Bible Talk | Jadesmon Saragih, M.Theol.

In the biblical world, the term ʿAm ha’arets (עַם הָאָרֶץ) occurs repeatedly and contains nuances that are both rich and complex. Literally meaning “people or inhabitants of the land”, the term is not singular in meaning. It can be neutral, referring simply to the “local population”, but in the historical development of its usage, the term is often loaded with social and religious stigmas.

Origin and Flexibility of Meaning

Am ha’arets is a Hebrew term that appears primarily in the Old Testament. Etymologically, it means "people of the land." However, the meaning attached to it is not static. In Genesis 23:7, the term is used to refer to the “inhabitants of the land” Hittites who interacted with Abraham. Here, the meaning is neutral: it refers to the locals without any moral or religious connotations. However, in later periods, especially post-exilic, the term was often used in a pejorative tone, referring to a group that was considered to be ignorant, not observant of the law, and even "uninformed".

Thus, Am ha’arets is a highly context-dependent term: it can mean the common people, the majority community, even the entire nation, but it can also be a stigmatizing label.

 

From Neutral to Political: Dynamics in History

In Israel's recorded history, the use of Am ha’arets changed with the socio-political crisis. 2 Kings 11:13–20 shows the term paired with “the people of the land” who were involved in political change, namely the removal of Athaliah. The connotation here is not just "the population," but the mass of the people who are positioned in opposition to the elite (priests, military, rulers). Thus, the term is politically loaded.

 

In the texts of Ezra and Nehemiah, the meaning of Am ha’arets sharpens as a stigmatizing term. Local inhabitants who did not share in the Babylonian exile are referred to as Aam ha’arets — portrayed as obstacles to the building of the Temple, even as responsible for the exile itself. This is where the transformation is seen: the originally neutral term shifts into a rhetorical tool of the elite to assert the purity of post-exilic identity.

 

Am Ha’arets as a Religious Stigma

Post-exilic, the group returning from Babylon established the identity of "new and true Israel," claiming to be a people purified through the suffering of exile. In contrast, the local inhabitants (Am ha’arets) were looked down upon:

• They were considered to be mixed with foreign nations.
• They were suspected of being unfaithful to the law.
• They were labeled as obstacles to the renewal agenda of the faith.

 

Since then, the term Am ha’arets has shifted to a discriminatory designation, "common people," "lay people," or even "uncivilized."

In later rabbinic tradition, the term was often synonymous with ignorant, uninformed, and lacking in sanctity.

Purity vs. Stigmatization

This phenomenon shows a strong irony. On the one hand, the emphasis on Torah law, purity, and faithfulness is a form of spiritual response born out of Israel's historical trauma: loss of the Temple, exile, and threatened identity. But on the other hand, the effort to maintain purity gave birth to strict and even exclusive dividing lines against fellow believers. In other words, Am ha’arets became a symbol of ambivalence:

• Purity of faith – the effort to maintain loyalty to God through His law.
• Social stigma – a label that excludes other groups, deemed insufficiently “pure.”

 

Theological Reflection

Learning from the term Am ha’arets, we are reminded of the danger when faith identity is maintained by stigmatizing others. The Bible itself shows that the meaning of this term is fluid, not always negative. But history shows how a term can be used to assert the superiority of a particular group.

 

In the end, Am ha’arets reminds us that the purity of true faith is not exclusivity that separates, but faithfulness manifested in love that embraces.