Exegesis: Deuteronomy 15:1-18

Whenever we see cycles of seven, an association with the fourth commandment to keep the Sabbath logically follows. Having noted the striking similarity between Exodus and Deuteronmy’s rendition of the Decalogue, it is noteworthy that the only significant difference is regarding the Sabbath. Exodus 20:11 refers to the work of God in creation being six days and the seventh consecrated for rest as a consequence. Deuteronomy 5:15 instead reminds Israel of their slavery in Egypt and the power and generosity with which God rescued them. Thus, keeping the Sabbath is a blessing of rest they never experienced in Egypt and at the same time a reminder of God’s action and character.

But what does remission of debt have to do with Sabbath? In Exodus 23:10ff the law connects Sabbath rest to allowing the land to be fallow in the seventh year. Peter Cragie suggests the link between fallow fields and remission of debt is because without sowing a crop the poor will have a temporary interruption to their income and be unable to make repayments. ^[2] Christopher Wright makes the connection more obvious by highlighting that in the Hebrew 'you must cancel debts' of v1 (שְׁמִטָּה she.mit.tah) and 'let the land lie unplowed' of Exodus 23:11 (שָׁמַט sha.mat) share the same root šmț 'to release'. Thus, the original intent of the law to provide for the poor ('so that the poor of your people may eat', Exodus 23:11) is extended to 'the prime component of poverty—​debt' ^[3] This is typical of Deuteronomy where the legal principle becomes personal through the pastoral preaching style.

'Every seventh year' (v1) along with the warning in v9 tend to suggest that this is a fixed cycle of seven years. On the other hand, v18 highlights that six years' work have been given by the slaves, suggesting a reading of seven years from the point of indenture at least in that case. Daniel Block says we may not be able to choose between these ^[4] but Cragie says there is no need to do so simply reading them as different cycles for different events. ^[5]

Whatever the timing, we can clearly see release is associated with worship, 'because the LORD’s remission has been proclaimed' (v2). Block highlights 'the LORD’s remission' (layhwh, literally 'to Yahweh') could be interpreted as 'by Yahweh' or 'in honour of Yahweh'. Deuteronomy 31:10 directly conflates the remission of debt with the festival of booths so we may envisage a great celebratory gathering (16:14-15) that remitted debt in God’s name bearing witness to the uniqueness of Yahweh to surrounding nations.

What exactly should be understood by this 'release' of debt? The NIV translation as 'cancel debts' suggests permanently writing off the remaining amount. Christensen says this is the 'plain sense …​ however unrealistic this may appear'. ^[6] Wright says there is evidence for this understanding in 'later Jewish tradition'. ^[7] However, Block notes in the Hebrew expression maššēh yād (literally 'the [secured/guaranteed] loan of the hand') the ancient tradition of leaving security for a loan in which case remission could be returning the security not dropping the debt. ^[8] An alternative interpretation Block offers is temporarily suspending payments during the seventh year. ^[9] Even if payments were merely suspended in the seventh year, that allows the borrower not only to receive the benefit of the security (land or other property) but also a breathing space to recover his financial position. Seen this way the analogy to allowing fields to be fallow is more apparent.

Debate continues about whether the release is temporary or permanent. A clue to why this is may be found in the Step Bible’s reference to it by its Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon Number (H8059). By this reckoning, remission (she.mit.tah) occurs in the Bible on just five occasions, all in Deuteronomy, all in this meaning. So perhaps the best conclusion we can draw is not on the specifics of the remission but the association, already noted, with worship. As in chapter 16 (16:10, 16:17), the degree of generosity may be left to the specific circumstance and to the conscience of the individual.

The final part of this section provides for an exception regarding foreign debtors (v3). Cragie notes that since foreigners would have no land-rights their role is more likely as a merchant so their income would be unaffected by the fallow year. ^[10] Block finds it 'remarkable' but says it simply reflects Moses' focus on the poor here. I find it less surprising since the Mosaic covenant is exclusive to Israel, so redemption, be it from Egyptian slavery or indebtedness, would not be expected to result in the worship of Yahweh that is so integral to this remission.

There appears to be a glaring contradiction between v4 'there will, however, be no one in need', v9 'If there is among you anyone in need' and then v11 'there will never cease to be some in need'. Wright suggests the close proximity of the assertions of both absence and permanence of poverty can only mean it is intentional. Remembering Deuteronomy is recording a sermon, we can infer a rhetorical device is being used. In other words v4-6 are an ideal that results from fully obeying God’s laws, whereas v7-11 reflect the preacher’s awareness that Israel would not fully obey these laws. Both the exhortation to fully obey and the recognition of the community’s inevitable failure are equally characteristic of Deuteronomy, reaching their culmination in chapters 30 and 31. The point is pithily summed up by Wright as 'upholding the highest ideal …​ and legislating for the realities of a sinful people'. ^[11]

Verse 6, too, may seem a non-sequitur, sandwiching as it does commentary on national debt between that of individuals. Wright explains this is not a licence for imperialism but a recognition that the same principles of debt and servitude apply to both. ^[12] Thus, God’s way to prosperity as a nation is not saving money through neglect of the poor but the opposite. The parallelism of vv6b and 6c serves to underline the point. ^[13]

In v7-11 we move from ideal to reality and see Moses, the pastor, pulling out all his rhetorical tools in an attempt to persuade the people away from hard-hearted self-interest. On the one hand we have warnings of guilt for hostility toward the poor (v9) and on the other blessings for obedience and generosity (v10).

Appeals to Israel as a family community, using imploring metaphors, sandwich the warning of v9 in a chiastic form. Commentators agree that the imploring gains impact by contrasting the physical images to not have hard hearts and tight fists (v7) but instead 'open your hand' (vv8, 11) 'willingly' (v8), from which we understand the second contrast of soft, gentle hearts, meeting the need. ^[14] Another rhetorical device identified by Wright is the Hebrew use of a double verb form of infinitive + imperfect, that English translates with adverbs such as 'Give liberally'. This, he notes, is used for emphasis and Deuteronomy 15 employs it more than any other chapter in the book. ^[15]

Block devotes most space to the, all too recognisable, human tendency towards selfishness in v9. We can see immediately how the prospect of an imminent year of remission, with the correspondingly reduced prospect of repayment, might lead to just such a 'mean thought'. He does not mince his words, speaking of 'pathological dispositions that plague …​ the well-off'. ^[16] This phrase accurately reflects, I feel, the care of the Deuteronomy preacher to convince his flock. The first sickness is the 'twisted mind' that would value its own surplus ahead of the needs of his neighbour. Next is the hostility (NRSV) or ill-will (NIV), neither of which fully capture the 'evil eye' with which this person regards poverty. Finally, those suffering tight-fistedness risk being found guilty by God recalling the generous provision of the Exodus and the time in the desert. Truly, it would be a hard-heart that heard such a sermon without feeling the need for self-examination.

The practice of slavery was commonplace in the ANE. So rather than recoiling at something unacceptable to our culture we need to see the contrasts and subtexts of Israelite slavery compared to that of their near neighbours. Exodus 21:2-11 sets limits on Israelite slavery. Leviticus 25:39-46 is more explicit about the term (until the year of jubilee) and nature (indentured serfdom not slavery). It also explains that this might happen due to 'impoverishment', which in a subsistence economy might result from sin (profligacy or sloth) but might just as easily imply no direct fault. As in v3, a distinction is made between Hebrews and those of other nations reflecting their covenantal position.

Compared to Exodus 21:2, where the subject is the enslaved person, here the subject is the creditor. This change of focus is in keeping with the pastoral nature of Deuteronomy already discussed. It also changes the emphasis from the rights of the creditor to his obligations. Block argues that creditors may be within their legal right to take such servants but do not have the moral right to do so. In the seventh year, the person is not only to be freed but also to have liberal provision made from the same products offered as sacrifices to God, namely herds, harvest and wine. Just as in v2b this is to be an act of worship. Since impoverishment was the cause of the indenture, this provision is also a jump-start to future self-sufficiency intended to prevent a return to serfdom.

As before, we see logical and emotional underlining of the appeals to the creditor. These people are not only your people (v12) but your wealth is a blessing from God (v14) and your freedom from slavery in Egypt is due to the Lord redeeming you (v15).

Then we see a special case outlined in vv16-17. It is remarkable that the choice to remain in the household is that of the debtor not the creditor. We can only speculate what motivates this statement, perhaps infirmity or old age, but v16 describes it as a loving relationship (ʾāhēb 'genuine love'). ^[17]

Whatever the cause, we recognise echoes of the Deuteronomic concern for the poor and widows (14:29, 16:11, 24:20, 26:12).

It is hard to know the exact significance of the ritual in v17. Some have suggested 'the door' refers to the sanctuary though Block favours a 'divinely legitimated' local official (such as 'the judges' used by the NIV to represent God in Exodus 21:6). In any case, the relationship is sealed by this badge that confirms status within the household and, more broadly, the covenant people. Cragie notes the term 'perpetual slave (ʿeḇeḏ ʿôlām v17)' also occurs in Ugaritic sources and implies somebody of value and importance rather than any negative connotation. ^[18]

Returning, in another chiasma, to the opening theme the preacher concludes with encouragement to a generous heart when releasing the now free persons. Block dismisses the NIV 'worth twice [mišneh] as much as that of a hired hand' since presumably that would imply either longer hours or harder labour for the servants. ^[19] Such a reading seems out of step with the generous and compassionate approach of Deuteronomy. In any case, the creditor would have had six years free labour and as in v4, 6 and 10 Moses reminds that generosity by the creditor will be rewarded with blessing from God.