John Sietze Bergsma, «The Jubilee: A Post-Exilic Priestly Attempt to Reclaim Lands?», Vol. 84 (2003) 225-246

The article examines the hypothesis that the jubilee legislation of Lev 25 was a post-exilic attempt on the part of returning Judean exiles — particularly the priests — to provide legal justification for the reclamation of their former lands. This hypothesis is found to be dubious because (1) the jubilee did not serve the interests of the socio-economic classes that were exiled, and (2) Lev 25 does not show signs of having been redacted with the post-exilic situation in mind. A comparison with Ezekiel’s vision of restoration points out the differences between Lev 25 and actual priestly land legislation for the post-exilic period.

As with these good figs, so will I single out for good the Judean exiles whom I have driven out from this place to the land of the Chaldeans. I will look upon them favorably, and bring them back to this land ... And like the bad figs, which are so bad that they cannot be eaten, so will I treat ... the remnant of Jerusalem that is left in this land ... I will send the sword, famine, and pestilence against them until they are exterminated from the land that I gave to them and their fathers (Jer 24,5-6.8.10, NJPS).

        It seems clear that Jeremiah is arguing against the inhabitants of Jerusalem who felt the exile was a judgment against those exiled, and divine vindication of themselves. Who will ultimately possess the land is one issue at stake. While the "remnant" left in the land felt as though they had been favored by God, and were justified in their appropriation of the property left by the exiles, Jeremiah insists the exiles — not those left behind — are favored by God and would ultimately inherit the land.

        The contours of this debate are confirmed by Jeremiah’s younger contemporary, (the priest) Ezekiel. Ezek 11,15 records an oracle of the LORD to Ezekiel:

O mortal, [I will save] your brothers, your brothers, the men of your kindred, all of that very House of Israel to whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem say, "Keep far from the LORD; the land has been given as a heritage to us" (NJPS).

        Again, we see that the inhabitants of Judah between the first and second deportations (597 BCE and 587 BCE) regarded the exiles as providentially dispossessed, and themselves as divinely authorized to occupy the land. Those left behind by the second deportation felt similarly:

O mortal, those who live in these ruins in the land of Israel argue, "Abraham was but one man, yet he was granted possession of the land. We are many; surely, the land has been given as a possession to us" (Ezek 33,23-24, NJPS).

        In the following verses, Ezekiel polemicizes against the non-exiled Israelites. In agreement with Jeremiah, Ezekiel declares that God’s favor, including the right to inherit the land, lies not upon the remnant but upon the exiles.

        Both the priests Ezekiel and Jeremiah, therefore, testify that there existed a debate between survivors and exiles about who had the "mandate of heaven" to possess the land. Yet the "priestly" text of Lev 25 does not address the issue. One would expect a gloss in the text such as, "If your brother Israelite is exiled to the land of your enemies,