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
eigne