Isaiah 5.8-10
8 Woe to those who join house to house, who add field to field, until there is no more room, and you are made to dwell alone in the midst of the land.
9 The LORD of hosts has sworn in my hearing: "Surely many houses shall be desolate, large and beautiful houses, without inhabitant.
10 For ten acres of vineyard shall yield but one bath, and a homer of seed shall yield but an ephah.” (NRSV)
The Plight of Poor Farmers1
The book of Isaiah pays acute attention to injustice. Merely one example of this will be discussed here though it is an important one for the people of Israel in the 8th century BCE as well as the present moment.2 It will be proven in this paper that the ones who benefit from the acquisition of an abundance of land are indeed the wealthy who will ironically condemn themselves through their actions, but they are also burdening the small-scale sustenance farmer who must also pay a heavy price because of the greed of those indicted in this text. Another investigation of this paper that goes hand in hand with the first part of the thesis, consequentially, will be to show that God is one that cares about equality. The focus will be on verses 8 and 9 (especially 8) as verse 10 is easy enough to understand (that is that the land would have been expected to produce a lot, but it produces just a little3).
The text makes a very specific claim about what kind of injustice that is being done. The injustice of v. 8-10 is the inequality of the distribution of land. This in effect causes a situation of inequality within a people. A look into the political landscape, cultural customs, and the social and economic climate is necessary to understand who is being judged against whom. This investigation will also be done to properly examine the extent of the injustice as well as what they says, in effect, about the character of God.
Literarily, this text is the first of a series of “woes” that spans through Isaiah 5.24 or potentially to 10.4. Brevard Childs gives a good summary of the meaning of the first indictment in the sequence in his book, Isaiah, “The first woe oracle is directed against the abuse of power by the wealthy who exploit the poor by driving them off their land. From the chilling story of Naboth’s vineyard (1 Kings 21) one learns how deep was the tradition of the land as a sacred inheritance (47).” Thus the indictment of abusing land becomes overwhelmingly problematic, because of how important it is for authentic Hebrew culture that promotes justice and equality. The story of Naboth (if looked into) shows the importance of land in this agrarian culture. What happens to Naboth in that story is happening to many more in this passage. As the wealthy gather up more and more land, what happens to the farmers whose families had owned the land for centuries?
It must first be asked, what is wrong with joining house to house and field to field, so that one can have all the land one desires? This would especially be a common question in our capitalistic society. The Torah, and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, is clear in stating that equality in Israel is the goal. The laws and observances of the Sabbath Year (Deut. 15.1-3), the fallow year (Ex. 23.10), the releasing of slaves (Ex. 21.2-6), the year of Jubilee (Lev. 25.8), and the unlawfulness of charging any interest on a loan (Ex. 22.24, Deut. 23.20, and Lev. 25.33, even though it did take place4) makes it resoundingly unambiguous that these laws were made to ensure that those who were poor have the opportunity to provide for themselves and that the rich did not become too much so. Tucker explains that “In the eighth century BCE5, economic shifts in the direction of capitalism were undermining the traditional ideas of stewardship of the land (93)”. Williamson also agrees with Tucker’s examination of the economic climate as he states that there was a “rise in the economic prosperity of the region during the 8th century with the influence of the increased centralizing tendencies of the monarchy. ‘The egalitarian ideals of the past gave way to the opening for capitalist speculators (352).’” Therefore, the rise of capitalism created a situation in which the wealthy could get richer and take advantage of the poor who were closely tied to the land as subsistence farmers. Thus the gap between the rich and poor would become wider and wider over time, as biblical laws were circumvented and the idea that all people are equal was forgotten in the quest for prosperity. What was wrong to God about the abundance of land in this culture was that the acquisition of it was being taken from someone who needed it for survival. Thus slavery (Davies, 67) and homelessness (Tucker, 93) was perpetuated in the land of Judah.
The next question that needs to be asked in order to understand this situation is: who are the ones coming under judgment? Davies recommends two possibilities: creditors (66) or high officials of the state (76). The first suggestion is logically sound. Davies claims that “In a small, agricultural community,6 credit facilities were of the utmost importance, and it was inevitable that the poor land-owners should occasionally have to borrow grain or money from their wealthy neighbors (66).” Davies also claims that many scholars agree that “the custom of usury… prevailed during the period of the monarchy (66),” thus making it very possible that those being addressed in the biblical text are creditors. The creation of the profession of creditors also seems likely since it could very easily happen that a drought, plant disease, and other disasters could occur at anytime to the small-scale farmer. Thus it would become necessary to borrow from someone in order to have enough food to make it through the year especially if there are livestock and families to feed.7 Davies shows how such a cycle could easily turn sour; “the farmers were often reduced to poverty by crop-failure, and consequently they must have found it almost impossible to return the goods which they had borrowed (66).” In this case it would be easy for the creditor to take possession of a family member or the entire land itself since the debt was so hard to repay.
The second option is that the high officials of the king are the ones expanding the large estates. This is a much more politically dangerous position to take for Isaiah, since it indirectly indicts the king. Davies defends this by saying, “it appears that the king possessed sufficient land to be able to grant some of it not only to the members of his own family, but also to the high state officials, perhaps on the condition that the recipient of the fief perform certain services to the crown (76).” Thus these large estates mentioned in the biblical text would be royal estates and it may have been seen that the addition of land to the state and therefore to the crown was good for the country. This theory of just exactly who those in this passage are would make even more sense in a time of heightened fear due to the threat of a military invasion. Williamson quotes a long section from Holladay8 who suggested that “the rise of Assyrian control of the Levant generally led to the loss of state income from travel tolls. At the same time, the need to raise tribute would have put additional pressure on the main remaining source of revenue, namely tax on agricultural produce, so leading many into debt. Third allied with this, Hezekiah’s preparations for revolt against Assyria would have probably included not only conscription but also the need for massive additional resources at the state level (Williamson, 353).” In either case it would be the job of the high officials of the king of these time periods to collect as much land as possible either to make up for lost income or to gather the resources needed for war. Assyria is mentioned here, since they were the main political and military threat to Judah and Israel in the 8th century, as they did indeed conquer Israel and other more northern states during this time. Therefore, Judah would not be experiencing the economic boom as suggested above, because of the more potent threat that Assyria imposes in this theory. The historical prophet, Isaiah would have condemned either of the above strategies of Judah in response to threats, as bad for the homeland and wrong foreign policy (as the prophet did not desire Judah to be either pro or anti-Assyria, but to be pro-God9).
Other options for whom the indictments of this text are against include: the Assyrians themselves if they were pressuring the King to give a steeper tribute, the wealthy Samarians from the North who may have come down to Judah after losing their land to the Assyrians, or this passage could be addressed futuristically to a Judah in exile (351). The first two cases are unlikely as they lack scholarly support. However, the third option of this passage referring to the upcoming exile is interesting, because “this would be an appropriate form of punishment since the Assyrians and later the Babylonians tended to exile only the upper echelons of society (355).” However, this theory also seems unlikely because of literary context in relation to chapter 6.11-13.
There are a few other thoughtful possibilities given by Williamson that describe who is being referred to by Isaiah in v. 8 and 9 and how they may have acquired the houses and fields:
- There may have been multiple situations of Latifundium1, on a large scale. Latifundium occurs when large estates are being made by the taking of small land-owner’s property and reducing them to slaves or sharecroppers by foreclosure of mortgages. Thus the wealthy physically take ownership of the poor’s land and dwell in it.
- There was a more modest form of land acquisition through a manipulation of mortgages by creditors. However, farmers stayed on land, but had to give much of the yield to the new owner.
- The wealthy held the land as a pledge because a loan was taken out by the small farmer (which is a milder form of taking a person’s mortgage, so that it circumvented the law, so that taking someone’s land was not illegal). Thus the land was enjoyed as a usufruct for a shortened interim period of time and then gave it back.
- The situation was less of an injustice but more of an inequality within a village or extended family unit, where the more powerful members exploited the weaker (351).
Williamson thinks the second and third options are more realistic. He also rejects the first and fourth options because they are too extreme. He suggests that there is not enough evidence throughout the prophets or archaeologically to suggest that latifundium was happening, since surely there would be more obvious statements about it. And due to the time period in the 8th century the holding of land for a long period of time was probably hard to do due to threats of war from smaller nations around and Assyria. The fourth option seems too mild to be worth stating in Isaiah. As options two and three indicate, maybe it was not the land that the wealthy wanted, but it was the produce from it. Therefore, it was not necessary to own the land. However, this would mean that the punishment would need to go beyond mere isolation in the land as in v. 8-9 to be of fitting punishment. Therefore, it is also necessary that the land not produce as had been expected as in v. 10. Now all reasoning for acquiring an abundance of land has a proper punishment (352).
In all cases and theories articulated, every one of them in some way poses those who join house to house and field to field as a wealthy or privileged group (and they are almost always a minority group as well). Also, the original small farm owners of the land are always the odd-persons out in the equation. It is also proven (and it nearly goes without obviously stating throughout the entirety of the paper) that in every case of the wealthy acquiring more land than needed their effort is counter-productive. God, or an over intensification of the use of the land (due to not observing the practices of the fallow year) will not allow the land to produce as much as the opportunists wish.
Therefore, it follows that it best for the country to allow small farmers to own and manage their land so that the optimum amount of yields can be produced due to the likelihood that agricultural rules in the Torah will be followed more carefully (rather than rich land owners who are already bending the rules). Additionally, every effort by the self-indicted is ironic, as the quest of gathering more land only creates lonely and an unproductive land for the wealthy. Thus it is proven that God or the prophet wants to maintain the system of passing down land ownership within a family, because it is this tradition that provides the best environment throughout the nation for observing the laws of justice and equality that the Torah desires. However, Williamson shows that land ownership should really be thought about as he says, “Ultimately the land was God’s gift to his people and that no one ‘dwelt’ there except by his grace (354).” Therefore, whoever owns the land should remember that it is God’s. It is not a resource to expand one’s wealth, but it something very sacred that should be treated as such.
Bibliography
Brown, Francis, and S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, eds. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2006.
Childs, Brevard S. Isaiah. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.
Davies, Eryl W. Prophecy and Ethics: Isaiah and the Ethical Tradition of Israel. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1981.
Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah Chapters 1-39. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986.
Owens, John Joseph. Analytical Key to the Old Testament: Vol. 4 Isaiah-Malachi. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co., 1989.
Tucker, Gene. The New Interpreters Bible: Vol. 6. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001.
Williamson, H. G. M. Isaiah 1-5. Great Britain: T&T Clark International, 2006.
1 Title is taken from Davies’ book on page 66.
2 This latter point of injustice in agriculture will be addressed to the class in my forth coming presentation. Though I will not address the state of injustice of modern agriculture in our society or others in this paper; I decided to briefly state this to grab the attention of listener who may not be interested in agriculture by showing that it was an injustice that is still alive and to indicate that I feel that the scripture is still meaningful for our culture.
3 Though the examinations of these Hebrew quantity measurements bear some interesting insights they do not add much to the thesis of my paper and will be sadly excluded from articulation.
4 Davies, Prophecy and Ethics, 68.
5 This is generally the time period when these passages took place due to the historical references that surround chapter 5, any attempt to be more exact than the 8th century is largely theoretical due to a lack of specific references within this particular text. Nevertheless, I Isaiah, chs 1-39, is popularly thought to happen within and around the 8th century. Moreover, Davies and others (Williamson, Oswalt) claim that the kingships of Jeroboam II in Israel and Uzziah in Judah have much affect for the environment of this passage (65).
6 This would describe most of villages and towns in Israel and Judah, if not the countries as wholes.
7 Also if a crop did poorly one year then it would become necessary to borrow seeds from somewhere else so that the next year’s crop could be planted, since the previous year’s seed could not be saved.
8 From Holladay’s book The Kingdom, 383-86.
9 This shows that if the people were not firstly for God slowly injustices such as the distributive kind here would creep into the culture of Judah and many more laws would be bent.
1 Latifundium is ancient Roman term for a large farm worked by slaves. Biblical scholars have adopted this term in order to describe what is going on in certain passages of the Hebrew text, especially in Isaiah and Amos.
