Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 9.djvu/390

 3/6 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

pledges of any kind at the hands of the poor. The needy of their day had so little that the chances were, if anything were demanded of them as security for a debt, they must in conse- quence suffer seriously. There certainly was in the other direc- tion of which we have spoken no question as to their require- ments in the treatment of the poor. They must not be made to pay interest on money loaned them ; and apparently they were not to share the produce of the little land they tilled with those of whom they secured it (Ezek. 18:8, 17; Jer. 15: 10 ; Isa. 24:2). This was in accord with the Book of the Covenant and the deuteronomic law ; although a Hebrew might, according to that law, exact interest of a foreign resident. It would appear that the priestly law was even more lenient: "If thy brother become poor, and his hand fail with thee ; then thou shalt uphold him; as a stranger and sojourner shall he live with thee. Thou shalt take no interest of him or increase ; but fear thy God ; that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon interest, nor give him thy food for increase " (Lev. 25:35-37). It is reasonable to conclude that the prophets were as humanitarian in their sentiments as the framers of the priestly law. Every utterance of theirs upon the subject points this way.

Closely connected with the prophetic ideal of the treatment of the poor is that of the treatment of captives of war, of slaves, and of servants. Though they may have been inferior relatively in point of numbers to slaves as a class, there seem to have been hired servants, male and female, in the days of the prophets, as there had been earlier. It is, however, impossible to distinguish always between the two classes in the prophetic literature, because the same terms appear to have been used very frequently to designate both the bond and the free servants. But it is not necessary for us to do so in discussing the question of the treat- ment of these inferiors.

It is unlikely that the Hebrews secured many captives of war during the time of the prophets, save toward the close of the period in the days of the Maccabees. They were themselves the captives who were forced to fall into the trains of foreign devastators of their land, or they gave up their sons and daugh-