Menu

Basic Old Testament Vocabulary of Oppression

Hanks, Thomas. (1984). Basic Old Testament Vocabulary of Oppression. God So Loved the Third World. Maryknoll, Orbis Books. pp3-25.

OPPRESSION: A BASIC STRUCTURAL CATEGORY OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 

Perhaps more than anyone else, Hugo Assmann has stressed the importance of oppression or domination as the primary cause of Third World poverty and also as the starting point for Latin American liberation theologies. This theme runs as a leitmotif through his book Theology for a Nomad Church:

The historical incidence of the language of "liberation" in the Latin American Church is linked to the growing awareness of our situation as oppressed peoples [p 37; italics added].


Perhaps the greatest merit of the theology of liberation is its insistence on the starting point of its reflection: the situation of "dominated" [Latin] America" [p 38; italics added].

We are beginning to realize what we are in history: not merely underdeveloped peoples in the sense of "not yet sufficiently developed," but peoples "kept in a state of underdevelopment": dominated and oppressed peoples-which is a very different thing [p 49; italics added].

More than anything else the personal experience of belonging to dominated nations has produced the theology of liberation [p 52].

 

One thing virtually all the documents so far published agree on is that the starting point of the theology of liberation is the present historical situation of dominance and dependence in which the countries of the Third World find themselves [p 53].

Furthermore Assmann insists that awareness of oppression must be the foundation of any contemporary theology:

"If the state of domination and dependence, in which two-thirds of humanity live with an annual toll of thirty million dead from starvation and malnutrition, does not become the starting point for any Christian theology today, even in the affluent and powerful countries, then theology cannot begin to relate meaningfully to the real situation. Its questions will lack reality and not relate to real men and women [p 54].1

Two questions arise in the face of such statements and such a theology: (1) Is this Latin American theology, which uses as its starting point the situation of oppression and domination, something entirely new? (2) Is there a biblical basis that warrants emphasizing so strongly the situation of oppression? Anyone who has read much in the theological classics (Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Barth, Berkouwer et al.) will recognize that the theme of oppression has received little or no attention there. One might think that the Bible says little about oppression. Furthermore, one searches in vain for the theme in Bible dictionaries, encyclopedias, and the like.


However, when we strike the rock of a complete Bible concordance, to our great surprise we hit a gusher of texts and terms that deal with oppression! In short, we find a basic structural category of biblical theology.


If we reflect on the Bible writers' historical contexts, we shall understand why they speak so often about oppression. The patriarchs entered the Holy Land as immigrants, a social class commonly oppressed, along with widows and orphans, as we shall see later. Biblical theology recognizes the exodus - not the creation - as the central Old Testament doctrine (comparable to the cross in the New Testament). And it was precisely in the exodus that an oppressed people won its freedom.

 

During the time of the judges, Israel repeatedly fell under the yoke of foreign powers, until finally it chose the monarchy. Even under Solomon Israel began to feel the weight of internal oppression, as Samuel had warned (1 Sam. 8). During the divided kingdom, both North and South repeatedly suffered oppression by national oligarchies that commonly collaborated with the dominant foreign empires-Assyria, Egypt, Babylon, and, after the Exile, Persia, Greece, and Syria.


The whole New Testament was written with Israel under the boot heel of the Roman Empire. It would be no exaggeration to say that throughout 90 percent of its history, Israel was a small, weak nation dominated by great empires, commonly with a local oligarchy collaborating to maintain the oppressive status quo.


Throughout the entire history of God's people, then, the times were few and short when domination and oppression, both foreign and domestic, did not characterize Israel's politico-economic situation. We should not be surprised, therefore, that oppression and the resulting poverty receive so much attention in the literature that recounts Israel's life and struggles. If post-Constantinian theologies and learned biblical studies do not faithfully expound biblical teaching on oppression and poverty, it is just one more sign that a church captive to oppressive power structures misses much that is basic in the Scriptures' message. We need not be uncritical of certain extremes, but we should be deeply grateful to Latin American theologians for having pointed us in the direction of a theology more faithful to divine revelation.

TEN BASIC HEBREW ROOTS FOR "OPPRESSION"

 §1. Oppression Means Injustice-'ashaq

The most important and basic Hebrew words that express the experience of oppression come from the verb "ashaq" (37 times) and include the noun 'osheq' (15 times), in addition to four other words that occur less frequently (7 times).2 In all we find 59 uses of this word family in the Old Testament.


'ashaq is related to an Arabic word that means "harshness, roughness" or "injustice." The biblical contexts in which 'ashaq appears frequently show some kind of injustice, force, or violence. Lexicons basically agree in giving "oppress" as the first meaning of 'ashaq and "to take by extortion" as the second.


A verse from Ecclesiastes in which words from the 'ashaq family occur three times nicely illustrates this meaning:

Again I saw all the oppressions ('ashuqim) that are practiced under the sun. And behold, the tears of the oppressed ('ashaq), and. they had no one to comfort them! On the side of the oppressors ('ashaq) there was power, and there was no one to comfort them [4:1, RSV].

Webster's concisely defines oppression as: "the unjust or cruel exercise of power or authority." Ecclesiastes focuses on the common link between unjust distribution of power and the experience of oppression, which is the abuse of power. Moreover, its repeated cry "there was no comfort" (nhm) laments the lack of justice just mentioned in 3:16.3


But the psalmist, who does not limit his perspective to what is "under the sun," may seem to contradict flatly the pessimistic point of view of Ecclesiastes:

The Lord [Yahweh, Lord of the exodus] works justice (tsedeqah) and just judgments (mishpatim) in favor of all [!] who are oppressed ('ashaq) He made known his ways to Moses, his acts to the people of Israel [Ps. 103:6,7].

Here we can clearly see the relationship between oppression and justice. Far from presenting a God who supports an unjust status quo, the psalmist speaks to us of a God who constantly fosters a kind of revolution against all injustices and oppression ("put down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of low degree," as in the Magnificat, Luke 1:52).


According to the psalmist the exodus shows us once and for all what kind of God Yahweh is ("his ways," Ps. 103:6). Yahweh's work in human history is not limited to Israel (or to the church): "His kingdom rules over all" (v. 19). The psalmist also positively states that Yahweh's work in history concerns "all the oppressed" - a perspective that ought to amaze us because it requires that we totally revise our view of human history. The frontiers of the kingdom must not be equated with those of the church; rather they are the cutting edge of justice and authentic liberation in the world. As Rubem Alves writes:

"The exodus was the experience that molded the consciousness of the people of Israel. It became the structuring principle that determined its way of organizing its time and space. It is not just something in the consciousness of Israel: if it were, it would be just another piece of information. It is more than that; it is the structuring principle because it determined the logic with which Israel assimilated the facts of its historical experience, and the principle by which it organized them and interpreted them. The exodus did not remain as a past experience, something that happened at a particular time in a particular place. It became the paradigm for the interpretation of all space and all time."4

This is exactly what the psalmist wants us to notice; in the exodus God revealed his ways to Moses - that is, his characteristic activity, no matter what time, place, or people may be involved (Amos 9:7). In a nutshell the "foreign policy" of the kingdom of God is not paranoicallv "anticommunist" It is projustice: justice on the side of the oppressed.


Psalm 103 thus gives us a revolutionary perspective concerning God's role in human history. But because this psalm does not carefully trace the relationship between oppression and poverty, we must consider another psalm that classically expresses the children of Israel's messianic hopes:

Give the king thy just judgments, O God,
and thy justice to the royal son!
May he judge thy people with justice
and thy poor with just judgments.
Let the mountains bear prosperity for the people, and the hills, in justice!
May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy,
and crush the oppressor ('ashaq). . . .
For he delivers the needy when he calls,
the poor and him who has no helper.
He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy.
From oppression (tōk) and violence he redeems their life; and precious is their blood in his sight [Ps. 72: 1-4, 12-14].

Again, of course, the oppressor stands opposed to God's justice. By using three synonyms for "poor" ('ani, 'ebyon, dal) a total of eight times, along with two words for "oppression," the psalmist shows us how closely related poverty and oppression are in Hebrew thought - and also how basic the liberation of the poor from oppression is to the mission and just rule of the awaited messiah! God identifies himself with the poor and the weak (v. 2) and calls them his people.
 

We must also notice what this psalm teaches about violence: the ideal king whom the people await will oppose institutionalized violence by crushing the oppressor (v. 4) in order to rescue the poor and the weak (v. 14). Such institutionalized violence, far from being a Marxist invention, is roundly denounced in the prophets:

And I said:
Hear, you heads of Jacob
and rulers of the house of Israel!
Is it not for you to know justice?-

you who hate the good and love the evil,

who tear the skin from off my people,

and their flesh from their bones;
who eat the flesh of my people,
and flay their skins from them,
and break their bones in pieces,
and chop them up like meat in a kettle,

like flesh in a caldron [Mic. 3:1-3].

Of the 59 uses in the Old Testament of the verb 'ashaq and related words, poverty is indicated in the context in about half the occurrences (31 times; see note 2, above).


Proverbs reveals another dimension in the relationship between poverty and oppression:

He who oppresses ('ashaq) a poor man (dal) insults his Maker, but he who is kind to the needy ('ebyon) honors him [14:31].

According to this text God identifies so fully with the poor that to do them a favor is considered an act of worship (kabed - "to honor, glorify"), a doctrine that culminates in the New Testament story of the incarnation (Luke 1 and 2) and in Jesus' teaching of the final judgment (Matt. 25:40). God does not remain indifferent in the face of the struggles and tensions between poor and rich. He identifies himself completely, commits himself to the cause of an oppressed people, and requires his followers to do the same. Thus it is clear that in its original biblical context, the doctrine of creation does not support certain "orders of creation" in order to maintain an unjust status quo. On the contrary, according to the Bible the doctrine of creation is "democratic" and "revolutionary." This is especially evident if we compare the hierarchical and tyrannical context and content of other ancient Near Eastern creation accounts.

 

§2. Opression Enslaves - yanah
 

Yanah comes from an Arabic verb that means "to be weak," and it occurs some 19 times in the Old Testament (20 times if we include Ps. 123:4, where there is a textual problem).5 Poverty is indicated in the context in 15 of the 20 occurrences. The lexicons give as meanings "oppress" or "be violent." The idea of violence is clear in various uses of the word ("the sword of the oppressor," Jer. 46:16; 50:16), and especially indicates institutionalized violence (Zeph. 3:1; cf. vv. 3,4).


Von Rad suggests that the word literally means "to reduce to slavery; to enslave,"6 a meaning that applies in practically all uses. The verb almost always appears in contexts that mention the poor, immigrants, widows, and orphans as victims of oppression, inasmuch as they are weak and vulnerable to such abuse. The three uses of the verb in connection with the Jubilee give additional support to von Rad's definition (Lev. 25: 14, 17; Ezek. 46: 18; cf. v. 17).
 

Probably the most important use of yanah occurs in the radical demand of Deuteronomy 23:

You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you; he shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place which he shall choose within one of your towns, where it pleases him best; you shall not oppress him (yanah) [in the sense of enslave; 23: 16-17(15-16)].

The oppression referred to here is obviously that which would re-enslave someone who had escaped - that is, return them to their original owner, or enslave them again in their new situation. Such a provision was unique in the ancient Near East: the common practice was to return escaped slaves to their former owners. (The Code of Hammurabi even imposed the death penalty on someone who sheltered an escaped slave.) We may compare the Dred Scott Decision (1857) in which the U.S. Supreme Court, contrary to Deuteronomy 23:15-16, refused to protect the rights of escaped slaves. Historians view that fatal decision as one of the main causes of the Civil War. The deuteronomic provision also helps us understand Paul's policy in regard to escaped slaves (Philemon). By returning Onesimus to his master, the apostle fulfilled the unjust legal demands of the Roman empire, but he did not deny the need for more radical and just laws (such as that of Deuteronomy), had it been possible (1 Cor. 7:21).


The prophet Ezekiel, both an exile and immigrant in Babylon, uses yanah more than any other biblical writer and clearly shows the relationship between oppression and poverty. In his great chapter on individual responsibility, the prophet repeatedly insists that the just person must be generous with the poor and not enslave them (yanah; 18:7, 12, 16). When Judah did not fulfill these divine requirements, the nation was carried into captivity, because:

the people of the land have practiced oppression ('ashaq) and committed robbery ["robbery" when the rich insist on perpetuating unjust social structures]; they have enslaved (yanah) the poor and needy, and have oppressed ('ashaq) the immigrant without redress [22:29; cf. vv. 30, 31].

§3. Oppression Animalizes- nagas


The third Hebrew root denoting oppression, common in Exodus and Isaiah, is theologically important because it most often describes the oppression that the Israelites suffered in the exodus.7 Isaiah uses nagas both to show why the Messiah needed to be born (Isa. 9:3) and to specify the sufferings of the "oppressed" Servant (Isa. 53:7).


Nagas occurs 23 times in the Old Testament; 20 times with poverty in the context. Etymologically it is related to an Arabic word (meaning "rouse up [game], roughly force"), to a South Arabic word ("impose tribute") and, probably to a Ugaritic word ("overwhelm with work"). Biblical uses of nagas reflect all these ideas.


When God answers Job from the tempest, nagas points to the freedom of the wild ass that laughs at the noises of the cities and "is deaf to the driver's (nagas) shouting" (Job 39:7). Such texts suggest that when persons suffer oppression, they lose their human dignity and are degraded to animal-like existence. Instead of enjoying the dignity and freedom God intended for them as his image bearers (Gen. 1:27, 28), others lord it over them.


The frequent use of nagas in Exodus to describe the Pharaoh's overseers who oppressed the Israelites (Exod. 3:7; 5:6, 10, 13, 14; cf. Job 3:18; Zech. 9:8) possibly reflects the Ugaritic etymology ("overwhelm with work"). Such texts emphasize that oppression commonly occurs in the area of physical labor, as the New Testament also warns us (James 5:4-6).


Many uses of nagas indicate how tampering with the economic structures leads to oppression. According to the deuteronomic laws, every seven years there was to be a year of release for all debtors. When the rich did not free the debtors in the year of release, they thereby became guilty of oppressing (Deut. 15:2,3; cf. Isa. 58:3). Heavy tribute imposed by the national oligarchy or by great empires was another form of oppression (2 Kings 23:35; Isa. 3:15; 9:3; 14:2,4; 60: 17; Zech. 10:4; Dan. 11 :20). Among these texts the reference in Isaiah 9:3[4] is especially important: the prophet proclaims freedom from Assyria's oppressive yoke through the birth of the Messiah:

For you have shattered the yoke that burdened them,
the collar that lay heavy on their shoulders,
the oppressor's (nagas) goad, as on the day of Midian's defeat. . . .

For a child has been born for us, a son given to us,
to bear the symbol of dominion on his shoulder;
and he shall be called
wonderful in purpose, mighty God ('el gibbor),
Father for all time, Prince of Peace [9:3(4), 5(6)].

Many Christmas sermons on verse 6 have been taken out of context. How many preachers have completely ignored the revolutionary implications of oppression as it related to "because" or "for" (Hebrew: ki, vv. 3, 4, 5 [4, 5, 6])! According to Isaiah the Messiah's birth (not just his second coming) signals an end to foreign oppression. The prophecies that Luke incorporated into his gospel (1:32, 33, 52-55, 67-79) did not ignore this political dimension. When the church postpones liberation from oppression until the Second Coming, it openly contradicts not only the Old Testament prophets but also the New Testament's proclamation of the good news in which the end of oppression is related to the Messiah's birth. That is, the kingdom of God that arrived with the birth of Jesus signals the end of all tyranny and oppression. ("Let princes hear and be afraid," Calvin, Institutes, IV, xx, 31.) All the covenant blessings, signified by the Old Testament covenant promises, find their fulfillment in the integral liberation Christ brings (2 Cor. 1:20).
 

For the use of nagas in relation to the Suffering-Oppressed Servant (Isa. 53:7), see chapters 2 and 5, below.

 §4. The Pain that the Oppressed Feel - lahats


Lahats is a picturesque word that literally means "press" or "squeeze," although lexicons also define it as "oppress."8 The best example of the literal use occurs in the story of Balaam. On seeing the angel of the Lord blocking the narrow path, Balaam's ass "pushed against the wall and pressed (lahats) Balaam's foot against the wall" (Num. 22:25).


The expected response to a painful" squeeze" is a "cry." As in the case of nagas, lahats is used to describe the oppression Israel suffered in Egypt. Yahweh tells Moses:

And now, behold, the cry of the people of Israel has come to me, and I have seen the oppression (lahats) [noun] with which the Egyptians oppress (lahats) [verb] them [Exod. 3:9].

In other words, the Israelites were not living in slavery because they were an "underdeveloped" nation, but rather because the Egyptians were oppressing them -they were "putting the squeeze" on them. Being the most powerful empire of that time, Egypt could easily do just that. But God sided with the poor. In response to his people's outcry (prayers, Exod. 3:7), he began the process of liberation.


Many of the 31 uses of lahats (verb and noun) in the Old Testament tell how God freed his people from oppression in answer to their outcry (their prayers; besides Exod. 3:9, see Judg. 2:18, 4:3, 10:12; 2 Kings 13:4; Deut. 26:7; Ps. 42:10,43:2). In other words, the biblical theology of oppression is not purely humanistic or horizontal. Prayer to the personal, infinite God plays a decisive role in whatever biblical strategy arises to topple oppression. Nevertheless we should note that these texts apparently do not distinguish between "prayer" consciously directed to God and "spontaneous outcries" of those who suffer: God hears both. Should we perhaps broaden our understanding of prayer in biblical usage according to these verses?

 

The bitter experience of oppression in Egypt formed a lasting part of Israel's memory and psychology and developed into a norm for its behavior:

You shall not oppress (lahats) the stranger; you know the heart of a stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt [Exod. 23:9].

Thus, even within the book of Exodus the oppression/liberation experience begins to function as a paradigm. Later, when God let Israel prosper, he required that they maintain strong solidarity with the poor and the oppressed. Undoubtedly this is part of what Jesus had in mind when he described his disciples as "poor in spirit" (Matt. 5:3), those who hunger and thirst for justice (5:6), and are compassionate to the needy (5:7).9

 §5. Oppression Crushes - ratsats


Ratsats literally means "crush, grind, pound," and figuratively "oppress."10 We see the literal sense very clearly in Judges when a woman manages to throw a millstone from a tower down on Abimelech's head and "crush" his skull (9:53; cf. Ps. 74:13b-14a). The word well expresses the brutal results of oppression. Of its 20 uses in the Old Testament, poverty is indicated in the context 9 times.


In the first of the great Servant Songs, Isaiah uses ratsats twice when describing the Servant's mission:

Behold my servant, whom I uphold,

my chosen, in whom my soul delights;
I have put my Spirit upon him,

he will bring forth justice to the nations.
 He will not cry or lift up his voice,

or make it heard in the street;
a crushed (ratsats) reed he will not break,
and a dimly burning wick he will not quench;
he will faithfully bring forth justice.
He will not burn dimly or be crushed (ratsats)
till he has established justice in the earth;
and the coastlands wait for his law [42: 1-4].

This text, which the New Testament sees fulfilled in Jesus' mission, deserves careful study, but we must limit ourselves here to points especially important for our theme.


First, what do the crushed reed and smoldering wick refer to? As E. J. Young indicates, the reed seems to refer to the weak, no matter what their nationality. Moreover, the fact that it is crushed (ratsats) shows how they suffer oppression.11 The wick, according to the parallelism of the Hebrew poetry, also refers to the oppressed of any nation who are at the point of despair.12 Young's interpretation of the reed and wick as metaphors for the poor and oppressed of any nation is supported (1) by the use of ratsats, oppression, the unjust use of power; (2) by the triple reference to the lack of justice, the failing the servant comes to correct (vv. 1, 3, 4); and (3) by parallel references in Isaiah where the Messiah's work is to bring justice to the poor and oppressed (11:3b-5; cf. 58:6). The paradigmatic function of the exodus is evident in these contexts - it applies to all nations. In view of the charismatic explosion in Latin America, we should notice that the only manifestation of the Holy Spirit's baptism that this text points to is not speaking in tongues, but doing justice for the poor and oppressed of all nations (vv. 1,3,4; cf. 11:2-5; 61:1-2).


In Luke 4: 18-19 Jesus used another text employing ratsats from Isaiah to define his mission but theologians have not given it the attention it deserves.13 Few have noticed that in quoting Isaiah 61:1-2, when he reads the Scriptures in Nazareth's synagogue at the beginning of his public ministry, Jesus also inserts the phrase employing ratsats from Isaiah 58:6, where we read:

Is not this the fast that I choose:
to loose the bonds of wickedness,
to undo the thongs of the yoke,
to let the oppressed-crushed (ratsats) go free
and to break every yoke?
Is it not to share your bread with the hungry,
and bring the homeless into your house;
when you see the naked, to cover him,
and not to hide yourself from your own flesh? [58:6- 7].

Both Isaiah 61:1-2 and 58:6 refer to the Year of Jubilee, when slaves were freed and (in a radical program of agrarian reform) all properties were returned to their original owners (Lev. 25). That was how the law of Moses planned to eliminate social injustices and oppression and to avoid extremes of wealth and poverty in Israel. In Luke 4:19 Jesus ends his quote from Isaiah 61:1-2 with the words "the acceptable year of the Lord," thus stressing the Year of Jubilee that characterized his mission. However, in order to be sure that no one misunderstood what he was trying to explain, Jesus stressed his point by inserting the key liberating phrase of Isaiah 58:6 when reading 61:1-2. In treating Isaiah 58:6 we limit ourselves here to the following conclusions that help us understand Jesus' mission.


First, in Luke 4:18-19, when Jesus describes the life of the poor, he calls attention to the role of oppression. He does not here deal with sin primarily in individualistic or pietistic terms (sex, alcohol, drugs) but in socio-economic terms of oppression, the brutal crushing of personalities and human bodies - things that the rich do to the poor, that the strong do to the weak.

 

Second, a basic part of Jesus' mission is revolutionary social change that frees the poor and oppressed and restores their dignity and their land. The liberation Jesus came to introduce destroys oppressive social structures ("break every yoke") so that it is impossible to return to slavery. We may compare this with Jeremiah 34, which tells us how the oligarchy in Jerusalem freed their slaves when the Babylonians threatened the city, only to re-enslave them when the siege was temporarily lifted.


Finally, we ought to note that such acts of personal charity mentioned in verse 7 (feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, clothing the naked, befriending the friendless) ought to be the building blocks erected on the foundation of a decisive liberation - never a substitute for social and structural changes.


In another key text employing ratsats, Amos emphasizes the relationship between oppression and poverty using this unforgettable image:

 

Hear this word, you cows of Bashan,

who are in the mountain of Samaria,

who oppress the poor, who crush (ratsats) the needy,

who say to their husbands, "Bring, that we may drink!" [Amos 4:1].

 

To be oppressed is like being sat on by a fat cow! What is disturbing about this text is that the wealthy, self-centered women whom the prophet compares to the sleek cows of Bashan apparently were totally unaware of the devastating suffering they caused; undoubtedly their alcoholism aided their oblivion. If they were representatives of their class, as would appear to be the case, their lifestyle probably protected them from having much contact with the poor and oppressed. As Ronald J. Sider comments:

They may never have realized clearly that their gorgeous clothes and spirited parties were possible only because of the sweat and tears of toiling peasants. In fact they may even have been kind on occasion to individual peasants they met. (Perhaps they gave them "Christmas baskets" once a year.)14

Nevertheless Amos strives to point out that God held them responsible for their own ignorance, indifference, and lifestyle. Sider concludes:

If one is a member of a privileged class that profits from structural evil and if one does nothing to try to change things, one stands guilty before God. Social evil is just as displeasing to God as personal evil. And it affects more people and is more subtle.15

§6. Oppression Kills - daka'


We should probably regard daka' as the strongest Hebrew word denoting oppression.16 Both literally and etymologically daka' means "pulverize, crush." We find examples of this literal sense in Job 4:18, "pulverized like a moth," and Psalm 90:3, "Thou turnest man back to pulverization (daka') and sayest, 'Turn back, O children of men!'"


Including its five cognates, daka' occurs 31 times in the Old Testament (10 times with the poor), always emphasizing the fatal results of oppression. Oppression smashes the body and crushes the human spirit. That is, God's image is pulverized like a moth crushed under a boot heel.


Frequently the biblical authors clearly relate this pulverizing oppression to poverty. Although translations do not normally make clear the literal connections, daka' and its cognates occur often in Psalms 9 and 10 (which are considered to be one psalm in the Vulgate and subsequent translations). Yahweh is called "a stronghold for the oppressed (dak)" in 9:9, who are described as "poor"/"oppressed" ('ani) in 9:13[12], the "needy" ('ebyon) and "poor" ('aniwim) in 9:19[18]. Psalm 10 mentions the "poor" ('ani) in verses 1,9 (twice), and 12 (cf. vv. 18 and 17) and, as an example of this class, the orphan in vv. 14 and 18. The poor are called "oppressed" in vv. 10 and 18 (daka' and dak, respectively). Tōk, another word for oppression, appears in 10:7.


An examination of Psalms 9 and 10 shows clearly that the poor and the oppressed are thought of as one group or class. In other words, the poor became poor and continue to be poor basically because of pulverizing oppression. As H. J. Kraus observes, this neglected psalm, so eloquent in its portrayal of the plight of the oppressed poor, shows that "back in the oldest time of her history Israel attained the certainty that Yahweh in a special way turns to the underprivileged, the legally victimized and disadvantaged in life's battle and takes them under his protection."17 However, as Isaiah makes clear to the beleaguered postexilic community, authentic holiness stoops to liberate. Yahweh not only turns to, or takes sides with, the oppressed poor in life's battles (class struggle?), he dwells permanently with them:


 For thus says the one who is high and lifted up

who inhabits eternity, and whose name is Holy [cf. Isa. 6],
"I dwell in the high and holy place,
but also by the side of the pulverized-oppressed (daka')
and the bowed down of spirit
to keep alive the spirit of the ones bowed down and to make live the heart of the pulverized-oppressed (daka')"
[57:15; cf. Ps. 113].

This oracle of liberation clearly points toward and prepares us for the shocking socio-economic context of the incarnation (Luke 1-2), as well as Jesus' teaching about the final judgment (Matt. 25:31-46). The pulverizing oppression expressed by daka' also occurs twice in Isaiah 53 (vv. 5, 10) to express the fatal oppression of the Suffering Servant (see below, chap. 2 and 5).

 §7. Oppression Humiliates - 'anah


More than any other word, 'anah expresses something of the devastating psychological impact of oppression.18 Of the 82 uses in the Old Testament, 'anah is used most often in the piel (intensive) root. For this root the lexicons suggest such meanings as "oppress," "humiliate," "make someone feel dependent." It can also mean "be humbled (in fasting)" and "rape." It is etymologically related to an Arabic word that means "be under, submissive."

 

In only 14 of its 82 uses are the poor specified in the context (but note the wide range of its meanings). As a matter of fact, 'anah is the very first word we find in the Bible to express oppression. In the story of the covenant with Abraham, Yahweh says to the patriarch:

Know of a surety that your descendants will be immigrants in a land that is not theirs, and will be slaves there, and they will be oppressed ('anah) for four hundred years. . . and afterward they will come out [liberation] with great possessions [Gen. 15:13].

Possible implications for biblical sexual ethics structured around oppression and liberation remain largely unexplored. On fasting as "oppressing the soul," see chapter 2, note 1, below. According to this text, the chosen people's experience, like that of Joseph, prefigures Christ's humiliation and exaltation. The order is typical: first immigrants without land (a vulnerable situation); later enslaved; and consequently oppressed, loaded down like beasts of burden.19


In view of the covenantal structure evident in many of the theological perspectives of the Old Testament, it is important to note that liberation from oppression is one of the fundamental provisions (along with land and posterity ["seed" of the Abrahamic covenant. Inasmuch as Paul in the New Testament singles out this Abrahamic covenant as the eternal "saving" covenant (Gal. 3-4), this fact must affect our whole understanding of "salvation" as integral liberation.
 

'Anah is also, appropriately, the first word used in Exodus to describe the oppression suffered by Abraham's descendants:

Therefore they set taskmasters over them to oppress ('anah) them with heavy burdens. . . . But the more they were oppressed (anah), the more they multiplied and the more they spread abroad [Exod. 1:11, 12].

The introductory genealogy (Exod. 1:1-7), indicating Israel's "roots," has made clear that the nation is not poor because of racial inferiority or "under-development." These poor slaves are in fact descendants of the great patriarchs of Genesis. They have become poor because a great empire has begun to oppress them. The only sin indicated is the sin of their oppressors.


The paradigmatic function of this exodus experience (oppression/liberation) begins to operate already in that ancient collection of laws known as the Book of the Covenant (Exod. 20:22-23:33):

You shall not wrong (yanah) an immigrant or oppress (lahats) him, for you were immigrants in the land of Egypt. You shall not oppress ('anah) any widow or orphan. If you oppress ('anah) them and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their outcry; and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless (22:21-24).

Significantly, there are three words for oppression in this brief passage: yanah, lahats, and 'anah, with 'anah appearing twice. The relationship between poverty and oppression is made clear by the three common classes of poor and weak persons mentioned: immigrants, widows, and orphans. We should notice that only here in the entire Book of the Covenant does God's wrath threaten the guilty parties in their punishment. Other crimes are punishable by death, but only when the poor suffer oppression does God declare that the death penalty definitely expresses his wrath. (We may compare this to Jesus' teaching about hell in the parable of the final judgment, Matt. 25:31-46.) In fact, when God forbids oppression of the poor in the Book of the Covenant, it is the first time the Scriptures explicitly affirm that God becomes angry. Liberal theologies commonly evade biblical teaching on God's wrath; but conservatives have overlooked the fact that this wrath is primarily manifested against injustice and oppression of the poor (see Rom. 1:18).20

 

Psalm 94 also shows us another clear link between oppression and poverty:

They pulverize with oppression (daka') thy people, 0 Lord,

and humiliatingly oppress ('anah) thy heritage.
They slay the widow and the sojourne,

and murder the fatherless [94:5-6].
 

The two words for oppression appear in a parallelism that underlies both the physical and psychological effects of oppression. As in other texts, the poor are depicted concretely as the three defenseless classes of the ancient social order: immigrants, widows, and orphans.


Before turning to another crucial text that emphasizes the link between oppression and poverty in biblical theology, we must first note an important linguistic fact that bears on our study. According to the lexicons, two common Old Testament words for "poor" come from the verb ("poor, humble, meek") and ("oppressed, poor, humble".21 Thus both etymology and the usage pattern of these three words signal the intrinsic relationship between oppression and poverty in Hebrew thought.
 

Thus we may better understand Deuteronomy 26:5-10, which, since Gerhard von Rad, modern studies have referred to as a kind of Old Testament "Apostles' Creed." At every celebration of the Feast of the First Fruits (similar to Thanksgiving Day in the U.S.A. and Canada), the Israelites confessed:

A wandering Aramean was my father; and he went down into Egypt and sojourned there, few in number; and there he became a nation, great, mighty, and populous. And the Egyptians treated us harshly, and oppressed ('anah) us, and laid upon us hard bondage.


Then we cried to the Lord the God of our fathers, and the Lord heard our voice, and saw our poverty ('ani), our toil, and our oppression (lahats); and the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with great terror, with signs and wonders; and he brought us into this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey [Deut. 26:5-9].

This "Apostles' Creed" well sums up the fundamental role that oppression plays in Old Testament theology. Later, when Israel had become rich (Deut. 8:17, 18), God never let it forget either its solidarity with its oppressed ancestors or the liberation that God had given it because of his love. In individual cases the Old Testament lists many possible causes of poverty. Nevertheless, oppression was the only cause that "orthodox believers" had to affirm confessionally each year. Awareness of that cause as a "fundamental doctrine" was basic for anyone who belonged to God's people. It was thus impossible to suppose that poverty was basically the result of the sins of the poor or some kind of mental or racial inferiority or of "underdevelopment." To be a "fundamentalist" in Israel you had to recognize that poverty is fundamentally rooted in oppression-and that Yahweh's purpose in history is liberation.

 §8. Oppression Expresses Enmity - "tsar, "tsarar",


"Tsar. In the study of the noun "tsar the lexicons and translations present us with a strange combination of facts.22 "Tsar occurs 70 times in the Old Testament and is related etymologically to words signifying "hostility." It is derived from the verb "tsarar ("be hostile, be in conflict"). However, Holladay gives as its first definition "oppressor," following Koehler (German: Bedrangner). Holladay's other definitions are "adversary" and "enemy." The English renderings in Koehler follow BDB (Brown-Driver-Briggs) and give only "adversary" and "foe," leaving Bedrangner without an English equivalent. Despite the express preference of both Koehler and Holladay for the definition "oppressor," I cannot find a single instance where modern translations so render this noun. However, inasmuch as "tsar most commonly (21 times) parallels "enemy" ('oyeb), it would appear that usage supports the etymological sense ("hostility") and the lexicons should have given "adversary" and "foe" as the primary definitions.


On the other hand, "oppressor" should not be eliminated as a legitimate translation of "tsar (as in BDB), because historically and contextually Israel's foes commonly were the surrounding oppressor empires. And in fact "tsar (and 'oyeb, "enemy") often occur in relationship with other basic vocabulary for oppression as well as poverty.


The link with oppression is evident in Psalm 74:

How long, 0 God, will the oppressor foe ("tsar) mock? Shall the enemy ('oyeb) revile your name forever? [v. 10].

However, verse 8 says of the same invading Babylonians: "They said in their hearts, 'we will oppress (ynh) them completely.'" And the psalm concludes with the plea:

Do not hand over the life of your doves to wild beasts;

do not forget the lives of your poor ('ani) forever.

Have regard for your covenant [Gen. 15]
because haunts of violence (hamas) fill
the dark places of the land.
Do not let the oppressed (dak) retreat in disgrace;

may the poor ('ani) and needy (ebyon) praise your name [74:19-21].

However, if "oppressor" be accepted as a legitimate (if not preferable) translation of "tsar in such texts as Psalm 74, many other familiar contexts may best be understood in that light. For instance:

Yahweh is my light and my liberation

whom shall I fear. . . .
When evil men advance against me to devour my flesh,
my oppressors ("tsar) and enemies ('oyeb),
They will stumble and fall.
Teach me your way, 0 Yahweh;
lead me in a straight path because of my oppressors [NIV;Heb.shrr].
Do not give me up to the greed of my oppressors ("tsar)

for false witnesses have risen against me
and breathe out violence (hamas) [Ps. 27:1a, 2, 11-12].

The NIV is notable here: it translates Hebrew shrr "oppressors," contrary to the lexicons ("enemy," "foe," 5 or 6 times, total), but "tsar is translated "foes," when both Holladay and Koehler give "oppressor" as the first definition.


In addition to frequent links with basic roots for oppression, poverty is commonly indicated in the context with "tsar. Thus, Zechariah refers to the frustration and poverty of the postexilic remnant when the temple foundation was laid: .

Before those days there were no wages for man nor wages for beast. No one could go about his business safely because of the oppressor ("tsar) [8:10].

In all, poverty is closely linked to "tsar in six instances (Zech. 8:10; Ps. 119:157; 136:24; Lam. 1:7 [twice], 10).


"Tsarar. Strangely, though Holladay and Koehler give "oppressor" as the first definition of the noun "tsar, they do not give "oppress" as a possible definition of the related verb "tsarar ("be hostile toward, be in a state of conflict with"). Translations and commentaries wisely often go beyond the lexicons, particularly in contexts that link "tsarar with poverty. Thus NIV translates the verb "tsarar "oppress" four times:

 When you go into battle in your own land against an enemy ["tsar = oppressor] who is oppressing ("tsarar) you, sound a blast on the trumpets [Num. 10:9; liberation from a powerful, invading oppressor is to be heralded by the trumpet blast (cf. the Jubilee and New Testament references to Jesus' Second Coming)].
 

You oppress ("tsarar) the righteous and take bribes and you deprive the poor ('ebyon) of justice in the courts [Amos 5:12].

The RSV "afflict" and NEB "persecute" (!) are obviously inferior to the NIV here.

 

Especially significant is the testimony in Psalm 129 that Israel's entire history as a nation is a history of oppression (the presupposition to salvation or liberation history):

They [Egypt] have greatly oppressed ("tsarar) me from my youth

let Israel say-
They have greatly oppressed ("tsarar) me from my youth

[Ps. 129:1-2].

In these cases NIV goes beyond lexical definitions. But in most of the 26 occurrences of "tsarar in the Old Testament, "oppress" in the sense of "show hostility by oppression" is at least as satisfactory a translation as is "be hostile," because the hostility Israel primarily experienced was from powerful, unjust oppressors.


Thus in Psalm 23 we might just as well translate:

You prepare a table before me [hunger]
in the presence of my oppressors ("tsarar; NIV, "enemies") [23:5a].

The psalm expresses the confidence of the oppressed poor that Yahweh, the liberator of the exodus, will supply his essential needs (vv. 1-2), guide him in paths of justice (v. 3) and liberation from threatened death (v. 4). Instead of Pharaoh's pursuing cavalry, he looks back to discover Yahweh's covenanted goodness and mercy following him (v. 6;cf. Gen. 15).
 

Most often "tsarar parallels terms for enemies ('oyeb, etc.). However, it is also used with other terms for oppression in three contexts: Num. 10:9 (''tsar); Ps. 42:11 (lahats); and 143:12 (de', 3).
 

In addition to Amos 5:12 (cited above) the link with poverty is especially strong in Ps. 69:20[19] and 74:23 (total, with Amos, 3 times; total with the noun "tsar, 9 times).

 §9. Oppression Impoverishes-'tsarar, 'tsar, 'tsarah


'Tsarar. The verb 'tsarar occurs 46 times in the Old Testament.23 Etymologically it is related to nouns meaning "rope" and "bridle" and to an Arabic verb meaning "tie." Holladay gives us a transitive meaning, "tie up," and as basic definitions of the qal intransitive "be narrow, cramped, hampered, impeded." However, he also gives us a third definition, "be hard pressed, in distress" and as a fourth possibility "be oppressed, afflicted" (also the hifil, "oppress, afflict"). The English renderings in Koehler do not mention oppression, but in the German the fourth definition, bedrückt, might well be rendered "oppressed" as in Holladay.


Often the historical and literary context confirms that "oppress" may be the primary nuance of 'tsarar. Thus in Psalm 106 we read:

 

Their enemies oppressed (lhts) them
and subjected them to their power [NIV, v. 42].

 

But then in verse 44:

 

But [Yahweh] took note of their oppression ('tsarar; NIV, "distress") when he heard their cry.

 

The NIV renders this verb "oppress" at least once (Neh. 9:27).

The link with poverty is particularly explicit in Isaiah (25:4):

You have been a refuge for the poor (dal)
a refuge to the needy ('ebyon) in his oppression ('tsarar; NIV, "distress").

Poverty is directly related to 'tsarar 5 times (Judg. 2:15; Ps. 31:108; 107:6, 13).


'Tsar. The masculine noun 'tsar, derived from the verb 'tsarar ("tie up, be narrow, cramped"), occurs some 17 times in the Old Testament. In four texts the meaning is literally "narrowness." In the other 13 uses the lexicons suggest such definitions as "distress, want, need" (Koehler, German: Not). The historical and literary contexts commonly suggest a nuance of "poverty caused by oppression." Thus Isaiah 30:20, referring to seige or prison conditions, might well be translated:

Although Yahweh gives you the bread of oppression (lahats

and the water of oppression-caused poverty ('tsar)
your teachers will be hidden no more.

Also in Psalm 119 we find 'tsar linked directly with another basic term for oppression:

Need ('tsar) and oppression (matsoq) overtook me,

but your commandments are my delight [v. 143].

We do not find 'tsar directly linked to other basic Hebrew vocabulary for poverty, but the meaning of the word itself causes this nuance ("want, need"). In this respect it resembles 'ani, which the lexicons define both as "poor" and "oppressed" (see §7, above, under 'anah).


'Tsarah. 'Tsarah is a feminine noun derived, like 'tsar (m.), from the verb 'tsarar ("be narrow"). It is much more common (69 times) than 'tsar (17 times), its masculine counterpart. Koehler and Holladay give only one definition: "distress" (KB2, German: Not, "need"). The BDB lexicon prefers "straits," reflecting more closely the etymology of the verb ("be narrow"). However, in the vast majority of its 69 uses in the Old Testament, "oppression" would be at least as suitable a translation: the word mainly describes the kind of "straits" or "distress" experienced by Israel, as a poor, weak nation struggling against powerful, unjust empires (Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, etc.). Thus in Nehemiah's prayer he refers to Israel's oppression and liberation in the time of the judges:

So you handed them [Israel] over to their enemies [''tsar = oppressors] who oppressed [''tsarar] them. But when they were oppressed ['tsarah: literally, "in the time of their oppression"] they cried out to you [9:27a, NIV].

The prayer concludes:

But see, we are slaves today, slaves in the land you gave our forefathers so they could eat its fruit and the other good things it produces. Because of our sins, its abundant harvest goes to the kings you have placed over us. They rule over our bodies and our cattle as they please. We are in great distress ['tsarah = oppression; 9:36-37, NIV].

It is notable here that NIV goes beyond the lexicons and translates 'tsarah as "oppressed" in 9:27. The context in 9:37 would make "oppression" at least as suitable a translation as the vague and colorless "distress," given the double reference to "slaves," and to rapacious, tyrannical kings. Obviously Nehemiah views Israel as reliving the exodus oppression experiences and hopes for a similar miraculous liberation.


As the BDB lexicon indicates, a peculiarity of 'tsarah is its frequent use in temporal expressions: in a "day" (yom) of 'tsarah (15 times) and in a "time" ('et) of tsarah (8 times). This usage, along with frequent contextual references (Jeremiah) to a woman's travail in childbirth, often give the word a nuance of crisis, an urgent condition that must result in liberation or death. Thus in Jeremiah 30:7 the oft-cited reference to the "time ('et) of Jacob's trouble ('tsarah)" is actually a reference to imperial Babylonian oppression (cf. Dan. 12: 1). Occasionally 'tsarah is used with more explicit terms for oppression: Isa. 8:22, tsuqah and, v. 23, mutsaq; 30:6, tsuqah; Zeph. 1:15, metsuqah; Ps. 34:18, dc', v. 19; Provo 1:27, tsuqah.
 

Poverty is commonly suggested in the general historical or literary context and a direct link between tsarah and poverty is explicit five times: Ps. 27:27 ('ani, vv. 16, 18); 31:8 ('ani); 86:7 ('ani and 'ebyon, V. 1); Isa. 8:22 ("hungry," v.21).
 

Thus Itsarar and its cognates occur a total of 132 times, with poverty indicated in the context 10 times.

§10. Oppression Beseiges (Eschatological) - tsuq and Cognates


The verb tsuq occurs 11 times in the Old Testament and is related to an Akkadian root meaning "narrow."24 It is defined by Holladay and Koehler as "oppress" (German: bedrungen) or "bring into straits." This verb has five related cognates: the nouns tsoq, "oppression" (once); tsuqah, "oppression, distress" (3 times); mutsaq, "oppression, hardship" (3 times); matsoq, "hardship" (6 times); and ''metsuqah, "oppression" (7 times). Most often tsuq and its cognates occur in contexts describing seige conditions in connection with a similar root tswr, "beseige," and its related noun matsor, "oppression, stress" (see below, chap. 2). In eschatological contexts the "last days" of a city or people become associated with the last days of the great tribulation-oppression preceding the decisive divine intervention.


Thus in Deuteronomy 28:53,55,57 the verb tsuq occurs together with the nouns matsoq and matsor three times to describe the terrible conditions during the seige-oppression (matsor) of Jerusalem (587 B.C.) preceding the Babylonian exile. Seige conditions as a type of oppression are similarly indicated in two uses of the verb in Isaiah, perhaps with reference to Sennacherib's invasion and seige in 701 B.C. (29:2, 7, Jerusalem called "Ariel"). Later, in Isaiah, the word again occurs twice (in one verse, 51:13) related to the "fury" (hemah) of the Babylonian oppressor.


The rare nouns tsuqah and mutsaq occur together with three other words lexically defined as "oppression" in Isaiah 8:21-9:4[5] (see comments above under nagas, §3. Our translations utterly fail to make clear the heavy stress on oppression in this fundamental messianic text, concluding with the birth announcement of 9:5[6]: "For unto us a child is born. . . ." The historical background refers to the expansion of the cruel Assyrian empire, which, from 734 to 32 B.C., under Tiglath Pilesar, conquered and annexed the northern and eastern areas of the Northern Kingdom (New Testament Galilee). Faced with cruel invaders and terrifying siege conditions, the Israelites (like Saul at Gilboa) were tempted to turn from the torah and the prophets to spiritism, mediums, witches (8:19-20). The five lexically defined references to oppression then follow:

 

Oppressed (qshh) and hungry they will roam through the land [8:21].

Then they will look toward the earth and see only oppression ('tsarah) and darkness and gloom of oppression (tsuqah) [8:22].
Nevertheless there will be no more gloom for those who were oppressed (mutsaq) [8:23 (9:1)],
For as in the day of Midian's defeat you have shattered the yoke that
burdens them, the bar across their shoulders, the rod of the one
oppressing (nagas) them [9:3(4)].

 

In addition to the five explicit words defined by the lexicons as "oppression," we have oppression symbolized by a yoke and bar in 9:3[4] and also six times by darkness, gloom, and the shadow of death (8:22-23; 9:1[2]). The decisive liberation inaugurated by the Messiah's birth is then symbolized by great light, dawn, and glory (8:20,23; 9:1[2]). The people's response to liberation is one of supreme joy, compared to the harvest time (9:3a[4a]) and celebration of a military victory such as Gideon's against the powerful Midianites (9:3b[4b]).
 

Concerning the oppression detailed in 9:4, Young observes:

Israel was like an animal [nagas!] of toil over whose neck a heavy wooden bar lay. . . . As every beast of burden and toil is beaten with a rod, so Israel also had a rod with which it was beaten on the neck or shoulder. There was also, as in Egypt, an oppressor who used a staff to strike the beast. The oppressor was the Assyrian enemy.25

Young then comments on the liberation from oppression to be inaugurated by the child's birth (not just the second coming!):

Salvation in its widest sense ["integral liberation?"] had shined upon these people; a complete reversal of their condition had occurred.26

Regarding the liberating effects that flow from the child's birth, Young concludes:

When the Son appears in life with the attributes here assigned to Him, then the kingdom will be founded and established. The kingdom of the Son continually progresses. Justice and righteousness are its foundation; oppression and injustice have no part in its progress and growth [italics added].27

In the words of a New Testament writer, God is (liberating) light; moreover "the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining" (1 John 1:5; 2:8).


Another link with the New Testament perspective on oppression and liberation may be seen in Psalm 107. Traditional interpretations of the psalm are radically transformed when we recognize that it is structured around four types of oppression (metsuqah and tsar, vv. 6, 13, 19, 18) as experienced by the exiles. Poverty is clearly indicated in the first context (vv. 5, 9; hunger and thirst of exiles). Also in the second context the prisoners are viewed as locked ("iron fetters") into their poverty ('ani, v. 10;cf. 'otser, v. 39). And as in Isaiah, whereas darkness symbolized their oppression, liberation leads to light and life (v. 14). However, physical sickness is then viewed as a consequence of oppression in verses 18-20, as is a storm at sea (vv. 28-29; cf. Deut. 28:68). In these latter instances we are moving toward the broader New Testament view of oppression as including sickness and a diabolical dimension. The demonic dimension expresses itself through sickness (Acts 10:38; see chap. 3, below) and other elements of creation (the storm "rebuked" by Jesus, in Mark 5:39). Each stanza of the psalm concludes with praise to God for being faithful (hesed) to his covenant promises to Abraham (Gen. 15, liberation from oppression).


Psalm 25 also uses metsuqah (v. 17) in a context marked by frequent references to poverty ('ani, 16b, 18a;'anawim, 9ab), another term for oppression (tsar, 17a, 23b), violence (hamas, 19b and-in contrast-liberation (ysh " 5b; yts', 17b; ntsl, 20a; pdh, 22a). This psalm on divine guidance thus recalls the place of guidance as normatively following the liberation experience in the exodus paradigm (the pillar of cloud and fire; the Decalogue of Exod. 20; detailed stipulations of the Book of the Covenant, Exod. 21-23). Laws for the amelioration of the plight of the poor thus are not given to Moses-much less to the pharaoh-during the oppression in Egypt. They are given as guidance for a "post revolutionary" situation-to liberated slaves en route to their promised land.


 Finally we should note how common seige associations of metsuqah acquire eschatological significance. Zephaniah describes the great Day of the Lord as a day of "wrath, adversity (tsarah)" and "oppression (metsuqah)" as well as "darkness and gloom. . . clouds and thick darkness" (1: 15), and marked by invasion and seige (vv. 16 fL). Similarly in Daniel's controversial prophecy of the 70 weeks we read: "The street shall be built again and the wall even in times of oppression (tsoq)"; (9:25). The noun tsoq employed for oppression occurs only here in the Old Testament. Recent interpreters have pointed to the Jubilee pattern (7 times 7; Lev. 25:8 ff.) to explain the division of the number (7 sevens and 62 sevens). However the details of the prophecy be interpreted, the relationship between times of oppression (tsoq) and the Jubilee-type liberation must be significant factors-and of much greater importance than the endless speculation about chronology.28

 

In summary we may say that words signifying oppression from the tsuq family occur 31 times, with poverty indicated in the context 14 times. The seige contexts (last days of a city) prepare us for the eschatological references to the last days in Daniel and Zephaniah (Day of the Lord). With this we may compare the reference to the "time of Jacob's oppression (tsarah)" in Jeremiah 30:7 and the great tribulation-oppression (thlipsis) in Revelation (see below, chap. 3).29