Leviticus 25:1-55
In c. 23 the Sabbath as a day of rest was dealt with in connection with the sacred feasts. Now the same principle is extended to cover the seventh year (25:1-7) and the fiftieth year, the year which crowns seven cycles of seven years (25:8-55).
A. THE SABBATICAL YEAR, 25:1-7
The principle of the sabbath (2), an institution that seems to have been unique to Israel (see c. 23), is now extended to the years. The suspension of work on the seventh day is a hallowing of time. Here such rest is commanded for every seventh year. Time, as all other resources, belongs to God. The observance of the seventh year (4) illustrates God's claim upon Israel's time and His demand that Israel trust in Him for provision of its needs. Reference to this observance occurs in Exod. 23:10-11, where the context indicates a humanitarian concern. References also are found in Deut. 31:10; II Kings 19:29; Neh. 10:31; and in the Aprocrypha in I Macc. 6:49, 53. Josephus says that it was observed in the days of Alexander the Great (Antiquities, XI, viii, 6) and in the time of the Herods (XIX, xvi, 2). Tacitus also refers to it in his History (5:4).
Verses 6-7 seem to modify the limitation of v. 5. The probable meaning is that, while no formal cultivation, harvesting, and storing of crops shall be done during the sabbatical year, what grows of itself can be used for food at the time.
The actual observance of the Year of Jubilee in Israel has been seriously challenged. It has been suggested that this represents “priestly theorising and never an actual policy.”1 Snaith has pointed out, though, that in II Kings 19:29 (and Isa. 37:30) different Hebrew words appear for “that which grows of itself in the first year” (saphiach) and “that which grows of itself in the second year” (sachish).2
This year was to begin on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the day of atonement (9), with the sounding of the trumpet. It was to be a year of release and liberty throughout all the land (10). The land and the people were given a sabbath (rest), and all property that had been alienated from the original owner was to be returned. An illustration of the principle involved here is found in the story of Naboth, who could not sell his vineyard to King Ahab because it belonged, as a family inheritance, to his descendents as well as to himself (I Kings 21:3).
This practice meant that land was valued according to the number of years away from the jubile (15) that the transfer of property was considered. Thus the purchase price was determined according to the number of years of the fruits, i.e., the number of crops rather than the land value itself. This was a dramatic underscoring of the OT teaching that the property belonged to the Lord—the land is mine (23). He had given it in trust to certain Israelite families, and it shall not be sold permanently to another. God was the permanent Owner.
Property within a walled city (29) was an exception to this law. It could be redeemed by the seller within a … year; otherwise it was sold in perpetuity (30). This limitation on redemption was not true of houses within Levitical cities, which could be redeemed by a Levite at any time (32), since such cities were their only possession in Israel (33; cf. Num. 35:1-5). If the property within the city was not redeemed by a Levite, it would return to him in the year of jubile. The field of the suburbs (34, pasturelands attached to the Levitical cities) could not be sold at all.
The Year of Jubilee was also to be a year of release for slaves (35-55). Introducing this section is a word expressing concern for the poor (35) in Israel. If a man could not maintain himself, it was expected that a Hebrew would see that he was maintained. Under the old covenant a man was not to accept usury (36, interest) for money loaned to the poor. Maintenance of the needy was a manifestation of a true fear of the Lord. God demanded this of Israel, since He had purchased them from the land of Egypt (38) and maintained them until He could establish them in the land which He gave them.
A Hebrew who became so poor (39) that he would sell himself to another Hebrew could not be treated as a slave, but as a hired servant or as a sojourner (40) until the Year of Jubilee. God said, Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour (43), i.e., with harshness (cf. 46, 53). Non-Hebrews could be owned as bondmen (slaves, 44) and could be bequeathed as family property (46). Not so with a Hebrew. Moreover, if a Hebrew were bought by a sojourner or stranger (47) in Israel, that Hebrew could be redeemed (48) by a kinsman at a value consistent with the time remaining until the year of jubile (50), when he would go free without payment. The reason given for this law (55) is the same as that applying to property. The Hebrews had been redeemed by God and were His property alone. It was not right for another to possess them. Their labors could be hired but they could be possessed only by God, who had redeemed them. Is there not here a word for us about the dignity of every child of God and of our mutual responsibility one for another?