Bulletin for Biblical
Research 1 (1991) 3-19
Copyright
© 1991 Institute of Biblical Research. Cited with permission.
The Go’el in Ancient
Theological Reflections on
an Israelite Institution1
ROBERT L.
HUBBARD, JR.
In
his delightful book Hunting the Divine
Fox, theologian Robert Farrar
Capon
warned of a special danger--overfamiliarity with the
Bible:
Mere familiarity does not necessarily
produce understanding. It is per-
fectly possible to know something (or someone!) all
your life and still
never
really comprehend what you're dealing with. Like the Irishman
in the old
joke who received a brand-new toilet from his American
cousins: He
used the bowl for a foot washer, the lid for a breadboard,
and the
seat for a frame around the Pope's picture.2
Among Bible scholars, there is
nothing more familiar than the
concept of go’el or
"kinsman-redeemer." Proper interpretation of the
book of Ruth requires its treatment,3 and
Leggett has devoted a major
book to it.4 As Capon warned, however,
familiarity does not automat-
ically mean understanding.
Indeed, recent scholarly discussion
reveals that, though understood in broad outline,
some details of the
go’el-institution still elude precise
definition.5
1. The Annual Old Testament Lecture given
Biblical Research,
dents, Messrs. Alwyn Bull
and Fred Bertram, in its preparation.
2. Robert Farrar Capon, Hunting The Divine
Fox (Minneapolis: Seabury, 1985) 44.
3. For detailed discussions and
bibliography, see E. F. Campbell, Jr., Ruth
(AB 7;
Garden
City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1975) 132-37, 158-59; W. Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth, Das
Hohelied, Die Klagelieder (KAT; 2nd ed.; Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1962) 60-63; H. Wrt-
zenrath, Das Buch Rut (SANT 40; Munich: Kosel, 1975) 265, n.116; R. L. Hubbard, Jr., The
Book of Ruth (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) 48-63.
4. D. Leggett, The Levirate and Gael Institutions in the Old Testament with Special At-
tention to the Book of Ruth (Cherry Hill, N.J.: Mack, 1974).
5. See A. A. Andersen, "The Marriage
of Ruth," JSS 23 (1978) 171-83; D.
R. G.
Beattie,
"The Book of Ruth as Evidence for Israelite Legal Practice," VT 24 (1974) 251-67;
idem, "Redemption in Ruth, and Related Matters:
A Response to Jack M. Sasson," JSOT
4
Bulletin
for Biblical Research 1
Preoccupation with its legal and sociological
background, how-
ever, has shunted aside reflection on its theology.
In my view, discus-
sions in Old Testament
theologies and theological dictionaries are
distressingly brief and
untheological.6 Thus, in this paper I aim to
explore the theology of that Israelite
institution. First, I will define and
describe
the theological insights of two key
texts-applicable sections of
Leviticus 25 and the book of Ruth. Time constraints, however,
require
that the examination of others be left for another
occasion. Finally, I
will attempt to summarize the results gained from
the exegesis of
those texts. Hopefully, a deeper appreciation and
theological under-
standing of the go’el practice will replace that
dangerous overfamil-
iarity of which Capon warned.
I
The
term go’el
derives from the realm of Israelite family law.7 It
describes a close relative, a
"kinsman-redeemer," who takes upon
himself the duties of ge’ulla--"redemption"
or "recovery"--on behalf
of a needy family member. Actually, at any given
time, a pool of
go’alim stood available for
duty because many close relatives could
perform the tasks. Of those tasks, I mention
only three here since the
others will emerge in my remarks below. According to
Numbers 35,
5
(1978) 65-68; M. S. Moore, "Haggo’el: The
Cultural Gyroscope of Ancient Hebrew So-
ciety," ResQ 23 (1980)
27-35; E. W. Davies, "Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate
Marriage,"
VT 31 (1981) 138-44, 257-68; idem,
"Ruth 4:5 and the Duties of the go’el, " VT
33 (1983) 231-34;
"Zum Levirat im
Buch Ruth," ZAW
95 (1983) 123-26; J. M. Sasson, "The Issue of Ge’ullah
in Ruth," JSOT 5 (1978) 52-64; idem,
"Ruth III: A Response," JSOT
5 (1978) 45-51.
6. See O. Baab, The Theology of the Old Testament (
1949)
131-32; L. Koehler, Old Testament
Theology (tr.;
35;
G. A. F. Knight, A Christian Theology of the Old Testament
(
1959)
235; W. C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward An Old Testament Theology (
van, 1978) 104-5, 126; W. Eichrodt,
Theology of the Old Testament (2
vols.;
5,
108-9; J. McKenzie, A Theology of the Old Testament (New
York: Doubleday, 1974) 236-
39.
W. Zimmerli examines the idea of holiness in
Leviticus 25 ("'Heiligkeit' nach
dem
Sogennanten Heiligkeitsgesetz," VT 30 [1980] 506-7). For Yahweh as go’el, see
F.
Holmgren, "The Concept of YHWH as 'go’el' in
Second Isaiah," (Ph.D. diss.,
Seminary
in
1987) 106-7. Cf. J. J. Stamm, "ga’al," THAT 1.383-94; H. Ringgren,
"ga’al,"
TDOT
2.350-55;
R. L. Harris, "ga’al,"
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
(ed. R. L. Harris,
G.
L. Archer, and B. K. Waltke; Chicago: Moody Press,
1980) 1.144-45.
7. For what
follows, cf. Ringgren, TDOT 2.351-52; Stamm, THAT 1.384-87. The
term's heaviest concentration occurs in Leviticus 25
and 27, Ruth, and Isaiah. In Isaiah,
the term refers exclusively to Yahweh as go’el.
HUBBARD: The Go’el in Ancient
the go’el was to avenge the death of a relative--the so-called
"redeemer of blood" (go’el haddam; cf. vv. 16-21). He did so by
track-
ing down and putting the
killer to death, provided, of course, that the
gates of a city of refuge did not get in his way.8
Also, as head of his
clan, the go’el would receive any monetary restitution due a deceased
relative for a wrong committed against him (Num
5:8). Finally, the
go’el also assisted his
relatives in obtaining justice in a lawsuit.9 As for
its purpose, the institution served one main goal--to
keep tribal soli-
darity intact by recovering
its losses, whether of people or property.10
II
Leviticus
25 falls near the end of the so-called "Holiness Code" (Lev
17-26).11
Literarily, it consists of Yahweh's commission of
Moses at Mt.
Sinai to instruct
fall within the treatment of the Jubilee Year (vv
8-55).12 Though the
date of the chapter's final form is a matter of
dispute, the issue need not
detain us here.13 Whatever its date, most
scholars concede that the
8.
Cf. Num 35:12, 19-27; Deut 19:6, 12; Josh 20:2-3, 5-9.
9. The word's metaphorical usage suggests
this; cf. Job 19:25; Ps 119:154; Prov
10. Scholars commonly refer to the union of
Ruth and Boaz as a levirate marriage
(cf.
Gen 38; Deut 25:5-10). In my view, however, the book portrays their
relationship as
marriage of ge’ulla or
"redemption," not levirate. By definition, the term levirate de-
scribes the marriage of a widow to a brother of
her late husband (Latin levir, "brother-
in-law"). Boaz, however, is not Elimelech's brother nor is Ruth his widow. Further, the
book uniformly describes the marriage in the
language of redemption (g’l),
not levirate
(ybm).
For discussion, see Hubbard 50-51, 57; cf.
volved is not levirate
marriage but ge’ulla,
'redemption'" ("ybm," TDOT 5.371); con-
trast Leggett, "there is
nothing which is in contradiction to the law of levirate in
Deuteronomy" (290).
11. Contrast V. Wagner, who disputes the existence
of the Holiness Code as an in-
dependent entity, believing the larger context to
be Exodus 25-Leviticus 26 ("Zur Ex-
istenz des sogennanten
'Heiligkeitsgesetzes,'" ZAW 86 [1974] 307-16).
12. The chapter's other subject concerns
the sabbath year for the
land (vv 1-7).
Concerning
Jubilee, see R. North, Sociology of the
Biblical Jubilee (AnBib 4;
cal Biblical Institute, 1954); R. Westbrook,
"Jubilee Laws,”
209-26;
A. Meinhold, "Zur Bezeihung Gott, Yolk, Land, im Jobel-Zusammenhang," BZ
29
(1985) 245-61; R. Gnuse, "Jubilee Legislation in
Leviticus:
form," BTB
15 (1985) 43-48. Vv 29-34 also treat the subject of redemption (specifically,
of houses) but without the intervention of a go’el. Hence, I
have excluded them from
consideration here. The rest of the
chapter covers the observance of Jubilee (vv 8-22),
the prohibition against charging interest (vv
35-38), and instructions concerning self-
mdenture to a fellow Israelite
(vv 39-46).
13. Most literary critics trace the
chapter's final form to exilic or postexilic priestly
editors; cf. the analyses in K. Elliger, Leviticus
(HAT 4;
Siebeck], 1966) 14-20, 338-49; R. Kilian, Literarkritische und formgeschichtliche Unter-
suchung des Heiligkeitsgesetzes (BBB 19; Bonn: Hanstein, 1963) 130-48; H. Graf Reventlow,
6
Bulletin
for Biblical Research 1
chapter represents concepts and practices which
the monarchy if not earlier.14
Vv 23-28, the instruction concerning the
redemption of property,
concern us first.15 Structurally, the
section divides into two parts: the
twofold orders (vv 23-24) and the instruction
itself (vv 25-28). For-
mally, the instruction begins
with a casuistic--that is, conditional-
clause, ki yamuk
‘ahika umakar me’ahuzzato ("if your fellow clansman
becomes poor and sells some of his
property").16 This statement
raises two questions. First, what circumstances
underlie it? As the
case of Naboth's vineyard
shows (1 Kgs 21), Israelites clung to their
ancestral property even in the face of royal
pressure.17 Thus, one sus-
pects the direst of
circumstances here. The formula ki yamuk
‘ahika ("if
your kinsman becomes poor,” cf. vv 35, 39, 47; 27:8)
provides a clue.18
Das Heiligkeitsgesetz formgeschichtlich untersucht (WMANT 6; Neukirchen: Neukirchener,
1961) )23-42; cf.also L. E. Elliot-Binns, "Some Problems of the Holiness Code," ZAW 67
(1955)
26-40; W. Thiel, "Erwagungen
zum Alter des Heiligkeitsgesetzes,"
ZAW 81
(1969)
40-73. I side with those who date the chapter much earlier. For a discussion
and
literature, see G. J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (NICOT;
1979)
8-13. Cf. North, "The jubilee law was not the original composition of an
author,
but a rearrangement of existing economic and
calendar usages by an authority of the
Occupation era" (212). He dates it to the
twelfth century B.C. (211).
14. According to Reventlow,
the Jubilee practice originated soon after
quest of
the contents of the Law of Holiness must be very
old, and must have been practiced in
ancient times" ("Studies in Hebrew
Law," CBQ 13 [1951] 39). Others
believe the Jubilee
law reflects legal practice during the monarchy;
cf. Elliger 349; Elliott-Binns
39-40 (late
monarchy but pre-Josiah); M. Noth,
Leviticus (E.T.; rev. ed.; OTL;
minster, 1977) 185; J. R.
Porter, Leviticus (CBC; Cambridge:
Cambridge University, 1976)
197; H. Wildberger,
"
many believe it to be an ideal practice created
during the exile; cf. Kilian 146; E. Kutsch,
"Jobeljahr,"
RGG3, 3.800; Thiel, "eine sehr jungen
Potenzierung der Sabbatjahridee" (61).
15. Most commentators believe that v 23
opens the following section rather than
closes the preceding one; so North 12; Leggett 83; Elliger 338, 354; Porter 200, 201; Wen-
ham 316, 320; et al.; against Noth
188-89; N. H. Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers (NCB;
16. As in other Semitic languages, here ‘ah means not "brother" but
more generally
"kinsman, close relative"; d. E. Jenni, "’al,"
THAT 1.99-100; Leggett 83 n. 3. Reventlow
believes that the laws in Leviticus 25 which
begin similarly once formed an independent
corpus of casuistic laws (136, 141).
17. H. Brichto
has shown that, in a metaphysical sense,
ity of afterlife to be tied
to the possession and size of one's inheritance. He comments,
"Death
does not constitute dissolution but rather a transition to another kind of exis-
tence, an afterlife in the
shadowy realm of Sheol. The condition of the dead in
this after-
life is, in a vague but significant way, connected
with proper burial upon the ancestral
land and with the continuation on that land of the dead's proper progeny" ("Kin, Cult,
Land, and Afterlife--A Biblical Complex," HUCA 44 [1973] 1-54, esp. 23).
18. For the form, see G. Liedke, Gestalt und Bezeichnung alttestamentlicher Rechtssatze
(WMANT 39; Neukirchen:
Neukirchener, 1971) 22, 31-32, 35 n. 1.
HUBBARD: The Go’el in Ancient
Unfortunately,
the root muk
occurs only five times in the Old Testa-
ment, four times in
Leviticus 25 (vv 25, 35, 39, 47), once in Leviticus
27:8.
Ugaritic, however, offers a suggestive cognate (mkk or mk)
mean-
ing "to become
weak" or "to deteriorate."19 A parallel line in v 35
here
confirms the validity of that cognate and further
illumines the mean-
ing of muk.
Taken literally, mata yado means
"his hand shakes" (root
mut "to waver,
shake"), a metaphor which probably refers to economic
weakness.20 Hence, in this context,
the root muk
means--in modern
terms--to become "shaky" financially, to be
unable to support oneself.
Thus, a case of severe indebtedness probably
lies behind the sur-
render of land here.21 Apparently, to repay
a debt which has come
due, the landholder has mortgaged his inheritance.
A measure of his
desperation, he preferred to suffer the loss of land
rather than the cruel
consequences of an unpaid debt. This
leads to a second question: what
is actually sold here, the land itself or
something else? Vv 14-15 sug-
gest that the landholder
sold only the land's revenue--its produce or
yield--not the property itself (cf. also v 27). In
effect, the person only
rented out the land--at most, for forty-nine years
until the next Jubi-
lee--but did not surrender its title. He received
the rent in advance, a
single lump sum payment just as if there had been a
sale.22 The
difficulty, of course, is how to get his mortgaged
land out of hock later.
The instruction (vv 25-28) provides the answer.
(To borrow a
Latin
expression, we might call them ad hoc
provisions!) First, a go’el
of the "mortgage buyer" may "redeem"
(ga’al) the
property (v 25).
Presumably,
he is one of the relatives listed later in vv 48-49-a
brother, an uncle, a cousin, or any blood
relative.23 Second, if he lacks
go’el, yet somehow gathers
the necessary means, he may redeem
19. J. Aistleitner,
Worterbuch der Ugaritischen Sprache (
1974)
no. 1561 (p. 184); cf. UT no. 1473 ("to be vanquished"); BDB 557
("be low, de-
"pressed, grow poor"); KB 526 ("to become
poor," i.e., to come down, deteriorate).
20. So KB 526; NIV ("is unable to
support himself"); but cf. BDB 556 ("of feeble-
ness"). That the
expression also implies weakness is clear from the verb which follows
(wehehezaqta,
lit. "and you shall strengthen"). In other
words, the fellow Israelite who
“becomes
weak" (yamuk)
must receive strength from someone else (hehezaqta).
21. So most scholars; cf. Noth 187; Leggett 88; Wenham 317. The partitive
min in
me’ahuzzato shows the sale of only
some of the land.
22. Wenham 317; so also Meinhold
254; Noth 187-88; C. F. Keil,
"every purchase of
land became simply a lease for a term of years” (The Pentateuch [2 vols.; Biblical Commen-
tary on the Old Testament;
no actual transfer of property ownership for a price
takes place here. Hence, as elsewhere
in.the OT, mkr here means "to hand
over" or "consign," not "to sell"; cf. E. Lipinski,"
Transfer,
and Delivery in Ancient Semitic Terminology," in Gesselschaft und Kultur im
alten Vorderasien (ed. H. Klengel; SGKAO 15;
23. But cf. Porter, who believes that the
redeemers in vv 48-49 come from a wider
than the one in v 25 (206). For a critique of the
view that v 25 deals with the right
preemption as m Jeremiah 32 and Ruth 4, see Leggett
89-92.
8 Bulletin for
Biblical Research 1
himself (v 26). Most likely, he would acquire
the funds through some
sort of inheritance rather than by frugally saving
some of his wages.24
The
cost of living would probably leave little, if any, of his earnings to
be saved--a predicament typical of modern life as
well. In this case-
and presumably in the first case as well--he must
repay the buyer
part of the rent originally advanced him (v 27).
Based on the number
of years left until Jubilee, the amount would be
the sum first bor-
rowed less the amount which the mortgage holder had
earned from
the land during his tenancy. The third case
concerns the "worst case"
scenario. If the mortgage buyer lacks a go’el and fails
to amass
sufficient funds to redeem himself, the property
remains with the
buyer until the year of Jubilee (v 28). Only then
does the original
landholder regain full possession of it.25
This brings us to consider the twofold
theological basis for the leg-
islation (vv 23-24). The first
is a prohibition against the permanent sale
of land:26 "The land shall not be
sold permanently for the land is mine,
for you are resident aliens and settlers with me.”27
Obviously, the
statement outlaws the permanent transfer of
ownership of real estate
in
ancient social analogy, the contrast in status
between a landowner and
a resident alien. Yahweh is the landowner, he
says. Yahweh alone holds
title to the property;
enjoys the full rights and privileges of ownership;
by his grace. By contrast,
(tosab).
Now, in
between the full rights of a citizen and the few
rights of a foreigner.28
24. As Daube
points out, "Once you were ruined to such an extent that you had to
sell your land. . . , the chances of recovery by
your own, unassisted exertions were, it is
to be supposed, slender" (D. Daube, Studies in
Israelite Law [reprint;
1969] 44). The poverty of such a person would leave
little left over to be set aside toward
redemption.
25. In this
context, the verb ys’ may be a technical term of release; so
Leggett 84
n.11;
F. Horst, "Das Eigentum
nach dem Alten Testament," in Gottes Recht (TBU 12;
Leggett
ably argues the case that the property reverts, not to the go’el, but to the original
owner (92-95).
26. According to Elliger,
this fundamental sentence is very old (uralt) (354); so also
Porter,
"probably the old basic law" (201); cf. J. J. Rabinowitz,
"Biblical Parallel to a Le-
gal Formula from
27. Elsewhere, semitut only occurs in
vv 23 and 30. For the meaning of lismitut, cf.
J.
E. Hogg, "without right of redemption" or "in derogation of the
seller's right of re-
demption" ("The
Meaning of lsmtt
in Lev. 25:23-30," AJSL 42 [1925-26]
210); Horst, un-
widerruflich Gultigkeit (220); Rabinowitz, 95.
28. R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel (E.T.; New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1965) 74-76; D. Keller-
man, "gur," TDOT 2.443 ("protected
citizen"); cf. R. Martin-Achard, "gur," THAT
1.410.
The
Old Testament often associates the tosab with the ger (Gen 23:4; 1 Chr 29:15; Ps
39:13).
According
to de Vaux, they enjoyed a similar, though not
identical, social status (75-76).
Hubbard:
Go’el in Ancient
Significantly,
however, the alien could not possess land; only full
Israelite
citizens could. Hence, for work, he had to hire himself out, and
for food, to glean in the fields (Lev
point, then, is that
belongs to someone else. Since she holds no
title, she has no right to sell
it.29 Only Yahweh, the true
owner, does.30 Thus, to sell it permanently
is to infringe on Yahweh's rights.
The second basis for the instruction is the
command (v 24):
"Throughout
the land of your possession, you shall permit (titnu)
redemption (ge’ulla) for the land.” If the prohibition outlaws the per-
manent sale of property, the
command permits its return when tem-
porarily separated from its
holder. The three cases discussed above
implement its permission. In one sense, the
command logically follows
up the prohibition: the latter implicitly
establishes Yahweh's authority
as landowner, the former articulates his policy
concerning it. On the
other hand, one wonders why such an order need be
issued. What
would the situation be like without it? Apparently, without
it,
was not likely to permit such redemption. Indeed,
quite the opposite
scenario seems probable. Unforeseen, unavoidable
bankruptcy would
compel the poor to mortgage some of their land just to
survive.
In turn, the rich would bankroll such mortgages
and increase
their land holdings. Over time, they would reap a
handsome profit, a
profit to be turned into other purchases, perhaps of
more land. Even-
tually, a great social
division would result--on one side, a few
wealthy land barons, on the other, the landless
poor who work for
them.31 In short, it is that
accumulation of property and economic
power which the redemption requirement here seeks to
prevent.
Whether
accomplished by the go’el,
by self-redemption, or by Jubilee,
Yahweh
intends redemption to maintain a social and economic equi-
librium in
In addition, the chapter also legislates
the redemption of persons
(vv 47-55). This additional "ad hoc provision” resembles
that concern-
ing the land. Here, too,
repayment of a debt probably stands behind
the crisis (umak ‘ahika, “and your brother becomes poor,” v 47). In this
case, however, the source of capital is not an
Israelite but a settler, a
29. According to R. North, v 23 does not
mean that private property was excluded
or unlimited. Rather, it simply regulated property
relationships between people so that
everyone, not just a few, could live in true
freedom ("jobel," TWAT 3.558).
30. For God's ownership of the land, see
Josh 22:19; Jer 16:18; Ezek 36:5; Hos
9:3;
Ps
85:2. Interestingly, Yahweh asserts, but does not explain, the basis for his
claim.
Other
texts based ownership on his creation of the world (Ps 24:1-2; 95:5), and that
idea
may underlie this statement.
31. So Wenham 317.
10
Bulletin
for Biblical Research 1
resident alien, or a member of his family.32
To obtain funds, the threat-
ened Israelite "sells
himself" (nimkar)
into servitude to his foreign
financier. In other words, he agrees to "work
off" the monetary
advance by laboring in the alien's employ.33
Now the fact that he sells
himself rather than land may be significant. It
may imply that he has
already mortgaged his property since his only
remaining asset appears
to be his labor. If so, his case represents an
even more extreme example
of insolvency than the one in vv 25-28.34
As before, the problem is how to regain his
economic indepen-
dence. In response, v 48
dictates that the Israelite still has the right to
redemption (ge’ulla; cf. v 24).35 The same three
avenues that vv 25-28
offer make it possible (vv 48b-54). First, his
relatives--one of his
brothers, an uncle, a cousin, or any blood
relative--may redeem him
from servitude (vv 48-49). Second, if he comes into
money, he may
redeem himself (v 49b). In this case--and probably in
the first case as
well--the number of years between the start of his
servitude and the
next Jubilee form the basis for calculating his
redemption price
(v 50a). Though vv 50b-52 lack some needed details,
essentially the
price amounts to what, at the going rate, a hired man
would earn in
the years left before Jubilee. The text views it as
a refund of that part
of the original cash advance which the borrower
had not yet worked
off.36 Once the financier is
paid off, the person goes free. Finally, as in
the case of mortgaged land, if the above two means
fail, the next Jubi-
lee effects his release (v 54).
Now two other comments enable us to gain some
theological in-
sight. First, v 53 specifies the special treatment
due an enslaved
ite. It forbids the boss to
treat him harshly. He is to handle him, not
32. Precisely why the debtor sought that
source is unclear. Further, one wonders
how the foreigner rose to such affluence. As noted
above, the law forbid foreigners from
owning land in
ventures or through personal technological
expertise (e.g., metalworking, etc.). Deut
28:43
also foresaw the rise of foreigners to wealth.
33. Vv 39-43 offer instruction concerning
the case where an Israelite sells himself
to a fellow Israelite. For some reason, however,
nothing is said of his redemption, as if
the latter did not apply (so Daube
43). Self-indenture for financial insolvency was com-
mon in the ancient Near
East. For details and bibliography, see Leggett 98-101. For
more recent studies, see I. Cardellini,
Die biblischen
'Slaven'-Gesetze im Lichte des keil-
schriftlichen Slavenrechts (BBB 55; Bonn: Hanstein, 1981). For an ancient Near Eastern
paralleL see R. Yaron, "A Document of Redemption from
34. So Wenham, "a last resort in
cases of serious debt" (322). For the relation of
these slave laws and others in the Pentateuch, see
North, Jubilee 135-57. For additional
bibliography, see Leggett 102 n. 75.
35. Noth
suggests that the regulation may reflect
eigners the requirement for
manumission of slaves after six years (192).
36. So Leggett 101, 105. The key phrase is yasib (‘et)-ge’ullato (vv 51, 52).
Here ge’ulla
means "price of redemption" (so Elliger 343).
HUBBARD: The Go’el in Ancient
like an ordinary slave, but like a sekfr,
a "day laborer," an employee
hired for a fixed period of time (cf. Deut 24:14-15).
In other words,
Yahweh
places the Israelite under protection, limiting his master's
control and defining the rules of the workplace
(cf. vv 39-40). Put
differently, Yahweh decrees that, despite his
misfortune, the Israelite
is still a full citizen under hire, not a lowly,
foreign slave. More impor-
tant, in v 55 Yahweh gives
the twofold reason for the Israelite's
release. Says Yahweh, "The children of
servants whom I brought out of the
ously, Yahweh recalls the
famous liberation of
(Exod 14). Simply put, an enslaved
Israelite should go free at Jubilee
because Yahweh owns him as a servant.
This statement is striking in several respects.
First, it implies that
for the foreigner not to release the Israelite
infringes on Yahweh's
rights as master. Whatever business binds the two men,
ultimately the
Israelite
is Yahweh's property, subject to his wishes. No less than any
Christian,
no Israelite could serve two masters (Matt
statement implies that the Jubilee release is the
social mechanism
whereby Yahweh protects his interests. It is a
social statement that he
owns
important wordplay between two forms of the verb ys’ in the context.
According
to v 54, the redeemed Israelite is to (lit.) "go
out" (weyasa’,
qal)--that is, to go free.
According to v 55, at the Exodus, Yahweh
"brought out"
the wordplay links the Exodus with the institution
of ge’ulla.
It por-
trays the redemption of this chapter as a follow-up
to what Yahweh
did in Egypt.37 Now, if this is so, two
additional insights into the
nature of redemption follow. Put simply, redemption
amounts to an
institutional Exodus in
liberation-that from Egyptian slavery--within later,
settled
frees her from unending servitude to later Pharaohs
within her own
ranks. On the other, each instance, of redemption
amounts to a fresh
moment of divine liberation--as it were, a miniature
Exodus.
That insight, in turn, casts the role of the
Israelite go’el
in a differ-
ent theological light. In
essence, the human kinsman carries out the
redemption policy of the "Great Kinsman,"
Yahweh himself.38 One
might even say that the human kinsman personally
represents Yahweh
37. Cf. Exod 6:6;
15:3, 13 where g’l
describes the rescue. Daube even believes the
way the Old Testament pictures the Exodus (i.e., a
redemption of slaves) derives from
teaching about ge’ulla (39-62).
38. The expression is that of McKenzie, who
says, "the idea of a Great Kinsman
who defends the life, liberty, and property of his
kinsmen is very probably a reflection
of an early idea of Yahweh; it can scarcely be
anything but an archaism in Second Isaiah,
biblical writer who uses the term most
frequently" (237).
12
Bulletin
for Biblical Research 1
in such transactions. On the other hand, when
human redemption,
whether by go’el or by oneself, fails to
free an enslaved Israelite, the
Jubilee
provision intervenes. In effect, at that moment, the Great Kins-
man himself steps in to perform redemption, just as
he did at the
Exodus.
Let us sum up the theological insights gained
from Leviticus 25.
First,
the go’el
institution implements Yahweh’s rights and policies
toward his land and his people. Specifically, he
decrees limits on the
human inclination toward greed and power. Since he
owns
his policy is that families retain, not lose, their
inherited land. Since he
owns
again. He is their only master, a God of liberation.
For
implications are twofold. On the one
hand" she must accept economic
dependence on Yahweh. She must content herself with
the portion of
Yahweh’s
land allotted her by him. While citizens of neighboring
nations expand their holdings" Yahweh calls
her to trust him to make
those assigned plots productive. On the other hand,
Yahweh calls her
to live out the "Exodus ethos." Once she
was an impoverished victim
of Pharaoh. Should she attain wealth, however, her
mandate is to not
play Pharaoh against her fellow" former slaves.39
Rather, she is to
allow and to effect their redemption.
Second, the purpose of the institution is
restoration. As North put
it, “In the jubilee the dominant note is
home-coming."40 In this regard,
the key Hebrew expression is sub ‘el/le ‘ahuzza, "to return to (one's)
possession"
(vv 27, 28; cf. vv 10, 19, 41).41 In this
context" ‘ahuzza
("possession") refers specifically to the property
inherited by an
Israelite
from his ancestors.42 Whether "to
return to (one's) posses-
sion" connotes an
actual reoccupation of ancestral land or simply its
repossession is uncertain.43
In any case, the point is that, either
through redemption or Jubilee, the Israelite
recovers the family prop-
erty previously mortgaged.
He returns to the state of affairs before
39. Cf. Wenham, who compares the servitude
assumed here to modem imprison-
ment, that is, a means to
work off a fine in confinement (322).
40. North, Jubilee 158; cf. Noth 183.
41. The word deror (“liberty,” v
10) is related, although it envisions a broader resto-
ration, that of both property and personal freedom.
For the word, see R. North, "deror,”
TDOT 3.265-69.
42. Cf. ‘ahuzzat ‘abotayw
(v 41). Elsewhere it refers primarily to possession of land
(Gen
47:11, 30; Josh
“Zwei Begriffe fur Eigentum (Besitz): nahala und ‘ahuzza,"
in Verbannung und Heimkehr
(ed. A. Kuschke;
“’ahaz,” THAT 1.108, 109.
43. Apparently, Noth
favors the former (187), Porter the latter (199). Twice the re-
turn also entailed a return to one's “clan” (mispaha; vv 1a,
41). That might confirm that
“return" referred to actual physical reunion of land and
landholder.
HUBBARD: The Go’el in Ancient
circumstances forced its surrender.
However achieved, redemption
gives Israelites with financial woes a chance to
start over. In that
regard, Wenham has observed that the average Israelite
would prob-
ably live to see one Jubilee observance in a
lifetime.44 By implication,
if not freed earlier, an Israelite would enjoy a
fresh financial start once
in a lifetime. From a human standpoint, one should
not underestimate
what a giant relief that offers. It would lift an
otherwise impossible
burden of debt from poor, sagging shoulders. In that
moment, he
would experience his own Exodus--the sweet taste of
economic free-
dom at last!
In short, through this institution, Yahweh
provides--to borrow a
modem phrase--a “safety net" for vulnerable
Israelites. In so doing,
he shows himself to be the Great Kinsman, the
powerful protector of
the weak. Through redemption, he saves hopelessly
poor citizens from
an endless cycle of poverty.45 He
prevents a reversal of the Exodus--
a relapse into the cruel hands of Israelite
Pharaohs.46 In effect, he pro-
vides
system to maintain her social equilibrium--her sense
of wholeness,
well-being, or sa1om.47
The institution enables
great national charters--the promise of blessing to
Abraham (Gen 12)
and the Sinai covenant of freedom (Exod 19-24).
III
In
the book of Ruth, we enter quite different literary terrain. We leave
the craggy slopes of Sinai for the fertile fields,
fragrant threshing
floor, and buzzing city gate of
voice which lectured at Sinai gives way to a
narrative about Naomi,
Ruth, and Boaz. Immediately, two things are striking.
First, in Ruth
one sees, not abstract legislation, but actual
legal principles--the
44. Wenham 317. There seems to be no
evidence, however, that Jubilee was ever ac-
tually practiced (so Wenham
318). North, however, offers this argument in favor of its
having been observed: "The very formulations of Lv 25 . . . imply that the proclamation
was to be merely normative; and that in fact most
of the bankrupt tenants would have
been already rehabilitated with the help of more
prosperous relatives. Of the cases
which remained strictly subject to the law,
presumably the number of holders who re-
fused to obey was neither smaller nor larger than the
predictable mean for violations of
this kind. Hence neither a miraculous unanimity of
observance nor a conspiracy of con-
tempt is to be imagined from the lack of historical
record. .." (Jubilee
209). Alterna-
tively, B. Uffenheimer
argued that, though only fully realized in the
the legislation challenged
(cited from Meinhold 15-16).
45. A. Daum,
"'Sisterhood' Is Powerful," in Spinning
A Sacred Yarn (ed. A. Aber-
nathy et al.;
46. Wenham 323.
47. Cf. Moore 29-31.
14
Bulletin for
Biblical Research 1
application of legal background to a live situation.
One may wonder
I
whether
present at all in the story.49 He
directly intervenes in only two
places--he gives
Yahweh
not occasionally invoked by characters, one might presume
him to be totally absent from the story.50
Closer inspection, however,
reveals that God is very much present. Though
hidden behind the
scenes, his is the firm hand quietly guiding events.51
To begin, we consider the emergence and role of
the go’el
in Ruth.
Chapter
1 confronts us with the book's main problem, the lack of an
heir. Pointedly, v 5 stresses that only Naomi
survived her family's
sojourn in Moab.52 Her bitter outcry
(vv 11-13) drops a painful hint:
what this story needs is a husband to produce a
child (cf. also vv 20-
21).
The word go’el first appears, however, in
applies it to Boaz. Though ambiguous, the
reference at least intro-
duces the prospect of his
future action on behalf of the two widows.53
Further,
it occurs in a significant context, Naomi's praise of Boaz for
his hesed. In 3:9, it is Ruth herself who petitions the action
implicit in
to review the discussion concerning that verse.54
The point is that
Ruth
sought to marry Boaz in order to give Naomi the heir she
needed. In response, Boaz introduced a surprise--the
existence of
another go’el with a prior right to the duty (
arrange her redemption one way or the other (
scene at the city gate reports how Boaz legally
obtained the redemp-
tion right for himself
(4:1-12). Finally,
48. As T. and D. Thompson point out, legal
narratives actually provide better evi-
dence for ancient practices
than legal instructions. The former portray actual legal activ-
ities, the latter only
practices on the day of promulgation ("Some Legal Problems in the
Book
of Ruth," VT 18 [1968] 83-84);
cf. M. Burrows, "Law is often artificial and some-
times idealistic, and it is not uncommonly more
consistent than custom" ("The Marriage
of Boaz and Ruth," JBL 59 [1940] 452).
49. Hubbard 66-67; R. M. Hals, The Theology of the Book of Ruth (
tress, 1969) 3-19; idem, "Ruth, Book of," IDBSup 758-59; W.
S. Prinsloo, "The Theology
of the Book of Ruth," VT 30 (1980) 340-41.
50. For examples of such invocations, see
1:8-9, 20-21;
51. For more details, see Hubbard 68-71; Hals, Theology
3-19.
52. wattissa’er ha’issa missene' yeladeyha
ume’isah.
53. Most scholars believe that go’el anticipates
the eventual provision of an heir. In
my view, however, her primary concern is with the
happy prospect of a marriage for
Ruth (cf. 3:1-2). For details and
bibliography, see Hubbard 186-88.
54. See Hubbard 51-52; 212-13. For an
alternative view with major interpretive
implications, see J. M. Sasson, Ruth. A New Translation with a Philological
Commentary and
a Formalist-Folklorist Interpretation (Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins, 1979) 80-82.
HUBBARD: The Go'el in
Ancient
of go’el, specifically, praise of Yahweh for giving Naomi the
newborn
son of Boaz and Ruth as her go’el.55
Now several important things emerge in this
survey. First, like
Leviticus
25, it is a tragic human crisis which eventually summons the
go’el to action. The family
line of Elimelech lacks an heir to continue
itself. Hence, it teeters perilously on the brink of
annihilation.56 As is
well known,
be avoided at all costs. When a family died out
physically, it ceased to
exist metaphysically. That robbed
sessions, her tribal solidarity. A secondary
crisis, however, is the pos-
sibility that Naomi faces old
age without anyone to care for her. That
potential tragedy is implicit in her angry
outcries (
and explicit in the joyous exclamation of her
neighbors (
They
rejoice that the newborn will "revive [her] spirits and sustain
[her] in old age." In short, as in Leviticus 25, here
the go’el
delivers an
unfortunate Israelite, not from loss of land or
lengthy servitude, but
from annihilation.57
Second, the book sets this redemption in a
theological framework
different from that of Leviticus 25. In the
latter, ge'ulla
formed a part
of the practice of the Jubilee year. In Ruth, it
forms part of what I call
"the life of hesed," the ideal
lifestyle which the book reveres.58 This is
evident in
ceding line, she praises Yahweh for the fact that Boaz
had "not aban-
doned his kindness (hesed) toward the
living and the dead."59 The
juxtaposition of hesed and go'el here implies that, should
Boaz later
carry out go'el duties, such actions would constitute acts of hesed.
Though
hesed
nowhere else occurs with reference to Boaz, two other
evidences imply that the book views his
performance as fulfilling that
55. This is the only instance in the Bible
where an infant bears the title go’el. Set be-
side Leviticus 25, Ruth also expands our
understanding of the go’el
institution by pro-
viding details about the practice unattested
elsewhere. For example, only in Ruth does a
go’el marry a widow to
provide the heretofore childless family an heir. Further, the link-
ing of that marriage to
inheritance of ancestral land (4:5)--sadly, the cause of much
scholarly discussion!--is also unique to this
lovely book (see Hubbard 52-62).
56.
As is well known, the threat of starvation also plays a large role in the story
(1:1,
6, 22; chap 2;
1:11-13,
20-21; 3:9; 4:5,10,13-17). The same may be said of the
ancestral land, which
appears in the story almost as a surprise (4:3).
57. As Brichto
notes, the go’el
"was not merely a close-kinsman obligated to blood-
vengeance or privileged to redeem property. The go’el is he who
redeems the dead from
danger to his afterlife by continuing his line"
(21).
58. For details, see Hubbard 72-74;
59. Here I depart from the consensus which
sees Yahweh, not Boaz, as the anteced-
ent of the ‘aser
clause. For a defense of this view, see B. Rebera,
"Yahweh or Boaz? Ruth
view (186 n. 28).
16
Bulletin for
Biblical Research 1
ideal. In
follow-through. He promised Ruth
redemption (
relax until she has it. In addition, the closing
genealogy lists Boaz sev-
enth in the list, a position
of honor second only to that of the tenth
place.60 In sum, according to
the book, by serving as go’el,
Boaz per-
forms an act of besed
worthy of honor.
Now this is what is particularly striking about
the hesed-frame-
work in Ruth: contrary to expectations, it seems to
rest theologically,
not on a covenant basis, but on a cosmic one. That
is, its roots lie more
in Yahweh's role as king of the universe than as
Two
evidences point in this direction. First, a cosmic basis for hesed
seems to underlie Naomi's petition in 1:8 that Yahweh
repay Orpah
and Ruth for their hesed
toward her. At that point, neither woman is a
member of
expects them to worship Moabite gods if they
obey her urging to "go
back" (
just Israelites, for hesed. Thus, the book understands
hesed as a constit-
uent element of the world's underlying
moral order, the order which
Yahweh
oversees and of which
a specific expression.61 Further, it
assumes (as does the entire Old Tes-
tament) that Yahweh himself is
a God of besed.62 Naomi appeals to
him to dispense hesed because he is that kind of
God.
The second evidence is the divine title Shaddai which Naomi
twice invokes (
Shaddai confirms that it reflects the idea of
Yahweh's cosmic, not just
covenant, rulership.63 By nature, Shaddai is great and mysterious (Job
11:7).
He not only promised the patriarchs great destinies (Gen 17:1;
28:3;
35:11; 43:14), but decrees appropriate fates for the righteous and
the wicked (Job 27:14; 31:2). As cosmic ruler, he
maintains justice in
the world (Job 8:3; 24:1; 27:2), hears appeals for
legal intervention (Job
8:5;
13:3; 31:35), and metes out terrible punishments (Job 6:4;
27:14-23).
In sum, the Old Testament associates Shaddai with Yahweh
in his role as cosmic ruler. Now if this is so, I
would argue that the
above two cosmic references, concentrated as they are
in chapter 1,
create a subtle literary effect. Should Yahweh later
act in the story,
60. So J. M. Sasson,
"Generation, Seventh," IDBSup 354-56; idem, "A Genealogical
'Convention' in Biblical Chronography,"
ZAW 90 (1978) 171-85.
61. Cf. Gen 21:23; Josh 2:12, 14; Judg 8:35; Ps 33:5-9; Prov 3:3;
62. Exod 20:5-6; 34:6;
Deut 7:9, 12; Ps 25:10; 103:8; etc.; ct. H. J. Stoebe,
"hesed,"
THAT 1.612-18; H.-J. Zobel, "hesed,"
TDOT 5.54-58.
63. Num 24:4, 16; Ps 68:15 [14]; Job
34:12-13; 40:2; ct. Hubbard 124-25; M. Weip-
pert, "Shadday,"
THAT 2.880-81; F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (
bridge: Harvard, 1973) 52-60.
HUBBARD: The Go’el in Ancient
whether to reward or to punish, the reader
assumes that he does so in
the same role as king of the cosmos.64
Two final observations conclude our analysis of
the theology of
the go’el in Ruth. First, the book assumes that Yahweh acts in
the acts
of the story's human characters.65
Though supportive evidence is
plentiful, one example must suffice. I refer to
the clever repetition of
the word kanap ("wing, garment-corner") in chapters two and
three. In
2:12,
addressing Ruth, Boaz wishes that Yahweh would repay
Ruth for
her actions. He specifies that Yahweh is the God
"under whose wings"
(kenapayim)
Ruth has sought refuge. The word "wings" probably con-
jures up the image of a bird
tenderly protecting its young.66 Like a
defenseless starling, Ruth sits securely under
Yahweh's mighty wings.
In
Ruth's marriage proposal (3:9), she asks Boaz to spread his kanap-
here, meaning "garment-comer"--over her.67
Like "wings" of
this gesture probably also symbolizes protection of
the woman (and
perhaps sexual readiness as well).68
By repeating the key word from
his own lips, Ruth essentially asks Boaz to answer
his own prayer!69
Now
theologically, the word repetition implies a relationship between
the two petitions. Thus, by covering Ruth with his kanap--that is,
to
marry her--Boaz implements Yahweh's kanap--that is,
his protection
of Ruth. Or, to weave in a thread dropped earlier,
the hesed
of Boaz
toward Ruth is the form in which Yahweh conveys his hesed to her.
The second and final observation is that, in the
end, Yahweh
receives the credit for the story's happy ending.
In the closing scene,
Naomi's
neighbors exult, "Praise the Lord! He has not left you with-
out a kinsman-redeemer today!" (
64. Cf. 2:4,12,19,20;
65. Cf. Hubbard 71; Campbell 29-30; B.
Green, "A Study of Field and Seed Sym-
bolism in the Biblical Story
of Ruth" (Ph.D. diss., Graduate Theological
Union, 1980) 96.
66. See Deut 32:11; lsa
31:5; Matt 23:27; A. van der Woude,
"kanap," THAT 1.835;
O.
Keel, The
Symbolism of the Biblical World, tr. T. Hallett
(New York: Seabury, 1978)
190-92.
Ancient Near Eastern texts commonly apply the metaphor to gods. Alterna-
tively, the image may allude
to the winged cherubim, symbol of the asylum offered by
the temple; so G. Gerleman,
Ruth. Das Hohelied (2nd ed.; BKAT 18; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener,
1981) 27.
For other views, see Hubbard 167 n. 81.
67. The idiom paras kanap ‘al ("to spread a
garment-cover over [someone])" means
"to marry" (Ezek 16:8; cf. Deut 23:1 [
68. Green (142) against C. Carmichael,
covering as comparable to the symbol of a
woman as a sandal covering a man's feet
("'Treading' in the Book of Ruth," ZAW 92
[1980] 258-59).
69. Similarly,
weh's 'wing' when she came to
Boaz"
("Ruth," in A. Cundall and L. Morris, Judges and Ruth [TOTC;
InterVarsity,
1968] 290).
70. Insightfully, Sasson
observes that the Hebrew phrase lo’ hisbit lak (lit. "did not
cause to cease for you") portrays Yahweh's
intervention as preventative; that is, it pre-
vented the end of Elimelech's
line (Ruth 162-63).
18 Bulletin for
Biblical Research 1
significant point is that the women credit Yahweh
with directly giv-
ing the go’el to needy Naomi. Now in the
preceding verse (
narrator had said that "Yahweh gave her
[Ruth] conception." Thus, at
first glance, the women's praise seems simply to
reinforce the point
that Yahweh had provided the newborn. In my view,
however, it
offers a terse theological commentary on the book's
entire prior chain
of events. Granted, Yahweh's help enabled Ruth to
conceive. But
there would be no birth at all without human
actions-sexual con-
summation by the newlyweds (
meetings of Ruth and Boaz (chaps. 2 and 3), and
her migration to
behind everything, even the actions of human
characters.71
Finally, let us summarize the theological
insights concerning the
go’el gleaned from Ruth. As
with Leviticus 25, ge’ulla
responds to des-
perate human need--a bitter
widow facing old age alone and, worse,
a permanent breach in tribal solidarity.
Significantly, however, the
book understands the basis of that redemption to be
a cosmic one, the
universal idea of hesed. The implication is that,
in the book of Ruth,
the Israelite institution implements that larger
ideal. Specifically, the
human go’el is the means whereby Yahweh, the Great Kinsman,
achieves his purposes. On stage, Ruth and Boaz
faithfully live the life-
style of hesed. Backstage, however, behind them, moves the Great
go’el, pained by famine,
death, and old age, gently acting to alleviate
them. His broad, powerful wings protect those, like
Boaz and Ruth,
who please him.
Before leaving Ruth, however, I must add a
speculative footnote.
Since
the story's ultimate climax is the birth of David, I wonder if the
neighbors' joyful cry in
words, did the author view David, grandson of Naomi's
go’el Obed,
as the greatest go’el of all? Did he anticipate
his redemption of
from the slavery evident in Judges-tribal
jealousies, idolatry, and
foreign oppression?
IV
In
his Studies in Biblical Law, David Daube observed that,
the idea of God or Jesus
redeeming mankind from sin and damnation,
apparently a purely religious
idea, derives from those ancient rules on
insolvent debtors and victims of murder, on the preservation
of the
existing clans and the patrimony
of clans.72
71. In addition, the infant represents
part, perhaps even the climactic part, of Yah-
weh's reward of Ruth for her hesed (1:8;
72. Daube 59.
HUBBARD: The Go'el in Ancient
Clearly,
Daube spotted the fingerprints of the old Hebrew ge'ulla on
the pages of the New Testament.73 As we
have seen, the Israelite
go'el-institution guarded Yahweh's rights
to his land and expressed
his policy concerning the liberty of the poor among
his covenant
people. It also sought to reward those who lived the
life of hesed
among them.74 It offered the Exodus in
institutional form--the Exo-
dus in miniature--to
perpetuate the freedom originally won from
Pharaoh. Through it and its human go'alim,
the Great go’el
freed Isra-
elites from poverty, old age, and even lost afterlife.
At the same time,
the institution threw
hubris, and apathy for the Exodus ethos. It presented
her a more
excellent way and called for a kinder and gentler
New
Testament perspective, it anticipated the advent of the Great
Redeemer, the one who paid for redemption with
his own life.
Simi-
larly, the challenge thrown
could use more go'alim--protectors of
the weak, defenders of the
poor. Indeed, knowledge of the Israelite ge'ulla
makes even more pro-
vocative Paul's familiar exhortation, "You
are not your own; you were
bought with a price. Therefore glorify God with your
body" (1 Cor
6:19-20).
73. Specifically, he cited 1 Cor
n. 168).
74. Cf. Daube,
". . . it is hardly going too far to say that all those commands, which
have had an enormous stabilizing effect and led to
the alleviation of much dis-
if carried into practice, during the greater part
at least of the nation, were a social
rather than actually functioning as law" (45).
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
Institute
for Biblical Research
%
Eisenbrauns
www.eisenbrauns.com
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at: