CHAPTER IX WEALTH AND POVERTY § 1. THE CONDITIONS OF THe Problem WE have seen that Palestine was a good agricultural land, productive, watered, with extensive pasturage, that it had some mineral wealth, and that it developed a simple commerce. In comparison with Phoenicia, Egypt, Babylon, it was not a wealthy country, and, of course, according to modern standards its riches were quite insignificant. Yet all judgments must be relative, and Palestine afforded an opportunity for a considerable population to develop a high degree of civilization. How large that population was it is impossible to compute with any accuracy. The present population west of the Jordan is estimated to be upward of half a million. In the times of prosperity under the Kings and in the time of Christ the land must have been able to sustain a very much larger number of people. Most of the cities mentioned in the Bible and on the monuments are to-day ruins or wretched villages. We may well believe, therefore, that at different times the little country was quite populous. There was wealth enough in Palestine, and there were people enough, for the social problem of wealth and poverty to become very definitely manifest. It is an interesting and suggestive study to trace the course of the history from the simple beginnings when there was little contrast in the conditions of men to those later developments when the contrasts became so bitter. We may be able to see more clearly on that smaller stage the true character of the tragedy, whose outlines are obscured to us by the vastness and complexity of our modern life. The primitive pastoral life, while already involving the great distinction between the freeman and the slave, was yet simple in its social structure. The wealth of the clan was practically held in common, although the head would determine the proportions in which it should be enjoyed by the various members. Jacob with his wives, and his sons with their wives and children, and his slaves with their wives and children, constituted a unified clan to which everyone belonged. There was no beggar nor pauper: all shared the fortunes of all. The early agricultural life in Palestine was not markedly different. The clans settled on the land. Much of it was held in common, but every family probably had its own inheritance. Distinctions soon doubtless appeared. Some had better land than others, some suffered less from the depredations of the common enemies, some were more industrious, some escaped the misfortunes that destroy crops and flocks and herds. In the settled life of the agricultural state the family ties were not quite so strong as in the nomad camp. The fatherless and the widow with no protector did not always receive the due consideration that the family solidarity implied. The frequent reference to these dependents indicates how surely this was the case (Deut 10. 18; 24. 17; 27. 19; Job 31. 21; Isa 1. 17). Moreover, another element existed in society. Not only were there the freeman and the slave, but there was now the stranger (Deut 1. 16; 24. 17; 27. 19), the man who belonged to no Hebrew family, but had come into the country from abroad. Some misfortune or danger had driven him from his own land, and he was therefore poor. He must either work as a hireling—an unsatisfactory condition at this time in Israel (see pages 55f.)-or he must be dependent on charity (Exod 22. 21; 23. 9; Deut 10. 18f.; 26. 12). He could, indeed, sell himself into slavery, in which case he was on much the same footing as the Hebrew slave, except that there was no opportunity of redemption. From many causes, therefore, there were soon the wealthier and the poorer among the Hebrews. Gideon says his family was the "poorest in Manasseh" (Judg 6. 15). Nabal was a great man with three thousand sheep and a thousand goats (1 Sam 25. 2). The distinction was well known in David's time, or Nathan's parable of the poor man would have had no point (2 Sam 12. Iff.). And when David fled from Saul he was able to gather four hundred men about him who were "in distress, in debt, or discontented" (1 Sam 22. 2). § 2. DEBT AND INTEREST Evidently, one of the earliest causes of the inequality of wealth arose from debt. We are so accustomed to debt as an important element in business that it is necessary for us carefully to remember that there was no system of commercial credits in Israel until probably the Greek period. Debt, therefore, was always of the personal kind, and arose out of the difficulty of the borrower. A man's crop would fail and he must needs have recourse to some one more able than himself to tide him over until the next harvest. Carelessness or extravagance might reduce one to poverty and compel him to borrow of his neighbor. The case is recorded of a widow whose husband owed a small debt, and upon his death the creditors were about to sell his sons as slaves (2 Kings 4. 1-7). During the governorship of Nehemiah (ch. 5) a condition of distress occurred which was probably not uncommon during all the Hebrew history. Taxes were heavy and must, of course, be paid; in order to raise the money the people had been obliged to mortgage their lands; the interest exacted was one per cent per month (v. II); when the mortgages were foreclosed and the people still were obliged to pay taxes and to live they had no recourse but to sell their children into slavery. The religious leaders from the beginning protested against the rich taking advantage of the troubles of the poor to exact interest from them for loans. Although the custom of lending upon interest and receiving pledges was common (Isa 24. 2), the law codes protested against it. They insisted that the loan was a temporary help given by brother to brother (Exod 22. 25; Lev 25. 36f.; Deut 23. 19). The well to do was to lend to the poor according to his need, and the heart of the lender was not to be grieved in doing it (Deut 15. 7-15). The psalmists, the wise men, and the prophets all objected to the putting of money to interest (Psa 15. 5; Prov 28. 8; Ezek 18. 8, 17; 22. 12), while the man who lent graciously was commended (Psa 37. 26; 112. 5). It is an interesting indication of how easily evil customs may be accepted without thought that the good Nehemiah did not realize till it was called to his attention that a shameful condition prevailed as a result of debt and usury. But when he understood it he passionately called upon the nobles to remit the loans, and was successful in his appeal (Neh 5. 9-12). Lending to the foreigner was always put upon a different basis, and interest from him might be exacted (Deut 23. 20). The taking of pledges for a loan was permitted, but under restraints. Clothing might not be kept overnight (Exod 22. 26f.), nor taken forcibly (Deut 24. 10-13), nor taken at all from a widow (24. 17). The millstone could not be taken because it was necessary for subsistence (24.6). The hardships caused by the taking of pledges and the refusal to restore them was one of the evils denounced by the prophets and the sages (Job 22. 6; 24. 3, 9; Amos 2. 8; Ezek 18. 7-16; 33. 15). The attempt was made in the Deuteronomic Code to meet the serious problem of debt by the device of the year of release (15. 1-6), which was a development of the sabbatical year of the Covenant Code. It was in reality a simple bankruptcy law. Every seven years a clean sheet was to be opened and the embarrassed man given a new chance. It was especially urged that the near approach of the year of release was not to operate against the granting of loans (15. 9). From the provisions of this humane law the foreigner was also to be exempted (15. 3), apparently on the ground that lending to a Hebrew was a brotherly help, while lending to a foreigner was business (15.6). There is no evidence that this year of release ever came into general use, and Nehemiah does not seem to know anything about it. Provisions regarding loans and interest manifestly belonged to the noncommercial stage of Hebrew life. The laws were never very much observed, and as business developed they were not observed at all. The books of Wisdom indicate the hardships of debt, and the danger of going surety for another (Prov 6. 1-5; 11. 15; 20. 16; 22. 7, 26; 27. 13; Sirach 18. 33). In later times the rabbis cleverly avoided the letter of the law, as was their wont when hard pressed with troublesome requirements, so that loans, pledges, and interests became a recognized part of Hebrew economic life (Matt 18. 23-35; 25. 27; Luke 7. 41f.). Josephus states that the bonds of the debtors were kept in the public archives (B. J., II, xvii, 6). 83. THE DEVELOPMENT OF GREAT ESTATES With the development of a more complex social organization opportunity arises for the strong to make themselves wealthy at the expense of the poor. In the times of the Hebrew monarchy conditions were favorable for the privileged classes to get the land into their own hands. First there was the poverty which was produced by the wars. When the foreigner ravaged the land the farms of the poor would be overrun, and they would be forced to borrow from their wealthier neighbors for food and seed. When the Hebrews went out themselves to battle, the farmers would be forced to serve as soldiers with little or no remuneration, and their own interests would necessarily be |