The Rise and Impact of Social Inequality in Ancient Israel

Social inequality in Ancient Israel rose to its prominence in the 7^th century BC.

Prior to the monarchical system, Israel had practiced the Tribal system and had the social structure made up of variously sized units which were related to one another by blood, and all claimed descent from the same patriarchal ancestor and shared a religious cultic tradition.²²⁶ The monarchical system that emerged however was seen as an antithesis to the tribal system. By its very nature, the monarchy acted as a catalyst upon certain social processes of which some were ancient and others new.²²⁷ The patriarchal system prior to the monarchy had a nomadic and sometimes semi nomadic life style. According to N.K Gottwald, Israel in the earliest times practiced the structural functional system. He further observes that the social classes visible in the biblical societies may be phrased in such a way as to take account of Israel‟s history in all periods. Hence he says, we can identify shifts in the class configuration that were integral to changing economic, political and ideological developments‟.²²⁸ Thus over a period of time Israel‟s social and political structure developed from its earliest egalitarian communal form to the classified society of the 7^th century. The 7^th century produced two social classes namely the dominant- tribute- imposing class which consisted of the political elite (native and foreign), military retainers, together with landholding merchants and small manufacturing elite who

225 In the J-Stratum the term „Canaanites‟ is the preferred term for all the inhabitants of Palestine West of the Jordan River, while the Amorites is preferred to those in East Jordan.

226 Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 8. 1972. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House. p.612.

227 Encyclopedia Judaica Op. cit. The monarchy introduced new socio-economic policies which encouraged social inequalities.

228 N.K. Gottwald. 1993. Social Class as an Analytical and Hermeneutical category in Biblical studies.

Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL) .112:1.

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY

156

benefited from state power. On the other hand there were the dominant- tributes- bearing class which consisted of peasants, pastoralists, artisans, slaves and unskilled workers.²²⁹ Though the various groups existed side by side there was a constant tension in Israel‟s society especially between those who belonged to the royal class and benefitted from that social system and those who were impoverished by it. This tension is mostly spoken against in the prophetic tradition. They criticised the social system that perpetuated discrimination, impoverishment and oppression. Persistently the prophetic circle called attention to the evil of the society, most of which are linked to social inequality.

The Lord enters into judgment with the elders and princes of his people: “It is you who have devoured the vineyard, the spoil of the poor is in your houses.

What do you mean by crushing my people, by grinding the face of the poor?”

says the Lord of hosts. ( Isa.3^14-15)

aAbêy" jP'äv.miB. „hw"hy>

~T,är>[;Bi( „~T,a;w> wyr"_f'w>

AMà[; ynEïq.zI-~[i

`~k,(yTeb'B. ynIß['h,( tl;îzEG>

~r<K,êh;

(Isa.3¹⁴)

WaåK.d:T. ΄~k,L'-hm;Ð ¿~k,L'm;À hwIßhy> yn"ïdoa]-~aun> Wnx'_j.Ti

~yYIßnI[] ynEïp.W yMiê[;

`tAa)b'c.

(Isa.3¹⁵)

The concept of class is reflected in the use of the term

AMà[; ynEïq.zI

which translated means elders, old men, as a representative of a particular social class. The same

229N.K.Gottwald .1993. p. 3.

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY

157

applies with the term

wyr"_f'w>

which means ruler, chief or officer. The class is accused of social discrimination against the less privileged of the society. Deuteronomy, which belongs to the same prophetic tradition, was critical of the social system. On Deuteronomy M. Weinfeld observes, „with the elimination of the provincial cultus, Israelite religious life was completely wrested from the control of Priest and Temple. The Deuteronomic conception of the cult is vastly different from that reflected in the other Pentateuchal sources; it represents a turning point in the evolution of religious faith of Israel.²³⁰ Deuteronomy‟s concern unlike the other Pentateuchal literature was to impact on the social life of Israel. M. Weinfeld observes further:

The book of Deuteronomy does, indeed, mark the transition from the narrow casuistic and statutory law corpus to the humanistic law-codes. Laws concerning civil damages, which make up almost the entire bulk of the casuistic section of the Book of the covenant (Ex. 21¹⁸, 22¹⁶) and which figure prominently in ancient Near- Eastern law corpora are entirely lacking in the book of Deuteronomy.²³¹

According to Weinfeld, the purpose of Deuteronomy was not to produce a civil law book like that of the covenant code, treating of pecuniary²³² matters, but to set forth a code of laws securing the protection of the individual and particularly of those persons who are most in need of it.²³³ The entire laws of Deuteronomy were couched to respond to the social need of the time. The consistent reminder to care for the less privileged in the Deuteronomic code points to the fact of realization by the Deuteronomic editor of the

230 M.Weinfled. 1972. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic school. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. p.190.

231 M.Weinfled. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic school. p.283.

232 These are regulations that stipulate monetary or financial values e.g, Ex. 22¹⁶.

233 M.Weinfled. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic school. p.284.

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY

158

necessity of addressing the phenomenon of social inequality in Israel. Although the Deuteronomic School²³⁴ did not belong to the group who held public offices they were members of a new movement with a new vision that held to the spirit of the mosaic tradition. Their aim for the constant appeal to uphold the ethics of the older mosaic tradition was to show in essence that the Davidic royal tradition has the same obligation as the mosaic tradition and that both do not conflict on the theme of social inequality and welfare of the citizens. F.C. Fensham in his discourse on the theology of the covenant sees the history of the Old Testament as essentially a history of covenants. He holds that the Davidic covenant complements rather than conflicts with the older ones.²³⁵ Yet on the theme of social status and the care for the less privileged the two traditions differs. The operators of the royal tradition did not measure up to the demands of the covenant. The failure to meet the demands of the mosaic and the Davidic covenants by the successive leaders in Israel brought about two negative effects namely; social upheavals which led to the division of the kingdom and subsequently the Exile which brought an end to the Northern kingdom the same fate which befell Judah.

The Deuteronomistic Historian constantly draws attention to this fact, namely; the impact of the phenomenon of social inequality on the social life of the nation. Thus inspite of the positive contributions of the Omride dynasty, the dynasty is criticized for the syncretism and policies that were detrimental policies. Indeed the division of the Kingdom was caused by the policies that cared less for the people. (IKg12^12-17). The

234 According to M. Weinfeld, The authors of Deuteronomy and the deuteronomic school must be sought for among circles which held public office, among persons who had at their command a vast reservoir of literary material, who had developed and were capable of developing a literary technique of their own, those experienced in literary composition and skilled with the pen and the book; these authors must consequently have been the soferim-hakamin (M.Weinfeld, p. 178).

235 D.J.McCarthy. 1972. Old Testament Covenant. A survey of current opinion. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. p.

86.

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY

159

experience of Israel in her historical development has been repeated in the global scene in recent times. It is not far from the truth to say that upheavals and civil unrests are mostly connected with social inequality.²³⁶

5.3 Israel’s Traditions and Social Inequality (The Mosaic and Davidic traditions)

In document The Deuteronomic Response to Social Inequality in Ancient Israel and its Relevance to the Urhobo Socio-Cultural Context in Nigeria (Page 169-173)