on the heads of the poor
as upon the dust of the ground
and deny justice to the oppressed.
Father and son use the same girl
and so profane my holy name.
They lie down beside every altar
on garments taken in pledge.
In the house of their god
they drink wine taken as fines.
“I destroyed the Amorite before them,
though he was tall as the cedars
and strong as the oaks.
I destroyed his fruit above
and his roots below.
“I brought you up out of Egypt,
and I led you forty years in the desert
to give you the land of the Amorites.” (Amos 2:6–10)
We find denunciations of the same moral problem and challenges to righteous alternatives in preexilic Judah in Isaiah (Isa. 3:14–15; 10:1–3; 32:7), Jeremiah (Jer. 2:34; 22:16–17), Habakkuk (Hab. 3:14), and Ezekiel (Ezek. 16:49; 18:12; 22:29). Oppression of the poor was a primary precipitant to Yahweh’s fury leading to the destruction of Jerusalem, but Zechariah 7:9–12 and Malachi 3:5 attest to the persistence of the problem even in postexilic times.
Despite the legislation in Exodus 22 and the present instructions on taking garments as collateral (vv. 10–12, 17), references to taking garments as collateral in Proverbs 20:16 and Job 22:6, as well as Amos’s denunciation of creditors who take the garments of the poor as pledges and then spitefully sleep on them themselves in public places (Amos 2:6–8) suggest this situation was common in Israel’s history. An extrabiblical window into economic and social conditions in rural Judah during the time of Josiah is provided by the Mezad Hadshavyahu Ostracon, discovered in 1960 near Yavneh-Yam. The text of this document reads as follows:
May my lord the governor hear the appeal of his servant. Your servant is a reaper working in Hazar-asam. Your servant finished his harvest and stored it a few days before stopping. After your servant had finished storing the harvest a few days ago, Hoshayahu son of Shobay came and took your servant’s garment. After I finished my harvesting a few days ago, he took your servant’s garment.
All my companions who were harvesting with me in the heat of the [sun] will testify for me. They will testify that what I have said is true. I am innocent of any [offense.]
[So please return] my garment. If the governor does not consider it his obligation to have [your servant’s garment] sent back, [do] it out of pity! You must not remain silent [when your servant is without his garment.]15
This letter does not explicitly state the garment was taken as collateral for a loan, but the actions of Hoshayahu certainly violate the spirit of the Torah.
Deuteronomy’s appeals to compassion toward the poor are based on three considerations: imitation of Yahweh, who demonstrates a special interest in the poor (10:17–19); empathy, remembering their own experience of oppression in Egypt (24:18, 22); and recognition that the future blessing of the nation depended on their compassion toward the poor (v. 19). To these considerations the sage of Israel adds a fourth: acknowledgment that the poor bear God’s image, and the way one treats them is a reflection of one’s disposition to God:
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker,
but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. (Prov. 14:31)
He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker;
whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished. (Prov. 17:5)
Explicit echoes of the “social Torah” found in Deuteronomy 24:6–22 are scarce in the New Testament. Jesus’ declaration that acts of charity for the hungry, the naked, and the imprisoned are actually performed for him (Matt. 25:31–46) is rooted in the perspective found in the Proverbs texts. James 2:5–6 sounds the most like the prophetic utterances cited above.
Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have insulted the poor man. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?
In the references to oppression and mistreatment of the poor in the courts we hear echoes of the voice of Moses.
Reflections of the instructional fragments not concerned overtly with the marginalized in later writings deserve brief comment. As noted above, Deuteronomy 24:7 seems to be concerned only about the abduction of persons for the purpose of selling them into slavery, that is, trafficking human beings. However, its placement immediately after verse 6, whose primary concern is wrongful claims of collateral, invites the reader to interpret this verse within the same social realm.16 Moses seems to have in mind a scene like that envisioned in Job 24:9:
The fatherless child is snatched from the breast,
the infant of the poor is seized for a debt.
It is possible that the widow in 2 Kings 4:1–7 fears the creditor’s coming because he is demanding her two sons as collateral for an unpaid debt. Perhaps he hopes to recoup his losses by selling the boys. Moses’ prohibition on the seizure of human beings and their sale is reflected in Amos’s denunciation of the Philistines and Tyrians for delivering entire populations to Edom, presumably as slaves (Amos 1:6–10).
The instructions concerning skin diseases (vv. 8–9) remind readers in every generation that those whom Yahweh has put into authority are to be respected, their ministry on his behalf to be willingly received. Miriam serves as an illustration to all that God will hold accountable those who reject his will as mediated through his servants.
Contemporary Significance
CONCERN FOR THE POOR and marginalized. As it was in ancient Israel, so today the true barometer of the genuineness of people’s faith is not found in creedal utterances, but in their charity toward the poor and the marginalized inside and outside the church. Christian charity toward the poor needs to happen at two levels. (1) Within the spirit of the Torah, individuals within the church should be proactive in caring for the marginalized in their own communities. (2) As communities of faith, churches must respond to the injustices and social cancers that plague the nation and the world. The problem is illustrated by a recent story in the Chicago Tribune:
On a recent afternoon, 15-year-old Marlon Parras stood on a stage in front of 3,000 people and talked about the hardships he and his 13-year-old sister, Emily, have faced since their parents were deported to Guatemala.
He wept as he spoke softly of their parents’ decision to leave the children, both American citizens, with relatives and church members so they could continue their education in suburban Atlanta.
“This is not a family,” Parras told the crowd that rose to its feet during his emotional testimony. “This is not fair.”17
While the issue of undocumented aliens is complex, the response of Christians to scenes like this should be different from that of non-Christians. The close identification of many evangelicals with right wing politics and the reputation of hardheartedness toward social concerns they often exhibit are scarcely a credit to the name of Christ. Where is Boaz when so many are looking for “the wings of the Lord”?18 This issue is not political; it is moral and spiritual.
Vicarious punishment. But what of the issue of vicarious punishment (24:16)? Courts should not punish children of criminals more severely than they do those whose families have no history of crime. At the personal level, it is tempting to hold grudges against those who, through no decision of their own, happen to be connected by birth or social organization with those who have committed crimes, but who are long gone. While children are implicated in the effects of their parents’ actions, in the administration of justice they may not be held responsible, let alone punished for them.
On the other hand, although this text highlights the importance of individual responsibility for individual crimes, it should not be interpreted in isolation from other texts that highlight communal solidarity and responsibility for the well-being of others. Not only are individuals’ personal identities determined by the community in which they live, but their conduct also has a direct bearing on the lives of others, not to mention the bearing of others’ actions on them.
Individual and corporate responsibility represent two poles of a continuum, which, if not opposed, often exist in tension.19 This chapter of Deuteronomy highlights the responsibility of the community to care for individuals, especially those with limited means for taking care of themselves. At the same time, it refuses to allow the members of the community to be dragged into the net of other individuals’ misdeeds, especially when this involves actions subject to human judicial decision. The principle of righteousness (s.edāqâ) precludes human courts from imposing the sentence for one person’s crimes on another person.
Original Meaning
Depriving the Poor of Food (24:19–22)
THE THREEFOLD REFERENCE TO aliens, the fatherless, and widows in verses 19–21 and the reference to Israel’s slavery in Egypt in verse 22 link this paragraph tightly to the preceding. However, now Moses moves from defensive prohibitions of injustice to offensive guarantees of economic well-being for the vulnerable. He continues his penchant for literary triplets and concludes with a motivational clause that undergirds all three.
Fundamental to Israel’s constitution was the notion that Yahweh reserved the right to determine how the land would be used (cf. Lev. 25), part of which included the right of all in the covenant community to a share in its produce.13 These instructions build on earlier legislation (Lev. 19:9–10; 23:22), where Yahweh had called on landowners to leave the corners of their fields uncut and leave for the poor and the alien whatever they dropped while harvesting the crop. These instructions are even more pastoral, seeking to instill in the covenant community a spirit of generosity that goes far beyond the original legislation. (1) They expand the demographic scope by adding the fatherless and widow to the alien under the rubric of the “poor.”
(2) Whereas the earlier laws had spoken only of fields and vineyards, Moses broadens the scope of the principle to include olive groves. This triad of crops is representative, listing the three staples that provided raw materials for bread, olive oil, and wine. But the principle also extends to the fruit of orchards and the produce of vegetable gardens.
(3) Moses expands the benefits to the poor. Since the grain at the edges of fields was often inferior in quality and mixed with weeds, and since grapes and olives on the ground tended to ripen prematurely or have some defect and quickly spoil, the significance of these provisions was limited. So Moses enjoins landowners and harvesters to leave for the poor whole sheaves of grain already cut and tied but which they had neglected to take home, those grapes still on the vines that harvesters had overlooked, and olives that do not fall to the ground when the branches are beaten to shake them loose. The point is, rather than begrudging fallen and inferior fruit to the poor, the oversights of the harvest and late maturing crops and grapes and olives are to be left intentionally for the benefit of aliens, the fatherless, and widows.
As pastor, Moses seeks to motivate rather than legislate generosity by linking the well-being of the nation to their generosity to the marginalized (v. 19),14 and, echoing his statement in verse 18, by remembering their own experience as slaves in Egypt. By living the present in the light of Yahweh’s grace in the past, their hearts will remain soft toward the poor.
Bridging Contexts
TREATMENT OF THE POOR in Scripture. Old Testament narrative accounts of persons who lived according to the ethical principles outlined by Moses in these texts are few and far between. Cast in the morally dark period of the judges (Ruth 1:1), Boaz shines as a beacon of light, demonstrating true righteousness in overt act and speech. When Ruth requested permission from Naomi to glean in the field of a man in whose eyes she might find favor (Ruth 2:2), she recognized Israel’s current moral problem; as a poor alien and a widow she could not count on anyone allowing her to glean behind the harvesters.
However, having caught the spirit of Torah, Boaz’s response went far beyond the letter of the law. (1) He addressed Ruth respectfully and affectionately as “my daughter” (2:8). (2) He invited her to join his own female servants (v. 8). (3) He forbade his male servants from harassing her (vv. 9, 15–16). (4) He invited her to drink from the water jars provided for the members of his own household (v. 9). (5) He blessed her (v. 12). (6) He invited her to his table, encouraging her to dip her bread in his sauce, serving her personally, and giving her food until she was fully satisfied (v. 14). (7) He instructed his workers deliberately to pull grain from their bundles and leave them for her (v. 16). Because of his generosity, Ruth returned to her mother-in-law with as much grain as she could carry. In his overwhelming charity Boaz was not satisfied with merely meeting the demands of the earlier laws or even Moses’ exposition thereof. With magnanimity and in the spirit of righteousness divinely defined, he recognized himself as the “wings” of Yahweh, under whom the destitute may find shelter (v. 12).
In the Old Testament narratives Boaz has few moral and spiritual peers. On the contrary, Israel’s historians understood their history as a history of failure, not only because of their idolatry but also because of their refusal to live according to the covenant standards of righteousness. Second Kings 4:1–7 illustrates the problem. While the use of olive oil as a key motif in the story links this text directly with Deuteronomy 24:20, this short episode does not merely show that Yahweh takes care of the poor—which he does; it also exposes the underlying moral problem of the nation. The substitution of Baal for Yahweh as the object of devotion was accompanied by ethical erosion, demonstrated especially in the treatment of the marginalized. Even if the creditor was within his legal rights to demand her two sons (which is doubtful), his response to the widow’s plight obviously violated his moral obligations.
The exploitation of the poor is a prominent motif in the latter prophets. Amos provides classic expression of the problem in the eighth century BC northern kingdom—complete with a reference to Yahweh’s past grace:
This is what the LORD says:
“For three sins of Israel,
even for four, I will not turn back my wrath.
They sell the righteous [ṣaddîq] for silver,
and the needy [ʾebyôn] for a pair of sandals.
They trample on the heads of the poor
as upon the dust of the ground
and deny justice to the oppressed.
Father and son use the same girl
and so profane my holy name.
They lie down beside every altar
on garments taken in pledge.
In the house of their god
they drink wine taken as fines.
“I destroyed the Amorite before them,
though he was tall as the cedars
and strong as the oaks.
I destroyed his fruit above
and his roots below.
“I brought you up out of Egypt,
and I led you forty years in the desert
to give you the land of the Amorites.” (Amos 2:6–10)
We find denunciations of the same moral problem and challenges to righteous alternatives in preexilic Judah in Isaiah (Isa. 3:14–15; 10:1–3; 32:7), Jeremiah (Jer. 2:34; 22:16–17), Habakkuk (Hab. 3:14), and Ezekiel (Ezek. 16:49; 18:12; 22:29). Oppression of the poor was a primary precipitant to Yahweh’s fury leading to the destruction of Jerusalem, but Zechariah 7:9–12 and Malachi 3:5 attest to the persistence of the problem even in postexilic times.
Despite the legislation in Exodus 22 and the present instructions on taking garments as collateral (vv. 10–12, 17), references to taking garments as collateral in Proverbs 20:16 and Job 22:6, as well as Amos’s denunciation of creditors who take the garments of the poor as pledges and then spitefully sleep on them themselves in public places (Amos 2:6–8) suggest this situation was common in Israel’s history. An extrabiblical window into economic and social conditions in rural Judah during the time of Josiah is provided by the Mezad Hadshavyahu Ostracon, discovered in 1960 near Yavneh-Yam. The text of this document reads as follows:
May my lord the governor hear the appeal of his servant. Your servant is a reaper working in Hazar-asam. Your servant finished his harvest and stored it a few days before stopping. After your servant had finished storing the harvest a few days ago, Hoshayahu son of Shobay came and took your servant’s garment. After I finished my harvesting a few days ago, he took your servant’s garment.
All my companions who were harvesting with me in the heat of the [sun] will testify for me. They will testify that what I have said is true. I am innocent of any [offense.]
[So please return] my garment. If the governor does not consider it his obligation to have [your servant’s garment] sent back, [do] it out of pity! You must not remain silent [when your servant is without his garment.]15
This letter does not explicitly state the garment was taken as collateral for a loan, but the actions of Hoshayahu certainly violate the spirit of the Torah.
Deuteronomy’s appeals to compassion toward the poor are based on three considerations: imitation of Yahweh, who demonstrates a special interest in the poor (10:17–19); empathy, remembering their own experience of oppression in Egypt (24:18, 22); and recognition that the future blessing of the nation depended on their compassion toward the poor (v. 19). To these considerations the sage of Israel adds a fourth: acknowledgment that the poor bear God’s image, and the way one treats them is a reflection of one’s disposition to God:
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker,
but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. (Prov. 14:31)
He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker;
whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished. (Prov. 17:5)
Explicit echoes of the “social Torah” found in Deuteronomy 24:6–22 are scarce in the New Testament. Jesus’ declaration that acts of charity for the hungry, the naked, and the imprisoned are actually performed for him (Matt. 25:31–46) is rooted in the perspective found in the Proverbs texts. James 2:5–6 sounds the most like the prophetic utterances cited above.
Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have insulted the poor man. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?
In the references to oppression and mistreatment of the poor in the courts we hear echoes of the voice of Moses.
Reflections of the instructional fragments not concerned overtly with the marginalized in later writings deserve brief comment. As noted above, Deuteronomy 24:7 seems to be concerned only about the abduction of persons for the purpose of selling them into slavery, that is, trafficking human beings. However, its placement immediately after verse 6, whose primary concern is wrongful claims of collateral, invites the reader to interpret this verse within the same social realm.16 Moses seems to have in mind a scene like that envisioned in Job 24:9:
The fatherless child is snatched from the breast,
the infant of the poor is seized for a debt.
It is possible that the widow in 2 Kings 4:1–7 fears the creditor’s coming because he is demanding her two sons as collateral for an unpaid debt. Perhaps he hopes to recoup his losses by selling the boys. Moses’ prohibition on the seizure of human beings and their sale is reflected in Amos’s denunciation of the Philistines and Tyrians for delivering entire populations to Edom, presumably as slaves (Amos 1:6–10).
The instructions concerning skin diseases (vv. 8–9) remind readers in every generation that those whom Yahweh has put into authority are to be respected, their ministry on his behalf to be willingly received. Miriam serves as an illustration to all that God will hold accountable those who reject his will as mediated through his servants.
Contemporary Significance
CONCERN FOR THE POOR and marginalized. As it was in ancient Israel, so today the true barometer of the genuineness of people’s faith is not found in creedal utterances, but in their charity toward the poor and the marginalized inside and outside the church. Christian charity toward the poor needs to happen at two levels. (1) Within the spirit of the Torah, individuals within the church should be proactive in caring for the marginalized in their own communities. (2) As communities of faith, churches must respond to the injustices and social cancers that plague the nation and the world. The problem is illustrated by a recent story in the Chicago Tribune:
On a recent afternoon, 15-year-old Marlon Parras stood on a stage in front of 3,000 people and talked about the hardships he and his 13-year-old sister, Emily, have faced since their parents were deported to Guatemala.
He wept as he spoke softly of their parents’ decision to leave the children, both American citizens, with relatives and church members so they could continue their education in suburban Atlanta.
“This is not a family,” Parras told the crowd that rose to its feet during his emotional testimony. “This is not fair.”17
While the issue of undocumented aliens is complex, the response of Christians to scenes like this should be different from that of non-Christians. The close identification of many evangelicals with right wing politics and the reputation of hardheartedness toward social concerns they often exhibit are scarcely a credit to the name of Christ. Where is Boaz when so many are looking for “the wings of the Lord”?18 This issue is not political; it is moral and spiritual.
Vicarious punishment. But what of the issue of vicarious punishment (24:16)? Courts should not punish children of criminals more severely than they do those whose families have no history of crime. At the personal level, it is tempting to hold grudges against those who, through no decision of their own, happen to be connected by birth or social organization with those who have committed crimes, but who are long gone. While children are implicated in the effects of their parents’ actions, in the administration of justice they may not be held responsible, let alone punished for them.
On the other hand, although this text highlights the importance of individual responsibility for individual crimes, it should not be interpreted in isolation from other texts that highlight communal solidarity and responsibility for the well-being of others. Not only are individuals’ personal identities determined by the community in which they live, but their conduct also has a direct bearing on the lives of others, not to mention the bearing of others’ actions on them.
Individual and corporate responsibility represent two poles of a continuum, which, if not opposed, often exist in tension.19 This chapter of Deuteronomy highlights the responsibility of the community to care for individuals, especially those with limited means for taking care of themselves. At the same time, it refuses to allow the members of the community to be dragged into the net of other individuals’ misdeeds, especially when this involves actions subject to human judicial decision. The principle of righteousness (s.edāqâ) precludes human courts from imposing the sentence for one person’s crimes on another person.